Why is Islam being associated with fascism, and why am I personally being linked to "Islamic fascism

Susan Price30 said:That was my mistake. 😁 I honestly thought this was just a copy of a post from another thread where the author was complaining about the same thing.

However, my point about certain forum members on Religion having a habit of calling people out or trying to play amateur psychoanalyst with their interlocutors still stands—do they actually engage with the views and opinions being presented, or are they just attacking the person? It seems some people here aren't quite great at telling the difference. Or maybe they just don't know how to separate the two.

They really ought to be in alignment with the Constitution; that should go without saying, even if it isn't always the case. However, they need to be more specific than the Constitution itself. Therefore, the protections provided by the Constitution of the US—which, as I understand it, is one of the rare legal documents in America that explicitly prescribes the principles for its own interpretation—cannot be limited by a lower law.

Susan Price30 said:

They really ought to be in alignment with the Constitution; that should go without saying, even if it isn't always the case. However, they need to be more specific than the Constitution itself. Therefore, the protections provided by the Constitution of the US—which, as I understand it, is one of the rare legal documents in America that explicitly prescribes the principles for its own interpretation—cannot be limited by a lower law.

That doesn't even apply here. What I'm getting at is that nobody has any right to do that—not even from a moral standpoint, if you want to look at it that way. Is it right to present the views of any follower group or sect as if they were the mainstream, official doctrine of the religion they originated from? I side with the majority here. These groups tend to misinterpret the core, fundamental teachings of their religion. On top of that—as we see in this instance—they go as far as equating the conduct of the official version with "fascist methods" or something similar. Where does he even get the right, or the audacity, to make such a claim?

Everyone has the right to share their perspective—of course they do. But you should be upfront about who exactly you're representing; the whole point is to stay authentic instead of selling a version of yourself that isn't real.

One shouldn't resort to any means necessary just to discredit a forum member who is presenting the official version of Islam.

And then, to top it all off, they go and quote Gandhi as if he’s some kind of authority. For what, exactly? It's not like Gandhi was a theologian or a subject matter expert. Regarding the matter at hand. I suppose so.🤣

everyone has the right to share their side—obviously. But then they should actually state what it is they're representing—don't try to sell something you aren't, that's the whole point, I think.

and don't use every dirty trick in the book just to discredit a forum member who is presenting the official version of Islam.

....and then, to top it all off, quoting Gandhi as an argument. An argument for what? It's not like Gandhi was a theologian or an expert in the matter anyway.🤣

Should we just shut down religion altogether?

Honestly, if you strip away everyone's right to offer their own interpretations of a religion as the absolute truth, there’s really no point in keeping this subforum open. All we'd have left is a bunch of atheists.

Gandhi's words are cited as principles that can be reasonably understood and embraced, rather than as sacred scripture that must be accepted without question just because they supposedly came from above.

Susan Price30 said:

Should we just shut down religion altogether?

Honestly, if you strip away everyone's right to offer their own interpretations of a religion as the absolute truth, there’s really no point in keeping this subforum open. All we'd have left is a bunch of atheists.

And that’s exactly what you took away from my post. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually wrote... wow.🙄☕

Take another look at the post above, please, and stop trolling. Don't go making things up that nobody actually wrote or twisting the main point of the post.

Gandhi's words are cited as principles that can be reasonably understood and embraced, rather than as sacred scripture that must be accepted without question just because they supposedly came from above.

To be honest, that Gandhi quote was thrown into this conversation without any real context, making it pretty half-baked and, frankly, stupid. It actually contradicts both the teachings of Islam—which is what this whole thread is about—and Christianity. Even the moderator of the Religion section admitted as much by opting to post a more "relevant" quote instead.

Actually, that Gandhi quote was put there within the context of what was being discussed, and honestly, it's a pretty vague—if not just stupid—quote. Especially since it goes against both Islam (which is what this whole thread is about) and Christianity, for example. Even the Religion moderator confirmed that by picking a "more relevant" quote.

This thread isn't about whether Gandhi's quote contradicts the teachings of Islam.

rowdyhawk10 said:You could eventually start this thread yourself, but just make sure you use your own handle: "Jason Clark7 Mus Islamski bistrolog." 🙂 You don't have the right to open this thread about me. In fact, nobody else should be opening it either—it's my business alone. And honestly, I suppose there's also the question of whether I even have the right to start a topic like this myself.

Personally, I don't see steelskipper5 as someone who acts in bad faith. I haven't known him since the very beginning of this forum—I think he was around back on that first one—but I can say with certainty that he possesses exceptional character. His level of education is also quite notable, if I may say so. I would argue, quite responsibly, that his conduct is better than many Muslims who post here. Or, perhaps to put it in terms you might better understand, steelskipper5 is... Islamic. He carries himself with more integrity than many Muslims I see on this forum, and honestly, from what I’ve observed in my own life outside of these threads, too. (steelskipper5, please forgive me if my use of "Islamic" came off wrong—there was truly no malice intended.) He stays fair and principled in his dealings with people. What’s more, he never seems to stoop to the level that so many other Muslims tend to sink to.

