💥Download War Thunder for FREE and get your bonus! ► Use my link - playwt.link/historically #ad We noticed a group of viewers being unhappy with our storytelling of the rise of Shia and the caliphs. Please keep in mind the shia movement very much existed though not officially, more politically, as they supported the caliph Ali to be the first (shiatu Ali).
I am sure I would like it. Just one problem. I will see it in 18 hours. But that is fine because it is worth waiting. I wish all readers and you Historically a lovely start to (or is it of) pride month.
watch oversimplified upload tomorrow randomly also oversimplified name not being able to be oversimplified in a good way so that its shorter but still makes sense is ironic
Professionally made and wrong. Several mistakes here. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
Just a minor correction, the Persians were never majority shia until the 16th century. In the 8th century most shias were concentrated in southern iraq, which even then was majority proto sunni.
On top of that, there was no Shia nor Sunni sects as we know them today during that time. They were purely political parties. Mu'awiya sought revenge for Othman, Ali disagreed and said it's not the appropriate time. Some followed Mu'awiya while others adhered to their loyalty to the fourth caliph. The Kkarijites, a third party, emerged and Fought both Ali and Mu'awiya. Bottom line is, there were absolutely no sunni/shia ideological creeds at the time of the first civil war.
@@sasino4569 You are correct that initially the split was political with no major theological differences or sectarianism, but by the time of the abbasids early proto shia communities had begun to form with quite radically different theologies from their proto sunni neighbours. Generally speaking, imami shiism formed as a distinct theological community (although not quite a clear cut sect) around the mid-late 8th century.
They weren't a lot since it was only a political disagreement that has ended, IDK who turned it into a religious idea but it seems like he benefited from that quite a lot
Professionally made and wrong. Several mistakes here. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads claiming to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Ali, they survived, Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengance for Husayn, the grandson of Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The twelvers and the seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, not worldly powers.
8:50 Hello, I'm from Saudi Arabia and studied the history of the Umayyad. actually at that time even after the Abbasids planned to kill every single Umayyad some of them hidden in Damascus and many of them ran to Taif (a city south to Mecca, and still exists). they descents of those who ran to Taif live today in the same city.
thanks for the clarification man! with family lineage that huge its hard to believe all but one escapes, but perhaps the one that run to Taif are far from royal bloodline and starts to life like normal peasant so there's less story about them
@@Nashmi-JO bruh!? I meant that did they successfully escape the wrath of the Abbasid armies? And what would be their population by now? I also know they live like humans.
One correction for 3:33 during that time, not all Persian were Shia, a lot of the Persian were still Sunni, Shia being the sect of all Persian people is fairly recent only after Safavid Dynasty (since 1501 AD) took over.
@@persianhillbilly9642 No, you are wrong guys. Most of the Persians were Sunnis, not Zoroastrians, the Zoroastrian religion became a minority with the collapse of the Sasanian Empire. After the Islamic conquest all persians became sunni muslims except the north (Daylam and Tabaristan, as you said), and many Sunni scholars were persians, the most famous of them is Al-Bukhari
zoro-ism was always a minority faith, hardly has any texts and was reserved to a priestly class and royals. There are several mistakes. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
Ok they were shia but not shia of today......they were shiatu Ali......which was Ali side.......... And back then also they didn't use the terms Sunni or shite.....they were all Muslims
Honestly I’m surprised he respected the beliefs of Islam refusing to let people depict Prophet Muhammad’s face. Thank you for this respect. edit: I think I started a war in the replies
Would he be any better? First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, Shiat Ali, literally, the faction of Ali. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the prerutaros of that Siege became part of the faction of Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged. The Umayyads claiming to fight for justice managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Ali, they survived, Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Eitherway, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengance for Husayn, the grandson of Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The twelvers and the seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today are a result of 300 years later.
Please don't stress. Comment sections have a habit of dictating how creators create content. We're all here for you and your teams work. Higher quality content is from content you're passionate about. P.S you weren't lying, this is a brilliant video! Well done
People tend to forget, that cultures surrounding the European continent shaped its history just as much as the ones inside it. Well, parts of it any way.
Tehnically this is part of European history as it ends in modern-day Spain. But still i think the continent's story was shaped by the events in Middle East and vice versa
@@andersasblom6452Just because you always watch european history doesent mean other cultures are forgotten! There are hundreds of historical documentaries of at the many cultures! The problem is your not watching or searching them and just because it somehow is related to europe doesent mean its european! Europe really just influenced the entire history of the world than others ranging from colonization to diplomacy i mean theres no spot in the european history where they did not respect and recognize Middle eastern,Asian,African,Oceanian, And American Success from battles, and diplomacy europe fought with all of them! Unlike some cultures who tend to unrecognize europes success thats just being racist! And you call the whites racist? But you tend to forget that all cultures in the world is way more racist to the whites than the whites to them
أَرى أَشقِياءَ الناسِ لا يَسأَمونَها عَلى أَنَّهُم فيها عُراةٌ وَجُوَّعُ أَراها وَإِن كانَت تُحَبُّ فَإِنَّها سَحابَةُ صَيفٍ عَن قَليلٍ تُقشَعُ "Miserable are people who crave for riches And deprive themselves of tranquility Though life may be luring. It is short and will depart soon" - Imran bin Hattan (Umayyad poet)
إني لأذكره يوما فألعنه ... إيها والعن عمران بن حطانا (حماد بن بكر التاهرتي الزناتي 200 -296 ) إني لأذكره يوما فألعنه * دنيا وألعن عمرانا وحطانا عليه ثم عليه الدهر متصلا * لعائن الله إسرارا (القاضي أبو الطيب طاهر ابن عبد الله الشافعي 960م -1058م)
The persians at that time were not shia the majority was sunni muslim, they started to become overwhelming shia in the 16th Century during the reign of shah ismail I.
The Safavids even faced the problem of the lack of any Iranian Shiite scholars, so they encouraged the migration of Arab Shiite scholars to Iran. Many of those who held religious positions in Safavid Iran were of Lebanese and Iraqi origin, and even from Bahrain.
Yes, not just that. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
The Rashiddun caliphate came right out of their own civil war too, where many of their men died and were exhuasted. They were as fatigued or even more so compared to the Romans and Persians.
Not only that, the losses from the first Fitna far exceed that of the dual liberation of both Persia and Byzantium. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
@@mznxbcv12345original Shia were political their beliefs was same as sunni but differed on who should have been first caliph then ibn saba in the last part of uthman ra reign and Ali ra reign created the modern day Shia where he said Ali ra should he worshipped and was later killed but the ideology was unfortunately deeply buried in the hearts of people and it ended up growing to the Shia of today
Several mistakes in the video;; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Those channels exist, but the content is in Arabic (or other languages of the Muslim world). However, Muslims are starting to create more content in English. It's a bit late, but better late than never.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j There are so many Arab and Muslim educational channels lol. What point are you trying to make? Yasir Qadhi has good animated videos on Islamic history in English, there's another one called Zaka (iirc) which is in Arabic but very very high quality.
@@andersasblom6452The Ummayads And Abbasids Are Both Arab Clans From The Same Muhammadean Family. Their War Is A Succession War, Nothing To Do With "muh equality" Or Whatever Modern Day Agenda This Guy Tries To Shove In... Not To Mention The Fact That persians Don't Even Exist...
Underrated how? The video is choke-full of mistakes; Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
not really mate. they were zoroastrian. Rey was captured but Ali, his companions and sons, the people there saw him as their liberator from the persian empire so followed shi'ism, it makes sense.
