I’m Shia so I’m definitely biased, but I’m surprised how neither of you mention imam Ali at all. You credit Muawiya for stabilizing the empire at a time when it wasn’t stable, but the first thing imam Ali did when he assumed power was to consolidate power, by replacing the former governors to ones who were loyal to him. The only reason this didn’t work was because muawiya got in his way, and fought against him. You also say that Islam wouldn’t have expanded as much to non Arabs, but imam Ali was able to convert the entire region of Yemen in just a few weeks, I feel like it’s reasonable to say that if he didn’t have to deal with muawiya and others who rebelled against him, he would have been able to spread Islam to these newer regions. And I don’t understand what you said about the Turks suddenly attacking, if they didn’t attack while muawiya was in charge why would they suddenly attack if someone else was in charge. Even if they did, the Muslims had a massive army which won many battles, and without muawiya this army would be united instead of fighting each other, I feel like it’s fair to say that they could have done very well against a theoretical attack from the Turks.

@Sahrul-qr2nm

Жыл бұрын

As a Sunni myself, I agree with you. If, in "alternate history", Muawwiyah doesn't exist, then Ali would be a little bit easily stabilizes the Chaliphate at that time. Unless...there is someone "Muawwiyah-alike" that can get Ali in his way like Muawwiyah did in the "original history". Like Utbah bin Abu Sufyan for example.

@sampagano205

Жыл бұрын

Yeah this kind of has the problem that you can't just do an alternate history where one guy doesn't take power. There needs to be another thing replacing him. In this case it would almost certainly be Ali. It's like debating what the Soviet union would be like if Stalin never took power, but not specifying whether Trotsky, Bukharin, or Zinoviev in his place.

@xx3768

Жыл бұрын

Am a Muslim and I know that the Arabian expansion brought misery to other nations and that the Islamic kihlafa was representing the Taghut, and even accounts say that there was kingdom between the kinship, but the fact that Ali spread Islam in Yemen so easily, maybe he was a good guy amongst them, but still this is not a reason to be Shia, if I would it would be back then to support him and his cause. But great info thanks.

@sartajpatwari3140

Жыл бұрын

Yes, unfortunately Hz. Ali(RA) didn't get time to consolidate and dialogue message of religion to people outside caliphate due to constant unjust revolts from day 1 of his caliphate.

@muhammadsyed5496

Жыл бұрын

not even that this would 100% eliminate the schism between us and kerbala would never have happened

What you smoking lmaoo Mu'awiyah was a big part of the "5 years of bloody war" and instability at that time. And him and his family caused way to much destruction towards the prophet and his family. To me seems like he played the sahaba to get the Ummah from Banu Hashim to Banu Ummaya.

@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl

Жыл бұрын

@David Ali could have done the same

@Idarece

Жыл бұрын

@@David-pi7qd Ali could have done better

@Anonymous-vi3ug

Жыл бұрын

@David Thats fine I'll acknowledge that although that, but i wouldnt say he "Saved Islam" thats just crazy lmao

@Anonymous-vi3ug

Жыл бұрын

Yeah thats how I see it. Plus I personally dont view him as a religious figure so to attach him to Islam like that is weird. But definitely a powerful and strong figure as a leader. Whether you agree with his morals and style or not.

@Idarece

Жыл бұрын

@@David-pi7qd "It was still Mu'awiyah who did the work" wrong perspective. If Ali could have done better then it is Mu'awiyah who hindered greatness. That's the better perspective

Great video. I love this. As a recent Middle Eastern Studies graduate I relish these intellectual conversations about Islam here on KZread. Keep more of this kind of content coming. I'm glad you two are collaborating. You both have great channels that I love and I like the idea that you are both engaging each other in this endeavor and I'm re-learning a lot. Most people in the West don't know much about Muslim /Islamic Civilization and both your channels provide an accessible learning tool for the general public.

very interesting convo! thanks!

Oh boy, the Shias aren’t going to like this…..

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

Any one with some intellect and not biased would see the holes

@thewarlock539

Жыл бұрын

​@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 Shia detected

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

@@thewarlock539 subhanallah so smart

@HamzaKhan-ue7ii

Жыл бұрын

@@thewarlock539 Nah if you read Bukhari and Muslim then u will understand the wrong that Muawiyah RA did and it's negative impacts on the ummah. Ps. I follow the manhaj of the Sunni school of thought but I'm just a Muslim because that is the name Allah gave me in the Quran and I fear Allahs punishment if I do not take what Allah gives me. Salem Alykum

@user-cg2tw8pw7j

Жыл бұрын

​@@HamzaKhan-ue7ii But there is the name of the faithful

Another amazing video!

Umayyad had given damage to Islam, if Hazrat Muawiyah R.A had cooperated with Hazrat Ali R.A, the fate of Islam would have been different. Hazrat Ali could expand the caliphate to the next level.

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

Then don't say "hazrat" Mua'wiyah, he was a leader of hell

@user-vb6df4sd8d

Жыл бұрын

⁠​⁠@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 yes they do, the only people of hell are people who were scribes of the Quran like muawiyah رضي الله عنه

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

@@user-vb6df4sd8d Muawiyah wasn't a scribe of the Quran, but I agree he was of the people of hell

@ast9627

11 ай бұрын

@@mhmadbedrddeen3414you are a dog of hell. Muawiyah is better than you rafidah by millions of times. Your intellectual forefathers killed Hussain, that makes you and the, the bastards of hell.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

​@@mhmadbedrddeen3414he was a scribe of the Quran as narrated in Sahih Al-Bukhari.

Very insightful

Your point about Muawiyah's provincial governors was a good one. Its easy to compare his reign to the earlier periods where the arab forces could obtain massive wealth from their conquered lands or the later periods after the institutions of state completely developed, but too strong or weak governors could have proven disastrous after the first fitna. His kinship group was effective and he was able to manage the tribes without inciting conflict. It is notable that it was only after his reign that the tribal factionalism that would dominate the later Umayyads and lead to the irrelevancy of the arab tribes under the Abbasids developed.

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

Mua'wiyah was a leader of hellfire

@Xaviergonzalez85

Жыл бұрын

Muawiyah was also quraish, so his claim to caliphate wasn't unjust.

A very healthy conversation ❤️

I don't know much about Islam, but the civil back and forth discussion is refreshing to watch.

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

Well don't take it from this channel, it has many false info

@noorjahan1333

Жыл бұрын

AbuTahir Al-Jannabi destroyed kabba and took black stone which he used it in his toilet for 21 years to pee & poo on it to challenge allah and he succeed.

@noorjahan1333

Жыл бұрын

​@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 AbuTahir Al-Jannabi destroyed kabba and took black stone which he used it in his toilet for 21 years to pee & poo on it to challenge allah and he succeed.

Hey! Where did you get that map on the wall from?

Hikma is asking very relevant questions to al muqdimah....both r so amazing

May Allah be pleased with him.

@mmdrezakh

Жыл бұрын

Smartest nasibi

@muhammadonaiz6176

Жыл бұрын

May our lives be sacrificed upon the shoe dust of Ashab e RasulAllah Muhammad ﷺ.