I largely—though not entirely—agree with his take on this.

Why am I backing him?

First: steelskipper5 didn't bring up that point just to take a shot at Islam; he was simply laying out how the U.S. Constitution works. His intention was to clarify that American police don't make arrests over blasphemy, which means the Islamic community couldn't exactly turn around and say, "Arrest steelskipper5 because of what he said." It’s the same reason we don't have rules against blasphemy here on this forum. I guess you seem to think that only your particular set of preconceived notions should be treated as the definitive word on Islam.

Secondly: (regarding why I support steelskipper5): It isn't true when you claim that Islam is separate from the behavior of Muslims. It really isn't. Islam isn't some software package or a picture hanging on a wall that we can judge detached from life. On the contrary, we measure it by what it stirs up in people. The spirit of Islam manifests precisely through the conduct of its followers, because it influences—just like any other religion—the morals and actions of its adherents. If it makes Muslims better people, then it is a good religion. If it turns them into savages or inspires them to act wildly, then there is clearly an issue with that faith, or perhaps with how those savages represent it, or maybe with a dormant clergy that refuses to condemn them because they are too afraid... much like how Cerić coddled the extremists during his tenure while aggressively meddling in the domestic politics of Canada (acting quite conspiratorially before the elections). He is the perfect example of how we have degraded ourselves as a community; the rot starts at the top. Bottom line: Islam is measured by the behavior of Muslims! Especially if such behavior isn't sharply and publicly condemned by the highest authorities.

Gandhi: "The quality of a religion is measured by how much better it makes people." Could it be any clearer? 🤷

Where I might supplement steelskipper5 is simply this: Islam is not what many violent individuals claim it to be when they speak in the name of this beautiful faith. Because just as there are those who would burn cartoonists alive, there are also those who laugh at such caricatures and simply move on with their day... and even if that same cartoonist were in trouble, they would step up to help! To me, those are the true Muslims, though to the other group—the arsonists—they are seen as nothing more than church rats or traitors. I’ll go even further: a true Muslim would defend anyone being attacked by a mob, even if it meant defending the very artists behind those caricatures. That is the true spirit of Islam living in the hearts of genuine believers.

As for the fact that the Islamic clergy remains silent about this savagery, or offers only half-hearted, reluctant condemnations of such brutality... or fails to denounce criminals like Osama bin Laden and others like him... it only proves that Islam is in a dire position. The clergy has frozen the faith in a dead letter from centuries ago. If Muslims want what is best for themselves and the world, they face a massive effort to wake up from this archaic slumber and catch up to the modern age. The train of time is moving and it waits for no one. Those who leave themselves frozen in the past will look to the world like a Neanderthal corpse found in an Arctic ice block from 15,000 years ago. By the way, instead of supporting steelskipper5 in his condemnation of these anti-caricature savages, you are attacking his character. Is that truly the spirit of your faith?

You see? This is the true Islam and the true Sunnah of Muhammad. The solution isn't street violence or attacking cartoonists. It is understanding the other person. If you understand this Hadith, and if you consider yourself a Muslim, then apologize to steelskipper5 for attacking his character; you had no right to say such things to him. steelskipper5 is a man of great integrity and a truly good person. Think about this. Selam

Second: (Why I stand with steelskipper5): Because you are dead wrong when you claim that Islam isn't reflected in the behavior of Muslims. It absolutely is...
...

The fact that the Islamic scholars remain silent regarding the violence perpetrated by these savages, or perhaps offer only a half-hearted and reluctant condemnation of their brutality—much like they did with criminals such as Osama bin Laden and many others similar to him—is simply proof that Islam finds itself in an incredibly difficult position. It seems the clergy has frozen the faith in a state of stagnation, leaving it trapped in a dead letter from who knows how many centuries ago...

...

The fact that Islam is portrayed as a religion of violence, and that a Muslim is viewed as a perpetrator of terror and terrorism, should not shake the faith of sincere Muslims who believe in peace and work toward global harmony.
This isn't the first time in history that a religion has been misinterpreted due to the prejudices of those mired in hatred toward the Other; it isn't the first time the core tenets of a faith have been systematically twisted... nor is it the first time that victims of prejudice must realize that misconceptions about them will not simply vanish on their own. They must stand up and speak clearly about their true concepts of life, faith, culture, and world peace. But they cannot merely speak; they must act convincingly, ensuring that what they say, believe, preach, and teach is embodied in their very way of life. Personal example carries more weight than a thousand words of empty preaching.
Furthermore, as Muslims, we must acknowledge that there are irresponsible individuals among us whose actions do nothing but cause profound harm to Islam and Muslims in ways that no one understands or accepts. They spread false perceptions of Islam and Muslims, leaving future generations with the heavy task of dismantling them. Having suffered injustice does not justify inflicting it upon others. God directs Muslims to promote peace and act justly even toward an enemy, so as to change their heart and turn them into a friend: Goodness and evil are not the same! Repel evil with good, and your enemy may suddenly become a close friend.

steelskipper5 said:Look, separation of church and state basically means—among other things—that the government and its laws shouldn't be meddling in religious doctrines. And just to be clear, I'm not even touching the actual religious teachings here.

