Was the Ottoman empire anti-Turkish?

[Han Cholo]

Within the Ottoman Empire, the name "Turk" was sometimes used to denote the Turkmen backwoodsmen, bumpkins, or the illiterate peasants in Anatolia. "Etrak-i bi-idrak", for example, was an Ottoman play on words, meaning "the ignorant Turk".[28] Donkey turk was also used.


The ordinary Turks (Turkmen) did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: "in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." (Lewis 1968: 1)


In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: "The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended."(Davey 1907: 209)


What do you think?

[Partizan]

It's a city legend.Ottomans called Arabs as "kavm ül necib"(noble tribe) but after Yemenite rebellions,they also called Arabs who rioted as "Arab bed-i rey"(Bad Arabs).However it wasn't a general insult against Arabs,only against rebels.

And those negative titles you stated are only against Jalali bandits,not against Turks in general.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Yes it was anti-Turkish to some degree. I don't hate the Ottoman Empire since they achieved legandary things like conquest of Constantinople but I don't hold positive opinions about it in general. The sultans distanced themselves from the Turkmens by the time being and even looked down upon them and their culture. Their traitory attitude during Turkish War of Independence is the most valid proof apart from those in the OP.

[Partizan]

Yes it was anti-Turkish to some degree. I don't hate the Ottoman Empire since they achieved legandary things like conquest of Constantinople but I don't hold positive opinions about it in general. The sultans distanced themselves from the Turkmens by the time being and even looked down upon them and their culture. Their traitory attitude during Turkish War of Independence is the most valid proof apart from those in the OP.

I think Süleyman the Magnificient or Selim II would disown Vahdettin the traitor from their dynasty if they witnessed what he has done.

Atatürk is the real Last Ottoman to me,since he did the same with what Osman I did.Osman I created Ottoman beglik and didn't want to be part of ruined Seljuk Empire.And Atatürk has done almost same,it's just dialectic of history.

[Hurrem sultana]

Ottomans were muslims first and most,,,then anything else.The ottoman empire was a religious one and in islam nationality is not more important than religion

[Partizan]

Ottomans were muslims first and most,,,then anything else.The ottoman empire was a religious one and in islam nationality is not more important than religion

Well,if they wouldn't give a damn about being Turkic at start,first Ottoman sultans wouldn't declare that they were from Kayı tribe of Oghuzes.Ottoman sultans became less nationalist later but like all Turkish begliks in Anatolia,they boasted with their Oghuz origin at first.

[Sophie]

Ottomans were muslims first and most,,,then anything else.The ottoman empire was a religious one and in islam nationality is not more important than religion

Do Bosnians like them?

[Hurrem sultana]

Well,if they wouldn't give a damn about being Turkic at start,first Ottoman sultans wouldn't declare that they were from Kayı tribe of Oghuzes.Ottoman sultans became less nationalist later but like all Turkish begliks in Anatolia,they boasted with their Oghuz origin at first.

They were not denying any identity,they just did not put it as nr 1,,,and it was a smart move,i doubt they would stay in power for that long if they did not unite all the muslim peoples under the ottoman flag..if they put turkish identity over islam,the muslim peoples would never support the empire

[Onur]

This was mostly a myth.

Ottoman authorities only denounced against the alevi Turkmens because they were rivals of the alevi Turkmen Safavid state in Iran back then and they were fearing about the possible collaboration of alevi Turkmens in Anatolia with the Safavid state.

Ottoman authorities never glorified turkism but this was something expected because they were ruling in 3 different continents, millions of km2 lands with dozens of different ethnic groups and languages. They always insisted on "Ottomanism" because it was the only way to keep all these different groups intact. This was like the concept of being "Roman citizen" in Roman empire.

But, when it comes to administration, it was always in Turkish, nothing else. For example, Ottoman empire became parliamentarian monarchy in 1908 and 100s of ministers selected from different ethnic/religious groups. Some of them proposed to speak in their own languages but Ottoman authority refused this and said that the ones who cant/dont speak Turkish have no right to be part of the government.


Ottomans called Arabs as "kavm ül necib"(noble tribe) but after Yemenite rebellions,they also called Arabs who rioted as "Arab bed-i rey"(Bad Arabs).However it wasn't a general insult against Arabs,only against rebels.
Ottoman authorities called as "kavm ül necib (noble tribe)" for only the Quraysh tribe of the Mohammad but never for other Arabs like Bedouins.

