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

rowdyhawk10 said: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.

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...

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

bluemason3 said: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.

Maybe everyone is staying quiet because only rowdyhawk10 had the guts to introduce you all to this, risking some backlash just to honestly present the truth? So, I didn't "sneakily plant" anything! Any even slightly learned Muslim knows this. It's exactly what gives us perspective for the future and brings us closer together.

Let me repeat myself: did @shady ever actually claim to be Sunni? Did he state that everything he says is spoken in that capacity, or did he simply clarify that these are his own personal opinions? Most schools would certainly allow for an individual perspective; after all, this isn't a madrasa or some religious community organization. This is a secular forum..

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:So, you're telling me that was actually logical and just common sense? ... Unbelievable.

If that's how we're playing it with Fiqh questions, then why doesn't the same logic apply to Akaid? Makes zero sense...

Same question as before—if you guys always go by the Official stances from the Islamic Community of Canada when dealing with Fiqh questions on this thread, why on earth don't you do the same thing when it comes to Akaid?...

I don't see any logic in it being any other way... 🤷

Jason Clark7 said: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... 🤷

but in my opinion, that doesn't diminish his right to express that view.

I see over in the Religion forum that rowdyhawk10 says Jason Clark7 should apologize to steelskipper5...
I don't see why Jason Clark7 should have to apologize.

Kenneth Barnes7 said:They are considered relevant; it’s just that the initial premise of the thread was built on Fiqh (legal science). The topic simply outgrew its own boundaries, bleeding into Akaid and everything else. The Islamic Community of Canada isn't as monolithic regarding Akaid matters as they are with Fiqh—though, granted, when discussing peripheral issues, the foundation remains clear—so there's more debate here. Maturidi Akaid was mentioned earlier as the official doctrine of the Islamic Community of Canada, but it wasn't brought up in the very first post. In Akaid discussions, we look at what the majority holds, citing Islamic authors to reach a conclusion.

For instance, the vast majority of scholars agree that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator of Hadith, a distinguished companion, and that the Return of Jesus before Judgment Day is confirmed by authentic Hadith. It's true these narrations don't reach the level of *mutawatir* (that absolute certainty where so many people transmit it that doubt becomes impossible), and that is the sole reason why debate can even exist.

Only claims from *mutawatir* narrations are treated as fundamental pillars of Akaid; other areas have differing views. Since @rowdyhawk10 was presenting views contrary to the vast majority of scholars, others responded with the Hadith they believe support their own convictions. Anyone with half a brain could see from the arguments presented that @rowdyhawk10's opinion wasn't the consensus of Islamic scholars, but rather a minority view. That doesn't diminish, in my opinion, his right to hold that view. The point is that this tested the conviction and knowledge of the forum members; they had a chance to see how grounded their own views were and how much they actually knew—and then we move on.

I get that this creates a feeling that sacred things are being violated, but Islam values truth above all, and Truth is one of God's names.

For instance, the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Abu Hurairah (r.a.) is a reliable narrator of hadith and a distinguished companion. Furthermore, the return of Jesus before Judgment Day is confirmed by authentic hadiths. It is true, however, that these specific reports do not reach the level of mutawatir—that absolute standard of certainty where a narration is passed down by such an immense number of people that doubt becomes impossible. It is precisely because they fall short of that mutawatir status that any discussion regarding their validity can even take place...
...

The foundations of Akaid rely exclusively on the assertions presented within Mutawatir narrations, whereas significant disagreements persist regarding other matters. Since @shady expressed views that run contrary to the vast majority of scholars, others felt compelled to respond by citing specific hadiths they believe validate their own convictions... Anyone with even a shred of common sense could see through the arguments presented; it becomes clear that @shadyev’s perspective doesn't represent the consensus of the majority of Islamic scholars, but is actually just the viewpoint of a small minority... But that doesn't diminish his right to hold that position, in my view. The point is that this served as a way for everyone here to test their own convictions and knowledge... it gave us all an opportunity to see just how well-founded our arguments really were, and how much we truly understood about the matter—and now, we move forward.