Look, what you wrote doesn't even touch the actual point—and it definitely doesn't justify how the admins are acting. Laws might technically sit below the Constitution, sure, but they're still consistent with it at the same time. It’s not that complicated.

Look, they really ought to be following the Constitution—that should go without saying, right? But let’s be real, that isn't always what happens. They need to be much more specific than the Constitution itself. The thing is, the protections provided by the Constitution—which, from what I gather, is one of those rare legal documents in America that actually lays out explicit principles for how it’s supposed to be interpreted—aren't meant to be limited by some lesser law.

Look, their whole goal here is to provide a much clearer explanation—mostly because there are certain people (yeah, I'm looking at you) who, whether they realize it or not, just completely misinterpret the Constitution.

Once you get back from the KZB—and I mean actually back—I’m going to be waiting for some actual, concrete arguments from you. I'd love to hear why you think I'm misinterpreting the Constitution.

Look, buddy, you better pay attention to this— The Law on the Legal Status of Religious Communities—honestly, I don't know where to start with this one. It’s just... it's a mess. I guess if you actually sit down and read through the fine print, you'll see how much room there is for interpretation, which—let's be real—is usually where things go sideways. It feels like it was written to be intentionally vague, maybe? Just enough wiggle room to keep everyone guessing. It's a headache, frankly.

He’s completely irrelevant here—especially since you can't even decide if you're leaning on the Constitution or that specific Law.

Let's get down to brass tacks:
<sadržaj i način očitovanja>

Look, it’s pretty obvious to me—and I guess anyone with half a brain—that it's totally illegal for one religious group to force their specific beliefs or ways of practicing on another. I mean, come on... to any sane person, the legal side of this is crystal clear. It's just common sense. ☕

And who exactly is telling which religious group how they’re supposed to practice or what they should be saying about their faith?
You’re interpreting the legal text pretty arbitrarily—honestly, I bet any lawyer would tell you that you're totally off base here. I mean, forcing someone to follow a specific faith would be... what, I don't know, like if someone tried to force us all to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or if they demanded we accept certain Catholic dogmas just because we happen to live in some kind of Catholic Jamahiriya America? It's just not the same thing—it's like you're trying to force your prophet on us Pastafarians.
Look, if someone actually tried to dictate how you practice your faith, that’s when we have a problem. I mean—would they force you to go sit in a Catholic church? Or maybe try to ban your five daily prayers—is that the right number? I forget. Or what if they started banning us Pastafarians from entering Italian restaurants, or telling us which pirate outfits are okay to wear and which aren't? That's what real interference looks like.

Look, the fact that you guys—a handful of Muslims—can't agree on how to interpret certain parts of the Quran or whatever else you're bickering about, believe me, has absolutely nothing to do with the specific article or clause—whatever it was—of this law. It’s just not relevant. It's the same way the Catholic Church doesn't try to use this law to go after someone like Zlatko Sudac or anyone else who claims to be Catholic even though they practice something completely different.

and pay close attention to this specifically:
<title>

Basically, you're free to start a religious group, but you can't tuck it under the umbrella of an existing one. In other words, you can't take your own "free-thinking" interpretations and call them Islam. ☕

No, that's not it. You just can't name your new religious organization the "Islamic Community of America" if one already exists. But sure, you could call it the "American Islamic Community." Or maybe the "Pure American Islamic Community." 😬 It's exactly like political party names. Just because there's a "Democratic Party," it doesn't mean other parties can't throw the word "Democratic" into their title. Or just because there's a "Socialist Party," it doesn't stop some other socialist group from popping up.

resorting to insults when you lack actual arguments always shows that you don't have anything better to say.😍

I'm really sorry you took my point—that you clearly didn't understand what I wrote—and interpreted your response as me insulting you. My previous post had nothing to do with your character, and I had zero reason to insult you, nor did I.

Islam isn't defined by how Muslims behave, just like this forum isn't defined by how its users act (even though this forum has way more authority over its users than Islam does over Muslims). It's like you wouldn't blame the latest Mercedes model just because a drunk driver crashed it.🙂
I'm afraid you know your arguments are weak, but hey, if trashing Islam makes you feel better, go ahead—do it privately or here.🙂

If you were a Catholic using that kind of logic, I'd argue against you in the exact same way (just look at my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I honestly consider a criminal organization). I was just giving an example of what I could say without being able to successfully sue me for libel; it doesn't necessarily reflect my actual opinion.

as far as you're concerned, the shame of your behavior should be enough punishment; you'll have to live with that reputation for the rest of your life.🍿

Look, instead of lashing out at me just because you think I insulted you, why don't you just report the post that actually ticked you off? That’s what I did with yours—now I'm just stuck waiting for you to get back from vacation.

