Brazil Goes Fascist

[Mr.Anderson]

The coalition of the killing gets new members.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attending the inauguration of Bolsanaro.

There was a map here but I had to erase it because the post was too big.

People in Brazil are contracting previously erradicated diseases like measles and mumps, which is a big deal by the way.

These migrants are carrying diseases, increasing crime rates, increasing unemployment rates... our borders are open doors, anyone can pass trough and the border patrol has a issued law where it is forbidden to them to point a gun to a person (?)

I didn't knew that Mike Pompeo was here, I didn't even heard about him before. That is actually good news. The dude in the video has no idea of what he is talking about. People are dying in Venezuela as you read this, they are eating rotten meat, dog meat, cat meat, wathever they can lend their hands on and our previous governors, Lula and Dilma, endorsed Maduro. While our own country was being torn apart he was financing oil refineries. Oh, actually Dilma and Lula reeeeally l-o-v-e-d to send our money to aid other countries. This time I'll present you ENGLISH sources! yay.

This is venezuela in 2016-2017. it's worse today:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2128-my-wealthy-country-became-dystopia-6-realities.html
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2379-my-mango-tree-could-kill-me-life-when-food-runs-out.html.

THEN CHECK OUT MADURO PARTYING WITH SALT BAE!

Thing is. The venezuelan crisis is affecting the whole south america, brazil included. I could write some more but most of it would be sarcastic commentary and slighty personal offenses and comparison to reinforce how bad it is but I think this is enough.

Oh, and while the venezuelan crisis is outta there my state is literally being set ablaze by criminals.

 

[DesertRose]

I didn't knew that Mike Pompeo was here, I didn't even heard about him before. That is actually good news.

Mr. Anderson there is a difference between domestic policies and foreign relations.
I find it interesting that Pompeo went to Brazil.
Pompeo is a warmonger who advocates regime changes, is against climate change, reversed human rights and support wars past, present and future.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

Mr. Anderson there is a difference between domestic policies and foreign relations.
I find it interesting that Pompeo went to Brazil.
Pompeo is a warmonger who advocates regime changes, is against climate change, reversed human rights and support wars past, present and future.

I wonder if they talked about “doing something” about Venezuela?

 

[Etagloc]

Mr. Anderson there is a difference between domestic policies and foreign relations.
I find it interesting that Pompeo went to Brazil.
Pompeo is a warmonger who advocates regime changes, is against climate change, reversed human rights and support wars past, present and future.

It's one thing to accept for other people to starve but it's another thing to accept it for yourself.

If the Venezuelans, The Cubans or whatever group decide they are willing to starve for extreme-leftist causes- it's their decision. But it's also their decision if they would rather not starve for the sake of some Godless, foreign ideologies made up by Jews.

If the Brazilians end up starving- we're not going to be the ones starving. They're going to be the ones living with the results so they're the ones who should decide. It's their lives and it's their country. If this was Muslims versus non-Muslims, of course I'd support the Muslims. But this is one set of kuffar against another set of kuffar.

You let the leftists have power and they'll push all kinds of degenerate filth and destroy the local culture, religious values and family structure. And you look behind the scenes and you'll see a bunch of Jews on either side, what difference does it make if one side is openly Zionist when the other side is crypto-Zionist.

The whole dialectic is controlled and the whole Iran-Russia bloc, US-Is bloc conflict is a charade- so the Shia-Russia bloc gets no sort of moral authority. And plus they're Shia. They're over there in Yemen killing Sunnis. I go to a Yemeni mosque and I go to a whole mosque full of Yemeni immigrants who can't stand what the Houthis are doing. Those people are fighting for Shia interests and for Shia power. Saudi isn't perfect but even a Yemeni who I know who had some gripes with Saudi wouldn't support the Houthis over Saudi. Aisha is the mother of the believers. How can we support people who hate Aisha? I don't wish harm on the Shia but if the Shia start a war with Sunnis (which is what happened)- it's a no-brainer I'm going to support the Sunnis. How can we side with people waging a war against Sunni Islam? That would be like a chicken supporting KFC.

And then what are they (and I'm talking about the bloc) doing in China?

They are throwing Muslims in concentration camps. So.... you cite wrong-doing done by the US side.... but you want Brazil to side with the people throwing Muslims in concentration camps?

I'm not even saying your position isn't valid. But even if I say it's reasonable... this is a choice between one side that's killing Muslims and throwing Muslims in concentration camps.... and another Muslim-killing side.

