My Christian family survived 1400 years of Islamic "rule" in Palestine. All of my uncles died in exile since the founding of Israel and our family presence in Palestine today is a shadow of what it once was. So as a descendant of Christian Palestinians who heard first hand accounts from my grandfather about how Turkish rule vs British rule vs Zionist rule differed, the Zionists were by far the worst. Even the British were angels in comparison.
There is a hadith that, although I’m paraphrasing, states that if any Muslim harms the property, life, or rights of non-Muslims living in a Muslim land, Prophet Muhammad himself will stand as a witness against the Muslim on Judgment Day, siding with the non-Muslim. In Islam, justice is paramount, regardless of one’s faith. Allah will favor a just non-Muslim over a tyrant Muslim, even if the Muslim is devout in fasting, praying, and giving charity. This principle of justice is why Saladin faced betrayal and was poisoned by his own people (the rich landlords). He redistributed lands from the wealthy Muslims to non-Muslims and impoverished Muslims who had been wronged, demonstrating his commitment to fairness and equity.
By that logic nothing really happened the natives of the Americas since their still around... How can you claim to be PS when Ottomon census had many people settling from Iraq, Jordan, Lebannon and much more?
@@artair70 what logic?? what happened to the natives of the american massacred. and most of the time native invother countries that ottomon ruled had no problem with their rule.
@@mohammedxzadoali The Natives who comited ethnic cleansing against one another who never had any land as they were settlers to any land they came into. "ottomon ruled had no problem with their rule" NO
Each time I see this man's videos, I watch and save them. Thanks for educating those of us who are new to Islam ☪️ and seek knowledge. May Allah keep you and bless you. InshaAllah
The spread of Islam IS no different than Western Colonialism of African and the Americas. It was the spread of Arab rule and culture, disguised within the robes of religion. The Arabs of the tribe of Quraish ruled and appointed Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula especially Mecca, Medina and Taef, to rule as governors of all conquered lands. NO local Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Persian, North African was allowed to rule. Many languages and cultures disappeared under Islam.. Exactly like Western Europe did later.. Stop kidding yourself.
@@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694 and after the defeat of the quraish didnt the local people were allowed to rule pls just give source for your argument 1 mistake is that quraish tribes werent muslim and were at war with our prophet (saw)
@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694 Islam doesn't suppress other cultures or languages. Arabic was simply a language of unity. You have no evidence in any of your claims. You stop kidding yourself. The early Muslim conquests were simply conquests. Every group of people did conquest.
Thank you. I'd been made to believe that reason for Islamic battles post the death of the propeth PBUH was self defense, but left confused with the extend of the territorial expansion. It clearly looked as colonialism to me, more than just self defense. Thanks to you, I now can see that there are differences between colonialism and expansion. The constant humbleness of Mecca and Medina is a briliant insight. Thank you again... ❤
Thank you so much for your wonderful comments Simarodra. One can't be naive and believe that empires would fall one after the other so easily when Islam came without considering other aspects. One that is extremely viable was that those who we liberated had no real fear of Islam. For them is was a major improvement on the harshly of real suppression and injustice. I am really glad that you've seen a different side to the story. A story that makes sense not only to you but to everyone who has reason.
it was colonization. don't ever let anyone deluded from reality make you think otherwise. pre-islamic arabia had many different indigenous people subjugated by the foreign force of islam. it's not a religion of peace. no religion used to conquer peoples ever is. also the arabs were notorious for the longest and largest slave trade in history.
During the European colonisation there were countless of inhuman brutality we know from the history..they don't talk about those..but they pick some exceptional cases from the early Islamic history and tell us that Islam also was a colonizer..thanks Tareq for your mind opening videos❤
@@monsjohnson8832 The conquest of constantinople was not brutal lol. There was no sacking of the city. I'll tell you who did though. Your fellow crusaders who you defend so much. Muslims rarely ever commit atrocities so nice attempt at painting a legitimate conquest as an atrocity only bad when Muslims do it yes? 🤡
Islam came to south east asia, specifically my country malaysia and also Indonesia because of dawah effort of muslim merchants to convert rulers of the region, no forceful conversion by the sword was ever used...
@@thekandarichronicles ISLAM came with HORROR in Southeast Asia .. more than 1 million of ethnic Batak in Sumatra were slaughtered by ISLAMISTS from western Sumatra ..
Whenever I'm notified of your uploads, I immediately save it to my Watch Later playlist and I always make sure it's my first watch of the day! Terrific content as usual ❤
This is one of the most high quality well written videos i have seen, simple enough without overcomplicating yet an effective way of getting the message across using facts to base up an argument. Keep up the good work Salam
Tareq is definitely talented and successful with quality presentations that have been long overdue, yet it is clear this is his time to shine light for humanity to regroup into more enlightened humans, once again!! ☮️🍀☯️
Islam didn’t only conquered people land but Islam conquered people hearts. Western colonialism and colonizer always looted colonized land but Islam establish equality and human right in conquered land. Islam is light where Islam arrived Islam enlighted these land. Most beautiful ideology in this world is the ideology of Islam.
@@thekandarichronicles The colonialism that emerged around the 1500s introduced unprecedented brutality and cruelty not seen in earlier occupation. One of history's most inhumane instances of systematic oppression and exploitation, setting colonialism apart from previous forms of simple "Taking over land".
No like most Abrahamic religions..Islam tore the heart out of my ancestors, destroyed the scared places, enslaved their children and sacred our civilization. This will not be forgotten nor has it been forgiven. My family will always stand against the Abrahamic faiths. Too much blood has passed between us.
Slavery was part of society in pre-Islamic days and Islam encouraged and rewarded freeing slaves. They were treated as part of the house or as employers. You can look it up. Today in most Muslim majority countries there are no slaves and they’re regular citizens.
Hadith حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ وَاصِلٍ الأَحْدَبِ، عَنِ الْمَعْرُورِ، قَالَ لَقِيتُ أَبَا ذَرٍّ بِالرَّبَذَةِ، وَعَلَيْهِ حُلَّةٌ، وَعَلَى غُلاَمِهِ حُلَّةٌ، فَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ إِنِّي سَابَبْتُ رَجُلاً، فَعَيَّرْتُهُ بِأُمِّهِ، فَقَالَ لِيَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ أَعَيَّرْتَهُ بِأُمِّهِ إِنَّكَ امْرُؤٌ فِيكَ جَاهِلِيَّةٌ، إِخْوَانُكُمْ خَوَلُكُمْ، جَعَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ تَحْتَ أَيْدِيكُمْ، فَمَنْ كَانَ أَخُوهُ تَحْتَ يَدِهِ فَلْيُطْعِمْهُ مِمَّا يَأْكُلُ، وَلْيُلْبِسْهُ مِمَّا يَلْبَسُ، وَلاَ تُكَلِّفُوهُمْ مَا يَغْلِبُهُمْ، فَإِنْ كَلَّفْتُمُوهُمْ فَأَعِينُوهُمْ ". Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet (ﷺ) said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' " Sahih Sahih al-Bukhari, 30 In-Book Reference: Book 2, Hadith 23 USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 30 (deprecated numbering scheme) This hadith disproves your point@@crystalbluebutterfly
@@Malada3i slavery was a primary feature of the Islamic State, which still exists across the Middle East today, although diminished. A woman captured when she was 11 by IS was just recovered in Gaza where she spent 10 years as a slave to a Hamas member/family.
The Crescent and Star is Seljuk symbol which they adopt from the Byzantine. Islam have no iconography, like how Christians use the cross or Buddhist use the Dharma wheel. Which is how it should ideally be kept.
You are correct. The symbol in this thumbnail is not representative of Islam at its early stages or later on and only became associate with the faith much later with the Ottoman Caliphate.
Tareq, Your constant shining 🌟 of the light 🕯️ is so needed 🚨 & very much appreciated. And you make information fun, increasing further interest & desire to learn more with your talents shared, in hopes for a better human experience for all. ☮️🕯️Amen Ajma'een!🕯️☯️
Mr.Tareq you elaborated the whole concept amazingly ❤. Islam conquering heart even today..... Masha Allah We can see the rise of Islam..in each part of world... .even when the Muslims are oppressed around the globe
I'd say the early expansions of Islam were not colonialist, as it would be anachronical to say that. Also, the Ummayad dynasty especially wasn't even remotely interested in promoting Islam, quite the opposite in fact, as Muslim converts represented a loss of revenue for them in the form of Jizya. This actually led to revolts by Muslim groups in North Africa and Khorasan, the latter ending up with the Abbasid takeover. However, Muslim Empires were colonialists in some cases. I will just mention 2. First is the Ottoman Empire, which colonized and brutalized the people of the Balkans for several centuries (in fact, they did the same with the Arabs in the Middle East). In this case it isn't even anachronical considering the fact that the Ottomans were contemporaries of many of the European powers (it was seen as one of them actually). The second case is Islam in India before the Mughals. Muslim conquerors from Mahmud al Ghazni onwards pillaged India, forced the mainly Buddhist populations of the north to convert, and persecuted both Buddhists and Hindus. They also took the loot back to Afghanistan and Central Asia, thus making India poorer. The Mughals, however, were quite different.
Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were not "humane" or "benevolent". The conquest of Sindh itself was a brutal affair and was resisted strongly for years before the locals were overwhelmed. The later Turkic invasions into the subcontinent were even worse. Please don't try to sugar coat these things...
Yet all those places became stronger and prosperous. Whereas with colonialism, India became weak and underdeveloped because Colonialism siphons the wealth back to the home country. When the Turks invaded for conquest for example, they didn't simply siphon all the wealth back to central Asia and set up an economic model that would destroy local economies in favor of the benefit of some far away one and neither did we see wholesale replacement of populations with settlers like we did for example with the Europeans in North and South America/Australia. India under the Mughals became one of the richest countries in the world while under British colonialism it became one of the most impoverished. Under this paradigm of course Islam expansion were more humane and benevolent.
This is all about anti white , anti Christian bigotry. That white Christians are evil and Muslims are benevolent. They will do Olympic style verbal gymnastics to try to prove this point..
@@lastword8783 liar, if that was the case Hindu's would have all converted to Islam. You don't get to redefine history....Islamic invasion of India was brutal and estimates million of Indians have been massacred.
@@lastword8783 The Mughals were decadent and left India hollowed out for European colonialism... Plassey, Buxar etc. India was richer before the Ghaznavids, Ghurids and Mughals came. That was what the rapacious lot came to plunder. When the damage was about to be remedied, the British and other Europeans came. Don't try to exonerate the brutality of the Islamic invasions.
I will happen if it is supposed to happen. My belief is that recognition will come to those who persevere and who keep working hard, keep producing and keep learning and improving their craft along the way.
It is also worth noting that during the abbasid caliphate, the Arab (arabs for arabia) element of the islamic empire become almost non existent In the west we had amazigh taking control, in the middle turk, and persian, and the east afghans, It is like having the entire British empire government and lords being from South Africa, india and Egypt
Thats an amazing insight Jacket8818 and only enforces that it wasn't about control but about a union that in its absolute fundamentals was a coming together of many peoples under the banner of a new faith.
@@thekandarichroniclesyeah, every region were governed and controlled by locals despite them all swearing loyalty to the abbasid caliph in baghdad, and this is further proof how islam United multiple ethnicity of people under one banner despite the difference cultures and language
Sir,the Arab religion's trademark was a warrior on a horse with a sword in hand. This has not changed in 1400 years except guns replacing swords and armored vehicles/ 2 wheelers replacing horses.
I disagree with your statement and your impression of Arabs as an imagery is a Western stereotype that you should be able to recognise and counter through your reasoning. Just think of the same Westerners who place the same submissive typologies on your people. Are they accurate?
I appreciate that you brought in mention about North Africa as sometimes it is heavily overlooked with Umayyads on that matter, although the revolt was so significant it had large consequences to the Umayyad Caliphate especially in the West in Andalus and Southern France.
Just wanted to say, Mr. Tareq, how much I appreciate your work. I've followed many of your videos, and you're doing an extremely good job. Your ability to describe historical events with such clarity is truly impressive. Your subscriber count doesn't reflect just how good your content is, but I believe your channel will see a significant increase in subscribers soon. Keep up the fantastic work! Sincerely, one of your early followers from Saudi Arabia. وفقك الله 👍
Thank you @ABN_RUclips. Your words mean the world to me. I am confident things will come when one works hard and keeps producing, while also learning more and more along the way. With your support I am sure it will happen inshallah.
Previous scriptures like the Bible prophecied and legitimatised Islam’s expansion anyways so they have no right to complain about anything 🤷🏻♂️ 💚 Book of Daniel 2 and 7 4 pagan kingdoms of men Babylon, Medo/ Persia , Greece , Rome and then the kingdom of God/ Islam Jerusalem 637ce - 1917
Edit, this was meant in response to Joe in this thread: Thanks for these resourced tips to focus on, for confirmation or reality checks as I call them!✌️
@@brendasmart553 I recommend a book that recently has come out ‘ Abraham fulfilled - a biblical study of God’s plan for Ishmael and Arabia free pdf on Sapience institute website
Salaam alaikum, this video… 🎙️⬇️. Very well done brother. Love the production and the refutation of the smear campaign with facts and truth. May Allah swt increase us all in Iman and guidance, and make it easier on our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Àmeen.
Mashallah bhai .... what a video!!!! Magnificent!! I'VE saved it. Muslims never exploited the populations they conqured like the white fellows..... And Islam has enhanced Persian Culture, Islam enhanced Indian Culture! And Amazigh Culture... not to forget Islam Enhanced Turkic Culture
BarakAllahu fik, brother. I think this video is very accurate, and although you do not need sources for every point you made (some are common knowledge and/or rational), I would still advise you to cite your sources in the description, as this is more convincing and trustworthy.
Yahweh. Religious rights matter, indigenous rights matter. How are you accusing the French Spanish and English of colonizing the world, but omitting Arabs Muslims whatever you wanna call them and not calling yourself a bigot xenophobe?
In anyway, whether I like it or not, or one likes it or not, this is how I see the development of the State of Israel in its modern inception. A small minority of a people (both globally & in the region as well) for protection from larger empires & entities, and even just coming off of an Industrial tier genocide. Attempted Negotiated agreements between land allotment between the 2 groups or even integration into the other (you can become citizens & keep your culture, language & religion) or have your territories which were drawn up. Then mutual conflict with one side winning & being victorious & thus conquests and acquirements of lands through that. And still, the point of citizenship & integration in Sovereign territories still stands
Forcing subject peoples to pay a special kind of tax IS a form of resource extraction. If money can be used to purchase resources then taxation is a form of resource extraction.
I would like to add few points correct me if I am wrong. Islam does not allow taxing the muslim. but it did allowed taxing the non-musilm. So it was in the khilafas interest to create a friendly environment for non-muslims to thrive otherwise they wont be able to give taxes.The rashedun khilafat is the first welfare state in humanity. But the honest muslim traders are the ones who actually spread islam to the entire globe.Ex Bangladesh malaysia indonesia, phillipines, china etc. The interest free , free market economic system made a huge impact on the hearts of people.The reason why most muslim countries are majority muslim is because islam spread not only from top down but also buttom up. and I have read(not 100% sure if its correct), The phrase "islam spread by the sword" is actually from british propaganda to create enmity between muslims and hindus. Thanks!!!!!Great videos!!!!!!!!
Muslims are oblidged by RELIGION not STATE to pay zakat, which goes for the poor and the ones in need and charity workers who help spread it, zakat was usually higher than jizya
Thank you for your elaboration on the video. Dont forget about Zakat that Muslims had to pay but Dhimmis didnt. People dont seem to remember how Islam early on incorporated a fair and benevolent sharing and redistribution of the wealth to help the needy.
@@thekandarichronicles Yes! Due to the zakat Muslims were able to create the first welfare system on earth. Allah has made us the best of people but not perfect
This is not entirely correct, muslims had to pay zakat and other obligations like jihad, it was the muslim obligation to take the sword when there is danger to the population and this includes danger to non muslims, while non muslims had no obligation, muslims also had many other obligations, non muslims had only 2, pay jizya if you can (you are excluded if you can’t, this is also the case for zakat) and obey public order
يعطيك العافية أخي طارق توجد أربعة قضايا ارجو أن تعالجها أيضاً لمخاطبة المسلمين وغير المسلمين الناطقين بالانجليزية وهي بالغة الأهمية جداً لأنها ضدنا كعرب مسلمين : 1. كل المسلمين والغربيين يقولون أن اغلب علماء المسلمين والذين قادوا النهضة العربية هم الفرس ! كلهم قرروا ذلك بناء على كتابات ابن خلدون في كتابهُ المقدمة . ألف د.ناجي معروف كتابهُ المشهور عروبة العلماء المنسوبين إلى البلدان الأعجمية ، ذكر الكثير جداً من علماء العرب الذين نسبوا للفرس والروم والامازيغ وهم عرف معروف نسبهم ، وكان للشعوبية دورفي محاولة طمس عروبتهم : يمكن معالجة هذه المسألة في اربعة نقاط 1. ان كثير من العلماء العرب نسبوا للفرس ولدينا مايثبت ذلك . 2. أن كثير من علماء الفرس هم تلاميذ لدى علماء العرب وهذا يعود للفضل إلى العرب لأنهم من علموهم بدلاً من اضطهادهم لذلك كان العبيد والخدم يتعلمون بجانب أمراء العرب لذلك العرب المسلمين كانوا أمة تعلم البشرية ولم تمارس اضطهاد بجعل الفرس دورهم في الرعي والزراعة بل تم تمكينهم في دار الحكمة وغيرها من الحواضر ( فمثلاً الكندي كان ابو الفلسفة وتتلمذ عليه الكثير من الفرس ، المبرد من علماء الأدب تتلمذ على يديه الكثير من الفرس والذين اصبحوا علماء في الأدب ، الخليل الفراهيدي تتلمذ على يديه الكثير من الفرس ومنهم سيبوية الذي الف كتابهُ المشهور الكتاب مع عدداً من تلاميذ الفراهيدي ، نفس الشيء مع علماء الحديث والفقة الخ..) 3. أن علماء العرب أسسوا الكثير من العلوم الحديثة وطوروها ولم يكونوا فقط علماء لذلك أثرهم كبير على الحضارة الإنسانية فمثلاً ابن حيان هو مؤسس علم الكيمياء ، ابن الهيثم مؤسس عالم البصريات ، الزواهري مؤسس علم الجراحة ، ابن معاذ الجياني" عالم الفلك الأندلسيّ الذي أسس علم المثلثات الكروي ، إبراهيم الفزاري صنع الأسطرلاب ، والعالم الجزري اختراعاته العلمية وتطبيقاته الميكانيكية ،ابن خلدون مؤسس علم الاجتماع ، الفراهيدي أول مؤسس للقاموس في قاموس معجم العين ومؤسس لعلم العروض ، الإمام علي وابو اسود الدوؤلي مؤسسي علم النحو ، هذه أسماء سريعة وغيرهم الكثير 4. ان خلفاء الدولة العباسية احتضنوا الفرس في قيادات دار الحكمة وهذا جعل لهم نفوذ أكبر في العمل والتعلم في دار الحكمة وهذا يحسب على الخليفة انهُ مكنهم مالم يمكن فيه العرب وهذا ماقم به الخلفاء العباسيين ايضاً في ابعاد العرب عن الجيش مما جعل الفرس يؤثرون على القرار السياسي في الدولة 5. ان كثير من العلماء لا يعرف لهم نسباً في كتب التاريخ لا للعرب او للعجم ولا يوجد دليل انهُ فارسي سوى انه عاش في خراسان علماء بأن الكثير من القوميات كانت تعيش فيها . هذه مناقشة مختصرة تعالج النظرة القاصرة لدى العجم في محاولة تهميش العرب اخيراً يمكن ذكر بعض اسهامات علماء الفرس و الامازيغ والترك في الحضارة الإسلامية لأن الهدف ليس الإساءة لهم أو التقليل من جهودهم بالحضارة الإسلامية لكن ذكر انجازات العرب التي يحاول الكثيرين من الاكاديميين الغربيين والمسلمين تجاوزها بسبب كتابات ابن خلدون . ونحن كعرب نعرف قيمة الحضارة الفارسية واهميتها قبل الإسلام لكن محاولة تهميش العرب اعتقد أنها خطأ وصار كأمر مسلم به لدى الأكاديميين الغرب والشرق ، فمن يستطيع حصر كل العلماء لمعرفة ذلك ! 2. كتاب الصحراء العربية لعالم الانثرولوجيا سعد الصويان يعالج اخطاء ابن خلدون في كتاب المقدمة والذي جعل من البداوة بدائيّة وانتقد البدو العرب ، والدكتور سعد الصويان يعالج اسباب الصورة النمطية الخاطئة عن العرب تاريخياً في كتابه المميز ، وكذلك المسلمين يحاولون ترديد مقولة جاهلية العرب قبل الإسلام والمقصود فيه جاهلية الإيمان وليس الحضارة لكن الشعوبيين يحاولون اجترارها بأننا أمة غير متحضرة ويمكن شرح هذا الخطأ وذكر حضارات العرب الكثيرة واسمهاماتهم العرب في علم الفلك قبل الإسلام ، وفي علم العمارة والبتراء ومدائن صالح شاهدة ، واسهاماتهم في الطباعة الثلاثية الأبعاد وفي سكاكا هي الأقدم تاريخيا ، ودور العرب في التجارة قبل الإسلام ، واسهامات العرب في الأدب قبل الإسلام ، وجزيرة العرب مليئة بالكثير من الكتابات قبل الإسلام واعتقد ان العرب سبقوا الحضارة المصرية في الكتابة الأبجدية الخ.. سأذكر موضوعين آخرين في المرة القادمة .