Trust me, I’ve gone toe-to-toe with people on this forum before, and I’ve realized it rarely pays off. It's better to just hit report and wait for the mods to hand out whatever punishment they deem fit.

...
Once you return from the KZB, I will be expecting your specific arguments regarding my supposed misinterpretation of the Constitution of the US...

...
Believe me, the fact that you few Muslims can't seem to agree on how to interpret certain passages of the Quran, or whatever else you people argue about, truly has nothing to do with the specific article or clause cited in this law...
...

No, you simply cannot call your new religious organization the Islamic Community of America if an entity by that name already exists. You could, however, style it as the American Islamic Community... or perhaps the Pure American Islamic Community... 😬 That is exactly the same situation as with political party names...
...

I am truly sorry that you interpreted my claim—that you failed to understand what I wrote to you, and that your response had nothing to do with my previous post—as an insult. I had no reason to insult you, nor did I intend to.

If you were using that kind of argumentation as a Catholic, I would argue against Catholics in much the same way (just look, by the way, at what I have written in my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I firmly consider to be a criminal organization).

I was citing an example of what I could say that wouldn't necessarily leave me vulnerable to a successful defamation lawsuit; it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion.

Instead of insulting me again when you feel I have insulted you, just report the post that upset you. That is what I did with your post, and now I must wait for you to return from vacation.

Believe me, I have offended enough people on this forum to realize that, quite frankly, it rarely pays off. It is better to just file a report and wait for the other person to receive their well-deserved penalty.

Brenda Cook4 said:The thing is, rowdyhawk10 isn't doing this "without reason" or just tossing it out as a side comment; it’s actually his reaction to being called a "sectarian" and things like that. As for the whole "comparing it to fascism" bit, rowdyhawk10 didn't go around calling anyone a "fascist." He was saying that, in his view, the way his opponents interpret Islam—by constantly badgering others—is very similar to the tactics used by fascist ideologies.

Jason Clark7 said:Exactly, it’s just that you keep a leash on @rowdyhawk10 and those similar unofficial missionaries... that's how it's done so perversely... 🥳

...
Once you return from the KZB, I will be expecting your specific arguments regarding my supposed misinterpretation of the Constitution of the US...

What exactly did I get wrong regarding the Religious Freedom Act, and what logic are you using to dismiss my point? What do you even mean by "all religions"? There are officially registered organizations and there are those that aren't; the latter cannot simply follow the dictates of the former... What sources are they supposed to revise, and how are they expected to practice their faith? If that's the case, then the established groups are no longer truly free under the protections guaranteed by the Law—they would live in constant fear of someone demanding a forced revision of their religious doctrines at any moment... That goes beyond any legal definition of freedom; instead, it sounds like pure pressure, blackmail, and harassment.

...
Believe me, the fact that you few Muslims can't seem to agree on how to interpret certain passages of the Quran, or whatever else you people argue about, truly has nothing to do with the specific article or clause cited in this law...
...

The term "Muslim" is stretched far too thin in certain contexts. Especially within the Shia tradition, there is this calculated method of masking one's true ideological identity—not merely as a survival tactic against existential threats, which would be understandable, but as a way to subtly weave their own agenda into the beliefs of others. This isn't just limited to a handful of individuals; even the forum administration seems to maintain an atmosphere that protects those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution. They present a facade, suggesting that "this is true Islam and those others are just stuck in frozen, outdated views," yet I have never once been given a straight answer here as to why they persistently refuse to adhere to the established rules... Islam114 So, that's how it goes... My own personal forum rule regarding this topic... The only thing left to do is investigate the official religious institution...

No, you simply cannot call your new religious organization the Islamic Community of America if an entity by that name already exists. You could, however, style it as the American Islamic Community... or perhaps the Pure American Islamic Community... 😬 That is exactly the same situation as with political party names...
...

You view the laws through a political lens, so they become just as flexible as politics itself—or perhaps you'd simply prefer them to be... as the old saying goes: "A fool's dream is a fool's reality."
Of course, the letter of the law is one thing, but interpretation can go any which way. It isn't impossible that at some point in America, someone might be barred from founding, say, a "Babin Islamic Community"—though that would be more a matter of political maneuvering than actual legal application. How likely do you think it is today (or ever, really) under the current Religious Freedom Act to establish another, for instance, a "Democratic Party Catholic Church"? And what kind of standing would it have compared to the original, regarding property, theology, and so on? What are the odds? While many would jump at the chance—perhaps even certain members of this forum's administration—this forum is one thing, while the real world is quite another. Here, we hide comfortably behind handles and bytes, but out there, we face one another eye to eye... face to face...

I am truly sorry that you interpreted my claim—that you failed to understand what I wrote to you, and that your response had nothing to do with my previous post—as an insult. I had no reason to insult you, nor did I intend to.

