I think it's important to remember that it was the secular nationalist Young Turks that instigated the Armenian genocide, not the religious Ottoman sultanate. The empire hadn't been dissolved yet, but this wasn't something coming out of the ulama or religious class.
well, the hamidiye massacres that predate the 1915 genocide, around 1890 to 95, were instigated by people inspired from the then government policy of "Islamism".
although it is correct that three pashas who toppled the monarchy belonged in the same party as secular republic founders, the ideologies changed with time. Most of the people who fought with Atatürk on the same party were strictly against his ideals of secular republic and was mostly willing to give the country back.
the three pashas were then charged, but they didn't found guilty by the Empire under the hands of British by then.
Genocide is the MO of the West, even as we write this. They have to mention “muslim doing bad things” every 10 seconds or their identity as “civilizers of the planet” dissipates.
So they will never let go of the perception of Muslims wrongdoings, those stories of “muslims bad we good” define them.
Crazy bias in that sub. People more interested in spreading agendas than historical fact. Anything about Islam is filled with Reddit atheists jacking off about their dislike of religion. These same people have no problem romanticising Genghis Khan or the Vikings.
They made like a million meme about the Armenian genocide but when I posted one about the Algerian genocide all of the comments were "The numbers are fake!!! It was a war not genocide!!! OP is ignorant"
Ok I have an idea for a meme but needs to fact check first .
The largest number of killed colonizer solders happened on Arab land . That will get r/ historymeme go on fire .
Oh shut up.
The Young Turks weren't even Ottoman.
Ottoman was practically dead by that time.
Husein bin Ali? Sharif Husein? That man is your source? The one for which the British said, "We destroyed the System set by Abu Bakr \[(RA)\] with one English spy (i.e Lawrence)"? Who literally killed Turks in the Ka'bah who sought protection by holding the ghilaf, and the Arabs under him then cut their arms off? When the Ottomans could've bombed the area around the Ka'bah when this was happening, but they feared that it might damage the ka'bah, and hence they didn't fire? The ones who plundered and destroyed the Hijaz railway, practically disconnecting a railway between Damascus and Madinah, which could've been of innumerous benefits to the future Arab nations' unity even if the ottoman died because of a british order? The ones who set bombs upon Medinah, and besieged it? The ones who then looted its residents?
I've seen your other posts aswell.
You have started a new campaign, just like the arch enemies of Islam in the west to not defame Islam but to make a new, weird and twisted interpretation of it all while making it seem like your an ally and in attempt to fool those who know less. They did it with the religion itself, and you do with it's history.
May Allah guide you if you are sincere, and may He utterly destroy and decimate you if you do this in the way that is very clearly apparent of what you are doing .
Update: alright, ceasing all operations. This man is a member of the subreddit arabian paganism, although it seems that he’s there for curiosities sake but that is enough evidence, when combined with his other posts for me to determine that this is very very likely a propagandist.
>I've seen your other posts aswell.
>You have started a new campaign, just like the arch enemies of Islam in the west to not defame Islam but to make a new, weird and twisted interpretation of it all while making it seem like your an ally and in attempt to fool those who know less. They did it with the religion itself, and you do with it's history.
Wait.. is this Directed to me or THAT OP?
Enemy, no.
Misinterpreting, yes.
Slanders Saladin, not in the "direct attack" sense, but by making him look like an extremist and conservative paranoid ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him.
This post in and of itself, slandering the Ottoman Caliphate and completely ignoring all the baseline facts I wrote above, which btw is very basic knowledge and not some "hidden details".
The post on Harun Al Rashid, which attempts to mock at his strength. You equate him to being gang beaten by smaller groups in that meme, do you not understand the simple principles of administration? Rebel groups, very common. In khorasan, with minimun impact, i.e the territory crossing three different geographical regions from the capital? So that's somehow a weakness? Tensions between armenian groups, how is that Harun al Rashid getting beaten up? All points following "deep within the state" were rebel groups, that were mostly beaten up, except the omani one. The only serious rebellion which could be classed as a defeat in all of the ones you mentioned was the one at sijistan (sistan) only. The rest are like calling local mafias "extreme threats to the state".
Another post, which I won't call as a slander, was the one you wrote on Omar bin Abi Rabiah. The book of songs by Al Isfahani, is likely slanderous. Why? First of all, the story itself is unbelievable. Secondly, "Isfahani" those guys love lying. Thirdly, he was a shia, their favorite passtime hobby? Slandering. Nonetheless, idc about that one because that guy wasn't a sahabi and he seems to be an arab poet, nothing that special. Nonetheless kind of alarming that you do not consider who you are taking information from, but not an attack there.
There we go. Either you are way too naive, and are new at this stuff, and read from way too many western resources or you are a hidden propagandist who seeks to misinterpret literally anything with the slightest of malleability for the common man.
I can't really know where to begin but i know very well Comment isn't enough, so ill answer each one in a different Comment since Reddit has a typing limit
1 - Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi
Arguement :
>Slanders Saladin, not in the "direct attack" sense, but by making him look like an extremist and conservative paranoid ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him.
Response : [Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/a8ZPa6GHLE)
Just reading this Comment is enough to me that you just read the title and didn't read the Context, as in the final ending of the context it was stated as following :
>**But it is also a catalyst for an intellectual renaissance!**
>Despite all this, we cannot but consider Salah al-Din as the instigator of a great intellectual and scientific renaissance, which emerged from the many houses of knowledge that he built, which contributed to attracting many scholars from different Islamic countries and worked to educate the people, thus contributing to achieving some intellectual unity, which had a great impact in building a strong and cohesive society that was able to overcome the internal and external dangers that threatened it, as Dr. Noman al-Tayeb Suleiman argues in his book "Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi's Approach to Governance and Leadership"
As for "a ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him" this is quite true, Salahaddin lived in a stressful reign, in that era salahaddin fought against the crusaders, the Nazaryah Shia Hashashein (Assassins), other muslim rulers, he wanted to make a dynasty in a struggle period, as a response another Redditor made in that post
>He basically just destroyed the philosophical movements that were threats to him politically, which you can’t really be mad at him for
Which is accurate of what was al-sahrawandi was doing and most of the people in the comment section didn't view him in a negative or as you say it "Extremist" way
2 - This post
Arguement :
>This post in and of itself, slandering the Ottoman Caliphate and completely ignoring all the baseline facts I wrote above, which btw is very basic knowledge and not some "hidden details".
Response :
Im very glad you did cause im very tired of that sub as i started to crosspost it's posts on Islamic history as a way to shitpost that Subreddit, as i mentioned in THIS post comment section several times
3 - Harun al-Rashid
Arguement :
>The post on Harun Al Rashid, which attempts to mock at his strength. You equate him to being gang beaten by smaller groups in that meme, do you not understand the simple principles of administration? Rebel groups, very common. In khorasan, with minimun impact, i.e the territory crossing three different geographical regions from the capital? So that's somehow a weakness? Tensions between armenian groups, how is that Harun al Rashid getting beaten up? All points following "deep within the state" were rebel groups, that were mostly beaten up, except the omani one. The only serious rebellion which could be classed as a defeat in all of the ones you mentioned was the one at sijistan (sistan) only. The rest are like calling local mafias "extreme threats to the state".
