Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[godelian]

The "West" the West, to you the "West" is evil, ugly, bad and shit.

The ruling mafia in the West is objectively detestable for exactly the reasons that Machiavelli pointed out in "The Prince":

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
Machiavelli, The Prince

Now, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches.

It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

The prince must not interfere with property or private life, or else the prince will be hated above all things and utmost contemptible. This is, however, exactly what the ruling mafia in the West does. Hence, I am perfectly justified to hate the ruling mafia in the West and to demand regime change.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The "West" the West, to you the "West" is evil, ugly, bad and shit.

The ruling mafia in the West is objectively detestable for exactly the reasons that Machiavelli pointed out in "The Prince":

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
Machiavelli, The Prince

Now, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches.

It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

The prince must not interfere with property or private life, or else the prince will be hated above all things and utmost contemptible. This is, however, exactly what the ruling mafia in the West does. Hence, I am perfectly justified to hate the ruling mafia in the West and to demand regime change.

Your is a fallacy of hasty generalization.

You need to specific which leader or government in the 'West' interfere with property or private life and advocate change if it is terrible.

The worst kind of leader and government at present is that of an Islamic Government that adhere fully to the laws of the Quran or its Ahadith which interfere in the private life, human rights and freedom of the individuals.

If there are any terrible government in the West, we need to change to a government with good moral compass but definitely should not change to an Islamic driven government.

[godelian]

You need to specific which leader or government in the 'West' interfere with property

The US and the EU certainly do. I can give you countless examples. One example is civil forfeiture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_for ... ted_States

If you drive around with enough cash in your car, law enforcement can seize it and never return it to you. The reason why they do this, is because they want you to use the bankstering system to transfer money. They effectively outlaw any alternative to using the bankstering cartel. In theory, it is because large amounts of cash could be of criminal origin. In practice, that is obviously not what it is about. It is just an excuse to prevent you from bypassing the bankstering cartel. If you store your savings at home in gold, like previous generations used to do, law enforcement can seize it and never give it back. It is the same system of canceling the presumption of innocence and reversing the burden of evidence. You must prove that the gold is not of criminal origin. There is absolutely no need for the prosecutor to show any evidence that your gold or cash savings are of criminal origin.

or private life

The problem goes beyond the well-known divorce-rape system. If as a man, you live with a woman, she can call the police to claim domestic violence, get you arrested and keep you out of your own house. Again, the burden of evidence will be reversed and the presumption of innocence cancelled. You will have to prove that the accusation is false, which is obviously not possible.

advocate change if it is terrible.

Won't help. We've known for decades that property can be seized and private life can be disturbed for no reason.

In violation of existing legal traditions, modern western law often reverses the burden of evidence and cancels the presumption of innocence. A modern western accusation always sticks. You cannot defend against it. Another example. You get accused of money laundering. This is always true by default, unless you prove that it is not, which you generally cannot. Terrorism. Same thing. Domestic violence. Same thing. The list is essentially endless.

This is not even about switching to an Islamic legal system. This is simply about going back less than 100 years and reinstating the original legal system in the West. But then again, if you do switch to any other system, one of the bonus points will indeed be that the presumption of innocence will be restored and that the burden of evidence will fall on the prosecutor and not on the defendant.

The modern West has created a horrible legal system. Is it inferior to Islamic law? Well, it is systematically inferior to any possible alternative. So, that is not even a specific question. It is simply a general pattern.

So, yes, I even prefer traditional Buddhist law to modern western law. I do not even need to study its specifics because it cannot possibly be worse.

[godelian]

If there are any terrible government in the West, we need to change to a government with good moral compass

That cannot be done. You are up against the banksters and the feminists. These special interest groups are conspiring against you and have taken over the legal system. Hence, your property rights and your private life have been effectively abolished. That is indeed terrible and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.

Seriously, the West versus Islam is a false dichotomy. Anything else is better than the West.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are any terrible government in the West, we need to change to a government with good moral compass

That cannot be done. You are up against the banksters and the feminists. These special interest groups are conspiring against you and have taken over the legal system. Hence, your property rights and your private life have been effectively abolished. That is indeed terrible and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.

