something something leaking classified government documents

I am sure I would like it. Just one problem. I will see it in 18 hours. But that is fine because it is worth waiting. I wish all readers and you Historically a lovely start to (or is it of) pride month.

i had a doctors appoinyment but historically more important

I haven't seen the video yet but it's nice to see a youtuber incorporating data from polls and listening to the community.

NEW VIDEO COMMINNGNGGG YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSS

watch oversimplified upload tomorrow randomly also oversimplified name not being able to be oversimplified in a good way so that its shorter but still makes sense is ironic

Basicly oversimplified -comedy

Professionally made and wrong. Several mistakes here. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.

xdd

@@mznxbcv12345What can you expect from these peasants?

Agreed.

I know! They’re so accurate, unbiased and good quality at the same time!

the institute kidnapped my son

Professionally made and wrong. Several mistakes here. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads claiming to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Ali, they survived, Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengance for Husayn, the grandson of Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The twelvers and the seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, not worldly powers.

@@mznxbcv12345 damn can I have the source u got all this from? (I wanna read it myself)

Exactly, thanks ❤

On top of that, there was no Shia nor Sunni sects as we know them today during that time. They were purely political parties. Mu'awiya sought revenge for Othman, Ali disagreed and said it's not the appropriate time. Some followed Mu'awiya while others adhered to their loyalty to the fourth caliph. The Kkarijites, a third party, emerged and Fought both Ali and Mu'awiya. Bottom line is, there were absolutely no sunni/shia ideological creeds at the time of the first civil war.

@@sasino4569 You are correct that initially the split was political with no major theological differences or sectarianism, but by the time of the abbasids early proto shia communities had begun to form with quite radically different theologies from their proto sunni neighbours. Generally speaking, imami shiism formed as a distinct theological community (although not quite a clear cut sect) around the mid-late 8th century.

I agree + it seems that you are well informed about Islamic history ​@@sasino4569

They weren't a lot since it was only a political disagreement that has ended, IDK who turned it into a religious idea but it seems like he benefited from that quite a lot

Would he be any better? First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, Shiat Ali, literally, the faction of Ali. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the prerutaros of that Siege became part of the faction of Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged. The Umayyads claiming to fight for justice managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Ali, they survived, Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Eitherway, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengance for Husayn, the grandson of Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The twelvers and the seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today are a result of 300 years later.

not reading allat

Another correction: he didnt say they were shia, he said their army was mostly shia, and thats true

Yeah historically there cause for war was the revenge for imam hussain and ali (ahlu al bayet)

@@mohammed44_but shia was founded in 16th century

@@modehil Source: trust me bro

Ok they were shia but not shia of today......they were shiatu Ali......which was Ali side.......... And back then also they didn't use the terms Sunni or shite.....they were all Muslims

Historically just posted!

ty for waking me up

LET'S GO BOYS GET UP HISTORICALLY JUST POSTED

Babe wake up its been twenty years

​@@TheSecondApheriacthirty years, it's over

Even he do not Show all face of 5 caliph

Is it respect or fear ?😅

​@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 both make each other shine

He wouldn’t wanna lose his head, would he? 😂

​@@kiuk_kiksshow evidence where in Islam is beheading the punishment for blasphemy?

Huh

Several mistakes in the video;; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.

What nationality is Oversimplified again?

@@windbuster idk American probably

​@@windbuster American

@@acanadianchickenK

@@windbusterirish-american guy

During that time, the Persians were not even Muslims, except for a small minority who migrated to the Arab cities in Iraq

@@Faisal-pb5gu no majority by that time were converting to islam

Majority were Zoroastrian at that time but yeah most the Persian Muslims were Sunni except the northern regions

@@persianhillbilly9642 No, you are wrong guys. Most of the Persians were Sunnis, not Zoroastrians, the Zoroastrian religion became a minority with the collapse of the Sasanian Empire. After the Islamic conquest all persians became sunni muslims except the north (Daylam and Tabaristan, as you said), and many Sunni scholars were persians, the most famous of them is Al-Bukhari

zoro-ism was always a minority faith, hardly has any texts and was reserved to a priestly class and royals. There are several mistakes. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.

People tend to forget, that cultures surrounding the European continent shaped its history just as much as the ones inside it. Well, parts of it any way.

