If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can start your claim in just a click without having to leave your couch: heyhistorically.com/morgan 🍀 This video was released to members first! If you want to support us so we can make videos even faster and get sick benefits, consider becoming a member today! 💚
This was a great video. It would be sick to have this be like a Part 1 of 2 because of how big the story really is, and maybe sail over into Christopher Columbus and his conquest to the other side of the world. As always amazing work from you and your great Team!🎉❤
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman? 2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun) 2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre, 2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning 2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another 3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades, I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning 1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman? 2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun) 2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre, 2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning 2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another 3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades, I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
@dr.iceberg6293it's the general degradation of literacy in our generation that's to blame. It makes people more susceptible to easily digestible media of dubious quality and erodes public trust in academia. Not saying this video is of bad quality, it's enjoyable, well produced content, but it can hardly be compared to academic literature. It just doesn't serve the same purpose.
@Bernie_Wiseman yeah, people should really start reading more probably Not even historical or classical literature (even though some of those can be fairly funny and engaging despite their age) but anything, really. Some fantasy, a thriller, a detective story just people should read more
There are sooooo many things that happend, you could make a 25 min vid on one year itself, or one battle in that year by itself. I think we did good giving it a rough overview of the events of the war. We also wanted to upset everyone equally by making it hype when Muslims won and then hype when Christians won, since no matter what you say during an religious video (as we saw with the Abd alrahman vids and the jesus vid) people will always be complaining about something
@ItsTauriReal Persia and Byzantium had just finished an incredibly brutal war, and both empires were broke, with their manpower depleted and their populace wracked by disease. The Arabs came in at the perfect time to kick in the door right when there would be no opposition. Had they invaded 20 years later, history might have gone very differently... We could be living in a world in which Arabs only exist in Arabia (Christian or not), Anatolia is probably still mostly Turkish but maybe actually Christian or some Eastern religion adopted by the Turks, Egypt is still using the Egyptian alphabet and the Coptic religion, and Iran is Zoroastrian or something similar. It would be wild.
One of my favourite poems is about the fall of the Andalus لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ إِذَا مَا تَمَّ نُقْصَان فَلَا يُغَرُّ بِطِيبِ الْعَيْشِ إِنْسَانُ هِيَ الْأُمُورُ كَمَا شَاهَدَتْهَا دُوَلٌ مَنْ سَرَّهُ زَمَنٌ سَاءَتْهُ أَزْمَانُ
@HeyHistoricallyyo, just to clear up, islamically you cannot force religion into people "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood..." (2:256) also Surah Al-Ghashiyah (88:21-22): "So [O Prophet] keep on reminding, for you are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them." And also Surah Al-Kahf (18:29): "Proclaim, 'This is the truth from your Lord.' Whoever wills, let them believe. And whoever wills, let them disbelieve."
@gabi-3316 well and the bible says "you shall not murder", yet we have alot of crusades. Religion was always the glue for war and warlords and a reason to expand territory. Doesn't matter what the book says.
There is also a misconception you mentioned. Firstly, spreading the message of Islam is what the Prophet entrusted to us before his death, and it is called "Da'wah" (invitation to Islam). As for Jihad, it is fighting against anyone who attacks Muslims, and it is also against oppressors, not just enemies. Jihad has several forms; it may be through speech or war in the cause of upholding the truth.
Jihad doesn't mean holy war! It literally means effort, it generally refers to mobilization in military struggle, which every single kingdom and state in history practiced. This guy is an ignorant fabricator.
White represented purity while black represented unity uymmad were more strict with non Muslims while abbasids were less stricter and followed the ways of the prophet PBUh I am muslim
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning 1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman? 2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun) 2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre, 2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning 2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another 3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades, I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
ISTG why are portuguese people so forgotten!? For one of the most powerful nations in history and ex world power the anglosphere sure loves to ignore Portugal's history ( in matters involving catholicism of all topics )
@SundayHusband-7 Because our fall from grace happened so long ago, it's basically ancient history. We haven't been an influential nation in like 300 years.
21:06 the crescent isn't the symbol of Islam. It was used by ottomans after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Later on it was popularized in the Muslim world.
Honestly, the Reconquista is one of the most interesting subjects at hand to study. It has everything from scheming to fighting on both sides. Reminds me of a certain book series that never seems to end, huh.
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning 1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman? 2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun) 2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre, 2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning 2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another 3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades, I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
@ikk_ikk حتى الجنود المسلمين بدون درع و بدون خوذة ! مع انها مذكورة في كتب التاريخ الاسلامية بل حتى في الشعر العربي القديم قبل الاسلام ايضا كان لون الراية ابيض و اسود و احيانا ابيض و احمر و ليس اخضر
Exactly like what’s the point? All this knowledge and wisdom devolved over like 3/4 of a millennium destroyed by people who don’t and will never understand it’s worth
Some footnote, because time didn't allow it: before the Franks and Umayyads met at the battle of Tours (known as the Battle of Poitiers in French, which actually took place in the towns of Moussais-La-Bataille and Cenon-Sur-Vienne), the Umayyads had been stuck for a long time in an attritional war against Odo the Great's independent duchy of Aquitaine, this long battling between both powers weakened them significantly and tired the Umayyads' army enough for Charles Martel and his army to not only stop and push back the muslims, but also allowed the kingdom of the Franks to finally subjugate and invade the Duchy of Aquitaine who actually was the first state to temporarily stop the invaders at Toulouse.
@lucasbakeforero426 he lost his entire family and kingdom to the abbasids, he was basically alone, and just had 1 servant with him, and he went on to build an empire.
Fun fact 3:58 Over the centuries, as languages evolved and the region changed hands, "Jabal Ṭāriq" slowly morphed into "Gibraltar" in Spanish and English, and "Gibilterra" in Italian.
Fun fact: al-Hakam, who's mother was Basque, felt insecure about being blonde so he used to dye his beard and use a lot of kohl (basically medieval eyeliner) to look more Arab.
Extra fun fact: while running away from Baghdad (they wanted to kill him), he was helped by the Amazighs (berbers) who sheltered him and decided to make him king in Al-Andalus since he claimed lineage from the prophet's uncle (most of the time not true but it keeps people together and loyal)
@AtlasPanthera actual fun fact: he didn’t claim lineage from the Prophet peace be upon him because he's from Bani Umayyah and the Prophet is from Bani Hashem. It was pro-Umayyad Arab tribes in Al-Andalus who helped Abdurrahman I (not Abdurrahman III), not the Amazigh who at the time didn’t have much power and their rebellion just got crushed. You're confusing him with Idriss I who was from the lineage of the Prophet peace be upon him and was crowned Sultan of Morocco by the Amazigh tribe of Auraba.
@ahmedsalek976The Ummayads also claimed lineage from the prophet pbuh, and yes the Amazighs helped Abdurrahman the 1st (I was talking about him) but rebelled later starting from Morocco after only 30 years of joining the Ummayads (you can look up the barbary revolt). Please research before you correct. P.S: Idriss the 1st was also not a Sultan in Morocco he was chosen to be an Imam and the new Muslim state was named by historians after him, he was a war refugee as well and was welcomed but never ruled.
@AtlasPanthera it wasn't the Umayyads, it was the Abbasids that claimed lineage from Abbas the uncle of the Prophet peace be upon him. The noteable Amazigh support of Abdurrahman I was in Morocco, since his own mother and his regent were Amazighs. In Al-Andalus, his main support was Umayyad loyalists from Syria, Amazigh support wasn't as note worthy there. Idriss I was absolutely a Sultan and ruled in every sense of the word, having founded the state, established a centralised government, lead military campaigns in places like Telmcen, founded the city of Fez, and minted coins in his name.
FUN FACT: did you know that the fall of Granada marked a rivalry/ a series of wars between Morocco, Spain and Portugal? Starting from Portugal's occupation of Moroccan ports and ending with the Green march in November 1975. Basically, Morocco in 14th century was in shambles, being ruled by the marrinids a group of Berber tribes that overthrown the almohads but still were in chaos, followed by the wattasids who are basically ottoman puppets which didn't last long because the Saadis, which weren't like other dynasties, the Saadis managed to survive attacks from ottomans AND Portuguese. In battles like: Wadi al-laban 1558, a victory of moroccans against the ottomans. Battle of the 3 kings 1578, a crushing victory for Morocco that literally caused the Portuguese empire's downfall as the moroccans ended their dynasty by killing young king Sebastian I, even though some say he's MIA, but king Sebastian was killed in battle and even buried near one of Morocco's mosques, that battle was so decisives that many say it's the biggest military disaster Portugal has ever faced, and about what happened after the battle, Spain's king inherited the lands because he's somehow related to Sebastian. This battle was also known as Alcácer Quibir or Wadi al-makhazin.
Marruecos Existe desde 1960, no existia Marruecos durane la reconquista, jamas fue territorio del falso pais que hay ahora y lo unico que hay ahora es revisionismo historico de Marruecos para incluirse en epocas en las que no existia jajajaja.
@lyonthespanishfox9686 Mi amigo, los Al-Mohades y los Almorávides son ambos Marruecos en sus tiempos antiguos, es más antiguo de lo que piensas, ya que hay pruebas de que existieron hace mucho tiempo bajo diferentes nombres, ¿sabías que el reino de Mauritania (el reino bereber durante la época romana) es en realidad Marruecos, así que no difundas propaganda y busca la verdad por tu cuenta, amigo. Nota: No soy hispanohablante, solo lo traduje para que te resulte más fácil de leer.
@YassineElassam Afirmar eso es como decir que España existe desde los tiempos de la Grecia antigua porque habia Iberos, que luego fueron Romanizados y luego se convirtieron en los Visigodos, siempre han habido personas en el Magreb, pero no son Marroquies, Marruecos existe por decisiones y politicas tomadas hace un siglo. Dejad de intentar trazar vuestro pais hasta unos origenes que no le corresponden.
@lyonthespanishfox9686 Técnicamente, Marruecos hoy es una mezcla de árabes, europeos de la colonización y amazighs/bereberes (nativos), Además, aunque la familia real no es bereber (actualmente es árabe), los marroquíes aún conservan sus antiguas costumbres; basta con ver ciudades como Marrakech y Fez, que fueron ciudades construidas por los marroquíes Hace mucho tiempo (Marrakech en el siglo XII y Fez en el siglo XX), y hay muchas pruebas de la existencia de Marruecos antes de la colonización, simplemente no te dejes engañar por la propaganda, amigo.
12:36 I'm not sure what actually happened during that time but I'd love to note that we, Muslims, were ordered and taught not to burn churches or any other building where people pray. We're also taught not to burn lands, not to kill animals, not to terrorize people and only fight the army that was sent out to fight us.