In the Ottoman era, Turks always regarded Arabs as filthy people with no manners. Want proof? just think about our Turkish proverbs about Arabs;

"Ne Arabın yüzü ne Şam`ın şekeri"; "Neither the face of an Arab nor the candy from Damascus", meaning "i don't wanna see nor hear anything about Arabs, not even their candy delight"

"Fellah gibi adam"; A man like a Fellah. An ugly and dirty Bedouin peasant, a hick.

"Bahtsız Bedeviyi çölde kutup ayısı s.kermiş"; "Unlucky Bedouin gets fcked by a polar beer in the desert" [thats my favorite :D]

All these proverbs are from Ottoman period. I can add several more derogatory proverbs but there not even a single positive one. Also, the most popular name for stray dogs in Turkey is "Arab" since Ottoman era.

[Onur]

They were not denying any identity,they just did not put it as nr 1,,,and it was a smart move,i doubt they would stay in power for that long if they did not unite all the muslim peoples under the ottoman flag..if they put turkish identity over islam,the muslim peoples would never support the empire
Yes Bosnian, you are right. We can explain this as simple as that.

Ottoman authorities put "Ottomanism" as a no.1 priority to be able to preserve territories from 3 different continents. If they would put "Turkism" as 1st, then there would be no Ottoman empire or they would be destroyed in less than a century.

This does not means that they denounced their Turkish identity but they just preferred to keep in low profile to be able to preserve the empire.

[Partizan]

They were not denying any identity,they just did not put it as nr 1,,,and it was a smart move,i doubt they would stay in power for that long if they did not unite all the muslim peoples under the ottoman flag..if they put turkish identity over islam,the muslim peoples would never support the empire

Well,Ottomans had nationalistic Kızıl Elma(Red Apple) aim about glory of Turkicness.However it's true Islam was primary for them.You should also count that,modern nationalism started between 18.th and 19.th centuries,you can't view any empires in Medieval with standards of 21.th century.

Spanish empire was "spreading Christianity" in South America,not primarily "Latino-Iberianism".

However,sometimes I wish Ottomans were at least as colonial as Spaniards...Everything would be different.

[MarkyMark]

Yes actually the Ottomans were very anti-Turkish. The young Turks were a rival political party who wanted to make drastic changes and start a revolution due to inability of the Ottomans to protect their own nation against European capitulations.

[Hurrem sultana]

well islam is not like christianity so you could never expect that from the ottomans,islam openly forbids any kind of nationalism "an arab is not better than a nonarab,neither is an non arab better than an arab,they are only judged by their relation to God'"...these were the last words of prophet

[Hurrem sultana]

And if you look,all the nationalistic ideas in muslim countries come from anti-religious,atheist circles

[MarkyMark]

Just because the Quran said it does not mean every Muslim does it. Especially the ones trying to protect their own interests.

[MarkyMark]

And if you look,all the nationalistic ideas in muslim countries come from anti-religious,atheist circles

?

Assyrian nationalism is very Christian. Kurdish nationalism is very Muslim. The only party I actually know that disregards a certain religion is the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

[Hurrem sultana]

?

Assyrian nationalism is very Christian. Kurdish nationalism is very Muslim. The only party I actually know that disregards a certain religion is the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.



Assyrians are not muslim,i talk about islam

kurdish nationalism is very very secular..where do u see islam there? during shahs time(very antreligious),iran was very nationalistic.during saddam(socialist) iraq was very nationalistic

you see now all these countries have become more religious,and you see how the minorities in those countries have it better now

islam will always be the enemy of nationalistic ideas,that is why nationalists in muslim countries will be anti-religious

[Partizan]

well islam is not like christianity so you could never expect that from the ottomans,islam openly forbids any kind of nationalism "an arab is not better than a nonarab,neither is an non arab better than an arab,they are only judged by their relation to God'"...these were the last words of prophet

However it didn't stop Umayyads from Arabising North Africa.


And if you look,all the nationalistic ideas in muslim countries come from anti-religious,atheist circles

I would say secular but not really atheist.

[Onur]

well islam is not like christianity so you could never expect that from the ottomans,islam openly forbids any kind of nationalism "an arab is not better than a nonarab,neither is an non arab better than an arab,they are only judged by their relation to God'"...these were the last words of prophet
Bosnian, this is only valid for the hanafi belief system where Turkish people belongs to. Ottoman authorities also followed this logic but there are other islamic sects in the world too.


