Hadith - Aggression against the Xabashi's and Turks Forbidden

[World]

The Ottoman Empire owes its existence in the 19th century to the Western World. By the 19th century, the Muslim World was no longer a threat to them, hence why they supported the Turks against the Russians in the Crimean War. Religion no longer dictated the foreign policy of Western powers.

The Western World also backed the Ottoman’s against Muhammad Ali Pasha who would have taken control over the Muslim world and instituted reforms across the empire. But the British didn’t want a revitalised Muslim polity to take control of the Ottoman Empire, which is why they backed them. The Ottoman Empire would have died a natural death in the early 19th century were it not for British/French backing. Anyways, the Ottoman Empire in the end was no different to the Muslim nation states today. They decriminalized homosexuality, abolished the jizya, banned slavery and so on.

As for my leanings, I am not Madkhali, I believe that the Umma will not be united until the end times are upon us. It goes downhill until that period comes. In the meantime, I just try to lead a good life.

I have an assumption that global warming may put us back in another ice age which will lead to the destruction of our current industrialized civilisation and lead to the death of 90+% of the global population.

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and rivers.” Narrated by Muslim (157).

The Sahara desert and the Arabian peninsula was a resourceful, habitable, and fertile land before it began drying up 6000 years ago. And this Hadith indicates that it will return back to it again. In the past, warming trends have led to new ice ages. But our current industrial civilisation is doing what would have taken thousands of years in a few decades.

 

[Agent 47]

Too many munaafaqs who knows nothing about Islam
Do you even know what the xabashis did for nabi maxamed CSW?
Xabashis is a raw meat eating hyenas but we gotta follow our religion and not go against what our beloved prophet said.

 

[World]

Too many munaafaqs who knows nothing about Islam
Do you even know what the xabashis did for nabi maxamed CSW?
Xabashis is a raw meat eating hyenas but we gotta follow our religion and not go against what our beloved prophet said.

The Sababa under the rule of Umar(R.A) sent a naval expedition against the Xabashis to take the port of Adulis(640 AD), and the Ummayads conquered the port of Massawa(700 AD) since the Xabashis were raiding the Arabian coast and took control of Jeddah.

This moryaan @Inquisitive_ gotta stop lying on the Prophet SAW. The Xabashis transgressed against the Sahaba shortly after the death of Rasululah and so they fought them and took their land. Likewise, the Xabashis invaded the Muslim regions of the Horn, took our women as slaves, forced us into apostasy, allied with the Crusaders, and have put us under their rule (Muslims cannot be ruled by kuffar who fight against our religion). He ignores this and instead of blaming his moryaan uncles for destroying Somalia, he makes up tafsiir and says we are in our predicament and hundreds of thousands of Somalis have died, been raped, their homes stolen, because we tried to free our land under occupation.

 

[TekNiKo]

You are a hypocrite, yesterday crying for Qalbidhagax, todsy using religious scriptures to justify Xabashi servile behavior by Adaado

 

[Madaxkuti]

You are a hypocrite, yesterday crying for Qalbidhagax, todsy using religious scriptures to justify Xabashi servile behavior by Adaado

Have you seen the bombing in mogadishu and do you know anything about it?

 

[xisaabiye]

I would prefer reading the sharh along with the hadith to know the context. It was probably after the abysinians welcomed the As7aab. Never heard the hadith nonetheless good find

 

[Young Popeye]

it would be very awkward for uthman ibn affan, one of the sahabas who took refuge in axum to later invade axum when he became khalifa. the hadith is most likely referring to tigrayans not the southern amhara tribe who are fake habesha

 

[Bilal]

I came across this interesting hadith recently that I wasn't aware about, we all know the destruction of Somalia started in back to back unprovoked wars against the Xabashi's, were Somali's were the aggressors fighting for nationalism which is forbidden

The same when the Arabs took up arms against the Ottoman Turks for the same reasons and humiliations followed, particularly the Palestinian fractions that rebelled.

If authentic, it's impermissible to fight the Turks or the Abyssinian's unless they attack you first, of course since our back-to-back aggression's they never left us alone and you can't blame them for this.

