At the moment the Islamic world is very divided due to nationalistic or historic diffrences. Such thoughts were installed by the west. For example The end of the Ottoman empire saw the bringing of nationalism to the Arab nations that was brought from the west (Lawrence of Arabia). This led to the Turks to feel as their Muslim brothers had stabbed them in the back, (e.g Yemen). In turn Turkey became nationalistic and ended the Khalifate (head of all Muslims, similer to Pope) in 1924.

With all this in mind many Muslims still have the feeling of brotherhood with other Muslims as has been said in the Qur'an that all the Muslims are but a single brotherhood. Practising Muslims also have their priority to the Muslim World (Ummah-Nation). Thus when Muslims are being attcked in countries such as Palestine Chechniya and Kashmir (Just to name a few) it will come at no surprise that Mujahideen (freedom fighters) from all the world will fight in this cause. Yet the whole world via their media makes them look like evil people.

Words that need to be considered:

Mujahideen- Defender of the faith, not a bad thing. Please do not think of other people who claim to be mujahideen although they misinterpret the Qur-anic law and do attacks that are in a Haraam (unlawful) way.

Jihad- Another word that is often considred a bad word. Well its literally means struggle. So ofcourse a participant in a war will doing Jihad, although even praying is Jihad, giving to charity can be considered as a Jihad. Being a good person is even considered to be a innner Jihad.

My point being is that these are two words that the media try to twist into evil words that Muslims must now use carefully.

The unity for what, against what??

Recently, there is a growing tendency in muslim countries to cconstitute a unity. Because, most of them are aware of that any of them can't develop and improve their life standards by itself. So that is the case which the unity could be gained in the long-term. Otherwise, this is the fact that brotherhood of muslims is not enough to be a unity.

On the other hand, we, muslims, confess that there have been many invasions on muslim lands for centuries . it is not only we are muslims but we dont have talented armies as well. i think it is not possible to create a tecnologically adequate armies under these conditions. So, we should be enthusiastic to improve our democracy and enable the people use it for theirselves. I mean democracy not for west, democracy for us.

Briefly, in my opinion, that is the way we can  gain the unity, I mean there should be acceptable reasons for muslim contries. That is, we should give reasons each of us to constitute a unity.

are you sure?

i dont think the pope has that much power and countries who has power are the once who decide and i dont think that any country would listen to whatever the pop think,

also the more religios christans are in the poor third world countries which obviously wont afford a war with anybody.

depend of you mean by "same kind of unity"  i dont think that your 1st statment is Fact but lets assume that it is, then No there are no Unity in Islamic world that would made all of them united to go to war.

and for the last queston there. Islamic countries are part of a group i dont remmember what it is called  maybe Islamic countries group. anyway and they are diplomatic with each other and politics between them like any other countries.

but the people think positivly of each other well majority and majority is what counts not the small minories.

i dont think there are any egyptans in this this forum.

yea if you read my replay just check the last bit, i said most of religios christans are in countries who are  cant afford going to war philipines and mexico are one of them, and i dont think that they will ""deploy whatever forces they had in second if the pope said so"" and i think that you are too emotional about what the Pops orders, and before people start going to kill and getting killed for the Pop, they at least should do what he says about having partners and marriage and condom usage as an example.

i dont think they conquered Arabs and western Persia they grew as a power and when they are already there there was not any significant Arabic state to mention most of the islamic lands were ander Tukish and non Arabs so they didnt really conquer. and iam not sure but i think  at the early ruling periods People considered them selfs muslims and treated all almost equaly

yea turkey is not in a perfect relation with Arabic countries but i think it has good relation with other islamic countries and it starting to change to the better  its all politics nothing to do with religion.

and egypt is still the head of the Arabic world , its the largest population and it is the strongest so far.

Really? I was under the impression that the Turks entered these lands forcefully. I know the took Baghdad by force, and invaded Egypt many times.

Interesting. However, why is it that Turkey is/was not on good terms with other Islamic countries?

it was not in good terms with Arabic countries not all islamic countries, i dont know its from many angles like historical things and political not much religion related issues though

[

for example, a person must be approved by the state or some organization before he can become a credible muslim religious scholar and must wear a uniform and pretend as if he is given a divine right to tell us how to be muslims like we cannot teach our selves about islam.

What do you mean? And what is this divine right? There is not any holy one , except Prophet. Even he is holy just because he is messenger of God. Nothing more.

You mean Iran?

l

You mean tarikats, Infact Leaders are not divine.  they just accepted  know better islam and better err Muslim. they are not superior to all.But you are right their people follow them.

they are not like pope. We should accept there is not unity like that type.

Even Caliph is a political leader, not religional leader.

s

Tarikat=religious order

My first thread already mentions that the diffrences are historic and nationalist thus the friction Turkey and the Arab nations is not due to Islam.

