.lava
Veteran Member
they should be fight against, stopped and even eliminated to stop but we trust their word? i personally could not trust any men who is able to kill civilians and force them to live in fear
.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Anti-Islamic Sentiment on RF
- Thread starter Baydwin
- Start date
they should be fight against, stopped and even eliminated to stop but we trust their word? i personally could not trust any men who is able to kill civilians and force them to live in fear
.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
It's not about trusting them.
.lava
Veteran Member
OK, you have a point. besides, i can not say Muslims did not play any part. but it was wrong to label criminals "Islamic" because it gave the impression all the Muslims are criminals and today Muslims are suffering because of this
.
301ouncer
Well-Known Member
Sister please do not say that. This is the decree of the most majistic. The more they cause sufferings and hardship the nearer the vicrtory for both the sincere believer and non-believer.
Through this suffering is a mighty test and shows his pleased and love for us and can not wait to send the help of the angles in ranks.
Please sister refer to the verse of " Will not change the state of the people unless they change within themselves" for more explanation.
We should be happy and rejoice at this onslought. Clear signs for the believer. I love signs. I better go to my thead signs.
Indeed. Man is impatiant.
Just to clear up any misconceptions some may have of me. I personally am not anti-Muslim or anti-Christian. To each their own, so long as they do not attempt to interfere with my Freedom of mind and Will and my choice to follow the Left-Hand Path of the Black Arts.
/Adramelek\
/Adramelek\
.lava
Veteran Member
yes, but they did not take any more than tax from public. they did not pillage other nation's source of wealth. for instance, we don't have pieces of art that belong to other nations. the only thing they collected from all nations were religious items like swords of Sahabe, first written Qur'an...etc.
i don't know what happened in India between Muslims and Hindus. but so far i see, Muslims did wrong
.
.lava
Veteran Member
i am unsure if i understood you correctly. i mean, i can not understand what you are saying. would you please explain again? what should not i say?
.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
My mother survived the concentration camps. She lost her entire family there--mother, father, brother, sister, and many other relatives. She never hated Germans. She hated prejudice.
Muslims are not victims. They have not been treated worse than other people. They are not being allowed to impose Dar al Islam throughout the world--that's their victimization. As for why not, this thread has given many examples of why that would be a very bad idea.
.lava
Veteran Member
they haven't been treated worse than other people?? what do you mean by that? is there some kind of competition that i am not aware of?
what's Dar Al Islam, Autodidact? you know, i am a Muslim and i never get any chance to hear about this issue as you do. can you explain how come this happens? i mean, we study Qur'an, we have lectures, we live according to Qur'an and everything but we are never taught about it. but non-Muslims talk about it because they are taught...by whom? and why?
i applaud your mother. she must be very strong woman. how old is she?
.
gnostic
The Lost One
.lava said:
It does matter if the public was tax more or less. Any empire would require tax. That's not in question.
You and Wannibe Yogi were talking about colonisations, which mean people moving into lands that didn't belong to them. Lands were taken, through wars and conquests, through the so-called Islamic expansions and imperialism, and this have been going on for centuries after Muhammad's death, until the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
How many people lost their homes for the expansion of Islam and colonisations of Muslims? How many people died in wars because of Islamic empires push their borders in the East and West? How many died for resisting the invaders, or when they have the lands, in rebellions?
I am not saying that other non-Islamic empires didn't take lands through wars and conquests, because they every did. If you are complaining about colonisations of today, then I am just informing you that Muslims did the same thing through successive Islamic empires - Arabs, Persian, Ottoman Turks. Muslims are no better than the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Chinese, Americans, Russians, Germans, French, etc, etc, etc.
I hope you not thinking that the Muslims didn't colonise? What do you think migration is? It's colonisations.
It's just some (colonisations/migrations) are peaceful, and many are not.
Last edited:
.lava
Veteran Member
if that's true then how come all those nations even after centuries living under Ottoman authority, did not lose their own ID, forget their own language, switch religion and forget their own religion and lose its buildings, still have their own wealth and everything? why don't Greek today speak Turkish just like Algerian people speak French? IMO there must be some difference between because out come appears to be different. to me, colonization has different purpose. it is about money. they intented to take away wealth of other nations and they did. they left poor nations behind them with a corrupted ID. i don't see the same result with Ottoman. actually i find it strange that after spending 400 years under flag of Ottoman, Greeks are still Greeks, Bulgarians are still Bulgarians. they still have their centuries old religious buildings, they still speak their language, they are still practicing their own religion..etc they are still themselves with everything they had and still have
.
kai
ragamuffin
Funny! I see much of the problems in the Middle East due to Islamic Colonisation once the Ottoman empire crumbled that's when nation status was able to become a reality for the middle eastern peoples before that they were ruled by Turkey( Ottoman)
kai
ragamuffin
shhhh thats all supposed to have never happened!
kai
ragamuffin
Lava the middle eastern countries weren't exactly wealthy when the Ottomans fell, why did Arabs fight against Ottomans ? the national Language af Algeria is Arabic Why is that? its not Arabia. Empires come and go and there have been vast areas of the Earth ruled by Islamic ones that's a fact.
kai
ragamuffin
ahh that's not what i am saying
here, i request him to offer me source where i can read and learn about this issue more. if you have any good source on this historical stuff, specially where you learn from, tell me, please
.
I didnt mean you personaly
Lava what do you think the Ottomans were doing in Greece or anywhere else for that matter? what were they doing outside of Turkey?
gnostic
The Lost One
So?