Would be interested to know the views of other classical scholars on this Hadith in Abu Dawud @Ash'arite @SuldaanGuled




Abu Sukainah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Leave the Abyssinians alone as long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone.”

Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 4302, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to As-Suyuti

Ibn Rushd said, “It is narrated from Malik that he said it is not permissible to initiate war against the Abyssinians or the Turks because of the saying of the Prophet. Malik was asked about the authenticity of this report and, although he did not know it, he said: The people continue to avoid attacking them.”

Source: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 1/306

عَنْ أَبِي سُكَيْنَةَ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ دَعُوا الْحَبَشَةَ مَا وَدَعُوكُمْ وَاتْرُكُوا التُّرْكَ مَا تَرَكُوكُمْ

4302 سنن أبي داود كتاب الملاحم باب في النهي عن تهييج الترك والحبشة

4218 المحدث السيوطي خلاصة حكم المحدث صحيح في الجامع الصغير

قال ابن رشد مَا رُوِيَ عَنْ مَالِكٍ أَنَّهُ قَالَ لَا يَجُوزُ ابْتِدَاءُ الْحَبَشَةِ بِالْحَرْبِ وَلَا التَّرْكُ لِمَا رُوِيَ أَنَّهُ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ قَالَ ذَرُوا الْحَبَشَةَ مَا وَذَرَتْكُمْ وَقَدْ سُئِلَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ صِحَّةِ هَذَا الْأَثَرِ فَلَمْ يَعْتَرِفْ بِذَلِكَ لَكِنْ قَالَ لَمْ يَزَلِ النَّاسُ يَتَحَامَوْنَ غَزْوَهُمْ

1/306 بداية المجتهد ونهاية المقتصد كتاب الجهاد
https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadi...-from-initiating-war-against-peaceful-people/

Why are they so special?

 

[anonimo]

The Western World also backed the Ottoman’s against Muhammad Ali Pasha who would have taken control over the Muslim world and instituted reforms across the empire. But the British didn’t want a revitalised Muslim polity to take control of the Ottoman Empire, which is why they backed them. The Ottoman Empire would have died a natural death in the early 19th century were it not for British/French backing. Anyways, the Ottoman Empire in the end was no different to the Muslim nation states today. They decriminalized homosexuality, abolished the jizya, banned slavery and so on.

By curtailing the political ambitions of Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Western Europeans did not want the status-quo in the Middle East to be upset. They were not motivated by Islamophobia. As a matter of fact, both Muhammad Ali Pasha and the Ottomans were emulating the West. If the West wanted to maintain dominance over Turkey and Egypt, they would have not taken on their students or helped modernise their armies. Both countries were not a threat to Western hegemony, they were relatively minor pawns.

You are correct in stating that the Ottoman Empire was not a righteous Islamic Caliphate. Most Caliphates and Sultanates that followed the Khulafa Al Rashidun were ruled by power hungry dynasties.

I have an assumption that global warming may put us back in another ice age which will lead to the destruction of our current industrialized civilisation and lead to the death of 90+% of the global population.

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and rivers.” Narrated by Muslim (157).

The Sahara desert and the Arabian peninsula was a resourceful, habitable, and fertile land before it began drying up 6000 years ago. And this Hadith indicates that it will return back to it again. In the past, warming trends have led to new ice ages. But our current industrial civilisation is doing what would have taken thousands of years in a few decades.

If you say so bro. I personally avoid making assumptions about the end-times.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Too many munaafaqs who knows nothing about Islam
Do you even know what the xabashis did for nabi maxamed CSW?
Xabashis is a raw meat eating hyenas but we gotta follow our religion and not go against what our beloved prophet said.

These people follow their own whims and desires so I am not surprised at all by their positions.

I would prefer reading the sharh along with the hadith to know the context. It was probably after the abysinians welcomed the As7aab. Never heard the hadith nonetheless good find

From the little I have seen along with Imam Ahmed commentary, the Muslim Khalif's left the Habeshi's alone based on this hadith.