So it's one set of Muslim-killers or another set of Muslim-killers.

So there is not any sort of moral authority on either side.... there's no super clear-cut pro-Muslim choice.

So honestly it's a choice between two bad options..... hmmm.... do I want to support overt Zionists or crypto-Zionists and Raafidis........

personally.... Saudi might not be perfect and Iran might not be perfect..... but Iran is Shia, so.....

personally I am with Henry Makow in the opinion that the conservative side is the lesser of the two evils..... anyways, I think it's up to Brazilians and deciding whether or not you want to starve for the sake of Godless, foreign, extreme left degenerate ideologies that are alien to the Brazilians and that I doubt the average Brazilian cares about- I think that is a personal choice... we're not the ones who will be starving... and I seriously doubt anyone is going to care about far left ideology when they're hungry and all they can think about is food.... I'm not pro-Israel but I don't think I can ask other people to starve.... and the Iran-Russian bloc and the US-Israel bloc are both tentacles of the same NWO Zionist beast so it doesn't make a huge difference either way.... people might as well have something to eat and people might as well not end up murdered due to violence... if you were in Brazil and it was you facing violence and starvation, I don't think you'd have the same position.... and the same for Valerio

and DR I respect you and I support you.... and I mean zero disrespect..... but I do differ on this issue

 

[DesertRose]

They are throwing Muslims in concentration camps. So.... you cite wrong-doing done by the US side.... but you want Brazil to side with the people throwing Muslims in concentration camps?

Reminder of Islamic end times:
"The truce and joint Roman-Muslim campaign against a common enemy, followed by al-Malhama al-Kubra (Armageddon), a Roman vs. Muslim war."
That common enemy could be China and their move to put the Uighurs in concentration camps is to neutralize their fight for a future away from oppressive rule.

personally.... Saudi might not be perfect and Iran might not be perfect..... but Iran is Shia, so.....

That issue is not as simple as you make it. Sunni Muslims are against both regimes and Saudi leadership is not Islamic they are usurpers. There is no allegiance to them they do not allow for Allah's governance on earth. Their laws are a mix of English, French canon law along with misapplied shariah. . At the moment there is no Dar al Islam since the time of the Ottomans.(Topic not for this thread)

The whole dialectic is controlled and the whole Iran-Russia bloc, US-Is bloc conflict is a charade-

With this I agree they are all controlled by those who want to bring on these wars.

If the Brazilians end up starving- we're not going to be the ones starving. They're going to be the ones living with the results so they're the ones who should decide. It's their lives and it's their country. If this was Muslims versus non-Muslims, of course I'd support the Muslims. But this is one set of kuffar against another set of kuffa

Once again as I told Mr. Anderson I am not looking at the domestic left/right paradigm and issues. I was strictly looking at foreign affairs.
He is infringing on Muslim issues.
'The decision is taken': Brazil to move its embassy to Jerusalem, says Bolsonaro

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/decision-taken-brazil-move-its-embassy-jerusalem-says-bolsonaro-811300968[/

and DR I respect you and I support you.... and I mean zero disrespect..... but I do differ on this issue

Okay. We can differ but I was not talking domestic.
BTW I am not siding with anyone just observing the moves including that of embassies.
Barak Allah feek for your courtesy.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

It's one thing to accept for other people to starve but it's another thing to accept it for yourself.

If the Venezuelans, The Cubans or whatever group decide they are willing to starve for extreme-leftist causes- it's their decision. But it's also their decision if they would rather not starve for the sake of some Godless, foreign ideologies made up by Jews.

If the Brazilians end up starving- we're not going to be the ones starving. They're going to be the ones living with the results so they're the ones who should decide. It's their lives and it's their country. If this was Muslims versus non-Muslims, of course I'd support the Muslims. But this is one set of kuffar against another set of kuffar.

You let the leftists have power and they'll push all kinds of degenerate filth and destroy the local culture, religious values and family structure. And you look behind the scenes and you'll see a bunch of Jews on either side, what difference does it make if one side is openly Zionist when the other side is crypto-Zionist.

