THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE TRU PICTURES....

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well , one cannot deny that Ottoman Empire were the true representatives of Muslims and there was a unified voice

 

[al-Hasani]

@airmarshal

Yet who "backstabbed" the same Arabs after we had ruled the Caliphate for almost 1000 years from the very beginning? The same Turks (some) who cry about Arabs doing the same 400 years after. Hypocrisy at their best if you ask me. You don't see Arabs crying about losing the control of half of Turkey that we ruled for centuries or areas in Central Asia inhabited by Turks. Let alone any other areas. Arabs today don't occupy any non-Arab territory. In fact it is the other way around. Non-Arabs occupy Arab land.

Also stop talking about it like it were all Arabs. By then Ottomans only controlled a small part of the Arab world by direct rule of local Arab vassal rulers. You also totally omit the fact that Arabs made up a large portion of the Ottoman army if not the majority at some times. You really think that the Ottomans would be able to rule Arab areas without any kind of local support at all? That never happened with any Empire or Caliphate. The Ottomans only controlled areas of Hijaz on the Arabian Peninsula for instance before the Arab revolt. Nothing more. It was confined to areas of Levant and Iraq mostly. By then more de jure than de facto and mostly in the major towns. The country side was out of any control other than the locals. In fact we owe them or nobody else anything. It's the other way around if anything.
SOME Arabs fought for their freedom and got it. Get over with it. Of course every one of the 500 million Arabs (sane ones at least) support the struggle for full independence in those Arab countries. Anyway large parts of the Arab world are doing excellently. The Arab world composes almost 25 countries, a landmass the size of Russia and enormous riches. Yes, there are some major problems LIKE anywhere else in the Muslim and the developing world but they will ultimately be dealt with one way or another. Also since when is Turkey problem-free or some paradise? It is not. Far from it. We do not prevent the self-determination of Turks, Congolese, Estonians, Papuans, Pakistanis etc. So don't do that with us. For instance I as an Arab don't claim Portugal, Spain, Sicily, Malta, Crete, Southern Italy and all those enormous territories that we Arabs ruled for centuries upon centuries nor do I call the locals traitors for rebelling against us. They were in their right to do so.

But ask the regular "GCC Arab" for instance and they will only laugh at the problems of the ME and Arab World as they are not part of those problems by large. We only got internal problems such as youth unemployment, political changes and a slowly emerging new vision for our own region. We are somewhat at a crossroads and until know most things have been done the right way which is something encouraging.

The Ottoman Empire was much smaller than all the previous Caliphates that Arabs ruled for almost 1000 years, it was not part of the Golden Age of Islam like those previous Caliphates were the living standards, strength (militarily, politically, religiously, scientifically etc.) were much greater and bigger. Nor in terms of conquest of new lands that became Muslim. In many ways the Ottoman Empire did a lot to keep the areas of the Arab world that they controlled marginalized as the Arabs were the biggest ethnic group of the Ottoman Empire. Not the Turks and for a lot of other reasons that will require a subject of its own but this has been discussed in depth by historians and PDF is not the right place to take such a debate due to few users here knowing much about history and the general trolling.

No way was life better during the Ottoman Empire than now. Are you kidding me? In fact the "Arab dark age" is a term that some Arab academics/historians etc. have used for the period in the past 500-400 years. Some MUSLIM scholars would even say that this dark period (comparable to the heights of the Islamic civilization) began with the savage Mongols who sacked Baghdad in 1258. Back then the most advanced city on earth or certainly among the most advanced together with Córdoba etc. in Al-Andalus.

The Arabs that support a Caliphate are just supporting the notion of a Caliphate and they draw most of their inspiration from the greatest periods of Islamic history which are those of the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid etc. Caliphates. The Arab Shias look at the Arab ruled Famitid Caliphate etc. as an example though as the majority of them consider all the Caliphates aside from parts of the Rashidun Caliphate for "oppressive" or even illegal which is bund in their theology as they believe in an Imamate led by the descendants of Prophet Muhammad (saws) solely.

In short we owe the Turks (or anybody else for that matter) nothing and they should stop crying about the legitimate and successful Arab Revolt and our right for self-determination as a people in our own native lands. The Arabs might have been the biggest ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, Arab land composing the vast, vast majority of that rule, Ottoman Turkish being more Arabic than Turkish, Arabic alphabet being in place, Arabic system of rule, titles, customs etc. Does not matter in this regard.