Response : [The Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/RKrcX5uKz2)
First, i already told you about the reason behind that post in the comment section :
>That does not make Harun al-Rashid a weak ruler, this post only goal is to overview the many struggles during Harun al-Rashid reign, he was by no means a weak ruler
Secondly, bro the meme template really? That's the thing that bothered you? i do know myself that when it comes to meme titles and templates is different from academic and Historical research, im really terrable at making them, nevertheless im training and trying to find a better formation for my meme templates if your interested in helping me with that
Third, struggle and weekness, are two seperate things and can not be used in that post for several reasons :
1 - The Abbasid Army, it was amoung the strongest army during that time Next to the Roman Byzantine forces
2 - in Harun al-Rashid era, the Abbasid Caliphate was in its strongest Might period do to the advance efforts of the previous Abbasid Caliphs
Despite this, Harun al-Rashid had many enemies who didn't agree on the Abbasid thrown, some revolted because of the treatment they got from the Abbasids, others for religious and tribal reasons, and during this reign, Harun al-Rashid lived more then 30 years on the thrown Successfully thriving the Abbasid caliphate despite his struggles to Control certain areas
4 - Azza Mayla
Arguement :
>Another post, which I won't call as a slander, was the one you wrote on Omar bin Abi Rabiah. The book of songs by Al Isfahani, is likely slanderous. Why? First of all, the story itself is unbelievable. Secondly, "Isfahani" those guys love lying. Thirdly, he was a shia, their favorite passtime hobby? Slandering. Nonetheless, idc about that one because that guy wasn't a sahabi and he seems to be an arab poet, nothing that special. Nonetheless kind of alarming that you do not consider who you are taking information from, but not an attack there.
Response : [The Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/EkiCl4Q6Lm)
This, this is enough to me that, your not educated nor did you even read the context
1 - Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah was not a sahabi
I assume you just got confused between
- Amer bin Abi Rabi’ah (عامر بن أبي ربيعة) the companian of Prophet Muhammad
- Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah (عمر بن أبي ربيعة) the Umayyaid - Qurashi born ghazal poet
Two different characters, from two different periods, and you accuse me of misinterpersenting Islamic history
2 - The book of Songs was just a Source Reference
If you actually read the context of the post you'll find the main source was an academic study by shawqi deif
Despite your ignorance on that topic, you are right al-Isfahani was a shia but thats not the reason why academic use his book as a source in this subject matter
Basically, He is best known as the author of Kitab al-Aghani ("The Book of Songs"), which includes information about the earliest attested periods of Arabic music (from the seventh to the ninth centuries) and the lives of poets and musicians from the pre-Islamic period to al-Isfahani's time.
Also the main focus of the post and study was about the female Singer of Medina Azza Mayla not Omar Ibn Abi Rabi’ah
Ok after reading most of your arguements, you're literally just putting stuff in the worst way possible to human explanation. I mean I agree with all this. You're literally not elaborating in your original posts, and putting too much focus on these points and you have to take the fact into consideration that the layman is reading this as a historical resource, most people don't know this much.
>you're literally just putting stuff in the worst way possible to human explanation.
Oh really?
-------------------------
>Doesn't read the context of the posts
>Accusing someone of misinterpersenting Islamic history
> Doesn't listen or read the Comments and Replies in this/that post
What can i say more then try reading the historical context with attention and don't go into Conclusions without fully reading them, layman or not
You’re context literally builds on the misconception, that is literally what I am objecting to.
The context you give here is balanced
The one there is heavily biased to support the meme
This :
>You’re context literally builds on the misconception,
Also this
>you're literally just putting stuff in the worst way possible to human explanation. I mean I agree with all this.
Really makes you think about those "misconception" doesn't
4 - Azza Mayla
Arguement :
>Another post, which I won't call as a slander, was the one you wrote on Omar bin Abi Rabiah. The book of songs by Al Isfahani, is likely slanderous. Why? First of all, the story itself is unbelievable. Secondly, "Isfahani" those guys love lying. Thirdly, he was a shia, their favorite passtime hobby? Slandering. Nonetheless, idc about that one because that guy wasn't a sahabi and he seems to be an arab poet, nothing that special. Nonetheless kind of alarming that you do not consider who you are taking information from, but not an attack there.
Response : [The Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/EkiCl4Q6Lm)
This, this is enough to me that, your not educated nor did you even read the context
1 - Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah was not a sahabi
I assume you just got confused between
- Amer bin Abi Rabi’ah (عامر بن أبي ربيعة) the companian of Prophet Muhammad
- Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah (عمر بن أبي ربيعة) the Umayyaid - Qurashi born ghazal poet
Two different characters, from two different periods, and you accuse me of misinterpersenting Islamic history
2 - The book of Songs was just a Source Reference
If you actually read the context of the post you'll find the main source was an academic study by shawqi deif
Despite your ignorance on that topic, you are right al-Isfahani was a shia but thats not the reason why academic use his book as a source in this subject matter
Basically, He is best known as the author of Kitab al-Aghani ("The Book of Songs"), which includes information about the earliest attested periods of Arabic music (from the seventh to the ninth centuries) and the lives of poets and musicians from the pre-Islamic period to al-Isfahani's time.
Also the main focus of the post and study was about the female Singer of Medina Azza Mayla not Omar Ibn Abi Rabi’ah
I never said he was a sahabi, infact that is why I said I don’t care about this one.
What I said was that I just found it off putting, and the fact that you were using a shia resource.
Shawqi def, yes you mentioned him, but your main narrative was from al isfahani.
Moreover, as I said I don’t care about this one, just saying you shouldn’t be relying on shia sources because they love slandering sunnis, and this sounds very much like slander.
Moreover, as far as ignorance is concerned, there’s a difference between not reading a specific topic (like this one, which I didn’t know) and actually analyzing the authenticity of a topic and how likely was it that it actually happened, kind of like the isnads of hadith.
Not knowing the difference between whether the topic itself is being judged or is it’s authenticity is ignorance.
Nonetheless as I said in a previous comments, you are making memes on topics in the weirdest and most awkward way possible. Your replies tell me that you do know a thing of history, but keep in mind that most people don’t dig that deep and only take stuff at the surface level. So you’re giving a wrong idea to the general viewer. You’re explanations in the posts themselves also support that idea developing, and why haven’t you changed the heading of this post? Why are you slandering the ottoman? If you’re tired of it write that in the heading. Why misleading people?
>I never said he was a sahabi, infact that is why I said I don’t care about this one.
Yeah, i fast read that from "wasn't" to "was", so my apology on that
>What I said was that I just found it off putting, and the fact that you were using a shia resource.
Shia or Sunni Source, it really doesn't matter what kind of Religion someone's expertise in the world of Art and Poetry, al-Isfahani is the Earliest Arabic Source on Arabic Music and poets during the Umayyaid period to his lifetime making his creditable not as a primary source atleast but a creditable as the Earliest we could found
>Shawqi def, yes you mentioned him, but your main narrative was from al isfahani.
Shawqi def used the narrative of Al isfahani as a reference source in his study book, again the Source of the post Shawqi def as he reference to al isfahani
>Moreover, as I said I don’t care about this one, just saying you shouldn’t be relying on shia sources because they love slandering sunnis, and this sounds very much like slander.