Thanks for mentioning the political/cultural/spiritual situation during the Umayyad rule in Berber territory. I understand your frustration with orientalism. Heres a rub. I am a Muslim convert ( in the US. Have been for most of my life and getting old). I concede to Ibadi theology and Fiqh. I often get the same inability to talk to other Muslims about the FIqh and Theology of the Ibadi Muslim. If they know anything we are Khawarrij (another term we should revisit - stood up... or cast out?) and if not they even go so far as to say I made it up. Both Northern Iraq (Basra), The Oman, and the once Rustamid empire regions (Parts of Northern Africa and the Swahili Coast) had a similar dynamic with caliphal rule prior to the Umayyad, going back to Uthman for some of the very same reasons you explain. I would differentiate this from the Shia-Sunni cross-objections however, as the views on leadership are based on other factors at their core, but both the Abassid and the Rustamid empires capitalized on these feelings of mistreatment from the top of the federated state. Islam spread the fastest when the RELIGION saved people from the Leaders, and not the other way around, even in already Muslim ruled lands.. Many what we today would call "human right revolts" initialized an Islamic endeavor that often spilled out of the initial region through common support making the previous offending parties territory even larger, but no longer in their hands. Spain had the reverse dynamic and acted very differently toward different groups when "re"conquered. We can clearly see the historical difference if we are only honest.
Tariq again a fabulous and i definitely enjoyed☺️! Will drop my thoughts when I find time. By the way It’s been a while hear anything from you anymore you must also be bussy. Keep it up and take care bro 🍀
An important thing to also mention is that some of the early conquests were something the Muslims themselves actually wanted to avoid: قال عمر: حسبنا لأهل البصرة سوادهم والأهواز، وددت أن بيننا وبين فارس جبلا من نار لا يصلون إلينا منه ولا نصل إليهم، كما قال لأهل الكوفة: وددت أن بينهم وبين الجبل جبلا من نار لا يصلون إلينا منه، ولا نصل إليهم. تاريخ الرسل والملوك (٤/٧٩) Conquest was a result of the status quo not being viable, with the aggressors being the Roman and Persian Empires. It was after the battle of Nahavand that the Muslims really were fully conquering territories with full force.
The arabs themselves used persian during the rashidun and early ummayad empire for their government transactions and their mail until the ummayad era when arabic was standardized, what dark age is this? Lol
There was never an enforcement of the application of one language over another. It was always a matter of convenience. And respond to your point with an example of this, during the Golden Age of Islam when Persia was under the Caliphate, many renowned scholars wrote in both Arabic and Farsi.
I actually believe @Kolitmas624 was asking a genuine question that you and I both answered. Sometimes we see things from one perspective but with the help of others like yourself that perspective can be broadened. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Thank you for the genuine answer. Their perspective is different. However what surprises me is that Arabs started to use Greek words for the law. Qanun in Arabic comes from the Greek word meaning the law. I think that the Nabatean Arabs knew more about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire than it seems. I would say that the Abbasid Caliphate moved the capital to Baghdad and started to cumulate knowledge from the whole empire: that was the start of the Golden Age when new inventions took place and when hadiths were written.
Dont forget Arabs reinvigorated many of the old thinkers of Greece. Many words didnt exist in their version Arabic for that type of thought process and hence I am not surprised by your clarification. And don't forget that the Caliphate was not about one location taking preference over another. The Arabs who started the conquests evolved in to other Arabs and so on till they were a people mixed ethnically with other peoples and cultures that made what the Golden age was, an age of no judgement and total assimilation.
Simple additions were nicely done: 1. Many peoples were occupied and persecuted by the Byzantine Empire, such as the inhabitants of the Levant and northern Morocco, or were persecuted by the Persian Empire, such as the people of Iraq and perhaps Ahwaz or the Gothic state in Andalusia. They were persecuting the indigenous people and their salvation was from the Muslim Arabs. Some of them were corresponding with the Arabs for support,These were defeated peoples subject to imperialism at that time. When the Arabs reached Al-Ahwaz, the Persian raids continued despite the existence of a peace charter. Therefore, the Sassanid state had to be overthrown so that the Muslims and their people of all races and religions could live in peace, and this is what happened. As for the raids of the Byzantine state against the Umayyads and then the Abbasids, they did not stop after the liberation of the Levant, so there were continuous invasions in Anatolia, and the Byzantine invasions with the Seljuk state did not stop either. 2. Islamic law guaranteed their freedom in the law that they believe in in their religion, and this is a freedom that Christians, Jews, and Muslims in liberal countries do not dream of, but it still exists today in Arab churches that practice laws such as family law, etc. 3. The jizya is like a tax paid to the Islamic state to protect them and return to them when they need it, and it is insurance like retirement. The story of Caliph Omar al-Khattab with the poor Jew is well known, because a non-Muslim is not required to pay zakat because it is in the religion of Muslims only. 4. The law of war in the message of Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq to Muslims is found in the United Nations and is a moral standard for all the peoples of the earth. Unfortunately, most imperialists do not take this message seriously, so they steal the wealth of the peoples of the world and destroy their countries with internationally prohibited weapons.
I am not sure what you mean by higher culture but I disagree if you mean that the civilisation was more civil, fair or had a higher propensity for education and innovation. Islam and its expansion would see a gradual development and transcendence into the Golden Age of Islam that didn't include only Arab lands but lands from Eastern Persia all the way to the Iberian Peninsula.
@@thekandarichronicles Was the golden age caused by Islam or by the conquests of these territories that had already an underlying high culture beforehand? In western history the renaissance absolutely came about as a circumstance of the Crusades and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire with it's refugees taking to the west much of the knowledge from their eastern empire, such things can absolutely kickstart golden ages of that sort. Makes more sense to me that way and also explains why it only happened once at the height of military conquest and has never been replicated since
@@detdeet It happened because islam goverming system If you wrote a book in science during the abbasid time and this book was praised by different scholars and thinker you will get gold equal to that book weight, and even Transolating old books, like transolating indian, persian, Egyptian etc etc books that had benefits, you will get hold equal to the book weight, this encouraged people to think and learn, this also and the stability in the region, this is why the islamic golden age officially ended after the mongol attack, as it ended whatever stability there was
And back to high culture before islam The simple question is no, Persia was in turmoil, high taxes was imposed in the population, people would work in farms 24/7 just to pay taxes with nothing left for them self, it was high unstable and that why it completely fall where Byzantine survived And Egypt? No only Alexandria enjoyed any kind of luxury and *high culture* while the rest of Egypt was like france country side in the dark ages, and even Alexandria, only group of people enjoyed luxury
It's not just about the culture being wiped out violently - but the actual people, the Ancient Egyptians as an Ethnic group, being genocided and wiped out by those colonizers. The only ones who can claim Egyptian descent are the Coptics. The very fact a minority group like them still exist, and still enduring oppression in Egypt goes to show that the true agenda of this video is to silence that crime.
Something else about the moving of captials, this wasn't done because the arabs cared about the natives or tried to be more inclusive, it is actually for quite opposite reason to slave the natives more by moving the center of authority from the far away desert to a place were they could easily send armies to stamb out revolts. Another point related to the moving is that they did to better exploit the resources of the lands. The mongols diid this numerous times and same with the arab rulers. The reason why the never returned to arabia is because they were stealing the land and planning to stay in it and never leave funnily enough the mongols did something similar while pilliaging throughout asia they changed their captials and moved the resoucres that they collect through their plundering to their new captials.
7:22 I really get annoyed with this painting used for Umayyads when it's clearly 1000 years after Umayyad Caliphate happened. The painting name is Caliph of Constantine, with Ali ben Ahmet and his harakta entourage around 1840s.
If you don't pay taxes you get punished didn't change. And you could be exempted from paying it by joining the army 😅 So idk what point you're trying to prove
@@Ck_olp So either they fight for their Caliph or they pay extra taxes. This cannot be a true religion. Only Jesus Christ is the truth. Islam is not the truth. Come to Jesus Christ, he will set you free, for whenever the Son sets free is free indeed.
For centuries, Muslim☪️ minorities ruled over Christian☦️ majorities, that were intentionally degraded by the law. Greeks and Spanish were ruled that way. And as it was happening, no other future could be seen. I would call it Apartheit. And it lasted much longer than South African Apartheit. Without Arab immigration, how did people switch from Aramaic and Coptic, to speaking Arabic. Land was taken from non-Muslims and giving to Muslims in a system called Kharaj. That is not colonialism? Thank you for accepting my comment!
For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive. From the late 14th to the mid-17th century, the Ottomans pursued a policy of imposing a levy of male children (devşirme) on their Christian subjects in the Balkans with the goal of supplying the Ottoman state with capable soldiers and administrators. The compulsory conversion to Islam which these boys underwent as part of their education is the only documented form of systematic forced conversion organized by the Ottoman state.[4]
@@lut8167 I learned that at school and university, when you make statement about something, you must provide the sources and references to prove your statement. Did YOU ever went to school? :)
@@emilm3416 The question you are asking us dumb. Arabic is foreign to Africa....Eqypt is in North Africa...they had their own language. It doesn't take a genius to know ancient Egypt never spoke Arabic
When talking about western colonialism, everyone talks about how the western world brought advanced technology and ideological advancements to their subjects, even though to attain that, they had to go through countless famines and massacres , while funding some native factions to do their work for them, and then betraying them. When talking about Islamic "colonialism", it's everything that western colonialism is guilty of but amped up to the amount that they aren't guilty of compared to the western ones, while ignoring the actual advancements and progress the Islamic ones made, not just in terms of technology but culture. Islam has made the Arab lands flourishing. Not to mention the accusations of anti-semitism... despite european anti-semitism is insane. The projection as well as the lack of acknowledgement of events that makes the Islamic nations look better is something that I dislike westerners "who are into history".
Lets see what prominent trusted historians said about this time period: Proffesor Thomas Walker Arnold (A major Scholar of 19th Century) mentions in the preaching of Islam on page 134, he states: " A forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude toward the Christian religion that facilitated the accusation of the country. " De Lacy O'Leary in his book "Islam and the Cross Roads" published in 1923. In page 8, he states: " History makes it clear, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping though the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquering races, is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated! " A.S Triton in his book "Islam" Published in 1951, page 21, he states: "The picture of the Muslim soldiers advancing with the sword in one hand, and the Quran in another is quite false. " Laurence E. Browne in his book "The prospects of Islam" published in London 1944, page 14. He states: "Incidently, these well established facts dispose the idea, so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword" Hugh .N. Kennedy, in his book "The Great Arab Conquest" published in London 2008, page 50. He states: "The Quran certainly provided scriptural support for the idea that the Muslims could and should fight the Unbelievers. But at no point does it suggest that they should be represented with the alternatives of conversions or death. " Michael Bonner in his book "Jihad in Islamic history" published by Princeton university press in 2006, page 89-90. He states: "To begin with, there is no forced conversion, no choice between Islam or the Sword. Islamic law following a clear Quranic principle prohibited any such things." Micheal Bonner states in the Quran chapter 2, verse 256, Where Allah has said: "There is no compulsion in the religion, verily the right path has become distinct with the wrong path."
5:00. Before one could agree whether it was conquest or colonisation, its important to realise not all defeated tribes were treated equally. The 3 choices offered to the vanquished tribe only applied if they were deemed the people of the book, namely the Christians and the Jews. All others were classified as idol worshippers. The Idol worshippers were to be fought regardless whether they had acted in a hostile manner or were friendly and welcoming to muslims, period. The idol worshippers that were not killed in battle had two choices. They could choose between converting to Islam or be killed. The historical experience of Hindus in India and the paganistic Sumateran tribes from the inlands of Indonesia is well documented to disapprove the assertion that Islam was spread peacefully and incidents involving violence was an exception. In that manner, the Almighty in the Holy Quran mirrored the Supreme God described in all other religions, both monotheistic or politheistic. A tribalistic war God that specified the chosen tribes cultural norms and the rules laws the tribe had to obey and observe. The rest were enemy tribes who should be viewed as hostile.
thank you very much for reading and for showing the truth but allow me to add , jiziah tax was paid only by those who can pay it and was a fixed tax unlike zakat which was 2.5 of wealth stored for a year on every muslim whose wealth reached the threshold of paying , plus jiziah was dropped off if the non muslim citizen wanted to join the army as it was in exchange for that , some people claimed that this is how people were forced into islam and this can't be true for the previously mentioned reasons and also because at one time in an emirate the ruler didn't drop off the jiziah on the people who converted to islam , still they continued conversion as for the sword argument it is just impossible as muslims didn't have the means or the numbers to do that especially against warrior people like the modern day tunisia , algeria and morocco as they were much stronger than muslims and outnumbered them , in egypt my country for example the liberation force was of 6000 muslims only against the romans who occupied egypt and the population of egypt at the time reached about 4 million people according to official records , while the entire population of the arabian peninsula was about 1 million
Islam was spread by the sword. This is even found in Islamic sources. You're just biased. Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), a Maliki jurist, renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior jihad: In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force…. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense…. Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Vol. 1, p. 291) Ibn Kathir wrote of Muhammad’s aggression: When Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers form [sic] entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profit from trade. THEREFORE, Allah, Most High, COMPENSATED THEM and ordered them to fight the people of the Book UNTIL THEY EMBRACE ISLAM OR PAY THE JIZYAH. Allah says… (At-Tawbah: 28-29) Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans IN ORDER TO CALL THEM TO ISLAM… (Ibn Kathir, The Battle of the Prophets, pp. 183-184) The following is a source that reveals how the people of Mecca wanted to leave Islam but were forced to remain Muslim. `Attab Ibn Asid was the governor appointed by Muhammad over Mecca, and Suhayl Ibn Amr was the military leader who governed most of the soldiers who had conquered Mecca: Ibn Hisham says: It is narrated on the authority of Abu `Ubaydah and others that when the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] died the majority of the people of Makkah intended to renegade from Islam so much that `Attab Ibn Asid feared them and concealed himself (from them). On that Suhayl Ibn Amr stood up and praised Allah and lauded Him, and made a mention of the death of The Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] and then said: “No doubt, this (death of the Prophet) but increased the Islam in power. Whoever rouses doubt, we will chop off his head.” Thus the people retracted and desisted from what they intended to do and `Attab Ibn Asd appeared. (`Abd Al Malik Ibn Hisham, The Prophetic Biography - Sirah of Ibnu Hisham, p. 670) Muslims were sent out to conquer the surrounding nations. This is even recorded in the following hadith: Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: `Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.”… Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:- “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”… (Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160) One of the earliest surviving Christian texts from the Islamic period in Syria, dated around 640 AD, describes the rise of Islam in this way: They take the wife away from her husband and slay him like a sheep. They throw the babe from her mother and drive her into slavery; the child calls out from the ground and the mother hears, yet what is she to do? And so it is trampled under the feet of the horses, camels and infantry …. They separate the children from the mother like the soul from within the body, and she watches as they divide her loved ones from off her lap, two of them to go to two masters, herself to another …. Her children cry out in lament, their eyes hot with tears. She turns to her loved ones, milk pouring forth from her breast: “Go in peace, my darlings, and may God accompany you.” (Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Robert G. Hoyland, p. 262)
The need to compare Military force with others before and since is "Whataboutism" . I maintain that it should be examined on it's own actions and not on the actions of others. Wether in defence of early Islam in the life of the Prophet PBOH . Or later in expansive war across the Levant Anatolia and on into Iberia. A substantial number of people who resisted were put to the sword. How is it that something So Devine. So True So God given as the message needed to be spread in such a way? No matter how benigne by comparison to the government of others in the context of the times. How about one compares the spread of the teachings of the Bhudda ? Or for that matter the teachings of the early Christians before the foundation of Orthodoxy in 325 CE. A religous belief that spread across the Roman Empire from Hadrian's wall to the Borders of Persia. such that by the 4Th. Century between 5 to 8 % of the Urban population were converted. Little if any violence required. Some violence even directed to the Christian minority. I am not suggesting that therefore Christianity is true and Islam false. I just desire to know why the divine God needs such Help from Swords and Spears however benevolant killing people might be to spread his Message.
I dont think we can ignore the violence and division that took place during that era and during that time. It's not about justification but about the reality of the times that saw aggression by so many factions in the area on all scales, tribes and empires. Violence was on everyone's doorstep across what would become the Middle East.