Anyway our enemies are not Turks. Only those among them who are anti-Arab. We know our two regional enemies. Having said that then we once again owe nobody anything nor will any sane Arab apologize for any so-called "betrayal" as this is not how we look at it as I already explained above in my post. Tired of repeating this time and time again due to ignorants here.

@Brutas

Look you farsi Gypsy, Mongol or whatever you are. Did an tall, big and scary looking Arab do something with your ***? Or is it because the people you belong to where culturally, religiously, militarily, linguistically and even ethnically conquered by Arabs like so many other peoples out there? Hell Arabs might even have used your people as slaves too. A big possibility of that. Why don't you keep quite? 99% of your posts are about Arabs. Don't you worry. There are 500 million of us and we are the second biggest ethnic group in the world and one of the fastest growing! Nobody is going to cry for Daesh who btw are made up by people from across the world. Our air forces took part in bombing them recently but you might not watch news in your psychiatric ward. They only allow you access to PDF once every few days it seems. The clown had to mention Arabs.

Arabs are Caucasian people and have always been that. We always took pride in our attractive skin color (look at historical documents, Arab poetry, literature, art etc.) although we come in all shapes and colors. Pale, olive, brown and even Black (Afro-Arabs). But teaching an imbecile like you such things is a waste of time.

@Arabian Legend @JUBA @Yzd Khalifa @Frosty @Full Moon @Altamimi @Bubblegum Crisis @Rakan.SA @burning_phoneix @Arabi @Awadd @Mosamania @BLACKEAGLE @fahd tamimi @Tihamah etc.

PS: This post is not aimed at anybody other than the two individuals that have insulted Arabs here without any reason and trolled. One of them a serial troll (Brutas). I think it is only fair that I as an Arab am able to answer their nonsense. Also it is amazing that this @Brutas clown is not banned for his post despite him writing such kind of posts whenever he is on PDF. Yet some users get infractions for cursing 1 or 2 times in the same thread….

 

[Oublious]

The arap revolt ended with slave of the imperialism. So have fune with al hasanie. Revolt give the arap world nothing but trouble and the next caliphate wil not again rise from the araps.

 

[al-Hasani]

The arap revolt ended with slave of the imperialism. So have fune with al hasanie. Revolt give the arap world nothing but trouble and the next caliphate wil not again rise from the araps.

What is Arap? Shall I go "Tork" or "Mongol" on you? Where did anyone insult Turks here? You probably did not even read my post or you just don't understand English well enough. It seems to be the case. "Slave of imperialism"? Says a person whose country is a NATO member state. There will not be any Caliphate in the foreseeable future. Nor have I called for it. We Arabs ruled the Islamic world for 1000 years since its very beginning. We were it founders and longest protectors and the height of Muslim power on all fronts came under our rule.

You obviously have no idea about the Arab world as seen from your comments on the Arab section where you were trolling until countered and afterwards you went silent.

Besides I see no major troubles in most parts of the Arab world and the problems that exist have nothing to do with any events that took place 100 years ago but are bound in the "Arab Spring", socio-economic and political issues.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The Arab backstab was wrong and at least I admit that failiure of judgement

 

[Oublious]

What is Arap? Shall I go "Tork" or "Mongol" on you? Where did anyone insult Turks here? You probably did not even read my post or you just don't understand English well enough. It seems to be the case. "Slave of imperialism"? Says a person whose country is a NATO member state. There will not be any Caliphate in the foreseeable future. Nor have I called for it. We Arabs ruled the Islamic world for 1000 years since its very beginning. We were it founders and longest protectors and the height of Muslim power on all fronts came under our rule.

You obviously have no idea about the Arab world as seen from your comments on the Arab section where you were trolling until countered and afterwards you went silent.

Besides I see no major troubles in most parts of the Arab world and the problems that exist have nothing to do with any events that took place 100 years ago but are bound in the "Arab Spring", socio-economic and political issues.

What is Arap? Shall I go "Tork" or "Mongol" on you? Where did anyone insult Turks here? You probably did not even read my post or you just don't understand English well enough. It seems to be the case. "Slave of imperialism"? Says a person whose country is a NATO member state. There will not be any Caliphate in the foreseeable future. Nor have I called for it. We Arabs ruled the Islamic world for 1000 years since its very beginning. We were it founders and longest protectors and the height of Muslim power on all fronts came under our rule.

You obviously have no idea about the Arab world as seen from your comments on the Arab section where you were trolling until countered and afterwards you went silent.

Besides I see no major troubles in most parts of the Arab world and the problems that exist have nothing to do with any events that took place 100 years ago but are bound in the "Arab Spring", socio-economic and political issues.