Go tell that to the hundreds of other users who receive warnings or bans from the administration for such entries, or even milder ones, labeled as trolling or insults. Most often, they aren't even given the opportunity to explain their actions or justify their reasoning; instead, when they inquire, the administration simply waits until the next day to issue the penalty.

If you were using that kind of argumentation as a Catholic, I would argue against Catholics in much the same way (just look, by the way, at what I have written in my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I firmly consider to be a criminal organization).

Which doesn't excuse you in the slightest, because it is almost blatantly obvious here that we are dealing with an anti-theistic spirit that spreads through and fosters poor relations both within religions and between them. The best proof is rowdyhawk10, who tirelessly missions against Christians and even against official Islam, all while hiding under the guise of a Muslim—quite successfully sowing (inter)religious discord, while the anti-theists quietly hold his banner and smile... 👏

I was citing an example of what I could say that wouldn't necessarily leave me vulnerable to a successful defamation lawsuit; it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion.

And that is exactly why I spoke of "character" as an example of what I could say, so that I might be punished without the chance to clarify what the example was meant to illustrate... 🙄 whereas you are able to speak without consequence, and then, if necessary, explain later what the writer actually intended... 🙄

Of course, and what I said regarding "character" is just like what you said: it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion of your character. ☕

Instead of insulting me again when you feel I have insulted you, just report the post that upset you. That is what I did with your post, and now I must wait for you to return from vacation.

Believe me, I have offended enough people on this forum to realize that, quite frankly, it rarely pays off. It is better to just file a report and wait for the other person to receive their well-deserved penalty.

Of course, you are untouchable—not even the moderators can touch you. You simply echo our thoughts and constantly put us through the ringer, so when we offend someone, we’re in the wrong, but when you do it, you claim it “doesn't actually reflect true opinion.” Essentially, you consider yourselves superior and us inferior... though I’m not entirely sure which ideology's mannerisms this resembles.🤷
You don't step in because there is no profit in it, yet people still report things just to see if some money might fall from the sky, only to then "feel" bad about having to wait three days for a ban to expire before the other person returns... and apparently, one "had" to reply to them while they were on their "well-deserved" break, failing to show the basic decency of holding back a comment when the other party isn't even able to respond... 🍿

So, what exactly did I get wrong regarding the Religious Freedom Act—and what was your actual argument for trying to shut down my point?

What does "all religions" even mean to you? You’ve got officially registered ones and then you have those that aren't—and the latter group isn't allowed to just follow the lead of the former. What are their actual sources? What do they need to revise, and how are they supposed to practice their faith? Because if they don't, these first groups aren't actually "free" under what the Law guarantees them anymore. I mean, they should probably be living in constant fear, right? Just waiting for someone to come along and demand a total overhaul of their religious views. Honestly, that goes way beyond any legal concept of freedom—it’s nothing more than pure pressure, blackmail, and straight-up harassment.

The term "Muslim" is way too elastic—it’s stretched thin to the point of being meaningless. Especially when you look at certain Shia practices—there's this whole method of masking their actual ideological identity. It isn't even about survival or dodging some existential threat (which, honestly, would be logical)—it's more like they try to sneak their own specific ideology into everyone else's business. And it's not just a few individuals, either. The way this forum is run gives off a massive impression that the admins are actually cracking down on anyone who challenges the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution. They hide behind this thin veneer of, "Oh, this is what Islam is, those other people are just stuck in frozen, outdated views"—but meanwhile, I’ve yet to get a straight answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to actually follow the rules. Islam114 topics So, basically... My own personal rule regarding this topic—just so we're all clear. So, they’re just digging through the official religious institutions now—that's where we're at? I guess it's all fair game.

I mean, if you look at things through a political lens, laws become just as flexible as politics itself—or maybe that’s just how I’d prefer to play it. I guess there’s a reason people say the truth is whatever you make it. What Grandma likes, that’s what she dreamed about.
Look, sure—the law says one thing, but how people interpret it? That can be anything. It’s not like it’s impossible that at some point in America, someone might get blocked from starting something like the "Babin Islamic Community"—but honestly, that would be more about political spin than actual legal reality.

I wonder how realistic it actually is—today or maybe anytime in the future—under the current US laws to set up something like an "DNC Catholic Church" here in America? And what kind of rights would they even have compared to the original establishment—I mean, when you look at property ownership, theological standing, and all that other stuff?

Tell that to the hundreds of other users who get slapped with warnings for trolling or insults—even when their posts are way milder than this. Most of them don't even get a fair shake to explain what they were actually doing or if there was some actual reason behind it—and sometimes, after they try to reach out or communicate, the administration just goes silent the next day instead of giving them a chance to clear things up before dropping a penalty.

