"Whoever kills an innocent human being,it shall be as if he has killed all mankind,and whoever saves the life of one,it shall be as if he has saved the life of the whole mankind." Quran-Chapter -5(Verse--32) .Quran tells to kill and fight only with those non-muslims who try to kill muslims first and try to capture the land of muslims..And if possible they should be forgiven according to Quran..Ask a real islamic scholar.
As a Muslim it’s so refreshing to listen to commentary on these events in a political context. Growing up as either Sunni or Shia, you are taught to see your side as completely blameless and the other side evil. But in real life, all humans make mistakes and no one is completely innocent. Thanks to this channel! 🙏
That's the work of propaganda. Every country and every side has to convince its followers or citizens that their actions are right and just. For everything there is a justification. The enemy on other hand would also write history in their perspective and interest.
@@ivokantarski6220 both sides of major wars since Napoleon days be funded by the same people, it's best in this day and age for all people to not be tricked into war of good Vs evil
@@mrright9437 THANK YOU!!!!!! I can’t believe how many Muslims will listen to this and believe this BS. Sure somethings he says are true, but most arent. Thalha, Zubayr,Ali and Uthman were from the 10 given the glad tidings of Jenna, but we have a boat load of Muslims that want to believe they cared about power and were afraid of losing influence etc. unbelievable. How bout reading Islamic books of history. Too lazy? Cool, then how bout listening to a Muslim scholar who spent years studying these events instead of a secularist who googled most of this info.
@@mrright9437 What makes you think that atheists or non-Muslims always have an ulterior motive? He is merely stating what historians recorded, Muslims and non-Muslims, Sunni and Shia. Oftentimes when you hear the story of all sides you find that truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Ali one day while in kufa a man came to him asking him 'oh Ali in abubakar and othman caliphate there was peace, why is there strive in your caliphate? Ali answered him by saying 'they ruled man like me and I rule man like you'.
@@harps_Nous Thanks for correction Ali was too honest and upright but the Iraqis were a treacherous lot Al Hasan gave up power for he knew their incompetence Al Hussain unfortunately got killed by their cowardice and treachery Ali Al Sajad never listened to their lies Jaafer Al Sadeq knew their filth that's why he lived taught and died in Tayyibah or Al Madina Somethings never change
@علي ياسر this was before the ummayyads though, thats why the comment was made. The rashidun caliphs were not living lavishly and were in normal houses like other people.
And it’s insane how Muawiyah, son of the woman that hated Mohammed the most (Hind) , was able to start a brand new dynasty taking everything Mohammed tried so hard to create.
@@georgeso4364 he didn't take everything nor did he actually do anything messed up either, his son was the one who did terrible crimes. Muawiyah was a true muslim and he simply made a mistake that he couldn't have seen the consequences off. Also the change the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was making was religious, the political aspect wasn't really the point. I dare say its insane how the woman who was one of the most abusive towards muslims had her own son and dynasty become muslim rulers!
Ali Ibn Abu Taleb is traditionally considered to be one of the greatest and one of the most valiant Muslim warriors. He took part in almost all the battles fought by the nascent Muslim community. His contributions in the Battle of Khyber and the Battle of Badr are very well known. Legend and greatness
The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire." Sahih al-Bukhari 2812
@@psychobuddy17actually Usman was the weak one not Ali the devision of Muslims started from time of Usman Usman couldn't handle a rebellion but Ali defended him and that rebellion was because of his bad and weak ruling second when you have a mother of momenin rising against you which she shouldn't be doing (according to all Muslims) you would lose some influence thus you have a weaker ruling and weaker Omah third when you have a opportunist person like Muawiah (that all Muslims know him and his father and his son and passing power to his unworthy son is a prove to that ) waiting for a opportunity to get back in power and having half of your country in his grasp it's hard to be a strong leader
A professional coverage of a very edgy topic among Muslims till this very day. As a Muslim, my whole community growing up and I consider this period of turmoil a very big bundle of unfortunate events. Lots of companions of the Prophet, great men who sacrificed a lot for Islam, coming to blows, while both sides had very valid causes to defend. God bless them all, they all have our respect, and all are admired and remembered by their greatest deeds, among which this incident is very easy to be consciously overlooked.
Can’t we just be honest and admit that these famous people in history were all ambitious and cunning people that selfishly clung to power and cared not about the welfare of humanity?
@@Alejandro-te2nt sunni jurisprudential methodology is that of iblis. Quite literally. Iblis did qiyas and he was cursed to hell yet I find it odd in what world do sunnis think their qiyas and istislah, and istidlal, etc going to take them to Jannah. like you might as well just tell Allah to retire and take over for him in making halal and haram based on your "analogy". This is enough to invalidate sunni methodology even if we ignore the fact that sunnis have very minuscule amount hadith to take sunnah from even if we accept all sunni hadith are sahih every single one, even then they still fall short. And you say that "methodology of scholarship" as if we don't have scholarships lol. As for the Sunni and shia animosity being a modern phenomenon is not such a modern phenomenon. The only difference is that shia are allowed to be vocal now especially in the west without the fear of getting their heads chopped off. Before, most shia won't even publicly declare being shia because of how oppressive sunni rulers were for the past 1400 years, and even now in not such educated parts of the Sunni world, Shias are still being killed. So we quietly literally had to walk on eggshells around Sunnis in case some dumb-ass Sunni scholar issuing another fatwa or caliph making "the blood of shia is more halal to spill than red wine" (yes that's a real fatwa). Lastly, do not disrespect Imam Ali with the RA after his name. It should be only AS. It's not "may allah be pleased with him" as if Allah is in some way not pleased with Ali. Allah most definitely is happy and pleased with Ali, a testimony of the prophet and found in sahih Sunni books. There is no ikhtilaf on it.
We, as Sunnis, believe that any fighting or disagreement among the prophet's companions is unfortunate, and we love all of his companions based on the effort they put to defend the religion and support their prophet.
@@aegystierone8505 Shias only regard a handful of companions as righteous and disregard the faith of the others and say that they were not real muslims.
When asked by a Muslim why there was so much treachery and strife during his rule as Calif, Ali answered “The previous Califs ruled over people like me. And now I rule over people like you!” Massive burn!!!
Muhammad, Ali and Zubayr were cousins. In the battle of Uhd, when the three were fighting alongside in melee, Muhammad said that Zubayr who is now defending Ali, will once march out to kill him. Ammar is said to have said this hadith to Zubayr. After hearing this once again, Zubayr starting crying and returned without fighting. Killed by Kharjites shortly afterwards
@@comradekenobi6908 Just because you dont know much about islam, doesnt make you right. If you’re truly a muslim, who is the first khalifah, and also who is the current khalifah
@@comradekenobi6908 you're right, non Muslims were the first people to say "Islam is a religion on peace". No! Islam is a religion of truth and justice
@@comradekenobi6908 Well, yes you’re right. I was just testing you. But I prefer to only call rashidun caliphate as khalifah and some khalifs during the time of umayyad caliphate
(Quran 6:159) "Surely, those who have made divisions in their religion and turned into factions, you have nothing to do with them. Their case rests with Allah alone; then He will tell them what they have been doing"
😏 anything that involves human grouping ends up in faction. That is fact. People are superior to religion, that is why religion will never change what makes us human. In a group 5 human, there is high possibility of 3 to 2 sub group formed. You can take history of any religion or culture, the answer is the same. The Creator of mankind knows it too.
@@RB-cool00701 "people are superior to religion" then why were the worst killers in history were either athiest or didn't follow the rules of the religions they claimed to follow? The religions we have keep us grounded to unchanging laws and are very important, without religion our rules change and we lose sight of what is humane and fair treatment. Without religion we made nuclear weapons, concentration camps, napalm and white phosphorous, and we decimate cityblocks at a time with weapons. Meanwhile in Islamic warfare for example, killing civilians is haram as is using fire weaponry. Its also haram to be racist and ethnically cleanse people. Without religion we do horrible things.
Never imagined Kings and Generlas would cover this! I thought of this topic as my personal interest that K&G would never know or never do. Im so pleasantly surprised! K&G team is priceless!
Hope to see Siffin, Nahrawan and Karbala battles in the next episodes. I also hope to see Mukhtar's rebellion in future episodes. Thanks for the content!
@Faheem Yusuf I know, but I don't think they can just skip Karbala! It is a pretty important event in that time period and with the whole fitna theme that they started this season of their Early Muslim expansion series with, I feel they are going to somehow include Karbala...
The Battle of the Camel (656 CE), as it was later styled because of Aisha's ride - a camel, was a pyrrhic victory, in that Ali's popularity suffered as a result. Aisha, owing to her status as the wife of the Prophet, was sent to Medina with every mark of honor, where she lived in retirement for the rest of her life. Although Ali's military genius spared the lives of many, several notable Muslims such as Talhah and Zubayr met their end. Shortly after his victory, Ali moved his capital to Kufa in Iraq because of popular support and to save Medina from the perils of the war.
Aisha's demand was to revenge from the murderers of caliph uthman, as they entered in caliph ali's army, and Ali accepted to revenge from the murderers. Who were later called khawarij or kharijites, and would also assassinate the 4th caliph, Ali
Kufans were far less reliable and more prone to disarray than Syrians Although Ali was the better commander and military leader but his troops let him down and formed spilnter group Khawarij that Ultimately led to assassination of Caliph himself No Khawarij found in Al Sham though
After you finish Early Muslim Expansion series (assuming with fall of Uamayyads in Damascus), will you continue story of other Caliphates like Fatimidis, Abbasids and Fourth Fitma (the most interesting one if you ask me).
@@abusuleymantariq2137 yep, or The Great Abbasid Civil War. To be honest, the way Abbasid fell is very interesting, because unlike previous Empires (eg. Achaemenid Empire), Caliph simply became spiritual leader while while many kindgoms flourished, especially Persian ones, that is until Mongols came. Same thing in the west with Tai'fas, except Christian menance didn't come out of nowhere.
@@aleksapetrovic6519 The turks also came after and became very powerful in the Abbasid caliphate as well, until like you said the Caliph became a spiritual leader only.
@@ibrahim-sj2cr from my understanding everything was accurate. He just missed out key points like it was khwariji who caused confusion and started the war between Ali and Aisha or that it was Hasan and Hussein who took Aisha back home after Ali forgave her and they made up etc
@@MhmdBDRD She is not the prophet's wife anymore, she used to be yeah but Prophet Muhammad died. In Islam the sacred oath of marriage ended right after death of the wife or husband. That's why muslims were forbidden to keep the sperm seeds of their husband to be used after their husbands death.
As a Christian it's interesting to see the Muslim Expansion and subsequent fracture among the sects. It's almost a repeat of what happened with the Protestants and Catholics in the West in the 30 Years War.
Its not the same though, because this event didn't lead to new sects and there was total reconciliation. Shias were a political group until centuries later, and never had great prominence outside of the iranian region. Ultimately its skewed towards sunnis by an overwhelming amount, there was no schism on the level of christians. Instead muslims got divided based off of a ridiculous amount of dynasties and tribes.
Time traveler: Hey, what year is it? Arab man: It's the year AH 40 (661 CE) Time traveler: So it's the end of the First Fitna, right? Arab man: What do you mean "First"?
Another great video, but a couple of things to point: 1. One of if not the most important reasons why Ali did not immediately take justice on the rebels, was that they were in the thousands, and he needed all the support he can get, so he argued that all provinces should give him their fealty before taking justice. 2. Zubayer and Talha weren't necessarily rebelling against Ali, they attempted to take Justice in their own hands and punish the Rebels for killing Uthman. 3. Prior to the battle of the camel, there was an attempt by Ali to reconcile, and it almost worked, but according to most Muslim sources the rebels in Ali's army instigated the battle, since any reconciliation would cause in their demise. Nonetheless another great video overall, keep up the good work!