Kenneth Barnes7 said:It’s not about being flexible. I was simply saying that while we can respect different perspectives, you can still point out—using actual arguments—that those views lack a foundation or represent only a tiny minority of scholars.

Akaid is undeniably vital, but you can't compare the discussions on the Unity of God or the Return of Jesus to talks about the status of sinners before God or the origins of the Quran. There’s a nuance there—different levels of priority, foundation, and actual impact on a Muslim's daily life and faith. Sure, Muhammad mentioned the Return of Jesus in authentic hadiths, but that pulls in the whole mess of Dajjal, Jesus, and Mezuzah. It’s clear Islamic teaching isn't geared toward living our lives in constant preparation for those specific events. Honestly, in our modern lives—what does the Return of Jesus or the appearance of Dajjal actually change for us right now, assuming they even happen while we're still on this earth? Because these topics aren't considered core foundations compared to the essentials, there aren't direct verses or ambiguous hadiths driving them; they simply don't constitute the bedrock of faith. If they did, "I believe and affirm the Return of Jesus" would be the seventh article of faith, period.

Regarding the forum debate and those objections you raised in your post—I feel like I’ve answered this a thousand times in different ways. He laid out what he considers his arguments; if anyone disagrees, then step up and provide actual proof or force him to refine his points. If you have evidence, great. If you don't, then you've effectively proven that his "flawed" arguments actually hold water. The discussion regarding the Return of Jesus has branched off from the main topic of Islam, providing plenty of space for everyone to present their own claims and evidence. You don't win an argument by throwing around insults like "infidel," "ignorant," or "stupid." You win with logic. If you can't produce a real argument, you've got nothing—at least on a forum level. God knows the truth.

I'm trying to maintain some level of neutrality here for the sake of this forum—though I’ve already made my personal position clear, and I'll say it again: I agree with most scholars that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator, provided one acknowledges that hadiths undergo rigorous scrutiny. As for the role of Jesus, my view aligns with the majority consensus on that matter as well. Regardless, as a moderator, I have a duty to remain as objective as possible.

Akaid is certainly vital, yet it is fundamentally different from how the scholars of Akaid discuss the Unity of God or the Return of Jesus. It isn't the same as discussing the status of sinners before God or the origins of the Quran. There is a nuance there—varying levels of importance, foundational depth, and actual impact on the daily lives and convictions of a Muslim. Muhammad (peace be upon him) mentioned the Return of Jesus in authentic hadiths, but that realm encompasses the Dajjal, Jesus, the Mezuzah, and so on... however, it is clear that Islamic teaching isn't oriented toward that in the sense that our daily existence serves as preparation for such an event. Realistically, in our modern life—what does the Return of Jesus or the appearance of the Dajjal actually mean for us, unless they were to manifest while we are still on this earth? Precisely because of its secondary importance compared to the core foundations, there are no direct (clear) verses nor ambiguous hadiths regarding the theme of the Return of Jesus, and it simply doesn't constitute the bedrock of faith... If it did, there would be seven pillars of faith: I believe and affirm that Jesus will return, and that is that...

On a forum level, regarding the objections raised in this post where you posed certain questions to me, I am answering you for what feels like the umpteenth time in various forms: He highlighted something he believes to be arguments; those who disagree should provide evidence for their views or force him to present better arguments... If they have them, fine... And if they don't—then you have successfully proven and surpassed his, in your opinion, incorrect arguments... The topic of the Return of Jesus has branched off from the main topic of Islam, and there, everyone has a great opportunity to present evidence and claims... This isn't done by disqualifying people with labels like infidel, ignorant, uneducated, or stupid—but through argument... If you cannot present an argument, you don't exist (at least on a forum level, of course; God knows the truth).

I am attempting to maintain a neutral role here for the sake of this forum (and my personal stance has already been stated and remains unchanged: I agree with most scholars that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator, though hadiths were strictly scrutinized and continue to be; as for the role of Jesus, the majority view is also my own in this instance) because it is my duty as a moderator. I strive to be as objective as possible...

