Turkish effect on Islam

"Janissaries sure destroyed many, but never and ever cooperated with the army of the enemy.

Especially in a war over a holy land against a Christian army.

When Jerusalem fell, all Europe rang the bells. If it was not the arabic backstab, we might have holded the place. Our army showed their valor when sacred was being protected at Gallipoli. All Turkish soldiers died while defending Jerusalem, none turned back. We conquered these lands like a Turk, we lost these lands like a Turk.

Hijaz railroads which was the only logistics support door was closed by Beduin Arabs, and was destroyed.

Even some truly guided arabs accept what temptation, what balsphemy they did, and they pay the price of it, they are still paying it. All became mandates. Palestine together with Jerusalem is in Israeli hands. Now that Turks will not recover Jerusalem for Arabs.

On the other hand there is a cooperation between Israel and Turkey.

Arabs come with Islamic Brothership cries, no, there is no such thing."

Very well said Hulagu...

well to start with. i'll ask some questions,

I will answer...

which islamic empire or caliphate considered the largest empire in the Islamic histoy ever?

Do we have to look at the sizes of the continents?

Lets re-ask the question Azimuth, how many opponents did Umayyads conquer? North Africa from Romans (which was way to hard for Romans to hold), Sassanid Empire (was left to death by Romans), Iberia from Goths, Iraic states of Transoxiana.

This is it, the complete Arabic Caliphate history.

Try to count the Ottoman Campaigns and try to count how many opponents Ottomans had to counter. Umayyad European advance was stopped in its first phases.

And please take a look at the 15th century.

Golden Horde Khanate in Russia, Timurid Emirate in Iran and Central Asia, Ottoman Sultanate in Eastern Roman World, Mamlukes in North Africa and Arabia.

Add these Turkish Empires in a map Azimuth.

Now lest look at 16th century.

Add these: Ottomans + Safavids + Baburids...

what are the percentage of the land which was occupied by the crusades compared to the islamic areas?

Do you think they would stop, if there were no agression? Do you think they would not march to Mecca?

did the Arabs has any strong state when the crusades came? did they even had a significant power?

Fatimid Egypt, who backstabbed Seljuks in the beginning.

Guys , what a coiuncidence, I have just finished reading my first crusade books, all of them. One of them is Thomas Asbridge' s First Crusade (It is the best one, I advice all). All Shiites were thinking, the first crusade was just a roman Counter attack to gain the asia minor back. So that Shiites in the beginning backed the Franks.

And it was Fatimid Caliphate who was holding Jerusalem when the Crusaders reached its gate.

what is the percentage of the Islamic countries which was under Arabic rule and which by Arabs they became muslims stayed Muslims?

to be precise, only Northern Africa and Arabia became mostly muslim. Iranian lands were mostly non muslim under Arabic rule. Islamic portion were a minority. For example Zeyarid Iranians were Zaroastrians, who in reality kicked Abbasids out of Isfahan and many Iranian lands. If Turks did not became muslim and invade Iran and forced them to convert, I highly doubt if they would become mostly muslim. I say I doubt, I do not say they would not be.

But it was Timur, who made several genocides to the Zaroastrians, it was Safavids who expanded Shiite Islam to Iran.

Oh, BTW, I do not feel pride for those, on the other hand yes this can be a shame.

what are the percentage of Islamic countries which became muslims under turkish rule stayed muslims or are muslims?

Balkanian muslim countries, Most of Iran, Indian muslims, Whole Central Asia, Caucasia, Anatolia, etc... 

who were turkish people at the first 200 years of the rise of islam? where were they?

Dude we love you, I personally like you, consider as a friend. We do not hate Arabs. When we said, no  brotherhood, you probably could not get us. We did not say no friendship.

We do not want to bash you, but face the facts. Kiss the Imperial ring of your master. Turks are the protectors and rulers of the Islamic world, never and ever forget this fact.

I do not think that this kind of topics would bring healty discussions.

First of all any nation is superior to others. There are declines and tops in the time interval of humanity and nations. Creating discrimination between people can not be acceptable.

Do not forget that Arabs established a brillant civilization during centuries.  The effect of Endulus civilization on Europe is huge but neglected. There may be differences in interpretations of Islam. Everybody is free to interpret it in its own way if they respect to others. But of course we, Muslims, should think about what was our mistakes in lagging behind. This will be the first step for the coming top.

But discussions such as "Turks were superior", "Turks saved Islam" will bring us nowhere. This is racism. Are we loosing our values respecting other peoples, beliefs? Sorry Midas but the Turkish way of thinking was not like the way you think as in this topic. We have to forget the bad memories of WW1 and look forward.  If we could establish effective educational system in Ottoman Empire Arabs would not follow British and other imperialist powers. We have stopped during 2 centuries and we are directly responsible from the current situation in Islamic world.