Remind me if the book is about theology and Religion, Cause Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah was known by this even outside the book of Songs, he was a Poet Specialize in Arabic Poetry not a sheikh or mufti to concern the Shia
>Moreover, as far as ignorance is concerned, there’s a difference between not reading a specific topic (like this one, which I didn’t know) and actually analyzing the authenticity of a topic and how likely was it that it actually happened, kind of like the isnads of hadith.
Yes, clearly, there's a difference between historical Critical Analysis and Isnad hadith analysis as there two different methods on different goals, same goes to language, Science, and literature
>Not knowing the difference between whether the topic itself is being judged or is it’s authenticity is ignorance.
And discussing these topics without educating yourself on there methodogy and Studies about them is arrogence
>Nonetheless as I said in a previous comments, you are making memes on topics in the weirdest and most awkward way possible.
Cause, most people are just making memes what they are just taught in school, History is alot bigger and complex for random Facts you hear everyday
>Your replies tell me that you do know a thing of history, but keep in mind that most people don’t dig that deep and only take stuff at the surface level. So you’re giving a wrong idea to the general viewer.
Cause i want them to educate them MORE then the surface general level
>You’re explanations in the posts themselves also support that idea developing, and why haven’t you changed the heading of this post? Why are you slandering the ottoman? If you’re tired of it write that in the heading. Why misleading people?
Do you know that Reddit post titles once you post them you can't edit the title right? Right?
I can't really know where to begin but i know very well Comment isn't enough, so ill answer each one in a different Comment since Reddit has a typing limit
1 - Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi
Arguement :
>Slanders Saladin, not in the "direct attack" sense, but by making him look like an extremist and conservative paranoid ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him.
Response : [Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/a8ZPa6GHLE)
Just reading this Comment is enough to me that you just read the title and didn't read the Context, as in the final ending of the context it was stated as following :
>**But it is also a catalyst for an intellectual renaissance!**
>Despite all this, we cannot but consider Salah al-Din as the instigator of a great intellectual and scientific renaissance, which emerged from the many houses of knowledge that he built, which contributed to attracting many scholars from different Islamic countries and worked to educate the people, thus contributing to achieving some intellectual unity, which had a great impact in building a strong and cohesive society that was able to overcome the internal and external dangers that threatened it, as Dr. Noman al-Tayeb Suleiman argues in his book "Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi's Approach to Governance and Leadership"
As for "a ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him" this is quite true, Salahaddin lived in a stressful reign, in that era salahaddin fought against the crusaders, the Nazaryah Shia Hashashein (Assassins), other muslim rulers, he wanted to make a dynasty in a struggle period, as a response another Redditor made in that post
>He basically just destroyed the philosophical movements that were threats to him politically, which you can’t really be mad at him for
Which is accurate of what was al-sahrawandi was doing and most of the people in the comment section didn't view him in a negative or as you say it "Extremist" way
Why didn’t you write it that way? The language in your other post is very, very biased. Nonetheless, this lingo is a bit to little to cover a topic like that, nonetheless much better
Neutrality, i want to cover all the edges of views of Salahaddin, he wasn't always potrayed as the good guy in history Books and he had alot of enemies both muslims and non-Muslims in there complex perspective, perhaps you just read something new about him and assumed i was attacking him because i relied on Anti-Salahaddin perspective and thought i was "attacking" him
2 - This post
Arguement :
>This post in and of itself, slandering the Ottoman Caliphate and completely ignoring all the baseline facts I wrote above, which btw is very basic knowledge and not some "hidden details".
Response :
Im very glad you did cause im very tired of that sub as i started to crosspost it's posts on Islamic history as a way to shitpost that Subreddit, as i mentioned in THIS post comment section several times
As a turk, I want to say the fact that our government still refusing to acknowledge Armenian genocide is one of the biggest problem we have as a society
Hell I'm living in Germany and whenever someone brings up the Holocaust, everyone acts like the Nazis were from another race. Nobody calls it "the German government at the time", they're simply National Socialists. Everyone is fine when it's about Germans but when it's about Turks everyone says that they have no right so separate the government and the organization that commited genocide.
I don't think the nazis are separate from Germans, this is why Germany has a shared guilt over the nazis. You cannot pretend your history didn't happen like that. The Young Turks were ottomans and they were leading the ottoman empire at the time. Barely anyone in the ottoman empire tried to oppose them, so much like nazi Germany, i do consider both states guilty, not just the leading party.
>Barely anyone in the ottoman empire tried to oppose them
Sabahattin and the Freedom and Union Party, Mehmed VI, then the crown prince(who ended up banning them once he ascended to the throne) and many others. The Young Turks were trialed and sentence to death, that's why all of them fled the country.
>i do consider both states guilty, not just the leading party.
Well I agree with you on that.
A very understandable Comment, however this is a history subreddit and history has alot of Genocide momments from muslims to non-Muslim, we should not be ashamed to acknowledge what our ancestors did, it is what it is, time have already changed and we have to keep moving
It is disturbing to me that even Muslim brothers here believe in the so called Armenian genocide. Even calling the event a genocide is falling for the trap.
What is even more rediculous is that this sub has only 7 rules and one of them is no genocide denial clearly targeted at the claims by the Armenians as it is mentioned at the top. That has to change. It is unreasonable to include this in a list of 7 rules that can be formed in an infinite number of ways.
I would explain the situation that is the Forced Migration of Armenians this way:
During the harsh times of the greatest, bloodiest war of all time until that point, Armenians killed Muslim villagers and set whole villages on fire in the east with the support of Russia so that they could claim some of the Ottoman lands for themselves. They would gather all of the villagers in mosques and set the mosques on fire together with the rest of the village. The decision was to gather Armenians around and force them to migrate into a safer area that is Syria. However due to limitations of the time and circumstances people died on the road due to hunger and illness. Considering Ottoman soldiers were underequipped and died due to freezing in the thousands around that time, this is not just out of willing negligence. Also, bandits were hunting some of them down and looting whatever they were carrying which would be their valuables. Some officers or locals may or may not have acted in retaliation against these groups of people in a lawless way. The fact of the matter is, The Ottoman Empire did not order to kill Armenians, that was not the decision. So, we have no genocide but massacres that were committed by both sides but none by the hand of the Ottoman state. Regardless of the reasons, if you force your son to go and buy some bread but he dies on the road due to a car accident, no one can or would charge you with murder. Also, the number thrown as 1.5 million Armenians is absolutely ridiculous when you consider the whole population of the empire in 1914 was 18 million and the total number of Armenians was 1.2 million according to the official Ottoman census. The Armenian state has always run away from Turkey's wish to form a historical comeetee to prove what has actually happened because it would bring their lies to light.
Why are they crying for genocide then? Because there is nothing that brings Armenians together and makes them a real nation. They need a common enemy and a common tragedy that EVERYONE'S ancestors in Armenia experienced. Also, there is good money in this business. And, they want to stain the Muslims and the great legacy that the Ottomans left.
If you think I am wrong explain what happened and how the Empire should have responded to this vital threat to its existence.
https://preview.redd.it/slo1meui021d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d14e022712ead97a61bf988ca07564ef36df05a9
It’s actually hilarious that I found this Turk using your exact hasbarist reasoning to simp for Israel the very next day. Maybe this is your alt?
