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

@shadyev, looks like it turns out Imam Abu Hanifa didn't even have any stances on Aqidah—the "guy" was just strictly about the Fiqh. 🙂

I don't even read you guys over there (let alone write 😁), lost my will to bother ages ago. Not even sure what logic you used to pick the Hanafi school as the official one for that top-tier thread of yours, but if you're gonna assign an official Fiqh school to a topic, then go ahead and assign an official Aqidah school too and get the whole problem solved. People who actually know their stuff will know which theological direction would best "fit" alongside the Hanafi legal school.

There's no need to mix in the history of Islam here at all, and honestly (IMO), it’s not nearly as big of a deal as those two points above.

crimsoncrane24 said:Just checking in, sort of...
I have no intention of getting into a fight with the moderators, because clashes with them almost always result in me coming out on the losing end.
I first showed up on this forum back when rowdyhawk10 was a moderator, and I ended up getting a warning from him because of my specific way of expressing myself at the time.

It is pretty obvious there is some resentment toward rowdyhawk10 among nearly all the Muslim users here, mainly because almost everyone has been sanctioned by him during his time moderating the PDF section.
I won't argue whether those actions were justified or not, since the judge is always right.
If I may say so, many people viewed his past—and even current—actions toward Muslims as destructive, though you don't get banned or warned for having that opinion.
I am not against rowdyhawk10, but I am definitely for the community.

I don't recall anyone receiving a warning from me that proved I was wrong. If it seemed like I was perhaps a tiny bit stricter toward Muslims than others, it’s only because most of them hadn't actually read the forum rules before deciding to post, so they didn't know how to behave. Specifically, was I unfair to you regarding any of your warnings? Please, be honest and link me that post? (you can see all the warnings I've issued you in your profile) just please link me a single warning you didn't deserve.

The main "rebellion" against me happened when the forum was debating whether a Muslim woman could marry a non-Muslim. There were several threads like this, such as this one. Basically, some people started falsely claiming that a Muslim woman ceases to be Muslim if she marries a non-Muslim. 😢 Nik sunshine is actually a Muslim woman married to a Catholic, and she has a good husband and a lovely, harmonious marriage with him. I can't even begin to tell you how much some of our fascists trashed her on that topic; I deleted so many of those disgusting posts that I can't link them now... I think she hasn't returned to the forum since then, though I did thoroughly prevent them from running wild. They literally bullied her out of existence with their filthy language. I banned some of them for 3 or 7 days and permanently banned a few handles. That's when the rebellion started.

It didn't help that the late Semek (may God grant him Paradise) here demonstrated what the Official stance of the Islamic Community is: that doing so does not cause a Muslim woman to stop being Muslim. Instead of the passion dying down once the Official stance of the Islamic Community was provided—which is what I warned here about, saying the discussion had to stop (end of post, in red)—that was exactly when the chaos on the thread began.

For instance, this lunatic thought a woman like that was a murderer of her own children. Not to mention the mockery directed at a female user, which is why she left the forum and never came back. And then this madness... 🙄 Following that, I was branded as the Muslim...provocateur, which managed to catch the eye of one particular flirt, a move I guess I accepted. 😁 Now, Adura (now: Boston) noticed that we’re seeing a mass funeral on this forum—essentially a collective exodus of Muslims... Dervish even goes as far as listing the handles of the anti-rowdyhawk10 clan.

And why are they leaving? Because I stood up for the forum rules!

rowdyhawk10 said:If a Muslim woman lives in a lawful and honorable marriage with her husband of Christian faith, then she cannot be, nor can he, an adulterer according to the laws of the United States and all UN charters.

Keep that kind of labeling for the backwaters of Asia and Africa. You have arrived in civilization.

No one has the right to spout such horrors at others by citing religious rules, because the rules of this forum aren't based on Sharia or the tenets of any religion. The forum rules require every member to refrain from insults and maintain decent speech, and they prohibit anyone here from calling someone else an adulterer. 😢

That was actually one of the sparks for the rebellion. Basically, some people were bothered because I voiced support for the UN charter and defended the Constitution of the US. Back then, someone called me a fake prophet, and the shadow of that madness still haunts this forum today.

There was another uprising when we discussed the Theory of Evolution, where I drew the ire of some amateurs who don't even have a basic high school education yet want to debate the subject. 🙄

And now, this Golden Boy has started hystericalizing about me again regarding the story of Muawiya, that cursed man, and his "companions." Once again, I'm being labeled a Shiite, a Rafidi, an infidel, and so on...

So, brother crimsoncrane24, let me just tell you one thing. If the very principles of honorable Islam are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather (then and now) go to war with them than dance with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a monolithic community like the one shown in the film ADAGIO (watch from 6:30 to the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? No, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In those cases, the solution isn't to sing in a choir with them, but to take a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, provided he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Peace be upon you, and know that I love you like a brother; I hold no grudges and I understand your good intentions.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:@shadyev, looks like it turns out Imam Abu Hanifa didn't even have any stances on Aqidah—the "guy" was just strictly about the Fiqh. 🙂

I don't even read you guys over there (let alone write 😁), lost my will to bother ages ago. Not even sure what logic you used to pick the Hanafi school as the official one for that top-tier thread of yours, but if you're gonna assign an official Fiqh school to a topic, then go ahead and assign an official Aqidah school too and get the whole problem solved. People who actually know their stuff will know which theological direction would best "fit" alongside the Hanafi legal school.

There's no need to mix in the history of Islam here at all, and honestly (IMO), it’s not nearly as big of a deal as those two points above.

History actually matters if one wants to establish unity among Muslims, because that’s where the key lies. It's important because all the later theological divisions—whether Fiqh, Akaid, or otherwise—were essentially triggered by political splits.

As for what you mentioned in the first paragraph... 🙄 I could easily solve that: I’d just put in my signature that I’m not Sunni, but rather a Muslim from Mars, writing in the spirit of Islam as it exists—on Mars! 😁 In reality, this can't really be a Hanafi top-topic in an Akaid sense, because if it were, then a top-thread on Christianity would also have to be strictly Catholic, making everyone else "black sheep." Peace.

rowdyhawk10 said:History actually matters if one wants to establish unity among Muslims, because that’s where the key lies. It's important because all the later theological divisions—whether Fiqh, Akaid, or otherwise—were essentially triggered by political splits.