The whole dialectic is controlled and the whole Iran-Russia bloc, US-Is bloc conflict is a charade- so the Shia-Russia bloc gets no sort of moral authority. And plus they're Shia. They're over there in Yemen killing Sunnis. I go to a Yemeni mosque and I go to a whole mosque full of Yemeni immigrants who can't stand what the Houthis are doing. Those people are fighting for Shia interests and for Shia power. Saudi isn't perfect but even a Yemeni who I know who had some gripes with Saudi wouldn't support the Houthis over Saudi. Aisha is the mother of the believers. How can we support people who hate Aisha? I don't wish harm on the Shia but if the Shia start a war with Sunnis (which is what happened)- it's a no-brainer I'm going to support the Sunnis. How can we side with people waging a war against Sunni Islam? That would be like a chicken supporting KFC.

And then what are they (and I'm talking about the bloc) doing in China?

They are throwing Muslims in concentration camps. So.... you cite wrong-doing done by the US side.... but you want Brazil to side with the people throwing Muslims in concentration camps?

I'm not even saying your position isn't valid. But even if I say it's reasonable... this is a choice between one side that's killing Muslims and throwing Muslims in concentration camps.... and another Muslim-killing side.

So it's one set of Muslim-killers or another set of Muslim-killers.

So there is not any sort of moral authority on either side.... there's no super clear-cut pro-Muslim choice.

So honestly it's a choice between two bad options..... hmmm.... do I want to support overt Zionists or crypto-Zionists and Raafidis........

personally.... Saudi might not be perfect and Iran might not be perfect..... but Iran is Shia, so.....

personally I am with Henry Makow in the opinion that the conservative side is the lesser of the two evils..... anyways, I think it's up to Brazilians and deciding whether or not you want to starve for the sake of Godless, foreign, extreme left degenerate ideologies that are alien to the Brazilians and that I doubt the average Brazilian cares about- I think that is a personal choice... we're not the ones who will be starving... and I seriously doubt anyone is going to care about far left ideology when they're hungry and all they can think about is food.... I'm not pro-Israel but I don't think I can ask other people to starve.... and the Iran-Russian bloc and the US-Israel bloc are both tentacles of the same NWO Zionist beast so it doesn't make a huge difference either way.... people might as well have something to eat and people might as well not end up murdered due to violence... if you were in Brazil and it was you facing violence and starvation, I don't think you'd have the same position.... and the same for Valerio

and DR I respect you and I support you.... and I mean zero disrespect..... but I do differ on this issue

"If this was Muslims versus non-Muslims, of course I'd support the Muslims. But this is one set of kuffar against another set of kuffar."
Every child under the age of knowledge is considered a Muslim and is to be accorded all the rights thereof. Period.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

There was a map here but I had to erase it because the post was too big.

People in Brazil are contracting previously erradicated diseases like measles and mumps, which is a big deal by the way.

These migrants are carrying diseases, increasing crime rates, increasing unemployment rates... our borders are open doors, anyone can pass trough and the border patrol has a issued law where it is forbidden to them to point a gun to a person (?)

I didn't knew that Mike Pompeo was here, I didn't even heard about him before. That is actually good news. The dude in the video has no idea of what he is talking about. People are dying in Venezuela as you read this, they are eating rotten meat, dog meat, cat meat, wathever they can lend their hands on and our previous governors, Lula and Dilma, endorsed Maduro. While our own country was being torn apart he was financing oil refineries. Oh, actually Dilma and Lula reeeeally l-o-v-e-d to send our money to aid other countries. This time I'll present you ENGLISH sources! yay.

This is venezuela in 2016-2017. it's worse today:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2128-my-wealthy-country-became-dystopia-6-realities.html
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2379-my-mango-tree-could-kill-me-life-when-food-runs-out.html.

THEN CHECK OUT MADURO PARTYING WITH SALT BAE!

Thing is. The venezuelan crisis is affecting the whole south america, brazil included. I could write some more but most of it would be sarcastic commentary and slighty personal offenses and comparison to reinforce how bad it is but I think this is enough.

Oh, and while the venezuelan crisis is outta there my state is literally being set ablaze by criminals.

Pompeo is a corrupt criminal and a traitorous sell-out. I didn't know the scoop there so I thank you for educating me on a perspective that I was ignorant of before you shared it with me. But advise I can give that is actually meaningful is this: Dont trust the Trump regime or anyone from the American political machine. At all. If you want to right your national ship, it will come from the efforts and resolve of the Brazilian people to do so in spite of what the corrupt powers of the world have in-store for yall, not because of it.

 

[Mr.Anderson]

Dont trust the Trump regime or anyone from the American political machine. At all.