Islam did not spread by the sword, islamic empire did, this is important to know the difference Like the Roman Empire how did it become so big? With flower? No with sword of course And this is the same for islam We can’t just zoom in on the muslims of that time and ignore the surrounding, the world was in state of turmoil, for a growing country it had 2 big neighbors that sooner or later will come for them, there has been many cases of roman and persian conquering part of arabia, they didn’t remain because they saw no reason as most of the population were nomadic and little, so they left, the roman basically started by killing the messager the prophet sent, this is a clear declaration of war, persian as well, you might say “oh well but the prophet was rude by sending someone inviting them to islam” but in the end they could have just sent him off and refuse The state of the world requested the muslims at that time to wage war against what danger their new country, kingdom, empire what ever you call it, and most major battles were against imperial army weather it is persian or Byzantine, and against the native such cases were rare and very small scale, Also it is very important to note that Egypt didn’t become majority muslims until 500 years Also there is many cases in history of force conversion for what ever religion or culture, and those cases all ended in failure, people will hold to their culture and religion to the end when they are being opposed , that’s why for example Bosnia are majority muslims still while bulgaria are very little, because Bosnia were opposed for their religion which made them hold to it tighter,
@@thekandarichronicles In the 5 Th Century Before the prophet PBOH was born Patrick led the conversion of the Pagans in Ireland. A people who were renowned for violence Piracy and on the odd occasion human sacrifice. Violent times indeed. what did he employ ? A small green Plant ☘ No violence required. No hitch hiking on Imperial agrandisment sharp swords and pointy sticks . In the first 3 centuries CE. more or less did the violent state of the world require the Christians to wage war to against the danger to their belief? No they got into the entertainment Business for one Gig only and ended up as "Lion Poop". Well some of them . .
I salute you Br.Tarek for your efforts in educating us. thousand years of Muslim rule in India, hindus were always the majority.they could have been forced converted. Forein Minister of Saddam Hussein-tariq aziz was a chaldenian christian. The onlly forceful conversin from sunni to shia,happened during Safavid period.
lol, Colonialism has nothing to do with what you just said. Colonialism is the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. I think the Islamic colonial conquest checks every one of those boxes and more. It was a foreign people who went into another peoples lands, set up shop and ruled over them, taxing them and creating systems in which it enslaved, ethnically cleansed partially or in whole, their cultures, languages, alphabets, religions, endonyms, etc. Have you heard the term “Arabized”? How many of these peoples believe themselves to be “Arabs” to this day, because of this? That’s like if the native Americans, Indians and all the other places the English conquered thought themselves to be “British.” And what’s wild is it has no intention on stopping either. I can go on but I’ll stop there. How is this not colonialism in your perspective?? 🤦🏽♂️🤔
Did you not watch the video? 1. Economic exploitation did not take place after the early Islamic conquests 2.”Arabization” not “Islamization” took place not through force but via economic trade 3.what cultural cleansing are you referring to? There weren’t mass ordered massacres taking place upon conquest like you imagine in your mind, if you ever go to the middle east you’ll be able to tell pretty quickly the differences in culture and tradition between gulf arabs and the rest of the “arab world”, because just like he said in the video other peoples and cultures were protected by the early Islamic Empire. 5. This video was debunking the lie that Islam was “spread by the sword”
@@Edgingtutor Here we go… Yes I watched the video. It’s a great attempt to whitewash the history of these events and give the complexity and nuances of any colonial empire reign, leaving out the biggest details that would paint a proper history in which we would be able to label it truth. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the best lies are 90% true. We can do this same thing with the European conquests of the Americas, the Mongol conquest of Asia, the Romans, the Zulu, the Persians, and yes the Islamic conquest as well. This is solely an apologist attempt to swim in cognitive dissonance and separate the Islamic colonial conquest from the others. This is just like how Republican led Florida writes in its students history books referencing slavery as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Bro, Really??? Now, let’s go down your bullets. 1 .. If your enslaving people, that’s economic exploitation and worse. If you’re placing a new religious tax on the peoples who refuse to annihilate their own cultures and religions by having to convert to your religion, thats called economic exploitation. And this tax was part of the strategy by many leaders in the Islamic Empire to rule and help have a continued collection of funds, when the plundering was over since they conquered these areas already and now rule over them. We can dive further into the real historic complexity of Islamic rule over these areas, outside your dogmatic approach, if you’d like… 2 .. Yes, Arabization is different than Islamization.. BUT, and that’s a HUGE BUT, you DON’T get wide spread Arabization without Islamization. It’s a type of ruling. Look at the history of the other Empires. Each had their own strategies and tactics. Latin America has a more or less overarching “Hispanic Culture”, due to the methods of the Spanish Conquest, even with the fact that each country is diverse and has its own cultural complexities. Whereas India still holds on to its languages, cultures and religions, even after the British rule. That’s Not to say it doesn’t have many British influences left behind. These are just examples to show the diverse ways, colonial conquest can be done. And the skies the limit, which doesn’t leave the Islamic colonial conquest off the list. 3 .. I’ve spent time in the Middle East. And yes, there is a complexity of culture there like there is a complexity of culture everywhere and anywhere. This fact doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic Colonial conquest changed and/or wiped out the original cultures that were there before it decided to invade lands that didn’t belong to it. It’s laughable that you bring up the term, “protected”. “Conquest” doesn’t play well with “Protection.” Personally, if you’re going the propaganda route, you should have just referred to it as “Liberation.” lol… Any “religion of convert” does not Historically play well with others, including the Islamic Colonial Conquest. That said, we’re painting with broad strokes here. Each individual is different and some timeframes were better or worse. But if you want to call-having to create a tiered ruling system, where you subjugate anyone who isn’t Muslim, as a lower class to purposefully humiliate them with different laws and rules, specifically meant to remind them that they are beneath you- “protection”, okay… sure lol. There’s many other versions of this in all the other Colonial empires as well. Pick your flavor. Let’s not go into the complexity of how these ruling mechanisms are purposeful systemic features to help slowly force populations to leave behind their native cultural and indigenous ways and assimilate into the invading forces new ideology. This is the exact feature of what colonialism is. 5 .. Not sure why you skipped 4. But this might be a sign of why you think this video has debunked the “truth” that Islam was spread by the sword. lol… But to be fair, Islam was not JUST spread by the sword. To say that, would be naive and create a simplistic view and take away the complexity and sophistication of any Colonial conquest. It takes time to ethnically cleanse nations and wipe their memories of the historic truth. And when it’s done right, we get videos like this and conversations like we’re having right now. Blessed be upon you.
@@Edgingtutor Here we go… Yes I watched the video. It’s a great attempt to whitewash the history of these events and give the complexity and nuances of any colonial empire reign, leaving out the biggest details that would paint a proper history in which we would be able to label it truth. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the best lies are 90% true. We can do this same thing with the European conquests of the Americas, the Mongol conquest of Asia, the Romans, the Zulu, the Persians, and yes the Islamic conquest as well. This is solely an apologist attempt to swim in cognitive dissonance and separate the Islamic colonial conquest from the others. This is just like how Republican led Florida writes in its students history books referencing slavery as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Bro, Really??? Now, let’s go down your bullets. 1 .. If your enslaving people, that’s economic exploitation and worse. If you’re placing a new religious tax on the peoples who refuse to annihilate their own cultures and religions by having to convert to your religion, thats called economic exploitation. And this tax was part of the strategy by many leaders in the Islamic Empire to rule and help have a continued collection of funds, when the plundering was over since they conquered these areas already and now rule over them. We can dive further into the real historic complexity of Islamic rule over these areas, outside your dogmatic approach, if you’d like… 2 .. Yes, Arabization is different than Islamization.. BUT, and that’s a HUGE BUT, you DON’T get wide spread Arabization without Islamization. It’s a type of ruling. Look at the history of the other Empires. Each had their own strategies and tactics. Latin America has a more or less overarching “Hispanic Culture”, due to the methods of the Spanish Conquest, even with the fact that each country is diverse and has its own cultural complexities. Whereas India still holds on to its languages, cultures and religions, even after the British rule. That’s Not to say it doesn’t have many British influences left behind. These are just examples to show the diverse ways, colonial conquest can be done. And the skies the limit, which doesn’t leave the Islamic colonial conquest off the list. 3 .. I’ve spent time in the Middle East. And yes, there is a complexity of culture there like there is a complexity of culture everywhere and anywhere. This fact doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic Colonial conquest changed and/or wiped out the original cultures that were there before it decided to invade lands that didn’t belong to it. It’s laughable that you bring up the term, “protected”. “Conquest” doesn’t play well with “Protection.” Personally, if you’re going the propaganda route, you should have just referred to it as “Liberation.” lol… Any “religion of convert” does not Historically play well with others, including the Islamic Colonial Conquest. That said, we’re painting with broad strokes here. Each individual is different and some timeframes were better or worse. But if you want to call-having to create a tiered ruling system, where you subjugate anyone who isn’t Muslim, as a lower class to purposefully humiliate them with different laws and rules, specifically meant to remind them that they are beneath you- “protection”, okay… sure lol. There’s many other versions of this in all the other Colonial empires as well. Pick your flavor. Let’s not go into the complexity of how these ruling mechanisms are purposeful systemic features to help slowly force populations to leave behind their native cultural and indigenous ways and assimilate into the invading forces new ideology. This is the exact feature of what colonialism is. 5 .. Not sure why you skipped 4. But this might be a sign of why you think this video has debunked the “truth” that Islam was spread by the sword. lol… But to be fair, Islam was not JUST spread by the sword. To say that, would be naive and create a simplistic view and take away the complexity and sophistication of any Colonial conquest. It takes time to ethnically cleanse nations and wipe their memories of the historic truth. And when it’s done right, we get videos like this and conversations like we’re having right now. Blessed and peace be upon you.
@@Edgingtutor Here we go… Yes I watched the video. It’s a great attempt to whitewash the history of these events and give the complexity and nuances of any colonial empire reign, leaving out the biggest details that would paint a proper history in which we would be able to label it truth. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the best lies are 90% true. We can do this same thing with the European conquests of the Americas, the Mongol conquest of Asia, the Romans, the Zulu, the Persians, and yes the Islamic conquest as well. This is solely an apologist attempt to swim in cognitive dissonance and separate the Islamic colonial conquest from the others. This is just like how Republican led Florida writes in its students history books referencing slavery as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Bro, Really??? Now, let’s go down your bullets. 1 .. If you’re enslaving people, that’s economic exploitation and worse. If you’re placing a new religious tax on the peoples who refuse to annihilate their own cultures and religions by having to convert to your religion, thats called economic exploitation. And this tax was part of the strategy by many leaders in the Islamic Empire to rule and help have a continued collection of funds, when the plundering was over since they conquered these areas already and now rule over them. We can dive further into the real historic complexity of Islamic rule over these areas, outside your dogmatic approach, if you’d like… 2 .. Yes, Arabization is different than Islamization.. BUT, and that’s a HUGE BUT, you DON’T get wide spread Arabization without Islamization. It’s a type of ruling. Look at the history of the other Empires. Each had their own strategies and tactics. Latin America has a more or less overarching “Hispanic Culture”, due to the methods of the Spanish Conquest, even with the fact that each country is diverse and has its own cultural complexities. Whereas India still holds on to its languages, cultures and religions, even after the British rule. That’s Not to say it doesn’t have many British influences left behind. These are just examples to show the diverse ways, colonial conquest can be done. And the skies the limit, which doesn’t leave the Islamic colonial conquest off the list. 3 .. I’ve spent time in the Middle East. And yes, there is a complexity of culture there like there is a complexity of culture everywhere and anywhere. This fact doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic Colonial conquest changed and/or wiped out the original cultures that were there before it decided to invade lands that didn’t belong to it. It’s laughable that you bring up the term, “protected”. “Conquest” doesn’t play well with “Protection.” Personally, if you’re going the propaganda route, you should have just referred to it as “Liberation.” lol… Any “religion of convert” does not Historically play well with others, including the Islamic Colonial Conquest. That said, we’re painting with broad strokes here. Each individual is different and some timeframes were better or worse. But if you want to call-having to create a tiered ruling system, where you subjugate anyone who isn’t Muslim, as a lower class to purposefully humiliate them with different laws and rules, specifically meant to remind them that they are beneath you- “protection”, okay… sure lol. There’s many other versions of this in all the other Colonial empires as well. Pick your flavor. Let’s not go into the complexity of how these ruling mechanisms are purposeful systemic features to help slowly force populations to leave behind their native cultural and indigenous ways and assimilate into the invading forces new ideology. This is the exact feature of what colonialism is. 5 .. Not sure why you skipped 4. But this might be a sign of why you think this video has debunked the “truth” that Islam was spread by the sword. lol… But to be fair, Islam was not JUST spread by the sword. To say that, would be naive and create a simplistic view and take away the complexity and sophistication of any Colonial conquest. It takes time to ethnically cleanse nations and wipe their memories of the historic truth. And when it’s done right, we get videos like this and conversations like we’re having right now. Blessed and peace be upon you, my friend.
I think too many people look at islams early expansion through a lense that reflects their own beliefs. What’s more likely imo the Rashidun caliphate and the following Ummayads expanded primarily because they could. The leaders of the caliphate probably saw the weakness of both the sassanids and Roman’s and realised that there was a huge opportunity to expand their power base and make a lot of wealth from plunder and then taxation of the conquered populations. Not exactly colonialism as we would think of it now but for the time period basically the norm.
i love your content,,, but i have an advice ... i wish you set straight facing the camera. not leaning little to the right like now.... facing straight looking the viewer,, will get your voice and attention directly the the viewer ... thanks
The spread of Islam IS no different than Western Colonialism of African and the Americas. It was the spread of Arab rule and culture, disguised within the robes of religion. The Arabs of the tribe of Quraish ruled and appointed Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula especially Mecca, Medina and Taef, to rule as governors of all conquered lands. NO local Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Persian, North African was allowed to rule. Many languages and cultures disappeared under Islam.. Exactly like Western Europe did later.. Stop kidding yourself.
Sabrina what you say is what this channel is all about. Viewing our history with our lenses and as should all nations have their stories being told by colonialists.
Improtant thing to remember is that unlike the British in India who were complete foreigners, the Arabs in the Levant, Mesopitamia and Egypt werent. There is evidence about arab kingdoms in the Levant and mesopitamia. There is also evidence about interactions between Assyria a mespotiamian kingdom 1000 years prior to the revelation of the prophet pbuh with the Arabs as well as minor arab migration into Egypt. The prophet pbuh and quraysh used to do trade in the Levant so these people in the levant and mesopitamia are exactly like us (semites) we lived together, interacted and intermixed for thousands of years. In-fact there is a theory that suggests that every semitic people and civilization like the Pheonicians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Hebrews and Arameans are actually arabs who left the Arabian peninsuila since ''Arab'' used to mean to old civilizations like with Assyria (dessert dwellers). Even if the theory isnt true we are all semites afterall, Arabic deviates from Aramaic. A historian made a list of civilizations where the semitic civilization at its endpoint was Islam and the Arabs. Keep in mind this semitic civilization includes all other forms of semites like Pheonicia and Carthage, Akkadia and Assyria, then The Israelites. Basically Arab is a unitary Semitic identity, the only semites who resisted such assimilation were the jews because they were spread out even before Israel many Jews in Arab land were called ''Arab-jews'' and spoke arabic like a everyday language sadly our idiotic nationalistic leaders kicked them out, affecting the economy and providing Israel with a population surplus to repopulate ethnically cleansed Palestinian land.
Throughout history, the Arab presence in the Middle East has been undeniable. Take, for example, the Arab kingdom of Hatra, which thrived in Mesopotamia during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Another notable example is the Palmyrene empire, an Arab city in Syria that successfully conquered Rome's eastern provinces until they were eventually subdued by Aurelian. Even in ancient times, Arab tribes in Lebanon fiercely fought against Alexander the Great, residing in the mountainous regions of the country during the 4th century BC. Additionally, the Nabataean kingdom, located in present-day Jordan and extending beyond the Dead Sea, further exemplifies the Arab influence in the region. The Arab conquests, rather than introducing Arabs to the Middle East, simply served to unite them with other Arab groups like the Ghassanids in the Golan Heights and various Arab communities in Iraq, Syria, and the Levant. These groups remained loyal to their respective empires, such as the Sassanids, and even fought alongside them against Khalid ibn Walid. In light of these historical facts, it becomes evident that Arabs have always been an integral part of the dynamic Semitic cultures in the Middle East, despite inconsistent arguments suggesting otherwise.
@tr4hek389 I thank you also for sharing. It seems people disassociate Arabs from the region and want to fit them into this small box in the Arabian Peninsula. They seem to forget that Arabs had a major nomadic role that had them interact with the region in its extremities. Amazing insights though. Thanks again.
I learn soooo much by reading these comments and their threads. With Tareq's channel growth happening I can't hardly keep up with them all like before! That, is a good thing to know for everybody, as more light 🕯️shining 🌟 to expose the darkness out of existence for a better humanity!! Yay team! ☯️
what happened to the Christian populations of North Africa, The Horn, Levant, and Mesopotamia? There were even Christians in the Arab peninsula, what happened to those populations?
@@mega99999 bro why I ain't trying to be ignorant or trying to spread hate, I literally grew up in Bahrain for 12 years. And I was wondering how the Christian population died out so much.
@lunalingo4461 so you were living in bahrain? And you don't know where is the chriatian population? They are still there... 10-20% of the population... if your argument is that it is low is because conversion... or how we muslims call it reversion... we believe everyone is born a muslim(believing in one god and his prophets) until his parents change his mentality.. like for example dehumanizing a prophet who literally united and gave peace to the arabian peninsulah after it was a bloody mess? Arabia would be just another roman post or even wiped out from arabs entirely if not for islam..
@@mega99999 bro r U stupid The Ministry of Information Affairs website states 99.8 percent of citizens are Muslims, while the remainder of citizens are Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Baha’is. The 20% Christian population ur talking abt was just foreign workers like my dad who aren't actual citizens. We didn't have that many rights as the native Arab citizens Bro and answer my question, I don't care about Arabia not being united if it weren't for Islam or dehumanising ur prophet. I asked what happened to the centuries old populations of Christians in the Levant, Mesopotamia and North Africa?Look at what's happening to them now, for example our brothers in Assyria, they were persecuted and genocides against by various Islamic governments, most recently by ISIS. or the Maronites in Lebanon. They have faced persecution for centuries, that's why they escaped to mount Lebanon, where they were still targeted by the Druze and Muslim communities. Or our Coptic brothers in Egypt. Most of them had to sadly convert to Islam as they were discriminated against by the Islamic government who gave them the status of dhimmi, in which they had to pay jizya, facing all this pressure, the majority of them converted, and are near extinct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites
@@mega99999 how can U justify this man, seriously. I respect Islam highly as I believe we both have the same religion with slight differences and that we r one people. I have said this because I mean no disrespect to ur religion as long as u don't disrespect mine.