As for what you mentioned in the first paragraph... 🙄 I could easily solve that: I’d just put in my signature that I’m not Sunni, but rather a Muslim from Mars, writing in the spirit of Islam as it exists—on Mars! 😁 In reality, this can't really be a Hanafi top-topic in an Akaid sense, because if it were, then a top-thread on Christianity would also have to be strictly Catholic, making everyone else "black sheep." Peace.

Then why is it considered Hanafi in Fiqh too?

How did we even end up with this idea of an "official" forum-style Hanafi legal school anyway?

History doesn't even matter right now because the topic already has an official madhhab assigned to it, so all those historical disagreements are totally irrelevant at this point...

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Then why is it considered Hanafi in Fiqh too?

How did we even end up with this idea of an "official" forum-style Hanafi legal school anyway?

History doesn't even matter right now because the topic already has an official madhhab assigned to it, so all those historical disagreements are totally irrelevant at this point...

That’s just how things went down at the start—back when Dervish first posted that initial thread covering the Islam-114 questions and answers part 1. I suppose nobody really stopped to ask why it was set up that way back then.

rowdyhawk10 said:I don't recall anyone receiving a warning from me that proved I was wrong. If it seemed like I was perhaps a tiny bit stricter toward Muslims than others, it’s only because most of them hadn't actually read the forum rules before deciding to post, so they didn't know how to behave. Specifically, was I unfair to you regarding any of your warnings? Please, be honest and link me that post? (you can see all the warnings I've issued you in your profile) just please link me a single warning you didn't deserve.

The main "rebellion" against me happened when the forum was debating whether a Muslim woman could marry a non-Muslim. There were several threads like this, such as this one. Basically, some people started falsely claiming that a Muslim woman ceases to be Muslim if she marries a non-Muslim. 😢 Nik sunshine is actually a Muslim woman married to a Catholic, and she has a good husband and a lovely, harmonious marriage with him. I can't even begin to tell you how much some of our fascists trashed her on that topic; I deleted so many of those disgusting posts that I can't link them now... I think she hasn't returned to the forum since then, though I did thoroughly prevent them from running wild. They literally bullied her out of existence with their filthy language. I banned some of them for 3 or 7 days and permanently banned a few handles. That's when the rebellion started.

It didn't help that the late Semek (may God grant him Paradise) here demonstrated what the Official stance of the Islamic Community is: that doing so does not cause a Muslim woman to stop being Muslim. Instead of the passion dying down once the Official stance of the Islamic Community was provided—which is what I warned here about, saying the discussion had to stop (end of post, in red)—that was exactly when the chaos on the thread began.

For instance, this lunatic thought a woman like that was a murderer of her own children. Not to mention the mockery directed at a female user, which is why she left the forum and never came back. And then this madness... 🙄 Following that, I was branded as the Muslim...provocateur, which managed to catch the eye of one particular flirt, a move I guess I accepted. 😁 Now, Adura (now: Boston) noticed that we’re seeing a mass funeral on this forum—essentially a collective exodus of Muslims... Dervish even goes as far as listing the handles of the anti-rowdyhawk10 clan.

And why are they leaving? Because I stood up for the forum rules!

That was actually one of the sparks for the rebellion. Basically, some people were bothered because I voiced support for the UN charter and defended the Constitution of the US. Back then, someone called me a fake prophet, and the shadow of that madness still haunts this forum today.

There was another uprising when we discussed the Theory of Evolution, where I drew the ire of some amateurs who don't even have a basic high school education yet want to debate the subject. 🙄

And now, this Golden Boy has started hystericalizing about me again regarding the story of Muawiya, that cursed man, and his "companions." Once again, I'm being labeled a Shiite, a Rafidi, an infidel, and so on...

So, brother crimsoncrane24, let me just tell you one thing. If the very principles of honorable Islam are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather (then and now) go to war with them than dance with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a monolithic community like the one shown in the film ADAGIO (watch from 6:30 to the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? No, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In those cases, the solution isn't to sing in a choir with them, but to take a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, provided he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Peace be upon you, and know that I love you like a brother; I hold no grudges and I understand your good intentions.

Well, since you asked, here is

just judge for yourself if you were being unfair! It makes no difference to me.
cut

Look, crimsoncrane24, I'll tell you just one thing. If honorable Islamic principles are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather—and still would today—go to war with them than play games with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a unified community like the one shown in the ADAGIO film (check it out from 6:30 until the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? Not at all, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In that case, the solution isn't to sing along in a choir with them, but to grab a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, as long as he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Interesting film...
I think you're mistaken about one very important thing.
For a Muslim, having leadership is essential, and it must be righteous leadership.
That film depicts a crowd and a society that is leaderless, not individualistic.
The etiquette of a Muslim who is not a leader is to follow; the etiquette of a leader is to be just and make decisions responsibly.
Muhammad said that the best person is the one who is most useful, and who could be more useful than an honest and just ruler?
Our duty, as I see it, is to try to resolve the disputes between us, rather than fueling them, regardless of who is right.

Peace be upon you. Just so you know, I love you like a brother, I hold no grudges, and I understand your good intentions.

And peace be upon you too. May God grant us all patience and grace.
🙂

steelskipper5 Asks:
You won't achieve anything at all with such baseless and unsubstantiated accusations...

Your insinuation that Islam is a barbaric religion is nothing more than baseless speculation...

I have no interest in discussing that specific law, especially since you previously brought up the Constitution of the US and then misinterpreted it... It is simply impossible to provide any further explanation... There should be no restrictions... Lower....

😂 He told me straight up that I shouldn't bother weighing in since I'm not an attorney...

Cutting it close...

If someone chooses to misinterpret your views or your teachings, they aren't actually imposing anything upon you...

Private matters belong within the four walls... in public, it’s a completely different story.