Seriously, the West versus Islam is a false dichotomy. Anything else is better than the West.

As I had stated it is intellectually bankrupt and unwise to lump everything you think is within the West.

One thing about what you deemed as the 'West' have been evolving for hundreds of years which despite the odd negative, the overall change is a net positive.
In addition, we have to deliberate on each government involved specifically.
For example, the elimination of Nazism, communist and fascist states defanged, chattel slavery banned, etc. are signs they are on an evolving trend of net-positivity.

On the other hand, Islam is unique in that its constitution [words of God] which is heavily evil laden is immutable till eternity, i.e. there is no room for change and elimination of the evil elements therein.

So anything else with room for improvement is better that the evil laden immutable Islamic doctrine led governance.

[godelian]

If there are any terrible government in the West, we need to change to a government with good moral compass

That cannot be done. You are up against the banksters and the feminists. These special interest groups are conspiring against you and have taken over the legal system. Hence, your property rights and your private life have been effectively abolished. That is indeed terrible and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.

Seriously, the West versus Islam is a false dichotomy. Anything else is better than the West.

As I had stated it is intellectually bankrupt and unwise to lump everything you think is within the West.

One thing about what you deemed as the 'West' have been evolving for hundreds of years which despite the odd negative, the overall change is a net positive.
In addition, we have to deliberate on each government involved specifically.
For example, the elimination of Nazism, communist and fascist states defanged, chattel slavery banned, etc. are signs they are on an evolving trend of net-positivity.

On the other hand, Islam is unique in that its constitution [words of God] which is heavily evil laden is immutable till eternity, i.e. there is no room for change and elimination of the evil elements therein.

So anything else with room for improvement is better that the evil laden immutable Islamic doctrine led governance.

Well, Islamic law does not abolish the presumption of innocence and does not reverse the burden of evidence. Only modern western law does that.

Islamic law cannot be used to enter your house, search for savings in gold and use civil forfeiture to seize it, while shifting the burden of evidence to you that there is nothing wrong with your gold. Islamic law cannot be used to accuse you of domestic violence while shifting the burden of evidence to you to somehow prove that it is not true. It is exactly the "room for change" that they have used in the West to introduce this nightmare. So, "no room for change" is a good thing and not a bad one.

Modern western law is a gross violation of its own centuries-old legal traditions.

For example, in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to provide the password to a computing device. The fact that you have forgotten it, is not accepted as an excuse. Furthermore, this practice simply amounts to demanding that the suspect testifies against himself. The prosecutor can otherwise never require a suspect to produce evidence against himself.

The West is gradually abolishing all legal principles and legal traditions that used to keep its legal system afloat.

If Islamic law does not do that, which it won't since there is "no room for change", then isn't it clear that it will inevitably come out on top?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That cannot be done. You are up against the banksters and the feminists. These special interest groups are conspiring against you and have taken over the legal system. Hence, your property rights and your private life have been effectively abolished. That is indeed terrible and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.

Seriously, the West versus Islam is a false dichotomy. Anything else is better than the West.

As I had stated it is intellectually bankrupt and unwise to lump everything you think is within the West.

One thing about what you deemed as the 'West' have been evolving for hundreds of years which despite the odd negative, the overall change is a net positive.
In addition, we have to deliberate on each government involved specifically.
For example, the elimination of Nazism, communist and fascist states defanged, chattel slavery banned, etc. are signs they are on an evolving trend of net-positivity.

On the other hand, Islam is unique in that its constitution [words of God] which is heavily evil laden is immutable till eternity, i.e. there is no room for change and elimination of the evil elements therein.

So anything else with room for improvement is better that the evil laden immutable Islamic doctrine led governance.

Well, Islamic law does not abolish the presumption of innocence and does not reverse the burden of evidence. Only modern western law does that.

Islamic law cannot be used to enter your house, search for savings in gold and use civil forfeiture to seize it, while shifting the burden of evidence to you that there is nothing wrong with your gold. Islamic law cannot be used to accuse you of domestic violence while shifting the burden of evidence to you to somehow prove that it is not true. It is exactly the "room for change" that they have used in the West to introduce this nightmare. So, "no room for change" is a good thing and not a bad one.

