Religion tends to be more interesting than philosophy, because it's less afraid of substantive claims (as opposed to 'conceptually necessary' ones that venture little) & it's more deeply tied to mankind's cultural origins and deepest fears / desires / etc. It's also generally a culturally more well-developed realm of human thought / action. Philosophy has some advantages, but if anything mixing the two debases religion, not vice-versa. — Snakes Alive

:up:

Clearly, God said "discuss me" sometime or other. Why else would we do so, unceasingly and with so little to show for it, if not under compulsion? Thus is God's existence established. The Argument from Prolixity. — Ciceronianus the White

:pray:

:rofl:

How about a simple rule: anyone using the term "god" or anything like, has to make clear what he means by the word, in the sense of a good definition. My guess is that would take the oxygen out of the room. — tim wood

I would argue matter is made up of spiritual entities (spiritual creatures) rapidly moving their arms really quick so that there is an appearance that there is a 3d object there. We the people are just particles (made up of particles) that flow through a river taking the path of least resistance. Our emotions are modified by and also a contributor to this river of particles. This feeling or emotion is a whole "object" that encompasses the whole universe (collective consceeeeeesss or collective soul). God is just the original personality that has no rational explanation as to why he/she has that personality. I don't feel this entirely breaks with the Pail of orthodoxy.

To some extent i adhere to the above beliefs, perhaps supplemented by a pseudo matrix movie theology strongly influenced by the new testament as well as the old testament.

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

If you are that particular kind of theist and you think all philosophical issues have been clarified by that kind of deity in a particular text. And, everyone else is. If you do not have that version of a deity or do not think that the deity has answered al philosophical questions, then there is a lot to discuss. And only more so, if others are not that kind of theist or theists at all. Given that so many issues are not resolved by scripture or revelation, there is tremendous room for discussion. A philosophy of language issues for example - of course it might impinge on scripture and hermeneutics, but then even that's a potential discussion.

Sure, it's a pretty dead end to philosophical discussion, if someone states their position and then supports it with 'God said so' but I rarely see theists, even of the omni-everything type, try to end every discussion with Because God Says, at least not in philosophical forums.

This seems like a kind of cherry picking, and one that could be applied to almost any philosophical position.

If you are that particular kind of theist and you think all philosophical issues have been clarified by that kind of deity in a particular text. — Coben

The knowledge database of religious advisories keeps growing every day. Look for example just at this one site: https://islamqa.info/en . Every time there is a question, an attempt is made to discover a suitable jurisprudential advisory that syntactically entails from scripture.

However, saying that all issues have been clarified by the scriptures would be equivalent to saying that all theorems and their justification are discovered already when publishing the axioms of a theory.

It took 350 years to discover the justification from number theory for Fermat's Last Theorem. So, knowledge discovery is not necessarily an easy thing in a formal system. It could be a lot of hard work.

Given that so many issues are not resolved by scripture or revelation, there is tremendous room for discussion. — Coben

Indeed, all theorems are not discovered in a theory, merely by publishing its axioms. Another remark to make is that the theory embodied in the scripture is a formal system for morality only. It will not answer other questions. For example, don't ask it to predict the weather.

Islamic law is consistent and complete in a sense that for every question concerning the morality of human behaviour a theorem can be discovered that syntactically entails from scripture.

Islamic law is consistent and complete in a sense that for every question concerning the morality of human behaviour a theorem can be discovered that syntactically entails from scripture. — alcontali

Nevertheless it's locked in to a world in which slave trading was ok. That world is gone and thus Islamic law is crippled.

The only way out is to put Islam in a secular setting.

Nevertheless it's locked in to a world in which slave trading was ok. That world is gone and thus Islamic law is crippled. — frank

I am absolutely not that sure that that world is permanently gone. It may just be gone for the time being. If the framework that prevents it, collapses, and it surely is collapsing, then slavery will re-emerge with a vengeance. Just look at what is going on in Libya.

Humanity is based on a non-human technology that we only very partially understand.