@mdsabahuddin8251

Жыл бұрын

​@@mmdrezakh okay rafidi

@bahramsultan8310

Жыл бұрын

​@@mdsabahuddin8251 No Yazidi

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

May Allah curse Mua'wiyah the leader of hell as the prophet said

where is the rest of the video?

Please make more videos on the Fitnahs. There are so many competing viewpoints it gets confusing

Can u make a video on what if the Ottoman/abbasid/Umayyid/Rashida Caliphate never fell? What if Mehmet lived enough to wage war to Rome?

where is the video regarding SAFAVID EMPIRE?

According to Hazrat Muawiya ( R.A), my opinion is quite similar to you but you put allegations on the third Caliph of Islam Hazrat Usman ( R.A) is totally false. I think you should more research on the reign of Third Caliph of Islam.

I saw an article in BBC News on-line "India history debate after chapter on Mughals dropped" that Hikma History and you may want to take a look at and comment upon. I will leave this comment on his channel, as well.

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

We did talk about it in the full livestream.

I would say that is false. Muawiyah is pretty controversial, and if argued correctly could be seen as having a large part in 'dividing' Islam among the Shiias and Sunnis, having the first fitna, Imam Hassan's mysterious death and the alleged cursing of Ali. Edit: I am a Muslim who believes in Abu Bakr as the first Caliph.

@IngramSnake

Жыл бұрын

@Munna Mobile Got any evidence that Muawiya himself instated this?

@IngramSnake

Жыл бұрын

@Munna Mobile That contradicts other ahadith that show Muawiyya didn’t hate Ali. But I will verify when I have the time. Thanks for providing some references.

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@IngramSnake my guy, Muawiyah literally went to war against Imam Ali(as).

@ahamedihamiyun5927

Жыл бұрын

​@@Zulfiqar32lol this people are funny let's see here, the guy when to war with ali but he didn't have the courage to say bad words about him 😂

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@ahamedihamiyun5927 Sunni scholars in the early days of Islam made alot of efforts to rehabilitate many sahaba who committed misdeeds, and many Sunnis follow today is that all the Sahabas of Muhammad(saw) were righteous men that will enter Jannah. Modern day sunnis see Islamic history through this lens. Any conflict between sahabas, any killings or murders are suppressed or explained away, and the concept of all sahabas being righteous is the article of faith that is followed. You know if it is actually starting that the battle of Camel between Imam Ali(as) and Ayesha is basically a battle between the family of Hashim and the family of Abu Bakr. Talha, Zubayr and Ayesha all relatives of Abu Bakr were the biggest proponents of this war. Interestingly Muhammad Abu Bakr, who was the son of Abu Bakr, was actually raised by Imam Ali(as), and was one of his biggest supporters. Interestingly Muhammad Abu Bakr, the son of Abu Bark, the first calipha was killed by the army of Muawiyah in the battle of siffin. At some level, it is admirable and not nefarious by early Sunni Scholars to create this narrative, as the truth would cause alot of confusion, but at the same time, it is every Muslim's responsibility to follow haqq and not the faith of their ancestors.

IMO you're amalgamating Arabic Empire's borders and bureoucracy with Islam's integrity and spread to other regions. When you emphasize separation of Persia from Arabic Empire, you are disregarding possibility of Persian Islamic Empire. Similar things can be said about Turkic invasion as well. If we are talking about Islam as a religion, whether or not it championed by Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Barber or Indian Empire or small kingdoms should be irrelevant. IMO you're approaching whole situation from much more nationalistic perspective. Also multiple events triggered by Mu'awiyah's struggle with Ali and eventual atrocities wouldn't create so much infighting within Islam for centuries. Although Umayyad Empire protected its borders in Persia, Caliph lost his spiritual authority over Persian's civilians or scholars permanently.

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

I see your point but I did say that we would see small Muslim empires still existing. However, in 661, Iran didn't have that much Islam to actually have any Persian Islamic Empire. At most, Islam would've been limited to Fars and Iraq. Most of Iran had little to no Muslims in 661 so, I don't think an Islamic Empire would've come to form there. Only Iranian ones (most likely Zoroastrian).

Uthman Conquests were just as fast as Umar. Some Historians like Ibn Kathir even believe that the first invasion of Spain happened in his rule.

You guys should really take the Shia view into consideration when making conclusions. Mu'waiyah was a pure opportunist and if it wasn't for him Islam would be a reactionary but not an imperial setup (like all the other big boys). I don't now about it loosing cohesion though.

@hussainsultanzada6123

Жыл бұрын

Not Sunni or Shi'a view, the historical view. Yes, Mu'awiya was a great politician, however like most politicians he wasn't very honest and was very brutal in his methods. He ruined the Caliphate and turned it into his own Umayyad Kingdom, being more Arab in nature than Islamic. Had Ali not been assassinated or al-Hasan stayed in power, the Caliphate would've remained with Abu Talib's Branch of Banu Hashim or it would have been an elective position, like the Rashidun Caliphate (minus Umar's appointment ofc). However with the Imams of Shi'a being hereditary, most likely it would've stayed within Ahl al-Bayt but not been as tyrannical as the Umayyad regime

@smarizvipk

Жыл бұрын

We can’t say that he was great politician, instead we can say an evil minded, cruel, tyrant, nepotistic corrupt politician.

@hussainsultanzada6123

Жыл бұрын

@@smarizvipk you can say both. Great doesn’t mean morally good. He used those traits of this to further his career and secure his reign, making him an amazing politician but obviously he wasn’t a very good Caliph nor should he be a role model for Muslims

I very much agree with you, I even think the same about Al-Hajaj Ibn Yusuf. Okay he was not a very nice guy, but he solidified the government from Iraq to Sindh

This got me into thinking that aside from the discrimination against the non-Arabs, the Umayyad Caliphate just happened to be the time when the Islamic civilization was in political turmoil and nobody was happy about that like at all. And I guess this is the reason why not many peoples remembered the Umayyad Caliphate fondly. Also, would you and Tariq like to see the video by Whatiftalhist about what if the Ottoman Empire never fell? I can give you two the link if both of you wanted.