I blv Ali just like uthman believed cracking down on the rebels would fracture the caliphate.. so they didnt want the caliphate to crumble and break away… mayb they were right..
@@MhmdBDRD definitely a shia… not considered to b muslims… u write as if u saw it all… how on earth did aisha or zubayr kill uthman or why d they?? It was decided by them after death of umar that after uthman it ll be Ali who d b khalifa.. so u shias have ur own version of history..not based on truth or facts just slander against the companions of the prophet…
@@MhmdBDRD u should learn to read and understand… and stop trying to fool people… theres no authentic sayings which connects aisha ot talha or zubayr to the murder of uthman.. theres nothing for them to gain in it..u talked about punishment for people who kill or rebel against caliphs.. so why are u against aisha and zubayr and talha trying to punish the people who killed uthman?? They wanted to avenge the blood of the third caliph
@@MhmdBDRD so according to u Aisha rode a camel to become the caliph?? Are u really that dumb?? U just said it urself there should b punishment for rising up against a caliph and so there should b punishment for people who killed a caliph too right?? So they were asking for that punishment from Ali… none of the sahaba were against Ali’s caliphate.. they just believed there should b justice for the martyred caliph first from the new caliph.. thats all.. hmm… so according to shias all sahaba are in hell.. Allah says he’s pleased with them accepted them and they will be pleased with Allah.. so who should I believe?? Easy m a muslim not a shia..so thats why shias are flawed in thier theory .. either u have to first say Allah is wrong?? Is that what u r implying here??
Splendid video! Can't wait for your next one. A town called Zubair, after the aformentioned prophet compaion, where he is burried, located near Basra, modern Iraq. This battle is still to this day a source of heated debate among muslims.
I have been watching this channel for a year now and your videos are absolutely splendid! Keep up the good work!! Could you after this make videos on other caliphates like the Fatimids?
I'd like to see more, too, but you should also check out their existing videos that go into detail on many of the Islamic Caliphates. Though I don't know if ALL entities in history that have referred to themselves as "Caliphates" are considered Caliphates by ALL Muslims--meaning some of the Muslim empires in these videos might fall short--I suspect there's plenty to suit all tastes. E.g. the Ottoman Caliphate has a whole of videos on this channel! To find it, just click on the words Kings and Generals under the image, then click "Playlist" and find "Ottoman History" at the very bottom. You will also find some applicable videos in the Medieval Battles playlist, and any playlist that has the word "Crusade" in it. :) You can also search for these video titles, which have a lot of stuff about many caliphates, even if not all the videos are solely about the caliphates. Here are some I think would apply, with the most caliphate-y ones at the top: 1. Berber Empires: Zirids, Almoravids and Almohads DOCUMENTARY 2. Muslim Schism: How Islam Split into the Sunni and Shia Branches 3. Islamic Golden Age: Scientific Method DOCUMENTARY 4. Islamic Golden Age: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities 5. Battle of Talas 751 - Abbasid - Tang War DOCUMENTARY 6. Crusades from the Muslim Perspective 7. Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) DOCUMENTARY (The last one is largely about Al-Andalus/Spain as a whole, and shows the time when the Emirate of Cordoba declared THEMSELVE to be the "Caliphate of Cordoba.")
@@d.m.collins1501 Yes I have seen these except for the Berber one though I want them to make one on the Fatimid Caliphate as well as the early Umayyad and Abbasid rule
I suggest you make a series about the Sassanid dynasty. About Shapur's war with Valerian; Mani Movement; Mazdak Revolution; Or about characters like Cartier, Bahram Choobin and Bozorgmehr. Or on issues related to the religion of Zoroaster, or the reforms of Anushirvan.
I have been watching since the first series.. i see you taken a lot of criticism and feedbacks.. using calligraphy to replace image of sahaba.. and not using moon as symbol. Outstanding works!
@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 First of all, it's not a he, it's a group of people. The narrator is just that, the narrator. And no one threatened him, as a matter of fact, most of the people in comments are civilized and if anyone shares criticism, I see it being shared in a constructive and respectful manner. So, maybe stop being a lying prick and enjoy the content for once.
At 5:50 you make a slight but important mistake. The Muslims already had a fully compiled Quran of the original documents from the time of the Prophet that was compiled by Abu Bakr(ra) right after the death of the prophet. All Uthman(ra) did was he took this copy and made copies of it and spread it throughout the empire, and also used it to check other qurans.
That is actually incorrect. Even with Abubakar's complied mushaf. There were still a number of others, that were notably slightly different. Like Abdullah ibn Masoud's, and the mushaf of Fatma. A couple of early Muslim scholars and historians spoke of it. Al qurtubi for instance.
@@giovannijunior9642 I did not dispute this. I just said that the way he said it in the video made it seem like Uthman(ra) compiled a quran himself, when all he did was check the other qurans against the one that he knew was correct as it had originated from just after the death of the prophet, and then burned the ones that has errors compared to this master copy
@@giovannijunior9642 Actually, what you said is incorrect, at least partly. When Zayd bin Sabid compiled the Quran under Abu bakr's Caliphate, the companians of the prophet sav agreed on his compilation. Zayd bin Sabid was someone who was known for his amazing level of Hifz (regarding his memorization of the Quran) but nevertheless he insisted on getting witnesses for every single verse, no witness could testify for 2 verses. This lead to this unquestionable level of accuracy. So what is the whole "slight differences" issue? It is the issue of Qiraat in the Quran. The different reading styles. These are not man-made, but divine. They all stem from the Prophet sav and there are 7 Mutawatir level authentic reading styles (including the Asim Qiraat that is the most used since uthman). All of these have a chain of narration going through the huge companions like Abdullah ibn Masoud or Abdullah ibn Abbas up to the Prophet sav, having him as the source of it. Some few Qurans also had slight mistakes from the original due to the Hifz (memorization) of the author being wrong in parts. Notably, these were the minority and the huge majority of Muslims agreed that these were, in fact, mistakes by those people. After Zayd bin sabid had compiled the Quran in a single Mushaf with his authentic method, this mushaf was kept with Hafsa bint Umar, the wife of the prophet sav. Long story short, Uthman made copies of it and sent them to the city centers and ordered that the populous may copy the Quran that was sent and burn all other Qurans they had at home, in order to prevent mistakes from occurring in the reading of the Quran. Regarding the "Abdullah bin Masuds Quran" you mentioned: He didnt have a "Quran". He didnt have a book. It was his Qiraat that you refer to. His Qiraat wasnt "another version" it was merely a different Qiraat formt he Qiraat of the majority of Muslims, nonetheless an authentic one traced to the prophet sav himself. A senior scholar to his, known for his accuracy in memorization, Exegese and understanding of the Quran, the cousin of the prophet sav, ibn Abbas (ra) noted that: "My Qiraat is the Qiraat of Zayd (bin Sabid, the man who compiled the Quran) [ie. i agree with him], but i agree with about 10 readings of ibn Mesuds Qiraat." [ibn Abu Dawud, Kitabul Mashahif, Page 55]. Abdullah ibn Masud simply didn't have another Quran, he just had a different Qiraah, which wasn't destroyed by Uthman or something like that, the Isnad of many authentic Qiraat go through him. Regarding the "mushaf of Fatima": This isn't even claimed to be a Quran-Mushaf. The existence of the Mushaf of Fatima is only claimed by the Shia. Sunnis, who make up 90% of Muslims, don't even acknowledge its claimed existence. Shias claim, that when the prophet sav died, the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) came and talked to Fatima, the daughter of the prophet sav to "cheer her up". He would convey her predictions of the future and talk to her. The Mushaf of Fatima is claimed to have documented these conversations between her and Jibreel as well as some predictions of the future brought to her by the same angel. As i have said, only Shias regard this presumed Mushaf to be real and even if it is real, this doesn't proof anything since nobody claims this is a Quranic mushaf but some sort of different revelation that has nothing to do with the Quran. And i'm sure Qurtubi spoke of it, but you should know that not only "early Muslims scholars and historians" have spoke of it, as if this is some kind of secret matter, but even contemporary Muslim scholars and historians talk of it, not to forget the classical ones. I would also kindly ask you regarding your sources, where did you get this misinformation from (The Qiraat of Abdullah bin Masoud and Mushaf of Fatima)?
@ddd786 corrections to your correction. You made a slight but important mistake. The Muslims already had a fully compiled Qur'an from the time of the prophet done under his direct supervision. Right after the death of the prophet, Ali was tasked, by the prophet, to compile the chronological and with tafsir, the Qur'an. Then later Ali the true father of Arabic grammar whose student, abu al aswad, was ordered by Imam Ali, added the correct vowels so everyone can recite it in the correct Quraishi dialect.
@Ibrahim Alloush you are aware burning the other qurans was not blasphemy because to only way to get rid of something in a pure way is burning of burying. This is the Islamic stance.
Idk why some people are trying to undermine the early muslim conquests by claiming that the Romans and Sassanians weakened eachother for centuries while theres some truth in that both still managed to field much larger armies and still lost... the main credit should go to generals like Khalid ibn Al Walid, Amr ibn Al As and Saad bin abi Waqqas
Because its true. The Romans and the Persians literally warredd and civil warred all over their empires for almost 3 decades while being ravaged by the plague. Why do you think heraclius went on an all out attack when reduced to just Greece and North Africa but basically gave up post Yarmouk. He even had to take loans from the church and melt their gold to raise his final army against persia.
@@ghostd69 it was a continuous 30 year war. Like not have a battle stop and pick up after recover but 30 years of non stop fighting and in fighting with the plague which also damaged and fractured alot of the defences. The biggest reason was how quickly the Arab expansion happened. They weren't given enough breathing time to recover and draw upon the resources of their empires. ts still a very impressive series of conquests that have happened only a few times in history. Roman and Persian weakness doesn't change that.
@@lordloss3398 And also the Plague you talking aboout happened after roman eas exiled from levante..its occured 639 it was called Plague of Amwas was just spread on south west levante..much excusss??
Indeed. These 3 are legends, their status only diminished only because they all existed at the same time and because Khalid was probably a another level of his own.
Good job Kings and Generals channel very impressive, regarding 17:47 good point there is also one more important reason Zubayr left the battle, before starting the battle Ali and Zubair met they are cousins but Ali was in the right side and Zubair was wrong, so Ali reminded Zubair of prophet Mohammad peace be apon him said to them before he passes away: "Oh Zubair do you like Ali?" Zubier said: Yes! then the prophet replied: "one day you will fight him and your the one who is in the wrong side". So for that reason, Zubair left the battle Arabic Sources: Mostadrak alhatem hadith number 5573, Book of jamal, sifin, and khawarej for Ibn Abi Shaibah
There is no clear hadith that condemns one side of the future battle of the Camel. But there is a sahih hadith about the killers of Amar Ibn Yassir being the wrong side, this was the battle of Siffin. The battle of Siffin is comprehensive & difficult to blame one side, it was a real fitnah because people wanted to restore back dignity of the caliphate and punish Othman killers, Ali didn't follow that path because he had his ijtihad and wanted stability and avoiding more bloodshed. But Siffin battle was a war for power, where it seems Muawiyah's goal was taking power at all costs and Allah knows best. This doesn't help Shia who deviated from islam.
@@ldz8746 Salam Brother, regarding the hadith it is not weak as your saying I found it صحيح authuntic in a book called الحاكم النيسابوري - المستدرك على الصحيحين Every muslim fought against Ali is wrong there had been 3 civil wars against Ali and he is right in all wars and the oposers are wrong that is actually a hadith that says: truth is with Ali and Ali is with truth.
