Very much so indeed. Not only do Muslims want to control what is said about Islam in their own nations, they are trying to oppress the whole entire world with their fanaticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Bukhari#Sunni_view_of_Bukhari Firabri is not the only transmitter of Sahih Bukhari. There were many others that narrated that book to later generations, such as Ibrahim ibn Ma'qal (d. 907 CE/295 AH), Hammad ibn Shaker (d. 923 CE/311 AH), Mansur Burduzi (d. 931 CE/319 AH), and Husain Mahamili (d. 941 CE/330 AH). There are many books that noted differences between these versions; Fath al-Bari is the most famous among them. Regarding Western academic doubts as to the actual date and authorship of the book that bears his name, Sunni say that notable hadith scholars of that time, such as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (855 CE/241 AH), Ibn Maīn (847 CE/233 AH), and Ibn Madīni (848 CE/234 AH), all accepted the authenticity of his book [3] [4]. Thus, the collection's inmediate fame makes arguments regarding its being changed after the authors death highly improbable. --------------------- Anyways, I've actually read (or sat in a gathering where the text was read) of this particular collection of traditions and also the other 5 mother-books of hadith, four of them cover to cover. Since the time when these books were written over a thousand years ago, this process of reciting the text of the books, cover to cover, has been going on continuously, and believe it I can reference the names, and all revelent biography details of all 40-45 individuals between my teacher and the authors of those books, who themselves reference the chain of narrators along with every tradition, taking it back directly to the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him. Collectively, these several hundreds of thousand traditions cover the entire life of the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him, and yes, the miracals are detailed within these traditions. Some are also mentioned in the Qur'an, however. This preservation of the life of our Prophet, if one thinks about it has been done rigerously with amazing detail, how he slept, what he would eat, and the foods he prefered, the way he walked, the clothes he wore, even the method by which he instructed his followers to wash up after releaving themselves, it's all detailed. The details of no other human being's life have been preserved this accurately, or even with one tenth the accuracy. If you believe in God, it does make you think that a false prophet's life being so maticulously preserved?! With that, I again invite people who would like to know more to visit this thead and the links which branch off it. No, there is no hadith to that affect, rigerously authenticated or otherwise that I know of. God does mention in the Qur'an that he made the earth a carpet for humans, does that imply it is flat, the answer is no. Zamakhshari, a 12th century scholar, mentions this in his commentory of the Qur'an... so there goes the BS they teach you in school saying Columbus first discovered the earth is round. Islamic philosophers have known this from the very earliest day. Aristotle gave proof on the earth being round by the lunar eclipse I believe.. but anyways....
One should note that you're quoting the 'Sunni view of Bukhari'. This would be similiar to the Catholic church's view on their perspective beliefs. The general arguement is rather loose, despite the perspective. One saying they accept something as authentic, and one knowing it is via some sort of proof is a lot more reliable....especially given that period of time is a lot more accessible to historians. It seems even a division in the religion looks at it differently: "Shia Muslims accept some of Bukhari's hadith and reject others."
I'm saying you should give some examples of his posts which in your opinion are based on Kitman, and then proove why you think there is something wrong with them. Do it here, if you don't want to do it in his threads... My job was to direct you to someone actively answering the lies you promote, to ultimately clear your own misconceptions of Islam and God's final Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him. No one is interested in what you have to say. If you choose to take your understanding of Islam from liers, then by God, on the day of judgement you will be resurrected with them. Equal citizens as long as they abide by the law of the land they live in. It is impermissible in Islam to even back-bite about a non-muslim associate just like backbiting is impermissible amongst muslims themselves. An absolute lie. There is no forceful conversion in Islam. Peace also happens through treaties where countries agree to not agress against each other. These treaties become binding. The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him, entered into a treaty with the pegans of Aribia where there would be no fighting for ten years. That was a time of peace. Go ahead, we will examine what they say. Yes, in order to implement the laws of the Creator upon his earth, God's Prophet was instructed to wage war, similar to how the OT prophets were instruced to do the same. So, what is the problem with that. War is extremely regulated in Islam, and there is never any forceful conversion A primary condition for waging war for the purpose of implementing Islamic rule, is that it must be done by an Islamic state. The only reason I submit to it, is because it is a command from the Creator himself. It really has nothing to do with my or your personal opinion. Islam is at war with Israel. Being a supporter of Israel's occupation, your stance is not surprising. There is no need to explain your reasons. When the holy city of Makkah first came under Islamic rule, at that time there was no Church or Synagogue in that city. Besides the population is 100% Muslim anyways. That is the reason why there is not one now. Other major Islamic cities do have churches though. Nothing shameful at all. Each point has been addressed. More detail can be found in the SK thread linked to above. You know that that thread has addressed every single issue you have ever braught forward. You should be more concerned about the truthfulness of the core teachings (then you will understand that random bombings are prohibited to begin with anyways), because this is what will determine what happens in the afterlife. Don't let the atrocities committed in the name of Islam prevent you from studying further.