Could you please elaborate? I honestly think him as a good change, but i'm increasingly seeing sensible people saying otherwise. One person on twitter said "we need one Bolsonaro here in the USA. The big difference between Jair and Trump is because people in washington dc don't fear trump anymore" or something like that.

So far pompeo and other important man came here (Quick check: John Bolton). Bolton is weird because he keeps doing that glasses thing.

 

[Mr.Anderson]

Once again as I told Mr. Anderson I am not looking at the domestic left/right paradigm and issues. I was strictly looking at foreign affairs.
He is infringing on Muslim issues.
'The decision is taken': Brazil to move its embassy to Jerusalem, says Bolsonaro

I'm sorry but only now I understood your previous comment. Could you please tell me more about this? There is a big discussion here about this embassy transfer. Some people are against it and other aren't, even among his suporters.

Oh, I did some research, this is about recognizing the palestinian/israeli state. Sadly this is bigger than me, so I really can't give a good, based opinion about biroliro and this decision. I'm personally against the transfer.

I recall headlines about the arab league advising against it, as it would strain relations.

 

[DesertRose]

I'm sorry but only now I understood your previous comment.

No problem and welcome to this forum!
That move would strain relations but is strictly symbolic for now.
Will keep you posted if I see more foreign relations moves.

I'm personally against the transfer.

Thank you.

 

[Etagloc]

"If this was Muslims versus non-Muslims, of course I'd support the Muslims. But this is one set of kuffar against another set of kuffar."
Every child under the age of knowledge is considered a Muslim and is to be accorded all the rights thereof. Period.

I think you just casually made up a doctine. Islam is serious. Don't just casually make up doctrines. A newborn baby at the moment of birth is a Muslim. A 6-year-old kid is not a newborn-baby at the moment of the birth.

You can't just casually make stuff up.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I think you just casually made up a doctine. Islam is serious. Don't just casually make up doctrines. A newborn baby at the moment of birth is a Muslim. A 6-year-old kid is not a newborn-baby at the moment of the birth.

You can't just casually make stuff up.

Well since you posted nothing to backup your claims, Im guessing its you who is innovating the Muslim faith eh?
All children are to be considered Muslims and afforded the rights thereof until the reach the "age of knowledge" right? Thats generally thought to be around 12-13 by Muslim scholars, but this rule goes back directly to the days of Muhammad doesnt it?

 

[Etagloc]

Well since you posted nothing to backup your claims, Im guessing its you who is innovating the Muslim faith eh?
All children are to be considered Muslims and afforded the rights thereof until the reach the "age of knowledge" right? Thats generally thought to be around 12-13 by Muslim scholars, but this rule goes back directly to the days of Muhammad doesnt it?

Huh? Which scholars?

Can you show any source? Any hadith?

The burden of proof is on you. You are making a positive claim.

If you claim that in Islam, people who get killed by stingrays are considered martyrs- you should show proof. You are making a positive claim.

I don't have to cite a Quran verse or a hadith that says "people who get killed by stingrays are not martyrs".

Seriously. Can you show any evidence backing up your claim? Why do you not want to show evidence?

And no I don't believe that alleged rule ever existed at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I think you just made it up. Show proof.

If someone says "people who get killed by stingrays are considered martyrs" or "whoever says 'Allah' 100 times will have their sins removed" I don't need to cite a Quran verse or a hadith that specifically says people who get killed by stingrays are not considered martyrs or specifically saying that saying 'Allah' 100 times won't get your sins removed.

Can you show me a Quran verse or a hadith that says people who get killed by stingrays are not considered martyrs? You can't find a single Quran verse or hadith that says people who get killed by stingrays are not considered martyrs.

Honestly, I'm like 99.9% sure you literally just made something up out of your imagination. It would take you like 10 seconds to copy and paste a source.

According to your logic, if I claimed people who get killed by stingrays are considered martyrs and you didn't go along with it, you would be an innovator.

I'm like 99.9% sure you just made something up. You don't even care that you don't have evidence.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Huh? Which scholars?

Can you show any source? Any hadith?

The burden of proof is on you. You are making a positive claim.

If you claim that in Islam, people who get killed by stingrays are considered martyrs- you should show proof. You are making a positive claim.

I don't have to cite a Quran verse or a hadith that says "people who get killed by stingrays are not martyrs".

Seriously. Can you show any evidence backing up your claim? Why do you not want to show evidence?

And no I don't believe that alleged rule ever existed at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I think you just made it up. Show proof.

