To get everything Brilliant has to offer and a 30 day free trial visit www.brilliant.org/jabzy. The first 200 people to sign up will get 20% off an Annual Subscription!
Im a korean christion so i have nothing to do with islam but every muslim person ive met were so nice and it seemed like they had confidence in the righteousness of their belief. Its just so unfortunate that extremism is hurting the identity and image of the religon and the innocent people who believe in it
Most muslims are just normal people The extremiss you hear off are either groups funded by foriegn organizations largely from Israeli/western or Russian influence Or native uprisings against the incredibly Autocratic leaders that are also unfortunately backed by foriegn influences
Having righteousnes for one's belief will pretty much always make one eventually become more extreme in their identity. The difference is the religion. Do you think Christians should become "more Christlike" or "less Christlike" the more they truly believe in their Christian faith? If you correctly say, "more Christlike" it will means Christians becoming more serious about the faith, more preaching and willing to die for the faith. Well, the people you call Islamic extremists have the same thought process - they wish to more closely emulate the Islamic prophet. And he was a conqueror of land, booty, women and a lawgiver. What do you think his followers are going to be like, who wish to emulate him? Nice cordial people, like the Muslims you have met? Or people you accuse of tarnishing the image of a supposedly peaceful ideology?
@@MihanTheNoobboth literally hated paganism Both almost died fighting against pagan countries Both installed tough Discipline From long lasting abrahamic laws Jesus went up to God but Muhammad actually won and ended up creating a Theocratic state
You should highlight the individual locations (cities/towns) that you are describing as you speak about them. Hearing all of these unfamiliar locations becomes confusing. Other than that great video.
This video has been timed to conclude that Palestinian resistance movement against the modern day Hitler Nazi Israel, is terrorism. However, you forgot to mention that the main resistance movement group Hamas, is actually Shia and don't have anything to do with Al-wahab. When will you Europeans acknowledge that Muslims taking up Arms is always after they have been invaded, colonized and persecuted by mostly America and Europe. NATO & America are the biggest terrorists and source of terrorism along with Israel, not Islam.
For the idiots who defends Wahhabism and other salafi movements: Calling themselves "true believers/Muslims" and accusing others as being infidels and claiming "real Islam" wasn't practiced since the time of the Prophet and Salaf al-Salihun is simply extreme stupidity, ignorance and kufr.
Firstly, “Whahhabism” is a western term and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab didn’t name calling people back to Taweed such a term. Secondly, it’s clear your ignorant of the state of Jahiliyyah Najd was in during the 18th century, gravesites where worshiped to the point where people did pilgrimages to those graves, invoking the names of humans(Zaid Ibn Al-Khattab)to fulfill their needs was prevalent and women would visit date trees and invoked them to grant them husbands within a year. Finally, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab did not go against the way of the Salaf since he worked side by side with the First Saudi state and simply worked towards bringing the people out of the Jahiliyyah at those times. It seems the only people who have a problem with him are those who are liberals, deviant innovators or just outright ignorant.
Allah is a prop and not real. It's all just war and power and money. War war war war war war for power. Then you rob the nation for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Riddle me this Batman... why should the world support dictators who create war to get power then rob all the money? These are MEN. There IS NO ALLAH. Look at a 2024 map of Global Wars. 100% of the wars in the African/Middle East/Eurasia/Pacific regions are Muslims creating Colonizing wars for power and money. Colonizing Muslims killing everyone. Like it's the fucking Middle Ages. It's sick. Allah isn't fucking real. Magic isn't real. You have no magical immortal soul. Immortality ISN"T FUCKING REAL! YOU are not a fucking immortal when you die. If you are Muslim? You are an ant in an ant hill and used for free labor and as an ATM. Your children and you are slaves to MEN. Just
Tribalism and nomadism, just as they expanded in the Middle East also expanded in North Africa at the same time and without the Mongol invasion, the reason is most likely climate change in the so-called Little Ice Age that began in the 14th century AD and the drought it caused that prompted many to leave the sedentary life and return to nomadism. Nomadism made it difficult for the state to settle and extend its control over all the country , so the Little Ice Age also contributed to the spread of nomadism in the Middle East in addition to the Mongol invasion The Wahhabi was very extremist, but this does not mean that all of its objections were wrong. The Sufism that dominated the Islamic world at that time spread many superstitions, sorcery, and polytheism but the extremism of the Wahhabis and their violence against the other muslims is what made many Muslims reject them from the time they appeared until today, even if some Wahhabi reformed their ideas and toned down their extremism , ad to that that now the largest part of Wahhabism has become a tool in the hands of the House of Saud, and their religious views have become consistent with what the House of Saud wants
We never toned down, and now nearly all Islamic intellectualism is Salafi, Sufism became something of the past and our only real Dawah is with the Secular/liberals We also have more influence on Muslim diasporas in the west
@@keymot1491 Salafism has now divided into many currents, all of which were accepted by the Saudi authority, but now the Saudi authority no longer accepts any Salafism except the Madkhalism
In high school I had a government teacher tell me when I was doing a debate on if Islam is a violent religion, I was arguing that it is not. I brought up Wahhabism and he had the audacity to tell me that I was lying that Wahhabism was a made up word😂
You need to learn proper History before you go on debates. The term "Wahabbism" was given to the Muslims in the First Saudi-Nejd and today it is used against any (Sunni) Muslim when they preach Islam and tell both Muslim and Non-Muslims to follow the Quran and Sunnah.The term Salafi/Wahhabi/Islamic Fundamentalsist us used against Muslims in order to fool people that they are deviants,(but they are actually not) so that people don't accept the Message of Islam and to trick other Muslims into thinking they are heretics to turn us against each other. Read the RAND Report on how the Pentagon want to destroy Islam. And the History goes something like this,at the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahabb(People call him MIAW).There were some people doing Kufr and Shirk. Kufr means disbelief in Islam and Shirk means basically polytheism/paganism. So,MIAW who was an advisor to the first Saudi Emir was trying to give Dawah and telling people to live according to the Quran and Sunnah. One instance was the sack of Karbala and the killing of Rafidi Shias(And no,they are not Muslims) So,the Ottoman Sultan at that time didn't like it and told the Egyptian Emir,who was of Albanian decent to attack MIAW,which he did. So,by the end,a lot of misinformation have been spread about this part of History.And Non-Sunnis aka Deviant Heretics always use this word as a scapegoat to mock,insult and kill Muslims. So,in conclusion "Wahabbism" doesn't actually exist and it's a trick used by Non-Muslims to call Muslims extremist for no reason and to justify violence of Non-Muslim Armies onto Muslims. And no, Islam is not a Religion of violence,nor is it a Religion of Peace.If you look at the statistical facts Christians killed more than Muslims ever did.And if you look deeply, Christians killed more Christians than Muslims killed Christians,lol,current example is Russo-Ukrainian War. Rather,Islam is the Religion of Allah(SWT), and it means submitteming to Allah(SWT) and worshipping Allah(SWT) alone and not associating any partners with him.Accepting all the Prophets from Adam(AS) to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Living your Life according to the Quran and Sunnah.Performing Obligatory Tasks,and there is much more. I hope you find this helpful. May Allah(SWT) Guide you to the right path.
@@muslimstrategistgamer2849 man I’m sorry you wrote all of this it’s super good information that I know a little bit about and for clarification i was debating for the side that Islam is NOT a violent religion
@@isaakfrmla Oh ok,maybe I read it from a different angle.But Anyway, I am always happy to clarify misconceptions about the History and help you in understanding it better.👍
@@muslimstrategistgamer2849 "So,in conclusion "Wahabbism" doesn't actually exist and it's a trick used by Non-Muslims to call Muslims extremist for no reason and to justify violence of Non-Muslim Armies onto Muslims." 😂 Okay that's enough propaganda for today.
@@isaakfrmla The Prophet beheaded hundreds of infidels. Today, his followers do the same thing all around the world. Good luck winning a debate that following his example is "Not a violent religion." Headhunting is inherently violent.
Al-Fahd's argument centres on proving that the Ottoman state was not a caliphate. The title of his pamphlet invokes the term al-dawla al-othmaniyya (Ottoman state). Later on al-Fahd uses al-dawla al-turkiyya (the Turkish state) in order to anchor the polity in a nationalistic framework, thus limit ing its authenticity among Muslims at least the Arabs among them. His main objection to the Ottoman/Turkish polity is its deliberate attempt to corrupt the creed of Muslims, thus turning them into mushrik, association ists who do not strictly adhere to the principle of tauhid (monotheism). In his assessment of the nature of this state, two important objections are raised: first, the state spread blasphemy; second, it fought monotheism. The main manifestation of blasphemy is the spread of Sufism in the ter ritories of the Ottoman caliphate. Citing those who lament the fall of the Ottoman caliphate, for example the contemporary Egyptian thinker 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Shinawi, al-Fahd lists sources that confirm the spread of Sufism among Muslims. While Sufism was present in early Islamic caliphates, it was the Ottoman caliphate that made it the 'religion of the people', accord ing to al-Fahd. In his view the Sufi traditions that flourished among Mus lims under the rule of the Ottomans were closer to Shi'ism than to the Sunni tradition. Both Sufism and Shi'ism are denounced by Wahhabis. Al-Fahd argues that without Ottoman encouragement and financial sup port Sufism would not have penetrated Muslim societies as far as Albania, Central Asia, and the Arab world.
Well no shit. The Ottoman state was a Sultanate, not a caliphate, and the Turkish Sultans were originally vassals of the Abbassid Caliph, even though the Caliph by the time of the Crusades was a puppet with no real power.
Although Ottomans were not perfect they kept the peace in middle east. It's a pity extremists opened a new front against already struggling empire only to make them get colonized and suffer to this day.
@@socii1x0231hI don't know how you came to this conclusion... You ever looked into how many massacres and wars actually took place in the 18th and 19th Centuries?
@@JabzyJoe unlike Barbary states where local tribes didn't give a shit about Sultan on middle east ottomans was partly successfully on status quo between tribes thus securing somewhat safe region for trade and prosperity. They didn't send costly armies from Constantinople to massacre thousands unlike balkans. After Tanzimat reforms region became way more centralized and Ottomans really put a lot of resources to keep influence over middle east by building infrastructure replacing tribes with governors. There were always local problems but who else bringed as much safety as ottomans to the middle east.
another superb video weird how little details are known and how little written sources exist for certain parts of the Arab world throughout the early modern period
Hey Jabzy, great fan of your videos, especially on China. Could you add your sources in the descriptions for further reading for history enthusiasts like me? Keep up the good work. Bless you.
I think it will be more devastating once majority of middle east citizens starts to question everything and study history from different perspectives. but people not liking change alone prevents it. none of the system we're born in are perfect , in fact corruption runs from the bottom to top anywhere you go. that reason alone should be the fuel for us to work together.
You need better maps. It’s so complicated subject matter that it would really help if the places you mention were more clearly marked or highlighted on the map. It’s fascinating stuff btw
8:27 Thank God for the Anglo-Zanzibar war that broke the slavers and led to many African slaves being freed. The British don't get nearly enough credit for this and many more acrions against Arab slavers.
