meijak
Well-known schlogga
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2025
- Messages
- 2,367
My nigga, I am not the one living in a secular country as a fucking islamistThen stfu and gtfo you fat obese mutt.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My nigga, I am not the one living in a secular country as a fucking islamistThen stfu and gtfo you fat obese mutt.
why not? pussyI'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.
brainwashed, xhis parents were probably mudslimes toomuhammad 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?
islam is the only religion that still needs to be violently enforced and pushed onto people. these people are serious FREAKS..brainwashed, xhis parents were probably mudslimes too
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.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.
I'm glad my parents got out of it.brainwashed, xhis parents were probably mudslimes too
Already answered chicken.why not? pussy
>Illiteratehow was it debunked, elaborate 4 me...
How am I an "Islamist" for defending my religion?My nigga, I am not the one living in a secular country as a fucking islamist
Prove the reliability of this supposed judge.Asked a judge and he said @Warrior-Z is a fat pedo who lost this debate
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.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.
ahlusunnah.org.ng
It was, actually. Nice how you didnt go and address that source I provided in the 'ru thread lmao.also it's funny warrior-p claims cousin marriage is makruh even though it was never explicitly said to be
I literally answered that ITT, want me to give the argument?le bad in fact Muhammed himself did it
nobody read any of this, muhammad is a murderous pedophile who used God to justify his depraved acts.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![]()
Dolmatov, M
Aisha was not 9 years old but (19–20) years old when married to Holy Prophet Muhammad (s) 9 years age of Aisha which you point out is not mentioned in Holy Quran - verbatim words of God but It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. This hadith is simply fabricated lie | Sahih Bukhari is not verbatim w...docs.google.com
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.![]()
ISSUES RELATING TO PICTURES(TASWIR) | Ahlusunnah
Image Makers Will Be Punished on the Day of Judgement Narrated Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (d. 73H) radiallahu ‘anhu: Allah’s Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Those who make these images (suwar) will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, make alive what you...ahlusunnah.org.ng
Invincible ignorance fallacy.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, retardInvincible ignorance fallacy.
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.Saying someone else's claim is a fallacy isn't an argument, retard
You do realise there are different scholars right?Are the scholars too retarded to say the hadith that said Aisha is 9 is wrong?
Who said it's from me? It's from multiple old historians and theologians.Do they need le pseudo-intellectual discord server owner and redditor janny warrior p to debunk that?
I literally told you to go check the thread retard.You didn't provide anything you just said you heckin debated it in the 'ru