A Caliph is a must in the Sharia (Islamic Law) due to the ruling that for every day that a Muslim live without a Caliph then they are in sin.

The Ottomans did take Muslim lands:Correct (Although Hijaz was given to the Turks)

The Ottomans were not the perfect example of a Muslim nation so comparisions on the mistakes of the Ottomans, espeasly the later period when westernisation started is not really valid.

The unity between the Muslims is a connection less superficial then any racial conection. As a religious conection is a link on the way one leads their life by choise, unlike a connection that you have by birth (although this does have an importance). This unity will not be for a alternate motive as you may think Telvin.

Only God is perfect

Ottomans used the sectial unity to unite all Muslims easily like Seljuks. They became officially Sunnites to have stronger political and social power in middle east, and to hold on those lands by unifying with the local population, Arabs (Islamism). But when they realized they cannot unite Arabs even in terms of religion in the later Ottoman period, they used nationalism and nation state mentalities to unite the Turkish population.

Muslims arent like Christians. Christians have a common historical and original past (Rome, all IE, Germanic and Hellenic people etc.). But middle east is like a fashion platform, it has people from even different races. And we have no common origins.

Islamic unity is impossible. That has been tried hundreds of times in history but couldnt succeed. Islamic world owns nations from lots of different origins, cultures and sects. And middle east is like the prototype of differences btw Islamic nations. We have Semites (mostly Arabs), the local civilization of most of middle east and mesopotamia, the defender and expanders of Sunnite Islam. We have Iranians, Persians who are IE and who have a totally different historical background, religional past in middle east. And they are mostly Shiites. And we have Turks, Turkmens, Azeris, people from Altaic origins, mostly Sunnite but lots of different points on Islam, their different sects (Bektashi Kizilbash, Alevi etc.) and their ancient religious past. Three main nations of middle east, and of Islam. They cannot unify, that is certain.

A Caliph is a Sunnite figure of Islam, and Sheriah cant be a possible way of unifying Muslims. Do you want us to be the same with Iran or any other Islamic states? I dont think so, we cant recommit our past mistakes.

A perfect answer.

Islamic unity is impossible and unnecessary. But that does not mean we will be hostile towards the other muslim states.

it was not in good terms with Arabic countries not all islamic countries, i dont know its from many angles like historical things and political not much religion related issues though

@ Azimuth,

Our airforce trains UAE airforce F16 pilots. THere is not a thing like Turkish hostility towards Arabs. But do you want struggles?

Mainly Saudi, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq Arabs betrayed us while we were thinking we were protecting the holy lands against some Christian British Army. Do you know the impact of this issue? It is not a normal betrayel, Greeks and Serbs betrayed to the empire too. But this is something where we needed the inhabitants of the holy lands who is now talking about Islamic Brothership. Still Arabs think they did the right thing, still you consider that Lawrance as a hero. What Islamic unity are your talking about?

There are now I see an increasing number of Arabs in this forum. Like 100 years ago, again come under Turkish rule, swear allegiance, then be our brothers, we will protect you, just do not betray us again. We have enough soldiers, enough courage, enough skills, we only need silence behind us...

I am serious, kneel down before us, swear allegiance, come under our rule, than lets be brothers. We will protect you...

huh??

what struggles? did you even read what i posted?

or like always starting the same BS and run away without any logical replay?

anyway since iam bord, free and have time i wont mind replaying to you just for fun.

ok as an answer to your question i already wrote

((((  yea turkey is not in a perfect relation with Arabic countries but i think it has good relation with other islamic countries and it starting to change to the better  its all politics nothing to do with religion.)))))

also your prim minster came many times to the gulf region to improve the relation and the trad and stuff like that.

we can get our army trained wherever we want as long as there is money for the trainer.

i didnt talk about Isamic unity!!!!

 i dont know what YOU are talking about? ,

as i wrote  ((((depend of you mean by "same kind of unity"  i dont think that your 1st statment is Fact but lets assume that it is, then No there are no Unity in Islamic world that would made all of them united to go to war)))).

betrayed you and stabed you in the back all this BS is just repeated over and over again. well easy if you were good to them they wouldnt ally with the british against you.

when Arabs were under turkish rules they became most backward people in the world no education no trad nothing. we lived in tents and fight with knifes in the 18th century thanks to you.

we are much much better without your rule.

and lawrence is not known by the majority of the people and nobody consider him as hero or anything he is nobody to us.

his role was not considerent as a significant rule by any means.

Originally posted by HulaguHan There are now I see an increasing number of Arabs in this forum. Like 100 years ago, again come under Turkish rule, swear allegiance, then be our brothers, we will protect you, just do not betray us again. We have enough soldiers, enough courage, enough skills, we only need silence behind us... I am serious, kneel down before us, swear allegiance, come under our rule, than lets be brothers. We will protect you...

you are talking like turkish are a majority in the region, you are not. and we are not in a case that we need to beg for you protection and hope that we wont ever.

as i see it is you who are begging Europe to be part of their group, and trying to be Israel's best friends in the region to get blessed by the USA which in return will pressure Europe to accept you.