Its true they dont get credit but their colonial project was pretty much the same shit. The brits were insanly cruel as well. The mai-mai rebellion proved thY
lmoa they did that to so the arabs do not profit from it while the brits enslaved the carribeans even after abloshing it gtfo with the british credit shit out of here
The kingdom of Algiers situation was special as it became a sultanate before joining the Ottomans as a nominal vessel recognizing their Caliphate status in exchange for aid in their wars againat the Spanish,Saadis and Hafsids. Which was the reason they were given the title of Byler baylek "kingdom of kingdoms" and were given authority to appoint governors in Tunis and Tripoli for being the one to conquer them into Ottoman states. However Algiers after facing unrest and instability in the early 17th century due to Ottoman interference in politics was appointed with agahs whic Algerians weren't happy with as they looked for Ottoman interest rather than that of Algerians which caused Algerians to rebel and establish the Republic of Algiers in 1671 with the Sultans given the title "Dey" meaning uncle of Algerians (A title still used today for algerian presidents though in Arabic) this newly regime would go to war with Europeans and force many to pay tribute for passage in the Mediterranean sea against Ottoman interests which also remarks their independence from the Ottomans and ties kept to military support between the two sides in wars.After this, the republic would go to secure its borders with Morocco and force all its neighbors to submit and pay tribute as well (With tunis becoming a vessel of Algiers instead of the Ottomans) as Algiers viewed it as its right to subjugate its neighbors for it was for her who conquered them the first time and lost its influence due to Ottoman meddling in politics. In the other hand. Tunis viewed itself as equals to Algiers in authority and shouldn't be subjugated which led them to ally with Morocco (Who faced defeat prior and had ambitions in Algerian territory) and Attack Algeria from two fronts starting the Maghrebi war with tripoli joining on behalf of the ottomans in an attempt to supdue the revolting republic of Algiers. This war although ended with the defeat of the alliance and military victory of Algiers by defending itself, it had caused unrest in the region with revolts occuring in the 4 states for the years that follow which you've mentioned in the video. Algiers however would completely this time end the dual leadreship that existed from 1671-1710 and the diwan (Synonym to parliament) would elect a single ruling authority no matter his race as long as he's muslim and proves his worth working for the intrests of the nation (Rulers of Algerian decent were still elected). Also its unfair to say this states main income was piracy when they exported grain and coral to european nations. Mainly the republic of algiers and France who held close ties that went as far as Algiers supporting French revolution and lending them money and grain through the state-jew owned company during the blockade France faced in the Napoleonic wars. As those pirates were free lancers who had to pay taxes for the state to use their ports and trade and raid nations which are at war with one of the Barbary states.
Footnote: The portuguese that left Mazagão mentioned in 23:55 resettled in northern Brazil, then again a few kilometers to the north Edit: and they named the new colonies as Mazagão too (the first one is now Mazagão Velho - Old Mazagão - ignoring that the oldest city with this name is the moroccan one)
Irritating fundamentalists is a thing that happens whenever you have a good time and don't feel ashamed, you can't worry about that. As long as you also want other people to have a good time. If you want to ha e a good time but no one else is allowed to they'll you're basically a fundamentalist. They are the kids that throw a tantrum when you erase a whiteboard they aren't to be taken seriously and they definitely should not be around children because they hold children to the moral standards of adults and abuse them accordingly.
@@BiggestCorvidnobody cares what you do bro... u really creating a threat in your mind. You think terrorists want to kill u bc ur having fun? Mannn yall are stupid.
Btw "wahabbism" is an insult used by the Ottomans on the followers of Muhammad Ibin AbdulWahab, The Imam did not create a new sect nor did he call for something new. He only called for a revivalist salafist movement. Wahabbis (real wahabbis) are an Ibadi movement from Morrocco, the followers of AbdulWahab Ibin Rustum, not the followers of Muhammad Ibin AbdulWahab who is a Sunni Hanbali Salafi Revivalist.
wahabbi, back stabbing desert donkeys, whatever. Thanks to them isra*el and sa*di america exist. The sa*di's exploit the holy cities for money, buy weapons from am*rica and kill Yemeni muslims. am*rica gives that same money to isra*l which kills palestinians and sprays the Al Aqsa mosque with sewage water every ramadan. It's all worth it, as long as some coping 3r world donkey's can act as if 'they iz practising tha reeeel deeen"
Wahabists believe that God how they say "has a body, hands, sits on a throne and descends". Their beliefs contradict with the Muslim beliefs. Their beliefs are closer to the Jewish beliefs
This Imam of yours preached to follow the same creed as of the Jews, When no one before him preached that, other than Ibn taymiya. He Imagined some extra terrestial being sitting on a throne, dangling his feet over the skies and a somewhat emotionally unstable being that plots, laughs, gets angry, and smiles physically , as in a physical body doing all that i mentioned above. If that isn't shirk, I don't know what is Shirk ! And then pretending to be the only muslims he and his followers on the face of the earth and ruling as mushrik to everyone who doesnt followi him. Offcourse you as a sunni Otoman soldier, you're gonna insult who preaches that and tries to rule over Makkah and medina, then coincided with the English (Who created Israel not long after establishing the alliance with AL Saud) to rebel against a 600 years old islamic empire.
1:23 This is false sodomy was forbidden by ottoman law even in 1840 even though ''being homosexual'' was legalised it was still forbidden to engage in sodomy
Things can be illegal but accepted. Just like how people may sing about smoking weed, buy bongs etc. Even leaders may dabble in it every now and then. You should check out reports of Turkish bathhouses, recruitment in the Janissaries, the numerous poems and, see a lot of the erotic art made. It was pretty accepted.
@@JabzyJoe Homosexuality was never as widespread or socially acceptable as smoking cannabis; not even nearly. Women also frequented bathhouses, and the homosexual facet was trumped up by contemporary homosexuals (looking for historic legitimacy, as though they needed it). Homosexuality is estimated to be between 1% and 3% of men worldwide (in that range for nearly every culture). So, the idea that these bathhouses primarily were for homosexual men is not just unlikely, but impossible
The point is that vast majority of the ottoman society neither the law saw homosrxuality as normal nor were accepting of it indeed there are evidence that there was a homosexual subculture in the ottoman empire and were indeed few poets who endorsed homosexuality but they were not common and were heavily shunned by the average folk, think of it like pedophilia being illegal and heavily shunned by people in united states while there is indeed a very populous pedophilic subculture in the USA the average person in the usa dislikes them same is true with homosexuality@@JabzyJoe
@@JabzyJoe Just as the other person said the ''bathouses'' in turkey especially during ottoman times were not for homosexuality lol back then there were no common water system to house by house so they used bathspaces to clean themselves and keep in mind that they still wore underwear when bathing
@@reconscout2238I don't claim they all were. But there were some for homosexuals - just like there are today (Firuzağa Bath). "the homosexual facet was trumped up by contemporary homosexuals".... "keep in mind that they still wore underwear when bathing"... you checked out any of the Gay Ottoman poems and artwork? Or reports of Janissaries looking for the attractive boys. These aren't contemporary sources. Seems like you're trying to cope with this element of Ottoman history you don't particularly like.
You say alwahab, which is incorrect. His name was Mohammed ibn abdulwahab altamimi. And there was no packet between Mohammed ibn saud and ibn abdulwahab, he only allowed him to preach his teachings and he prevented ibn abdulwahab to exit diryiah
My god.. watching your videos i have really come to appreciate what a mess the middle east really is/was... My god.. how you can keep track of all this is incredible!
As a Muslim born and raised in America I’ve always looked as Muslims not from here as different until I went and traveled through the Middle East from Palestine to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and my views changed as i met some of the nicest people I’ve ever met plus I felt safer there than I ever did here which is odd since I was actually sort of scared to go travel moral of the story don’t belive anything you see on the media and form opinions on things by experiences and not from hearsay
Why would a Muslim in a Muslim country have something to fear? A white Christian or Jew is different. You're a very small minority in the US where Islamic terrorists killed people when most people probably never even thought about them before 9/11. So yea, common sense should tell you that you fit in with the Muslim majority countries.
Unfortunately some don't have to travel anywhere and can find them in most European major cities. Lovely people, for some reason Sweden went from the safest country in Europe to the gRape capital of Europe. Super safe people, maybe in their home countries.
May Allah's curse be upon this terrorist of Najd who only brought ruins for the Muslims May Allah bless Sultan Mahmud İİ (Rahimahullah) and Mehmet Paşa for their efforts against this terrorist entity. They were İSİS 0.1 slayers
I think that extremism has always, since the very start, been a great part of the religion. Many practitioners maybe peaceful and loving in their demeanor, the officials writings can only lead towards extremism.
I don't know everything about wahabi that's if it's even a real thing but i do know that going back to the source material is best, so salafism is great in theory but those who form groups that give it a bad rep is the problem, you don't have to be extreme if you wanna be authentic
I thikl you forget when a Shia Ismailiyah remnants attack Dari'iyyah with the Former ruler of Riyadh Daham ibn Dawaas, you also missed some detail like battle between Dar'iyyah and Uyaynah under al Muammar or Al Ma'mar family, the ones who expelled Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab because of Bani Khalid Pressure and Sulaiman bin Abdul Wahab, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's older brother
Biased (unknowingly perhaps): ibn Abdul wahab preached against the scammers who ran shrines in Arabia and ‘for a fee’ would ‘guide’ visitors to a way out of their problems. Couples unable to conceive, people with business and debt problems, diseases, etc - it was the standard scam: come the shrine pay money and the ‘dead saint’ buried here (died 200 years ago) will ‘help give your prayers a boost!’. The other tribal clan leaders who would sometimes get a cut from these ‘fees’ or a least saw the economy in their area boosted by ‘shrine pilgrims’ didn’t like the preaching obviously and so pushed for his imprisonment or expulsion. There is no doubt whatsoever that these were UN-Islamic practices as the Quran commands people to ask God and God alone for their supplications and the practice of asking dead saints came about centuries later as muslims conquered Egypt, Iran, Turkey etc and ideas of these types slowly got imported with a ‘local flavour’. When ibn saud gave him refuge the surrounding clans besieged diriyah and threatened all out war. So it wasn’t ibn saud or ibn wahhab who were looking for an armed conflict , rather the other tribes who were ‘pro calling out to dead human saints’ (something medieval Christianity was more than familiar with!) thought it would be simple to beat the Al saud clan and ibn Abdul wahab. Interestingly Sufis, Shiites, also preferred the ‘call out to dead men’ system as both Sufis and Shiites had shrines in their day-to-day rituals. But once the sword was unseathed the saud clan surprisingly won victory after victory not least because many ordinary Arabian were also questioning the whole bizzare, scheme of ‘pay money to shrine manager and then a dead ‘saint’ from under his grave will give your prayers a boost!’ . Regarding the ottomans they had by the mid-1700s degenrated - example ottoman sultans would not marry but rather stick to the harems as they saw offspring from marriage kill easchother for succession etc! So ibn Abdul wahhab said all this type of ‘European monarchy machinations’ happening in Istanbul amd going against the important core social fabric of marriage in Islam made the ottomans unfit to rule. Anyway you get the picture: the pro-sufi and pro-shia shrine lovers wanted a military conflict as they miscalculate. After initial stunning victories both ibn saud and ibn A.H realized that these guys just tried to kill them all so the miltary campaigns must niw continue till the scourge of non-Islamic practices (and financial exploitation) is gone from Arabia.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 thnx. There’s other huge misconceptions as well regarding what was happening in Arabia from 1740s to 1840s. But obviously can’t put it all here in UA-cam comments section. But it took on international dimensions as well 70 years later when the British were determined to get South Asia firmly under their control. . The British, seeing the ibn Abdul wahab’ s ‘reformist’ (as they saw it as in ‘the reformation’ from European history) ideas were here to stay in Arabia even when power changed hands locally, became fearful of such ideas spreading to Islamic Mughal-ruled South Asia in the 1830s - the British were highly efficient and organized in running their imperial ambitions and feared that the staunch anti-colonial and political activism will be a major hindrance to rule sustainably over South Asia - you see Muslims in the thousands every year from South Asia would go to pilgrimage to Mecca and madinah and were mesmerized by the dramatic changes taking place in Arabia. That’s why even decades later from 1860s to 1930s the British actively promoted ‘sects’ within South Asia as a counter weight to ‘wahab ism’ as they called it. More later if I get the chance, but in reality the British brains were in overdrive mode from 1700s to 1919 as they somehow got most things right globally in th context of what would serve their interests and empire - out staging the Spanish , continental Europe and esp suddenly out staging the French as well and getting more colonial poesssions in a shirt space o time even though France had like a 100-year hard start in colonization. Anyway more later…..
