Which religion actually intends to abolish the institution of slavery? Christianity or Islam?
>>18764049Catharism
>>18764066Huh? I'm not talking about the mortal coil; liberation from the flesh robot
>>18764049Definitely not Christianity https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206%3A5-9&version=NIV
>>18764242The Pauline letters more widely considered to be authentic do have the seeds of anti-slavery sentiment imo. E.g.You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of humans. (1 Corinthians 7:23)"There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)"For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1)"Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for the long term,no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me." (Philemon 1:15-17)
>>18764269This is a very sad atempt to claim merit for what someone else did.
>>18764313I'm an atheist. I just think the historical Paul wasn't as pro-slavery as the final canonical form of Paul seems to be, that this conflict is apparent in the letters, and that the conflict in the canon could have contributed to slavery abolition in a time when the population was still very widely Christian.
>>18764049I'll make the argument, Islam insists every man, free or slave, is created upon fitrah, and is capable of reaching righteousness, with some guidance and sincere repentance.>Every child is born upon the fitrah (natural state of purity and belief in God); then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian - (Sahih Muslim 1385)Al-Ghazali (in Revival of the Religious Sciences) writes the human soul is created clear, like a polished mirror, and our sins become an external stain on it. God consciousness (taqwa 49:13) and sincere devotion (ikhlas 92:20) removes this layer of spiritual rust from one's heart.>rather, what they used to earn has rusted upon their hearts. (83:14)This way, it acknowledges a morally imperfect society, without affirming augustinian doctrine.In lieu of this, messengers starting with Adam, were sent to implore people to follow the steep/ideal path (al-aqabah), through spritual and legalistic commandments; revealed in the earliest surahs of the Qur'an,>Does man think no one will ever have power over him? "I have squandered great wealth" he says.>Does he think no one watches him? >We give him vision and sight, and showed him right and wrong. Yet he has not even attempted the steep path.>What is the steep path? It is to FREE A SLAVE, to feed at time of hunger an orphan, help a poor person in distress, to be ones who believe, and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion. (90:2)Now, Islam didn't abolish slavery overnight, and failed to when the relevant conditions emerged in muslim countries. However we must distinguish deen and shari'ah vs. it's historical praxis; fallible agents trying to embody an ethical vision, that Muslim societies have often failed to. In practice, scripture is bent to justify socio-historical desires. >Those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is ambiguous [in the Quran] to cause dissension, seeking an interpretation suitable to them. (3:7)
>>18764556I'd say Christianity, as a while, played a role to defend and extend slavery in the Americas.
>>18764751continued (2);Before I try to lay out the difference in legal systems, let's set the baseline for pre-modern religions,a) the Bible's 'curse of ham' (and Leviticus 25, Ephesians 6, Colossians 3, Titus 2, etc) set a precedent; the doctrine of Discovery was spearheaded by the Papal Bulls to legitmize the transatlantic chattel slavery. The ontological status of these slaves in the Christian Canon law and Transatlantic slave codes was "res", a thing/chattel. This was a form of racialized and hereditary slavery justified by papal authority and scripture that stripped slaves of legal personhood (viewed them property), made their education illegal, and offered almost zero legal pathways towards emancipation. b) Same for Jews, the Torah commands to make slaves out of other nations' peoples indefinitely (Leviticus 25), and Exodus 21 says a male jewish slave can go free after 7 years (but hebrew women dont). If the slave takes a wife and has children, they are both his master's property. If he doesn't want to leave them? he must get his ear pierced like cattle, and be a slave for life. (There is no good reason this single thing couldn't improved or regulated by God) c) In Hinduism, brahmin priestly mediation was used to justify the physical and spiritual castigation of an underclass (starting with Upanishads 5.10.7), this included laws and institutions to systemically dehumanize a people group, like the Dharamshastra Hindu legal codes. It was a form of hereditary and spiritual slavery.my christian friend here (>>18764269) did a poor job at defending christianity. He should say later western christian abolitionists (e.g quakers) used the Bible to abolish it, and an early church father spoke against it (gregory of Nyssas) on a theological basis.But my objection is paradigm level, i.e which moral principles changed to make slavery, widely accepted in Jesus' time, to being recognized as an intrinsically immoral institution by later abolitionists (19th cent)?
