Salaam Everyone
-
Salam Truestar
welcome to the forum
I recommend an article. The article is about the "history of hadiths"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16838.msg169055#msg169055
Also check out these webpages below. I recommend them too
www.quranic.org
www.rationalreality.com
www.aididsafar.com ( Especially check out the book "Mental bondage" on this webpage. It can be download there, for free)
www.ourbeacon.com -
I recommend an article. The article is about the "history of hadiths"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16838.msg169055#msg169055
Just to show your lie . The Article about Hadith is full of lies
Imam Bukhari
He was born year 256 in Hijra, and some people say he was born year 260 (Hijra is the islamic calender as mentioned earlier). We know that Bukhari died in Khartank. It was said that after wandering through different towns and villages, he collected as much as 600 000. and after having grading them, he found 7300 ahadiths that he assumed was authentic. These are repeated in various chapters. If we don't take the repetions, the total number is 2630 or 2762.He is mostly known as Bukhari, Al-Bukhari or Imam bukhari, and he is know to be a Sunni Islamic scholar of persian roots. With other words, bukhari was originally Iranian/Persian.
Imam Muslim
Muslim bin Hajaj came from a city in iran, called Nishapoor. He was born in year 204 in hijra and died 261.The red sentences are what came in the article .
First of all Bukhari is born year 194 Hijreya and he died in 256 hijreya .
Second of all >>> if Muslim born before Bukhari, why Bukhari was his sheikh ? and why the book of Bukhari was before the book of Muslim ? let me remind you that Muslim was a student learning from Bukhari .
Muslim born in Nissabour but his father is not from nissabour neither his mom was, his father was from Yamen the first country that Aslamat and Bayaatte Arassoul Salla laho alayhe wa Salam .so you're lied about his roots .
is that giving birth in a place, will not allowed you to learn and teach what you learned ?
Bukhari was not from persian and his origin is from Bukhara which is in Ozbakistan but he went to Quffa to learn and to take science of Quran and hadith . and he went to Qabba when he was 18 and he took the science of Quran and Hadith from the best shouyoukh and scholars at that time do you know where Qabba is ?
-
Just to show your lie . The Article about Hadith is full of lies
Imam Bukhari
He was born year 256 in Hijra, and some people say he was born year 260 (Hijra is the islamic calender as mentioned earlier). We know that Bukhari died in Khartank. It was said that after wandering through different towns and villages, he collected as much as 600 000. and after having grading them, he found 7300 ahadiths that he assumed was authentic. These are repeated in various chapters. If we don't take the repetions, the total number is 2630 or 2762.He is mostly known as Bukhari, Al-Bukhari or Imam bukhari, and he is know to be a Sunni Islamic scholar of persian roots. With other words, bukhari was originally Iranian/Persian.
Imam Muslim
Muslim bin Hajaj came from a city in iran, called Nishapoor. He was born in year 204 in hijra and died 261.The red sentences are what came in the article .
First of all Bukhari is born year 194 Hijreya and he died in 256 hijreya .
Second of all >>> if Muslim born before Bukhari, why Bukhari was his sheikh ? and why the book of Bukhari was before the book of Muslim ? let me remind you that Muslim was a student learning from Bukhari .
Muslim born in Nissabour but his father is not from nissabour neither his mom was, his father was from Yamen the first country that Aslamat and Bayaatte Arassoul Salla laho alayhe wa Salam .so you're lied about his roots .
is that giving birth in a place, will not allowed you to learn and teach what you learned ?
Bukhari was not from persian and his origin is from Bukhara which is in Ozbakistan but he went to Quffa to learn and to take science of Quran and hadith . and he went to Qabba when he was 18 and he took the science of Quran and Hadith from the best shouyoukh and scholars at that time do you know where Qabba is ?
so the only point you could refute was bukhari's date of birth? lol that was not even the point of the article. the point was that he collected an insane amount of lies adn then selected the best of the them. he had no knowledge of the quran and his books dont even cover the entire of the quran itself. go figure.