The fact is Arap-revolt give you trouble and you stil sufering it. Yes its insult if you call this a revolt. With the help of Imperialism you being fooled and ended up with colonism. Look and learn what happen to the Palestins, Arap countries had almost liberate the Palestins in 1967 but in the end they backstable each other. Mandate divided Araps with Iraq, Syria whole north africa in pieces. Even Arabic countries cant finde a way to close each other.

Stil you managed to defend revolt as a good is a insult.

 

[al-Hasani]

The fact is Arap-revolt give you trouble and you stil sufering it. Yes its insult if you call this a revolt. With the help of Imperialism you being fooled and ended up with colonism. Look and learn what happen to the Palestins, Arap countries had almost liberate the Palestins in 1967 but in the end they backstable each other. Mandate divided Araps with Iraq, Syria whole north africa in pieces. Even Arabic countries cant finde a way to close each other.

Stil you managed to defend revolt as a good is a insult.

Please improve your English if you want to enter a serious debate. It's obvious that you have not read my initial post nor understood it, Tork/Mongol (using your little "Arap" tactic that you began completely unmotiavted).

No, I did not. KSA was never a Western colony. Which division? Those countries all have their own distinct histories and did not emerge out of nowhere. Even such states like Kuwait and Qatar who have the least legitimacy out there. Obviously you have little or close to no knowledge about the Arab world nor is this thread about the Arab world. Nor do I care about your opinion.

 

[Charon 2]

@airmarshal

Yet who "backstabbed" the same Arabs after we had ruled the Caliphate for almost 1000 years from the very beginning? The same Turks (some) who cry about Arabs doing the same 400 years after. Hypocrisy at their best if you ask me. You don't see Arabs crying about losing the control of half of Turkey that we ruled for centuries or areas in Central Asia inhabited by Turks. Let alone any other areas. Arabs today don't occupy any non-Arab territory. In fact it is the other way around. Non-Arabs occupy Arab land.

Also stop talking about it like it were all Arabs. By then Ottomans only controlled a small part of the Arab world by direct rule of local Arab vassal rulers. You also totally omit the fact that Arabs made up a large portion of the Ottoman army if not the majority at some times. You really think that the Ottomans would be able to rule Arab areas without any kind of local support at all? That never happened with any Empire or Caliphate. The Ottomans only controlled areas of Hijaz on the Arabian Peninsula for instance before the Arab revolt. Nothing more. It was confined to areas of Levant and Iraq mostly. By then more de jure than de facto and mostly in the major towns. The country side was out of any control other than the locals. In fact we owe them or nobody else anything. It's the other way around if anything.
SOME Arabs fought for their freedom and got it. Get over with it. Of course every one of the 500 million Arabs (sane ones at least) support the struggle for full independence in those Arab countries. Anyway large parts of the Arab world are doing excellently. The Arab world composes almost 25 countries, a landmass the size of Russia and enormous riches. Yes, there are some major problems LIKE anywhere else in the Muslim and the developing world but they will ultimately be dealt with one way or another. Also since when is Turkey problem-free or some paradise? It is not. Far from it. We do not prevent the self-determination of Turks, Congolese, Estonians, Papuans, Pakistanis etc. So don't do that with us. For instance I as an Arab don't claim Portugal, Spain, Sicily, Malta, Crete, Southern Italy and all those enormous territories that we Arabs ruled for centuries upon centuries nor do I call the locals traitors for rebelling against us. They were in their right to do so.

But ask the regular "GCC Arab" for instance and they will only laugh at the problems of the ME and Arab World as they are not part of those problems by large. We only got internal problems such as youth unemployment, political changes and a slowly emerging new vision for our own region. We are somewhat at a crossroads and until know most things have been done the right way which is something encouraging.

The Ottoman Empire was much smaller than all the previous Caliphates that Arabs ruled for almost 1000 years, it was not part of the Golden Age of Islam like those previous Caliphates were the living standards, strength (militarily, politically, religiously, scientifically etc.) were much greater and bigger. Nor in terms of conquest of new lands that became Muslim. In many ways the Ottoman Empire did a lot to keep the areas of the Arab world that they controlled marginalized as the Arabs were the biggest ethnic group of the Ottoman Empire. Not the Turks and for a lot of other reasons that will require a subject of its own but this has been discussed in depth by historians and PDF is not the right place to take such a debate due to few users here knowing much about history and the general trolling.