The fact that one Muslim disputes another over the interpretation of Islam is truly not something that the law concerns itself with...

It all depends on whether the laws of a weak or strong nation are in effect. You would be truly astonished if you paid any attention to the sheer variety of interstate litigation handled by the German courts, for instance...

A Catholic might eventually declare you a heretic, but from where I'm standing, it feels like you're just whining and scrambling for legal protection because your actual arguments aren't strong enough...

Accordingly, @rowdyhawk10's missionary work, while seemingly backed by certain legal protections, lacks sufficiently robust arguments... so he really ought to hold his ground... 😍

If you have clear arguments proving that the moderation isn't following the established rules, please post your question in the Administration Questions thread.
If you could just tone down the constant attacks that seem to fill up every single one of your posts on this thread, maybe people would actually start taking you seriously...

I appreciate the suggestion, but this is an issue that has been dragging on this forum for several years now... back when I first requested that the public affirmation of "religious-sectarian" piercing be sanctioned, and they simply turned a blind eye then, just as they are doing today...

Are you a lawyer?
I am not. And I stick to the most conservative lay reading possible, simply because it is the least likely way for me to stumble into something foolish...
Feel free to start a thread in the Legal section, and perhaps the attorneys there can tell you if you're allowed to interpret the law the way you are interpreting it here.

It is crystal clear to any layman (not to mention a professional) that rowdyhawk10 on 114 is acting contrary to the established rules of this thread, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a thing is a thing, and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Once they gather the required number of believers. I believe that figure is currently 5,000, though I haven't looked into it deeply.
Regarding property rights, they would have none in relation to the Islamic Community, but they could structure their theology however they see fit.

And until then? Though I suspect that might happen one fine day, or perhaps even sooner...😍

Find me a single instance where such an entry resulted in a ban.
In earlier discussions, the administration explicitly explained why such entries should not result in anyone being banned.

Should I try to telepathically present the deleted bans to you? 🙄

More baseless accusations. Either provide an argument or retract what you said.

Oops, I can't, because an active decree is in place and I cannot explain it to lowly 😂

No, you aren't. I clearly stated what I could say without violating the law you mentioned. It is written in that very same post; I didn't need to offer any subsequent explanations. You, however, cannot point to anything in your banned post that actually supports your interpretation above.

Of course I'm not, because you have the right to say heavy things that don't necessarily represent your opinion, whereas I obviously do not possess that privilege...🤷

Note that I am not a moderator. 🥳

Well, even though you know I didn't report you for your post...😍

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

So, this whole thread is basically operating on fascist ideology—is that really the peak of your argumentation, or do you just have nothing better to offer? 😲

Jason Clark7 said:

steelskipper5 Asks:
You won't achieve anything at all with such baseless and unsubstantiated accusations...

Your insinuation that Islam is a barbaric religion is nothing more than baseless speculation...

I have no interest in discussing that specific law, especially since you previously brought up the Constitution of the US and then misinterpreted it... It is simply impossible to provide any further explanation... There should be no restrictions... Lower....

😂 He told me straight up that I shouldn't bother weighing in since I'm not an attorney...

Cutting it close...

If someone chooses to misinterpret your views or your teachings, they aren't actually imposing anything upon you...

Private matters belong within the four walls... in public, it’s a completely different story.

The fact that one Muslim disputes another over the interpretation of Islam is truly not something that the law concerns itself with...

It all depends on whether the laws of a weak or strong nation are in effect. You would be truly astonished if you paid any attention to the sheer variety of interstate litigation handled by the German courts, for instance...

A Catholic might eventually declare you a heretic, but from where I'm standing, it feels like you're just whining and scrambling for legal protection because your actual arguments aren't strong enough...

Accordingly, @rowdyhawk10's missionary work, while seemingly backed by certain legal protections, lacks sufficiently robust arguments... so he really ought to hold his ground... 😍

If you have clear arguments proving that the moderation isn't following the established rules, please post your question in the Administration Questions thread.
If you could just tone down the constant attacks that seem to fill up every single one of your posts on this thread, maybe people would actually start taking you seriously...

I appreciate the suggestion, but this is an issue that has been dragging on this forum for several years now... back when I first requested that the public affirmation of "religious-sectarian" piercing be sanctioned, and they simply turned a blind eye then, just as they are doing today...

Are you a lawyer?
I am not. And I stick to the most conservative lay reading possible, simply because it is the least likely way for me to stumble into something foolish...
Feel free to start a thread in the Legal section, and perhaps the attorneys there can tell you if you're allowed to interpret the law the way you are interpreting it here.

It is crystal clear to any layman (not to mention a professional) that rowdyhawk10 on 114 is acting contrary to the established rules of this thread, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a thing is a thing, and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Once they gather the required number of believers. I believe that figure is currently 5,000, though I haven't looked into it deeply.
Regarding property rights, they would have none in relation to the Islamic Community, but they could structure their theology however they see fit.

And until then? Though I suspect that might happen one fine day, or perhaps even sooner...😍

Find me a single instance where such an entry resulted in a ban.
In earlier discussions, the administration explicitly explained why such entries should not result in anyone being banned.

Should I try to telepathically present the deleted bans to you? 🙄

More baseless accusations. Either provide an argument or retract what you said.

Oops, I can't, because an active decree is in place and I cannot explain it to lowly 😂

No, you aren't. I clearly stated what I could say without violating the law you mentioned. It is written in that very same post; I didn't need to offer any subsequent explanations. You, however, cannot point to anything in your banned post that actually supports your interpretation above.

Of course I'm not, because you have the right to say heavy things that don't necessarily represent your opinion, whereas I obviously do not possess that privilege...🤷

Note that I am not a moderator. 🥳

Well, even though you know I didn't report you for your post...😍

So, this whole thread is basically operating on fascist ideology—is that really the peak of your argumentation, or do you just have nothing better to offer? 😲

I never insinuated that.

😂 You're basically saying that since you aren't a lawyer...

Is this really the peak of your argumentation?