Jason Clark7 said:If you title a thread "Islam 114," how can you honestly expect questions to be limited strictly to Fiqh? It’s unrealistic to assume no one will bring up Akaid or Islamic history, and if that's the case, then the topic has essentially outgrown its own scope... So, how exactly do you plan on renaming it now? Are we calling it Super Islam 114 or something else...? 😲

For instance, the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Abu Hurairah (r.a.) is a reliable narrator of hadith and a distinguished companion. Furthermore, the return of Jesus before Judgment Day is confirmed by authentic hadiths. It is true, however, that these specific reports do not reach the level of mutawatir—that absolute standard of certainty where a narration is passed down by such an immense number of people that doubt becomes impossible. It is precisely because they fall short of that mutawatir status that any discussion regarding their validity can even take place...
...

Here is something to ponder... whether the reliability and integrity of Abu Hurairah as a companion is truly beyond question... ☕

The foundations of Akaid rely exclusively on the assertions presented within Mutawatir narrations, whereas significant disagreements persist regarding other matters. Since @shady expressed views that run contrary to the vast majority of scholars, others felt compelled to respond by citing specific hadiths they believe validate their own convictions... Anyone with even a shred of common sense could see through the arguments presented; it becomes clear that @shadyev’s perspective doesn't represent the consensus of the majority of Islamic scholars, but is actually just the viewpoint of a small minority... But that doesn't diminish his right to hold that position, in my view. The point is that this served as a way for everyone here to test their own convictions and knowledge... it gave us all an opportunity to see just how well-founded our arguments really were, and how much we truly understood about the matter—and now, we move forward.

And once again, we find ourselves circling back to my original inquiry—the one everyone seems so determined to dodge... so allow me to frame it just a bit more clearly. I am making my point...:

Answers... Other schools... This point really needs to be emphasized...

@rowdyhawk10 and those like him don't represent any kind of "school" of thought, so it goes against the very rules of this forum when an individual decides to troll here with nothing but "personal opinions"...

I cannot believe it has actually come to this... Is it truly impossible for you to distinguish between a personal opinion and the established School? If every single person asked about Islam were expected to inject their own "personal views" into the conversation, the whole topic would just devolve into chaos. You'd have everyone throwing in their own biases, spinning the truth around until the facts are unrecognizable... It would be nothing more than peak trolling.

All Islamic scholars agree that Akaid holds more weight, and one should approach it with much greater caution than Fiqh... yet here, it seems people think they can just say whatever they want regarding Akaid. It is vital that the other forum members respond—though one wonders if they always will—so that any reasonable person 😲 understands exactly what is at stake.

If you cannot cite the position of an established school or a recognized scholar, then perhaps silence is the better path, for even admitting "I do not know" is a form of knowledge itself.

Regarding your confirmation of the majority view on the Return of Jesus... rowdyhawk10 mostly lashed out and insulted that position, presenting a series of inaccuracies without offering a single quality argument:
- First, he confused the issue by claiming that there is "absolutely no basis whatsoever in the honorable Quran," suggesting it is merely "a myth that emerged quite late; somewhere around 400 years after the Hijra or perhaps even later." 🙄
- Then, he insults and discredits fundamental Islamic texts: "The story of Jesus's 'return' has no basis in any serious Muslim document." He goes as far as to say, "The truth is simply that uneducated Muslims believe Jesus will return before the end of the world."
In short, despite numerous foundational Islamic books and scholars—including even Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, the renowned and recognized work of Abu Hanifa—he treats them as trivial and portrays Abu Hanifa as ignorant, all while discussing official Hanafi matters on Islam 114. (This was moved to another topic because it provoked a mid-level debate among Muslims and caused an 'off-topic' diversion on 114). 👎

So, the individual first attempts to walk right over the majority opinion, and when met with resistance, begins to dig until he eventually denies he ever held that stance to begin with. He acts as though he has all the time in the world (as if he were on a 😍salary) to play the missionary, while expecting everyone else to spend their time citing sources and debunking his various interpretations. 🙂

I already pointed out to you above that rowdyhawk10 started by denying and insulting the validity of the majority view—are you really forcing us to respect such diversity and argue with logic?! 😵
Furthermore, 114 is not intended for Muslims to engage in argumentative back-and-forth to prove which opinions are unfounded or held by fewer scholars. Once again, there is a disregard for the established rules of this thread: "On this thread, we, as forum Muslims, will answer questions regarding Islam."