The Reconquista is one of those interesting topics which makes you wonder if history happens in set stages, and parallels. In 1492, the Reconquista concluded. It also concluded with the Converted Muslims and Jews being Expelled. Where did they leave to? The Ottoman Empire? The Ottoman Empire which had captured Constantinople in 1453. Sultan Bayezid II wrote that he questioned Ferdinand and Isabella's sense, because they expelled talent from their lands, to enrich his domains in Constantinople. It is also interesting that during the 13th Century, the Ottoman Empire began emerging, just as the Final Decline of Al-Andalus occured. A bit on Almanzor and the decline of the Caliphate's Golden Age would have been good. Great video!
11:17 You forgot to mention the main reason of frankish victory. Which was that arabs abandoned thier formation and retreated to protect the loot. That was the real turning point. They was almost invincible in previous battles cuz they was going with mindset of death or victory and charged to their death. It's notable that some muslims were weeping after winning battles (not necessarily in Spain) just cuz their friends died and went to heaven without them.
Fun fact: The font is the thumbnail is named questrian, I’ve used it before him, in my video called number orchestra 35, there you can see the number 681.
It's normal for short video It also offers a kind of entertainment, so if you want historical accuracy, look among the books, which themselves may contain some contradictions, because this is the nature of studying history.
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning 1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman? 2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun) 2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre, 2:0 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning 2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another 3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades, I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
8:50 Bro wtf do you mean Baguette-eaters, they were Frankish Germanics, not French. 11:25 There was no France back then, it was Gaul, ruled by Franks, not French
صديقي العزيز الحرب العربية الأموية ضد شبه الجزيرة الايبيرية ( إسبانيا و البرتغال ) لم تكن 780 سنة !! معظم الفترة التي حكم فيها العرب الأندلس كانت سنوات سلام و ازدهار و تعايش مسيحي يهودي إسلامي ... شكرا على الفيديو الممتع ... لكن العنوان ليس دقيقا .
That's a complete lie; the only equality that existed between Muslims, Jews, and Christians was that they were all oppressed by the Arabs, They were the only ones who benefited from the so-called "prosperity".
@Nifffty Hmmmmm Who *have actually* done that in history? Do u want me to say or is the answer obvious to anyone who has read history and has a minimum of at least 2 brain cells
This episode feels different. I like this channel because of how creative he was, with the right amount of theater for an animated historical docu-comedy. This one felt more like a narration sent to the editor
atually the ummayyads banners were white but the abbasids banners were black😊 and the tribute were not a huge amount of gold and it is a little amount of the rich people money and musa ibn nussair and terik ibn ziad were loyal to each other not as you show😅
Churches were not burned, nor were Christian civilians killed, as the video attempts to imply. In reality, this is what Christians did to Muslims after the reconquest, not the other way around.
Extra information here: the original army was under Tariq ibn ziyad an Amazigh (berbers) strategist. His army was all from local Moroccans and the decisions to take over the visigoths was purely individual and had nothing to do with the Ummayads in fact Damascus sent an army 2 years after Tariq won, they asked him to report back to the middle east and forced him away from starting a nation. This and the fact that the North African Amazighs were considered 2nd rate citizens, made current day Morocco revolt only 39 years after joining the Ummayads, Andalus was also going to fall only 250 years after it became Muslim until the local Moroccan Al-Moravids took over creating the Moroccan empire that Stretched all the way from the Senegal river South to Andora North and from the Atlantic west to Tunisia east. Of course later on the Christians gathered all their power from Germany, France, Visighots and so on and waged a 700 long war until Cordoba fell. Muslim Amazighs, Arabs and Moriscos (European converts) ran across to Morocco that was still powerful under the new Al-Mohads. They had a huge navy and many corsair cities that harassed the new Spanish kingdoms and prompted it (Spain) to become the feared naval power of colonial times. Morocco kept slowly declining (caused the Portuguese empire to desapear and tried to ally with Britain to beat Spain in America along the way) until France and Spain invaded in 1907.
Tariq was not Moroccan because Morocco didn't exist back then, moreover we don't even know if Tariq was from present-day Morocco or present-day Algeria. There was no border between those countries back then. There was no 700 years long war. And Christians didn't have a massive alliance against Islam for 700 years nor anything like that. Almoravids never conquered Andorra, their northernmost posession was Lleida. Morisco is not an European convert to Islam, but a Muslim who converted to Christianity.
@Enric. By your logic Spain didn't exist before 1975. Seems like all they teach you in Spain are lies to feels better about yourself. Muslims made it to Marseille beyond Andora actually. Morocco existed under different names, same people same monarchy system. Yes Algeria and Morocco didn't have borders yet because your country didn't spread its poison yet and devide nations under colonialism. P.S: dont be so proud about your country, you chemically bombed North of Morocco to win a war you were desperatly losing. All of this after just signing the Geneva accords to NOT USE CHEMICALS. Morocco will bring this to the UN when it is time dont you worry.
@AtlasPanthera 1) I am not Spanish and I despise Spain more than you do. The problem is that you're using exaggerated patriotism or an ultra-nationalist ideology to manipulate history and spread misleading claims. You are trying to link Islam with Morocco, as if being Muslim and Moroccan was the same when you know Islam is a religion, not a country, and the Islamic World is much bigger than Morocco. 2) Your comparison makes no sense. I never said that Morocco was created in 1975. Moreover, Spain and many other countries didn't exist in medieval times either. The Umayyad Empire was not Morocco; the land that now belongs to Morocco was conquered by the Umayyads, which is a different matter. If you said something similar in the other side, I would have criticized it too. 3) Muslims, Umayyad, and Almoravids are not synonyms. Umayyad went beyond Andorra and reached several parts of what is now southern France before Poitiers Battle, but they didn't take Marseille. Their expansion was around Gascony and Lenguedoc. The Almoravids were also Muslim, but they didn't go that far. 4) I don't support the conquest of Morocco, war crimes, or anything like that, and it has no relation with the topic. You are not talking about the same century now. You can be happy of Morocco being independent now without misleading claims.
@Onzo22 tell me you don't know Jihad without telling me you don't know Jihad . Jihad is not Islamic Crusade. It is something that seeks to protect innocents from enemies of faith , who want to hurt you . Jihad is something you need to do quite reading about 😊. The Main JIHAD is fighting inner demons( lust, gluttony, etc )
@Onzo22 u said literally the opposite thing. The crusades were offensive. There are 5 types of jihad and only one of them involves war and even then the war is fought to spread peace not to kill disbelievers or enforce islam neither of which are even allowed in islam.
@HeyHistorically I would like to mention something. When Muslims entered Spain in 711 CE, they were widely regarded as formidable conquerors who swiftly dismantled the Visigothic kingdom, yet they also introduced a new era of cultural sophistication through advances in governance, architecture, and science. Many Jewish testimonies describe their arrival positively, as Jews-long persecuted under Visigothic rule-often welcomed the Muslims as liberators and found greater tolerance under Islamic governance, which allowed Jewish communities to flourish intellectually and economically, even if occasional restrictions persisted. I am willing to debate this topic to educate myself and others. These are my sources: Norman Roth, The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain (Jewish Social Studies, 1976); S. Alfassa Marks, The Jews in Islamic Spain: Al-Andalus.
Was looking for information on the Reconquista when I found your video. I love the animation! The production is good, and entertaining! Exponentially better than the channels that just use video game (ie. Total War) and AI graphics.
U shouldn't say the muslim empire is Allah's empire, because every empire is Allah's empire and never promised to give all of them to the Muslims, he did promise rome tho, which obviously happened very fast.
I'd like to add that despite what certain figures have connected to the concept of Jihad, it's root word comes from the word "to strive" and the actual idea behind it is an action taken in striving to maintain and defend/protect yourselves, your family, your nation or your faith. Internal means of Jihad like studying, working or improving the faith, lifestyle and infrastructure of a nation is actually the greater aspect of Jihad while external means of Jihad are considered Lesser Jihad and even then, it's usually about social aspects rather than military, and even the military stuff has its own rules and limitations. It's kinda sad listening to these historical stories and seeing people just being people every time on both sides of the conflict despite what they claim to represent
to be exact jihad means "struggle", struggle for the sake of Allah in a sense, as much as holy war than personal struggle. though muslims didnt force people to convert, and even the ummayyad discouraged it so people keep paying the jizya tax, as the zakat had to be used for poor muslims, and the jizya tax actually profited the government
@17-MASY Okay, I had to take sometime to really think about what you said and there is a difference between the two. Manifest Destiny is more political while the expansion of Islam during the invasion is more religious in nature.
Correction for people in the comments: The Arabic word "jihad" is an intensive plural form derived from the root "jhd" (effort)... Jihad is to struggle against those who want to lead you astray from the path of your Lord, whether that is yourself or someone else... During the Umayyad era, the Romans and Persians, their allies, were considered powers seeking to destroy the believers (this is quite true, as the Romans and Persians were disturbed by the fall of their arab allies, the Khomeinis and the Ghassanids and the lost of power in middle east, clearly affected trade routes).
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning 1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman? 2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun) 2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre, 2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning 2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another 3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades, I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
I wish I could enjoy the video, but the multiple mistakes and errors I've found didn't let me enjoy it fully. I get that you have to condense >700 years in 24 minutes, but I'd like to point out the most painful errors. -The Reconquista wasn't a war itself, but a historical period. That mindset of "longest, non stop war" was present here in spanish academia until the 70's (until the fall of Franco's regime). The Reconquista had plenty of smaller, short wars not only between christian kingdoms and muslim taifas, emirates and caliphates, but among them as you stated when speaking of the First Taifas Period (there were three taifa periods). -"Jihad", as you stated, didn't have such a political meaning as nowadays narrative of "holy war". It CAN mean that, but it is also seen as a period of struggle. The muslim CONQUEST (again, the term " muslom invasion" has been abandoned in spanish academia back in the 70's) of the iberian penninsula wasn't a jihad, but a military expedition. And no, it wasn't to expand islam, but for political gain and because the nobles wanted Roderic out. Also, "jihadism" and "jihadists" is an anacronysm. -The conquest of the iberian penninsula was quick because many villages and cities literally saw the writing in the wall, and opted to submit peacefully, adopt the new administration, and slowly convert voluntarily due to the tax system of the dhimmi. -The Umayyad banner wasn't black, but white. The black banner was the abbasid one. -About the burning of churches during that period... We just simply don`t know exactly. There was the martyrdom of 48 christians between 850 and 859, but no church burning is mentioned, afaik. -About Covadonga, it is one of the hottest topics in academic discussion. Calling it a battle is quite generous. Nowadays, it is called "the skirmish" or "the episode" of Covadonga. And I think that's all the mistakes and misconceptions I could find. I hope you find this feedback useful.
Yeah I was about to say the same thing about the Reconquista not really being one long war but more of a historical period with many different conflicts. Good points.
The Arabs literally melted down the bells of a church and made them into gates for their mosques, an act that would later be reversed by Saint Ferdinand.
