Unity in the Islamic World

I think I heard it before but same as you, had no clue what does it mean

You know what I was listening to yesterday? Estergon kal'asi. I cannot break down the lyrics, do you have them?

Estergon kalesi bre dilber aman
Subasi ___?  aman
____? g�nl�m� bre ____? aman
Bir sinsi firak?

Is this a famous traditional song? or just a saying? what is the difference between your version and this version? Eli yemendir, g�l� �emendir! Giden gelmiyor, acep nedendir?! a different dialect maybe?

Is this a Turkish saying? how do you say it in Turkish? We have an Arab saying that "Yemen is the grave of invaders". Due to the difficult terrain and high mountains of the inside of the Yemen, it became famous after many empires lost battles trying to conquer the hear of the Yemen. A legends says that Roman forces were badly defeated at the desert nearby Ma'reb. Portuguese were defeated on the shores, Shahar city, and the island of Socatra. Also, the Zaydians were ruling Yemen under the Ottoman rule, but a revolution errupted and Osmanli forces were evacuated and they didn't return till the agreement of Daan. Finally, the British occupied Aden and southern Yemen and a conflict errupted in 1934 where the British recognized the independace of Northern mountanious Yemen.  So, the legend came that Yemen is the grave of all invaders.

Well, Lawrence of Arabia was the advisor to the sherief but no British troops were with the sherrief till he reached Demascus. The reason is: 1- not to upset Arabs that non-Muslim troops are fighting Muslim Ottoman troops to take Madine. 2- To show the Sherief as a true hero with his native troops.

I meant by standing good for their people is him standing to protect Madine and then surrendering the city by the demand of the people to escape the starvation. Im not sure if Fahrettin Pa�a viewed his people only to be Turks, but I would assume he viewed himself as a protector of Medine and they are all his people too.

So Sherief passed Medine and left it toward demascus and came back to Madine, or it was another Sherief force?

Anyhow, that is a beautiful story. Few men stand for the good of their people.

I thought Sherief moved from south to north, meaning if the Ottoman empire was defeated, he must have already passed to Demascus. Can you elaborate further please?

As I explained earlier. The groud for "rebellion" or "revolution" was ready way earlier before the sherief. Residance of Demascus and Lebanon and part of Palestine were already ignited by Jamal Pasha unneccessary rigid policies. George Antonius claimed that it was the Young Turks' policy of 'turkification' that kindled the flames of nationalism among non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman state, in his book The Arab Awakening: the Story of the Arab Nationalist Movement (New York, 1937).

The friendly relations between the Young Turks and the zionist movement also point to strong western influences. During their rule, the Ottomans obtained many loans from European banks, which were often run by Jews. In return they allowed unlimited immigration of Jews to Palestine. In 1909, when Arab parliamentary deputies expressed their concerns about this, the Minister of the Interior replied that Jews were free to buy property anywhere in the empire except in the Hijaz

Please understand that Im not with the revolution or against it. It is a historical incident that combined both mistakes. Turks mistakes to try to unity a multi-natioanl ethnic society as the example of Germany and Italy and Arab mistake of believing the Sherief intention.

Intention are really important here. Shereif didn't care about rescuing people from turkcizing policies more than his ambition, as Young Turks didn't care about protecting holy places more than gaining lands that were lost. The opportunism of Turkish minister of war Enver Pasha who attacked Russia even without declaring a War. I know you protect holy places by defending them. Now here Envar Pasha declares war first and enter it of course not to defend holy places, because that will be naiive, but to take the opportunity of German early victories and to regain some lost lands. That is the reality of both sides.

Ablanians fought against the Ottomans for their independance

I think this is another story, It is not because ottoman  were ruling albania, but It is because Ottomans giving albania to serbs? Maybe an albanian help about that issue, but I think this is before Turkish nationalism.

All of those dates are before the Sherief launched his campaign. So, there is a ground support already for his campaign.

there was always ground for rebellion, there were a lot of turkish rebellion too. Do you think,their reason is nationalism?

Yes, we are the least nationalist people on earth just because we believe in unity of a Muslim ideology. Arabs were not revolting on Ottomans in Syria and Lebanon and Iraq all time as other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Just think why did this happen only after 1908?

Infact It is not first rebellion of arabs, specialy bedevis are not to calm. We call it betrayal , because Arabs fight us with brits. When  our people was protecting Holy Lands again them, arabs joined with them.Timing is realy bad, and  remember job  of lawrence, I am sure he was not a arab nationalist. I dont think, arabs rebelled because of Young Turks, Infact this is absurd. What an arab at Saudi Arabia cared,power change of Istanbul.

Number one: Ablanians fought against the Ottomans for their independance

Number two: You keep missing the point. If Young Turks have not instituted their turkcizing procedures, Sherief who is either a nationalist or a greedy person, would have not found any ground support for his campaign. Yes, Arab nationalism was created by the influence of turkish nationalism. Al Faat, the Young Arab Society founded in 1913-1914 in Paris, with branches in Beirut and Damascus; the �Decentralization Party,� founded in Cairo by the Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians in 1912, with committees in Syria and Iraq and appearing as the spokesmen for Arab aspirations; and the Young Algerian Party, also formed in 1912.

All of those dates are before the Sherief launched his campaign. So, there is a ground support already for his campaign.

Number three: Yes, we are the least nationalist people on earth just because we believe in unity of a Muslim ideology. Arabs were not revolting on Ottomans in Syria and Lebanon and Iraq all time as other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Just think why did this happen only after 1908?

And so? Did Ottomans even care about Anatolia, did they give any "thing" to "tashra"? Did Ottoman Empire care about Etrak-i bi-idrak in its decading periods? Ottomans priority was always Istanbul and Balkans, then holy lands. So they were the one who didnt give the priority to their homeland, Anatolia. Instead of wasting our Anatolian human source, mehmetcik in unnecessary, far edges of the empire such as Yemen, or signing Sevres, they could try to defend their homeland, their real prior lands like Ataturk did.

To me, both are imperialist missions that ended up with nonsense wasting of our people and efforts. Our home is Anatolia. This is the place we should care about, unlike Ottomans. Yes, PanIslamism exactly means one country for all Muslims. And both ideas are unhealthy in current international norms and condition.

I agree.

Maybe because we arewnt Ottomans. Tell me how much Turks have been using the Ottoman script in -Anatolia. 1% - optimistic percentage. So Ottoman script wasnt our script at all. Arabic script cant match Turkish grammer. 3 vowels for eight Turkish vowels for example.

Of course it wasnt only for modernizing us, I dont care which alphabet we use, I'd prefer the Uighur alphabet, but I am happy with Latin. the most useful one, the one to be used.

Caliphate became a sick organization in the collapsing periods. Remember, printing coming 200 years later to Turkey just because the wise Sheyhul Islams and Caliphate opposed it? But I agree on some point, caliphate would be a very effective power on Muslims if we still had it. Terminating it was a little extreme. ataturk didnt have any other chance in such conditions anyway. But to me, caliphate should have been frozen for some years, and then given back to Arabs. They can do what they want with it. We dont need a caliph to teach our religion to us, or to reach God's will. We can accomplish these ourselves individually for sure.

Nonsense. We could say Turks more harmed by Ottomans than by Europe. But we still respect our Ottoman inheritance.

I prefer a Turkish shah rather than a shayhul Islam or caliph. And I dont blame the Ottomans for not giving the empire to Turkmens. It would be a stupid move. Anyway, lets not open this issue.

And please end this discussion Murtaza, I am tired...