Look, there’s absolutely nothing you can say to justify that—it's pretty obvious what's happening here. We're seeing this blatant anti-theist spirit running rampant, and it's doing nothing but fueling bad blood, both within religious circles and between different faiths. If you want proof, just look at rowdyhawk10. He’s constantly out there missionary-style attacking Christians, but he’s also taking aim at official Islam—all while hiding behind a Muslim identity. Honestly, he’s quite successful at sowing this kind of interfaith discord, and I suspect the anti-theists are quietly cheering him on from the sidelines.

Exactly—that’s my point. I only brought up the whole thing about honor as an example to show what I *could* say... and then I get penalized without even getting a chance to explain why it was just an illustration in the first place. Seriously? 🙄 So, you get to say whatever you want without any consequences—and then, if you actually get called out, you can just pivot and try to explain away what you "really meant" later on. Typical. 🙄

Oh, sure—nothing can ever be done about you guys. Not even by the moderators. You just take our thoughts and run them through an EKG to see how much they stress us out. So, when we call you out, we’re "just being abusive," but when you go after us, it’s somehow just an example that “doesn't actually reflect true opinion.” I guess that makes you guys superior and us the inferior ones? Honestly, I’m not even sure which ideology this kind of attitude belongs to. 🤷

Jason Clark7 said:Even a high-priced attorney couldn't have defended rowdyhawk10 better—bravo. 👏

Could we perhaps see some actual evidence of this constant badgering? What exactly constitutes "badgering," and in what way can it be equated to "the methods of fascist ideology," other than in the minds of those who simply want to insult a fellow forum member? If I used the term sectarian, I provided an explanation. Why is there silence regarding my questions, and why can no one produce specific posts of mine that are supposedly "similar to the methods of fascist ideology"?😕

steelskipper5 said:What, you want a better thread than this one? ☕

Jason Clark7 said:Exactly, it’s just that you keep a leash on @rowdyhawk10 and those similar unofficial missionaries... that's how it's done so perversely... 🥳

...
Once you return from the KZB, I will be expecting your specific arguments regarding my supposed misinterpretation of the Constitution of the US...

What exactly did I get wrong regarding the Religious Freedom Act, and what logic are you using to dismiss my point? What do you even mean by "all religions"? There are officially registered organizations and there are those that aren't; the latter cannot simply follow the dictates of the former... What sources are they supposed to revise, and how are they expected to practice their faith? If that's the case, then the established groups are no longer truly free under the protections guaranteed by the Law—they would live in constant fear of someone demanding a forced revision of their religious doctrines at any moment... That goes beyond any legal definition of freedom; instead, it sounds like pure pressure, blackmail, and harassment.

...
Believe me, the fact that you few Muslims can't seem to agree on how to interpret certain passages of the Quran, or whatever else you people argue about, truly has nothing to do with the specific article or clause cited in this law...
...

The term "Muslim" is stretched far too thin in certain contexts. Especially within the Shia tradition, there is this calculated method of masking one's true ideological identity—not merely as a survival tactic against existential threats, which would be understandable, but as a way to subtly weave their own agenda into the beliefs of others. This isn't just limited to a handful of individuals; even the forum administration seems to maintain an atmosphere that protects those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution. They present a facade, suggesting that "this is true Islam and those others are just stuck in frozen, outdated views," yet I have never once been given a straight answer here as to why they persistently refuse to adhere to the established rules... Islam114 So, that's how it goes... My own personal forum rule regarding this topic... The only thing left to do is investigate the official religious institution...

No, you simply cannot call your new religious organization the Islamic Community of America if an entity by that name already exists. You could, however, style it as the American Islamic Community... or perhaps the Pure American Islamic Community... 😬 That is exactly the same situation as with political party names...
...

You view the laws through a political lens, so they become just as flexible as politics itself—or perhaps you'd simply prefer them to be... as the old saying goes: "A fool's dream is a fool's reality."
Of course, the letter of the law is one thing, but interpretation can go any which way. It isn't impossible that at some point in America, someone might be barred from founding, say, a "Babin Islamic Community"—though that would be more a matter of political maneuvering than actual legal application. How likely do you think it is today (or ever, really) under the current Religious Freedom Act to establish another, for instance, a "Democratic Party Catholic Church"? And what kind of standing would it have compared to the original, regarding property, theology, and so on? What are the odds? While many would jump at the chance—perhaps even certain members of this forum's administration—this forum is one thing, while the real world is quite another. Here, we hide comfortably behind handles and bytes, but out there, we face one another eye to eye... face to face...

I am truly sorry that you interpreted my claim—that you failed to understand what I wrote to you, and that your response had nothing to do with my previous post—as an insult. I had no reason to insult you, nor did I intend to.

Go tell that to the hundreds of other users who receive warnings or bans from the administration for such entries, or even milder ones, labeled as trolling or insults. Most often, they aren't even given the opportunity to explain their actions or justify their reasoning; instead, when they inquire, the administration simply waits until the next day to issue the penalty.