"he made many prophecies that all came true" doesn't convince me of anything. Give an example. Most critics of the Bible don't debate that the prophecies all came to pass. In fact the prophecies so clearly came to pass that they have to claim that they were written after the fact. So quote a prophecy in the quran that actually came to pass. Even the devil knows what shape the earth is.
"and there is never any forceful conversion" I have a crazy idea. Let's try being honest. "Islam is at war with Israel." Islam is at war with everyone who isn't Islamic. "Being a supporter of Israel's occupation" Well there goes the "moderate" label.
Please visit the links refered to above. They really contain all you need to know. Shia's have major differences with Sunni's. As far as Sunni's are concerned the rejection of certain Hadiths by Shia's does not hamper their authenticity. There are definitely sects within Islam, which began due to political reasons a couple of centuries later. This is an area of study which would be concidered important after one has satisfied themselves with the core issues of God's existence and the Prophet's messangership.
Are you to mean that every muslim believes Israel is evil and needs to be ended? What do you specifically mean 'Islam is at war with'? I'd say that's a rather large statement to make (atleast how it sounds), if that's what you're saying.
It does not mean Muslims are instructed to hate Jews because they are Jews, avoiding freindship is one thing, but there is no injunction instructing us to "hate". In fact the avarage Muslim would want the avarage Jew to just act more like Moses (pbuh). There are territories in that region under illegal occupation, and of course it is the duty of Muslims to establish an Islamic state which could libarate that region from the occupation. So the war in that region is a defensive one.
"So the war in that region is a defensive one." That's one of the silliest things I've heard so far. I remember when I was a little child that someone taking my seat after I left was an act of aggression. But then I grew up. You know what people think the same way you do? Gangs. Being on their alledged turf is an act of aggression.
You see these are injunctions from God. The method of taking back the land will be through a) Establishing an Islamic state, and then b) waging war and taking back what was occupied.... again it has nothing to do with land, but rather it is about establishing God's rule on his earth. My point is these things are textual. If you ask me why is it prohibited in Islam to eat pork, I will answer saying because God said so.... I don't have a problem with that. Same situation here. God's existence on the other hand and the messengership of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is rational and based on "external proof".. miracles, maticulous preservation of the text and the like....
"God's existence on the other hand and the messengership of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is rational and based on "external proof".. miracles, maticulous preservation of the text and the like...." None of that, however, actually proves anything. The devil does miracles. Many ancient texts have been meticulously preserved. And you've still failed to offer a single prophecy. "go here" is not proof. Quote a single prophecy out of the Koran that came to pass.
I don't think he (you?) are that important. I do recall reading some of the thread last year. Do you own the site? Some how, I had associated the site with you for some reason. Never saw a better implementation of kitman. So someone paid you? Who gave you the job? So when things get tough, you put your best foot forward and call me a liar now? Is that really the level you want to stoop to? I invite you to find something you believe I've lied about in regards to islam, post it, explain why it isn't a lie and let's debate. Is that fair? You don't need to resort to that level. I've afforded you a non-hostile decorum in which to debate. I submit that you are not interested in what I have to say. I take my understanding from the same books you do and am more than prepared to use and quote them in a debate. I also take my views from reality. When Christians start flying planes into buildings, blowing up trains, subways, cars, hotels, buildings, buses and anything with a lung in the name of their religion, I'll take issue with them. But right now, it's islam doing these things and neither you, or anyone else is going to convince me that "islam is peace and tolerance" when muslims conduct themselves accordingly and like the motoons and most recently with the Pope. Lead by example. Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining. No, second class citizens as long as they are subdued by muslims, living according to the laws of islam and pay the jizya. Really? Ya think you could sell that to Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig? Most of what is called the middle east today was forced to convert to islam. Convert or die. Let's not rewrite history here. Your treaties you mention are hudnas. A time for muslims to regroup and prepare for another attack. The religion was spread through forced conversion throughout what we call the middle east now. And it's still going on in Darfur today. Yet some six hundred years earlier, God sent his Son as a perfect example, to forgive our sins (yes, I know muslims do not believe this when they say "but, but, but we believe in Jesus too!"), heal the sick, make the blind see, rise the dead and other well documented miracles. And most importantly preach a message of peace and love. So you suggest that in six hundred