>>18764767continued (3);Historically, the Pro-slavery theologians beat abolitionists in regular debates by citing explicit biblical laws regulating slavery.If western christianity had to adopt Enlightenment era secular ethics, and argue against the literal text of their scripture to appeal to the "spirit of the law". Then the question is, what epistemic principles inform us what remains timeless truth, and what is historically conditioned? If Leviticus and Paul were wrong on slavery, can Christians objectively prove they aren't on sexual ethics, authority, or salvation? Why did that not apply to gay rights? Did they not deserve dignity, are they not created in God's image? The NT says, women should obey their husbands and not preach; this injunction was handwaved as historical misogny, So why not legal abortion as offering bodily autonomy.This epistemic gap exists because christianity lacks an instrinsic codified legal apparatus like Usul, making their hermeneutic rely on ad-hoc, or project (post-hoc) modern socio-cultural values onto biblical text, even when that reading is jarringly unnatural. The empirical world is never epistemically irrelevant to revealed laws. This is why i can't consider it a pragmatic man's religion.Islam is principle-driven and capable of recognizing dignity and agency, much like christianity, but doesn't need rejection of text to embrace abolition. It is texually generared, because of an intrinsic system for progressively eliminating the institution as relevant conditions emerge. Historically, Slavery was entrenched and formed the backbone of trade, commerce, family, etc. Society didn't contain relevant circumstances and institutions for abolition. But Islam in it's divine pragamitism, sets an emancipatory discourse that aims to gradually abolish it by weaning society of its systemic dependencies, alongside legal and moral frameworks to radically reform it.
>>18764767>my christian friend hereI'm an atheist, as I said>He should say later western christian abolitionists (e.g quakers) used the Bible to abolish itIf they used the Bible to abolish it, there must have been something in the Bible they could work from, unless all that was needed was insisting on the principle of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>18764785continued (4);This intent can be seen through restricting the channel of slaves, humanizing their treatment, and setting moral precedents that explicitly push toward emancipation (I'll elaborate in detail). It is the kind of social-engineering graduation model it uses for abolishing alcohol as well.>They ask about wine and gambling. Say: In them is sin and benefit, but their sin is greater (2:219)2. regulation; >do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated, until you know what you are saying (4:43)3. and finally prohibition, >Almighty is alluding to wine and will soon reveal an order regarding it. Whoever has some, let him sell it and benefit from it (Sahih 1578)Verse;>Indeed, intoxicants and gambling are filth the works of Satan, avoid them (5:90)the distinction we make is God' immutable narratives (moral truths) & timeless principles, versus the legal rulings contingent on addressing societal conditions. This is highlighted in Asbab al-Nuzul (occasions of revelation) between amm and khass (general vs specific rulings), and the mutlaq vs muqayyad (absolute vs. qualified directives). This distinction allows the basis of the doctrine of abrogation (naskh); new legal rulings superceding previous ones, but narratives remaining immutable. Because law is always contingent on society.>We do not abrogate a verse (ruling) or cause it to be forgotten, except that We bring forth one better than it (2:106)this responds to welfare (maslahah), changing social conditions (urf), etc>Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you (8:66)Usul apparatus allows the transcendence of the law (avoiding moral relativism) by firmly rooting it in scripture. In contextual rulings, our independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) applies axiomatic principles ariticulated by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Qur'an, to derive changing legal rulings, allowing 'application of law' to shift the ruling to respond to welfare, social-context, urf.
