The following presentation is an extract from a 3 Hour Module as part of the Umayyad Kingdom course. The complete program is accessible exclusively via our official App and private learning platform. For more information visit our website or directly register via Patreon ➤ Website www.historyun.com/ ➤ Patreon (Register) www.patreon.com/historyun/membership
It depends. Abdul-Malik's achievements are definitely more momentous, he also had 20 years to realise his plans unlike Umar II was was killed after only 3 years.
Let’s get something clear: Islam is about unity, not fanning the flames of sectarianism. Some of you are so deep in your echo chambers that you've forgotten the bigger picture. Ali belongs to all Muslims, not just those who twist his words to push divisive narratives. Throwing around accusations like ‘Nasibi’ is lazy and shows you have no real arguments. Quoting hadiths selectively while ignoring broader history doesn't make you right it just exposes your bias. If you actually care about the Deen, focus on what unites us, not what divides us. Enough with the venom and chaos if you can't handle engaging with truth and unity, maybe it's time you rethink your priorities. Sectarianism is a disgrace, and Islam is bigger than your narrow agenda.
@@EM-tx3ly so islam is not what the najdi are on. Because the sahaba didn’t call themselves that either, and sahaba such as Ibn Abbas went on your aqeedah. (Even shamsi agrees on this)
Watched the whole video السلام عليكم Abu Zakariya did an excellent job highlighting the incredible legacy of the Umayyads. Their contributions to the expansion of the Islamic faith and the establishment of a unified, powerful Empire cannot be overstated. the Umayyads played a key role in shaping the Arabian National identity and the course of Islamic history. It's great to see their achievements being recognized and appreciated in this way, Thank you Historyun. I totally agree with the striking resemblance between the Umayyads and the Al Saud dynasties. Many Saudi historians have pointed out the parallels, especially between certain figures, and it’s very interesting to see those connections. Now, let’s address the haters of the Umayyads all of whom criticize them for purely sectarian reasons. The reality is, their legacy is undeniable, and reducing it to these narrow lenses is both lazy and dishonest. The Umayyads were empire builders who spread Islam far beyond what anyone else had achieved before or after. If you’re going to attack them, at least have the decency to recognize their monumental contributions to Islamic civilization instead of parroting tired sectarian rhetoric.
Wa Aleikum Salam Dr 😉 Got your email. Barakallahu Feekum, will be in touch soon. JazakallAhu Khayran for your time and consideration. And yes, simply ruling the Umayyads out based on prejudice and bias is very shortsighted and dismissive. Only those interested in genuine knowledge will be open to hearing the other side of the story.
Salam Alaykum Ustadh. I have a question regarding Ibn Khaldun's writings. He mentions in one of his books that the early Muslim expansion that was done by the Arabs as very "destructive" and that they destroyed everything they conquered and the فتوحات were negative. He also mentions a lot of negative things about Arabs and how they destroy civilizations. He also has a very negative view of Africans. Was he unaware of history? Would love to see you address his work regarding this issue.
Wa Aleikum Salam Great questions. The second question is addressed in the Muqaddimah series on Telegram (Adab Book Club). As for the comments on the Arabs, he mentioned the Bedouins (A'raab) and specified certain clans. He does comment on Arabs in general not being great at construction etc but it's not in the context of conquest and destruction. We will come to that commentary later on in the series. You are welcome to join the Telegram channel for all previous episodes on the Muqaddimah
الرواية المكذوبة على الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام أنه سمح لنصارى نجران بأداء صلاتهم الكفرية في مسجده لا تصح. وغاية ما في الأمر أن هناك رواية مرسلة ذكرها ابن كثير وفيها ابن اسحاق وهو مدلس. فضلا عن أن مضمونها يخالف الأصول وهو أن الرسول صلى الله عليه ويسلم لا يعين الكفار على أداء شعائرهم في مسجده. ويكفي في القدح في هذه الرواية أنها لم تشتهر مع أنها كانت في المسجد ومع وجود جمع كبير من الصحابة فكان من حقها أن تشتهر ولم يحصل ذلك فلم ترد عن صحابي.... وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ
As a historian, I cite historical sources and Ibn Kathir is one such source. If I were a Muhaddith then what you are presenting would be of concern to me and my audience. Do not complicate matters beyond what is necessary. Hadith and History are two different fields of study. If you want to apply the standards of Hadith onto Seerah then be prepared to discard of 90% of what has come to us through the works of Ibn Ishaq, Tabari and several other classical historiographers. Barakallahu Feekum
@Historyun whilst it is well-known that seerah and historical works are not as rigorous in the authentication of reports, the practicing Muslim has to at least make known when a report that he utilizes is in conflict with principles of the religion. For the Prophet to encourage or allow the Christian delegation to perform their blasphemous prayers in his Masjid is not in accordance with the Sharia. The acceptance of kufr is kufr and the Prophet would never accept that. By the way many people present this story, the audience that doesn't know any better would believe that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم actually did this action and they may also seek to emulate it and thus do commit kufr without knowing. Many people these days are not focused on the obligatory Knowledge and fall into all kinds of things. I placed it there not to be a nuisance but as a help and to protect people from believing that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did such an action. May Allāh ta'ala protect us and guide us to a good end.
