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.