@Anonymous-vi3ug

Жыл бұрын

Or their its due to their lack of morals, the pillage of Medina, the attack on Mecca multiple times, ruthlessness of Yusuf Al-Hajjaj and the power given to him, the nepotism, hate for the Prophet's family, cursing of Ali, and potential fabrication of hadith

@user-vb6df4sd8d

Жыл бұрын

Who told you that, ummayeds are actually remembered really well by everyone except people who follow the shia religion

@Anonymous-vi3ug

Жыл бұрын

@@user-vb6df4sd8d I’m barely even Shia anymore tbh I don’t agree with most of their traditions but historically the ummayyads def didn’t really favor the ahlul-bayt and the people they put in charge and gave power to many times did not rule with faith. Look into yusuf Al-hajjaj is the perfect example of what I mean. Go look at how much power the umayyads gave to him. On top of that they hijacked the ummah and created a monarchy. Love for the ummayyad in of itself is ummayyad propaganda

@user-vb6df4sd8d

Жыл бұрын

@@Anonymous-vi3ug al-hajjaj was an exception because that guy was brutal for everyone, and yet he had done many good things but then to say they “hijacked” the ummah is a really stupid statement. What did you expect them to do to have parliaments??? When such a thing didn’t exist in those times. What does “not favoring ahul-bayet” even mean??? Did you want them to be worshipped??? And btw most of the family of the prophet (pbuh) was dead even before even he passed away. So your point is invalid in of itself, because the only propaganda i see here is the people accusing them of things they didn’t do. The ummayeds, abbasaids, ottomans were all great dynasties for muslims and were 90-95% righteous rulers, so if you really aren’t a shia anymore you wouldn’t say any of those things

@Anonymous-vi3ug

Жыл бұрын

@@user-vb6df4sd8d Dont gotta worship the Ahlul-Bayt but the fact is it became a tradition to curse Ali Ibn Abi Talib (A.S.) after Jummah prayer under their rule, they attacked Medina and Mecca at least twice during their rule, and clear munafiq's were put in positions of power and their power structure was full of nepotism. Is any of that incorrect? I feel like these are facts we need to acknowledge historically and dont need to die on hills of defending these actions.

More videos like this and other topics on pre 661 Islam should be produced... we need to talk about these things. Not talking about it allows ignorance to fester and more violence and division occurs... let's get it out into the open and settle it amongst the ummah.

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

Right, every time we bring up the misdeeds of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ayesha, let alone Muawiyah and Yazid, we are takfiried and threatened with violence. fact is most Muslims aren’t open to an honest discussion on early Islamic history.

@IngramSnake

Жыл бұрын

We can never settle this. Especially not on KZread of all places. But if we follow what the Quran says, which both Shia and Sunni agree on. The conclusion will reveal itself. That Allah praises all muhajirun, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The Sunni perspective (vast majority of Muslims) is that they are the best of people based on this. And whoever disagrees with Quran, has lost their way.

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@IngramSnake my brother, I urge you to read the Quran again with different commentaries. I sincerely ask you to reasses what you know about Islamic history. The truth lies with our dear Prophet(saw) and his blessed Ahlul Bayt(as). I can give many verses from the Quran which exalt them. But it’s only useful if you have an open heart. Nasibis need not apply

@IngramSnake

Жыл бұрын

@@Zulfiqar32 please do give your verses in the Quran. The Quran is our common ground and will guide us to the right path.

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@IngramSnake ok bro, first off look at the commentary of 5:55

While I respect differing opinions, as a Sunni Muslim, I hold the view that the Umayyad dynasty's actions had a negative impact on Islam. Had Hz Muawiyah cooperated with Mola Ali A.S, it is plausible that Islam's trajectory could have seen a different, potentially more expansive, development.

@SufficientIsAloneGod

8 ай бұрын

as a engg Ali student how can i forget to mention Sahih al-Bukhari 2812

@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273

5 ай бұрын

Muawiya fought against him, but he didn't kill him The kwariji killed him, they came from region which modern day oman (the ibadi sect)

@SufficientIsAloneGod

5 ай бұрын

@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 but clear he chose to remain astray even after that... Further blunder he made to pass the khilafa to yazeed

A little be exaggerated. For the Turkic invasions, the period of Turkic migrations really kicked out in the mid 1000s, not even when the Islamic world was fracturing in 800s and 900s did the Turks attack. So there would be some time between the collapse of the Caliphate and the arrival of the Turks. There's a big chance we can see a Sassanid revival as their heirs were still trying to restore the empire in the mountains of Afghanistan with some support from T'ang China in that time. If not, at least some form of an Iranian state will probably rise east of the Zagros. However I disagree that Islam would retract to Arabia. Arabs had already built large settlements in Mesopotamia and the Levant, and they were migrating to Egypt. So Egypt, the Levant and southern Iraq still have some shot at becoming Arab and Muslim (I say southern Iraq as northern Mesopotamia was apparently majority Christian and Aramaic speaking even at the time of Timur when he committed a genocide there). Also even if the Turks invade early on, still they would convert to something, in Iran that may be Zoroastrianism but in areas were Islam is more present it's a far more attractive choice for them. Also the Byzantines would not be in any position to take back their territories. During the First and Second Fitna or during the Abbasid revolution they did nothing as they were having civil wars, problems with Bulgars and Slavs and a massive conflict over images of Jesus and Christian figure in churches being forbidden or not. Even when they finally got their shit together in 900s and early 1000s they only retook some of northern Syria from a divided Muslim world.

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

That's an interesting analysis. I think if this case, let's assume that Iran is controlled by some Persian state. Likely, they'd be broken up into a number of states so, we'd see a mosaic of regional powers rather than one big one. Among them, I do believed that Muslim states would exist as well, like you mentioned, in the Amsar, like Basra, Kufa, etc. But I don't see how Muslims would be able to fight the onslaught from both Zoroastrian Persians and Christian Byzantines. Egypt especially wouldn't be easy to control since the Byzantines still had naval dominance and they'd easily attack Egypt. It was far too important to surrender as well.

Imam Ali said: by Allah Mu'awiyah didn't have more wits than me, but he's treacherous, and tyrannical, and I didn't despise treachery I would be having the most wits among the people... stop trying to elevate such characters who the prophet spoke badly off, Islam isn't about building empires and conquering land and gaining wealth

"Do you guys think if the Ummayads never came to power, the borders of the caliphate would be different?" will start at 44 : 00 at the full video one. SPOILER ALLERT: The cliffhanger was about "Marwan bin al-Hakam".

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

Awww! You had to watch the whole video?

Muawiyah's rise to power contributed to the "instability" of the era, as he ascended through a civil war and sparked another by designating his son as his successor. Without Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyad Caliphate might not have endured.

As an atheist (former Sunni) Muslim I will be very candid about Muawiyah. From a secular perspective Muawiyah was perhaps one of the greatest rulers, special emphasis on his centralising of power and providing stability after years of civil war with the last of the Rashidoon rulers, Ali and Hassan. However, from a religious perspective Muawiyah was a far greater blot on Islam than even perhapes Yazid. What has till then been a political difference between Sunni and Shia, deepened into a religious one all thanks to Muawiyah. He is solely responsible for laying down the tradition of cursing when he started the practice targeting Ali. He replaced the Caliphate with Dynastic rule and it was because of him that Muslims landed with Yazid that ultimately culminated with the carnage of Muhammad's family at Karbala, maot notably his grandson Hussain. Not to mention his attack on Hejaz during Ibn Zubair's uprising that resulted in the destruction of the Kaaba and ransaking of Medina. He also took full advantage during the reign of his cousin Uthman, when he crept his way up to the goveensoship of Syria. He was a silent spectator during Uthman's murder and seased the opportunity to prolonge the civil war after Ayesha backed out.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

1-The Cursing of Ali During Ummyyad Rule is a Myth.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

2-he was given all of the Levant during Umar's Rule not Uthman.

