History Student Reacts to Muslim Schism by Kings and Generals 

I am sympathetic towards Ali even though i was raised as a sunni.

In general moderate/majority schools of thought among Sunnis and Shias consider each other misguided but not heretical and thus Muslims. There are small extremist sections among both sects however that consider each other to be evil and since Sunnis are a majority in most Islamic countries, it sometimes results in discrimination and outright persecution of Shias.

Shia have been slaughtered and stepped on since the Prophet pbuh&hf death, as a shia, i felt this my entire life, being called a kafir or apostate, getting death threats me and my family, police harassment, and thats the reality for hundreds of millions of shia’s across the world. Labayka Ya Ali, Labyka Ya Hassan, Labayka Ya Hussain!

Imam ali as.(lion of god) The true leader ❤️

Great and thoughtful reaction by the way as usual bro

Side note, the reason why Sunni Islam is so disproportionately large compared to Shia Islam might be because in (I think) the 14th or 15th century, the Safavid Empire, a Persianate empire controlling Iran, chose Twelver Shia Islam as the state religion and force converted the majority Sunni population, most of which did convert though many were exiled into Iraq, the Caucasus, and Anatolia. So that's why there's randomly a huge amount of Shi'i in that one region. Previously though, as you may know, Egypt was Ismaili Shia under the Fatimid caliphate, during Crusader times and prior. Though after Saladin defeated the crusaders during the Third Crusade, he heavily persecuted Shia Islam as to not see an uprising from his conquest of Egypt, which is probably why that region has much fewer Shi'i than it used to.

16:53 the sources are crystal clear. Even this particular incident is narrated in the most authentic and prestigious SUNNI hadith books with authentic chain of narrators.

9:07 it was not a languagistic misunderstanding. It’s not logical that Prophet, few months before his demise, in front of 1.5 million people, holding ALI’s hand, just said that “ ALI is MOLA (friend)”. Obviously it was MOLA in sense of “successor”. And if you read the whole speech of prophet it make sense that MOLA, in that context means “leader/successor “

Sunni here, this video, in my opinion, is unbiased and fair. My view of it is that Ali was sidelined by companions who wanted power and were willing to go to bad lengths to deny it to Ali. Though, I do think his style of leadership was based on a naive sense of goodness, which makes it hard to overcome someone like Muawiyah. While I don't like Muawiyah at all, all accounts tell us he was pragmatic, smart, and ruthless as a leader, getting allies in the right places and acting more like a traditional ruler. Secular accounts tell us he was not a particularly religious person and indulged in luxuries that most important companions did not. I don't personally think the prophet appointed anyone because I don't believe an everlasting empire is somehow necessary as a Muslim. I also think it's telling nobody figured to suggest the prophet's daughter Fatima could be a ruler.

I feel as though Ali was jammed up from the word go when he got elected caliph. No decision he made regarding Uthman's murder would have satisfied anyone. Uthman placing family members in powerful positions across the caliphate did Ali no favors either. The very definition of an unwinnable situation.