I find a lot of stuff in this video misleading and at a lot of times revisioning history. Firstly, you commented how oppressive were the previous two empires before Islam. While that's true for the Byzantines, the Persians is a more complicated story. The Sassanian empire was infamous for their toleration of cultures and religions. What you describing here is the last years of the empire in which Mesopotamia was devastated from the war so they demanded higher taxes from the people. That's why people welcome the Muslims, just like the thirteen colonies did after the British raise the taxes because they were sort of money after the seven years war. Now that we mentioned colonies, let's talk about your response to the allegations about colonization. In your definition of colonization you described only the modern definition of it and even then only the economic aspects and I cannot help myself from thinking that this was intentional. So a complete definition of colonialism is "Colonialism is the pursuing, establishing and maintaining of control and exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group of people( that's the only part you mentioned). The colonizer monopolizes political power and holds the conquered society and its people to be inferior to their conqueror in legal, administrative, social, cultural, or biological terms. While frequently advanced as an imperialist regime, colonialism can also take the form of settler colonialism, whereby colonial settlers invade and occupy territory to permanently replace an existing society with that of the colonizers, possibly towards a genocide of native populations." And all those things the Arabs did. Especially in the two first Caliphates( not that it went away afterwards). Not to mention the militaristic expansion in the name of Islam sounds very similar to the Christian justification of colonialism. So were the Muslim Arabs colonizers? Yes. As we opened the discussion for the Caliphates, I want to discuss a comment of you that the Islamic empire( so the Umayyad Caliphate) didn't work to benefit of one people. 7:24 But this is totally wrong. The Umayyad Caliphate was an Arab supremacist empire (especially harsh towards Persians) that even non Arab Muslims were treated as second class citizens. This notion can also be supported by the fact that the Abbasid revolution was mostly supported by non Arabs. As for the "all kinds of cultures thrived" it would have been true if only by all those cultures you mean Arabs, Persians and later Turks. Lastly I want to comment on the conversion to Islam 5:24. You said that no-one was forced to convert but instead they had a choice to become second class citizens and pay extra taxes. With all respect this line here made fun to all people that suffered under those states. Because no, being a second class citizen, pay extra taxes, be far easier to become a slave and be prohibited to practice your faith freely is not an option. The only thing you are doing is to make others being even more angry about you and rightfully so. So people converting because of societle pressures it's not something to brag about. So please don't try to hide or lie about your history, all cultures have done terrible things. The only thing you are doing now is to make the other more pitiful about you and also lying to yourself.
Framing the narrative you are: 1. Why do you use "colonialism or conquest" and not just "imperialism"? 2. Why do you insist on Muslim tolerance when Zoroastrianism was persecuted since day one. 3. How you differentiate a dhimmi from a colonial subject with diminished rights? Look, I'm Basque and it was Islamic expansion which death one of the worst blows to our sovereignty... even if the Muslims lost and the Franks reaped the benefits of success as "liberators" (with imperialist conditions) after Tours. It was my people who stopped the Muslim expansion and nobody even remembers that almost and my people fought so bravely because they had conquered freedom to the Christians (Romans, Goths, Franks) via peasant revolution (bagauda) and even after the first Frankish (Merovingian) invasion still managed to break free and established their own compromise independent Great Duchy (Vasconia and Aquitaine), which was good until the Muslims came by and attacked us right away without any casus belli whatsoever. And they lost, of course: Vasconia was not any rotten door to throw down just out of fanaticism and massive armies, it was a free nation manned by free people, not serfs. 18 years of war of conquest by the Arabs against my little country more than a thousand kms away from Arabia, 18 years of Muslim defeats... until Al Gafiqi was sent by Damascus with the most massive army seen over here since Rome collapsed... an army that was pretty much unstoppable and that was indeed conquering us all the way to the Loire, where, with harsh conditions, the Franks agreed to lend a hand. The rest is history: Al Gafiqi was defeated, and also legend: in Roncal it's founding legend that Abdelrhaman Al Gafiqi wen through that valley in their scrambled retreat and was ambushed by the locals. Then everyone claimed the honor of having killed the new Hannibal until a woman came by and said it was she who did slay the invader, the men laughed and she threw a human tongue to their feet, they looked at the severed head of the invader general and realized it had no tongue and she was cheered as championness of the Basques. Since then, Roncal has a schuteon with a crowned head and the legend "Abderraman" (the legend may well refer to some other battle, nobody really knows for sure, but "si non e vero, e bene trovatto". The problem was then what to do with the Franks, who kept coming and causing trouble, so a status quo emerged of peace and cooperation between Cordoba and Pamplona (a diminished version of Vasconia), which resulted in that other Abd el-Rhaman, "the Great", the first Caliph of the West, being the Basque-est Umayad ever. The Cordoba Caliphate, once it had renounced to expansion, it was also probably the best that happened to Andalusia since the days when Tartessos was still a sovereign nation able to shower Phocaea with silver, why? Because instead of being a colony of the Phoenicians, the Romans or whoever else (including the distant Arabs of Damascus and Mecca) but it was finally its own thing again: it was sovereign even if the dominant elite was more or less foreign and orientalizing (that would change with the dictator Al Mansur, the subsequent imposion of the Cordoba Caliphate, and almost simultaneously of the Pamplonese min-empire in the north, and the invasion of fanatic jihadists from North Africa: the Almoravids and Almohads, but that's another story). Look: Christianity was already the first large scale fascism (the church is the totalitarian party, with one political comissary in every parish and surveying every soul for the Augustus, that's the main difference between classical and medieval Rome: tolerance was much much greater under polytheism) and Islam is just a version of Christianity, heretic as it may be, with the very same goals since inception but with Arab instead of Greco-Roman ethnic centrality, with an Empire to be built instead of one "inherited" via military coup. One of the keys of all this confusion is that everybody with an agenda wants to radically differentiate Islam and Christianity (and by extension other Judaisms such as Talmudism or the distinct and diverse ancient Judaism but also Baha'ism, Mormonism, etc.) Muslims want that, Christians want that, and peoples from other traditions are dazzled by the millenary sectarian conflict between Islam and Christianity and, as the former eventually lost hard (and suffered colonization as result), tend to pack it with other victims of Christian/European imperialism and adopt it as "one of their own", even in some cases to the point of conversion (but more commonly whitewashing). The reality however is that Christian or European imperialism followed largely the steps of Muslim imperialism, especially in relation with Black Africa, where both pseudo-camps behaved very parallely and generally awfully. The main difference has to do with the timelines of illustration or scientific intellectual hegemony, which in the Muslim World was earlier than in the Christian one but was later abandoned in favor of the most decadent religious obscurantism and growing intolerance (as had happened among Christians, especially Western ones, earlier but was a trend reversed by Renaissance anyhow).
Hi Luis and it's always a pleasure reading your commentary and I acknowledge that this video has hit home more than others. I think even imperialism doesn't work. I will utilise one major example that can maybe clarify my perspective. At the same time, I dont want to diminish the blood shed that took place at the dawn and dusk of Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula but in between there was a powerful peace that saw the prosperity of your lands and people. You see today when Muslims look back at their time in your lands, it was never viewed upon as a separate nation of people. There wasn't an element of superiority of one human over another. There was of course the Dhimmi system which did indeed provide second class citizenry but not as extreme as you might think but at the same time it was a law, a structure that people could follow and trust in. Many scholars and thinkers and tradesmen continued enjoying their lives within the Islamic caliphates as Dhimmis. It was still a fairly feudal society so I dont think saying that everyone should be equal was a legitimate claim for any civilisation at the time. I cant really answer the Zoroastrian question because I am not well versed in it. But again thank you so much for sharing your questions and your thoughts.
@Goyim-phobic I actually enjoy Luis' long commentary. It is rare that someone puts so much effort on to relay their thoughts. For me it's about sharing, valid or invalid so I appreciate the commentary. And thank you for your commentary as always.
Noted @Goyim-phobic but I think we should answer with clear and short retorts when we believe one might be wrong in their positions or else we appear weak with ours.
@Goyim-phobic - The bias is unavoidable because I'm not Muslim (nor Christian nor any other type of Jewish), I'm in the atheist-pantheist range and in full moon nights I even tend to believe in the ancient Basque religion (which is like yin-yang more or less but more in the line of "fertility cult" much as that pre-Indoeuropean variant of Hinduism that is Shaktism/Shaivism). I still sign in my last blog as "Maju", which comes from the Arabic "Madju" (similar to "kafir" but maybe less insulting, of Persian Zoroastrian roots ultimately) and is a name applied to the ancient Dragon or Snake male aspect of ancient Basque gender-binary Monotheism (totally unrelated to Jewish-Christian-Muslim patriarchal one as far as I can tell). The real problem is IMO with being overly Islamo-centric. In any case take it, please as food for thought, as some outsider's different POV, which may be useful at times to have lest one falls into complacent group-think. Do I realize the difference between "colonialism and imperialism"? Meh, what's in a name? If we go strictly by Lenin's definition of "Imperialism", it's not even a policy but a system (something that "campists" insist on not understanding, thinking that somehow "imperialism" would be something only the USA or the West does, which is not true: everybody does it or tries to, especially under capitalist or similar exploitative basis. I am of the opinion anyhow that Rome was both imperialist and colonialist and that the Roman Empire was, at least until Caracalla, nothing else than the colonial empire of Rome-Latium-Italy, with Italy very clearly becoming the imperial metropolis after the Social War and the provinciae being all what we now would call "colonies" (in those days "coloniae" meant actually "settlements" and not general subjugated foreign territories, those were called "provinciae" = pro-vinci-(i)a = conquered land and it's inhabitants had generally the status of "provincials", i.e. colonial subjects without rights other than the most basic civil law, subject to torture and possibly execution without proper trial). This Roman legacy is definitely very important for the Christian/European side of things but it also massively influenced Arabia and the rise of Islam, which is closest to the Roman or Greco-Roman tradition than any other world culture, except the Christian-European one. Islam is terribly Western, still more Semitic than Indoeuropean (and that's a core difference probably) but still Western, and there is hardly any denial of that.
The arab invasion is the exact defintion of colonialism, I will give three instance of how hated the arabs were by the natives of the lands they invaded. First is Iran which brutually had numerous cities in it wiped out for its people resisting arabisation. A process which was resisted by all natives to varying degrees of success. Return to Persia, this attempt at arabisation continued until the fall of Umayyad caliphate's collapse due to the revolt of the natives against arab rule. Now let talk about north africa the main victim of arab colonialism do you want to talk about the countless war between the arabs and the berber who refused to be ruled by the former or do you wanna talk about how the arab enforced segregation on the coptics of Egypt. I will give one last instance the fake harmony you know the iberians and the arabs will leaving in such harmony that during the reconquestia the muslim would aid their christian brothers against arab rule for how tyrannical their rule was. So pls don't say that arab were more tolerant, more merciful or better than their counterpart. The only empire the arabs could be classified as better than is the mongol empire which really doesn't help their case either.
07:00 "...the supposed colonial center.." I don't know if it's deliberate but you're drawing false comparison. Those Islamic empires didn't touch Mecca and Medina because they wanted to preserve it in the way it was at time of the prophet and use it for religioous purposes only do they didn't want them to become cultural and trade centers like Baghdad etc. Umayyad dynasty capital was Damascus just like British empire London. Al Abassiaya Baghdad like French empires Paris Fatimid capital was Cairo like Spanish Madrid and so on. 6:08 Yes they were in small minority. So they can get more jizya and keep themselves in the elite class. You're missing just one point. The Spanish, English, Portuguese were stupid enough to write about their own atrocities. People in the time of European expansion 15th-20th century were more educated and advanced to write about what the conquerors did compared to 7th-8th century.
Where is your source that Madinah nor Mekka werent made capitals for the reason you claim? Madinah was the capital for quite a while. And to give you the benefit of the doubt, any other Arabian city couldve been made the capital, but no, cities outside the Arabian peninsuala were made capitals, with many other non Arabian cities flourishing and becoming hubs for the world. Your second point doesnt make sense either. Muslims chroniclers throughout history wrote about the wrongdoings of Muslims. If youre claiming early Islamic conquests had commited the atrocities to the level of the Spanish, English or French, but hid it, youre as much as a conspiracy theorist as others. Consider the fact there are non Muslim writings such as from Egyptian Copts where they wrote positively about the first Muslims that arrived.
@@aq4356 I did not say, they never were. I said "those Islamic empires..." meaning after the Rashidun empire. My source is form various Islamic scholars. And yes that is my point. The later Caliphates took the capital where it suited them. For my second point: Due the recency of European empires people tend to make them the worse ever. Definitely, I agree to some extent because my country suffered under them too. However there is a recency bias here. Over time writing and education became easier and cheaper. Previously it was oral. So if you masscare all the elders and bring up their children in your own culture (almost like ottoman practice if Devshirme) Some native American tribes allied with the British or the French to defeat other native tribes or Spanish etc. Bishop of Chiapas Bartolome, a Spanish himself, wrote about the atrocities of the Spanish government. History is neither black and white nor is it constant. The Copts writing positivity about one caliphate or a particular ruler doesn't mean that the next 1000 years were the same. For instance the Fatimid rule wasn't very nice to say the least. In Mughal India emerpor Akbar era was peak good relations with the non Muslims. He promoted inclusivity for Hindu religions and even created a new religion that combines local religions. But just 55 years later Aurangzeb was peak bad as he wanted a more Islamic regime. So if you read quick history, people would think that the period was fine since the highlight of Mughal era was Akbar. "....much of a conspiracy theorist as others" Others who? Please tell me about the those chroniclers.
Uh huh, and how would you explain the uhh drastic decrease in the Assyrian and Aramean Christian population? What about the laws under the Caliphates that prevented the building of Churches? What about the Jizya tax and Dhimmi system? I do not understand how paying a heavy tax every year for being just member of the Abrahamic faiths for, protection? Procreation against whom? The Assyrians were forbidden from carrying weapons, riding horses, holding any position of office. I do not see how conquering a region, then their ethnic and religious populations just happen to disappear over the course of 200 years. I will tell you know that Assyrians and Armenians, as well as Arameans did not convert to Islam nor did they rebel to just cause the various genocidal acts against Christians. Imagine getting by treated as second class citizen, having various restrictions on movement, religious expression, cultural and traditional engagement and finally repeated genocides. It’s interesting to wonder how 80% of Mesopotamia was majority Assyrian and suddenly by 800 AD they were less then 5% of the total population.
The Spanish gave the native peoples citizenship of Spain. They did not purposedly massacred them. Many died of diseases they were not used to. The Spanish mixed with the natives, that is how there are mestizos today. Moreover, there are still lots of Indian populations in South America. Interestingly, the most racist towards the Indians are the mestizo populations.
U r not pointing out the fact Muslims in slaved people that convert stop non Muslims from gaining higher rankings in society forced there laws on concord people so ya they had religious freedom but with a price so yes they were imperialist
6:08 Yes they were in small minority. So they can get more jizya and keep themselves in the elite class. You're missing just one point. The Spanish, English, Portuguese were stupid enough to write about their own atrocities. People in the time of European expansion 15th-20th century were more educated and advanced to write about what the conquerors did compared to 7th-8th century.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & JOP) [Video Visualizador Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zoc75M8Swhc/mqdefault.jpg)
My Christian family survived 1400 years of Islamic "rule" in Palestine. All of my uncles died in exile since the founding of Israel and our family presence in Palestine today is a shadow of what it once was. So as a descendant of Christian Palestinians who heard first hand accounts from my grandfather about how Turkish rule vs British rule vs Zionist rule differed, the Zionists were by far the worst. Even the British were angels in comparison.
There is a hadith that, although I’m paraphrasing, states that if any Muslim harms the property, life, or rights of non-Muslims living in a Muslim land, Prophet Muhammad himself will stand as a witness against the Muslim on Judgment Day, siding with the non-Muslim.
In Islam, justice is paramount, regardless of one’s faith. Allah will favor a just non-Muslim over a tyrant Muslim, even if the Muslim is devout in fasting, praying, and giving charity. This principle of justice is why Saladin faced betrayal and was poisoned by his own people (the rich landlords). He redistributed lands from the wealthy Muslims to non-Muslims and impoverished Muslims who had been wronged, demonstrating his commitment to fairness and equity.
By that logic nothing really happened the natives of the Americas since their still around...
How can you claim to be PS when Ottomon census had many people settling from Iraq, Jordan, Lebannon and much more?
@@artair70 omg 😭
@@artair70 what logic?? what happened to the natives of the american massacred. and most of the time native invother countries that ottomon ruled had no problem with their rule.
@@mohammedxzadoali The Natives who comited ethnic cleansing against one another who never had any land as they were settlers to any land they came into.
"ottomon ruled had no problem with their rule" NO
Each time I see this man's videos, I watch and save them. Thanks for educating those of us who are new to Islam ☪️ and seek knowledge. May Allah keep you and bless you. InshaAllah
Kevin its my pleasure. Seeking knowledge is a great way of life and very Muslim. Thank you for your blessings.
The spread of Islam IS no different than Western Colonialism of African and the Americas.
It was the spread of Arab rule and culture, disguised within the robes of religion.
The Arabs of the tribe of Quraish ruled and appointed Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula especially Mecca, Medina and Taef, to rule as governors of all conquered lands.
NO local Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Persian, North African was allowed to rule.
Many languages and cultures disappeared under Islam..
Exactly like Western Europe did later..
Stop kidding yourself.
@@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694 and after the defeat of the quraish didnt the local people were allowed to rule pls just give source for your argument 1 mistake is that quraish tribes werent muslim and were at war with our prophet (saw)
@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694 Islam doesn't suppress other cultures or languages. Arabic was simply a language of unity. You have no evidence in any of your claims. You stop kidding yourself. The early Muslim conquests were simply conquests. Every group of people did conquest.
@@senmors4826
Name one native Egyptian ruler (Wali) of Egypt during the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates.
Thank you. I'd been made to believe that reason for Islamic battles post the death of the propeth PBUH was self defense, but left confused with the extend of the territorial expansion. It clearly looked as colonialism to me, more than just self defense.
Thanks to you, I now can see that there are differences between colonialism and expansion. The constant humbleness of Mecca and Medina is a briliant insight. Thank you again... ❤
Thank you so much for your wonderful comments Simarodra. One can't be naive and believe that empires would fall one after the other so easily when Islam came without considering other aspects. One that is extremely viable was that those who we liberated had no real fear of Islam. For them is was a major improvement on the harshly of real suppression and injustice.
I am really glad that you've seen a different side to the story. A story that makes sense not only to you but to everyone who has reason.
it was colonization. don't ever let anyone deluded from reality make you think otherwise. pre-islamic arabia had many different indigenous people subjugated by the foreign force of islam. it's not a religion of peace. no religion used to conquer peoples ever is. also the arabs were notorious for the longest and largest slave trade in history.
