Murat 2 I love him.  ironically, he didnt want all that power. He didnt want become a Patisah, but I  think he is  one of the best patisah ottomans saw.

I hate Sultan Selim Khan's policies and actions. He was a great conquerer but he changed the Empire's fate forever.

My favourite one is Sultan Mehmed II Khan the Conquerer, and the second is his father. They were the ones who made Ottoman Empire a European one.

On the contrary, Yavuz Sultan Selim provided security for the eastern half of the empire. Not only did he gain territorial expansion at the expense of the Safavids and Mameluks, but he put an end to their schemes of uniting in order to challenge the Ottomans.

By the way, my avatar is a portrait of Selim I

Yeah, Mahmut II did the best thing by destroying the Janissary tradition.

Yavuz tortured Turkmens and exiled them, just because they werent Sunnites. Lots of Turkmens were forcefully converted. Yavuz Selim was a religious dictator, and because he became enemies with, Safavids became more stronger and a rival of Ottoman Empire.

There was a saying, a cursin way of saying "God shall make you the vizier of Yavuz.", because he was a vezier hater, he executed more than ten viziers.

But we cant deny he was a perfect conquerer, he heavily defeated the mameluke State and conquered all their lands, he also heavily defeated the Safavids, and he became the ruler of the Islamic World, the Caliph by conquering all the holy lands. But on the other hand, controlling Arabs was more important for him than Turkmens, his own fellow people.

we had a thread about this sometime ago

anyway i think Orkhan was the best because he was like the co-founder of this empire and he didnt kill his brother after he became Begh.

the worse will be Salim who was no different from Timurlenk

Suleyman I "The Magnificent was the greatest sultan (lawgiver).

Capture Rhods,Belgrade,Mesopotamia,Alegria.,At the batlle of Mohacs he destroyed Hungarian army.

Selim is not timurlenk, this is too much for him. Oguzoglu because  of your religious sect,you have no right to blame someone. Why dont you also say, this turkmens rebelled,  they joined with iran? It was them who attacked turks before.

Azimuth why do you think  selim was like timurlenk?

i think they have similar mentality,

plus Salim killed his brothers and his father to get to the throne and he had one son only and sent him to be a governor far from istanbul.

he was paranoid, and add to all that he killed the last Abbasids Caliph egypt and assumed that he is the Caliph and took Prophet's belongings ( the one in Top Kapi Saray now) from the Caliph in Egypt.

i dont see that was that neccesary.

and timur was similar  both of them were trusting nobody and loved themselfs alot.

he didnt killed his father(He took throne  without killing) and I dont think killing brother is uncommon for ottomans.(Specially after his brothers rebelled)

 he had one son only and sent him to be a governor far from istanbul.

this  is not uncommon for ottomans to, aim of this  is to make new patisah more experienced.  IIRC he sent his son to trabzon, where he ruled before. When this tradition stoped,  we  saw more disqualified patisahs.

he was paranoid, and add to all that he killed the last Abbasids Caliph egypt and assumed that he is the Caliph and took Prophet's belongings ( the one in Top Kapi Saray now) from the Caliph in Egypt.

Sultan Selim Han, 1516 Aðustosundan beri yanýnda bulunan son Abbâsî Halifesi, Üçüncü Abdülazîz el-Mütevekkil-al-Allah Muhammed’in rýzâsý, Kâhire’den Osmanlý merkezine gönderilen Câmi’ül-Ezher Medresesi âlimleri ve Ýstanbul’daki âlimlerin meclisinde ittifakla varýlan kararla, Osmanlý pâdiþâhlarýna Sultanlýk unvâný ile berâber, Ýslâm âleminin etrâfýnda toplandýðý “Hilâfet” makâmý da verildi.

Acording to my  source, he didnt killed last Abbasids Caliph , He just get name of caliph and I dont  see much different If Prophet's belongings, stay at kahire or Istanbul.

Greatest:Mehmed II

My Favourite:Mahmud II

Mortaza,

My believs doesnt shape my political/historical opinions unlike the %34 of my country. I am not a very religious person at all. But it's right that Yavuz Selim had faulty actions against Turkmens.

