Fakhri Pasha "The Defender of Madina"

[Hyperion]

Rifle ammo is in the leather strip on his chest!

Why would you carry a bandolier with pistol ammo

 

[KingMamba]

You guys are fighting for nothing.... we are actually the only eternally pure race..... the proud Pashtuns....

Our people:

Our playground:

You white huns need to go back to your ancient lands too.

 

[Hyperion]

Chupp bey salay..... all you can see from Karakoram, was always ours..... then came in the short dark migrants from neighboring states.... looking to grow stuff..... we said OK.... let the poor bitches feed!

You white huns need to go back to your ancient lands too.

 

[al-Hasani]

@KingMamba

Because Desert Fox used Salah ad-Din (ra) as an example of a supposed Muslim with no ties to the Arab world while this could not be further from the truth. To somehow prove a point that I never even made or somehow tell that non-Arabs played a big role in Islamic history. Like that was not commonly known. That's all.

Anyway you cannot blame me for being nationalistic when this issue concerns my people and the Turkish users are all nationalistic themselves and take the side of the Ottomans despite most of them being Turkish nationalists and revering the secular Ataturk who himself abolished the Caliphate, made Turkey secular, abolished the Arabic scripture, removed the majority Arab words in Ottoman Turkish and basically changed Turkish society forever.

Yet I am to blame for countering pure lies (the initial) and countering people with a one-sided view.

 

[KingMamba]

Chupp bey salay..... all you can see from Karakoram, was always ours..... then came in the short dark migrants from neighboring states.... looking to grow stuff..... we said OK.... let the poor bitches feed!

I know you didn't just call the people of Āryāvarta short dark.

@KingMamba

Because Desert Fox used Salah ad-Din (ra) as an example of a supposed Muslim with no ties to the Arab world while this could not be further from the truth. To somehow prove a point that I never even made or somehow tell that non-Arabs played a big role in Islamic history. Like that was not commonly known. That's all.

Anyway you cannot blame me for being nationalistic when this issue concerns my people and the Turkish users are all nationalistic themselves and take the side of the Ottomans despite most of them being Turkish nationalists and revering the secular Ataturk who himself abolished the Caliphate, made Turkey secular, abolished the Arabic scripture, removed the majority Arab words in Ottoman Turkish and basically changed Turkish society forever.

Yet I am to blame for countering pure lies (the initial) and countering people with a one-sided view.

I agree with you about Ataturk but I don't bother with that Turks be getting emotional over him.

 

[Hyperion]

Nah nah meri kiya majal..... mein' aisee baat kaisay keh sakta hoon'....

If I did, what could you do about it? Shorty!

I know you didn't just call the people of Āryāvarta short dark.

 

[KingMamba]

Nah nah meri kiya majal..... mein' aisee baat kaisay keh sakta hoon'....

If I did, what could you do about it? Shorty!

Vaise I am taller than you 6'2

 

[al-Hasani]

I know you didn't just call the people of Āryāvarta short dark.



I agree with you about Ataturk but I don't bother with that Turks be getting emotional over him.

No, let's just stick to pure lies and fantasies such as the "Arabs abolished the Ottoman Empire" like our two Turkish friends posted in this thread before any Arab even made a post. Yet I am again to blame for being a "supremacist" while their two compatriots just generalized over 400 million Arabs (second biggest ethnic group in the world after the Han Chinese) and called us names.

All while pissing on all those hundred of Arabs who gave their life's for an empire that marginalized them, who invaded their lands, took the Caliphate from them and whose regions were marginalized and corrupted.

Nice. In reality when they say Arabs they should ONLY refer to a few Arab tribes in Hijaz because that was all it took to remove the Ottomans when they finally became united. There was no reason to make uprisings before since the Ottoman Empire first REALLY got corrupted, decadent, discriminating and nationalist after the Young Turk movement the same Young Turk movement who are to blame for the Ottoman collapse. Not 2-3 Arab tribes in Hijaz, LOL.

Nor do we hear a word about all the other non-Arabs (Muslims and non-Muslims) who rebelled against the Ottomans. Only the Arabs of course.

Nor any recognition of the many problems the Ottomans faced that made Muslims and non-Muslims rebel against them even inside TURKEY itself (Young Turks Movement).

No of course not. Blame it on the Arabs for reconquering their own holy lands and for them wanting independence to rule their own affairs. Shame on them.