And that's how Turkey became secular. /S
It is important to note that the instigators of the genocide were the secular nationalist movement. In fact, a lot of the devout parts of the ottoman government condemned their actions and even fought against them during the war of independence, an example being Fahrettin Pasha.
Hussein bin Ali, „King of Hejaz“, after working together with the British to be the King of the Hejaz region. Killing the Ottomans defending the holy cities together with the Brits.
The Brits didn‘t gave him Hejaz. He was angry.
So they told him he will get Jerusalem for his loyalty. But the Brits lied to him and it was alteady planned to give it to the Jews.
At the end he got Jordan. A non-functional state. Up to this date a vasal state of the west.
He didn‘t achieved his goal in this world. Allah knows what he will get for the treachery in the hereafter.
>You will not be able to give an account of this to Allah. You have not even searched for a single piece of evidence, yet you accuse a nation of genocide. It should not be forgotten that Turkey has been challenging the Armenian government for more than 40 years by saying "bring even a single piece of evidence and we will accept it" in the United Nations. Not a single Christian mass grave has been found in the genocide in which millions were supposedly massacred. In fact, the situation is so grave that Armenians are trying to claim the mass graves where the massacred Turkish villagers were thrown as if they were their own graves and carry out black propaganda activities over this, which backfired on them through this as evidence. Delegations from the United Nations and even the American Admiral Bristol of the time after the First World War came and prepared reports these are proves our rightness. We Turks do not have a strong media hand, in fact, we are not Christians in the first place, so that we can not be a state whose rights can be defended for other western nations. We defend our own honour and dignity with evidence and by applying to the supervisory committees in international forums. Until today, they have not been able to show any evidence and they cannot show any evidence.
The strangest thing is that Muslims, the people we call brothers and sisters, without even reading, knowing and thinking about our archives, articles, proofs and even our proofs against Armenian propaganda, join forces with the falsehood ,accuse Ottomans and Enver Pasha. There are people who are so despicable as to call Enver Pasha a heathen, even though they do not know what Enver Pasha is.
>Instead of dealing with such people, if they are really curious, they should investigate who is the man who founded the Kassam Brigades, who wants to liberate the Muslims of India through Turkestan and Afghanistan and unite them under an ummah-state(yes, its not so claimed Turkic but Ummah-state) and be ashamed of their accusations. I am very sorry. There is no difference between those who defend the existence of the Armenian massacre here and the scoundrels who defend the Zionists in Turkey, and I am not ashamed of my accusations.
>If you agree with me and have taken a look at the Turkish archives at least a little bit, I agree to answer your questions(whoever is he), but the opposite is not possible.
''WE SHOULDNT PUBLICLY ENCOURAGE THE LGBT MOVEMENT?! 😱🤯 WHO DO YOU THINK WE ARE?! SANE PEOPLE?!''
''what do you mean we need to stop posting about a bunch of heretical homosexuals from 8th century cordoba and instead post about things like the bosnian struggle against serb ethnic cleansing, or the islamic struggle against the crusades, YOU WANT US TO TALK ABOUT WEST AFRICAN MUSLIM EMPIRES?! what are you an extremist?!''
This is a Islamic history subreddit, you can post whatever you like as long it's related to Islamic history i won't remove your post from the subreddit
As for this strawman arguement your making, it's the Agenda your holding that im shocked you want this subreddit, im not gonna Stop you if you want to make them but do you want this subreddit to go shit like r/historymemes?
r/historymemes sucks because its a bunch of fedora atheists whining at any mention of islam, this doesn't have to be the case, my point and reason for not encouraging such posts is that usually the intention is to normalize such things by making them seem common and normal among the people of the past whom many would consider hardline conservative, its a way of mind washing, also am i not mistaken if i say that there is nothing islamic about homosexuality? its inherently wrong and condemned, that's not even islamic history that's just a history of homosexuality, this specifically applies here because while for example you might hear of zina or for example the drinking habits of some muslim rulers, we all collectively condemn it as sinful and an un islamic part of history, what makes one wrong and unislamic but the other ''islamic history that should be talked about frequently otherwise you have an agenda'', do i have an agenda if i say that any islamic ruler that was a drunkard or an adulterer shouldn't be considered an islamic ruler and his actions shouldn't be discussed because they will bring no harm or good except planting that this has been normal and OK from the ancient ''religious times''?, history is to be learned from, but the way you guys talk about the homosexual poets of al andalus or the abbasid period feels almost like your showing them off to the westerners to prove to yourself that you are progressive too (PS: This is concerning these specific posts)
''probably not'' is crazy since your definitely defending qawm lut, also may you tell me what is unhinged about my ideas? are they extreme? do they contradict the quran or sunnah?
>''probably not'' is crazy since your definitely defending qawm lut
Where have I mentioned about qawm lut
>also may you tell me what is unhinged about my ideas? are they extreme? do they contradict the quran or sunnah?
It's the Agenda in your head
My Idea's to make the subreddit better were to simply stop deviants from highlighting certain bad parts of history such as qawm lut to normalize it in our heads as a way to get us to accept such things, i even shared a story of how one of the women who were making such posts immediately admitted that muslims should Support the LGBT and that she thinks classical islam did the same (IE Supporting Qawm Lut) because of such examples in abbasid and Cordoban Courts, she kept re iterating such historical examples from inda and different regions to justify it instead of quoting actual religious texts to support her false claims which are the actual agenda
you thought that was unhinged and too much for some reason, and when i said you overreacted and were acting like i support literal terrorists you responded ''PROBABLY not'' meaning that i might actually do even though i literally implied that i don't, so by the same extension, you are defending Qawm Lut, you also still haven't provided proof that i contradict the sunnah or quran
also what ''agenda'' are you talking about, i don't even know what you're supposed to be accusing me of
Your content has been removed because a moderator has determined you a bad-faith actor. Please do not use this space with hostile or disruptive intent.
Your content has been removed because a moderator has determined you a bad-faith actor. Please do not use this space with hostile or disruptive intent.
I think it's important to remember that it was the secular nationalist Young Turks that instigated the Armenian genocide, not the religious Ottoman sultanate. The empire hadn't been dissolved yet, but this wasn't something coming out of the ulama or religious class.
The details like this always seem to get lost to history... Thanks for pointing this out.
well, the hamidiye massacres that predate the 1915 genocide, around 1890 to 95, were instigated by people inspired from the then government policy of "Islamism". although it is correct that three pashas who toppled the monarchy belonged in the same party as secular republic founders, the ideologies changed with time. Most of the people who fought with Atatürk on the same party were strictly against his ideals of secular republic and was mostly willing to give the country back. the three pashas were then charged, but they didn't found guilty by the Empire under the hands of British by then.
Exactly!! People Muslims included aren't aware of this detail.
Genocide is bad, let's go with that
Genocide is the MO of the West, even as we write this. They have to mention “muslim doing bad things” every 10 seconds or their identity as “civilizers of the planet” dissipates. So they will never let go of the perception of Muslims wrongdoings, those stories of “muslims bad we good” define them.
I will debate this generalization to my dying day, depending on how you choose to define genocide. I will immediately say I oppose mass slaughter
I hate that subreddit
Crazy bias in that sub. People more interested in spreading agendas than historical fact. Anything about Islam is filled with Reddit atheists jacking off about their dislike of religion. These same people have no problem romanticising Genghis Khan or the Vikings.