After the completion of Ambar bin Yasir hadith hz Muawiyah should accepted the bayyat of Mola Ali AS but he chosed the path of rebellion... Don't u know Hz Ayesha also accepted her mistake after the hadith of barking dogs

@SufficientIsAloneGod

8 ай бұрын

also In siffin imam Ali came forward and challenged him for a duel to stop furthers battles between Muslims.... but again he refused

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

8 ай бұрын

The Hadith of the barking dogs is unauthentic.

@SufficientIsAloneGod

5 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f who taught you

Wasn't Mu'awiyah the one who fought the caliph of the Muslims? Isn't everyone against the caliph of the Muslims from the Kharijites, or is it just Ali? It doesn't matter

I’ve heard someone say that Muawiyah was a better tactician/politician than Ali. Which are traits needed as a Ruler. Pious Rulers are an exception to the rule

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

Imam Ali said, by Allah Mua'wiyah doesn't have more wits than me but he's treacherous and tyrannical and It wasn't me despise being treacherous I would be having the moat wits among the people

@Full2635

Жыл бұрын

@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 Hassan gave bayah to Muawiyah

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

@@Full2635 In your dreams, he didn't give bayah he made a treaty with him, bayah doesn't come with conditions

@timokimo61

Жыл бұрын

@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 bayah comes with conditions like the ruler to be just and hear the people voice,ect...

@mhmadbedrddeen3414

Жыл бұрын

@@timokimo61 These are conditions that any person to become a ruler must have, the conditions of Imam Hasan were about limiting Mua'wiyah's power, for example in not giving the khilafah to his son Yazid which he broke, this nullifies it being normal bayah which doesn't in anyway limit the powers of a ruler, being just and listing to the people is part of being a ruler they are not conditions that could be added to limit the power of the ruler

🙂🙂

What if Muawiyah r.a unite with Ali r.a and still act as Ali's governor?

He did stop ali from establishing a "holy" dynasty over the blood of Uthman. Islam without muawiyah, would've been centered around the worship of ali and his descendants.

Muawiya was responsible for the civil war. How can you ignore such an important point.

Having studied islam academically for many years. The question should be if Muaiwiya or the Ummayads were even muslims? Now thats the topic you should discuss

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

We might have to talk to Fred Donner about that.

@maur_sault750

Жыл бұрын

@@AlMuqaddimahYT well I don't think it's just Fred Donner he's just a poster boy. Had to learn German to read the best books on the academic side of Islam and the evidence is pretty substantial. Very much destroys the standard Islamic narrative

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

@@maur_sault750 I can relate to that. I often say that other than Arabic, German is pretty much the most important language to study Islam.

If Muawiya(R.A) didn't rule Mola Ali(R.A) would and would rule much better. Problem solved.

You guys are discussing the history from within the traditional narrative. This is not gonna lead to anything but confusion. Believe me, the real story is totally different. But I know this might be hard for muslims to grasp.

@user-cg2tw8pw7j

Жыл бұрын

So what is the real story, and the Muslims and the Romans are the monotheists who have a vision of history and political literature, but the Europeans were a group of savages at that time, except for the Goths and the French

In my opinion Umar and Khalid Bin Walid were key. Islam would not have spread without the early expansion led by these two. They set the foundation for further expansion too.

@ahamedihamiyun5927

Жыл бұрын

It would have spread without those 2 either there where alot capable muslims leaders and generals at that time but Khalid was the best doe

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

Khalid Ibn Walid, whilst a great general, was also a rapist and murderer. I don’t understand why our Sunni brethren choose characters with questionable character and moral values. Is success in the dunya your only metric for reverence?

@ahamedihamiyun5927

Жыл бұрын

@@Zulfiqar32 I know he was murdered but I don't know about the rapist part

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@ahamedihamiyun5927 Yes he raped Malik ibn Nuwarays wife after killing him. Umar asked Abu Bakr to punish him, but he didnt m.

@sus527

Жыл бұрын

@@Zulfiqar32 their are two opinion regarding khalid and Malik bin wife what Happened, you are speaking from distorted Shia version or I should say decendents of Ali who had tribal conflicts for power

Least Sunni Muqaddimah video.

I think it’s idiotic even from my western centric standpoint to think that Islam would go back to Arabia. Supplanting nearer eastern and Coptic Christianity is not just a religious war it is one of a religion more attuned to survival in the climate of Egypt in the Fertile Crescent. And you claim the Turks would break apart everything and cause a Zoroastrian reversion in Persia if a Turkic tribe settled in Persia they would convert to Islam because that is a religion very suited to Steppe lifestyle. This is just Ludicrous to think Islam would be supplanted in the region that it creates the most stability for.

@user-cg2tw8pw7j

Жыл бұрын

This is strange. There is a hadith about the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, saying that Islam will return to being strange as it appeared strange

If muyawia isn't in power. Then Ali is. And I don't see caliphate falling apart like that while he rules

Muawiyah ended the caliphate and set the grounds for monarchy not the leaving the ummah on the shariah cabinet but leaving them to his legal heir.

Really! Muawiya saving Islam from whom actually it was, Christians or non Arab Muslims or Partisans of Ali and his sons or may be america in those time

Why Muhammad Qasim is Imam Al-Mahdi? Because his dreams have a strange connection with Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad SAW. and most importantly, he does not claim the title.

Vibe of Nasbiyat 😬

You say Muvayia consolidated power in civil power but you are forgetting he was the one to start it in the first place

May Allah blessed muawiya 🤲🏽

I definitely think without Muawiyah, Muslims would have never seen the first or second Fitnah (civil war). Muawiyah deliberately suppressed the House of Prophet to weaken their political stands among people. Khalifa Ali never wanted to fight Muawiyah but Muawiyah wanted to consolidate power because even in his own speeches Muawiyah kept telling the public that he has the right to Khalifat because he is from Qurash