>>18764790I addressed that here >>18764785
>>18764794continued (5);This is called the Fiqh al-waqi within the Masqasid al-Shariah (Higher Objectives of Law) framework, that contends with changing urf'.Prominent scholars like al‑Shatibi (foundational), Ibn al‑Qayyim and Ibn-Taymiyyah write that, fiqh is about the interaction of these divine-principles with human epistemology; something reflected in the distinction between Fiqh and Law (shariah).This institution ensures the underlying moral principles remain stable, but our knowledge of empirical conditions, and changing circumstances to which those principles apply can change to push towards a moral ideal.This is summarized best by Ibn Qayyim in "Signposts for Those Who Issue Fatwas on Behalf of the Lord of the Worlds">the Shari'ah is based upon wisdom and the welfare of human beings in this life and the hereafter. All of it is justice, mercy, wisdom, and good. Therefore, any ruling that departs from justice to injustice, from mercy to harshness, from welfare to harm, or from wisdom to folly is not part of the Shari'ah, even if it seems to come from the Qur'an or Sunnah.Slavery ruling sits within this framework of contextual law moving toward a moral-ideal. The intent can be seen through 1. tying manumission/freeing of slaves to piety, virtue and an expiation for sins.>And what will make you know what the good way is? It is the freeing of a slave - Surah Al-Balad (90:4)2. One of the 5 pillars of Islam is the paying of Zakat (obligatory charity). And one of the types of Zakat is codified as the freeing of slaves, making it a communal obligation.>Zakat is only for the poor, the needy, to reconcile hearts, for freeing those in bondage/shackles (fi'l‑riqab)... an obligation from Allah (9:60)3. As for punitive punishments, In Islam the slave masters were punished for abuse and cruelty both spiritually,>Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is to set him free (Sahih Muslim 1657)
>>18764809continued (6);and legally (fiqh), liable to be sued in court for mistreatment. The mistreated party could demand compensation or manumission.E.g, jurist report by Umar ibn khattab >A man struck his slave unjustly. Umar ordered retaliation (qisas) or punishment (Kitab al‑Itq, 23485)And another report,>ʿUmar ordered the Copt slave to retaliate by striking the Amr ibn al‑as's son. Then he said: "Since when have you enslaved people when their mothers bore them free?" (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah)>This became a hallmark of justice, showing even governors were not above accountability.4. In fact, classical jurists recognize Islamic Law has an inherent, intentional bias toward freedom, through the legal maxim of Tasharruf al-Sahi' ila al-Hurriyah ("The Lawgiver longs for and leans toward freedom"). The fuqaha state whenever the Lawgiver provides a choice in legal interpretation, the option that resulted in manumission is systematically preferred.In Conclusion,By seeing where incentives sit within the daily rituals and core pillars of a religion, you can tell WHICH ones incentivize an ethical trajectory.In christianinity, freeing a slave was historically just a private act of charity (caritas). It was never integrated into the Sacraments or liturgical obligations e.g, Baptism, Eucharist, or Penance.But in ISLAM, manumission is embedded into its core pillars (5) and system of expiation, through the pillar of Zakat; a) Manumission wasn't merely encouraged for individuals, the state treasury is legally mandated to budget public funds to buy slaves their freedom (9:60).No other major religious text in human history makes the abolition of individual bondage an explicit tax-funded state budget line.b) ritual expiation (kaffarah) i.e when a muslim breaks an oath, accidentally kills someone, or violates a fast, the primary penance before God is to go out and set a human being free.