It was after the death of the holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) that the Muslim ummah was divided into the two main sects; the Shi'as. Sunnis. The Shi'as believe that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) is the first and immediate successor of the holy Prophet. The holy Prophet indicated Imam Ali as his successor on countless occasions during his lifetime. Sunnis believe that the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hf) left this world just like that without appointing anyone as his successor. In order to understand the Shi'a perspective of the successorship of the holy Prophet, let us first scrutinise this issue from the Sunni perspective. After the death of the holy Prophet, there can be any one of the following scenarios. 1. The holy Prophet did not find any need to appoint anyone as his successor and therefore he didn't. If such was the case, then why did a handful of the so-called companions of the holy Prophet rather than participate in the burial of their Prophet, rushed to Saqifa to hold the so-called election? If this issue was that important then surely the holy Prophet himself would have been the first person to sort it out. If the holy Prophet would have really and truly left the issue of his successorship in the hands of the Muslims, then why couldn't the ummah wait until after the burial of the holy Prophet? When you have an election, you also have candidates. How many and who were the candidates in this election? Where were people like Imam Ali, Abuzar Ghaffari, Salman Farsi, Ammar Yasir and so on? Did the Muslims in Mekka and outside Madina get a chance to cast their vote? Where did this election take place, e.g. in the mosque? The example of leaving the issue of the successorship in the hands of the ummah is like this. There's a highly qualified doctor with many years of experience working in a hospital. A time has come for him to retire. He's got two options. a). Go out and find someone like himself to take over his place. The second option is to gather together all his patients and ask them to choose whoever they like to take his place. Use your own commonsense. Anyhow, rightly or wrongly Abu Bakr became the first caliph. When Abu Bakr was on his death bed, he nominated Omar as his successor. When Omar was on his deathbed, he appointed a committee of six people from amongst whom Usman was selected as the third caliph. When Usman was killed Imam Ali became the fourth caliph through general consensus. It seems that people like Abu Bakr and Omar were smarter than the holy Prophet himself. The holy Prophet did not think of sorting out his own successors but they did!! After the death of Abu Bakr and Omar, why was there no election? Wasn't this issue related to the Muslim ummah anymore? 2. There was a need for the holy Prophet to appoint his successor but he either forgot or did not care about it. Is it possible for the true Prophet of God to ignore such an important issue because of which the Muslim ummah is divided into countless sects? 3. If the holy Prophet would have left the issue of his successorship in the hands of his followers then surely he should have also provided some kind of framework or guidelines to follow. 4. There was a need for the holy Prophet to appoint someone as his successor and he did appoint his cousin and the son-in-law Imam Ali as his successor. Not only that but after Ali there are another eleven successors from amongst the descendants of Imam Ali and lady of the Light Fatima Zahra (peace be upon them all). The holy Qur'an claims that Islam is a complete religion. How can then it be possible for Allah to ignore such an important issue about the guardianship of Islam and the Muslims just like that? Please listen to the beautiful lectures by Syed Mustafa Qazwini Syed Muhammad Baqir Qazwini Syed Mehdi Modarressi on utube

10:35 that’s called hadith “QIRTAS”. My questions here are: 1: It’s obligatory to muslims to obey prophet so in this case UMAR disobeyed prophet. 2: If prophet is saying about something that could prevent ummah from going astray than prophet must be talking about something VERY SERIOUS. 3) When UMAR refuse to give pen and paper and said “QURAN is enough”, did the prophet didn’t know about the quran. Ofcourse prophet know about quran but despite it prophet said to bring pen and paper. 4) one thing which is missing here is that. Umar said that may be due to the illness prophet perhaps talking irrelevant things so that’s why he refused to give pen and paper.

A big reminder to all Muhammed ummah both muslim women and men In the Quran Allah remind os to not Split op between muslims no sects is acceptable for Allah swt So just be muslim and not sunni or shia Jazzakallah khir everyone for see this and take it as a big reminder may Allah guide os together and protect us from all fake news and information and protect us from all evil and the hell fire ☪️🤲🏽

Shi'a and Sunni aside, what was done to Ali is injustice. No matter if you believe the Prophet appointed him, Ali definitely deserved the Caliphate at least more than Umar and Uthman, although I don't deny Umar's great leadership during his Caliphate. Abu Bakr is more wiser than the other two and had a more prevalent role in the Prophet's lifetime, so I can see why Sunnis would see him as the legitimate leader, although I personally agree. Uthman was only chosen as the third Caliph by Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf since he said he chose to follow the Sunnah of the first 2 Caliphs whereas Ali rejected this, claiming to only follow the Prophet.

Shias believe in 12 Imams after Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and Imam Ali is their first Imam, Hussain 2nd, Hussain 3rd. That is why majority sect among Shias call themselves twelver Shias. According to Shia believes, these Imams have devine decree, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him even announced Ali as his sucessor but people and companions of Prophet denounced and deprived Ali of his right to rule and lead muslim community. It is not like that Shias want Ali to be successor but they believe Ali has devine right and was announced as successor by Prophet Muhammad himself by commandment of Allah, Allah ordered Prophet to appoint Ali as his sucessor.