No way was life better during the Ottoman Empire than now. Are you kidding me? In fact the "Arab dark age" is a term that some Arab academics/historians etc. have used for the period in the past 500-400 years. Some MUSLIM scholars would even say that this dark period (comparable to the heights of the Islamic civilization) began with the savage Mongols who sacked Baghdad in 1258. Back then the most advanced city on earth or certainly among the most advanced together with Córdoba etc. in Al-Andalus.

The Arabs that support a Caliphate are just supporting the notion of a Caliphate and they draw most of their inspiration from the greatest periods of Islamic history which are those of the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid etc. Caliphates. The Arab Shias look at the Arab ruled Famitid Caliphate etc. as an example though as the majority of them consider all the Caliphates aside from parts of the Rashidun Caliphate for "oppressive" or even illegal which is bund in their theology as they believe in an Imamate led by the descendants of Prophet Muhammad (saws) solely.

In short we owe the Turks (or anybody else for that matter) nothing and they should stop crying about the legitimate and successful Arab Revolt and our right for self-determination as a people in our own native lands. The Arabs might have been the biggest ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, Arab land composing the vast, vast majority of that rule, Ottoman Turkish being more Arabic than Turkish, Arabic alphabet being in place, Arabic system of rule, titles, customs etc. Does not matter in this regard.

Anyway our enemies are not Turks. Only those among them who are anti-Arab. We know our two regional enemies. Having said that then we once again owe nobody anything nor will any sane Arab apologize for any so-called "betrayal" as this is not how we look at it as I already explained above in my post. Tired of repeating this time and time again due to ignorants here.

@Brutas

Look you farsi Gypsy, Mongol or whatever you are. Did an tall, big and scary looking Arab do something with your ***? Or is it because the people you belong to where culturally, religiously, militarily, linguistically and even ethnically conquered by Arabs like so many other peoples out there? Hell Arabs might even have used your people as slaves too. A big possibility of that. Why don't you keep quite? 99% of your posts are about Arabs. Don't you worry. There are 500 million of us and we are the second biggest ethnic group in the world and one of the fastest growing! Nobody is going to cry for Daesh who btw are made up by people from across the world. Our air forces took part in bombing them recently but you might not watch news in your psychiatric ward. They only allow you access to PDF once every few days it seems. The clown had to mention Arabs.

Arabs are Caucasian people and have always been that. We always took pride in our attractive skin color (look at historical documents, Arab poetry, literature, art etc.) although we come in all shapes and colors. Pale, olive, brown and even Black (Afro-Arabs). But teaching an imbecile like you such things is a waste of time.

@Arabian Legend @JUBA @Yzd Khalifa @Frosty @Full Moon @Altamimi @Bubblegum Crisis @Rakan.SA @burning_phoneix @Arabi @Awadd @Mosamania @BLACKEAGLE @fahd tamimi @Tihamah etc.

PS: This post is not aimed at anybody other than the two individuals that have insulted Arabs here without any reason and trolled. One of them a serial troll (Brutas). I think it is only fair that I as an Arab am able to answer their nonsense. Also it is amazing that this @Brutas clown is not banned for his post despite him writing such kind of posts whenever he is on PDF. Yet some users get infractions for cursing 1 or 2 times in the same thread….

Sorry but why should Arabs complain about losing areas in Central Asia? You don't belong there. You annexed Central Asia in the 7th century but the native Turkic and Sogdian populations in Central Asia rebelled and revolted against the aggressive Umayyad expansion towards Transoxiana. Arab generals like Al-Karashi massacred dozens of Turks in Kuhjand and the Turgesh Turks didn't give up against the aggressive Arab expansion. The Turgesh Suluk Khan led several rebellions and wars against the intolerant Umayyad Arab rule of Central Asia

However you seem to be stupid Pan-Arabist anyway. "Arabs don't occupy any non-Arab territory" just lol. Most of North Africa is basically native Berber land which was Arabized since the Arab expansion starting from Saudi Arabia

 

[al-Hasani]

Sorry but why should Arabs complain about losing areas in Central Asia? You don't belong there. You annexed Central Asia in the 7th century but the native Turkic and Sogdian populations in Central Asia rebelled and revolted against the aggressive Umayyad expansion towards Transoxiana. Arabs generals like Qutaiba ibn Muslim massacred dozens of Turks in Kuhjand and the Turgesh Turks didn't give up against the aggressive Arab expansion.

However you seem to be stupid Pan-Arabist anyway. "Arabs don't occupy any non-Arab territory" just lol. Most of North Africa is basically native Berber land which was Arabized since the Arab expansion starting from Saudi Arabia

Similarily why should Turks originating from Mongolia/Kazakhstan be complaining about occupying the ancient ME that they have only lived in for a few centuries? That's my whole point. Stop complaining.