If someone says "people who get killed by stingrays are considered martyrs" or "whoever says 'Allah' 100 times will have their sins removed" I don't need to cite a Quran verse or a hadith that specifically says people who get killed by stingrays are not considered martyrs or specifically saying that saying 'Allah' 100 times won't get your sins removed.

Can you show me a Quran verse or a hadith that says people who get killed by stingrays are not considered martyrs? You can't find a single Quran verse or hadith that says people who get killed by stingrays are not considered martyrs.

Honestly, I'm like 99.9% sure you literally just made something up out of your imagination. It would take you like 10 seconds to copy and paste a source.

According to your logic, if I claimed people who get killed by stingrays are considered martyrs and you didn't go along with it, you would be an innovator.

I'm like 99.9% sure you just made something up. You don't even care that you don't have evidence.

"If a child does not pray before the age of puberty, that does not put him beyond the pale of Islam, because he is not accountable for doing it and it is not obligatory for him."

 

[Etagloc]

"If a child does not pray before the age of puberty, that does not put him beyond the pale of Islam, because he is not accountable for doing it and it is not obligatory for him."

You're being very bold.

It's strange that you just post the quote without linking to the source or even citing the source. I think you clearly had things to hide and I think I demonstrate that below.

Fortunately, I have the source. I question whether you even care about the truth. The source is talking about children with one or more Muslim parent(s).

First, you made up a doctrine without any evidence- and attacked me unjustly on the basis of the doctrine you made up.

Then you refused to provide evidence.

And now you've taken a quote out of context and seriously tried to twist it from its intended meaning. You're not an idiot. There is no way you read the source and didn't understand what it was talking about. And you took the quote out of context, tried to twist it against its intended meaning. Even from that, I think it was clear that you knew what you were you doing and that you were disregarding even being honest. And then you didn't post the link, as though you didn't want people to see how you took the quote out of its context and tried to twist it from its intended meaning.

Anyone who reads the out-of-context quote that you responded with and who reads the context will be able to see that you are either an incredible idiot- an incredible idiot who is an incredible idiot even compared to Forrest Gump- or that you have taken an approach which is shameless and dishonest, not even caring about the truth.

And you're not an idiot. You have shown yourself to be dishonest and I am done with discussing with a person who doesn't even care about the truth.

I am insulted that you would seem to think that I am so stupid that I would not catch your act of shameless dishonesty and not call you out on it. I can understand if a person is sincere and makes an honest mistake. But you've shown that you're not even honest. I don't even know if you're really a Muslim. You could be lying about that. Even when a dishonest person tells the truth, it's hard to know.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130231/a-small-child-follows-the-religion-of-whichever-of-his-parents-is-muslim

A small child follows the religion of whichever of his parents is Muslim

Question

I was wondering whether it was necessary for a child raised by two muslim parents to declare their shahada upon reaching puberty. What about a child raised in a home where the father is muslim but the mother is not and the father has not enforced the prayer from the age of 10 and the children do not pray?.
Answer
Similar Answers
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: The child who is born to two Muslim parents is ruled to be a Muslim, according to scholarly consensus.

If the parents have different religions, then the child follows the one who is Muslim, whether it is the father or the mother.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If the child's parents are both Muslims, then he is Muslim too, following his parents, according to the consensus of the Muslims. The same applies if his mother is Muslim, according to the majority of scholars such as Abu Haneefah, al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad. End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 10/437.

It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah (4/270): The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that if the father becomes Muslim and he has young children, then these children are to be regarded as Muslim, following their father.

The majority (the Hanafis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis) are of the view that what counts is the Islam of one of the parents, whether it is the father or mother, so the children are to be regarded as Muslims, following the parent, because Islam should prevail and not be prevailed over, because it is the religion of Allah that He is pleased with for His slaves.

Secondly: When the Muslim child reaches the age of puberty, he is not required to utter the Shahaadatayn again.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: The Muslims are unanimously agreed that if a child reaches the age of puberty as a Muslim, he is not required to renew the Shahaadatayn. End quote from Dar’ al-Ta’aarud, 4/107.

And he said: The early generation and the imams are unanimously agreed that the first thing to be enjoined upon people is the Shahaadatayn, and they are agreed that if a person did that before reaching puberty, he should not be enjoined to renew that when he reaches puberty. End quote from Dar’ al-Ta’aarud, 4/107

But if after reaching puberty he says or does something that indicates that he is not content with Islam, then he is to be regarded as an apostate and is to be treated as one who has apostatised from the religion of Islam.