The Ottomans had accepted Sunni Islam in the 13th century as a means to unifying their empire, and later proclaimed themselves its defenders against the Safavid Shia state and related heretical sects. This created a gap between the Sunni Ottoman ruling elite and the Alevi Anatolian population. Anatolia became a battlefield between Safavids and Ottomans, each determined to include it in their Empire. Ismail instigated a series of revolts culminating in a general Anatolian uprising against the Ottomans, whose Sultan Bayezid mounted a major expedition 1502-1503 which pushed the Safavids and many of their Turkmen followers into Iran. His successor, Sultan Selim I "The Grim", launched a vigorous campaign into eastern Anatolia, utilising a religious edict condemning Alevis as apostates to massacre many. In the summer of 1514 Selim launched another offensive and won the major battle of Chaldiran on the eastern side of the Euphrates, convincing the Safavids to avoid open conflict with the Ottomans for the next century, and enabling him to overcome the last independent Turkmen dynasties in eastern Anatolia in 1515-1517.

Suleyman the magnificent also ruthlessly suppressed Safavid supporters in eastern Anatolia leading three campaigns into northwest Iran. Finally in 1555 the peace of Amasya recognised Ottoman rule over Iraq and Eastern Anatolia and Iranian rule over Azerbaijan and Caucasia.

The Kizilbash in Anatolia were now militarily, politically and religiously separated from their source in Iran, retreated to isolated rural areas and turned inward, developing their unique structures and doctrines. Following the severe persecution and massacres by the Ottomans which went on into the 18th century, Alevis went underground using taqiya, religious dissimulation permitted by all Shi`a groups, to conceal their faith (pretending to be Sunnis) and survive in a hostile environment. Kizilbash and Bektashis shared common religious beliefs and practices becoming intermingled as Alevis in spite of many local variations. Isolated from both the Sunni Ottomans and the Twelver Shi`a Safavids, Alevis developed traditions, practices, and doctrines by the early 17th century which marked them as a closed autonomous religious community. As a result of the immense pressures to conform to Sunni Islam, Alevis developed a tradition of opposition to all forms of external religion.

But on the other hand, Ottoman Empire was built on the philosophies of Bektashi, because as you know, Osman Begh and his family was also Turkmens, from Kayi of Oguz. Until the reign of Selim Khan, the Bektashi and Alevi shaped all the actions of the Empire, and we can easily say they were the ones who created the Ottoman identity.

Rural Alevis were marginalised and discriminated against in the Ottoman Empire, although the official Bektashiya order enjoyed a privileged role through its close association with the Janissary professional military corps. In 1826 Sultan Mahmud II massacred the Janissaries and suppressed the Bektashi order. Yet Bektashi secret circles remained extremely active, Bektashis becoming progressive, anticlerical, and liberal, viewed suspiciously by the authorities and cooperating with others hostile to the establishment such as Freemasons and Young Turks. Until 1925 it was estimated that 10 to 20 percent of Turkey's adult male population were still members of the Bektashiya.

well i dont know what are your sources but AFAIK he forced his father to step down and then killed him, and he killed the last Abbasidds Caliph who by the way wasn't holding any political power or anything.

and i think Prophet's belongings are not supposed to be in Cairo nither in Stanbul they belong to Madina.

well, he forced his father from throne, but he didnt killed him. This is a known fact in Turkey.

he killed the last Abbasidds Calip.

I look some source to but cant find  it, do you have a link?

and i think Prophet's belongings are not supposed to be in Cairo nither in Stanbul they belong to Madina.

Well, Islam and prophet is not only belong you.He  is also our prophet.

But If vahabies show them  enough respect(I have  some doubt about this), Yes they should be sent Madina too.(Time to time, still dont ready to left them)

i dont know is this a common Turkish thing to consider everything Arabs say is about Arabs?

The prophet lived and died in that Area so i think his sowrds and everything else which used to be his are supposed to be in his house in Medina inside his Mosque  Not in a museum.

Be calm,I said we should  sent them to medina, but will vahabis respect them?

And, They are not just thing related with The prophet both other people, for  exp: Sword of Ali.

what?

i dont know from where you got your information but its false for sure the Shia are whom wanted to steal prophet's body and they digged a tunnel.

check out this http://alinaam.org.za/library/rasul/sbmosque.htm - http://alinaam.org.za/library/rasul/sbmosque.htm

and what do you mean respect it? off course they will more than Turkey at least it wont be put in a museum for anybody to see.

Azimuth If we dont trust vahabis, we have some reason. IIRC they destroyed a lot of historical  tomb and buildings,

I  think their  respect to history is not enough. And "it wont be put in a museum for anybody to see"  I dont see any wrong at  this. It was realy good to see them.