@@ldz8746 the salafis are the ones delaited from Islam through there teachings, there are plenty of hadiths about the battle of the camel, I believe the hadith of the dogs of hawab is clear to show that Ali is right and Aysha is wrong. Siffin war is more than clear, a lot of Sahabas joined the battle and fought Mowiya
@@brotherjaafar2861 It is not related to Salafiya, the old scholars themselves weakened the hadith due to very bad Sanad, but no one denies the hadith about Amar Ibn Yassir killers which condemns Muawiya very clearly. If we start taking hadiths from here and there without looking at Sanad (thing which is very common in most Chiia books) then we will start making stories which will match our wishes. And that is a catastrophy.
In short, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussein, ... (Ahl al-bayt) were right.💚 We have to choose from whom we get Islam. From the Ahl al-Bayt or from the usurpers and murderers of the Ahl al-Bayt.
@@mmss3199 let me get this right. So what you are saying, some people can go to jannah for killing sahabis because it was a "mistake" but someone who just only talk "bad" about them are going to hell? I think the Allah that willing to let the killers of believer into heaven won't give two cents about me "slandering" the dead as you put it. Because that Allah's justice is nothing more than a goat's fart. Read Quran and read about what's the crime of killing a believer. "whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind,"
MM SS People can make mistakes!!! And why should we follow someone who makes such a big mistakes (The biggest mistake that could have happened) and get a religion ?!! In addition, People may make mistakes. Not that they can make mistakes.🙂
You have completely disregarded the reconcilation attempt that was proposed and accepted between Ali and Aisha before the Battle of the Camel, the fact that the Khawarj sabotaged the peace by dividing themselves into two camps and starting the attacks (so it would look like the other side broke the peace), and that the battle was a complete chaotic scenary without any structure
I sincerely thank KAG for not having represented by pictures the companions of the prophet, and for having taken into account the feeling of their Muslim audience once again this channel shows its tolerance, its wisdom and its professionalism, and concerning this episode as a muslim it was sad and difficult to see.
What are the primary sources you used for this video, the death of Uthman was while he was reciting the Quran, he was a 80 year old man. There were some minor things that you spoke of which I found wrong.
@@yasinibrahim narrations are totally factual the reason you don't like them is the fact that they are not taken from the books of your school of thought, that's why u mad.
@@Roseblindbags123 so you are declaring hadith of your own school of thought as actual hadith, see that is the problem. Everyone keeps presenting their shit as authentic one and others as fabricated .
@@yasinibrahim just because miknaaf was a true follower of ALI(r.a) and a prominent anti umayyad person, you guys declared him as a liar so that nobody gets to know the true face of Banu Ummayah.
As Muslims, we do not say one side is blameless over the other. We say both were sincere in their pursuit however one side(Ali(ra)) was more correct than the other. This doesn't mean we takfir or insult the sahabas like some small sects in our religion do. Also, this doesn't give us the right to create innovation in the religion like dedicating a day to mourn someone, when there is nothing like that stipulated in the Quran or sunnah.
Common fact: 3 Empires emerged & swiftly reached their maximum extents within decades, & immediately fractured due to civil wars due to succession struggles: 1) Alexander's Empire (Divided after his death between his generals due to civil war) 2) Muslim Caliphate (Faced 5 Civil Wars, passing from Rashiduns to Umayyads & ultimately fractured during Abbasids era) 3) Mongol Empire (Reached maximum extent during Mongke's Reign, & fractured after his death as a result of Toluid Civil War)
Alexander's empire had the worst, empire fractured nanosecond after he died Mongols had the fourth worst,, and even after the break up, for a time the emperors of china-mongolia could keep others in check at least in one way or another. Third worst would be carolingian empire which just kept breaking up, getting united and breaking up again. The western Francia after the last interregnum evolved into HRE which was.. (you probably know the memes) Second worst would be Umayyad. (No comment. UA-cam would delete it otherwise.)
@@mayankbisht7691 Agreed. But I observe it mostly in the case of those empires which swiftly emerged & expanded. Other large Empires like Rome, Persia, Maurya etc established & expanded over long spans of time & it took centuries for Rome, Persia etc to reach their extents of heighted control, allowing them to establish their cultural, legal & political basis strongly in annexed areas. Thus their decline also took time.
@@hannibalburgers477 I would agree with regarding Umayyads. They were mostly usurpers, who believed on Arabian Superiority & tried to use Islam for their own Political Benefits. I will not say any further. Otherwise, my Muslim Brethren who harbor sensations for Umayyads will not hesitate from attacking my loyalty to my religion. Regarding, Alexander or Mongols, I'll say that I observed their empire's expansion based on their military tactics & strategies. Ultimately they didn't had any basic political or cultural cause to keep their empire unified. Which led to their fracture. Regarding Carolingian Empire, it fractured, but it left up two out of three successors to emerge up as strong future kingdoms. East & West Francia who would make up after centuries modern France & Germany. But Alexander's or Mongol's Empire didn't left up a permanent successor.
@@worldofknowledge4802 this is a misconception they didn’t necessarily believe in Arab superiority but they didn’t want to ruin the status quo of the rulership by adding non Arabs this was reversed by the Abbasids who started appointing non Arabs as govenors and this will eventually ruin the caliphate because these governors would start dynasties and become more independent
Early civil wars are probably the most heart wrenching time in Islam's history. I get sad every time I read about them. The Prophet(SAW)'s Noble Companions fighting amongst themselves.
The fact that cannot be denied is that the Prophet Muhammad once prayed that his people would not be destroyed due to division but this prayer was rejected.
A correction: Ali and the others did not know Osman's murderer for certain. According to Islam, it is not permissible to kill innocent people together with a murderer. That's why he couldn't punish Osman's murderer, it is not because the rebels supported him. However Muawiya and others thinked that for the good sake of the state, murderer has to be punished with unfortunately innocents also. We love all of them, both sides did their efforts for Islam and justice
Religious history is like seeing the history of human's cancer of the soul and mind. Sky fairies do nor exist and an Imam or two ended all further learning when Indo-Arabic mathematics had established the basis of the modern technological miracles but abandoned them for ignorance and faith in a farcical myth for 1500 years. Christians were just as vile and vicious. Jews, other than that Goliath myth, didn't muster armies or kings. India's Hindus defeated Islam. Pakistan is still pissed.
We as Muslim are taught about the history of Muslims but it's all vague But u did an explended Job here making us learn this history in such a proper way U don't know how much thankful I am
As Shia, we've learned the details of this battle and all the other events growing up, because we are proud of the ones that stood strong with the message of the Prophet (pbuh), we were also taught about the hypocrites that hid within the muslim community. There's a very good reason why these details are hidden by ur teachers...
I believe it is intended, but you seem to choose the musical instrument (in this case the duduk) perfectly to create an athmosphere where you show us that something is changing utterly and irreversebly. Sadness comes to mind... You did quite the work also with the video (a pinnacle of work, clearly) about the sack of Constantinople (I almost cried, almost). Good narration, excellent soundtrack and the artist who creates the painted pictures are mesmerizing! Please, keep up this astonishing team work! Thank you!
Looking at these videos gives me solace in the midst of the war in Ukraine, knowing that we as humans have been through so much war throughout history, and one day someone will be making a video about the Russo/Ukraine war of 2022.
Yes totally!!! It would make Game of Thrones look like Sesame Street! Sadly, if this was made into a NetFlix or HBO series, the crazy fundamentalists will “do what they do best” and lots of innocent actors, writers, producers, etc will be murdered.
If you're muslim watching this, you can watch a lot of early muslim expansion battes in my channel in addition to battles of all 8 crusades Regarding the video: I made my research about the first fitna and presented the most authentic view in my videos, a lot of the events presented in the Kings and Generals video are inaccurate and false. The main 2 sources for this event are Abu Mukhnaf and Sayf ibn Omar, which both if them are labeled as liars by scholars of hadith. This event is not like any other historical event because it's so controversial and companions of the Prophet were involved in it. The most authentic narration should be taken only from authentic reports not from any report written by historians who had their political agenda.
@@ahmedsalek976 أتفق معك، يتعاملون مع الأحداث وكأنها حدث تاريخي عابر دون الأخذ بعين الاعتبار صحة او عدم صحة مصادرهم غاضين النظر عن خلفية المؤرخ الدينية والسياسية... تجد في ذات المقطع مصادر شيعية وسنية و غربية وتختلط الأمور على المشاهد... انظر كيف يصفون صحابة رسول الله و المبشرين بالجنة بأنهم ساعين للسلطة و قتالهم من أجل الملك والعياذ بالله أتمنى لو باستطاعتي فتح قناة باللغة الأجنبية ولكن ذلك يحتاج لجهد ووقت وتمويل إضافي
The civil war that annihilated worriers who were the cream of the early expansion and the heroes of Qadisiyyah, Yarmouk, Nahavand, Sufetula and the Masts in the thousands.. Tabari account are full or tragic stories during the battles of the Camel and Siffin of family members, tribal cousins and former brothers in arms cutting each other’s down with tears in their eyes.
@@zccau2316 All this fiction was written by Tabari bin rustem the Zoroastrian after 239 years of the supposed event and all the other historians follow him. In fact Imam Hussain a.s was killed by the big 3 Defeated Persians, Jews and Roman empire but Only a true Muslim can think about it and the reason u mentioned Umar bin saad bcz His father Hazrat Saad bin abi Waqas was the first who conquered persia first that's y his son Umar is also connected to krbla incident like all other Sahabas who r targeted by The Zoroastrians.
Don't think you mentioned it, but Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, one of the Egyptian rebels who may have killed Uthman, was the stepson of Ali ibn Abi Talib and also the brother of Aisha. Ali and Uthman were also both married to daughters of the Prophet Muhammad.
The most heartbreaking moment when two characters with calligraphy (which means they are companions of the prophet) killing each other senselessly on the battlefield. Shit so fucked up, only few Muslims learned about it in detail. Islam separation was politic first, then ritual the second. It was very unnecessary.
Othman did not change the Qur'an, it was seven readings with which the Qur'an was read, and when non-Arabs entered Islam they found the seven readings difficult, Othman the collection of the Qur'an in one book, the readings are verbal and do not affect the meaning
Actually Uthman removed any mushaf مصحف except his side (known mushaf uthmani today) for prevent any confusing of many letters and dialects. Majority people especially muslims cannot differentiated the two things : alquraan and mushaf
yeh i think he misunderstood, there are no various version of the quran, its just various Qiraat or spelling and dialect. Not varios version , its the same things but it was written in different style and different Arabic dialect. So Uthman standardise it so Muslim won't become like Christians who got so many version in so many language with different meanings :P
Great video as always! It would be cool if u guys in the future would do a couple videos on Boleslaw I the Brave and his son Mieszko II Lambert. There's not many videos on them even tho they turned Poland into a power house.
The persian gulf zone was the core of a very ancient civilization arrived from somewhere; they taught to the locals many helpful things. Check on yt: "The earthly paradise was it in the persian gulf?"
It was called the Akkadian Gulf, and it was inhabited on both sides of the Gulf by Semitic peoples before the Persians came from South Asia.. The greatest civilizations in it were Semitic, such as the Akkadian civilization and the Dilmun
Gulf was originally belong to semeties people whom established oldetest civilization there before the arrival of persian to this region..you came from Eurasian Steppe and mirgated in west asia and central asia 1800bc
What I really respect is your respect for the islamic religion, you call mohamed the prophet, and I. 9:10 you put a light on Utman’s face so that we can’t see it. Thank you very much for this wonderful video ❤️❤️
it is not detailed they ignor the most important thing as history event a d the rule of ibn sbaa and killer of ottoman to stop any peace you need to read a book about it .
