Here’s an analogy to understand the Sunni Shia split: Muhammad was the sole proprietor of a startup called Islam. After he died, the heirs of the company disagreed on business structure. One side wanted to corporatize the company with an elected CEO (the Sunni), the other side wanted to remain a sole proprietorship with hereditary ownership (the Shia). This disagreement resulted in the company splitting into two different brands.
According to Shias Abu Bakar did a coup using force. When Mohamed died there is no more one version of the story, there is two versions, the shia and sunni so is not really possible know what version is the real one.
Rudyard Lynch evangelical fan club member here. ;). Every single one of these history 102 videos is as good or better than college level history courses.
@@History102-qg5oj all Muslims are Sunni the same way almost all Christian denominations practice baptism, Shias call Sunni’s “non Shia” instead subtle digs they take at each other
This video is not bad, but two things are inexcusable. 1st, describing early Islam as capitalist is anachronistic, there are many free market and ecomonic centred elements in Islam, but Islam does not view any kind of interest as beneficial and must be regulated. 2nd, the narrative of Al-Ghazali supposedly causing the downfall of Islamic science is neither true to the history of science nor to Al-Ghazali's own thought, and no reputable scholar of Al-Ghazali would say this. If there is, I would like to see a source That literalist understanding you attributed to him was actually opposed to him, Al-Ghazali was a mutakallim(speculative theologian), an Asha'ri who synthesized the literalist and rationalist theologies. And still, both the literalist and Ash'ari schools of theology remain as just that, schools of theology and was not concerned with science. Al-Ghazali himself said that mathematic was the "blessed science" or something to that manner
The mu'tazila school are also often described as free thinking empiricists, but this is inaccurate. The Mu'tazila are a purely theological school, there were many mu'tazila who were only interested in theology and most muslim scientists at the time were not mu'tazili. Ibn Al-Haytham himself, who formulated the scientific method, was of the Ash'ari school of theology, the same as Al-Ghazali. To some extent, it is true that rationalism in all aspects came into society. But it is inaccurate to attribute scientific positions to schools of theology. The literalist Ibn Hazm for example was a literalist only in religion and justified his literalism through rationality. He was also a scientist, doctor and avid reader of the Greeks.
What's even more inexcusable is that Al-Ghazali regarded learning medicine, mathematics and other worldly knowledge to be a communal obligation. That in a community, there has to be people who learn these things and not just religious knowledge. That whole narrative of Al-Ghazali ruining science in Islam is a Neil Degrasse Tyson tier understanding and I, as a person who has read Al-Ghazali for years, do not know where does it come from
Yes, you are absolutely correct, this is the main mistake in this video, AlGhazali corrected the wrong philosophers ideas, but He was never against science, and saying that he is responsible for the fall of Muslim civilization is a significant and severe mistake that has nothing to do with truth and logic !
Come on interest being haram is totally anarcho capitalist lol yeah, Islam definitely wasn't capitalist but i don't bother pointing it out all the ancap fanbois will whine especially when you make them pay zakat (which is also not terribly capitalist). neither is regarding businesses as halal (or haram).
Disagree due to lack of sources listings, also the dialogue is really more like a monologue but I guess that Eric is being cautious or such. Plus there's no maps or other visual supports. But it's still well worth listening too.
As a Muslim, I am impressed with your knowledge of Islam. You explain these topics off the top of your head, and most Muslims might not know half of this information.
As a spaniard I'm glad that the multicultural myth of Al-Andalus is finally falling down. Here is use by the postmodern left to diminish out Cristian roots. Great video!
1st Century: Roman Paganism 2nd Century: Roman Paganism 3rd Century: Roman Paganism 4th Century: Roman Paganism (early) / Christianity (late) 5th Century: Christianity 6th Century: Christianity 7th Century: Christianity 8th Century: Islam (after 711 AD) 9th Century: Islam 10th Century: Islam 11th Century: Islam 12th Century: Islam (early) / Christianity (late) 13th Century: Christianity 14th Century: Christianity 15th Century: Christianity 16th Century: Christianity 17th Century: Christianity 18th Century: Christianity 19th Century: Christianity 20th Century: Christianity 21st Century: Christianity You get the point? Or you stoopid? In 711 AD, the Umayyad Caliphate launched an invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, leading to the significant event known as the Muslim conquest of Spain. This marked the beginning of Islamic rule in large parts of the Iberian Peninsula. Here are the key points:Battle of Guadalete: The Umayyad forces, led by Tariq ibn Ziyad, defeated the Visigothic King Roderic at the Battle of Guadalete.Establishment of Al-Andalus: Following their victory, the Umayyads rapidly expanded their control over much of the peninsula, establishing the region known as Al-Century? In the 12th century, the Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula, known as the Reconquista, was gaining significant momentum. Here are the key points regarding Christians during this period: Reconquista Progress: Christian kingdoms such as Castile, Aragon, and Portugal made substantial advances against the Muslim-controlled territories of Al-Andalus. Significant victories included the capture of major cities like Toledo (1085), Zaragoza (1118), and Lisbon (1147).
But you Spanish still deny that Magellan was killed by Lapu-Lapu in The Philippines, your spreading of the Inquisition to Latin America and The Philippines as well as using Natives as slaves to get the silver in Potosi in Bolivia.
Fun fact, Al Rashid gifted an Elephant to Charlemagne, which was one of the most reported events of its reign since it impressed the European soo much. They where in really good terms, exchanging gifts all the time
Bruv, the channel and the topics are so good. The only thing holding you guys back is that it’s on Zoom and the sound quality. Please take this criticism seriously
The centuries 500-1000 are unironically the most important and best centuries in history and we learn absolutely nothing about them in American high school. American high school literally begins with the black death (basically the death-bell of the middle ages) and portrays that as representing the entire middle ages which is just rediculous. But as you pointed out last week, it tracks because to actually talk about the middle ages in a serious way would run counter to the ideological programming of protestants and atheists ((note also that the 'new-atheists' are fundamentally a product of protestant secularism))
💯. Also, 1500 is peak western civilization and we’ve been fortunate enough to coast off of the work done at that time until the present. The coast is running out though.
@@selfprojects1953 I mean WW2 was definitely a finest hour for the Allies, also a lot of spectacular artistic and literary achievements in the 19th and early 20th
I would make the argument that both the geography and religion of Europe and Middle East aren't exactly the same as they were 1000 years ago. The Middle East has become a lot more dry and arid since back then. And as you mentioned, the early Muslim empires were largely run by Syrian Christians and remained majority Christian. Now there are hardly any Christians left in the Middle East.
as a saudi, i have some things to say that give more context to it 1-the life of the prophet in some depth , (he had a title before his prophecy from the locals of mecca to be "the trustworthy the honest "(الصادق الامين) i couldnt get an exact translate but thats what it implies , even with such a title he struggled a lot once he announced his prophecy ,it is also important to point that he is born from one of the elite tribes in quraiysh yes he never met his dad and only for quite few years with his mom, he was mainly raised by his grandfather but he is still held in an elite manner when it comes to clan heriarchys in the local area of mecca that time , also important to mention that he was never a pagan he was a "hanafi" a one who beleives in one god 2- the quran was revealed over 23 years the shcolars have classifed the quran into "stories"(the stories of the other prophets like moses jesus abraham noah lot solomon and many more ) or a response to a current event like in one of the chapters it mentions the state of muslims in the only battle where they had the advantage in numbers "the battle of mu'tah " (arabian peninsula unification) the muslims admired the great numbers they had yet they lost, the quran responded that once you dont rely upon god and let pride over take you , god make you lose to realise it and rules like what happens to theft or murder 3-it is also very importnant to mention that there was massive civil war called "the rida war" right after the death of the prophet where many tribes have rebeled and wanted to go back to paganism so saying arabs just arose to an empty power vaccum is downplaying , but overall you said the reason to be superior leader ship which is right. just important to mention that this superiorty was gained from civil war that hit the military power number wise to the arabs , overall i would just edit that it wasnt only a superior generals and an empty power vaccum but acutally an impressive military sucsess due to religous zealousy and great generals i apologize for the bad writing i am not a writer and english isnt my mother tounge , if anyone is intersted in sources i am down to have a call and discuss it on my discord "exrsta"
Books at the end: - Cotton, Climate, and Camels (Bulliet) - A Short History of the Arab Peoples (Glubb) - Destiny Disrupted (Ansari) - The Venture of Islam Vol I, II, III (Marshall Hodgson) - Arabs a 3000 Year History (Mackintosh-Smith)
Very good. I just happened to read another book by Bulliet, "The Camel and the Wheel," right after reading a book about the fall of Rome which blamed it on climate (cooling) and disease (e.g., the Plague of Justinian). The theory that occurred to me after reading both of those is that the rise of Islam was due largely to the fact that camels could travel inland better than horses (especially in deserts), the Arabs mastered both a new type of saddle and cross-breeding camels to make them better for long-range transport of goods, and that camel caravans were less likely than ships to transmit epidemics because they were smaller and traveled through dryer climates less-conducive to disease spread anyway. And that the cooling after the Roman Climate Optimum made formerly hot climates more conducive to human habitation and travel. This is also consistent with the fact that the new urban centers of the Islamic world were generally more inland than coastal (e.g., Cairo instead of Alexandria, Baghdad, etc.). I liked Bulliet's book very much, thanks for recommending his other one, it looks good, too.