In earlier times, slavery seems to have been the primary way in which males would combat other males with a view on confiscating their females, i.e the biology-wide mating season. Marriage is a civilizing hack to that, which drastically reduces related violence. Therefore, we must be utmost careful when the principle of marriage is falling apart -- skyrocketing divorce rates and collapsing fertility rates -- because the principle of life being undefeatable, quite a few people will still successfully reproduce, but then by other means.

If the framework that prevents it, collapses, and it surely is collapsing, then slavery will re-emerge with a vengeance. Just look at what is going on in Libya. — alcontali

What framework prevents the re-emergence of slave trading? I'm aware that slave-trading still exists in Africa. That's not a new development. What's new about Libya?

You seem to be saying that Muslims have never really accepted that slavery is immoral. They've just been going along with it because their European dominators saw things that way. Once Europe is gone, they'll go back to slave trading.

In earlier times, slavery seems to have been the primary way in which males would combat other males with a view on confiscating their females, i.e the biology-wide mating season. — alcontali

So the first slaves were sex-slaves? Interesting speculation. Is there any evidence for it?

Therefore, we must be utmost careful when the principle of marriage is falling apart -- skyrocketing divorce rates and collapsing fertility rates -- because the principle of life being undefeatable, quite a few people will still successfully reproduce, but then by other means. — alcontali

What?

You seem to be saying that Muslims have never really accepted that slavery is immoral. They've just been going along with it because their European dominators saw things that way. Once Europe is gone, they'll go back to slave trading. — frank

This is possible but not necessarily sure. Still, I would not dismiss it as impossible either. ISIS actually did exactly that with the Yazidi followers, justifying it by making use of an old Ottoman firman that called for that. The opinions in the Islamic world are very divided on that episode.

So the first slaves were sex-slaves? Interesting speculation. Is there any evidence for it? — frank

A major source of slaves had been Roman military expansion during the Republic. During the Pax Romana of the early Roman Empire (1st–2nd centuries AD), emphasis was placed on maintaining stability, and the lack of new territorial conquests dried up this supply line of human trafficking. Many captives were either brought back as war booty or sold to traders,[9] and ancient sources cite anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of such slaves captured in each war. The average recorded age at death for the slaves of the city of Rome was extraordinarily low: seventeen and a half years (17.2 for males; 17.9 for females). Julius Caesar once sold the entire population of a conquered region in Gaul, no fewer than 53,000 people, to slave dealers on the spot. — Wikipedia on slavery in ancient Rome

Historically, slavery is clearly related to war.

Adult males are not particularly easy to manage as slaves. In fact, they could even be seriously dangerous. So, it is clear to me that the more interesting captives must have been women and children. The average recorded age at death also suggests that. Most older male slaves must have been born in slavery instead. Female slaves would obviously be sexually involved with their masters.

This is possible but not necessarily sure. Still, I would not dismiss it as impossible either. ISIS actually did exactly that with the Yazidi followers, justifying it by making use of an old Ottoman firman that called for that. The opinions in the Islamic world are very divided on that episode. — alcontali

If the Islamic world is "very divided" on the morality of the actions of ISIS in regard to the Yazidi, then that would mark the doom of Islam. Young people won't embrace a religion of the diabolical.

Adult males are not particularly easy to manage as slaves. In fact, they could even be seriously dangerous. — alcontali

Slavery takes many forms in many cultures. Adult male slaves have always been popular because they're stronger than females slaves. Muslim slave-traders knew this as far back as the 700s CE. You're obviously not a slave trader. I suggest you look into it more closely since it's directly tied to your religious outlook.

Adult male slaves have always been popular because they're stronger than females slaves. — frank

Possibly, but only when born in slavery; not when originally free men. Controlling free men requires a prison structure. Otherwise, it is too dangerous. Furthermore, even males born in slavery could possibly join dangerous rebellions and insurgencies.