>>18764813continued (7);5. It sets up the novel Mukataba system, where in slaves were given an avenue to facilitate their own freedom, and it was made an obligation upon the masters, both spiritually and legally, to assist them monetarily.For pragmatic reasons, they often didn't choose freedom immediately, as they were dependent economically, had no other means of protection, shelter or livelihood.>If any of your slaves ask you for a contract to buy their freedom, grant it to them if you know there is good in them, and give them something yourselves out of the wealth God has given you. (quran 24:32)(now, depending on scholarly tradition, a legal obligation is almost as good as abolition).6. It improved the lives of slaves considerably by bringing them under the fold of law, and requiring they be treated with dignity, provided with food, clothing, etc. The same way you would treat your own family (in contrast to, as shown, Christian canon law and Transatlantic slave codes the legal definition of slaves as res (subhuman/chattel), stripping them of legal personality).>Your servants are your brothers whom Allah has placed under your authority. So whoever has a brother under his authority should feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears. Do not burden them with what they cannot bear; and if you burdened them, then help them. - Sahih al-Bukhari 307. This is why it discouraged the use of possessive language that commodifies people,>None of you should say: 'My slave' ('Abdi) or 'My slave-girl' (Amati). All of you are the slaves of Allah... Rather, you should say: 'My young man' (Fatayi), 'My young lady' (Fatati), or 'My boy' (Ghulami) - Sahih Muslim 2249a8. Finally, it restricts the unjust supply of free-men as slaves,>The Prophet (pbuh) said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: One who sells a free person as a slave...Except for POWs,
I actually shouldn't have written this much. Tbh, and there's still like 3 post remaining.
>>18764818continued (8);but in the ancient world, there were no state-funded prison systems, or international prisoner-exchange networks. Releasing an enemy combatants back onto the battlefield meant immediate suicide, for the early Muslim community. And Executing every captive would be brutal and inhumane.Therefore, Integrating these captives into households under strict legal rights was the most humane and pragmatic alternative, yet even then it sets the discourse of their RELEASE.>Once the enemies are defeated bind any captives firmly, later you can release them by grace or by ransom, until the toils of war have ended. (47:4) >Commentators highlight because ‘by grace’ is the first of the two options given, it's the preferred and recommended course of action.Infact, Islam closed every historical front door of supply except one POW a) Debt slavery? Banned.b) Kidnapping and piracy? condemned.c) Poverty or self-sale? Invalidated.In conclusion,By restricting entry exclusively to state captive, while simultaneously opening dozens of mandatory exit doors (zakat, kaffarat, umm walad (will elaborate later), ?mukatabah, voluntary), Islam tries to create a structural deficit in the slave population, that requires society to constantly default toward freedom.When scholars analyze how traditions handle such entrenched institutions, they look at these entry and exit vectors first.In Christianity, the Bible accepted the standard world vector for enslavement without explicit restrictions on the supply. I.e debt servitude, piracy, judicial punishment, poverty/self-sale, civilian kidnapping, and hereditary. Because NT contains only pastoral admonitions for slaves to obey their masters, so the supply of slaves remains structurally unlimited.
>>18764049Neither of them, not unless you misrepresent the purpose for their existence.
>>18764049Britain
Bump
>>18764855Yet Islamic countries all had slavery way after Abolition in the West. This is just a fringe interpretation. The treasury thing you mention, as in there should be a separate section for zakat never existed in any Islamic polity.Of course you would just say "they were not true Muslims" but that would be a No true scotsman's fallacy. Islam and Christianity have both accepted slavery. It was banned on Biblical or Humanist grounds, the latter inspired by former as well. In the Islamic world that didn't happen. Slavery was banned in spite of Islam, otherwise your so called maslaha would also apply to other aspects, like women not receiving equal inheritance.