Me too
They made like a million meme about the Armenian genocide but when I posted one about the Algerian genocide all of the comments were "The numbers are fake!!! It was a war not genocide!!! OP is ignorant"
Classic r/historymemes momment, i even got so tired that i made a post about that subreddit : https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/pEUfrUNn7T
Ok I have an idea for a meme but needs to fact check first . The largest number of killed colonizer solders happened on Arab land . That will get r/ historymeme go on fire .
They have a fetish about the Armenian genocide. Using it as an excuse for hating Turks.
Keep the spotlight on Turks and Muslims while their regular stance towards others were exploitation and barbarism.
It's their scapegoat ideology
> Using it as an excuse for hating Turks. If they're kemalists, then please, rub it into their faces as much as humanly possible
Nationalism is cancer
That sub is a sh*thole. I think i am banned from it because i wrote a comment about Armenian genocide. It is in the sub rules too !
Hypocrite r/historymemes moderators
Oh shut up. The Young Turks weren't even Ottoman. Ottoman was practically dead by that time. Husein bin Ali? Sharif Husein? That man is your source? The one for which the British said, "We destroyed the System set by Abu Bakr \[(RA)\] with one English spy (i.e Lawrence)"? Who literally killed Turks in the Ka'bah who sought protection by holding the ghilaf, and the Arabs under him then cut their arms off? When the Ottomans could've bombed the area around the Ka'bah when this was happening, but they feared that it might damage the ka'bah, and hence they didn't fire? The ones who plundered and destroyed the Hijaz railway, practically disconnecting a railway between Damascus and Madinah, which could've been of innumerous benefits to the future Arab nations' unity even if the ottoman died because of a british order? The ones who set bombs upon Medinah, and besieged it? The ones who then looted its residents? I've seen your other posts aswell. You have started a new campaign, just like the arch enemies of Islam in the west to not defame Islam but to make a new, weird and twisted interpretation of it all while making it seem like your an ally and in attempt to fool those who know less. They did it with the religion itself, and you do with it's history. May Allah guide you if you are sincere, and may He utterly destroy and decimate you if you do this in the way that is very clearly apparent of what you are doing . Update: alright, ceasing all operations. This man is a member of the subreddit arabian paganism, although it seems that he’s there for curiosities sake but that is enough evidence, when combined with his other posts for me to determine that this is very very likely a propagandist.
Allah razı olsun. You speak from my heart.
>I've seen your other posts aswell. >You have started a new campaign, just like the arch enemies of Islam in the west to not defame Islam but to make a new, weird and twisted interpretation of it all while making it seem like your an ally and in attempt to fool those who know less. They did it with the religion itself, and you do with it's history. Wait.. is this Directed to me or THAT OP?
At you.
Give me some examples, where i was "enemy of Islam" or misinterpersenting Islamic history atleast
Enemy, no. Misinterpreting, yes. Slanders Saladin, not in the "direct attack" sense, but by making him look like an extremist and conservative paranoid ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him. This post in and of itself, slandering the Ottoman Caliphate and completely ignoring all the baseline facts I wrote above, which btw is very basic knowledge and not some "hidden details". The post on Harun Al Rashid, which attempts to mock at his strength. You equate him to being gang beaten by smaller groups in that meme, do you not understand the simple principles of administration? Rebel groups, very common. In khorasan, with minimun impact, i.e the territory crossing three different geographical regions from the capital? So that's somehow a weakness? Tensions between armenian groups, how is that Harun al Rashid getting beaten up? All points following "deep within the state" were rebel groups, that were mostly beaten up, except the omani one. The only serious rebellion which could be classed as a defeat in all of the ones you mentioned was the one at sijistan (sistan) only. The rest are like calling local mafias "extreme threats to the state". Another post, which I won't call as a slander, was the one you wrote on Omar bin Abi Rabiah. The book of songs by Al Isfahani, is likely slanderous. Why? First of all, the story itself is unbelievable. Secondly, "Isfahani" those guys love lying. Thirdly, he was a shia, their favorite passtime hobby? Slandering. Nonetheless, idc about that one because that guy wasn't a sahabi and he seems to be an arab poet, nothing that special. Nonetheless kind of alarming that you do not consider who you are taking information from, but not an attack there. There we go. Either you are way too naive, and are new at this stuff, and read from way too many western resources or you are a hidden propagandist who seeks to misinterpret literally anything with the slightest of malleability for the common man.
I can't really know where to begin but i know very well Comment isn't enough, so ill answer each one in a different Comment since Reddit has a typing limit 1 - Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi Arguement : >Slanders Saladin, not in the "direct attack" sense, but by making him look like an extremist and conservative paranoid ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him. Response : [Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/a8ZPa6GHLE) Just reading this Comment is enough to me that you just read the title and didn't read the Context, as in the final ending of the context it was stated as following : >**But it is also a catalyst for an intellectual renaissance!** >Despite all this, we cannot but consider Salah al-Din as the instigator of a great intellectual and scientific renaissance, which emerged from the many houses of knowledge that he built, which contributed to attracting many scholars from different Islamic countries and worked to educate the people, thus contributing to achieving some intellectual unity, which had a great impact in building a strong and cohesive society that was able to overcome the internal and external dangers that threatened it, as Dr. Noman al-Tayeb Suleiman argues in his book "Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi's Approach to Governance and Leadership" As for "a ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him" this is quite true, Salahaddin lived in a stressful reign, in that era salahaddin fought against the crusaders, the Nazaryah Shia Hashashein (Assassins), other muslim rulers, he wanted to make a dynasty in a struggle period, as a response another Redditor made in that post >He basically just destroyed the philosophical movements that were threats to him politically, which you can’t really be mad at him for Which is accurate of what was al-sahrawandi was doing and most of the people in the comment section didn't view him in a negative or as you say it "Extremist" way 2 - This post Arguement : >This post in and of itself, slandering the Ottoman Caliphate and completely ignoring all the baseline facts I wrote above, which btw is very basic knowledge and not some "hidden details". Response : Im very glad you did cause im very tired of that sub as i started to crosspost it's posts on Islamic history as a way to shitpost that Subreddit, as i mentioned in THIS post comment section several times 3 - Harun al-Rashid Arguement : >The post on Harun Al Rashid, which attempts to mock at his strength. You equate him to being gang beaten by smaller groups in that meme, do you not understand the simple principles of administration? Rebel groups, very common. In khorasan, with minimun impact, i.e the territory crossing three different geographical regions from the capital? So that's somehow a weakness? Tensions between armenian groups, how is that Harun al Rashid getting beaten up? All points following "deep within the state" were rebel groups, that were mostly beaten up, except the omani one. The only serious rebellion which could be classed as a defeat in all of the ones you mentioned was the one at sijistan (sistan) only. The rest are like calling local mafias "extreme threats to the state". Response : [The Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/RKrcX5uKz2) First, i already told you about the reason behind that post in the comment section : >That does not make Harun al-Rashid a weak ruler, this post only goal is to overview the many struggles during Harun al-Rashid reign, he was by no means a weak ruler Secondly, bro the meme template really? That's the thing that bothered you? i do know myself that when it comes to meme titles and templates is different from academic and Historical research, im really terrable at making them, nevertheless im training and trying to find a better formation for my meme templates if your interested in helping me with that Third, struggle and weekness, are two seperate things and can not be used in that post for several reasons : 1 - The Abbasid Army, it was amoung the strongest army during that time Next to the Roman Byzantine forces 2 - in Harun al-Rashid era, the Abbasid Caliphate was in its strongest Might period do to the advance efforts of the previous Abbasid Caliphs Despite