@ibn_khusrau Correction, they turned them into lamps, but in any case they melted down the bells of Santiago de Compostela and transported them to Córdoba. The burning of churches is even recorded in Muslim chronicles. ruclips.net/user/shortsQwI1hzVAsYI?si=4Gd7qg7oKtwR74Kt
Just to notify The Deeds Of people doesn't necessarily commanded by Allah or Islam And it's Not always the Muslim Country Invaded For fight in the way of God sometimes just for expanding and authority the evidence on that is that the Ottoman Sultanite Invaded the mamluks and it's called "opened" it is Already Muslim how to opened more than that ? (I've noticed that from Ahmad albhairi Video) But isn't that a not very occurred point ? Because they did occupied the mamluks Sultanite that Doesn't mean that they didn't Invad Iberia for a religious Reason! Yes but Do you expect a ruler that invaded his Brothers in Religion would necessarily Care about Converting others to his faith for the pleasant of god first and only ? And even if he did it is necessary his faith tells him to do it and force people to it? , great video brother interesting content really I love history الحمد لله But I wanted to mention that I'm not saying that you really believe that but I commented to not raise any one Opinion On islam he took from the news , thank you all very well
If I remember it was because mamluks had control over Egypt and higaz (the western part of the arabian peninsula the meets the Red Sea) and the Portuguese wanted to conquer higaz and destroy qaba (the black box in Mecca if u didn’t understand) so they had to take control over that area to protect For conquering Egypt however I rly don’t know
you may not feel it but you’re being with one side more than the other! Anyone who talk about history should view it from the outside ,burning churches really? More like killing thousands of Jewish and Muslims the kingdom of Allah? Paying tax while not talking about Jizyah. everyone conquers for religion or money in history, not just Muslims, And talk about Isabella should be illegal she’s a tyrant who literally killed everyone I just talking about honeymoon gift!!!!!!
you’re like yeah, they were strong but savages who conquer for Allah they succeeded but for how long .even in you’re drawing the last straw was Isabella that’s all I needed to know what’s going on in your head jewish and Muslims are not worth talking about in a massacre
By the way, I don’t care if you talk bad about this kingdom because some of it might be true but you can’t just pick one side to be the victorious noble who’s been betrayed and the other side to be the traitor or the savage who kill Christian while not talking about Isabella
@q8aryThis is meaningless general talk without evidence. You are simply frustrated by the crimes of Christianity, for which there is thousands of pieces of evidence. Do you really think that if Muslims committed massacres in Andalusia, the Western media opposed to Islam wouldn't mention them? We don't hear a thing.Because they know that all of that is just nonsense and empty talk.
@mohamedmohsen-f4g “It’s not about empathy, it’s about not rewriting history by painting one side as entirely good and the other as entirely bad. Ignoring events like what Isabella I of Castile did, while at the same time downplaying figures like Tariq ibn Ziyad and his victories as just luck or internal betrayal, doesn’t really reflect the complexity of history or explain why he succeeded.”
this guy is pretty obviously biased against the french everything he says about them is either false or twisted in a way to make them look bad as they were the ones that destroyed the muslims and stopped the invasion and hes salty about it
Making slaves from the conquest was normal back then. Then it wasn't based on race it was the only logical way to raise labour and build cities On like what the US did even after the advent of machines and industry like cotton gin but still wanted to keep slaves
@muhammadharuna9903no. You are completely wrong. The Islamic slavery was especially cruel, they castrated the men and sold women and children naked on the streets. Sexual slavery was a huge part of Islamic slavery and Islam is the only religion who fought to keep slavery
@eva@evanhannson5014l doesn't mean what I said was wrong though And yeah keeping slaves as concubines was allowed in Islam but they belong to only one man and not as a group whore as you may think some Of these these sec slaves as you call them did later rise to powerful positions Castration is haram in Islam and I doubt these were done in an Islamic-held territory unless you have strong sources that say otherwise And Islamic nations never fought to keep slavery unlike some nation that split it's self to keep it
@evanhannson5014False. The Trans Atlantic was especially cruel, slavery among Muslims only restricted what was already practiced. Men were not castrated except in border lands since it was forbidden, women were NOT paraded around naked in any large numbers. Continue coping.
@ibn_khusrauyou can read about castrations, slave rides, women being inspected before getting sold into sexual slavery. These are actual documented facts
Something that needs to be talked about is that the Muslims in their every Jihad never pillaged a village nor a city nor burned down any religious buildings (Churches in this context), that's because since the days of the Prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم) There were rules of war: 1.No treachery 2.No killing of women, children and aged men 3.No burning down farms nor fruitful trees 4.No killing livestock except for food 5.No pillaging villages nor cities 6.No looting without justification 7.No harming the devoted to monastic life Those are only few of the rules, I just wrote what came up in my memory.
bruh the muslims in north africa were not second class muslims cuz the arab generals were their to guide and lead new local muslims and there is so much hate and propaganda about the muslims
Muslims attempted to wipe out the christians first, this was a retaliation, which was normal. You people love to say "what about this other thing?" whenever you don't have an answer for your crimes. Which is every single time.
??? Search on google or chatgtp, the historical consensus is leniently and tolerance from Muslims rulers in Spain. where as the Christian persecuted Muslims and Jews, there evens is till this day a large Jewish population in Morocco for this reason.
@aleksakuljanin2442 history is not about picking sides; the Inquisition is a central part of spanish history and omitting it is erasing a chunk of history. I don't care if you see the inquisition as right or wrong, but it should have been included in the video because it is central to spanish history
I just watched for 4 mins and there are many historical mistakes. First the term jihad is not holy war . Jihad comes from Arabic word juhd , which means effort. So in summary any thing you do for the way of god is jihad. To not lie is jihad to not steal is jihad..etc . Second the ummayds banner was white not black. Third Muslims at this stage didn't force anyone to believe in islam by force because it was not permissible by god to do so . They shared and expanded islam but didn't force anyone , like Christians did when they took the Spain or the Levant in the time of the crusades.
@wx6130 yeah its about history which contains part of Islamic history which is not explained correctly, making us the bad guys . do you understand buddy?
2:27 ok that true but cmon ummayed caliphate were controversial from its beginning and this type of treating is wrong religion wise so that them then they fall mainly after just 50 years because of these acts of racism to ayoub caliphate which continued more than 1000 years so yeah notice the difference(just want to say as said in islam there no difference between black or red )(white)nor an Arab speaker and a foreign tongue but in faith in Allah so yep all people are equal if you want to follow islam Ummaiah were just strange I would say if you don't know the tangled history after three caliphates they were far less religious like those mf bombarded makka and kapa (cube ok don't know the name in English) with trapuchates twice damaging the holy site
2:13 just something I’d like to point out when Islam would like to takeover a country its rulers are given three choices by the Muslim army: 1- they accept Islam and are left at peace and the land is taken over without a fight 2-the don’t accept Islam and have to pay (jiziah) a tax and the land is taken over without a fight( the people who pay the tax still have every right they used to have before so all that’s different in their lives is that tax that they have to pay ) 3- they don’t accept Islam and don’t pay the tax therefore the Muslim army will go to war with them See nobody is forced to be a Muslim they are given a choice and if they don’t want to become Muslim they are free to follow whatever religion they wish , and that’s it I just wanted to make that clear
@Spouly jiziah was made as a tax for defense cuz the islamic country only defends muslims as they are a part of the country but christians or any other religon can js stick with their religon also islam didnt burn churches as he said in t he vid and proof to that if u went to egypt or anycountry that had alot of christians u will find alot of churches were made hundreds of years ago
It is a mistake to believe that Muslims forced the peoples of the East to convert to Islam. Different beliefs and religions still exist among us today. What was overthrown were the governments, which were not supported by those people either. Secondly, racism as we know it today was not known in our region before; rather, there was tribalism, which was rejected by the Islamic approach.
@durrangodsgrief6503search islamic rule of conversion. taking syahada is not just saying words of syahada and BAM your suddenly muslim, it must came from the heart if not the syahada is null. if we were to do forced conversion, then 1/2 of the europe will be muslim.
@durrangodsgrief6503 Egypt was conquered by Muslims over a thousand years ago. About 500 years ago, the majority of Egyptians were not Muslim. Muslims did not enter Indonesia militarily, yet the population converted. The same is true for some Turks in Asia, some Chinese, some inhabitants of Siberia, and some Indians. The Ottoman Empire ruled the Balkans, but even today the majority of its inhabitants are Christian.
i have been watching you videos for a while now and i really like this style of telling historic stories, also i liekd the fact that you have mentionned us Amazigh (and not berbers, romans are the ones calling us berbers since it's what they call people that are not romans) since a lot of arabic historians avoid to mention our existence to remover the fact that north africa wasn't arabic and us Amazigh were there before, but don't missunderstand me, thanks to them we became muslim and what an incredible religgion al hamdouliAllah. But yea there was this unfaireness in the society and racism back then which made us hate arabs byut not islam of course (funfact: Amazigh means free people :) )
حتى المؤرخين العرب لم يقولوا ان شمال افريقيا عربية و لم يصنفوا الامازيغ كعرب هذا كلام ما يسمى جامعة الدول العربية التي انشأها الانجليز قبل تسعين عام في مصر . الاسم (بربر) اخذه العرب المسلمون الاوائل من الروم دون ان يدركوا معناها و هناك من يقول ان ( بربر) تعني في العربية الكلام غير المفهوم
Nope, the visigoths didn't gather a "huge massive army" to fight the Muslims in the battle of the Guadalete, 6:26 . The number was estimated to be just a bunch of thousands. Also for Tariq's army, the 7000 figure is just an estimation more aligned with tradition than real historiographic analysis. The truth is, we just don't know. But the most likely is that the two armies made up to around 5000 each. There's a tendency to claim that the visigothic army was 2 or 3 times that of Tariq's, but the most close accounts we have of this clash are those of the Musarabic Chronicle, written some 40 years later. Pretty enough time to have an enlarged mythical background. What we deem more likely, is that both armies probably struggled to match in size a single Roman Legion, as field armies in those times were way smaller than the ones from antiquity.
Let me clarify this for everyone, According to the Sharia if a Non-muslim refused to convert they were definitely forced to pay Jizya, however by Sharia Jizya was supposed to be cheaper than Zakat (Tax paid by the Muslims) and paying Jizya in return Guaranteed them protection from Muslims, they wouldn't have to participate in wars, and there holy places would be protected by the muslims. However the Ummayds didn't really care about the Religion and used religion as an excuse to juice out money from people, They actually didn't want people to convert to Islam so that they could keep charging them up more taxes while keeping the Arab muslims happy, some Ummayds did try to reimplement Sharia after pressure from rebellions, however mostly it wasn't followed.
11:08 Another reason the Franks won the battle was because the Umayyads were geared for speed, and were wearing light tunics. There isn't a lot of room to maneuver in a forest, and the cavalry couldn't work at its potential. It came down to a lightly armored Umayyad soldier vs. a heavily armed , determined, and well trained Frank. You can guess who won.