It’s crystal clear to any layman (not even counting lawyers) that rowdyhawk10 is acting contrary to the Islam114 thread rules set out here, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a sheep is a sheep and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Bring me one forum "lawyer" who will actually back up your claims.
Start a thread in the Law section and drop the link here; I'd honestly love to see what the legal experts have to say. ☕

Saying "it's obvious to any xy" isn't an argument—it's just a logical fallacy.

So, should I just telepathically present the deleted posts to you? 🙄

No. Just find one single post that wasn't deleted but was still moderated.

Of course I didn't, because you have the right to say harsh things that don't necessarily reflect your opinion, while I clearly don't have that privilege.🤷

If you can't see the difference in how we both expressed ourselves, then there's really nothing left to talk about.

So this whole thread is following some fascist ideology—is that the best you can do for an argument, or is that all you've got?😲

I didn't say that. I asked for an example of you tearing into people. This thread is exactly that example. That's all I said; nothing more.

steelskipper5 said:I never insinuated that.

😂 You're basically saying that since you aren't a lawyer...

Is this really the peak of your argumentation?

It’s crystal clear to any layman (not even counting lawyers) that rowdyhawk10 is acting contrary to the Islam114 thread rules set out here, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a sheep is a sheep and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Bring me one forum "lawyer" who will actually back up your claims.
Start a thread in the Law section and drop the link here; I'd honestly love to see what the legal experts have to say. ☕

Saying "it's obvious to any xy" isn't an argument—it's just a logical fallacy.

So, should I just telepathically present the deleted posts to you? 🙄

No. Just find one single post that wasn't deleted but was still moderated.

Of course I didn't, because you have the right to say harsh things that don't necessarily reflect your opinion, while I clearly don't have that privilege.🤷

If you can't see the difference in how we both expressed ourselves, then there's really nothing left to talk about.

So this whole thread is following some fascist ideology—is that the best you can do for an argument, or is that all you've got?😲

I didn't say that. I asked for an example of you tearing into people. This thread is exactly that example. That's all I said; nothing more.

So you’ve decided to just check out and play the troll on this thread... I never said anything about me shouting—it's only natural for someone to raise their voice when they're being baited into a conversation about fascism. Regardless, my question was this:

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"?😕

Why is there such a constant effort to dilute my specific inquiries? Honestly, even this level of engagement feels like progress compared to the sheer ignorance we used to deal with... Here.)? 😕

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? 🤔

In any specific context (like, say, 114) where an official religion is being interpreted, when astrologers show up and constantly push half-baked ideas, relentlessly imposing unofficial views, it is ILLEGAL and logically PUNISHABLE.

Look, by doing this, they are attacking 200 million Shiites; I suppose Catholics should treat Protestants the same way, with states allowing some and banning others.

To be objective with you: you feel bad for the 200 million who were attacked, but since rowdyhawk10 constantly spits on over 1 billion Sunnis, does that somehow satisfy you and a few others? 🙄 I am genuinely wondering WHY... 🤔

As for the main topic, this has been answered more than enough times (including in this thread): the interpretations provided are from the Hanafi legal school; any other interpretations ought to be highlighted. Did rowdyhawk10 emphasize that this was his own opinion, or explain why he interprets it that way? In what way did it "threaten" the official stance of a religious community? 🤔

it hasn't been answered here and your persistent oversight has been clearly argued:

Jason Clark7 said:okay, but I have to ask:

-what specific arguments regarding the return of Jesus did rowdyhawk10 actually present? Aside from the hatred toward Abu Hurairah...

-who is rowdyhawk10 to insist on his view on 114? It was stated clearly in the thread rules: Answers will follow the Hanafi legal school. Answers from any other school should be highlighted. So, here is my point: The responses from other schools should be highlighted. Which specific schools is rowdyhawk10 claiming answered us, and what are his methodological arguments? Only then can we actually examine this and engage in a civil dialogue. Instead, he (without naming names, of course) simply insults and disparages the official and majority stance; that seems to be the absolute limit of his argumentation:

...

Since the most important POINT of this entire debate is being persistently evaded, allow me to clarify my position a bit more clearly:

The responses from other schools should be emphasized.

And isn't it true that not only are rowdyhawk10 and those similar to him not actually representing any "school" of thought—which makes it a direct violation of the topic rules by trolling with "personal opinions"—but Brenda Cook4 and the other moderators are also relentlessly imposing this exact pace upon the thread? WHY is this happening, if there isn't some more insidious intention lurking behind it all? 😲

rowdyhawk10 said:Everything you're trying to explain to him was already explained by Kenneth Barnes7 a few days ago during that first blowout, here, where in post #2 he says:

When it is stated that answers in the main topic will come from the Hanafi madhhab (legal school), it means that applies to questions within the realm of fiqh, not general dogma! A question like "Will Jesus return to judge Golden Boy and Mus instead of not coming?" is not part of fiqh. To simplify it even further so it's clearer what Mus actually wants to know: a madhhab is a legal school. For instance, according to one madhhab, a certain amount of minor bleeding doesn't invalidate wudu (ritual washing before prayer), whereas in another legal school, even the slightest bleeding invalidates it, requiring a full redo of the wudu; or another example: in one madhhab, you pray with your hands tied at the navel; in another, your hands are lowered along your body during prayer; in a third, the hands are raised above the navel and tied there... and so on.

Fiqh is the science of determining what stance (or ruling) should be taken regarding the actions of an adult and mentally competent person.

This means: When someone in the main topic asks Muslims: "How should the hands be held during prayer?" they will be told: "At the navel, with the right hand over the left" — because that is how it is in the Hanafi legal school. If someone writes: "Hands are held raised at the chest" — then they should specify that this isn't according to the Hanafi view, but rather the Shafi'i madhhab... (this doesn't necessarily mean it's true, I'm just giving an example of what falls under fiqh). Essentially, the answers in the main topic pertain to fiqh (law) but not to dogma (faith/belief). Fiqh, for example, doesn't deal with whether angels have four wings or six. It doesn't deal with history! (for instance, whether Muawiya was great or terrible)... etc. The science of fiqh only deals with legal questions, such as the procedure for a divorce or what prevents a marriage between a man and a woman, and so forth.