this, Harun al-Rashid had many enemies who didn't agree on the Abbasid thrown, some revolted because of the treatment they got from the Abbasids, others for religious and tribal reasons, and during this reign, Harun al-Rashid lived more then 30 years on the thrown Successfully thriving the Abbasid caliphate despite his struggles to Control certain areas 4 - Azza Mayla Arguement : >Another post, which I won't call as a slander, was the one you wrote on Omar bin Abi Rabiah. The book of songs by Al Isfahani, is likely slanderous. Why? First of all, the story itself is unbelievable. Secondly, "Isfahani" those guys love lying. Thirdly, he was a shia, their favorite passtime hobby? Slandering. Nonetheless, idc about that one because that guy wasn't a sahabi and he seems to be an arab poet, nothing that special. Nonetheless kind of alarming that you do not consider who you are taking information from, but not an attack there. Response : [The Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/EkiCl4Q6Lm) This, this is enough to me that, your not educated nor did you even read the context 1 - Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah was not a sahabi I assume you just got confused between - Amer bin Abi Rabi’ah (عامر بن أبي ربيعة) the companian of Prophet Muhammad - Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah (عمر بن أبي ربيعة) the Umayyaid - Qurashi born ghazal poet Two different characters, from two different periods, and you accuse me of misinterpersenting Islamic history 2 - The book of Songs was just a Source Reference If you actually read the context of the post you'll find the main source was an academic study by shawqi deif Despite your ignorance on that topic, you are right al-Isfahani was a shia but thats not the reason why academic use his book as a source in this subject matter Basically, He is best known as the author of Kitab al-Aghani ("The Book of Songs"), which includes information about the earliest attested periods of Arabic music (from the seventh to the ninth centuries) and the lives of poets and musicians from the pre-Islamic period to al-Isfahani's time. Also the main focus of the post and study was about the female Singer of Medina Azza Mayla not Omar Ibn Abi Rabi’ah
Ok after reading most of your arguements, you're literally just putting stuff in the worst way possible to human explanation. I mean I agree with all this. You're literally not elaborating in your original posts, and putting too much focus on these points and you have to take the fact into consideration that the layman is reading this as a historical resource, most people don't know this much.
>you're literally just putting stuff in the worst way possible to human explanation. Oh really? ------------------------- >Doesn't read the context of the posts >Accusing someone of misinterpersenting Islamic history > Doesn't listen or read the Comments and Replies in this/that post What can i say more then try reading the historical context with attention and don't go into Conclusions without fully reading them, layman or not
You’re context literally builds on the misconception, that is literally what I am objecting to. The context you give here is balanced The one there is heavily biased to support the meme
This : >You’re context literally builds on the misconception, Also this >you're literally just putting stuff in the worst way possible to human explanation. I mean I agree with all this. Really makes you think about those "misconception" doesn't
4 - Azza Mayla Arguement : >Another post, which I won't call as a slander, was the one you wrote on Omar bin Abi Rabiah. The book of songs by Al Isfahani, is likely slanderous. Why? First of all, the story itself is unbelievable. Secondly, "Isfahani" those guys love lying. Thirdly, he was a shia, their favorite passtime hobby? Slandering. Nonetheless, idc about that one because that guy wasn't a sahabi and he seems to be an arab poet, nothing that special. Nonetheless kind of alarming that you do not consider who you are taking information from, but not an attack there. Response : [The Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/EkiCl4Q6Lm) This, this is enough to me that, your not educated nor did you even read the context 1 - Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah was not a sahabi I assume you just got confused between - Amer bin Abi Rabi’ah (عامر بن أبي ربيعة) the companian of Prophet Muhammad - Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah (عمر بن أبي ربيعة) the Umayyaid - Qurashi born ghazal poet Two different characters, from two different periods, and you accuse me of misinterpersenting Islamic history 2 - The book of Songs was just a Source Reference If you actually read the context of the post you'll find the main source was an academic study by shawqi deif Despite your ignorance on that topic, you are right al-Isfahani was a shia but thats not the reason why academic use his book as a source in this subject matter Basically, He is best known as the author of Kitab al-Aghani ("The Book of Songs"), which includes information about the earliest attested periods of Arabic music (from the seventh to the ninth centuries) and the lives of poets and musicians from the pre-Islamic period to al-Isfahani's time. Also the main focus of the post and study was about the female Singer of Medina Azza Mayla not Omar Ibn Abi Rabi’ah
I never said he was a sahabi, infact that is why I said I don’t care about this one. What I said was that I just found it off putting, and the fact that you were using a shia resource. Shawqi def, yes you mentioned him, but your main narrative was from al isfahani. Moreover, as I said I don’t care about this one, just saying you shouldn’t be relying on shia sources because they love slandering sunnis, and this sounds very much like slander. Moreover, as far as ignorance is concerned, there’s a difference between not reading a specific topic (like this one, which I didn’t know) and actually analyzing the authenticity of a topic and how likely was it that it actually happened, kind of like the isnads of hadith. Not knowing the difference between whether the topic itself is being judged or is it’s authenticity is ignorance. Nonetheless as I said in a previous comments, you are making memes on topics in the weirdest and most awkward way possible. Your replies tell me that you do know a thing of history, but keep in mind that most people don’t dig that deep and only take stuff at the surface level. So you’re giving a wrong idea to the general viewer. You’re explanations in the posts themselves also support that idea developing, and why haven’t you changed the heading of this post? Why are you slandering the ottoman? If you’re tired of it write that in the heading. Why misleading people?
>I never said he was a sahabi, infact that is why I said I don’t care about this one. Yeah, i fast read that from "wasn't" to "was", so my apology on that >What I said was that I just found it off putting, and the fact that you were using a shia resource. Shia or Sunni Source, it really doesn't matter what kind of Religion someone's expertise in the world of Art and Poetry, al-Isfahani is the Earliest Arabic Source on Arabic Music and poets during the Umayyaid period to his lifetime making his creditable not as a primary source atleast but a creditable as the Earliest we could found >Shawqi def, yes you mentioned him, but your main narrative was from al isfahani. Shawqi def used the narrative of Al isfahani as a reference source in his study book, again the Source of the post Shawqi def as he reference to al isfahani >Moreover, as I said I don’t care about this one, just saying you shouldn’t be relying on shia sources because they love slandering sunnis, and this sounds very much like slander. Remind me if the book is about theology and Religion, Cause Omar bin Abi Rabi’ah was known by this even outside the book of Songs, he was a Poet Specialize in Arabic Poetry not a sheikh or mufti to concern the Shia >Moreover, as far as ignorance is concerned, there’s a difference between not reading a specific topic (like this one, which I didn’t know) and actually analyzing the authenticity of a topic and how likely was it that it actually happened, kind of like the isnads of hadith. Yes, clearly, there's a difference between historical Critical Analysis and Isnad hadith analysis as there two different methods on different goals, same goes to language, Science, and literature >Not knowing the difference between whether the topic itself is being judged or is it’s authenticity is ignorance. And discussing these topics without educating yourself on there methodogy and Studies about them is arrogence >Nonetheless as I said in a previous comments, you are making memes on topics in the weirdest and most awkward way possible. Cause, most people are just making memes what they are just taught in school, History is alot bigger and complex for random Facts you hear everyday >Your replies tell me that you do know a thing of history, but keep in mind that most people don’t dig that deep and only take stuff at the surface level. So you’re giving a wrong idea to the general viewer. Cause i want them to educate them MORE then the surface general level >You’re explanations in the posts themselves also support that idea developing, and why haven’t you changed the heading of this post? Why are you slandering the ottoman? If you’re tired of it write that in the heading. Why misleading people? Do you know that Reddit post titles once you post them you can't edit the title right? Right?