It came down to a lightly armored Umayyad soldier vs. a heavily armed , determined, and well trained Frank. You can guess who won.. الدليل ؟؟ اخشى ان تقول من فلم ما !ا
3:20 Jihad doesn't mean 'holy war' and there are no big rules for Jihad, instead Jihad simply means to strife in the cause of Allah, which can range from collecting scientific books to teach the future generations or just making dawah (invitation) to non-muslims. The idea that Jihad is solely and specifically means "Holy war, conquest and forced conversion" is a big, big and grave misunderstanding of the term, often times done to demonize, and dehumanize muslims to fuel islamophobia
@youriigar6028preservation, storage and cataloguing. Books were often times left behind in war and if the book had a living owner that is alive, you left them be, offer to take care of the book for the owner, buy it, etc
1:55 it would be more accurate to say that the religion started with the Prophet. But he didnt go around conquering places, he passed away while trying to be diplomatic with the Byzantine n Sasanids. It was after his death was when the diplomacies failed and there were rebellions all over Saudi Arabia. The strikes on the Byzantines and Persians were pre-emptive to prevent further destabilization, ordered by the Rashidun Caliphate. TLDR: He was a Prophet, he didnt order any conquests of any sort.
Muhammad was a conqueror who used war to unify Arabia. He created both a religion and an empire. He was a religious leader, but he was also a military and political leader.
For non-Muslims (Christians and Jews - “dhimmis”) They typically paid two main taxes: Jizya (poll tax) A fixed yearly tax on adult men. Amount varied by wealth: Poor: small amount Middle: moderate Wealthy: higher amount In many regions of the early Islamic world, this ranged roughly from 1 to 4 dinars per year, though exact figures in al-Andalus could vary locally. Kharaj (land tax) Tax on agricultural land. Usually a percentage of the produce (often estimated between 10%-30%, depending on land type and agreements). Compared to previous Visigothic rule Under the Visigothic Kingdom: Taxes and obligations were often heavier and more arbitrary, tied to feudal and church demands. Many historians note that, at least initially, Umayyad taxation could be comparable or sometimes lighter, which helped stabilize the region.
Its still racist. It can be as clean of a system as ever, but if you only mandate it against people who are different than you, then it is racist/xenophobic.
@Srgt.Crouki From your point of view But from Thiers, it's different Muslims have other obligations one of them to defend others and participates in each battle against invaders, plus other religious reasons to pay. Non Muslims don't have to participate in the defense or any other religious pay
I don't care about point of view, racism is shit and I don't give a fuck what the religion says, welcome to the modern world, if you cant accept that the behavior was shit despite being less shit than the previous shitty people(which is simply the advancement of morality) then nothing about what you say matters@Dr_MGwe
It's actually more expensive to be Muslim in that state than not to be. 🪙 Jizya (for non-Muslims) Fixed annual tax (typically 1-4 dinars) Paid only by adult men with financial means In exchange for: Protection by the state Exemption from military service Poor, elderly, monks, and disabled people were often exempt 💰 Zakat (for Muslims) Zakat is a religious obligation, not just a tax: Standard rate: 2.5% of savings/wealth per year Also includes: Agricultural taxes (often 5-10% of crops) Livestock and trade goods 🔎 Key difference Jizya = fixed, relatively predictable Zakat = percentage-based, can be higher depending on wealth 👉 In many cases: A wealthy Muslim could pay more than a non-Muslim A poor non-Muslim might pay nothing at all In medieval Christian Europe, taxation was often heavier and less standardized. ⛪ Church tax (Tithe) Around 10% of all agricultural production Paid to the Church by peasants and landholders 👑 Feudal obligations People often had to: Pay rent/taxes to lords Work unpaid labor (corvée) Provide military service or supplies 💸 Multiple overlapping taxes Unlike jizya: Taxes were not unified or predictable A person might pay: To a lord To a king To the Church
Athens and Sparta had a war that never got a peace treaty until 1996 when a dude found out about it and told the mayor so technically there has been an over 2000 year old war
If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can start your claim in just a click without having to leave your couch: heyhistorically.com/morgan 🍀
This video was released to members first! If you want to support us so we can make videos even faster and get sick benefits, consider becoming a member today! 💚
Yay new video!!! ❤❤❤
Yay peak
This was a great video. It would be sick to have this be like a Part 1 of 2 because of how big the story really is, and maybe sail over into Christopher Columbus and his conquest to the other side of the world. As always amazing work from you and your great Team!🎉❤
love the videos! keep posting))
i did not watch it. did france surrender?
28 seconds into the video “ we are already 30 years behind schedule” 😭😭😭
I thought of my math teacher when they said that
That’s how I feel everyday. It’s 2pm and I am effectively running behind schedule for my 6pm class
shortest construction delay
Basically every first class of college ever 😂😂
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman?
2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun)
2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre,
2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning
2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another
3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades,
I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
5:03 this soponser ship took 60years worth of time if anyone wondered
i hope they paid well
So many lives lost
exactly 1k likes... its perfect...
@You-ye4xb why not 1066?
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman?
2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun)
2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre,
2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning
2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another
3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades,
I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
History is sometimes like being handed the answer sheet to a test but instead we completely ignore it and write some other bullsht
Historians: write thousands of books about 700+ years of conflict.
This channel: “Alright so basically…” and it communicates it perfectly
You probably haven't read any of the books you speak of so how would you know
@dr.iceberg6293it's the general degradation of literacy in our generation that's to blame. It makes people more susceptible to easily digestible media of dubious quality and erodes public trust in academia.
Not saying this video is of bad quality, it's enjoyable, well produced content, but it can hardly be compared to academic literature. It just doesn't serve the same purpose.
@Bernie_Wiseman yeah, people should really start reading more probably
Not even historical or classical literature (even though some of those can be fairly funny and engaging despite their age) but anything, really. Some fantasy, a thriller, a detective story just people should read more
There are sooooo many things that happend, you could make a 25 min vid on one year itself, or one battle in that year by itself. I think we did good giving it a rough overview of the events of the war.
We also wanted to upset everyone equally by making it hype when Muslims won and then hype when Christians won, since no matter what you say during an religious video (as we saw with the Abd alrahman vids and the jesus vid) people will always be complaining about something
@The_Ring_Nursefather it's hard! D:
LMAO the visigoths spent 300 years building a kingdom just to lose it in 7 years because a couple of nobles decided to rage quit mid-battle
"Bro yk what? This sucks I'm gonna change team rq"
Don't forget that the Arabs were way overpowered during that time.
They had crushed Iran, Byzantium, North Africa....
@rafaelbastos8713and the fact they faced Byzantium and Persia almost at the same time was insane
No not just because of nobles switching sides but also he was a worse and not as skilled enough as the araps general
@ItsTauriReal Persia and Byzantium had just finished an incredibly brutal war, and both empires were broke, with their manpower depleted and their populace wracked by disease. The Arabs came in at the perfect time to kick in the door right when there would be no opposition. Had they invaded 20 years later, history might have gone very differently... We could be living in a world in which Arabs only exist in Arabia (Christian or not), Anatolia is probably still mostly Turkish but maybe actually Christian or some Eastern religion adopted by the Turks, Egypt is still using the Egyptian alphabet and the Coptic religion, and Iran is Zoroastrian or something similar. It would be wild.
One of my favourite poems is about the fall of the Andalus
لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ إِذَا مَا تَمَّ نُقْصَان
فَلَا يُغَرُّ بِطِيبِ الْعَيْشِ إِنْسَانُ
هِيَ الْأُمُورُ كَمَا شَاهَدَتْهَا دُوَلٌ
مَنْ سَرَّهُ زَمَنٌ سَاءَتْهُ أَزْمَانُ
Son: don't worry mom and dad! It'll be a quick war!
Narrator: It was not.
Like 5 day war in and out easy conquest. *Nearly 1000 years later*
It was more of a series of wars than one single war
@biohazard724 morgan freeman
Sounds like what's going on in the world today.
I'm so glad I got membership
@HeyHistoricallyThank youuu for more content!!!
@HeyHistoricallyyo, just to clear up, islamically you cannot force religion into people "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood..." (2:256) also Surah Al-Ghashiyah (88:21-22): "So [O Prophet] keep on reminding, for you are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them." And also Surah Al-Kahf (18:29): "Proclaim, 'This is the truth from your Lord.' Whoever wills, let them believe. And whoever wills, let them disbelieve."
@gabi-3316yoo W islam letting people live without pressuring religion onto em
@gabi-3316 well and the bible says "you shall not murder", yet we have alot of crusades. Religion was always the glue for war and warlords and a reason to expand territory. Doesn't matter what the book says.
There is also a misconception you mentioned. Firstly, spreading the message of Islam is what the Prophet entrusted to us before his death, and it is called "Da'wah" (invitation to Islam). As for Jihad, it is fighting against anyone who attacks Muslims, and it is also against oppressors, not just enemies. Jihad has several forms; it may be through speech or war in the cause of upholding the truth.
Jihad doesn't mean holy war! It literally means effort, it generally refers to mobilization in military struggle, which every single kingdom and state in history practiced. This guy is an ignorant fabricator.
@pikemen3477That's right, well done. Unfortunately, Western peoples don't know much about us; I think this is due to politics or propaganda.
I think the Umayyads had White as their color, black is the color of the later Abbasids Caliphate.
@abdulwahid12343 that's not relevant to what I said.
@abdulwahid12343 yes
It was sometimes white and sometimes black
White represented purity while black represented unity uymmad were more strict with non Muslims while abbasids were less stricter and followed the ways of the prophet PBUh I am muslim
I thought they had green banner…or was it just Spanish branch that used it.
Like Ummayid survivor tied green banner to his spear story at least.
0:17 simplified? perhaps even oversimplified...
Still waiting for his new video on the 3rd punic war. It's been over a year since he last posted. Hopefully it'll be worth the wait.
Say that again
@Sols3 its fantastic...
@Sols3 that again
@fishy0929 it can’t be made into a video at least not a good one since it was basically rome sucking carthage money and killing them by the end of the
4:02 Tariq is genuinely just aura farming like Piccolo in that GIF
and also, Gibraltar is still named "Tariq's mountain" in Arabic
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman?
2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun)
2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre,
2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning
2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another
3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades,
I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
@ikk_ikk Reconquered much?
You've already been conquered by arithmetic, 1+1+1=/=1
@ikk_ikk
Lil bro
Your comment is pure emotional cope
You just mad cause of the truth spoken. After all, Without lies, the creed of 1+1+1=1 dies
No mention of Portugal 😭
Even in Spanish history education Portugal is still mentioned in the Reconquista
The creator saying Spain as iberia, as to be a full ragebait to the portugese people
ISTG why are portuguese people so forgotten!? For one of the most powerful nations in history and ex world power the anglosphere sure loves to ignore Portugal's history ( in matters involving catholicism of all topics )
@SundayHusband-7 Because our fall from grace happened so long ago, it's basically ancient history. We haven't been an influential nation in like 300 years.
bruh didnt even mentionned Charlemagne and Roland
21:06 the crescent isn't the symbol of Islam. It was used by ottomans after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Later on it was popularized in the Muslim world.