Jason Clark7 went on a bit about how the core topic here is strictly Hanafi, arguing that everything discussed—including political stances, historical views, and even general worldly perspectives—serves only to present Hanafi viewpoints. He seems to think those things don't actually fall under the umbrella of Fiqh sciences. That's his take, I suppose. 🤷

Maybe no one else is stepping up because only rowdyhawk10 was brave enough to point this out to you all, risking some backlash in the process, but doing so to honestly state the truth. 🤷 Therefore, I haven't "sneakily misrepresented" anything! Any somewhat educated Muslim would know that. In fact, acknowledging this opens our perspective for the future and brings us closer together.

I'd love for you to enroll me in an Islam course, so I could learn more about my faith and things I haven't known until now. To guide me toward the right path so my knowledge might be more complete... but, I suppose, you would have to surpass me in knowledge first before you could act as my teacher. 😉 Signed.

You are persistently diluting, confusing, and trolling what I explained briefly, clearly, and beautifully here:

Jason Clark7 said:...

To put it bluntly, aren't we being pedantic if we insist on sticking to one specific Fiqh school while simultaneously blurring the lines of the Akaid?😲 The Akaid of the Hanafi milieu is well-established and known to anyone with even a basic level of expertise in Islam—it is the Maturidi Akaid, and it remains untainted by rowdyhawk10's sectarianism. After all, Abu Hanifa himself referred to the Akaid as Al-Fiqh al-Akbar and authored a work by that name. Therefore, it is quite surprising that someone claiming to be an Islamic authority on this forum confuses these matters—either you lack the knowledge, or you aren't acting in good faith. 😕

Of course, rowdyhawk10 and many others on this forum are more than welcome to question things and voice their own doubts, but using that as a rebuttal isn't appropriate here at Islam114—and certainly not when such responses are packaged as the official stance of Islam (even if, according to rowdyhawk10, "official Islam" is just some abstract concept🙂)
...

rowdyhawk10 said:Everything you're trying to explain to him was already explained by Kenneth Barnes7 a few days ago during that first blowout, here, where in post #2 he says:

When it is stated that answers in the main topic will come from the Hanafi madhhab (legal school), it means that applies to questions within the realm of fiqh, not general dogma! A question like "Will Jesus return to judge Golden Boy and Mus instead of not coming?" is not part of fiqh. To simplify it even further so it's clearer what Mus actually wants to know: a madhhab is a legal school. For instance, according to one madhhab, a certain amount of minor bleeding doesn't invalidate wudu (ritual washing before prayer), whereas in another legal school, even the slightest bleeding invalidates it, requiring a full redo of the wudu; or another example: in one madhhab, you pray with your hands tied at the navel; in another, your hands are lowered along your body during prayer; in a third, the hands are raised above the navel and tied there... and so on.

Fiqh is the science of determining what stance (or ruling) should be taken regarding the actions of an adult and mentally competent person.

This means: When someone in the main topic asks Muslims: "How should the hands be held during prayer?" they will be told: "At the navel, with the right hand over the left" — because that is how it is in the Hanafi legal school. If someone writes: "Hands are held raised at the chest" — then they should specify that this isn't according to the Hanafi view, but rather the Shafi'i madhhab... (this doesn't necessarily mean it's true, I'm just giving an example of what falls under fiqh). Essentially, the answers in the main topic pertain to fiqh (law) but not to dogma (faith/belief). Fiqh, for example, doesn't deal with whether angels have four wings or six. It doesn't deal with history! (for instance, whether Muawiya was great or terrible)... etc. The science of fiqh only deals with legal questions, such as the procedure for a divorce or what prevents a marriage between a man and a woman, and so forth.

Jason Clark7 went on a bit about how the core topic here is strictly Hanafi, arguing that everything discussed—including political stances, historical views, and even general worldly perspectives—serves only to present Hanafi viewpoints. He seems to think those things don't actually fall under the umbrella of Fiqh sciences. That's his take, I suppose. 🤷

Maybe no one else is stepping up because only rowdyhawk10 was brave enough to point this out to you all, risking some backlash in the process, but doing so to honestly state the truth. 🤷 Therefore, I haven't "sneakily misrepresented" anything! Any somewhat educated Muslim would know that. In fact, acknowledging this opens our perspective for the future and brings us closer together.

I'd love for you to enroll me in an Islam course, so I could learn more about my faith and things I haven't known until now. To guide me toward the right path so my knowledge might be more complete... but, I suppose, you would have to surpass me in knowledge first before you could act as my teacher. 😉 Signed.

What you're showing here is either a very low level of Islamic education or pure missionary perfidy. The Hanafi school does indeed address political stances (through the judiciary and the application of Sharia penal codes), and as I mentioned earlier, Abu Hanifa himself referred to the principles of Akaid as the Great Fiqh. 👋

...
I would love for you to take me under your wing in an Islamic course, so I might learn about my faith and discover what I haven't known until now. To guide me toward the right path, so that I may be more complete in my knowledge... but, you would first have to surpass me in knowledge before you could act as my teacher. 😉 Post.

Maybe take a moment to look in the mirror and tell yourself how many amateurish lapses in knowledge you actually have, especially regarding a topic where you try to sound "authoritative" while lecturing everyone else and even calling for a "revision" of great Islamic scholars. 🤦

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:@shadyev, looks like it turns out Imam Abu Hanifa didn't even have any stances on Aqidah—the "guy" was just strictly about the Fiqh. 🙂

I don't even read you guys over there (let alone write 😁), lost my will to bother ages ago. Not even sure what logic you used to pick the Hanafi school as the official one for that top-tier thread of yours, but if you're gonna assign an official Fiqh school to a topic, then go ahead and assign an official Aqidah school too and get the whole problem solved. People who actually know their stuff will know which theological direction would best "fit" alongside the Hanafi legal school.

There's no need to mix in the history of Islam here at all, and honestly (IMO), it’s not nearly as big of a deal as those two points above.

this was already explained a week ago, yet rowdyhawk10 and a few others here are persistently playing dumb ☕

ps

the Hanafi school is official because it is official within the Islamic Community of Canada and the United States, which serves as the legal and legitimate institution representing Islam in these regions...