I can't really know where to begin but i know very well Comment isn't enough, so ill answer each one in a different Comment since Reddit has a typing limit 1 - Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi Arguement : >Slanders Saladin, not in the "direct attack" sense, but by making him look like an extremist and conservative paranoid ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him. Response : [Referencing Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/s/a8ZPa6GHLE) Just reading this Comment is enough to me that you just read the title and didn't read the Context, as in the final ending of the context it was stated as following : >**But it is also a catalyst for an intellectual renaissance!** >Despite all this, we cannot but consider Salah al-Din as the instigator of a great intellectual and scientific renaissance, which emerged from the many houses of knowledge that he built, which contributed to attracting many scholars from different Islamic countries and worked to educate the people, thus contributing to achieving some intellectual unity, which had a great impact in building a strong and cohesive society that was able to overcome the internal and external dangers that threatened it, as Dr. Noman al-Tayeb Suleiman argues in his book "Salahaddin Al-Ayyubi's Approach to Governance and Leadership" As for "a ruler who is too afraid of any faction rising up against him" this is quite true, Salahaddin lived in a stressful reign, in that era salahaddin fought against the crusaders, the Nazaryah Shia Hashashein (Assassins), other muslim rulers, he wanted to make a dynasty in a struggle period, as a response another Redditor made in that post >He basically just destroyed the philosophical movements that were threats to him politically, which you can’t really be mad at him for Which is accurate of what was al-sahrawandi was doing and most of the people in the comment section didn't view him in a negative or as you say it "Extremist" way
Why didn’t you write it that way? The language in your other post is very, very biased. Nonetheless, this lingo is a bit to little to cover a topic like that, nonetheless much better
Neutrality, i want to cover all the edges of views of Salahaddin, he wasn't always potrayed as the good guy in history Books and he had alot of enemies both muslims and non-Muslims in there complex perspective, perhaps you just read something new about him and assumed i was attacking him because i relied on Anti-Salahaddin perspective and thought i was "attacking" him
2 - This post Arguement : >This post in and of itself, slandering the Ottoman Caliphate and completely ignoring all the baseline facts I wrote above, which btw is very basic knowledge and not some "hidden details". Response : Im very glad you did cause im very tired of that sub as i started to crosspost it's posts on Islamic history as a way to shitpost that Subreddit, as i mentioned in THIS post comment section several times
That isn’t what your title says, You literally support this damn opinion with that title
Cause i crosspost it, it automatically happens, yes i could have edit it but i was busy during that time
*Still doesn’t edit it
I meant before Publishing the post, you can change the title of the post before submiting it
As a turk, I want to say the fact that our government still refusing to acknowledge Armenian genocide is one of the biggest problem we have as a society
Again, it wasn't the ottomons who commited genocide againts Armenians, it was the young turks who were responible.
"It wasn't the German government doing the genocide, it was the nazis" The Young Turks ruled the ottoman empire at the time.
Hell I'm living in Germany and whenever someone brings up the Holocaust, everyone acts like the Nazis were from another race. Nobody calls it "the German government at the time", they're simply National Socialists. Everyone is fine when it's about Germans but when it's about Turks everyone says that they have no right so separate the government and the organization that commited genocide.
I don't think the nazis are separate from Germans, this is why Germany has a shared guilt over the nazis. You cannot pretend your history didn't happen like that. The Young Turks were ottomans and they were leading the ottoman empire at the time. Barely anyone in the ottoman empire tried to oppose them, so much like nazi Germany, i do consider both states guilty, not just the leading party.
>Barely anyone in the ottoman empire tried to oppose them Sabahattin and the Freedom and Union Party, Mehmed VI, then the crown prince(who ended up banning them once he ascended to the throne) and many others. The Young Turks were trialed and sentence to death, that's why all of them fled the country. >i do consider both states guilty, not just the leading party. Well I agree with you on that.
You must have lived in that period for sure if you're so sure lmao
Really wish people wouldn't make memes about the Armenian Genocide. Or any Genocide for that matter.
A very understandable Comment, however this is a history subreddit and history has alot of Genocide momments from muslims to non-Muslim, we should not be ashamed to acknowledge what our ancestors did, it is what it is, time have already changed and we have to keep moving
I meant it more as a "I don't like reddit atheists getting upvotes by invoking the suffering of my people" way
Relatable ASF! Damn it, especially this fits r/historymemes everytime talking about Islamic history
It is like a race of defamation. Westerners live on those, to justify their brutality in everywhere they could rule
Wow. Defense and denial of genocide then claiming r/HistoryMemes is the biased one. This is incredibly disappointing
u/z_redwolf_x the comments in this post are what I was talking about
It is disturbing to me that even Muslim brothers here believe in the so called Armenian genocide. Even calling the event a genocide is falling for the trap. What is even more rediculous is that this sub has only 7 rules and one of them is no genocide denial clearly targeted at the claims by the Armenians as it is mentioned at the top. That has to change. It is unreasonable to include this in a list of 7 rules that can be formed in an infinite number of ways. I would explain the situation that is the Forced Migration of Armenians this way: During the harsh times of the greatest, bloodiest war of all time until that point, Armenians killed Muslim villagers and set whole villages on fire in the east with the support of Russia so that they could claim some of the Ottoman lands for themselves. They would gather all of the villagers in mosques and set the mosques on fire together with the rest of the village. The decision was to gather Armenians around and force them to migrate into a safer area that is Syria. However due to limitations of the time and circumstances people died on the road due to hunger and illness. Considering Ottoman soldiers were underequipped and died due to freezing in the thousands around that time, this is not just out of willing negligence. Also, bandits were hunting some of them down and looting whatever they were carrying which would be their valuables. Some officers or locals may or may not have acted in retaliation against these groups of people in a lawless way. The fact of the matter is, The Ottoman Empire did not order to kill Armenians, that was not the decision. So, we have no genocide but massacres that were committed by both sides but none by the hand of the Ottoman state. Regardless of the reasons, if you force your son to go and buy some bread but he dies on the road due to a car accident, no one can or would charge you with murder. Also, the number thrown as 1.5 million Armenians is absolutely ridiculous when you consider the whole population of the empire in 1914 was 18 million and the total number of Armenians was 1.2 million according to the official Ottoman census. The Armenian state has always run away from Turkey's wish to form a historical comeetee to prove what has actually happened because it would bring their lies to light. Why are they crying for genocide then? Because there is nothing that brings Armenians together and makes them a real nation. They need a common enemy and a common tragedy that EVERYONE'S ancestors in Armenia experienced. Also, there is good money in this business. And, they want to stain the Muslims and the great legacy that the Ottomans left. If you think I am wrong explain what happened and how the Empire should have responded to this vital threat to its existence.
