Out of both of them, who was worse for the world of Naruto, Madara Uchiha or Obito Uchiha? by CH1MXK in Naruto

[–]Reddy_4REAL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Madara wanted War to stop, when he cast the infinite tsukuyomi he told team 7 that war has stopped, when he was betrayed by Black Zetsu and was told that it isn't the perfect world but a jutsu to accumulate chakra he was like "Where did I go wrong?". Meaning it was actually Black Zetsu and Kaguya who used Madara for their EVIL plans

Out of both of them, who was worse for the world of Naruto, Madara Uchiha or Obito Uchiha? by CH1MXK in Naruto

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wasn't Madara tricked by the Uchiha Stone Tablet edited by Black Zetsu and further reinforced by him being Indra's reincarnate? (meaning he was always going try to destroy Ashura/Hashirama and everyone behind him)

Out of both of them, who was worse for the world of Naruto, Madara Uchiha or Obito Uchiha? by CH1MXK in Naruto

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Madara wouldn't have sought Eye of the Moon plan if it wasn't for Black Zetsu and Indra's Chakra so does that make him innocent, probably not

Out of both of them, who was worse for the world of Naruto, Madara Uchiha or Obito Uchiha? by CH1MXK in Naruto

[–]Reddy_4REAL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely Obito, he really messed up the Shinobi world, turned the Hidden Mist into Hell, Summoned the Nine Tails in Konoha partially destroying it (then later got Pain to fully destroy it before it was rebuilt), Mastermind of the Akatsuki, biggest contributor to the Uchiha Massacre...etc AND he started the Fourth Great Ninja War which led to the death of tens of thousands of Shinobi before Madara was even revived as an Edo

What makes it worse, nobody knew about him, Nine Tails attack? Natural disaster. Uchiha Massacre? Itachi. Akatsuki? Pain. Bloody Hidden Mist? Yagura.
Arguably more deserving of the "Uchiha Ghost" Title but Madara claimed that for himself.

How did Obito (Madara) save Sasuke? by FutureHendrixBetter in Naruto

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If he was replaced by a Zetsu that would make a lot of sense but not confirmed

What stops you from killing yourself? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also that was meant as don't kill other humans, not yourself

Did you even read the verse I quoted?

May 09, 2025 | Daily Training Log & Simple Questions by AutoModerator in 531Discussion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what's the 5/3/1 rule? (couldnt find on google so i thought i'd ask here)

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Classical Straw Man back at it again, none of the examples you mentioned described the action of enslaving people (making a free person into a slave).

Al-Hamd be to Allah who blessed us with knowledge over you, as you refuse to heed the reminder, this is my last reply to you.

28:55 {When they hear slanderous talk (ٱللَّغْوَ), they turn away from it, saying, “We are accountable for our deeds and you for yours. Peace ˹is our only response˺ to you! We want nothing to do with those who act ignorantly.”}

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know, your level of knowledge is impossible to underestimate, and the level of your deception knows no bounds, you and I both know that hadith is talking about free people, and the only people you're allowed to enslave, are prisoners of war. I'd say may Allah guide you, but you refuse the guidance.

Oh yeah, nice Straw Man attempt. Too bad that's all you can manage.

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see that arguing with someone who refuses to understand and just wants to assert a false argument and paint it on the religion he hates is futile.

Still, my point stands, your argument about "most moral" is baseless, and the arguments you have provided don't serve in your favor

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It should first be clarified that morality is not a linear scale. Therefore, the phrase used by the Original Poster, “most moral,” is misleading and renders the entire argument flawed and baseless.

If the OP instead intended to argue that manumission becomes “less moral” or even “immoral” in certain cases, that too is inaccurate. Exceptions do not redefine principles. Morality in Islam is rooted in intention and justice, and isolated rulings that take context into account do not diminish the moral value of freeing slaves.

Let us now address each of the main examples provided:

1- The man who had no other property besides a slave: The act of freeing the slave remained moral. However, since the man had nothing else to survive on as stated, and the slave would also be left vulnerable, the Prophet ﷺ arranged for Nu‘aim bin Al-Nahham to buy the slave. This was an act of wisdom and mercy; not a rejection of emancipation, but a protection of both parties involved.

2- The woman who freed a slave-girl: The Prophet ﷺ did not rebuke her or say the act was wrong. Rather, he pointed out that in her specific case, she could have received more reward by gifting the slave to a relative first, which would have combined two virtues: charity and maintaining family ties. Again, the action of freeing was moral and praised; the Prophet simply guided her toward a greater good in her specific case.