If you were using that kind of argumentation as a Catholic, I would argue against Catholics in much the same way (just look, by the way, at what I have written in my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I firmly consider to be a criminal organization).

Which doesn't excuse you in the slightest, because it is almost blatantly obvious here that we are dealing with an anti-theistic spirit that spreads through and fosters poor relations both within religions and between them. The best proof is rowdyhawk10, who tirelessly missions against Christians and even against official Islam, all while hiding under the guise of a Muslim—quite successfully sowing (inter)religious discord, while the anti-theists quietly hold his banner and smile... 👏

I was citing an example of what I could say that wouldn't necessarily leave me vulnerable to a successful defamation lawsuit; it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion.

And that is exactly why I spoke of "character" as an example of what I could say, so that I might be punished without the chance to clarify what the example was meant to illustrate... 🙄 whereas you are able to speak without consequence, and then, if necessary, explain later what the writer actually intended... 🙄

Of course, and what I said regarding "character" is just like what you said: it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion of your character. ☕

Instead of insulting me again when you feel I have insulted you, just report the post that upset you. That is what I did with your post, and now I must wait for you to return from vacation.

Believe me, I have offended enough people on this forum to realize that, quite frankly, it rarely pays off. It is better to just file a report and wait for the other person to receive their well-deserved penalty.

Of course, you are untouchable—not even the moderators can touch you. You simply echo our thoughts and constantly put us through the ringer, so when we offend someone, we’re in the wrong, but when you do it, you claim it “doesn't actually reflect true opinion.” Essentially, you consider yourselves superior and us inferior... though I’m not entirely sure which ideology's mannerisms this resembles.🤷
You don't step in because there is no profit in it, yet people still report things just to see if some money might fall from the sky, only to then "feel" bad about having to wait three days for a ban to expire before the other person returns... and apparently, one "had" to reply to them while they were on their "well-deserved" break, failing to show the basic decency of holding back a comment when the other party isn't even able to respond... 🍿

The term "a few Muslims" is being stretched incredibly thin here. Especially within Shia circles, there are methods used to mask one's true ideological identity—not necessarily to protect oneself from existential danger (which would make sense for anyone), but rather to sneak one's own ideology into others. It's not just about "a few Muslims"; it's also about the forum administration, which gives the strong impression of cracking down on those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution while hiding behind the veneer of: "this is Islam, those are just rigid, frozen views." Yet, we've never been given an answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to follow the rules of Islam 114—essentially, they are breaking their own forum rules regarding this topic just to dig at the official religious institution.

Susan Price30 said:Would it be better if he did it in a low, sneaky, or "cowardly" way instead?

I can't speak for everyone else, but people who play with their cards on the table seem a bit more honest to me. As long as they aren't insulting anyone, posting nonsense, or harassing people, I suppose you can 'yell' all you want. If that's just his style, his method, or his temperament...

(p.s. This isn't a personal question directed at you, so there's no need to reply—please don't. Just a comment on the repeated 'accusations' being made here.)

I don't know about everyone else, but I feel like people who play their cards openly seem a bit more decent. As long as they aren't insulting anyone, typing nonsense, or harassing people, I guess you can 'go at them' all you want. If that’s just his style or his temperament...

(p.s. this isn't a personal question directed at you, so you don't have to answer—and please don't. Just a comment on the repetitive 'accusations' being thrown around here.)

Jason Clark7 said:Even a high-priced attorney couldn't have defended rowdyhawk10 better—bravo. 👏

Could we perhaps see some actual evidence of this constant badgering? What exactly constitutes "badgering," and in what way can it be equated to "the methods of fascist ideology," other than in the minds of those who simply want to insult a fellow forum member? If I used the term sectarian, I provided an explanation. Why is there silence regarding my questions, and why can no one produce specific posts of mine that are supposedly "similar to the methods of fascist ideology"?😕

Brenda Cook4 said:In what sense are you interpreting the law? The law guarantees freedom of worship, not a ban on "heretics." What does "revising dogma" have to do with anything here? And who exactly is doing the "revising" if someone just expresses an opinion? Look, even the Catholic Church has its clear dogmas, yet not every Catholic agrees with everything said. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church is suddenly "under threat" or that it needs to "revise" its official stances on faith. Should the Catholic Church have to run every single thought by all other Christians, or would the moderators here just delete them, give them a partial ban, or what?

The term "a few Muslims" is being stretched incredibly thin here. Especially within Shia circles, there are methods used to mask one's true ideological identity—not necessarily to protect oneself from existential danger (which would make sense for anyone), but rather to sneak one's own ideology into others. It's not just about "a few Muslims"; it's also about the forum administration, which gives the strong impression of cracking down on those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution while hiding behind the veneer of: "this is Islam, those are just rigid, frozen views." Yet, we've never been given an answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to follow the rules of Islam 114—essentially, they are breaking their own forum rules regarding this topic just to dig at the official religious institution.