Jason Clark7 said:In any specific context (like, say, 114) where an official religion is being interpreted, when astrologers show up and constantly push half-baked ideas, relentlessly imposing unofficial views, it is ILLEGAL and logically PUNISHABLE.

Look, by doing this, they are attacking 200 million Shiites; I suppose Catholics should treat Protestants the same way, with states allowing some and banning others.

To be objective with you: you feel bad for the 200 million who were attacked, but since rowdyhawk10 constantly spits on over 1 billion Sunnis, does that somehow satisfy you and a few others? 🙄 I am genuinely wondering WHY... 🤔

As for the main topic, this has been answered more than enough times (including in this thread): the interpretations provided are from the Hanafi legal school; any other interpretations ought to be highlighted. Did rowdyhawk10 emphasize that this was his own opinion, or explain why he interprets it that way? In what way did it "threaten" the official stance of a religious community? 🤔

it hasn't been answered here and your persistent oversight has been clearly argued:

Since the most important POINT of this entire debate is being persistently evaded, allow me to clarify my position a bit more clearly:

The responses from other schools should be emphasized.

And isn't it true that not only are rowdyhawk10 and those similar to him not actually representing any "school" of thought—which makes it a direct violation of the topic rules by trolling with "personal opinions"—but Brenda Cook4 and the other moderators are also relentlessly imposing this exact pace upon the thread? WHY is this happening, if there isn't some more insidious intention lurking behind it all? 😲

You need to stop looking for "conspiracies" in everything that doesn't sit right with you, Jason Clark7. And let me say it again: did rowdyhawk10 ever claim to be Sunni or say he was speaking on behalf of them? Or did he clearly state this was just "his" opinion? Discussing different "schools" absolutely allows for personal viewpoints—this isn't a madrasa or a religious community; this is a secular forum.

It’s reached a point where your constant accusations and insinuations of "hidden" conspiratorial agendas make me hesitate to even post in the "Return of Jesus to Earth in Islamic Sources" thread. I'm worried that if I do, I'll end up facing some accusation from you—whether it's that I'm "lost" or some other colorful rhetoric you might throw my way.

Fortunately, we'll soon have two separate PDFs for Religion, so every confession or denomination can finally have its own dedicated thread.

crimsoncrane24 said:Well, since you asked, here is

just judge for yourself if you were being unfair! It makes no difference to me.
cut

Look, crimsoncrane24, I'll tell you just one thing. If honorable Islamic principles are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather—and still would today—go to war with them than play games with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a unified community like the one shown in the ADAGIO film (check it out from 6:30 until the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? Not at all, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In that case, the solution isn't to sing along in a choir with them, but to grab a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, as long as he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Interesting film...
I think you're mistaken about one very important thing.
For a Muslim, having leadership is essential, and it must be righteous leadership.
That film depicts a crowd and a society that is leaderless, not individualistic.
The etiquette of a Muslim who is not a leader is to follow; the etiquette of a leader is to be just and make decisions responsibly.
Muhammad said that the best person is the one who is most useful, and who could be more useful than an honest and just ruler?
Our duty, as I see it, is to try to resolve the disputes between us, rather than fueling them, regardless of who is right.

Peace be upon you. Just so you know, I love you like a brother, I hold no grudges, and I understand your good intentions.

And peace be upon you too. May God grant us all patience and grace.
🙂

Peace to you. You can never have too much love (grace). 🙂

Brenda Cook4 said:You need to stop looking for "conspiracies" in everything that doesn't sit right with you, Jason Clark7. And let me say it again: did rowdyhawk10 ever claim to be Sunni or say he was speaking on behalf of them? Or did he clearly state this was just "his" opinion? Discussing different "schools" absolutely allows for personal viewpoints—this isn't a madrasa or a religious community; this is a secular forum.

It’s reached a point where your constant accusations and insinuations of "hidden" conspiratorial agendas make me hesitate to even post in the "Return of Jesus to Earth in Islamic Sources" thread. I'm worried that if I do, I'll end up facing some accusation from you—whether it's that I'm "lost" or some other colorful rhetoric you might throw my way.

Fortunately, we'll soon have two separate PDFs for Religion, so every confession or denomination can finally have its own dedicated thread.

Peace to you. You can never have too much love (grace). 🙂

Once again, you are diluting my point by using psychoanalysis to suggest I am some kind of conspiracy theorist. 👎
Surely it shouldn't be so extreme that you cannot distinguish a personal opinion from the position of the School? 🙄 On what basis would the "School" "allow" someone to offer a certain "opinion"—and which "opinion" specifically? Is it only the one favored by the administration, or just any random thought? Imagine how chaotic this topic would become if every single "Muslim" responding to a question about Islam tacked on their own "personal view" or "thoughts," essentially spinning the truth until the whole thing becomes a mess... it would be nothing more than peak trolling. 🙂
And then there is that standard line, "this is a secular forum," which perhaps you use to imply one has the right to ignore the rules established for the sake of the community—is it only because those rules benefit a specific religion that people should normally and unobtrusively present official stances without the ability for others to inject irrelevant commentary or exaggerate flaws while downplaying merits? 😲

It has reached the point where your constant accusations and insinuations regarding "subversive" conspiratorial ideas feel like a barrier to me. For several days now, I have hesitated to write on the topic "Return of Jesus to Earth in Islamic Sources," fearing that I might be accused of being a hardliner or, if I am not Muslim, that I will be mocked by your rhetoric.