How fitting given the situation unfolding now Edit: for clarity, Hamas invaded Israel and civilian massacres are circulating the internet, so be careful what you watch.
let's forget the fact that Israel literally is doing much worse long before Hamas existed, why do you always ignore the suffering when it's Muslims but weeps for literally everybody else?
@@verysmartultrahuman939 Here's the thing. İsraelis killing civilians does not justify Hamas machine gunning people hiding in shelters or killing families trying to escape in cars. Both are bad. Right now, as we speak, civilians are being massacred and kidnapped into Gaza. Hamas is just as guilty of war crimes as Israel is.
@@eugeneng7064 the "both are bad" is bullshit, Israel does machine gun people in shelters and inside their homes, literally inside their homes, Hamas went after the military bases/camps and captured soldiers in the surrounding area and chased out most settlers, the war crimes of Israel started in 1948 when they ethnically cleansed almost 1 million Palestinians outta their lands to established and ethno-state. You refuse on purpose to see what is happening in order to not feel guilty for the fact that your country blindly backs and insanely vile regime in that region. Apparently justice is a word that is absent from your vocabulary
@@eugeneng7064 i refuse to believe that hamas, a ragtag prison gang-adjacent organization, can orchestrate this highly organized and rehearsed attack on Israel just as israel's far right political party is facing some internal unrest. There seems to be more to the story than meets the eye. Hamas didn't do this upon Shireen's assassination even though that was way more of an atrocity than the routine Israeli persecutions
I generally thought about this aspect. Despite not being an occupation form, the Ottoman Empire's successes in destroying the Salafi movement, at least for a while, and their partial colonisation there in the Arabian peninsula (save for Oman) did curtail the Salafis and isolated their realm.
Part 1 - The divides in the Region Part 2 - Gunpowder Empires Part 3 - Arabia and North Africa Part 4 - Numerous wars and Rebellion In Egypt, Syria etc. That's sort of the introduction to get to 1800 and move on in time ha.... Maybe I wrote too much.
@@JabzyJoe Well, don't let me or anyone else stop you if people are still watching them- these 30~50m segments are indeed far more easily consumed than something like say the 3.5 hour long China video that directly preceded these. I also assume it garners a wider view base and count when segmented like this, instead of just 1 gigantic video. Anyways, great content keep up the good work.
17:50 The notion that you present here that states ''before wahhabism face veiling was not seen as a religious requirement by muslims outside arabian peninsula and quran did not order face covering'' is also false, in quran 33:59 its mandated that women shall wear a garment called ''jilbab'' which covers face and rest of the body.
Except its demonstrable in every Muslim country in the world, in every period of history, that full coverings were rare. You can google images created by the Ummayyads and Abbasids and Seljuks and Ottomans and Mamluks and Moghuls and so on and so on, and suddenly the supposed ancient unchanging rules of dress and never drawing humans is immediately exposed as bunk
@@RynewulfBukhaari (2105) and Muslim (2107), both sources outdate at least the Abbasids, not to mention that even if someone broke a rule, that doesn't mean that rule wasn't in place.
@@umidazimi3706 1920s Afghanistan doesnt trump 1000 years of history. The modern fundamentalist movement in Islam started in the 1800s, before then head coverings werent universal and still arent. I mean you look at Malaysia, Indonesia, Mali, Somalia and other countries that have been Muslim for centuries are still un turbaned and without common hijabs and birqas. They arent inherent to Islam, theyre a specific Arab practice that modern fundamentalists attached to. Theyre the Muslim equivalent of the US Baptists that claim to perfectly recreate original Christianity
@@Rynewulf The images that depict women in abbasid seljuk ottoman eras were inside harem where women dressed freely but on the street the women wore burqa or niqab
I would argue islamic extemism rooted from wertern colonilisation/imperialism and oppression on muslim. Indonesia was far from wahabi influences, but islamic extemism was wild during our independence gaining process back then. and whomever european colonizer called as terrorists, are now called national heroes. the thing is, fighting for your freedom, identity, culture, land, pride etc was rather a foreign concept by indonesian. people were so discouraged to fight due to realisation of our shortcomings, european was so superior so why bother fight while obeying and befriending them gave tenfold adavantages then fighting? but when religious authorities declared "european are infidels and you're commanded by God to fight them, cowards will be punished severely in hell", you've given peasant a warrior spirit.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب what history that I didn't know? Indonesian history is clear that there were countless resistant movements which led by what european called zealots. and they were not influenced by events or movements from middle east. Pangeran diponegoro, imam bonjol, teuku umar etc were zealots. My point is the root of islamic extremism can't be blamed on one particular islamic movement or sect. sunni, shia, salafi, sufi, etc if you oppressed them enough you you will get terrorist among each one of them.
@@cikicikibumbum259 Your words are true, but this Wahhab was from the Al Saud tribe, and these people were trying to restore power to the Arabian Peninsula, and they were going to succeed, but the Ottomans told the ruler of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, to deal with them.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب it's interesting now that salafist clerics/scholars, particularly the madinah graduates are the least radical in my country. they unequivocally pledge allegiance to the ruler, despite stigma they carry and are exiled by power circle, yet they are politically agnostic. on the other hands, the traditionalists which collude with the ruler are very sensitive with political climate. when asked about current saudi liberal policies, they only defend saud for it's excellent role as the custodian of two holly Mosques. when asked about jihad for palestine, their answers only under government commands. so my point stand still. the root of radicalism is oppression, without it even wahabi/salafi become the next chill old wise men.
@@cikicikibumbum259 No, the matter has nothing to do with religion, my brother, but rather with politics, and Al-Wahhab saw that the Ottomans had become very, very weak and he wanted expansion.
Fantastic level of detail, but by the end of the video it was hard to follow exactly what the changes in North Africa had to do with the rise of extremism.
Wahhabis in Central Arabia that ended the first Sa'udi-Wahhabi state in 1818. In his historical recollection of the destruction of Deriyya, the first capital of the Wahhabis, al-Fahd reminds his audience of the atrocities committed against Wahhabi muwahidun (monotheists). In this destruction, al-Fahd argues, the Ottomans sought the help of the Christian infidels, more particularly Napoleon. In their exchanges they discussed the Wahhabi movement and what should be done to eliminate it. According to al-Fahd correspondence between the Ottoman Sultan and Napoleon indicates that the former resorted to help from infi dels against true Muslims, an act that is not permissible and cannot be justi fied. Al-Fahd lists violent acts committed by Ottoman soldiers against Wahhabis whose cars were cut and sent to Istanbul. Soldiers were given special rewards for killing Wahhabis. Women and children were taken as sabaya, women war booty, then sold as slaves. When Wahhabi imams were captured in 1818, they were carried to Istanbul where their heads were cut off and thrown in the sea. Special prayers were held at the time to thank God. This, says al-Fahd, is not a caliphate, it is dawlat al-kufr al-turkiyya, a blasphemous Turkish state. Wahhabis, therefore, did not rebel against an Islamic authority because the Ottoman caliphate was dar al-harb, the land of war, where the rebellion of the Wahhabis was justified. If the caliphate committed atrocities, sought help from infidels, and spread blasphemy, then fighting it was not simply justified but required from the true believer, according to al-Fahd.
I hate this so much and everyone knows this and yet these countries are never held accountable everyone knows Qatar has long sponsored terrorists yet they are free 😢😢
The Turkish Empire was truly the most tolerant state of its time. All non-Turkish communities were completely free to continue their own beliefs and speak their own languages. No taxes were collected from the Arabian Peninsula, which was home to holy cities such as Mecca and Medina, and all Arabs were exempted from military service. Large treasuries were sent to the holy cities from the central budget, and this money was spent on the maintenance of the cities and meeting the needs of the pilgrims. Inns were established for Jewish, Christian and Muslim pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage to stay free of charge. Free meals were constantly distributed in soup kitchens opened separately for pilgrims of all Abrahamic religions. The safety of all pilgrims was ensured, and believers of the three great religions were allowed to perform their pilgrimage. ALL THE MONEY FOR THIS WAS SENT FROM ISTANBUL! AS FOR THE WAHHABIANS, NO ONE OTHER THAN GOD CAN DECIDE THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS OF PEOPLE'S BELIEF! THAT'S WHY HE CANNOT PUNISH ANYONE! MAKING DECISIONS INSTEAD OF GOD AND KILLING SOME PEOPLE FOR THIS REASON IS, ACCORDING TO ISLAM, PUTTING YOURSELF IN GOD'S PLACE, IN OTHER WORDS, PLAYING GOD! THE TURKISH ISLAMIC BELIEF IS COMPLETELY BASED ON TOLERANCE AND A LIBERAL UNDERSTANDING. YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE GOOD MUSLIMS BY PROHIBITING EVERYTHING! MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO PERSON HAS A DIVINE DUTY TO "MAKE OTHER PEOPLE REAL MUSLIMS"! IN THE QURAN, GOD WARNS PEOPLE TO STAY AWAY FROM CERTAIN SINS. BUT HE ALSO WARNS THAT THOSE WHO COMMIT THESE SINS MAY BE PUNISHED BY HIM. GOD ALSO EXPRESSES HOW FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS HE IS IN MANY VERSE. GOD NEVER IN ANY OF HIS VERSE TELLS A PERSON TO FIND PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SIN AND PUNISH THEM IN HIS OWN PLACE! THIS IS AS GREATER A SIN AS OPENLY ASSOCIATING A PERSON WITH GOD'S ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY! KILLING PEOPLE AND SAYING THAT YOU DO IT IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE ESSENCE OF ISLAM! THIS IS THE GREATEST SIN POSSIBLE! THE TURKISH UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM IS ALSO TOO LIBERAL IN ITS PERSPECTIVE. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS THAT DEFINE TURKS IS THEIR TOLERANT APPROACH. WAHHIBITS ARE BASED ON KILLING AND DESTROYING EVERYTHING THEY THINK IS WRONG! IT IS EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THESE MANIAC THINKING THAT THE RELIGION OF ISLAM IS COMMONLY COMMON WITH TERRORISM TODAY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WILL NEVER SEE A TURKISH SUICIDE BOMBER. BUT ARABS ARE CONTINUOUSLY SHOWING ISLAM AS A RELIGION THAT COMMITS MASSACRES WITH THEIR ACTIONS OF TERROR. AGAIN, ARABS ARE DOING THE GREATEST EVIL TO THE RELIGION OF ISLAM BY STATEMENT THAT THEY COMMITTED ALL THEIR MURDER FOR ISLAM!
