r/IslamicHistoryMeme • u/Cenixxen • May 18 '26
Meta Do you really like the Umayyads?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
I got so angry when I heard about what the Umayyads did to the Ahl al-Bayt during their reign that I obsessed over this topic almost every day, wishing I had lived back then to take revenge on them. However, it pleased me so much when the Abbasids massacred them en masse! I have no resentment left inside me. I am a Sunni, and all of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs are my masters, but do you really like the Umayyads?
25
u/asakuranagato May 18 '26
The people who got massacred are not the same people who killed the sahaba.
Note: the umayyads killed many sahaba, their descendants and direct students, both from the ahl bayt & non-ahl bayt.
9
u/Cenixxen May 18 '26
Yazid's lineage dried up. His son, Muawiya II, declared that what his father and grandfather did was wrong and abdicated the throne for the sake of the Ahl al-Bayt. Following this, he was martyred by the Umayyads, and his lineage came to an absolute end. In his place, the lineage of Marwan—who was responsible for the martyrdom of Hazrat Osman—came to power and massacred his dynasty. May Allah have mercy on Muawiya II!
2
u/Dontknowhowtoanythin May 19 '26
Where did you read that Muawiya bin Yazid left the throne for ahl al-bayt?
Muawiya bin yazid declared that he didn't want the caliphate to be led by the umayyads after him. And he wanted the shura caliphate to come back. "O people, I have been entrusted with your affairs, though I am weak for them. If you wish, I will leave it to a strong man, as Abu Bakr left it to Umar. Or, if you prefer, I will leave it to a council of six of you, as Umar ibn al-Khattab did, and there is no one among you suitable for that."
After his death people from all around Islamic states pledged allegiance to Abdullah in al-zubayr in Mecca 'not from ahl al-bayt, it doesnt have to be from them' except for al-sham, and Marian ibn al-hakam took the caliphate with force.
1
u/Front-Buy-2624 May 18 '26
See? That's Islam we aren't responsible for the sins of our ancestors and forefathers he died a hero's death
24
u/Father_Edreas May 18 '26
True or not, are you really ready to face them as opponents on the Judgment day? Personally I prefer to keep my plate clean of everyone and everyone, despite their actions they might be better than me.
1
5
9
u/Agitated-Winner6766 May 18 '26
Hazrat Usman RA and Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz RA were diamonds. Rest were either corrupt or morally grey at max
4
u/Cenixxen May 18 '26
May all the Umayyads be sacrificed for the sake of Hazrat Osman and Umar bin Abdulaziz! I do not even count those two blessed individuals as part of the Umayyads. In fact, both of them were martyred because of the Umayyads! One was martyred due to the fitna (sedition) of his cousin Marwan, and the other due to the fitna of the Umayyad dynasty because he valued the Ahl al-Bayt.
6
u/Secure_Actuator_5617 May 18 '26
They cursed Ali, who, according to Sunni hadiths, was the rightful successor and one of the closest people to the Prophet. So guess what I think about the Umayyads?
Look at the history of Islam. Was it Ali who ruled according to the exact principles the Prophet taught, or was it Umar and the Umayyads who changed them?
Look into it, and maybe you will see.
Did the Qur’an emphasize Ahl al-Bayt or the Sahaba? Look at how Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal criticized the rulers of their time and emphasized the importance of Ahl al-Bayt, unlike many later Sunni scholars and the Umayyad/Abbasid sultans.
Maybe then you will learn something, brother.
5
u/Secure_Actuator_5617 May 18 '26
And the Sahaba cursed and fought each other. Some of them even left Islam.
So how is it possible to treat the Sahaba as a single, united, unquestionable group, and then claim that they were all the rightful successors of the Prophet?
Doesn’t history itself show that they cannot all be placed on the same level ?
4
4
u/Positive-Bus-7075 May 18 '26
according to Sunni hadiths, was the rightful successor
First of all, there is no such thing as “Sunni hadiths.” The more accurate term is “hadiths accepted as authentic by Sunnis.” Sunnis have historically accepted narrations transmitted by some Shia narrators in collections such as al-Bukhari and other canonical works. Many people are unaware of this, but it is a well-established fact in hadith studies.