Modern western law is a gross violation of its own centuries-old legal traditions.

For example, in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to provide the password to a computing device. The fact that you have forgotten it, is not accepted as an excuse. Furthermore, this practice simply amounts to demanding that the suspect testifies against himself. The prosecutor can otherwise never require a suspect to produce evidence against himself.

The West is gradually abolishing all legal principles and legal traditions that used to keep its legal system afloat.

If Islamic law does not do that, which it won't since there is "no room for change", then isn't it clear that it will inevitably come out on top?

The point is all laws that are bad or evil at present which are changeable [all non-Islamic laws] can be changed for the better in some future time. This is very evident over the history of humanity. The optimism for the better is the increasing positive trend of the activation of the moral potential within all humans.

One indication to the above improvement in the lessening of evil is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.

But on the other hand, the violence triggered by the Quran has been on an increasing trend towards the future
see: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com
showing 46399 incidents by Muslims with fatalities since 911.

Islamic law cannot be used to enter your house, search for savings in gold and use civil forfeiture to seize it, while shifting the burden of evidence to you that there is nothing wrong with your gold

Islamic Laws as sanctioned within the Quran permit not only entering the victim's house but allow the burning of the house as and when the non-believers had commit the slightest threats [fasadin] to the religion:

Pakistan: Mob Beats Christian Man, Burns His House Over “Blasphemy”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPPPtoPPuvE

There is a long list of evil deeds committed on non-believers and are permitted by the Quran in the case of a threat against the religion [Q:33].

Since the Quran is immutable till eternity, so is the laws to be derived from God's words.

[godelian]

Pakistan: Mob Beats Christian Man, Burns His House Over “Blasphemy”

You are arguing in bath faith.

The mob is not the law. The mob represents the absence of the law.

It does not matter if the mob consists of Muslims, Jews, or Christians. The mob cannot be the law. In principle, law enforcement seeks to preempt the mob and to take the suspect into protective custody, awaiting the investigative judge to look into the case. If the mob gets to the suspect first, that is obviously a failure of law enforcement.

In any legal system, you will typically see the following actors in a criminal case: judge, prosecutor, defense lawyer, and suspect. The rules concerning the standards of evidence and other judicial law governing a criminal case are very similar in every legal system.

You are actually worse than the mob, because the mob is at least honest. They do not make use of deception or other misrepresentations. You just want to deflect the attention from what is badly wrong with modern western law.

As we speak, modern western law is being rewritten in order to implement what the fiat bankstering cartel really wants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_ ... d_be_happy

You'll own nothing and be happy

They have been busy implementing that for over a century. First, they outlawed the private possession of gold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 is an executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States." The executive order was made under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the Emergency Banking Act in March 1933.

Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $487 in 2023)[6] per troy ounce.

You could not have gold at home. You had to bring it to the banksters.

In theory, they have now abolished Executive Order 6102. In practice, they have not. If you have gold at home they will confiscate it and demand that you prove under the civil forfeiture procedure that there is nothing wrong with its origin. If you cannot do that, you lose your gold. You cannot store large amounts of savings in cash either. They will use the same principle to seize it from you.

Everything of value must be owned by the banksters. Your house, your car, your dollars, your gold, everything. You will own nothing and you will be happy. They keep rewriting the law to make it happen completely. This hidden agenda cannot be rolled out under Islamic law because as you have pointed out by yourself, Islamic law "has no room for change". That is why the banksters do not like alternatives like Islamic law.

The banksters also do not like Bitcoin because cryptocurrencies also fly in the face of their hidden agenda. But then again, Blackrock is now busy accumulating large amounts of Bitcoin so that you can own some of it through them. Well, they will own it and not you. You will just be a remote user whose account they will block when need be.

What you are doing, amounts to deceptive shit talking on behalf of and to the benefit of the banksters. It is not legitimate criticism. You are trying to further the hidden agenda of the banksters. I don't care what exactly you are shit talking about, but isn't it an incredible coincidence that your shit talk always benefits the banksters?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pakistan: Mob Beats Christian Man, Burns His House Over “Blasphemy”

You are arguing in bath faith.

The mob is not the law. The mob represents the absence of the law.