Azimuth, you do not get my points.

also your prim minster came many times to the gulf region to improve the relation and the trad and stuff like that.

our relations are allright dude, and noone opposes it. What we are talking about is brothership.

we can get our army trained wherever we want as long as there is money for the trainer.

Only Israel and USA can train your pilots as good as Turkish Airforce when it comes to your newly purchased F16 Block 60' s.

Azimuth:

when Arabs were under turkish rules they became most backward people in the world no education no trad nothing. we lived in tents and fight with knifes in the 18th century thanks to you.

Azimuth, Turks were not in better conditions than you, I accept, we could not main you in the last century but IF you just kept LOYAL, we would all be parished today. Kemal Ataturk would manage that.

I again offer you..

Swear allegiance, kiss the ring, be under our rule...

That day, Islamic brothership will come. We are not hatred arousers. Everybody does mistakes. BUt what a person can not afford is the continuity of the mistakes.

Our States since the Xiong Nu days always had one code:

One land, one ruler...

Swear allegiance, if you want brothership 

man you are funny

who are you to offer me

"Swear allegiance, kiss the ring, be under our rule..."

what is this? you must love star wars and star treks

anyway we dont need your protection and anyway its about benifits nothing to do with loyality.

if it is in our benifit to ally with you then we will do and so you will do.

these stuff has nothing to do with the past history so Stop being childish and act like you are superior. simply because you are not.

also i dont think Ottoman were good with arabs not in last 100 years and not before that too.

do you any Arabic scientists or science came from Arabic lands when the Ottoman were on controle?

i dont know any.

there are no comparison between our acheivements and yours. we made way larger impact that you did.

almost all Arabic states now still recovering from the last century's occupations and the current governments are still with the old mentality and that wont stay for long

i think the most important factor in becomming advanced is education and princepls not army strenth or being part of other nations.

so my friend i dont think any Arab state will united with you may be ally which is normal between countries in the same region

but no union and Ataturk system would never succeed with Arabs we have identity and pride of who we are. wont change and ask to be with others who dont want us to be with.

I am well aware of the happenings of the past between the Yemenis, Palestinians etc. And true this was a betrayel and we must never forget such happenings. Rather we should learn and forgive to make our unity stronger. Many a time in history has Turk fighted Turk, (Tamelane). This does not stop many Turkic peaples from dreaming of a Pan-Turkic nation does it. There is no bond like that of the Ummah

What betrayel?  what Unity?

i think i need to post a new thread somewhere here and sort this out. and each time a new turk comes here and start talking about this i'll simply post the URL of that thread instead of repeating each time.

Originally posted by Cengiz Kagan Originally posted by HulaguHan There are now I see an increasing number of Arabs in this forum. Like 100 years ago, again come under Turkish rule, swear allegiance, then be our brothers, we will protect you, just do not betray us again. We have enough soldiers, enough courage, enough skills, we only need silence behind us... I am serious, kneel down before us, swear allegiance, come under our rule, than lets be brothers. We will protect you... Irkdasim, cok guzel yanit vermissin bu adi arapa Dear brother, you gave a very good answer to this arab Arabs are the biggest losers on this planet. Why should we join with them?? They live in the middle ages, are barbaric, stab people in the back, are cowards etc...... Our goal is the unification of all Turks......TURAN!!!!!!!!!

he gave "this arab" an answer and "this arab" replied to it if you cared enough to read more

but anyway you and many people like you grew up learning  that Arabs are losers and Turkey must be part of Europe, whatever i dont care.

so why would i bother to change your childhood views?

NO i wont love to have Turkish Citizenship,

i have UAE Citizenship and iam happy with it. also it makes me feel littel spiceal that we (people who has UAE Citizenship) are about 800,000 in the wold.

well i dont think anything bad would happen, mostly they would admire you i guess.

but if someone religios i guess he wont talk much coz they think that you are eelmany which means that you seperated religion from the daily life, but anyway religious people are mostly like that.

bu in general we dont have any bad education against Turkish people and no Bad education against Iranian people too.

our education system at schools are mostly focusing on the bright side of each empires speasially Islamic empires, no bad stuff about conflicts or hatered by any type, not even anything mentioned there about Shiies hatered or what they think of us or what things happened through history related to treatments.

but from what i noticed from many Turkish forumers is that they have hatered toward Arabs and towards our religion type, i dont know if that the education system or the traditions.