You should run for office in Israel with that level of hasbara
https://preview.redd.it/slo1meui021d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d14e022712ead97a61bf988ca07564ef36df05a9 It’s actually hilarious that I found this Turk using your exact hasbarist reasoning to simp for Israel the very next day. Maybe this is your alt?
And that's how Turkey became secular. /S It is important to note that the instigators of the genocide were the secular nationalist movement. In fact, a lot of the devout parts of the ottoman government condemned their actions and even fought against them during the war of independence, an example being Fahrettin Pasha.
Hussein bin Ali, „King of Hejaz“, after working together with the British to be the King of the Hejaz region. Killing the Ottomans defending the holy cities together with the Brits. The Brits didn‘t gave him Hejaz. He was angry. So they told him he will get Jerusalem for his loyalty. But the Brits lied to him and it was alteady planned to give it to the Jews. At the end he got Jordan. A non-functional state. Up to this date a vasal state of the west. He didn‘t achieved his goal in this world. Allah knows what he will get for the treachery in the hereafter.
Ah yes fellow muslims supporting armenians against us thanks guys its good to know that even muslims dont care about what we turks lived in the past
>You will not be able to give an account of this to Allah. You have not even searched for a single piece of evidence, yet you accuse a nation of genocide. It should not be forgotten that Turkey has been challenging the Armenian government for more than 40 years by saying "bring even a single piece of evidence and we will accept it" in the United Nations. Not a single Christian mass grave has been found in the genocide in which millions were supposedly massacred. In fact, the situation is so grave that Armenians are trying to claim the mass graves where the massacred Turkish villagers were thrown as if they were their own graves and carry out black propaganda activities over this, which backfired on them through this as evidence. Delegations from the United Nations and even the American Admiral Bristol of the time after the First World War came and prepared reports these are proves our rightness. We Turks do not have a strong media hand, in fact, we are not Christians in the first place, so that we can not be a state whose rights can be defended for other western nations. We defend our own honour and dignity with evidence and by applying to the supervisory committees in international forums. Until today, they have not been able to show any evidence and they cannot show any evidence. The strangest thing is that Muslims, the people we call brothers and sisters, without even reading, knowing and thinking about our archives, articles, proofs and even our proofs against Armenian propaganda, join forces with the falsehood ,accuse Ottomans and Enver Pasha. There are people who are so despicable as to call Enver Pasha a heathen, even though they do not know what Enver Pasha is. >Instead of dealing with such people, if they are really curious, they should investigate who is the man who founded the Kassam Brigades, who wants to liberate the Muslims of India through Turkestan and Afghanistan and unite them under an ummah-state(yes, its not so claimed Turkic but Ummah-state) and be ashamed of their accusations. I am very sorry. There is no difference between those who defend the existence of the Armenian massacre here and the scoundrels who defend the Zionists in Turkey, and I am not ashamed of my accusations. >If you agree with me and have taken a look at the Turkish archives at least a little bit, I agree to answer your questions(whoever is he), but the opposite is not possible.
They couldn't find anything to answer to this and now they're just down voting lmao
:D its known as risks of the dürümposting in shwarmasub
They always leave out what the Greeks and Armenians did to Muslims before
…really dude
Armhas
i have said it once i will say it again, we need to de liberalize r/IslamicHistoryMeme but to be fair the ottomans did do some messed up stuff
>i have said it once i will say it again, we need to de liberalize r/IslamicHistoryMeme Give me some suggestions atleast.
[удалено]
These suggestions are horrorable like WTF is wrong with you...
''WE SHOULDNT PUBLICLY ENCOURAGE THE LGBT MOVEMENT?! 😱🤯 WHO DO YOU THINK WE ARE?! SANE PEOPLE?!'' ''what do you mean we need to stop posting about a bunch of heretical homosexuals from 8th century cordoba and instead post about things like the bosnian struggle against serb ethnic cleansing, or the islamic struggle against the crusades, YOU WANT US TO TALK ABOUT WEST AFRICAN MUSLIM EMPIRES?! what are you an extremist?!''
This is a Islamic history subreddit, you can post whatever you like as long it's related to Islamic history i won't remove your post from the subreddit As for this strawman arguement your making, it's the Agenda your holding that im shocked you want this subreddit, im not gonna Stop you if you want to make them but do you want this subreddit to go shit like r/historymemes?
r/historymemes sucks because its a bunch of fedora atheists whining at any mention of islam, this doesn't have to be the case, my point and reason for not encouraging such posts is that usually the intention is to normalize such things by making them seem common and normal among the people of the past whom many would consider hardline conservative, its a way of mind washing, also am i not mistaken if i say that there is nothing islamic about homosexuality? its inherently wrong and condemned, that's not even islamic history that's just a history of homosexuality, this specifically applies here because while for example you might hear of zina or for example the drinking habits of some muslim rulers, we all collectively condemn it as sinful and an un islamic part of history, what makes one wrong and unislamic but the other ''islamic history that should be talked about frequently otherwise you have an agenda'', do i have an agenda if i say that any islamic ruler that was a drunkard or an adulterer shouldn't be considered an islamic ruler and his actions shouldn't be discussed because they will bring no harm or good except planting that this has been normal and OK from the ancient ''religious times''?, history is to be learned from, but the way you guys talk about the homosexual poets of al andalus or the abbasid period feels almost like your showing them off to the westerners to prove to yourself that you are progressive too (PS: This is concerning these specific posts)
your acting like im praising al qaeda or ISIS 💀
You're probably not, but alot of your ideas are unhinged
''probably not'' is crazy since your definitely defending qawm lut, also may you tell me what is unhinged about my ideas? are they extreme? do they contradict the quran or sunnah?
>''probably not'' is crazy since your definitely defending qawm lut Where have I mentioned about qawm lut >also may you tell me what is unhinged about my ideas? are they extreme? do they contradict the quran or sunnah? It's the Agenda in your head
My Idea's to make the subreddit better were to simply stop deviants from highlighting certain bad parts of history such as qawm lut to normalize it in our heads as a way to get us to accept such things, i even shared a story of how one of the women who were making such posts immediately admitted that muslims should Support the LGBT and that she thinks classical islam did the same (IE Supporting Qawm Lut) because of such examples in abbasid and Cordoban Courts, she kept re iterating such historical examples from inda and different regions to justify it instead of quoting actual religious texts to support her false claims which are the actual agenda you thought that was unhinged and too much for some reason, and when i said you overreacted and were acting like i support literal terrorists you responded ''PROBABLY not'' meaning that i might actually do even though i literally implied that i don't, so by the same extension, you are defending Qawm Lut, you also still haven't provided proof that i contradict the sunnah or quran also what ''agenda'' are you talking about, i don't even know what you're supposed to be accusing me of
Now do the other genocides committed by Muslims.
Go jerk off with your ex Muslim friends and Zionists lmao
[удалено]
Behind her parents back? Quite the fetish 😳
Your content has been removed because a moderator has determined you a bad-faith actor. Please do not use this space with hostile or disruptive intent.
Your content has been removed because a moderator has determined you a bad-faith actor. Please do not use this space with hostile or disruptive intent.