Hadith - Aggression against the Xabashi's and Turks Forbidden

[Inquisitive_]

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.

I see were you misunderstood my point now, I should have been more clear to make this distinction, I thought the Somali's had a unanimous consensus that the ill-conceived failed 77 war lead to the collapse of the Somali nation, which totally bankrupted us leading to our demise.

It was a loss that anyone could foresee, we had no nations that backed us, so many against us, including stern warnings from both superpowers at that time, yet proceeded with this suicidal action

Let's put the hadith to a side for now, since your not of the dominant opinion that the ill-conceived suicidal 77 war lead to our collapse, my question to you is this, knowing what you know now, would you have still sanctioned and supported this conflict? would you have given your life up fighting under the banner of nationalism against other Muslims over Dunya (land) were clearly you initiated the large scale attacks? Do you consider this Jihad ?

You have to present proof for your statement that Habesh's referred to the people in the Horn of Africa and not the geographical location of the Abyssinian kingdom which was known, do you have any statements from our classical scholars?

The Habeshi's ruled Yemen before the birth of the Prophet and some time after, Abraha took an army of Elephant from Yemen to attack the Kaaba, they ruled Yemen for a very long time, yet no one in their right mind includes Yemen.

If your off the belief that Habeshi's means all of us (which I once upon a time thought as well) you understand the hadith to mean that we are all included in this prohibition, this changes the entire direction of this topic, interesting nevertheless.

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.

This discussion is taking place in a religious context not a political, the fact that the Kacaan relinquished their claim over the land proves this conflict was for self interest and not the plight of Somali's at all

The question for you is this, knowing what you know now, would you have sanctioned or partook in this conflict ? fighting under the banner of communism masqueraded as faux nationalism over a piece of land that other Muslims from different ethnic backgrounds also contest with you?

I cannot have this discussion with you guys in honesty if you refuse to fight this battle for religious reasons yourselves, but you support others to die a death of Jaahilya and fight under those banners, it's very disingenuous.

 

[TSP]

This discussion is taking place in a religious context not a political, the fact that the Kacaan relinquished their claim over the land proves this conflict was for self interest and not the plight of Somali's at all

The question for you is this, knowing what you know now, would you have sanctioned or partook in this conflict ? fighting under the banner of communism masqueraded as faux nationalism over a piece of land that other Muslims from different ethnic backgrounds also contest with you?

I cannot have this discussion with you guys in honesty if you refuse to fight this battle for religious reasons yourselves, but you support others to die a death of Jaahilya and fight under those banners, it's very disingenuous.

You can't say the kacaan started the 77 war out of self-interest. What happened in 1988 was a change of circumstance as the regime was on their knees.

Yes, I would have partook in the 77 war if given the chance because the galbeed to me is much more than 'a piece of land'. Like @SuldaanGuled said earlier, how do you justify the Habesha's continous transgression upon your people? Fighting for your country and fighting for the religion is not mutually exclusive. Liberating the somalis over there is liberating muslims and that is why it is a just. End of the day it doesn't matter what Barre's intentions were as long as muslims were being liberated

 

[SuldaanGuled]

I see were you misunderstood my point now, I should have been more clear to make this distinction, I thought the Somali's had a unanimous consensus that the ill-conceived failed 77 war lead to the collapse of the Somali nation, which totally bankrupted us leading to our demise.

It was a loss that anyone could foresee, we had no nations that backed us, so many against us, including stern warnings from both superpowers at that time, yet proceeded with this suicidal action

Let's put the hadith to a side for now, since your not of the dominant opinion that the ill-conceived suicidal 77 war lead to our collapse, my question to you is this, knowing what you know now, would you have still sanctioned and supported this conflict? would you have given your life up fighting under the banner of nationalism against other Muslims over Dunya (land) were clearly you initiated the large scale attacks? Do you consider this Jihad ?

You have to present proof for your statement that Habesh's referred to the people in the Horn of Africa and not the geographical location of the Abyssinian kingdom which was known, do you have any statements from our classical scholars?

