Fakhri Pasha "The Defender of Madina"

[al-Hasani]

Typical rants about Arab supremacy, worthy only of the trash bin. Why am i not surprised?

Anyway, Salahuddin was a Kurd, not a Arab, and neither were hundreds, perhaps even thousands of excellent Islamic scholars, leaders, commanders, scientists, etc.


Good day.

Stating facts is not supremacy. But that's something people with no arguments rely to when they have been outclassed in a debate. Funny that you mention supremacy when you a few minutes prior were badmouthing and generalizing on the second largest ethnic group in the world after the Han Chinese. Talk about an own goal.

Yet the vast majority of Salah-ad-Din army was Arab and he was totally Arabized (spoke Arabic as his first language) and was born on Arab soil. Nor is Salah-ad-Din even the best Muslim general. He is one of the many greats.

Yet, nobody has talked about this or even denied this. Likewise the same can be said about the hundreds of Arab scientists, scholars, poets, imams etc.

Good day to you too.

 

[-SINAN-]

How is that ? Stop talking about History and look forward ? There is no more Ottoman Empire ,there is a Republic of Turkey ,one of his Member under Atatürk was too Fahrettin Paşa.
But @al-Hasani

Please top talk ,or i must enter here and i don´t want to waste my Time here. The Point where you are start is False ,so maybe come back with more backround.

@Sinan (Bi el at su mahlukata).

Mate, i have done this coversation with Arabs numerous times. They have point, we have point. Past is past, let's move on.

@al-Hasani

I will disagree with you on two points.

How did a obscure tribe from Turkmenistan, back then, suddenly gain the Caliphate in 1517

Oghuz Turks as you came in to contact are not a tribe, More like a tribal confederation.

Oghuz Turks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

formed of 24 tribes.

They ( as we are descendants of them) were the one of fiercest warriors have walked on the earth and far from being obscure.

he only fake country is yours here.

Neither Ottomans, nor Turkey was/is a fake country along with the Other 14 empires/states that our descendants formed through the history.


Since calling out for countrymen is popular nowadays i will bring mine.

@xenon54 @T-123456 @olcayto @TurAr @BronzePlaque @Kaan @telkon @Targon @Hyperion @ghara ghan @rmi5 @usernameless

 

[KingMamba]

Yet they had no legitimacy and took it from the Abbasids who ruled nominally from Cairo under the Arab Fatimid's which back then was the biggest Muslim Empire. So naturally the throne should have been taken by them had it not been for the Ottoman betrayal. I use "betrayal" in the same way as some Turks and non-Turks use it here for Arabs in one part of the Arab world.

This does not change the fact that the entire foundation and prior rule was dominated by Arabs. I am just telling how Arabs viewed themselves and still view themselves by large.

Well prior to the Ottomans Arabs had ruled the Caliphate for nearly 1000 straight years. From the very foundation so it was a monopoly in reality.

The problem is that people do not look at the causes for the Arab revolt nor all those dozens of other revolts that Arabs had nothing to do with. Aside from the succession of Egypt 100 years prior.

It is not as white and black as some users here try to make it out. The downfall of the Ottomans happened due to corruption, lack of development, growing Turkish nationalism etc.
At the end of the Ottoman Empire most of the non-Turks (which was the majority of the Ottoman Empire population) saw the Ottoman Empire as nothing more than a oppressor and occupier hence they revolted and won. From Greece, the Balkans to Hijaz to elsewhere. Whether Muslim or not.

You are comparing apples to oranges Ottomans fought the Fatimids and then the Caliph abdicated, no sunni would acknowledge the shias as caliph even if the Ottomans had lost whereas the Arabs helped a non Muslim force defeat the Muslim state. True it was due to mismanagement and growing nationalist movement but remember the betrayal part is because Muslims are not supposed to aid non Muslims in war against Muslims.

Most Arabs were already independent just not in name but during WW1 the Arab revolt facilitated the Ottoman defeat because it opened a second front.