5:35 A very important point to clarify.. the difference in the copies of the Qur’an were differences in the way of reading, not in the meaning, because the Qur’an was revealed in seven different Arabic dialects.. and Othman did not burn them all, but so far all the copies are present and you can tell the difference between them is the reading.
The reason for burning it is because many non-Arab peoples at the time of Othman converted to Islam, so there had to be a unified Qur’an to make it easier for them to understand and read.
ali's army and aisha's army were about to reach an agreement and were about to kill the rebels which killed uthman when the rebels got wind of this (some of the rebels were on both sides of the 2 armies) they decided to make it look like the other army is attacking which then resulted in them fighting which none of the sahaba (companions) wanted so it was all the rebels doing the rebels that killed uthman in the first place which those rebels were inspired to kill uthman by a jewish man named abdullah bin saba who pretending to be muslim
the diffrence between aisha and her allies with ali is that aisha and her allies thought that they should kill the rebels while ali thought that they should stablize the state first then get to the rebels PS: those rebels are technically the shias now
@@jawad_killer27 Yeah the first shias technically were Khwarij. They believed that Ali was super human so when he sought arbitration against Muariya, they saw it as weakness and a betrayal of Gods gift to him. Crazy
@@zccau2316 yep all this despute and fitna happend because there was a misunderstanding to when to kill the rebels that killed uthman immediately or after they stabilized the state
U didnt mention single word about the role of abdullah bin saba or ibn sauda. The one who trigger the fitna. While many scholars like ibn katheer mention him as the biggest factor of the fitna
That’s cuz Abdullah ibn Saba was a myth 🤣 all sources say that he started these fitna’s trace back to Sayf ibn Umar who was accused by many Sunni scholars to be a cursed, zindeeq and weak
@@gludugtv3627 Of course the Bakri’s would try to make some fairytales about the Shia to try to stop it from spreading yet they don’t even know that even scholars said that Abdullah ibn Saba is a myth created by the famous fabricator Sayf
Those were not Muslims. Rather, the sect was claiming Islam and working under a man named Abdullah Ibn al-Saba, who planned this coup against Othman and quarrel among the Muslims under serval proclaims he made.
As a clarification and correction , the Quran was Collected in the time of Abu Bakr (r.a.) and the standardization by Uthman (r.a.) of the Quran was to prevent dialectical changes occurring as non-Arabs became Muslims. to say that the "Ahruf" (modes) of the Quran were destroyed would be incorrect since all the 7 of the Ahruf of the Quran are still in circulation with Hafs being generally the most popular around the world and Warsh being predominantly used in North-Africa. There are Quran Apps that allow you to read each and compare them.
They are the criminals, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Amr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuza’i, Malik al-Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Badil and Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhaifah.They attacked Uthman ibn Affan in his house and cut him to pieces.Amr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuza’i says (I stabbed Uthman 9 stabs 6 of them to allah and 3 of them when I had in my heart against Uthman)
@@zayn670 Imam at-Tabari followed the classic methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them. Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni scholar ever accepted thisnot even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book are only as good as the people who narrate them. A lot of the "facts" stated in this video are biased shia narrations, coloring those who killed the caliph of Islam in a good light "nepotism", saying there many "different Qurans" simply dumb.
How much clearer does this get. Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Marwan Ibn Hakam, Talha and so many were seeking policial worldly achievements yet Ali and his family were on the path of spirituality and pure faith. Why aren’t all Muslims seeing what I’m seeing ?
If you want to argue like that then Ali was doing the same thing when he favouring protecting his supporters some of them who killed Uthman over handing them for justice. This is your reasoning
@@MohamedMohamed-ws7mq Ali sent his sons to protect Uthman, the murder of Uthman was Talha whom Marwan Ibn Al Hakam killed on the battle field with an arrow. He later stated “now I have avenged the true killer of Uthman”. It was all a power grab by these munafiqeen (hypocrite) Muslims. Ali was safe guarding the government of Islam with whatever good was left of it. Ali did not safe guard any killers of Uthman all narrations state how just and noble he always was. Do your own research and you’ll realize with an open heart that Islamic history regarding the sahaba was all lies since the prophets death. The true wickedness and I’ll intent of the first 3 caliphs surfaced into the lap of Ali to clean up. When Ali was asked “how come under the 3 caliphs we never had these wars but under you we now do?” Ali replied “because when the first 3 caliphs ruled they ruled over people like me, now I rule over people like you”. Anyways it’s not worth me and you as Muslim brothers disliking one another over this. The point in pure Islamic history is for us to pin point the Taghut as mentioned in the Quran and to stand together against all enemies of Allah swt such we see in US, Israel, European nations, Saudi Arabia, UAE and many “Muslim” nations that won’t lift a finger against Israel yet they blame Iran and Shia resistance for the instability in the Middle East
@@Melia_67 You make no sense brother. Please go back to make it make sense. Muawiya fought Ali in Siffin because Ali demanded Muawiya step down from governor in al Sham. Muawiya was after a power grab with no interest in Islamic law. Islam in Muawiyas eyes was a means to achieve his goal. Is it a coincidence his son Yazid have the order to massacre Imam Hussein years down the line ? The people were misguided before as they’re today in Islam and it’s proper leadership. Look at those who see ISIS as legitimate and those who see it as radical and fight against it by all means. Look at the Muslims that resist the western hegemony in the Middle East and those who submit to it. Is it a coincidence that at the macro level, same people that represent themselves as Shia Muslims are those who resist the west and the Sunni Muslims seek friendship and even at times see eye to eye with ISIS like movements ? The inability to understand Muawiya and Aisha true motives in Islamic history will keep the Muslims ignorant.
Did Allah give you godly abilities to look into the hearts of ppl you never met? Sorry we rest of the Muslims don’t have it. If Aisha needed luxuries she wouldn’t live with prophet in intense poverty: Aisha reported: The family of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, never ate to their fill of wheat bread for three consecutive nights, ever since they had come to Medina, until he passed away. Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6089, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2970 It’s disgusting if you think you are better than Aisha and other companions.
Start your free 7 day trial with Blinkist and get 25% off of a Premium membership: www.blinkist.com/kingsandgenerals!
"Whoever kills an innocent human being,it shall be as if he has killed all mankind,and whoever saves the life of one,it shall be as if he has saved the life of the whole mankind."
Quran-Chapter -5(Verse--32)
.Quran tells to kill and fight only with those non-muslims who try to kill muslims first and try to capture the land of muslims..And if possible they should be forgiven according to Quran..Ask a real islamic scholar.
This period of the caliphate is the most complicated for me
Finally, after being late for 2 months from the time you promised us that you'll upload it
Impressive keep it up 👍
History empire andalusia War
As a Muslim it’s so refreshing to listen to commentary on these events in a political context. Growing up as either Sunni or Shia, you are taught to see your side as completely blameless and the other side evil. But in real life, all humans make mistakes and no one is completely innocent. Thanks to this channel! 🙏
That's the work of propaganda. Every country and every side has to convince its followers or citizens that their actions are right and just. For everything there is a justification. The enemy on other hand would also write history in their perspective and interest.
@@ivokantarski6220 both sides of major wars since Napoleon days be funded by the same people, it's best in this day and age for all people to not be tricked into war of good Vs evil
@@mrright9437 THANK YOU!!!!!! I can’t believe how many Muslims will listen to this and believe this BS. Sure somethings he says are true, but most arent.
Thalha, Zubayr,Ali and Uthman were from the 10 given the glad tidings of Jenna, but we have a boat load of Muslims that want to believe they cared about power and were afraid of losing influence etc. unbelievable. How bout reading Islamic books of history. Too lazy? Cool, then how bout listening to a Muslim scholar who spent years studying these events instead of a secularist who googled most of this info.
@@mrright9437 What makes you think that atheists or non-Muslims always have an ulterior motive? He is merely stating what historians recorded, Muslims and non-Muslims, Sunni and Shia. Oftentimes when you hear the story of all sides you find that truth lies somewhere in the middle.
@@mrright9437 Ok. Then let me ask you this. Which sources would you have me believe, Sunni or Shia?
Ali one day while in kufa a man came to him asking him 'oh Ali in abubakar and othman caliphate there was peace, why is there strive in your caliphate?
Ali answered him by saying 'they ruled man like me and I rule man like you'.
Ali's companion who was also there: "bruh"
@@triplem5770
Iraq is forever the land of strife upheavels and sects
It takes a firm tough cunning man to rule there
Spelling error: not ‘man’ men.
"Emotional damage"
@@harps_Nous
Thanks for correction
Ali was too honest and upright but the Iraqis were a treacherous lot
Al Hasan gave up power for he knew their incompetence
Al Hussain unfortunately got killed by their cowardice and treachery
Ali Al Sajad never listened to their lies
Jaafer Al Sadeq knew their filth that's why he lived taught and died in Tayyibah or Al Madina
Somethings never change
No castle, no army, just a man sitting in his home governor of the strongest country of middle east, such a unique time that was
crazy to think right
@علي ياسر this was before the ummayyads though, thats why the comment was made. The rashidun caliphs were not living lavishly and were in normal houses like other people.
Even the caliph (equal to king) live in a simple houses in this early caliphate periods. No castle, no kingsguard
And it’s insane how Muawiyah, son of the woman that hated Mohammed the most (Hind) , was able to start a brand new dynasty taking everything Mohammed tried so hard to create.
@@georgeso4364 he didn't take everything nor did he actually do anything messed up either, his son was the one who did terrible crimes.
Muawiyah was a true muslim and he simply made a mistake that he couldn't have seen the consequences off.
Also the change the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was making was religious, the political aspect wasn't really the point.
I dare say its insane how the woman who was one of the most abusive towards muslims had her own son and dynasty become muslim rulers!
Ali Ibn Abu Taleb is traditionally considered to be one of the greatest and one of the most valiant Muslim warriors. He took part in almost all the battles fought by the nascent Muslim community. His contributions in the Battle of Khyber and the Battle of Badr are very well known. Legend and greatness
The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."
Sahih al-Bukhari 2812
@@HannibalBarca-jv4px ahsant
@@HannibalBarca-jv4px
Last words of calling are idraaj and not words of prophet sw
Yeah but a weak leader
Fitna started by his reign and he was made khalifa by people who killed Usman rz
@@psychobuddy17actually Usman was the weak one not Ali
the devision of Muslims started from time of Usman
Usman couldn't handle a rebellion but Ali defended him and that rebellion was because of his bad and weak ruling
second when you have a mother of momenin rising against you which she shouldn't be doing (according to all Muslims) you would lose some influence thus you have a weaker ruling and weaker Omah
third when you have a opportunist person like Muawiah (that all Muslims know him and his father and his son and passing power to his unworthy son is a prove to that ) waiting for a opportunity to get back in power and having half of your country in his grasp it's hard to be a strong leader
A professional coverage of a very edgy topic among Muslims till this very day.
As a Muslim, my whole community growing up and I consider this period of turmoil a very big bundle of unfortunate events. Lots of companions of the Prophet, great men who sacrificed a lot for Islam, coming to blows, while both sides had very valid causes to defend.
God bless them all, they all have our respect, and all are admired and remembered by their greatest deeds, among which this incident is very easy to be consciously overlooked.
The truth is with Ali and Ali is with the truth. Those that are wrong are in hell.
Ali was the righteous one. I still question why are we sunnis. We are the ones who oppressed our shia brothers.
A very sensible comment. Agree with each word. 💯
I do think K&G shouldn't get into this though.
Can’t we just be honest and admit that these famous people in history were all ambitious and cunning people that selfishly clung to power and cared not about the welfare of humanity?