It is not simple to find data on at what age the slaves were typically enslaved. I have just found this:

He offers a graphic account of his kidnapping into slavery at the age of 11, and describes being held captive along the West African coast for seven months before was subsequently sold to British slavers, who shipped him to Barbados and then took him to Virginia. — Childhood and Transatlantic Slavery

Possibly, but only when born in slavery; not when originally free men. Controlling free men requires a prison structure. Otherwise, it is too dangerous. Furthermore, even males born in slavery could possibly join dangerous rebellions and insurgencies. — alcontali

The vast majority of slaves transported in the Atlantic slave trade were male and were brought from the interior of Africa to the west coast by Moors. Apparently controlling them wasn't too difficult for the Moors because we know they weren't paid much per slave. They probably just chained them to one another.

Plus Egyptian depictions of massive numbers of conquered slaves should be enough to dispel the notion that most slaves in the ancient world were female. That's just not true.

But I think your goal was to show some biological basis for slavery in an ancient sex-slave trade. Your only backing for this is a mistaken notion about the difficulties of holding male slaves.

I'm not persuaded.

The vast majority of slaves transported in the Atlantic slave trade were male and were brought from the interior of Africa to the west coast by Moors. Apparently controlling them wasn't too difficult for the Moors because we know they weren't paid much per slave. They probably just chained them to one another.

Plus Egyptian depictions of massive numbers of conquered slaves should be enough to dispel the notion that most slaves in the ancient world were female. That's just not true.

But I think your goal was to show some biological basis for slavery in an ancient sex-slave trade. Your only backing for this is a mistaken notion about the difficulties of holding male slaves.

I'm not persuaded. — frank

Another thing to note is a person who fears the after life (doesn't necessarily imply a lack of character) will be less likely to "run away". Americans in the some what distant past were more likely to get violent with their neighbor than be obedient to their neighbor. American slavery was very bad and one of the things that probably kept the slaves enslaved was the bad theology taught to them. Bad Religion/theology is a great way to keep people "obedient". I don't necessarily believe the American slaves were cowards but if you are told that if you take corrective action A, B, or C to your plight that you are breaking an important religious law/notion, you will be more likely to be obedient. As you probably understand, their is more to life bending over backwards for a bunch of assholes everyday.

American slavery was very bad and one of the things that probably kept the slaves enslaved was the bad theology taught to them. — christian2017

True, but teaching them Christianity was a first step in seeing them as human, so the first abolitionists were Christian missionaries and members of sects that prohibited slave ownership (like Methodists).

True, but teaching them Christianity was a first step in seeing them as human, so the first abolitionists were Christian missionaries and members of sects that prohibited slave ownership (like Methodists).
2 hours agoReplyOptions
12

As a christian i see this as a huge plus but i don't feel anyone should feel obligated to live a long long life of crap just to meet some non Biblical theological standards in order to "maintain their salvation". — frank

True, but teaching them Christianity was a first step in seeing them as human, so the first abolitionists were Christian missionaries and members of sects that prohibited slave ownership (like Methodists). — frank

As a christian i see this as a huge plus but i don't feel anyone should feel obligated to live a long long life of crap just to meet some non Biblical theological standards in order to "maintain their salvation

But I think your goal was to show some biological basis for slavery in an ancient sex-slave trade. Your only backing for this is a mistaken notion about the difficulties of holding male slaves. I'm not persuaded. — frank

There is still an uncanny similarity between the pretty much biology-wide mating season and war.

In an agricultural society, there would probably still be some use for male labour, if sufficiently docile, because either born in slavery or captured very young, but what use could hunter-gatherers possibly have for male slaves? They certainly weren't going to incorporate them in their hunting groups.

I think that in slaveholder societies, many young men, especially poor but fit ones, would eagerly volunteer for war because it gave them ready access to sex and gold; things that would be much harder to obtain as a poverty-stricken young civilian male.

The following is from the Napoleontic wars:

As Farges has argued, conquest also involves gendered representations of the sexuality of the enemy: It is as if the women of the conquered enemy belonged de facto and almost by right to the conqueror. Insofar as a woman is concerned, this form of belonging is implicitly perceived as being sexual. The anthropological dissymmetry between male and female provides the “natural” evidence of this stereotype: the sexual act is a possession of the feminine by the masculine and not the other way round. The conqueror says “this is mine” when he places his flag over the conquered city and rapes the women. In this sense, the two actions are homologous. — When Silence Reigns: Sexuality, Affect, and Space in Soldiers’ Memoirs of the Napoleonic Wars

Some people seem to believe that this mating season-like behaviour during war would merely be a lack of discipline.