You obviously do not know that Arabs and Berbers are related people. Even before the appearance of Islam. We share an ancient Semitic/Hamitic past. Who said that Arabs are natives of North Africa? We are not. We are natives of the ancient ME. Just like you Turks are not natives of Turkey. But according to genetics most of you are Turkicized Anatolians, Greeks, Arabs and other ancient Semites, Kurds, Slavs, Caucasians anyway. Today's North-Africans (mostly Morocco and Algeria) are a mixture of Arabs and Berbers with a Sub-Saharan minority. Genetic tests confirm this and nobody has denied this either.

By far the vast majority of the almost 500 million Arabs are Pan-Arabists as you call them in the sense that we want a strong Arab world like in the past and our focus point is the Arab world. Not Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea or Iceland. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I say this openly and proudly.

 

[airmarshal]

@airmarshal

Yet who "backstabbed" the same Arabs after we had ruled the Caliphate for almost 1000 years from the very beginning? The same Turks (some) who cry about Arabs doing the same 400 years after. Hypocrisy at their best if you ask me. You don't see Arabs crying about losing the control of half of Turkey that we ruled for centuries or areas in Central Asia inhabited by Turks. Let alone any other areas. Arabs today don't occupy any non-Arab territory. In fact it is the other way around. Non-Arabs occupy Arab land.

Also stop talking about it like it were all Arabs. By then Ottomans only controlled a small part of the Arab world by direct rule of local Arab vassal rulers. You also totally omit the fact that Arabs made up a large portion of the Ottoman army if not the majority at some times. You really think that the Ottomans would be able to rule Arab areas without any kind of local support at all? That never happened with any Empire or Caliphate. The Ottomans only controlled areas of Hijaz on the Arabian Peninsula for instance before the Arab revolt. Nothing more. It was confined to areas of Levant and Iraq mostly. By then more de jure than de facto and mostly in the major towns. The country side was out of any control other than the locals. In fact we owe them or nobody else anything. It's the other way around if anything.
SOME Arabs fought for their freedom and got it. Get over with it. Of course every one of the 500 million Arabs (sane ones at least) support the struggle for full independence in those Arab countries. Anyway large parts of the Arab world are doing excellently. The Arab world composes almost 25 countries, a landmass the size of Russia and enormous riches. Yes, there are some major problems LIKE anywhere else in the Muslim and the developing world but they will ultimately be dealt with one way or another. Also since when is Turkey problem-free or some paradise? It is not. Far from it. We do not prevent the self-determination of Turks, Congolese, Estonians, Papuans, Pakistanis etc. So don't do that with us. For instance I as an Arab don't claim Portugal, Spain, Sicily, Malta, Crete, Southern Italy and all those enormous territories that we Arabs ruled for centuries upon centuries nor do I call the locals traitors for rebelling against us. They were in their right to do so.

But ask the regular "GCC Arab" for instance and they will only laugh at the problems of the ME and Arab World as they are not part of those problems by large. We only got internal problems such as youth unemployment, political changes and a slowly emerging new vision for our own region. We are somewhat at a crossroads and until know most things have been done the right way which is something encouraging.

The Ottoman Empire was much smaller than all the previous Caliphates that Arabs ruled for almost 1000 years, it was not part of the Golden Age of Islam like those previous Caliphates were the living standards, strength (militarily, politically, religiously, scientifically etc.) were much greater and bigger. Nor in terms of conquest of new lands that became Muslim. In many ways the Ottoman Empire did a lot to keep the areas of the Arab world that they controlled marginalized as the Arabs were the biggest ethnic group of the Ottoman Empire. Not the Turks and for a lot of other reasons that will require a subject of its own but this has been discussed in depth by historians and PDF is not the right place to take such a debate due to few users here knowing much about history and the general trolling.

No way was life better during the Ottoman Empire than now. Are you kidding me? In fact the "Arab dark age" is a term that some Arab academics/historians etc. have used for the period in the past 500-400 years. Some MUSLIM scholars would even say that this dark period (comparable to the heights of the Islamic civilization) began with the savage Mongols who sacked Baghdad in 1258. Back then the most advanced city on earth or certainly among the most advanced together with Córdoba etc. in Al-Andalus.

The Arabs that support a Caliphate are just supporting the notion of a Caliphate and they draw most of their inspiration from the greatest periods of Islamic history which are those of the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid etc. Caliphates. The Arab Shias look at the Arab ruled Famitid Caliphate etc. as an example though as the majority of them consider all the Caliphates aside from parts of the Rashidun Caliphate for "oppressive" or even illegal which is bund in their theology as they believe in an Imamate led by the descendants of Prophet Muhammad (saws) solely.