It's actually hilarious all the wahabists here saying "No, Wahabism doesn't exist. We're just returning to how Islam was in the times of the Prophet!" Do you know how many times Christians have heard the same story? How many heretical cults popped up, justifying their existence with "It's like it was in the time of Jesus!" while contradicting Jesus himself? Get out of here if you really think "true Islam" stopped with the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and only returned in the XVIII century.
Brother you have to realize that polytheism in islam is not the right way as shown in the Quran as it is shirk. There are other deviations that exist as well but as said in the quran, For you is my religion and for me is mine.
The black box is called kaaba meaning cube. The black stone inside kaaba is called Hajar Aswad , meaning black stone. Pagan would not name their Idols that simplistic. They would name their idol such as "Christ the redeemer",
@@benjaminknorr7084 zero damage to humanity? Who? Karl marx, whose terrible ideas have killed hundreds of millions of people... or Mohammed's, whose schizophrenia has done the same?
@benjaminknorr7084 if you don't know what you are talking about buddy, just don't talk. And if you don't think these men are responsible for the most deaths and misery in human history, I'm afraid you just don't know what you are talking about, so hush.
.. الدولة السعودية الأولى والثانية والثالثة كانت قادرة على إبادة كل الأقليات المخالفة لها آيديولوجيا.. مثل الموجودة بالقطيف والأحساء أو في نجران وجيزان أو في جدة والمدينة.. كل هذي الأقليات (باستثناء نجران) ما كانت تملك قوة العسكرية تنافس القوة الموجودة عند الدولة السعودية. هذا يعني إن إبادتهم عن بكرة أبيهم ما يتطلب مجهود عسكري أو تخطيط، والأسباب اللي تبرر إبادتهم موجودة، وهي إقامة الشرع حسب فهم محمد بن عبدالوهاب.. والمنفعة السياسية من إبادتهم أيضا موجودة وهي السيطرة المطلقة على ميناء العقير وعلى المناطق المطلة على الخليج اللي كان بوابتهم للعالم، بالإضافة إلى السيطرة على الحرمين وعلى ميناء جدة.. بكذا تكون اجتمعت عندك ثلاث نقاط: (المقدرة والتبرير والمنفعة)، لكن اللي منعك من هذا كله هو وازعك الأخلاقي اللي من الصعب جدا تجد له نظير لا بالتاريخ الحديث ولا بالتاريخ القديم.. لكن كلنا نعرف ان المسلمين في غالبهم من الاعاجم و مستعربين من احفاد الاعاجم عدائهم لنا كعرب وجودي لا علاقة له بالدين او التطرف او الكلام الفاضي ذا كله . اعداء قولا واحدا ونقطة اخر السطر .
when the ottoman empire could not expand any more. They were extremist from the start but mathematically no more Christian slaves, no more high taxes to them, no profit so the empire needed to be less cruel with them and more ''humane'' in relation with the past (still not so much tho) and of course they didn't like that, its fascinating to see how ottoman empire Carnivalized it self
I heard that before Islam women covered themselves up because there was a law where if you killed a man then the victim's family could demand that you give them your sister so the victim's brothers could force themselves onto her so a new life could be created. Obviously this law was terrible and that women often covered themselves up as a result. Some elements of Islam are too strict about women covering themselves, but it's origins where very reasonable.
No offense but I have never heard of this story as a muslim.. by the way the origin of hijab isn't from islam.. hijab was well known for women in the middle east since forever basically.. Islam just put some guidelines for what hijab should do. It should cover the entirety of a womans body without showing specific body parts explicitly and without looking despised by others... What I mean by despised is that it shouldn't be far away from what people consider acceptable for hijab. The purpose and philosophy of hijab is clear: to moderate and control any possible interactions between the two different sexes that could possibly lead to any sexual activity in between them in the future.. because that leads to a falling society that is filled with unnecessary sex which naturally hurts both males and females respectively.. The story of hijab is quite a long one and won't be able to tell it all in this comment. I hope you don't take this comment as criticism. I just wanted to clarfiy this topic more so it doesn't seem like we're mindless nomads like some westerners may think...
@@aramaicjew3212 I don't know about you but what I know is that men don't want hijab because they are obeying their animal like instincts. Which doesn't benefit neither side (men-women). Men become worse than animals because free sex brings nothing but problems. And women become objectified into sex toys.
This is may be irrelevant but, why would someone from the north east of England learn more about the history of the Middle East than pretty much anyone who lives there? I love it, but I'm curious.
I like your video but you did not give the saudi state justice, and you mentioned alot of misconceptions about the saudi state like they are some fringe pre isis group which is a gross misinterpretation of the history of the saudi state.
The ultimate perversion of the vision of the Prophet (blessed be his name), transforming the abode of islam into the abode of war, and turning the kufirs away forever. One can only hope the other two peoples of the book save themselves, or earth will become hell
He conquered mekka peacefully tho... Did you even know that before you made this silly comment? Lmaooooo, you could've chosen any other conquest but you literally chose the wrong one, when he entered mekka with a large army, he forgave his people for what they had done to him and his followers, may peace and blessings be upon him ❤️ 🌹
To get everything Brilliant has to offer and a 30 day free trial visit www.brilliant.org/jabzy. The first 200 people to sign up will get 20% off an Annual Subscription!
Cool video
Hi jabzy can you give your sources in the description? I'd like to read more thanks
So defending one’s land is now a threat? Another typical western hypocrite
It became a threat from the battle of Badr
Islam = Wahabism = Disease of ignorance = A group of Brainwashed people = Ignorant 😆
Allah hu Akbar Boom 💣💥😅
Im a korean christion so i have nothing to do with islam but every muslim person ive met were so nice and it seemed like they had confidence in the righteousness of their belief. Its just so unfortunate that extremism is hurting the identity and image of the religon and the innocent people who believe in it
Stay strong on your path
Most muslims are just normal people
The extremiss you hear off are either groups funded by foriegn organizations largely from Israeli/western or Russian influence
Or native uprisings against the incredibly Autocratic leaders that are also unfortunately backed by foriegn influences
Having righteousnes for one's belief will pretty much always make one eventually become more extreme in their identity.
The difference is the religion.
Do you think Christians should become "more Christlike" or "less Christlike" the more they truly believe in their Christian faith?
If you correctly say, "more Christlike" it will means Christians becoming more serious about the faith, more preaching and willing to die for the faith.
Well, the people you call Islamic extremists have the same thought process - they wish to more closely emulate the Islamic prophet.
And he was a conqueror of land, booty, women and a lawgiver.
What do you think his followers are going to be like, who wish to emulate him?
Nice cordial people, like the Muslims you have met?
Or people you accuse of tarnishing the image of a supposedly peaceful ideology?
@@savioblancyeah, Jesus and Muhammed are polar opposites.
@@MihanTheNoobboth literally hated paganism
Both almost died fighting against pagan countries
Both installed tough Discipline From long lasting abrahamic laws
Jesus went up to God but Muhammad actually won and ended up creating a Theocratic state
I’ve been watching your videos since your 3 minute history series. I truly love how far you’ve come and how this channel just keeps improving.
Me too. That was years ago
It’s amazing.
Folks this is the content we should go out of out way to support.
Thank you so much man!
I read "continent" and was shocked
You should highlight the individual locations (cities/towns) that you are describing as you speak about them. Hearing all of these unfamiliar locations becomes confusing. Other than that great video.
Jabzy's timing is impeccable.
This video has been timed to conclude that Palestinian resistance movement against the modern day Hitler Nazi Israel, is terrorism. However, you forgot to mention that the main resistance movement group Hamas, is actually Shia and don't have anything to do with Al-wahab. When will you Europeans acknowledge that Muslims taking up Arms is always after they have been invaded, colonized and persecuted by mostly America and Europe. NATO & America are the biggest terrorists and source of terrorism along with Israel, not Islam.
You can change 'Islamic' to 'Zionist' in the title and you'll have another cool video ;)
@@iaonyt Zionism and Wahabbism are the same
@@Fahim321yup, same devil in different faces
@@Fahim321 no they're not, only sunnis who follow Abdul Wahhab RH oppose israel
For the idiots who defends Wahhabism and other salafi movements: Calling themselves "true believers/Muslims" and accusing others as being infidels and claiming "real Islam" wasn't practiced since the time of the Prophet and Salaf al-Salihun is simply extreme stupidity, ignorance and kufr.
Noone said it wasnt practiced since the time of the salaf. It just was not domianant in arabia at the time
If u claim grave worshipping is what the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came with you would have lied against Allah's messnger and His perfected deen
@@Madmarkhorno one worships graves kid and if they do they are not ahlusunnah. Now if u mean those who do tawassul then the sahaba did it as well
Firstly, “Whahhabism” is a western term and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab didn’t name calling people back to Taweed such a term. Secondly, it’s clear your ignorant of the state of Jahiliyyah Najd was in during the 18th century, gravesites where worshiped to the point where people did pilgrimages to those graves, invoking the names of humans(Zaid Ibn Al-Khattab)to fulfill their needs was prevalent and women would visit date trees and invoked them to grant them husbands within a year. Finally, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab did not go against the way of the Salaf since he worked side by side with the First Saudi state and simply worked towards bringing the people out of the Jahiliyyah at those times. It seems the only people who have a problem with him are those who are liberals, deviant innovators or just outright ignorant.