The Romans did as much for the Greeks, when the Romans occupied all Greek territories. Not only did the Romans didn't force the Greeks to speak their languages or adopt their religions, it was actually the other way around. The Romans adopted Greek religion, especially the pantheon of Greek deities. And in between the 2nd century BC and 1st century AD, many Romans, especially the elites, learned how to speak Greek. Early Latin (2nd century BC) were not a great language at the time, so many were tutored to speak Greek.
Many of the Roman arts (like sculpture) were actually done by Greek artists.
But Greece was lands with old civilisations, and didn't need that much improvements as cultural centres because they were culturally advanced than the Romans, but the Romans did improve other lands they conquered, especially in the west. Cities and towns began popping up everywhere, and there were prosperity in many of these places. They provide more advanced education, built roads to aid trades and travels, built aqueducts and sewerage systems for towns and cities, better irrigation systems for farming.
Many lands kept their own languages and religions too. But in the western empire before the Romans came, the people were largely illiterate, so the Roman gave many of these languages with writing system, the Latin alphabets that would be adapted with their own languages and used widely in the western part of the empire.
Every past empires had offer benefits to the people they have conquered, not just the Islamic ones. But with every benefits there are negative trade off.
If you are serious that everyone benefit from the Islamic empire, then why didn't the Islamic Ottoman Turks return the city of Istanbul back to the Greeks? After all, Istanbul was originally a Greek city, called Byzantion. Byzantion had gone through name changes, like Constantinople and Byzantium, but it was still a Greek city even when it became Romanisatized. And it remained Greek until the Turks took it in the mid-15th century.
And the island of Cyprus have been decades issue of contention between the Greeks and Turks. In fact, the Turks were invaders, because what is now known as Anatolian Turkey had never been their original home. The Ottoman Turks, along with other Turkic people had originally come from Central Asia. The first Turkic speaking people to reach Europe were the Huns in the 5th century.
In any case, I think you probably know more about Ottoman Empire than I do.
The Romans did as much for the Greeks, when the Romans occupied all Greek territories. Not only did the Romans didn't force the Greeks to speak their languages or adopt their religions, it was actually the other way around. The Romans adopted Greek religion, especially the pantheon of Greek deities. And in between the 2nd century BC and 1st century AD, many Romans, especially the elites, learned how to speak Greek. Early Latin (2nd century BC) were not a great language at the time, so many were tutored to speak Greek.
Many of the Roman arts (like sculpture) were actually done by Greek artists.
But Greece was lands with old civilisations, and didn't need that much improvements as cultural centres because they were culturally advanced than the Romans, but the Romans did improve other lands they conquered, especially in the west. Cities and towns began popping up everywhere, and there were prosperity in many of these places. They provide more advanced education, built roads to aid trades and travels, built aqueducts and sewerage systems for towns and cities, better irrigation systems for farming.
Many lands kept their own languages and religions too. But in the western empire before the Romans came, the people were largely illiterate, so the Roman gave many of these languages with writing system, the Latin alphabets that would be adapted with their own languages and used widely in the western part of the empire.
Every past empires had offer benefits to the people they have conquered, not just the Islamic ones. But with every benefits there are negative trade off.
If you are serious that everyone benefit from the Islamic empire, then why didn't the Islamic Ottoman Turks return the city of Istanbul back to the Greeks? After all, Istanbul was originally a Greek city, called Byzantion. Byzantion had gone through name changes, like Constantinople and Byzantium, but it was still a Greek city even when it became Romanisatized. And it remained Greek until the Turks took it in the mid-15th century.
And the island of Cyprus have been decades issue of contention between the Greeks and Turks. In fact, the Turks were invaders, because what is now known as Anatolian Turkey had never been their original home. The Ottoman Turks, along with other Turkic people had originally come from Central Asia. The first Turkic speaking people to reach Europe were the Huns in the 5th century.
In any case, I think you probably know more about Ottoman Empire than I do.
Last edited:
.lava
Veteran Member
I didnt mean you personaly
Lava what do you think the Ottomans were doing in Greece or anywhere else for that matter? what were they doing outside of Turkey?
there was no Turkey before Ottoman. there were many Turkish "Beyliks" in Anatolia and one of them, the one that's named by its first Shah, Osman, started to expend. name of his empire is Osmanlı which mean with Osman or something. so it kept growing. Ottoman story is interesting. Shah never decided which nation to go for instance.
there is only one source i know. it is one and only and probably the best source for them. i wish i had it. unfortunately there are maybe ten big books with lots of pages and it is expensive. what our history books write about them is very limited and biased. there are a few things i don't like about their system. bloodline for example. always son takes the place of Shah which i find undemocratic. i think conquering nations with armies sort of old-fashioned thing to do especially if their intention was to let people know about Islam. today anyone can learn about anything from his home. this is what i generally think about it. but i can not say colonization and conquer are the same thing. conquer means to spread of justice of Islam where people have equal rights, to give public just system. if they went to Greece, that's probably Greek people were oppressed by their leaders or their leaders would not accept knowledge of Islam to reach their people. i need to read those books to have more information about details.
and now, in 30 mins, i need to leave and go to Istanbul, talk to you later?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
In all fairness, .lava, I do not believe you are going to find the real story, in present day Turkey, that depicts the Ottoman era in anything but glowing colours. Reality is far different, based on on-the-ground reports from the people being attacked by the various Muslim armies, over several centuries, and by those traveling through the lands and witnessing the aftermaths. What do you know about the Armenian Genocide? The Armenian genocide is just the last chapter of a very long story of Ottoman aggression.
Armenian Genocide
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/
Last edited: