Are you alright bi? You sound a little under the weather

@@user-op8fg3ny3j Yeah, been sick the whole week. Feeling better now.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT Ah, sorry to hear that bro. Good to hear you are recovering

@@AlMuqaddimahYT shame

Could you recommend a few books English and Urdu for Islamic History and especially the recent Islamic history (past century or so)

Or World War II. God, so much WWII content.

YESS YESSSSS, it's so hard to find high quality non western history like this, glad i found this channel

You betrayed rome xfi go away

There is so much to learn about with Rome or the Crusades but it is nice to get something new. So many interesting people and history around the world and I appreciate you telling their story

​@@AlMuqaddimahYT on that note though. I would like to see a video about Muslim soldiers in WW1 and WW2 on both the ally and axis sides. I think history certainly white washes the whole affair and I have yet to see a decent video that pays respects to the likes of people like my own grandfather who was part of the royal indian rifles and fought in France!

Thanks

India 😂😂😂. India will destroy Islam 😂😂😂😂

southeast asia: cries in the corner.

While I would say that the British monarchy had, and to a lesser degree still has, power through influence of the government that is unusual for a figurehead monarch. Usually a figurehead monarch is not consulted over the affairs of government where the British monarch certainly is.

@@nonnayerbusiness7704 The monarchy is most certainly not consulted over the affairs of government, and hasn't been for centuries. That is why they were comfortable enough to invite a foreigner (German George I) to become King - the position was completely ceremonial and held no political power whatsoever. If it had, they definitely wouldn't have handed any position of any real power to a German noble.

The monarch was the person who appointed the viceroy of India. Which means she had considerable political power in India.

Also. Fucking bullshit on if they had gone against parliament would have abolished them, the tories would have backed up most actions by the monarch against parliament, and they probably still would today.

@@sampagano205 You clearly haven't read any English history or understand anything about British politics. "Tories would have backed up most actions by the monarch against parliament" - um, the Tories are members of parliament. They would never willing give their own power away to someone else. The evidence? Just the fact that they fought two civil wars against the monarch for that exact reason. But hey, I'm sure the they would willingly give up what ever political influence they had to someone who would in turn control them, as they had their ancestors for centuries. Makes perfect sense. Furthermore, the Tories aren't necessarily more pro-monarch than Labour, but if they are, it's because their image is of tradition and convseratoriship. The monarch makes many 'appointments' all of which are purely ceremonial. The government tells them who to appoint and they do it. That's what CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY is. Thanks anyway for leaving your poorly educated comment.

Unfortunately after that atrocities started

I get that, but they also did colonize the Orthodox living in Central Asian/Mediterranean Areas.

Much of SEA was colonized before Victorian era and colonial powers were fighting among themselves (largely but not exclusively). In terms of sub-saharan Africa, I felt like that needed a lot of backstory and I didn't feel like reading yet another book for this video, lol. In the future, I'll get to that.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT you should talk about anticolonial movements in Islamic Subsaharan Africa

​@@AlMuqaddimahYT Burma (Arakan), Cambodia and Vietnam (where many Cham Muslims lived), and Malaysia?

Without lslam there would no modern church which helped build the European

No such thing called "Sub Saharan Africa". There is Africa. The continent has many regions. But none are Sub-Saharan.

No, Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje never suggested to kill 'Ulamas, he suggested to separate religion and "worldly” things (Dunya and Akhirat) that's why Sultanate of Aceh fall because the Nobles jealous and feel threatened by the 'Ulamas and the Dutch worsened that by saying "leave the "worldly" things to us, you (The Aceh people) just do salat, mengaji, and all the other things" secularism that destroy Sultanate of Aceh, I'm afraid even now we still do that like Ilmu Dunia and Akhirat there is no Ilmu Dunia and Akhirat in the Quran and Sahih Hadits there is only 2 Ilmu Fardhu Ain and Fardhu Kifayah, Ilmu Dunia and Akhirat is secularism and secularism isn't Islam

The good guys always win all conflicts, our world is in good hands.