Just understand Islam is not christianity which is the lenses the west sees the world thro The split doesnt make the shia less muslims as long as they dont insult the companions And Muslims arent supposed to split and shia means split Also the Quran is not interpreted newly its still 1. Quran 2. Sunnah 2.a. Prophet SAW 2.b. Companions 2.c. 3 generations after the Companions All Muslims believe in 1. One God ie ALLAH SWT 2. Prophet is the messenger SAW 3. Companions are the rightly guided of the 3 generations If you dont agree youre not Muslim period. There is no confusion on this

@3:43 The Shias problably consited less than 5-10% of the Muslim population until the rise of the Safawids in the 16th Century. Until then there was only one major Shia state in history, the Fatamid Caliphate, which formally ended in the 1170s.

React on battle of Badr (knowledgia)

17:15 that marriage of umme kulsum and UMAR is just a false claim. At the time of marriage (according to sunni) the age the age of umar was well around 65 years and umme kulsum was nearly 10 years. Infact during prophet’s era UMAR gave marriage proposal to prophets daughter FATIMA ( mother of umme kulsum) at that time prophet rejects the proposal due to the age difference. Then how could be this possible to marriage of her daugher after 25-30 years later😂

15:01 exactly! How could be this possible that the prophet who sacrifices his whole life for the cause of islam and did everything he could have done for this religion but how could be this possible that prophet missed that most important decision of declaring his SUCCESSOR after him who has the fate of whole ISLAM after him. Kinda strange hah? And the answer is “ YES!” How could prophet leave his religion without a leader after him whom the prophet trusted and was suitable for the post an all aspects. And that’s ALI.

10:49 Abu bakar no doubt he was a good man. But in case of military services, he has not that much contribution in battle field. Even authentic narrations states that he didn’t even killed a single person during war. And as a general we all are familiar with batlle of khyber and battle of khandak.

20:30 First of all if you read authentic hadiths and history you will come to know that only a minor portion of those rebels were ALI’s support of. Secondly ALI didn’t refuse to punish the assassins, his stance was to first stabilise the caliphate first and after that throughout legal and governmental judiciary we will punish the assassins. Which muawiyah and ayesha didn’t agree. Obviously muawiayh’s main goal was to be the leader of whole caliphate, the usman’s revenge was just a cover up for his evil desire. In fact when usman was assassinated before the assassination USMAN was locked in his palace for more than 40 days. If muawiyah was truly cared about usman than why did he and his fellas didn’t help usman as there was less than 500 rebels, and muawiyah and banu umeeya had the power to do so.

Only Abu Bakr died a natural death in all four rashidun caliphs.

Anytime a topic like this comes, good never comes from it imo. When it somewhat favours the Shi'a narrative, then Sunnis claim the sources used are Shi'a. And when the Sunni narrative is favoured, it is the other way, where Shi'as claim only Sunni sources are used. However since Sunnis are overwhelmingly majority, their narrative is often seen as the usual one and so videos using Sunni sources aren't criticised as much

Ali ra did not knew who were the assassins thats why he did not punished anyone according to both shia sunni traditions

