Turkish effect on Islam

Originally posted by azimuth Originally posted by HulaguHan Those (slave) dudes secured your country man. they didnt has a choise did they?

No.THey didn't have a chice while capturing the throne in egypt either

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

Timur actually killed Muslims and no He never killed anybody in Yazd and Kerman (centres of Zoroasterians in Iran)

Originally posted by HulaguHan 20% of Iran was Muslim. One specalist of Timur, Prof. Dr. Ismail Aka , claims that 2 million Zaroastrians were slaughtered. Imagine their proportion.

Who said that ,actually majarity near all were muslim,And timur killed many Iranians, but they were muslims , and about number I don't know How he calculated this but actually it is a very big number killing 2 million muslims???!!!!just In iran I knew he was a wild animal but such Wild?!!!

Originally posted by HulaguHan In islamic caliphate, some of the slaves were the people who were working on governmental issues, but non muslim. So all non-muslim people were slaves.

No No No No, You again completely mixed Othman and Abbasid Chaliphate system.Every Ahl_e_ketab Christian Jewish and Zoroasterians and Saebians that were under Islamic country were considered as freemen.They must only pay Jaziyeh and they have no right to take part in any war or battle or carry arm.
Slaves were real slaves ,They were captured in Jihad with Infidals or they were bought from Muslim Turks and Pirates.Some times even Christians sold slaves to muslims.Some of them after accepting islam could achieve many post and some of them were used in military system.(Muslims can not enslave muslims and also can not enslave Non-muslims in islamic countries, but can keep a muslim slave,If a slave became Muslim ,he will not be free)
Othman system was different ,they used Dowshimeh system, It is a bit complicated and its better Tukish memeber speak about It.

Originally posted by HulaguHan The slaves Turks were the hired soldiers of Caliph Mutasim

No they were slaves that were trained and then received land or post,but they remained slave and their master even could sell them,but If usually they showed capability they would be free.

Originally posted by HulaguHan Azimuth, these Turkish soldiers were hired from Turkish lands. Like Byzantines hired the Varangians.

No No.holams were slaves ,Real slaves that accepted Islam and received military training and were attached to their master.

Originally posted by HulaguHan but calling them as slaves, sold in markets, is far from reality.

But it is true,Actually It is one of the most Ugly features of the islamic civilization.

Originally posted by HulaguHan 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...

Actually vice versa.othman used christian employees as "slaves",but these "slaves" were not as slaves in early period of Islam.It is dowshimeh system and It is a bit complicated.In abbasid Times Non-muslims in Islamic countreis could not be enslaved, but you can use slaves in any post.I'm sorry hulagu but because you don't know arabic or persian and couldn't read classical middle age stories of Islamic countries,You could not imagine condtions in Islamic countries.

Originally posted by HulaguHan Ottomans had no "slaves". They "converted " the new comings

They had.They had both traditional slaves and a special kind of "Slaves" that were different.(like jannisaries)

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

Actually except early periods of Islam , most of the turksih slaves were captured by Muslim Turks.(nobody dared to go to central Asia and kidnap a child or young man or woman).Qarakhanids were providers of majority of Turkish slaves for Islamic Countries.

Originally posted by HulaguHan said: ] Iranian lands were mostly non muslim under Arabic rule. Islamic portion were a minority. For example Zeyarid Iranians were Zaroastrians

I recommend you don't rely on Iranian nationalist sites ,They are not more trustable than Turkish nationalist Sites.Zeyarids were muslims,Hanfi sect.They just wanted to revive Sassanaid Image and memory but they were Muslim and actually majority of Iran in Time of saljuqs were muslim.

Originally posted by HulaguHan If Turks did not became muslim and invade Iran and forced them to convert, I highly doubt if they would become mostly muslim

Before Saljuq Invasion majority of Iran population were muslim.

Originally posted by ak�nc� Intersting.....I wonder which one is harder?Kidnapping a 9 year old boy or defeating an army in battle?

defeating an army in battel off course,  

 

Originally posted by ak�nc� No.THey didn't have a chice while capturing the throne in egypt either

if you mean the Memluks, they took Egypt from the Ayyobids who were'nt Arabs in orgin.

Originally posted by ak�nc� Originally posted by azimuth also islamic spain survived untill the 16th century you dont know. Yes...i remember the last king there...boabdil.remember what his mother told him in the end?He satrted crying when he lost everything and she said: "Cry like a woman for the things that you were unable to keep like a man"

if she said that then she is right, although she also has to blam his father and grandfather too.

Originally posted by ak�nc� yes that is correct,so the work of arabs was much easier

what work? having slaves?

i know its not a hard thing to do and i didnt say that it is hard.