@@Alejandro-te2nt sunni jurisprudential methodology is that of iblis. Quite literally. Iblis did qiyas and he was cursed to hell yet I find it odd in what world do sunnis think their qiyas and istislah, and istidlal, etc going to take them to Jannah.
like you might as well just tell Allah to retire and take over for him in making halal and haram based on your "analogy". This is enough to invalidate sunni methodology even if we ignore the fact that sunnis have very minuscule amount hadith to take sunnah from even if we accept all sunni hadith are sahih every single one, even then they still fall short.
And you say that "methodology of scholarship" as if we don't have scholarships lol.
As for the Sunni and shia animosity being a modern phenomenon is not such a modern phenomenon. The only difference is that shia are allowed to be vocal now especially in the west without the fear of getting their heads chopped off. Before, most shia won't even publicly declare being shia because of how oppressive sunni rulers were for the past 1400 years, and even now in not such educated parts of the Sunni world, Shias are still being killed. So we quietly literally had to walk on eggshells around Sunnis in case some dumb-ass Sunni scholar issuing another fatwa or caliph making "the blood of shia is more halal to spill than red wine" (yes that's a real fatwa).
Lastly, do not disrespect Imam Ali with the RA after his name. It should be only AS. It's not "may allah be pleased with him" as if Allah is in some way not pleased with Ali. Allah most definitely is happy and pleased with Ali, a testimony of the prophet and found in sahih Sunni books. There is no ikhtilaf on it.
We, as Sunnis, believe that any fighting or disagreement among the prophet's companions is unfortunate, and we love all of his companions based on the effort they put to defend the religion and support their prophet.
The civil war occurred because of the murder of the elected caliphs successor. It was a war made by rebels, khawarij
What about the Shias?
@@aegystierone8505 Shias only regard a handful of companions as righteous and disregard the faith of the others and say that they were not real muslims.
@@aegystierone8505 Shia is not Islam
@@ahmedsalek976 also few other companions like Salman al farsi. The Persian companion
When asked by a Muslim why there was so much treachery and strife during his rule as Calif, Ali answered “The previous Califs ruled over people like me. And now I rule over people like you!” Massive burn!!!
😂
😂
It’s funny 😅😂
It's only I your books
Ask your elder Satan's
Don't put any distortion on character of ali
U didn't understand his comment @@imranalikariiimi2509
Muhammad, Ali and Zubayr were cousins. In the battle of Uhd, when the three were fighting alongside in melee, Muhammad said that Zubayr who is now defending Ali, will once march out to kill him. Ammar is said to have said this hadith to Zubayr. After hearing this once again, Zubayr starting crying and returned without fighting. Killed by Kharjites shortly afterwards
Can you please link the hadith
@@comradekenobi6908 Just because you dont know much about islam, doesnt make you right.
If you’re truly a muslim, who is the first khalifah, and also who is the current khalifah
@@comradekenobi6908 you're right, non Muslims were the first people to say "Islam is a religion on peace". No! Islam is a religion of truth and justice
@@comradekenobi6908 you are truthful, may Allah reward you
@@comradekenobi6908 Well, yes you’re right. I was just testing you. But I prefer to only call rashidun caliphate as khalifah and some khalifs during the time of umayyad caliphate
(Quran 6:159)
"Surely, those who have made divisions in their religion and turned into factions, you have nothing to do with them. Their case rests with Allah alone; then He will tell them what they have been doing"
😏 anything that involves human grouping ends up in faction. That is fact. People are superior to religion, that is why religion will never change what makes us human. In a group 5 human, there is high possibility of 3 to 2 sub group formed. You can take history of any religion or culture, the answer is the same. The Creator of mankind knows it too.
@@RB-cool00701 "people are superior to religion"
then why were the worst killers in history were either athiest or didn't follow the rules of the religions they claimed to follow?
The religions we have keep us grounded to unchanging laws and are very important, without religion our rules change and we lose sight of what is humane and fair treatment.
Without religion we made nuclear weapons, concentration camps, napalm and white phosphorous, and we decimate cityblocks at a time with weapons.
Meanwhile in Islamic warfare for example, killing civilians is haram as is using fire weaponry. Its also haram to be racist and ethnically cleanse people.
Without religion we do horrible things.
If only Aisha followed this command in the Koran...
Be aware of what you will all say because you are apeaking about the prophet PBUH Companions
Youssef Zidan Is that a threat?
Never imagined Kings and Generlas would cover this! I thought of this topic as my personal interest that K&G would never know or never do. Im so pleasantly surprised! K&G team is priceless!
Brave, K&G. Very brave. Not even a disclaimer. lol. Just don't show a picture of the Prophet!
It’s empire and rashidun caliphate is one of the most largest empires ever
Hope to see Siffin, Nahrawan and Karbala battles in the next episodes.
I also hope to see Mukhtar's rebellion in future episodes.
Thanks for the content!
Bro if kings and generals try doing karbala, they will mess up and have tons of backlash, this is not advisable
@Faheem Yusuf I know, but I don't think they can just skip Karbala! It is a pretty important event in that time period and with the whole fitna theme that they started this season of their Early Muslim expansion series with, I feel they are going to somehow include Karbala...
He already talks about Karbala in the video Shia Sunni divide.
Mukhtar Al Thaqafi has a really good tv show u should watch
@B.F.E I have watched it. I want to see how Kings & Generals narrate the story
The Battle of the Camel (656 CE), as it was later styled because of Aisha's ride - a camel, was a pyrrhic victory, in that Ali's popularity suffered as a result. Aisha, owing to her status as the wife of the Prophet, was sent to Medina with every mark of honor, where she lived in retirement for the rest of her life. Although Ali's military genius spared the lives of many, several notable Muslims such as Talhah and Zubayr met their end. Shortly after his victory, Ali moved his capital to Kufa in Iraq because of popular support and to save Medina from the perils of the war.
Aisha's demand was to revenge from the murderers of caliph uthman, as they entered in caliph ali's army, and Ali accepted to revenge from the murderers. Who were later called khawarij or kharijites, and would also assassinate the 4th caliph, Ali
Kufans were far less reliable and more prone to disarray than Syrians
Although Ali was the better commander and military leader but his troops let him down and formed spilnter group Khawarij that Ultimately led to assassination of Caliph himself
No Khawarij found in Al Sham though
Kufa seems far from Medina. Why go so far?
@@kumarg3598 People from Kufah are treacherous, that was Ali's biggest mistake because he trusted them.
@@wewenang5167 don't scold the whole people, this is haram. Although generally true, but there are many good people there
After you finish Early Muslim Expansion series (assuming with fall of Uamayyads in Damascus), will you continue story of other Caliphates like Fatimidis, Abbasids and Fourth Fitma (the most interesting one if you ask me).
4th Fitna?
The war between the sons of Harun Al Rashid
@@abusuleymantariq2137 yep, or The Great Abbasid Civil War. To be honest, the way Abbasid fell is very interesting, because unlike previous Empires (eg. Achaemenid Empire), Caliph simply became spiritual leader while while many kindgoms flourished, especially Persian ones, that is until Mongols came. Same thing in the west with Tai'fas, except Christian menance didn't come out of nowhere.
@@aleksapetrovic6519 Well the Christian Spanish were really the successors of the conquered Visigothic Kingdom...
@@aleksapetrovic6519 The turks also came after and became very powerful in the Abbasid caliphate as well, until like you said the Caliph became a spiritual leader only.
@@NobleKorhedron True, but we are talking about Muslims and for them Christians were just northern nusiance until they became serious treat.
Finally we have Early Muslim Expansion Season 3!! Thanks a lot K&G!!!
Some parts are inaccurate though
@@ibrahim-sj2cr from my understanding everything was accurate. He just missed out key points like it was khwariji who caused confusion and started the war between Ali and Aisha or that it was Hasan and Hussein who took Aisha back home after Ali forgave her and they made up etc
@@MhmdBDRD She is not the prophet's wife anymore, she used to be yeah but Prophet Muhammad died. In Islam the sacred oath of marriage ended right after death of the wife or husband. That's why muslims were forbidden to keep the sperm seeds of their husband to be used after their husbands death.
@@zccau2316 you liar moviaya ibn Abu Sufyan contested Allah's Captain
As a Christian it's interesting to see the Muslim Expansion and subsequent fracture among the sects. It's almost a repeat of what happened with the Protestants and Catholics in the West in the 30 Years War.
@r.a.2392 Christians believe Jesus Christ is God in human form, that's the difference. That's where the phrase "Lord and Savior" come from.
Its not the same though, because this event didn't lead to new sects and there was total reconciliation.
Shias were a political group until centuries later, and never had great prominence outside of the iranian region.
Ultimately its skewed towards sunnis by an overwhelming amount, there was no schism on the level of christians.
Instead muslims got divided based off of a ridiculous amount of dynasties and tribes.
Time traveler: Hey, what year is it?
Arab man: It's the year AH 40 (661 CE)
Time traveler: So it's the end of the First Fitna, right?
Arab man: What do you mean "First"?
😭😭
Another great video, but a couple of things to point:
1. One of if not the most important reasons why Ali did not immediately take justice on the rebels, was that they were in the thousands, and he needed all the support he can get, so he argued that all provinces should give him their fealty before taking justice.
2. Zubayer and Talha weren't necessarily rebelling against Ali, they attempted to take Justice in their own hands and punish the Rebels for killing Uthman.
3. Prior to the battle of the camel, there was an attempt by Ali to reconcile, and it almost worked, but according to most Muslim sources the rebels in Ali's army instigated the battle, since any reconciliation would cause in their demise.
Nonetheless another great video overall, keep up the good work!
I blv Ali just like uthman believed cracking down on the rebels would fracture the caliphate.. so they didnt want the caliphate to crumble and break away… mayb they were right..
Great points. Also in the end both Ali and Aisha made up. From what I recall it was Hassan and Hussein who took Aisha back not Muhammed Ibn Abi Bakr
@@MhmdBDRD definitely a shia… not considered to b muslims… u write as if u saw it all… how on earth did aisha or zubayr kill uthman or why d they?? It was decided by them after death of umar that after uthman it ll be Ali who d b khalifa.. so u shias have ur own version of history..not based on truth or facts just slander against the companions of the prophet…
@@MhmdBDRD u should learn to read and understand… and stop trying to fool people… theres no authentic sayings which connects aisha ot talha or zubayr to the murder of uthman.. theres nothing for them to gain in it..u talked about punishment for people who kill or rebel against caliphs.. so why are u against aisha and zubayr and talha trying to punish the people who killed uthman?? They wanted to avenge the blood of the third caliph
@@MhmdBDRD so according to u Aisha rode a camel to become the caliph?? Are u really that dumb?? U just said it urself there should b punishment for rising up against a caliph and so there should b punishment for people who killed a caliph too right?? So they were asking for that punishment from Ali… none of the sahaba were against Ali’s caliphate.. they just believed there should b justice for the martyred caliph first from the new caliph.. thats all.. hmm… so according to shias all sahaba are in hell.. Allah says he’s pleased with them accepted them and they will be pleased with Allah.. so who should I believe?? Easy m a muslim not a shia..so thats why shias are flawed in thier theory .. either u have to first say Allah is wrong?? Is that what u r implying here??
Splendid video! Can't wait for your next one.
A town called Zubair, after the aformentioned prophet compaion, where he is burried, located near Basra, modern Iraq.
This battle is still to this day a source of heated debate among muslims.
I have been watching this channel for a year now and your videos are absolutely splendid! Keep up the good work!! Could you after this make videos on other caliphates like the Fatimids?
I'd like to see more, too, but you should also check out their existing videos that go into detail on many of the Islamic Caliphates. Though I don't know if ALL entities in history that have referred to themselves as "Caliphates" are considered Caliphates by ALL Muslims--meaning some of the Muslim empires in these videos might fall short--I suspect there's plenty to suit all tastes.