 

[al-Hasani]

Mate, i have done this coversation with Arabs numerous times. They have point, we have point. Past is past, let's move on.

@al-Hasani

I will disagree with you on two points.



Oghuz Turk as you came in to contact are not a trib, More like a tribal conferation.

Oghuz Turks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

formed of 24 tribes.

They ( as we are descendants of them) were the one of fiercest warriors has walked on earth and far from being obscure.



Neither Ottomans, nor Turkey was/is a fake country along with the Other 14 empires/states that our descendants formed through the history.

When I say obscure tribe then I am referring to the family of the Ottomans who came from modern-day Turkmenistan 700-800 years ago or so to what is now Anatolia. Before that migration they were not ruling anything close to the size of the Ottoman Empire (which first became big for real in the 1500's) and they came out of nowhere in that sense. Correct me if I am wrong.

That was a reply to his "fake country" nonsense that he started. Yet Arabia is a name that predates the word Turk by many centuries and that land is a land that we have always lived on just like the ancient ME is the ancestral homeland of us Arabs and other Semitic people. Of course if we exclude Africa which is apparently the homeland of us all if we believe in science.

You are comparing apples to oranges Ottomans fought the Fatimids and then the Caliph abdicated, no sunni would acknowledge the shias as caliph even if the Ottomans had lost whereas the Arabs helped a non Muslim force defeat the Muslim state. True it was due to mismanagement and growing nationalist movement but remember the betrayal part is because Muslims are not supposed to aid non Muslims in war against Muslims.

But Muslims are supposed to conquer other Muslims and treat them as second class citizens? But when the same Muslims (original ones even) reconquer their lands all hell breaks lose. There is no discussion here. Even despite the mismanagement, corruption, bad treatment etc. and the fact that Arabs ruled all the previous Caliphates for 1000 years prior since the foundation and arguably did more for Islam than anybody else, you still had large Arab emirates and kingdoms who supported the Ottomans and Arab volunteers. Yet we have a few well-known biased users who try to simplify a very complex conflict and who do not even understand the reasons behind all those revolts against the Ottoman Empire (majority by NON-Arabs). But of course since they were not part of it they can safely pick a side.

Yet no matter how you look at it then the Ottomans were usurpers and suddenly declared themselves Caliphs and thus taking the throne from a dynasty that ruled for 800 years previously (500 years directly last 250 years nominally under the Fatimids in Cairo). A dynasty that formed the 9 largest empire in world history.

But anyway the past is the past. I am not going to change my view anyway nor will most of the Arabs.

 

[KingMamba]

But Muslims are supposed to conquer other Muslims and treat them as second class citizens? There is no discussion here. Even despite the mismanagement, bad treatment etc. and the fact that Arab ruled all the previous Caliphates for 1000 years prior since the foundation and arguably did more for Islam than anybody else, you still had large Arab emirates and Kingdoms who supported the Ottomans and Arab volunteers. Yet we have a few well-known biased users who try to simplify a very complex conflict and who do not even understand the reasons behind all those revolts against the Ottoman Empires (majority by NON-Arabs). But of course since they were not part of it they can safely pick a side.

Yet no matter how you look at it then the Ottomans were usurpers and suddenly declared themselves Caliphs and thus taking the throne of a dynasty family that ruled for 800 years previous (500 directly last 250 years nominally under the Fatimids in Cairo). A dynasty that formed the 9 largest empire in world history.

But anyway the past is the past. I am not going to change my view anyway nor will most of the Arabs.

Provide a source that the Ottomans treated non Turks badly before the rise of the Young Turks? Obviously Europeans non Muslims would revolt they would never except a Muslim sovereign. I don't think people have a problem with the Arab revolt other than it occurred in support of the British, if it had occurred independently I doubt anyone would call it a "betrayal". Like I said you are comparing apples to oranges after the four rightly guided Caliphs the seat belonged to whoever could hold onto it and the strongest conqueror the minute the Ummayads lost that distinction they lost the Caliphate and the minute Baghdad got sacked and the Caliph executed so did the Abbasid. There is no historical proof that after that event the Caliph had any power in Cairo and like I said no Sunni accepts the Fatimid Caliphate anyway.