In my humble opinion, the most successful caliphs from each era are: Omar ibn al khattab ra from the rashidun then Abd al malik ibn marwan for the Umayyads then Abu Jaafar al mansur for the Abbasids.
Not true. There were several very righteous Umayyads including • Mu'awiyyah Ibn Yazeed • Al-Waleed • Soleiman • Hisham The of deeper study on this topic is what results in gross generalisations and fixation only on Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz. There were numerous righteous Caliphs under the Umayyads
@@Historyun muyawia 2 was rightous but didn’t suleiman torture the nephew of el hajaj(not that hajaj was righous but i don’t think torture is halal) as for hisham in his rule there was twrat zyd bin ali
Soleiman was a patron of Yazeed Ibn Muhallab who was himself tortured by Hajjaj during the reign of Al Waleed. When Soleiman took power, Hajjaj was no longer in the position to continue persecuting the Muhallabids and the tables turned on him and his supporters. It's just the way things are, they settled the scores. Look into what Hajjaj did to the Banu Muhallab (Yazeed Ibn Muhallab especially)
@@Historyun yeah i know hajaj was a horrendus person but i don’t know about his nephew, but anyways i hope one day we would have muslim rulers that at least try to follow the morals of religion
It was prophesied that the Rashidun would be around for 30 years then a Kingdom would emerge there on where the first kingdom Ummayeds were the best and the dynasties that followed couldn’t be on their level In terms of the largest area ruled under Islam the Ummayeds were the number one and no empire afterwards could reach that not even the Ottomans!!!
@@Historyunonly Allah knows best as to what would become today, it is only through the Will, Wisdom and Knowledge of Allah Azza Wa Jal as to what happens
Ummayyads: mean, shrewd, materalistic Duniya loving typical politicians and rulers and were very inseure by the Ahlal bayt’s presences, piety, love in the hearts of the general population of the time. Hence they did lot of damage to the Ahlal Bayt and to the islamic literature to be in the power. Two Parties: Ahlul Bayt and Ummayyads one for purely duniya and Ahlul bayt both for Duniya and Akhirah.
Personally I'm pro ahlul bayt but like the professor said a lot of good has been done during their reign and to be honest the Umayyads didn't do half the damage to ahlal bayt that the Abbasids will eventually do.
the greatest harm to the Muslim Ummah of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam was started by predecessors of the shia majoosi rafidhi zoroastrian fire worshippers which continues even in this age more than the zionazis of today and both of them are from the same ideology
They may have been statement and brought into being a huge kingdom for them over blood of Muslims and Non Muslims both inside and outside. Arabia but they destroyed the concept of Islam as a message of peace among human beings divine and revealed by. Allaha to the extent that today Islam is treated as a religion of oppression and cruelty and we fail to convince in arguements particularly.those from divine. Ibrahmic religions of divine books unfortunately you are defending them and still saying Islam a religion of peace
Banu Ummaya had their faults mistakes and etc etc etc But as an empire and first Islamic kings they were the best especially if you compare them to those afterwards
These statements go against what historical records prove. The Umayyads did not change Islaam, they did perpetuate cruel and even un-Islamic policies (that cannot be denied) but there is no evidence of changing Islam. You must substantiate your claims
If a cruel man who unjustly acquires power plunders others and forcibly subjugates them and then declares himself righteous and rightful ruler does not mean that he changed the very spirit of Islam the message of peace by. Allaha then there is nothing left to be discussed. Alexander and. Mongol khan too conquered territory from east to west on bloodshed but that never makes them righteous and. God sent. Contrary to this. Jesus a s lived short peacefully delivering message of. Allaha and got crucified but today he owns the most part of earth and people living on it. Had these. Umayads or. Abasids not taken Islam and Muslims as hostages for their political lust and power the influence of. Muhammad s a w would be on area and hearts of more people and areas than it is. The result of umayids and. Abasids rule in Europe and western part of middle. East we are reaping today Loot of wealth and women as war returns was their prime motive. Anyway I don’t feel any pride in defending spreading of my faith that way by them. I feel great pleasure and high pride while arguing that for my faith. My lord Allaha chose an orphan to reveal it through him who brought social economic cultural and cross civilisational harmoney within 23 years without seeking any kingdom for himself
@@aldenpadilla1773 Astagfirullah, are you criticizing Hazrat Ali R.A ? It's been narrated from Muhammad S.A.W (a loose interpretation) that anyone who says bad about the Sahaba does not belong to this deen.