Tehnically this is part of European history as it ends in modern-day Spain. But still i think the continent's story was shaped by the events in Middle East and vice versa

​@@andersasblom6452Just because you always watch european history doesent mean other cultures are forgotten! There are hundreds of historical documentaries of at the many cultures! The problem is your not watching or searching them and just because it somehow is related to europe doesent mean its european! Europe really just influenced the entire history of the world than others ranging from colonization to diplomacy i mean theres no spot in the european history where they did not respect and recognize Middle eastern,Asian,African,Oceanian, And American Success from battles, and diplomacy europe fought with all of them! Unlike some cultures who tend to unrecognize europes success thats just being racist! And you call the whites racist? But you tend to forget that all cultures in the world is way more racist to the whites than the whites to them

​@@cgt3704The way people disrespect the large influence of europe just to show they are not racist but they are being racist to europeans

@@The_C0mment_Guy kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y714o7SHssDGmqM.html

Everything He Said Is Literally False...

@@MuhammedAL-Chad-nz4jx Could you elaborate?

@@andersasblom6452The Ummayads And Abbasids Are Both Arab Clans From The Same Muhammadean Family. Their War Is A Succession War, Nothing To Do With "muh equality" Or Whatever Modern Day Agenda This Guy Tries To Shove In... Not To Mention The Fact That persians Don't Even Exist...

Underrated how? The video is choke-full of mistakes; Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.

@@mznxbcv12345 yep

The Safavids even faced the problem of the lack of any Iranian Shiite scholars, so they encouraged the migration of Arab Shiite scholars to Iran. Many of those who held religious positions in Safavid Iran were of Lebanese and Iraqi origin, and even from Bahrain.

Yes, not just that. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.

​@@mznxbcv12345Karbala is very touchy

you say Emom ali are you a Shia? Salam alaikum from a Sufi brother Az yek sufi dadash ​@@mznxbcv12345

At that time they were not even Muslims.

why?

@@rayhans7887 in islam, its bad to show prophets face because people will begin to idolize him and thats haram because prophets were beautiful

@@luffyraa_mapping that's for Muslim, he does not follow islam

@@rayhans7887 yes but there are people who are muslim and watch this video, so he respects them and doenst show his face

​@@rayhans7887Its still nice of him to respect others' beliefs

Same, I literally instantly subscribed

First fitna has entered the chat

The the ridda wars

Not only that, the losses from the first Fitna far exceed that of the dual liberation of both Persia and Byzantium. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.

​@@mznxbcv12345original Shia were political their beliefs was same as sunni but differed on who should have been first caliph then ibn saba in the last part of uthman ra reign and Ali ra reign created the modern day Shia where he said Ali ra should he worshipped and was later killed but the ideology was unfortunately deeply buried in the hearts of people and it ended up growing to the Shia of today

Not even close to the persians Just how weakened they were is unimaginable Rome was on a whole another level

👆 real!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Why are there no Arab/Muslim animated educational channels and instead have to wait for Caucasians to make video on Islamic history?

@@user-op8fg3ny3j because you'd rather whinge about whites than do it?

@@user-op8fg3ny3j Those channels exist, but the content is in Arabic (or other languages of the Muslim world). However, Muslims are starting to create more content in English. It's a bit late, but better late than never.

@@user-op8fg3ny3j There are so many Arab and Muslim educational channels lol. What point are you trying to make? Yasir Qadhi has good animated videos on Islamic history in English, there's another one called Zaka (iirc) which is in Arabic but very very high quality.

@@simosandboifan989 the animation quality isn't as good as this though or other history channels like oversimplified

He was a cool guy. and also badass!

@@user-gi8pk9uc7qoh a yeah a genocidal maniac surely a badass

Do he have a choice, if he did he would be killed

not really mate. they were zoroastrian. Rey was captured but Ali, his companions and sons, the people there saw him as their liberator from the persian empire so followed shi'ism, it makes sense.

​@@aunnaqvi3133 You are absolutely wrong. The Persians were Sunnis (thats why many Sunni Scholars were from Persian origin) but Shah Ismail of Safavids forcefully converted Persia into Shia religion.

@@aunnaqvi3133 buddy you're wrong, yes prior to Islam they were zoroastrian but that doesn't mean anything for their following of Islam Iran was primarily Sunni, mainly Hanafi and Shafi'i until the Safavids took over in the 1500s and forced conversions of Sunnis to Shi'ism

@@ceegle minor note: sha'fiyyah were mostly in afghan areas.

⁠@@aunnaqvi3133 He meant after they converted to Sunni Muslims , Then they were forced into Shi’ism by Shah Ismail .

No stay back Gordon!

They were Greeks who fought every civil war against the Romans.

@@Ungehorsam Blatantly untrue, and that’s not even how Roman civil wars worked. Roman civil wars were always between individuals commanding pieces of the Roman military, not regions.