>>18764855continued (9);Finally, slaves were made spiritually equal in status to free men; this is not just an assertion, there is practical example in Bilal, a black Ethopian former slave. When he accepted Islam, his pagan master tortured him, forcing him to renounce his faith. Placing heavy stones on his chest under the harsh sun, and despite this, he continued repeating "God is one, God is one."Abu Bakr seeing this, purchased Bilal, and freed him. He went on to gain prestige in muslim society, and led the first calls to prayer.The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, he could hear Bilal's footsteps in heaven even before him,>The Prophet Muhammad said to Bilal: O Bilal, tell me of the most hopeful deed you have done in Islam, for I heard the sound of your footsteps ahead of me in Paradise - Sahih Bukhari 1149For Indeed, we guided him to the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful (Quran 76:3)>>18765753 You don't seem to have understood the breadth of my argument. I will address every single thing you said. wait
>>18765753>so called maslaha would also apply to other aspects, like women not receiving equal inheritance.you're smuggling in the presupposition that secular institutions always produce the highest maslaha. Sometimes they're myopic and unpragmatic in their prioritization of atomized private liberty, over a baseline social welfare.But I don't want to get into that argument.Women have zero legal duty to spend their wealth or inheritance on theirwealth or inheritance on their family, children, or husband; their money is 100% strictly their own property. Men on the other hand are legally mandated to support their wives, children, unmarried sisters, and elderly mothers.A higher inheritance share for a male comes with attached with overwhelming financial liabilities, whereas the woman's share is a net-financial gain with a zero mandatory liability.It's been noted by scholars that,>a woman's net wealth accumulation over her lifetime frequently exceeds that of her male counterparts, once lifetime obligations and Mahr inflows are factored inAlso goes without saying, you're flattening Islamic Law to "women recieve half", they do so under specific scenarios,>out of more than 30 standard inheritance cases compiled by jurists like Dr. Salah al-Din al-Sultan (Inheritance in Islamic Law), women inherit an equal or larger share than men in roughly over 80% of scenarios, with the male receiving double in only a minority of cases where his financial liability is directly triggered.furthermore, carefully read these three again >>18764794>>18764809>>18764785
>>18765753Next one,>The treasury thing you mention, as in there should be a separate section for zakat never existed in any Islamic polityClassical Islamic administration didn't lump state revenues into a lump pile; the treasury was ear-marked into four ledgers, out of which the zakat ledger was explicitly earmarked for the 8 Quranic categories (9:60)1. Poor, 2. Needy, 3. FI AL-RIQAB (PURCHASING & FREEING SLAVES),4. Collectors, 5. Reconciled Hearts, 6. Debtors, 7. Public Welfare and 8. WayfarerThe famous Mawardi (d. 1058 CE), Chief Judge (Qadi al-Qudat) of Baghdad details the exact operational mechanics of state Zakat accounting in his administrative treatise Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (ai summary for source)> expenditure of Zakāt is strictly confined to the eight categories specified by Allah in His Book [Surah At-Tawbah 9:60]. The ruler or his appointed treasury official (Ṣāḥib Bayt al-Māl) has no authority to divert funds from the Zakāt ledger to state expenditures (such as infrastructure or military salaries). And as for 'Fī al-Riqāb', it is the mandatory allocation reserved for purchasing enslaved persons from their masters to grant them emancipation, or paying off the contracts of Mukātabūn (slaves purchasing their freedom)" (Al-Māwardī, Al-Aḥkām al-Sultaniyyah (Laws of Islamic Governance), Chapter 11: On the Administration of Zakāt)This is consensus amongst all four Classical Schools of Fiqh/Jurisprudence. Every major legal manual governing state revenue explicitly outlines "Fi al-Riqab" as a state obligation>Ḥanafi School: Al-Sarakhsī (d. 1090 CE) in Al Mabsūṭ (Vol. 3) clarifies that the state treasury uses Zakāt to financially assist enslaved individuals under Mukātabah contracts or directly buy out their freedom.>2. Mālikī School: Imām Mālik ibn Anas (d. 795 CE) records in Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (Book of Zakāt, 33) that state collector routinely allocated funds from the Zakāt treasury to purchase and manumit slaves
>>18766440>>18765753>3. Shāfiʿī School: Al-Nawawī (d. 1277 CE) in Al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab (Vol. 6, p. 210) states that jurists unanimously agree the state administrator (Al-Imām) must divide collected Zakāt among available Qurʾānic categories, including Fī al-Riqāb.>4. Ḥanbalī School: Ibn Qudāmah (d. 1223 CE) in Al-Mughnī (Vol. 2, p. 523) notes that funding manumission from public Zakāt revenue is a established, unalterable legal obligation of the sovereign.Here is one practical example of this is during the Umayyad Caliphate, Caliph Umar II (717-720 AD) enforced a strict and decentralized state collection and distribution of Zakat through regional offices. When economic prosperity under his rule eliminated local poverty in North Africa, the state treasury moved to the FI al-Riqab (freeing of slaves) legal directive.>The early historian Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (d. 871 CE) and the classical financial jurist Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838 CE) document the report of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, the state Zakāt collector (Āmil al-Zakāt) in Ifrīqiyā (North Africa):> "ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz sent me to collect the Zakāt of North Africa. I collected it and, I used the Zakāt funds to buy slaves, set them free, and granted them allegiance/patronage to the Muslim community.">(Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-Amwāl (The Book of Revenue/State Finance), p. 251, Hadīth #595; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Sīrat ʿUmar ibn Abd al-ʿAzīz, p. 68.)