@@aldenpadilla1773Brother you speak on a subject you have no proper understanding, please read the comments early Sunni scholars have made regarding the era of fitnah. Not a single one of them speak I'll against Ali RA. Infact many of them say if it wasn't for his wise choices the empire would have been torn into many rival little kingdoms. This is the cousin of the prophet sws raised in his household extreme wise and well versed in the religion. He was put in a very difficult position and handled it the best way he could whilst preventing mass bloodshed. You need to look further into how things unfolded and refrain from criticism of ahlul-bait. Remember we are not the Shia Rafidah whose entire aqeeda is built on cursing the prophets nearest and dearest
Ali RA was hijacked by the Raafida and the deviants just as Eesa Ibn Maryam AS got hijacked by Saul and Trinitarians !!! An Iraqi man once asked Caliph Ali RA on why during the reigns of first two caliphs Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA things were great but under Ali RA it was bad Caliph Ali RA simply answered that during the first two caliphs they had men like me to rule upon but now I have the likes of you to rule upon !!! Iraq was and will always be a land of tribulations trails schisms deviance and unrest
@@aldenpadilla1773 what disgusting Nasibi statement 'Ali said: By the One Who split the seed and created the soul, the [unlettered] Prophet ﷺ, affirmed to me: "No one loves me except a believer and no one hates me except a hypocrite."
i'm thinking of joining your "Umayyad Kingdom" course. can you guys please provide some more details? if i pay, do i immediately get access to all lectures? are there any live sessions or just recordings? will we go through all the umayyad caliphs?
Wa Aleikum Salam. All past lectures are available for replay at your convenience, we have currently got a back catalog of over 30 hours with 10 hours left before the end of the program. The video is taken from a monthly live event for registered and active students to participate in, typically lasts between 3-5 hours per unit. Subscription via Patreon or the Historyun app is $10 and grants access to all program courses (current 6 and growing), not only the Umayyad Kingdom
Believe it or not, and perhaps you may do the research, the Abbasids were the proxy that The Catholic Church did use to destroy the beacon of knowledge light that the Umayyad were.
The following presentation is an extract from a 3 Hour Module as part of the Umayyad Kingdom course. The complete program is accessible exclusively via our official App and private learning platform.
For more information visit our website or directly register via Patreon
➤ Website www.historyun.com/
➤ Patreon (Register) www.patreon.com/historyun/membership
I believe the real Umayyad golden age was during the reign of Umar ibn Abdul Azziz.
It depends. Abdul-Malik's achievements are definitely more momentous, he also had 20 years to realise his plans unlike Umar II was was killed after only 3 years.
@@HistoryOfRevolutions Ameen
Let’s get something clear: Islam is about unity, not fanning the flames of sectarianism. Some of you are so deep in your echo chambers that you've forgotten the bigger picture. Ali belongs to all Muslims, not just those who twist his words to push divisive narratives. Throwing around accusations like ‘Nasibi’ is lazy and shows you have no real arguments. Quoting hadiths selectively while ignoring broader history doesn't make you right it just exposes your bias. If you actually care about the Deen, focus on what unites us, not what divides us. Enough with the venom and chaos if you can't handle engaging with truth and unity, maybe it's time you rethink your priorities. Sectarianism is a disgrace, and Islam is bigger than your narrow agenda.
Islam is what the Sahaba were upon
Not Khariji
Not Raafidi
Not Sho’oubi
Not Qawmaji
Not Hizbi
Not ikhwani
@@EM-tx3ly
Very well said brother
It was non of those things, it was simply ISLAM
The submission to the Almighty.