I mean I don't know why he's showing crescent 🌙 as a symbol of caliph
This is a misconception, it was used prior to the Ottomans
@ibn_khusraunot by Muslims. By byzantinians
@AbdulHadi-m2k9oIt was used by Muslims.
@ibn_khusrauyou just say I'm wrong and don't try to explain who used it?when?who
Why?Origins?
There is a mistake at the beginning of the video. Umayyad banner was not black but white, Abbasid banner was the black one.
written by the lawfirm 🧃🧃
Honestly, the Reconquista is one of the most interesting subjects at hand to study. It has everything from scheming to fighting on both sides. Reminds me of a certain book series that never seems to end, huh.
Game of Thrones?
@CNFoerst YOU GOT IT! 😂
Maybe One Piece. Technically a manga but still a book
@triadwarfareGood try.
game of thrones was denied.
2:07 actually Egypt was already a part of the islamic empire from before the ummayads since the rashidun caliphate
Right
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman?
2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun)
2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre,
2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning
2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another
3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades,
I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
@ikk_ikk
Okay u bot just shut it
@ikk_ikk حتى الجنود المسلمين بدون درع و بدون خوذة ! مع انها مذكورة في كتب التاريخ الاسلامية بل حتى في الشعر العربي القديم قبل الاسلام
ايضا كان لون الراية ابيض و اسود و احيانا ابيض و احمر و ليس اخضر
@احمدبسام-ض7ض من بعض كتاباتهم كانوا يلبسون الخوذ بل و الأقنعة
Hristiyanlar şehri geri alınca tüm kitapları yaktı bence çok büyük bir hataydı yaptıkları.
Exactly like what’s the point?
All this knowledge and wisdom devolved over like 3/4 of a millennium destroyed by people who don’t and will never understand it’s worth
bu kanalı izleyen tek türk bend eğilmişim vay be
5:59 south Africa?
18:34 with the amount of fortresses taken, you could say they worked like a team, team fortress
they didnt take just one fortress tho, the took approximately 2
@mytromic 2FORTS??
Say that again?
Right behind you...
It was team C from the final comic team castile if you will
Now I need the longer version of this video
21:20 that baguette sword is paid DLC
As muslim, I hope you guys don't fight in comments and be civil
Please love each other
✝️🤝☪️
Weird how people would fight in the comments over a very old war because both teams had the same religion as Thiers
@witherstorm1127people on internet are stupid don't be surprised
Some footnote, because time didn't allow it: before the Franks and Umayyads met at the battle of Tours (known as the Battle of Poitiers in French, which actually took place in the towns of Moussais-La-Bataille and Cenon-Sur-Vienne), the Umayyads had been stuck for a long time in an attritional war against Odo the Great's independent duchy of Aquitaine, this long battling between both powers weakened them significantly and tired the Umayyads' army enough for Charles Martel and his army to not only stop and push back the muslims, but also allowed the kingdom of the Franks to finally subjugate and invade the Duchy of Aquitaine who actually was the first state to temporarily stop the invaders at Toulouse.
بلاد الغال لم تكن مهمة للامويين بعكس الاندلس
Then why try and take it? Easy to say you don't want something after you failed
Ah yes from the shortest to longest war
What a ride through this channel🔥
he should do one about the longest peacetime ever!
@CreatorOfWorlds-r5m is peacetime Even real
The way I got exited about Abd al-Rahman is crazy. It's like a cameo in a marvel movie
Well it's also said that he defeated the vikings when they tried to conquer ishbiliya (Saville)
Who was he?
@lucasbakeforero426he was the main character in a video. He's basically a prince who lost everything and fought his way back up
@lucasbakeforero426 he lost his entire family and kingdom to the abbasids, he was basically alone, and just had 1 servant with him, and he went on to build an empire.
Fun fact 3:58
Over the centuries, as languages evolved and the region changed hands, "Jabal Ṭāriq" slowly morphed into "Gibraltar" in Spanish and English, and "Gibilterra" in Italian.
Fun fact about Abd Abderrahman III
Thanks to her mother from Najara family (Navarra royal house) he was red haired blue eyed
Fun fact: al-Hakam, who's mother was Basque, felt insecure about being blonde so he used to dye his beard and use a lot of kohl (basically medieval eyeliner) to look more Arab.
Extra fun fact: while running away from Baghdad (they wanted to kill him), he was helped by the Amazighs (berbers) who sheltered him and decided to make him king in Al-Andalus since he claimed lineage from the prophet's uncle (most of the time not true but it keeps people together and loyal)
@AtlasPanthera actual fun fact: he didn’t claim lineage from the Prophet peace be upon him because he's from Bani Umayyah and the Prophet is from Bani Hashem.
It was pro-Umayyad Arab tribes in Al-Andalus who helped Abdurrahman I (not Abdurrahman III), not the Amazigh who at the time didn’t have much power and their rebellion just got crushed.
You're confusing him with Idriss I who was from the lineage of the Prophet peace be upon him and was crowned Sultan of Morocco by the Amazigh tribe of Auraba.
@ahmedsalek976The Ummayads also claimed lineage from the prophet pbuh, and yes the Amazighs helped Abdurrahman the 1st (I was talking about him) but rebelled later starting from Morocco after only 30 years of joining the Ummayads (you can look up the barbary revolt). Please research before you correct.
P.S: Idriss the 1st was also not a Sultan in Morocco he was chosen to be an Imam and the new Muslim state was named by historians after him, he was a war refugee as well and was welcomed but never ruled.
@AtlasPanthera it wasn't the Umayyads, it was the Abbasids that claimed lineage from Abbas the uncle of the Prophet peace be upon him.
The noteable Amazigh support of Abdurrahman I was in Morocco, since his own mother and his regent were Amazighs. In Al-Andalus, his main support was Umayyad loyalists from Syria, Amazigh support wasn't as note worthy there.
Idriss I was absolutely a Sultan and ruled in every sense of the word, having founded the state, established a centralised government, lead military campaigns in places like Telmcen, founded the city of Fez, and minted coins in his name.
23:30 aww cmon, you could've given them some credit
My spanish ass raging everytime he pronounces "reconquista" wrong
FUN FACT: did you know that the fall of Granada marked a rivalry/ a series of wars between Morocco, Spain and Portugal?
Starting from Portugal's occupation of Moroccan ports and ending with the Green march in November 1975.
Basically, Morocco in 14th century was in shambles, being ruled by the marrinids a group of Berber tribes that overthrown the almohads but still were in chaos, followed by the wattasids who are basically ottoman puppets which didn't last long because the Saadis, which weren't like other dynasties, the Saadis managed to survive attacks from ottomans AND Portuguese.
In battles like:
Wadi al-laban 1558, a victory of moroccans against the ottomans.
Battle of the 3 kings 1578, a crushing victory for Morocco that literally caused the Portuguese empire's downfall as the moroccans ended their dynasty by killing young king Sebastian I, even though some say he's MIA, but king Sebastian was killed in battle and even buried near one of Morocco's mosques, that battle was so decisives that many say it's the biggest military disaster Portugal has ever faced, and about what happened after the battle, Spain's king inherited the lands because he's somehow related to Sebastian.
This battle was also known as Alcácer Quibir or Wadi al-makhazin.
Great comment, love hearing details typically buried within the "war of ...." title. Thanks
Marruecos Existe desde 1960, no existia Marruecos durane la reconquista, jamas fue territorio del falso pais que hay ahora y lo unico que hay ahora es revisionismo historico de Marruecos para incluirse en epocas en las que no existia jajajaja.
@lyonthespanishfox9686 Mi amigo, los Al-Mohades y los Almorávides son ambos Marruecos en sus tiempos antiguos, es más antiguo de lo que piensas, ya que hay pruebas de que existieron hace mucho tiempo bajo diferentes nombres, ¿sabías que el reino de Mauritania (el reino bereber durante la época romana) es en realidad Marruecos, así que no difundas propaganda y busca la verdad por tu cuenta, amigo.
Nota: No soy hispanohablante, solo lo traduje para que te resulte más fácil de leer.
@YassineElassam Afirmar eso es como decir que España existe desde los tiempos de la Grecia antigua porque habia Iberos, que luego fueron Romanizados y luego se convirtieron en los Visigodos, siempre han habido personas en el Magreb, pero no son Marroquies, Marruecos existe por decisiones y politicas tomadas hace un siglo. Dejad de intentar trazar vuestro pais hasta unos origenes que no le corresponden.
@lyonthespanishfox9686 Técnicamente, Marruecos hoy es una mezcla de árabes, europeos de la colonización y amazighs/bereberes (nativos), Además, aunque la familia real no es bereber (actualmente es árabe), los marroquíes aún conservan sus antiguas costumbres; basta con ver ciudades como Marrakech y Fez, que fueron ciudades construidas por los marroquíes Hace mucho tiempo (Marrakech en el siglo XII y Fez en el siglo XX), y hay muchas pruebas de la existencia de Marruecos antes de la colonización, simplemente no te dejes engañar por la propaganda, amigo.
Today, we as Muslims do not weep for Andalusia itself as a land, but we weep for its people who suffered after its fall under the Spanish Inquisition.
12:36 I'm not sure what actually happened during that time but I'd love to note that we, Muslims, were ordered and taught not to burn churches or any other building where people pray.
We're also taught not to burn lands, not to kill animals, not to terrorize people and only fight the army that was sent out to fight us.
The Reconquista is one of those interesting topics which makes you wonder if history happens in set stages, and parallels.
In 1492, the Reconquista concluded. It also concluded with the Converted Muslims and Jews being Expelled. Where did they leave to? The Ottoman Empire? The Ottoman Empire which had captured Constantinople in 1453. Sultan Bayezid II wrote that he questioned Ferdinand and Isabella's sense, because they expelled talent from their lands, to enrich his domains in Constantinople.
It is also interesting that during the 13th Century, the Ottoman Empire began emerging, just as the Final Decline of Al-Andalus occured.
A bit on Almanzor and the decline of the Caliphate's Golden Age would have been good.
Great video!
11:17 You forgot to mention the main reason of frankish victory. Which was that arabs abandoned thier formation and retreated to protect the loot. That was the real turning point. They was almost invincible in previous battles cuz they was going with mindset of death or victory and charged to their death. It's notable that some muslims were weeping after winning battles (not necessarily in Spain) just cuz their friends died and went to heaven without them.
I would not call them arabs, they where very high percent Berber people
"Went to heaven"
Oof, egg on their face.
We'll see who goes where bro. Every one of us will taste death and only then we can see with our own eyes what's true and what's not.