It does not matter if the mob consists of Muslims, Jews, or Christians. The mob cannot be the law. In principle, law enforcement seeks to preempt the mob and to take the suspect into protective custody, awaiting the investigative judge to look into the case. If the mob gets to the suspect first, that is obviously a failure of law enforcement.
In any legal system, you will typically see the following actors in a criminal case: judge, prosecutor, defense lawyer, and suspect. The rules concerning the standards of evidence and other judicial law governing a criminal case are very similar in every legal system.

The fact is the 'mob' [individual(s) or group] is following God's Law [and terms of covenant] literally as good believers according to what is stipulated in the holy texts that God sent via his messenger where the covenanted believers are obligated to comply with.

According to Q5:33 believers [as slaves (abdoo) to God] are permitted to kill those who are a threat [even the slightest fasadin, e.g. blasphemy] to the religion. If they do they will be heavily rewarded, if they don't when they see it and can, they have sinned and may go to hell.

It is the omnipresent God's who is the ultimate judge on Judgment Day in deciding whether a believer goes to paradise or heaven based on his acts on Earth.

Any man-made laws on Earth adapted by believers with a man-made legal system are not ultimately valid except those that are in alignment with what God has dictated in his immutable holy texts.

The following are man-made legal matters, thus has no relevance to the religion except those directly related to the holy texts from God.

You are actually worse than the mob, because the mob is at least honest. They do not make use of deception or other misrepresentations. You just want to deflect the attention from what is badly wrong with modern western law.

As we speak, modern western law is being rewritten in order to implement what the fiat bankstering cartel really wants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_ ... d_be_happy

You'll own nothing and be happy

They have been busy implementing that for over a century. First, they outlawed the private possession of gold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 is an executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States." The executive order was made under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the Emergency Banking Act in March 1933.

Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $487 in 2023)[6] per troy ounce.

You could not have gold at home. You had to bring it to the banksters.

In theory, they have now abolished Executive Order 6102. In practice, they have not. If you have gold at home they will confiscate it and demand that you prove under the civil forfeiture procedure that there is nothing wrong with its origin. If you cannot do that, you lose your gold. You cannot store large amounts of savings in cash either. They will use the same principle to seize it from you.

Everything of value must be owned by the banksters. Your house, your car, your dollars, your gold, everything. You will own nothing and you will be happy. They keep rewriting the law to make it happen completely. This hidden agenda cannot be rolled out under Islamic law because as you have pointed out by yourself, Islamic law "has no room for change". That is why the banksters do not like alternatives like Islamic law.

The banksters also do not like Bitcoin because cryptocurrencies also fly in the face of their hidden agenda. But then again, Blackrock is now busy accumulating large amounts of Bitcoin so that you can own some of it through them. Well, they will own it and not you. You will just be a remote user whose account they will block when need be.

What you are doing, amounts to deceptive shit talking on behalf of and to the benefit of the banksters. It is not legitimate criticism. You are trying to further the hidden agenda of the banksters. I don't care what exactly you are shit talking about, but isn't it an incredible coincidence that your shit talk always benefits the banksters?

[godelian]

The fact is the 'mob' [individual(s) or group] is following God's Law

It is the investigative judge who has the authority to decide if the case will be brought to court.

In principle, the public cannot even look into his files. Only the defense lawyer can.

Until the investigative judge has finished dealing with the case, all reporting on the case must be considered mere speculation.

Your view that the mob can legitimately decide a court case, is simply preposterous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact is the 'mob' [individual(s) or group] is following God's Law

It is the investigative judge who has the authority to decide if the case will be brought to court.

In principle, the public cannot even look into his files. Only the defense lawyer can.

Until the investigative judge has finished dealing with the case, all reporting on the case must be considered mere speculation.

Your view that the mob can legitimately decide a court case, is simply preposterous.

You are so ignorant of your own religion and your religious obligation.

As a believer, you are only answerable to God the ultimate judge on Judgment Day. Where did your god state, humans can answer to humans in any ultimate sense.
Believers can establish courts on Earth but cannot override the words of God; it is only a pseudo-court of law.