While the other way around (prior to 1517) it was all fine. Just a power struggle between Muslims. But 400 years later in the exact same situation it becomes "treason" and a problem. LOL at the hypocrisy. I am out.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Chupp bey salay..... all you can see from Karakoram, was always ours..... then came in the short dark migrants from neighboring states.... looking to grow stuff..... we said OK.... let the poor bitches feed!

why dont all of you bitches get lost to where ever the hell u guys came from... let us humble baluch ppl reclaim our.. okay.. "your" lands...

 

[KingMamba]

No, let's just stick to pure lies and fantasies such as the "Arabs abolished the Ottoman Empire" like our two Turkish friends posted in this thread before any Arab even made a post. Yet I am again to blame for being a "supremacist" while their two compatriots just generalized over 400 million Arabs (second biggest ethnic group in the world after the Han Chinese) and called us names.

All while pissing on all those hundred of Arabs who gave their life's for an empire that marginalized them, who invaded their lands, took the Caliphate from them and whose regions were marginalized and corrupted.

Nice. In reality when they say Arabs they should ONLY refer to a few Arab tribes in Hijaz because that was all it took to remove the Ottomans when they finally became united. There was no reason to make uprisings before since the Ottoman Empire first REALLY got corrupted, decadent, discriminating and nationalist after the Young Turk movement the same Young Turk movement who are to blame for the Ottoman collapse. Not 2-3 Arab tribes in Hijaz, LOL.

Nor do we hear a word about all the other non-Arabs (Muslims and non-Muslims) who rebelled against the Ottomans. Only the Arabs of course.

Nor any recognition of the many problems the Ottomans faced that made Muslims and non-Muslims rebel against them even inside TURKEY itself (Young Turks Movement).

No of course not. Blame it on the Arabs for reconquering their own holy lands and for them wanting independence to rule their own affairs. Shame on them.

While the other way around (prior to 1517) it was all fine. Just a power struggle between Muslims. But 400 years later in the exact same situation it becomes "treason" and a problem. LOL at the hypocrisy. I am out.

The problem is you discount Lawrence of Arabia and the deals made between him and the Arabs who revolted, you are forgetting a lot of the politics that went on then that led into why it is called a betrayal. Arab grievances were of course legitimate I never said Young Turks did not do the stuff you say.

Well yeah Greeks revolted too and till this day Turks and Greeks got beef so idk what you acting like Turks don't acknowledge that or something?

 

[telkon]

Shame it ended so quickly. Never had the opportunity to see arab racist at work

 

[al-Hasani]

The problem is you discount Lawrence of Arabia and the deals made between him and the Arabs who revolted, you are forgetting a lot of the politics that went on then that led into why it is called a betrayal. Arab grievances were of course legitimate I never said Young Turks did not do the stuff you say.

Well yeah Greeks revolted too and till this day Turks and Greeks got beef so idk what you acting like Turks don't acknowledge that or something?

The Egyptians revolted 100 years prior and a Pasha of Albanian origins proclaimed himself Sultan of Egypt and ruled it independently. The Muslims of the Balkans revolted. The non-Muslims etc. The Yemenis revolted centuries earlier and regained must of their land already in the 16th century. At the very beginnings of Ottoman presence in the Arab world.

Well, we already covered that did we not? The Ottoman Empire was then an ally of the Central Powers who were enemies of the British Empire, the French etc. They were at war with each other. Hijaz was back then nominally Ottoman territory (in reality it was mostly self-rule). The fighting was done by a few Hijazi Arab tribes back then. Very few Brits took part in the battles. You can read about it.

Lastly the Arabs did not invite the Brits. The Brits came themselves during the WW1. It is truth that both parties had common interests due to the Arabs wanting to overthrow the an collapsing Ottoman Empire while the British were at war with them!

Don't see any acknowledgment here from any single Turkish user. If you read the first 2 posts by Turks in this thread you see the nonsense I described. Blaming the Arabs. They must still be butthurt or something or either they have been brainwashed at school. I am surprised that hardcore nationalists like them care about the Ottomans knowing that Turkey's national hero Ataturk was the one who removed them and made Turkey secular. Something most of them are proud of! Contradiction much?

Or will they blame the Arabs for that too LOL?