This episode went far more into vague generalisations than other past episodes, which were very good in my opinion. There are a few glaring misleading points, as to my understanding. Firstly, while the Church was split between different factions, I don’t know why he’s calling it “corrupt”, that part came a few centuries later. By this point the Church was still expanding and had an overall positive and prominent influence. Also, honestly he didn’t go into much detail as to why the Sassanid and part of the Byzantines fell, other than the sectarian divisions. The huge event that he never even mentioned was the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628, which was essentially the World Wars of that era and devastated society to such a level that it was east for the Muslims to invade and conquer to begin with. Also, while the Muslims were relatively good rulers in their old Roman territories, there are documented atrocities that they committed in the Persian empire, such as the genocide of large parts of the Khwarezmian people. With the Sassanid Empire, there were significant internal divisions (it was a feudal confederacy) as a result of the previous war which compelled the Parthian nobility, which controlled large parts of the country, to not come to the aid of the royal authority.
I don't think the current situation of Muslims is due to geography. They have significant geographical advantages, such as controlling areas where major continents meet, making them the center of the global economy. If the Umayyads and Abbasids had continued the Rashidun mindset and pushed into Europe, which I believe they could have, the world would be different today. I think they became complacent. Even today, with the substantial oil reserves in Muslim-controlled territories, they should be a dominant civilization. The issue isn't ideological superiority or lack of motivation or bad geography but rather terrible leadership.
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
You totally glossed over the Mughals, indians, etc. who had their Golden Age(Taj Mahal, Delhi, etc.), which is much after your time period for golden age of Islam. You also skipped over the Indonesia, Malaysia. Just these 2 groups account for about half of all the Muslims in the world right now. Then you also had the Ottomans that reigned for 700 years, 300-400 of those years were also their golden age of military dominance.
Great work. Can you list the titles of the recommended books at the end? Zoom (or whatever you're using) blurs images that aren't in the focus zone, so it's hard to makeout the titles. In the future, you coukd also say the titles and authors, like you did with the Tom Holland book.
Can you suggest a book on the Abbassid Caliphate? Especially where historians prove that the Abbassids hit degeneracy. I just wanna find out more details of it. PLS
I went to graduate school and this claim was explored in “The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800.” This book by Jonathan Berkey was assigned at CUNY Queens College in 2009. Then there are apostates like Ibn Warraq, but he is just reviving Orientalist conjecture. There’s so much evidence for the existence of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in my personal opinion, however. Several books of ahadith, the Birmingham manuscript and Sebeos’ chronicle of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (r. 610-41) are there.
15:08 I'm beginning to understand why Judaism feels more "same" to me, as someone raised southern Baptist, than Catholicism: definite moral code, harsh God, taboos (drinking alcohol) , etc... Southern Baptists, at least from North Alabama and Southern Middle Tennessee where I grew up, can be somewhat "judaising," and its an open secret that the Jews figure prominently in Southern Baptist Eschatology. Basically, they're still God's chosen people to a southern baptist, and will, in the end, be offered a chance to accept Jesus after death. This is really different from what my wife's midwestern catholic family believes... like, really different..
Fun fact: Jews are not allowed to pray next to a Christian or enter a church, but they can pray next to a Muslim and even pray at the mosque. The Talmud was written about 200 years after the Gospels. Once you start noticing, it is impossible to not see it.
@@notsocrates9529 Because Orthodox Jews consider Christianity dangerously close to idolatry, meanwhile Islam is strictly monotheistic to them like Judaism. Also the Talmud is a collection of oral traditions that were written down so they would be preserved in around 200CE for the Mishnah and 500 or so CE for the Gemara. These were oral traditions that were around before the 2nd Temple was destroyed, before the time of Jesus. So it was not created after Christianity, it was preserved after.
Fun fact: Muhammad (S.A.W) aged 25, married Khadijah (R.A.) aged 40 and he never married another women before the death of Kadijah (R.A.). He (S.A.W) also had all children from this marriage except for Ibrahim/ Abraham (R.A.)
There was one reason for Mohammed to arise: arabs were pagan at that time and there was rentier aristocracy at Mecca who controlled trade and the Kabba (pilgrimage business). Because of the realization of the outer powerful empires, this ancient regime could not met with the resentment to the faith of "one omnipotent God" and that everybody is equal before him, to the degree of the charity and praying and participating to the survival of Islam etc. You may be an aristocrat but now you are "equal": same laws same prayers common cause, equal share of the spoils apply to you. In islam the relation with god is not father and son but master and slaves, including Mohammed. So that creates a unity where it is "we obey our master and he gives us morality, heaven, wealth, family, peace, harmony etc." kind of feeling. However this Master became more and more of a nonresponsible king over time, as Muslims obtained more power.
@theironknight597 yeah it was seen because nonmuslims don't serve in the military, they should pay for it to make it equal lol. "I keep you safe bro!" sometimes this was the case though like Spanish Jews and the Ottomans
Ackchyually..... zakat is only 2.5 percent of wealth, the other tax called the Jizya (tax for only non-Muslims, which was around 10-20%) and was the only source of revenue for their empire. When the majority of the people converted, the Arabs administrators instituted jizya on non arab muslims (which was very controversial) which sparked massive revolts, which helped destroy the Ummayads.
This video is really useful, but Rudyard has a lot of misconceptions about Islam and the analysis is pretty biased to make Islam look better than it really is.
That's, exactly, what Christianity is about. If you're trying to go against the Holy Trinity here you're just ignorant and haven't studied why we know that is true.
There are things you got wrong. Just to name something: Zakat is not 10%, etc. I am free from all false statements and Islam and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is also.
Roman noblewoman frequently got married at 12, per Sir Edward Coke within the Thirteen colonies it was common for people to get married below the age of 12 with examples as young as 4 years of age, the medieval Catholic church made it legal for 13 yo girls and 15 yo boys to get married without parental consent. Child marriage was common globally, not just in Arabia, until the last couple of centuries. Attempting to exonerate your own nation from historically participating in this crime is delusional, believe me it's guaranteed that if you go back a thousand years within your own ancestory, you are gonna come across plenty of marriages where at least one partner was uncomfortably young.
Mohammed was manufactured, as was Mecca. The religion first arose from Petra abd spread from there. The narrative about Mohammed served the purpose of launching and cementing an empire. There are no contemporaneous references Mohammed or Mecca. The claims made for Mecca and the orientation of prayer is towards Petra. It is not Abrahamic, just pretends to be. Thematically and pholosophically as well as historically and culturally, there is no relation. That's why Islam makes no sense when taken in the context you want to view it in.
I really liked your video because it represents a deep and respectful reading of islamic history, and it is really interesting to see your history being talked about from different points of view and it's really appreciated, but I disagree with you in 2 main points: 1. The first one is saying that the prophet Muhammad - pbuh - took some of his knowledge from Jews , but this was not the case, because mainly the Jews weren't spreading their religion among the Arabs and when Muhammad - pbuh - said he is a prophet the Jews immediately disbelieved in him and said he was sent only for the Arabs, also - as you said - Muhammad - pbuh - was illiterate, he didn't know how to read and write, and we know that he didn't study with any Jewish scholar, and we know the Jews disbelieved in his message. so how would he take the knowledge from the Jews? 2. Saying that Al-ghazali "killed" the scientific movement in the islamic world. And I mainly disagree with you because I believe that this is not the reason of the collapse of the scientific movement, because if you give it a quick look at some of the important scholars in Islamic civilization you will notice that many of them came after Al-ghazali died - in 1111 - by 3 or 4 centuries, for example the mathematician Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, the astronomers Mu'ayyad al-Din al-Urdi and Shams al-Din al-Khafri, the founder of the modern astronomy - came before Copernicus - Ibn al-Shatir, also we don't forget the navigator and cartographer Ahmad ibn Mājid, and you can read more about this topic in the book of Columbia University professor George Saliba called "The Origin and Development of Arabic Scientific Thought", all these scholars came after Al-ghazali, so I believe he is not the reason. Instead I believe that the reason for the collapse was mainly economical, it was because the Muslim lost Al-andlus (Spain) which was the wealthiest part of the islamic world and the discovery of America and the route of cape of the good hope, all these reasons together made the economy movement change from east to west, so the Muslim world suffered a "depression" that made it lose his advance. I also liked a point you talked around the minute 35 or so about the Hadith and the "code" to check the certainity of saying this Hadith was said by the prophet - pbuh - and the name for this science is "Hadith terminology" and I really see it as the crown jewel of Islamic science, and it was nice that you know about it because many people don't know and don't talk about it. As all it was nice to listen to you, thank you.
That's true there's this Ask Project run by this guy name Corey Gil-Shuster where he asked Religious Israelis if Judaism was closer to Christianity or Islam and vast majority said Islam and many said it would be okay for them to enter mosque because of the similarities.
This is a welcome surprise. I have just started a challenging, but nonetheless superb, history of Islam by Marshall G.S. Hodgson titled The Venture of Islam. As recommended by Toby Matthiesen, who is also very good.
nice introductory video however there is many errors of your explanations of both historical and theological facts, for example Shia vs Sunni was not Arabs vs Persians in early Islamic history. The Persians were forcefully converted to shi'ism by the Turks in the 15th century under Safavid rule. Shi'ism in the beginning was more concentrated in Iraq nor Persia. This is just one of many, still it is a good introductory video for people to get into Islamic history.
Ethnic map at 30:20 is wrong, Pashtun area was Punjabi. Pashtun ethnogenesis had not occurred yet & i doubt that today's Pashtuns have any ancestry from the people that lived there at the time of the Ummayads.
Muhammad got lucky in that he was born early in the Dark ages. Enormous chunks of the population had died off from the 536 AD and the nations were still being stupid. He unified and conquered people living in a miserable time. I would argue Islam began to have their own Dark Age beginning with Al-Ghazali and they never escaped it.
Not lucky, but rather a Divine plan. Just like Jews got their golden age under David and Solomon right after Bronze age collapse. Similarly Muslims/Arabs got theirs, but on a much bigger scale - Both brought an end to the age of Paganism/idolism.