I am not well versed with the ethnicities in Ethiopia with regards to which groups make up the Habeshi's and which are excluded both past and present

The hadith in Arabic mentions "Habeshi's" rather then Abyssinia which is the English translation, as someone that knows these people better then I do, maybe you could shed some light on which groups are excluded, like for e.g. are the Tigray's considered as Habeshi's?

@Prince Abubu @Gucci mane @TooMacaan your input into this would be appreciated, I have seen you all at some point discussing the history of these people.

Interesting, first I have heard of such a hadith
Xabashis also mentioned in Quran; Surat Fiil as the people of the elephant who tried to destroy the Kaa'ba but Allah stopped them.

Yes but the Prophet also blessed the people of Yemen, we know who the people in Yemen were at that time, I asked a scholar recently whether that blessing was for the people residing in Yemen at that time, or whether it applies to anyone that lives in that region until the day of judgement and he told me there was a difference of opinion.

I can't recall the full history at the top of my head but there was a lot of feudalism that was ongoing between the Xabashi's in Yemen, they were at war with each other, and the Abraha fraction came out on top.

You are a hypocrite, yesterday crying for Qalbidhagax, todsy using religious scriptures to justify Xabashi servile behavior by Adaado

Why did you duck this topic ?

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/farmaajo-we-will-seek-support-with-our-ethiopian-brothers.32791/

 

[TekNiKo]

Have you seen the bombing in mogadishu and do you know anything about it?

I heard many blasts and the fight is ongoing, several terrorist gunmen are held up in a hotel owned by Wasiir Amniga Isloow, owner of the Naaso Hablood hotel targetted today

@embarrassing uncle died today Taliyaha Booliska Degmada Dayniile Fanax and also a Dir Xildhibaan ba goobta naftiis ku waayey

 

[Prince Abubu]

As far as I'm concerned, the only good xabashi is a slave. If medieval Arabs were concerned about hadith, they wouldn't be drinking alcohol and fornicating with boys like the Ummayads and Abbasids.

 

[TooMacaan]

These people follow their own whims and desires so I am not surprised at all by their positions.

From the little I have seen along with Imam Ahmed commentary, the Muslim Khalif's left the Habeshi's alone based on this hadith.

I am not well versed with the ethnicities in Ethiopia with regards to which groups make up the Habeshi's and which are excluded both past and present

The hadith in Arabic mentions "Habeshi's" rather then Abyssinia which is the English translation, as someone that knows these people better then I do, maybe you could shed some light on which groups are excluded, like for e.g. are the Tigray's considered as Habeshi's?

@Prince Abubu @Gucci mane @TooMacaan your input into this would be appreciated, I have seen you all at some point discussing the history of these people.

The term has multiple meanings, afaik.
In the most exclusive sense, it refers to the Tigrinya, Tigrayan, and Amhara (mainly Christian, "semitic" highlanders). In terms of language groups (it refers to any semitic speaker from Eritrea or Ethiopia [minus the Rashaida]): Tigrinya, Tigre, Tigrayan, Amhara, Guraghe, Silt'e, Harari, and Argobba. And in the most inclusive sense, it's a label mostly used by the Ethiopians and Eritreans living in the West (more of a 'cultural'/'bonding' thing). As for in the Qur'an, I think "Habesha" just means 'people who hail from the land of Habesh' (thus, the ethnic makeup of whatever people lived in the "Habesh region" at that time period and possibly their descendants).

 

[TSP]

@Inquisitive_ , I would argue that the 1977 war was a just one. Imagine the living conditions for the Somalis living in the galbeed forty years ago if today we see the Ethiopians allocate all the world bank aid towards their regions, institute a media black-out to cover the atrocities, and killing/raping the youths in their jails.

Mind you, the ones that lived forty years ago lived under an antagonistic regime that never invested a dime via their isolationism policy towards the region compared to today where the TPLF has distributed some infrastructure projects to further their agenda to ethiopianize the somali galbeed

Another reason why they had it coming was their blatant disregard for the well-being of the somali pastoralists during the 73-74 drought where an Ethiopian official said that the somali“people have always starved down in the desert and help has never reached them before.” I'm glad the kacaan regime at the time took action to save our fellow somalis instead of looking on as bystanders like we see today with many Muslim countries.