Damn, what an og

@@Tethloach1 Who are the "good guys" ?

@@lif6737 I don't suppose that's how 'OG' is used.

Exactly! Seems like nobody care about the islamic world in malaysia and indonesia 😢

@@kuttex89 don't worry... I do!!! So blessed to have beautiful countries like Indonesia and Malaysia as part of the muslim world

@@chicknakhan9893 On the contrary, theyre beautiful precisely because most of the population(at least in Indonesia) are non muslims with a muslim face

yeah sub-Saharan Africa and SE Asia is often times omitted in videos like these

@@003mohamud sub saharanafrica isnt signifigant anymore while sea is filled with a lot of non muslims disguising as muslims

There was a disgusting massacre that happened there. Particularly the photos taken by helicopter by an Italian news crew. look up 1964 Zanzibar

The KZfaq video ID is 67lu2y9ofPo

@@haithamali3228oh damn

It wasn't "real" independence (or at least as seen by the Egyptian populace) which was apparent in the Abdeen Palace incident

They were only independent in practice after 1952

No, actually he explained the events perfectly

He also made mistake over UK's control over Syria, Antioch and Adana since these parts of the region were never got under the British rule.

Not much glory there British mostly used machine guns, advanced canons and riffles to slaughter whatever came up against them . Assymetry there was mind boggling

@@rajhshah96 First machine gun isn't developed until 19th century. British armies were using muskets as their man weapon during the time they fought in India.

@Kemalistphobia I think they won for a number of reasons. It is the bias of the defeated party to say "We lost because they are bad, and we are good!" It is not a real answer.

@Kemalistphobia Oh you were referring to a single battle? I thought it was a general statement about the British conquering india.

@Kemalistphobia Last I checked the Battle of Plassey didn't mean India was conquered. If anything it was the first major victory the British had on Indian soil. The conquest of India would just less than 100 years until it was completely under British control. It's interesting to understand how a country as massive and wealthy as India became subjugated by a infinitely less populous country that was thousands of miles away - a far more interesting discussion than 'huh duh treachery'.

He's name he's orign?

What do you mean?

@@dogukan7406 🤣🤣🤣🤣

🤡🤡🤡 u

@@dogukan7406 im muslim ☪️️ bro

@@md.shaghilsubhani.1639 wait sorry, i replied to you by accident :)

It was short but Europeans ruled whole continents, some oceans apart. No other civilization has done that

@@cmd7930 I don’t know the Mongolian empire was only surpassed by the British and the Mongolians rules that for almost two centuries.

@@lipingrahman6648 Mongol empire wasnt oceans apart. It was just Asia.

I doubt China ever will be able to install itself as the sole world superpower as America did. America is simply too strong rn and China has many problems of its own, like their aging population.

@@lipingrahman6648 The Mongol Empire didn't even last 100 years, it divided after the third or fourth Khan (Kublai Khan if I'm not mistaken).

Its very economic. The silk road had been in decline all through since the fall of Constantiyye the economic dependence that the east once had on europe had diminished and the europeans now had infinite money due to the americas

@@Yatagurusu The European rise didn't come from the colonization of America, but with the industrialization. The Americas maybe sold cheap resources to Europe, but the 19th century is also a time where most of the European power and control over North and South America had grown weaker. Spain and Portugal lost their control at the start of the 1800 and the USA independence war was in the 18th century

@@leonardocontin937 the rise of europe comes way before the 1800s. European access to america (and even when america is independent its still funding europe via trade). By the 1600s the ottomans had been defeated and are no longer the dominant navy. And from the 1600s all it does is slowly lose land. Essentially because europeans have the wealth to slowly grind it down. By the late 1700s ottomans have their navy obliterated by the russians, and leave europeans unchecked to go as they please. Its no surprised that now at this time, lesser powers like the English, Dutch and French are able to ramp up their overseas territory, and they catch up to, and eclipse, spain and portugal with Asian colonies to combat spains south american colonies. This is all before industrial revolution. The industrial revolution happens because europe has so much resources, it cant process them fast enough. Industrialization happens because of european dominance, not the cause of it.