From a religious perspective, I believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a mercy upon mankind. Even from a secular view, a look at pre-Islamic Arabia shows how this area had so many deficiencies that needed to be remedied through the example of a prophet. For example, the tribes were divided, female infanticide was practiced, and there was great lewdness in the society. Islam gave people unity and dignity, while the status of orphans and women was significantly improved.
Abbasids created Islam as we know it and Prophet Muhammad as we know him before them there was no islam and prophet Muhammad Islamic history needs to be revised.
A simple correction regarding the point of Shiites and the Abbasid Caliphate In fact, during this period, the difference between Sunnis and Shiites was not clear. It was a political dispute more than anything else, and the Shiite imams at that time were revered by the Sunnis as well.
Hey how about a history of the carribbean? I'd like to see how long it goes before Puerto Rico gets mentioned and the inevitable elephant in the room gets addressed about its status pertaining to the USA.
Rudyard is a bit wrong on a few points. Biggest that comes to mind is that Mohammad MARRIED a 6 year old, but waited until she was 9 years old to have sex with her. And, no, that wasn't acceptable back then and several of his own followers took issue with the fact Mohammad was lusting after a 6 year old to which he gave the tried and true "Allah wills it" as a rebuttal. And due to this; what is considered pedophilia by all definitions is actually accepted in much of the Islamic world because Mohammad is the most perfect man who will ever exist.
7:36 Woah, hold up! The Zoroastrians DON'T worship fire! They worship a god that manifests in forces of nature and fire is the most popular of many representations. It is like saying Iconography entails worship of the icons themselves without representing something outside of them. The also go to rivers and mountains as representations of the same god if I remember correctly. The idea that Zoroastrians worship fire is actually a longstanding slander against them.
2:32 I would suggest primary historical cause of the rise of Islam is the fracturing of Christianity over the nature of Christ (Christological debate, 400s-600s AD).
13:48 Okay, Rujuard is starting to get prot iconoclast here. Images were always a thing in ancient israelite religion, just look at Ezekiel's and the Torah's description of the second temple and ark respectively. As well, as look at the Dara Europis Synagogue. Now, one could argue it got more As for Bizzare superstitions, maybe among the people but by your own admission in the last video the Catholic Church, which at this time was the Roman Empire's Church, did not even believe in witches.
Yes, you could say that the Church was split between different factions, but I don’t know why he’s calling it “corrupt”, that part came a few centuries later. By this point the Church was still expanding and had an overall positive and prominent influence. Also, honestly he didn’t go into much detail as to why the Sassanid and part of the Byzantines fell, other than the sectarian divisions.
Your explanation of the Abrahamic faiths has some merit, but it can be expressed more clearly. The Jewish perception of God is often seen as strict and demanding, with laws that were challenging to uphold. In response, Christianity introduced a view of God that emphasizes forgiveness and mercy, but some believe it might have become too lenient, to the point where accountability was diminished. In contrast, Islam presents a balanced perspective, combining justice and mercy, which many see as a middle ground between the two.
The difference between Yahweh and Allah is that Yahweh requires blood for justice to be achieved, and He sees righteous acts committed by sinners as filthy rags, where as Allah can forgive and forget without anyone being punished. Speaking as a Christian, this is the main problem with Islam, is that it cannot be a continuation of the Jewish prophets like it claims to be since it contradicts the nature of God as established by the prophets. The biggest difference between Islam and Christianity is an ontological one, where in Christianity it is possible for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one being, where as in Islam if something is distinct then it has to be separate, therefore the Trinity is polytheistic.
A good example is that God’s attributes are distinct (in that His mercy and His wrath do not act on us the same way), yet they are one in essence, because to say otherwise is to say that God is not one.
The anti-Islamic sticking point about Aisha isn't that Mighty Moe married her when she was nine. He married her when she was six. He consummated the marriage when she was nine. Different times or not, nine is prepubescent.
Your point about Christianity and Islam being mostly similar except for a handful of key differences has me thinking about an idea that's been in my mind ever since I first saw the documentary Jesus Camp as a teenager in the 2000s. I think you can see a lot of this common DNA in fundamentalist Christian sects, especially in pentacostal and fundamentalist Baptist groups. It's to the point I've been jokingly calling them Christian jihadis for years because their understanding of our faith always struck me as badically islamic. Youve got their aversion to idols and iconography, understanding God as a being that must be followed to the letter lest we collectively bring down His wrath, and an extremely literal understanding of the Bible as if it were doctated word for word from God to the authors like the Koran to Mohammed. You also have the extreme social conservatism and the similar history between fundamentalism and the post Abassid Islam coming into being in reaction to the decadence of their civilization. What got me thinking along those lines was in Jesus Camp where the camp director expressed almost an envy of the modern islamists and how good they were at indoctrinating and inspiring fanaticism in their children.
5:36- 5:38 nope. Incarnation is not Reincarnation. Christ never undertook transmigration of souls also, it is not a tiny argument (except if you employ today's indifferentism in presentist manner, which is anarchronistic) Christ is divine before ages and took human nature, without it you will never fully obey Him or respect Him as He is
I'm kinda disappointed that you went with the traditional Islamic retelling of Muhammad's life, treating the Islamic Sīra uncritically as established history. And, I mean, you can do that, but I can't imagine you, as a student of history, would take the same approach with say the New Testament, and uncritically accept that as the only authoritative source and established history of early Christianity. No, you go looking for outside sources, archaeological evidence etc. And scholars have indeed done the same thing for the early Islamic period and I think we have ample reason to believe that Islam isn't this one special case in human history after all, where a Prophet just arrives with a finished Holy Book and a pre-packaged religion that from the get-go already looks exactly like Islam (Wahhābīte Islam, to be precise) looks today. I think it much more plausible that Islam evolved more gradually, very much like any other religion. I don't feel competent enough to go into much detail here, but just look at the so-called "Constitution of Medina" or the fact, that many early mosques seem to have been built pointing to Petra (in Jordan), and not Jerusalem or the Kaaba in Mecca. Even the word "Islam" is only used ten times in all the (over 6000) verses of the Qur'an and the name "Muhammad" is specifically mentioned only four times. I think this video could've profited from adding that critical perspective, like for example the works of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook ("Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World" already in the 70s argued that all of the primary Islamic sources which we have are from decades, if not centuries, after the events which they describe and so they have to be viewed critically, because people definitely had a motive to falsify events and invent stories to legitimise their own political and religious views) or Fred Donner ("Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam" argues that the Qur'an may, at least partially, predate the historical Muhammad and that very early on, Islam most likely began not as a distinct, separate religion, but should more broadly defined as a "Believers" movement, that was united by a strict monotheism, but, to an extent, confessionally open, also including Christians and Jews) and others.
The whole claim about the original Qibla being Petra has been debunked and most historians reject that claim. I recommend watching Al Muqaddimah's video in it.
@@Emir_969, I'm aware that this supposedly has been rediscovered recently but as of yet I've been unable to find any non-religious critical scholarship on its rediscovery, so for now I remain sceptic (which is not to say that you need to be non-Muslim for me to trust your scholarship on Islam, but you'd have to agree that for a believing Muslim there's an incentive to disprove any criticism on the classical narrative).
i just looked it up the page counts of: the king james bible (~1200 pages), an english translation of the quran (~400 pages), and the traditional arabic quran (~600 pages)
@@thalionraw9747Sure, that could make sense, but the word count is the most accurate measure. Also, the King James Bible took out ten books, so if we use the Orthodox Canon, ends up equivalent to about 900,000 words in the full, while the Quran, on average in the English translation is 80,000 words. Hope this helps
I am aware this won't me read. But this made me slightly religious... 21:27 There is always xhat in the old testament about people that lives lasted a long time. Noah, for example. So imagine we are in a negative entropy situation. As time goes by we (humanity) start as amazing things. Then, degrade to shitty situations. So we get to a point are we a civilization that keeps on eating ourselves on purpose or is it destiny?
Decadence wasn't the whole reason for the fall of the Abbasids, though it was the final blow at the end. The decline began with Harun's terrible succession plans causing a civil war from 809-819, which ended the power of the Khurasanis, former backbone of the Abbasids. And damaged the all important Iraqi irrigation systems. Mamun also made a lot of stupid decisions like attempting to rule from Merv for 6 years alienating Baghdadis and the west and appointing Ali Rida as his successor alienating the rest of the Abbasid house. The result of Mamun's alienating policies and collapse of Khurasanis left him with no supporters, so he turned to Mutasim's Turkic slave soldiers. But Mutawakkil wanted to replace the Turks, so they murdered him and the next 3 Caliphs, resulting in 9 years of anarchy (861-870), most of the Caliphate becoming independent and further devastating Iraqi irrigation. Until 870 when the military oriented Muwaffaq ensured the Turks that they wouldn't be replaced, ending the chaos. Setting about defeating the Zanj marshland guerilla, and the Saffarids who under a Persian coppersmith took most of Iran and almost took Baghdad. His son Mutadid was the most militarily active of any Abbasid Caliph. Restoring control over western Iran and Syria. And he gave the civilian bureaucracy control over the military for the first time in Islamic history. His son Muktafi took Egypt but died suddenly in 908, with no succession plans. So the bureaucrats chose 13 year old Muqtadir so they could manipulate him for their own gain. Muqtadir was the quintessence of decadence. Spending most of his time and a high portion of state wealth on the harem and extravagance. Despite there being a major financial catastrophe due to the previous century of damage to the Iraqi irrigation networks. This resulted in the Caliphate going backrupt, resulting in the military killing the Caliph in 932, leading to more infighting. Until the sons of a Caspian fisherman managed to take Baghdad in 945.