Allah is a prop and not real. It's all just war and power and money. War war war war war war for power. Then you rob the nation for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Riddle me this Batman... why should the world support dictators who create war to get power then rob all the money? These are MEN. There IS NO ALLAH. Look at a 2024 map of Global Wars. 100% of the wars in the African/Middle East/Eurasia/Pacific regions are Muslims creating Colonizing wars for power and money. Colonizing Muslims killing everyone. Like it's the fucking Middle Ages. It's sick. Allah isn't fucking real. Magic isn't real. You have no magical immortal soul. Immortality ISN"T FUCKING REAL! YOU are not a fucking immortal when you die. If you are Muslim? You are an ant in an ant hill and used for free labor and as an ATM. Your children and you are slaves to MEN. Just
Tribalism and nomadism, just as they expanded in the Middle East also expanded in North Africa at the same time and without the Mongol invasion, the reason is most likely climate change in the so-called Little Ice Age that began in the 14th century AD and the drought it caused that prompted many to leave the sedentary life and return to nomadism. Nomadism made it difficult for the state to settle and extend its control over all the country , so the Little Ice Age also contributed to the spread of nomadism in the Middle East in addition to the Mongol invasion
The Wahhabi was very extremist, but this does not mean that all of its objections were wrong. The Sufism that dominated the Islamic world at that time spread many superstitions, sorcery, and polytheism but the extremism of the Wahhabis and their violence against the other muslims is what made many Muslims reject them from the time they appeared until today, even if some Wahhabi reformed their ideas and toned down their extremism , ad to that that now the largest part of Wahhabism has become a tool in the hands of the House of Saud, and their religious views have become consistent with what the House of Saud wants
Fair and true. I think it was an understandable reaction to what was being permitted, though long term it could also detrimental.
well , i don't smoke @Saputra_Works
I think you’re onto something.
We never toned down, and now nearly all Islamic intellectualism is Salafi, Sufism became something of the past and our only real Dawah is with the Secular/liberals
We also have more influence on Muslim diasporas in the west
@@keymot1491 Salafism has now divided into many currents, all of which were accepted by the Saudi authority, but now the Saudi authority no longer accepts any Salafism except the Madkhalism
In high school I had a government teacher tell me when I was doing a debate on if Islam is a violent religion, I was arguing that it is not. I brought up Wahhabism and he had the audacity to tell me that I was lying that Wahhabism was a made up word😂
You need to learn proper History before you go on debates.
The term "Wahabbism" was given to the Muslims in the First Saudi-Nejd and today it is used against any (Sunni) Muslim when they preach Islam and tell both Muslim and Non-Muslims to follow the Quran and Sunnah.The term Salafi/Wahhabi/Islamic Fundamentalsist us used against Muslims in order to fool people that they are deviants,(but they are actually not) so that people don't accept the Message of Islam and to trick other Muslims into thinking they are heretics to turn us against each other.
Read the RAND Report on how the Pentagon want to destroy Islam.
And the History goes something like this,at the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahabb(People call him MIAW).There were some people doing Kufr and Shirk.
Kufr means disbelief in Islam and Shirk means basically polytheism/paganism.
So,MIAW who was an advisor to the first Saudi Emir was trying to give Dawah and telling people to live according to the Quran and Sunnah.
One instance was the sack of Karbala and the killing of Rafidi Shias(And no,they are not Muslims)
So,the Ottoman Sultan at that time didn't like it and told the Egyptian Emir,who was of Albanian decent to attack MIAW,which he did.
So,by the end,a lot of misinformation have been spread about this part of History.And Non-Sunnis aka Deviant Heretics always use this word as a scapegoat to mock,insult and kill Muslims.
So,in conclusion "Wahabbism" doesn't actually exist and it's a trick used by Non-Muslims to call Muslims extremist for no reason and to justify violence of Non-Muslim Armies onto Muslims.
And no, Islam is not a Religion of violence,nor is it a Religion of Peace.If you look at the statistical facts Christians killed more than Muslims ever did.And if you look deeply, Christians killed more Christians than Muslims killed Christians,lol,current example is Russo-Ukrainian War.
Rather,Islam is the Religion of Allah(SWT), and it means submitteming to Allah(SWT) and worshipping Allah(SWT) alone and not associating any partners with him.Accepting all the Prophets from Adam(AS) to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
Living your Life according to the Quran and Sunnah.Performing Obligatory Tasks,and there is much more.
I hope you find this helpful.
May Allah(SWT) Guide you to the right path.
@@muslimstrategistgamer2849 man I’m sorry you wrote all of this it’s super good information that I know a little bit about and for clarification i was debating for the side that Islam is NOT a violent religion
@@isaakfrmla
Oh ok,maybe I read it from a different angle.But Anyway, I am always happy to clarify misconceptions about the History and help you in understanding it better.👍
@@muslimstrategistgamer2849
"So,in conclusion "Wahabbism" doesn't actually exist and it's a trick used by Non-Muslims to call Muslims extremist for no reason and to justify violence of Non-Muslim Armies onto Muslims."
😂
Okay that's enough propaganda for today.
@@isaakfrmla The Prophet beheaded hundreds of infidels. Today, his followers do the same thing all around the world. Good luck winning a debate that following his example is "Not a violent religion." Headhunting is inherently violent.
Al-Fahd's argument centres on proving that the Ottoman state was not a caliphate. The title of his pamphlet invokes the term al-dawla al-othmaniyya (Ottoman state). Later on al-Fahd uses al-dawla al-turkiyya (the Turkish state) in order to anchor the polity in a nationalistic framework, thus limit ing its authenticity among Muslims at least the Arabs among them. His main objection to the Ottoman/Turkish polity is its deliberate attempt to corrupt the creed of Muslims, thus turning them into mushrik, association ists who do not strictly adhere to the principle of tauhid (monotheism). In his assessment of the nature of this state, two important objections are raised: first, the state spread blasphemy; second, it fought monotheism.
The main manifestation of blasphemy is the spread of Sufism in the ter ritories of the Ottoman caliphate. Citing those who lament the fall of the Ottoman caliphate, for example the contemporary Egyptian thinker 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Shinawi, al-Fahd lists sources that confirm the spread of Sufism among Muslims. While Sufism was present in early Islamic caliphates, it was the Ottoman caliphate that made it the 'religion of the people', accord ing to al-Fahd. In his view the Sufi traditions that flourished among Mus lims under the rule of the Ottomans were closer to Shi'ism than to the Sunni tradition. Both Sufism and Shi'ism are denounced by Wahhabis. Al-Fahd argues that without Ottoman encouragement and financial sup port Sufism would not have penetrated Muslim societies as far as Albania, Central Asia, and the Arab world.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing this perspective.
Who cares. All Muslims worship Muhammad and kiss the black stone like good pagans
Every islamic terror organization is based on wahabism
Well no shit. The Ottoman state was a Sultanate, not a caliphate, and the Turkish Sultans were originally vassals of the Abbassid Caliph, even though the Caliph by the time of the Crusades was a puppet with no real power.
Although Ottomans were not perfect they kept the peace in middle east. It's a pity extremists opened a new front against already struggling empire only to make them get colonized and suffer to this day.
You should watch the next episode. The Ottomans had no power there, and there was constant war.
@@JabzyJoe it was peaceful considering the regions history and what happened after. Especially Levant.
@@socii1x0231hI don't know how you came to this conclusion... You ever looked into how many massacres and wars actually took place in the 18th and 19th Centuries?
@@JabzyJoe unlike Barbary states where local tribes didn't give a shit about Sultan on middle east ottomans was partly successfully on status quo between tribes thus securing somewhat safe region for trade and prosperity. They didn't send costly armies from Constantinople to massacre thousands unlike balkans. After Tanzimat reforms region became way more centralized and Ottomans really put a lot of resources to keep influence over middle east by building infrastructure replacing tribes with governors. There were always local problems but who else bringed as much safety as ottomans to the middle east.
@@socii1x0231hottomans kept no peace they were nationalists and bad in their later years
another superb video
weird how little details are known and how little written sources exist for certain parts of the Arab world throughout the early modern period
I can imagine the historians and scribes asking as heads rolled "who was he? What did he do?" and writing it all down meticulously.
@@FrancisFjordCupola- the lack of sources may mean historians and scribes had their own heads rolled.
Wahab destroying religious artifacts (martyr history) is kinda fishy
no it wasnt
@@maybesokahow?
Hey Jabzy, great fan of your videos, especially on China. Could you add your sources in the descriptions for further reading for history enthusiasts like me? Keep up the good work. Bless you.
I think it will be more devastating once majority of middle east citizens starts to question everything and study history from different perspectives. but people not liking change alone prevents it. none of the system we're born in are perfect , in fact corruption runs from the bottom to top anywhere you go. that reason alone should be the fuel for us to work together.
'Al-Wahhab' - name of God
"Ibn Abdilwahhab" - Son of the Worshipper of al-Wahhab (God)
My Mistake.
Wasn’t 'Allah' God in Arabic?
@rolloxra670
Allah has 99 names, al wahhab is one of them
@@rolloxra670you can Google 99 names of Allah and you'll see Al Wahhab is one of them
@@rolloxra670He has 99 names
You need better maps. It’s so complicated subject matter that it would really help if the places you mention were more clearly marked or highlighted on the map. It’s fascinating stuff btw
Really interesting video.
8:27 Thank God for the Anglo-Zanzibar war that broke the slavers and led to many African slaves being freed. The British don't get nearly enough credit for this and many more acrions against Arab slavers.
Its true they dont get credit but their colonial project was pretty much the same shit. The brits were insanly cruel as well. The mai-mai rebellion proved thY
lmoa they did that to so the arabs do not profit from it while the brits enslaved the carribeans even after abloshing it gtfo with the british credit shit out of here
1:15 I think it is Enderunlu Fazıl/Fazil. Enderun was a school in Ottoman Empire. Just wanted to fix the typo. Loving your work.
27:40 it's kinda shocking when you hear you great great grandfather's name in a video accidentally 😅😅
I love Jabzy. With respect and admiration from Kerala, India!
No one asked where you're from
Nice India
Can u please do a history of Al-Andalus, from the Muslim conquest to the fall of Granada.
The kingdom of Algiers situation was special as it became a sultanate before joining the Ottomans as a nominal vessel recognizing their Caliphate status in exchange for aid in their wars againat the Spanish,Saadis and Hafsids. Which was the reason they were given the title of Byler baylek "kingdom of kingdoms" and were given authority to appoint governors in Tunis and Tripoli for being the one to conquer them into Ottoman states. However Algiers after facing unrest and instability in the early 17th century due to Ottoman interference in politics was appointed with agahs whic Algerians weren't happy with as they looked for Ottoman interest rather than that of Algerians which caused Algerians to rebel and establish the Republic of Algiers in 1671 with the Sultans given the title "Dey" meaning uncle of Algerians (A title still used today for algerian presidents though in Arabic) this newly regime would go to war with Europeans and force many to pay tribute for passage in the Mediterranean sea against Ottoman interests which also remarks their independence from the Ottomans and ties kept to military support between the two sides in wars.After this, the republic would go to secure its borders with Morocco and force all its neighbors to submit and pay tribute as well (With tunis becoming a vessel of Algiers instead of the Ottomans) as Algiers viewed it as its right to subjugate its neighbors for it was for her who conquered them the first time and lost its influence due to Ottoman meddling in politics. In the other hand. Tunis viewed itself as equals to Algiers in authority and shouldn't be subjugated which led them to ally with Morocco (Who faced defeat prior and had ambitions in Algerian territory) and Attack Algeria from two fronts starting the Maghrebi war with tripoli joining on behalf of the ottomans in an attempt to supdue the revolting republic of Algiers. This war although ended with the defeat of the alliance and military victory of Algiers by defending itself, it had caused unrest in the region with revolts occuring in the 4 states for the years that follow which you've mentioned in the video. Algiers however would completely this time end the dual leadreship that existed from 1671-1710 and the diwan (Synonym to parliament) would elect a single ruling authority no matter his race as long as he's muslim and proves his worth working for the intrests of the nation (Rulers of Algerian decent were still elected). Also its unfair to say this states main income was piracy when they exported grain and coral to european nations. Mainly the republic of algiers and France who held close ties that went as far as Algiers supporting French revolution and lending them money and grain through the state-jew owned company during the blockade France faced in the Napoleonic wars. As those pirates were free lancers who had to pay taxes for the state to use their ports and trade and raid nations which are at war with one of the Barbary states.