Yes

Its Libya now, it was kinda free for a moment until the Italian came and colonized it.

It was worse than colonizing, they were looting all of Middle east and Africa resources and wealth

If this was true then the African boarders wouldn’t look like how they do today. All of Africa (except Ethiopia) was absolutely colonized not just “occupied.” Their religion, language, even way of life were changed to fit a European model. That’s colonization.

@@YaBoiDREX The reason African countries borders are like that is because the africans chose to keep those borders to avoid conflict. It is false that many African follow the european religion. Many of them have their tribal faiths, languages and traditions still alive to this day. Yes they do speak european languages and have european education but their populations are native african and not european like north and south america and australia.

@@Life_is_Misery I’m talking about how the boarders got like that in the first place. It wasn’t because the Africans wanted like that. And just because a nation’s native population isn’t slaughtered off doesn’t mean it isn’t colonization. Here the definition of colonization. col·o·ni·za·tion /kälənəˈzāSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area. This describes Africa perfectly.

@@YaBoiDREX Do you see any europeans ruling an African country and do you see any europeans living in Africa? The definition proves my point. South africa is the exception which was partially colonised but the rest of Africa was under occupation just like some asian countries. You could say they were temporarily colonised to an extent but most of that was reversed after many of them fought for independence in bloody wars and some peacefully declared independence.

Yeah, sorry about that but SEA had been taken by the Europeans before the reign of Victoria and the Victorian Era mostly only saw the Europeans fighting each other. But yeah, I am planning on making specific videos about the colonization of each region.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT Thank you for the explanation!! As a Bruneian myself from Brunei Darussalam, here is some important factual info that you can use. Brunei remained free from European intervention up until 1839 when the British adventurer James Brooke (Later as Rajah James Brooke of Sarawak) came to Brunei. 1864, British attack on Brunei Town (today, Bandar Seri Begawan). In 1888, Brunei signed the protectorate agreement with the British (to protect brunei from other european powers and stop further losses of bruneian territories) and only in the 1905/06 supplementary protectorate agreement was brunei formally put under the British residential rule that finally saved brunei from extinction.

Here is the link for reference fass.ubd.edu.bn/staff/docs/BAH/revival.pdf

@@AlMuqaddimahYT Looking forward to watching more videos from Al Muqaddimah!!

Most of SEA muslims are really just non muslims with a muslim face, they are very unlike the arabs

I don't. Probably not.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT Well, maybe you can check it out later when you're available.

@Kemalistphobia How can you be so sure? As long as the British delivered two warships as promised, Enver Pasha will lose another, and most likely, the last excuse to drag his country to the Central Powers' side.

As if the Ottoman Empire wasn't also a colonial power which exploited, enslaved and murdered countless innocents in its time. None of our histories are innocent!

@Kemalistphobia You know that if oil is discovered in Arabia, it is either going to led to the annexation of most of Arabia or turning the local Arab rulers into the puppets of the Sultan and ruling government in Istanbul.

he also misrepresents and barely mentions afghanistan in this era which was known for and still known today for fierce resistance to westerners. the country chased the british empire out in 1842, lost some land in the second war, then re established independence in 1919. a huge achievement for a tribal nation in a time where islam was at its weakest with ottoman collapse. but i fear this indian origin guy likely has anti afghan bias, when they read their indian history they hate seeing its a lot afghan xoog.

And if non-muslims dont forget what muslims took from them you call them islamophobe

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oM-ooZth3tnKops.html

Don't. They will make all of Italy rightful islamic lands, call all your history oppressive Christian regimes. And will end with the famous; "all the Islamic invaders would have brought justice and peace,...'