During the European colonisation there were countless of inhuman brutality we know from the history..they don't talk about those..but they pick some exceptional cases from the early Islamic history and tell us that Islam also was a colonizer..thanks Tareq for your mind opening videos❤
You are absolutely right Rakib. Well said.
Selective memory to justify narratives is always a short termed and ill advised approach.
It was a brutal time, read on the Fall of Constantinople...
@@monsjohnson8832 The conquest of constantinople was not brutal lol. There was no sacking of the city. I'll tell you who did though. Your fellow crusaders who you defend so much. Muslims rarely ever commit atrocities so nice attempt at painting a legitimate conquest as an atrocity only bad when Muslims do it yes? 🤡
"early Islamic history" Slavey was still legal in many Islamic nations only 60 years ago.
i really hope this video gets the appreciation it deserves. succinct, elaborative and to the point.
thank you so much for your efforts brother
You're always so generous in your commentary Sarpo34. Totally grateful.
Islam came to south east asia, specifically my country malaysia and also Indonesia because of dawah effort of muslim merchants to convert rulers of the region, no forceful conversion by the sword was ever used...
Great point Kuamir. Thank you for sharing.
Excellent geo social example of Tareq's message today! 🕯️✌️
Not to mention there are more Indonesian Muslims than Muslims of any other nationality.
It was the ahlul bayt that came to us. We can never repay them for their bravery and selflessness in dakwah.
@@thekandarichronicles ISLAM came with HORROR in Southeast Asia .. more than 1 million of ethnic Batak in Sumatra were slaughtered by ISLAMISTS from western Sumatra ..
Whenever I'm notified of your uploads, I immediately save it to my Watch Later playlist and I always make sure it's my first watch of the day!
Terrific content as usual ❤
That's very cool. I hope to read your comment when you have the time to watch it!
This is one of the most high quality well written videos i have seen, simple enough without overcomplicating yet an effective way of getting the message across using facts to base up an argument.
Keep up the good work
Salam
Tareq is definitely talented and successful with quality presentations that have been long overdue, yet it is clear this is his time to shine light for humanity to regroup into more enlightened humans, once again!! ☮️🍀☯️
Islam didn’t only conquered people land but Islam conquered people hearts. Western colonialism and colonizer always looted colonized land but Islam establish equality and human right in conquered land. Islam is light where Islam arrived Islam enlighted these land. Most beautiful ideology in this world is the ideology of Islam.
Yes Ramzan, that is the point. Hence it is not colonialism by any definition.
@@thekandarichronicles The colonialism that emerged around the 1500s introduced unprecedented brutality and cruelty not seen in earlier occupation. One of history's most inhumane instances of systematic oppression and exploitation, setting colonialism apart from previous forms of simple "Taking over land".
Islam and equality and human rights? How delusional can you be
No like most Abrahamic religions..Islam tore the heart out of my ancestors, destroyed the scared places, enslaved their children and sacred our civilization. This will not be forgotten nor has it been forgiven. My family will always stand against the Abrahamic faiths. Too much blood has passed between us.
@@galemartin9155 what is your nationality?
can you make a video comparing slave trades in the islamic empire vs those done by the europeans?
I wonder why he's liked and commented on every comment except urs
Slavery was part of society in pre-Islamic days and Islam encouraged and rewarded freeing slaves. They were treated as part of the house or as employers. You can look it up. Today in most Muslim majority countries there are no slaves and they’re regular citizens.
@@beasthound200 The Islamic slave raiders/traders were horrific and far worse than European and American slave raiders and traders.
Hadith
حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ وَاصِلٍ الأَحْدَبِ، عَنِ الْمَعْرُورِ، قَالَ لَقِيتُ أَبَا ذَرٍّ بِالرَّبَذَةِ، وَعَلَيْهِ حُلَّةٌ، وَعَلَى غُلاَمِهِ حُلَّةٌ، فَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ إِنِّي سَابَبْتُ رَجُلاً، فَعَيَّرْتُهُ بِأُمِّهِ، فَقَالَ لِيَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ أَعَيَّرْتَهُ بِأُمِّهِ إِنَّكَ امْرُؤٌ فِيكَ جَاهِلِيَّةٌ، إِخْوَانُكُمْ خَوَلُكُمْ، جَعَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ تَحْتَ أَيْدِيكُمْ، فَمَنْ كَانَ أَخُوهُ تَحْتَ يَدِهِ فَلْيُطْعِمْهُ مِمَّا يَأْكُلُ، وَلْيُلْبِسْهُ مِمَّا يَلْبَسُ، وَلاَ تُكَلِّفُوهُمْ مَا يَغْلِبُهُمْ، فَإِنْ كَلَّفْتُمُوهُمْ فَأَعِينُوهُمْ ".
Narrated Al-Ma'rur:
At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet (ﷺ) said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' "
Sahih
Sahih al-Bukhari, 30
In-Book Reference: Book 2, Hadith 23
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 30 (deprecated numbering scheme)
This hadith disproves your point@@crystalbluebutterfly
@@Malada3i slavery was a primary feature of the Islamic State, which still exists across the Middle East today, although diminished. A woman captured when she was 11 by IS was just recovered in Gaza where she spent 10 years as a slave to a Hamas member/family.
The Crescent and Star is Seljuk symbol which they adopt from the Byzantine. Islam have no iconography, like how Christians use the cross or Buddhist use the Dharma wheel. Which is how it should ideally be kept.
You are correct. The symbol in this thumbnail is not representative of Islam at its early stages or later on and only became associate with the faith much later with the Ottoman Caliphate.
The crescent without the star is an Arabic symbol
Because Islam is only another form of Roman Idolatry.
@@dani-ld2fs is it really, never knew that
Tareq, Your constant shining 🌟 of the light 🕯️ is so needed 🚨 & very much appreciated. And you make information fun, increasing further interest & desire to learn more with your talents shared, in hopes for a better human experience for all.
☮️🕯️Amen Ajma'een!🕯️☯️
This is a great video! It has to be noted that Omar AS exempted the Christians of Levant from paying Jizya
Very informative and fun to watch. Great Job Tarek.
Mr.Tareq you elaborated the whole concept amazingly ❤.
Islam conquering heart even today..... Masha Allah
We can see the rise of Islam..in each part of world... .even when the Muslims are oppressed around the globe
That's a major part of the challenge in this day & age for sure! Peace & acceptance for all.
I'd say the early expansions of Islam were not colonialist, as it would be anachronical to say that. Also, the Ummayad dynasty especially wasn't even remotely interested in promoting Islam, quite the opposite in fact, as Muslim converts represented a loss of revenue for them in the form of Jizya. This actually led to revolts by Muslim groups in North Africa and Khorasan, the latter ending up with the Abbasid takeover. However, Muslim Empires were colonialists in some cases. I will just mention 2. First is the Ottoman Empire, which colonized and brutalized the people of the Balkans for several centuries (in fact, they did the same with the Arabs in the Middle East). In this case it isn't even anachronical considering the fact that the Ottomans were contemporaries of many of the European powers (it was seen as one of them actually). The second case is Islam in India before the Mughals. Muslim conquerors from Mahmud al Ghazni onwards pillaged India, forced the mainly Buddhist populations of the north to convert, and persecuted both Buddhists and Hindus. They also took the loot back to Afghanistan and Central Asia, thus making India poorer. The Mughals, however, were quite different.
Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were not "humane" or "benevolent". The conquest of Sindh itself was a brutal affair and was resisted strongly for years before the locals were overwhelmed. The later Turkic invasions into the subcontinent were even worse. Please don't try to sugar coat these things...
Yet all those places became stronger and prosperous. Whereas with colonialism, India became weak and underdeveloped because Colonialism siphons the wealth back to the home country. When the Turks invaded for conquest for example, they didn't simply siphon all the wealth back to central Asia and set up an economic model that would destroy local economies in favor of the benefit of some far away one and neither did we see wholesale replacement of populations with settlers like we did for example with the Europeans in North and South America/Australia. India under the Mughals became one of the richest countries in the world while under British colonialism it became one of the most impoverished. Under this paradigm of course Islam expansion were more humane and benevolent.
This is all about anti white , anti Christian bigotry. That white Christians are evil and Muslims are benevolent. They will do Olympic style verbal gymnastics to try to prove this point..
They were no islamic conquest but Muslim king conquering the land for his kingdom
@@lastword8783 liar, if that was the case Hindu's would have all converted to Islam. You don't get to redefine history....Islamic invasion of India was brutal and estimates million of Indians have been massacred.
@@lastword8783 The Mughals were decadent and left India hollowed out for European colonialism... Plassey, Buxar etc. India was richer before the Ghaznavids, Ghurids and Mughals came. That was what the rapacious lot came to plunder. When the damage was about to be remedied, the British and other Europeans came. Don't try to exonerate the brutality of the Islamic invasions.
I don't understand, how such quality video get very few recognition
Maybe because it came out 4 hours ago?
I will happen if it is supposed to happen. My belief is that recognition will come to those who persevere and who keep working hard, keep producing and keep learning and improving their craft along the way.
Maybe. Indeed only appeared 4 hours. 😂
It is also worth noting that during the abbasid caliphate, the Arab (arabs for arabia) element of the islamic empire become almost non existent
In the west we had amazigh taking control, in the middle turk, and persian, and the east afghans,
It is like having the entire British empire government and lords being from South Africa, india and Egypt
Thats an amazing insight Jacket8818 and only enforces that it wasn't about control but about a union that in its absolute fundamentals was a coming together of many peoples under the banner of a new faith.
@@thekandarichroniclesyeah, every region were governed and controlled by locals despite them all swearing loyalty to the abbasid caliph in baghdad, and this is further proof how islam United multiple ethnicity of people under one banner despite the difference cultures and language
Sir,the Arab religion's trademark was a warrior on a horse with a sword in hand.
This has not changed in 1400 years except guns replacing swords and armored vehicles/ 2 wheelers replacing horses.
I disagree with your statement and your impression of Arabs as an imagery is a Western stereotype that you should be able to recognise and counter through your reasoning. Just think of the same Westerners who place the same submissive typologies on your people. Are they accurate?
He completely went over the fact that people today will call Egyptians Arabs, even though they are Egyptians predating Arabia
I appreciate that you brought in mention about North Africa as sometimes it is heavily overlooked with Umayyads on that matter, although the revolt was so significant it had large consequences to the Umayyad Caliphate especially in the West in Andalus and Southern France.
nice video but please on next videos put the sources in the description that way it gives more credibility
Mr Enigma1564, agreed fully. Will focus on that for future content.
Just wanted to say, Mr. Tareq, how much I appreciate your work. I've followed many of your videos, and you're doing an extremely good job. Your ability to describe historical events with such clarity is truly impressive. Your subscriber count doesn't reflect just how good your content is, but I believe your channel will see a significant increase in subscribers soon. Keep up the fantastic work! Sincerely, one of your early followers from Saudi Arabia.
وفقك الله 👍
Thank you @ABN_RUclips. Your words mean the world to me. I am confident things will come when one works hard and keeps producing, while also learning more and more along the way. With your support I am sure it will happen inshallah.
This is well researched and structured Allahumma barik. Thank you.
Thank you Boogy for your support.
Free palestine.
Yes indeed but would be nice to share your thoughts Tigerdude on this video.
Previous scriptures like the Bible prophecied and legitimatised Islam’s expansion anyways so they have no right to complain about anything 🤷🏻♂️ 💚
Book of Daniel 2 and 7
4 pagan kingdoms of men
Babylon, Medo/ Persia , Greece , Rome
and then the kingdom of God/ Islam Jerusalem 637ce - 1917
Edit, this was meant in response to Joe in this thread: Thanks for these resourced tips to focus on, for confirmation or reality checks as I call them!✌️
@@brendasmart553 I recommend a book that recently has come out
‘ Abraham fulfilled - a biblical study of God’s plan for Ishmael and Arabia
free pdf on Sapience institute website
Salaam alaikum, this video… 🎙️⬇️.
Very well done brother. Love the production and the refutation of the smear campaign with facts and truth. May Allah swt increase us all in Iman and guidance, and make it easier on our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Àmeen.
Islam is not a religion like the word is used in occident. It is better a political movement.
Not a political movement, it is the truth
Mashallah bhai
.... what a video!!!!
Magnificent!! I'VE saved it.
Muslims never exploited the populations they conqured like the white fellows.....
And Islam has enhanced Persian Culture, Islam enhanced Indian Culture! And Amazigh Culture... not to forget Islam Enhanced Turkic Culture
Assalamualaikum where are you from ....very well articulated refute to the argument
Great video as per usual. Not surprised.
Thanks again for you wonderful support.
My only problem with the video is a complete lack of citation which is important to prove your case
The Prophet ﷺ said: ❰ A true believer does not taunt or curse or abuse or talk indecently. ❱ Riyad as-Salihin 1734
Great insight into an often overlooked subject
Not sure overlooked. Being used left right and centre by those that can't defend the Zionist colonialist agenda.
Suppressed intentionally by the powers that be, seems more accurate. 🕯️🍀🌟🍀🕯️
BarakAllahu fik, brother. I think this video is very accurate, and although you do not need sources for every point you made (some are common knowledge and/or rational), I would still advise you to cite your sources in the description, as this is more convincing and trustworthy.
No mention of the the Zanj rebellion and other authorities commited by arabs...
Yahweh. Religious rights matter, indigenous rights matter. How are you accusing the French Spanish and English of colonizing the world, but omitting Arabs Muslims whatever you wanna call them and not calling yourself a bigot xenophobe?
The sophistry and equivocation on display here is mind blowing.
In anyway, whether I like it or not, or one likes it or not, this is how I see the development of the State of Israel in its modern inception. A small minority of a people (both globally & in the region as well) for protection from larger empires & entities, and even just coming off of an Industrial tier genocide. Attempted Negotiated agreements between land allotment between the 2 groups or even integration into the other (you can become citizens & keep your culture, language & religion) or have your territories which were drawn up. Then mutual conflict with one side winning & being victorious & thus conquests and acquirements of lands through that. And still, the point of citizenship & integration in Sovereign territories still stands
Forcing subject peoples to pay a special kind of tax IS a form of resource extraction. If money can be used to purchase resources then taxation is a form of resource extraction.
I would like to add few points correct me if I am wrong.
Islam does not allow taxing the muslim. but it did allowed taxing the non-musilm. So it was in the khilafas interest to create a friendly environment for non-muslims to thrive otherwise they wont be able to give taxes.The rashedun khilafat is the first welfare state in humanity.
But the honest muslim traders are the ones who actually spread islam to the entire globe.Ex Bangladesh malaysia indonesia, phillipines, china etc. The interest free , free market economic system made a huge impact on the hearts of people.The reason why most muslim countries are majority muslim is because islam spread not only from top down but also buttom up.
and I have read(not 100% sure if its correct), The phrase "islam spread by the sword" is actually from british propaganda to create enmity between muslims and hindus.
Thanks!!!!!Great videos!!!!!!!!
Muslims are oblidged by RELIGION not STATE to pay zakat, which goes for the poor and the ones in need and charity workers who help spread it, zakat was usually higher than jizya
Thank you for your elaboration on the video. Dont forget about Zakat that Muslims had to pay but Dhimmis didnt. People dont seem to remember how Islam early on incorporated a fair and benevolent sharing and redistribution of the wealth to help the needy.
@@thekandarichronicles Yes! Due to the zakat Muslims were able to create the first welfare system on earth. Allah has made us the best of people but not perfect
This is not entirely correct, muslims had to pay zakat and other obligations like jihad, it was the muslim obligation to take the sword when there is danger to the population and this includes danger to non muslims, while non muslims had no obligation, muslims also had many other obligations, non muslims had only 2, pay jizya if you can (you are excluded if you can’t, this is also the case for zakat) and obey public order
I am curious for Tareq's next response for clarification regarding these last 2 comments in this thread...
يعطيك العافية أخي طارق توجد أربعة قضايا ارجو أن تعالجها أيضاً لمخاطبة المسلمين وغير المسلمين الناطقين بالانجليزية وهي بالغة الأهمية جداً لأنها ضدنا كعرب مسلمين :
1. كل المسلمين والغربيين يقولون أن اغلب علماء المسلمين والذين قادوا النهضة العربية هم الفرس ! كلهم قرروا ذلك بناء على كتابات ابن خلدون في كتابهُ المقدمة .
ألف د.ناجي معروف كتابهُ المشهور عروبة العلماء المنسوبين إلى البلدان الأعجمية ، ذكر الكثير جداً من علماء العرب الذين نسبوا للفرس والروم والامازيغ وهم عرف معروف نسبهم ، وكان للشعوبية دورفي محاولة طمس عروبتهم :
يمكن معالجة هذه المسألة في اربعة نقاط 1. ان كثير من العلماء العرب نسبوا للفرس ولدينا مايثبت ذلك . 2. أن كثير من علماء الفرس هم تلاميذ لدى علماء العرب وهذا يعود للفضل إلى العرب لأنهم من علموهم بدلاً من اضطهادهم لذلك كان العبيد والخدم يتعلمون بجانب أمراء العرب لذلك العرب المسلمين كانوا أمة تعلم البشرية ولم تمارس اضطهاد بجعل الفرس دورهم في الرعي والزراعة بل تم تمكينهم في دار الحكمة وغيرها من الحواضر ( فمثلاً الكندي كان ابو الفلسفة وتتلمذ عليه الكثير من الفرس ، المبرد من علماء الأدب تتلمذ على يديه الكثير من الفرس والذين اصبحوا علماء في الأدب ، الخليل الفراهيدي تتلمذ على يديه الكثير من الفرس ومنهم سيبوية الذي الف كتابهُ المشهور الكتاب مع عدداً من تلاميذ الفراهيدي ، نفس الشيء مع علماء الحديث والفقة الخ..) 3. أن علماء العرب أسسوا الكثير من العلوم الحديثة وطوروها ولم يكونوا فقط علماء لذلك أثرهم كبير على الحضارة الإنسانية فمثلاً ابن حيان هو مؤسس علم الكيمياء ، ابن الهيثم مؤسس عالم البصريات ، الزواهري مؤسس علم الجراحة ، ابن معاذ الجياني" عالم الفلك الأندلسيّ الذي أسس علم المثلثات الكروي ، إبراهيم الفزاري صنع الأسطرلاب ، والعالم الجزري اختراعاته العلمية وتطبيقاته الميكانيكية ،ابن خلدون مؤسس علم الاجتماع ، الفراهيدي أول مؤسس للقاموس في قاموس معجم العين ومؤسس لعلم العروض ، الإمام علي وابو اسود الدوؤلي مؤسسي علم النحو ، هذه أسماء سريعة وغيرهم الكثير 4. ان خلفاء الدولة العباسية احتضنوا الفرس في قيادات دار الحكمة وهذا جعل لهم نفوذ أكبر في العمل والتعلم في دار الحكمة وهذا يحسب على الخليفة انهُ مكنهم مالم يمكن فيه العرب وهذا ماقم به الخلفاء العباسيين ايضاً في ابعاد العرب عن الجيش مما جعل الفرس يؤثرون على القرار السياسي في الدولة 5. ان كثير من العلماء لا يعرف لهم نسباً في كتب التاريخ لا للعرب او للعجم ولا يوجد دليل انهُ فارسي سوى انه عاش في خراسان علماء بأن الكثير من القوميات كانت تعيش فيها .