Self criticism would be more useful than blaming others.   

i was talking about one islamic state and it is clear that the first two caliphtes were the largest and  expanded beyond Arabia.

after that the rest of the turkish empires came up while there are not even one Arabic state with the same strength as they used to be.

so if the umayyad were lucky then you are way more lucky than them.

also islamic spain survived untill the 16th century you dont know.

yea they would Stop they dont have anything intersting for them in all Arabia. you know they stayed for like a 100 years in jerusalem before Salahdin came and took it back.

and by the way Salahdin used to give his victories over the crusades to the Caliphate of Bagdad.

Fatimides didnt back stab the seljuks they were their before the seljuks become a nation. so if you like it would be the other way around.

but anyway they where shie and the seljuks were sunnies so dont think there would be any type of union.

and dont forget that the crusades had to cross Anadolia before reaching jerusalem and all that part was under turkish controle and they failed to stop them. so its you who allowed them to take jerusalem not the Fatimides.

well the fact is more than 90% of the Umayyad caliphate lands were and are muslims and that is a great acheivements. and for the other empires in iran they were not all turkish dominations persians became muslims when the arabs were ruling

just as an example Abu muslim came from persia,and that was in the 8th century also  the Arabic caliphat harun alrashid was born in Tehran and that was also in the 8th century.

iran and what is now pakistan and afganistan and the areas around it was already under islamic controle before the turkish became powrfull state.

and these are not much compared with the area and the population Arabs controled and converted.

actully not only north africa became muslims and stayed muslims they became Arabic too plus syria lebanon and iraq.

??

what imperial ring?

and why you consider your self as  our master??? you are no better than us and we are no better than you.

but if you are so happy that you ruled some parts of the Arabic lands then dont forget that many turks were Slaves under Arabic rule and we used to buy and sell them.

Kenaney

If a intelligent (?) Turk dont attacked him, you wont get that answer.

If Ottomans were people like Hulagu, Arabs  realy had all right to rebellion.

So stop to accuse him, accuse our lovely fasist friend and blood-brother hulagu.

Hulagu are you mongol or Turk? It looks like you are more likely mongol.

I consider this as an insult and were saying "Hayvana onun konustugu dilden anlatacaksin" -a Turkish preverb

I know youre what youre answer would be; "anladiysam arab olayim"

i think am aware that you do.  i asked why.

and please provide transilations on any non-english language you use simply because this is an english language forum and to make people understand what you are trying to say.

so tell me what that you said in english.

am not saying that you are wrong, but did it really required them 100 years of expedition to mecca and medina?

as far as i know they were stronger at the begining not when Salahdin came.

well if that is true then it is obvious and clear that the 20% were in controle ( my point is that since the Arabic conquest to iran and more those areas stayed under islamic rule till today. well almost. and that an Acheivement Arab made.

similar to what india was under the Muguls. till today muslims in india is a minority and those muslims ruled india for 100s of years.

Originally posted by HulaguHan Those (slave) dudes secured your country man.

they didnt has a choise did they?

Originally posted by HulaguHan Now, without any honour, they reclaim the islamic brotherhood, which is dead already... If they want the brothership again, OK, lets continue as it was before.

well depend on what you mean "as it was before"

since Arabs wont like to be under turkish rules for obvious reasons which are you didnt care about them and treated them like secound class.

to be sure ask some syrian and lebanese about the turkish period.

also the egyptians who kicked the last turkish king 50 years ago.

you must realise that your rule werent even close to being called justic. so why would we care?

Arabs are just recovering from the 19th century's occupations and some parts still under occupation.

the educated population is increasing and that is what makes countries and civilisations advanced  its Knowledge ,

with all the trouble in the middel east and the non stop US and some European support to Israel and the non democratic Arabic states and the rest of the problems AS i see it these stuff are temorary and people are waking up and we are improving. no matter how it looks like now.

well i think if it came to a point that Turkey is demanding an apology form the Arabic states that revolted against it,  I think those Arabic states would demand Turkey to opologize for what the ottoman did to the Arabs first.

also why you keep talking about brotherhood thing? werent you who was on controle?

if it prooves anything it would proove that you are not a good rulers and not a good managers.

at the same time NOTHING at that time had to do with Islam or brotherhood. and that was clear form the treatments of the Turks to the Arabs.

Azimuth, these Turkish soldiers were hired from Turkish lands. Like Byzantines hired the Varangians.

It is true, these Turkiks drank alcohol in the streets, pillaged the bazaars, collected taxes on their own, but no account writes, these Turkish soldiers cooperated with the enemy.

And we can not claim they had no choice since they were able to depose the Caliphs and assign a new one.

But I agree with you, especially in Caliphate area, they did crimes...

but calling them as slaves, sold in markets, is far from reality.

Let me mention, in Islamic world, non-muslim government employes are "slaves". Abbasids, Iranian Samanids, and many other had "slave" soldiers.

Ottomans never let non muslims to enter any government areas, having their lesson carefully learned by Abbasid Caliphate...

Ottomans had no "slaves". They "converted " the new comings.

Intersting.....I wonder which one is harder?Kidnapping a 9 year old boy or defeating an army in battle?