1) In islam monarchy rule is Bidah/Haram. We know this because in every Friday Khutbah it is said that “all Bidahs are misguidance and all misguidance leads to the hell fire”. We know from the hadith Tirmizi - 2676 that monarchy rule is Bidah (innovation) in the deen which was NEVER practised by Prophet Muhamad PBUH or any of the 4 rightly guided Khulafa. Anything which is added to the Deen that was not practised by the Prophet PBUH or the Khulafa e Rashideen is Bidah. And we are ordered to stick to the sunnah of the prophet and the Khulafa e Rashideen and stay away from the innovations (Bidah). Tirmizi hadith No - 2676, status - sahih. حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حُجْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ، عَنْ بَحِيرِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو السُّلَمِيِّ، عَنِ الْعِرْبَاضِ بْنِ سَارِيَةَ، قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ وَعَظَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمًا بَعْدَ صَلَاةِ الْغَدَاةِ مَوْعِظَةً بَلِيغَةً ذَرَفَتْ مِنْهَا الْعُيُونُ وَوَجِلَتْ مِنْهَا الْقُلُوبُ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ:‏‏‏‏ إِنَّ هَذِهِ مَوْعِظَةُ مُوَدِّعٍ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَمَاذَا تَعْهَدُ إِلَيْنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ أُوصِيكُمْ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَالسَّمْعِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَالطَّاعَةِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَإِنْ عَبْدٌ حَبَشِيٌّ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ يَعِشْ مِنْكُمْ يَرَى اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَمُحْدَثَاتِ الْأُمُورِ فَإِنَّهَا ضَلَالَةٌ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَمَنْ أَدْرَكَ ذَلِكَ مِنْكُمْ فَعَلَيْهِ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَضُّوا عَلَيْهَا بِالنَّوَاجِذِ ،‏‏‏‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى:‏‏‏‏ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ،‏‏‏‏ وَقَدْ رَوَى ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو السُّلَمِيِّ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ الْعِرْبَاضِ بْنِ سَارِيَةَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَحْوَ هَذَا. Narrated Al-'Irbad bin Sariy One day after the morning Salat, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) exhorted us to the extent that the eyes wept and the hearts shuddered with fear. A man said: 'Indeed this is a farewell exhortation. [So what] do you order us, O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey, even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, whoever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa, ' cling to it with the molars.' 2) Dawood AS and Sulayman AS were Khalif’s and whoever does not believe that is a kafir because it is a direct rejection of the ayah of the quran surah 38 ayah 26: یٰدَاوٗدُ اِنَّا جَعَلۡنٰکَ خَلِیۡفَۃً فِی الۡاَرۡضِ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَ النَّاسِ بِالۡحَقِّ وَ لَا تَتَّبِعِ الۡہَوٰی فَیُضِلَّکَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ؕ اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ یَضِلُّوۡنَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ لَہُمۡ عَذَابٌ شَدِیۡدٌۢ بِمَا نَسُوۡا یَوۡمَ الۡحِسَاب (We said to him): O David We have appointed you as a Khalif on earth. Therefore rule among people with justice and do not follow (your) desire lest it should lead you astray from Allah's Path. Allah's severe chastisement awaits those who stray away from Allah's Path for they had forgotten the Day of Reckoning. Sulayman AS was chosen as Nabi and Khalif by Allah so his rule doesn't fit into monarchy. Monarchy is when a ruler appoints one of their relatives (son, brother etc) after them and the people have to or are forced to accept him as ruler, Dawood AS did not appoint Sulayman AS as the Khalif after him, this means it is not a monarchy. The Quran Never says that Dhul Qarnayn was a monarch, that is a lie against the Quran. Also we are NOT from the Ummah of Dawood AS we FOLLOW the prophet Muhamad PBUH. 3) in the hadith of Tirmizi 2226 the prophet PBUH is giving a warning to the ummah about the future the same way that the prophet PBUH warned us that a time will come where women will be clothed and yet naked. NO muslim in the history of islam has ever taken a warning as an order, your argument suggests that because the prophet PBUH prophesied monarchy it is justified then the prophet also prophesied women being clothed yet naked so does that mean it is justified, also the prophet PBUH prophesied people following dajjal does that mean following dajjal is justified. Your argument is a strawman argument that takes a prophecy as aqeedah when NO muslim has ever had this mentality. 4) Abu dawood 4646 says Allah gives the kingdom to whoever he wills, which is true but it doesn't justify monarchy rule AT ALL. A kingdom was given to Firaun so according to your argument Firaun’s rule was justified, a kingdom was given to Namrood so according to you Namrood’s rule is justified. And if you try to make the argument that it's talking about after the Rashidun Khilafah then the British also had a kingdom so according to you that is also justified. And you didn't even quote the full hadith because even you know that the Ummayid empire only stood because they had to try and delegitimize the Khilafh of Ali RA that why Safinah RA said what was said after the Umayids (Banu Zarqa meaning the blue eyed ones, the children of marwan became the rulers of the umayyad empire after Muawiyah Ibn Yazeed died) barked out the rubbish they said. 5) Now this is the last nail in the coffin. If ur still not convinced that monarchy rule is haram then if this hadith doesn't make you atleast think then there is a problem. Sahih bukhari 4827: Narrated Yusuf bin Mahak: Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazid bin Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya). Then `Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr RA told him something whereupon Marwan ordered that he be arrested. But `Abdur-Rahman entered `Aisha's (his sisters) house and they could not arrest him. Marwan said, It is he (`AbdurRahman) about whom Allah revealed this Verse:-- 'And the one who says to his parents: 'Fie on you! Do you hold out the promise to me..?' On that, `Aisha said from behind a screen, Allah did not reveal anything from the Quran about us (the family of Abu Bakr RA) except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence (of the slander). Now in Bukhari the tariq of this hadith is not complete however in Al Mustadrak al Hakim - 8483, Sunan An Nasai - 11491, Tabarani, Sharah Fathul Bari the full tariq is mentioned. And also in Tafseer Ibn Kathir for Surah Ahqaf ayah 17, Ibn Kathir mentions all the full tariqs of this hadith. In brief it mentions that Marwan lied and said that Abu Bakr RA appointed Umar RA as the khalif after him (which was never done Umar RA was chosen by the shurah of the ummah) rather than through the shurah of the ummah. Marwan tried to justify the Umayads corrupting the Khilafah into Monarchy rule by saying this and then Ibn Abu Bakr stood up and preserved the khilafah by saying “something”, which was that your Amir (muawiyah RA) in appointing his son after him is following the way of Kaisar (Roman emperor) and Kisra (Persian emperor) not the way of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA. and the rest of the tariq carries on as bukhari mentions. So from this we know that the Bidah of monarchy rule was first introduced by the Umays and the sahabah saw this as the way of the kafirs (roman and persians). 6) when this system of khilafah was corrupted Imam Hussain RA stood in the battlefield of Karbala to preserve the Deen which had been corrupted by the umayyads when they added monarchy rule into it. There is unfinished business on the battlefield in karbala and when the one from the offspring of Fatimah RA (Imam mahdi) comes, monarchy rule will end and the Khilafah will be re-established and the monarchies of the gulf arabs will go back to where they came from, the trash can. 7) Kingship is a quality of Allah and nobody has the right to call themselves king. The quran NEVER uses the word Malik (king) for anyone except Allah. To accept someone other than Allah as Malik (king) is shirk because only Allah is Malik. Kingship is for Allah Khilafah is a responsibility for humans.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

Can you name me a single scholar from the Salaf who called Monarchy a Bida'a?

The Rashid Khilafat was unstable because of Muawiyah RA because he wanted to over throw Ali RA in the battle of Sifeen. Muawiyah RA was the first person in this ummah to start the haram/bidah act of monarchy rule which is unIslamic. He was not a Caliph however he was a Monarch.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

Can you name a single Scholar from the Salaf that called Monarchy a Bida'a?!

@HamzaKhan-ue7ii

10 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f Monarchy rule is the way of kaiser (roman emperor) and kisra (Persian emperor). I'll give all the sahih hadith in the next reply. Ps I only accept what scholars have to say if it in line with the Quran and sahih hadith. Because the deen was revealed to Muhammad PBUH not on any scholar.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

@@HamzaKhan-ue7ii cite me the Hadith?

@HamzaKhan-ue7ii

10 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f I'm gonna slit the reply in 2 parts so read both.