Originally posted by Cengiz Kagan Why do you assume that every Turk who dislikes Arabs wants to join the EU??????? Turks who dislike Arabs do not by defenition want to join the EU. Here are some statistics for you: 95% of the Turks dislike Arabs 43% of the Turks want to join the EU So there is no correlation between disliking Arabs and wanting to join the EU

i didn't assume every turkish who dislike arabs want to join the EU

you need to read  what i wrote.

and about your Statistics, IF it is accurate that much

i dont think many Arabs including me would really Care, i also want to visit turkey and i think i will have good time there as long as there is Cash to pay.

Here are some statistics for you:
95% of the Turks dislike Arabs
43% of the Turks want to join the EU

So there is no correlation between disliking Arabs and wanting to join the EU

who made this stupid statistics?

You?

In reality, Turkey people love arabs, after  German(I dont know reason of this), Bosnian,  Albanian.

And your turanic countries? Noone  care them.

They cannot even accept each other, Why do you think They will accept Turkey people?

Turan is just a joke, Moron Fasist Enver tried it, He made  a lot crime  for it, and He fail it, No need to  continue same stupidness.

We dont live at middle  asia  but middle east, so we should  live with the people of middle  east. Not middle asia.

We should care for Kurds who live in anatolia, not Turks who live in middle asia.

uh,

It looks live we read different survey?

By the way, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

This was always first, so I didnt count it.

They have no different from us.

Looking  for it, I read it from a newspaper,most probably Hurriyet.(I read it mostly) And no ,As you know, It is not biased. why do you think Turkish people love kazaks, or kýrgýz so much?

We dont know them,  we have nothing common  with them except langauge.

But If you look turkey, You can easliy see a lot Albanian, bosnian or Arabs.

So My survet looks like more  true.Sorry my friend.

bugun tam bir bucuk yasindasin. vasiyetnameyi bitirdim, kapatiyorum. sana bir resmimi yadigar olarak birakiyorum. ogutlerimi tut, iyi bir turk ol.
komunizm bize dusman bir meslektir. bunu iyi belle. yahudiler butun milletlerin gizli dusmanidir. ruslar, cinliler, acemler, yunanlilar tarihi dusmanlarimizdir.
bulgarlar, almanlar, italyanlar, ingilizler, fransizlar, araplar, sirplar, hirvatlar, ispanyollar, portekizliler, romenler yeni dusmanlarimizdir.
japonlar, afganlilar ve amerikalilar yarinki dusmanlarimizdir.
ermeniler, kurtler, cerkezler, abazalar, bosnaklar, arnavutlar, pomaklar, lazlar, lezgiler, gurculer, cecenler icer(de)ki dusmanlarimizdir.
bu kadar cok dusmanla carpismak icin iyi hazirlanmali.
tanri yardimcin olsun!

nihal atsiz
4 mayis 1941

Maybe  this can show you, how  a nationalist mind work. I am sure all of our friends know, Nihal Atsýz. He is the one of most know nationalist. And I am sure some of our friend love him much.

This is his  last will and testament.

He count all race one by one and  Call  all of  them as enemy, It is nothing agains arabs. He even said, bosnians,chechens or lazs as enemy of Turk Nation.

Erci arent you laz? You are an enemy for Turk nation.

If you want to learn what is bullsith, this  is bullsh*t.

I  realy dont like turkish nationalism.

erci

I  know, you accept yourself as aturk and  you fight for  turkey as much as a Turk.

Just tell it to nihal atsýz. He is  the father  of nationalists.

Most Turks want to unify with Azerbeycan and the Turkic states in CA. There aren't many Turks who want to join with the Arabs(except for a couple "fellah's" like you of course).

Noone  want to join with arabs, and not much people interest with TURAN.

dont be comic.

This Turkic states dont even agree with eachother.

stop to day dreaming.

Turan is a joke, It gave harm us much.

And I hope It have no place at Turkey politics. If It will happen, It should happen, with the wish of all Turkic country.Not Turkey

Turkey should not waste his energy for something stupid like this.

ops that was a typing mistak, didnt mean to be rude to anybody

Azimoth, the betrayel was that the Muslim Arabs fought against the unity of the Ummah and against the Caliph of the time. Creating divisions upon Muslims is punishable by death in the sharia, thus people like Said the founder of s.Arabia are traitors not to the Turks but to the unity of the Ummah the majority of which were unified under the Ottomans.

The young Turks movement was more of a reaction to Arab nationalism. When the Yemenis asked the Turks for help against the British, an army was sent. This however was a joint Yemeni-British trick to stab the Turks in the back. No turk survived.

The Arabs turning there back on the Khalifa led to much support for the Young Turks and ideologies such as Kemalizm and Turanizm.

Al Bedawi, marhaba to AE. Your point about the treatment of the Arabs towards the end of the empire is new to me, yet it intreasts me as it is likely to be true. I would appreciate the Arab point of view on their countries time of independence to.