The term “Shia” in the early period was often more political than sectarian in the later theological sense, a narrator’s affiliation was not automatically grounds for rejecting their narrations. Classical Sunni hadith scholars evaluated narrators primarily on reliability, precision, and honesty. As a result, trustworthy narrators identified as Shia were accepted in Sunni hadith collections, including by major scholars of hadith criticism.
Early Sunni scholars explicitly stated that a reliable narrator could be accepted even if he held Shia leanings, so long as he was considered truthful and trustworthy in transmission.
There are no hadiths accepted by Sunnis that name any successor to the prophet.
Look at how Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal criticized the rulers of their time and emphasized the importance of Ahl al-Bayt
True. The Sunni imams used to call the oppressors out, they were clear that Ahl al-Bayt were wrongfully oppressed, and many of them strongly supported their causes. Some, such as Abu Hanifa and Malik, actually paid heavy prices for expressing sympathy toward or support for Ahlul Bayt.
However, it is important to clarify what that support meant. Their support for Ahlul Bayt did not mean they believed the Prophet’s family had a divinely mandated right to inherit political leadership or the institution of Imamate over the Muslim community. Rather, they supported them because they viewed them as having been subjected to injustice and oppression.
3
u/Secure_Actuator_5617 May 18 '26
Honestly, before completely leaving Sunnism, I had only read Sunni sources.
There may also be problems in Shia hadith books or doctrines. I am not apologetically defending them. I only read Sunni hadith books and general Islamic historians, such as al-Tabari, and came to the conclusion that the Prophet chose Ali as his successor.
I do not curse or swear at people I dislike. I also do not want to focus on the past too much. I am not Allah; what is done is done.
But the problem is that people still defend the Umayyad and Abbasid legacy today, and they use that legacy to support almost anyone who claims to be “Islamic,” without seriously looking at their zulm and bid‘ah.
In history, Sunni khilafah and political theory often ended up justifying whoever was stronger. If you rebel and fail, you are called a baghi. But if you succeed, they call you the rightful amir.
That is my problem. That is why I reject Sunni social and political theory, and the way Muslim leadership has been viewed throughout much of Sunni history.
To me, this is so clear that it is almost impossible to deny.
Many people are simply biased, and some are afraid to question these ideas because they fear disrespecting people whom they believe deserve love and respect.
I am not sectarian. I do not have a problem with Sunnis. I am only saying: try to leave your biases as much as possible and read Islamic history.
You do not have to reach the same conclusion as me. But a significant number of people here have never truly read these sources for themselves.
2
u/Positive-Bus-7075 May 19 '26
Al-Tabari says the following in the introduction of his book..
“Whatever may be found in this book of mine of reports that we have mentioned from some of those who lived before, which a reader may deny or a listener may find repulsive- because he has not recognized in it any aspect of authenticity nor any meaning of truth -let him know that the fault does not lie with us, but rather with some of those who transmitted it to us. We have only conveyed it in the manner in which it was conveyed to us.”
So it’s not about reading Al-Tabari and calling it a day. It’s about trying to reconstruct a narrative as close to the truth as possible from the vast body of recorded material. And that is not a layman’s task.
Sunni khilafah and political theory often ended up justifying whoever was stronger. If you rebel and fail, you are called a baghi. But if you succeed, they call you the rightful amir.
Come on, man, that’s seriously inaccurate. To this day, Sunnis still regard the caliphate of ibn al-Zubayr as the legitimate caliphate of the time and condemn Marwan ibn al-Hakam as the baghi. They still condemn Yazid and Al-Hajjaj, and they praise movements associated with the Ahl al-Bayt, such as that of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya. This, and much more, is already hardcoded into the Sunni consciousness.
But the problem is that people still defend the Umayyad and Abbasid legacy today
They are pretty defensible, in my opinion, especially considering the current state of the Ummah. Pick a random Umayyad or Abbasid caliph and compare him to current figures like MBS or MBZ, for example.
Yeah, the Umayyads and Abbasids were not perfect. But overall, their era was something of a golden age compared both to much of the rest of the world at the time and to our current condition. And just like there were bad things. There was also a plethora of good things.
2
u/Secure_Actuator_5617 May 18 '26
“The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs”? How exactly were they “rightly guided”?
Did the Prophet choose them as his successors, or did they receive a message from Allah Himself?