Although personally I think Arabs were justified to revolt but the British should never have been let into the region to do so.

 

[al-Hasani]

Provide a source that the Ottomans treated non Turks badly before the rise of the Young Turks? Obviously Europeans non Muslims would revolt they would never except a Muslim sovereign. I don't think people have a problem with the Arab revolt other than it occurred in support of the British, if it had occurred independently I doubt anyone would call it a "betrayal". Like I said you are comparing apples to oranges after the four rightly guided Caliphs the seat belonged to whoever could hold onto it and the strongest conqueror the minute the Ummayads lost that distinction they lost the Caliphate and the minute Baghdad got sacked and the Caliph executed so did the Abbasid. There is no historical proof that after that event the Caliph had any power in Cairo and like I said no Sunni accepts the Fatimid Caliphate anyway.

Although personally I think Arabs were justified to revolt but the British should never have been let into the region to do so.

Oh, the Arabs did not invite the British. The Arab revolt was part of the WW1. The Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers AGAINST the advice of the Sultan. That was the Young Turks (Turkish nationalists) who actually had the real power. The Sultan was just a figurehead.

Central Powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



WW1 was fought on all fronts involving those powers. Hijaz etc. was just one of them.

The fighting was done by a few Arab tribes. It was not anything major.

Well, that is for another discussion but I am sure that others that have time tonight would gladly provide them.

But many Muslims revolted against the Ottomans in that same period. Due to the reasons I mentioned. Also due to the rise of nationalism overall. That also had a role to play obviously.

 

[KingMamba]

Oh, the Arabs did not invite the British. The Arab revolt was part of the WW1. The Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers AGAINST the advice of the Sultan. That was the Young Turks wish.

Central Powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



WW1 was fought on all fronts involving those powers. Hijaz etc. was just one of them.

The fighting was done by a few Arab tribes. It was not anything major.

Well, that is for another discussion but I am sure that others that have time tonight would gladly provide them.

But many Muslims revolted against the Ottomans in that same period. Due to the reasons I mentioned. Also due to the rise of nationalism overall. That also had a role to play obviously.

True Young Turks drove the Ottomans into the war anyway I am bored now so lets leave it.

 

[-SINAN-]

When I say obscure tribe then I am referring to the family of the Ottomans who came from modern-day Turkmenistan 700-800 years ago or so to what is now Anatolia. Before that migration they were not ruling anything close to the size of the Ottoman Empire (which first became big for real in the 1500's) and they came out of nowhere in that sense. Correct me if I am wrong.

Family of Osman are from Kayı Tribe of Oghuzs.

Oghuz Turks were ruling Selcuk Empire before Ottoman Empire.

Seljuq Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And long before when we were still in central-Asia.

Göktürks

Göktürks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a reply to his "fake country" nonsense that he started. Yet Arabia is a name that predates the word Turk by many centuries and that land is a land that we have always lived on just like the ancient ME is the ancestral homeland of us Arabs and other Semitic people. Of course if we exclude Africa which is apparently the homeland of us all if we believe in science.

I didn't seen him saying "fake country" or any thing like it to you...... and we don't need history lessons about semitic people.

But Muslims are supposed to conquer other Muslims and treat them as second class citizens? There is no discussion here. Even despite the mismanagement, bad treatment etc. and the fact that Arab ruled all the previous Caliphates for 1000 years prior since the foundation and arguably did more for Islam than anybody else, you still had large Arab emirates and Kingdoms who supported the Ottomans and Arab volunteers. Yet we have a few well-known biased users who try to simplify a very complex conflict and who do not even understand the reasons behind all those revolts against the Ottoman Empires (majority by NON-Arabs). But of course since they were not part of it they can safely pick a side.

You have your point and we have ours. I don't think we need to drag this partivular issue.