Respectfully, but your conclusion is wrong at the end, and that is alright as someone who just took an idea from one video. While the military events was involved, religion was not about this. Religion isn't about politics but it was as if politics was used in order to help the religious cause. Just like religion isn't about business but the prophet used the business world in order to help with the religious cause. Religion was about carrying on the truth and sharing it to the people, the truth about god, how we describe him, what god wanted from us, how he wanted us to dissociate from evil, telling us what the evil is for us to avoid. The prophet was a messenger and the ahlulbayt were the ones who were the successors in inheriting the truth. The truth to be shared with the people. The hypocrites fought the people of truth in order to serve their personal desires, i.e. money through conquest. There is no justification to fighting the one who was appointed by the prophet himself. So why do shias keep fighting for the justice of the prophets family and expose the usurping of their authority/rights? That is because shias feel a strong sense of appreciation for the teachings of ahlulbayt who interpreted the Quran in its true meaning (and actually Ali compiled the Quran together with ta'wil, i.e. interpretation that clarified it, but the people rejected it as it was during a time the hypocrites did anything to not get exposed). These senses of appreciation grow strong enough that you just want other people to see the same truth that you saw yourself. The sunni religion omitted ahlulbayts teachings from their religion while they kept the Quran. That only led to them interpreting the Quran for what's on the surface. Would that lead to a religion with scholars who disagree with each other or not? if you do research you find out every scholar disagrees, and it's not exclusive to sunni scholars. While shia scholars dispute on topics, their main source is strictly following the narrations of ahlulbayt, so it's open for any individual to do his own research to find out what they said and meant in every context. And ahlulbayt does not disagree with each other so that's not an issue either. They did not interpret the Quran for what's on the surface and they all knew all of the secrets of the Quran. Ahlulbayt always had enemies and there were many narrations they said that people burned due to their rejection of ahlulbayts narrations, but it is what it is and we can live with what we have as it's still golden knowledge. Take a look in thaqalayn net with google search and see for yourselves how ahlulbayt narrated only highly of the prophet and other members of ahlulbayt. Not to mention there are many narrations to teach us true monotheism , search youtube imam ali describes god. Seriously, you don't have to proclaim yourself a shia. Just download daily hadith app, it solely brings hadiths from ahlulbayt that speaks about what you should do as a human and omits anything that might provoke you regarding historical conflicts. just see how everything they said can not be denied as they just feel amazingly correlated to us. This is what humans are missing when they don't follow them.

First khaliifa is cali Omar was kidnap slam

Dorood (greetings) Ethan 😊

Iran opposes Saudi Arabia due to its spread of Wahabii extremism in surrounding countries, and also because of Saudi ties to imperialism. Meanwhile, Iran has been a big champion of the Palestinians who are Sunni... and other Shia affiliated groups such as Hezbollah and Houthis have been fighting to support the Palestinians.

After the death of the holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his holy progeny), Muslims have two options for seeking guidance from; the ahlulbayt (family) of the holy Prophet. Others. The ahlulbayt are those family members of the holy Prophet who grew up in his blessed lap. Islam, Qur'an and the shari'ah were revealed in their house. The angels descended with the blessings, mercy and salutations from Allah into their house. Muslims are obligated to send blessings upon not only their holy Prophet but also his holy progeny in their salat/namaz/daily prayers. The holy Prophet left behind him the Book of Allah, the holy Qur'an and his holy progeny. Ahlulbayt are those family members of the holy Prophet about whom Allah testifies of their purity, cleanliness, infallibility and perfection in the holy Qur'an. They are the best examples and role models after the holy Prophet. They are the heirs of the holy Prophet's knowledge, wisdom and characteristics. They are the flesh and blood of the holy Prophet. They loved the holy Prophet the most and he loved them the most. Who can understand Islam, Qur'an, the Shari'ah, the sunnah of the holy Prophet and so on better than the people of the house? As regards the others, we are not sure of the source of their knowledge, information, guidance and understanding about Islam. People in general and Muslims in particular need to explore the authentic biographies of personalities like the holy Prophet Muhammad, his beloved daughter Fatima, her husband Ali and their sons Hasan and Husain (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all). They also need to learn the authentic history of Islam, especially events such as:- Da'wat-e-Zul Ashira Mubahila Ghadir-e-Khum Saqifa Fadak The battle of Jamal The battle of Siffin The death of Abuzar Ghaffari The death of Malik bin Nuweira The death of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr Ashura Please listen to the beautiful lectures by Syed Mustafa Qazwini Syed Muhammad Baqir Qazwini Syed Mehdi Modarressi Sheikh Usama Attar on utube