The believers who killed the blasphemer were 'good' 'obedient' believers in obeying and compliance with the words of God, i.e. as per 5:33 in the holy texts.

Certain human-based political legal court may punish them but that is only from man-made laws not the laws of God which ultimately counts on Judgment Day where they are rewarded with eternal life in paradise with loads of other juicy stuffs.

[Age]

Notice how these posters here DO NOT even try to unify spiritual practices, to save 'the world'.

Instead they would rather FIGHT, and ARGUE, over and about their pre-existing spiritual, or not, BELIEFS, continuing the cause of the demise of 'the world'.

[godelian]

The fact is the 'mob' [individual(s) or group] is following God's Law

It is the investigative judge who has the authority to decide if the case will be brought to court.

In principle, the public cannot even look into his files. Only the defense lawyer can.

Until the investigative judge has finished dealing with the case, all reporting on the case must be considered mere speculation.

Your view that the mob can legitimately decide a court case, is simply preposterous.

You are so ignorant of your own religion and your religious obligation.

As a believer, you are only answerable to God the ultimate judge on Judgment Day. Where did your god state, humans can answer to humans in any ultimate sense.
Believers can establish courts on Earth but cannot override the words of God; it is only a pseudo-court of law.

The believers who killed the blasphemer were 'good' 'obedient' believers in obeying and compliance with the words of God, i.e. as per 5:33 in the holy texts.

Certain human-based political legal court may punish them but that is only from man-made laws not the laws of God which ultimately counts on Judgment Day where they are rewarded with eternal life in paradise with loads of other juicy stuffs.

You have clearly absolutely no clue of how judicial law works in Islam.

In your delusional view, the individual Muslim is supposed to take the law into his own hands. It does not work like that in any society on earth, simply because it can't.

Your interpretation of the Islamic legal sources is incredibly delusional:

ChatGPT: Are Muslims allowed to take Islamic law into their own hands?

In Islam, individuals are not allowed to take the implementation of Islamic law into their own hands. The enforcement of Islamic law is meant to be carried out by legitimate authorities, such as an Islamic government, judiciary, or state-appointed officials, who are responsible for ensuring justice within a structured legal framework.

Key Points:

1. Role of Authority: Islamic teachings emphasize the importance of proper governance and justice being administered through qualified, impartial authorities. Vigilantism or taking the law into one’s own hands is generally forbidden as it can lead to chaos, injustice, and harm to society.


2. Prohibition of Vigilantism: In Islam, fairness and due process are paramount. Individuals acting outside of legal frameworks risk violating these principles and causing harm or injustice, which is strongly discouraged.

3. Qur’anic Guidance: The Qur’an commands Muslims to obey lawful authority:

> “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you.” (Qur’an 4:59)

4. Historical Precedents: In Islamic history, issues of law and justice were handled by qadis (judges) and rulers, not by individuals. Even in cases of personal grievances, individuals were directed to seek redress through legal channels rather than acting independently.

What you are saying on the matter is utter nonsense. People who take the law into their own hands, are widely condemned in the Islamic community:

Exceptions or Misinterpretations:

While Islamic teachings are clear, some individuals or groups have, at times, misinterpreted Islamic texts to justify vigilante actions. Such actions are widely condemned by mainstream Islamic scholars and authorities.

In conclusion, Islam strongly discourages individuals from taking the law into their own hands and stresses the need for legal and structured implementation of justice.

Just like any other functioning legal system, Islamic law has a judicial law that specifies who exactly is doing what in the process of law enforcement. It appoints people in judicial authority. The individual Muslim is not allowed to take the law into his own hands.

Therefore, the idea that the individual Muslim is allowed to take the law into his own hands only exists in your fantasy. You clearly feel the need to arbitrarily shit talk and to invent lies in order to support your nonsensical views. You are a born liar.

[attofishpi]

You are a born liar.

Nah, but MorHamMad was - - a false prophet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the investigative judge who has the authority to decide if the case will be brought to court.

In principle, the public cannot even look into his files. Only the defense lawyer can.

Until the investigative judge has finished dealing with the case, all reporting on the case must be considered mere speculation.

Your view that the mob can legitimately decide a court case, is simply preposterous.

You are so ignorant of your own religion and your religious obligation.

