VOTE! The REAL Thrembo....

Who Is The Real Thrembo?

  • ThremboSchlog (me, Warrior-Z's fourth very white wife and legal slave. Descendant of Adolf Hitler)

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Thrembo88 (Ϫ Whitest option Ϫ)

    Votes: 16 32.7%
  • thrembolone (valid turkroachxista 🏳️‍⚧️🇹🇷🪳)

    Votes: 15 30.6%
  • Thrembo (LITERAL PEDOPHILE)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6ixthrembo

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • JOON TROON KIKES ARE FAGGOTS I DID NOT ADD THAT FIRST OPTION, JANNIES REVERSE THAT KIKE

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • condolana

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • https://blog.soyjak.st/attachments/c7e27d734b4d29fb55e651d6e5b9b5366e56b858_hq-jpg.172731/

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Jannies are faggots I never added the extra shit in the top response they're just being obsessed

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Total voters
    49
I'm afraid not.

Are you retarded? In Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar clearly states, "the prohibition is only on complete statues throwing shadow, not pictures" and then clarifying in Al-Nawawi's Sharh on Sahih Muslim that these hadiths concern idolatrous images, not every type of art???? Your argument that centuries of contextual scholarship are irrelevant is just cherry-picking and false equivalence, and you're ignoring rigorous analysis in favor of a single, first-hand account from Aisha. Unless you are willing to engage in scholarly argument rather than your simplistic interpretation, your point collapses under its own ignorance, and you really suck at debating.
why not? pussy
 
muhammad was an illiterate pedophile who raided caravans and married his adopted son's wife (this is why you cannot take legal custody of an adopted child if you're muslim). he was literally possessed by demons, why the fuck would you listen to anything he says?
brainwashed, xhis parents were probably mudslimes too
 
I'm afraid not.

Are you retarded? In Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar clearly states, "the prohibition is only on complete statues throwing shadow, not pictures" and then clarifying in Al-Nawawi's Sharh on Sahih Muslim that these hadiths concern idolatrous images, not every type of art???? Your argument that centuries of contextual scholarship are irrelevant is just cherry-picking and false equivalence, and you're ignoring rigorous analysis in favor of a single, first-hand account from Aisha. Unless you are willing to engage in scholarly argument rather than your simplistic interpretation, your point collapses under its own ignorance, and you really suck at debating.
Still no evidence for the prohibition only applying to statues. Why do I have to take these scholars at their word? You still have brought no evidence for their opinion being valid.
 
Screenshot_20250329_212631.png

He went to sleep early
 
why not? pussy
Already answered chicken.
how was it debunked, elaborate 4 me...
>Illiterate
Ummī which in Islamic tradition has generally been translated as "illiterate" refers to Muhammad PBUH. But more often than not, scholars explain that it is more nuanced than just that. It didn't mean illiteracy in all forms of reading or writing-witness his success as a merchant in an oral society-especially to deny the eloquence of the Quran from being attributable to a formally educated man. That "illiteracy" is a miracle by itself rather than as a proof that he was ignorant even if you believe the old tale.
>Raiding
Yeah to me this just seems like a simplistic distortion of his (PBUH) military and political activities.
>Pedophilia
>Demons
Not a shred of evidence for this.
My nigga, I am not the one living in a secular country as a fucking islamist
How am I an "Islamist" for defending my religion?
Asked a judge and he said @Warrior-Z is a fat pedo who lost this debate
Prove the reliability of this supposed judge.
Still no evidence for the prohibition only applying to statues. Why do I have to take these scholars at their word? You still have brought no evidence for their opinion being valid.
Disregarding the interpretations of such great Islamic scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim as mere 'sub-category of sub-category' is ignorant first of all, THESE scholars studied the hadiths in detail and deduced that the prohibition is mainly for statues and images that lead to idolatry. For instance, Ibn Taymiyyah stated, "The command is to destroy two types of images: images which represent the deceased person, and images which are placed on top of graves because Shirk may come about from both types." AND a hadith from Abu Talhah goes: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or statues." which immediately flags the problem specifically for statues and not all artifice or representation. Your cherry-picking of hadiths to justify your contention, while ignoring scholarly interpretations, is just retarded. How are experienced peoople who dedicated their lives to studying Islam NOT reliable???? Lmaoo.
Like bro.
 
also it's funny warrior-p claims cousin marriage is makruh even though it was never explicitly said to be
It was, actually. Nice how you didnt go and address that source I provided in the 'ru thread lmao.
le bad in fact Muhammed himself did it
I literally answered that ITT, want me to give the argument?
 
Already answered chicken.

>Illiterate
Ummī which in Islamic tradition has generally been translated as "illiterate" refers to Muhammad PBUH. But more often than not, scholars explain that it is more nuanced than just that. It didn't mean illiteracy in all forms of reading or writing-witness his success as a merchant in an oral society-especially to deny the eloquence of the Quran from being attributable to a formally educated man. That "illiteracy" is a miracle by itself rather than as a proof that he was ignorant even if you believe the old tale.
>Raiding
Yeah to me this just seems like a simplistic distortion of his (PBUH) military and political activities.
>Pedophilia
>Demons
Not a shred of evidence for this.

How am I an "Islamist" for defending my religion?

Prove the reliability of this supposed judge.

Disregarding the interpretations of such great Islamic scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim as mere 'sub-category of sub-category' is ignorant first of all, THESE scholars studied the hadiths in detail and deduced that the prohibition is mainly for statues and images that lead to idolatry. For instance, Ibn Taymiyyah stated, "The command is to destroy two types of images: images which represent the deceased person, and images which are placed on top of graves because Shirk may come about from both types." AND a hadith from Abu Talhah goes: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or statues." which immediately flags the problem specifically for statues and not all artifice or representation. Your cherry-picking of hadiths to justify your contention, while ignoring scholarly interpretations, is just retarded. How are experienced peoople who dedicated their lives to studying Islam NOT reliable???? Lmaoo.
Like bro.
nobody read any of this, muhammad is a murderous pedophile who used God to justify his depraved acts.
 
Saying someone else's claim is a fallacy isn't an argument, retard
It's a premise, retard, and when did I claim that? Either way go ahead and refute what I said lol, you got slammed. Sorry dude but you lost lmao.
Are the scholars too retarded to say the hadith that said Aisha is 9 is wrong?
You do realise there are different scholars right?
Do they need le pseudo-intellectual discord server owner and redditor janny warrior p to debunk that?
Who said it's from me? It's from multiple old historians and theologians.
You didn't provide anything you just said you heckin debated it in the 'ru
I literally told you to go check the thread retard.
 
I'll fight til this thread runs it's course, bring it on. I am not tired yet.
 
Back
Top