​@@fishconnoisseur This is like saying that the Ottomans were Romans. The Romans ended as Christianity spread, their culture disappeared, and they became slaaves to a cuult from the desert that destroyed everything And To this day, Euurope still suffers from this

@@user-ct9mf4dr5o The Ottomans conquered the Eastern Roman rump state(s). There is never a break in continuity of the Roman state from its very foundation in the 7th century BC to 1204 AD at the earliest and 1475 at the latest. This is a false equivalency fallacy. Stop pushing your pagan agenda like it’s legitimate history. Rome was never conquered by Christianity as much as it had an internal transition that took both bloody and peaceful shapes.

​@@user-ct9mf4dr5o yeah the latin romans were dead but the empire lived on in byzantium, and I dont see why the ottomans dont have that by right of conquest. They called themselved roman, their people said they lived in the roman empire and a muslim turk has a lot more in common with a christian greek than a greek has with a latin pagan

Yeah although it's more of a short summary to an extent with other pieces out of the picture.

Except the part about Iran being shia back then

He even didn't interpret the caliphates faces which is very respectful

​@@quadq3285 Shias draw Ali though

The first shias did actually believe that Ali should have been the third caliph .

​@@7years6months3days5hours7min Sounds like salad cope

@@-Zulfikar- Typical shi'i .

The Mod was about his successor. This guy in the video lived at mid 700's, while his successors that also being made into mod in Civ 6 lived around the year of 900's.

The Mod was about his successor. This guy in the video lived at mid 700's, while his successors that also being made into mod in Civ 6 lived around the year of 900's.

@@reteguy7338 oh okay

Can you give me the name of it ?

This is cope the rida war was eventually make all the arab united while persian empire didn’t have manpower enough

@@Mohammad-xk7xw lol what? a brutal civil war is cope? also do you really think an arid desert vwould profuce equal man power to the romans and iranians in pre modern times?

@@hmmm3210 the hardest battels where the rida read about al yamamah and how many of the companions died there

Us Shia believe the Prophet s.a.w chose Ali a.s in Ghadir Khumm, that’s why we see Ali a.s not being the 1st caliph as an injustice. I guess both sides seem to claim something else, in the end we will see during Judgement day. Peace be upon all that love ahlul bayt, I don’t wish to argue and insult Sunni’s when the real enemy is the people killing Palestinians.

There wasn't public vote rather it was مجلس الشورى witch is a sort of counsil made of the biggest figures witch were the companions of prophet at that time that elected othman

@@absoluterage6147 Firstly, I am Sunni, and thank you for your respect Secondly, of course Ali is a wonderful Islamic figure, but let me show you our point of view We believe that Ali is not the caliph after the Messenger for two reasons: 1. Because we believe that the caliphate is chosen by all Muslims (the people of the solution and the contract) and we do not believe that it is a property by inheritance. We also believe that all people are equal, so they all have the right to be the caliph, and the caliphate is not limited to a specific person or a specific family. 2. Our second reason is that Ali himself did not say that he was the Caliph or that the Messenger chose him, just as no one chose Ali at that time. Even his wife (Fatima) did not choose him. . I hope you understand the point, thank you ❤

​@@user-re8bw2js6pironic when it was Muawiyah (a Sunni) who turned the caliphate into a hereditary empire. Didn't the prophet say in his last sermon to take Ali as the wali?

@@user-op8fg3ny3j Thank you for clarifying your point of view, but I don't think this changes anything for me I do not sanctify Muawiyah, but as a matter of fairness and historical reliability, Muawiyah is not the first to bequeath power to his son, because Ali did that before him when he bequeathed power to his son Hassan, so we can say that Muawiyah is the second to do that. . As for the word “wali,” I am an Arab, and it does not mean a president, a king, or a caliph. Ali himself did not say that this is what it means, nor did he say that he is the caliph after the Prophet Muhammad. Rather, this is a claim that came later. Thank you

Unfortunately this orientalist over simplification of the Abbasid revolution as just non Arabs (Persians) revolting against the Umayyad still popular, it really stupid for anyone who knows about the Quraish clans dynamic and the rivalry between Yemenite and Qaissy Arabs

​@@miracleyang3048 this is why Muslim who take orientalist seriously need a wake up call because orientalist entire study of Islam is flawed

Hiya, a Muslim here🫡 I would like to point that Abd Al-Rahman name cannot be simplified as Al-Rahman. Partly because the word Al-Rahman refers to Allah as it's one of His 99 names. And also Abd and Al-Rahman cannot be separated as the Arabic grammar states. Same rule applies as someone named Ibn Battuta, had you mention Battuta without Ibn you would be referring to a complete different person. And for this instance separating it would refer to his father or grandfather or even the occupation of the family which is wayyyy too far. So yes, Arabic is not easy to learn especially for non native speakers like me😬

@@user-ne2fo2ll7n My mistake for wrongly saying his name, thanks for clarification.