years, somehow God was thoroughly pissed off at the world and brought "us" (term used loosely) mohammed, whose message was death, destruction, rape, pillaging and spreading a religion by the sword? Think about it. A primary condition is a da'wa, not unlike what Iran's president issued to Bush. The basis of the rule is that you must offer the infidel the opportunity to convert to islam first (hence bin laden's latest audio release where he tells Americans to convert to islam). If they refuse, then it is considered an act of war. That's your choice. But don't call me a liar because you disagree with me. Debate. Continue to avoid the tough questions I ask, since you obviously don't have answers, but keep it real. If you can't do that, then I submit the only thing left you can do is call me a liar. That's the easy way out. That had nothing to do with my comment, but ok...Islam is at war with the world. Actually, it is islam that is occupying the middle east and other countries. No one has more experience in occupying other countries than islam. Israel was Israel long before islam was invented. If occupation is your problem, then why don't we work together to kick out muslims from the middle east? Sound fair? Well, there are five less in the palestinian terroritories today. But they have long butchered what few Christians remain there. So you admit, islam isn't as "tolerant" as it should be? No, each point has not been addressed. Some I've mentioned multiple times now. But I understand, you cannot address them. And as I've said, if you want me, you know where I am. If you or anyone else want to engage me in debate, if you feel you can, I'll be right here I study all the time. And the message is always the same. Death and destruction followed by those who want to come around and convince the dumbed down infidel that this (once again) isn't islam. Unfortunately, it is. And it doesn't work anymore. Us dumbed down infidels decided to do our own research. I have seen nothing to suggest "random bombings" are not allowed. Considering that islam was invented long before the Chinese invented gun powder, I doubt you could show evidence of such.
Actually, there is. Unless you believe "mehad" is not a bed, of which I've never seen a round bed. Beds are flat. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/genesis.htm
Here's something else you said along with the above: "So, what is the problem with that. War is extremely regulated in Islam, and there is never any forceful conversion A primary condition for waging war for the purpose of implementing Islamic rule, is that it must be done by an Islamic state." ---------------------------------------------------------- What I find as a glaring problem is that why would someone need an ISLAMIC state if forceful conversion is never to be done? To term an area or place under one religious authority amounts to forcing religious edict upon those present. Might as well tell them they have to believe, as I don't see much of a difference. Perhaps I'm mispercieve you.... If not, may I ask how far of a view do you have on this? Does the idea of a Muslim state extend beyond the middle east in your mind? May I also comment that Jordan and Egypt occupied 'palestine' land as well, and tried preventing the formation of a government in those lands for sometime. Would they (ie those fighting for their occupated land) also fight against Jordan and Egypt to attain those lands back?
I said you willfully choose to get your understanding from liars. You keep affirming that you have no interest in entering a discussion where the very people who you appose so vehemently are actively waiting for you to make comments. These things have been addressed a million times in that thread at the other forum, and you know this. People seriously interested in knowing the reality will visit it. I affirmed that there is war in Islam. I said the purpose of war is to change government, and not forceful conversion. There was absolutely no forceful conversion during the time Islam was expanding. The choices are not become Muslim or get ready for war. The step which brings about war is the refusal to allow God's law to be implemented in his land..... If you think this is wrong then of course goverments would also think it's wrong. Hense the need for war. I already agree with that. When I lie down on the earth I don't fall over. It is a bed for me. Rick, I appreciate your questions. I really think it would be more efficient to visit the bodybuilding forum though where several individuals are addressing these same issues in a more detailed manner than I'm able to.
Yet you will not list those things. I keep affirming that I am right here and that I'm not interested in going to another forum to debate. And I will affirm that again; if you or whoever sent you (you said it was a job, right?) want to engage me in debate, I am right here. I'm not going anywhere. If you or whoever you are working with wants a "piece of me," then you know where I am, right? If you were serious about engaging me, you'd do it here Islam was spread via the sword through forced conversions. You simply cannot rewrite this history. I do think it's wrong, but at least you have the courage to admit that islam's goal is world domination. If it is not islamic law, then it is war. Convert, or die.
Implement God's rule or go to war. By job I mean religiously I'm required to direct people to where the correct understanding can be found.
I believe the correct understanding is right here There is islam for muslims, then there is the other version they want us infidels to believe in. Just ask Steve Centanni about his forced conversion.