In short we owe the Turks (or anybody else for that matter) nothing and they should stop crying about the legitimate and successful Arab Revolt and our right for self-determination as a people in our own native lands. The Arabs might have been the biggest ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, Arab land composing the vast, vast majority of that rule, Ottoman Turkish being more Arabic than Turkish, Arabic alphabet being in place, Arabic system of rule, titles, customs etc. Does not matter in this regard.

Anyway our enemies are not Turks. Only those among them who are anti-Arab. We know our two regional enemies. Having said that then we once again owe nobody anything nor will any sane Arab apologize for any so-called "betrayal" as this is not how we look at it as I already explained above in my post. Tired of repeating this time and time again due to ignorants here.

@Brutas

Look you farsi Gypsy, Mongol or whatever you are. Did an tall, big and scary looking Arab do something with your ***? Or is it because the people you belong to where culturally, religiously, militarily, linguistically and even ethnically conquered by Arabs like so many other peoples out there? Hell Arabs might even have used your people as slaves too. A big possibility of that. Why don't you keep quite? 99% of your posts are about Arabs. Don't you worry. There are 500 million of us and we are the second biggest ethnic group in the world and one of the fastest growing! Nobody is going to cry for Daesh who btw are made up by people from across the world. Our air forces took part in bombing them recently but you might not watch news in your psychiatric ward. They only allow you access to PDF once every few days it seems. The clown had to mention Arabs.

Arabs are Caucasian people and have always been that. We always took pride in our attractive skin color (look at historical documents, Arab poetry, literature, art etc.) although we come in all shapes and colors. Pale, olive, brown and even Black (Afro-Arabs). But teaching an imbecile like you such things is a waste of time.

@Arabian Legend @JUBA @Yzd Khalifa @Frosty @Full Moon @Altamimi @Bubblegum Crisis @Rakan.SA @burning_phoneix @Arabi @Awadd @Mosamania @BLACKEAGLE @fahd tamimi @Tihamah etc.

PS: This post is not aimed at anybody other than the two individuals that have insulted Arabs here without any reason and trolled. One of them a serial troll (Brutas). I think it is only fair that I as an Arab am able to answer their nonsense. Also it is amazing that this @Brutas clown is not banned for his post despite him writing such kind of posts whenever he is on PDF. Yet some users get infractions for cursing 1 or 2 times in the same thread….

I said it in the context. Dont go overboard.

 

[Charon 2]

Similarily why should Turks originating from Mongolia/Kazakhstan be complaining about occupying the ancient ME that they have only lived in for a few centuries?

You obviously do not know that Arabs and Berbers are related people. Even before the appearance of Islam. We share an ancient Semitic/Hamitic past. Who said that Arabs are natives of North Africa? We are not. We are natives of the ancient ME. Just like you Turks are not natives of Turkey. But according to genetics most of you are Turkicized Anatolians, Greeks, Semites, Kurds, Slavs, Caucasians anyway. Today's North-Africans (mostly Morocco and Algeria) are a mixture of Arabs and Berbers with a Sub-Saharan minority. Genetic tests confirm this and nobody has denied this either.

Related people? Yes they are linguistically related to each other like Russians and Indians lol. This doesn't change the fact that whole North Africa is Arab occupied Berber land.

At first the Oghuz Turks who migrated to Anatolia weren't genetically like Kazakhs or Kyrgyz. There were most likely genetically like Turkmens and Turkmens have also only 15-20 % Mongoloid admixture on average while Turks have 7-12 % Mongoloid admixture on average. The reason for that is because Turkmens mixed with the Anatolian populations which diluted their Mongoloid admixture.

 

[al-Hasani]

I said it in the context. Dont go overboard.

It's not about going overboard. I gave you the historical facts, the Arab viewpoint. Only simpletons devoted of historical knowledge about the ancient ME and Arab world would make such silly and empty conclusions. 100 years ago the ME (let alone 200 years ago) was largely piss poor like 99% of the non-Western world. The Ottomans were the sick man of "Europe" for hundreds of years prior to their disappearance. Only Istanbul and a few other major cities were developed compared to the Western standard. Read reports about how Anatolia looked like 100 years ago or other areas of the ME and tell me if people lived better than today. That's obviously complete and utter nonsense. Even the poorest people today in the Muslim world lived better (much better) than the average Muslim 100 years ago.