@HamzaKhan-ue7ii

10 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f I'll give all the reasons why Monarchy rule is haram from the Quran and the sahih hadith and this time if you fear Allah you wont show arrogance. And u will understand the difference bwteen Khilafah and Mulookiyah (Monarchy rule). All the hadiths will be numbered based on international numbering not individual numbering because it makes them easier to find. 1) In islam monarchy rule is Bidah/Haram. We know this because in every Friday Khutbah it is said that “all Bidahs are misguidance and all misguidance leads to the hell fire”. We know from the hadith Tirmizi - 2676 that monarchy rule is Bidah (innovation) in the Deen and Monarchy was NEVER practised by Prophet Muhamad PBUH or any of the 4 rightly guided Khulafa. Anything which is added to the Deen that was not practised by the Prophet PBUH or the Khulafa e Rashideen is Bidah. And we are ordered to stick to the sunnah of the prophet and the Khulafa e Rashideen and stay away from the innovations (Bidah). Tirmizi hadith No - 2676, status - sahih. حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حُجْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ، عَنْ بَحِيرِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو السُّلَمِيِّ، عَنِ الْعِرْبَاضِ بْنِ سَارِيَةَ، قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ وَعَظَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمًا بَعْدَ صَلَاةِ الْغَدَاةِ مَوْعِظَةً بَلِيغَةً ذَرَفَتْ مِنْهَا الْعُيُونُ وَوَجِلَتْ مِنْهَا الْقُلُوبُ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ:‏‏‏‏ إِنَّ هَذِهِ مَوْعِظَةُ مُوَدِّعٍ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَمَاذَا تَعْهَدُ إِلَيْنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ أُوصِيكُمْ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَالسَّمْعِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَالطَّاعَةِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَإِنْ عَبْدٌ حَبَشِيٌّ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ يَعِشْ مِنْكُمْ يَرَى اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَمُحْدَثَاتِ الْأُمُورِ فَإِنَّهَا ضَلَالَةٌ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَمَنْ أَدْرَكَ ذَلِكَ مِنْكُمْ فَعَلَيْهِ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَضُّوا عَلَيْهَا بِالنَّوَاجِذِ ،‏‏‏‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى:‏‏‏‏ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ،‏‏‏‏ وَقَدْ رَوَى ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو السُّلَمِيِّ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ الْعِرْبَاضِ بْنِ سَارِيَةَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَحْوَ هَذَا. Narrated Al-'Irbad bin Sariy One day after the morning Salat, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) exhorted us to the extent that the eyes wept and the hearts shuddered with fear. A man said: 'Indeed this is a farewell exhortation. [So what] do you order us, O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey, even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, whoever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa, ' cling to it with the molars.' 2) Dawood AS and Sulayman AS were Khalif’s and whoever does not believe that is a kafir because it is a direct rejection of the ayah of the quran surah 38 ayah 26: یٰدَاوٗدُ اِنَّا جَعَلۡنٰکَ خَلِیۡفَۃً فِی الۡاَرۡضِ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَ النَّاسِ بِالۡحَقِّ وَ لَا تَتَّبِعِ الۡہَوٰی فَیُضِلَّکَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ؕ اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ یَضِلُّوۡنَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ لَہُمۡ عَذَابٌ شَدِیۡدٌۢ بِمَا نَسُوۡا یَوۡمَ الۡحِسَاب (We said to him): O David We have appointed you as a Khalif on earth. Therefore rule among people with justice and do not follow (your) desire lest it should lead you astray from Allah's Path. Allah's severe chastisement awaits those who stray away from Allah's Path for they had forgotten the Day of Reckoning. Sulayman AS was chosen as Nabi and Khalif by Allah so his rule doesn't fit into monarchy. Monarchy is when a ruler appoints one of their relatives (son, brother etc) after them and the people have to or are forced to accept him as ruler, Dawood AS did not appoint Sulayman AS as the Khalif after him, this means it is not a monarchy. For banu Israel the prophet was also the Khalif and prophethood is not passed down by father to son, it is given to people by Allah and prophethood has ended as of the passing of prophet Muhamad PBUH. 3) in the hadith of Tirmizi 2226. حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُرَيْجُ بْنُ النُّعْمَانِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَشْرَجُ بْنُ نُبَاتَةَ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُمْهَانَ، قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ حَدَّثَنِي سَفِينَةُ، قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:‏‏‏‏ الْخِلَافَةُ فِي أُمَّتِي ثَلَاثُونَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ مُلْكٌ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي سَفِينَةُ:‏‏‏‏ أَمْسِكْ خِلَافَةَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏ثُمَّ قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ وَخِلَافَةَ عُمَرَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَخِلَافَةَ عُثْمَانَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي:‏‏‏‏ أَمْسِكْ خِلَافَةَ عَلِيٍّ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ فَوَجَدْنَاهَا ثَلَاثِينَ سَنَةً، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ سَعِيدٌ:‏‏‏‏ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ:‏‏‏‏ إِنَّ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّ الْخِلَافَةَ فِيهِمْ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ كَذَبُوا بَنُو الزَّرْقَاءِ بَلْ هُمْ مُلُوكٌ مِنْ شَرِّ الْمُلُوكِ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى:‏‏‏‏ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ عُمَرَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَعَلِيٍّ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَا:‏‏‏‏ لَمْ يَعْهَدِ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْخِلَافَةِ شَيْئًا، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَدْ رَوَاهُ غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُمْهَانَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وَلَا نَعْرِفُهُ إِلَّا مِنْ حَدِيثِ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُمْهَانَ. Sa'eed bin Jumhan narrated: Safinah narrated to me, he said: 'The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: Al-Khilafah will be in my Ummah for thirty years, then there will be monarchy after that. ' Then Safinah said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of Abu Bakr,' then he said: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Umar and the Khilafah of 'Uthman.' Then he said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Ali. ' He said: So we found that they add up to thirty years. Sa'eed said: I said to him: 'Banu Umaiyyah claim that the Khilafah is among them.' He said: 'Banu Az-Zarqa (the blue eyed Umayyads)' lie, rather they are a monarchy, among the worst of monarchies. ' .

I basically come from Hanafi background. You have to consider conspiracies of Banu Ummaiya that happend. As we are going to consider that [If Muawia didnt exist then these conspiracies also never existed] 1: Muawia didnt rule as caliph/ a caliphate more like a king and a kingdom. 2: If Muawia never existed, 3rd caliph Usman would've lived a bit more. To be honest, 2nd Caliph has conquered much & many land and kingdoms with the help of Khalid ibn Walid (the bravest army chief). 3: As we come to the 4th (If Muawia didn't exist), Islam would have spread honestly & with the strict Islamic rules also with an expansion far greater than Umar (the 2nd caliph)Because the 4th caliph Ali was known for his bravery far greater than Khalid Ibn Walid. 4: After Ali's reign, people would've really chosen the next Caliph from within the family of the Prophet for sure. And they were more brave than anyother people, and you know why, dont you?

@amongyou6419

8 ай бұрын

You are being biased you emotional fool

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

8 ай бұрын

1-you being a Hanafi and being influenced by schism at the same time is something normal because hanafis are known to be the farthest Islamic school from hadith, abu Hanifa himself was ignorant in hadith and was even accused of being a liar by Imam Ahmed. 2-Ali being braver than Khalid is unproven, in fact, Khalid has more bravery feats than Ali.