Al Bedawi if what you say is true then breaking up into many diffrent states, even divisions between the Arabs was not the answer. Ending the monarchy of the Ottomans was the answer, allowing for the Cailph to be from any race, for our true and first nation is that of the Ummah.

Even at present the Arab and Turkish nationalism does take a nasty turn. For example the Arabs looking down on their Pakistani, Malaysion etc minorites. And the Turks with comments such as "a freind of a Turk is a Turk" a direct result of the TUrks no longer being able to trust non-Turks due to ex-Ottoman nations going against them.

You know nothing about this issue. young Turks and Kemalism was ideas established far before the arabic revolt. These ideas were attempts to modernize Turkey. 

a freind of a Turk is a Turk

This is not true.

uncle of my mother fought in the ottoman army in WW1 and i am proud of it, and at the end of the war he married a tukish woman in istanbul. he was protecting islam. I know from my family history that i have albanian, arab and  kurd origins.

and i live in an arab country now. so we are all brothers.

True !!!

Spread love, unity and the dawah!!!

nihal atsiz is father of psychopaths.

I would not think religious people consider Usama bin laden, necmettin erbakan as fathers.

religious, pious muslims follow people like Umar ibn Hattab, Mevlana, Yunus Emre, Imam Ali, etc.. Not Moawiyah, not Yezid, not Usama ibn laden. 

Likewise patriots, nationalists consider father as Ataturk for example, who says:

"Happy for the one who says I am a Turk" Anyone who wants to be a Turk, he is wellcome.

And father of Turkish nationalism said "Peace in our land, peace in  everyones land".

Mortaza and others would feel better if they investigated a bit more...

I totally agree, let me add some more clarifications.  

There is nothing wrong if one loves his/her nation and devotes his/her life for the prosperity of the nation. This type of nationalism should be respected, as it has something to do with the loftiness.  In Uyghur this type of nationalist is called "Milletperwer" ( =millet soyer: the one who loves his/her nation). 

There is another type of nationalism (should be called extreme nationalism, I think), in which the one  considers other nations as enemies, and  hates them. This type of nationalism should be discouraged. As it often causes tension between nations, maybe even leads to war. In Uyghur this type of nationalist is called "Milletchi" (the one who loves only his own nation). Uyghur People call Nihal Atsiz as "milletchi", not "Milletperwer".  But still this is far from being from racist or fascist.

So, please my friends, don't try to criticize all the nationalism.  Treat these two types differently.

Yup, Arab who revolted in 1916 were deceived by British promise of an independant arabic country. Now, we are talking about the Sherrief of Mecca that time who revolted from Ajyad castle and let the revolution. The question to ask is, how did he get the national support from Mecca to Demascus?

1- Nationalism started from Europe where it evolves around a group of shared language and sometimes ethnic boundaries. By 1908, adopted later by the "Young Turks" It was during this period that the concept of "Turkism" and exclusive nationalism attracted several prominent Young Turks, who began to envisage a new, homogenous Turkish state in place of the enervated and exploited multinational Ottoman Empire.

2-With the ideology of Turkism expounded by such writers as Zia Gokalp, the Young Turk extremists began to contemplate ways to abandon multinational "Ottomanism" for exclusive "Turkism" and so transform the Ottoman Empire into a homogenous Turkish domain.

3-No wonder then we have people like Jamal Paºa who was named "the butcher" and his massacres are known in Syria.

4- With all of that, and the process of Turkism, no wonder that we have two forces: a- nationalist Arab who adopted the idea and retaliated in respond to turkism  b-non-nationalist who just revolted and joined the sherief forces to escape the Young Turk oppression and forced turkism.

It is not a hard math. I can simplify it further. Me & Ahmet are ottomans, but Ahmet is a turk, and Im an arab. If Ahmet forced me that to be an Ottoman is to be a turk, then why should I be an Ottoman? I will revolt. Kamal Atatürk was no different than Young Turks, otherwise, why do we still call Kurds of eastern Turkey the moutains turks? Forcing them to be turks? Nationalism based on language is .  Most great empires that survived long were multi-national and allowed for their people the practice of their languages and the respect of their cultures.

True in that the Ottomans were multi-religious. Nationalism entered the middle east late when compared to europe.

Modern nation states call their own nationals by name of country and citizenship. This is nothing new for a 21'st century person. Yet back in the early 20'th century, especially in the middle east, ethnicity and nationality were new ideas. Such ideas were a self preservation vehicle.

was during this period that the concept of "Turkism" and exclusive nationalism attracted several prominent Young Turks, who began to envisage a new, homogenous Turkish state in place of the enervated and exploited multinational Ottoman Empire.