Yet no matter how you look at it then the Ottomans were usurpers and suddenly declared themselves Caliphs and thus taking the throne of a dynasty family that ruled for 800 years previous (500 directly last 250 years nominally under the Fatimids in Cairo). A dynasty that formed the 9 largest empire in world history.

So the Abbasid, Fatimid and Mamluk.... but you as a Arab nationalist have no problem with them as they were Arabs. But when Turks gained the caliphate with a similar you don't hesitate to call them usurpers ?

But anyway the past is the past.

I am not going to change my view anyway nor will most of the Arabs.

Suit yourself.

 

[al-Hasani]

True Young Turks drove the Ottomans into the war anyway I am bored now so lets leave it.

Anyway basically one could also argue that the Arabs were the ones who got betrayed more than anyone else. The situation prior to 1517, the reasons that created the Arab Revolt (mistreatment, marginalization, lack of development, corruption, growing Turkish nationalism contrary to Islamic values etc.) and for the Brits who sided with the Arabs during the Arab Revolt which took part during the WW1 where the British Empire and the Ottomans were rivals and at war. Arabs basically single-handedly (not Arabs just a few Arab tribes in Hijaz) defeated the Ottomans which also fell well into the hands of the Brits due to them being at war with the Ottomans only to later get colonized by the Brits and French for about 4-5 decades. Not KSA but all other Arab countries.

Anyway where is the criticism against the Turks who themselves abolished the Caliphate? Changed their alphabet, created a new language (nearly) and removed the majority Arab words etc. and removed Sharia etc?

Is that not more of a treason against Islam than one region of the Ottoman Empire revolting due to mistreatment, marginalization, corruption and second-class treatment?
How about the Young Turk Movement that contributed the most to the downfall of the Ottomans? I struggle to see what Arabs had to do with this.

Or what about the fact that most Turks do not even want the Ottomans back? Most revere a secularist and nationalist like Atatürk the same man who abolished the Caliphate.

@Sinan those maps are unimportant since it was not the same family even. The Seljuqs were a Persianized empire that lasted a little over 100 years.
I have never heard about those Gokturks.

Yes, he called my country for a fake country and I replied in the same manner.

Well, they were usurpers. Nothing to do with being any nationalist. You yourself are an Turkish nationalist like most Turks here. So you can't accuse me of being an nationalist when you are that yourself.

 

[-SINAN-]

But Muslims are supposed to conquer other Muslims and treat them as second class citizens? But when the same Muslims (original ones even) reconquer their lands all hell breaks lose.

So you are the "Original Muslims"......

Good to know, since Arabs are the "Original Muslims", we should call ourselves "Second class Muslims"

 

[al-Hasani]

So you are the "Original Muslims"......

Good to know, since Arabs are the "Original Muslims", we should call ourselves "Second class Muslims"

Yes, Arabs are the original Muslims as being the first Muslims. I have not talked about any second-class Muslims so that is your own invention here.

When we conquered land we did not conquer Muslim land but non-Muslim land. That's how Islam spread from Portugal to India.

Some of the Muslim land today was not conquered but converted peacefully due to trade and settlement such as South East Asia (Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia).

 

[Desert Fox]

Stating facts is not supremacy. But that's something people with no arguments rely to when they have been outclassed in a debate. Funny that you mention supremacy when you a few minutes prior were badmouthing and generalizing on the second largest ethnic group in the world after the Han Chinese. Talk about an own goal.

Yet the vast majority of Salah-ad-Din army was Arab and he was totally Arabized (spoke Arabic as his first language) and was born on Arab soil. Nor is Salah-ad-Din even the best Muslim general. He is one of the many greats.

Yet, nobody has talked about this or even denied this. Likewise the same can be said about the hundreds of Arab scientists, scholars, poets, imams etc.

Good day to you too.

Never said Salahuddin was THE BEST Muslim General.

Ok, point taken @al-Hasani , i wont deny any of the Arab achievements which you have mentioned, and the many more.

Now, are you also going to own up to Arab blunders? Of course not! You will try to justify them or at best excuse them.