Just look at this: by this logic, they are attacking 200 million Shia followers. By that same standard, Catholics would probably have to treat Protestants the same way, with governments allowing some groups while banning others.

As for the main topic, this has been answered plenty of times (including in this thread): these interpretations belong to the Hanafi legal school, and any other views should be noted as such. Did rowdyhawk10 clarify that this was just his personal opinion? Did he explain *why* he interprets it that way? In what way did this actually "threaten" the official stance of any religious community? 🤔

Here are some specific misconceptions regarding Christianity—things like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and similar concepts. It isn't our fault that you hold these non-Muslim misconceptions about holiness being something detached from true, sincere love.

Given my basic understanding of Islam, I can't bring myself to agree that what you're saying actually represents the Islamic stance on Christianity.

Before I say anything else, it feels like you're just using the Quran to subtly troll by labeling core Christian tenets as "delusions". One could certainly make a similar argument regarding delusions within Islam, though I don't see others discussing it in quite the way you do.

Why I think the ban was undeserved. Basically, moderator Brenda Cook4 stated in this post that one serious concept (in this case: Islam) cannot negate another concept (in this case: Christianity) so I explained that such is the Islamic stance. I pointed out that Christians, under church influence, have developed a mistaken view regarding sanctity, which is why they are bothered by the views on Mary and Muhammad found in Islamic tradition. Yet, this was punished as trolling.

Susan Price30 said:I’m quoting from this same thread where nobody bothers to distance themselves (maybe adding a disclaimer that it's just a personal view or interpretation), but instead they flat-out claim their opinion is the official Islamic stance. It isn't.

Why I think the ban was undeserved. Basically, moderator Brenda Cook4 stated in this post that one serious concept (in this case: Islam) cannot negate another concept (in this case: Christianity) so I explained that such is the Islamic stance. I pointed out that Christians, under church influence, have developed a mistaken view regarding sanctity, which is why they are bothered by the views on Mary and Muhammad found in Islamic tradition. Yet, this was punished as trolling.

So it’s no wonder someone gets angry or "makes a scene" over such blatant and perfidious misrepresentation. Personally, I don't see the issue.
(Either it's intentional misrepresentation, or the person is genuinely unaware of what they are saying or writing; in either case, perhaps there should be some way to monitor this for the sake of discussion quality and to protect all other forum members.)

Brenda Cook4 said:In what sense are you interpreting the law? The law guarantees freedom of worship, not a ban on "heretics." What does "revising dogma" have to do with anything here? And who exactly is doing the "revising" if someone just expresses an opinion? Look, even the Catholic Church has its clear dogmas, yet not every Catholic agrees with everything said. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church is suddenly "under threat" or that it needs to "revise" its official stances on faith. Should the Catholic Church have to run every single thought by all other Christians, or would the moderators here just delete them, give them a partial ban, or what?

The term "a few Muslims" is being stretched incredibly thin here. Especially within Shia circles, there are methods used to mask one's true ideological identity—not necessarily to protect oneself from existential danger (which would make sense for anyone), but rather to sneak one's own ideology into others. It's not just about "a few Muslims"; it's also about the forum administration, which gives the strong impression of cracking down on those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution while hiding behind the veneer of: "this is Islam, those are just rigid, frozen views." Yet, we've never been given an answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to follow the rules of Islam 114—essentially, they are breaking their own forum rules regarding this topic just to dig at the official religious institution.

Just look at this: by this logic, they are attacking 200 million Shia followers. By that same standard, Catholics would probably have to treat Protestants the same way, with governments allowing some groups while banning others.

As for the main topic, this has been answered plenty of times (including in this thread): these interpretations belong to the Hanafi legal school, and any other views should be noted as such. Did rowdyhawk10 clarify that this was just his personal opinion? Did he explain *why* he interprets it that way? In what way did this actually "threaten" the official stance of any religious community? 🤔

Kenneth Barnes7 said:The very premise of the main topic emphasizes that answers will be provided
in accordance with the Hanafi legal school, which refers to questions of fiqh (meaning legal matters).

Susan Price30 said:I’m quoting from this same thread where nobody bothers to distance themselves (maybe adding a disclaimer that it's just a personal view or interpretation), but instead they flat-out claim their opinion is the official Islamic stance. It isn't.

Why I think the ban was undeserved. Basically, moderator Brenda Cook4 stated in this post that one serious concept (in this case: Islam) cannot negate another concept (in this case: Christianity) so I explained that such is the Islamic stance. I pointed out that Christians, under church influence, have developed a mistaken view regarding sanctity, which is why they are bothered by the views on Mary and Muhammad found in Islamic tradition. Yet, this was punished as trolling.

So it’s no wonder someone gets angry or "makes a scene" over such blatant and perfidious misrepresentation. Personally, I don't see the issue.
(Either it's intentional misrepresentation, or the person is genuinely unaware of what they are saying or writing; in either case, perhaps there should be some way to monitor this for the sake of discussion quality and to protect all other forum members.)