@zarintaslim2575 sure , but i guess he meant it from their perspective not from his own , so i see no reason to talk to him 😅
@muhammedbadr-mx8ncYou should see him manifest. It's truly some laughable stuff.
Fun fact: The font is the thumbnail is named questrian, I’ve used it before him, in my video called number orchestra 35, there you can see the number 681.
A lot of inaccuracies unfortunately
It's normal for short video It also offers a kind of entertainment, so if you want historical accuracy, look among the books, which themselves may contain some contradictions, because this is the nature of studying history.
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman?
2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun)
2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre,
2:0 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning
2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another
3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades,
I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
@ikk_ikk I know what you are
@ikk_ikkYou're a triggered muslim, are you not?
8:50 Bro wtf do you mean Baguette-eaters, they were Frankish Germanics, not French. 11:25 There was no France back then, it was Gaul, ruled by Franks, not French
8:52 wow there it’s my past country you’re talking about!
صديقي العزيز
الحرب العربية الأموية ضد شبه الجزيرة الايبيرية ( إسبانيا و البرتغال ) لم تكن 780 سنة !!
معظم الفترة التي حكم فيها العرب الأندلس كانت سنوات سلام و ازدهار و تعايش مسيحي يهودي إسلامي ... شكرا على الفيديو الممتع ... لكن العنوان ليس دقيقا .
المحتوى لم يكن دقيقا كذلك
يريد إظهار الفتوحات الاسلامية على أنها عمل شيطاني
يحرف التاريخ و يروج لأفكار خاطئة اصلا
That's a complete lie; the only equality that existed between Muslims, Jews, and Christians was that they were all oppressed by the Arabs, They were the only ones who benefited from the so-called "prosperity".
@AminLehmici To invade, kill, and rape, and then do it in the name of a demon, is clearly evil and diabolical.
@Nifffty Rape ???!?? They did not lol
@Nifffty
Hmmmmm
Who *have actually* done that in history?
Do u want me to say or is the answer obvious to anyone who has read history and has a minimum of at least 2 brain cells
This episode feels different. I like this channel because of how creative he was, with the right amount of theater for an animated historical docu-comedy. This one felt more like a narration sent to the editor
written by the lawfirm 🧃🧃
I like how he forgot about the Muslims reintroducing the Jews to Spain
atually the ummayyads banners were white but the abbasids banners were black😊
and the tribute were not a huge amount of gold and it is a little amount of the rich people money
and musa ibn nussair and terik ibn ziad were loyal to each other not as you show😅
Churches were not burned, nor were Christian civilians killed, as the video attempts to imply.
In reality, this is what Christians did to Muslims after the reconquest, not the other way around.
@E_zyikr they always make muslims look brutish despicable people in these type of videos
Extra information here:
the original army was under Tariq ibn ziyad an Amazigh (berbers) strategist. His army was all from local Moroccans and the decisions to take over the visigoths was purely individual and had nothing to do with the Ummayads in fact Damascus sent an army 2 years after Tariq won, they asked him to report back to the middle east and forced him away from starting a nation.
This and the fact that the North African Amazighs were considered 2nd rate citizens, made current day Morocco revolt only 39 years after joining the Ummayads, Andalus was also going to fall only 250 years after it became Muslim until the local Moroccan Al-Moravids took over creating the Moroccan empire that Stretched all the way from the Senegal river South to Andora North and from the Atlantic west to Tunisia east.
Of course later on the Christians gathered all their power from Germany, France, Visighots and so on and waged a 700 long war until Cordoba fell. Muslim Amazighs, Arabs and Moriscos (European converts) ran across to Morocco that was still powerful under the new Al-Mohads. They had a huge navy and many corsair cities that harassed the new Spanish kingdoms and prompted it (Spain) to become the feared naval power of colonial times.
Morocco kept slowly declining (caused the Portuguese empire to desapear and tried to ally with Britain to beat Spain in America along the way) until France and Spain invaded in 1907.
Tariq was not Moroccan because Morocco didn't exist back then, moreover we don't even know if Tariq was from present-day Morocco or present-day Algeria. There was no border between those countries back then.
There was no 700 years long war. And Christians didn't have a massive alliance against Islam for 700 years nor anything like that.
Almoravids never conquered Andorra, their northernmost posession was Lleida.
Morisco is not an European convert to Islam, but a Muslim who converted to Christianity.
@Enric. By your logic Spain didn't exist before 1975.
Seems like all they teach you in Spain are lies to feels better about yourself.
Muslims made it to Marseille beyond Andora actually.
Morocco existed under different names, same people same monarchy system.
Yes Algeria and Morocco didn't have borders yet because your country didn't spread its poison yet and devide nations under colonialism.
P.S: dont be so proud about your country, you chemically bombed North of Morocco to win a war you were desperatly losing. All of this after just signing the Geneva accords to NOT USE CHEMICALS. Morocco will bring this to the UN when it is time dont you worry.
@AtlasPanthera
1) I am not Spanish and I despise Spain more than you do. The problem is that you're using exaggerated patriotism or an ultra-nationalist ideology to manipulate history and spread misleading claims. You are trying to link Islam with Morocco, as if being Muslim and Moroccan was the same when you know Islam is a religion, not a country, and the Islamic World is much bigger than Morocco.
2) Your comparison makes no sense. I never said that Morocco was created in 1975. Moreover, Spain and many other countries didn't exist in medieval times either. The Umayyad Empire was not Morocco; the land that now belongs to Morocco was conquered by the Umayyads, which is a different matter. If you said something similar in the other side, I would have criticized it too.
3) Muslims, Umayyad, and Almoravids are not synonyms. Umayyad went beyond Andorra and reached several parts of what is now southern France before Poitiers Battle, but they didn't take Marseille. Their expansion was around Gascony and Lenguedoc. The Almoravids were also Muslim, but they didn't go that far.
4) I don't support the conquest of Morocco, war crimes, or anything like that, and it has no relation with the topic. You are not talking about the same century now. You can be happy of Morocco being independent now without misleading claims.
@Enric.Am not reading all that ... You are Spanish from Catalogna
@AtlasPantheraWow what cousin marriage does to a mfer
Uw antwoord is belangrijk voor mij. Ik waardeer uw content enorm. Zou u mij toestemming willen geven om uw video’s in het Arabisch te publiceren?😊
Jihad does not mean holy war it means struggle for the sake of god
And for the sake of God they warred any opposing religion away, holy war is a fine synonym
@Onzo22 tell me you don't know Jihad without telling me you don't know Jihad . Jihad is not Islamic Crusade. It is something that seeks to protect innocents from enemies of faith , who want to hurt you . Jihad is something you need to do quite reading about 😊. The Main JIHAD is fighting inner demons( lust, gluttony, etc )
@RiverOfThoughts-k7o, Nah Jihad is Islamic holy war to islamic crusade. The difference is the crusade was defense while jihad is offense
@Onzo22 u said literally the opposite thing. The crusades were offensive. There are 5 types of jihad and only one of them involves war and even then the war is fought to spread peace not to kill disbelievers or enforce islam neither of which are even allowed in islam.
@Ahmad_Chouhan, wrong crusades were defensively invading the levant region
If you want a longer war, you need to be psychologically examined
@HeyHistorically I would like to mention something.
When Muslims entered Spain in 711 CE, they were widely regarded as formidable conquerors who swiftly dismantled the Visigothic kingdom, yet they also introduced a new era of cultural sophistication through advances in governance, architecture, and science. Many Jewish testimonies describe their arrival positively, as Jews-long persecuted under Visigothic rule-often welcomed the Muslims as liberators and found greater tolerance under Islamic governance, which allowed Jewish communities to flourish intellectually and economically, even if occasional restrictions persisted.
I am willing to debate this topic to educate myself and others.
These are my sources: Norman Roth, The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain (Jewish Social Studies, 1976); S. Alfassa Marks, The Jews in Islamic Spain: Al-Andalus.
4:02 gibrealtar is litterelly the arabic spell of (tareq's mountain )
Was looking for information on the Reconquista when I found your video. I love the animation! The production is good, and entertaining! Exponentially better than the channels that just use video game (ie. Total War) and AI graphics.
14:01 kinda weird saying "Gods empire isnt invincible"
He's probably irreligious so thought it's funny and witty
It is funny to see the false prophet lose
@Libertarain-jg7bf and just when I thought this comment section will be civilised
@Libertarain-jg7bf exactly
U shouldn't say the muslim empire is Allah's empire, because every empire is Allah's empire and never promised to give all of them to the Muslims, he did promise rome tho, which obviously happened very fast.
I'd like to add that despite what certain figures have connected to the concept of Jihad, it's root word comes from the word "to strive" and the actual idea behind it is an action taken in striving to maintain and defend/protect yourselves, your family, your nation or your faith. Internal means of Jihad like studying, working or improving the faith, lifestyle and infrastructure of a nation is actually the greater aspect of Jihad while external means of Jihad are considered Lesser Jihad and even then, it's usually about social aspects rather than military, and even the military stuff has its own rules and limitations. It's kinda sad listening to these historical stories and seeing people just being people every time on both sides of the conflict despite what they claim to represent
Bro all Arabic words have roots that are tangentially related and jihad, as the narrator pointed out, originally referred to military conquest
It was more of a series of wars rather than a singular war
to be exact jihad means "struggle", struggle for the sake of Allah in a sense, as much as holy war than personal struggle. though muslims didnt force people to convert, and even the ummayyad discouraged it so people keep paying the jizya tax, as the zakat had to be used for poor muslims, and the jizya tax actually profited the government
Jizya is a far more compassionate practice, than common Christian practices of r*pe and pillage, which was refined centuries later into colonization.
@MultiDivebomber Jizya is fine, the umayyad were abusive with it
@MultiDivebomber you actually think muslims didnt rape and pillage?
3:10 That's similar to the US's Manifest Destiny.
Not really, because Islam is God's religion
And it is not limited to any race or nationality.
@17-MASY Okay, I had to take sometime to really think about what you said and there is a difference between the two. Manifest Destiny is more political while the expansion of Islam during the invasion is more religious in nature.
I appreciate that you took time to think about this
And I advise reading chapter 14 of The Qur'an.
@seekertosecrets7618
@17-MASY Is that why Apostasy is illegal and criminalized in Muslim countries?
Apostasy is betraying God
Read in The Qur'an from 2:217 and 5:54
@javimart-q9h
And Remember the crusades were totally unprovoked 😂🤣😅😂🤣😅
Correction for people in the comments:
The Arabic word "jihad" is an intensive plural form derived from the root "jhd" (effort)... Jihad is to struggle against those who want to lead you astray from the path of your Lord, whether that is yourself or someone else... During the Umayyad era, the Romans and Persians, their allies, were considered powers seeking to destroy the believers (this is quite true, as the Romans and Persians were disturbed by the fall of their arab allies, the Khomeinis and the Ghassanids and the lost of power in middle east, clearly affected trade routes).