@@aunnaqvi3133 You are absolutely wrong. The Persians were Sunnis (thats why many Sunni Scholars were from Persian origin) but Shah Ismail of Safavids forcefully converted Persia into Shia religion.
@@aunnaqvi3133 buddy you're wrong, yes prior to Islam they were zoroastrian but that doesn't mean anything for their following of Islam Iran was primarily Sunni, mainly Hanafi and Shafi'i until the Safavids took over in the 1500s and forced conversions of Sunnis to Shi'ism
2:17 is not correct. All community accepted Abu Bekr, without knowing who would be next. Before he died, he suggested to the community to take Umar as next, after Umar, the most prominent people chose Usman
Man, I can't express how good this video is. As an Arab Muslim, this history is very much historically accurate, and the art is absolutely phenomenal (+ I appreciate not drawing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) Genuinely an amazing video, I've been watching since the Valorant map recreations on the Arch channel and your videos were consistently of amazing quality. Keep up the good work man!
As an Arab, I have read Abdul Rahman’s story many times, but this video made me feel like I was getting to know it for the first time. I'm really excited to the second part 🙏🏻
Why is this so good! I thought i just started the video then it was already finish? What an amazing interesting way of storytelling, thank you so much 🙇♂️🙏, Greeting from Indonesia 👋🇮🇩..
@@Mohammad-xk7xw lol what? a brutal civil war is cope? also do you really think an arid desert vwould profuce equal man power to the romans and iranians in pre modern times?
discovered you through the last Nietzsche video, safe to say my new favorite channel already. I'd love to see more videos about philosophers from you guys
2:26 Just seeing you now about that And you right pronunciation for everything show me that you really did you homework and did every Search you could I really love that ❤
I tried to make these fit into Star Wars episodes, so.... Episode I: The Shadow of Antiquity 0:46 -- 2:00 Episode II: The Caliphate in Decay/ The Expansion Wars: 2:08 --- 3:59 Episode III: Revenge of the Abassids: 4:00 -- 14:42 Episode IV: A New Hope 14:42 --- Sometime before Oversimplified uploads)
=The Al-Rahmad Saga= Episode I: The Muslim Menace Episode II: The Abbasid Wars Episode III: The Return of the Shias Episode IV: A New Hope Episode V: The Caliphate Strikes Back Episode VI: The Return of the Sunnis
this channel is just here to make the best content, the video is accurate informative and fun to watch, your narrative is unmatchable, everything that you do is amazing mr arch i am your biggest fan
2:50 A correction: the head of the Ummayad Mu'awiya I didn't immediately become the caliph Just after Ali Ibn Abi Talib A.S. was assassinated his son Al-Hasan Ibn Ali R.A (the grandson of Prophet) became the 5th Caliph and kept it for 7 months before he R.A and Mu'awiya I came to an agreement and Mu'awiya I thus became the first ummayad caliph
The Mod was about his successor. This guy in the video lived at mid 700's, while his successors that also being made into mod in Civ 6 lived around the year of 900's.
The Mod was about his successor. This guy in the video lived at mid 700's, while his successors that also being made into mod in Civ 6 lived around the year of 900's.
Really appreciate your respect of our conduct of not drawing the faces of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and his companions. By the way, as Muslims we refrain too from drawing Jesus Christ or any other prophet (peace be upon them all).
3:44 quick correction the abbasid movement wasn't made by the supressed groups the abbasids were a powerful family that were also descendants of the prophet(via his uncle abbas) even though the abbasids had alot of non arab supporters it also had alot of arab supporters and after they've risen up they've gottten a great victory in the battle of great zab river which was the collapse of the ummayads and the very large rise of the abbasids
Unfortunately this orientalist over simplification of the Abbasid revolution as just non Arabs (Persians) revolting against the Umayyad still popular, it really stupid for anyone who knows about the Quraish clans dynamic and the rivalry between Yemenite and Qaissy Arabs
@@miracleyang3048without Salman Farsi (Solomon the Persian, and the traitor) there would be no Muslim empires to follow. Once Arabs colonized Persia and The Byzantine’s, the Arabs quickly flocked to Persian in search of governance of the new empire.. because you know, they’ve done it before, and they’ve done it multiple times before at that. So the Abbasids might’ve been Arab and may have been a powerful family, however they would be nothing without the political support of the Persians who were actually running the empire while the Arabs were at constant internal conflict within their families.
just an note: modern shia is not the same as ali shia ali shia :are group of muslims who sided with ali politically otherwise modern shia deviated from the path and started worshiping ali and saying Quran was corrupted
@@groundzero5708 shia quran corrupted: ruclips.net/video/BNfPR9Ldtjk/видео.htmlsi=VY39v41_--7Zp3VW shia ali is allah : ruclips.net/video/4jNN2DVO8lA/видео.htmlsi=kPAedrCOmX7xt1ac , ruclips.net/video/vmrH8sS1ewI/видео.htmlsi=9a9vc7x-8mSPnyls , ruclips.net/video/cHcC5AIqtaM/видео.htmlsi=etyb4bZZTt6YZtAT .
1:52 Why “Self Proclaimed Romans” Eastern Roman Empire is still Roman. They practice Roman traditions in the Greek language and had their capital in a city once known as New Rome.
@@Ungehorsam Blatantly untrue, and that’s not even how Roman civil wars worked. Roman civil wars were always between individuals commanding pieces of the Roman military, not regions.
@@fishconnoisseur This is like saying that the Ottomans were Romans. The Romans ended as Christianity spread, their culture disappeared, and they became slaaves to a cuult from the desert that destroyed everything And To this day, Euurope still suffers from this
@@king.g-l1g The Ottomans conquered the Eastern Roman rump state(s). There is never a break in continuity of the Roman state from its very foundation in the 7th century BC to 1204 AD at the earliest and 1475 at the latest. This is a false equivalency fallacy. Stop pushing your pagan agenda like it’s legitimate history. Rome was never conquered by Christianity as much as it had an internal transition that took both bloody and peaceful shapes.
@@king.g-l1g yeah the latin romans were dead but the empire lived on in byzantium, and I dont see why the ottomans dont have that by right of conquest. They called themselved roman, their people said they lived in the roman empire and a muslim turk has a lot more in common with a christian greek than a greek has with a latin pagan
As a muslim...he whole tax thing used to be a fair deal. The non muslims were ment to pay jizya(tax) to muslims for protecting them and if muslims weren't able to do so they return the jizya money back...and the muslims are obligated to pay zakat which is more expensive. Just wanted to clarify
The kicker is that non Muslims were forced to do embarrassing and humiliating practices whilst paying and also Christian tithe is up to 10% much higher than zakat
I'm only 3 minutes into the video but I wanted to say huge respect to you for not depicting our prophet and his companions. and treating the general story with respect and you clearly did research. kudos mate
Solid and entertaining videos, I like the art style a lot. Only complaint is There are some big errors regarding sunnis and shia as some other commenters have explained, but it's understandable seeing you are not normally taught this history where you're from. looking forward to part 2
Historically is thee bestttt thing that has happened in a long time andd even better, the videos are good quality and NOT boring I made a comment but It disappeared
That's genuinely very exciting, Al-Rahman's life definitely has a lot of potential for an amazing history video, especially considering how awesome Historically's skill is to turn any piece of history into a genuinely amazing tale.