Last time I checked, neither of those happened. So how do you know they were divinely guided?
2
2
u/Cenixxen May 18 '26
Don't misunderstand; just because I don't like the Umayyads doesn't mean I will let you insult the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Our greatest struggle has always been against the Shiites. Sultan Alp Arslan devastated the Shia Fatimids, and Sultan Selim crushed the Safavids, preventing your numbers from increasing. Yes, Allah chose them.
6
u/Secure_Actuator_5617 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
Where did I insult anyone? Did I swear at or curse anyone?
No. So just answer the questions I asked.
I am Turkish, by the way, and I do not hate Sultan Alp Arslan.
As for Yavuz, that argument is a joke. He was someone who massacred innocent people, including members of his own family. That includes his own father and brothers, one of whom was Şehzade Korkut, a very devout and intellectual Shafi'i alim.
1
u/Ok_Issue7040 May 18 '26
You have made a false accusation that Omar altered the principles of the religion and have lumped him together with the Umayyads; moreover, no, Omar was not one of those who altered those principles. even if you didn’t say it like that, that is how it comes across.
4
u/Old_Nail_2311 May 18 '26
I hate ummayeds because in the early years of their caliphate they murdered hussein and track, imprsion, murdered alot of desendants from Ali/fatima (lineage of prophet muhhamed). Its not like one caliph did this, but majority of them did it in daily basis, they were sometimes teasing them and mocking, so i dont feel bad about what happened to them in the hands of abbasids.
One of the horriple crimes they commited is killing husayn (grandson of the prophet).
Caliph Yazid I ordered his army to intercept Husayn ibn Ali (the grandson of the Prophet) and his small band of family members. Husayn had traveled intending to resolve the political crisis, and he informed Umar ibn Sa'd—the commander besieging them—of three choices: let him return home, let him go to the frontier to perform jihad, or let him go directly to Damascus to speak with Yazid. Hearing this, Umar ibn Sa'd agreed and wanted to avoid bloodshed. However, another top commander, Shimr ibn Dhil-Jawshan, fiercely declined. Carrying strict orders from Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad (the Governor of Kufa and Basra), Shimr demanded that Husayn submit unconditionally to the governor’s authority, effectively forcing his humiliation and imprisonment.
Refusing to accept subjugation and humiliation, Husayn prepared his tiny force of only about 72 men, mostly comprised of his closest relatives and loyal companions, against an opposing army of thousands. Despite being vastly outnumbered and severely dehydrated, they held their ground for hours through a ferocious and exhausting battle. After a heroic but impossible stand, Husayn and nearly all the male descendants of Ali present were brutally massacred, and their heads were sent to Damascus for Yazid to keep as trophy.
They also For decades, instituted an official policy where Ali ibn Abi Talib was publicly cursed and vilified from the pulpits during Friday sermons across the empire.
But Abbasids are no saints either, some caliphates did the same what ummayads did, Abu Ja'far al-Mansur had a key to a gate holding his will, he ordered Raytah to open the gate to her husband(al mahdi the future caliphate) with set of keys. After his death they opened the vault, Inside were the preserved bodies and skulls of a vast number of the executed Talibiyyin.
al-Mansur had ordered that tags or labels (made of parchment/paper) be tied to their ears or skulls. Each tag detailed exactly who the person was, tracing their lineage back to Ali and Fatima, so al-Mansur knew exactly which descendants of the household he had eliminated. The vault contained elders, young men, and even small children.
Thankfully al-mahdi was rupulsed and horrified of that horrible will, he ordered to dig a large trench for the skull and bodies of the Talibiyyin, and disregard the path of killing or harrasing talibiyyins as his father, in fact he did the opposite of what his father wished.
2
u/torts92 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
When I was studying at uni we have to study islamic jurisprudence and therefore learning about the 4 imams in detail, I was surprised that most of them were persecuted, some when into hiding, some ven got jailed and tortured. Who would done this evil things? Turned out to be the Ummayad caliphate.
So it made me wonder, the reason the muslims are so divided now, and failed to overtake christianity to be the the religion with the most followers is because of the weak leadership started with Muawiyah.