-
so the only point you could refute was bukhari's date of birth? lol that was not even the point of the article. the point was that he collected an insane amount of lies adn then selected the best of the them. he had no knowledge of the quran and his books dont even cover the entire of the quran itself. go figure.
Lying about his date of birth and lying about his roots and lying about his life, is basically the article all full of lies .
About Quran, you just missed the traget , he was the best . He is the one who people said " a student beat his teachers" .
Ignorance lead to darkness, and blind leads a blind , both shall fall in a ditch . Peace.
-
Lying about his date of birth and lying about his roots and lying about his life, is basically the article all full of lies .
About Quran, you just missed the traget , he was the best . He is the one who people said " a student beat his teachers" .
Ignorance lead to darkness, and blind leads a blind , both shall fall in a ditch . Peace.
wow i agree yes
-
He was born in Bukhara which at that time belonged to Persia. But he was not Persian? ???
No, wrong , the Arab used to call everyone near to persia by persian . His origin is from Bukhara and it is a twon in Ozbakistane(it is a country) and it is not in persia . Yes Bukhari never was a persian .
-
wow i agree yes
Yes, you must agree because it is about you and your kind of people.
-
No, wrong , the Arab used to call everyone near to persia by persian . His origin is from Bukhara and it is a twon in Ozbakistane(it is a country) and it is not in persia . Yes Bukhari never was a persian .
"Historically, some of the greatest Sunni Muslim scholars were Persian speakers or had Persian descent, including Abu Dawood, Hakim al-Nishaburi, Al-Tabarani, Ghazali, Imam Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i and Abu Hanifa, amongst many others."
"Imam Bukhari (194/810?256/870), was a famous Sunni Islamic scholar of Persian ancestry"
"Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari. Popularly known as Al-Bukhari (Arabic ي or Imam Bukhari (810-870), he was a famous Sunni Islamic scholar of Persian ancestry"
"On the other hand, most of the leading Sunni Imams were Persian, such as
Abu Hanifa, al-Nisa'i, al-Tirmithi, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-
Ghazzali, Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, and many others." -
His origin is from Bukhara and it is a twon in Ozbakistane(it is a country) and it is not in persia . Yes Bukhari never was a persian .
So what do you suggest was his nationality?
I know Bukhara is in Uzbekistan. But at Bukhari's time, it belonged to Persia.
For a century after the Battle of Talas, Islam slowly took root in Bukhara. In 850 AD Bukhara became the capital of the Samanid Empire, which brought about a revival of Iranian language and culture after the period of Arab domination. While under Samanid control, Bukhara was a rival to Baghdad in its glory. Scholars note that the Samanids revived Persian more than the Buyids and the Saffarids, while continuing to patronize Arabic to a significant degree. Nevertheless, in a famous edict, Samanid authorities declared that "here, in this region, the language is Persian, and the kings of this realm are Persian kings."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bukhara
The Samani dynasty (Persian ن, also known as the Samanid Empire, or simply Samanids (819?999) (Persian Smniyn) was an important Persian state and empire in Central Asia and Greater Khorasan, named after its founder Saman Khuda who converted to Sunni Islam despite being from Zoroastrian theocratic nobility. It was the first native Persian dynasty in Greater Iran and Central Asia after the Arab conquest and the collapse of the Sassanid Persian empire. During Samanid period the Tajik nation was formed in Central Asia. Samanid Empire is considered as the first Tajik state.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids
-
Just to show your lie . The Article about Hadith is full of lies
Imam Bukhari
He was born year 256 in Hijra, and some people say he was born year 260 (Hijra is the islamic calender as mentioned earlier). We know that Bukhari died in Khartank. It was said that after wandering through different towns and villages, he collected as much as 600 000. and after having grading them, he found 7300 ahadiths that he assumed was authentic. These are repeated in various chapters. If we don't take the repetions, the total number is 2630 or 2762.He is mostly known as Bukhari, Al-Bukhari or Imam bukhari, and he is know to be a Sunni Islamic scholar of persian roots. With other words, bukhari was originally Iranian/Persian.