It's easy to pass judgement on something that you were not a part of. I don't pass judgement on the Pakistani-Bangladeshi relations prior and after 1971 for instance. I would not dream of calling the average Bangladeshi for a traitor for wanting self-determination nor the average Muslin in South Asia for a traitor for wanting a Pakistan back in 1947.

You are a good user that I respect but your initial post was not very wise and it was stupid of you to mention Arabs in this thread the way you did it. Of course a long way to that @Brutas clown who used an Lithuanian flag (LOL) before.

Related people? Yes they are linguistically related to each other like Russians and Indians lol. This doesn't change the fact that whole North Africa is Arab occupied Berber land.

At first the Oghuz Turks who migrated to Anatolia weren't genetically like Kazakhs or Kyrgyz. There were most likely genetically like Turkmens and Turkmens have also only 15-20 % Mongoloid admixture on average while Turks have 7-12 % Mongoloid admixture on average. The reason for that is because Turkmens mixed with the Anatolian populations which diluted their Mongoloid admixture.

No, genetically related also. All ME people are genetically related. You might check why Caucasians (language isolate) are related to us Arabs/Semites for instance more than other nearby people. Haplogroup wise obviously but not just that surprisingly. This is probably bound in the early Neolithic migrations from the Fertile Crescent/Arabian Peninsula into Caucasus.
Genetics obviously have nothing to do with linguistics. Iranians for instance are largely not much different from nearby Arabs genetically but linguistically they are totally different. This is probably due to the arrival of Central Asian nomads (Indo-Iranian speaking) some 3500-3000 years ago. They were probably a warrior elite who subjected the locals. For instance the Elamites (heavily influenced by the ancient Mesopotamians nearby) in what is now Khuzestan in Iran were not Indo-Iranians, Persians nor did they speak an Indo-Iranian language. Yet they are still known as an "Iranian" civilization today and its oldest civilization moreover. I know about the Mongol/Turkic admixture among Turks but overall it is rather small compared to the more archaic Turkic peoples in Central Asia. Just like your average Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, Syrian etc. will have more ME admixture than your average Mauritanian. It's only normal.

Anyway this is not the thread to talk about genetics. Although it is interesting. Your reply to my posts makes no sense as you obviously did not read my initial post because I say that I have no objections to the locals Arabs conquered wanting self-determination. Otherwise Arabs would be ruling the biggest landmass on earth today if I really meant that Iberia for instance belonged to Arabs and that the locals there were traitors for wanting us out. The same goes with the Brits, French, Russians (much more resent colonial powers) or the Mongols before those 3. The list is quite long. After all we are all migrants and have all been conquered by various tribes, mixed with them etc. since time immortal.

 

[Charon 2]

It's not about going overboard. I gave you the historical facts, the Arab viewpoint. Only simpletons devoted of historical knowledge about the ancient ME and Arab world would make such silly and empty conclusions. 100 years ago the ME (let alone 200 years ago) was largely piss poor like 99% of the non-Western world. The Ottomans were the sick man of "Europe" for hundreds of years prior to their disappearance. Only Istanbul and a few other major cities were developed compared to the Western standard. Read reports about how Anatolia looked like 100 years ago or other areas of the ME and tell me if people lived better than today. That's obviously complete and utter nonsense. Even the poorest people today in the Muslim world lived better (much better) than the average Muslim 100 years ago.

It's easy to pass judgement on something that you were not a part of. I don't pass judgement on the Pakistani-Bangladeshi relations prior and after 1971 for instance. I would not dream of calling the average Bangladeshi for a traitor for wanting self-determination nor the average Muslin in South Asia for a traitor for wanting a Pakistan back in 1947.

You are a good user that I respect but your initial post was not very wise and it was stupid of you to mention Arabs in this thread the way you did it. Of course a long way to that @Brutas clown who used an Lithuanian flag (LOL) before.



No, genetically related also. All ME people are genetically related. You might check why Caucasians (language isolate) are related to us Arabs/Semites for instance more than other nearby people. Haplogroup wise obviously but not just that surprisingly. This is probably bound in the early Neolithic migrations from the Fertile Crescent/Arabian Peninsula into Caucasus.
Genetics obviously have nothing to do with linguistics. Iranians for instance are largely not much different from nearby Arabs genetically but linguistically they are totally different. This is probably due to the arrival of Central Asian nomads (Indo-Iranian speaking) some 3500-3000 years ago. They were probably a warrior elite who subjected the locals. For instance the Elamites (heavily influenced by the ancient Mesopotamians nearby) in what is now Khuzestan in Iran were not Indo-Iranians, Persians nor did they speak an Indo-Iranian language. Yet they are still know as an "Iranian" civilization today and its oldest civilization moreover. I know about the Mongol/Turkic admixture among Turks but overall it is rather small compared to the more archaic Turkic peoples in Central Asia. Just like your average Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, Syrian etc. will have more ME admixture than your average Mauritanian. It's only normal.

