History of the Caliphates | Every Year | 622-1517 

Ottoman caliphate 1517- 1924

I already have a video on them: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DqO0UavTU_E.html@@user-xr2jt7ss4o

i mean, by pure length of existence the romans outlasted even them. 2270 odd years to just over 600.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire Then again, the Roman empire is a collection of several dynasties, with the longest one being the Palaiologan dynasty which lasted 194 years. Meanwhile, the Ottoman dynasty ruled for the entirety of the 623 years.

The Roman empire end in 476 ad

@@desfighter no it ended in 1453

⁠​⁠​⁠@@oton-03034This is a very odd way of framing it, considering Rome was a republic for almost 500 years and didn't even really acknowledge their imperial monarchy until the late 3rd century. The succession being unstable didn't mean it was any less of a continuous entity.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing! I’ll be the first to admit that my video is a quite a.. I suppose idealistic? Or western biased way of looking at things. So thanks for giving an alternative point of view!

@@TheDrumstickEmpire I'm just glad that westerners are beginning to try to understand. That is the first step.

@@Monsoon-01I do my best (:

So in a way, there is still a level of continuity... and it's now with the Saudis, huh?

Fun fact: the last Ottoman caliph tried to continue the Caliphate through the Asaf Jahi dynasty in Hyderabad. He married off an Ottoman princess to the Nizam, who at the time was the richest person on Earth. Nothing really came out of it, but it shows that there are a few possible choices if we wanted to revive the Caliphate... including an unexpected choice from India. 😅

I always try to be as correct as I can, thanks for the comment!

Umayyed=92 years Ottman = 650

@@user-hu1bb6vc7o Umayyed (661-684)(692-750) Total = 80 years. Zubayrid caliphate(684-692) = 9 years

​@@-1-HumanityCaliphate is only Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluk (for Abbasid) and Ottomans

یہ بھی ایک حیران کن چیز ہے کہ خلافت راشدہ نے فقط تیس سال میں جتنا علاقہ فتح کیا،وہ رومی یا فارسی سلطنت کی ہزار سالہ مہمات سے کہیں گنا زیادہ تھا۔

​@@user-hu1bb6vc7oottoman was not a caliphate until sultan slim yavuz

i think the jewish idea of what happened to jesus is applicable when it comes to the fate of the caliphs

Atatürk 🇮🇱.1922

​@@jeffreywinkelman8671based jews

So all caliphs were pious?

But isn't Iraq cradle of mesopotamian civilization which was first in the world. How you can feel more connected to Arab than your own civilization.

Iraq is ​@@munmunsarkar1726

What is an Arab Bedouin? Aren't you one or the other? Are you a Bedouin who speaks Arabic, or an Arab with Bedouin ancestry or culture? Go figure.

Bedouins are a different civilization than Arabs, if they've been Arabized, they lost their heritage.

@@munmunsarkar1726 My own civilization? No, my friend, you are wrong. I am not Assyrian, and I do not want to steal a civilization that I have nothing to do with. I am an Arab from one of the famous Arab tribes called the Rabia tribe. I have great respect for the previous civilizations of Mesopotamia, but the Arab civilization in Iraq is the greatest of all those civilizations, if you are familiar with them.

..

I generally use a combination of Ms Paint and Paintdotnet. As for the annotations, I use Google Slides.

Thank you!

I’ll be honest I can’t remember exactly where I found my information on cities (I made the maps and compiled my information almost a year ago now). So bear with me here: If I remember correctly, I went off what dates Wikipedia gave for the timespans of Capitals. Of course, I am not infallible; I am capable of mistakes - if I find so tonight I’ll add your corrections to the pinned comment. Thanks!

I think Baghdad might have existed before the Abbasids, but it was a small market town. Although I have also heard that the Abbasids created Baghdad from the ground up. Either way, you are right about Al-Mansur making it an official city.

Thats only if they are scholars

@@technologylover121 It is a general statement, anyone from the Quraysh can qualify (ideally chosen by Shura)

@@Muslim-ks4bd so even someone who openly sins can qualify?

@@technologylover121 The average Muslim is not an open sinner. Why do you bring exceptions? Fear Allāh, it is forbidden to assume evil about your brothers in faith. And tell me: how many of our rulers in the past 1400+ years were scholar-kings?

I haven't researched the ummayds and abbasids enough but i know the rashidun caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthamn and Ali RA qualified as scholars)@@Muslim-ks4bd

Abbasid was bigger that would be the peak in size

Thank you!