هذه مناقشة مختصرة تعالج النظرة القاصرة لدى العجم في محاولة تهميش العرب
اخيراً يمكن ذكر بعض اسهامات علماء الفرس و الامازيغ والترك في الحضارة الإسلامية لأن الهدف ليس الإساءة لهم أو التقليل من جهودهم بالحضارة الإسلامية لكن ذكر انجازات العرب التي يحاول الكثيرين من الاكاديميين الغربيين والمسلمين تجاوزها بسبب كتابات ابن خلدون .
ونحن كعرب نعرف قيمة الحضارة الفارسية واهميتها قبل الإسلام لكن محاولة تهميش العرب اعتقد أنها خطأ وصار كأمر مسلم به لدى الأكاديميين الغرب والشرق ، فمن يستطيع حصر كل العلماء لمعرفة ذلك !
2. كتاب الصحراء العربية لعالم الانثرولوجيا سعد الصويان يعالج اخطاء ابن خلدون في كتاب المقدمة والذي جعل من البداوة بدائيّة وانتقد البدو العرب ، والدكتور سعد الصويان يعالج اسباب الصورة النمطية الخاطئة عن العرب تاريخياً في كتابه المميز ، وكذلك المسلمين يحاولون ترديد مقولة جاهلية العرب قبل الإسلام والمقصود فيه جاهلية الإيمان وليس الحضارة لكن الشعوبيين يحاولون اجترارها بأننا أمة غير متحضرة ويمكن شرح هذا الخطأ وذكر حضارات العرب الكثيرة واسمهاماتهم العرب في علم الفلك قبل الإسلام ، وفي علم العمارة والبتراء ومدائن صالح شاهدة ، واسهاماتهم في الطباعة الثلاثية الأبعاد وفي سكاكا هي الأقدم تاريخيا ، ودور العرب في التجارة قبل الإسلام ، واسهامات العرب في الأدب قبل الإسلام ، وجزيرة العرب مليئة بالكثير من الكتابات قبل الإسلام واعتقد ان العرب سبقوا الحضارة المصرية في الكتابة الأبجدية الخ..
سأذكر موضوعين آخرين في المرة القادمة .
Thanks for mentioning the political/cultural/spiritual situation during the Umayyad rule in Berber territory. I understand your frustration with orientalism. Heres a rub. I am a Muslim convert ( in the US. Have been for most of my life and getting old). I concede to Ibadi theology and Fiqh.
I often get the same inability to talk to other Muslims about the FIqh and Theology of the Ibadi Muslim. If they know anything we are Khawarrij (another term we should revisit - stood up... or cast out?) and if not they even go so far as to say I made it up. Both Northern Iraq (Basra), The Oman, and the once Rustamid empire regions (Parts of Northern Africa and the Swahili Coast) had a similar dynamic with caliphal rule prior to the Umayyad, going back to Uthman for some of the very same reasons you explain. I would differentiate this from the Shia-Sunni cross-objections however, as the views on leadership are based on other factors at their core, but both the Abassid and the Rustamid empires capitalized on these feelings of mistreatment from the top of the federated state. Islam spread the fastest when the RELIGION saved people from the Leaders, and not the other way around, even in already Muslim ruled lands.. Many what we today would call "human right revolts" initialized an Islamic endeavor that often spilled out of the initial region through common support making the previous offending parties territory even larger, but no longer in their hands. Spain had the reverse dynamic and acted very differently toward different groups when "re"conquered. We can clearly see the historical difference if we are only honest.
From a historic standpoint, people used to do messed up stuff. We still do
Tariq again a fabulous and i definitely enjoyed☺️! Will drop my thoughts when I find time. By the way It’s been a while hear anything from you anymore you must also be bussy. Keep it up and take care bro 🍀
An important thing to also mention is that some of the early conquests were something the Muslims themselves actually wanted to avoid:
قال عمر: حسبنا لأهل البصرة سوادهم والأهواز، وددت أن بيننا وبين فارس جبلا من نار لا يصلون إلينا منه ولا نصل إليهم، كما قال لأهل الكوفة: وددت أن بينهم وبين الجبل جبلا من نار لا يصلون إلينا منه، ولا نصل إليهم.
تاريخ الرسل والملوك (٤/٧٩)
Conquest was a result of the status quo not being viable, with the aggressors being the Roman and Persian Empires. It was after the battle of Nahavand that the Muslims really were fully conquering territories with full force.
If you accept conquest then you should accept Israeli conquest of Gaza
@@dee6340 اپدال تعليقك ايچون تشكرلر، اى ميمون.
What about the Dark Ages in Iran after the Arab conquest? The Iranians could not use their own language till 10th century and Ferdowsi.
The arabs themselves used persian during the rashidun and early ummayad empire for their government transactions and their mail until the ummayad era when arabic was standardized, what dark age is this? Lol
There was never an enforcement of the application of one language over another. It was always a matter of convenience. And respond to your point with an example of this, during the Golden Age of Islam when Persia was under the Caliphate, many renowned scholars wrote in both Arabic and Farsi.
I actually believe @Kolitmas624 was asking a genuine question that you and I both answered. Sometimes we see things from one perspective but with the help of others like yourself that perspective can be broadened. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Thank you for the genuine answer. Their perspective is different. However what surprises me is that Arabs started to use Greek words for the law. Qanun in Arabic comes from the Greek word meaning the law. I think that the Nabatean Arabs knew more about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire than it seems. I would say that the Abbasid Caliphate moved the capital to Baghdad and started to cumulate knowledge from the whole empire: that was the start of the Golden Age when new inventions took place and when hadiths were written.
Dont forget Arabs reinvigorated many of the old thinkers of Greece. Many words didnt exist in their version Arabic for that type of thought process and hence I am not surprised by your clarification. And don't forget that the Caliphate was not about one location taking preference over another. The Arabs who started the conquests evolved in to other Arabs and so on till they were a people mixed ethnically with other peoples and cultures that made what the Golden age was, an age of no judgement and total assimilation.
Thank you for your work!!👌🌺
You are so welcome
Another great episode
Great seeing you here more often. Thank you for your wonderful support.
Amazing videos.😊🌺
Thank you Robin. Glad you’re enjoying them.
If anything Europe is having a real problem right now. And I am not sure if any of it is non-violent.
Also, Islam was forced upon the polytheistic Arabic tribes.
Simple additions were nicely done:
1. Many peoples were occupied and persecuted by the Byzantine Empire, such as the inhabitants of the Levant and northern Morocco, or were persecuted by the Persian Empire, such as the people of Iraq and perhaps Ahwaz or the Gothic state in Andalusia. They were persecuting the indigenous people and their salvation was from the Muslim Arabs. Some of them were corresponding with the Arabs for support,These were defeated peoples subject to imperialism at that time.
When the Arabs reached Al-Ahwaz, the Persian raids continued despite the existence of a peace charter. Therefore, the Sassanid state had to be overthrown so that the Muslims and their people of all races and religions could live in peace, and this is what happened.
As for the raids of the Byzantine state against the Umayyads and then the Abbasids, they did not stop after the liberation of the Levant, so there were continuous invasions in Anatolia, and the Byzantine invasions with the Seljuk state did not stop either.
2. Islamic law guaranteed their freedom in the law that they believe in in their religion, and this is a freedom that Christians, Jews, and Muslims in liberal countries do not dream of, but it still exists today in Arab churches that practice laws such as family law, etc.
3. The jizya is like a tax paid to the Islamic state to protect them and return to them when they need it, and it is insurance like retirement. The story of Caliph Omar al-Khattab with the poor Jew is well known, because a non-Muslim is not required to pay zakat because it is in the religion of Muslims only.
4. The law of war in the message of Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq to Muslims is found in the United Nations and is a moral standard for all the peoples of the earth.
Unfortunately, most imperialists do not take this message seriously, so they steal the wealth of the peoples of the world and destroy their countries with internationally prohibited weapons.
Many now islamic lands, like Persia or Egypt, had a high culture before Islam, probably higher
I am not sure what you mean by higher culture but I disagree if you mean that the civilisation was more civil, fair or had a higher propensity for education and innovation. Islam and its expansion would see a gradual development and transcendence into the Golden Age of Islam that didn't include only Arab lands but lands from Eastern Persia all the way to the Iberian Peninsula.
@@thekandarichronicles Was the golden age caused by Islam or by the conquests of these territories that had already an underlying high culture beforehand? In western history the renaissance absolutely came about as a circumstance of the Crusades and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire with it's refugees taking to the west much of the knowledge from their eastern empire, such things can absolutely kickstart golden ages of that sort.
Makes more sense to me that way and also explains why it only happened once at the height of military conquest and has never been replicated since
@@detdeet
It happened because islam goverming system
If you wrote a book in science during the abbasid time and this book was praised by different scholars and thinker you will get gold equal to that book weight, and even Transolating old books, like transolating indian, persian, Egyptian etc etc books that had benefits, you will get hold equal to the book weight, this encouraged people to think and learn, this also and the stability in the region, this is why the islamic golden age officially ended after the mongol attack, as it ended whatever stability there was
And back to high culture before islam
The simple question is no, Persia was in turmoil, high taxes was imposed in the population, people would work in farms 24/7 just to pay taxes with nothing left for them self, it was high unstable and that why it completely fall where Byzantine survived
And Egypt? No only Alexandria enjoyed any kind of luxury and *high culture* while the rest of Egypt was like france country side in the dark ages, and even Alexandria, only group of people enjoyed luxury
It's not just about the culture being wiped out violently - but the actual people, the Ancient Egyptians as an Ethnic group, being genocided and wiped out by those colonizers. The only ones who can claim Egyptian descent are the Coptics. The very fact a minority group like them still exist, and still enduring oppression in Egypt goes to show that the true agenda of this video is to silence that crime.
Something else about the moving of captials, this wasn't done because the arabs cared about the natives or tried to be more inclusive, it is actually for quite opposite reason to slave the natives more by moving the center of authority from the far away desert to a place were they could easily send armies to stamb out revolts. Another point related to the moving is that they did to better exploit the resources of the lands. The mongols diid this numerous times and same with the arab rulers. The reason why the never returned to arabia is because they were stealing the land and planning to stay in it and never leave funnily enough the mongols did something similar while pilliaging throughout asia they changed their captials and moved the resoucres that they collect through their plundering to their new captials.
7:22 I really get annoyed with this painting used for Umayyads when it's clearly 1000 years after Umayyad Caliphate happened. The painting name is Caliph of Constantine, with Ali ben Ahmet and his harakta entourage around 1840s.
5:46 If they don’t pay Jizya, they die.
Thank you for watching the Kandari Chronicles video.
If you don't pay taxes you get punished didn't change.
And you could be exempted from paying it by joining the army 😅
So idk what point you're trying to prove
@@Ck_olp So either they fight for their Caliph or they pay extra taxes. This cannot be a true religion.
Only Jesus Christ is the truth. Islam is not the truth. Come to Jesus Christ, he will set you free, for whenever the Son sets free is free indeed.
@@Nasraniksatria that's how any nation works you need a reliable way to generate money to ensure safety education health sectors are well.
@@Ck_olp Jizya is apartheid
For centuries, Muslim☪️ minorities ruled over Christian☦️ majorities, that were intentionally degraded by the law. Greeks and Spanish were ruled that way. And as it was happening, no other future could be seen.
I would call it Apartheit. And it lasted much longer than South African Apartheit.
Without Arab immigration, how did people switch from Aramaic and Coptic, to speaking Arabic.
Land was taken from non-Muslims and giving to Muslims in a system called Kharaj.
That is not colonialism?
Thank you for accepting my comment!
That's true. The city of Basra is a great example of what you described.
It is still our semitic ancestors lands. We conquered them back from our neighbors Romans and Persians.
Great content brother!❤
Thanks Arman, so so much.
For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive.
From the late 14th to the mid-17th century, the Ottomans pursued a policy of imposing a levy of male children (devşirme) on their Christian subjects in the Balkans with the goal of supplying the Ottoman state with capable soldiers and administrators. The compulsory conversion to Islam which these boys underwent as part of their education is the only documented form of systematic forced conversion organized by the Ottoman state.[4]
The Egyptians never spoke Arabic...for centuries they had their own Coptic language. Arabic was imposed on them
Source?
@@agellidmalik You need a source to show you Arabic was not the language of the ancient Egyptians? Did you ever go to school?
@@lut8167 Not that, buddy. Of course, I meant a source that proves that Arabic was IMPOSED on them. Now, stop being dishonest and prove your claims.
@@lut8167 I learned that at school and university, when you make statement about something, you must provide the sources and references to prove your statement.
Did YOU ever went to school? :)
@@emilm3416 The question you are asking us dumb. Arabic is foreign to Africa....Eqypt is in North Africa...they had their own language. It doesn't take a genius to know ancient Egypt never spoke Arabic
When talking about western colonialism, everyone talks about how the western world brought advanced technology and ideological advancements to their subjects, even though to attain that, they had to go through countless famines and massacres , while funding some native factions to do their work for them, and then betraying them.
When talking about Islamic "colonialism", it's everything that western colonialism is guilty of but amped up to the amount that they aren't guilty of compared to the western ones, while ignoring the actual advancements and progress the Islamic ones made, not just in terms of technology but culture. Islam has made the Arab lands flourishing. Not to mention the accusations of anti-semitism... despite european anti-semitism is insane.
The projection as well as the lack of acknowledgement of events that makes the Islamic nations look better is something that I dislike westerners "who are into history".
Awesome video, where do you get your sources? I would love to do some further reading. What would you recommend?
Al Tabari's The Beginning and the End is a great start. Also Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah can be a very valuable perspective.
@@thekandarichronicles thank you 🙏
Lets see what prominent trusted historians said about this time period:
Proffesor Thomas Walker Arnold (A major Scholar of 19th Century) mentions in the preaching of Islam on page 134, he states:
" A forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude toward the Christian religion that facilitated the accusation of the country. "
De Lacy O'Leary in his book "Islam and the Cross Roads" published in 1923. In page 8, he states:
" History makes it clear, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping though the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquering races, is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated! "
A.S Triton in his book "Islam" Published in 1951, page 21, he states:
"The picture of the Muslim soldiers advancing with the sword in one hand, and the Quran in another is quite false. "
Laurence E. Browne in his book "The prospects of Islam" published in London 1944, page 14. He states:
"Incidently, these well established facts dispose the idea, so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword"
Hugh .N. Kennedy, in his book "The Great Arab Conquest" published in London 2008, page 50. He states:
"The Quran certainly provided scriptural support for the idea that the Muslims could and should fight the Unbelievers. But at no point does it suggest that they should be represented with the alternatives of conversions or death. "
Michael Bonner in his book "Jihad in Islamic history" published by Princeton university press in 2006, page 89-90. He states:
"To begin with, there is no forced conversion, no choice between Islam or the Sword. Islamic law following a clear Quranic principle prohibited any such things."
Micheal Bonner states in the Quran chapter 2, verse 256, Where Allah has said:
"There is no compulsion in the religion, verily the right path has become distinct with the wrong path."
Ali never took part in military expansion outside of Arabia as far as I've studied
Great. 👍🏽
Thanks Moqbel. Great hearing you are still watching and it's resonating with you.
5:00. Before one could agree whether it was conquest or colonisation, its important to realise not all defeated tribes were treated equally.
The 3 choices offered to the vanquished tribe only applied if they were deemed the people of the book, namely the Christians and the Jews.
All others were classified as idol worshippers.
The Idol worshippers were to be fought regardless whether they had acted in a hostile manner or were friendly and welcoming to muslims, period.
The idol worshippers that were not killed in battle had two choices.
They could choose between converting to Islam or be killed.
The historical experience of Hindus in India and the paganistic Sumateran tribes from the inlands of Indonesia is well documented to disapprove the assertion that Islam was spread peacefully and incidents involving violence was an exception.
In that manner, the Almighty in the Holy Quran mirrored the Supreme God described in all other religions, both monotheistic or politheistic.
A tribalistic war God that specified the chosen tribes cultural norms and the rules laws the tribe had to obey and observe.
The rest were enemy tribes who should be viewed as hostile.
Please islam united
What happened to the religious symbols of the Pagans and polytheists in Arabia? Who destroyed them?
thank you very much for reading and for showing the truth but allow me to add , jiziah tax was paid only by those who can pay it and was a fixed tax unlike zakat which was 2.5 of wealth stored for a year on every muslim whose wealth reached the threshold of paying , plus jiziah was dropped off if the non muslim citizen wanted to join the army as it was in exchange for that , some people claimed that this is how people were forced into islam and this can't be true for the previously mentioned reasons and also because at one time in an emirate the ruler didn't drop off the jiziah on the people who converted to islam , still they continued conversion
as for the sword argument it is just impossible as muslims didn't have the means or the numbers to do that especially against warrior people like the modern day tunisia , algeria and morocco as they were much stronger than muslims and outnumbered them , in egypt my country for example the liberation force was of 6000 muslims only against the romans who occupied egypt and the population of egypt at the time reached about 4 million people according to official records , while the entire population of the arabian peninsula was about 1 million
Islam was spread by the sword. This is even found in Islamic sources. You're just biased.
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), a Maliki jurist, renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior jihad:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force…. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense…. Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
(Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Vol. 1, p. 291)
Ibn Kathir wrote of Muhammad’s aggression:
When Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers form [sic] entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profit from trade. THEREFORE, Allah, Most High, COMPENSATED THEM and ordered them to fight the people of the Book UNTIL THEY EMBRACE ISLAM OR PAY THE JIZYAH. Allah says… (At-Tawbah: 28-29)
Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans IN ORDER TO CALL THEM TO ISLAM…
(Ibn Kathir, The Battle of the Prophets, pp. 183-184)
The following is a source that reveals how the people of Mecca wanted to leave Islam but were forced to remain Muslim. `Attab Ibn Asid was the governor appointed by Muhammad over Mecca, and Suhayl Ibn Amr was the military leader who governed most of the soldiers who had conquered Mecca:
Ibn Hisham says: It is narrated on the authority of Abu `Ubaydah and others that when the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] died the majority of the people of Makkah intended to renegade from Islam so much that `Attab Ibn Asid feared them and concealed himself (from them). On that Suhayl Ibn Amr stood up and praised Allah and lauded Him, and made a mention of the death of The Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] and then said: “No doubt, this (death of the Prophet) but increased the Islam in power. Whoever rouses doubt, we will chop off his head.” Thus the people retracted and desisted from what they intended to do and `Attab Ibn Asd appeared.
