• Happy pride month, xisters of the schlog!

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: 6 11.5%
  • Thrembo88 (Ϫ Whitest option Ϫ)

    Votes: 17 32.7%
  • thrembolone (valid turkroachxista 🏳️‍⚧️🇹🇷🪳)

    Votes: 15 28.8%
  • Thrembo (LITERAL PEDOPHILE)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6ixthrembo

    Votes: 7 13.5%
  • JOON TROON KIKES ARE FAGGOTS I DID NOT ADD THAT FIRST OPTION, JANNIES REVERSE THAT KIKE

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • condolana

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • https://blog.soyjak.st/attachments/c7e27d734b4d29fb55e651d6e5b9b5366e56b858_hq-jpg.172731/

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Jannies are faggots I never added the extra shit in the top response they're just being obsessed

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Total voters
    52
1743302355943.png
 
To disregard hundreds of years of nuanced scholarship simply because you don’t feel like engaging with the background is just lazy LMAOOO. The important not here is that scholars like Ibn Hamdan and Al-Nawawi did not just pick idolatry for its own sake retard, they legit evaluated the chains of transmission, the historical context, and the meaning that was intended, including wanting to use the selected hadiths to make a distinction cuck ass slut. Their arguments show that the harsh language was directed against idolatry and making complete statues, and not for all forms of image or drawing. If you cannot see this then your justification for dismissal is actually a lack of intellectual debate on your part.
And they still stated that their opinion isn't indisputable. The chains of transmissions are pretty clear, that hadith was narrated by Aisha, there isn't a lot of opportunities for the story to change much. I don't see anything in what you quoted that is relevant to the "historical context and the meaning was intended", so I'm guessing you're arguing based off nothing
 
And they still stated that their opinion isn't indisputable. The chains of transmissions are pretty clear, that hadith was narrated by Aisha, there isn't a lot of opportunities for the story to change much. I don't see anything in what you quoted that is relevant to the "historical context and the meaning was intended", so I'm guessing you're arguing based off nothing
Retard, learn to TRACK, just because Aisha """"reported"""" this Hadith with known chains doesn’t mean we can lock its meaning down. Scholars, including Ibn Hamdan, Al-Nawawi, and the Maliki school have done multiple readings, meaning they’ve looked at the chains, historical context, and the intended audience, and they have convincingly demonstrated that the harsh language was aimed at overt denials of monotheism, not censoring all art. Ibn Hajar, for example, in Fath al-Bari indicates that the prohibition was on complete statues that cast shadows, not drawings/sketches. Your whole mistake is taking one Hadith and ignoring centuries of nuanced scholarship. If you aren’t smart enough to realize that context matters, that's YOUR problem.
 
Back
Top