First Muslim Civil War - Early Muslim Expansion DOCUMENTARY 

"Whoever kills an innocent human being,it shall be as if he has killed all mankind,and whoever saves the life of one,it shall be as if he has saved the life of the whole mankind." Quran-Chapter -5(Verse--32) .Quran tells to kill and fight only with those non-muslims who try to kill muslims first and try to capture the land of muslims..And if possible they should be forgiven according to Quran..Ask a real islamic scholar.

This period of the caliphate is the most complicated for me

Finally, after being late for 2 months from the time you promised us that you'll upload it

Impressive keep it up 👍

History empire andalusia War

crazy to think right

@علي ياسر this was before the ummayyads though, thats why the comment was made. The rashidun caliphs were not living lavishly and were in normal houses like other people.

Even the caliph (equal to king) live in a simple houses in this early caliphate periods. No castle, no kingsguard

And it’s insane how Muawiyah, son of the woman that hated Mohammed the most (Hind) , was able to start a brand new dynasty taking everything Mohammed tried so hard to create.

@@georgeso4364 he didn't take everything nor did he actually do anything messed up either, his son was the one who did terrible crimes. Muawiyah was a true muslim and he simply made a mistake that he couldn't have seen the consequences off. Also the change the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was making was religious, the political aspect wasn't really the point. I dare say its insane how the woman who was one of the most abusive towards muslims had her own son and dynasty become muslim rulers!

Ali's companion who was also there: "bruh"

@@triplem5770 Iraq is forever the land of strife upheavels and sects It takes a firm tough cunning man to rule there

Spelling error: not ‘man’ men.

"Emotional damage"

@@harps_Nous Thanks for correction Ali was too honest and upright but the Iraqis were a treacherous lot Al Hasan gave up power for he knew their incompetence Al Hussain unfortunately got killed by their cowardice and treachery Ali Al Sajad never listened to their lies Jaafer Al Sadeq knew their filth that's why he lived taught and died in Tayyibah or Al Madina Somethings never change

That's the work of propaganda. Every country and every side has to convince its followers or citizens that their actions are right and just. For everything there is a justification. The enemy on other hand would also write history in their perspective and interest.

@@ivokantarski6220 both sides of major wars since Napoleon days be funded by the same people, it's best in this day and age for all people to not be tricked into war of good Vs evil

@@mrright9437 THANK YOU!!!!!! I can’t believe how many Muslims will listen to this and believe this BS. Sure somethings he says are true, but most arent. Thalha, Zubayr,Ali and Uthman were from the 10 given the glad tidings of Jenna, but we have a boat load of Muslims that want to believe they cared about power and were afraid of losing influence etc. unbelievable. How bout reading Islamic books of history. Too lazy? Cool, then how bout listening to a Muslim scholar who spent years studying these events instead of a secularist who googled most of this info.

@@mrright9437 What makes you think that atheists or non-Muslims always have an ulterior motive? He is merely stating what historians recorded, Muslims and non-Muslims, Sunni and Shia. Oftentimes when you hear the story of all sides you find that truth lies somewhere in the middle.

@@mrright9437 Ok. Then let me ask you this. Which sources would you have me believe, Sunni or Shia?

The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire." Sahih al-Bukhari 2812

@@HannibalBarca-jv4px ahsant

​@@HannibalBarca-jv4px Last words of calling are idraaj and not words of prophet sw

Yeah but a weak leader Fitna started by his reign and he was made khalifa by people who killed Usman rz

​​​​@@psychobuddy17actually Usman was the weak one not Ali the devision of Muslims started from time of Usman Usman couldn't handle a rebellion but Ali defended him and that rebellion was because of his bad and weak ruling second when you have a mother of momenin rising against you which she shouldn't be doing (according to all Muslims) you would lose some influence thus you have a weaker ruling and weaker Omah third when you have a opportunist person like Muawiah (that all Muslims know him and his father and his son and passing power to his unworthy son is a prove to that ) waiting for a opportunity to get back in power and having half of your country in his grasp it's hard to be a strong leader

😂

😂

It’s funny 😅😂

The truth is with Ali and Ali is with the truth. Those that are wrong are in hell.

Ali was the righteous one. I still question why are we sunnis. We are the ones who oppressed our shia brothers.

A very sensible comment. Agree with each word. 💯 I do think K&G shouldn't get into this though.

Can’t we just be honest and admit that these famous people in history were all ambitious and cunning people that selfishly clung to power and cared not about the welfare of humanity?