This comment 💎💯
@@EM-tx3ly so islam is not what the najdi are on. Because the sahaba didn’t call themselves that either, and sahaba such as Ibn Abbas went on your aqeedah. (Even shamsi agrees on this)
Watched the whole video السلام عليكم
Abu Zakariya did an excellent job highlighting the incredible legacy of the Umayyads.
Their contributions to the expansion of the Islamic faith and the establishment of a unified, powerful Empire cannot be overstated.
the Umayyads played a key role in shaping the Arabian National identity and the course of Islamic history.
It's great to see their achievements being recognized and appreciated in this way, Thank you Historyun.
I totally agree with the striking resemblance between the Umayyads and the Al Saud dynasties.
Many Saudi historians have pointed out the parallels, especially between certain figures, and it’s very interesting to see those connections.
Now, let’s address the haters of the Umayyads all of whom criticize them for purely sectarian reasons. The reality is, their legacy is undeniable, and reducing it to these narrow lenses is both lazy and dishonest.
The Umayyads were empire builders who spread Islam far beyond what anyone else had achieved before or after.
If you’re going to attack them, at least have the decency to recognize their monumental contributions to Islamic civilization instead of parroting tired sectarian rhetoric.
Wa Aleikum Salam Dr 😉
Got your email. Barakallahu Feekum, will be in touch soon.
JazakallAhu Khayran for your time and consideration.
And yes, simply ruling the Umayyads out based on prejudice and bias is very shortsighted and dismissive. Only those interested in genuine knowledge will be open to hearing the other side of the story.
To put it simply
They were the best kings of Islam
No Empire afterwards could conquer that expansion as the Ummayeds have done
Not even the Ottomans
@@Historyun
بارك الله فيك
يسعدني جدا ان رسالتي قد وصلت لكم
وشاكر و مقدر لك على جهودك لنشر الوعي
الله يرزقك طاعته وتوفيقه
@@ABN_RUclips look into what scholar from Ahlul Sunnah say about the lines of them.
@@jmurdock8303
Your opinion is absolutely worthless
Salam Alaykum Ustadh.
I have a question regarding Ibn Khaldun's writings. He mentions in one of his books that the early Muslim expansion that was done by the Arabs as very "destructive" and that they destroyed everything they conquered and the فتوحات were negative. He also mentions a lot of negative things about Arabs and how they destroy civilizations. He also has a very negative view of Africans. Was he unaware of history?
Would love to see you address his work regarding this issue.
Wa Aleikum Salam
Great questions. The second question is addressed in the Muqaddimah series on Telegram (Adab Book Club). As for the comments on the Arabs, he mentioned the Bedouins (A'raab) and specified certain clans. He does comment on Arabs in general not being great at construction etc but it's not in the context of conquest and destruction. We will come to that commentary later on in the series. You are welcome to join the Telegram channel for all previous episodes on the Muqaddimah
الرواية المكذوبة على الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام أنه سمح لنصارى نجران بأداء صلاتهم الكفرية في مسجده لا تصح. وغاية ما في الأمر أن هناك رواية مرسلة ذكرها ابن كثير وفيها ابن اسحاق وهو مدلس. فضلا عن أن مضمونها يخالف الأصول وهو أن الرسول صلى الله عليه ويسلم لا يعين الكفار على أداء شعائرهم في مسجده.
ويكفي في القدح في هذه الرواية أنها لم تشتهر مع أنها كانت في المسجد ومع وجود جمع كبير من الصحابة فكان من حقها أن تشتهر ولم يحصل ذلك فلم ترد عن صحابي....
وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ
As a historian, I cite historical sources and Ibn Kathir is one such source. If I were a Muhaddith then what you are presenting would be of concern to me and my audience.
Do not complicate matters beyond what is necessary. Hadith and History are two different fields of study.
If you want to apply the standards of Hadith onto Seerah then be prepared to discard of 90% of what has come to us through the works of Ibn Ishaq, Tabari and several other classical historiographers.
Barakallahu Feekum
@Historyun whilst it is well-known that seerah and historical works are not as rigorous in the authentication of reports, the practicing Muslim has to at least make known when a report that he utilizes is in conflict with principles of the religion. For the Prophet to encourage or allow the Christian delegation to perform their blasphemous prayers in his Masjid is not in accordance with the Sharia. The acceptance of kufr is kufr and the Prophet would never accept that. By the way many people present this story, the audience that doesn't know any better would believe that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم actually did this action and they may also seek to emulate it and thus do commit kufr without knowing. Many people these days are not focused on the obligatory Knowledge and fall into all kinds of things. I placed it there not to be a nuisance but as a help and to protect people from believing that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did such an action. May Allāh ta'ala protect us and guide us to a good end.