The Habeshi's ruled Yemen before the birth of the Prophet and some time after, Abraha took an army of Elephant from Yemen to attack the Kaaba, they ruled Yemen for a very long time, yet no one in their right mind includes Yemen.

If your off the belief that Habeshi's means all of us (which I once upon a time thought as well) you understand the hadith to mean that we are all included in this prohibition, this changes the entire direction of this topic, interesting nevertheless.





This discussion is taking place in a religious context not a political, the fact that the Kacaan relinquished their claim over the land proves this conflict was for self interest and not the plight of Somali's at all

The question for you is this, knowing what you know now, would you have sanctioned or partook in this conflict ? fighting under the banner of communism masqueraded as faux nationalism over a piece of land that other Muslims from different ethnic backgrounds also contest with you?

I cannot have this discussion with you guys in honesty if you refuse to fight this battle for religious reasons yourselves, but you support others to die a death of Jaahilya and fight under those banners, it's very disingenuous.

Walaal you're conflating a number of issues together;

1) Conflict between us and gaalada from an islamic perspective
2) Conflict between us and gaalada from a military point of view
3) Fighting for other purposes other than to please Allah


You started this thread by arguing that somalis had no legitimate grounds for fighting against amxaaro iyo tigray from an islamic perspective as they were fighting under the banner of nationalism, to support your case you brought the hadith where the Prophet (peace be upon him) commands the muslims not to fight them unless they fight us first.

If somalis are fighting under the banner of nationalism today this still doesn't negate the fact that our conflict has always been a religious one and most importantly the command in the hadith ceased to apply when they started to fight us due to our deen, a fact that you seem not to acknowledge.


Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. (60;8)

What you are doing is giving blanket approval for amxaaro iyo tigray slaughter, oppression and occupation of muslims under the guise of reciprocation. I don't understand how you have an issue with nationalism among somalis but turn a blind eye to the transgression of amxaaro iyo tigray , ma malaig baa ? Are you telling us that they are a just people ?

Exactly being ruled by habeshi is not a condition for a person to be grouped under the label habeshi, but more importantly somalis used to live in the inlands of the horn back in the day as well. Its due to recent migration that we came to occupy present day somalia, that's why it doesn't make sense to say that because "habeshi" never ruled present day somali regions in the past we can't be considered habeshi. We have been pushed back same with other muslim groups in the horn.

The capital addis ababa is now located in shewa, a region that was once a muslim sultanate, they have destroyed countless sultanates in the horn and you expect us to believe that we are the transgressors ?

Us being referred to as habeshi is a minor point tbh as what matters most is understanding the apparent meaning of the hadith in it's right context. As it's clear from the hadith itself that the prohibition remains as long as they don't initiate warfare against us, now the question is why you only focused on the first part of the hadith and not the entire hadith before you came to a final conclusion ?

Let's put the hadith to a side for now, since your not of the dominant opinion that the ill-conceived suicidal 77 war lead to our collapse, my question to you is this, knowing what you know now, would you have still sanctioned and supported this conflict? would you have given your life up fighting under the banner of nationalism against other Muslims over Dunya (land) were clearly you initiated the large scale attacks? Do you consider this Jihad ?

It depends on the pros and cons of the objectives in question, is it better to live under amxaaro iyo tigray mise under a nationalistic somalia ? for me it would be the latter as it's the lesser of the two evils.

What muslims are you referring to ? ethiopia is ruled by gaalo and those muslims who fight for them do that under the banner of nationalism and for some due to kufr. Aiding gaalo over muslims is a sign of kufr. As Muslims we have the right to defend ourselves from any aggressor be it muslim mise gaalo,

 

[MARAQ DIGAAG]

The xabashis have come as far as Muqdisho in 2007 . As I write this email , they are entering the Gedo region . Most of their current state has been conquered from Muslims . And this guy is talking about a Hadith which refers to a: the medieval habesha state and b: which is dependant on them leaving us alone .

 

[Khayyam]

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/

I heard that hadith particularly those concern ethopia many times but not sure about it's authencity