​@@Alejandro-te2nt sunni jurisprudential methodology is that of iblis. Quite literally. Iblis did qiyas and he was cursed to hell yet I find it odd in what world do sunnis think their qiyas and istislah, and istidlal, etc going to take them to Jannah. like you might as well just tell Allah to retire and take over for him in making halal and haram based on your "analogy". This is enough to invalidate sunni methodology even if we ignore the fact that sunnis have very minuscule amount hadith to take sunnah from even if we accept all sunni hadith are sahih every single one, even then they still fall short. And you say that "methodology of scholarship" as if we don't have scholarships lol. As for the Sunni and shia animosity being a modern phenomenon is not such a modern phenomenon. The only difference is that shia are allowed to be vocal now especially in the west without the fear of getting their heads chopped off. Before, most shia won't even publicly declare being shia because of how oppressive sunni rulers were for the past 1400 years, and even now in not such educated parts of the Sunni world, Shias are still being killed. So we quietly literally had to walk on eggshells around Sunnis in case some dumb-ass Sunni scholar issuing another fatwa or caliph making "the blood of shia is more halal to spill than red wine" (yes that's a real fatwa). Lastly, do not disrespect Imam Ali with the RA after his name. It should be only AS. It's not "may allah be pleased with him" as if Allah is in some way not pleased with Ali. Allah most definitely is happy and pleased with Ali, a testimony of the prophet and found in sahih Sunni books. There is no ikhtilaf on it.

Can you please link the hadith

@@comradekenobi6908 Just because you dont know much about islam, doesnt make you right. If you’re truly a muslim, who is the first khalifah, and also who is the current khalifah

@@comradekenobi6908 you're right, non Muslims were the first people to say "Islam is a religion on peace". No! Islam is a religion of truth and justice

@@comradekenobi6908 you are truthful, may Allah reward you

@@comradekenobi6908 Well, yes you’re right. I was just testing you. But I prefer to only call rashidun caliphate as khalifah and some khalifs during the time of umayyad caliphate

4th Fitna? The war between the sons of Harun Al Rashid

@@abusuleymantariq2137 yep, or The Great Abbasid Civil War. To be honest, the way Abbasid fell is very interesting, because unlike previous Empires (eg. Achaemenid Empire), Caliph simply became spiritual leader while while many kindgoms flourished, especially Persian ones, that is until Mongols came. Same thing in the west with Tai'fas, except Christian menance didn't come out of nowhere.

@@aleksapetrovic6519 Well the Christian Spanish were really the successors of the conquered Visigothic Kingdom...

@@aleksapetrovic6519 The turks also came after and became very powerful in the Abbasid caliphate as well, until like you said the Caliph became a spiritual leader only.

@@NobleKorhedron True, but we are talking about Muslims and for them Christians were just northern nusiance until they became serious treat.

😏 anything that involves human grouping ends up in faction. That is fact. People are superior to religion, that is why religion will never change what makes us human. In a group 5 human, there is high possibility of 3 to 2 sub group formed. You can take history of any religion or culture, the answer is the same. The Creator of mankind knows it too.

@@RB-cool00701 "people are superior to religion" then why were the worst killers in history were either athiest or didn't follow the rules of the religions they claimed to follow? The religions we have keep us grounded to unchanging laws and are very important, without religion our rules change and we lose sight of what is humane and fair treatment. Without religion we made nuclear weapons, concentration camps, napalm and white phosphorous, and we decimate cityblocks at a time with weapons. Meanwhile in Islamic warfare for example, killing civilians is haram as is using fire weaponry. Its also haram to be racist and ethnically cleanse people. Without religion we do horrible things.

If only Aisha followed this command in the Koran...

Be aware of what you will all say because you are apeaking about the prophet PBUH Companions

Youssef Zidan Is that a threat?

The civil war occurred because of the murder of the elected caliphs successor. It was a war made by rebels, khawarij

What about the Shias?

@@aegystierone8505 Shias only regard a handful of companions as righteous and disregard the faith of the others and say that they were not real muslims.

@@aegystierone8505 Shia is not Islam

@@ahmadsalek976 also few other companions like Salman al farsi. The Persian companion

Aisha's demand was to revenge from the murderers of caliph uthman, as they entered in caliph ali's army, and Ali accepted to revenge from the murderers. Who were later called khawarij or kharijites, and would also assassinate the 4th caliph, Ali

Kufans were far less reliable and more prone to disarray than Syrians Although Ali was the better commander and military leader but his troops let him down and formed spilnter group Khawarij that Ultimately led to assassination of Caliph himself No Khawarij found in Al Sham though

Kufa seems far from Medina. Why go so far?

@@kumarg3598 People from Kufah are treacherous, that was Ali's biggest mistake because he trusted them.