As a believer, you are only answerable to God the ultimate judge on Judgment Day. Where did your god state, humans can answer to humans in any ultimate sense.
Believers can establish courts on Earth but cannot override the words of God; it is only a pseudo-court of law.

The believers who killed the blasphemer were 'good' 'obedient' believers in obeying and compliance with the words of God, i.e. as per 5:33 in the holy texts.

Certain human-based political legal court may punish them but that is only from man-made laws not the laws of God which ultimately counts on Judgment Day where they are rewarded with eternal life in paradise with loads of other juicy stuffs.

You have clearly absolutely no clue of how judicial law works in Islam.

In your delusional view, the individual Muslim is supposed to take the law into his own hands. It does not work like that in any society on earth, simply because it can't.

Your interpretation of the Islamic legal sources is incredibly delusional:

ChatGPT: Are Muslims allowed to take Islamic law into their own hands?

In Islam, individuals are not allowed to take the implementation of Islamic law into their own hands. The enforcement of Islamic law is meant to be carried out by legitimate authorities, such as an Islamic government, judiciary, or state-appointed officials, who are responsible for ensuring justice within a structured legal framework.

Key Points:

1. Role of Authority: Islamic teachings emphasize the importance of proper governance and justice being administered through qualified, impartial authorities. Vigilantism or taking the law into one’s own hands is generally forbidden as it can lead to chaos, injustice, and harm to society.


2. Prohibition of Vigilantism: In Islam, fairness and due process are paramount. Individuals acting outside of legal frameworks risk violating these principles and causing harm or injustice, which is strongly discouraged.

3. Qur’anic Guidance: The Qur’an commands Muslims to obey lawful authority:

> “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you.” (Qur’an 4:59)

4. Historical Precedents: In Islamic history, issues of law and justice were handled by qadis (judges) and rulers, not by individuals. Even in cases of personal grievances, individuals were directed to seek redress through legal channels rather than acting independently.

What you are saying on the matter is utter nonsense. People who take the law into their own hands, are widely condemned in the Islamic community:

Exceptions or Misinterpretations:

While Islamic teachings are clear, some individuals or groups have, at times, misinterpreted Islamic texts to justify vigilante actions. Such actions are widely condemned by mainstream Islamic scholars and authorities.

In conclusion, Islam strongly discourages individuals from taking the law into their own hands and stresses the need for legal and structured implementation of justice.

Just like any other functioning legal system, Islamic law has a judicial law that specifies who exactly is doing what in the process of law enforcement. It appoints people in judicial authority. The individual Muslim is not allowed to take the law into his own hands.

Therefore, the idea that the individual Muslim is allowed to take the law into his own hands only exists in your fantasy. You clearly feel the need to arbitrarily shit talk and to invent lies in order to support your nonsensical views. You are a born liar.

I like that you use AI but in this case,
I have used AI so regularly I am well aware of its limitations.
As far as on Islam, AI is programmed to be 'woke'.
As such the above from AI is not totally credible nor objective.

O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you.” (Qur’an 4:59)

The above has to be:
"O you who believe!
1. Obey Allah and
2. obey the Messenger, and
3. those in authority among you.” (Qur’an 4:59)

Surely the first priority is to obey Allah i.e. based on the words of Allah which is only in the Quran which can be done by the individual[s] or group.
"Obey the messenger" has to be in alignment with the Quran.
'obey those in authority among you" definitely in alignment with the Quran and not based on the personal opinions or beliefs of those in authority.

Thus in all cases, it is obedience to the words of Allah to the best of one's knowledge and ability and one's confident in Allah words.
After all, it is stated in Quran, it had be made easy for all to understand.
Those who obey Allah directly have take responsibility for their own actions, if they are right they are rewarded highly, if wrong they will be punished.
No believers will dare to act against the words of Allah since any wrong move means eternal hell.

The individuals within the 'mob' are obeying the literal words of Allah [Q5:33], what is wrong with that.
If you condemn them you are condemning Allah's dictates.

Again:
You are so ignorant of your own religion and your religious obligation.
Whatever you want to assert of your religion you need to take the whole of the 6236 verses from God into consideration. .