Specifically the Quraysh 🏴⚔

ولاتنسى ان الإسلام هو الي خلانا نسوي كل هذا ولا كنا اللحين نعبد التمر واذا جعنا ناكل من إلهنا

@@user-pl6cc2qe6t ماذا وهل الوثنيه الرومانيه هي السبب في الامبرطورية الرومانيه

@@user-dg5vx8li8f الإمبراطورية الرومانية همجية ومالها دخل إذا كانت توسعت انه بسبب دينهم اصلا دينهم مهدوم وكله تناقض والمقصد من كلامي ان المسلمين حين طبقو شرع الله وحكمه حكمو الشرق والغرب والكل خاضع لهم

No they didn't Saudis didn't even existed at the time It's like saying Pakistanis made Mughal empire

I already have a video on the Ottomans!

@@TheDrumstickEmpireI guess so, however the Ottomans were still considered a caliphate

@@zayankhurram1538Yes, but it would be pointless to include something here for which I already have another video. *also this video was taking too long already lmao*.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire I completely understand you, i can tell that this probably took you a long time.

Thanks, I heard that he is respected not only by Muslims but also by Christs. Today I see it by my eyes

@akibehsan7255 God Blasse you and your Family my frend

@@akibehsan7255 There were good and bad Muslims and Christians on both sides

🥱💩

@luboskucera6181 Lillie Joni what is Great Muslim empire ?

thanks!

Sure! Just put me in the description and you can do just that (:

Not really. Arabs managed to raid Kabul and other cities but were unsuccessful to conquer and convert the locals. Thats why Eastern and Central Afghanistan remained Buddhist until around 10th century when the Saffarids, Samanids and Ghaznavids finally converted the population into muslims

I’ll be honest the research I did on the flags was by far the least I did; as far as I can tell, the Umayyads used a white banner at the time. But I’m sure there can be an argument made for your idea!

@@TheDrumstickEmpire Oh, well, I mean, since the capital is Damascus, can I attribute the Umayyad state to Syria?

@@zak9149 If you want to score nationalist points, go ahead. But it will score no points with the Muslims. And just an FYI, modern Syria (officially the Syrian Arab Republic) was founded in 1946.

The Umayyads had their own banner. It was mostly white. The successors of the Umayyads were the Abbasids.

The capital of the Achaemenids🇮🇷 was Babylon. Does this make us attribute it to Iraq 🇮🇶? no! Likewise, the same thing with the Umayyads, they came from the Hejaz, Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦, and the Abbasids, Aghlabids, Fatimids as well, so if we want to attribute it to a contemporary state, it will be Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦

Ms Paint, and Google Slides.

Already got a video on that!

The map has already been disregarded by literally everyone in the Historical Community as misleading; I'll stick with my books - thanks!

@TheDrumstickEmpire so no battles to attempt capturing southern France over an 80 year period, or any battles at all to hold the Iberian Peninsula for 780 years where there was a tremendous slave market in Cordova, or to take the Balkans, etc... There is a quaint house on Montenegro's coast whose fence is made out of Ottoman riffle barrels; the Austrians and Ottomans signed an important treaty there.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire out of literally everyone, did anyone produce something similar to Bill Warner's video?

In fact, no. Many have produced videos that are historically proper. As opposed to battles that never happened (or have very little to substantiate them).

There is, I already have a video on the Ottoman Empire!