Hiya, a Muslim here🫡 I would like to point that Abd Al-Rahman name cannot be simplified as Al-Rahman. Partly because the word Al-Rahman refers to Allah as it's one of His 99 names. And also Abd and Al-Rahman cannot be separated as the Arabic grammar states. Same rule applies as someone named Ibn Battuta, had you mention Battuta without Ibn you would be referring to a complete different person. And for this instance separating it would refer to his father or grandfather or even the occupation of the family which is wayyyy too far. So yes, Arabic is not easy to learn especially for non native speakers like me😬
Great video! It's really cool to see the growth and progress with your videos getting longer, more elaborate and undoubtedly harder to make. Keep up the good work telling amazing stories like this one! I'm looking forward to the next one
2:05 Acually hinted many times that Abu Bakr will be next, so the companians chose him, then everyone agreed that Omar should be next, then before Omar died he chose 6 companians to elect one of them which they choose Othman by majoroty of the public vote, When Othman was killed, Muawiyah, the governor of the Levant, refused to pledge allegiance to Ali before taking revenge on the killers of the former Caliph Othman, and this was the reason for the civil war. 2:20 The Kharijites emerged from this conflict, not the Shiites. The word "شيعة" Shiites in Arabic means his group or party, which is why it was used in the civil war. The Shiites sect did not appear until 82 years after the civil war (so that is a translation error).
Us Shia believe the Prophet s.a.w chose Ali a.s in Ghadir Khumm, that’s why we see Ali a.s not being the 1st caliph as an injustice. I guess both sides seem to claim something else, in the end we will see during Judgement day. Peace be upon all that love ahlul bayt, I don’t wish to argue and insult Sunni’s when the real enemy is the people killing Palestinians.
There wasn't public vote rather it was مجلس الشورى witch is a sort of counsil made of the biggest figures witch were the companions of prophet at that time that elected othman
@@absoluterage6147 Firstly, I am Sunni, and thank you for your respect Secondly, of course Ali is a wonderful Islamic figure, but let me show you our point of view We believe that Ali is not the caliph after the Messenger for two reasons: 1. Because we believe that the caliphate is chosen by all Muslims (the people of the solution and the contract) and we do not believe that it is a property by inheritance. We also believe that all people are equal, so they all have the right to be the caliph, and the caliphate is not limited to a specific person or a specific family. 2. Our second reason is that Ali himself did not say that he was the Caliph or that the Messenger chose him, just as no one chose Ali at that time. Even his wife (Fatima) did not choose him. . I hope you understand the point, thank you ❤
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5بironic when it was Muawiyah (a Sunni) who turned the caliphate into a hereditary empire. Didn't the prophet say in his last sermon to take Ali as the wali?
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Thank you for clarifying your point of view, but I don't think this changes anything for me I do not sanctify Muawiyah, but as a matter of fairness and historical reliability, Muawiyah is not the first to bequeath power to his son, because Ali did that before him when he bequeathed power to his son Hassan, so we can say that Muawiyah is the second to do that. . As for the word “wali,” I am an Arab, and it does not mean a president, a king, or a caliph. Ali himself did not say that this is what it means, nor did he say that he is the caliph after the Prophet Muhammad. Rather, this is a claim that came later. Thank you
13:19 abd al rahman I wasn’t the last surviving Umayyad family member, one of marwan ii’s sons actually managed to escape to Persia while the Abbasid revolution happened, the writer of the book songs, abu Faraj al isfahani was actually the descendant of that specific son of Marwan ii that escaped to Persia.
This was the best animated historical video I've seen on RUclips ever. Badass story, badass protagonist, hilarious jokes, Perfect video. Thank you for being interested in my culture (and nice job potraying Arabic and Islamic clothing and architecture somewhat accurately). Could you talk next time about Idris I, who had a somewhat ressembling story? I strongly encourage you to read his story aswell, as he was the first Muslim ruler to rule Morocco, a beautiful, flourishing, rich Muslim Arab country to this day.
Why is it that Muslims don't make these animated educational videos themselves first and instead it's western RUclipsrs that have to cover islamic history
@@user-op8fg3ny3j I have three theories: -They exist but not as good. -They exist and are as good but since English is far far faaaaaaaaaaaaar more widely spoken than Arabic they don't stand a chance against them in your feed. -They don't exist because Arab youth (mistakenly) think their history is boring. I do know some Arabic channels that did talk about this person, actually, and that do make some cool historical videos about Arabic history and Islamic history in general, but they either have an additional sense of seriousness (thus feeling more like a history lesson), or are less movie-seeming and fun to watch like this video.
A lot of people are correcting you in the comments (not saying its bad or anything) but you very elegantly depicted such a nuanced topic. Amazing video
Several mistakes here. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story. Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later. P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
3:19 actually islamic empires such as the ummayiads couldn’t care less about ethnicities and in fact they only taxed non muslims and gave them protection in favor
@@Alrightmira this video is filled with misinformation. Can't even watch this for entertainment I stopped at maybe 7 minutes in such a shame it's obvious a lot of work was put into making this
@@quandaliousdingle-r3b Hahaha i know right the animation looks sick but it is very triggering when the information is wrong too such as Iran being shia during that era and no mention of the khawarij
I just rediscovered this channel and I love it, there isn’t many animated history channels who do vids about the Arabs and I’ve always been interested in their history but never felt like reading a book 😅
great stuff, but its best if you remove the "- Historically" from your titles since it doenst really add anything and can potentially confuse people what the video is about. it's a small change but I do think it could help you guys' channel just a little bit
The caliphs overthrew the two most powerful emperors with 50,000 fighters after they emerged from a brutal civil war, while the Persians and Romans were better armed and had more soldiers. The two empresses even united for the first time to confront the caliphate. Westerners now: Let us diminish their victory
After the two great empires fought in a 26-year war (Byzantine - Sasanian War of 602-628), 50,000 warriors was no small number when Alexander the Great's army was 47,000. The number of people was equal to the army that the emperor had sent to attack the other capital.
They were 2 desecrated empires that suffered from plagues and had been in a state of total war for decades leading to total exhaustion But hey, anything to glorify the cult around some genocidal pedophile
lets get striaght fact no matter what 2 empire went through they still owned most known of world and had larger of army who were more experinced and trained and organized with good advanced equipement and weapons than arabs who were tribal farmers and herders came from desert and villages weren't trained and equiped well with their poorly desert equipement which they were weak than them by military capabilites. Roman and persian wars was lasted for centuries not just 25 years so how come they were suddenly became weak with arabs? If their war caused to be weakened it wouldn't last for for centuries during their final war. 2 empire were faced worest suitation in 6th century where roman and persian went into major many wars fighting each other in 6th century from 500 to 592 Roman alone involed in 4 wars aganist germanic kingdoms and persian and other states. Roman and persian had been fighting each other in many countless battles and persian even had civil wars 589-591 and was getting rebellion 591-596 lead by Vistahm yet they still at their powerful didn't get weakened after few years they were fully prepared to declaring another war which it was final war occured in 7th century between roman and persian. arabs even had internal conflicts and ridda wars till 633 while bezntyine persian wars was already ended 7 years ago before arabs conquest. You dont get exhuasted from war was already ended for years. Same situation when both empire finished their 6th century wars they needed 8 years to be fully prepared to wage their final war in 7th with some battles compared 6th century of wars doesn't make sense they weak people are just relied in modern sources and google where it giving excuess to justiffy loses of both empire front of tribes. Old sources didn't mentioned they weak we have even an eye witness source such as chrincole of kuzistian 645 mentioned arabs defeated 2 powerful empire
the war was already ended 7 years ago before caliphate conquest so how they were exhuasted?, when roman and saasaind had wars for centuries no one weaken each other but suddenly became weak because arab comes? Roman and sassaind had worset situation they went into 5 wars in 6th century fighting each other yet they remain powerful not getting weakened they needed 8 years to wage their final war 7th century which fully prepared not exhuasting. Its sad how people llike you still relied in modern biased sources that trying to make excuess to justiffy their loses. Fun fact ancient sources never mentioned both empire were weakened when arabs fought them. We got an eye witness from chrincole of kuzistian dated 645 he literally mentioned arabs defeated 2 powerful empire. Chrincole of latin and bezntyine and syraic were imperrssive how arabs defeated 2 empire without saying they were weak. Both empire had superiority numrical army along with better and military strengh than caliphate and better equipement and experince while rashidun army had smaller than them combined of tribesmen and herders came from desert with their poorly desert equipement and lacking of experince. The only reason arabs managed to defeat both empire because they had strong faith and fighting in highly spirit and moral and gaining vicoteries thanks to their great general like khalid ibn walid who were military mind genuis and tactican general
@@ghostd69 In 7 years thousands of new warriors are obviously born, trained and raised. Villages repopulated and the economy totally recovered Once again ignoring the literal plagues that hit the 2 empires that depleted both sides legions further
Your videos so good to the point i don't skip the ads cause i respect whoever made the smart choice of sponsoring you , also the way u get to the ads is really funny
💥Download War Thunder for FREE and get your bonus! ► Use my link - playwt.link/historically #ad
We noticed a group of viewers being unhappy with our storytelling of the rise of Shia and the caliphs. Please keep in mind the shia movement very much existed though not officially, more politically, as they supported the caliph Ali to be the first (shiatu Ali).