Dont  missunderstood, but  I think our respect for these are more than vahabis.

I dont ever heard Vahabis wish them did they?

i dont see you have any solid reasons, i mean no offence but your education system since Ataturk is full of hate toward Arabs, i dont know if that was  one way to get you look toward the west and be one of them and forget that you actully came from the east.

they destroyed the buildings you are talking about because they were not there before you came, not because they hate you, NO its because the way Ottoman dealed with the Graves are more like the Shieas who are making Graves Holy and start praying toward them and deviating from what the religion is about which supposed to be worshipping and praying to one god, and by praying towards others Graves whoever they are Prophets, or the Prophet's companions is not mentioned and not practice in the Early years of Islam.

note that most of the buildings ottomans or memluks built were destroyed Except the one on tope of the Prophet's Grave. which they didnt want to touch because they feard that this may effect the house and may cause damage to the grave itself.

No  you understand me wrong, I dont care If that building are Turkish or not and this is nothing related with Ataturk

I mean, If they treat tombs like this way, why do you think they will think  prophet equipment, sword of Ali or other things are sacred?

I think They should stay Turkey.

who are making Graves Holy and start praying toward them

And this is just a joke, I hope,we respect them because they are  respected muslim, we dont pray them.

I accept their place is Medine, but If they dont saw enough respect, They should stay at Turkey.

did vahabis ever want them?

 Azimuth are you wahhabi ?or not ?

Why you protect them they are the worse thing on the earth all of them with their godfather (Saudi royal family). Turkish member is right  they want to detroy everything.

And who said you can't pray near graves except  Wahhabies?

Everything secular doesnt mean they are against Arabs. No need to get paranoid. We dont have such system. But Ataturk did the right thing by getting religious laws out of national laws. If he didnt, we would have no difference other mullahocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Religion collapses improvement, that's why Europe is 500 years more developed than all Arab league states.

Coming from the east doesnt mean you should be ruled by Sheriah, and looking towards west doesnt mean you'll teach your Children how great Jesus was. It's about getting rid of religious oppression.

I dont. They belong to us. Especially Zulfikar, Arabs have no respect to that because Alevis and Shias idolize Hz. Ali, Lion of God. Turks used to protect Islam and its values against enemies, not Saudis. Turkish armies used to be fully sacrificed in Yemen and Jarusalem, not Arabic armies. So those treasure belongs to our protection, not Ottoman hater Saudi government.

But I agree on some point. They shouldnt be kept in museums where everyone can see it. I dont remember any museums in Europe with showing us the original cross etc. Religious treasure should be private to their owners, so we should keep them in more sacred places.

But about holy Zulfikar, to me, it should be hanged to the gate of Istanbul, showing everyone coming to Istanbul, with a writing under it "Belongs to Lion of God."

lf you read the next sentence i wrote after the one you quoted you will see from where i got this information

and you are saying that there are only one Sector in Shia? and the rest like the Ismaelies and the Zaydies ....etc  are not Shia??

iam from the Arabian Peninsual and from UAE and Sunni,  you call that Wahhabi ? we dont call ourselfs wahhabi or anything we call ourselfs sunnies, i think the name wahhabi came from Saudi Arabia 200 or 300 years ago.

you need to define what do you mean by Wahhabi and dont do that in this thread, please open a new one and we will have a discussion about it.

and where and when did i protected the Saudi royal family? dont accuse others without any proofs.

they are yours because you were protectors of Islam? are you joking? are you saying Memluks were against Islam? Ottoman Stole these stuff from the Memluks dont forget not from Arabs.

Ottomans didnt steal them, they earned them. Also, dont forget that Mamelukes also stole them from Arabs. So if we are to give the sword back, we wouldnt give it to Saudi government, but Egypt.

BTW, I cant see any reason for that. It's safety is important, and it is safe in Istanbul. All Muslims can come and see it in Istanbul.

well ok i wont use the word "stole",

it is true that Ottoman "took" these stuff from the Memluks  But they were with the Arab Caliph ( Caliph just by titile without any power) and not with the Memluk sulatn.

so they respected it to be with the Abbasides not with them.

the Ottomans ( Salem) took them from the Caliph and killed the Caliph and before that he ordered the Caliph to give the title to him ( salem)

plus all that the Ottomans had another sowrd which they consider holy and that didnt belog to the prophet or caliph Ali.

what sites are you talking about??