If I am not wrong, Ziya Gokalp is a kurd, I dont think young Turk nationalism does not exclude to other muslim races, but only christian races. Because they believe loyalty of muslims, but not christians. I dont think Arab revoluation has a relation with nationalism, but their wish for money (some of them get directly money from brits) and some power-hungry guy. It is not a reflex against to young Turks and If I am not wrong, Rebellions were less than loyal ones. They were not majority.

Also Before balkain wars,(Their idea of christian loyalty was lost with these war) Young Turks are not so nationalist.

I think you are confusing between turkism and to be a turk. In English language, when you say Turkism: a process of turkmenizing. So, Ziya Gokalp might not be a kurd by ethnicity but nevertheless he is not only turkicized, but a strong supporter of Young Turks. As I said, the revolution in Arab countries carried the Arab nationalist and the non-nationalist who want to escape turkism.

No one cares about what the CUP calls for muslim unity or anything. Their actions speaks louder and their actions are nothing but TURKISM.

What money you are talking about? pilgrimage donations? find me one line in the agreement between Sherief and the britons about receiving money after the war? Why would people support the Sherrief then? they won't get a penny if he really will get any money.

The Young Turks were a Turkish nationalist reform party, officially known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) — in Turkish the Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti — whose leaders led a rebellion against Sultan Abdul Hamid II (who was officially deposed and exiled in 1909). They ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 until the end of World War I in November 1918.

Of  course they are nationalist, but They didnt become nationalist at one day. Their coup is supported by christian minorities more than turkish majority at the beginning.

IIRC even nationalist armenian parties like tashnak supported them.

Sherief himself  is a greedy people, I think Arabs have less motivation  of nationalism than any other races. As I said,  there are a lot loyal arab to Ottomans. All other races fought for Ottomans, laz bosnians or albanians, why do you think, arabs are much different?

Doing of sherif was not a nationalist campaign but mostly a conquest campaign and If I am not wrong, Sherif payed his  crimes, Arabs didnt accepted his as their leader.

 And I dont think we can say, there were an whole arab identy at that times, they are mostly like clans(Bedevis?). Some of them supported ottomans, and some of them supported brits  and for cities, I didnt hearn any city rebelion, am  I wrong? Did arab cities  also rebelled?

Yes, young Turks were panTurkists. But it was later, before, they were Ottomanists. Their purpose was to keep the Ottoman Empire alive and not to lose any more lands in the beginning. But later, their successors, Ittýhad ve Terakki, understood that with the nationalism spread through Ottoman subjects, both Christian and Muslim, and after the Balkan wars, they had nothing to hold on but only Turkism to keep the unification soul of all people under the empire's rule.

Arab shiks were becoming nationalists and were provoked by the British against Ottoman Empire, just like Armenians, Greeks or Assyrians. But Turks werent. So for a Turkish nation to survive in the future, Ittihad ve Terakki have chosen Turkism, and it was the only available choice to survive after the massive waves from Europe, against the rule of multiethnical empires, such as Austuria Hungary and Ottomans. And western powers were always using these ideologies with the subjects of these empires for their own benefits for sure, they didnt care about a regular Arab to care about he was an Arab, or they didnt cre about Greeks becoming free again. The only thing, the only purpose for them, for always supporting the nationalism of subjects, was the purpse of colonizing and sharing the massive, very strategic and fertile Ottoman lands, and unite their colonies with Europe.

Arabs were just their tools, like Greeks, Armenians, and even like Young Turks against the multiethnical sickman of Europe. But, the difference btw an Arab and a Serb, a Bulgarian or a Greek fighting against Ottoman Empire was obvious. A regular Greek, armed, supported and provoked by the western powers was believing he was a total Christian freedomfighter against the Muslims. A regular Serb, fighting against the Ottoman Empire, was also fighting with the same purpose and ideology. I am not commenting on they were right or wrong, or really fighting for freedom, but a regular Christian subject's purpose of fighting against the Ottomans was either because of religious factors or freedom fighting.

BUT, a regular Arab, who was provoked and brainwashed by his sheikh, saying Turks had British coins in their stomachs or Turks were non-Muslim kafers, was never a freedom fighter, or never believed he was fighting for his religion or for freedom. He just fought for independence, gold, or for his beloved Lawrance.

That's why the Arab actions are considered as betraying besides all the actions of other subjects. Didnt Armenian gangs betray their empire? Yes, they did. Dont Kurds today, betray their state? Yes, they do. But, purposes and ideologies are the main points seperating them. While a regular Armenian thought he was fighing for his faith, while a regular Kurd thought he is fighting for freedom, an Arab knew he was fighting for more British coins and for Lawrance's bribe. Of course not generalizing, all Arabs didnt betray the empire, but lots of them from Yemen to Iraq. So Arabs, became the only real betrayer of the empire, unlike the other subjects.

you have wrong about ziya gökalp, he is a Turk whos born in diyarbakir. In those times they where many Turks in that city not like today full of....