 

[World]

@Inquisitive_ , I would argue that the 1977 war was a just one. Imagine the living conditions for the Somalis living in the galbeed forty years ago if today we see the Ethiopians allocate all the world bank aid towards their regions, institute a media black-out to cover the atrocities, and killing/raping the youths in their jails.

Mind you, the ones that lived forty years ago lived under an antagonistic regime that never invested a dime via their isolationism policy towards the region compared to today where the TPLF has distributed some infrastructure projects to further their agenda to ethiopianize the somali galbeed

Another reason why they had it coming was their blatant disregard for the well-being of the somali pastoralists during the 73-74 drought where an Ethiopian official said that the somali“people have always starved down in the desert and help has never reached them before.” I'm glad the kacaan regime at the time took action to save our fellow somalis instead of looking on as bystanders like we see today with many Muslim countries.

Ignore him man.

This nigga believes that people who stole hundreds of thousands of livestock from our lands, spread Christianity, banned Qur’an schools, colonised our region with the help Europeans are in fact the ones who have been wronged.

He is returning back to the qabilist moryaan character he was hiding on this forum but showed on somnet.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

I came across this interesting hadith recently that I wasn't aware about, we all know the destruction of Somalia started in back to back unprovoked wars against the Xabashi's, were Somali's were the aggressors fighting for nationalism which is forbidden

The same when the Arabs took up arms against the Ottoman Turks for the same reasons and humiliations followed, particularly the Palestinian fractions that rebelled.

If authentic, it's impermissible to fight the Turks or the Abyssinian's unless they attack you first, of course since our back-to-back aggression's they never left us alone and you can't blame them for this.

Would be interested to know the views of other classical scholars on this Hadith in Abu Dawud @Ash'arite @SuldaanGuled




Abu Sukainah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Leave the Abyssinians alone as long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone.”

Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 4302, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to As-Suyuti

Ibn Rushd said, “It is narrated from Malik that he said it is not permissible to initiate war against the Abyssinians or the Turks because of the saying of the Prophet. Malik was asked about the authenticity of this report and, although he did not know it, he said: The people continue to avoid attacking them.”

Source: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 1/306

عَنْ أَبِي سُكَيْنَةَ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ دَعُوا الْحَبَشَةَ مَا وَدَعُوكُمْ وَاتْرُكُوا التُّرْكَ مَا تَرَكُوكُمْ

4302 سنن أبي داود كتاب الملاحم باب في النهي عن تهييج الترك والحبشة

4218 المحدث السيوطي خلاصة حكم المحدث صحيح في الجامع الصغير

قال ابن رشد مَا رُوِيَ عَنْ مَالِكٍ أَنَّهُ قَالَ لَا يَجُوزُ ابْتِدَاءُ الْحَبَشَةِ بِالْحَرْبِ وَلَا التَّرْكُ لِمَا رُوِيَ أَنَّهُ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ قَالَ ذَرُوا الْحَبَشَةَ مَا وَذَرَتْكُمْ وَقَدْ سُئِلَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ صِحَّةِ هَذَا الْأَثَرِ فَلَمْ يَعْتَرِفْ بِذَلِكَ لَكِنْ قَالَ لَمْ يَزَلِ النَّاسُ يَتَحَامَوْنَ غَزْوَهُمْ

1/306 بداية المجتهد ونهاية المقتصد كتاب الجهاد
https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadi...-from-initiating-war-against-peaceful-people/

Firstly the word Habesha was used in reference to the people living in the horn at the time, somalis are included in that as we natives to this region as well. It's only in modern times that the usage of this term is solely used to refer to amxaaro iyo tigray, somalis in general distance themselves from this label/word as it's associated with negative connotations, in fact in somali it's used as a derogatory term. I believe it's similar for other muslim ethnicities in the horn as well.


Secondly the command not to fight them as stated in the hadith is dependent on their stance towards us, it no longer applies as they have been engaging in warfare against us for more than 10 centuries. They used to even attack arab cities along the coast during the reign of calipha umar/uthman if i'm not mistaken this why expeditions were sent against them. I mean would you say that the companions of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) disobeyed him by attacking the habesha ? Our destruction didn't come about because we disobeyed the prophet (peace be upon him ) in this issue rather it came about due to us turning away from our religion.