Imam Muslim
Muslim bin Hajaj came from a city in iran, called Nishapoor. He was born in year 204 in hijra and died 261.The red sentences are what came in the article .
First of all Bukhari is born year 194 Hijreya and he died in 256 hijreya .
Second of all >>> if Muslim born before Bukhari, why Bukhari was his sheikh ? and why the book of Bukhari was before the book of Muslim ? let me remind you that Muslim was a student learning from Bukhari .
Muslim born in Nissabour but his father is not from nissabour neither his mom was, his father was from Yamen the first country that Aslamat and Bayaatte Arassoul Salla laho alayhe wa Salam .so you're lied about his roots .
is that giving birth in a place, will not allowed you to learn and teach what you learned ?
Bukhari was not from persian and his origin is from Bukhara which is in Ozbakistan but he went to Quffa to learn and to take science of Quran and hadith . and he went to Qabba when he was 18 and he took the science of Quran and Hadith from the best shouyoukh and scholars at that time do you know where Qabba is ?
Salam thereformer
You are right there are some small errors in the article. Thank you for pointing them out. The article is not mine, and i have not wrote it originally. And i don't think the guy that wrote it intentionally wrote the small errors. I just made some small changes on the article and then posted the article on the forum. I don't think the little errors in the article will change the facts, reality and message of the article. Let me give you an example. If somebody gives you a brand new mercedez, will you throw away that car just because it is a 2 centimeter scratch on the left door on the front of the car. Will this insignificant and almost unnoticeable scratch on the door make the car less good? will the car be of lower caliber just because there is a small scratch on it? Will it be impossible to drive this car just because there is a tiny scratch on the door? will the engine be harmed just because there is a scratch on the door? Think about these things my friend.
Or let me ask you another question. If somebody shows you a great sea, will you look at a tiny boat on the see and judge the sea from the boat you see? If this boat is ugly and rotten, will you conclude that since this boat is ugly and rotten, then that means that the great sea right in front of you is ugly and rotten too?
If you are interested in learning more about hadiths i recommend this article
http//www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/SP/1996/nov/page1.html
Also check out this article below. It shows us 20 hadiths that violates Quranic verses
http//www.submission.org/corruption.html
Peace and Respect
David -
"Historically, some of the greatest Sunni Muslim scholars were Persian speakers or had Persian descent, including Abu Dawood, Hakim al-Nishaburi, Al-Tabarani, Ghazali, Imam Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i and Abu Hanifa, amongst many others."
"Imam Bukhari (194/810?256/870), was a famous Sunni Islamic scholar of Persian ancestry"
"Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari. Popularly known as Al-Bukhari (Arabic ي or Imam Bukhari (810-870), he was a famous Sunni Islamic scholar of Persian ancestry"
"On the other hand, most of the leading Sunni Imams were Persian, such as
Abu Hanifa, al-Nisa'i, al-Tirmithi, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-
Ghazzali, Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, and many others."Imam Bukhari never never was a persian , he is from Bukhara and it is not even was in the empire of persia. look one advice internet will not give you the right information especially in english.
-
-
Imam Bukhari never never was a persian , he is from Bukhara and it is not even was in the empire of persia. look one advice internet will not give you the right information especially in english.
How would you know if the information is correct in 'English' or not, you dont even understand what 'FULL' and 'WISDOM' mean!  
Are you saying all the information about Islam that is on the net, including your favourite Khan translations are all wrong ' according to you' whose knowledge of English is limited to that of a 4 year old martian?
I dont care if he was persian, venusian, mongolian or londonian but your information conflicts with EVERY other piece of information about him thats out in the big wide world, Oh great shake hail
-
So what do you suggest was his nationality?
His nationality was Bukhara , and that's why he takes his name from it.
