My Azeri friend, there is nothing called "Wahhabism". It is an imaginary word that describes Hanbali Muslims (1 of the 4 traditional Sunni Madahib) which not even the majority of the people in KSA follows.
Islam itself originates from modern-day KSA as does "Sunni Islam", "Shia Islam" and Sufism.
Secondly please don't talk about Islam in the context of Arabs and in particular Saudi Arabians since modern-day KSA is the cradle of Islam and 90% of all the most important Islamic/Muslim personalities originate from KSA or are Arabs. Hijazi dynasties (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid) ruled the Islamic world from the very beginning to 1517. Almost 1000 years. 90% of the Islamic conquests were made by the ancestors of modern-day Arabs and in particular Saudi Arabians.
Thirdly, did I mention anything in my post that was not factual? Many Turks and neutral observers agree with me.
As for the West, last time I checked it is Turkey, not KSA, that is a member of NATO. Last time I checked it is Turkey that is almost totally dependent on trade with the West (EU) and not KSA.
Whatever Turkey does, Erdogan should learn from his many mistakes in Syria and elsewhere. Take inspiration of how Arabs in Iraq dealt with the Kurds recently.
Salah ad-Din had nothing Turkish/Turkic about him. We was of Kurdish and distant Arab ancestry and he was born on Arab land and was an Arabized Kurd. All of his descandnets today are Arabs and they live in modern-day KSA and Jordan.
Most of the soldiers that fought against the Crusaders and Mongols were LOCAL Arabs defending their ancient ancestral lands. A few 1000 Turkic arrivals (that modern-day Anatolians have very little to do with genetically (a well-established fact), is not going to change anything here.
Ibn Taymiyyah described this period in detail and he is the best source out there.
As for Mamluks (they were former slaves of Arabs) and mostly of Caucasian (Circassian and Georgian) origin, not Turkic. They only dominated the military but the Abbasids still retained the religious and bureaucratic power. The armies were a mixture of Arabs, Mamluks (mainly Caucasian) and Turkic people.
Funny how a bunch of foreigners (Anatolians in this case that have little to do with Arabs and real Turkic people) try to portray history differently in regions that are not their own.
As for Erdogan he has screwed up time and time again and I am not going to change my opinion in this regard unless I see the ground realities change. His lack of action created the mess that Turkey is now facing.
Anyway I don't bother with such discussions with foreigners. You can claim that Arabs played no role at all in their own lands. However only complete and utter ignorant idiots would even remotely believe such a claim.[emoji38]
Next time go claim that the Arabic-speaking and Arabized Salah ad-Din had no Arab soldiers when all the battles were fought on Arab land.[emoji38]
BTW my opinion about Kurdish terrorists in Iraq and Syria is well-known so I am not pro-Kurd here or in any other situation unless they are fighting directly against their cousins (Iranian Mullah's).