I do not think so.

I believe that the desire to exhibit this behaviour is the main driver behind the strong desire for young men to go to war. Humanity incessantly invents excuses for why war would be needed. In that deceptive lie, there would even be something like a "just war".

I think that war is the primary means of reproduction, while marriage is just a brittle, civilizing hack. The dynamics of the winner rightfully taking possession of his prize has undoubtedly much more legitimacy in the eyes of anybody involved than conducting an overly pacifist and nowadays increasingly meaningless ceremony.

I think that war is the primary means of reproduction, while marriage is just a brittle, civilizing hack. — alcontali

And relating this back to Islamic law, you'd see this as evidence of the righteousness of Islam's association with slave trading?

If your mother was captured and gang raped as the Yazidi women were, you'd consider that this may be approved by God?

And relating this back to Islamic law, you'd see this as evidence of the righteousness of Islam's association with slave trading? If your mother was captured and gang raped as the Yazidi women were, you'd consider that this may be approved by God? — frank

I think that there is no need to become too personal in these matters. That is just going to cloud our insights.

In fact, these Yazidi women were in principle not gang raped but sold to the highest bidder. Especially gang rape is considered to be a serious lapse in discipline in the Islamic laws of war. Furthermore, the rules try to prevent confusion to arise over who is the father of child by demanding that sexual intercourse may not take place before the new mentrual period of the captive female slave.

Concerning the religious status of the Yazidi:

In William Seabrook's book Adventures in Arabia, the fourth section, starting with Chapter 14, is devoted to the "Yezidees" and is titled "Among the Yezidees". He describes them as "a mysterious sect scattered throughout the Orient, strongest in North Arabia, feared and hated both by Moslem and Christian, because they are worshippers of Satan."

George Gurdjieff wrote about his encounters with the Yazidis several times in his book Meetings with Remarkable Men, mentioning that they are considered to be "devil worshippers" by other ethnicities in the region.

In H.P. Lovecraft's story "The Horror at Red Hook", some of the murderous foreigners are identified as belonging to "the Yezidi clan of devil-worshippers".[89] — Wikipedia on the historical perception of the Yazidi

If you want some more details on the religious status of Yazidi in Islam, you can read the advisory "Is it permissible to marry a Yazidi woman?".

- Their belief that Iblees is the peacock of the angels lead them to venerate statues of peacocks made of copper in the form of a rooster the size of a clenched fist. They take these statues around the villages to collect money.
-In their declaration of faith they say: “I bear witness that One is Allah and Sultan Yazid is the beloved of Allah.”
They prohibit the colour blue because it is one of the most prominent colours of the peacock.
The Yazidi prays facing towards the sun when it rises and when it sets, then he kisses the ground and rubs his face on it.
...
Then they began to venerate Iblees who is cursed in the Qur’an.
...
From the above it is clear that the Yazidis are a deviant and misguided sect who are beyond the pale of Islam. Based on that, it is not permissible for a Muslim to marry a Yazidi woman, just as it is not permissible to marry a mushrik (polytheist) or Magian woman, and the like. No exception is made regarding disbelievers who are outside the pale of Islam, with regard to marriage, except in the case of the Jews and Christians, because they are originally People of the Book. As for the Yazidis and others, they have no Book in the first place; rather they are an apostate sect who combine all kinds of disbelief in one religion. — Religious advisory on marrying a Yazidi woman

I am not going to reject their qualification as "devil worshippers".

In times of peace and as long as there is law and order, Yazidi populations are merely ignored by their neighbours. Unfortunately, during the slightest breakdown in law and order, these neighbouring populations will mercilessly attack the Yazidi.

In the following article, the journalist tries to gloss over the real problem:

Yazidis have suffered centuries of religious persecution, based largely on the false idea that they revere the sun as God and worship a fallen angel. Though Yazidis pray toward the sun, and worship seven angels, they are monotheistic, and there is little to distinguish their God from the Muslim or the Christian one.

