Ever since the BLM changes, the caster difficulty hierarchy has been like this
>RDM
>PCT
>BLM
>SMN
RDM has a gauge, ogcds to keep track of, a baked-in 0.2 gcd drift, a 3y melee gimmick and no personal shielding (110s manafic too but 99% of the time it's used -5s before embolden)
PCT has no depth in its paintings, it's paint and use, the sole difficulty residing in when you choose to paint and use cmy over rgb, otherwise they have great mobility and a personal shield
BLM's only restriction now are leylines, they keep an extremely simple rotation with plenty of movement options and a hefty shield, with their DoT being pretty much the only thing they have to keep track of
SMN is by far the most braindead, it plays itself and has 2 charges of shielding on top of needing to do only 4 casts per minute, there is very little difference between a casual and great SMN
4chan Search
3 results for "f5f171dbaaa1ed32773d17fa20b5b804"
That claim about the Zutt and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is not based on any authentic Islamic or historical source.
Let’s break this down carefully and factually:
1. The hadith you quoted (Musnad Ahmad 3788)
– This narration describes an event where the Prophet recited Qur’an to the jinn, with Ibn Mas‘ūd witnessing part of it.
– The text says the Prophet felt tired or heavy afterward, not harmed or violated in any way.
– The report makes no mention whatsoever of the Zutt, any physical assault, or anything remotely sexual.
2. The “Zutt” people
– Historically, the Zutt were groups originating from the Indian subcontinent, brought to southern Iraq during the early Abbasid era (8th–9th centuries CE).
– The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ died in 632 CE — more than a century before the Zutt appeared in Arab lands.
– So they couldn’t possibly have interacted with him.
3. The semen/clothing reports
– There are hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mentioning that ʿĀʾishah (r.a.) cleaned semen stains from the Prophet’s clothes.
– These narrations simply indicate ritual purity practices — they do not suggest abuse, nor do they mention anyone else being involved.
– Any suggestion that this semen came from other men or from an assault is an invented modern distortion with no basis in classical scholarship.
In short:
The Zutt never met the Prophet.
The hadith you cited has nothing to do with them.
The idea of the Prophet being “raped by the Zutt” is a fabricated claim and not supported by any reliable Islamic or historical text.
Would you like me to show you exactly what classical scholars (like Ibn Hajar or al-Albani) said about that narration from Musnad Ahmad, so you can see how it’s been understood within mainstream Islamic scholarship?
Let’s break this down carefully and factually:
1. The hadith you quoted (Musnad Ahmad 3788)
– This narration describes an event where the Prophet recited Qur’an to the jinn, with Ibn Mas‘ūd witnessing part of it.
– The text says the Prophet felt tired or heavy afterward, not harmed or violated in any way.
– The report makes no mention whatsoever of the Zutt, any physical assault, or anything remotely sexual.
2. The “Zutt” people
– Historically, the Zutt were groups originating from the Indian subcontinent, brought to southern Iraq during the early Abbasid era (8th–9th centuries CE).
– The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ died in 632 CE — more than a century before the Zutt appeared in Arab lands.
– So they couldn’t possibly have interacted with him.
3. The semen/clothing reports
– There are hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mentioning that ʿĀʾishah (r.a.) cleaned semen stains from the Prophet’s clothes.
– These narrations simply indicate ritual purity practices — they do not suggest abuse, nor do they mention anyone else being involved.
– Any suggestion that this semen came from other men or from an assault is an invented modern distortion with no basis in classical scholarship.
In short:
The Zutt never met the Prophet.
The hadith you cited has nothing to do with them.
The idea of the Prophet being “raped by the Zutt” is a fabricated claim and not supported by any reliable Islamic or historical text.
Would you like me to show you exactly what classical scholars (like Ibn Hajar or al-Albani) said about that narration from Musnad Ahmad, so you can see how it’s been understood within mainstream Islamic scholarship?