Footnote: The portuguese that left Mazagão mentioned in 23:55 resettled in northern Brazil, then again a few kilometers to the north
Edit: and they named the new colonies as Mazagão too (the first one is now Mazagão Velho - Old Mazagão - ignoring that the oldest city with this name is the moroccan one)
This was a good video... so much overlooked details
Great work as always! Might catch alot of heat from salafis but it's worth it. Another great resource for this is The Kingdom by Robert Lacey
If you want to piss off a Salafi just then why haven't they blown up the pyramids yet
Irritating fundamentalists is a thing that happens whenever you have a good time and don't feel ashamed, you can't worry about that. As long as you also want other people to have a good time. If you want to ha e a good time but no one else is allowed to they'll you're basically a fundamentalist. They are the kids that throw a tantrum when you erase a whiteboard they aren't to be taken seriously and they definitely should not be around children because they hold children to the moral standards of adults and abuse them accordingly.
@@BiggestCorvidnobody cares what you do bro... u really creating a threat in your mind. You think terrorists want to kill u bc ur having fun? Mannn yall are stupid.
Glad to see your video gets better and better ever since I first saw you a few years ago lol
It was always a threat to other cultures. A quick glance at its history will tell you so.
Btw "wahabbism" is an insult used by the Ottomans on the followers of Muhammad Ibin AbdulWahab, The Imam did not create a new sect nor did he call for something new. He only called for a revivalist salafist movement. Wahabbis (real wahabbis) are an Ibadi movement from Morrocco, the followers of AbdulWahab Ibin Rustum, not the followers of Muhammad Ibin AbdulWahab who is a Sunni Hanbali Salafi Revivalist.
Very interesting. Thank you.
wahabbi, back stabbing desert donkeys, whatever.
Thanks to them isra*el and sa*di america exist. The sa*di's exploit the holy cities for money, buy weapons from am*rica and kill Yemeni muslims. am*rica gives that same money to isra*l which kills palestinians and sprays the Al Aqsa mosque with sewage water every ramadan.
It's all worth it, as long as some coping 3r world donkey's can act as if 'they iz practising tha reeeel deeen"
Wahabists believe that God how they say "has a body, hands, sits on a throne and descends". Their beliefs contradict with the Muslim beliefs. Their beliefs are closer to the Jewish beliefs
This Imam of yours preached to follow the same creed as of the Jews, When no one before him preached that, other than Ibn taymiya. He Imagined some extra terrestial being sitting on a throne, dangling his feet over the skies and a somewhat emotionally unstable being that plots, laughs, gets angry, and smiles physically , as in a physical body doing all that i mentioned above. If that isn't shirk, I don't know what is Shirk ! And then pretending to be the only muslims he and his followers on the face of the earth and ruling as mushrik to everyone who doesnt followi him. Offcourse you as a sunni Otoman soldier, you're gonna insult who preaches that and tries to rule over Makkah and medina, then coincided with the English (Who created Israel not long after establishing the alliance with AL Saud) to rebel against a 600 years old islamic empire.
@@Smokingpotato288it is not shirk, as that is just about having partners
It is kufr though
1:23 This is false sodomy was forbidden by ottoman law even in 1840 even though ''being homosexual'' was legalised it was still forbidden to engage in sodomy
Things can be illegal but accepted. Just like how people may sing about smoking weed, buy bongs etc. Even leaders may dabble in it every now and then.
You should check out reports of Turkish bathhouses, recruitment in the Janissaries, the numerous poems and, see a lot of the erotic art made. It was pretty accepted.
@@JabzyJoe Homosexuality was never as widespread or socially acceptable as smoking cannabis; not even nearly. Women also frequented bathhouses, and the homosexual facet was trumped up by contemporary homosexuals (looking for historic legitimacy, as though they needed it). Homosexuality is estimated to be between 1% and 3% of men worldwide (in that range for nearly every culture). So, the idea that these bathhouses primarily were for homosexual men is not just unlikely, but impossible
The point is that vast majority of the ottoman society neither the law saw homosrxuality as normal nor were accepting of it indeed there are evidence that there was a homosexual subculture in the ottoman empire and were indeed few poets who endorsed homosexuality but they were not common and were heavily shunned by the average folk, think of it like pedophilia being illegal and heavily shunned by people in united states while there is indeed a very populous pedophilic subculture in the USA the average person in the usa dislikes them same is true with homosexuality@@JabzyJoe
@@JabzyJoe Just as the other person said the ''bathouses'' in turkey especially during ottoman times were not for homosexuality lol back then there were no common water system to house by house so they used bathspaces to clean themselves and keep in mind that they still wore underwear when bathing
@@reconscout2238I don't claim they all were. But there were some for homosexuals - just like there are today (Firuzağa Bath).
"the homosexual facet was trumped up by contemporary homosexuals".... "keep in mind that they still wore underwear when bathing"... you checked out any of the Gay Ottoman poems and artwork? Or reports of Janissaries looking for the attractive boys. These aren't contemporary sources.
Seems like you're trying to cope with this element of Ottoman history you don't particularly like.
Can you share your sources? I want to read more on the subject
Jabzy did a really good job in the research part 🗿
You say alwahab, which is incorrect. His name was Mohammed ibn abdulwahab altamimi. And there was no packet between Mohammed ibn saud and ibn abdulwahab, he only allowed him to preach his teachings and he prevented ibn abdulwahab to exit diryiah
False , Not what the history says
@@Thecrazymcr History cannot speak bro
@@thetoastnbutterpodcast64 Ermmm history doesn't speak bro ☝🏼🤓🤓 stfu nerd
@ ermmm History cannot speak bro 🤓☝🏼
After 5 minutes I said hold up, after 9 minutes I had no idea what to even think about, great narration though
My god.. watching your videos i have really come to appreciate what a mess the middle east really is/was... My god.. how you can keep track of all this is incredible!
Even enemies of prophet like abu jahil and uthba worshiped Allah. This clearly shows Islam is not about worshipping Allah alone.
As a Muslim born and raised in America I’ve always looked as Muslims not from here as different until I went and traveled through the Middle East from Palestine to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and my views changed as i met some of the nicest people I’ve ever met plus I felt safer there than I ever did here which is odd since I was actually sort of scared to go travel moral of the story don’t belive anything you see on the media and form opinions on things by experiences and not from hearsay
Why would a Muslim in a Muslim country have something to fear? A white Christian or Jew is different. You're a very small minority in the US where Islamic terrorists killed people when most people probably never even thought about them before 9/11. So yea, common sense should tell you that you fit in with the Muslim majority countries.
Unfortunately some don't have to travel anywhere and can find them in most European major cities. Lovely people, for some reason Sweden went from the safest country in Europe to the gRape capital of Europe. Super safe people, maybe in their home countries.
Safe in tourists zones, which is 1% of the population
came here after the gunpowder empires videos, it's criminal how much this part of middle eastern history is sidelined in the west
May Allah's curse be upon this terrorist of Najd who only brought ruins for the Muslims
May Allah bless Sultan Mahmud İİ (Rahimahullah) and Mehmet Paşa for their efforts against this terrorist entity.
They were İSİS 0.1 slayers
The messenger of god, peace be upon him, once talked about a"Horn of Devil" who'd be come from that region. Pretty sure he was referring to this guy.
Interesting information
I think that extremism has always, since the very start, been a great part of the religion. Many practitioners maybe peaceful and loving in their demeanor, the officials writings can only lead towards extremism.
I think the whole third world can testify that liberalism is by the most brutal ideology
their prophet was a vicious conqueror, not a martyr, of course its more violent and extremist than other religions.
@@GlizzyGoblin757Berber remains Berber and does not change
@@GlizzyGoblin757shut up. Read the Quran if you really want to know about our prophet.
@@عليياسر-ذ5بhuh weren't the crusades(Christians) barbaric. They killed Jews and Muslims for no reason and didn't let them go to Jerusalem?
24:14 America casually showing up in the most unexpected time and place 😂
Well the timing on this one was pretty excellent, or poor depending on your view
Love your videos, can you give book recommendation on the subject of history.
The Wahhabis have become kind of a catch-all for hardline traditionalism. Proper Salafis were executing Daesh in the 2010s
Salafis are just as extreme though. Just verbally aggresive unlike wahhabis
That man was one of the worst things that couldve happened to Arabia and Ummah.
As an Arab, no it wasn't.
5:18 Take a shot everytime Iran looses a war to small neighbours
Fitting video for what’s happening
I don't know everything about wahabi that's if it's even a real thing but i do know that going back to the source material is best, so salafism is great in theory but those who form groups that give it a bad rep is the problem, you don't have to be extreme if you wanna be authentic
the miscut duplicated audio makes me think I’m going crazy
Where was it?
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
I thikl you forget when a Shia Ismailiyah remnants attack Dari'iyyah with the Former ruler of Riyadh Daham ibn Dawaas, you also missed some detail like battle between Dar'iyyah and Uyaynah under al Muammar or Al Ma'mar family, the ones who expelled Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab because of Bani Khalid Pressure and Sulaiman bin Abdul Wahab, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's older brother
Biased (unknowingly perhaps): ibn Abdul wahab preached against the scammers who ran shrines in Arabia and ‘for a fee’ would ‘guide’ visitors to a way out of their problems. Couples unable to conceive, people with business and debt problems, diseases, etc - it was the standard scam: come the shrine pay money and the ‘dead saint’ buried here (died 200 years ago) will ‘help give your prayers a boost!’. The other tribal clan leaders who would sometimes get a cut from these ‘fees’ or a least saw the economy in their area boosted by ‘shrine pilgrims’ didn’t like the preaching obviously and so pushed for his imprisonment or expulsion. There is no doubt whatsoever that these were UN-Islamic practices as the Quran commands people to ask God and God alone for their supplications and the practice of asking dead saints came about centuries later as muslims conquered Egypt, Iran, Turkey etc and ideas of these types slowly got imported with a ‘local flavour’. When ibn saud gave him refuge the surrounding clans besieged diriyah and threatened all out war. So it wasn’t ibn saud or ibn wahhab who were looking for an armed conflict , rather the other tribes who were ‘pro calling out to dead human saints’ (something medieval Christianity was more than familiar with!) thought it would be simple to beat the Al saud clan and ibn Abdul wahab. Interestingly Sufis, Shiites, also preferred the ‘call out to dead men’ system as both Sufis and Shiites had shrines in their day-to-day rituals. But once the sword was unseathed the saud clan surprisingly won victory after victory not least because many ordinary Arabian were also questioning the whole bizzare, scheme of ‘pay money to shrine manager and then a dead ‘saint’ from under his grave will give your prayers a boost!’ . Regarding the ottomans they had by the mid-1700s degenrated - example ottoman sultans would not marry but rather stick to the harems as they saw offspring from marriage kill easchother for succession etc! So ibn Abdul wahhab said all this type of ‘European monarchy machinations’ happening in Istanbul amd going against the important core social fabric of marriage in Islam made the ottomans unfit to rule. Anyway you get the picture: the pro-sufi and pro-shia shrine lovers wanted a military conflict as they miscalculate. After initial stunning victories both ibn saud and ibn A.H realized that these guys just tried to kill them all so the miltary campaigns must niw continue till the scourge of non-Islamic practices (and financial exploitation) is gone from Arabia.
