This is such an underappreciated channel, the videos are very well researched and the production values are excellent as well. You deserve many more subscribers and I hope the algorithm treats you better in the future. Thanks for sharing these with us.
This was such a great video and history lesson. I will binge on all your videos. Would you ever consider doing a video on the Almoravid/Almohad history?
@@HikmaHistory Can you cover the almoravid conquests of Ghana empire and the Sudan, its a shame that afrocentrists have buried its legacy, read Sheryl Burkhalters and refutation against reinterpretations of Arabic historical works
- Fight between slave soldiers and free soldiers - State not being able to pay soldiers - Soldiers making extreme demands - Soldiers plundering ordinary citizens when not paid - Slave/free soldiers getting more powerful whenever someone of their own rise to power in imperial court - Decline of sultan's own authority - Women rising to power Fatimids were being Ottoman before it was cool
The Taiiyibis didn't necessarily want At-tayyib to rule. They we're ok with Hafiz's rule as long as he didn't call himself an Imam. Unfortunately, he did just that.
@@karimmezghiche9921 No, the imamate was of central importance in Ismaili belief, but a distinction was recognized between a temporal ruler, who could wield political or executive power, and an imam, who was invested with spiritual authority. The Fatimids of course combined the two offices in one person, but theoretically, they could have been divided, so that Hafiz could have ruled, while al-Tayyib would have inherited the imamate and embodied spiritual authority for Ismaili adherents, in turn passing on the imamate to his future son.
The Banu Hilal invasion was the beginning of the end for the Maghreb, particularly because they destroyed a lot of the agricultural infrastructure of the region, as Ibn Khaldun himself narrates, which forced many settled peoples into nomadism. It was also important because that began the arabization process of the region, which is still ongoing and has led to the marginalization of the native Berber/Amazigh population.
seems to me this overview isn't critical enough of the historical narrative. especially when it comes to the blame put on sub-Sharan Africans during Rasad time. it's the 21st century we should have a more critical approach to history, did Rasad promote Africans over Turks and Berbers, or maybe she wasn't prejudiced against them like previous rulers, so Africans could get positions they couldn't previously, and the Turk and Berbers jealously viewed their lose of privilege as favoritism? who is the chronicler, who wrote the narrative, and what is their agenda? we can't take it as gospel without critical examination. I'm very suspicious that Rasad, as a black woman that held an immense amount of power is depicted negatively by Muslim historians because of their biases against sub-Sharan Muslims and women in power.
Pretty specific thing to focus on. Regardless, with that kinda outlook we'd be stuck doing historiographic analysis all day long. Of course there are issues of subjectivity with every historical source ever.
Will there be a video about the Mahdist State of Sudan? I never see anyone did a video about Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi and the state that he established before.
It depends on the period, before the Fatimid conquest of Egypt the Berbers were the majority of the army and remained so for a few decades after the conquest. But afterwards the Black slaves became the majority because it was much cheaper and easier to recruit them. The Abbassid Caliph was the religious head of Sunni Islam, so if you were to swear allegiance to him it means that you have converted to Sunnism.
Why did you say that the majority of the citizens inside the caliphate were sunnis? It depends on the period, but I do not think it is true. We have no real evidences supporting either a sunni or shia majority before the decline of the caliphate. Maybe after the decline peoples were more inclined to become sunnies but it is only a supposition.
We do have some evidence, during Al-Hakim's reign the citizens rebelled because he made the decision of cursing the first 3 caliphs, if the citizens were Shia they would have been fine with it.
Ethnic riots always screw Empires over. America should learn that lesson, or risk ending up like the Fatimids, Austria-Hungary, the Ummayads, or the Mongols.
What do you think was the main reason for the Fatimid’s decline?
Instabilty, lack of public support, child rulers, and Yusuf.
Because of Nuraddin Zangi
@@SamAronow Making me summon my deepest historical knowledge, I see you Samuel.
Cos they didn't have the almighty Saladin leading them from the start! :P
Too much greed for power in their religion
So clear and well explained as always, and such nice production too! Very happy to do this collab with you!
I appreciate that my guy
Filip my brother you here too:-)
This is such an underappreciated channel, the videos are very well researched and the production values are excellent as well.
You deserve many more subscribers and I hope the algorithm treats you better in the future.
Thanks for sharing these with us.
I hope so too, Ross! Thank you for the kind words
Excellent video and thank you for doing this. It's a balanced and respectful view. Look forward to more.
Glad you enjoyed it Aqil!
This was such a great video and history lesson. I will binge on all your videos. Would you ever consider doing a video on the Almoravid/Almohad history?
Done both in some shape
@@HikmaHistory Can you cover the almoravid conquests of Ghana empire and the Sudan, its a shame that afrocentrists have buried its legacy, read Sheryl Burkhalters and refutation against reinterpretations of Arabic historical works
your presentations are great.
Appreciate that Marc!