@@wewenang5167 don't scold the whole people, this is haram. Although generally true, but there are many good people there

Brave, K&G. Very brave. Not even a disclaimer. lol. Just don't show a picture of the Prophet!

It’s empire and rashidun caliphate is one of the most largest empires ever

😭😭

Bro if kings and generals try doing karbala, they will mess up and have tons of backlash, this is not advisable

@Faheem Yusuf I know, but I don't think they can just skip Karbala! It is a pretty important event in that time period and with the whole fitna theme that they started this season of their Early Muslim expansion series with, I feel they are going to somehow include Karbala...

He already talks about Karbala in the video Shia Sunni divide.

@@SuperMfy1 he already did an episode about Karbala like a year ago, it's called Muslim schism or something like that, and as usual with this channel it's very well researched and detailed.

Mukhtar Al Thaqafi has a really good tv show u should watch

@@r.a.2392 Christians believe Jesus Christ is God in human form, that's the difference. That's where the phrase "Lord and Savior" come from.

Some parts are inaccurate though

@@ibrahim-sj2cr from my understanding everything was accurate. He just missed out key points like it was khwariji who caused confusion and started the war between Ali and Aisha or that it was Hasan and Hussein who took Aisha back home after Ali forgave her and they made up etc

@@zccau2316 khawarij were after the battle of seffin, you just make up stuff to justify what Aisha did, ten of thousands of muslims were killed because of her, she disobeyed Allah when he ordered all the prophet's wives to satay in their homes yet she went on a camel ride leading an army and then you say it's the khawarij, what a hypocrisy

@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 She is not the prophet's wife anymore, she used to be yeah but Prophet Muhammad died. In Islam the sacred oath of marriage ended right after death of the wife or husband. That's why muslims were forbidden to keep the sperm seeds of their husband to be used after their husbands death.

@@zccau2316 you liar moviaya ibn Abu Sufyan contested Allah's Captain

I blv Ali just like uthman believed cracking down on the rebels would fracture the caliphate.. so they didnt want the caliphate to crumble and break away… mayb they were right..

Great points. Also in the end both Ali and Aisha made up. From what I recall it was Hassan and Hussein who took Aisha back not Muhammed Ibn Abi Bakr

Zubayer, Talha and Aisha didn't had a right to Uthman blood so to revenge him by their on hand and they weren't the persons of authority to bring justice, the khalifa was, this was an excuse to grab power from Ali and take the khilafa for them, some narrations state that they are the ones instigated the killing of Uthman to take the khilafa but when they saw the muslims going towards Ali they claimed that they want justice. Again they have no right whatsoever. AzZahbi narrates Ali when he met Zubayer he said to him "you want from me the blood of Uthman and you are the one who killed him" Alos he narrates "when Ali arrived at basra he sent Zubayer, Talha and Aisha a messenger baring a Quran to spare the blood of muslims yet they killed him and he was the first to be killed his name was Muslim al juhani" Also it was known that the killers of Uthman were in madina not basra, why they went their if they wanted justice? And we all know that Iraq was were the supporters of Ali reside and kufa was his chosen capital, so we see that they wanted to strike the base of the supporters of Ali to take the power from him and it wasn't about justice. They killed Uthman to take power, and when that didn't happen they fought Ali to take the power from him

@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 definitely a shia… not considered to b muslims… u write as if u saw it all… how on earth did aisha or zubayr kill uthman or why d they?? It was decided by them after death of umar that after uthman it ll be Ali who d b khalifa.. so u shias have ur own version of history..not based on truth or facts just slander against the companions of the prophet…