(`Abd Al Malik Ibn Hisham, The Prophetic Biography - Sirah of Ibnu Hisham, p. 670)
Muslims were sent out to conquer the surrounding nations. This is even recorded in the following hadith:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
`Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.”… Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:- “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”…
(Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160)
One of the earliest surviving Christian texts from the Islamic period in Syria, dated around 640 AD, describes the rise of Islam in this way:
They take the wife away from her husband and slay him like a sheep. They throw the babe from her mother and drive her into slavery; the child calls out from the ground and the mother hears, yet what is she to do? And so it is trampled under the feet of the horses, camels and infantry …. They separate the children from the mother like the soul from within the body, and she watches as they divide her loved ones from off her lap, two of them to go to two masters, herself to another …. Her children cry out in lament, their eyes hot with tears. She turns to her loved ones, milk pouring forth from her breast: “Go in peace, my darlings, and may God accompany you.”
(Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Robert G. Hoyland, p. 262)
The need to compare Military force with others before and since is "Whataboutism" . I maintain that it should be examined on it's own actions and not on the actions of others. Wether in defence of early Islam in the life of the Prophet PBOH . Or later in expansive war across the Levant Anatolia and on into Iberia. A substantial number of people who resisted were put to the sword. How is it that something So Devine. So True So God given as the message needed to be spread in such a way? No matter how benigne by comparison to the government of others in the context of the times. How about one compares the spread of the teachings of the Bhudda ? Or for that matter the teachings of the early Christians before the foundation of Orthodoxy in 325 CE. A religous belief that spread across the Roman Empire from Hadrian's wall to the Borders of Persia. such that by the 4Th. Century between 5 to 8 % of the Urban population were converted. Little if any violence required. Some violence even directed to the Christian minority. I am not suggesting that therefore Christianity is true and Islam false. I just desire to know why the divine God needs such Help from Swords and Spears however benevolant killing people might be to spread his Message.
I dont think we can ignore the violence and division that took place during that era and during that time. It's not about justification but about the reality of the times that saw aggression by so many factions in the area on all scales, tribes and empires. Violence was on everyone's doorstep across what would become the Middle East.
Islam did not spread by the sword, islamic empire did, this is important to know the difference
Like the Roman Empire how did it become so big? With flower? No with sword of course
And this is the same for islam
We can’t just zoom in on the muslims of that time and ignore the surrounding, the world was in state of turmoil, for a growing country it had 2 big neighbors that sooner or later will come for them, there has been many cases of roman and persian conquering part of arabia, they didn’t remain because they saw no reason as most of the population were nomadic and little, so they left, the roman basically started by killing the messager the prophet sent, this is a clear declaration of war, persian as well, you might say “oh well but the prophet was rude by sending someone inviting them to islam” but in the end they could have just sent him off and refuse
The state of the world requested the muslims at that time to wage war against what danger their new country, kingdom, empire what ever you call it, and most major battles were against imperial army weather it is persian or Byzantine, and against the native such cases were rare and very small scale,
Also it is very important to note that Egypt didn’t become majority muslims until 500 years
Also there is many cases in history of force conversion for what ever religion or culture, and those cases all ended in failure, people will hold to their culture and religion to the end when they are being opposed , that’s why for example Bosnia are majority muslims still while bulgaria are very little, because Bosnia were opposed for their religion which made them hold to it tighter,
@@thekandarichronicles In the 5 Th Century Before the prophet PBOH was born Patrick led the conversion of the Pagans in Ireland. A people who were renowned for violence Piracy and on the odd occasion human sacrifice. Violent times indeed. what did he employ ? A small green Plant ☘ No violence required. No hitch hiking on Imperial agrandisment sharp swords and pointy sticks .
In the first 3 centuries CE. more or less did the violent state of the world require the Christians to wage war to against the danger to their belief? No they got into the entertainment Business for one Gig only and ended up as "Lion Poop". Well some of them . .
I salute you Br.Tarek for your efforts in educating us.
thousand years of Muslim rule in India, hindus were always the majority.they could have been forced converted.
Forein Minister of Saddam Hussein-tariq aziz was a chaldenian christian.
The onlly forceful conversin from sunni to shia,happened during Safavid period.
lol, Colonialism has nothing to do with what you just said.
Colonialism is the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. I think the Islamic colonial conquest checks every one of those boxes and more.
It was a foreign people who went into another peoples lands, set up shop and ruled over them, taxing them and creating systems in which it enslaved, ethnically cleansed partially or in whole, their cultures, languages, alphabets, religions, endonyms, etc. Have you heard the term “Arabized”? How many of these peoples believe themselves to be “Arabs” to this day, because of this? That’s like if the native Americans, Indians and all the other places the English conquered thought themselves to be “British.” And what’s wild is it has no intention on stopping either. I can go on but I’ll stop there. How is this not colonialism in your perspective?? 🤦🏽♂️🤔
Did you not watch the video?
1. Economic exploitation did not take place after the early Islamic conquests
2.”Arabization” not “Islamization” took place not through force but via economic trade
3.what cultural cleansing are you referring to? There weren’t mass ordered massacres taking place upon conquest like you imagine in your mind, if you ever go to the middle east you’ll be able to tell pretty quickly the differences in culture and tradition between gulf arabs and the rest of the “arab world”, because just like he said in the video other peoples and cultures were protected by the early Islamic Empire.
5. This video was debunking the lie that Islam was “spread by the sword”
@@Edgingtutor Here we go… Yes I watched the video. It’s a great attempt to whitewash the history of these events and give the complexity and nuances of any colonial empire reign, leaving out the biggest details that would paint a proper history in which we would be able to label it truth. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the best lies are 90% true.
We can do this same thing with the European conquests of the Americas, the Mongol conquest of Asia, the Romans, the Zulu, the Persians, and yes the Islamic conquest as well. This is solely an apologist attempt to swim in cognitive dissonance and separate the Islamic colonial conquest from the others. This is just like how Republican led Florida writes in its students history books referencing slavery as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Bro, Really???
Now, let’s go down your bullets.
1 .. If your enslaving people, that’s economic exploitation and worse. If you’re placing a new religious tax on the peoples who refuse to annihilate their own cultures and religions by having to convert to your religion, thats called economic exploitation. And this tax was part of the strategy by many leaders in the Islamic Empire to rule and help have a continued collection of funds, when the plundering was over since they conquered these areas already and now rule over them. We can dive further into the real historic complexity of Islamic rule over these areas, outside your dogmatic approach, if you’d like…
2 .. Yes, Arabization is different than Islamization.. BUT, and that’s a HUGE BUT, you DON’T get wide spread Arabization without Islamization. It’s a type of ruling. Look at the history of the other Empires. Each had their own strategies and tactics. Latin America has a more or less overarching “Hispanic Culture”, due to the methods of the Spanish Conquest, even with the fact that each country is diverse and has its own cultural complexities. Whereas India still holds on to its languages, cultures and religions, even after the British rule. That’s Not to say it doesn’t have many British influences left behind. These are just examples to show the diverse ways, colonial conquest can be done. And the skies the limit, which doesn’t leave the Islamic colonial conquest off the list.
3 .. I’ve spent time in the Middle East. And yes, there is a complexity of culture there like there is a complexity of culture everywhere and anywhere. This fact doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic Colonial conquest changed and/or wiped out the original cultures that were there before it decided to invade lands that didn’t belong to it. It’s laughable that you bring up the term, “protected”. “Conquest” doesn’t play well with “Protection.” Personally, if you’re going the propaganda route, you should have just referred to it as “Liberation.” lol… Any “religion of convert” does not Historically play well with others, including the Islamic Colonial Conquest. That said, we’re painting with broad strokes here. Each individual is different and some timeframes were better or worse. But if you want to call-having to create a tiered ruling system, where you subjugate anyone who isn’t Muslim, as a lower class to purposefully humiliate them with different laws and rules, specifically meant to remind them that they are beneath you- “protection”, okay… sure lol. There’s many other versions of this in all the other Colonial empires as well. Pick your flavor.
Let’s not go into the complexity of how these ruling mechanisms are purposeful systemic features to help slowly force populations to leave behind their native cultural and indigenous ways and assimilate into the invading forces new ideology. This is the exact feature of what colonialism is.
5 .. Not sure why you skipped 4. But this might be a sign of why you think this video has debunked the “truth” that Islam was spread by the sword. lol… But to be fair, Islam was not JUST spread by the sword. To say that, would be naive and create a simplistic view and take away the complexity and sophistication of any Colonial conquest. It takes time to ethnically cleanse nations and wipe their memories of the historic truth. And when it’s done right, we get videos like this and conversations like we’re having right now.
Blessed be upon you.
@@Edgingtutor Here we go… Yes I watched the video. It’s a great attempt to whitewash the history of these events and give the complexity and nuances of any colonial empire reign, leaving out the biggest details that would paint a proper history in which we would be able to label it truth. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the best lies are 90% true.
We can do this same thing with the European conquests of the Americas, the Mongol conquest of Asia, the Romans, the Zulu, the Persians, and yes the Islamic conquest as well. This is solely an apologist attempt to swim in cognitive dissonance and separate the Islamic colonial conquest from the others. This is just like how Republican led Florida writes in its students history books referencing slavery as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Bro, Really???
Now, let’s go down your bullets.
1 .. If your enslaving people, that’s economic exploitation and worse. If you’re placing a new religious tax on the peoples who refuse to annihilate their own cultures and religions by having to convert to your religion, thats called economic exploitation. And this tax was part of the strategy by many leaders in the Islamic Empire to rule and help have a continued collection of funds, when the plundering was over since they conquered these areas already and now rule over them. We can dive further into the real historic complexity of Islamic rule over these areas, outside your dogmatic approach, if you’d like…
2 .. Yes, Arabization is different than Islamization.. BUT, and that’s a HUGE BUT, you DON’T get wide spread Arabization without Islamization. It’s a type of ruling. Look at the history of the other Empires. Each had their own strategies and tactics. Latin America has a more or less overarching “Hispanic Culture”, due to the methods of the Spanish Conquest, even with the fact that each country is diverse and has its own cultural complexities. Whereas India still holds on to its languages, cultures and religions, even after the British rule. That’s Not to say it doesn’t have many British influences left behind. These are just examples to show the diverse ways, colonial conquest can be done. And the skies the limit, which doesn’t leave the Islamic colonial conquest off the list.
3 .. I’ve spent time in the Middle East. And yes, there is a complexity of culture there like there is a complexity of culture everywhere and anywhere. This fact doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic Colonial conquest changed and/or wiped out the original cultures that were there before it decided to invade lands that didn’t belong to it. It’s laughable that you bring up the term, “protected”. “Conquest” doesn’t play well with “Protection.” Personally, if you’re going the propaganda route, you should have just referred to it as “Liberation.” lol… Any “religion of convert” does not Historically play well with others, including the Islamic Colonial Conquest. That said, we’re painting with broad strokes here. Each individual is different and some timeframes were better or worse. But if you want to call-having to create a tiered ruling system, where you subjugate anyone who isn’t Muslim, as a lower class to purposefully humiliate them with different laws and rules, specifically meant to remind them that they are beneath you- “protection”, okay… sure lol. There’s many other versions of this in all the other Colonial empires as well. Pick your flavor.
Let’s not go into the complexity of how these ruling mechanisms are purposeful systemic features to help slowly force populations to leave behind their native cultural and indigenous ways and assimilate into the invading forces new ideology. This is the exact feature of what colonialism is.
5 .. Not sure why you skipped 4. But this might be a sign of why you think this video has debunked the “truth” that Islam was spread by the sword. lol… But to be fair, Islam was not JUST spread by the sword. To say that, would be naive and create a simplistic view and take away the complexity and sophistication of any Colonial conquest. It takes time to ethnically cleanse nations and wipe their memories of the historic truth. And when it’s done right, we get videos like this and conversations like we’re having right now.
Blessed and peace be upon you.
@@Edgingtutor Here we go… Yes I watched the video. It’s a great attempt to whitewash the history of these events and give the complexity and nuances of any colonial empire reign, leaving out the biggest details that would paint a proper history in which we would be able to label it truth. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the best lies are 90% true.
We can do this same thing with the European conquests of the Americas, the Mongol conquest of Asia, the Romans, the Zulu, the Persians, and yes the Islamic conquest as well. This is solely an apologist attempt to swim in cognitive dissonance and separate the Islamic colonial conquest from the others. This is just like how Republican led Florida writes in its students history books referencing slavery as, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Bro, Really???
Now, let’s go down your bullets.
1 .. If you’re enslaving people, that’s economic exploitation and worse. If you’re placing a new religious tax on the peoples who refuse to annihilate their own cultures and religions by having to convert to your religion, thats called economic exploitation. And this tax was part of the strategy by many leaders in the Islamic Empire to rule and help have a continued collection of funds, when the plundering was over since they conquered these areas already and now rule over them. We can dive further into the real historic complexity of Islamic rule over these areas, outside your dogmatic approach, if you’d like…
2 .. Yes, Arabization is different than Islamization.. BUT, and that’s a HUGE BUT, you DON’T get wide spread Arabization without Islamization. It’s a type of ruling. Look at the history of the other Empires. Each had their own strategies and tactics. Latin America has a more or less overarching “Hispanic Culture”, due to the methods of the Spanish Conquest, even with the fact that each country is diverse and has its own cultural complexities. Whereas India still holds on to its languages, cultures and religions, even after the British rule. That’s Not to say it doesn’t have many British influences left behind. These are just examples to show the diverse ways, colonial conquest can be done. And the skies the limit, which doesn’t leave the Islamic colonial conquest off the list.
3 .. I’ve spent time in the Middle East. And yes, there is a complexity of culture there like there is a complexity of culture everywhere and anywhere. This fact doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic Colonial conquest changed and/or wiped out the original cultures that were there before it decided to invade lands that didn’t belong to it. It’s laughable that you bring up the term, “protected”. “Conquest” doesn’t play well with “Protection.” Personally, if you’re going the propaganda route, you should have just referred to it as “Liberation.” lol… Any “religion of convert” does not Historically play well with others, including the Islamic Colonial Conquest. That said, we’re painting with broad strokes here. Each individual is different and some timeframes were better or worse. But if you want to call-having to create a tiered ruling system, where you subjugate anyone who isn’t Muslim, as a lower class to purposefully humiliate them with different laws and rules, specifically meant to remind them that they are beneath you- “protection”, okay… sure lol. There’s many other versions of this in all the other Colonial empires as well. Pick your flavor.
Let’s not go into the complexity of how these ruling mechanisms are purposeful systemic features to help slowly force populations to leave behind their native cultural and indigenous ways and assimilate into the invading forces new ideology. This is the exact feature of what colonialism is.
5 .. Not sure why you skipped 4. But this might be a sign of why you think this video has debunked the “truth” that Islam was spread by the sword. lol… But to be fair, Islam was not JUST spread by the sword. To say that, would be naive and create a simplistic view and take away the complexity and sophistication of any Colonial conquest. It takes time to ethnically cleanse nations and wipe their memories of the historic truth. And when it’s done right, we get videos like this and conversations like we’re having right now.
Blessed and peace be upon you, my friend.
Tabaraka Allah feek ya akhi, very well explained and concise! #Freegaza #freepalestine #istandwithpalestine 🇵🇸❤️
I think too many people look at islams early expansion through a lense that reflects their own beliefs. What’s more likely imo the Rashidun caliphate and the following Ummayads expanded primarily because they could. The leaders of the caliphate probably saw the weakness of both the sassanids and Roman’s and realised that there was a huge opportunity to expand their power base and make a lot of wealth from plunder and then taxation of the conquered populations. Not exactly colonialism as we would think of it now but for the time period basically the norm.
i love your content,,, but i have an advice ... i wish you set straight facing the camera. not leaning little to the right like now.... facing straight looking the viewer,, will get your voice and attention directly the the viewer ... thanks
Noted Salem. Thanks for the recommendation. 🙏🏽
Nothing can come close for the vileness of the Islamic conquests back in it's days.
Not sure I agree to that absoluteness. Seems very pre meditated.
Wonderful work brother.
This video is half-truth, half-propaganda.
أحسنت بارك الله فيك يالكندري
Truly amazing and thoughtful video, I've never been so happy to learn about the beauty of Islamic history and even learn to appreciate my faith more
That is a wonderful message @GestrOn. Makes me happy that you are learning from my content. I am humbled.
The spread of Islam IS no different than Western Colonialism of African and the Americas.
It was the spread of Arab rule and culture, disguised within the robes of religion.
The Arabs of the tribe of Quraish ruled and appointed Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula especially Mecca, Medina and Taef, to rule as governors of all conquered lands.
NO local Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Persian, North African was allowed to rule.
Many languages and cultures disappeared under Islam..
Exactly like Western Europe did later..
Stop kidding yourself.
You need to educate yourself, the western colonialism was built on racism and ethnic cleansing
Try finding that in islam
Great explanation...
Glad you liked it and that it resonated.
Why should everything be viewed through Western lenses. It is like when Islam was called Mohammadians because Christianity is named after Christ
Sabrina what you say is what this channel is all about. Viewing our history with our lenses and as should all nations have their stories being told by colonialists.
@@thekandarichroniclesColonialists like the false prophet Muhammad.
4:36 Still doesn’t justify stealing other people’s land.
Thank you for watching the Kandari Chronicles video.
Improtant thing to remember is that unlike the British in India who were complete foreigners, the Arabs in the Levant, Mesopitamia and Egypt werent. There is evidence about arab kingdoms in the Levant and mesopitamia. There is also evidence about interactions between Assyria a mespotiamian kingdom 1000 years prior to the revelation of the prophet pbuh with the Arabs as well as minor arab migration into Egypt. The prophet pbuh and quraysh used to do trade in the Levant so these people in the levant and mesopitamia are exactly like us (semites) we lived together, interacted and intermixed for thousands of years. In-fact there is a theory that suggests that every semitic people and civilization like the Pheonicians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Hebrews and Arameans are actually arabs who left the Arabian peninsuila since ''Arab'' used to mean to old civilizations like with Assyria (dessert dwellers). Even if the theory isnt true we are all semites afterall, Arabic deviates from Aramaic.
A historian made a list of civilizations where the semitic civilization at its endpoint was Islam and the Arabs. Keep in mind this semitic civilization includes all other forms of semites like Pheonicia and Carthage, Akkadia and Assyria, then The Israelites. Basically Arab is a unitary Semitic identity, the only semites who resisted such assimilation were the jews because they were spread out even before Israel many Jews in Arab land were called ''Arab-jews'' and spoke arabic like a everyday language sadly our idiotic nationalistic leaders kicked them out, affecting the economy and providing Israel with a population surplus to repopulate ethnically cleansed Palestinian land.
Throughout history, the Arab presence in the Middle East has been undeniable. Take, for example, the Arab kingdom of Hatra, which thrived in Mesopotamia during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Another notable example is the Palmyrene empire, an Arab city in Syria that successfully conquered Rome's eastern provinces until they were eventually subdued by Aurelian. Even in ancient times, Arab tribes in Lebanon fiercely fought against Alexander the Great, residing in the mountainous regions of the country during the 4th century BC.