- Fight between slave soldiers and free soldiers
- State not being able to pay soldiers
- Soldiers making extreme demands
- Soldiers plundering ordinary citizens when not paid
- Slave/free soldiers getting more powerful whenever someone of their own rise to power in imperial court
- Decline of sultan's own authority
- Women rising to power
Fatimids were being Ottoman before it was cool
Women rising to power is a bad thing ?
Not Sultans, their titles were Caliphs and Imams.
@@leaveme3559 yes
@@elemperadordemexico I feel sorry for your mother
@@leaveme3559
Yes because it led to the decline and destruction of the state
This is my favorite RUclips channel bar none. Islamic History is so overlooked.
Glad you like it!
Great video man the Fatimids need to get their act together lmao.
Thanks man! Don’t be so harsh on them, they had a decent run haha
@@HikmaHistory True that.
thank you important history
The Taiiyibis didn't necessarily want At-tayyib to rule. They we're ok with Hafiz's rule as long as he didn't call himself an Imam. Unfortunately, he did just that.
So the Tayyibi wanted to abolish the position of Imam?
@@karimmezghiche9921 No, the imamate was of central importance in Ismaili belief, but a distinction was recognized between a temporal ruler, who could wield political or executive power, and an imam, who was invested with spiritual authority. The Fatimids of course combined the two offices in one person, but theoretically, they could have been divided, so that Hafiz could have ruled, while al-Tayyib would have inherited the imamate and embodied spiritual authority for Ismaili adherents, in turn passing on the imamate to his future son.
Great vid. Can u do a video on the Ahmad shah durrani
Already done one!
The Banu Hilal invasion was the beginning of the end for the Maghreb, particularly because they destroyed a lot of the agricultural infrastructure of the region, as Ibn Khaldun himself narrates, which forced many settled peoples into nomadism. It was also important because that began the arabization process of the region, which is still ongoing and has led to the marginalization of the native Berber/Amazigh population.
Not really.banu hilal allied with zeneta who are amazigh
You're forgetting that after the Banu Hilal invasion the Maghreb had its strongest ruling dynasty ever, the Almohads.
And then the chad sultan Saladin came with his uncle Sherko under noureddine Zengid and said, "It's time for a change of management."😂
seems to me this overview isn't critical enough of the historical narrative. especially when it comes to the blame put on sub-Sharan Africans during Rasad time. it's the 21st century we should have a more critical approach to history, did Rasad promote Africans over Turks and Berbers, or maybe she wasn't prejudiced against them like previous rulers, so Africans could get positions they couldn't previously, and the Turk and Berbers jealously viewed their lose of privilege as favoritism? who is the chronicler, who wrote the narrative, and what is their agenda? we can't take it as gospel without critical examination.
I'm very suspicious that Rasad, as a black woman that held an immense amount of power is depicted negatively by Muslim historians because of their biases against sub-Sharan Muslims and women in power.
Pretty specific thing to focus on. Regardless, with that kinda outlook we'd be stuck doing historiographic analysis all day long. Of course there are issues of subjectivity with every historical source ever.
@@HikmaHistory No needs to get that far. But the narrative as you told here is very biased against Rasad.
great documentary as always.
Thanks!
What about Manjutakin ?
Someone should make a rap for the mad caliph
Will there be a video about the Mahdist State of Sudan? I never see anyone did a video about Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi and the state that he established before.
That's an interesting shout tbh, never thought about it before. Thanks!
Who were the majority: black African or berbers?
If u switch allegiance to abassid, does that mean u hv to become Sunni too?
It depends on the period, before the Fatimid conquest of Egypt the Berbers were the majority of the army and remained so for a few decades after the conquest. But afterwards the Black slaves became the majority because it was much cheaper and easier to recruit them.
The Abbassid Caliph was the religious head of Sunni Islam, so if you were to swear allegiance to him it means that you have converted to Sunnism.
No, I don't think you have to become sunni to pay allegiance to abbasids.The Buyids,a shia dynasty protected Abbasids from the Fatimids
the only empire who created cario city from scratch
Why did you say that the majority of the citizens inside the caliphate were sunnis? It depends on the period, but I do not think it is true. We have no real evidences supporting either a sunni or shia majority before the decline of the caliphate. Maybe after the decline peoples were more inclined to become sunnies but it is only a supposition.
We do have some evidence, during Al-Hakim's reign the citizens rebelled because he made the decision of cursing the first 3 caliphs, if the citizens were Shia they would have been fine with it.
Ethnic riots always screw Empires over. America should learn that lesson, or risk ending up like the Fatimids, Austria-Hungary, the Ummayads, or the Mongols.
Ap.... Mihrbani... Karky.. Apny.... Chanal.... Par.... Pashto.... Aor.... Urdu..... Me... Tarekh... Ka.... Tarjuma... Kesat..... Bi.... Pesh... Karen
Theif
Why?