Akaid is certainly vital, yet it is fundamentally different from how the scholars of Akaid discuss the Unity of God or the Return of Jesus. It isn't the same as discussing the status of sinners before God or the origins of the Quran. There is a nuance there—varying levels of importance, foundational depth, and actual impact on the daily lives and convictions of a Muslim. Muhammad (peace be upon him) mentioned the Return of Jesus in authentic hadiths, but that realm encompasses the Dajjal, Jesus, the Mezuzah, and so on... however, it is clear that Islamic teaching isn't oriented toward that in the sense that our daily existence serves as preparation for such an event. Realistically, in our modern life—what does the Return of Jesus or the appearance of the Dajjal actually mean for us, unless they were to manifest while we are still on this earth? Precisely because of its secondary importance compared to the core foundations, there are no direct (clear) verses nor ambiguous hadiths regarding the theme of the Return of Jesus, and it simply doesn't constitute the bedrock of faith... If it did, there would be seven pillars of faith: I believe and affirm that Jesus will return, and that is that...

I agree, but the issue here is one of principle and the attitude toward the 114 topic, and the subject of Jesus happened to get caught in the crossfire. It doesn't mean much to me if someone denies the coming of Jesus, but we cannot conduct this discussion on the 114 board in the way rowowhawk10 does; that is just trolling. Today it was Jesus, tomorrow it will be many other topics, and he will continue to troll with his superficiality and shallowness, confusing the uninitiated and demoralizing those who are informed—which is clearly his goal, and you all obviously persist in wanting to help him do exactly that. THAT IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM. It’s just like when I try to draw attention to that issue and end up being met with red cards and insults involving comparisons to fascist contexts and the manners of fascist ideology... 😱

On a forum level, regarding the objections raised in this post where you posed certain questions to me, I am answering you for what feels like the umpteenth time in various forms: He highlighted something he believes to be arguments; those who disagree should provide evidence for their views or force him to present better arguments... If they have them, fine... And if they don't—then you have successfully proven and surpassed his, in your opinion, incorrect arguments... The topic of the Return of Jesus has branched off from the main topic of Islam, and there, everyone has a great opportunity to present evidence and claims... This isn't done by disqualifying people with labels like infidel, ignorant, uneducated, or stupid—but through argument... If you cannot present an argument, you don't exist (at least on a forum level, of course; God knows the truth).

Are we really expected to constantly out-argue every troll who wanders in, claiming "I am a Muslim" and insisting on providing an answer they believe is well-reasoned, while telling the rest of us to set aside our time and provide "better" arguments? What are you going to argue with someone who completely undermines all the hadiths of Abu Hurairah, Aisha, and numerous other narrators that most accept without any doubt? It is like asking us to explain fractions, multiplication, and division to someone who denies the decimal system and refuses to recognize anything beyond Roman numerals.

I am attempting to maintain a neutral role here for the sake of this forum (and my personal stance has already been stated and remains unchanged: I agree with most scholars that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator, though hadiths were strictly scrutinized and continue to be; as for the role of Jesus, the majority view is also my own in this instance) because it is my duty as a moderator. I strive to be as objective as possible...

Technically, you're right, but you aren't being neutral. You aren't holding the line, and frankly, neither are the other moderators who should be upholding the logical principles and rules of this forum. Instead, there is far too much room being given to the trolling missionary work of rowdyhawk10 and others on Islam114. I have absolutely nothing against people expressing different viewpoints, but those views should, as has been so eloquently suggested, be grounded in the Akaid school, cited from a renowned scholar, or drawn from a foundational text... rather than relying on personal, half-baked opinions—likely memorized from some random pamphlet—to undermine official stances and attempt to minimize widely recognized Sunni positions wherever possible. 🙄

Brenda Cook4 said:The Mod wrote a warning on the thread, and regarding the return of Jesus, he opened a new topic: The Return of Jesus (a.s.) to Earth in Islamic Sources..