I know Bukhara is in Uzbekistan. But at Bukhari's time, it belonged to Persia.
No, wrong, Uzbakistane never has been under the empire of persia . Even they don't speak persia . Their language called Uzbak and it is different from the language of persia .
For a century after the Battle of Talas, Islam slowly took root in Bukhara. In 850 AD Bukhara became the capital of the Samanid Empire, which brought about a revival of Iranian language and culture after the period of Arab domination. While under Samanid control, Bukhara was a rival to Baghdad in its glory. Scholars note that the Samanids revived Persian more than the Buyids and the Saffarids, while continuing to patronize Arabic to a significant degree. Nevertheless, in a famous edict, Samanid authorities declared that "here, in this region, the language is Persian, and the kings of this realm are Persian kings."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_BukharaWhat ? , do you have any library near to you , where you can find history of Asia ? It was before under the Akmaneyia Al-Iraneya, and the city has had their own habitants and they were not persian . So by your logic Britain setlled India, so indian are british .
The Samani dynasty (Persian ن, also known as the Samanid Empire, or simply Samanids (819?999) (Persian Smniyn) was an important Persian state and empire in Central Asia and Greater Khorasan, named after its founder Saman Khuda who converted to Sunni Islam despite being from Zoroastrian theocratic nobility. It was the first native Persian dynasty in Greater Iran and Central Asia after the Arab conquest and the collapse of the Sassanid Persian empire. During Samanid period the Tajik nation was formed in Central Asia. Samanid Empire is considered as the first Tajik state.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SamanidsThis empire arose after the spreading of Islam in it, and the poor empire has been vanquished at the age of Al-Hajaj . And they were a strain from a strain of persian, and they weren't from Bukhara, they settled it. Bukhara has its own people and Bukhari was one of them, he wasn't persian .
-
Yes, Bukhara did belong to the Persian empire at one time.
No, is that belong to an empire will vanish your origins ? and your nationality ? and Bukhara wasn't under the real persian, it was under Al-kan'anyine and they are a strain of persian .
Could you please answer my question? What do you suggest was Bukhari's nationality? ???
I've answered , Bukhari his nationality is Bukhara from Uzbakistane . So he is Uzbakitani
-
His nationality was Bukhara , and that's why he takes his name from it.
that is not a nationalityWhat ? , do you have any library near to you , where you can find history of Asia ? It was before under the Akmaneyia Al-Iraneya, and the city has had their own habitants and they were not persian . So by your logic Britain setlled India, so indian are british .
Absolutely! Indians are all British. India was part of the British Empire so they are British. muscle Egyptians are half British half French, Moroccans are FrenchWhat would be the point of going to a library anyway, all the books have it wrong as well as the internet, only YOU have the 'Knowledge' hypno
{what was that programme on TV? The one where they claim Prince Charles was not Indian because he has big ears or something like that, but everyone else was Indian? (was to do with the size of ears of African and Indian Elephants) rotfl}
-
Absolutely! Indians are all British.
What ? India has its own population and India is so old than your country britain . and britain setlled just parts in it.
well that shows your ignorance, may God forgive you .
india was part of the British Empire so they are British.
No, they are not , Indiian are indian, they have been setlled by british, that will not remove their origins . Are you high?
muscle Egyptians are half British half French, Moroccans are French
What would be the point of going to a library anyway, all the books have it wrong as well as the internet, only YOU have the 'Knowledge' hypno
{what was that programme on TV? The one where they claim Prince Charles was not Indian because he has big ears or something like that, but everyone else was Indian? (was to do with the size of ears of African and Indian Elephants) rotfl}
Oh MY God! you have just put your reputation in dirt . Moroccans are french rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl Morocco is so old than french itself .
-
irony
?noun, plural-nies.
-
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning the irony of her reply, ?How nice!? when I said I had to work all weekend.
-
Literature.
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion. -
Socratic irony.
-
dramatic irony.
-
an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
-
the incongruity of this.
-
an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
-
an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
-