E.g. the Ottoman Caliphate has a whole of videos on this channel! To find it, just click on the words Kings and Generals under the image, then click "Playlist" and find "Ottoman History" at the very bottom. You will also find some applicable videos in the Medieval Battles playlist, and any playlist that has the word "Crusade" in it. :)
You can also search for these video titles, which have a lot of stuff about many caliphates, even if not all the videos are solely about the caliphates. Here are some I think would apply, with the most caliphate-y ones at the top:
1. Berber Empires: Zirids, Almoravids and Almohads DOCUMENTARY
2. Muslim Schism: How Islam Split into the Sunni and Shia Branches
3. Islamic Golden Age: Scientific Method DOCUMENTARY
4. Islamic Golden Age: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities
5. Battle of Talas 751 - Abbasid - Tang War DOCUMENTARY
6. Crusades from the Muslim Perspective
7. Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) DOCUMENTARY
(The last one is largely about Al-Andalus/Spain as a whole, and shows the time when the Emirate of Cordoba declared THEMSELVE to be the "Caliphate of Cordoba.")
@@d.m.collins1501 Yes I have seen these except for the Berber one though I want them to make one on the Fatimid Caliphate as well as the early Umayyad and Abbasid rule
@@d.m.collins1501 Thank You for highlighting these videos for me!!! I will be sure to check them out!
@@d.m.collins1501thank you!
I suggest you make a series about the Sassanid dynasty. About Shapur's war with Valerian; Mani Movement; Mazdak Revolution; Or about characters like Cartier, Bahram Choobin and Bozorgmehr. Or on issues related to the religion of Zoroaster, or the reforms of Anushirvan.
I have been watching since the first series.. i see you taken a lot of criticism and feedbacks.. using calligraphy to replace image of sahaba.. and not using moon as symbol. Outstanding works!
Ah, so he caved in to threats.
@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 First of all, it's not a he, it's a group of people. The narrator is just that, the narrator. And no one threatened him, as a matter of fact, most of the people in comments are civilized and if anyone shares criticism, I see it being shared in a constructive and respectful manner. So, maybe stop being a lying prick and enjoy the content for once.
@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 oh shut up Ranjeet
At 5:50 you make a slight but important mistake. The Muslims already had a fully compiled Quran of the original documents from the time of the Prophet that was compiled by Abu Bakr(ra) right after the death of the prophet. All Uthman(ra) did was he took this copy and made copies of it and spread it throughout the empire, and also used it to check other qurans.
That is actually incorrect.
Even with Abubakar's complied mushaf. There were still a number of others, that were notably slightly different.
Like Abdullah ibn Masoud's, and the mushaf of Fatma.
A couple of early Muslim scholars and historians spoke of it. Al qurtubi for instance.
@@giovannijunior9642 I did not dispute this. I just said that the way he said it in the video made it seem like Uthman(ra) compiled a quran himself, when all he did was check the other qurans against the one that he knew was correct as it had originated from just after the death of the prophet, and then burned the ones that has errors compared to this master copy
@@giovannijunior9642 Actually, what you said is incorrect, at least partly. When Zayd bin Sabid compiled the Quran under Abu bakr's Caliphate, the companians of the prophet sav agreed on his compilation. Zayd bin Sabid was someone who was known for his amazing level of Hifz (regarding his memorization of the Quran) but nevertheless he insisted on getting witnesses for every single verse, no witness could testify for 2 verses. This lead to this unquestionable level of accuracy.
So what is the whole "slight differences" issue? It is the issue of Qiraat in the Quran. The different reading styles. These are not man-made, but divine. They all stem from the Prophet sav and there are 7 Mutawatir level authentic reading styles (including the Asim Qiraat that is the most used since uthman). All of these have a chain of narration going through the huge companions like Abdullah ibn Masoud or Abdullah ibn Abbas up to the Prophet sav, having him as the source of it. Some few Qurans also had slight mistakes from the original due to the Hifz (memorization) of the author being wrong in parts. Notably, these were the minority and the huge majority of Muslims agreed that these were, in fact, mistakes by those people. After Zayd bin sabid had compiled the Quran in a single Mushaf with his authentic method, this mushaf was kept with Hafsa bint Umar, the wife of the prophet sav. Long story short, Uthman made copies of it and sent them to the city centers and ordered that the populous may copy the Quran that was sent and burn all other Qurans they had at home, in order to prevent mistakes from occurring in the reading of the Quran.
Regarding the "Abdullah bin Masuds Quran" you mentioned:
He didnt have a "Quran". He didnt have a book. It was his Qiraat that you refer to. His Qiraat wasnt "another version" it was merely a different Qiraat formt he Qiraat of the majority of Muslims, nonetheless an authentic one traced to the prophet sav himself. A senior scholar to his, known for his accuracy in memorization, Exegese and understanding of the Quran, the cousin of the prophet sav, ibn Abbas (ra) noted that:
"My Qiraat is the Qiraat of Zayd (bin Sabid, the man who compiled the Quran) [ie. i agree with him], but i agree with about 10 readings of ibn Mesuds Qiraat."
[ibn Abu Dawud, Kitabul Mashahif, Page 55].
Abdullah ibn Masud simply didn't have another Quran, he just had a different Qiraah, which wasn't destroyed by Uthman or something like that, the Isnad of many authentic Qiraat go through him.
Regarding the "mushaf of Fatima":
This isn't even claimed to be a Quran-Mushaf. The existence of the Mushaf of Fatima is only claimed by the Shia. Sunnis, who make up 90% of Muslims, don't even acknowledge its claimed existence. Shias claim, that when the prophet sav died, the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) came and talked to Fatima, the daughter of the prophet sav to "cheer her up". He would convey her predictions of the future and talk to her. The Mushaf of Fatima is claimed to have documented these conversations between her and Jibreel as well as some predictions of the future brought to her by the same angel. As i have said, only Shias regard this presumed Mushaf to be real and even if it is real, this doesn't proof anything since nobody claims this is a Quranic mushaf but some sort of different revelation that has nothing to do with the Quran.
And i'm sure Qurtubi spoke of it, but you should know that not only "early Muslims scholars and historians" have spoke of it, as if this is some kind of secret matter, but even contemporary Muslim scholars and historians talk of it, not to forget the classical ones.
I would also kindly ask you regarding your sources, where did you get this misinformation from (The Qiraat of Abdullah bin Masoud and Mushaf of Fatima)?
@ddd786 corrections to your correction. You made a slight but important mistake. The Muslims already had a fully compiled Qur'an from the time of the prophet done under his direct supervision. Right after the death of the prophet, Ali was tasked, by the prophet, to compile the chronological and with tafsir, the Qur'an. Then later Ali the true father of Arabic grammar whose student, abu al aswad, was ordered by Imam Ali, added the correct vowels so everyone can recite it in the correct Quraishi dialect.
@Ibrahim Alloush you are aware burning the other qurans was not blasphemy because to only way to get rid of something in a pure way is burning of burying. This is the Islamic stance.
Wonderful episode! These stories of the early Muslim days are fascinating!⚔🏹⚔
Quite sad story for us Muslims, marked the first split of unity between ummah
Idk why some people are trying to undermine the early muslim conquests by claiming that the Romans and Sassanians weakened eachother for centuries while theres some truth in that both still managed to field much larger armies and still lost... the main credit should go to generals like Khalid ibn Al Walid, Amr ibn Al As and Saad bin abi Waqqas
Someone speak the Truthh...
Because its true. The Romans and the Persians literally warredd and civil warred all over their empires for almost 3 decades while being ravaged by the plague. Why do you think heraclius went on an all out attack when reduced to just Greece and North Africa but basically gave up post Yarmouk. He even had to take loans from the church and melt their gold to raise his final army against persia.
@@ghostd69 it was a continuous 30 year war. Like not have a battle stop and pick up after recover but 30 years of non stop fighting and in fighting with the plague which also damaged and fractured alot of the defences. The biggest reason was how quickly the Arab expansion happened. They weren't given enough breathing time to recover and draw upon the resources of their empires. ts still a very impressive series of conquests that have happened only a few times in history. Roman and Persian weakness doesn't change that.
@@lordloss3398
And also the Plague you talking aboout happened after roman eas exiled from levante..its occured 639 it was called Plague of Amwas was just spread on south west levante..much excusss??
Indeed. These 3 are legends, their status only diminished only because they all existed at the same time and because Khalid was probably a another level of his own.
Good job Kings and Generals channel very impressive, regarding 17:47 good point there is also one more important reason Zubayr left the battle, before starting the battle Ali and Zubair met they are cousins but Ali was in the right side and Zubair was wrong, so Ali reminded Zubair of prophet Mohammad peace be apon him said to them before he passes away: "Oh Zubair do you like Ali?" Zubier said: Yes!
then the prophet replied: "one day you will fight him and your the one who is in the wrong side".
So for that reason, Zubair left the battle
Arabic Sources: Mostadrak alhatem hadith number 5573, Book of jamal, sifin, and khawarej for Ibn Abi Shaibah
Salam brother, that hadith is da'if. The hadith about the wrong side is about the Siffin battle between Muawiya and Ali.
There is no clear hadith that condemns one side of the future battle of the Camel. But there is a sahih hadith about the killers of Amar Ibn Yassir being the wrong side, this was the battle of Siffin. The battle of Siffin is comprehensive & difficult to blame one side, it was a real fitnah because people wanted to restore back dignity of the caliphate and punish Othman killers, Ali didn't follow that path because he had his ijtihad and wanted stability and avoiding more bloodshed. But Siffin battle was a war for power, where it seems Muawiyah's goal was taking power at all costs and Allah knows best. This doesn't help Shia who deviated from islam.
@@ldz8746 Salam Brother, regarding the hadith it is not weak as your saying I found it صحيح authuntic in a book called الحاكم النيسابوري - المستدرك على الصحيحين
Every muslim fought against Ali is wrong there had been 3 civil wars against Ali and he is right in all wars and the oposers are wrong that is actually a hadith that says: truth is with Ali and Ali is with truth.
@@ldz8746 the salafis are the ones delaited from Islam through there teachings, there are plenty of hadiths about the battle of the camel, I believe the hadith of the dogs of hawab is clear to show that Ali is right and Aysha is wrong.
Siffin war is more than clear, a lot of Sahabas joined the battle and fought Mowiya
@@brotherjaafar2861 It is not related to Salafiya, the old scholars themselves weakened the hadith due to very bad Sanad, but no one denies the hadith about Amar Ibn Yassir killers which condemns Muawiya very clearly. If we start taking hadiths from here and there without looking at Sanad (thing which is very common in most Chiia books) then we will start making stories which will match our wishes. And that is a catastrophy.
It is actually amazing how you addressed such sensitive issue .. really great 👍
It's an absolute shame we don't have better sources on early Muslim expansion.
@@ahmedsalek976 he’s right lol
@@ahmedsalek976 it's a shame we don't have unbiased sources, because most of the source have political agenda based on their allegiance
@@ahmedsalek976 I agree with you 100% brother. We have some of the best record-keeping.
There are better sources, go watch videos of منجم التاريخ and you will know what I am talking about
@williamperese stfu atheism has killed more people than Islam and Christianity combined.
I really like how you describe such Islamic history objectively. I really get to knkw about things that nobody talk about here.
I've been waiting for this so badly, Kings and Generals😩
In short, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussein, ... (Ahl al-bayt) were right.💚
We have to choose from whom we get Islam. From the Ahl al-Bayt or from the usurpers and murderers of the Ahl al-Bayt.
no! both were right...the only wrong people here are the khawarij and treacherous Persian people from Kufah.