@@kamikazeblackjack ye. Although, if alMuktafi ruled longer, or the more capable was chosen, such as the experienced Ahmed ibn alMutazz (who briefly launched a coup and became Caliph for 1 day, before the plot was undone). Then the fall of the abbasids could be postponed for decades or even centuries
@@Wakobear. That’s Overestimation, Ibn al-Mutazz was already 48 years old when al-Muktafi died and the Abbasid Caliphs during that period rarely pass the year 50 alive meaning that the caliphate would inevitable go to al-Muqatdir leading to its decline. Plus, I remember reading about a climate change during the 10th century that also made that decline even more inevitable.
@@Emir_969 True, ibn alMutazz has already outlived most Abbasid Caliphs before his accession. But Mansur lived to 61 as did numerous Umayyad Caliphs. Hugh Kennedy said he probably would've made a "good if not outstanding caliph" ...... But even if he rules for a short while, he could easily not choose Muqtadir as his successor and choose his own son or relative. Or Mutazz could better prepare Muqtadir as his successor by kicking him out of the harem, forcing him to lead military campaigns and learn about how the finances of the Caliphate works. Making him far less incompetent, who believes every new vizier who promises him unachievable amounts of wealth for his extravagant lifestyle.. But the most important thing would be that the able and senior administrators who supported ibn alMutazz's coup wouldn't be executed or discredited. The Jarrahids Muhammad ibn Dawud and Ali ibn Isa. Ali ibn Isa was an extremely capable financial administrator and was strongly supported by Mu'nis, head of the military. But his attempts to reduce the expenditure of the Harem and Court made enemies of the queen mother and other courtiers, resulting in him frequently get removed. In this case, Ali ibn Isa would immediately be appointed as Vizier on Mutazz's ascension, instead of the less capable ibn al Furat. Ideally he would continue in this position for the next 30 years straight (died 946 at 87), giving stable rule unlike the historical Muqtadir's rapidly changing viziers. The alliance between Ali ibn Isa and Mu'nis would ensure that the administration and the military work harmoniously. Combined with his long vizierate and financial competency, the irrigation networks of southern Iraq could be repaired, allowing it to produce 1/4 of the middle East's wealth once more - which alone would prevent the fall of the Abbasids. Using said wealth to strengthen their hold on western Iran (perhaps a joint Samanid-Abbasid campaign against Saffarid remnant) and perhaps even go on the offensive against the Ifriqiyan Fatimids with help from revolts of their majority Sunni population? As for climatic problems then this was initially mentioned by Richard Bulliet in Camels climate and cotton, and elaborated upon in Ronnie Elunblum's Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean. During which Iraq, Persia, Anatolia, Syria and Egypt received some extremely cold weather for some years in the late 900s. Intensifying in the early 1000s before ceasing around 1060. The result was widespread famines, but most importantly the Seljuk invasions - seeking warmer pastures of Iran, greatly devastating sedentary and Agricultural society of the middle east. But their is difference of opinion regarding the impact of this as mentioned by ASC Peacock in Chapter 8 of The Great Seljuk Empire. Who mentions that freak events of extreme cold in Iraq were recorded as soon as records began in the 800s and they continued to be recorded into the 1100s, while scientific evidence records warmer temperatures for this period. And also that evidence for an Iranian cotton boom is flimsy. The agricultural decline was more due to the Buyid non hereditary Iqta system. Which encouraged maximal extraction and zero long term investment. As well as the proliferation of nomads in Syria due to collapse of Abbasids. And there were still many nomads throughout the central Asian pasturelands who weren't forced to migrate like the Seljuks.... The unified Abbasids would be much stronger than the 3 Buyid Emirates, Kakuyids and various other small principalities of Iran. And so would probably be able to put up a much stronger defence against the Seljuks in the 1040s.
@Wakobear. 1-if he rules for a short time then I doubt that he would train al muqtadir enough as he would still likely be a child. 2-the history books don't mention any good successors to al-muktafi expect ibn al mutazz which is in itself a huge hint/sign about the abbasid decadence at that time. 3-if the caliphate becomes a Puppet of good viziers who would become the de-facto rulers of it then it would likely end up like the fatimid caliphate.
The Christian coptic were they welcome the Muslim Arab when they Conquer Egypt because the car they are oppressed by the Greek Byzantine like in the time when Amr ibn al-Aas Conquer Egypt the patriarch of Alexandria yuhanna kicked out and replace by a Greek patriarch and he roaming The Desert of Egypt and when Amr ibn al-Aas Conquer Egypt he and he bring back yuhanna to his title as the patriarch and till day the Coptic Christian prayers Amr ibn al-Aas
43:53 this is not true at Tyson was the first one to come up with this myth but the truth about Al-Ghazali is that he was one of “the people off logic” not “the people of the Hadeth” he was considered an infidel by Ibn Tymiyah (who is one of the major scholars in the entire Islamic history)
We have to remember that all of our religious cultures, even the Zen and Buddhist, have engaged in various wars and pursuits of expansion. As much as the imposition of ideals can go to destructive extremes, it doesn't mean there is no value to be had in spreading wisdom, and the correct mode of thinking. You just need to recognize the unclear relationship between what you think to be good, and what others believe to be good. Don't take their perspective as invalid. Instead, if you are honest in your belief, seek to transform the perspective of the other to your own, by stages instead of conclusions. Even if they don't conform in the moment, you can sow the seeds of your perspective. This process can also help root out your own misgivings, by identifying and rationalizing all of those perspectives in which you find no underlying ground.
Christianity is built different. Not exempt from it, not at all, but it's one which actively promotes safe conversion and it is, in fact, at its very root (not peaceful conversion, just one that doesn't involve killing or subduing, in fact, it invites YOU to be the bearer of death and torture to achieve that same conversion.)
![MHMD [18] Here's all you need to know about Islam's "MHMD" in ONE VIDEO!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CBT3VNH4DQw/mqdefault.jpg)
Here’s an analogy to understand the Sunni Shia split:
Muhammad was the sole proprietor of a startup called Islam. After he died, the heirs of the company disagreed on business structure. One side wanted to corporatize the company with an elected CEO (the Sunni), the other side wanted to remain a sole proprietorship with hereditary ownership (the Shia). This disagreement resulted in the company splitting into two different brands.
According to Shias Abu Bakar did a coup using force.
When Mohamed died there is no more one version of the story, there is two versions, the shia and sunni so is not really possible know what version is the real one.
Finally, my American brain understands sand politics.
@@hoonterofhoonters6588 😂💀💀💀💀💀
Right Twix vs. Left Twix lol jk
What about the sufis ?
This channel has taught me more than my entire high school existence, and has inspired me to make my own history channel
Rudyard Lynch evangelical fan club member here. ;). Every single one of these history 102 videos is as good or better than college level history courses.
Awww... thanks b3stie
@@History102-qg5oj ✨✨💅💅
University graduate here and I would say this is a bad exaggeration but the videos are great.
I bet your fun at parties
@@History102-qg5oj all Muslims are Sunni the same way almost all Christian denominations practice baptism, Shias call Sunni’s “non Shia” instead subtle digs they take at each other
This video is not bad, but two things are inexcusable. 1st, describing early Islam as capitalist is anachronistic, there are many free market and ecomonic centred elements in Islam, but Islam does not view any kind of interest as beneficial and must be regulated.
2nd, the narrative of Al-Ghazali supposedly causing the downfall of Islamic science is neither true to the history of science nor to Al-Ghazali's own thought, and no reputable scholar of Al-Ghazali would say this. If there is, I would like to see a source
That literalist understanding you attributed to him was actually opposed to him, Al-Ghazali was a mutakallim(speculative theologian), an Asha'ri who synthesized the literalist and rationalist theologies.
And still, both the literalist and Ash'ari schools of theology remain as just that, schools of theology and was not concerned with science. Al-Ghazali himself said that mathematic was the "blessed science" or something to that manner
The mu'tazila school are also often described as free thinking empiricists, but this is inaccurate. The Mu'tazila are a purely theological school, there were many mu'tazila who were only interested in theology and most muslim scientists at the time were not mu'tazili.
Ibn Al-Haytham himself, who formulated the scientific method, was of the Ash'ari school of theology, the same as Al-Ghazali.
To some extent, it is true that rationalism in all aspects came into society. But it is inaccurate to attribute scientific positions to schools of theology.
The literalist Ibn Hazm for example was a literalist only in religion and justified his literalism through rationality. He was also a scientist, doctor and avid reader of the Greeks.
What's even more inexcusable is that Al-Ghazali regarded learning medicine, mathematics and other worldly knowledge to be a communal obligation. That in a community, there has to be people who learn these things and not just religious knowledge.
That whole narrative of Al-Ghazali ruining science in Islam is a Neil Degrasse Tyson tier understanding and I, as a person who has read Al-Ghazali for years, do not know where does it come from
Yes, you are absolutely correct, this is the main mistake in this video, AlGhazali corrected the wrong philosophers ideas, but He was never against science, and saying that he is responsible for the fall of Muslim civilization is a significant and severe mistake that has nothing to do with truth and logic !
al ghazali gave birth to many scientists from avi cina to al razi al khwarizimi to many others these claims are just old historians with an agenda
Come on interest being haram is totally anarcho capitalist lol
yeah, Islam definitely wasn't capitalist but i don't bother pointing it out all the ancap fanbois will whine especially when you make them pay zakat (which is also not terribly capitalist). neither is regarding businesses as halal (or haram).
The Quran wasn't revealed all at once btw, it was revealed over a 23 year period
I think this channel is as good as the main one
Disagree due to lack of sources listings, also the dialogue is really more like a monologue but I guess that Eric is being cautious or such. Plus there's no maps or other visual supports. But it's still well worth listening too.