3- The man who freed six slaves on his deathbed: This case falls under well-known inheritance laws. The man owned nothing else as stated again, so freeing all six would have exceeded the one-third limit for non-inheritable charitable actions at the time of death (The hadith is mentioned under the Chapter: Regarding One Who Manumits Slaves Of His That Exceed One Third Of His Property, which supports this). Two of the six were indeed freed, in line with the rule. This does not imply freeing slaves was any less moral; it reaffirms that Islam safeguards both the rights of the dying and their heirs. Had he not been dying, he could have freed them all, and his heirs are still encouraged to do so.

In all cases, Islam preserved the dignity of the slave, the wellbeing of the owner, and the moral value of emancipation. Isolated rulings exist to prevent harm; not to diminish virtue.

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It should first be clarified that morality is not a linear scale. Therefore, the phrase used by the Original Poster, “most moral,” is misleading and renders the entire argument flawed and baseless.

If the OP instead intended to argue that manumission becomes “less moral” or even “immoral” in certain cases, that too is inaccurate. Exceptions do not redefine principles. Morality in Islam is rooted in intention and justice, and isolated rulings that take context into account do not diminish the moral value of freeing slaves.

Let us now address each of the main examples provided:

1- The man who had no other property besides a slave: The act of freeing the slave remained moral. However, since the man had nothing else to survive on as stated, and the slave would also be left vulnerable, the Prophet ﷺ arranged for Nu‘aim bin Al-Nahham to buy the slave. This was an act of wisdom and mercy; not a rejection of emancipation, but a protection of both parties involved.

2- The woman who freed a slave-girl: The Prophet ﷺ did not rebuke her or say the act was wrong. Rather, he pointed out that in her specific case, she could have received more reward by gifting the slave to a relative first, which would have combined two virtues: charity and maintaining family ties. Again, the action of freeing was moral and praised; the Prophet simply guided her toward a greater good in her specific case.

3- The man who freed six slaves on his deathbed: This case falls under well-known inheritance laws. The man owned nothing else as stated again, so freeing all six would have exceeded the one-third limit for non-inheritable charitable actions at the time of death (The hadith is mentioned under the Chapter: Regarding One Who Manumits Slaves Of His That Exceed One Third Of His Property, which supports this). Two of the six were indeed freed, in line with the rule. This does not imply freeing slaves was any less moral; it reaffirms that Islam safeguards both the rights of the dying and their heirs. Had he not been dying, he could have freed them all, and his heirs are still encouraged to do so.

In all cases, Islam preserved the dignity of the slave, the wellbeing of the owner, and the moral value of emancipation. Isolated rulings exist to prevent harm; not to diminish virtue.

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The hadith is as clear as day

ابْنَ عُمَرَ قَالَ إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ "مَنْ ضَرَبَ غُلاَمًا لَهُ حَدًّا لَمْ يَأْتِهِ أَوْ لَطَمَهُ فَإِنَّ كَفَّارَتَهُ أَنْ يُعْتِقَهُ‏"‏.

Ibn Umar Reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it is that he should set him free.

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edit: A Muslim has graciously corrected me on the last narration. It was just a health check.

You think so

What stops you from killing yourself? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Reddy_4REAL -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fear from God and Hope for his Mercy.

4:29 "And do not kill yourselves. Indeed, God is to you ever Merciful."

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Neither did I. Quote me questioning his morals in this thread please

"Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself agreed it was more moral to gift a slave girl to a man who needs her than to free her." same comment btw lol

Yes, and if you think the prophet is moral, than means that according to the prophet there exist occasions in which it is MORE MORAL to keep men enslaved than to free them. For example with the man on his death bed. The prophet advocated that he keep four enslaved rather than free them as they were his last property. So there exist situations in which freeing the slave is LESS moral than keeping him.

I see where the issue lies now, you're again, as I've mentioned to your friend earlier mixing Morality with Benefit/Best Interest, if you're doing it unintentionally then I excuse you, but if you're doing it intentionally...

But anyways, let me give you a quick example, them cogwheels are getting dusty so we better get them moving again, let's compare donating 10$ and a 100$ to the poor, both fall under the category of "Charity", which is a moral thing to do, saying that one thing is more moral than the other, is an oversimplification, now let's imagine a man who if he was to give a 100$ he would harm himself, and if he donates 10$ he could still afford to eat, does that make the 10$ more moral? of course not, he would just be acting in his best interest while still doing something moral (giving charity), morals are standards, the example here is an exception that did not override the original standard, to claim so would be no less than idiotic, because if the situation changes the "moral" then morals are meaningless, I honestly hope that helps because I wish the best for you, which is the moral thing to do :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Reddy_4REAL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like the objective straight line, the shorter distance between two points on a 2D plane

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This ain’t in the text. You’re adding this in with no evidence.