Extremist conservative movements always couch their policies as a “return to a purer time.”
Interesting.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 thnx. There’s other huge misconceptions as well regarding what was happening in Arabia from 1740s to 1840s. But obviously can’t put it all here in UA-cam comments section. But it took on international dimensions as well 70 years later when the British were determined to get South Asia firmly under their control. . The British, seeing the ibn Abdul wahab’ s ‘reformist’ (as they saw it as in ‘the reformation’ from European history) ideas were here to stay in Arabia even when power changed hands locally, became fearful of such ideas spreading to Islamic Mughal-ruled South Asia in the 1830s - the British were highly efficient and organized in running their imperial ambitions and feared that the staunch anti-colonial and political activism will be a major hindrance to rule sustainably over South Asia - you see Muslims in the thousands every year from South Asia would go to pilgrimage to Mecca and madinah and were mesmerized by the dramatic changes taking place in Arabia. That’s why even decades later from 1860s to 1930s the British actively promoted ‘sects’ within South Asia as a counter weight to ‘wahab ism’ as they called it. More later if I get the chance, but in reality the British brains were in overdrive mode from 1700s to 1919 as they somehow got most things right globally in th context of what would serve their interests and empire - out staging the Spanish , continental Europe and esp suddenly out staging the French as well and getting more colonial poesssions in a shirt space o time even though France had like a 100-year hard start in colonization. Anyway more later…..
It's biased because islam extremism started with the pedo mass murderer Muhammad
Exactly. Thank you very much.
when u are doing the "When did the american extremism become a threat?" video?
How fitting given the situation unfolding now
Edit: for clarity, Hamas invaded Israel and civilian massacres are circulating the internet, so be careful what you watch.
let's forget the fact that Israel literally is doing much worse long before Hamas existed, why do you always ignore the suffering when it's Muslims but weeps for literally everybody else?
@@verysmartultrahuman939 Here's the thing. İsraelis killing civilians does not justify Hamas machine gunning people hiding in shelters or killing families trying to escape in cars. Both are bad. Right now, as we speak, civilians are being massacred and kidnapped into Gaza. Hamas is just as guilty of war crimes as Israel is.
@@eugeneng7064 the "both are bad" is bullshit, Israel does machine gun people in shelters and inside their homes, literally inside their homes, Hamas went after the military bases/camps and captured soldiers in the surrounding area and chased out most settlers, the war crimes of Israel started in 1948 when they ethnically cleansed almost 1 million Palestinians outta their lands to established and ethno-state. You refuse on purpose to see what is happening in order to not feel guilty for the fact that your country blindly backs and insanely vile regime in that region. Apparently justice is a word that is absent from your vocabulary
The Arab Israeli conflict is about more than just religion.
@@eugeneng7064 i refuse to believe that hamas, a ragtag prison gang-adjacent organization, can orchestrate this highly organized and rehearsed attack on Israel just as israel's far right political party is facing some internal unrest. There seems to be more to the story than meets the eye. Hamas didn't do this upon Shireen's assassination even though that was way more of an atrocity than the routine Israeli persecutions
I generally thought about this aspect. Despite not being an occupation form, the Ottoman Empire's successes in destroying the Salafi movement, at least for a while, and their partial colonisation there in the Arabian peninsula (save for Oman) did curtail the Salafis and isolated their realm.
Dad: is the on of the documentary sites like Magellan?
Me: it’s just Jabzy
Dad: what did you just call me
3/10??? I knew these sounded and felt like they cut off in the middle of a thought or explanation but 10 parts?! By the Gods!
Part 1 - The divides in the Region
Part 2 - Gunpowder Empires
Part 3 - Arabia and North Africa
Part 4 - Numerous wars and Rebellion In Egypt, Syria etc.
That's sort of the introduction to get to 1800 and move on in time ha.... Maybe I wrote too much.
@@JabzyJoe Well, don't let me or anyone else stop you if people are still watching them- these 30~50m segments are indeed far more easily consumed than something like say the 3.5 hour long China video that directly preceded these.
I also assume it garners a wider view base and count when segmented like this, instead of just 1 gigantic video.
Anyways, great content keep up the good work.
@@WelcomeToDERPLANDThat China video was also broken down into segments beforehand. Just in case you ever wanted to see them ha.
Fantastic work as always!
wow timed this well
???
7:37 is that an Arabic Vsauce?
When the governments became arms of the oppressive colonial powers.. Same problem
17:50 The notion that you present here that states ''before wahhabism face veiling was not seen as a religious requirement by muslims outside arabian peninsula and quran did not order face covering'' is also false, in quran 33:59 its mandated that women shall wear a garment called ''jilbab'' which covers face and rest of the body.
Except its demonstrable in every Muslim country in the world, in every period of history, that full coverings were rare.
You can google images created by the Ummayyads and Abbasids and Seljuks and Ottomans and Mamluks and Moghuls and so on and so on, and suddenly the supposed ancient unchanging rules of dress and never drawing humans is immediately exposed as bunk
@@RynewulfBukhaari (2105) and Muslim (2107), both sources outdate at least the Abbasids, not to mention that even if someone broke a rule, that doesn't mean that rule wasn't in place.
@@RynewulfYou can literally see film from Afghanistan in the 1920s and women were wearing Burkas, it’s not something new.
@@umidazimi3706 1920s Afghanistan doesnt trump 1000 years of history. The modern fundamentalist movement in Islam started in the 1800s, before then head coverings werent universal and still arent.
I mean you look at Malaysia, Indonesia, Mali, Somalia and other countries that have been Muslim for centuries are still un turbaned and without common hijabs and birqas.
They arent inherent to Islam, theyre a specific Arab practice that modern fundamentalists attached to. Theyre the Muslim equivalent of the US Baptists that claim to perfectly recreate original Christianity
@@Rynewulf The images that depict women in abbasid seljuk ottoman eras were inside harem where women dressed freely but on the street the women wore burqa or niqab
I would argue islamic extemism rooted from wertern colonilisation/imperialism and oppression on muslim. Indonesia was far from wahabi influences, but islamic extemism was wild during our independence gaining process back then. and whomever european colonizer called as terrorists, are now called national heroes.
the thing is, fighting for your freedom, identity, culture, land, pride etc was rather a foreign concept by indonesian. people were so discouraged to fight due to realisation of our shortcomings, european was so superior so why bother fight while obeying and befriending them gave tenfold adavantages then fighting? but when religious authorities declared "european are infidels and you're commanded by God to fight them, cowards will be punished severely in hell", you've given peasant a warrior spirit.
What do you say, man? Tell me that you don't know history without saying this 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤❤❤
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب what history that I didn't know? Indonesian history is clear that there were countless resistant movements which led by what european called zealots. and they were not influenced by events or movements from middle east. Pangeran diponegoro, imam bonjol, teuku umar etc were zealots.
My point is the root of islamic extremism can't be blamed on one particular islamic movement or sect. sunni, shia, salafi, sufi, etc if you oppressed them enough you you will get terrorist among each one of them.
@@cikicikibumbum259 Your words are true, but this Wahhab was from the Al Saud tribe, and these people were trying to restore power to the Arabian Peninsula, and they were going to succeed, but the Ottomans told the ruler of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, to deal with them.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب it's interesting now that salafist clerics/scholars, particularly the madinah graduates are the least radical in my country. they unequivocally pledge allegiance to the ruler, despite stigma they carry and are exiled by power circle, yet they are politically agnostic. on the other hands, the traditionalists which collude with the ruler are very sensitive with political climate.
when asked about current saudi liberal policies, they only defend saud for it's excellent role as the custodian of two holly Mosques. when asked about jihad for palestine, their answers only under government commands.
so my point stand still. the root of radicalism is oppression, without it even wahabi/salafi become the next chill old wise men.
@@cikicikibumbum259 No, the matter has nothing to do with religion, my brother, but rather with politics, and Al-Wahhab saw that the Ottomans had become very, very weak and he wanted expansion.
Not a single Muslim worships shrines or graves. This is a misinformation spread by the Wahhabis. It's a shame you're repeating their propaganda.
Wahhabism is Islam
Within 6h when 9.8k. Just when I heard more about the different idea streams, I get this video. Dude, very cool
Fantastic level of detail, but by the end of the video it was hard to follow exactly what the changes in North Africa had to do with the rise of extremism.
Wahhabis in Central Arabia that ended the first Sa'udi-Wahhabi state in 1818. In his historical recollection of the destruction of Deriyya, the first capital of the Wahhabis, al-Fahd reminds his audience of the atrocities committed against Wahhabi muwahidun (monotheists). In this destruction, al-Fahd argues, the Ottomans sought the help of the Christian infidels, more particularly Napoleon. In their exchanges they discussed the Wahhabi movement and what should be done to eliminate it. According to al-Fahd correspondence between the Ottoman Sultan and Napoleon indicates that the former resorted to help from infi dels against true Muslims, an act that is not permissible and cannot be justi fied. Al-Fahd lists violent acts committed by Ottoman soldiers against Wahhabis whose cars were cut and sent to Istanbul. Soldiers were given special rewards for killing Wahhabis. Women and children were taken as sabaya, women war booty, then sold as slaves. When Wahhabi imams were captured in 1818, they were carried to Istanbul where their heads were cut off and thrown in the sea. Special prayers were held at the time to thank God. This, says al-Fahd, is not a caliphate, it is dawlat al-kufr al-turkiyya, a blasphemous Turkish state. Wahhabis, therefore, did not rebel against an Islamic authority because the Ottoman caliphate was dar al-harb, the land of war, where the rebellion of the Wahhabis was justified. If the caliphate committed atrocities, sought help from infidels, and spread blasphemy, then fighting it was not simply justified but required from the true believer, according to al-Fahd.
According to many more than just al-Fahd even scholars during the times of Al-Andalus consider that the actions of the murtad.
What did al fahd expect? They burned sacked everywhere.
ottomans were invaders so they didn't rebel
Thank you very much👍🏼
I hate this so much and everyone knows this and yet these countries are never held accountable everyone knows Qatar has long sponsored terrorists yet they are free 😢😢
The Turkish Empire was truly the most tolerant state of its time. All non-Turkish communities were completely free to continue their own beliefs and speak their own languages.