As a Muslim, I am impressed with your knowledge of Islam. You explain these topics off the top of your head, and most Muslims might not know half of this information.
all people have a depressive lack of knowledge of even their own history
As a spaniard I'm glad that the multicultural myth of Al-Andalus is finally falling down. Here is use by the postmodern left to diminish out Cristian roots.
Great video!
Deus vult
Depends on what you mean by multicultural. In Al Andalus many different religions and cultures flourished e.g Judaism.
1st Century: Roman Paganism
2nd Century: Roman Paganism
3rd Century: Roman Paganism
4th Century: Roman Paganism (early) / Christianity (late)
5th Century: Christianity
6th Century: Christianity
7th Century: Christianity
8th Century: Islam (after 711 AD)
9th Century: Islam
10th Century: Islam
11th Century: Islam
12th Century: Islam (early) / Christianity (late)
13th Century: Christianity
14th Century: Christianity
15th Century: Christianity
16th Century: Christianity
17th Century: Christianity
18th Century: Christianity
19th Century: Christianity
20th Century: Christianity
21st Century: Christianity
You get the point? Or you stoopid?
In 711 AD, the Umayyad Caliphate launched an invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, leading to the significant event known as the Muslim conquest of Spain. This marked the beginning of Islamic rule in large parts of the Iberian Peninsula. Here are the key points:Battle of Guadalete: The Umayyad forces, led by Tariq ibn Ziyad, defeated the Visigothic King Roderic at the Battle of Guadalete.Establishment of Al-Andalus: Following their victory, the Umayyads rapidly expanded their control over much of the peninsula, establishing the region known as Al-Century?
In the 12th century, the Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula, known as the Reconquista, was gaining significant momentum. Here are the key points regarding Christians during this period: Reconquista Progress: Christian kingdoms such as Castile, Aragon, and Portugal made substantial advances against the Muslim-controlled territories of Al-Andalus. Significant victories included the capture of major cities like Toledo (1085), Zaragoza (1118), and Lisbon (1147).
But you Spanish still deny that Magellan was killed by Lapu-Lapu in The Philippines, your spreading of the Inquisition to Latin America and The Philippines as well as using Natives as slaves to get the silver in Potosi in Bolivia.
@@Itskinda_funny This is who ruled but not the population majorities.
It's also not great to insult people.
Fun fact, Al Rashid gifted an Elephant to Charlemagne, which was one of the most reported events of its reign since it impressed the European soo much.
They where in really good terms, exchanging gifts all the time
Bruv, the channel and the topics are so good. The only thing holding you guys back is that it’s on Zoom and the sound quality. Please take this criticism seriously
youtube.com/@history102-qg5oj?si=8PAulB7Oh8ALbWV-
youtube.com/@history102-qg5oj?si=lCuFUw9GWFQoOxNo
Yeah, there has to be a better way for this format. Doesn't discord have a facecam? I think if it was using that it would be much better.
Fair!
Not bad honestly. I'm a Muslim. Keep it up.
Same bro
The centuries 500-1000 are unironically the most important and best centuries in history and we learn absolutely nothing about them in American high school. American high school literally begins with the black death (basically the death-bell of the middle ages) and portrays that as representing the entire middle ages which is just rediculous. But as you pointed out last week, it tracks because to actually talk about the middle ages in a serious way would run counter to the ideological programming of protestants and atheists ((note also that the 'new-atheists' are fundamentally a product of protestant secularism))
💯
💯. Also, 1500 is peak western civilization and we’ve been fortunate enough to coast off of the work done at that time until the present. The coast is running out though.
@@selfprojects1953 I mean WW2 was definitely a finest hour for the Allies, also a lot of spectacular artistic and literary achievements in the 19th and early 20th
How would talking seriously about the middle ages run counter to protestant and atheist ideology? I'm genuinely curious.
@@jon9428 Because their narrative goes that the catholic church was always yknow corrupt and persecuted everyone and censored science and philosophy.
I would make the argument that both the geography and religion of Europe and Middle East aren't exactly the same as they were 1000 years ago. The Middle East has become a lot more dry and arid since back then. And as you mentioned, the early Muslim empires were largely run by Syrian Christians and remained majority Christian. Now there are hardly any Christians left in the Middle East.
stop lying. its majority christian
consider choosing Mesoamerican civilization next so we can finally get Rudyard to finish his researching!!!
as a saudi, i have some things to say that give more context to it
1-the life of the prophet in some depth , (he had a title before his prophecy from the locals of mecca to be "the trustworthy the honest "(الصادق الامين) i couldnt get an exact translate but thats what it implies , even with such a title he struggled a lot once he announced his prophecy ,it is also important to point that he is born from one of the elite tribes in quraiysh yes he never met his dad and only for quite few years with his mom, he was mainly raised by his grandfather but he is still held in an elite manner when it comes to clan heriarchys in the local area of mecca that time , also important to mention that he was never a pagan he was a "hanafi" a one who beleives in one god
2- the quran was revealed over 23 years the shcolars have classifed the quran into "stories"(the stories of the other prophets like moses jesus abraham noah lot solomon and many more ) or a response to a current event like in one of the chapters it mentions the state of muslims in the only battle where they had the advantage in numbers "the battle of mu'tah " (arabian peninsula unification) the muslims admired the great numbers they had yet they lost, the quran responded that once you dont rely upon god and let pride over take you , god make you lose to realise it
and rules like what happens to theft or murder
3-it is also very importnant to mention that there was massive civil war called "the rida war" right after the death of the prophet where many tribes have rebeled and wanted to go back to paganism so saying arabs just arose to an empty power vaccum is downplaying , but overall you said the reason to be superior leader ship which is right. just important to mention that this superiorty was gained from civil war that hit the military power number wise to the arabs , overall i would just edit that it wasnt only a superior generals and an empty power vaccum but acutally an impressive military sucsess due to religous zealousy and great generals
i apologize for the bad writing i am not a writer and english isnt my mother tounge , if anyone is intersted in sources i am down to have a call and discuss it on my discord "exrsta"
Thank you for this
51:13 “Just make a choice man!” Is the funniest thing I’ve heard from this podcast.
Books at the end:
- Cotton, Climate, and Camels (Bulliet)
- A Short History of the Arab Peoples (Glubb)
- Destiny Disrupted (Ansari)
- The Venture of Islam Vol I, II, III (Marshall Hodgson)
- Arabs a 3000 Year History (Mackintosh-Smith)
Very good. I just happened to read another book by Bulliet, "The Camel and the Wheel," right after reading a book about the fall of Rome which blamed it on climate (cooling) and disease (e.g., the Plague of Justinian). The theory that occurred to me after reading both of those is that the rise of Islam was due largely to the fact that camels could travel inland better than horses (especially in deserts), the Arabs mastered both a new type of saddle and cross-breeding camels to make them better for long-range transport of goods, and that camel caravans were less likely than ships to transmit epidemics because they were smaller and traveled through dryer climates less-conducive to disease spread anyway. And that the cooling after the Roman Climate Optimum made formerly hot climates more conducive to human habitation and travel. This is also consistent with the fact that the new urban centers of the Islamic world were generally more inland than coastal (e.g., Cairo instead of Alexandria, Baghdad, etc.).
I liked Bulliet's book very much, thanks for recommending his other one, it looks good, too.
A suggestion for the next episode: Byzantine Empire.
If they did, that would need to be multiple episodes.
I got to visit the Kaaba 🕋 last year, it was an absolutely insane experience
Here early to support my boy
This episode went far more into vague generalisations than other past episodes, which were very good in my opinion.
There are a few glaring misleading points, as to my understanding.
Firstly, while the Church was split between different factions, I don’t know why he’s calling it “corrupt”, that part came a few centuries later. By this point the Church was still expanding and had an overall positive and prominent influence.
Also, honestly he didn’t go into much detail as to why the Sassanid and part of the Byzantines fell, other than the sectarian divisions. The huge event that he never even mentioned was the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628, which was essentially the World Wars of that era and devastated society to such a level that it was east for the Muslims to invade and conquer to begin with.
Also, while the Muslims were relatively good rulers in their old Roman territories, there are documented atrocities that they committed in the Persian empire, such as the genocide of large parts of the Khwarezmian people.
With the Sassanid Empire, there were significant internal divisions (it was a feudal confederacy) as a result of the previous war which compelled the Parthian nobility, which controlled large parts of the country, to not come to the aid of the royal authority.
Zakat was 2.5% not 10%
AUSTRALIAN CIVILISATION VIDEO WHEN?!?!??!?!?
Elect mfs who will legalize guns first.
😂
7:50 totally thought you were about to say "there's a lot of Zoroastrianism in Game of Thrones"
It's in the Bible, specifically the book of Esther. I tell people in Church to watch Games of Thrones. They'll understand the Bible better.
I don't think the current situation of Muslims is due to geography. They have significant geographical advantages, such as controlling areas where major continents meet, making them the center of the global economy. If the Umayyads and Abbasids had continued the Rashidun mindset and pushed into Europe, which I believe they could have, the world would be different today. I think they became complacent.
Even today, with the substantial oil reserves in Muslim-controlled territories, they should be a dominant civilization. The issue isn't ideological superiority or lack of motivation or bad geography but rather terrible leadership.
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
Next person I see that posts this fucking quote, I'm linking them MLP porn.
[groans in disgust]
You totally glossed over the Mughals, indians, etc. who had their Golden Age(Taj Mahal, Delhi, etc.), which is much after your time period for golden age of Islam. You also skipped over the Indonesia, Malaysia. Just these 2 groups account for about half of all the Muslims in the world right now. Then you also had the Ottomans that reigned for 700 years, 300-400 of those years were also their golden age of military dominance.
Great work. Can you list the titles of the recommended books at the end? Zoom (or whatever you're using) blurs images that aren't in the focus zone, so it's hard to makeout the titles.