something something leaking classified government documents
I am sure I would like it. Just one problem. I will see it in 18 hours. But that is fine because it is worth waiting. I wish all readers and you Historically a lovely start to (or is it of) pride month.
i had a doctors appoinyment but historically more important
I haven't seen the video yet but it's nice to see a youtuber incorporating data from polls and listening to the community.
NEW VIDEO COMMINNGNGGG YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSS
Part 2 "Before Oversimplified uploads" is crazy!
watch oversimplified upload tomorrow randomly
also oversimplified name not being able to be oversimplified in a good way so that its shorter but still makes sense is ironic
Basicly oversimplified -comedy
Professionally made and wrong. Several mistakes here. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus),
Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
xdd
@@mznxbcv12345What can you expect from these peasants?
Just a minor correction, the Persians were never majority shia until the 16th century. In the 8th century most shias were concentrated in southern iraq, which even then was majority proto sunni.
Exactly, thanks ❤
On top of that, there was no Shia nor Sunni sects as we know them today during that time. They were purely political parties. Mu'awiya sought revenge for Othman, Ali disagreed and said it's not the appropriate time. Some followed Mu'awiya while others adhered to their loyalty to the fourth caliph. The Kkarijites, a third party, emerged and Fought both Ali and Mu'awiya. Bottom line is, there were absolutely no sunni/shia ideological creeds at the time of the first civil war.
@@sasino4569 You are correct that initially the split was political with no major theological differences or sectarianism, but by the time of the abbasids early proto shia communities had begun to form with quite radically different theologies from their proto sunni neighbours. Generally speaking, imami shiism formed as a distinct theological community (although not quite a clear cut sect) around the mid-late 8th century.
I agree + it seems that you are well informed about Islamic history @@sasino4569
They weren't a lot since it was only a political disagreement that has ended, IDK who turned it into a religious idea but it seems like he benefited from that quite a lot
Everyone of these videos look like a professionally made movie
Agreed.
I know! They’re so accurate, unbiased and good quality at the same time!
the institute kidnapped my son
Professionally made and wrong. Several mistakes here. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture.
Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads claiming to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Ali, they survived, Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengance for Husayn, the grandson of Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The twelvers and the seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, not worldly powers.
@@mznxbcv12345 damn can I have the source u got all this from? (I wanna read it myself)
8:50
Hello, I'm from Saudi Arabia and studied the history of the Umayyad. actually at that time even after the Abbasids planned to kill every single Umayyad some of them hidden in Damascus and many of them ran to Taif (a city south to Mecca, and still exists). they descents of those who ran to Taif live today in the same city.
شكرا أخي ناصر على المعلومة❤
Woah! Those people are still there? How are they? Ok guys now I know.
@@Rhythm412normal people like everyone haha
thanks for the clarification man! with family lineage that huge its hard to believe all but one escapes, but perhaps the one that run to Taif are far from royal bloodline and starts to life like normal peasant so there's less story about them
@@Nashmi-JO bruh!? I meant that did they successfully escape the wrath of the Abbasid armies? And what would be their population by now? I also know they live like humans.
One correction for 3:33 during that time, not all Persian were Shia, a lot of the Persian were still Sunni, Shia being the sect of all Persian people is fairly recent only after Safavid Dynasty (since 1501 AD) took over.
During that time, the Persians were not even Muslims, except for a small minority who migrated to the Arab cities in Iraq
@@Faisal-pb5gu no majority by that time were converting to islam
Majority were Zoroastrian at that time but yeah most the Persian Muslims were Sunni except the northern regions
@@persianhillbilly9642
No, you are wrong guys. Most of the Persians were Sunnis, not Zoroastrians, the Zoroastrian religion became a minority with the collapse of the Sasanian Empire. After the Islamic conquest all persians became sunni muslims except the north (Daylam and Tabaristan, as you said), and many Sunni scholars were persians, the most famous of them is Al-Bukhari
zoro-ism was always a minority faith, hardly has any texts and was reserved to a priestly class and royals. There are several mistakes. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture.
Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
Correction: Abbasids were Sunni not Shia.
Another correction: he didnt say they were shia, he said their army was mostly shia, and thats true
Yeah historically there cause for war was the revenge for imam hussain and ali (ahlu al bayet)
@@mohammed44_but shia was founded in 16th century
@@modehil
Source: trust me bro
Ok they were shia but not shia of today......they were shiatu Ali......which was Ali side.......... And back then also they didn't use the terms Sunni or shite.....they were all Muslims
Honestly I’m surprised he respected the beliefs of Islam refusing to let people depict Prophet Muhammad’s face. Thank you for this respect.
edit: I think I started a war in the replies
Even he do not Show all face of 5 caliph
@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 both make each other shine
@@kiuk_kiksshow evidence where in Islam is beheading the punishment for blasphemy?
@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 brainwashed indian spotted
@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 Respect comes from fear.
It’s the “quickly, before oversimplified uploads” for me🤣😂
Would he be any better? First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus), Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, Shiat Ali, literally, the faction of Ali. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture.
Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the prerutaros of that Siege became part of the faction of Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged.
The Umayyads claiming to fight for justice managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Ali, they survived, Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Eitherway, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengance for Husayn, the grandson of Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The twelvers and the seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today are a result of 300 years later.
not reading allat
@@mznxbcv12345not reading allat
Please don't stress. Comment sections have a habit of dictating how creators create content. We're all here for you and your teams work. Higher quality content is from content you're passionate about.
P.S you weren't lying, this is a brilliant video! Well done
👆 real!
Bedr is the homie we all deserve
Babe wake up, Dutch Oversimplified uploaded
What nationality is Oversimplified again?
@@windbuster idk American probably
@@windbuster American
@@acanadianchickenK
@@windbusterirish-american guy
most people just focus on european history, thank you so much for treating every culture and history equally
People tend to forget, that cultures surrounding the European continent shaped its history just as much as the ones inside it. Well, parts of it any way.