Under the Ottomans, Yazidi villages were raided so often that the word firman, which means “decree” in Ottoman Turkish, came to mean “genocide” among Yazidis. When Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq, Yazidi villages were razed, and their inhabitants were resettled in planned communities and compelled to identify as Arabs.

By the time that Pir was in college, in the early two-thousands, the Yazidis counted seventy-two genocides in their history. — The Daring Plan to Save a Religious Minority from ISIS

It is regrettable that neighbouring mobs tend to attack the Yazidis, whenever they see the opportunity to do so, but that is the nature of a mob. I think that it is even worse that the ruling authority regularly does that too.

I conclude that as far as I am concerned, it is preferable not to be a member of the Yazidi religion because your security will regularly be at stake, and up in the air. Furthermore, I would personally not agree to worship Satan in any way or fashion. As you know, atheists are quite in the same situation. They also seem to trigger hate reactions from the mob.

We know they were gang raped because some escaped to tell about it.

So if your daughter was captured and sold to the highest bidder, your god would approve.

That's one fucked up religion you have, my friend.

We know they were gang raped because some escaped to tell about it. — frank

Gang rape is a lapse in discipline and a violation of Islamic law. There is absolutely no religious scholar in Islam who would ever approve of that. It is just bad behaviour.

So if your daughter was captured and sold to the highest bidder, your god would approve. That's one fucked up religion you have, my friend. — frank

How many times do we need to repeat to the plebs that personal attacks are never the solution to a problem? The only thing that you achieve by attacking people personally, is to reveal your lower social class and trailer-park origins.

Seriously, we do not discuss with people like you, because that is pointless. We use the royal mounted constabulary equipped with long, solid wooden sticks to charge at and disperse individuals of your despicable social class.

And the Chinese government zaps people like you in the back if the head with a cattle prod for being hesitant about giving up Islam.

You sure you don't prefer my lower human-rights-loving class?

Anyway, I didn't attack you. I just drew your attention to the ramifications of your disgusting beliefs.

Anyway, I didn't attack you. I just drew your attention to the ramifications of your disgusting beliefs. — frank

Well, you did, by turning it into a personal affair. It is not a personal affair.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. — Torah, Numbers 31:15-18 (KJV)

I personally believe what the Jewish scholar Hans Joachim Schoeps observed about Islam:

Hans Joachim Schoeps observes that the Christianity Muhammad was likely to have encountered on the Arabian peninsula "was not the state religion of Byzantium but a schismatic Christianity characterized by Ebionite and Monophysite views."[115]

Thus we have a paradox of world-historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day. According to Islamic doctrine, the Ebionite combination of Moses and Jesus found its fulfillment in Muhammad.[116] — Wikipedia on the views on the Ebionites of Hans Joachim Schoeps

As far as I am concerned the schism between Pauline Christianity and Islam took place at the Council of Jerusalem, where the antinomian Peter, along with Paul, designated "apostate of the Law", more or less usurped the position of James the Just, brother of Jesus, as the legitimate successor to the leadership of the congregation of the poor.

When prophet Muhammad, may he rest in peace, was asked to succeed to Waraka ibn Nawfal, leader of the congregation of the poor, he eventually managed to achieve something that was simply amazing, and which snowballed into a global phenomenon. The prophet said that he succeeded in decoding signals en provenance from the transcendental origin of our universe, through some kind of intelligent communication mechanism, and I really believe that he did.

Beyond that, I am not interested in your baseless criticism.

For the believer, it is religious law that defines morality.

I consider your assessment of one formal system of morality in terms of another one -- which is in fact not even a system -- to be system-less bullshit. Furthermore, we are not going to solve any problem with your approach, and certainly not the problem of Yazidi persecution. You are simply not doing anything useful for them or sparing them in any way from future persecution. Helping the Yazidi clearly requires something else than mere shit talk.

Well, you did, by turning it into a personal affair. It is not a personal affair. — alcontali

If God approves of your daughter being sold as a sex slave, what's the problem? Are you in conflict with the Divine?

[extended below]

Islamic law forbids enslaving Muslims. — alcontali

Correct.

The Chinese are coming.