Sorry but you don't seem to have a clue about genetics. Caucasians are no way genetically similar to any Arab population. Georgians are genetically closer to any European population than they are to Arabs. Haplogroups make only 0.0001 % and something like that of your genome. Autosomal DNA reveals your whole genetic make-up and on aDNA Georgians and other Caucasians never cluster with Arabs.

 

[airmarshal]

It's not about going overboard. I gave you the historical facts, the Arab viewpoint. Only simpletons devoted of historical knowledge about the ancient ME and Arab world would make such silly and empty conclusions. 100 years ago the ME (let alone 200 years ago) was largely piss poor like 99% of the non-Western world. The Ottomans were the sick man of "Europe" for hundreds of years prior to their disappearance. Only Istanbul and a few other major cities were developed compared to the Western standard. Read reports about how Anatolia looked like 100 years ago or other areas of the ME and tell me if people lived better than today. That's obviously complete and utter nonsense. Even the poorest people today in the Muslim world lived better (much better) than the average Muslim 100 years ago.

It's easy to pass judgement on something that you were not a part of. I don't pass judgement on the Pakistani-Bangladeshi relations prior and after 1971 for instance. I would not dream of calling the average Bangladeshi for a traitor for wanting self-determination nor the average Muslin in South Asia for a traitor for wanting a Pakistan back in 1947.

You are a good user that I respect but your initial post was not very wise and it was stupid of you to mention Arabs in this thread the way you did it. Of course a long way to that @Brutas clown who used an Lithuanian flag (LOL) before.



No, genetically related also. All ME people are genetically related. You might check why Caucasians (language isolate) are related to us Arabs/Semites for instance more than other nearby people. Haplogroup wise obviously but not just that surprisingly. This is probably bound in the early Neolithic migrations from the Fertile Crescent/Arabian Peninsula into Caucasus.
Genetics obviously have nothing to do with linguistics. Iranians for instance are largely not much different from nearby Arabs genetically but linguistically they are totally different. This is probably due to the arrival of Central Asian nomads (Indo-Iranian speaking) some 3500-3000 years ago. They were probably a warrior elite who subjected the locals. For instance the Elamites (heavily influenced by the ancient Mesopotamians nearby) in what is now Khuzestan in Iran were not Indo-Iranians, Persians nor did they speak an Indo-Iranian language. Yet they are still known as an "Iranian" civilization today and its oldest civilization moreover. I know about the Mongol/Turkic admixture among Turks but overall it is rather small compared to the more archaic Turkic peoples in Central Asia. Just like your average Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, Syrian etc. will have more ME admixture than your average Mauritanian. It's only normal.

Anyway this is not the thread to talk about genetics. Although it is interesting. Your reply to my posts makes no sense as you obviously did not read my initial post because I say that I have no objections to the locals Arabs conquered wanting self-determination. Otherwise Arabs would be ruling the biggest landmass on earth today if I really meant that Iberia for instance belonged to Arabs and that the locals there were traitors for wanting us out. The same goes with the Brits, French, Russians (much more resent colonial powers) or the Mongols before those 3. The list is quite long. After all we are all migrants and have all been conquered by various tribes, mixed with them etc. since time immortal.

I m in no mood to read to such long answers. Eid mubarak to you

 

[al-Hasani]

Sorry but you don't seem to have a clue about genetics. Caucasians are no way genetically similar to any Arab population. Georgians are genetically closer to any European population than they are to Arabs. Haplogroups make only 0.0001 % and something like that of your genome. Autosomal DNA reveals your whole genetic make-up and on aDNA Georgians and other Caucasians never cluster with Arabs.

View attachment 110521

I was talking about haplogroups which is your paternal ancestry. Which is what most people care about. It's you that seem to have no clue. Many Caucasian populations cluster with nearby Arab populations in the ME on the maternal side. Caucasian populations cluster mostly with Near Eastern populations and "European" (Eastern European). After all we are inhabiting the same greater geographical area. This is just 1 example of linguistics not necessary having anything in common with genetics. Besides Arabs do not care if they cluster with Caucasians or not. Why the hell should we? But rest assured that we have more in common with each other than a Kyrgyz for instance.