I have focused my observations strictly on the main topic of Islam 114, which is clearly evident from my posts. I don't understand why you are now dragging other PDF topics into this, as they all have their own specific themes and rules defined in their opening posts. Please, do not tell me that my writing is causing issues even in your real life... believe me when I say (as my friend steelskipper5 once said) that it was never my intention, nor does it necessarily represent my personal view. 😉

crimsoncrane24 said:Well, since you asked, here is

just judge for yourself if you were being unfair! It makes no difference to me.
cut

Look, crimsoncrane24, I'll tell you just one thing. If honorable Islamic principles are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather—and still would today—go to war with them than play games with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a unified community like the one shown in the ADAGIO film (check it out from 6:30 until the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? Not at all, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In that case, the solution isn't to sing along in a choir with them, but to grab a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, as long as he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Interesting film...
I think you're mistaken about one very important thing.
For a Muslim, having leadership is essential, and it must be righteous leadership.
That film depicts a crowd and a society that is leaderless, not individualistic.
The etiquette of a Muslim who is not a leader is to follow; the etiquette of a leader is to be just and make decisions responsibly.
Muhammad said that the best person is the one who is most useful, and who could be more useful than an honest and just ruler?
Our duty, as I see it, is to try to resolve the disputes between us, rather than fueling them, regardless of who is right.

Peace be upon you. Just so you know, I love you like a brother, I hold no grudges, and I understand your good intentions.

And peace be upon you too. May God grant us all patience and grace.
🙂

That’s a dangerous and harmful perspective.

bluemason3 said:That’s a dangerous and harmful perspective.

Are you actually claiming that Catholics having a Pope is a danger?

Your way of thinking is dangerous.
Narrow-minded and dangerous.

rowdyhawk10 said:I don't recall anyone receiving a warning from me that proved I was wrong. If it seemed like I was perhaps a tiny bit stricter toward Muslims than others, it’s only because most of them hadn't actually read the forum rules before deciding to post, so they didn't know how to behave. Specifically, was I unfair to you regarding any of your warnings? Please, be honest and link me that post? (you can see all the warnings I've issued you in your profile) just please link me a single warning you didn't deserve.

The main "rebellion" against me happened when the forum was debating whether a Muslim woman could marry a non-Muslim. There were several threads like this, such as this one. Basically, some people started falsely claiming that a Muslim woman ceases to be Muslim if she marries a non-Muslim. 😢 Nik sunshine is actually a Muslim woman married to a Catholic, and she has a good husband and a lovely, harmonious marriage with him. I can't even begin to tell you how much some of our fascists trashed her on that topic; I deleted so many of those disgusting posts that I can't link them now... I think she hasn't returned to the forum since then, though I did thoroughly prevent them from running wild. They literally bullied her out of existence with their filthy language. I banned some of them for 3 or 7 days and permanently banned a few handles. That's when the rebellion started.

It didn't help that the late Semek (may God grant him Paradise) here demonstrated what the Official stance of the Islamic Community is: that doing so does not cause a Muslim woman to stop being Muslim. Instead of the passion dying down once the Official stance of the Islamic Community was provided—which is what I warned here about, saying the discussion had to stop (end of post, in red)—that was exactly when the chaos on the thread began.

For instance, this lunatic thought a woman like that was a murderer of her own children. Not to mention the mockery directed at a female user, which is why she left the forum and never came back. And then this madness... 🙄 Following that, I was branded as the Muslim...provocateur, which managed to catch the eye of one particular flirt, a move I guess I accepted. 😁 Now, Adura (now: Boston) noticed that we’re seeing a mass funeral on this forum—essentially a collective exodus of Muslims... Dervish even goes as far as listing the handles of the anti-rowdyhawk10 clan.

And why are they leaving? Because I stood up for the forum rules!

That was actually one of the sparks for the rebellion. Basically, some people were bothered because I voiced support for the UN charter and defended the Constitution of the US. Back then, someone called me a fake prophet, and the shadow of that madness still haunts this forum today.

There was another uprising when we discussed the Theory of Evolution, where I drew the ire of some amateurs who don't even have a basic high school education yet want to debate the subject. 🙄

And now, this Golden Boy has started hystericalizing about me again regarding the story of Muawiya, that cursed man, and his "companions." Once again, I'm being labeled a Shiite, a Rafidi, an infidel, and so on...

So, brother crimsoncrane24, let me just tell you one thing. If the very principles of honorable Islam are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather (then and now) go to war with them than dance with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a monolithic community like the one shown in the film ADAGIO (watch from 6:30 to the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? No, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In those cases, the solution isn't to sing in a choir with them, but to take a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, provided he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Peace be upon you, and know that I love you like a brother; I hold no grudges and I understand your good intentions.

rowdyhawk10, I’m right there with you—you’ve got my full atheist support. Though, honestly, I suspect that might do more to irritate the Muslims here than actually help your cause... 😁

crimsoncrane24 said:Are you actually claiming that Catholics having a Pope is a danger?

Your way of thinking is dangerous.
Narrow-minded and dangerous.

I am.
There was a time when it was serious enough that the Pope actually ran things.
Nowadays, thanks to secularism in the West, it’s much less pronounced since we don't really have religious states anymore.

Whenever people start demanding a single leader, things get potentially dangerous. It doesn't matter if it's a religion, politics, or any other ideology.

Turning off your own brain and ditching critical thinking just to follow someone else is narrow-minded and dangerous. Throughout history, that's always been a recipe for disaster. Pluralism doesn't lead to conflict or war; that requires a homogenized force, a charismatic leader, and followers with their brains washed.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Then why is it considered Hanafi in Fiqh too?

How did we even end up with this idea of an "official" forum-style Hanafi legal school anyway?

History doesn't even matter right now because the topic already has an official madhhab assigned to it, so all those historical disagreements are totally irrelevant at this point...

As far as I know and understand—that top thread is there to serve as a quick info resource in two ways: a brief introduction to Islam for non-Muslims, and theological plus practical-religious answers for Muslims... For instance, questions about when Eid is, how to congratulate someone, how to act during prayer in certain cases, what is allowed and what isn't while fasting, what Muslims believe, what they don't believe, etc., etc., etc...

Well, if you were to categorize these questions, things falling under Fiqh would basically be: how to perform prayer, what is permitted or prohibited while fasting, and questions regarding Eid. And Aqidah questions would include what Muslims believe and what they do not believe...

