Slavery in early Islamic

[Yahya]

Habeshi made Arabs their slaves, Africans werent always slaves to the Arabs

Bro Abraha ruled Yemen and made it all the way up to the Kaaba destroying multiple Arab tribes on the way. Only Allah defended the Kaaba.

I find it laughable when the Arabs deny that the Ethiopians once ruled over them. It was only after the Ethiopians were destroyed and many fled that some Habesha were captured and subjugated.

 

[Aurelian]

I think those hadith are considered sahih

Many hadiths with questionable intention we’re included in the sahih

 

[Sajid]

Bro Abraha ruled Yemen and made it all the way up to the Kaaba destroying multiple Arab tribes on the way. Only Allah defended the Kaaba.

I find it laughable when the Arabs deny that the Ethiopians once ruled over them. It was only after the Ethiopians were destroyed and many fled that some Habesha were captured and subjugated.

Still it was a short period

 

[Dima&Damo]

Still it was a short period

It's haram to be nationalist

 

[Sajid]

It's haram to be nationalist

Not Haram unless you put it above religion

 

[Sajid]

You see this kind of Hadith are considered political hadiths added to the broader hadiths, like the hadiths of ruling, the skin of the prophet etc.

What do you mean by political

 

[Sheikh Google]

Many hadiths with questionable intention we’re included in the sahih

It's as if political dynasties over centuries didn't have an influence over the curation of hadiths. Niggas would rather believe the isnad or Chinese whispers as I like to call it was utter perfection...

 

[Sajid]

It's as if political dynasties over centuries didn't have an influence over the curation of hadiths. Niggas would rather believe the isnad or Chinese whispers as I like to call it was utter perfection...

Why you don't believe isnad

 

[Sheikh Google]

Why you don't believe isnad

Don't worry I'm a well known wecel disbeliever according to some. I have clowned many before you and will clown many after you...

 

[Sajid]

Don't worry I'm a well known wecel disbeliever according to some. I have clowned many before you and will clown many after you...

Give me a reason you doubt isnad unless you have no clue about what you are talking about

 

[Sheikh Google]

Give me a reason you doubt isnad unless you have no clue about what you are talking about

 

[Sajid]

Well that is what I expected

 

[Aurelian]

It's as if political dynasties over centuries didn't have an influence over the curation of hadiths. Niggas would rather believe the isnad or Chinese whispers as I like to call it was utter perfection...

what u said here ?

 

[Sheikh Google]

what u said here ?

I was agreeing with you don't worry. Many here will call you a quranist or a gaal. Not me tho...

 

[Aurelian]

I was agreeing with you don't worry. Many here will call you a quranist or a gaal. Not me tho...

it is not a quranist thing, it is a well known thing among scholars that there were hadiths created for political reasons.

 

[El Nino]

Bro Abraha ruled Yemen and made it all the way up to the Kaaba destroying multiple Arab tribes on the way. Only Allah defended the Kaaba.

I find it laughable when the Arabs deny that the Ethiopians once ruled over them. It was only after the Ethiopians were destroyed and many fled that some Habesha were captured and subjugated.

This explains why ethiopians were disliked at that time, they killed huge numbers of arabs and possibly even somalis joined

 

[El Nino]

Controversial opinion but I don’t think some hadiths are true

it is not a quranist thing, it is a well known thing among scholars that there were hadiths created for political reasons.

Absolutely this, even some of the sahih ones I believe,

 

[Sajid]

it is not a quranist thing, it is a well known thing among scholars that there were hadiths created for political reasons.

Tell me the big scholars that said that

 

[Aurelian]

Tell me the big scholars that said that

there are books which talks about how much scholars like alalbani were classifing which hadiths is sahih and which is ضعيف
1- Al-albani classified bunch of hadiths as taciif.
2- Shai vs Ummayad vs hashimate hadiths wars
3- hadiths about al-imama mostly used by shias and sunna in some extend.

Every hadiths talks about politics like ruling or the legitimacy of some group or favourism of some group against others are suspicious hadiths that should be taken carefully.

For instance, when the sahaba were electing a Khalif, they didn't took any of the prophets sayings as a rule, but just elected Abu bakr, although nowadays there are plenty of hadiths - which came or written later- that have favourtism toward Quraish as the suitable for Imama. Meanwhile, Shia have their own hadiths for that specific reason but favour Ali and its descendants.


Another hadith wars is when the Ummayad were fighting Ibn Al-Zubair where the later stated a hadith against Ummayad dynasty:
إذا بلغ بنو أبي العاص ثلاثين رجلاً، اتخذوا عباد الله خولاً ومال الله دولاً كتاب الله دغلاً"، رواه ابن الجوزي، وأحمد والبيهقي، وصححه الألباني. وشرح الحديث أنه إذا امتد حكم نسل مروان بن الحكم (بنو العاص) إلى ثلاثين فرداً، سيتخذون المسلمين عبيداً لهم، وينهبون مال الله، ويُفسدون الدين.

Which means that if the Banu Al-Caas rule based down to their 30th ruler, meaning if muslims had the 30 Ummayad ruler, they will make Muslims their slaves, steel muslim money and ruin the deen.

 

[Sajid]

there are books which talks about how much scholars like alalbani were classifing which hadiths is sahih and which is ضعيف
1- Al-albani classified bunch of hadiths as taciif.
2- Shai vs Ummayad vs hashimate hadiths wars
3- hadiths about al-imama mostly used by shias and sunna in some extend.

Every hadiths talks about politics like ruling or the legitimacy of some group or favourism of some group against others are suspicious hadiths that should be taken carefully.

For instance, when the sahaba were electing a Khalif, they didn't took any of the prophets sayings as a rule, but just elected Abu bakr, although nowadays there are plenty of hadiths - which came or written later- that have favourtism toward Quraish as the suitable for Imama. Meanwhile, Shia have their own hadiths for that specific reason but favour Ali and its descendants.


Another hadith wars is when the Ummayad were fighting Ibn Al-Zubair where the later stated a hadith against Ummayad dynasty:
إذا بلغ بنو أبي العاص ثلاثين رجلاً، اتخذوا عباد الله خولاً ومال الله دولاً كتاب الله دغلاً"، رواه ابن الجوزي، وأحمد والبيهقي، وصححه الألباني. وشرح الحديث أنه إذا امتد حكم نسل مروان بن الحكم (بنو العاص) إلى ثلاثين فرداً، سيتخذون المسلمين عبيداً لهم، وينهبون مال الله، ويُفسدون الدين.

Which means that if the Banu Al-Caas rule based down to their 30th ruler, meaning if muslims had the 30 Ummayad ruler, they will make Muslims their slaves, steel muslim money and ruin the deen.

Now I agree that there is weak Hadiths but that isn't against ilm Al Hadith and uluma like imam bukhari and Muslim and many others made rules to filter Hadiths.

And the other point you said about shia is a joke because shia have no links with islam.

Because.
Ilm Al Quran
Ilm tajwid is sunni
Ilm tafsir is sunni
Ilm Hadith is sunni
Ilm Al nahu is sunni
Ilm Al sarf is sunni
Ilm Al balagah is sunni

So What is their reference?

It's from there fake uluma that but any thing after imam Ali said and they will believe it