Tehnically this is part of European history as it ends in modern-day Spain. But still i think the continent's story was shaped by the events in Middle East and vice versa
@@andersasblom6452Just because you always watch european history doesent mean other cultures are forgotten! There are hundreds of historical documentaries of at the many cultures! The problem is your not watching or searching them and just because it somehow is related to europe doesent mean its european! Europe really just influenced the entire history of the world than others ranging from colonization to diplomacy i mean theres no spot in the european history where they did not respect and recognize Middle eastern,Asian,African,Oceanian, And American Success from battles, and diplomacy europe fought with all of them! Unlike some cultures who tend to unrecognize europes success thats just being racist! And you call the whites racist? But you tend to forget that all cultures in the world is way more racist to the whites than the whites to them
@@cgt3704The way people disrespect the large influence of europe just to show they are not racist but they are being racist to europeans
@@The_C0mment_Guy ruclips.net/video/-WHpQVMZbjo/видео.html
أَرى أَشقِياءَ الناسِ لا يَسأَمونَها
عَلى أَنَّهُم فيها عُراةٌ وَجُوَّعُ
أَراها وَإِن كانَت تُحَبُّ فَإِنَّها
سَحابَةُ صَيفٍ عَن قَليلٍ تُقشَعُ
"Miserable are people who crave for riches
And deprive themselves of tranquility
Though life may be luring.
It is short and will depart soon"
- Imran bin Hattan (Umayyad poet)
إني لأذكره يوما فألعنه ... إيها والعن عمران بن حطانا (حماد بن بكر التاهرتي الزناتي 200 -296 )
إني لأذكره يوما فألعنه * دنيا وألعن عمرانا وحطانا عليه ثم عليه الدهر متصلا * لعائن الله إسرارا (القاضي أبو الطيب طاهر ابن عبد الله الشافعي 960م -1058م)
How do i copy this 😭
The persians at that time were not shia the majority was sunni muslim, they started to become overwhelming shia in the 16th Century during the reign of shah ismail I.
The Safavids even faced the problem of the lack of any Iranian Shiite scholars, so they encouraged the migration of Arab Shiite scholars to Iran.
Many of those who held religious positions in Safavid Iran were of Lebanese and Iraqi origin, and even from Bahrain.
Yes, not just that.
Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus),
Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
@@mznxbcv12345Karbala is very touchy
you say Emom ali are you a Shia?
Salam alaikum from a Sufi brother
Az yek sufi dadash @@mznxbcv12345
At that time they were not even Muslims.
Babe wake up
Historically just posted!
ty for waking me up
LET'S GO BOYS GET UP HISTORICALLY JUST POSTED
Babe wake up its been twenty years
@@TheSecondCantaloupethirty years, it's over
it’s literally a movie at this point, it’s so well-made
The Rashiddun caliphate came right out of their own civil war too, where many of their men died and were exhuasted. They were as fatigued or even more so compared to the Romans and Persians.
First fitna has entered the chat
The the ridda wars
Not only that, the losses from the first Fitna far exceed that of the dual liberation of both Persia and Byzantium. Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus),
Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
@@mznxbcv12345original Shia were political their beliefs was same as sunni but differed on who should have been first caliph then ibn saba in the last part of uthman ra reign and Ali ra reign created the modern day Shia where he said Ali ra should he worshipped and was later killed but the ideology was unfortunately deeply buried in the hearts of people and it ended up growing to the Shia of today
Not even close to the persians
Just how weakened they were is unimaginable
Rome was on a whole another level
Hello im from Andalucía, its cool to see history of Abd al-Rahman thank youu!
You are a Muslim?
1:36 ah, a person that respects our Islamic rules. We are not allowed to potray the prophets with made up faces, their faces must all be unknown
He would be killed if he depicted Mohammed’s face..
No way he called out oversimplified
Thx for so many likes!
Huh
Several mistakes in the video;; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus),
Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
@@mznxbcv12345aint reading allat
@@mznxbcv12345jesus we get it
As an arab, this video really made me happy :) it is really rare to see someone talking about arabic n islamic history
thank you for your hardwork
Why are there no Arab/Muslim animated educational channels and instead have to wait for Caucasians to make video on Islamic history?
@@user-op8fg3ny3j because you'd rather whinge about whites than do it?
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Those channels exist, but the content is in Arabic (or other languages of the Muslim world).
However, Muslims are starting to create more content in English. It's a bit late, but better late than never.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j There are so many Arab and Muslim educational channels lol. What point are you trying to make? Yasir Qadhi has good animated videos on Islamic history in English, there's another one called Zaka (iirc) which is in Arabic but very very high quality.
@@simosandboifan989 the animation quality isn't as good as this though or other history channels like oversimplified
Historically, you’re SO criminally underrated! You’re amazing at storytelling, animation, and your humor is just amazing! I love your videos!!!
Everything He Said Is Literally False...
@@MuhammedAL-Chad-nz4jx Could you elaborate?
@@andersasblom6452The Ummayads And Abbasids Are Both Arab Clans From The Same Muhammadean Family. Their War Is A Succession War, Nothing To Do With "muh equality" Or Whatever Modern Day Agenda This Guy Tries To Shove In...
Not To Mention The Fact That persians Don't Even Exist...
Underrated how? The video is choke-full of mistakes; Several mistakes in the video; First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus),
Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time. The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
@@mznxbcv12345 yep
Iranians were Sunni for most of their history, they only became Shia when the Safavids took over and forced most people into Shi'ism
not really mate. they were zoroastrian. Rey was captured but Ali, his companions and sons, the people there saw him as their liberator from the persian empire so followed shi'ism, it makes sense.
@@aunnaqvi3133 You are absolutely wrong. The Persians were Sunnis (thats why many Sunni Scholars were from Persian origin) but Shah Ismail of Safavids forcefully converted Persia into Shia religion.
@@aunnaqvi3133 buddy you're wrong, yes prior to Islam they were zoroastrian but that doesn't mean anything for their following of Islam Iran was primarily Sunni, mainly Hanafi and Shafi'i until the Safavids took over in the 1500s and forced conversions of Sunnis to Shi'ism
@@ceegle minor note: sha'fiyyah were mostly in afghan areas.
@@aunnaqvi3133 He meant after they converted to Sunni Muslims , Then they were forced into Shi’ism by Shah Ismail .
2:17 is not correct. All community accepted Abu Bekr, without knowing who would be next. Before he died, he suggested to the community to take Umar as next, after Umar, the most prominent people chose Usman
Man, I can't express how good this video is. As an Arab Muslim, this history is very much historically accurate, and the art is absolutely phenomenal (+ I appreciate not drawing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him)
Genuinely an amazing video, I've been watching since the Valorant map recreations on the Arch channel and your videos were consistently of amazing quality.
Keep up the good work man!
He even didn't interpret the caliphates faces which is very respectful
@@quadq3285
Shias draw Ali though
The first shias did actually believe that Ali should have been the third caliph .
@@7years6months3days5hours7min
Sounds like salad cope
@@-Zulfikar- Typical shi'i .
I am a muslim and you did a nice job of respecting our culture and our important people by blurring their faces
Do he have a choice, if he did he would be killed
r u arab or non arab
@@groundzero5708 I am unarab or non Arab yeah 👍😁
Nice to see a video on Abd Al-Rahman always wanted people to see this guys story.
He was a cool guy. and also badass!
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2noh a yeah a genocidal maniac surely a badass
I LOVE your story telling and presentation style, it's highly engaging, please continue with what you're doing :)
As an Arab, I have read Abdul Rahman’s story many times, but this video made me feel like I was getting to know it for the first time. I'm really excited to the second part 🙏🏻
Why is this so good! I thought i just started the video then it was already finish? What an amazing interesting way of storytelling, thank you so much 🙇♂️🙏, Greeting from Indonesia 👋🇮🇩..
Saying that the Arabs were fresh and the romans and Persians were exhausted is wrong since the muslims also just had the Ridda wars.
