Does Islam Like Black People?

[Daydreamer]

@The alchemist initially said no role was given due to lineage and it was only due to Iman. I have now with the proof that the Caliphate was supposed to be the Arabs have shown how that is not the case

Take it as you will, if you want to believe it’s someone’s god given right to rule over you be my guest

If the position caliphate was purely based on lineage then why would prophet Muhammad appoint his friend as the first caliph instead of his family members? The majority of scholars believe that lineage is not important in becoming the caliphate

 

[Abdisamadi]

it also isn’t explicitly stated if they were pagans either.

Read the earlier passage, this was revealed because the victors at the time had trouble going through with this due to the losers tribe role in Pre Islamic society

 

[Daydreamer]

It’s a contradiction is what it is, and this is why there is a disagreement between scholars. Because you can’t say you got a message that says you can have relations with a pagan tribe then say it’s haram later, this ayat was literally revealed due to their pagans being husbands

Unless it’s made up, but that’s not the discussion

Where does it say that you can have sex with pagans you still haven’t given any concrete proof

 

[Angelina]

If the position caliphate was purely based on lineage then why would prophet Muhammad appoint his friend as the first caliph instead of his family members? The majority of scholars believe that lineage is not important in becoming the caliphate

I wouldn’t say majority although I do know the Hanafi madhab believe he doesn’t have to be Quraishi but major Salafi scholars do believe so. I need to research what the Shafis and Hanbalis believe.

 

[Abdisamadi]

If the position caliphate was purely based on lineage then why would prophet Muhammad appoint his friend as the first caliph instead of his family members? The majority of scholars believe that lineage is not important in becoming the caliphate

It’s agreed upon by most scholars that it’s important to be Quraysh

 

[Abdisamadi]

Where does it say that you can have sex with pagans you still haven’t given any concrete proof

Again, the hadeeth was revealed because the fighters at the time didn’t want to go through with it due to them being an important Pagan tribe with known members, read my earlier message

 

[Angelina]

It’s agreed upon by most scholars that it’s important to be Quraysh

Not Hanafi. Can you show us the Hanbali and Shafi view is?

Also, on a serious note. What benefit is there to opening this up during Ramadan, like seriously what is your agenda here?

 

[attash]

@The alchemist initially said no role was given due to lineage and it was only due to Iman. I have now with the proof that the Caliphate was supposed to be the Arabs have shown how that is not the case

Take it as you will, if you want to believe it’s someone’s god given right to rule over you be my guest

I have already said the reason why the Quraysh were given leadership is because they already had it, not because it is a God-given right.

Scholars have said that is another people can gain power with the people accepting it, than it is not necessary for the Quraysh to be caliphs. This is why the Ottomans were allowed to have the caliphate, because by the time they came into power, the people were already accustomed to having non-Qurayshis such as the Turks and Mongols ruling them.

 

[Basra]

Islam is not about human beings. Islam is submission to ONLY Allaah swt. We as humans- our brain and thinking is restricted. We cannot overthink outside the box of our brain and experience. Periodt.

Black & White standard of beauty and rights is created among humans. God trumps the globe of earth that we exist in.

 

[Abdisamadi]

I have already said the reason why the Quraysh were given leadership is because they already had it, not because it is a God-given right.

Scholars have said that is another people can gain power with the people accepting it, than it is not necessary for the Quraysh to be caliphs. This is why the Ottomans were allowed to have the caliphate, because by the time they came into power, the people were already accustomed to having non-Qurayshis such as the Turks and Mongols ruling them.

The Ottomans were disputed leaders, many scholars revisionist or not call them “innovators” and not a legitimate caliph.

Aside from that the Quraysh are said to be from the best of Arabs so this is not a purely “logical” choice

 

[attash]

It’s a contradiction is what it is, and this is why there is a disagreement between scholars. Because you can’t say you got a message that says you can have relations with a pagan tribe then say it’s haram later, this ayat was literally revealed due to their pagans being husbands

Unless it’s made up, but that’s not the discussion

You are grasping at straws at this point. I have already shown you an ayah from the Quran itself forbidding sexual relations with pagans in clear Arabic. There is hardly any disagreement between scholars, most scholars agree with this ruling.

There is no proof of contradiction here. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Simply because that specific hadith does not say something, doesn't mean nothing was said. It is possible that some of the women converted to Islam and this is why the sahabah were inquiring about this matter.