In the future, you coukd also say the titles and authors, like you did with the Tom Holland book.
Can you suggest a book on the Abbassid Caliphate? Especially where historians prove that the Abbassids hit degeneracy. I just wanna find out more details of it. PLS
I just discovered Rudyard from Danny Jones and I'm absolutely hooked
Some people insist Mohammad never existed.
I went to graduate school and this claim was explored in “The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800.” This book by Jonathan Berkey was assigned at CUNY Queens College in 2009. Then there are apostates like Ibn Warraq, but he is just reviving Orientalist conjecture. There’s so much evidence for the existence of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in my personal opinion, however. Several books of ahadith, the Birmingham manuscript and Sebeos’ chronicle of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (r. 610-41) are there.
15:08 I'm beginning to understand why Judaism feels more "same" to me, as someone raised southern Baptist, than Catholicism: definite moral code, harsh God, taboos (drinking alcohol) , etc... Southern Baptists, at least from North Alabama and Southern Middle Tennessee where I grew up, can be somewhat "judaising," and its an open secret that the Jews figure prominently in Southern Baptist Eschatology. Basically, they're still God's chosen people to a southern baptist, and will, in the end, be offered a chance to accept Jesus after death. This is really different from what my wife's midwestern catholic family believes... like, really different..
Fun fact: Jews are not allowed to pray next to a Christian or enter a church, but they can pray next to a Muslim and even pray at the mosque. The Talmud was written about 200 years after the Gospels. Once you start noticing, it is impossible to not see it.
As someone also raise southern Baptist who broke free; legalism. And legalism will not save Jew not Baptist.
@@notsocrates9529 Because Orthodox Jews consider Christianity dangerously close to idolatry, meanwhile Islam is strictly monotheistic to them like Judaism. Also the Talmud is a collection of oral traditions that were written down so they would be preserved in around 200CE for the Mishnah and 500 or so CE for the Gemara. These were oral traditions that were around before the 2nd Temple was destroyed, before the time of Jesus. So it was not created after Christianity, it was preserved after.
@@jon9428 rev 3:9 I ain't reading any of your pilpul.
@@selfprojects1953 Woes of the Pharisees might interest you.
Hi. Long time fan. I can't wait for when you make a history of the jews
Fun fact: Muhammad (S.A.W) aged 25, married Khadijah (R.A.) aged 40 and he never married another women before the death of Kadijah (R.A.). He (S.A.W) also had all children from this marriage except for Ibrahim/ Abraham (R.A.)
There was one reason for Mohammed to arise: arabs were pagan at that time and there was rentier aristocracy at Mecca who controlled trade and the Kabba (pilgrimage business). Because of the realization of the outer powerful empires, this ancient regime could not met with the resentment to the faith of "one omnipotent God" and that everybody is equal before him, to the degree of the charity and praying and participating to the survival of Islam etc. You may be an aristocrat but now you are "equal": same laws same prayers common cause, equal share of the spoils apply to you. In islam the relation with god is not father and son but master and slaves, including Mohammed. So that creates a unity where it is "we obey our master and he gives us morality, heaven, wealth, family, peace, harmony etc." kind of feeling. However this Master became more and more of a nonresponsible king over time, as Muslims obtained more power.
This framework description makes it a little clearer how Islamo-socialism can form
Everyone was equal unless you weren't a muslim.
@theironknight597 yeah it was seen because nonmuslims don't serve in the military, they should pay for it to make it equal lol. "I keep you safe bro!" sometimes this was the case though like Spanish Jews and the Ottomans
@@theironknight597 every society has a standard you must conform to
@@perniciousseizurehellio3438 And that makes discrimination ok?
I wonder if we’ll have a second axial age
A Peterson-Rogan-Trump like figure will be the prophet. Lobsters, psychedelics and freedom is a reasonable combination.
we are in one. really. I just wrote a book about it "Nukes Jets and Transistors".
@@islambale747you got to be kidding man
I'm curious to know more about the venician empire, and their alliance with the ottomans against Portugal, spice trade, new world etc.
Ancient egypt , Mongolia or they phoenitians would be cool and pretty different from what's been covered
Please make a video on caucasus🙏🏻🙏🏻 huge respect to you all from Georgia 🇬🇪
I like these despite how awkward the interactions with the co-host( or whatever ya call it)are.
Good topics selected.
Ackchyually.....
zakat is only 2.5 percent of wealth, the other tax called the Jizya (tax for only non-Muslims, which was around 10-20%) and was the only source of revenue for their empire.
When the majority of the people converted, the Arabs administrators instituted jizya on non arab muslims (which was very controversial) which sparked massive revolts, which helped destroy the Ummayads.
This video is really useful, but Rudyard has a lot of misconceptions about Islam and the analysis is pretty biased to make Islam look better than it really is.
Islam focuses alot on the fact that it's God and God only. A dig at Christianity if you ask me more than anything else
As well as war, slaving and paedophilia.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 Don't forget the castration of male slaves.
That's, exactly, what Christianity is about. If you're trying to go against the Holy Trinity here you're just ignorant and haven't studied why we know that is true.
Also Islam prays to a black cube so.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 Christianity has done this in 10+ worse ways than any other religion
There are things you got wrong. Just to name something: Zakat is not 10%, etc.
I am free from all false statements and Islam and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is also.
Do crusades next
Could you post the recommended books and authors in the description? I can barely see the titles half of the time.
21:01 khalid ibn al waleed is his name, "the sharpened sword of allah " is a title bestowed upon him by prophet Muhammed
Pendantic correction: Jesus was an incarnation not a reincarnation since God wasn't previously incarnate.
12:20 Rudyard laughs because he knows it wasn't even normal for the time to marry 9 year olds in most cultures 😅
Roman noblewoman frequently got married at 12, per Sir Edward Coke within the Thirteen colonies it was common for people to get married below the age of 12 with examples as young as 4 years of age, the medieval Catholic church made it legal for 13 yo girls and 15 yo boys to get married without parental consent. Child marriage was common globally, not just in Arabia, until the last couple of centuries. Attempting to exonerate your own nation from historically participating in this crime is delusional, believe me it's guaranteed that if you go back a thousand years within your own ancestory, you are gonna come across plenty of marriages where at least one partner was uncomfortably young.
@@zgramzhnisk3036
Umar Married Um Kulthum when she was 10, Ali Married Fatima when she was 14-16.
bruh is that all you got out of this video
Pt 2 plz
Finally a topic where the intro music really fits.
Mohammed was manufactured, as was Mecca. The religion first arose from Petra abd spread from there. The narrative about Mohammed served the purpose of launching and cementing an empire. There are no contemporaneous references Mohammed or Mecca. The claims made for Mecca and the orientation of prayer is towards Petra.
It is not Abrahamic, just pretends to be. Thematically and pholosophically as well as historically and culturally, there is no relation. That's why Islam makes no sense when taken in the context you want to view it in.
I really liked your video because it represents a deep and respectful reading of islamic history, and it is really interesting to see your history being talked about from different points of view and it's really appreciated, but I disagree with you in 2 main points:
1. The first one is saying that the prophet Muhammad - pbuh - took some of his knowledge from Jews , but this was not the case, because mainly the Jews weren't spreading their religion among the Arabs and when Muhammad - pbuh - said he is a prophet the Jews immediately disbelieved in him and said he was sent only for the Arabs, also - as you said - Muhammad - pbuh - was illiterate, he didn't know how to read and write, and we know that he didn't study with any Jewish scholar, and we know the Jews disbelieved in his message.
so how would he take the knowledge from the Jews?
2. Saying that Al-ghazali "killed" the scientific movement in the islamic world.
And I mainly disagree with you because I believe that this is not the reason of the collapse of the scientific movement, because if you give it a quick look at some of the important scholars in Islamic civilization you will notice that many of them came after Al-ghazali died - in 1111 - by 3 or 4 centuries, for example the mathematician Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, the astronomers Mu'ayyad al-Din al-Urdi and Shams al-Din al-Khafri, the founder of the modern astronomy - came before Copernicus - Ibn al-Shatir, also we don't forget the navigator and cartographer Ahmad ibn Mājid, and you can read more about this topic in the book of Columbia University professor George Saliba called "The Origin and Development of Arabic Scientific Thought", all these scholars came after Al-ghazali, so I believe he is not the reason.
Instead I believe that the reason for the collapse was mainly economical, it was because the Muslim lost Al-andlus (Spain) which was the wealthiest part of the islamic world and the discovery of America and the route of cape of the good hope, all these reasons together made the economy movement change from east to west, so the Muslim world suffered a "depression" that made it lose his advance.
I also liked a point you talked around the minute 35 or so about the Hadith and the "code" to check the certainity of saying this Hadith was said by the prophet - pbuh - and the name for this science is "Hadith terminology" and I really see it as the crown jewel of Islamic science, and it was nice that you know about it because many people don't know and don't talk about it.
As all it was nice to listen to you, thank you.
he had jewish followers !
That's true there's this Ask Project run by this guy name Corey Gil-Shuster where he asked Religious Israelis if Judaism was closer to Christianity or Islam and vast majority said Islam and many said it would be okay for them to enter mosque because of the similarities.
This is a welcome surprise. I have just started a challenging, but nonetheless superb, history of Islam by Marshall G.S. Hodgson titled The Venture of Islam. As recommended by Toby Matthiesen, who is also very good.
nice introductory video however there is many errors of your explanations of both historical and theological facts, for example Shia vs Sunni was not Arabs vs Persians in early Islamic history. The Persians were forcefully converted to shi'ism by the Turks in the 15th century under Safavid rule. Shi'ism in the beginning was more concentrated in Iraq nor Persia. This is just one of many, still it is a good introductory video for people to get into Islamic history.
Ethnic map at 30:20 is wrong, Pashtun area was Punjabi. Pashtun ethnogenesis had not occurred yet & i doubt that today's Pashtuns have any ancestry from the people that lived there at the time of the Ummayads.
Aisha downvoted this video
dont support pedophelia because jesus allowed it
Muhammad got lucky in that he was born early in the Dark ages. Enormous chunks of the population had died off from the 536 AD and the nations were still being stupid. He unified and conquered people living in a miserable time. I would argue Islam began to have their own Dark Age beginning with Al-Ghazali and they never escaped it.
Their conservatism becomes their fall.
Not lucky, but rather a Divine plan.
Just like Jews got their golden age under David and Solomon right after Bronze age collapse.
Similarly Muslims/Arabs got theirs, but on a much bigger scale - Both brought an end to the age of Paganism/idolism.
Europe's dark age is some one else golden age what you said is absolute nonsense😂😂
Finally you covered Islam 😊😊😊
Wait he did?
What's the name of the last shown book? Was a bit blurry
From a religious perspective, I believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a mercy upon mankind. Even from a secular view, a look at pre-Islamic Arabia shows how this area had so many deficiencies that needed to be remedied through the example of a prophet. For example, the tribes were divided, female infanticide was practiced, and there was great lewdness in the society. Islam gave people unity and dignity, while the status of orphans and women was significantly improved.
Abbasids created Islam as we know it and Prophet Muhammad as we know him before them there was no islam and prophet Muhammad Islamic history needs to be revised.
Hi Rudyard, sent you a message on your pod website!
Justinian destroyed Rome. He was one of the worst roman emperor. He also did Belisarius dirty
A simple correction regarding the point of Shiites and the Abbasid Caliphate
In fact, during this period, the difference between Sunnis and Shiites was not clear. It was a political dispute more than anything else, and the Shiite imams at that time were revered by the Sunnis as well.
Hey how about a history of the carribbean? I'd like to see how long it goes before Puerto Rico gets mentioned and the inevitable elephant in the room gets addressed about its status pertaining to the USA.
Rudyard is a bit wrong on a few points.
Biggest that comes to mind is that Mohammad MARRIED a 6 year old, but waited until she was 9 years old to have sex with her. And, no, that wasn't acceptable back then and several of his own followers took issue with the fact Mohammad was lusting after a 6 year old to which he gave the tried and true "Allah wills it" as a rebuttal.
And due to this; what is considered pedophilia by all definitions is actually accepted in much of the Islamic world because Mohammad is the most perfect man who will ever exist.
that's false, provide a source for that lie
@@ibadurrehman1210 mohammad hijab, Ali dawah etc
@@ibadurrehman1210 The Quran itself.
@@bubble-wu6fiThe Hadith but ok
He clearly doesn't understand anything about Eastern Rome
7:36 Woah, hold up! The Zoroastrians DON'T worship fire! They worship a god that manifests in forces of nature and fire is the most popular of many representations. It is like saying Iconography entails worship of the icons themselves without representing something outside of them. The also go to rivers and mountains as representations of the same god if I remember correctly. The idea that Zoroastrians worship fire is actually a longstanding slander against them.
There is no Islam without a ( Successor ) Caliph
Even if the entire earth were submitted to Islam and all laws were established
2:32 I would suggest primary historical cause of the rise of Islam is the fracturing of Christianity over the nature of Christ (Christological debate, 400s-600s AD).
13:48 Okay, Rujuard is starting to get prot iconoclast here. Images were always a thing in ancient israelite religion, just look at Ezekiel's and the Torah's description of the second temple and ark respectively. As well, as look at the Dara Europis Synagogue.
Now, one could argue it got more
As for Bizzare superstitions, maybe among the people but by your own admission in the last video the Catholic Church, which at this time was the Roman Empire's Church, did not even believe in witches.
Yes, you could say that the Church was split between different factions, but I don’t know why he’s calling it “corrupt”, that part came a few centuries later. By this point the Church was still expanding and had an overall positive and prominent influence.
Also, honestly he didn’t go into much detail as to why the Sassanid and part of the Byzantines fell, other than the sectarian divisions.
The intro music🔥🔥🔥👳🏽♂️
Can you show up to the sequel with a scimitar? 😂
4:55 - 5:19 you sure it was 650 AD? by that time Muslims already took over as far as Tripolitania and entirety of Persia
Does he mention the Ottoman contraction in this video?
No, this video ends at the launching of the Crusades against the Seljuq Turks in 1096. The Ottomans (1299-1924) will be discussed in a future video.
Your explanation of the Abrahamic faiths has some merit, but it can be expressed more clearly. The Jewish perception of God is often seen as strict and demanding, with laws that were challenging to uphold. In response, Christianity introduced a view of God that emphasizes forgiveness and mercy, but some believe it might have become too lenient, to the point where accountability was diminished. In contrast, Islam presents a balanced perspective, combining justice and mercy, which many see as a middle ground between the two.
The difference between Yahweh and Allah is that Yahweh requires blood for justice to be achieved, and He sees righteous acts committed by sinners as filthy rags, where as Allah can forgive and forget without anyone being punished. Speaking as a Christian, this is the main problem with Islam, is that it cannot be a continuation of the Jewish prophets like it claims to be since it contradicts the nature of God as established by the prophets. The biggest difference between Islam and Christianity is an ontological one, where in Christianity it is possible for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one being, where as in Islam if something is distinct then it has to be separate, therefore the Trinity is polytheistic.
A good example is that God’s attributes are distinct (in that His mercy and His wrath do not act on us the same way), yet they are one in essence, because to say otherwise is to say that God is not one.
The anti-Islamic sticking point about Aisha isn't that Mighty Moe married her when she was nine. He married her when she was six. He consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Different times or not, nine is prepubescent.
Zoroastrians were not fire worshippers… completely incorrect statement
And also a longstanding slander against them.
Your point about Christianity and Islam being mostly similar except for a handful of key differences has me thinking about an idea that's been in my mind ever since I first saw the documentary Jesus Camp as a teenager in the 2000s.
I think you can see a lot of this common DNA in fundamentalist Christian sects, especially in pentacostal and fundamentalist Baptist groups. It's to the point I've been jokingly calling them Christian jihadis for years because their understanding of our faith always struck me as badically islamic.
Youve got their aversion to idols and iconography, understanding God as a being that must be followed to the letter lest we collectively bring down His wrath, and an extremely literal understanding of the Bible as if it were doctated word for word from God to the authors like the Koran to Mohammed. You also have the extreme social conservatism and the similar history between fundamentalism and the post Abassid Islam coming into being in reaction to the decadence of their civilization.
What got me thinking along those lines was in Jesus Camp where the camp director expressed almost an envy of the modern islamists and how good they were at indoctrinating and inspiring fanaticism in their children.
5:36- 5:38 nope. Incarnation is not Reincarnation. Christ never undertook transmigration of souls
also, it is not a tiny argument (except if you employ today's indifferentism in presentist manner, which is anarchronistic)
Christ is divine before ages and took human nature, without it you will never fully obey Him or respect Him as He is
Which still doesn't work and also the divinity of christ very contentious debate even amongst certain Christians
TLDR: You can't hold together an empire in the Middle East
I'm kinda disappointed that you went with the traditional Islamic retelling of Muhammad's life, treating the Islamic Sīra uncritically as established history. And, I mean, you can do that, but I can't imagine you, as a student of history, would take the same approach with say the New Testament, and uncritically accept that as the only authoritative source and established history of early Christianity. No, you go looking for outside sources, archaeological evidence etc.
And scholars have indeed done the same thing for the early Islamic period and I think we have ample reason to believe that Islam isn't this one special case in human history after all, where a Prophet just arrives with a finished Holy Book and a pre-packaged religion that from the get-go already looks exactly like Islam (Wahhābīte Islam, to be precise) looks today. I think it much more plausible that Islam evolved more gradually, very much like any other religion. I don't feel competent enough to go into much detail here, but just look at the so-called "Constitution of Medina" or the fact, that many early mosques seem to have been built pointing to Petra (in Jordan), and not Jerusalem or the Kaaba in Mecca. Even the word "Islam" is only used ten times in all the (over 6000) verses of the Qur'an and the name "Muhammad" is specifically mentioned only four times.
I think this video could've profited from adding that critical perspective, like for example the works of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook ("Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World" already in the 70s argued that all of the primary Islamic sources which we have are from decades, if not centuries, after the events which they describe and so they have to be viewed critically, because people definitely had a motive to falsify events and invent stories to legitimise their own political and religious views) or Fred Donner ("Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam" argues that the Qur'an may, at least partially, predate the historical Muhammad and that very early on, Islam most likely began not as a distinct, separate religion, but should more broadly defined as a "Believers" movement, that was united by a strict monotheism, but, to an extent, confessionally open, also including Christians and Jews) and others.
Well said. I believe the gnostics within early Christianity heavily influenced the development of Islam in its first expansion across Arabia.
i argue that jews and non tritarian Christians have bigger influence then gnostism @@Mcfunface
The whole claim about the original Qibla being Petra has been debunked and most historians reject that claim. I recommend watching Al Muqaddimah's video in it.
These Theories are too outdated now, read Musa Ibn Uqba's Maghazi. a Historian only born like 30 years after the Prophet's Death.
@@Emir_969, I'm aware that this supposedly has been rediscovered recently but as of yet I've been unable to find any non-religious critical scholarship on its rediscovery, so for now I remain sceptic (which is not to say that you need to be non-Muslim for me to trust your scholarship on Islam, but you'd have to agree that for a believing Muslim there's an incentive to disprove any criticism on the classical narrative).