@@azzamfauzy3676 Yes i'm a shia, so are you going to tkfir me and blow me up and cut my head off like your forefathers did before ? As for what i said it's all in your books but you don't read nor do you comprehend, note down the narrations of the killing of Uthman روي عن عبد الله بن عياش بن أبي ربيعة أنه دخل على عثمان بن عفان وقت حصاره في بيته من قبل الثوار، فسمع كلام الثوار فمرَّ عليهم طلحة بن عبيد الله ودعى ابن عديس وناجاه، ثم رجع ابن عديس وقال لأصحابه: لا تتركوا أحداً يدخل على هذا الرجل، ولا يخرج من عنده، فقال عثمان: هذا ما أمر به طلحة بن عبيد الله، ثم قال عثمان: اللهم اكفني طلحة بن عبيد اللَّه، فإنه حمل عليّ هؤلاء وألبهم، واللَّه إني لأرجو أن يكون منها صِفرًا، وأن يُسفَكَ دَمه، إنَّه انتهكَ مني ما لا يحلُّ لهُ. تاريخ الطبري ج٤ ص٣٧٩,٣٧٨ قال اليعقوبي: وحصر ابن عديس البلوي عثمان في داره، فناشدهم الله، ثم نشد مفاتيح الخزائن، فأتوا بها إلى طلحة بن عبيد الله، وعثمان محصور في داره، وكان أكثر من يؤلّب عليه طلحة والزبير وعائشة. تاريخ اليعقوبي ص١٧٦ دخل المغيرة بن شعبة على عائشة، فقالت: يا أبا عبد الله لو رأيتني يوم الجمل قد نفذت النصال هودجي، حتى وصل بعضها إلى جلدي، فقال لها المغيرة: وددت والله أن بعضها كان قتلك، فقالت: يرحمك الله، ولم تقول هذا؟ قال: لعلها تكون كفّارة في سعيك على عثمان، فقالت: أما والله لئن قلت ذلك لما علم الله أني أردت قتله، ولكن علم الله أني أردتُ أن يُقاتل فَقوتلتْ، وأردتُ أن يُرمى فرُميتْ، وأردتُ أن يُعصى فعُصيتْ؛ ولو عَلِمَ مني أني أردت قتله لقُتلت. العقد الفريد ج٥ ص٤٦ These narrations in your own books shows that Aisha Talha and Zubayer instigated the people to kill Uthman, بعد مبايعة المسلمين لعلي بالخلافة وامتناع معاوية بن أبي سفيان من البيعة عزم، على الخروج لحربه، وبينما هو يتجهز للخروج إلى الشام أتاه الخبر أن طلحة والزبير وعائشة قد خرجوا يطلبون بدم عثمان، ويريدون التوجه إلى البصرة، فتجمعوا في مكة لذهاب عائشة إلى هناك، وفي طريقها إلى مكة لما كانت بمنطقة سرف لقيها عبيد الله بن أبي سلمة (ابن أم كلاب) وهو من أخوالها، وأخبرها بقتل عثمان، واجتماع الناس على بيعة علي، فقالت: ليت هذه انطبقت على هذه إن تم الأمر لصاحبك، ردُّوني ردُّوني، فانصرفت إلى مكة، وهي تقولُ: قُتِلَ واللَّه عثمانُ مظلوماً، واللَّه لأطلُبنَّ بدمه، فقال لها: وَلِمَ؟ واللَّه إنّ أوّل من أمال حَرفهُ لأنتِ، ولقد كنت تقولين: اقتلوا نعثلاً فقد كفر. قالت: إنهم استتابوه ثم قتلوه، وقد قلت وقالوا، وقولي الأخير خير من قولي الأول، فقال لها ابن أم كلاب: فمنكِ البَدَاءُ ومنــــــــــــك الغِير ‏ ومنكِ الرِّياح ومنكِ المطــــــــــــــرْ وأنتِ أمرتِ بقتل الإمــــــــــــــــام وقلتِ لنا إنه قد كفــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــرْ فهبنا أطعناكِ في قتلـــــــــــــــــــــهِ وقاتلهُ عندنا من أمــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــرْ ولم يسقط السقف من فوقنا‏ ولم ينكسف شمسنا والقمـــــــــــــرْ وقد بـــــــــــــــــــايع الناس ذا تُدرإٍ يُزيلُ الشبا ويُقيم الصَّعَــــــــــــــــــــرْ ويلبسُ للحـــــــــــــــــــــــربِ أثوابها‏ وما من وفى مثل من قد غــدرْ الكامل في التاريخ ابن الأثير ج٢ ص٥٧٠,٥٦٩ This narration says how when Aisha new about Uthman's death and Ali became the khalifa she started saying i will avenge Uthman and so and so, as such Aubidllah ebn Um salama said to her didn't you said kill Na'athal he commit blasphemy... Talha and Zubayer voted for Ali so they can get to rule Iraq and Yeman and when he didn't gave them what they want, they went on to say we want to avenge Uthman and took Aisha with them as she didn't want to see Ali as khalifa, and made this an excuse to rebel against Ali, it's not our version of history it's all in your books, weird how you don't read tour books and follow blindly like sheep, the slander about those sahaba are from your books i referenced them go read and so your homework, tell me by what you said that they decide Ali is the khalifa why they fought him ? What is the penalty for fighting the rightful khalifa according to you ? Why did Aisha went to basra on a camel while Allah ordered her to stay at her home like the rest of the wives of the prophet ? That alone condemns her, why she did fitnah and thousands of muslims were killed because of her ?

That is actually incorrect. Even with Abubakar's complied mushaf. There were still a number of others, that were notably slightly different. Like Abdullah ibn Masoud's, and the mushaf of Fatma. A couple of early Muslim scholars and historians spoke of it. Al qurtubi for instance.