Hafez Assad is an Alevi. But it wouldnt make any difference if he was a Sunni, Shia, Naqshibendi, Ajzumendi etc. Any Arab states isnt capable of showing us any lesson. If we suddenly decide to collect all the water of ephesus in the barrage of Ataturk, 2/3 of Syria would die in one week because of thirst...

Anyway, Syria became our ally with Iran now, so we wont need to cause them die of thirst...

Which one do you mean?

So try it, then we will turn all Syrian population to fallahs...

The Caliph being an Arab, Azeri or Fin doesnt matter. Also, Mamelukes didnt leave those stuff in Medine, they took them to Egypt, so their action had no difference from Ottomans. It was like a flag race.

Yeah, I agree with you on that point. Killing the Caliph was a violent action.

Which one is that?

iam not sure if the memluks took them from Madina or they were with the Caliphs in Bagdad before the mongols, then the surviers from bagdad took them to cairo since it was not save anywhere else but there.

about that sowrd iam not sure what it called but as far as i know it was used in the ceromony of new Sultan. i think it beloned to one of the Generals sent there in the early islamic years.

Azimuth what you say what you show us, we wont send those worthfull stuff to s. arabia with his vahabbi rejim.

Inshallah one day youll go to Mekka (the holy place) and see with youre EYES how they threat their own worthfull things. I heard enough story's of my father, ok? So first go there and see it inshallah with youre eyes and then try to discuss it with me....

Like building a gambling hotel near Mekka.... Those who let build that should keep that worthfull stuff huh?

   This words are for the camel rider al-Badawi.You little camel rider.How can you any lesson to the Turks.First give the lesson to the 3 million Ýsraeli.I dont understand your Turk paranoya.Did your mother tell anything about Turks?Be calm go to a doctor for your paranoya or aTurk will be your doctor.And you arabs know how Turks are.(11th-20th century.)There will be no British,Ýndian soldiers

One advice: Learn to control your temper. Don't be easily provoked by non-sense fools.

You just acted as fool as him. He generalized, causing some neutral turks to get upset, and you repeated his mistake, causing the same damage on the other side.

I would go with Sulyman the magnificent. Definitely the empire will go to decay after him, because his reign was the heights of the Ottoman Empire in all times.

     Ok I am sorry but he really hurt my national emotions. I dont hate Arabs but this guy is always doing the same thing.This is only an answer to him , but you are right I must be calm , thanks

Mortaza, at least I do not want Turks to do this mistake.

Safavids are Turks and their empire is a Turkic empire.

But I respect your thoughts if you consider Turkomans as rebels. It is up to our perspective. I think the opposite way, Turkomans prefered another Turkic domination over Ottoman Domination.

And moreover never forget, Shah Ismail is a Seyid also. He is Turkic but has some Prophet blood in him.

Actually there is no proof that Shah Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid dynasty, is a descendant of the prophet (PBUH). Many before him and after him claimed the same. From the Fattimid of Egypt to Saddam Hussien.

Yes, Safavid are Turks, however ethnicity was not an issue those days more than the rise of Shi'ism and the battles between the two major Muslim sects.  He definitely restricted the Ottoman Empire focus on conquering Europe.

He is definitely a brilliant leader,  as in 1510, Isma'il In battle near the city of Merv, some 17,000 Iranians ambushed and defeated a superior Uzbek force numbering 28,000.  However, he was ruthless too. After the Uzbek ruler Muhammad Shaybani was caught and killed trying to escape the battle, and the shah had his skull made into a jeweled drinking goblet.

They are not Iranian, they are Safavid Turks.

No ethnicity was important, very very important... Ethnicity was the triggering of Turkoman rebellions (by siding with Timur, Akkoyunlu and Safavids) against Ottomans.

If Safavids are Iranians, with that logic Ottomans are Greco-Romans Mameluke Turks are not Turks but Arabs.

I agree with Seko.

Hulagu Han, I never said Safavid are Iranians. If you mean describing the battle of Merv where I came across the word "Iranians", then that is something else. The fact that the Safavid dynasty were Turks doesn't mean their army is a turk. They were mostly Shia Iranians.

Check again the post please.

Well, as I always say, do not be easily provoked. There are Iranian nationalist who claims everything is Iranian, including Safavids, Seljuks...etc and there are also Turks who are ultra nationalist too, just check "the kurd" thread and you will see couple who claimed Salahaddin to be a Turk!.

Just cool down, because you actually ended up addressing me ,the wrong person, for their nationalist claims.