Abubakar omar caa isha xafsa poising him prophate We know today

The door slam things is so corrupted like see the life of ali umer killed fatima n ali give daughter in marriage even in power he didnt do anything this doesnt make any sense

Ali did become 4th leader idk why shia cry about it

As many times in history.... there are tyrants, and there are others who are champions of the people. IMO, Shias see Muhammad, his family, and his bloodline as the true leaders of Islam. Sunni's went with the Caliphate.... who was originally the tyrant. The caliphate first oppressed people, Islam rescued them, the movement was so strong that the caliphate joined the movement...Islam. Then when the time came for succession, the caliphate as a snake did a power grab and targeted the family of Muhammed who would have otherwise been chosen to succeed. From this, two versions of Islam came to be - one version/stories to support the claim of the caliphate.

2. Shias say that Umar ( RA) killed Ali's ( RA), wife fatima (RA), the daughter of the prophet ( Saw). Ali (RA) was one of the strongest companions who proved his worth in numerous battles. Why didn't Ali seek revenge if that was the case but instead served under Umar ( RA) as a head judge. Why would Ali ( RA) pledge allegiance to his wife's killer and also accept Umar( RA) as his son in law? He even named his other two sons abu bakr and umar. 3. Shias also hate the 3rd Caliph Uthman (RA) but the only available Quran copies are the owns that were finalised during his rule. If Uthman ( RA) was a hypocrite then did Allah (SWT) fail in the task of preserving the Quran as promised? This is blasphemy. Also why would Ali (RA) send his two sons to protect Caliph Uthman (RA) at his weakest moment if he harboured enmity. Coming back to the video, the most significant events of the fitna or the civil war was barely mentioned and brushed through. The occupation of madina by the rebels has the paramount butterfly effect that lead to both the battle of camels and siffin. The rebels transgressed by staging a coup against Uthman ( RA). The rebel instigator abdullah ibn saba a hypocrite of Jewish Yemeni descent feared that the governor of of the regions would send armies to crush the occupation, instantly planned on electing a new Caliph after killing Uthman (RA). These renegades gave the citizen of madina deadline to elect a new caliph or be slaughtered. Ali ( RA) was reluctant but took the leadership upon the advice of the senior companions. Unde the pressure of the renagade blackmailing and the difference of opinion in dealing with the renegades plus seeking revenge Ali ( RA) was appointed Caliph which many opposed. This topic and the later topics leading to the battles was grossly uninformed in the video. It would take me mor ethna an hour to explain all the neglected details and wrong summarization. For example Muwayiya( RA) honored the pact with the Prophet grandson Hasan ( RA).

I did a course on this topic and I have to say that Kings and general are extremely wrong on many places..the battle of karbala is not a shiite incident, its a Muslim tragedy and Yazid ibn Muwayiya is criticised by sunni, salafis ect. Its seemed like Kings and general used Shia sources that only followed by 10% of the Muslims in the world mostly in Iran.. They didn't used the most authentic sources/authentic hadiths in islam that sunni uses bukhari and Muslim... Also the shiite sources are fillies with fallacies and shouldn't be considered because of the concept of taqqiya ( deceit). Since lying is sanction by Shias, their writers and historians have excessively fabricated their narrative to propogate their heretical views. 1. For example during the pen and paper incident, the dhais blame Umar(RA) of deliberately causing trouble. However the prophet (SAW) lived the next day as well and the next day but didn't specify Ali ( RA) as successor instead when he was sick appointed Abu bakr ( RA) to lead the prayers thus a clear indication.

Always be it rashidun Caliphate 1.Abu Bakr ra 2. Omar ra 3. Usman ra 4. Imam Ali ra 5. imam Hassan ra(short term)

31:15 true. BUT, both sects believe on GOD (ALLAH ) ... tho there is sects within shia'sm which straight up no islam anymore. Sunni musllims are the majority hence we follow the quran and the prophet hadith which we have chain of narrations unlike the shia. most of their sources dont have chains to the prophet and their believe is just political on Ali and his sons based. And has nothing to do with the religion of islam