@@giovannijunior9642 I did not dispute this. I just said that the way he said it in the video made it seem like Uthman(ra) compiled a quran himself, when all he did was check the other qurans against the one that he knew was correct as it had originated from just after the death of the prophet, and then burned the ones that has errors compared to this master copy

@@giovannijunior9642 Actually, what you said is incorrect, at least partly. When Zayd bin Sabid compiled the Quran under Abu bakr's Caliphate, the companians of the prophet sav agreed on his compilation. Zayd bin Sabid was someone who was known for his amazing level of Hifz (regarding his memorization of the Quran) but nevertheless he insisted on getting witnesses for every single verse, no witness could testify for 2 verses. This lead to this unquestionable level of accuracy. So what is the whole "slight differences" issue? It is the issue of Qiraat in the Quran. The different reading styles. These are not man-made, but divine. They all stem from the Prophet sav and there are 7 Mutawatir level authentic reading styles (including the Asim Qiraat that is the most used since uthman). All of these have a chain of narration going through the huge companions like Abdullah ibn Masoud or Abdullah ibn Abbas up to the Prophet sav, having him as the source of it. Some few Qurans also had slight mistakes from the original due to the Hifz (memorization) of the author being wrong in parts. Notably, these were the minority and the huge majority of Muslims agreed that these were, in fact, mistakes by those people. After Zayd bin sabid had compiled the Quran in a single Mushaf with his authentic method, this mushaf was kept with Hafsa bint Umar, the wife of the prophet sav. Long story short, Uthman made copies of it and sent them to the city centers and ordered that the populous may copy the Quran that was sent and burn all other Qurans they had at home, in order to prevent mistakes from occurring in the reading of the Quran. Regarding the "Abdullah bin Masuds Quran" you mentioned: He didnt have a "Quran". He didnt have a book. It was his Qiraat that you refer to. His Qiraat wasnt "another version" it was merely a different Qiraat formt he Qiraat of the majority of Muslims, nonetheless an authentic one traced to the prophet sav himself. A senior scholar to his, known for his accuracy in memorization, Exegese and understanding of the Quran, the cousin of the prophet sav, ibn Abbas (ra) noted that: "My Qiraat is the Qiraat of Zayd (bin Sabid, the man who compiled the Quran) [ie. i agree with him], but i agree with about 10 readings of ibn Mesuds Qiraat." [ibn Abu Dawud, Kitabul Mashahif, Page 55]. Abdullah ibn Masud simply didn't have another Quran, he just had a different Qiraah, which wasn't destroyed by Uthman or something like that, the Isnad of many authentic Qiraat go through him. Regarding the "mushaf of Fatima": This isn't even claimed to be a Quran-Mushaf. The existence of the Mushaf of Fatima is only claimed by the Shia. Sunnis, who make up 90% of Muslims, don't even acknowledge its claimed existence. Shias claim, that when the prophet sav died, the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) came and talked to Fatima, the daughter of the prophet sav to "cheer her up". He would convey her predictions of the future and talk to her. The Mushaf of Fatima is claimed to have documented these conversations between her and Jibreel as well as some predictions of the future brought to her by the same angel. As i have said, only Shias regard this presumed Mushaf to be real and even if it is real, this doesn't proof anything since nobody claims this is a Quranic mushaf but some sort of different revelation that has nothing to do with the Quran. And i'm sure Qurtubi spoke of it, but you should know that not only "early Muslims scholars and historians" have spoke of it, as if this is some kind of secret matter, but even contemporary Muslim scholars and historians talk of it, not to forget the classical ones. I would also kindly ask you regarding your sources, where did you get this misinformation from (The Qiraat of Abdullah bin Masoud and Mushaf of Fatima)?

@ddd786 corrections to your correction. You made a slight but important mistake. The Muslims already had a fully compiled Qur'an from the time of the prophet done under his direct supervision. Right after the death of the prophet, Ali was tasked, by the prophet, to compile the chronological and with tafsir, the Qur'an. Then later Ali the true father of Arabic grammar whose student, abu al aswad, was ordered by Imam Ali, added the correct vowels so everyone can recite it in the correct Quraishi dialect.

@Ibrahim Alloush you are aware burning the other qurans was not blasphemy because to only way to get rid of something in a pure way is burning of burying. This is the Islamic stance.