The Ottomans arenot caliphs because they arenot from Quraysh

*To be frank, this is a contentious claim. The reason why is simple: there is no real continuity as commonly imagined.* From a religious perspective, we say the Caliphate (upon the Prophetic Methodology) only lasted 30 years. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said: _"The Prophetic khilaafah will last for thirty years. Then Allaah will give the dominion to whomever He wills."_ (reported by Abu Dawud and al-Haakim) And he (ﷺ) also said: _"The khilaafah after me in my Ummah will last for thirty years. Then there will be kingship after that."_ (reported by Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, and others) The reign of the Rashidun caliphs was 30 years, and then the monarchy (or kingship) of the Umayyads was established, just as our Prophet (ﷺ) foretold. And those caliph-kings kept the Ummah officially united under a single banner. Of course, there were many rebellions, but the official political stance was that the king-caliphs in Damascus ruled the entire Ummah. That was true until 750, when the Abbasids successfully overthrew the Umayyads. However, they also quickly lost political control in the westernmost Muslim lands to the Berber Khawarij and the Andalusian Umayyads. Still, most of the emirs and sultans in the Muslim world had to recognize the (mostly de-jure) suzerainty of the king-caliphs in Baghdad. This was true until 1258, when the Chingissid Mongols sacked Baghdad and killed the ruling king-caliph. After that, the story goes that a branch of the family fled to Cairo, to the protection of the Mamluks, who retained the position of Caliph until it was transferred (either willingly or by force) to the Ottoman dynasty after their conquest of Mamluk Egypt. The first part of the story is true: the ruling Abbasid caliph-king did die in Baghdad, and a branch of the Abbasids did flee to Mamluk-controlled Cairo. But that's the extent of the truthfulness. Nobody outside of the Mamluk realm considered them to be the universal caliphs of the Muslim world anymore. And even within the Mamluk realm, the Khutbah was read in the name of the Mamluk sultans, and not the Abbasids. The days of de-jure domination were long gone. As for the Ottomans coming in and taking power from the Cairo-based Abbasids, this is likely a post-hoc explanation. There is no official proof that the Abbasids transferred their title to the Ottomans. Something that big would have been reported on. There is also the fact that the Ottomans were using caliphal-like titles before the conquest of Mamluk Egypt anyways. And they weren't the only ones. If you look at the minted coins of Muslim rulers, you'll find that after 1258, it was a free for all. You even had rulers from India (Mughals) and Nigeria (Sokoto) claiming to be caliphs, far from the Islamic heartland. *Anyways, my main point is that this romanticized view that the caliphate was continuous from 622 to 1922 is ahistorical.* And if you're interested in reviving the caliphate, then you have plenty of choices for modern successors: 1. The Hashemites, who apparently intended to convert the Sharifate to a Caliphate 2. The current Moroccan king who inherited the title of "Emir al-Mu'minin" 3. The current Sokoto sultan who is descended from the Sokoto caliphs 4. The Asaf Jahi Nizams, who married into the Ottoman dynasty 5. The descendants of Ahmed al-Sanussi, who Atatürk offered to be the new caliph 6. The Osmanoğlu family, who are descendants of the Ottoman dynasty But as history informs us, that new caliph will probably end up being a ceremonial figure anyways.

​@@Muslim-ks4bdOne of the conditions of the caliphate is that the man must be from Quraysh

Ислам появился в 6 веке😅

thanks to roger bacon for creating the scientific method

@@eduardo.d Ibn al-Haytham established the scientific method, long before Bacon was born

@@Muslim-ks4bd Great for bragging rights... but then again, how many Muslim scientific Nobel Prize winners can you point to? Mensa members? Muslim countries far advanced ahead of the Western or far Eastern world? Practically none? Oh well. Keep your bragging rights. That's all you have.

Why the distinction? I didn’t find it necessary (not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to know what you think!)

Because the Ottoman Caliphate began in 1517 lasted until 1924. The timeline in this video is of the three Arab Caliphates only, and is not a complete history.

I get your point but I do already have a video on the Ottomans, thus I didn't see it necessary to cover them again. Thanks for the comment!

fair enough

This video focuses on Caliphates, not Emirates.

It's only caliphate

“Caliphate”. Not Muslim Empires.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire Well, some of them were. Aghlabid Dynasty was a vassal of the Abbasid Caliphate so get that right.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire Fatamid is not a caliphate!

Exactly, Vassal; not the caliphate itself. By some accounts the Fatimids are counted. I’m going off what Wikipedia (I know, not a great source) counted as a caliphate as literally no one could agree 💀.

Read the pinned comment please (:

I was simply going off what the majority of my sources said. I would provide you with a list but it's been almost a year now since I did the research for this, please understand that I won't necessarily remember everything today. From what I can remember, they are considered caliphs in certain branches of the religion and not in others (though I could be completely wrong).

I understand but when we consider someone a caliph we do it according to sunnis which make up 89% of muslims, other branches like shiasim dont even consider the ummayads, abbasids or ottomans to be caliphs@@TheDrumstickEmpire

They were Ismailis. Still heretics (with some being blasphemers and disbelievers), but not Rawafidh like Iranians.

Again, I’m purely going off what my sources say. I’m not gonna do things along religious lines as I intend to be impartial (though my success in that part is largely minimal lol). I always strive for being accurate as wide as I can, and if they had the title of “Caliph” and were proclaimed so by enough people, that was enough for me. Of course, I am not an expert - I am not perfect; I do not claim to be. Thanks for your comments (:

@@TheDrumstickEmpire This sounds like it is boiling down to what the Shia and Sunni view as Caliph, which would therefore be 2 different RU-vid map videos.