This is cope the rida war was eventually make all the arab united while persian empire didn’t have manpower enough
@@Mohammad-xk7xw lol what? a brutal civil war is cope? also do you really think an arid desert vwould profuce equal man power to the romans and iranians in pre modern times?
@@hmmm3210 the hardest battels where the rida read about al yamamah and how many of the companions died there
Yeah very small tribal wars that is LMAO
@@sarubet8725 tribal wars?
9:49 HL1 scientist moment
No stay back Gordon!
I can say that after binging the entire channel, this is one of the best history channels on youtube. excellent stuff, keep it coming!
Mad respect for not showing prophet muhammad face
why?
@@rayhans7887 in islam, its bad to show prophets face because people will begin to idolize him and thats haram because prophets were beautiful
@@luffyraa_mapping that's for Muslim, he does not follow islam
@@rayhans7887 yes but there are people who are muslim and watch this video, so he respects them and doenst show his face
@@rayhans7887Its still nice of him to respect others' beliefs
This is way better than Daenerys character arc
discovered you through the last Nietzsche video,
safe to say my new favorite channel already.
I'd love to see more videos about philosophers from you guys
Same, I literally instantly subscribed
2:26
Just seeing you now about that
And you right pronunciation for everything show me that you really did you homework and did every Search you could
I really love that ❤
New historically video!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I love not just the historical information, but the sheer cinematic protrayal that so much of history deserves
Now this, is a history series I would love to see more of. Keep it up!
I tried to make these fit into Star Wars episodes, so....
Episode I: The Shadow of Antiquity 0:46 -- 2:00
Episode II: The Caliphate in Decay/ The Expansion Wars: 2:08 --- 3:59
Episode III: Revenge of the Abassids: 4:00 -- 14:42
Episode IV: A New Hope 14:42 --- Sometime before Oversimplified uploads)
=The Al-Rahmad Saga=
Episode I: The Muslim Menace
Episode II: The Abbasid Wars
Episode III: The Return of the Shias
Episode IV: A New Hope
Episode V: The Caliphate Strikes Back
Episode VI: The Return of the Sunnis
this channel is just here to make the best content, the video is accurate informative and fun to watch, your narrative is unmatchable, everything that you do is amazing mr arch
i am your biggest fan
Yeah although it's more of a short summary to an extent with other pieces out of the picture.
Except the part about Iran being shia back then
2:50
A correction: the head of the Ummayad Mu'awiya I didn't immediately become the caliph
Just after Ali Ibn Abi Talib A.S. was assassinated
his son Al-Hasan Ibn Ali R.A (the grandson of Prophet) became the 5th Caliph and kept it for 7 months before he R.A and Mu'awiya I came to an agreement and Mu'awiya I thus became the first ummayad caliph
he also forgot to mention that the throne was cursed and the cruelity of the empire for which the abbasids rebelled its like a 1 way story
If we had you as a history teacher, we would never slack off. Great video, waiting for part 2!
This is now a head on head race between Oversimplified and Historically:”Who is going to first release is video?!!!”
The answer was Historically!
Oversimplified has been lacking for like years now.
There's a mod for Civ 6 with this guy, so learning some lore behind him is great
The Mod was about his successor.
This guy in the video lived at mid 700's, while his successors that also being made into mod in Civ 6 lived around the year of 900's.
The Mod was about his successor.
This guy in the video lived at mid 700's, while his successors that also being made into mod in Civ 6 lived around the year of 900's.
@@reteguy7338 oh okay
Can you give me the name of it ?
Really appreciate your respect of our conduct of not drawing the faces of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and his companions.
By the way, as Muslims we refrain too from drawing Jesus Christ or any other prophet (peace be upon them all).
3:44 quick correction the abbasid movement wasn't made by the supressed groups
the abbasids were a powerful family that were also descendants of the prophet(via his uncle abbas) even though the abbasids had alot of non arab supporters it also had alot of arab supporters and after they've risen up they've gottten a great victory in the battle of great zab river which was the collapse of the ummayads and the very large rise of the abbasids
Unfortunately this orientalist over simplification of the Abbasid revolution as just non Arabs (Persians) revolting against the Umayyad still popular, it really stupid for anyone who knows about the Quraish clans dynamic and the rivalry between Yemenite and Qaissy Arabs
@@miracleyang3048 this is why Muslim who take orientalist seriously need a wake up call because orientalist entire study of Islam is flawed
@@miracleyang3048without Salman Farsi (Solomon the Persian, and the traitor) there would be no Muslim empires to follow. Once Arabs colonized Persia and The Byzantine’s, the Arabs quickly flocked to Persian in search of governance of the new empire.. because you know, they’ve done it before, and they’ve done it multiple times before at that. So the Abbasids might’ve been Arab and may have been a powerful family, however they would be nothing without the political support of the Persians who were actually running the empire while the Arabs were at constant internal conflict within their families.
@@pokegan52
Least Persian Nationalist propaganda,
@@miracleyang3048 Persian is not a nationality 😭💀😂
just an note:
modern shia is not the same as ali shia
ali shia :are group of muslims who sided with ali politically otherwise modern shia deviated from the path and started worshiping ali and saying Quran was corrupted
lol thats the sunni perspective
@@groundzero5708 shia scholars saying quran is corrupted : ruclips.net/video/BNfPR9Ldtjk/видео.htmlsi=VY39v41_--7Zp3VW
@@groundzero5708 shia quran corrupted:
ruclips.net/video/BNfPR9Ldtjk/видео.htmlsi=VY39v41_--7Zp3VW
shia ali is allah :
ruclips.net/video/4jNN2DVO8lA/видео.htmlsi=kPAedrCOmX7xt1ac ,
ruclips.net/video/vmrH8sS1ewI/видео.htmlsi=9a9vc7x-8mSPnyls ,
ruclips.net/video/cHcC5AIqtaM/видео.htmlsi=etyb4bZZTt6YZtAT .
Modern shia don't worship Ali, why are you spreading lies?
@@_-ghostfps-_8651 ruclips.net/user/shortsiB_Mrm5bkYM?si=szRfX7d-xd5PmVH9
10/10 video, commentary, animations... Everything, bravo!
God tier history videos. Amazing animations, great stories, as well as more frequent uploads. You are awesome!!
1:52 Why “Self Proclaimed Romans”
Eastern Roman Empire is still Roman. They practice Roman traditions in the Greek language and had their capital in a city once known as New Rome.
They were Greeks who fought every civil war against the Romans.
@@Ungehorsam Blatantly untrue, and that’s not even how Roman civil wars worked. Roman civil wars were always between individuals commanding pieces of the Roman military, not regions.
@@fishconnoisseur This is like saying that the Ottomans were Romans. The Romans ended as Christianity spread, their culture disappeared, and they became slaaves to a cuult from the desert that destroyed everything And To this day, Euurope still suffers from this
@@king.g-l1g The Ottomans conquered the Eastern Roman rump state(s). There is never a break in continuity of the Roman state from its very foundation in the 7th century BC to 1204 AD at the earliest and 1475 at the latest. This is a false equivalency fallacy. Stop pushing your pagan agenda like it’s legitimate history. Rome was never conquered by Christianity as much as it had an internal transition that took both bloody and peaceful shapes.