I'd like to see more, too, but you should also check out their existing videos that go into detail on many of the Islamic Caliphates. Though I don't know if ALL entities in history that have referred to themselves as "Caliphates" are considered Caliphates by ALL Muslims--meaning some of the Muslim empires in these videos might fall short--I suspect there's plenty to suit all tastes. E.g. the Ottoman Caliphate has a whole of videos on this channel! To find it, just click on the words Kings and Generals under the image, then click "Playlist" and find "Ottoman History" at the very bottom. You will also find some applicable videos in the Medieval Battles playlist, and any playlist that has the word "Crusade" in it. :) You can also search for these video titles, which have a lot of stuff about many caliphates, even if not all the videos are solely about the caliphates. Here are some I think would apply, with the most caliphate-y ones at the top: 1. Berber Empires: Zirids, Almoravids and Almohads DOCUMENTARY 2. Muslim Schism: How Islam Split into the Sunni and Shia Branches 3. Islamic Golden Age: Scientific Method DOCUMENTARY 4. Islamic Golden Age: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities 5. Battle of Talas 751 - Abbasid - Tang War DOCUMENTARY 6. Crusades from the Muslim Perspective 7. Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) DOCUMENTARY (The last one is largely about Al-Andalus/Spain as a whole, and shows the time when the Emirate of Cordoba declared THEMSELVE to be the "Caliphate of Cordoba.")

@@d.m.collins1501 Yes I have seen these except for the Berber one though I want them to make one on the Fatimid Caliphate as well as the early Umayyad and Abbasid rule

@@d.m.collins1501 Thank You for highlighting these videos for me!!! I will be sure to check them out!

@@d.m.collins1501thank you!

Quite sad story for us Muslims, marked the first split of unity between ummah

Salam brother, that hadith is da'if. The hadith about the wrong side is about the Siffin battle between Muawiya and Ali.

There is no clear hadith that condemns one side of the future battle of the Camel. But there is a sahih hadith about the killers of Amar Ibn Yassir being the wrong side, this was the battle of Siffin. The battle of Siffin is comprehensive & difficult to blame one side, it was a real fitnah because people wanted to restore back dignity of the caliphate and punish Othman killers, Ali didn't follow that path because he had his ijtihad and wanted stability and avoiding more bloodshed. But Siffin battle was a war for power, where it seems Muawiyah's goal was taking power at all costs and Allah knows best. This doesn't help Shia who deviated from islam.

@@ldz8746 Salam Brother, regarding the hadith it is not weak as your saying I found it صحيح authuntic in a book called الحاكم النيسابوري - المستدرك على الصحيحين Every muslim fought against Ali is wrong there had been 3 civil wars against Ali and he is right in all wars and the oposers are wrong that is actually a hadith that says: truth is with Ali and Ali is with truth.

@@ldz8746 the salafis are the ones delaited from Islam through there teachings, there are plenty of hadiths about the battle of the camel, I believe the hadith of the dogs of hawab is clear to show that Ali is right and Aysha is wrong. Siffin war is more than clear, a lot of Sahabas joined the battle and fought Mowiya

@@brotherjaafar2861 It is not related to Salafiya, the old scholars themselves weakened the hadith due to very bad Sanad, but no one denies the hadith about Amar Ibn Yassir killers which condemns Muawiya very clearly. If we start taking hadiths from here and there without looking at Sanad (thing which is very common in most Chiia books) then we will start making stories which will match our wishes. And that is a catastrophy.

no! both were right...the only wrong people here are the khawarij and treacherous Persian people from Kufah.

@@wewenang5167 you are majnun. so the killers and the killed are going to jannah? don't make a joke of Allah's justice.

@@mmss3199 let me get this right. So what you are saying, some people can go to jannah for killing sahabis because it was a "mistake" but someone who just only talk "bad" about them are going to hell? I think the Allah that willing to let the killers of believer into heaven won't give two cents about me "slandering" the dead as you put it. Because that Allah's justice is nothing more than a goat's fart. Read Quran and read about what's the crime of killing a believer. "whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind,"

MM SS People can make mistakes!!! And why should we follow someone who makes such a big mistakes (The biggest mistake that could have happened) and get a religion ?!! In addition, People may make mistakes. Not that they can make mistakes.🙂

Shut up please! You don’t know their intentions so keep you nonsense to yourself.

Religious history is like seeing the history of human's cancer of the soul and mind. Sky fairies do nor exist and an Imam or two ended all further learning when Indo-Arabic mathematics had established the basis of the modern technological miracles but abandoned them for ignorance and faith in a farcical myth for 1500 years. Christians were just as vile and vicious. Jews, other than that Goliath myth, didn't muster armies or kings. India's Hindus defeated Islam. Pakistan is still pissed.

Ah, so he caved in to threats.