I already have a video on the Ottomans! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DqO0UavTU_E.html

@@TheDrumstickEmpire yes but they’re missing

I didnt see the point in doing them as I already have a video on them; it would be repeating myself essentially.

Again, read the pinned comment mate.

Check pinned comment; by most sources, the Ottomans were. I report History, not religion, so try to understand this more politically than religiously. :)

Not a Caliphate by most sources.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire No is a caliphate search in Almohad history!!

@@stevejob5854I have done so, most sources consider it a Dynastic Empire (similar to China or Persia).

You are absolutely correct! Completely overlooked that! I’ll add it to the corrections.

I already have a video on the Ottomans! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DqO0UavTU_E.html

I already have a video on the Ottomans!

If you're wondering why I don't show them here, it's because I already have a video on the Ottomans (:

Fatimid founders also

Almohad aren’t considered as a political Caliphate by most sources - my basis was politics and history, not religion. Thanks for the comment!

@@yemirzlol Fatimids are Arabs and are the main reason why al Maghreb is Arab and your calling them Berber

Most sources consider them a “Sultanate”, not a “Caliphate”.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire Ok, thank you. But you forgot that one Islamic kingdom, which was led by Saladin and once fought against King Baldwin IV

I get that, but the focus of the video is the "Caliphates", not the "Kingdoms" of Islam. Thanks for the comment!

@@TheDrumstickEmpire You're welcome

no it doesn't

lol

Not a caliphate.

I already have a video on the Ottoman Empire! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DqO0UavTU_E.html

Already noted, it was an error in the source I used and thus my bad for not cross referencing. My fault entirely. Thanks for the comment!

Brother . Here he only pointed the khalifat , there are also lots of Muslim rulers.but they don't established khalifat. Such as Saladdin the great.

… yes they did?

?

I have to correct one like dabuyids etc.@@TheDrumstickEmpire

Ohh ok, I see now; you could have just said that lol@@satranct0125​

Well done

?

I’ll be honest I completely overlooked it. That’s entirely my bad. Thanks for letting me know!

هشام الله 🇩🇿🇸🇦🤲🏼☝🏼

This is not saudi arabia thats syria or iraq

indeed

By most sources they are. I don’t work with opinion, I work with politics; the Ottoman Sultan took the title of Caliph and was recognised as such at the time, that’s why I use them for it (: thanks for the comment.

Yavuz Selim (Ottomans) made al-Mutawakkil II (Cairo-Abbasids) give up his position. While normally only Qurayshis can be caliphs, if a Muslim usurper takes the throne by force, their rule is accepted so bloodshed of innocents is avoided. Selim was a Muslim usurper. His sons were legitimate (since caliphs can choose their successors).

@@Al-Zutti There is no proof of this transfer of power, and it is likely a post-hoc explanation. The Ottomans also used caliphal titles before they conquered Mamluk Egypt, so it seems clear that they didn't intend to get permission from the Abbasids. I agree that the Ottomans are accepted as caliphs, but I would refrain from this ahistorical narrative of continuity.

Completely as you word it - the only reason I choose to include them (however limited my inclusion was) is purely because most agree that they were. (also part of why i chose to make a video on them separately).

I did indeed! Thanks for pointing that out!

care to elaborate? Specifics. I would like to know how to improve (:

@@TheDrumstickEmpire the byzantines took cilicia and antioch during the reign of the emperor nikephoros ii phokas and john i tzimiskies,it stayed under byzantine rule for many years after that the ummayads and the rashiduns also never really took that much of anatolia (only in the siege of constantinople) or france

Nikephoros II Phokas ruled from 963 AD onward, if you would care to see, those regions are not shown as being under Abbasid rule (as they cease to exist largely as a functional entity a few years prior I can't remember exactly, forgive me I made this almost a year ago now.) Anatolia was brought largely under the wing of the early Caliphates a few times actually, each time were they repelled of course but what you're claiming is factually wrong, and misguided. Finally, allow me to introduce you to the Battle of Tours. I will admit here, my showing of Gaulish (not French) territory was quite extreme and would have been better shown as occupied as opposed to directly ruled. Thanks for the comment, but you're going to need to provide more than unsubstantiated claims and factual inaccuracies.

Indeed