>>18765753>No true scotsman's fallacyread the argument bozo. Your popes issued Papal Bulls sanctioning actual genocides, should that be taken as your doctrine, or its historical praxis?Furthermore, in Islamic theology and legal theory, an enslaved person remained an insan (a human soul) possessing a fitrah, granting them legal personhood. This is why classical Fiqh granted them legal rights that are unimaginable in Roman or Antebellum law. i.e a right to marriage and family integrity (a master could not arbitrarily dissolve a slave's marriage or separate young children from their mothers upon sale (unlike Exodus 21), and automatic freedom for children born to enslaved women (Umm Walad),They had the capacity for property ownership within the Mukatabah framework (they could hold wealth, enter contracts, and sue in Islamic courts to enforce those contracts against their own masters), and they possessed criminal liability and protection under the law (qisas and diyyah applied to them, meaning a free person could be penalized or executed for murdering an enslaved person, as argued by in depth by Hanafi school based on early prophetic traditions)I've also argued this in length here(>>18764818, >>18764813and >>18764767)Transatlantic chattel slavery in contrast was racialized, hereditary, stripped individuals of legal personhood (res/subhuman), banned their education, and had zero mandatory exit mechanisms. You can't compare the two lil bro. :skull emoji:>It was banned on Biblical groundsRead this (>>18764767, >>18764785), that's precisely the problem.In conclusion,>And if they turn away from you, your duty is only to deliver the message. They know God's blessings, but refuse to recognize them (16:82)
>>18764763I’d say the americas were so full of slaves prior to the arrival of whites, ahistoric nincompoops cannot even begin to comprehend.
>>18764751>Islam insists every man, free or slave, is created upon fitrah, and is capable of reaching righteousness, with some guidance and sincere repentance.This is the Muslims version (downgrade) of Neoplatonism, which is better than what Christianity did with Neoplatonism to be fair, but in practice Muslims are just performative about these beliefs. And their low impulse control takes over when you point this out and make them feel criticized for holding silly beliefs.
>>18767247The defect in your reasoning is that personhood is Islam is meaningless, because perhaps the post important a priori in Islam is person have different value based on their status. Christianity must wrestle with universal human rights tied to personhood, which entirely explains why so much effort was spent to explain why some people aren’t humans for such a long time in Christian traditions. However, once the cat was out of the bag, the banning of slavery was an inevitable consequence of Christian theology. Not so in Islam. In Islam, a person’s station is life is the will of Allah. Thus, one cannot change position by simple will or appeal to logic or even law. Some retard anon just wasted an hour writing bilk and failed to accept Allah’s will.
>>18767297DYAC phone posting. Sorry>>18767247 #The defect in your reasoning is that personhood in Islam is meaningless, because perhaps the most important a priori in Islam is persons have different value based on their status. Christianity must wrestle with universal human rights tied to personhood, which entirely explains why so much effort was spent to explain why some people aren’t humans for such a long time in Christian traditions. However, once the cat was out of the bag, the banning of slavery was an inevitable consequence of Christian theology.Not so in Islam. In Islam, a person’s station is life is the will of Allah. Thus, one cannot change position by simple will or appeal to logic or even law. Some retard anon just wasted an hour writing bilk and failed to accept Allah’s will.