No taxes were collected from the Arabian Peninsula, which was home to holy cities such as Mecca and Medina, and all Arabs were exempted from military service.
Large treasuries were sent to the holy cities from the central budget, and this money was spent on the maintenance of the cities and meeting the needs of the pilgrims.
Inns were established for Jewish, Christian and Muslim pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage to stay free of charge. Free meals were constantly distributed in soup kitchens opened separately for pilgrims of all Abrahamic religions. The safety of all pilgrims was ensured, and believers of the three great religions were allowed to perform their pilgrimage. ALL THE MONEY FOR THIS WAS SENT FROM ISTANBUL!
AS FOR THE WAHHABIANS, NO ONE OTHER THAN GOD CAN DECIDE THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS OF PEOPLE'S BELIEF! THAT'S WHY HE CANNOT PUNISH ANYONE! MAKING DECISIONS INSTEAD OF GOD AND KILLING SOME PEOPLE FOR THIS REASON IS, ACCORDING TO ISLAM, PUTTING YOURSELF IN GOD'S PLACE, IN OTHER WORDS, PLAYING GOD!
THE TURKISH ISLAMIC BELIEF IS COMPLETELY BASED ON TOLERANCE AND A LIBERAL UNDERSTANDING. YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE GOOD MUSLIMS BY PROHIBITING EVERYTHING! MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO PERSON HAS A DIVINE DUTY TO "MAKE OTHER PEOPLE REAL MUSLIMS"!
IN THE QURAN, GOD WARNS PEOPLE TO STAY AWAY FROM CERTAIN SINS. BUT HE ALSO WARNS THAT THOSE WHO COMMIT THESE SINS MAY BE PUNISHED BY HIM. GOD ALSO EXPRESSES HOW FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS HE IS IN MANY VERSE.
GOD NEVER IN ANY OF HIS VERSE TELLS A PERSON TO FIND PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SIN AND PUNISH THEM IN HIS OWN PLACE! THIS IS AS GREATER A SIN AS OPENLY ASSOCIATING A PERSON WITH GOD'S ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY!
KILLING PEOPLE AND SAYING THAT YOU DO IT IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE ESSENCE OF ISLAM! THIS IS THE GREATEST SIN POSSIBLE!
THE TURKISH UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM IS ALSO TOO LIBERAL IN ITS PERSPECTIVE.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS THAT DEFINE TURKS IS THEIR TOLERANT APPROACH.
WAHHIBITS ARE BASED ON KILLING AND DESTROYING EVERYTHING THEY THINK IS WRONG! IT IS EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THESE MANIAC THINKING THAT THE RELIGION OF ISLAM IS COMMONLY COMMON WITH TERRORISM TODAY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WILL NEVER SEE A TURKISH SUICIDE BOMBER. BUT ARABS ARE CONTINUOUSLY SHOWING ISLAM AS A RELIGION THAT COMMITS MASSACRES WITH THEIR ACTIONS OF TERROR. AGAIN, ARABS ARE DOING THE GREATEST EVIL TO THE RELIGION OF ISLAM BY STATEMENT THAT THEY COMMITTED ALL THEIR MURDER FOR ISLAM!
It's actually hilarious all the wahabists here saying "No, Wahabism doesn't exist. We're just returning to how Islam was in the times of the Prophet!" Do you know how many times Christians have heard the same story? How many heretical cults popped up, justifying their existence with "It's like it was in the time of Jesus!" while contradicting Jesus himself? Get out of here if you really think "true Islam" stopped with the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and only returned in the XVIII century.
You're ignorant if you think the belief is that it stopped and then returned in the XVIII century.
@@DrWoofOfficial that's... what I said. You're agreeing with me
@@ptlemon1101 "WAHHABISM" RULES!!!!
Brother you have to realize that polytheism in islam is not the right way as shown in the Quran as it is shirk. There are other deviations that exist as well but as said in the quran, For you is my religion and for me is mine.
@@arbiankarim3194 they weren't practicing polytheism. Those who did would obviously be called out
14:11 Make cartographers hate you with these few simple tricks!
Thanks for the video and knowledge
Will this series end at 1800 or go beyond it a little?
Yeah - I just wrote far too much for this whole series I think.
Great timing.
Answer: Since the “Hijra” in 622AD and the establishment of the first Islamic state by Muhammad in Medina which was basically a terrorist camp.
oh sir you dropped your extra chromosome
20:08 arabia jumpscare
Lmao, when you find a 💎 in the comment section.
If theyre so against idolatry and idols, then they should tear down that black stone they all are forced to go to if they are able and walk around it
The black box is called kaaba meaning cube.
The black stone inside kaaba is called Hajar Aswad , meaning black stone.
Pagan would not name their Idols that simplistic. They would name their idol such as "Christ the redeemer",
So this Al wahab bloke has done more damage to humanity than Karl marx. Thanks. Deick.
they were “communist”, china cuba and the ussr?
@@कनलदअ_गनगयव yeah, but communism will die, eventually.
Gonna be crazy muslims for generations.
Yeah, they’ve done more damage to humanity than someone who did zero damage to humanity. Get a grip.
@@benjaminknorr7084 zero damage to humanity?
Who? Karl marx, whose terrible ideas have killed hundreds of millions of people... or Mohammed's, whose schizophrenia has done the same?
@benjaminknorr7084 if you don't know what you are talking about buddy, just don't talk.
And if you don't think these men are responsible for the most deaths and misery in human history, I'm afraid you just don't know what you are talking about, so hush.
“History” yall get it “HIS STORY”
.. الدولة السعودية الأولى والثانية والثالثة كانت قادرة على إبادة كل الأقليات المخالفة لها آيديولوجيا.. مثل الموجودة بالقطيف والأحساء أو في نجران وجيزان أو في جدة والمدينة.. كل هذي الأقليات (باستثناء نجران) ما كانت تملك قوة العسكرية تنافس القوة الموجودة عند الدولة السعودية. هذا يعني إن إبادتهم عن بكرة أبيهم ما يتطلب مجهود عسكري أو تخطيط، والأسباب اللي تبرر إبادتهم موجودة، وهي إقامة الشرع حسب فهم محمد بن عبدالوهاب.. والمنفعة السياسية من إبادتهم أيضا موجودة وهي السيطرة المطلقة على ميناء العقير وعلى المناطق المطلة على الخليج اللي كان بوابتهم للعالم، بالإضافة إلى السيطرة على الحرمين وعلى ميناء جدة.. بكذا تكون اجتمعت عندك ثلاث نقاط: (المقدرة والتبرير والمنفعة)، لكن اللي منعك من هذا كله هو وازعك الأخلاقي اللي من الصعب جدا تجد له نظير لا بالتاريخ الحديث ولا بالتاريخ القديم.. لكن كلنا نعرف ان المسلمين في غالبهم من الاعاجم و مستعربين من احفاد الاعاجم عدائهم لنا كعرب وجودي لا علاقة له بالدين او التطرف او الكلام الفاضي ذا كله . اعداء قولا واحدا ونقطة اخر السطر .
بيض الله وجهك
when the ottoman empire could not expand any more. They were extremist from the start but mathematically no more Christian slaves, no more high taxes to them, no profit so the empire needed to be less cruel with them and more ''humane'' in relation with the past (still not so much tho) and of course they didn't like that, its fascinating to see how ottoman empire Carnivalized it self
wonderful video❤
Title gives off a propaganda vibe, would like to see an unbiased perspective.
Thank you for your great work ❤
I always thought it was interesting Morocco was the first to recognize America.
I heard that before Islam women covered themselves up because there was a law where if you killed a man then the victim's family could demand that you give them your sister so the victim's brothers could force themselves onto her so a new life could be created. Obviously this law was terrible and that women often covered themselves up as a result. Some elements of Islam are too strict about women covering themselves, but it's origins where very reasonable.
No offense but I have never heard of this story as a muslim.. by the way the origin of hijab isn't from islam.. hijab was well known for women in the middle east since forever basically.. Islam just put some guidelines for what hijab should do.
It should cover the entirety of a womans body without showing specific body parts explicitly and without looking despised by others...
What I mean by despised is that it shouldn't be far away from what people consider acceptable for hijab.
The purpose and philosophy of hijab is clear: to moderate and control any possible interactions between the two different sexes that could possibly lead to any sexual activity in between them in the future.. because that leads to a falling society that is filled with unnecessary sex which naturally hurts both males and females respectively..
The story of hijab is quite a long one and won't be able to tell it all in this comment.
I hope you don't take this comment as criticism. I just wanted to clarfiy this topic more so it doesn't seem like we're mindless nomads like some westerners may think...
@@hadiadil6693 ua-cam.com/video/sLsbse3vT5A/v-deo.htmlsi=MSPx4LuNjKdpdD_P
@@hadiadil6693he learned it from anti-prophet, and he is quite wrong.
@@hadiadil6693we dont want hijab now
@@aramaicjew3212 I don't know about you but what I know is that men don't want hijab because they are obeying their animal like instincts. Which doesn't benefit neither side (men-women). Men become worse than animals because free sex brings nothing but problems. And women become objectified into sex toys.
This is may be irrelevant but, why would someone from the north east of England learn more about the history of the Middle East than pretty much anyone who lives there? I love it, but I'm curious.
Some people love to educate themselves, others see it as burden
Exactly the video I wanted
17:54 why are you using Algerian drawing when talking about Saudi Arabia?
I like your video but you did not give the saudi state justice, and you mentioned alot of misconceptions about the saudi state like they are some fringe pre isis group which is a gross misinterpretation of the history of the saudi state.
Very very interesting
The real answer is when Oil was discovered in Islamic countries.
Didn't know Maghrebi history being that intresting and brutal (in the Ottoman time period).
But I still fail to understand what it has to do with Wahabism?
It has nothing to do with it. I just said look at the world the wahhabis wanted to expand into. This is part of a series and will all be put together.
@@JabzyJoeOK, thanks for answering👍
@@JabzyJoeOttomans: Where is the expansion, brother?
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب What do you mean?
Wow.... impeccable timing.
The ultimate perversion of the vision of the Prophet (blessed be his name), transforming the abode of islam into the abode of war, and turning the kufirs away forever.
One can only hope the other two peoples of the book save themselves, or earth will become hell
Safavid and Afsharid not persia (Turkic)
They were both
He actually called them foreing Turkic invaders in his previous video.
I think answer is much earlier. When Muhammad conquered Mekka.
He conquered mekka peacefully tho... Did you even know that before you made this silly comment? Lmaooooo, you could've chosen any other conquest but you literally chose the wrong one, when he entered mekka with a large army, he forgave his people for what they had done to him and his followers, may peace and blessings be upon him ❤️ 🌹
@@misteryolo7248 there was very little death. It was still a military campaign to enforce a religion.
@@JeroenDoescry about it :D
@@AryanKhnna XD. I will, very much so.
@@JeroenDoesWhat's up with you, my Berber friend? Is bathing still forbidden among you?