@amongyou6419

8 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f give me source that imam Ahmad bin hanbal called Imam abu hanifa liar I am hanafi and fuck rafidis kuffar shia I know Khalid ibn waleed r.a. was more powerful than ali r.a. and muawiya r.a. was better ruler than ali r.a.

@saeedjaanz

8 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f I left the Hanafi sect due to Surah Aal e Imran, Ayah 159. You can't compare Sabiqoon o Awaloon to most later Sahaba. Remember when Khalid Ibn Walid RA used bad words for Abdul Rehman Ibn Ouf RA and Prophet SAW said "Dont curse my Sahaba or say anything bad to them" to Khalid Ibn Walid. Because Abdul Rehman Ibn Ouf was from the earlier persons to embrace Islam.

So many people in their feelings in the comment section. Unable to look at history objectively. Muawiyah is definitely influential.

I hate how tyranny and oppression is somehow perverted into virtuous seeming traits. Like Roman roads, the Imperial institutions of the Caliphate were overlaid on existing Sassanid & Byzantine infrastructures rendering it little more than a cliché new boss. How is Islam affected if at such a critical development phase it was hostage to a tyrannical theocracy influenced by Roman and Sassanid tradition? I’m now starting to think it should concern Muslims that the definitive lexicon of the Dini was consolidated by Uthman’s regime. I disagree that Mu’awiya was critical, in fact the entire Imperial phase of Islam was detrimental to the ethos and spirit of the Prophet’s message. The remnants of that Imperial past: Al-Saud, ISIS, the Taliban, various other Emirates; expose the true nature of Islam’s Imperial avatar-a highly successful player in an old world Game of Thrones vying to secure power for flimsy dynasties who have not stood the test of time. It’s only real legacy is the Sunni Shia divide. Yet in all this the most relevant lineage, is sidelined almost immediately. How does anyone reconcile that without a judicious dose of cognitive dissonance?

It's very unfortunate that Swaish doesn't want to tell the truth about how Mua'wiya performed Coup de tat ever in the Islamic History by creating a civil war situation known as (First Fitna), that resulted in battles Jamal, Siffin, Naharwaan. And finally seizing the power and then handing over it to his drunkard son Mala'oon Yazeed. (Completely opposite to Khulfa-e-Rashideen Traditions) He (Mua'wiya) if shouldn't had exist then Islamic Values and Culture would more prosper and power would remain to the rightful Ahlul-Bait.

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

*Syawish!!!

@mdarquamali1484

Жыл бұрын

​@@AlMuqaddimahYT how can you neglect the point that muawiya was responsible for the civil war and he converted the caliphate into a monarchy. How can you be such a baised person. And you have not mentioned Imam Ali (A.S.) for a single time in the whole discussion.

@mdarquamali1484

Жыл бұрын

​@@AlMuqaddimahYT I would say your views are extremely baised.

Go read Shahih Bukhari 2812 Sunun Abu dawood 4646 Al musannaf ibn abi shaybah 37157 Musnad ae Ahmad 16818,17931,17929,6929 Shahih muslim 6229, 4776, 305. At last I want to say Hazrat muawiya was shahbi but he did some wrong things it's Allah's will whether he leaves him or punishes him. There are more hadiths on this topic . Islam does not depend on one person.

Muawiyyah was a king who ruled as a king and solidified empire. Was Islam designed to be imperial ? This is a real question. Until the time of umar the second the ummayids discouraged conversion to Islam do they could capitalise on the tax cheated to non Muslims. Syria remained largely Christian, and if you read the critism of John of Damascus of the prophet Muhammad and Islam during the reign of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan and after, you’ll see no one cares too much about Islam but they did about kingship and rule. The title is therefore incorrect muawiyaah didn’t save Islam as it’s debatable according to many academics that he was even professing Islam in the first place.

Ameer Muawaiyah wasn’t Moslem he was a Christian.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

He and his wife were Muslims.

@ChefbyMistake

10 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f Not his Wife she was a Christian.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

@@ChefbyMistake she was a Muslim like Ibn Kathir said, and I said that to debunk this rumor\theory as well and along with your original claim.

@ChefbyMistake

10 ай бұрын

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f In archeological facts its opposite. The Ummayad mosque is a Church also the Coins had Cross at that time and after several decades.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

@@ChefbyMistake there is also an image of fire in the same coin in Iraq? Does that mean that the Ummyyads\Mauwiah were Zorosastrians?

If muawiyah did not existed there would be no opposition to imam Ali the rightly guided caliph of islam. How could you say that if muawiyah did not exist islam would be solely an arabic religion? He did not do anything except sowing seeds of monarchy and lavishness in islamic caliphate.

In siffin Imam ali came forward and challenged muawiyah for a duel. Amr ibn al As encouraged muawiyah to fight however he refused and said "how could he fight a person who was never lost a duel." He was a coward.

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

Shia lies, the historian Nasr Ibn Muzzahim who wrote that is from the Ghulat of the Shias, not even a simple Shia.

1:30 don’t say “if …, … would happen”. haram

Great?? He killed your prophets family wth.. he was horrible

Swayish your analysis is regarding this topic is very baised.

Muawiyah was a sahaba and prophet loved him.

Muawiyah gives a shut up call to Roman King! During Sifeen face-off (orchestrated due to the Kharjee plotting) between Amir Muʿāwiyah and Amir ul Momineen ʿAlī bin Abi Talib, taking advantage of clashes amongst Muslims, the king of Rome started to gather a large army to attack the Muslims. When Muʿāwiyah came to know of this, he wrote a letter to the Caesar of Rome. Impact of this letter was enough to make Roman King abandon this misadventure: O accursed one! If you have resolved to fulfill your evil motives, then I take an oath that I will reconcile with my cousin ʿAlī immediately and the name of the first Chief of the military force which will be dispatched against you by Ali will be Muʿāwiyah. I will make Constantinople into a burnt coal and I will uproot and flank your empire like uprooted carrots and radishes. Sources: (3 Tāj al-ʿUrūs vol. 7 pg. 208) (Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah vol. 8 pg. 119)

You are really disillusioned my brother. Muawiyya and his House of al-Harb changed the spirit of Khilafat to convert the Muslim State into an Umayyad Imperial Empire. Muawiyya did that by reviving the pre-Islamic alliances of those Arab tribes who had fought Rasul'Allah and supported the five apostate false prophets. His grandson abdicated and disappeared into the wilderness to disown the corrupt imperial empire seek Allah's forgiveness. Abd'Allah Ibn Zubyr tried to revive the Rightly Guided Khilafat but he was defeated by the al-Aas House of the Umayyads led by Marwan bin Hakam the cousin of Muawiyya. It was Hakam who had betrayed Usman and sowed the seeds of the Fitnah.

@user-cg2tw8pw7j

Жыл бұрын

My brother, the sons of Othman, may God be pleased with him, joined Muawiyah, and for this reason Muawiyah won

I aint Shiite, but I would have died fighting alongside Ali RA rather tahn joining Muawia (and his drunkard son)

@user-dl5ln3wd6f

10 ай бұрын

As Bad As Yazid was, he was never drunk.