 

[Hakan]

1.) The Turks became the dominant military and political force in the muslim world around the year 1000 so the abbasids really had no choice except to step over so it was just natural that the Ottoman Turks would later go on to lead the Islamic World.
2.)The Ottoman Caliphate was universally recognized by muslims across the globe so that makes it a legitimate Caliphate even if a few guys in the desert don't agree.
3.) It is true that towards the end of the Ottoman Empires time some policies were unfair and forced the Turkish Culture on others however one must look at the facts and the fact is that you don't see former Ottoman Territories speaking Turkish or having Turkish culture so the idea that Turkish Nationalism was systematically forced onto people is absurd.
4.) This thread wasn't meant to be non Arabs V.S Arabs because the Hashemites only represented a small amount of people mostly poor bedouins who were after loot however the Arab Rebellion unfortunately became an important part of arab nationalism. (LOL today the Hashemites have to deal with the regions refugee problems)
5.) Look at the whole event this way: the universally recognized Caliphate is in a war and a muslim sides with the non muslims. (Isn't there something wrong there?)
5.) The Saudi family actually attacked the Hashemites who were muslim as well which is the same thing the Ottomans did when they conquered islamic lands.
6.) The Holy Lands belong to muslims not arabs it just so happens that Islams 2 holiest cities are located in an area that is populated with arabs.
7.) There is nothing wrong with taking Arabic,and persian words out of Turkish it is just more practical because it allows us to chit chat with other Turkic peoples. With Ottoman Turkish Turkic people can't understand you, Arabs, and Persians can't understand you so it didn't matter whether or not it had arabic in it because it was just not practical. I like the idea of using arabic script though because it is easier for people to learn to read the quran.
8.) Also every muslim should have beef with those that revolted against the Ottomans. (Ataturk is a little different because when he started the Turkish War of Independence in reality there was no Ottoman Empire left and no powerful Caliphate either but I don't want to get into details about what I really think regarding what happened in the Republic of Turkey

After this I am not wasting my time arguing. the situation in the middle east is clear it may have been different if stupid mistakes weren't made by the Ottoman leadership in WW1 and if Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca didn't rebel agaisnt the caliphate. We have to look forward to the future. My intention was just to share a story of a good islamic warrior who fought against the enemies of Islam you dont have to be Turkish to like the story just look at the pakistanis they are more proud than me.

 

[SALMAN F]

The ottomans were genocidal murders but the only thing they did is protect the prophet grave

 

[al-Hasani]

1) Wrong. Not until the 1300's.

2) Yes, only legitimate through force but in reality they were usurpers like those before them. That does not change the fact that Arabs ruled the Caliphate for 1000 years prior from the beginning to the end (1517) and during the most important period of Islamic history.

3) Nobody can assimilate Arabs. They assimilated others. So no surprise. In fact Ottomans got more Arabized than the other way around since they copied an Arab system basically. This is not controversial to say.

4) There is no Arab vs Arab. By far most Arabs support the Arab Revolt and consider it a proud moment. It was an event that gave rise to independence of a significant part of the Arab world. Although you have countless of Arab countries, empires, sultanates, kingdom, sheikdoms etc. who were always independent and great powers of the time. Hashemites only rule 1 single Arab country out of over 20. Jordan. So what if they have to deal with Palestinian and Syrian refugees? Good for them.

5) No, there is nothing wrong since the Ottoman Empire already lost their legitimacy back then due to their policies. The Sultan was just a figurehead back then and nothing more. The Young Turks were the ones ruling.

5) Internal Arab fight for power. Instead of being divided into several different kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms one ruling family united the whole country. Wonderful and something even I as an Hashemite can appreciate in hindsight.

6) Yes, which happens to be Arab land and always was. Just that little detail.

7) Nobody said anything about that being wrong. Yet your Turkish nationalists removed all those Arab traces (there were a lot on nearly all levels) that had been part of your culture for 500 years overnight.

8) But not against the decadent, corrupt, nationalist etc. Ottoman Empire in 1916-1919 that was ruled by the Young Turk Movement.

Then how do you think that Muslims should look at the secularist Ataturk the one who changed Turkey's Arabic alphabet, started to remove half of the Ottoman Turkish language (removing Arab words), the one who ABOLISHED the Caliphate and the one who turned Turkey secular? That's all fine but an revolt against oppression in one small province in the Arab world by a few tribes is a giant problem. LOL. That does not even make sense.

Whether or not one is an Islamic warrior depends on the viewpoint. Some Muslims consider what most of us would consider as terrorists and oppressors as heroes while others do not. Islamic Hero for you maybe but not for the locals of Hijaz who revolted against the corrupt rule he represented. He might have been a good man and a Muslim but he was fighting for the wrong guys if you ask the locals and most Arabs.