Also how is it possible for turks to take control over the arabs without attacking them? so in that regard arabs have a right to fight back according to the hadith wouldn't you agree ?

 

[Inquisitive_]

@Inquisitive_ , I would argue that the 1977 war was a just one. Imagine the living conditions for the Somalis living in the galbeed forty years ago if today we see the Ethiopians allocate all the world bank aid towards their regions, institute a media black-out to cover the atrocities, and killing/raping the youths in their jails.

Mind you, the ones that lived forty years ago lived under an antagonistic regime that never invested a dime via their isolationism policy towards the region compared to today where the TPLF has distributed some infrastructure projects to further their agenda to ethiopianize the somali galbeed

Another reason why they had it coming was their blatant disregard for the well-being of the somali pastoralists during the 73-74 drought where an Ethiopian official said that the somali“people have always starved down in the desert and help has never reached them before.” I'm glad the kacaan regime at the time took action to save our fellow somalis instead of looking on as bystanders like we see today with many Muslim countries.

The war was not winnable and everyone knew this the moment both superpowers refused to back us before the launch of the conflict, so even from a worldly perspective it was stupid to partake in such a conflict that eventually destroyed our nation.

From an Islamic standpoint unless your fighting to make Allah's word the highest in the land, it's not Jihad and those that died in such wars died upon Jaahiliya except for those defending their properties, much of the sins will go towards the group that started the fitnah (war)

There were Muslims on both sides of this conflict. A Communist secular regime (barre) against an equal much weaker oppressive regime defending itself, this argument about fund allocation to the Somali region, can also be used against the kacaan regime that did the same based on qabiil, this form of corruption happens all over the world today and many groups of people in any nation even today have the same complaints.

Many Ethiopian ethnic groups share the same sentiments too about their past as well as their present regime, this does not serve as an adequate justification for war, I was not alive at that time but if you can proof that the Derg regime were systematically signalling out Somali's in that region for persecution for no justifiable reasons, then I agree they should be fought, but not under Barre's communism or for nationalistic wordily reasons which pretty much condemns you to hell

It is narrated by Abu Daud that the Messenger of Allah (Salal Lahu Alehi Wasalam) said, "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyah or who dies for `Asabiyah."

" ...People should give up their pride in nations because this is a coal from the coals of hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through khur (feces)." [abu Dawd and Tirmidhi].

 

[Inquisitive_]

Firstly the word Habesha was used in reference to the people living in the horn at the time, somalis are included in that as we natives to this region as well. It's only in modern times that the usage of this term is solely used to refer to amxaaro iyo tigray, somalis in general distance themselves from this label/word as it's associated with negative connotations, in fact in somali it's used as a derogatory term. I believe it's similar for other muslim ethnicities in the horn as well.


Secondly the command not to fight them as stated in the hadith is dependent on their stance towards us, it no longer applies as they have been engaging in warfare against us for more than 10 centuries. They used to even attack arab cities along the coast during the reign of calipha umar/uthman if i'm not mistaken this why expeditions were sent against them. I mean would you say that the companions of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) disobeyed him by attacking the habesha ? Our destruction didn't come about because we disobeyed the prophet (peace be upon him ) in this issue rather it came about due to us turning away from our religion.

Also how is it possible for turks to take control over the arabs without attacking them? so in that regard arabs have a right to fight back according to the hadith wouldn't you agree ?

You misunderstood my post, our destruction is for several reasons, the hadith is very clear that you can attack them if they attack you, there is no doubt about that, today the justification for attacking them is legitimate, but that should be done under an inclusive Islamic banner and not for any worldly or nationalistic reasons because otherwise you will be fighting against other Muslims and condemn yourself to hell.