@@ashokafulcrum4795 Italy only adavnced when it welcomed German migrants and adopted secularism.

That's because it's from new game Victoria 3

Whoooah are you really zoroastrian that’s cool there’s not very many left

@@idrislamont1064 Yep, but many Iranians, Tajiks, Afghans and Kurds of northern Iraq are Reconverting to Zoroastrianism 𔓙

I'm assuming it's from a paradox game.

@@kekistanihelpdesk8508 its victoria 3 map

Portuguese were essentially out by then and the Italians really stepped in under Fascism.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT that's just wrong though, the Portuguese controlled Mozambique which was (and still is) the southernmost Muslim nation, while the Italians took control over Muslim terroritories like Eritrea and Somalia in the 1880's and Lybia in 1911, well before the start of fascism (1922)

Wallah bruh, you're not the only one who is afraid of this, same here

Profesional troops and later industrialization makes it possible to have a massive military advantage

@@El-Silver Other places could have had that to. It's not like Europe is the only place that makes steam when you boil water. Other places just chose not to for a few reasons. 1: They say Europeans as lesser and didn't want to use their inventions 2: They had a lot of slaves so industry would disrupt that. Europe had a harder time getting slaves so they needed it more.

Dogs are loyal to their master

@@jibriel4918 that include you

For what? Her empire dozens of Africans who were humbly living a peaceful life and minding their business

@@daqin1680 Where did I say thank you for what a tyrant did?

Nah they were already declining before 1800

@@wankawanka3053 I known I just said that they were still a major power and their decline only ramped up to a massive decline In The 1800s

@@johnconnor8206 their decline started from Great Turkish War( siege of Vienna and loss of Hungary)

The Ottomans have been in decline ever since their return from Vienna in 1683 so refresh your informations boy

@@kosa9662 I didn’t say they weren’t declining just that the most rapid part of their decline happened after 1800

Yeah was wondering where Indonesia and the horn of Africa went in this

Man shut the fuck up, we know your dumbass can't understand simple spreadsheets

They were colonized not because the region was rich in minerals, but because the women were beautiful, to the point of being the European standard of beauty, that's the origin of the term Caucasoid race.

@@misterx3770 it was conquered because it is a strategical region for russia, it has nothing to do with women. stop idolizing our women, it is enough.

"terrible oppression and abuse in a scale unparalleled" *> Slavery abolished world wide* *> The development of Human rights* *> Improvement in medicine, decline in number of deaths through disease* *> Improvement in agriculture, decline in starvation* *> Population boom under European control in general* *> The concept of mandatory schooling being introduced around the world* *> Lower workhours reduced from 16 to 8 hours* *> The possibility to inform and/or store information increased* *> Literacy went up everywhere* *> Improved sewage, which decreased epidemics* So the population tripled during the Victorian era, most people would end up with more food, better sanitation, and better education. Yet you want to look me in the eye, and talk about some "unparalleled oppression." That I've yet to witness. Especially, within the context of your comment, you make it seem, that before the Victorian Era and all its inventions, the world somehow was a better place? Really baffling, but alas, I'm truely curious what kind of evidence you might have, to contradict my initial beliefs.

United Arabia ( Saudi Syria Jordan Palestine Kuwait Qatar Bahrain UAE Oman Yamen Iraq ) was Better under Hashemite Dynasty with Damascus as Capital

@@warringtribes6689 Just because they won one battle doesn't mean that they occupied that region. The only region in KPK which was under Sikh occupation was the narrow valley of Peshawar and the only reason that region was occupied by Sikhs is because the Afghans were having a civil war at that time.

@@warringtribes6689 of course they saw him as an outsider because he was from UP not Pakhtunkhwa. however he aimed to unite the Pashtun tribes under the banner of jihad but the pashtuns were loyal to the durranis.

@@warringtribes6689 true but how can they fight Muslims for 1000 years when they themselves are Muslim?