Young turks are also traitor of Ottoman Empires too, Ottoman empires had no job at middle asia, and young turks destroyed their empire for Turan.They think importance of Turan is more than importance of Arabic land.

Infact Ottomans  suffered  from young Turks more than arabs.

So If you look another  real betrayer of Ottomans(as a culture) It was turks, we destroyed Ottoman empire, and built nationalist Turkey.

If you look another betrayal, you can find him  at battle of vienna, Isnt we lost battle of vienna because of a turkic betrayal?

Also remember turkish rebellions at anatolia, and help they took from Iran, this is also a betrayal to Ottomans too.

So I dont think, we need to demonize arabs.

They did their mistakes, but We Turks did our mistakes too.

As I said, their actions were also western supported, to spread nationalism through all subjects and create an ethnic chaos. But we also know that they had to be nationalist, the only way to survive for the Turks.

What do you mean that they had no job in central Asia? Enver Pasha died in Central Asia, fighting against Russians with the Uzbek troops. What was the job of Ottoman Empire in Vienna? What was the job of Roman Empire in Anatolia? What was the job of China at Eastern Turkestan? There was no meaning of job those times, there was only one job, to improve/expand your empire/state/country and your nation. Altough I really dont support all the actions of Young Turks and all the actions for Turan, Turan was a better mission than pan-Islamism.

This isnt true. Ottomans always suffered from Russians, British and later Austurian, not from Greeks or Serbs. They were just tools for them. I consider the Arab actions against the empire as the actions of British against the empire. Like the actions of Armenians were in fact purposes of Russians. Small, weaker nations are always tools of greater bullies.

We didnt destroy the empire, western imperialism and nationalism did. And we were the last one to become nationalized after all our subjects. We had to deny Ottoman past, because we had to create a "nation" out of a religious group, just like the Greeks, Armenians or arabs did. Nations of Middle East are all fabricated.

We built nationalist Turkey because we had no other chance for a state. The world was nationalising, our subjects also were, so we also had to. And I am proud of being a succeeder nation state rather than an Islamic state under the rule of a Sunnite, puppet caliph.

Maybe because Ottomans oppressed the nonSunnite minorities, exiled and always tried to terminate them. So according to that logic, Ottomans have betrayed real Turks just for creating a Sunnite religious unity within the Muslim society of the Empire. The word "betray", shouldnt be matched with trying to survive.

Of course we did, noone can deny that. All nations have their mistakes, but no other nation than us sends tens of thousand of its soldiers to fight for their so called "Sunnite brothers", and let them all be massacred in lands where they have nothing to fight for. Do you know how much Turkiðsh soldiers were killed to defend their Muslim brothers in Jarusalem? Do you know how much Turkish soldiers died in Yemen to fight for the Sunnite brotherhood? If we had trusted our real brothers rather than the artificial ones in history, life would be much more better and wealthier for us.

The most important mistake of Turks was, slaughtering its own population (Alevis) and fighting with other Turks (Timur-Ottomans). And also, believing a so called Sunite brotherhood and wasting our efforts for unaccaptable dreams.

What do you mean that they had no job in central Asia? Enver Pasha died in Central Asia, fighting against Russians with the Uzbek troops. What was the job of Ottoman Empire in Vienna? What was the job of Roman Empire in Anatolia? What was the job of China at Eastern Turkestan? There was no meaning of job those times, there was only one job, to improve/expand your empire/state/country and your nation. Altough I really dont support all the actions of Young Turks and all the actions for Turan, Turan was a better mission than pan-Islamism.

Well, Our priority should be our lands, not middle asia,when Enver Pasha was fighting at Central Asia, Anatolia was occupied, by greeks, france,Italy  and Italians. So I  think  If Enver Pasa was an ottoman patriot, he should try to protect anatolia not Middle asia, this is excatly betrayal of Ottomans.

Infact turan is a worse mission than pan-islamism, Pan-Islamism didnt mean one country for muslims, but turan excatly  means, one country for turks, and It failed. Enver Pasa fight  for Turan, not for Ottomans.

This isnt true. Ottomans always suffered from Russians, British and later Austurian, not from Greeks or Serbs. They were just tools for them. I consider the Arab actions against the empire as the actions of British against the empire. Like the actions of Armenians were in fact purposes of Russians. Small, weaker nations are always tools of greater bullies.

Sure they are, but Young Turk is not anyone tool, they prefer to be nationalist by themself. Nationalism is worst type of ideology for  multi-cultural Empire and they were worse than Abdulhamit 2.  They played games with  whole empire, Their unnecessary and naive expansionism destroyed empire. they were like childs, they were not enough capable to rule Ottomans.

We didnt destroy the empire, western imperialism and nationalism did. And we were the last one to become nationalized after all our subjects. We had to deny Ottoman past, because we had to create a "nation" out of a religious group, just like the Greeks, Armenians or arabs did. Nations of Middle East are all fabricated.