Portugal caralho!!!
No alandaluz no Portugal, no Spain...
The Golden period is yet to come.
Outstanding lesson!
Thanks
In my humble opinion, the most successful caliphs from each era are: Omar ibn al khattab ra from the rashidun then Abd al malik ibn marwan for the Umayyads then Abu Jaafar al mansur for the Abbasids.
Hard to disagree with that lineup
May Allah forgive and reward Abdullah ibn zubair
Ameen.
The umayyads except umar ibn abd aziz were quite unislamic in actions but were civilized
Not true. There were several very righteous Umayyads including
• Mu'awiyyah Ibn Yazeed
• Al-Waleed
• Soleiman
• Hisham
The of deeper study on this topic is what results in gross generalisations and fixation only on Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz. There were numerous righteous Caliphs under the Umayyads
@@Historyun muyawia 2 was rightous but didn’t suleiman torture the nephew of el hajaj(not that hajaj was righous but i don’t think torture is halal) as for hisham in his rule there was twrat zyd bin ali
@@Historyun this true
Soleiman was a patron of Yazeed Ibn Muhallab who was himself tortured by Hajjaj during the reign of Al Waleed. When Soleiman took power, Hajjaj was no longer in the position to continue persecuting the Muhallabids and the tables turned on him and his supporters.
It's just the way things are, they settled the scores.
Look into what Hajjaj did to the Banu Muhallab (Yazeed Ibn Muhallab especially)
@@Historyun yeah i know hajaj was a horrendus person but i don’t know about his nephew, but anyways i hope one day we would have muslim rulers that at least try to follow the morals of religion
@42:36. Couldn't agree more. May Allah bless us all to reach such a level of faith and purity.
Thank you for sharing
Thank you for watching
Muqammidah? 😢
Continuing on Telegram from this weekend InshaaAllah
It was prophesied that the Rashidun would be around for 30 years then a Kingdom would emerge there on where the first kingdom Ummayeds were the best and the dynasties that followed couldn’t be on their level
In terms of the largest area ruled under Islam the Ummayeds were the number one and no empire afterwards could reach that not even the Ottomans!!!
And they only ruled for 90 years despite having achieved so much. What if they had ruled for 500 years!
@@Historyun
Well in Andalus they ruled for 300 years the best days Al Andalus have ever had !!!
@@Historyunonly Allah knows best as to what would become today, it is only through the Will, Wisdom and Knowledge of Allah Azza Wa Jal as to what happens
Ummayyads: mean, shrewd, materalistic Duniya loving typical politicians and rulers and were very inseure by the Ahlal bayt’s presences, piety, love in the hearts of the general population of the time. Hence they did lot of damage to the Ahlal Bayt and to the islamic literature to be in the power.
Two Parties: Ahlul Bayt and Ummayyads
one for purely duniya and Ahlul bayt both for Duniya and Akhirah.
Personally I'm pro ahlul bayt but like the professor said a lot of good has been done during their reign and to be honest the Umayyads didn't do half the damage to ahlal bayt that the Abbasids will eventually do.
the greatest harm to the Muslim Ummah of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam was started by predecessors of the shia majoosi rafidhi zoroastrian fire worshippers which continues even in this age more than the zionazis of today and both of them are from the same ideology
in the Quran it says we can shorten the prayer but ask sunnis they'll tell you YOU CANT 😭
Controversial but highly effective dynasty. Historically we can study them no problem but from Islamic point of view, they dont have our respect.
Is AbdulMalik the one who built the golden dome mosque (Dome of the Rock) in Jerusalem?