And if you look,all the nationalistic ideas in muslim countries come from anti-religious,atheist circles
Nope. Umayyad rulers were actively following Arabization of whole middle-east and they were regarding Arab race as supreme. They were regarding Iranian and other muslims as 2nd class people under Arabs.

The current Salafi Wahhabi groups also follows this policy today and they look upon non-Arab muslims with certain humiliation.

You are trying to explain the islam only by looking at the Turkish Hanafi way. Bosnians are also follows this way because you learned islam from us but there are many other islamic teachings in the world, not only ours.

[Hurrem sultana]

Well they can have that attitude i do not deny it, but it is unislamic and they cant change the hadiths and Koran verses since it openly states an arab is not better than a non-arab.
I wonder how they explain it? salafis are awkward in all ways though..interesting that their greatest alim was albanian :D

[Hayalet]

The Ottomans were, for all intents and purposes, Turks. Being a dynasty that ruled over a typical medieval empire, they were against Turkish nationalism (or any other mass movements), which was later misinterpreted as anti-Turkism by Turkish nationalists.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Yes actually the Ottomans were very anti-Turkish. The young Turks were a rival political party who wanted to make drastic changes and start a revolution due to inability of the Ottomans to protect their own nation against European capitulations.

The Ottomans opposed any kind of nationalism (including Turkish one, that's why Jalali revolts happened; eventhough thats not very releated to "nationalism" but Turkness itself), since why I can't really consider it an "actual Turkish empire". The age of Turkish nationalism actually came to dominance after Young Turk Revolution and whatsmore the Young Turks included both Turks and Jews which favored Turkism over "Ottomanism". However Young Turks went extreme in aftermath and lost many support and that's why I consider Atatürk and Turkish National Movement as the true image of Turkish nationalism.

[Partizan]

The Ottomans opposed any kind of nationalism (including Turkish one, that's why Jalali revolts happened; eventhough thats not very releated to "nationalism" but Turkness itself), since why I can't really consider it an "actual Turkish empire". The age of Turkish nationalism actually came to dominance after Young Turk Revolution and whatsmore the Young Turks included both Turks and Jews which favored Turkism over "Ottomanism". However Young Turks went extreme in aftermath and lost many support and that's why I consider Atatürk and Turkish National Movement as the true image of Turkish nationalism.

Jalali riots were more economic...I suggest ou to read "Türkiye'nin Düzeni" from Doğan Avcıoğlu about this issue.It's of two volumes and first volume is about Ottoman and early republic economics.

Despite I'm a bookworm,I finished this book in more than 3 months :picard1:

[Anatolian Eagle]

Assyrians are not muslim,i talk about islam

kurdish nationalism is very very secular..where do u see islam there? during shahs time(very antreligious),iran was very nationalistic.during saddam(socialist) iraq was very nationalistic

you see now all these countries have become more religious,and you see how the minorities in those countries have it better now

islam will always be the enemy of nationalistic ideas,that is why nationalists in muslim countries will be anti-religious

You have some point in this post. For example Young Turks were also secularists and nationalists but this doesn't mean they were anti-Islam, but just anti-religious. They successfully revolted against the Ottoman sultan and aimed to reform it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks

[Anatolian Eagle]

Jalali riots were more economic...I suggest ou to read "Türkiye'nin Düzeni" from Doğan Avcıoğlu about this issue.It's of two volumes and first volume is about Ottoman and early republic economics.

Despite I'm a bookworm,I finished this book in more than 3 months :picard1:

Bro I know the main factor was economic but the statement in the post was also one of the reasons :)

[Partizan]

You have some point in this post. For example Young Turks were also secularists and nationalists but this doesn't mean they were anti-Islam, but just anti-religious. They successfully revolted against the Ottoman sultan and aimed to reform it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks

Not even anti-religious,Enver Pasha was a practicing Muslim and an ex-pan Islamist.However they were rather secular.

[Partizan]

Bro I know the main factor was economic but the statement in the post was also one of the reasons :)

Jalali rioters really didn't have anything nationalistic,they even looted their neighbouring villages...