If God approves of your daughter being sold as a sex slave, what's the problem? Are you in conflict with the Divine? — frank

Islamic law forbids enslaving Muslims. Therefore, I do not run that risk by giving a proper education to daughters. In fact, external signs of Islamicity are very solid as a personal security measure. It is much better than carrying guns, my friend.

We are completely safe in Muslim lands, and given the strange and unexplainable twist in history, also safe in most non-Muslim lands. For an atheist, the situation seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction.

In my opinion, serious breakdowns in law and order are now on the horizon in the West. As I have argued already, the civilizing institution of marriage has lost all credibility in the West. Still, Muslims will undoubtedly be safe anyway. So, publicly proclaiming membership of the club could offer good cover from marauding gangs.

Islam is not just a goal for the believer. It is also a tool. It is also an instrument to achieve what you want or need.

And the Chinese government zaps people like you in the back if the head with a cattle prod for being hesitant about giving up Islam. — frank

Well, at the same time someone else seems to be engineering HIV-related viruses to teach that very same Chinese government their own lesson:

Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag.

Doctors in Thailand and Japan have used HIV medications to treat patients infected with the novel coronavirus with apparent success. — HIV treatments provide line of attack against coronavirus

The Chinese government had better watch out with their arrogance in all matters, and not just in matters of religion. There seems to be a trivial way of organizing reprisals readily available, and not even particularly expensive, I guess. ;-)

That coronavirus may very well be a feat in "creative evil thinking" ... ;-)

That coronavirus may very well be a feat in "creative evil thinking" ... ;-) — alcontali

I doubt it. Viruses mutate all the time.

I don't think the Chinese are being arrogant. They just don't believe in human rights. But neither do you apparently.

Well, you did, by turning it into a personal affair. It is not a personal affair — alcontali

Pointing out the implications your general principles would have on you specifically is not a personal attack, it is drawing your attention to the concrete consequences of your abstract ideas.

But if you want to talk about getting things personal...

How many times do we need to repeat to the plebs that personal attacks are never the solution to a problem? The only thing that you achieve by attacking people personally, is to reveal your lower social class and trailer-park origins. — alcontali

This kind of classist bullshit makes me reconsider my opinion on guillotines. Maybe a few stuck up asshats like you should get their heads paraded around on pikes until the rest of you get the fucking message that this kind of thing is not acceptable.

Makes me reconsider religious tolerance too. Maybe I’ll go doodle Mohammed and then wipe my ass with it just to spite you. I’d tell your God that you’re the instigator behind that too, except he doesn’t exist and I try not to talk to myself.

I previously assumed your right-libertarianism was nominally a matter of anti-authoritarian principle and you were just happy to overlook or rationalize the anti-egalitarian consequences of it, like most internet techie manchildren, but now it’s clear that you’re simply someone who thinks he’s inherently better than others and only opposes authorities that challenge your own power.

I doubt it. Viruses mutate all the time. — frank

You are not the only one doubting things in that context:

The director of the OSTP, Kelvin Droegemeier, wrote in the letter to the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Marcia McNutt, that a widely disputed paper on the origins -- subsequently withdrawn -- had shown the urgency for accurate information about the genesis of the outbreak. The OSTP also supports providing wider access to scientific studies on the coronavirus. "There are still many unanswered questions about the virus, which your colleagues are working hard to resolve," he said. — White House asks scientists to investigate origins of coronavirus

The "creating evil thinking" problem is about the following sentence in the Indian research paper:

The finding of 4 unique [HIV] inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. — Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag

Personally, I am just waiting for new scientific reports on the matter.

As you can see, Prashant Pradhan, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Mishra, Parul Gupta, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Manoj Balakrishnan Menon, James Gomes, Perumal Vivekanandan, and Bishwajit Kundu, have put their reputation at stake by writing that sentence. They are not just going to give up, are they? Now they obviously want vindication of their views. ;-)

I don't think the Chinese are being arrogant. They just don't believe in human rights. But neither do you apparently. — frank

"Human rights" are a concern. They are not a formal system. We use our formal system of morality, i.e. Islamic law, to address concerns, one by one, as they arise.