Please draw a distinction between the Turkish Armies, and the Armies of Islam.So we did, but it was not our primary concern. Thus we did not force folks to convert. Those who did not convert kept living under their customary local laws, which in many cases such as land ownership and heredity were favorable to those under which muslim subjects had to live.
I only draw that distinction to the point that the Turkish Army and Turkey spread Islam. It's an undeniable fact of history. Live with it.
We did not set out to expand Islam, but our own empire.Everybody has religious service before going to war. So do the US armed forces. Does that mean that the US is in Afghanistan to spread Christianity? No, but Pax Americana.
I suppose that's why your army had a big islamic religious service before they prepared to do battle as Islam was advancing on Austria.
There is a distinction between us, and say a crusading army of Christianity made up of all kinds of nationalities.Oh, Ok. Stolen. So were the Americas stolen? I call it conquered.
Indeed there is. Your army set out to expand its territory into areas where it previously did not exist. The crusaders set out to reclaim what had been stolen from them by Islam a few centuries prior.
We were the Turks, not the "Armies of Islam."Yeah conquered by the sword. What did you conquer by? By the rifle? Sorry, we were backward. Also, we never forced them to convert, and most did not convert.
And the Turks are an Islamic army with components of several different regions over which the ottoman turkish empire existed, including segments in of north africa, asia minor, the balkans, and elsewhere. So yes, your army was one of Islam that practiced Islam, promoted Islam, expanded Islam into the areas it conquered by the sword, and forced that Islam upon the people in those conquered regions.
Yours is the kind of thinking that Serbs used in Bosnia, and the Europeans kinda dug: namely to push Islam out of Europe.You misunderstand, I am not accusing you of endorsing those atrocities in Bosnia. I am merely pointing out that Just as the Bosnians do not embody or represent Islam, neither really does Turkey.
Don't LIE about what I stand for (after all, isn't LYING sinful in your religion?).....
I'm trying to tell you that our Armies did not belong to Islam, but to us Turks.Good! Islam was and is part of us, but we are not Islam (jeeez!). And again, the conquered had a choice. If they did not convert, that was ok. Most did not convert.
And I am responding by telling you that to suggest Islam was not a part of your armies is ABSURD because (1) historical evidence shows that Islam was a major part of those armies and (2) those armies undeniably and aggressively spread Islam with their conquests.
There's a distinction to be made there, which you may be too brainwashed by now to make.Brainwashed are always the last to know. I may be, I suppose.. But I know a bigot when I see one. I can't say you are one, but I can say that there are quite a few on this forum. Religion has always been an effective means by which populations could be motivated for war. You can see it happen right here right now. And I am not apologizing, even though I do sympathize, for Islam itself.. And I cannot apologize for the terrorists, since I am not one of them. But if you call them the forces of islam, and you call my army the force of islam too, then I have an issue with that.
You of all people have no business calling anybody else "brainwashed." Based on your posting, it is evident to me that you are so enthralled in your Islamic apologism that you will not even debate the valid points made by those who differ with you, and instead you lobby charges of "bigotry" and make false accusations (like the one you made at me) at all who disagree with your particular position. etc. etc.
So why don't you drop the smug "only I can authoritatively talk about Islam" attitude you have been expressing here and elsewhere on this forum and realize that there just may be (1) other people out there in the world who know Islam as well as if not better than you and (2) other people out there in the world who have developed both different and fully educated viewpoints than yours about Islam? Perhaps if you did that you might find yourself with a few more friends around here.You should have realized by now, my good man, that I am way too old to still be kissing ass for people to like me. Who cares.
Agree to disagree all you want, it still doesn't make you historically correct.
I remember fighting with one of my American history teachers when he called Turkey and Islamic state. No, I said, Turkey is a Secular state with a population of 98% muslims.
...which would mean that it is a predominantly Islamic state, just as any state with 98% of its population being of religion X would classify as predominantly religion X.
Neither of us would budge, I got a bad grade.
Not to be rude or anything, but it appears that grade was deserved as to deny Turkey's heavily islamic population, culture, and history is to deny reality. All three of these things make it an islamic country just like Italy's heavily roman catholic populace, background, and culture qualify it as a predominantly roman catholic country.
All in all I apreciated your post, and respect you for it. My beef was quite minor in the scheme of things, yet in advanced stages of civilization small wrinkles become meaningful, so I commented.
That's what FR is all about - commenting on things other people post.
Please draw a distinction between the Turkish Armies, and the Armies of Islam.
There is no need to draw such a distinction as that distinction would deny reality. The Turkish armies consisted almost entirely of muslims. They were historically influenced heavily and driven by Islam. They converted what they conquered to Islam. That makes them an Islamic army. No, I do not mean that in the sense that they are the same islamic army as, say, the army of Jordan. Jordan is another islamic army from a predominently islamic nation. Pakistan has another islamic army from an islamic nation. The same applies to Turkey, no matter how much you issue blanket denials of that fact.
I only draw that distinction to the point that the Turkish Army and Turkey spread Islam. It's an undeniable fact of history. Live with it.