@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 First of all, it's not a he, it's a group of people. The narrator is just that, the narrator. And no one threatened him, as a matter of fact, most of the people in comments are civilized and if anyone shares criticism, I see it being shared in a constructive and respectful manner. So, maybe stop being a lying prick and enjoy the content for once.

​@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 oh shut up Ranjeet

Every Empire's fall is marked by constant infighting

Alexander's empire had the worst, empire fractured nanosecond after he died Mongols had the fourth worst,, and even after the break up, for a time the emperors of china-mongolia could keep others in check at least in one way or another. Third worst would be carolingian empire which just kept breaking up, getting united and breaking up again. The western Francia after the last interregnum evolved into HRE which was.. (you probably know the memes) Second worst would be Umayyad. (No comment. RU-vid would delete it otherwise.)

@@mayankbisht7691 Agreed. But I observe it mostly in the case of those empires which swiftly emerged & expanded. Other large Empires like Rome, Persia, Maurya etc established & expanded over long spans of time & it took centuries for Rome, Persia etc to reach their extents of heighted control, allowing them to establish their cultural, legal & political basis strongly in annexed areas. Thus their decline also took time.

@@hannibalburgers477 I would agree with regarding Umayyads. They were mostly usurpers, who believed on Arabian Superiority & tried to use Islam for their own Political Benefits. I will not say any further. Otherwise, my Muslim Brethren who harbor sensations for Umayyads will not hesitate from attacking my loyalty to my religion. Regarding, Alexander or Mongols, I'll say that I observed their empire's expansion based on their military tactics & strategies. Ultimately they didn't had any basic political or cultural cause to keep their empire unified. Which led to their fracture. Regarding Carolingian Empire, it fractured, but it left up two out of three successors to emerge up as strong future kingdoms. East & West Francia who would make up after centuries modern France & Germany. But Alexander's or Mongol's Empire didn't left up a permanent successor.

@@worldofknowledge4802 this is a misconception they didn’t necessarily believe in Arab superiority but they didn’t want to ruin the status quo of the rulership by adding non Arabs this was reversed by the Abbasids who started appointing non Arabs as govenors and this will eventually ruin the caliphate because these governors would start dynasties and become more independent

Someone speak the Truthh...

Because its true. The Romans and the Persians literally warredd and civil warred all over their empires for almost 3 decades while being ravaged by the plague. Why do you think heraclius went on an all out attack when reduced to just Greece and North Africa but basically gave up post Yarmouk. He even had to take loans from the church and melt their gold to raise his final army against persia.

@@ghostd69 it was a continuous 30 year war. Like not have a battle stop and pick up after recover but 30 years of non stop fighting and in fighting with the plague which also damaged and fractured alot of the defences. The biggest reason was how quickly the Arab expansion happened. They weren't given enough breathing time to recover and draw upon the resources of their empires. ts still a very impressive series of conquests that have happened only a few times in history. Roman and Persian weakness doesn't change that.

@@lordloss3398 And also the Plague you talking aboout happened after roman eas exiled from levante..its occured 639 it was called Plague of Amwas was just spread on south west levante..much excusss??

Indeed. These 3 are legends, their status only diminished only because they all existed at the same time and because Khalid was probably a another level of his own.

Lol how abdullah ibn e saba persuaded aisha to fight ali?

@@raheelhaider9295 wow😅

It was maviyah intent to hold power and he used revenge of Usman r.a as shield

They are the criminals, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Amr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuza’i, Malik al-Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Badil and Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhaifah.They attacked Uthman ibn Affan in his house and cut him to pieces.Amr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuza’i says (I stabbed Uthman 9 stabs 6 of them to allah and 3 of them when I had in my heart against Uthman)

@@raheelhaider9295 Wow, Ali refused to punish uthman killers . Abdullah saba persuaded hussein to die n karbala. did hussein not have common sense?

Shush

@@ahmadsalek976 he’s right lol

@@ahmadsalek976 it's a shame we don't have unbiased sources, because most of the source have political agenda based on their allegiance

@@ahmadsalek976 I agree with you 100% brother. We have some of the best record-keeping.

There are better sources, go watch videos of منجم التاريخ and you will know what I am talking about

@williamperese stfu atheism has killed more people than Islam and Christianity combined.

Real

@@raphanonymous22 He is lying bro

@@Itz_iraki prove me he is lying?