And why would rowdyhawk10 be considered a "missionary" if everyone else's posts are just seen as "interpretations"? Does he not have the right to state his opinion? You were already told that this is a forum, not a madrasa, nor the official website of the Islamic Community, or the KC, or whatever. The issue would only arise if rowdyhawk10 were interpreting something and presenting it as the official stance, which isn't the case here. Honestly, since we'll be dealing with two PDFs now, it might be better to keep this specific thread focused strictly on the Hanafi school, and anyone who holds a different view can simply start their own topic.

rowdyhawk10 said:@Isaura
but that is why now, in all Western nations, we see young neo-fascists, proudly carrying their "crosses of truth"... We see them appearing as followers of a single church, yet this time they are fractured into thousands of different sects... Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Neocatechumenalists... all of them, whenever they find themselves in a bind...

Paul Kern12 said:Forgive my intrusion here. I notice there seems to be quite a bit of commotion surrounding rowdyhawk10—it almost appears as though he is some sort of protected figure within the religion subforum. Is it possible—and I say this without seeking any disciplinary action—to characterize a belief system that disagrees with our "protected" individual as fascist??? For instance, take today:

So, according to rowdyhawk10, all young Christians are neo-fascists...
I have noticed that he tends to use such labels for anyone who holds a differing opinion.
In my view, this style of writing is simply not appropriate—nor does it seem fitting for someone who claims to be a believer.

steelskipper5 said:Look, personally, I don't see anything wrong with that post—aside from maybe debating the specific list he made. But in principle? Nothing's incorrect. Calling them neo-fascists is just hyperbole for extremists, and let's face it, you can find extremist sects everywhere. Actually, almost any sect is more extreme than its parent organization in one way or another, by definition.

Paul Kern12 said:You might want to read that a bit more closely. He is claiming that all Christians—followers of a single church—are neo-fascists. Now, you certainly have every right to your own worldview, and I suppose that isn't really up for debate. However, it seems quite unfair to assert that those who hold different beliefs than yours are, in fact, neo-fascists.

steelskipper5 said:At worst, I guess you could conclude he's speaking in generalities, but there isn't some universal quantifier in his post. So, he isn't actually claiming what you're trying to pin on him. ☕

Paul Kern12 said:😕 Your perspective... Well, I am not imputing anything to him; I am simply reading what was actually written.
Admittedly, I didn't copy the entire post, but—at least to my mind—it seems quite clear what the poet intended to convey.

steelskipper5 said:Those two sentences you wrote are in direct contradiction. ☕

Paul Kern12 said:Forgive my intrusion here. I notice there seems to be quite a bit of commotion surrounding rowdyhawk10—it almost appears as though he is some sort of protected figure within the religion subforum. Is it possible—and I say this without seeking any disciplinary action—to characterize a belief system that disagrees with our "protected" individual as fascist??? For instance, take today:

So, according to rowdyhawk10, all young Christians are neo-fascists...
I have noticed that he tends to use such labels for anyone who holds a differing opinion.
In my view, this style of writing is simply not appropriate—nor does it seem fitting for someone who claims to be a believer.

rowdyhawk10 said:With the Paris Commune, the church was brought to its knees and looked like it was finished. Same with Mussolini. With Hitler, even more so! But it rose from the ashes and grew even stronger. The French Revolution is slowly fading, but instead, we see young neo-fascists in all Western countries now, proudly carrying their "crosses of truth"... We see them as followers of one church, but this time split into thousands of different sects... Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Neocatechumenalists...

Bulgarian Christians - neo-fascists (click)

Paul Kern12 said:So what...
It seems contradictory to me too—the way you two support one another so intensely—and how you're essentially acting as his defense attorney.
When someone writes that they see young neo-fascists emerging within the ranks of a certain church (which, I suppose, is currently fractured into a thousand different sects) who might eventually reunite once things settle down...

The text itself is as clear as it can possibly be, though you are free to interpret it however you wish—you certainly have that right.

Michael Anderson2 said: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... 😁

rather than through regressive displays of faith or injustice, such as how some people express it here. Regards