Muawiyah discouraged conversion. The Persians were conquered by the sahaba as was eygpt these two regions including sham were absolutely pivitol. Without Muawiyyah we might have Islam proper

You talking about how stable Muawiya made the caliphate... he was the only reason the previous caliph was destabilized. Isnt that sarcastic? Without Muawiya, Ali Ibn Abi Talib would have many years more to reign and maybe these brutal invasions of other nations would stop

Sahi Bukhari 2812

Recent research shed light about the fact that Persia didn't fall into the muslims's hand directly, instead they were autonomously free because it was ruled by local parthian regional leaders that help the Muslims to overthrow the Sasanids

I’m patiently waiting for this channel to do a video on how Uthman was a nepotist who enriched his fellow Ummayads, and put them in positions of privilege when he was the Khalifa. Since you know this channel is so focused on objective truth. You boys don’t want to look at actual early Islamic history, trust me

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

I did talk about that in the video. Did you watch it, man?

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@AlMuqaddimahYT No the title is grossly repulsive, why would I even watch a second of this nonsense?

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

Oh my God!

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

You want me to watch a video which exhales the oppressors of our Prophets(saw) family?

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

No, it's fine but then don't comment on it, man! If you don't want to watch the video, that's your right but don't comment on it without watching it, solely based on the title and thumbnail. KZreadrs always make clickbaity thumbnails and titles. Focus on the content. In this case, you won't like the content, I agree, but then don't comment either.

I have to unsubscribe after this. How do you dare say this knowing full well he and his son killed the prophet son in law and his grand children

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryOfRevolutions the guy literally killed companions of the Prophet(saw) and probably killed Imam hasan(as) But you’re confident Muawiyah is in a good place in the Aakhirah, right? May Allah(swt) give you, your mother and your lineage the same station as Muawiyah in the aakirah. Amen. If you’re comfortable with that, say ameen ; )

@IngramSnake

Жыл бұрын

Muawiyya didn’t kill them. You need the provide proof or stop defaming a person who has been dead for over a thousand years. Your tribalism is showing. Be logical.

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@IngramSnake yes you’re right. I am deeply tribalistic toward our Prophet(saw) and his ahlul bayt(as) which is exalted both in Quran and both Sunni and Shia Hadith. I proudly own that. You unfortunately are someone that is a victim of a historical anti Alid tradition which goes back all the way to the Ummayads, when Muawiyah waged war against the calipha of his time, Imam Ali(as), used manipulative and machivillean tactics to wage war and come to power, oppressed Imam Hasan(as) and was potentially involved in his assassination, and put his drunkard son as his successor who killed the grandson of our Prophet(saw) Imam Husayn, along with his infant baby in Karbala. The fact that none of this moves you to reconsider your position shows me your heart is sealed my brother

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@IngramSnake I am happy to provide references. First thing tomorrow

Syawish it seems that you are supprter of the ummayad regime and in this video you have raised a point that muawiya stabilized the caliphate after the civil war, but you are hiding the major point that muawiya was the person who was responsible for civil war. And muawiya is the person who turned the caliphate to a monarchy. How can you defend him. Yor opinion is extremely baised.

The accursed Individual who you keep mentioning as the one who saved Islam was the one of main culprits behind the civil wars in first place. He was responsible for instigating a rebellion against Uthman and killing him in first place. He had resort to deceitful tactics when he couldn't win the war he started with Imam Ali(A.S) by his asking his army to place copies of Quran on to their spears. His intentions were to return the power to himself and his family that was lost during the prophet (SAW)'s time. His accursed son killed the grandson of the prophet (SAW) as well as tried to catapult stones onto the Kaaba. His son would have destroyed the very Islam that you claimed his father saved! Very disappointed with your analysis.

@hussainsultanzada6123

Жыл бұрын

I'd say Mu'awiya didn't instigate a rebellion against Uthman, more so he completely ignored it and let it happen. Otherwise, the rest of your statement is correct.

The big problem of the actual Muslims is that they glorify the worst personalities of their history instead of those who scarified themselves for the survival of an ethic and universal Islam , ..muawiya and his family were the main reason of the civil war between Muslims and they were so bloody greedy and mercifulness just like the tribe of Omaya were before Islam . Never forget that the father of muawiya was Abu sufyan and his mother ..hind , the leaver eater ..so son of a cannibal …But it is true that “ the hearts are blind not the eyes “.. كما تولوا يولى عليكم … this famous maxim is still reality 15 centuries later ..pity

Sunni propaganda , you can feel the amount of coping Really makes you lose respect for muslims

Unsubscribed

You forgot that Muawiyah himself was the problem i guess, first time seeing you this biased :D

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

Haha, maybe I didn't make my point clear. Mu'awiyah wasn't the problem I was referring to. The problems began before Mu'awiyah ever entered Syria. Like the financial issues, the social, cultural, religious issues of the Caliphate needed to be addressed. The First Fitna wasn't a disease, it was a symptom.

@hussainali8626

Жыл бұрын

@@AlMuqaddimahYT well, yes to a certain degree, the caliphate became decentralized during Uthman, which Ali tried to solve, and would have succeeded if it weren't for Muawiyah defiance, also, Ali tried to improve the income of the Caliphate, if you have noticed his letter to Malik Al-Ashtar when he sent him to govern Egypt :P. And regarding Turkic invasion, I doubt it would be that disasterous due to the Arabs being at the height of their strength, as Ibn Khalddun if I'm not mistaken said, an empire weakness after a while, I can't really remember the quote sorry, but the Arabs were still rough, they'd probably triumph against the Turks

La'nat'ullah ala Mu'awiyah and his descendants.

@muzza9467

3 ай бұрын

Umm Haram al-Ansariyah (Radi Allahu Anha) reported that she heard the Prophet (SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam) say: أول جيش من أمتي يغزون البحر مغفور لهم The first army of my ummah (nation) that invades tha sea, all there sins are forgiven. [Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, Page 253, Hadith 2924] 6. Hafidh Ibn Hajar (Alayhir Rahmah) said: "Muhallab said: In this hadith there is a virtue of Mu'awiyah, because he was the first to invade the sea". [Fath al-Baari, Vol. 6, Page 127]

This is good content . But very very bad history

Muawiyah is one of the greatest emperors of human history. May he rest in peace

Unsubscribing and reporting for repeating Umayyad propaganda.

@AlMuqaddimahYT

Жыл бұрын

Does KZread have an option for that?

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@AlMuqaddimahYT clearly I was being half serious. But wouldn’t expect a nasabi to get that. Carry on Nasibi

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@AlMuqaddimahYT May Allah put you in the same station as Muawiyah in the aakirah my brother. Ameen

@IngramSnake

Жыл бұрын

So you report the channel for speaking truth?

@Zulfiqar32

Жыл бұрын

@@IngramSnake Nasibi truths.

Why are you trying so hard to save Muawiyah. I am a from the "sect" Ahle Sunnah and it's enough for us to keep defending Muawiyah after what he did.