Shaykh al-Islam said: In terms of worldly rulings, the child comes under the same rulings as his parents, because he is not independent. When he reaches puberty and speaks words of Islam or disbelief, then he is to be judged on that basis, according to the consensus of the Muslims. If his parents are Jews or Christians, but he becomes Muslim, then he is a Muslim according to Muslim consensus. If they are Muslims and he becomes a kaafir, then he is a kaafir according to Muslim consensus. End quote from al-Fataawa al-Kubra, 1/64

Thirdly: When the child reaches the age of seven, his parents should instruct him to pray and encourage him to do so, because of the report narrated by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Instruct your children to pray when they are seven years old and smack them if they do not do it when they are ten.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (495); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood (466).

Al-Nawawi said: The imams said: It is obligatory for the fathers and mothers to teach their children about purification, prayer and other laws after the age of seven, and to smack them if they do not do them after the age of ten. End quote from al-Majmoo’, 3/11.

Ibn Qudaamah said: This discipline is prescribed for the child in order to accustom him to prayer, so that he will feel comfortable with it and get used to it, and he will not neglect it when he reaches puberty, but it is not obligatory upon him. Al-Mughni, 1/682

If a child does not pray before the age of puberty, that does not put him beyond the pale of Islam, because he is not accountable for doing it and it is not obligatory for him.

Shaykh al-Islam said: Prayer is not obligatory for a child, even if he has reached the age of ten. This is the view of the majority of scholars.

Al-Ikhtiyaaraat al-Fiqhiyyah, 1/32; see also the answer to question number 1994.

Based on this, the child who has a Muslim father and a non-Muslim mother is a Muslim. If he reaches the age of ten and does not pray, he is not a kaafir because of his not praying, because he is not accountable for that until he reaches the age of puberty. If he reaches the age of puberty and persists in not praying, then he is an apostate from Islam because of not praying.

And Allah knows best.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

You're being very bold.

It's strange that you just post the quote without linking to the source or even citing the source. I think you clearly had things to hide and I think I demonstrate that below.

Fortunately, I have the source. I question whether you even care about the truth. The source is talking about children with one or more Muslim parent(s).

First, you made up a doctrine without any evidence- and attacked me unjustly on the basis of the doctrine you made up.

Then you refused to provide evidence.

And now you've taken a quote out of context and seriously tried to twist it from its intended meaning. You're not an idiot. There is no way you read the source and didn't understand what it was talking about. And you took the quote out of context, tried to twist it against its intended meaning. Even from that, I think it was clear that you knew what you were you doing and that you were disregarding even being honest. And then you didn't post the link, as though you didn't want people to see how you took the quote out of its context and tried to twist it from its intended meaning.

Anyone who reads the out-of-context quote that you responded with and who reads the context will be able to see that you are either an incredible idiot- an incredible idiot who is an incredible idiot even compared to Forrest Gump- or that you have taken an approach which is shameless and dishonest, not even caring about the truth.

And you're not an idiot. You have shown yourself to be dishonest and I am done with discussing with a person who doesn't even care about the truth.

I am insulted that you would seem to think that I am so stupid that I would not catch your act of shameless dishonesty and not call you out on it. I can understand if a person is sincere and makes an honest mistake. But you've shown that you're not even honest. I don't even know if you're really a Muslim. You could be lying about that. Even when a dishonest person tells the truth, it's hard to know.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130231/a-small-child-follows-the-religion-of-whichever-of-his-parents-is-muslim

A small child follows the religion of whichever of his parents is Muslim

Question

I was wondering whether it was necessary for a child raised by two muslim parents to declare their shahada upon reaching puberty. What about a child raised in a home where the father is muslim but the mother is not and the father has not enforced the prayer from the age of 10 and the children do not pray?.
Answer
Similar Answers
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: The child who is born to two Muslim parents is ruled to be a Muslim, according to scholarly consensus.

If the parents have different religions, then the child follows the one who is Muslim, whether it is the father or the mother.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If the child's parents are both Muslims, then he is Muslim too, following his parents, according to the consensus of the Muslims. The same applies if his mother is Muslim, according to the majority of scholars such as Abu Haneefah, al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad. End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 10/437.

It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah (4/270): The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that if the father becomes Muslim and he has young children, then these children are to be regarded as Muslim, following their father.