So like the rest of Islam, the meaning is bullshit to justify atrocities.
how can a video look this good yet be shit
This video is the worst video i've seen on this topic. and the worse one on this channel. It's very "dutch", and i'm not referring to the fact that it is summarizing a long stretch of history, but rather its glibbness and caricaturish view of things and most of all, falsehoods. We see it in the very beginning
1:44 " another set of islamic warlords" - what is that supposed to mean? No mention of "warlord" was even made, are you trying to imply that warring is what's bound with that which is "Islamic," little dutchman?
2:00 what are these Mosques? Couldn't you bother looking up how the earliest ones looked like (ex- Mosque of Ibn Tulun)
2:15 "forcing the new berber tribes to convert" is this a joke? forcing conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam, it is EXPLICITLY what charlmagene did howver, how this was conflated with the other is bizarre,
2:50 why is he displayed in a robe with curved sword screaming? They neither used curved swords, nor screamed, that's much more fitting to the visigoths and the other barbarian kingdoms you presented int eh beginning
2:50 "divine retribution and all that fancy stuff - Again, the little dutchman conflates what is part and parcel of the chrisgtian tradtion with that of another
3:09 Umayyads didn't think they had "divine duty" to anything, that's what charlmagene though with his northern crusades,
I can't watch anymore of this, it's not even inaccurate, it's just propaganda at this point
Hey there's a guy called circletoonhistory he's just like u with same animation style but 3D so I think u can collab with him😅😅😅😅😅
I wish I could enjoy the video, but the multiple mistakes and errors I've found didn't let me enjoy it fully. I get that you have to condense >700 years in 24 minutes, but I'd like to point out the most painful errors.
-The Reconquista wasn't a war itself, but a historical period. That mindset of "longest, non stop war" was present here in spanish academia until the 70's (until the fall of Franco's regime). The Reconquista had plenty of smaller, short wars not only between christian kingdoms and muslim taifas, emirates and caliphates, but among them as you stated when speaking of the First Taifas Period (there were three taifa periods).
-"Jihad", as you stated, didn't have such a political meaning as nowadays narrative of "holy war". It CAN mean that, but it is also seen as a period of struggle. The muslim CONQUEST (again, the term " muslom invasion" has been abandoned in spanish academia back in the 70's) of the iberian penninsula wasn't a jihad, but a military expedition. And no, it wasn't to expand islam, but for political gain and because the nobles wanted Roderic out. Also, "jihadism" and "jihadists" is an anacronysm.
-The conquest of the iberian penninsula was quick because many villages and cities literally saw the writing in the wall, and opted to submit peacefully, adopt the new administration, and slowly convert voluntarily due to the tax system of the dhimmi.
-The Umayyad banner wasn't black, but white. The black banner was the abbasid one.
-About the burning of churches during that period... We just simply don`t know exactly. There was the martyrdom of 48 christians between 850 and 859, but no church burning is mentioned, afaik.
-About Covadonga, it is one of the hottest topics in academic discussion. Calling it a battle is quite generous. Nowadays, it is called "the skirmish" or "the episode" of Covadonga.
And I think that's all the mistakes and misconceptions I could find. I hope you find this feedback useful.
Yeah I was about to say the same thing about the Reconquista not really being one long war but more of a historical period with many different conflicts. Good points.
It's weird how easily he made all these spurious claims about the Muslims.
The Arabs literally melted down the bells of a church and made them into gates for their mosques, an act that would later be reversed by Saint Ferdinand.
@NiffftyFalse. Zero documented evidence that this anecdote of yours ever happened. Masjids typically don't even have gates.
@ibn_khusrau Correction, they turned them into lamps, but in any case they melted down the bells of Santiago de Compostela and transported them to Córdoba. The burning of churches is even recorded in Muslim chronicles. ruclips.net/user/shortsQwI1hzVAsYI?si=4Gd7qg7oKtwR74Kt
The amount of muslims seething and coping in the comments 😂
Ikr
11:17 the fact that Charles Martel was nicknamed Charles the hammer because Martel is simillar to “martelo” (
portuguese) 😂
Martel est également le début du verbe « marteler », cela veut en français frapper quelque chose avec son marteau
23:03 honestly *💕Couple Goals💕* If my honeymoon doesn’t involve brutally conquering a small sovereign kingdom then I don’t want it
Just to notify The Deeds Of people doesn't necessarily commanded by Allah or Islam And it's Not always the Muslim Country Invaded For fight in the way of God sometimes just for expanding and authority the evidence on that is that the Ottoman Sultanite Invaded the mamluks and it's called "opened" it is Already Muslim how to opened more than that ? (I've noticed that from Ahmad albhairi Video) But isn't that a not very occurred point ? Because they did occupied the mamluks Sultanite that Doesn't mean that they didn't Invad Iberia for a religious Reason! Yes but Do you expect a ruler that invaded his Brothers in Religion would necessarily Care about Converting others to his faith for the pleasant of god first and only ? And even if he did it is necessary his faith tells him to do it and force people to it? , great video brother interesting content really I love history الحمد لله But I wanted to mention that I'm not saying that you really believe that but I commented to not raise any one Opinion On islam he took from the news , thank you all very well
If I remember it was because mamluks had control over Egypt and higaz (the western part of the arabian peninsula the meets the Red Sea) and the Portuguese wanted to conquer higaz and destroy qaba (the black box in Mecca if u didn’t understand) so they had to take control over that area to protect
For conquering Egypt however I rly don’t know
I always consider this period in the Iberian have the most interesting and fascinating stories in the whole middle ages. Who also agree?
Bro just one thing . The crescent and star are symbols ofthe ottoman empire not islam
you may not feel it but you’re being with one side more than the other! Anyone who talk about history should view it from the outside ,burning churches really? More like killing thousands of Jewish and Muslims the kingdom of Allah? Paying tax while not talking about Jizyah. everyone conquers for religion or money in history, not just Muslims, And talk about Isabella should be illegal she’s a tyrant who literally killed everyone I just talking about honeymoon gift!!!!!!
you’re like yeah, they were strong but savages who conquer for Allah they succeeded but for how long .even in you’re drawing the last straw was Isabella that’s all I needed to know what’s going on in your head jewish and Muslims are not worth talking about in a massacre
By the way, I don’t care if you talk bad about this kingdom because some of it might be true but you can’t just pick one side to be the victorious noble who’s been betrayed and the other side to be the traitor or the savage who kill Christian while not talking about Isabella
@q8aryThis is meaningless general talk without evidence. You are simply frustrated by the crimes of Christianity, for which there is thousands of pieces of evidence. Do you really think that if Muslims committed massacres in Andalusia, the Western media opposed to Islam wouldn't mention them? We don't hear a thing.Because they know that all of that is just nonsense and empty talk.
Yes, yes, the killing of innocent people in a savage massacre is not worth mentioning. Look at the merciful Christianity.
@mohamedmohsen-f4g
“It’s not about empathy, it’s about not rewriting history by painting one side as entirely good and the other as entirely bad. Ignoring events like what Isabella I of Castile did, while at the same time downplaying figures like Tariq ibn Ziyad and his victories as just luck or internal betrayal, doesn’t really reflect the complexity of history or explain why he succeeded.”
Spain was a country of war When they discovered the Americas and they took that chance of conquest
8:51 The flag is somewhat of an anachronism - it arrived only at the end of the 18th century with the French Revolution.
this guy is pretty obviously biased against the french everything he says about them is either false or twisted in a way to make them look bad as they were the ones that destroyed the muslims and stopped the invasion and hes salty about it
this vedio is full of misinformation don't take it as a source . its more like historically inaccurate facts
I absolutely love your animations...good job
Not talking about Islamic slavery and brutal crimes was a miss
Making slaves from the conquest was normal back then. Then it wasn't based on race it was the only logical way to raise labour and build cities
On like what the US did even after the advent of machines and industry like cotton gin but still wanted to keep slaves
@muhammadharuna9903no. You are completely wrong. The Islamic slavery was especially cruel, they castrated the men and sold women and children naked on the streets. Sexual slavery was a huge part of Islamic slavery and Islam is the only religion who fought to keep slavery
@eva@evanhannson5014l doesn't mean what I said was wrong though
And yeah keeping slaves as concubines was allowed in Islam but they belong to only one man and not as a group whore as you may think some
Of these these sec slaves as you call them did later rise to powerful positions
Castration is haram in Islam and I doubt these were done in an Islamic-held territory unless you have strong sources that say otherwise
And Islamic nations never fought to keep slavery unlike some nation that split it's self to keep it
@evanhannson5014False. The Trans Atlantic was especially cruel, slavery among Muslims only restricted what was already practiced. Men were not castrated except in border lands since it was forbidden, women were NOT paraded around naked in any large numbers. Continue coping.
@ibn_khusrauyou can read about castrations, slave rides, women being inspected before getting sold into sexual slavery. These are actual documented facts
Something that needs to be talked about is that the Muslims in their every Jihad never pillaged a village nor a city nor burned down any religious buildings (Churches in this context), that's because since the days of the Prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم) There were rules of war:
1.No treachery
2.No killing of women, children and aged men
3.No burning down farms nor fruitful trees
4.No killing livestock except for food
5.No pillaging villages nor cities
6.No looting without justification
7.No harming the devoted to monastic life
Those are only few of the rules, I just wrote what came up in my memory.
11:31
love how frankish kingdom without brittany or alps just looks like a buff germany.
bruh the muslims in north africa were not second class muslims cuz the arab generals were their to guide and lead new local muslims and there is so much hate and propaganda about the muslims
jihad means to struggle its not just about war but also to struggle against your own self to do good and avoid evil
Can you then explain to me why the Muslims in my country say they'll carry out a “jihad” and Islamize the country
@uzombachiemeka6831 Because they are ignorant.
I already know some mf heard "Visigoth" and went: "WHAAAAT??? GOTH KINGDOM???"
No mention of the Spanish Inquisition and massacre/expulsion of Muslims and Jews?!! Yet saying Muslim are burning churches?
Muslims attempted to wipe out the christians first, this was a retaliation, which was normal. You people love to say "what about this other thing?" whenever you don't have an answer for your crimes. Which is every single time.
??? Search on google or chatgtp, the historical consensus is leniently and tolerance from Muslims rulers in Spain. where as the Christian persecuted Muslims and Jews, there evens is till this day a large Jewish population in Morocco for this reason.
@aleksakuljanin2442 history is not about picking sides; the Inquisition is a central part of spanish history and omitting it is erasing a chunk of history. I don't care if you see the inquisition as right or wrong, but it should have been included in the video because it is central to spanish history
Yes, they did. Gonna cry about historical facts?