@@king.g-l1g yeah the latin romans were dead but the empire lived on in byzantium, and I dont see why the ottomans dont have that by right of conquest. They called themselved roman, their people said they lived in the roman empire and a muslim turk has a lot more in common with a christian greek than a greek has with a latin pagan
As a muslim...he whole tax thing used to be a fair deal. The non muslims were ment to pay jizya(tax) to muslims for protecting them and if muslims weren't able to do so they return the jizya money back...and the muslims are obligated to pay zakat which is more expensive. Just wanted to clarify
The kicker is that non Muslims were forced to do embarrassing and humiliating practices whilst paying and also Christian tithe is up to 10% much higher than zakat
@@MrBozny i said "used to be"
@@hadeexe_ true you did
@@MrBozny i guess the only legitimate caliphate was the rashidun one
@@hadeexe_I disagree with this statement. Ummayad empire had great leaders too like Mu’aya رضي الله عنه and Omar bin Abdulaziz.
2:45 I am amazed by your attention to detail specially for the sword of Ali
I'm only 3 minutes into the video but I wanted to say huge respect to you for not depicting our prophet and his companions. and treating the general story with respect and you clearly did research. kudos mate
1:22 thank you for not showing prophet Muhammad’s face and respecting out beliefs
Gotta thank the amount of effort put into creating this video. It is just amazing.
Im sorry to be out of context but demascuc wasn't a Desert it was a more of a green land and its still so green
Solid and entertaining videos, I like the art style a lot. Only complaint is There are some big errors regarding sunnis and shia as some other commenters have explained, but it's understandable seeing you are not normally taught this history where you're from. looking forward to part 2
I loved how you respected our history, and I loved the way you presented and told the story, well done.
Historically is thee bestttt thing that has happened in a long time
andd even better, the videos are good quality and NOT boring
I made a comment but It disappeared
i am not you
That's genuinely very exciting, Al-Rahman's life definitely has a lot of potential for an amazing history video, especially considering how awesome Historically's skill is to turn any piece of history into a genuinely amazing tale.
Hiya, a Muslim here🫡
I would like to point that Abd Al-Rahman name cannot be simplified as Al-Rahman. Partly because the word Al-Rahman refers to Allah as it's one of His 99 names. And also Abd and Al-Rahman cannot be separated as the Arabic grammar states.
Same rule applies as someone named Ibn Battuta, had you mention Battuta without Ibn you would be referring to a complete different person. And for this instance separating it would refer to his father or grandfather or even the occupation of the family which is wayyyy too far.
So yes, Arabic is not easy to learn especially for non native speakers like me😬
@@LuqmanAlhakim-v6g My mistake for wrongly saying his name, thanks for clarification.
Wow, a wholesome interaction on the internet, that's rare 🫠
@@mrlmfao1011yh, usually anglophones don't care about language mistakes
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Well, that's probably because I'm not a native English speaker myself, it's my second language.
this is awesome man, keep on doing this movie-like documentaries, i'm loving them!
One of your best yet, the scene in the village when they fled was excellently done
The quality of these videos is insanee
Great video! It's really cool to see the growth and progress with your videos getting longer, more elaborate and undoubtedly harder to make. Keep up the good work telling amazing stories like this one! I'm looking forward to the next one
i love the fact that he respect prophet Muhammad, deserver a sub.
this guy already is my favourite historian
Some important inaccuracies but the production quality is so beautiful and its some of my fav empires so ur forgiven
That cliffhanger is wild, hope the next part comes out soon
Great video, bro is the next oversimplified
better than him
Thank you so much for for this. Very well done
Thank you so much for another quality video
The tense moment of silence before the prince almost drew his sword to avenge his family .. peak cinema 😄
Apart from the inaccuracies and errors, I LOVE THIS, YOUR WORK IS GREAT, FOLLOWED. hope we get to sit down and talk sometime
2:05 Acually hinted many times that Abu Bakr will be next, so the companians chose him, then everyone agreed that Omar should be next, then before Omar died he chose 6 companians to elect one of them which they choose Othman by majoroty of the public vote, When Othman was killed, Muawiyah, the governor of the Levant, refused to pledge allegiance to Ali before taking revenge on the killers of the former Caliph Othman, and this was the reason for the civil war.
2:20 The Kharijites emerged from this conflict, not the Shiites. The word "شيعة" Shiites in Arabic means his group or party, which is why it was used in the civil war. The Shiites sect did not appear until 82 years after the civil war (so that is a translation error).
Us Shia believe the Prophet s.a.w chose Ali a.s in Ghadir Khumm, that’s why we see Ali a.s not being the 1st caliph as an injustice. I guess both sides seem to claim something else, in the end we will see during Judgement day. Peace be upon all that love ahlul bayt, I don’t wish to argue and insult Sunni’s when the real enemy is the people killing Palestinians.
There wasn't public vote rather it was مجلس الشورى witch is a sort of counsil made of the biggest figures witch were the companions of prophet at that time that elected othman
@@absoluterage6147
Firstly, I am Sunni, and thank you for your respect
Secondly, of course Ali is a wonderful Islamic figure, but let me show you our point of view
We believe that Ali is not the caliph after the Messenger for two reasons:
1. Because we believe that the caliphate is chosen by all Muslims (the people of the solution and the contract) and we do not believe that it is a property by inheritance. We also believe that all people are equal, so they all have the right to be the caliph, and the caliphate is not limited to a specific person or a specific family.
2. Our second reason is that Ali himself did not say that he was the Caliph or that the Messenger chose him, just as no one chose Ali at that time. Even his wife (Fatima) did not choose him.
.
I hope you understand the point, thank you ❤
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5بironic when it was Muawiyah (a Sunni) who turned the caliphate into a hereditary empire.
Didn't the prophet say in his last sermon to take Ali as the wali?
@@user-op8fg3ny3j
Thank you for clarifying your point of view, but I don't think this changes anything for me
I do not sanctify Muawiyah, but as a matter of fairness and historical reliability, Muawiyah is not the first to bequeath power to his son, because Ali did that before him when he bequeathed power to his son Hassan, so we can say that Muawiyah is the second to do that.
.
As for the word “wali,” I am an Arab, and it does not mean a president, a king, or a caliph. Ali himself did not say that this is what it means, nor did he say that he is the caliph after the Prophet Muhammad. Rather, this is a claim that came later.
Thank you
The thumbnail is beautiful 🤩
Your one of the best Historical RUclipsrs ive seen!! Funny animations, very simpe and fun!
You my sir are just built different when it comes to storytelling
13:19 abd al rahman I wasn’t the last surviving Umayyad family member, one of marwan ii’s sons actually managed to escape to Persia while the Abbasid revolution happened, the writer of the book songs, abu Faraj al isfahani was actually the descendant of that specific son of Marwan ii that escaped to Persia.
Yes but abd al rahman didn't know about that cause that he think like that
This was the best animated historical video I've seen on RUclips ever. Badass story, badass protagonist, hilarious jokes, Perfect video.
Thank you for being interested in my culture (and nice job potraying Arabic and Islamic clothing and architecture somewhat accurately).
Could you talk next time about Idris I, who had a somewhat ressembling story? I strongly encourage you to read his story aswell, as he was the first Muslim ruler to rule Morocco, a beautiful, flourishing, rich Muslim Arab country to this day.
Why is it that Muslims don't make these animated educational videos themselves first and instead it's western RUclipsrs that have to cover islamic history
@@user-op8fg3ny3j I have three theories:
-They exist but not as good.
-They exist and are as good but since English is far far faaaaaaaaaaaaar more widely spoken than Arabic they don't stand a chance against them in your feed.
-They don't exist because Arab youth (mistakenly) think their history is boring.
I do know some Arabic channels that did talk about this person, actually, and that do make some cool historical videos about Arabic history and Islamic history in general, but they either have an additional sense of seriousness (thus feeling more like a history lesson), or are less movie-seeming and fun to watch like this video.