@@wewenang5167 you are majnun. so the killers and the killed are going to jannah? don't make a joke of Allah's justice.
@@mmss3199 let me get this right. So what you are saying, some people can go to jannah for killing sahabis because it was a "mistake" but someone who just only talk "bad" about them are going to hell? I think the Allah that willing to let the killers of believer into heaven won't give two cents about me "slandering" the dead as you put it. Because that Allah's justice is nothing more than a goat's fart. Read Quran and read about what's the crime of killing a believer.
"whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind,"
MM SS
People can make mistakes!!!
And why should we follow someone who makes such a big mistakes (The biggest mistake that could have happened) and get a religion ?!!
In addition, People may make mistakes. Not that they can make mistakes.🙂
Shut up please! You don’t know their intentions so keep you nonsense to yourself.
You have completely disregarded the reconcilation attempt that was proposed and accepted between Ali and Aisha before the Battle of the Camel, the fact that the Khawarj sabotaged the peace by dividing themselves into two camps and starting the attacks (so it would look like the other side broke the peace), and that the battle was a complete chaotic scenary without any structure
This what happens when take one account without the other
Your name tho lmao
That story came from saif ibn umar altamimi. It's a false story
@@mohammedkamil5320 indeed
khawarij didnt exist back then until after the battle of siffin.
I sincerely thank KAG for not having represented by pictures the companions of the prophet, and for having taken into account the feeling of their Muslim audience once again this channel shows its tolerance, its wisdom and its professionalism, and concerning this episode as a muslim it was sad and difficult to see.
And while not K&G thank you. It is nice to see many communities come together in their appreciation of well told history.
Finally! After a Year The Third Season is Here ❤
Great job guys. Very balanced content, and considerate presentation.
What are the primary sources you used for this video, the death of Uthman was while he was reciting the Quran, he was a 80 year old man. There were some minor things that you spoke of which I found wrong.
Qur'an 10:85
*“They said: 'In Allah do we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial [fitna] for those who practice oppression”*
Can you also cite the sources in the description of the video so that the viewer can get the first time experience please 🥺🥺🥺🙏🙏.
@@yasinibrahim narrations are totally factual the reason you don't like them is the fact that they are not taken from the books of your school of thought, that's why u mad.
@@yasinibrahim agreed with you man. Aisha didn't come as rebelion army, so many wrong facts that made Aisha looks bad, that's what Shia wants
@@Roseblindbags123 so you are declaring hadith of your own school of thought as actual hadith, see that is the problem. Everyone keeps presenting their shit as authentic one and others as fabricated .
@@afifsahrin5708 don't know why it's hard for you guys to accept the fact that aisha got tricked by talha and zubair.
@@yasinibrahim just because miknaaf was a true follower of ALI(r.a) and a prominent anti umayyad person, you guys declared him as a liar so that nobody gets to know the true face of Banu Ummayah.
Great video! Can we do another on the battle of the shoes in the marketplace?? 😃
As Muslims, we do not say one side is blameless over the other. We say both were sincere in their pursuit however one side(Ali(ra)) was more correct than the other. This doesn't mean we takfir or insult the sahabas like some small sects in our religion do. Also, this doesn't give us the right to create innovation in the religion like dedicating a day to mourn someone, when there is nothing like that stipulated in the Quran or sunnah.
Obviously, you are not educated in fiqh manners and aqeedah, talk to me when you have questions about Shia Islam.
Yesssss!!! Thought the Muslim Expansion series was put on pause glad to see a new episode.
Great video once again. Love the early Muslim conquest series.
Common fact:
3 Empires emerged & swiftly reached their maximum extents within decades, & immediately fractured due to civil wars due to succession struggles:
1) Alexander's Empire (Divided after his death between his generals due to civil war)
2) Muslim Caliphate (Faced 5 Civil Wars, passing from Rashiduns to Umayyads & ultimately fractured during Abbasids era)
3) Mongol Empire (Reached maximum extent during Mongke's Reign, & fractured after his death as a result of Toluid Civil War)
Every Empire's fall is marked by constant infighting
Alexander's empire had the worst, empire fractured nanosecond after he died
Mongols had the fourth worst,, and even after the break up, for a time the emperors of china-mongolia could keep others in check at least in one way or another.
Third worst would be carolingian empire which just kept breaking up, getting united and breaking up again. The western Francia after the last interregnum evolved into HRE which was.. (you probably know the memes)
Second worst would be Umayyad. (No comment. UA-cam would delete it otherwise.)
@@mayankbisht7691 Agreed. But I observe it mostly in the case of those empires which swiftly emerged & expanded.
Other large Empires like Rome, Persia, Maurya etc established & expanded over long spans of time & it took centuries for Rome, Persia etc to reach their extents of heighted control, allowing them to establish their cultural, legal & political basis strongly in annexed areas. Thus their decline also took time.
@@hannibalburgers477 I would agree with regarding Umayyads. They were mostly usurpers, who believed on Arabian Superiority & tried to use Islam for their own Political Benefits. I will not say any further. Otherwise, my Muslim Brethren who harbor sensations for Umayyads will not hesitate from attacking my loyalty to my religion.
Regarding, Alexander or Mongols, I'll say that I observed their empire's expansion based on their military tactics & strategies. Ultimately they didn't had any basic political or cultural cause to keep their empire unified. Which led to their fracture.
Regarding Carolingian Empire, it fractured, but it left up two out of three successors to emerge up as strong future kingdoms. East & West Francia who would make up after centuries modern France & Germany.
But Alexander's or Mongol's Empire didn't left up a permanent successor.
@@worldofknowledge4802 this is a misconception they didn’t necessarily believe in Arab superiority but they didn’t want to ruin the status quo of the rulership by adding non Arabs this was reversed by the Abbasids who started appointing non Arabs as govenors and this will eventually ruin the caliphate because these governors would start dynasties and become more independent
Thanks for making more and more videos on Islamic history... Love your work
Iv been waiting for this since you guys released the split of Islam video.
Early civil wars are probably the most heart wrenching time in Islam's history. I get sad every time I read about them. The Prophet(SAW)'s Noble Companions fighting amongst themselves.
The fact that cannot be denied is that the Prophet Muhammad once prayed that his people would not be destroyed due to division but this prayer was rejected.
That's just human nature for you. Give a man power and wealth and watch him become corrupted. This rings true for the Sahaba aswell
A correction: Ali and the others did not know Osman's murderer for certain. According to Islam, it is not permissible to kill innocent people together with a murderer. That's why he couldn't punish Osman's murderer, it is not because the rebels supported him. However Muawiya and others thinked that for the good sake of the state, murderer has to be punished with unfortunately innocents also.
We love all of them, both sides did their efforts for Islam and justice
Ah yes my favourite series is back
Jedi killer, war criminal
And Sith puppet
To the Sunni and shia muslims in the comment section :
وَإِنْ طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِنْ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّى تَفِيءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ * إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
Shush
Thank you so much for this series! I love learning history. Especially religious history. Again, thank you
Religious history is like seeing the history of human's cancer of the soul and mind. Sky fairies do nor exist and an Imam or two ended all further learning when Indo-Arabic mathematics had established the basis of the modern technological miracles but abandoned them for ignorance and faith in a farcical myth for 1500 years. Christians were just as vile and vicious. Jews, other than that Goliath myth, didn't muster armies or kings. India's Hindus defeated Islam. Pakistan is still pissed.
I am so proud to be a Muslim. We need strong leaders again.
change your profile picture if you feel proud as muslim
@@skytv4122 what's wrong with his profile picture? You're weird bro
You realize the Quran has been rewritten a few times as well as the bible och toran?
Proud of believing in Muhammed's political scam 1,400 years after his death? That's just embarrassing
@@ASLUHLUHC3 at least better worship human jesus 😂😂😂
Finally my heart is at ease
This series is one of my favourites👍🏻
We as Muslim are taught about the history of Muslims but it's all vague
But u did an explended Job here making us learn this history in such a proper way
U don't know how much thankful I am
it not vague its there and this videoin my opinion didn't do the topic justice.
As Shia, we've learned the details of this battle and all the other events growing up, because we are proud of the ones that stood strong with the message of the Prophet (pbuh), we were also taught about the hypocrites that hid within the muslim community. There's a very good reason why these details are hidden by ur teachers...
@@aboualhassanhassan9924Shia fan fiction isn't actual history buddy 😅 go back to searching for your twelfth imam
@@aboualhassanhassan9924prophet said to kill the unbelievers and hypocrites
Again, the best UA-cam channel bringing excelent content
I believe it is intended, but you seem to choose the musical instrument (in this case the duduk) perfectly to create an athmosphere where you show us that something is changing utterly and irreversebly. Sadness comes to mind... You did quite the work also with the video (a pinnacle of work, clearly) about the sack of Constantinople (I almost cried, almost).
Good narration, excellent soundtrack and the artist who creates the painted pictures are mesmerizing! Please, keep up this astonishing team work! Thank you!
great videon as usual
Looking at these videos gives me solace in the midst of the war in Ukraine, knowing that we as humans have been through so much war throughout history, and one day someone will be making a video about the Russo/Ukraine war of 2022.
This should be made into a netflix series
Yes totally!!! It would make Game of Thrones look like Sesame Street! Sadly, if this was made into a NetFlix or HBO series, the crazy fundamentalists will “do what they do best” and lots of innocent actors, writers, producers, etc will be murdered.
@@georgeso4364 true
@@georgeso4364 and definitely they'll put black and rainbow actor 🤣🤣
So when are you guys going back to dynastic China? I loved your episode on the War of the Eight Princes. Hope there'll be more.
Can’t wait until you do one about the Russo-Ukrainian war a few years down the line
👀
Too soon
Perhaps a couple of years after it’s finished?
@@petervarga7755and I am convinced that it is Russia on the losing side
@@yosman-609 lol
New Fantasy/Sci-fi videos over here!
Hello
If you're muslim watching this, you can watch a lot of early muslim expansion battes in my channel in addition to battles of all 8 crusades
Regarding the video: I made my research about the first fitna and presented the most authentic view in my videos, a lot of the events presented in the Kings and Generals video are inaccurate and false. The main 2 sources for this event are Abu Mukhnaf and Sayf ibn Omar, which both if them are labeled as liars by scholars of hadith. This event is not like any other historical event because it's so controversial and companions of the Prophet were involved in it. The most authentic narration should be taken only from authentic reports not from any report written by historians who had their political agenda.
Unfortunately not every Muslim is Arab!!!
If only your channel had videos in English.I find your channel really interesting.
@@ahmedsalek976 أتفق معك، يتعاملون مع الأحداث وكأنها حدث تاريخي عابر دون الأخذ بعين الاعتبار صحة او عدم صحة مصادرهم غاضين النظر عن خلفية المؤرخ الدينية والسياسية... تجد في ذات المقطع مصادر شيعية وسنية و غربية وتختلط الأمور على المشاهد... انظر كيف يصفون صحابة رسول الله و المبشرين بالجنة بأنهم ساعين للسلطة و قتالهم من أجل الملك والعياذ بالله
أتمنى لو باستطاعتي فتح قناة باللغة الأجنبية ولكن ذلك يحتاج لجهد ووقت وتمويل إضافي
@@manjam.tarikh at least muawiyyah fought to establish his kingship.we don't know about the intentions others because they did not win
@@ahmedsalek976 احسن الظن، يمكن الأخ ما يعرف
The civil war that annihilated worriers who were the cream of the early expansion and the heroes of Qadisiyyah, Yarmouk, Nahavand, Sufetula and the Masts in the thousands.. Tabari account are full or tragic stories during the battles of the Camel and Siffin of family members, tribal cousins and former brothers in arms cutting each other’s down with tears in their eyes.
tabari was a genius ngl
@@zccau2316 All this fiction was written by Tabari bin rustem the Zoroastrian after 239 years of the supposed event and all the other historians follow him. In fact Imam Hussain a.s was killed by the big 3 Defeated Persians, Jews and Roman empire but Only a true Muslim can think about it and the reason u mentioned Umar bin saad bcz His father Hazrat Saad bin abi Waqas was the first who conquered persia first that's y his son Umar is also connected to krbla incident like all other Sahabas who r targeted by The Zoroastrians.
