Jihad against the turks - History Forum ~ All Empires

What do you think about this link.

I was well insulted, about the incorrectnes

www.historyofjihad.org/turkey.html

This site is one of the most racist and historaly incorrect ever

And it's not only about the turks what pisses me off. They "attack" everyone and make the muslims look like jew& christian hating Jihad making I don't know there are no words for this (no offence only a extreme nationalist arab would agree with this no offence i'm a muslim to but not that one)

Edited by xi_tujue - 25-May-2006 at 11:27

I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage

That website is ridiculous...

It marks every single thing done by muslims against anyone else as Jihad

I guess it all depends on the individual to filter out what's real and what's complete bs.

From what I understand, a jihad can only be called by an Imam. Am I mistaken?

A jihad can be called by anyone, but people only follow those who have authority or influence.

No offence, but u need to improve the quality of websites u quote. Friendly advice, if u come across trash, dont post from it.

Edited by malizai_ - 27-May-2006 at 07:32

Originally posted by xi_tujue

I don't know if you said that to me but I was pointing out that this site was trash. Didn't you read the original post

I did read the original and that is why i said dont post from trash. I mean what possible benefit could we derive from discussing rubbish. Consider the possibility of everyone citing a rubbish site and seeking a review. BTW, welcome to AE.

ahah don't get it started it isn't just about the turks it's about all what's on that page

I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage

do you see any other "benefit" for posting the site here?

as you have said, what would happen if everyone brought trash here to review?

Edited by mamikon - 27-May-2006 at 15:01

Originally posted by Feramez

Oh God, I wonder how many idiots out there will believe this web site too?

Far too many.

Alright, I will be in the minority here, but I have to say this: the interpretation of the historial events and the general bias of the site is rabidly anti-muslim. However, the majority of the historical events which are detailed in the article are factually true, it is only the bias and the language that make this site a poor historical description. The Arabs did consider their early wars of conquest, at least until the Ummayads, as jihads meant to spread Islam to the unbelievers, whether they were zoroastrians like the Persians, christan like the Byzantines or pagan like the Turks or the Sindhis. The Turks did take a long time to be islamized and certainly religion played an important role in their wars with muslim rulers before their conversion.

Yes I do disagree with the anti-islamic bias of the site. But we should all remember that history as we know it always contains an element of bias. History as it is taught to fundamentalist muslims is likely to be just as biased and inaccurate as this site.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

The wars of conquest were fought to increase the polity of Islam and spread the message of Islam to get an audience for prospective converts. But the conversion itself was not by force.

Hence the jizya, i.e keep your religion and just pay the tax. If no tax then fight, not convert. The carrot; dont fight and dont pay tax, just become muslim.