We built nationalist Turkey because we had no other chance for a state. The world was nationalising, our subjects also were, so we also had to. And I am proud of being a succeeder nation state rather than an Islamic state under the rule of a Sunnite, puppet caliph.

Infact we did, we refused everything related with ottomans, even their alphabet. (Pls dont tell me,It is because changin  alphabet will modernize us)

For Caliph,I dont think destroying caliph is a good political move. Ataturk want to westernize us, but we are not a western country. And now we lost, a lot political power without Caliph.Of course It harmed Islamic Unity too, If not destroyed.

Maybe because Ottomans oppressed the nonSunnite minorities, exiled and always tried to terminate them. So according to that logic, Ottomans have betrayed real Turks just for creating a Sunnite religious unity within the Muslim society of the Empire. The word "betray", shouldnt be matched with trying to survive.

this is another discussion, but we know, Shies are joined with Iran against ottomans. 

Of course we did, noone can deny that. All nations have their mistakes, but no other nation than us sends tens of thousand of its soldiers to fight for their so called "Sunnite brothers", and let them all be massacred in lands where they have nothing to fight for. Do you know how much Turkiðsh soldiers were killed to defend their Muslim brothers in Jarusalem? Do you know how much Turkish soldiers died in Yemen to fight for the Sunnite brotherhood? If we had trusted our real brothers rather than the artificial ones in history, life would be much more better and wealthier for us.

our real brother? what do you mean with our real brother? This looks like as racism to me.Our real brothers fought each other, more than other people. Ottomans harmed by turks more than by Europeans. 

The most important mistake of Turks was, slaughtering its own population (Alevis) and fighting with other Turks (Timur-Ottomans). And also, believing a so called Sunite brotherhood and wasting our efforts for unaccaptable dreams.

Realy what should they do? Give their empire to someone who call Shah Shah?

My aunt told me, that my grandfather, fought against the jews in the war between the palastinies and jews. I was quite suprised but it turned out that he has deeply religious and fought for Islam.

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... 

when did he fought?

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?

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.

"when did he fought?"

DayI: Don't know exactly, she didn't tell me that. But it was under the 50ties and 60ties i think...

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.

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.

I agree, both of their intention has no relation with goodness, but A standart Turk protected holy places.If I am not wrong, Turks defended medine, even after fall of ottomans.

In return they allowed unlimited immigration of Jews to Palestine.

This is wrong, Jews get their permision from Brits, neither Abdulhamit 2 (They tried to bribe him too) nor young Turks give them permission. Ironically It was arab ally brits who give this permission. Jews even fight against Ottoman at the war of dardanellas.

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.

I know Cemal pasa made some atrocities, I am not supporting Young Turks(and their nationalist campaign) and I am not accusing arabs as whole, but I think I accuse Sherif. His fight was wrong, and you are right young Turks fight was also wrong.

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?

Protected of Medine was Fahrettin Paþa. He fight even after Ottomans lost the war and signed mondros agreement, IIRC he jailed a messenger comes from ottomans, because message was to surrender medina. He said, I will not surrender Medine without order of Caliph. He try to gain time with some games, and I think he went to tomb of prophet and said "how will I left you?"

If I am not wrong,he gave medine, because of starvation and Medine people wishes for surrender.

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.

Not good of their people, Their people(If you mean Turks) have no good at Medina(Specialy after lost of war),for Prophet body. I think they took holy artifact of Prophet, and sent them to Istanbul. Because he feared Brits would own them.

I have no idea what sherief did, Maybe he couldnt take medina, or maybe just passed it, but It looks like there were fighting before surrendering city. Maybe he sieged it, with brits. Because It looks like brits have some job at there too. He surrendered Medine after 3 month of mondros agreement.

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 Paºa 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.

Yes, that is true. After all He is not a young Turk. I missunderstood you, of course he viewed arabs as his people too. Medine arabs were also friend of him too. No Turk accuse them.

But I remember something related that Brits also tried to force him to surrender Medine.

By the way, one of most know ballad is also related with Yemen. Saying "to one who go Yemen, never returned. what is the reason?"

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.

Adý yemendir= Its name is Yemen

Yolu Cemendir= The way is from grass

Giden gelmiyo= The one who goes, dont comes

Acep nedendir.= What is the reason?

Some thing like this.

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

yes, It is famous traditional song, one of saddest .

And what you said is also same. It can be said by both way.how do you know this?

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
____? gönlümü bre ____? aman
Bir sinsi firak?

This version is:

The land is Yemen

It's rose is grass

who goes never come back

what's the reason?

At that time the soldiers were sending the flowers they found at the land they fight back to their beloved ones. However in this song, the soldiers couldn't find any flowers in Yemen and they sent grass to home.