Waited years for this thanks K&G❤️🙏🏿
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
One thing that makes this channel unique is that it’s not biased and does not take sides
Ikr
It is v biased… hugely supports the shia narrative
Don't think you mentioned it, but Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, one of the Egyptian rebels who may have killed Uthman, was the stepson of Ali ibn Abi Talib and also the brother of Aisha. Ali and Uthman were also both married to daughters of the Prophet Muhammad.
And what is your evidence to support Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was the one?
The most heartbreaking moment when two characters with calligraphy (which means they are companions of the prophet) killing each other senselessly on the battlefield.
Shit so fucked up, only few Muslims learned about it in detail. Islam separation was politic first, then ritual the second. It was very unnecessary.
Yeesss! Early muslim expansion series is back!
Was waiting for new vid on this documentary ever since the last one, also new animation of map and generals/rulers looks amazing
Othman did not change the Qur'an, it was seven readings with which the Qur'an was read, and when non-Arabs entered Islam they found the seven readings difficult, Othman the collection of the Qur'an in one book, the readings are verbal and do not affect the meaning
Yasir qadhi: Koran has holes in it. 🤡
Actually Uthman removed any mushaf مصحف except his side (known mushaf uthmani today) for prevent any confusing of many letters and dialects. Majority people especially muslims cannot differentiated the two things : alquraan and mushaf
yeh i think he misunderstood, there are no various version of the quran, its just various Qiraat or spelling and dialect. Not varios version , its the same things but it was written in different style and different Arabic dialect. So Uthman standardise it so Muslim won't become like Christians who got so many version in so many language with different meanings :P
Great video as always! It would be cool if u guys in the future would do a couple videos on Boleslaw I the Brave and his son Mieszko II Lambert. There's not many videos on them even tho they turned Poland into a power house.
The persian gulf zone was the core of a very ancient civilization arrived from somewhere; they taught to the locals many helpful things. Check on yt: "The earthly paradise was it in the persian gulf?"
It was called the Akkadian Gulf, and it was inhabited on both sides of the Gulf by Semitic peoples before the Persians came from South Asia.. The greatest civilizations in it were Semitic, such as the Akkadian civilization and the Dilmun
Gulf was originally belong to semeties people whom established oldetest civilization there before the arrival of persian to this region..you came from Eurasian Steppe and mirgated in west asia and central asia 1800bc
Excellent video 📹
Wait for next one.
I thought you ended this series, im quite excited
What I really respect is your respect for the islamic religion, you call mohamed the prophet, and I. 9:10 you put a light on Utman’s face so that we can’t see it.
Thank you very much for this wonderful video ❤️❤️
The most detailed account of the camel battle I have seen so far. Really great work!!!
check out farid responds videos. More detailed than this
it is not detailed they ignor the most important thing as history event a d the rule of ibn sbaa and killer of ottoman to stop any peace you need to read a book about it .
5:35 A very important point to clarify..
the difference in the copies of the Qur’an were differences in the way of reading, not in the meaning, because the Qur’an was revealed in seven different Arabic dialects..
and Othman did not burn them all, but so far all the copies are present and you can tell the difference between them is the reading.
The reason for burning it is because many non-Arab peoples at the time of Othman converted to Islam, so there had to be a unified Qur’an to make it easier for them to understand and read.
Thank you Kings and Generals Team.
Thanks for sharing the video 👍🏻
ali's army and aisha's army were about to reach an agreement and were about to kill the rebels which killed uthman when the rebels got wind of this (some of the rebels were on both sides of the 2 armies) they decided to make it look like the other army is attacking which then resulted in them fighting which none of the sahaba (companions) wanted so it was all the rebels doing the rebels that killed uthman in the first place which those rebels were inspired to kill uthman by a jewish man named abdullah bin saba who pretending to be muslim
the diffrence between aisha and her allies with ali is that aisha and her allies thought that they should kill the rebels while ali thought that they should stablize the state first then get to the rebels
PS: those rebels are technically the shias now
People need to see this..
@@jawad_killer27 Yeah the first shias technically were Khwarij. They believed that Ali was super human so when he sought arbitration against Muariya, they saw it as weakness and a betrayal of Gods gift to him. Crazy
@@zccau2316 yep all this despute and fitna happend because there was a misunderstanding to when to kill the rebels that killed uthman immediately or after they stabilized the state
@@jawad_killer27 looks like u have been brainwashed by your mullahs
U didnt mention single word about the role of abdullah bin saba or ibn sauda. The one who trigger the fitna.
While many scholars like ibn katheer mention him as the biggest factor of the fitna
That’s cuz Abdullah ibn Saba was a myth 🤣 all sources say that he started these fitna’s trace back to Sayf ibn Umar who was accused by many Sunni scholars to be a cursed, zindeeq and weak
@@zayn670 thats a common false later than prove it wrong by many scholars from the age of Ibnu katheer himself until mutaakhirin.
Unless you are shia
@@gludugtv3627 Of course the Bakri’s would try to make some fairytales about the Shia to try to stop it from spreading yet they don’t even know that even scholars said that Abdullah ibn Saba is a myth created by the famous fabricator Sayf
ibn e saba character is a myth created to justify the wrong doings of BAAGI people who revolted against the rightly guided Caliph
@@ahsanbutt3578 ahsant
Those were not Muslims. Rather, the sect was claiming Islam and working under a man named Abdullah Ibn al-Saba, who planned this coup against Othman and quarrel among the Muslims under serval proclaims he made.
good stuff as always
Between 10:18 and 10:19 you'll see a red background with white text saying "Media offline" in several languages all in a flash. I love it.
How fast of a reaction you have to get that
@@Fodhilallia fast :O
There are some inaccuracies in the video
It was a great fitnah, but we should remember that they were sahabas making ijtihad, may Allah bless them all
but caliph Ali a.s was supported by prophet Muhammad s.a.w. previous predictions.and the other party(maviyah) as wrong doer
I am a Muslim and I love this series
@@yasinibrahim he is muslim but an ignorat who take info from the wrong sources
that's sad..
@@Arrkail bruh he is not muslim
can't wait for the rest of season 3
As a Muslim who knows it says do not divide into sects in the Quran I believe this Sunni and Shia feud is only wreaking Islam as a whole
Othman wasn't killed by Muslims
but by Khawarij
As a clarification and correction , the Quran was Collected in the time of Abu Bakr (r.a.) and the standardization by Uthman (r.a.) of the Quran was to prevent dialectical changes occurring as non-Arabs became Muslims. to say that the "Ahruf" (modes) of the Quran were destroyed would be incorrect since all the 7 of the Ahruf of the Quran are still in circulation with Hafs being generally the most popular around the world and Warsh being predominantly used in North-Africa. There are Quran Apps that allow you to read each and compare them.
The Person Behind the Fitna was Abdullah ibn Saba
Lol how abdullah ibn e saba persuaded aisha to fight ali?
@@raheelhaider9295 wow😅
It was maviyah intent to hold power and he used revenge of Usman r.a as shield
They are the criminals, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Amr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuza’i, Malik al-Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Badil and Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhaifah.They attacked Uthman ibn Affan in his house and cut him to pieces.Amr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuza’i says (I stabbed Uthman 9 stabs 6 of them to allah and 3 of them when I had in my heart against Uthman)
@@raheelhaider9295 Wow, Ali refused to punish uthman killers . Abdullah saba persuaded hussein to die n karbala. did hussein not have common sense?
So Thankful for this effort
May Allah be pleased with all of them and forgive their shortcomings and reunite us with them in Jannah 🤲🏾
The level of inaccuracies in this video is immense, who helped you with the research?
Shias and Christians
@@azzamfauzy3676
Seems like that.
Tarikh Tabari literally records most of these
@@zayn670
Imam at-Tabari followed the classic methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them.
Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni scholar ever accepted thisnot even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book are only as good as the people who narrate them.
A lot of the "facts" stated in this video are biased shia narrations, coloring those who killed the caliph of Islam in a good light "nepotism", saying there many "different Qurans" simply dumb.
@@whoswho2215 Yes I know what Tarikh Tabari is and what it contains but this doesn’t negate the authentic stories in it
Ali ibn Abi Talib the sword of Allah!
that was khalled bin waleed but beat Ali many many times
How much clearer does this get. Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Marwan Ibn Hakam, Talha and so many were seeking policial worldly achievements yet Ali and his family were on the path of spirituality and pure faith. Why aren’t all Muslims seeing what I’m seeing ?
If you want to argue like that then Ali was doing the same thing when he favouring protecting his supporters some of them who killed Uthman over handing them for justice. This is your reasoning
@@MohamedMohamed-ws7mq Ali sent his sons to protect Uthman, the murder of Uthman was Talha whom Marwan Ibn Al Hakam killed on the battle field with an arrow. He later stated “now I have avenged the true killer of Uthman”. It was all a power grab by these munafiqeen (hypocrite) Muslims. Ali was safe guarding the government of Islam with whatever good was left of it. Ali did not safe guard any killers of Uthman all narrations state how just and noble he always was. Do your own research and you’ll realize with an open heart that Islamic history regarding the sahaba was all lies since the prophets death. The true wickedness and I’ll intent of the first 3 caliphs surfaced into the lap of Ali to clean up. When Ali was asked “how come under the 3 caliphs we never had these wars but under you we now do?” Ali replied “because when the first 3 caliphs ruled they ruled over people like me, now I rule over people like you”. Anyways it’s not worth me and you as Muslim brothers disliking one another over this. The point in pure Islamic history is for us to pin point the Taghut as mentioned in the Quran and to stand together against all enemies of Allah swt such we see in US, Israel, European nations, Saudi Arabia, UAE and many “Muslim” nations that won’t lift a finger against Israel yet they blame Iran and Shia resistance for the instability in the Middle East
Because it is just about picking teams. There are no real gods.
@@Melia_67 You make no sense brother. Please go back to make it make sense. Muawiya fought Ali in Siffin because Ali demanded Muawiya step down from governor in al Sham. Muawiya was after a power grab with no interest in Islamic law. Islam in Muawiyas eyes was a means to achieve his goal. Is it a coincidence his son Yazid have the order to massacre Imam Hussein years down the line ? The people were misguided before as they’re today in Islam and it’s proper leadership. Look at those who see ISIS as legitimate and those who see it as radical and fight against it by all means. Look at the Muslims that resist the western hegemony in the Middle East and those who submit to it. Is it a coincidence that at the macro level, same people that represent themselves as Shia Muslims are those who resist the west and the Sunni Muslims seek friendship and even at times see eye to eye with ISIS like movements ? The inability to understand Muawiya and Aisha true motives in Islamic history will keep the Muslims ignorant.
Did Allah give you godly abilities to look into the hearts of ppl you never met? Sorry we rest of the Muslims don’t have it. If Aisha needed luxuries she wouldn’t live with prophet in intense poverty:
Aisha reported: The family of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, never ate to their fill of wheat bread for three consecutive nights, ever since they had come to Medina, until he passed away.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6089, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2970
It’s disgusting if you think you are better than Aisha and other companions.
30 seconds ago? But it was posted the other day. Either way I'm here watching with coffee in hand
Its was poted yesterday for the member of the Channel