@@raphanonymous22 He cant give Ayyah or word in quraan and a speech from the prophet go agree with his opinion , Imam Ali gave bya’a for Abo bakr , Umar and Uthman

@@Itz_iraki what is b'yaa

Yasir qadhi: Koran has holes in it. 🤡

Actually Uthman removed any mushaf مصحف except his side (known mushaf uthmani today) for prevent any confusing of many letters and dialects. Majority people especially muslims cannot differentiated the two things : alquraan and mushaf

yeh i think he misunderstood, there are no various version of the quran, its just various Qiraat or spelling and dialect. Not varios version , its the same things but it was written in different style and different Arabic dialect. So Uthman standardise it so Muslim won't become like Christians who got so many version in so many language with different meanings :P

@@yasinibrahim narrations are totally factual the reason you don't like them is the fact that they are not taken from the books of your school of thought, that's why u mad.

@@yasinibrahim agreed with you man. Aisha didn't come as rebelion army, so many wrong facts that made Aisha looks bad, that's what Shia wants

@@mash1738 If you put their haidths to actual haidith criticism it wouldn't last beyond 1 chain.

@@stevves4647 so you are declaring hadith of your own school of thought as actual hadith, see that is the problem. Everyone keeps presenting their shit as authentic one and others as fabricated .

@@afifsahrin5708 don't know why it's hard for you guys to accept the fact that aisha got tricked by talha and zubair.

the diffrence between aisha and her allies with ali is that aisha and her allies thought that they should kill the rebels while ali thought that they should stablize the state first then get to the rebels PS: those rebels are technically the shias now

People need to see this..

@@jawad_killer27 Yeah the first shias technically were Khwarij. They believed that Ali was super human so when he sought arbitration against Muariya, they saw it as weakness and a betrayal of Gods gift to him. Crazy

@@zccau2316 yep all this despute and fitna happend because there was a misunderstanding to when to kill the rebels that killed uthman immediately or after they stabilized the state

@@jawad_killer27 looks like u have been brainwashed by your mullahs

This what happens when take one account without the other

Your name tho lmao

That story came from saif ibn umar altamimi. It's a false story

@@mohammedkamil5320 indeed

khawarij didnt exist back then until after the battle of siffin.

change your profile picture if you feel proud as muslim

@@skytv4122 what's wrong with his profile picture? You're weird bro

You realize the Quran has been rewritten a few times as well as the bible och toran?

Proud of believing in Muhammed's political scam 1,400 years after his death? That's just embarrassing

@@ASLUHLUHCE at least better worship human jesus 😂😂😂

The fact that cannot be denied is that the Prophet Muhammad once prayed that his people would not be destroyed due to division but this prayer was rejected.

That's just human nature for you. Give a man power and wealth and watch him become corrupted. This rings true for the Sahaba aswell

Jedi killer, war criminal

And Sith puppet

And while not K&G thank you. It is nice to see many communities come together in their appreciation of well told history.

tabari was a genius ngl

@@zccau2316 All this fiction was written by Tabari bin rustem the Zoroastrian after 239 years of the supposed event and all the other historians follow him. In fact Imam Hussain a.s was killed by the big 3 Defeated Persians, Jews and Roman empire but Only a true Muslim can think about it and the reason u mentioned Umar bin saad bcz His father Hazrat Saad bin abi Waqas was the first who conquered persia first that's y his son Umar is also connected to krbla incident like all other Sahabas who r targeted by The Zoroastrians.

That’s cuz Abdullah ibn Saba was a myth 🤣 all sources say that he started these fitna’s trace back to Sayf ibn Umar who was accused by many Sunni scholars to be a cursed, zindeeq and weak

@@zayn670 thats a common false later than prove it wrong by many scholars from the age of Ibnu katheer himself until mutaakhirin. Unless you are shia

@@gludugtv3627 Of course the Bakri’s would try to make some fairytales about the Shia to try to stop it from spreading yet they don’t even know that even scholars said that Abdullah ibn Saba is a myth created by the famous fabricator Sayf

ibn e saba character is a myth created to justify the wrong doings of BAAGI people who revolted against the rightly guided Caliph

@@ahsanbutt3578 ahsant

And what is your evidence to support Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was the one?

👀

Too soon

Perhaps a couple of years after it’s finished?

@@petervarga7755and I am convinced that it is Russia on the losing side

@@yosman-609 lol

it not vague its there and this videoin my opinion didn't do the topic justice.

As Shia, we've learned the details of this battle and all the other events growing up, because we are proud of the ones that stood strong with the message of the Prophet (pbuh), we were also taught about the hypocrites that hid within the muslim community. There's a very good reason why these details are hidden by ur teachers...

​@@aboualhassanhassan9924Shia fan fiction isn't actual history buddy 😅 go back to searching for your twelfth imam

@@aboualhassanhassan9924prophet said to kill the unbelievers and hypocrites

check out farid responds videos. More detailed than this

it is not detailed they ignor the most important thing as history event a d the rule of ibn sbaa and killer of ottoman to stop any peace you need to read a book about it .