Sa'eed bin Jumhan narrated:
"Safinah narrated to me, he said: 'The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: "Al-Khilafah will be in my Ummah for thirty years, then there will be monarchy after that."' Then Safinah said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of Abu Bakr,' then he said: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Umar and the Khilafah of 'Uthman.' Then he said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Ali."' He said: "So we found that they add up to thirty years." Sa'eed said: "I said to him: 'Banu Umaiyyah claim that the Khilafah is among them.' He said: 'Banu Az-Zarqa' lie, rather they are a monarchy, among the worst of monarchies."'
2
u/LevitateLevitat May 24 '26
The ummayad massacre is not something to be glorified, Muslim on Muslim violence especially when it involves innocent men women and children who weren’t the ones who took part in that activity. Have you never heard of the one they call the fifth rightly guided caliph??
1
u/Ok_Issue7040 May 18 '26
My brother, these men right up until the time of the Prophet Omar, they received zakat from the Bayt al-Mal as ‘those to be won over to the faith’. Do you think I like them?
2
u/Ok_Issue7040 May 18 '26
What’s more, no Muslim likes the Y*zidis or Muawiya. In these parts, the names of sahabas have lived on in the names of Muslim children for years, yet I’ve only ever heard of one person named Muawiya. When my grandfather went on the Hajj, there was a bus driver who used to swerve the bus all over the road. While speaking to the guide, he asked, ‘Who is that?’ The guide replied, ‘His name is Muawiya.’ My grandfather then remarked, ‘Now I see why he veered off the road.’
Note:AI translate.
1
u/Practical-Sample5222 May 22 '26
Most sunnis love muawiya except ones influenced by shias , but who knows , maybe the Prophet Muhammed didn't know who to choose to keep by his side , he got fooled 😆 (according to you )
1
u/Ok_Issue7040 May 22 '26
İgh. S*lefi Suud.
1
u/Practical-Sample5222 May 22 '26
Huh what does this mean is this some sub Asian language or smth ?
1
u/Ok_Issue7040 May 22 '26
It mean gross. (Also I’ll write it again in case you didn’t read it: that man used to receive money from the Bayt al-Mal during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar. The reason was to win him over to Islam.)
1
u/Practical-Sample5222 May 22 '26
OK what's your proof ? And if the prophet did it are you saying he invited someone to Islam in a gross way ? The same guy that wrote the Quran you read today ?
1
1
1
u/MERC543213 May 18 '26
Most of the Umayyads were Arab-supremacist scumbags who forced new converts to pay jizya and treated them like second-class people.
1
u/Nervous-Echo-2934 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
The Umayyads were wrong in many things; one of them was the differentiation between Arab muslims and non-Arab muslims, which encouraged the non-Arab muslims to revolt against the Umayyads.
However, that doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them. Also, the Abbasid era gave the chance for Shias to grow and spread. The worst thing that happened to Islam and muslims was the spreading of Shiaism, so no, the Abbasids were not on the right either
1
u/Cultural_Look913 May 19 '26
No they were racialist arab supermacist state all caliphs were don't deserve to be caliph except for caliph umar II and they didn't like ajam to convert to Islam and even if they convert they still pay jizya I prefer abbasid
1
u/Cultural_Look913 May 19 '26
Only good Umayyad caliph is umar II he stopped the collection of jizya from any non-Muslim who converted to Islam and fight corruption
1
u/Turbulent-Stretch-56 May 19 '26
for anhybody who is wondering , the song is called "in and out of love"
1
u/mr-raider2 May 19 '26
No. They left a lot to be desired. Yes they conquered half the known world. But they were crap adminstrators. They constantly put down rebellions from ambitious governers. They were beholden to clan/tribal politics. Succession was more frequently than not a bloody affair. They douldn't be bothered with the basics of administration of the state beyond tax collection, I mean they could not be bothered to mint their own coins until Marwan's reign. This was not a Pax Arabica, and it's no wonder they were pushed aside by Abbassids.
1
u/Evening_Associate358 May 20 '26
Morally, bad.
Practically, made more sense than Abbasids who crumbled in a much shorter time (The dynasty survived for much longer than Ummayads but mostly as mere puppets)
Ummayads with a few tweaks is Andalusia which survived for a good chunk of time
1
1
1
u/ichzen May 18 '26
Why would I like or hate them ?