The majority (the Hanafis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis) are of the view that what counts is the Islam of one of the parents, whether it is the father or mother, so the children are to be regarded as Muslims, following the parent, because Islam should prevail and not be prevailed over, because it is the religion of Allah that He is pleased with for His slaves.

Secondly: When the Muslim child reaches the age of puberty, he is not required to utter the Shahaadatayn again.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: The Muslims are unanimously agreed that if a child reaches the age of puberty as a Muslim, he is not required to renew the Shahaadatayn. End quote from Dar’ al-Ta’aarud, 4/107.

And he said: The early generation and the imams are unanimously agreed that the first thing to be enjoined upon people is the Shahaadatayn, and they are agreed that if a person did that before reaching puberty, he should not be enjoined to renew that when he reaches puberty. End quote from Dar’ al-Ta’aarud, 4/107

But if after reaching puberty he says or does something that indicates that he is not content with Islam, then he is to be regarded as an apostate and is to be treated as one who has apostatised from the religion of Islam.

Shaykh al-Islam said: In terms of worldly rulings, the child comes under the same rulings as his parents, because he is not independent. When he reaches puberty and speaks words of Islam or disbelief, then he is to be judged on that basis, according to the consensus of the Muslims. If his parents are Jews or Christians, but he becomes Muslim, then he is a Muslim according to Muslim consensus. If they are Muslims and he becomes a kaafir, then he is a kaafir according to Muslim consensus. End quote from al-Fataawa al-Kubra, 1/64

Thirdly: When the child reaches the age of seven, his parents should instruct him to pray and encourage him to do so, because of the report narrated by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Instruct your children to pray when they are seven years old and smack them if they do not do it when they are ten.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (495); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood (466).

Al-Nawawi said: The imams said: It is obligatory for the fathers and mothers to teach their children about purification, prayer and other laws after the age of seven, and to smack them if they do not do them after the age of ten. End quote from al-Majmoo’, 3/11.

Ibn Qudaamah said: This discipline is prescribed for the child in order to accustom him to prayer, so that he will feel comfortable with it and get used to it, and he will not neglect it when he reaches puberty, but it is not obligatory upon him. Al-Mughni, 1/682

If a child does not pray before the age of puberty, that does not put him beyond the pale of Islam, because he is not accountable for doing it and it is not obligatory for him.

Shaykh al-Islam said: Prayer is not obligatory for a child, even if he has reached the age of ten. This is the view of the majority of scholars.

Al-Ikhtiyaaraat al-Fiqhiyyah, 1/32; see also the answer to question number 1994.

Based on this, the child who has a Muslim father and a non-Muslim mother is a Muslim. If he reaches the age of ten and does not pray, he is not a kaafir because of his not praying, because he is not accountable for that until he reaches the age of puberty. If he reaches the age of puberty and persists in not praying, then he is an apostate from Islam because of not praying.

And Allah knows best.

I could care less about your ramblings.
You keep asking for sources? I follow what the Quran says about the youth, especially the orphans and children in need, the children whom suffer. It says to be kind to them all and especially those of the youth who suffer the most. If you have no money or resources to give, at least rub their heads gently and give them kind words. Thats from the Quran (or at least the translations I have read) so I could truly care less about your cold hearted interpretations of some cold hearted "Imams" declared "fatwa". Quran supersedes your cornball interpretations of Islam.

When you losers argue cruelty/indifference towards children based on weirdo interpretations of monotheistic faith, you lose all credibility.

Edit: I posted the "quote" in "quotes" and figured that it was sufficient. I didn't try and "hide" the source because if I wanted it to remain hidden, I wouldn't have posted the "quote" in the first place Inspector Gadget.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/will-brazils-new-president-usher-in-a-return-to-dictatorship/

 

[UnderAlienControl]

Brazil’s Bolsonaro loosens gun laws in homicide-plagued nation
https://www.rt.com/news/448884-brazil-bolsonaro-gun-ownership-decree/

Brazil's Bolsonaro Blasts Left's "Marxist Indoctrination... Enslaving Kids To Welfare Dependence"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-14/brazils-bolsonaro-blasts-lefts-marxist-indoctrination-enslaving-kids-welfare

Maduro calls Bolsonaro ‘modern-day Hitler’ after Brazil lends support to opposition leader
https://www.rt.com/news/448815-bolsonaro-modern-hitler-maduro/

 

[mecca]

 

[Mr.Anderson]

I wonder how much long it will take for the Marielle topic turn up here too