That the Turks spread Islam is EXACTLY my point. And again, you lie as I am not denying that fact. Rather I have been asserting it from day one since you got here and randomly declared, in the face of common sense, that an army of muslims who fight and conquer in the name of islam and then convert that which they conquer to islam is somehow "not islamic."
So we did, but it was not our primary concern. Thus we did not force folks to convert.
Tell that to the eastern orthodox peasants who lived in the regions of Walachia, Kosovo, Byzantium, and Albania between 400 and 700 years ago.
Those who did not convert kept living under their customary local laws
Tell that to the parishoners in Hagia Sophia who found their beautiful church seized and turned into a mosque by the conquering Ottoman sultan right around the time he declared "I give it [Constantinople] over to you to pillage, to seize its incalculable treasure of men, women, and boys, and everything that adorns it. You will henceforward live in great happiness and leave great wealth to your children" and just shortly before he made the city his capital and decided to decree that only muslims could live there. Oh, and yes. Sultan Mehmed II was very clear in his belief that he, and the turkish armies that followed him, had participated in a religious war by sacking Constantinople. Now live with that!
which in many cases such as land ownership and heredity were favorable to those under which muslim subjects had to live
Evidently those "many cases" weren't anywhere near the great cities the Turks conquered, considering that all the non-muslims were made victim of 3 days of rape and pillage before their holiest church was desecrated and converted into a mosque and they were expelled from the new muslim-only capital.
We did not set out to expand Islam,
Yes you did. The conquerer of Constantinople himself was very clear in the assertion that he was fighting a holy war and made it a point to credit allah for his conquest of the city while he was in that city's greatest christian church, the same one he converted to a mosque shortly thereafter.
Everybody has religious service before going to war.
Only some go to war as part of what they consider their religious activity, as was the case of the Turks conquering constantinople. There's a BIG difference between saying a prayer before battle and going through a drawn out islamic spiritual "cleansing" ritual to prepare for "martyrdom" in a holy war against the infidels, who you also get to rape and pillage for three days and expell them from the city in the name of islam after you conquer them.
Oh, Ok. Stolen. So were the Americas stolen?
In certain degrees, yes. In others, no. Either way, your analogy is unworkable as it does not provide for an accurate comparison. The Americas were largely uninhabited and undeveloped when the Europeans arrived. Native populations were sparse in number, low in societal advancement, and without a state of clear nationhood beyond tribal affiliations (this was even true of the aztecs and mayas, the supposed "empires" of the americas). You cannot compare the settling of an uncivilized and sparsely inhabited continent with the militaristic conquest of one nation or city by the armies of another. It's apples to oranges.
Yeah conquered by the sword. What did you conquer by?
You mean the Americas? Shere population numbers. Sure, there were battles here and there and things got violent. But the natives were sparse in number, and were basically displaced by larger numbers of migrating civilians from more advanced societies. But again, European displacement of a sparsely populated tribal system in north america does not compare to the conquest of an established non-islamic nation by an established islamic nation via military campaign warfare.
Sorry, we were backward.
And in many respects, still are to this day.
Also, we never forced them to convert,
Yes you did. History records that those who were not islamic and did not become islamic in constantinople were subjected to 3 days of pillaging by the islamic conquerers before having their holiest church desecrated and being expelled from the city, or worse, killed outright during the pillaging.
and most did not convert.
1. Would those be the ones that were raped, the ones that were pillaged, the ones that were thrown out of their city, or all three?
2. I would have to differ with your assessment considering that the populations of many parts of Asia Minor and almost all of the Balkans are indigenous to those regions at least back to the pre-islamic conquest era, yet they are muslims now. That means that somewhere along the line, somebody converted.
You misunderstand, I am not accusing you of endorsing those atrocities in Bosnia. I am merely pointing out that Just as the Bosnians do not embody or represent Islam, neither really does Turkey.
Don't try to change the subject. You said specifically that I subscribed to a way of Serb thinking that believes muslims should be expelled from Europe. You lied. Admit it.
Good!
So you agree with me then?
Islam was and is part of us, but we are not Islam
No, but you are representatives of Islam as a religion and culture. You are one of many Islamic societies and countries in this world, each of them unique in their own ways, but all of them islamic. And yes, Turkey plays a significant part in the history of Islam's existence.
And again, the conquered had a choice. If they did not convert, that was ok. ...so long as they were willing to subject themselves to rape, pillage, and expulsion from their homes as historically happened when the turks invaded Constantinople.
Most did not convert.
Then why are so many pre-Islamic indigenous persons in the Balkans muslims today? They must've converted some time!
And I cannot apologize for the terrorists, since I am not one of them.
Good. I am happy to hear that.
But if you call them the forces of islam, and you call my army the force of islam too, then I have an issue with that.
Then what am I supposed to call your army (as in the army of the Turks over the last millenium), especially considering that in its day it committed its own fair share of unspeakable atrocities on the persons it conquered (deny it all you want, but this is documented history - the ottoman invaders conquered and subjugated innocent nations for the cause of islam).
Nobody's asking you to kiss ass. I'm simply asking you to drop your arrogant smugness regarding the subject of Islam and recognize the fact that there are other people here who have educated opinions about Islam that do differ with yours.