@MW_Asura istg muslims will get glazed for half a video and still cry that it doesn’t favor them enough
I just watched for 4 mins and there are many historical mistakes. First the term jihad is not holy war . Jihad comes from Arabic word juhd , which means effort. So in summary any thing you do for the way of god is jihad. To not lie is jihad to not steal is jihad..etc . Second the ummayds banner was white not black. Third Muslims at this stage didn't force anyone to believe in islam by force because it was not permissible by god to do so . They shared and expanded islam but didn't force anyone , like Christians did when they took the Spain or the Levant in the time of the crusades.
ايضا الجنود المسلمين بدون درع و خوذة ! و السيوف منحنية ! صورة نمطية مملة مأخوذة من الافلام
3:17 Willy Wonka with an AK-47 is WILD
3:45 ( Dont speak about Islam if you dont know the tafseer )
Its about history
@wx6130 yeah its about history which contains part of Islamic history which is not explained correctly, making us the bad guys .
do you understand buddy?
2:27 ok that true but cmon ummayed caliphate were controversial from its beginning and this type of treating is wrong religion wise so that them then they fall mainly after just 50 years because of these acts of racism to ayoub caliphate which continued more than 1000 years so yeah notice the difference(just want to say as said in islam there no difference between black or red )(white)nor an Arab speaker and a foreign tongue but in faith in Allah so yep all people are equal if you want to follow islam Ummaiah were just strange I would say if you don't know the tangled history after three caliphates they were far less religious like those mf bombarded makka and kapa (cube ok don't know the name in English) with trapuchates twice damaging the holy site
El Cid not being mentioned is a crime
2:13 just something I’d like to point out when Islam would like to takeover a country its rulers are given three choices by the Muslim army:
1- they accept Islam and are left at peace and the land is taken over without a fight
2-the don’t accept Islam and have to pay (jiziah) a tax and the land is taken over without a fight( the people who pay the tax still have every right they used to have before so all that’s different in their lives is that tax that they have to pay )
3- they don’t accept Islam and don’t pay the tax therefore the Muslim army will go to war with them
See nobody is forced to be a Muslim they are given a choice and if they don’t want to become Muslim they are free to follow whatever religion they wish , and that’s it I just wanted to make that clear
They're not actually free if they have to pay for it
you won't have to go to war btw
@Spouly jiziah was made as a tax for defense cuz the islamic country only defends muslims as they are a part of the country but christians or any other religon can js stick with their religon also islam didnt burn churches as he said in t he vid and proof to that if u went to egypt or anycountry that had alot of christians u will find alot of churches were made hundreds of years ago
It is a mistake to believe that Muslims forced the peoples of the East to convert to Islam. Different beliefs and religions still exist among us today. What was overthrown were the governments, which were not supported by those people either. Secondly, racism as we know it today was not known in our region before; rather, there was tribalism, which was rejected by the Islamic approach.
No they did force them to deny this is literally to ignore history
@durrangodsgrief6503search islamic rule of conversion. taking syahada is not just saying words of syahada and BAM your suddenly muslim, it must came from the heart if not the syahada is null.
if we were to do forced conversion, then 1/2 of the europe will be muslim.
@durrangodsgrief6503 Egypt was conquered by Muslims over a thousand years ago. About 500 years ago, the majority of Egyptians were not Muslim. Muslims did not enter Indonesia militarily, yet the population converted. The same is true for some Turks in Asia, some Chinese, some inhabitants of Siberia, and some Indians. The Ottoman Empire ruled the Balkans, but even today the majority of its inhabitants are Christian.
I finally connected the Martells from GoT to actual Frankish history, and understand why they were so Frenchy.
The Dutch accent is strong with this one!
Lekker gemaakt man! Pareltje!
i have been watching you videos for a while now and i really like this style of telling historic stories, also i liekd the fact that you have mentionned us Amazigh (and not berbers, romans are the ones calling us berbers since it's what they call people that are not romans) since a lot of arabic historians avoid to mention our existence to remover the fact that north africa wasn't arabic and us Amazigh were there before, but don't missunderstand me, thanks to them we became muslim and what an incredible religgion al hamdouliAllah. But yea there was this unfaireness in the society and racism back then which made us hate arabs byut not islam of course (funfact: Amazigh means free people :) )
حتى المؤرخين العرب لم يقولوا ان شمال افريقيا عربية و لم يصنفوا الامازيغ كعرب
هذا كلام ما يسمى جامعة الدول العربية التي انشأها الانجليز قبل تسعين عام في مصر . الاسم (بربر) اخذه العرب المسلمون الاوائل من الروم دون ان يدركوا معناها و هناك من يقول ان ( بربر) تعني في العربية الكلام غير المفهوم
While King Roderic was distracted by a court jester stealing his jewelry, the Umayyads were already knocking on the door
Nope, the visigoths didn't gather a "huge massive army" to fight the Muslims in the battle of the Guadalete, 6:26 . The number was estimated to be just a bunch of thousands. Also for Tariq's army, the 7000 figure is just an estimation more aligned with tradition than real historiographic analysis. The truth is, we just don't know. But the most likely is that the two armies made up to around 5000 each. There's a tendency to claim that the visigothic army was 2 or 3 times that of Tariq's, but the most close accounts we have of this clash are those of the Musarabic Chronicle, written some 40 years later. Pretty enough time to have an enlarged mythical background. What we deem more likely, is that both armies probably struggled to match in size a single Roman Legion, as field armies in those times were way smaller than the ones from antiquity.
تعليق مضحك جداً
Since you are here, why don't you enlighten us?
Let me clarify this for everyone, According to the Sharia if a Non-muslim refused to convert they were definitely forced to pay Jizya, however by Sharia Jizya was supposed to be cheaper than Zakat (Tax paid by the Muslims) and paying Jizya in return Guaranteed them protection from Muslims, they wouldn't have to participate in wars, and there holy places would be protected by the muslims. However the Ummayds didn't really care about the Religion and used religion as an excuse to juice out money from people, They actually didn't want people to convert to Islam so that they could keep charging them up more taxes while keeping the Arab muslims happy, some Ummayds did try to reimplement Sharia after pressure from rebellions, however mostly it wasn't followed.
11:08
Another reason the Franks won the battle was because the Umayyads were geared for speed, and were wearing light tunics. There isn't a lot of room to maneuver in a forest, and the cavalry couldn't work at its potential. It came down to a lightly armored Umayyad soldier vs. a heavily armed , determined, and well trained Frank. You can guess who won.
It came down to a lightly armored Umayyad soldier vs. a heavily armed , determined, and well trained Frank. You can guess who won..
الدليل ؟؟ اخشى ان تقول من فلم ما !ا
I think Gibraltar just means Tariq mountain but with the years of using the Arabic translation Jabal Tariq that got misheard to Gibraltar
yep we still use the old name in arabic Jabal Tarik 😊
3:20 Jihad doesn't mean 'holy war' and there are no big rules for Jihad, instead Jihad simply means to strife in the cause of Allah, which can range from collecting scientific books to teach the future generations or just making dawah (invitation) to non-muslims.
The idea that Jihad is solely and specifically means "Holy war, conquest and forced conversion" is a big, big and grave misunderstanding of the term, often times done to demonize, and dehumanize muslims to fuel islamophobia
Collecting meaning buying?
@youriigar6028preservation, storage and cataloguing. Books were often times left behind in war and if the book had a living owner that is alive, you left them be, offer to take care of the book for the owner, buy it, etc
Can you then explain to me why the Muslims in my country say they'll carry out a “jihad” and Islamize the country
"It's their(or devine) rights"
-Most conflicts
1:55 it would be more accurate to say that the religion started with the Prophet. But he didnt go around conquering places, he passed away while trying to be diplomatic with the Byzantine n Sasanids.
It was after his death was when the diplomacies failed and there were rebellions all over Saudi Arabia. The strikes on the Byzantines and Persians were pre-emptive to prevent further destabilization, ordered by the Rashidun Caliphate.
TLDR: He was a Prophet, he didnt order any conquests of any sort.
No, you are wrong.
Very very wrong as usual
Muhammad was a conqueror who used war to unify Arabia. He created both a religion and an empire. He was a religious leader, but he was also a military and political leader.
For non-Muslims (Christians and Jews - “dhimmis”)
They typically paid two main taxes:
Jizya (poll tax)
A fixed yearly tax on adult men.
Amount varied by wealth:
Poor: small amount
Middle: moderate
Wealthy: higher amount
In many regions of the early Islamic world, this ranged roughly from 1 to 4 dinars per year, though exact figures in al-Andalus could vary locally.
Kharaj (land tax)
Tax on agricultural land.
Usually a percentage of the produce (often estimated between 10%-30%, depending on land type and agreements).
Compared to previous Visigothic rule
Under the Visigothic Kingdom:
Taxes and obligations were often heavier and more arbitrary, tied to feudal and church demands.
Many historians note that, at least initially, Umayyad taxation could be comparable or sometimes lighter, which helped stabilize the region.
Its still racist.
It can be as clean of a system as ever, but if you only mandate it against people who are different than you, then it is racist/xenophobic.
@Srgt.Crouki
From your point of view
But from Thiers, it's different
Muslims have other obligations one of them to defend others and participates in each battle against invaders, plus other religious reasons to pay.
Non Muslims don't have to participate in the defense or any other religious pay
I don't care about point of view, racism is shit and I don't give a fuck what the religion says, welcome to the modern world, if you cant accept that the behavior was shit despite being less shit than the previous shitty people(which is simply the advancement of morality) then nothing about what you say matters@Dr_MGwe
It's actually more expensive to be Muslim in that state than not to be.
🪙 Jizya (for non-Muslims)
Fixed annual tax (typically 1-4 dinars)
Paid only by adult men with financial means
In exchange for:
Protection by the state
Exemption from military service
Poor, elderly, monks, and disabled people were often exempt
💰 Zakat (for Muslims)
Zakat is a religious obligation, not just a tax:
Standard rate: 2.5% of savings/wealth per year
Also includes:
Agricultural taxes (often 5-10% of crops)
Livestock and trade goods
🔎 Key difference
Jizya = fixed, relatively predictable
Zakat = percentage-based, can be higher depending on wealth
👉 In many cases:
A wealthy Muslim could pay more than a non-Muslim
A poor non-Muslim might pay nothing at all
In medieval Christian Europe, taxation was often heavier and less standardized.
⛪ Church tax (Tithe)
Around 10% of all agricultural production
Paid to the Church by peasants and landholders
👑 Feudal obligations
People often had to:
Pay rent/taxes to lords
Work unpaid labor (corvée)
Provide military service or supplies
💸 Multiple overlapping taxes
Unlike jizya:
Taxes were not unified or predictable
A person might pay:
To a lord
To a king
To the Church
@Dr_MGwedon't reply anymore, you are just defending this dumbass system for some reason, I do not have the patience for this shit argument
Athens and Sparta had a war that never got a peace treaty until 1996 when a dude found out about it and told the mayor so technically there has been an over 2000 year old war
You explained the Jihad incorrect