Wow, a wholesome interaction on the internet, that's rare 🫠

​@@mrlmfao1011yh, usually anglophones don't care about language mistakes

@@user-op8fg3ny3j Well, that's probably because I'm not a native English speaker myself, it's my second language.

=The Al-Rahmad Saga= Episode I: The Muslim Menace Episode II: The Abbasid Wars Episode III: The Return of the Shias Episode IV: A New Hope Episode V: The Caliphate Strikes Back Episode VI: The Return of the Sunnis

better than him

The kicker is that non Muslims were forced to do embarrassing and humiliating practices whilst paying and also Christian tithe is up to 10% much higher than zakat

@@MrBozny i said "used to be"

@@hadeexe_ true you did

@@MrBozny i guess the only legitimate caliphate was the rashidun one

@@hadeexe_I disagree with this statement. Ummayad empire had great leaders too like Mu’aya رضي الله عنه and Omar bin Abdulaziz.

i am not you

Why is it that Muslims don't make these animated educational videos themselves first and instead it's western KZfaqrs that have to cover islamic history

@@user-op8fg3ny3j I have three theories: -They exist but not as good. -They exist and are as good but since English is far far faaaaaaaaaaaaar more widely spoken than Arabic they don't stand a chance against them in your feed. -They don't exist because Arab youth (mistakenly) think their history is boring. I do know some Arabic channels that did talk about this person, actually, and that do make some cool historical videos about Arabic history and Islamic history in general, but they either have an additional sense of seriousness (thus feeling more like a history lesson), or are less movie-seeming and fun to watch like this video.

​@@user-op8fg3ny3jcuz there history is just war genocides more war and maybe and small window of peace

@@Harry-tm3ck I'm talking about in modern day

@@user-op8fg3ny3j still war and just proxy wars

Thanks for the feedback we will in the close future now that we are bigger hehe

Don’t want to be that guy but Jesus absolutely died and was resurrected. The Father also did not “make it appear so” to his followers that he died.

Should I prove you ? From the bible that he is not dead. If I prove than you have to accept Bible is corrupted

@@The_order_of_jihadadors Sure I’ll bite. But if I correct your “proof” you have to accept Jesus as lord.

No, you will not decide if it's correct or wrong, it would be from Bible.

And in addition to that I will also prove you many scientific errors

Thanks for pointing this out this annoyed me so much

@@mahmoudpathan1473 same. The moment i heard this i paused the video and started digging in the comments 💀

@@Alrightmira this video is filled with misinformation. Can't even watch this for entertainment I stopped at maybe 7 minutes in such a shame it's obvious a lot of work was put into making this

@@mahmoudpathan1473 Hahaha i know right the animation looks sick but it is very triggering when the information is wrong too such as Iran being shia during that era and no mention of the khawarij

same as every occupation, ottoman empire taxed even muslims and britain taxed everybody also

Not saudi they are arab. There is a big difference between being arab and being saudi

ما كان فيه شي اسمه السعودية وقتها لا تفضحنا 😂

@@Adanuhazar Abbasids>Ali killers

What are the conquests of the Abbasid?

​@@-Zulfikar- The killers of Ali were the Kharijites, and the Kharijites were exterminated by the Umayyads

I mean considering half the Iranian population died of disease and famine and tax was too high and shahbanu purandokht spent her entire career trying to fix the famine And the fact that we have seen romans get defeated by **khosrow anushirvan I** Because they didn't have enough money to pay their soldiers explained enough by that logic god was on the British side because they took over half the world and we speak their language now GLOBALLY

@@based-iranian So you wouldn't be surprised if Inu tribals took over Europe post WW2? Nice logic.

@@loulishadow1468 Fam considering roman sources claim that they're army during the islamic conquest had 90 thousand soldiers while islamic sources claim they defeated roman armies of 100 to 200k each and considering syria was evacuated because of the roman persian wars and was empty And plus soviet union and usa already took over Europe and influenced them when every colonial empire collapsed even though america was weaker than the British empire in terms of wealth and territory they made Europe their playground And remember soviet union previously lost a war to a small poland and didn't do much against Finland

@@based-iranian losing a war and losing your whole empire/territories is different, youre just seething at this point man

@@loulishadow1468 Every empire falls man this includes yours nothing lasts forever in this world not even rome but you are making it seem as if it was you against all odds but those empires were already finished by the time. British empire fell for the same reasons if you look at it it happens we don't live in 1400 years ago to change it it is what it is but you make it seem that logic doesn't apply to you

yes