Additionally, the Nabataean kingdom, located in present-day Jordan and extending beyond the Dead Sea, further exemplifies the Arab influence in the region. The Arab conquests, rather than introducing Arabs to the Middle East, simply served to unite them with other Arab groups like the Ghassanids in the Golan Heights and various Arab communities in Iraq, Syria, and the Levant. These groups remained loyal to their respective empires, such as the Sassanids, and even fought alongside them against Khalid ibn Walid. In light of these historical facts, it becomes evident that Arabs have always been an integral part of the dynamic Semitic cultures in the Middle East, despite inconsistent arguments suggesting otherwise.
Wonderful additions Hisham. I am really glad you are sharing and me myself I have learned quite a lot from your knowledge. Keep it up.
@tr4hek389 I thank you also for sharing. It seems people disassociate Arabs from the region and want to fit them into this small box in the Arabian Peninsula. They seem to forget that Arabs had a major nomadic role that had them interact with the region in its extremities.
Amazing insights though. Thanks again.
I learn soooo much by reading these comments and their threads. With Tareq's channel growth happening I can't hardly keep up with them all like before! That, is a good thing to know for everybody, as more light 🕯️shining 🌟 to expose the darkness out of existence for a better humanity!! Yay team! ☯️
i really liked this video!
I am really glad the video resonated with you.
❤❤❤❤
More and more gratitude.
what happened to the Christian populations of North Africa, The Horn, Levant, and Mesopotamia?
There were even Christians in the Arab peninsula, what happened to those populations?
This is how i knew you 100% didn't go to the middleeast even once... your comment is ignorant...
@@mega99999 bro why I ain't trying to be ignorant or trying to spread hate, I literally grew up in Bahrain for 12 years.
And I was wondering how the Christian population died out so much.
@lunalingo4461 so you were living in bahrain? And you don't know where is the chriatian population? They are still there... 10-20% of the population... if your argument is that it is low is because conversion... or how we muslims call it reversion... we believe everyone is born a muslim(believing in one god and his prophets) until his parents change his mentality.. like for example dehumanizing a prophet who literally united and gave peace to the arabian peninsulah after it was a bloody mess?
Arabia would be just another roman post or even wiped out from arabs entirely if not for islam..
@@mega99999 bro r U stupid
The Ministry of Information Affairs website states 99.8 percent of citizens are Muslims, while the remainder of citizens are Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Baha’is.
The 20% Christian population ur talking abt was just foreign workers like my dad who aren't actual citizens. We didn't have that many rights as the native Arab citizens
Bro and answer my question, I don't care about Arabia not being united if it weren't for Islam or dehumanising ur prophet.
I asked what happened to the centuries old populations of Christians in the Levant, Mesopotamia and North Africa?Look at what's happening to them now, for example our brothers in Assyria, they were persecuted and genocides against by various Islamic governments, most recently by ISIS. or the Maronites in Lebanon. They have faced persecution for centuries, that's why they escaped to mount Lebanon, where they were still targeted by the Druze and Muslim communities. Or our Coptic brothers in Egypt. Most of them had to sadly convert to Islam as they were discriminated against by the Islamic government who gave them the status of dhimmi, in which they had to pay jizya, facing all this pressure, the majority of them converted, and are near extinct.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites
@@mega99999 how can U justify this man, seriously.
I respect Islam highly as I believe we both have the same religion with slight differences and that we r one people.
I have said this because I mean no disrespect to ur religion as long as u don't disrespect mine.
I find a lot of stuff in this video misleading and at a lot of times revisioning history.
Firstly, you commented how oppressive were the previous two empires before Islam. While that's true for the Byzantines, the Persians is a more complicated story. The Sassanian empire was infamous for their toleration of cultures and religions. What you describing here is the last years of the empire in which Mesopotamia was devastated from the war so they demanded higher taxes from the people. That's why people welcome the Muslims, just like the thirteen colonies did after the British raise the taxes because they were sort of money after the seven years war.
Now that we mentioned colonies, let's talk about your response to the allegations about colonization. In your definition of colonization you described only the modern definition of it and even then only the economic aspects and I cannot help myself from thinking that this was intentional. So a complete definition of colonialism is "Colonialism is the pursuing, establishing and maintaining of control and exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group of people( that's the only part you mentioned). The colonizer monopolizes political power and holds the conquered society and its people to be inferior to their conqueror in legal, administrative, social, cultural, or biological terms. While frequently advanced as an imperialist regime, colonialism can also take the form of settler colonialism, whereby colonial settlers invade and occupy territory to permanently replace an existing society with that of the colonizers, possibly towards a genocide of native populations." And all those things the Arabs did. Especially in the two first Caliphates( not that it went away afterwards). Not to mention the militaristic expansion in the name of Islam sounds very similar to the Christian justification of colonialism. So were the Muslim Arabs colonizers? Yes.
As we opened the discussion for the Caliphates, I want to discuss a comment of you that the Islamic empire( so the Umayyad Caliphate) didn't work to benefit of one people. 7:24
But this is totally wrong. The Umayyad Caliphate was an Arab supremacist empire (especially harsh towards Persians) that even non Arab Muslims were treated as second class citizens. This notion can also be supported by the fact that the Abbasid revolution was mostly supported by non Arabs.
As for the "all kinds of cultures thrived" it would have been true if only by all those cultures you mean Arabs, Persians and later Turks.
Lastly I want to comment on the conversion to Islam 5:24. You said that no-one was forced to convert but instead they had a choice to become second class citizens and pay extra taxes. With all respect this line here made fun to all people that suffered under those states. Because no, being a second class citizen, pay extra taxes, be far easier to become a slave and be prohibited to practice your faith freely is not an option. The only thing you are doing is to make others being even more angry about you and rightfully so.
So people converting because of societle pressures it's not something to brag about.
So please don't try to hide or lie about your history, all cultures have done terrible things. The only thing you are doing now is to make the other more pitiful about you and also lying to yourself.
Framing the narrative you are:
1. Why do you use "colonialism or conquest" and not just "imperialism"?
2. Why do you insist on Muslim tolerance when Zoroastrianism was persecuted since day one.
3. How you differentiate a dhimmi from a colonial subject with diminished rights?
Look, I'm Basque and it was Islamic expansion which death one of the worst blows to our sovereignty... even if the Muslims lost and the Franks reaped the benefits of success as "liberators" (with imperialist conditions) after Tours. It was my people who stopped the Muslim expansion and nobody even remembers that almost and my people fought so bravely because they had conquered freedom to the Christians (Romans, Goths, Franks) via peasant revolution (bagauda) and even after the first Frankish (Merovingian) invasion still managed to break free and established their own compromise independent Great Duchy (Vasconia and Aquitaine), which was good until the Muslims came by and attacked us right away without any casus belli whatsoever. And they lost, of course: Vasconia was not any rotten door to throw down just out of fanaticism and massive armies, it was a free nation manned by free people, not serfs.
18 years of war of conquest by the Arabs against my little country more than a thousand kms away from Arabia, 18 years of Muslim defeats... until Al Gafiqi was sent by Damascus with the most massive army seen over here since Rome collapsed... an army that was pretty much unstoppable and that was indeed conquering us all the way to the Loire, where, with harsh conditions, the Franks agreed to lend a hand. The rest is history: Al Gafiqi was defeated, and also legend: in Roncal it's founding legend that Abdelrhaman Al Gafiqi wen through that valley in their scrambled retreat and was ambushed by the locals. Then everyone claimed the honor of having killed the new Hannibal until a woman came by and said it was she who did slay the invader, the men laughed and she threw a human tongue to their feet, they looked at the severed head of the invader general and realized it had no tongue and she was cheered as championness of the Basques. Since then, Roncal has a schuteon with a crowned head and the legend "Abderraman" (the legend may well refer to some other battle, nobody really knows for sure, but "si non e vero, e bene trovatto".
The problem was then what to do with the Franks, who kept coming and causing trouble, so a status quo emerged of peace and cooperation between Cordoba and Pamplona (a diminished version of Vasconia), which resulted in that other Abd el-Rhaman, "the Great", the first Caliph of the West, being the Basque-est Umayad ever. The Cordoba Caliphate, once it had renounced to expansion, it was also probably the best that happened to Andalusia since the days when Tartessos was still a sovereign nation able to shower Phocaea with silver, why? Because instead of being a colony of the Phoenicians, the Romans or whoever else (including the distant Arabs of Damascus and Mecca) but it was finally its own thing again: it was sovereign even if the dominant elite was more or less foreign and orientalizing (that would change with the dictator Al Mansur, the subsequent imposion of the Cordoba Caliphate, and almost simultaneously of the Pamplonese min-empire in the north, and the invasion of fanatic jihadists from North Africa: the Almoravids and Almohads, but that's another story).
Look: Christianity was already the first large scale fascism (the church is the totalitarian party, with one political comissary in every parish and surveying every soul for the Augustus, that's the main difference between classical and medieval Rome: tolerance was much much greater under polytheism) and Islam is just a version of Christianity, heretic as it may be, with the very same goals since inception but with Arab instead of Greco-Roman ethnic centrality, with an Empire to be built instead of one "inherited" via military coup.
One of the keys of all this confusion is that everybody with an agenda wants to radically differentiate Islam and Christianity (and by extension other Judaisms such as Talmudism or the distinct and diverse ancient Judaism but also Baha'ism, Mormonism, etc.) Muslims want that, Christians want that, and peoples from other traditions are dazzled by the millenary sectarian conflict between Islam and Christianity and, as the former eventually lost hard (and suffered colonization as result), tend to pack it with other victims of Christian/European imperialism and adopt it as "one of their own", even in some cases to the point of conversion (but more commonly whitewashing). The reality however is that Christian or European imperialism followed largely the steps of Muslim imperialism, especially in relation with Black Africa, where both pseudo-camps behaved very parallely and generally awfully.
The main difference has to do with the timelines of illustration or scientific intellectual hegemony, which in the Muslim World was earlier than in the Christian one but was later abandoned in favor of the most decadent religious obscurantism and growing intolerance (as had happened among Christians, especially Western ones, earlier but was a trend reversed by Renaissance anyhow).
Hi Luis and it's always a pleasure reading your commentary and I acknowledge that this video has hit home more than others. I think even imperialism doesn't work. I will utilise one major example that can maybe clarify my perspective. At the same time, I dont want to diminish the blood shed that took place at the dawn and dusk of Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula but in between there was a powerful peace that saw the prosperity of your lands and people.
You see today when Muslims look back at their time in your lands, it was never viewed upon as a separate nation of people. There wasn't an element of superiority of one human over another. There was of course the Dhimmi system which did indeed provide second class citizenry but not as extreme as you might think but at the same time it was a law, a structure that people could follow and trust in. Many scholars and thinkers and tradesmen continued enjoying their lives within the Islamic caliphates as Dhimmis. It was still a fairly feudal society so I dont think saying that everyone should be equal was a legitimate claim for any civilisation at the time.
I cant really answer the Zoroastrian question because I am not well versed in it.
But again thank you so much for sharing your questions and your thoughts.
@Goyim-phobic I actually enjoy Luis' long commentary. It is rare that someone puts so much effort on to relay their thoughts. For me it's about sharing, valid or invalid so I appreciate the commentary. And thank you for your commentary as always.
@Goyim-phobiche’s just salty his people never rose anywhere near the Arabs who owned them
Noted @Goyim-phobic but I think we should answer with clear and short retorts when we believe one might be wrong in their positions or else we appear weak with ours.
@Goyim-phobic - The bias is unavoidable because I'm not Muslim (nor Christian nor any other type of Jewish), I'm in the atheist-pantheist range and in full moon nights I even tend to believe in the ancient Basque religion (which is like yin-yang more or less but more in the line of "fertility cult" much as that pre-Indoeuropean variant of Hinduism that is Shaktism/Shaivism). I still sign in my last blog as "Maju", which comes from the Arabic "Madju" (similar to "kafir" but maybe less insulting, of Persian Zoroastrian roots ultimately) and is a name applied to the ancient Dragon or Snake male aspect of ancient Basque gender-binary Monotheism (totally unrelated to Jewish-Christian-Muslim patriarchal one as far as I can tell).
The real problem is IMO with being overly Islamo-centric. In any case take it, please as food for thought, as some outsider's different POV, which may be useful at times to have lest one falls into complacent group-think.
Do I realize the difference between "colonialism and imperialism"? Meh, what's in a name? If we go strictly by Lenin's definition of "Imperialism", it's not even a policy but a system (something that "campists" insist on not understanding, thinking that somehow "imperialism" would be something only the USA or the West does, which is not true: everybody does it or tries to, especially under capitalist or similar exploitative basis. I am of the opinion anyhow that Rome was both imperialist and colonialist and that the Roman Empire was, at least until Caracalla, nothing else than the colonial empire of Rome-Latium-Italy, with Italy very clearly becoming the imperial metropolis after the Social War and the provinciae being all what we now would call "colonies" (in those days "coloniae" meant actually "settlements" and not general subjugated foreign territories, those were called "provinciae" = pro-vinci-(i)a = conquered land and it's inhabitants had generally the status of "provincials", i.e. colonial subjects without rights other than the most basic civil law, subject to torture and possibly execution without proper trial).
This Roman legacy is definitely very important for the Christian/European side of things but it also massively influenced Arabia and the rise of Islam, which is closest to the Roman or Greco-Roman tradition than any other world culture, except the Christian-European one. Islam is terribly Western, still more Semitic than Indoeuropean (and that's a core difference probably) but still Western, and there is hardly any denial of that.
The arab invasion is the exact defintion of colonialism, I will give three instance of how hated the arabs were by the natives of the lands they invaded. First is Iran which brutually had numerous cities in it wiped out for its people resisting arabisation. A process which was resisted by all natives to varying degrees of success. Return to Persia, this attempt at arabisation continued until the fall of Umayyad caliphate's collapse due to the revolt of the natives against arab rule. Now let talk about north africa the main victim of arab colonialism do you want to talk about the countless war between the arabs and the berber who refused to be ruled by the former or do you wanna talk about how the arab enforced segregation on the coptics of Egypt. I will give one last instance the fake harmony you know the iberians and the arabs will leaving in such harmony that during the reconquestia the muslim would aid their christian brothers against arab rule for how tyrannical their rule was. So pls don't say that arab were more tolerant, more merciful or better than their counterpart. The only empire the arabs could be classified as better than is the mongol empire which really doesn't help their case either.
They are semitic lands like slavic lands
the irony
07:00 "...the supposed colonial center.."
I don't know if it's deliberate but you're drawing false comparison.
Those Islamic empires didn't touch Mecca and Medina because they wanted to preserve it in the way it was at time of the prophet and use it for religioous purposes only do they didn't want them to become cultural and trade centers like Baghdad etc.
Umayyad dynasty capital was Damascus just like British empire London.
Al Abassiaya Baghdad like French empires Paris
Fatimid capital was Cairo like Spanish Madrid and so on.
6:08 Yes they were in small minority. So they can get more jizya and keep themselves in the elite class.
You're missing just one point. The Spanish, English, Portuguese were stupid enough to write about their own atrocities. People in the time of European expansion 15th-20th century were more educated and advanced to write about what the conquerors did compared to 7th-8th century.
Where is your source that Madinah nor Mekka werent made capitals for the reason you claim? Madinah was the capital for quite a while.
And to give you the benefit of the doubt, any other Arabian city couldve been made the capital, but no, cities outside the Arabian peninsuala were made capitals, with many other non Arabian cities flourishing and becoming hubs for the world.
Your second point doesnt make sense either. Muslims chroniclers throughout history wrote about the wrongdoings of Muslims. If youre claiming early Islamic conquests had commited the atrocities to the level of the Spanish, English or French, but hid it, youre as much as a conspiracy theorist as others. Consider the fact there are non Muslim writings such as from Egyptian Copts where they wrote positively about the first Muslims that arrived.
@@aq4356 I did not say, they never were. I said "those Islamic empires..." meaning after the Rashidun empire.
My source is form various Islamic scholars.
And yes that is my point. The later Caliphates took the capital where it suited them.
For my second point:
Due the recency of European empires people tend to make them the worse ever. Definitely, I agree to some extent because my country suffered under them too. However there is a recency bias here.
Over time writing and education became easier and cheaper. Previously it was oral. So if you masscare all the elders and bring up their children in your own culture (almost like ottoman practice if Devshirme)
Some native American tribes allied with the British or the French to defeat other native tribes or Spanish etc.
Bishop of Chiapas Bartolome, a Spanish himself, wrote about the atrocities of the Spanish government.
History is neither black and white nor is it constant. The Copts writing positivity about one caliphate or a particular ruler doesn't mean that the next 1000 years were the same. For instance the Fatimid rule wasn't very nice to say the least.
In Mughal India emerpor Akbar era was peak good relations with the non Muslims. He promoted inclusivity for Hindu religions and even created a new religion that combines local religions. But just 55 years later Aurangzeb was peak bad as he wanted a more Islamic regime. So if you read quick history, people would think that the period was fine since the highlight of Mughal era was Akbar.
"....much of a conspiracy theorist as others"
Others who?
Please tell me about the those chroniclers.
Uh huh, and how would you explain the uhh drastic decrease in the Assyrian and Aramean Christian population? What about the laws under the Caliphates that prevented the building of Churches? What about the Jizya tax and Dhimmi system?
I do not understand how paying a heavy tax every year for being just member of the Abrahamic faiths for, protection?
Procreation against whom? The Assyrians were forbidden from carrying weapons, riding horses, holding any position of office.
I do not see how conquering a region, then their ethnic and religious populations just happen to disappear over the course of 200 years. I will tell you know that Assyrians and Armenians, as well as Arameans did not convert to Islam nor did they rebel to just cause the various genocidal acts against Christians.
Imagine getting by treated as second class citizen, having various restrictions on movement, religious expression, cultural and traditional engagement and finally repeated genocides.
It’s interesting to wonder how 80% of Mesopotamia was majority Assyrian and suddenly by 800 AD they were less then 5% of the total population.
The Spanish gave the native peoples citizenship of Spain. They did not purposedly massacred them. Many died of diseases they were not used to. The Spanish mixed with the natives, that is how there are mestizos today. Moreover, there are still lots of Indian populations in South America. Interestingly, the most racist towards the Indians are the mestizo populations.
That is intriguing Amatista65. I am not aware of conquistadors and their relationships with the natives. But thanks for sharing.
Super Video 👍❤
U r not pointing out the fact Muslims in slaved people that convert stop non Muslims from gaining higher rankings in society forced there laws on concord people so ya they had religious freedom but with a price so yes they were imperialist
6:08 Yes they were in small minority. So they can get more jizya and keep themselves in the elite class.
You're missing just one point. The Spanish, English, Portuguese were stupid enough to write about their own atrocities. People in the time of European expansion 15th-20th century were more educated and advanced to write about what the conquerors did compared to 7th-8th century.
Colonization is a recent post medieval form of expansion