Regarding Fiqh questions, in our region (under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Community of Canada) which covers Canada, the US, Mexico, and Canada, the Hanafi madhhab applies (the Hanafi madhhab is most prominent in Turkey, the northern part of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent), and such legal answers are given in accordance with the Hanafi madhhab to preserve unity. You can find more about what a madhhab is at this LINK.

The opinion of another (non-Hanafi) madhhab would be, for example, in the way of performing prayer and raising hands (not to get too deep into details, it's about how often and in what manner hands are raised). The Hanafi madhhab says hands are raised only at the very beginning, while the Hanbali madhhab states this is done at every change of position in prayer. So, that is a madhhab in Fiqh.

The introductory post of the top thread didn't mention anything about Aqidah issues (about Aqidah madhhabs); instead, it was left to those who would write, and it probably wasn't intended to dive into such deep questions initially (as people are doing today). As for Aqidah teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't encroach upon the very core of the Islamic faith. Also, this democracy is expressed by focusing on the MAJORITY. When someone states (and provides clear proof for it) that something in Aqidah is the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars—that is considered Islamic belief. And when an opposing opinion appears, that person will highlight it; if they don't, someone else will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and try to push their own minority view as the official one.
People jump into judging certain opinions and even the evidence for those opinions far too easily. Things are dismissed lightly, and people are insulted easily—such behavior comes solely from a clear and genuine ignorance of the process used to reach a formulated opinion. You can't debunk an opinion based on dozens of high-quality books just using some brochure. You can't attack or insult someone's historical role without looking from multiple angles and having a detailed understanding of why they are valued... Basically, attacking an opinion requires a massive amount of intellectual honesty, and here lies the problem, because that kind of honesty is quite absent... including the intellectual kind...

Historical disagreements can only be explained through other topics, but then we’d have too many of those. The whole "Muslim" energy would just get wasted on questions like that—instead of actually presenting Islam properly as a religion. Honestly, these differences are only relevant to people who genuinely want to get to know Islam deeply and are willing to understand it... As for anyone looking at Islam with suspicion from the start? They’re just trolling... refusing to use their brains...

I wrote quite a bit, maybe a little too much... But anyway, I hope this helps with the understanding...

Kenneth Barnes7 said:As far as I know and understand—that top thread is there to serve as a quick info resource in two ways: a brief introduction to Islam for non-Muslims, and theological plus practical-religious answers for Muslims... For instance, questions about when Eid is, how to congratulate someone, how to act during prayer in certain cases, what is allowed and what isn't while fasting, what Muslims believe, what they don't believe, etc., etc., etc...

Well, if you were to categorize these questions, things falling under Fiqh would basically be: how to perform prayer, what is permitted or prohibited while fasting, and questions regarding Eid. And Aqidah questions would include what Muslims believe and what they do not believe...

Regarding Fiqh questions, in our region (under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Community of Canada) which covers Canada, the US, Mexico, and Canada, the Hanafi madhhab applies (the Hanafi madhhab is most prominent in Turkey, the northern part of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent), and such legal answers are given in accordance with the Hanafi madhhab to preserve unity. You can find more about what a madhhab is at this LINK.

The opinion of another (non-Hanafi) madhhab would be, for example, in the way of performing prayer and raising hands (not to get too deep into details, it's about how often and in what manner hands are raised). The Hanafi madhhab says hands are raised only at the very beginning, while the Hanbali madhhab states this is done at every change of position in prayer. So, that is a madhhab in Fiqh.

The introductory post of the top thread didn't mention anything about Aqidah issues (about Aqidah madhhabs); instead, it was left to those who would write, and it probably wasn't intended to dive into such deep questions initially (as people are doing today). As for Aqidah teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't encroach upon the very core of the Islamic faith. Also, this democracy is expressed by focusing on the MAJORITY. When someone states (and provides clear proof for it) that something in Aqidah is the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars—that is considered Islamic belief. And when an opposing opinion appears, that person will highlight it; if they don't, someone else will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and try to push their own minority view as the official one.
People jump into judging certain opinions and even the evidence for those opinions far too easily. Things are dismissed lightly, and people are insulted easily—such behavior comes solely from a clear and genuine ignorance of the process used to reach a formulated opinion. You can't debunk an opinion based on dozens of high-quality books just using some brochure. You can't attack or insult someone's historical role without looking from multiple angles and having a detailed understanding of why they are valued... Basically, attacking an opinion requires a massive amount of intellectual honesty, and here lies the problem, because that kind of honesty is quite absent... including the intellectual kind...

Historical disagreements can only be explained through other topics, but then we’d have too many of those. The whole "Muslim" energy would just get wasted on questions like that—instead of actually presenting Islam properly as a religion. Honestly, these differences are only relevant to people who genuinely want to get to know Islam deeply and are willing to understand it... As for anyone looking at Islam with suspicion from the start? They’re just trolling... refusing to use their brains...

I wrote quite a bit, maybe a little too much... But anyway, I hope this helps with the understanding...

Shouldn't a top topic of such importance be more precisely defined? If you moderators aren't clear on why you won't define it, then perhaps there is a problem... 😕

...
The introductory post for the top topic doesn't mention anything regarding Akaid questions (or Akaid schools); rather, that has been left to those who will write, and it likely wasn't intended at the start to dive into such deep matters (as is being done today). Regarding Akaid teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't infringe upon the core foundations of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, this democracy is shown by paying attention to the MAJORITY. When someone provides a clear proof that a certain matter in Akaid represents the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars, it is considered an Islamic belief. And when an opposing view emerges, that person will highlight it, and if they don't, others will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and attempt to push a minority stance as the official one.
...

That idea of being "democratic" is incredibly elastic... Beyond that, it is perfectly clear that the instruction was that Hanafi Akaid is Maturidi (not "very democratic"), and that is the official stance of our Islamic Community. Diluting the Akaid—which is incomparably more important than Fiqh, which is why Abu Hanifa called it the Great Fiqh—is problematic. I truly do not understand what is meant by such vague formulations; I assumed you had a better grasp of Islamic subject matter (in a well-meaning way), and I fail to see why you persistently evade answering my questions while instead choosing to hover around them... 🤷