Yes
They may have been statement and brought into being a huge kingdom for them over blood of Muslims and Non Muslims both inside and outside. Arabia but they destroyed the concept of Islam as a message of peace among human beings divine and revealed by. Allaha to the extent that today Islam is treated as a religion of oppression and cruelty and we fail to convince in arguements particularly.those from divine. Ibrahmic religions of divine books unfortunately you are defending them and still saying Islam a religion of peace
Banu Ummaya had their faults mistakes and etc etc etc
But as an empire and first Islamic kings they were the best especially if you compare them to those afterwards
These statements go against what historical records prove. The Umayyads did not change Islaam, they did perpetuate cruel and even un-Islamic policies (that cannot be denied) but there is no evidence of changing Islam. You must substantiate your claims
If a cruel man who unjustly acquires power plunders others and forcibly subjugates them and then declares himself righteous and rightful ruler does not mean that he changed the very spirit of Islam the message of peace by. Allaha then there is nothing left to be discussed. Alexander and. Mongol khan too conquered territory from east to west on bloodshed but that never makes them righteous and. God sent. Contrary to this. Jesus a s lived short peacefully delivering message of. Allaha and got crucified but today he owns the most part of earth and people living on it. Had these. Umayads or. Abasids not taken Islam and Muslims as hostages for their political lust and power the influence of. Muhammad s a w would be on area and hearts of more people and areas than it is. The result of umayids and. Abasids rule in Europe and western part of middle. East we are reaping today Loot of wealth and women as war returns was their prime motive. Anyway I don’t feel any pride in defending spreading of my faith that way by them. I feel great pleasure and high pride while arguing that for my faith. My lord Allaha chose an orphan to reveal it through him who brought social economic cultural and cross civilisational harmoney within 23 years without seeking any kingdom for himself
Why pro Ummayyad when they did so much damage to Ahl Al Bayt and thus a very negative effect on the religion to this day!
@@aldenpadilla1773 Astagfirullah, are you criticizing Hazrat Ali R.A ?
It's been narrated from Muhammad S.A.W (a loose interpretation) that anyone who says bad about the Sahaba does not belong to this deen.
@@aldenpadilla1773 How dare you talk about Ali r.a. this way? You're not from the AhlusSunnah.
@technicious-dev you guys should just be refuting him or is he actually not lying?
@@aldenpadilla1773Brother you speak on a subject you have no proper understanding, please read the comments early Sunni scholars have made regarding the era of fitnah. Not a single one of them speak I'll against Ali RA. Infact many of them say if it wasn't for his wise choices the empire would have been torn into many rival little kingdoms. This is the cousin of the prophet sws raised in his household extreme wise and well versed in the religion. He was put in a very difficult position and handled it the best way he could whilst preventing mass bloodshed. You need to look further into how things unfolded and refrain from criticism of ahlul-bait. Remember we are not the Shia Rafidah whose entire aqeeda is built on cursing the prophets nearest and dearest
Ali RA was hijacked by the Raafida and the deviants just as Eesa Ibn Maryam AS got hijacked by Saul and Trinitarians !!!
An Iraqi man once asked Caliph Ali RA on why during the reigns of first two caliphs Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA things were great but under Ali RA it was bad
Caliph Ali RA simply answered that during the first two caliphs they had men like me to rule upon but now I have the likes of you to rule upon !!!
Iraq was and will always be a land of tribulations trails schisms deviance and unrest
Thank you for sharing your knowledge
Thank you for sharing your time
You really did video about one of the murderers of Sahabah Abdullah Ibn Zubayr ?
@@aldenpadilla1773May Allah hold you accountable for this statement if you don't seek knowledge and repent, Jahil.
Why are you talking shit? That’s too both of you!
@@aldenpadilla1773 you are ignorant of Hadith and Islamic history with. This comment alone.
@@user-lx2hn6qk9r because this isn't something very trivial this the history of Deen.
@@aldenpadilla1773 what disgusting Nasibi statement 'Ali said: By the One Who split the seed and created the soul, the [unlettered] Prophet ﷺ, affirmed to me: "No one loves me except a believer and no one hates me except a hypocrite."
i'm thinking of joining your "Umayyad Kingdom" course. can you guys please provide some more details? if i pay, do i immediately get access to all lectures? are there any live sessions or just recordings? will we go through all the umayyad caliphs?
Wa Aleikum Salam. All past lectures are available for replay at your convenience, we have currently got a back catalog of over 30 hours with 10 hours left before the end of the program.
The video is taken from a monthly live event for registered and active students to participate in, typically lasts between 3-5 hours per unit.
Subscription via Patreon or the Historyun app is $10 and grants access to all program courses (current 6 and growing), not only the Umayyad Kingdom
Believe it or not, and perhaps you may do the research, the Abbasids were the proxy that The Catholic Church did use to destroy the beacon of knowledge light that the Umayyad were.
@@VirgilJJacks can you guide me to some sources?
You got sources for that? That's quite the claim.