>>18767247You're only somewhat sharp, compared to the Christian who responded to you; that guy will slurp up whatever his paster puts out.If you're interested in theology, a common theme with these bible head-bashers is that they're afraid of actually interacting with Islam, because of how woefully inadequate their religion is.
>>18767308
>>18767309Here's your toy, go outside and play, boy. Don't waste our time.In my posts, you won't see me strawman christianity. I dont need to, the truth stands abundantly clear from falsehood (2:256)
>>18767312>our timeSure buddy. Much Islam here. I like the action figure though. Rather kino.
>>18767247Since you like neoplatonism, you'll appreciate Islamic Akhlaq virtue ethics. Akhlaq is about the inward purification of the soul through Tazkiyah, and Abab is it's outward manifestation in our behavior, deeds and actions.>Indeed, God will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their hearts (quran 13:11)Al-Ghazali's writes (in his Revival of the religious sciences) as the soul is purified, it moves toward its final goal, the Falah (Spiritual Success), your true radiant form (quran 87:14)>He has succeeded who purifies it (soul), and he has failed who instills it [with corruption] (quran 91:9)Revelation is the purifying lens that can't overwrite the fitrah, but that it cleanses it of cultural or ego-driven distortions. This is the meaning behind "Light upon Light" (24:35), the light of human reason and innate nature perfectly coinciding with the light of the divine reality.Islam aligns closely with philosopher Harry Frankfurt's hierarchical model of the will where moral agency is not about merely first-order desires or Nafs al-Ammarah (the soul inciting evil). This represents our unrefined appetites, base egoistic desires and impulses>Indeed, the soul is ever-inclining toward evil, except those upon whom my Lord has mercy (12:53)The soul also has second-order desires i.e Nafs al-Lawwamah (self-reproaching conscience 75:2), representing the emergence of reflective moral consciousness, and experiencing internal friction, guilt, etc.and the emergance of second order volitions called the Frankfurtian Freedom, this is the Nafs al-Mutmainnah or the soul in harmony with truth.>O tranquil soul (al-nafs al-mutma'innah), return to your Lord, pleased and pleasing (quran 89:27)
>>18767629continued (2);Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (1350 AD) writes extensively (in his Ranks of the Seekers) that through Tazkiya and Jihad al-Nafs (the internal struggle against lower egoistic impulses, and one of the four jihads) there is reflective endorsement of which desires we want to govern us (13:11); we discipline and refine our nafs (ego/self) to align our will, with what we impefectly recognize as good/truth. This is considered the "greater jihad".>The mujahid (one who engages in jihad) is the one who strives against himself (At- tirmidhi 1621)Ibn Taymiyyah similarly writes in Majmu al-Fatawa that, >A person cannot perform jihad against his enemies, until he performs jihad against his own self internally (jihad al-nafs)Now, let's examine the objection my christian friend brought up>a priori in Islam is person have different value based on their statusIslam is actually one of the few religions that UNAMBIGUOUSLY condemns any kind of racism, or virtue inherited via one's station in life.>An Arab has no superiority over a non Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab; nor a white person over a black person, nor a black person over a white person, except by God consciousness (taqwa) - (Prophet Muhammad's Farewell Sermon, Musnad Ahmad (23489))>The people killed killed the children [...] That reached the Messenger of Allah: "What is the matter with them, they have transgressed, so they killed the children?" A man said: "O Messenger, they are only the children of the polytheists." He said: "Indeed, the best of you are the sons of polytheists. do not kill the children! Every soul is born upon the fitrah"(ahmad, al-musnad 15589)God created each of us with intrinsic honor, and the best of us are those best in piety>And We have certainly honored the children of Adam (17:70)>O mankind, We have created you .. and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you (49:13)
Final bump
>>18764049enlightened christianity