I used to also think Habeshi's or Abyssinian's referred to the entire Horn of Africa region, but then in some debates I had in the past, I was told the Abyssinian's never ruled present day Somalia (assuming Somali's were still there) and therefore our ancestors are not included, I don't know what the Ethiopian perspective in those ancient days were (@TooMacaan could maybe clarify that)

Here is the Ottomon Islamic map. You can clearly see based on this map Eritrea, Djibouti and parts of Northern Somalia they considered as ardul xabash, since "Adal" is included I am assuming this map was before 1577 and not earlier then 1400

 

[SuldaanGuled]

You misunderstood my post, our destruction is for several reasons, the hadith is very clear that you can attack them if they attack you, there is no doubt about that, today the justification for attacking them is legitimate, but that should be done under an inclusive Islamic banner and not for any worldly or nationalistic reasons because otherwise you will be fighting against other Muslims and condemn yourself to hell.

I used to also think Habeshi's or Abyssinian's referred to the entire Horn of Africa region, but then in some debates I had in the past, I was told the Abyssinian's never ruled present day Somalia (assuming Somali's were still there) and therefore our ancestors are not included, I don't know what the Ethiopian perspective in those ancient days were (@TooMacaan could maybe clarify that)

Here is the Ottomon Islamic map. You can clearly see based on this map Eritrea, Djibouti and parts of Northern Somalia they considered as ardul xabash, since "Adal" is included I am assuming this map was before 1577 and not earlier then 1400

I understood perfectly but the point that i was trying to elaborate is that the argument your were pushing forth doesn't correlate with what the hadith states. What you were implying in your first post was that we had no legitimate grounds for attacking them and you were excusing their actions by saying that we were the aggressors & they were not to be blamed, how did you come to this conclusion ? do you have any evidence to support this claim ??

According to your interpretation of the hadith somalia is in destruction because we unjustly attacked the habeshis

we all know the destruction of Somalia started in back to back unprovoked wars against the Xabashi's, were Somali's were the aggressors fighting for nationalism which is forbidden

Had you really believed that we had legitimate justification for attacking them you wouldn't have written that statement or any of the other ones where you blame somalis for being the aggressors.

Furthermore the point you make about somalis fighting for nationalism etc has no bearing on the apparent meaning of the hadith as our conflict has been going on for more than 10 centuries, it didn't start today, or in 1964, 1977, 2006, etc. Even if somalia attacked first in 1964 mise 1977 the command of the hadith(not to fight them) never applied then nor now simply because they had already transgressed against us and were occupying our lands. What you are doing is interpreting the hadith using modern history and then drawing your own conclusions from it.


The word habesha is a label that the arabs gave to the people who resided in modern day horn of africa, it's has nothing to do with habesha ruling us etc also somalis started to migrate to the lowlands en mass not very long ago.

 

[TSP]

I understood perfectly but the point that i was trying to elaborate is that the argument your were pushing forth doesn't correlate with what the hadith states. What you were implying in your first post was that we had no legitimate grounds for attacking them and you were excusing their actions by saying that we were the aggressors & they were not to be blamed, how did you come to this conclusion ? do you have any evidence to support this claim ??

According to your interpretation of the hadith somalia is in destruction because we unjustly attacked the habeshis



Had you really believed that we had legitimate justification for attacking them you wouldn't have written that statement or any of the other ones where you blame somalis for being the aggressors.

Furthermore the point you make about somalis fighting for nationalism etc has no bearing on the apparent meaning of the hadith as our conflict has been going on for more than 10 centuries, it didn't start today, or in 1964, 1977, 2006, etc. Even if somalia attacked first in 1964 mise 1977 the command of the hadith(not to fight them) never applied then nor now simply because they had already transgressed against us and were occupying our lands. What you are doing is interpreting the hadith using modern history and then drawing your own conclusions from it.


The word habesha is a label that the arabs gave to the people who resided in modern day horn of africa, it's has nothing to do with habesha ruling us etc also somalis started to migrate to the lowlands en mass not very long ago.

Couldn't have said it any better

That's the reason why I didn't accept viewing the 77 as unjust on our part. I don't see how freeing our people from their oppressors makes us the transgressors unless we view the colonial borders as halal. It always in doubt until '88 when the regime at the time illegitimately relinquished our claim out of self-interest.