Like I said, the only way you can refute me is by showing an ayah or hadith that explicitly permits having intercourse with pagans after the ayah I already showed you was revealed.

 

[Abdisamadi]

Not Hanafi. Can you show us the Hanbali and Shafi view is?

Also, on a serious note. What benefit is there to opening this up during Ramadan, like seriously what is your agenda here?

Found the video interesting and some users opinions even more interesting

I got my ass beat in dugsi for asking why Alcohol was banned and not slavery so this is somewhat personal

 

[The alchemist]

@The alchemist initially said no role was given due to lineage and it was only due to Iman. I have now with the proof that the Caliphate was supposed to be the Arabs have shown how that is not the case

Take it as you will, if you want to believe it’s someone’s god given right to rule over you be my guest

I never mentioned roles and neither was that my framing, you liar. You have low comprehension and interpret wrongly on purpose because you lack integrity. Don't mention me with these pathetic attempts again. I gave you a chance and you proved me right in your tendencies.

 

[Abdisamadi]

You are grasping at straws at this point. I have already shown you an ayah from the Quran itself forbidding sexual relations with pagans in clear Arabic. There is hardly any disagreement between scholars, most scholars agree with this ruling.

There is no proof of contradiction here. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Simply because that specific hadith does not say something, doesn't mean nothing was said. It is possible that some of the women converted to Islam and this is why the sahabah were inquiring about this matter.

Like I said, the only way you can refute me is by showing an ayah or hadith that explicitly permits having intercourse with pagans after the ayah I already showed you was revealed.

You cannot create your own framework for how something is correct or not, I have already shown the disagreement on this topic due to this being an action the prophet took part in and it being something he allowed, do with that as you will

 

[attash]

The Ottomans were disputed leaders, many scholars revisionist or not call them “innovators” and not a legitimate caliph.

Their caliphate was accepted by the majority of the scholars of their era.

Aside from that the Quraysh are said to be from the best of Arabs so this is not a purely “logical” choice

You still can't show me any statement from Quran or hadith saying that the Quraysh were inherently superior to other Arabs or anyone really.

All you can show me are practical or descriptive statements from the Prophet (SAWS) about the state of affairs regarding Qurayshi leadership during his time.

 

[محمود فارح]

I have already said the reason why the Quraysh were given leadership is because they already had it, not because it is a God-given right.

Scholars have said that is another people can gain power with the people accepting it, than it is not necessary for the Quraysh to be caliphs. This is why the Ottomans were allowed to have the caliphate, because by the time they came into power, the people were already accustomed to having non-Qurayshis such as the Turks and Mongols ruling them.

The caliphate belongs to Quraysh (exclusively), but “rule” does not. Saladin was the ruler of all Muslims and managed their affairs, and the Mongol Sultan in India was the ruler of Muslims and managed the affairs of Muslims, and the examples are many. In short, it does not prevent you from being the ruler of all Muslims even if you are not from the Quraysh. This is my conclusion.

 

[Abdisamadi]

Their caliphate was accepted by the majority of the scholars of their era.

You still can't show me any statement from Quran or hadith saying that the Quraysh were inherently superior to other Arabs or anyone really.

All you can show me are practical or descriptive statements from the Prophet (SAWS) about the state of affairs regarding Qurayshi leadership during his time.

You said their position was descriptive then said they are the best suited for Caliphate position and that it is a position held by most scholars. Stop changing your opinion

 

[Abdisamadi]

I never mentioned roles and neither was that my framing, you liar. You have low comprehension and interpret wrongly on purpose because you lack integrity. Don't mention me with these pathetic attempts again. I gave you a chance and you proved me right in your tendencies.

, stick to race science bro

 

[attash]

You cannot create your own framework for how something is correct or not, I have already shown the disagreement on this topic due to this being an action the prophet took part in and it being something he allowed, do with that as you will

This ain't just my framework buddy, this is simply how the Shari'ah works. There are four sources of the Shari'ah ranked in order of precedence:

- The Quran
- The Sunnah
- The consensus of scholars
- Analogical reasoning

If one source seems to go against another source, the higher source is taken as the final word. I just showed you a clear ayah from the Quran forbidding intercourse with pagans. Until you show me a source with similar weight, you simply have no case.

You cannot show me any ayah or hadith explicitly permitting intercourse with pagans. All you can show me are vague accounts that you subjected to your own flawed reasoning.

 

[The alchemist]

View attachment 320960
View attachment 320961

You have low intelligence it is pathetic. A lowlife Oromo kafir.