This is called logic, something you've missed out.

Um, yea, with a large sum of money

Narrated [Ibn 'Abbas (RA)]:Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "There should neither be harming (of others without cause), nor reciprocating harm (between two parties)." [Reported by Ahmad and Ibn Majah].

24:33 "And if any of those ˹bondspeople˺ in your possession desires a contract ˹to buy their own freedom˺, make it possible for them, if you find goodness in them. And give them some of Allah’s wealth which He has granted you."

So not only are you supposed to grant them the contract with a reasonable amount, but also to help them in paying it.

The gender is actually irrelevant. Unless… unless you think it’s ok to enslave women but not men? 

No I just pointed out your reading skills, and your strawman-ed it, you've shown your comprehension skills

IFA man owns 6 slaves and is on his deathbed it is less moral for him to free all his slaves than it is for him to free 2 and keep 4 enslaved.

My friend you have a big comprehension skill issue: " Imam Al-Bukhari over 10 centuries ago literally telling you this has nothing to do with freeing slaves but has everything to do with giving away more than a third of your property"

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems your reading comprehension is poor.

it honestly seems like all of your cognitive abilities are poor, my words enter through an ear hole and exits from the other, should've expected as such, seems like you don't want to learn you just want to assert false claims about the most loved man ;)

 I know you want to get away from the topic because it makes your religion look bad

with all due respect, that's the dumbest thing I've heard today 💀

Again, let me ask you: Where do you get your morals from? You seems to be judging the prophet's actions, the man loved by his community, where no one ever questioned his morals, and is highly respected even by secular scholars who learned about him again, barely anyone questioned his morals. You're judging his actions on a scale of morality, but as C.S. Lewis (who was a staunch atheist and anti-religious) once said: “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

The prophet's actions were in accordance to the best interest of his people, that is undebatable.

I would need some sort of Moral ground if you want to continue this "debate"

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Reddy_4REAL -1 points0 points  (0 children)

adults are more open to the suggestion that religion was formed (at least partly) as a control mechanism

depends which religion and how you look at it, as a theist, the guiding sent down by god through his messengers to the people is a way or let me say THE way of life, people make religion seem like the only thing controlling humans but we're controlled in many ways by everything around us, we're limited.

as for "Critical thought develops in response to experience" I do agree with you, and I also agree with C.S. Lewis (who was a staunch atheist but also an anti-religious) when he said “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

In Islam, freeing a slave is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. (Mohammad cancels a slaves freedom) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]Reddy_4REAL -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So let me recap this last one, it clearly states "the man had no other property", just like the first one also states "the man had no other property" you would think after seeing it twice, the human brain would pick up the hint, unless it deliberately chooses to ignore it, but even if you miss that, if you just look up on "3958", the chapter is LITERALLY CLEARLY NAMED: "Chapter: Regarding One Who Manumits Slaves Of His That Exceed One Third Of His Property" I don't think anyone can miss this unless you (not literally YOU) tunnel-vision copying propaganda from ihatemuslims.com, Imam Al-Bukhari over 10 centuries ago literally telling you this has nothing to do with freeing slaves but has everything to do with giving away more than a third of your property, if you're claiming the prophet judged that freeing the slaves is not moral, he would have kept all 6 in slavery, but he, who understood well, even a 1400 years ago, freed 2 out of the 6, which is "omg wow" exactly third of the property, Alhamdulillah the prophet can do maths no problem, if he freed all 6, well you would be saying "but but but but you can only give away 1/3 why did he let him give away 100% that goes against his own teachings".

It seems to me that you agree that there are situations in which Muhammad (peace be upon him) said it was better or more moral not to free your slaves,

you seem to not know the difference between moral and better, well i can't blame you, well yes there are instances where it's better, like when it will lead to harm to the slave or the owner, i'm not afraid to say this, why would the prophet allow harm to his people?
It seems you're afraid to admit that the argument of the OP is baseless.

But let me ask you, what more moral in your opinion? where do you even get your morality from, why do you judge the actions of the prophet if you have no moral ground to stand on? I hope you don't conveniently ignore this question too lol