@@user-op8fg3ny3jcuz there history is just war genocides more war and maybe and small window of peace
@@Harry-tm3ck I'm talking about in modern day
@@user-op8fg3ny3j still war and just proxy wars
Wow. That was great. I'm looking forward to part 2.
Wake up Historically just uploaded
The quality that goes into these videos is unreal.
A lot of people are correcting you in the comments (not saying its bad or anything) but you very elegantly depicted such a nuanced topic. Amazing video
5:34 What reference are you making?
Why are you so sure it’s a reference of something?
Several mistakes here. First of all most of persia was NOT shia, it was only majority shia after the 16th century of the common era calendar (which was made by the way in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus),
Second there were no 'sunni' 'shia' split post sucession, the word 'shia' literally means faction, "Shiat Ali", literally 'the faction of Ali'. Sunni means following the Sunna, which means following the path of the prophet by his habits, commands, and deeds that are reported from the companions and wives outside of the Sacred Scripture. Furtheron, there was a siege During Caliph Uthman's reign, the perpetrators of that Siege became part of the faction of imam Ali, the reason why there was a dispute was due to him having been assassinated without the assassins being punished, the assassins and the clans which formed their body refused to hand them over to Imam Ali, which is why he was having several disputes inside his faction and later what came to be known as the kharijites emerged, he had the "Most rebellious troops" as opposed to the Umayyads who had the most disciplined troops due to the Levant being ruled by Muawiya for over 2 decades at the time.
The Umayyads, being the clan which the third caliph belong to, claimed to fight for justice for the assassination of the third caliph managed to win in the end when the kharijites attempted to assassinate both their leaders and Imam Ali, they survived, Imam Ali himself was assassinated. Later on the Umayyad shortly after almost collapsed when most of their territory rebelled after Karballa, but they were restored later on, but that's another story.
Either way, Karballa for the next century was the focal point behind vengeance for Husayn, the grandson of imam Ali and the prophet, they recruited followers from Khorasan, Transoxiana because of the large distance, they were not Shia, they were actually Sunni as, as mentioned before, that distinction had yet to emerge. The Twelvers and the Seveners, both the major denominations of what we call shia today came 300 years later.
P.S. Imam Ali also did not name a successor, even when he was explicitly asked to on his death bed because this is a kingdom of faith, and the final testament, the Qur'an had been brought down to completion. The Apostle of God (Apóstolos Dio was the final messenger's designation in Greco-Egyptian papyri), The Prophet's Farewell Sermon elucidates further on that.
3:19 actually islamic empires such as the ummayiads couldn’t care less about ethnicities and in fact they only taxed non muslims and gave them protection in favor
Thanks for pointing this out this annoyed me so much
@@quandaliousdingle-r3b same. The moment i heard this i paused the video and started digging in the comments 💀
@@Alrightmira this video is filled with misinformation. Can't even watch this for entertainment I stopped at maybe 7 minutes in such a shame it's obvious a lot of work was put into making this
@@quandaliousdingle-r3b Hahaha i know right the animation looks sick but it is very triggering when the information is wrong too such as Iran being shia during that era and no mention of the khawarij
same as every occupation, ottoman empire taxed even muslims and britain taxed everybody also
I just rediscovered this channel and I love it, there isn’t many animated history channels who do vids about the Arabs and I’ve always been interested in their history but never felt like reading a book 😅
Dude you’re so goated, your arts are good, and you explain history so well, keep it up :D
They should make a movie out of this... OoOoOOooO😅
dudeeeee that was such an amazing video i cannot wait for part 2
14:55 there is so many references in this video
FR
This is my 4th time watching this. The way u tell the story and the art is one of its kind tbh. Under rated. U need to upload more bro!!
Keep the work up man also you should definitely make a Napoleonic Wars video please I'm begging.
10:31 this goes HARD
great stuff, but its best if you remove the "- Historically" from your titles since it doenst really add anything and can potentially confuse people what the video is about. it's a small change but I do think it could help you guys' channel just a little bit
Thanks for the feedback we will in the close future now that we are bigger hehe
Why is this so in the bottom
The caliphs overthrew the two most powerful emperors with 50,000 fighters after they emerged from a brutal civil war, while the Persians and Romans were better armed and had more soldiers. The two empresses even united for the first time to confront the caliphate.
Westerners now: Let us diminish their victory
After the two great empires fought in a 26-year war (Byzantine - Sasanian War of 602-628), 50,000 warriors was no small number when Alexander the Great's army was 47,000. The number of people was equal to the army that the emperor had sent to attack the other capital.
They were 2 desecrated empires that suffered from plagues and had been in a state of total war for decades leading to total exhaustion
But hey, anything to glorify the cult around some genocidal pedophile
lets get striaght fact no matter what 2 empire went through they still owned most known of world and had larger of army who were more experinced and trained and organized with good advanced equipement and weapons than arabs who were tribal farmers and herders came from desert and villages weren't trained and equiped well with their poorly desert equipement which they were weak than them by military capabilites. Roman and persian wars was lasted for centuries not just 25 years so how come they were suddenly became weak with arabs? If their war caused to be weakened it wouldn't last for for centuries during their final war. 2 empire were faced worest suitation in 6th century where roman and persian went into major many wars fighting each other in 6th century from 500 to 592 Roman alone involed in 4 wars aganist germanic kingdoms and persian and other states. Roman and persian had been fighting each other in many countless battles and persian even had civil wars 589-591 and was getting rebellion 591-596 lead by Vistahm yet they still at their powerful didn't get weakened after few years they were fully prepared to declaring another war which it was final war occured in 7th century between roman and persian. arabs even had internal conflicts and ridda wars till 633 while bezntyine persian wars was already ended 7 years ago before arabs conquest. You dont get exhuasted from war was already ended for years. Same situation when both empire finished their 6th century wars they needed 8 years to be fully prepared to wage their final war in 7th with some battles compared 6th century of wars doesn't make sense they weak people are just relied in modern sources and google where it giving excuess to justiffy loses of both empire front of tribes. Old sources didn't mentioned they weak we have even an eye witness source such as chrincole of kuzistian 645 mentioned arabs defeated 2 powerful empire
the war was already ended 7 years ago before caliphate conquest so how they were exhuasted?, when roman and saasaind had wars for centuries no one weaken each other but suddenly became weak because arab comes? Roman and sassaind had worset situation they went into 5 wars in 6th century fighting each other yet they remain powerful not getting weakened they needed 8 years to wage their final war 7th century which fully prepared not exhuasting. Its sad how people llike you still relied in modern biased sources that trying to make excuess to justiffy their loses. Fun fact ancient sources never mentioned both empire were weakened when arabs fought them. We got an eye witness from chrincole of kuzistian dated 645 he literally mentioned arabs defeated 2 powerful empire. Chrincole of latin and bezntyine and syraic were imperrssive how arabs defeated 2 empire without saying they were weak. Both empire had superiority numrical army along with better and military strengh than caliphate and better equipement and experince while rashidun army had smaller than them combined of tribesmen and herders came from desert with their poorly desert equipement and lacking of experince. The only reason arabs managed to defeat both empire because they had strong faith and fighting in highly spirit and moral and gaining vicoteries thanks to their great general like khalid ibn walid who were military mind genuis and tactican general
@@ghostd69
In 7 years thousands of new warriors are obviously born, trained and raised. Villages repopulated and the economy totally recovered
Once again ignoring the literal plagues that hit the 2 empires that depleted both sides legions further
Your videos so good to the point i don't skip the ads cause i respect whoever made the smart choice of sponsoring you , also the way u get to the ads is really funny