Salaam Everyone
-
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.
-
-
irony
Oh Leyna just look at what she said . I must laugh . where a country settled a country, it changed its nationality Aysiha's new theory rotfl .
-
Salaam,
I converted to Islam a few years ago, I am from Australia. I have been browsing this site for a while and finally decided to join. My knowledge of Islam is only basic, so I hope from time to time any questions I may have I can post here. May I begin...As Muslims we should follow the Quran, right?
Where did hadiths originate from? And as Muslims are we supposed to follow them?
Hadiths originated from rumors.. who were being collected hundred of years after the 'celebrities' (which supposedly to be the source of those rumors) past away.
And there are many versions of "Hadiths" (just like other rumors are, there are E!, DailyStar, OkMag, StarMag etc..)
If you're an Ahlu Sunna / Sunni then you're supposedly to follow the rumours which has been approved and stamped to be "Shahih" (Arabic legitimate) by the Sunni's religious authorities / council of ulema.
If you're a Shiites then you're supposedly to follow the rumours which has been approved and stamped to be "Shahih" (Arabic legitimate) by the Shiite's religious authorities / council of ulema.
If you join other sects than Sunnis or Shiites and they also consider the rumors as guidance for humankind; then you're supposedly to follow the rumors which has been approved and stamped to be "Shahih" (Arabic legitimate) by their religious authorities / council of ulema.
If you think that those rumors / hadiths doesn't make any sense, then you're also free to ditch all of those rumors in entirely..It's all your choices.. La Ikraha Fi Al Din... there are no compulsory in attitude/faith....
welcome to the forum.. group
Salam / Peace
-
Peace
Welcome.
Where did hadiths originate from?
Hadeeth means saying. I figure, and you should probably look for some studies on this, that they come from the opinions of people on a variety of topics who may have had some position/s of authority back in the day. These opinions could probably have developed from their familiarity with a variety of their studies from that period.
Joe
-
Salaam,
I converted to Islam a few years ago, I am from Australia. I have been browsing this site for a while and finally decided to join. My knowledge of Islam is only basic, so I hope from time to time any questions I may have I can post here. May I begin...As Muslims we should follow the Quran, right?
Where did hadiths originate from? And as Muslims are we supposed to follow them?
Peace be upon you,
with all due Respect.Thank God Who has guided you Right Way, AlhamdilAllah.
Don't worry about people who frighten you with hadith from Bukhary and so on, just trust God and rely on Him.
Also, keep this in mind1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and heart, all these you are responsible for.
welcome welcome to the forum.
Peace.
-
Thanks for the links.Thank you for your reply. Yes, I have read that God has said to be with the majority, but I guess that is not the case with everyone. Btw I am a sister.
Well this sounds contradicting... Didn't God say that if you obey the majority of the people on earth, they will lead you from the path of God?
"If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess." (6116).
Sounds weird. Where in the Quran does it say that we need to be with the majority? And if the Quran really says that... it contradicts with verse 6116 -\
-
Well this sounds contradicting... Didn't God say that if you obey the majority of the people on earth, they will lead you from the path of God?
"If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess." (6116).
Sounds weird. Where in the Quran does it say that we need to be with the majority? And if the Quran really says that... it contradicts with verse 6116 -\
Someone I know told me that sentence, when I was in a discussion about why should one have to do what everyone else does etc. I apologise if it is incorrect. )