>>18061107
>And the comparison to scattered pearls signifies beauty.
As we have shown you cannot justify that so you are left with just making statements that I am free to reject just as easily. And again beauty doesn't mean attraction. Stars are also beautiful and they are also described as being scattered at the end times.
>Is this the methodology
Yes
>then I assume that experiencing this form of attraction would not be scandalous during his time
That doesn't follow, even today you have educated people who make statements that don't reflect the opinion of contemporary people and yet are not "scandalous". And we are speaking about today where news spreads instantly.
>I can believe that the opinion of a religiously devout medieval scholar can tell us something about the culture he lives in
And when you come upon opinions you do not like then suddenly all that doesn't matter. double standards bro
>P1
source?
>P2
using their authority they reject the narrations you desperately want to be reliable
>P3
source? and nobody cares about your opinions
>C
And if you were consistent their judgment of quranic verses too. Good job you're left without hadith and quran.
>>18061117
They do find a fault with it because it's literally rejected. Anyway you have clearly no idea about the criteria of embarrassment. If this was seen as something positive then it just further weakens your case