Will you own up to the fact that after the Prophet (PBUH)'s passing away, the Arab dispute over the inheritance of the seat of power caused the biggest sectarian divide in Islam, which leads us today to Shia Iran?

Or the Arab assistance provided to the Zionist Powers in destroying the last Muslim Empire and that too the acknowledged Caliphate towards which 100 's of millions of Muslims world wide looked to for inspiration in their resistance against Colonial occupation of their lands, and thus handing over Palestine over to the Zionists? Would you own up to that too?

It seems, that the Turks had more respect for the land which Arabs gave their blood for, more so than the Arabs themselves who handed it over to the British.

Zionist israel and Shia Iran are Arab creations.

My apologies if my first post on this thread came off as bad mouthing Arabs, even though i did my best to make it least so. Neither was i claiming the supremacy of my own nationality or ethnicity.

 

[al-Hasani]

Never said Salahuddin was THE BEST Muslim General.

Ok, point taken @al-Hasani , i wont deny any of the Arab achievements which you have mentioned, and the many more.

Now, are you also going to own up to Arab blunders? Of course not! You will try to justify them or at best excuse them.

Will you own up to the fact that after the Prophet (PBUH)'s passing away, the Arab dispute over the inheritance of the seat of power caused the biggest sectarian divide in Islam, which leads us today to Shia Iran?

Or the Arab assistance provided to the Zionist Powers in destroying the last Muslim Empire and that too the acknowledged Caliphate towards which 100 's of millions of Muslims world wide looked to for inspiration in their resistance against Colonial occupation of their lands, and thus handing over Palestine over to the Zionists? Would you own up to that too?

It seems, that the Turks had more respect for the land which Arabs gave their blood for, more so than the Arabs themselves who handed it over to the British.

Zionist israel and Shia Iran are Arab creations.

My apologies if my post came off as bad mouthing Arabs, even though i did my best to make it least so. Neither was i claiming the supremacy of my own nationality or ethnicity.

This

Why mention him then? Like it was news that there were great non-Arab Muslim generals. Anyway let me again remind you of the fact that his army was Arab, that we spoke Arabic as his first language, that he was Arabized and fought for an Arab Empire and was born on Arab soil.

Which blunders? We are talking about the Arab Revolt. Not something that happened 1300 years earlier.

You want me to discuss the Sunni-Shia split I see? I will be willing to do that but in another thread since that's not the topic of the thread. Count me in after Tuesday where I have an important exam. In fact I should not even be around here right now.

The reason for Iran being Shia is due to the Safavids who forcibly converted the majority Sunni Muslim Iran into Shia Islam 500 years ago by importing Arab Shia Ulama and forcefully converting people and massacring them.

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educate yourself please.

The remaining of your rambling is untrue historically speaking. If you care to read what I have written, pure facts, you would realize this. Only a idiot, excuse my language, would blame one sole revolt in one province (Hijaz) for the downfall of a whole Empire!

Yet it was not the Arabs who abolished the Ottoman Empire and turned Turkey secular but the same Turkish nationalists that cry today about the Ottoman Empire and who contributed the most to its downfall. Ironic ah?

Israle is a British creation. The Arab world like all of the non-European world by few exceptions at that time was under either British, French or American influence. The Brits carved out Israel not the Arabs.

What is now Palestine was a British colony from 1919 until 1947. Hence they could do what they wanted with it. And even if we assume that most Arabs wanted a Jewish state (which is a lie but anyway let's play along that thought) then nobody expected them to become like they are today especially not the generation that survived the Holocaust.

Apology accepted.

 

[Informant]

Al Hasani back to his old racist supremacy rants. You're just behaving like the Iranians with their Aryan bs.

 

[al-Hasani]

Al Hasani back to his old racist supremacy rants. You're just behaving like the Iranians with their Aryan bs.

There is absolutely nothing "supremacist" about anything that I have said. If stating facts is supremacy then that might be correct. Depends on how you look at it.