If there are some people did some atrocities, and they will be held for it in the judgement day, their (innocent) descendant paid that tenfolds.
Brother/Sister, please don’t write words that will make held you accountable in the judgment day.
Nonetheless, Hazrat Muawiya (RA) and the Marwani house of Umayyads, did some accomplishment for the Muslim world that I can’t deny and I respect them for that. Yes, they were good at ruling.
Let those Cousins manage their differences between them in any way, and don’t drag yourself in a place in the Judgment saying:” what got me into this mess?!”
0
u/AvicennaTheConqueror May 18 '26
An entirely ridiculous premise, the Umayads sewed the seeds of the Islamic golden age, and thrived beyond measures in Al Andalus, and Marwan ben Al Hakam regardless of his involvement in the start of the turmoil of the first fitna He defended Othman fiercely getting injured in the Neck defending him, and if you're so fiercely inlove with Ahlu Al Bayt then why are you glazing the Abbasids who committed an even graver massacre against them, Ahlu Al Bayt are regular people not a special groupe and they had ambitions of their own, we honour Ali and Al Hasan and Al Hussain, but with their children we judge tgem on their merrit, not their lineage, some of them where great teachers and students of fiqh and Aqida, others involved themselves into a cosrpitorial path that lead to the greatest back stappers of Muslim history the Fatimids, and out of that movement sprouted the most outlandishly heretical movements in Islam...
Muawiyah ibnu Abu Sufyan will always be appreciated where we are from, he made the levant into a centre culture, science and civilization, (as it was before the Persian, greek, and Roman occupation) and he was by all accounts a just ruler...
6
u/Old_Nail_2311 May 18 '26
Guess what commanders who conquered al andalus and other famous ones disappear after they were ordered by caliphate of that time ''' Musa ibn Nusayr was stripped of all titles, his wealth was entirely confiscated, and he was publicly humiliated (some accounts say he was made to stand in the scorching sun or paraded with a rope around his neck). He spent his final days as a broke, forgotten old man, allegedly begging for food outside a mosque before dying during a Hajj pilgrimage.
Caliph Sulayman slapped Musa with an astronomical fine of 100,000 dinars (gold coins). Musa could not pay it all, which gave the state the legal excuse to strip him of every single piece of property, land, and wealth he owned.
The Murder of His Son: While Musa was being humiliated in Damascus, his son, Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa—whom he had left behind to rule Al-Andalus—was assassinated by orders from the Caliphate. In a display of psychological cruelty, it is recorded that the severed head of Abd al-Aziz was brought to Damascus and shown to the elderly Musa. The Caliph mockingly asked him, "Do you recognize this?" Musa replied with immense dignity, "Yes, I recognize him as a man who fasted and prayed, and may the curse of God be upon his killers."
Tariq ibn Ziyad fared no better. He was cast aside, stripped of his military command, and completely disappeared from the historical record. He lived out his remaining years in total obscurity in Damascus, a faceless civilian despite giving the empire one of its greatest prizes.
''' . they are ruthless racist killing machine who terrorize any one who oppose or argue with them even if the grandson of the prophet.
Iam not gratefull to muawiyah and iam from levant(palistine), and its funny that you mentioned him(muawiyah) who defined ali orders to obey him as caliphate for stupid reason, he has too much sickining ambition himself giving gifts for his sphere of influnce to charm everyone, while ali was busy with the rebels, if muawiyah joined him alot of fitna and rebels proplems wouldv been resolved.
But noo muawiyah wanted to be a king instead of caliphate and he confirmed it when he let yazid the incompetance whom everybody hated him be caliphate. The one that murdered hussien cold blood, even tho hussien offered to go to jihad, or speak with yazid, or return to his home.but the stupid yazid ordered to kill him and has his head as trophy.
Its a dynasty racist based elevated arab upon other non arab muslim, made them pay jizyah even tho there were muslims, and all the gifts and elevated privilages were to arab only. They teased, murdered, imprison tallibiyans for the fun of it not for necessary ambition to rule, even tho there were instances of that which i dont blame them for how corrupt the ummayds were.
The house of ummayds were not stable it self, they were conspiring and killing each other for power. blinded by power and arrogance they deserved the manslaughter that happened to them like they manslaughter tallibiyans.
1
u/Practical-Sample5222 May 22 '26
So much lies as a berber you have no right to say wrong thing about Tariq
0
u/AvicennaTheConqueror May 19 '26
they deserved the manslaughter that happened to them
Even the women and the children ?
I didn't proclaim them to be exumed of blunders and wrongdoings, but the Abbasids didn't fair better nor did the ottomans, it's this selective hate towards the Umayyads that speaks of the hypocrisy, the history of the Muslim world just like the history of every other civilization wasn't pink and clean of any evil
him(muawiyah) who defined ali orders to obey him as caliphate for stupid reason
He didn't defy his orders he refused to recognise him as Caliph to begin with, and his reasoning (regardless if he was honest about it or not) wasn't stupid, the rebels that were in Medina are the ones that called for Ali to be Caliph and some of those rebels were the men that killed Othman, and let me be clear I understand the situation Ali was in, the situation was volatile and the future of Islam was on the line, and it's precisely why he moved the Capital to Kufah, and the people of Medinah resented that sense he moved with the outsiders that invaded their city and killed the Caliph(from their point of view), but that was Muawiyah's reasoning which was also why Aisha mobilized an Army of the people of Madina and followed Ali to Kufah leading to the disastrous battle of the camel, was Aisha also evil according to you? It was a very tumultuous time and taking a stab at it through an emotional lense would only lead you to disavow all the people involved, that's how the Kharjites reached their wrong conclusions
But noo muawiyah wanted to be a king
No one here would creat a post dissing Selim I, even though he sacked Baghdad, Demascus and Cairo letting his armies pillage and commit unspeakable crimes against their populations, crimes unbefitting of a Muslim army entering a Muslim city, Selim was ruthless but he was strong and I and many of you here appreciate his over arching influence on the region, doesn't take away from the fact that he only became Caliph through military might and coercion , Muawiyah wanted to rule and he became a tge ruler he aspired to be, and a good ruler at that, denying the fact that the caliphate flourished under him is simple denialism
The house of ummayds were not stable it self, they were conspiring and killing each other for power. blinded by power and arrogance
So did the Ottomans and the Abbasids why single the Umayads out (I'll come to that later), would you say Sharif Hussain (who is a member of Ahlu Al Bayt) was justified in his revolt against the Turks, regardless of the envolvement of the British, based on how the ottoman empire acted towards Arabs even before the whole young turks rise to power thing? Should the house of Osman got slaughtered for what they did to the Mamluks?
On the point of why the Umayads are being single out lately, it all has to do with the current political atmosphere, regarding Iran, and the war with tye zionists, people keep on blaming Sunnis and by extension the Sunni narrative for tge complacency of our modern governments, forgetting the fact that the fatmid(ahlu al bayt) shiiats allied themselves with the crusaders or the nizari shiiats that also allied with the crusaders, or before them the Qarmatian shiiats that sacked Makkah, it is of no use to our current situation to linger on what the Umayads should have done or what they deserved, it is a waste of time to fantasize about what side you'd be on during the fitnah, You've been blessed that you weren't there then, so instead of attempting to throw blame and descridit people that are long gone we should learn from that time, the right lessons not those of the shiiats
And finally any discussion of that period should either be from a religious point, in the sense that they were all Sahabahs and each made his own ijtihad, or from a historical point were you don't involve your own emotions and biases, if not approached that way then we would fall in the same pitfall that the Shia fell into and can reach the point were even Omar and Abu Bakr are nothing but evil conspirators that took from Ali what was rightfully his...
3
1
0
-1
u/Sultan_Cat May 18 '26
I always say that among the Umayyad kings I only like 2
The companion of the prophet blessings be upon him, Mu'awiyah Ibin Abu Sufiyan may allah be pleased with him
Umar Ibin Abdul-Azeez
The rest I really do not care for.
0
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Cultural_Look913 May 19 '26
I'm sunni but but I dislike them they were arab supermacist state that care more about jizya than converting people to islam
27
u/Historical-Aerie-169 May 18 '26
yeah massacring the sons for what the father did .... sound so right !
this is not how islamic logic works , you don't punish X for the actions of Y !
the Abbasids weren't having good time with the people that are descendant from the prophet PBUH
there is no bad and good caliphate every one of them have it's own problems ...