The arabic quran is around 600 pages. Arabic is a more complex language than english so explains why the english translations are much shorter
Not true. I just finished reading the Quran and it’s about 1/9 the size of the Bible.
i just looked it up
the page counts of:
the king james bible (~1200 pages),
an english translation of the quran (~400 pages), and
the traditional arabic quran (~600 pages)
@@thalionraw9747Sure, that could make sense, but the word count is the most accurate measure. Also, the King James Bible took out ten books, so if we use the Orthodox Canon, ends up equivalent to about 900,000 words in the full, while the Quran, on average in the English translation is 80,000 words. Hope this helps
I can't read the names.
I am aware this won't me read. But this made me slightly religious...
21:27
There is always xhat in the old testament about people that lives lasted a long time. Noah, for example.
So imagine we are in a negative entropy situation.
As time goes by we (humanity) start as amazing things. Then, degrade to shitty situations.
So we get to a point are we a civilization that keeps on eating ourselves on purpose or is it destiny?
Sorry in addition to this, does it correspond to the 4th Turning shorting.
To me 2008 was the start of that
French Revolution and independence movements
Decadence wasn't the whole reason for the fall of the Abbasids, though it was the final blow at the end.
The decline began with Harun's terrible succession plans causing a civil war from 809-819, which ended the power of the Khurasanis, former backbone of the Abbasids. And damaged the all important Iraqi irrigation systems.
Mamun also made a lot of stupid decisions like attempting to rule from Merv for 6 years alienating Baghdadis and the west and appointing Ali Rida as his successor alienating the rest of the Abbasid house.
The result of Mamun's alienating policies and collapse of Khurasanis left him with no supporters, so he turned to Mutasim's Turkic slave soldiers.
But Mutawakkil wanted to replace the Turks, so they murdered him and the next 3 Caliphs, resulting in 9 years of anarchy (861-870), most of the Caliphate becoming independent and further devastating Iraqi irrigation.
Until 870 when the military oriented Muwaffaq ensured the Turks that they wouldn't be replaced, ending the chaos. Setting about defeating the Zanj marshland guerilla, and the Saffarids who under a Persian coppersmith took most of Iran and almost took Baghdad.
His son Mutadid was the most militarily active of any Abbasid Caliph. Restoring control over western Iran and Syria. And he gave the civilian bureaucracy control over the military for the first time in Islamic history.
His son Muktafi took Egypt but died suddenly in 908, with no succession plans. So the bureaucrats chose 13 year old Muqtadir so they could manipulate him for their own gain.
Muqtadir was the quintessence of decadence. Spending most of his time and a high portion of state wealth on the harem and extravagance. Despite there being a major financial catastrophe due to the previous century of damage to the Iraqi irrigation networks.
This resulted in the Caliphate going backrupt, resulting in the military killing the Caliph in 932, leading to more infighting.
Until the sons of a Caspian fisherman managed to take Baghdad in 945.
You can also said he is product of decadent
@@kamikazeblackjack ye.
Although, if alMuktafi ruled longer, or the more capable was chosen, such as the experienced Ahmed ibn alMutazz (who briefly launched a coup and became Caliph for 1 day, before the plot was undone). Then the fall of the abbasids could be postponed for decades or even centuries
@@Wakobear.
That’s Overestimation, Ibn al-Mutazz was already 48 years old when al-Muktafi died and the Abbasid Caliphs during that period rarely pass the year 50 alive meaning that the caliphate would inevitable go to al-Muqatdir leading to its decline. Plus, I remember reading about a climate change during the 10th century that also made that decline even more inevitable.
@@Emir_969 True, ibn alMutazz has already outlived most Abbasid Caliphs before his accession. But Mansur lived to 61 as did numerous Umayyad Caliphs. Hugh Kennedy said he probably would've made a "good if not outstanding caliph" ......
But even if he rules for a short while, he could easily not choose Muqtadir as his successor and choose his own son or relative. Or Mutazz could better prepare Muqtadir as his successor by kicking him out of the harem, forcing him to lead military campaigns and learn about how the finances of the Caliphate works. Making him far less incompetent, who believes every new vizier who promises him unachievable amounts of wealth for his extravagant lifestyle..
But the most important thing would be that the able and senior administrators who supported ibn alMutazz's coup wouldn't be executed or discredited. The Jarrahids Muhammad ibn Dawud and Ali ibn Isa.
Ali ibn Isa was an extremely capable financial administrator and was strongly supported by Mu'nis, head of the military. But his attempts to reduce the expenditure of the Harem and Court made enemies of the queen mother and other courtiers, resulting in him frequently get removed.
In this case, Ali ibn Isa would immediately be appointed as Vizier on Mutazz's ascension, instead of the less capable ibn al Furat. Ideally he would continue in this position for the next 30 years straight (died 946 at 87), giving stable rule unlike the historical Muqtadir's rapidly changing viziers.
The alliance between Ali ibn Isa and Mu'nis would ensure that the administration and the military work harmoniously. Combined with his long vizierate and financial competency, the irrigation networks of southern Iraq could be repaired, allowing it to produce 1/4 of the middle East's wealth once more - which alone would prevent the fall of the Abbasids.
Using said wealth to strengthen their hold on western Iran (perhaps a joint Samanid-Abbasid campaign against Saffarid remnant) and perhaps even go on the offensive against the Ifriqiyan Fatimids with help from revolts of their majority Sunni population?
As for climatic problems then this was initially mentioned by Richard Bulliet in Camels climate and cotton, and elaborated upon in Ronnie Elunblum's Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean.
During which Iraq, Persia, Anatolia, Syria and Egypt received some extremely cold weather for some years in the late 900s. Intensifying in the early 1000s before ceasing around 1060. The result was widespread famines, but most importantly the Seljuk invasions - seeking warmer pastures of Iran, greatly devastating sedentary and Agricultural society of the middle east.
But their is difference of opinion regarding the impact of this as mentioned by ASC Peacock in Chapter 8 of The Great Seljuk Empire.
Who mentions that freak events of extreme cold in Iraq were recorded as soon as records began in the 800s and they continued to be recorded into the 1100s, while scientific evidence records warmer temperatures for this period. And also that evidence for an Iranian cotton boom is flimsy.
The agricultural decline was more due to the Buyid non hereditary Iqta system. Which encouraged maximal extraction and zero long term investment. As well as the proliferation of nomads in Syria due to collapse of Abbasids.
And there were still many nomads throughout the central Asian pasturelands who weren't forced to migrate like the Seljuks....
The unified Abbasids would be much stronger than the 3 Buyid Emirates, Kakuyids and various other small principalities of Iran. And so would probably be able to put up a much stronger defence against the Seljuks in the 1040s.
@Wakobear.
1-if he rules for a short time then I doubt that he would train al muqtadir enough as he would still likely be a child.
2-the history books don't mention any good successors to al-muktafi expect ibn al mutazz which is in itself a huge hint/sign about the abbasid decadence at that time.
3-if the caliphate becomes a Puppet of good viziers who would become the de-facto rulers of it then it would likely end up like the fatimid caliphate.
Calling Mohammed a Prophet is like calling Ghenghis Khan the same.
Moe Ham Head is to propheteering as George Soros is to profiteering
Except one is a prophet from God and another isn’t.
You mean a prophet of Satan.
Genghis Khan didn't start one of the biggest religion in the world.
@@km0262 neither are
The Fatimids were likely Persians similar to the Rustimids and Qarmantians NOT Berbers even though the berbers made a huge part of its army.
The Christian coptic were they welcome the Muslim Arab when they Conquer Egypt because the car they are oppressed by the Greek Byzantine like in the time when Amr ibn al-Aas Conquer Egypt the patriarch of Alexandria yuhanna kicked out and replace by a Greek patriarch and he roaming The Desert of Egypt and when Amr ibn al-Aas Conquer Egypt he and he bring back yuhanna to his title as the patriarch and till day the Coptic Christian prayers Amr ibn al-Aas
Hype
Do late neolithic
43:53 this is not true at
Tyson was the first one to come up with this myth but the truth about Al-Ghazali is that he was one of “the people off logic” not “the people of the Hadeth” he was considered an infidel by Ibn Tymiyah (who is one of the major scholars in the entire Islamic history)
How would Al-Ghazali's theological shift factor into this? He took a major turn.
We have to remember that all of our religious cultures, even the Zen and Buddhist, have engaged in various wars and pursuits of expansion. As much as the imposition of ideals can go to destructive extremes, it doesn't mean there is no value to be had in spreading wisdom, and the correct mode of thinking. You just need to recognize the unclear relationship between what you think to be good, and what others believe to be good. Don't take their perspective as invalid. Instead, if you are honest in your belief, seek to transform the perspective of the other to your own, by stages instead of conclusions. Even if they don't conform in the moment, you can sow the seeds of your perspective. This process can also help root out your own misgivings, by identifying and rationalizing all of those perspectives in which you find no underlying ground.
But none of those are war/slaving cults.
Christianity is built different. Not exempt from it, not at all, but it's one which actively promotes safe conversion and it is, in fact, at its very root (not peaceful conversion, just one that doesn't involve killing or subduing, in fact, it invites YOU to be the bearer of death and torture to achieve that same conversion.)
Ashin Wirathu did nothing wrong.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617literally all of those religions practiced slavery and warfare.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617alll of those religions at one point or another practiced expansionism and slavery.
Shiism was not really a mainstream belief, it was usually enforced such as by the Fatimids or the Safavids
Rise of a death cult.
What an obtuse and moronic thing to write, all you've done is report on yourself.
And the youngest child of the Abrahamic religions.
Anything-goes liberal "Christianity" and "Reformed Judaism" are newer (and both extremely heretical, like Islam)
Unfortunately
@@josephstalin839 actually that would be Rebecca
Deus Vult!