They were just hungry villagers due of some sort of Medieval form of economic crisis.However,we can count endless wars and Ottomans using Anatolia as a soldier deposit as reasons.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Not even anti-religious,Enver Pasha was a practicing Muslim and an ex-pan Islamist.However they were rather secular.

Yes Enver Pasha would be an exception, however most were secularists, including him. As far as I know he later turned Pan-Turkism. By "anti-religious" I meant something like "anti-Islamist", keeping religion away from state-level despite most of them probably weren't practicing Muslims anyway.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Jalali rioters really didn't have anything nationalistic,they even looted their neighbouring villages...

They were just hungry villagers due of some sort of Medieval form of economic crisis.However,we can count endless wars and Ottomans using Anatolia as a soldier deposit as reasons.

If you noticed next to the part you bolded I stated "...eventhough thats not very releated to "nationalism" but Turkness itself)"...

I'm aware the main factor was economic. I know Wikipedia is kinda "meh" source here but I believe also tied to what I posted earlier, as one of the factors after economic reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelali_revolts

[Partizan]

If you noticed next to the part you bolded I stated "...eventhough thats not very releated to "nationalism" but Turkness itself)"...

I'm aware the main factor was economic. I know Wikipedia is kinda "meh" source here but I believe also tied to what I posted earlier, as one of the factors after economic reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelali_revolts

Interestingly,Niyazi Berkes and Doğan Avcıoğlu(both were academicians and their books are still used in history/law/political sciences etc. alumnis) claimed,it was not an organised riot because of political reasons.I know,despite Wikipedia isn't a good source it also contains reasonable info.I wish there were more citations in this article...

Also both were Kemalist leaning Socialists,however it's mostly left-wing Kemalists who use Jalali riots for attacking Ottomans unfortunately.

[Kemalisté]

Ottoman dynasty is no different than Bulgarians who denied their original identity and ancestors. They were highly under the influence of Persian and Arabian cultures and acted like an enemy toward Anatolian people consisting of Turkmens, who were not allowed to enter the palace, thus could not have a saying in ruling.

And it's very annoying to see somebody praising Selim II here, who were the murderer of thousands of Alevi Turkmens. He is responsible for the Sunnification of Anatolia.

Jalali revolts were an inevitable response to this attitude of Ottomans toward Anatolian people.

Ottomans were made pay for what they did to this people, by Anatolians theirselves under the command of Ataturk. The last Sultan, whose ancestors used to wallow in extreme luxury, died patheticly in an ordinary hotel with no money and no property left behind him. And other dynasty members suffered in poverty for decades in abroad. Such an exemplary story.

Ataturk said '' How happy is the one who says "I am Turk" '' as a declaration of victory against pro-ummah Ottoman rule in Anatolia and their efforts to suppress the national feeling of Turks for centuries. Eh, only a descendant of Karamanids (the Anatolian Beylik destroyed by Ottomans) could be succesful in defeating them. Epic revenge is epic. :)

[Ayazid]

In the Ottoman era, Turks always regarded Arabs as filthy people with no manners. Want proof? just think about our Turkish proverbs about Arabs;

All these proverbs are from Ottoman period. I can add several more derogatory proverbs but there not even a single positive one. Also, the most popular name for stray dogs in Turkey is "Arab" since Ottoman era.

It would be interesting to know if the Ottomans viewed Arabs as a homogenous mass or knew to distinguish between them. Citizen of a cosmpolitan city like Damascus or Cairo was definitely quite different from some rural fellah, let alone a "wild" bedouin from the desert. What I find really interesting is that the word "Arap" is used also for black people in Turkish, perhaps because they used to be imported from Arab lands.

In Adana there is also an Alawite Arab community of ancient origins, members of which used to be supposedly called "fellahs" by their Turkish Sunni neighbors and looked down because of their faith (with the Turks being for once good orthodox Muslims and the Arabs heretics :D).

As for the bedouins, it makes sense that the Ottomans didn't view them very positively, since they were a disruptive and unruly element in the empire, just like the Turkmens and unlike the latter, they were never really subdued. It's no accident that the Sharifian revolt during the WW1 was largely supported by bedouins and some sedentary tribesmen.

[Ayazid]

Ottoman dynasty is no different than Bulgarians who denied their original identity and ancestors. They were highly under the influence of Persian and Arabian cultures and acted like an enemy toward Anatolian people consisting of Turkmens, who were not allowed to enter the palace, thus could not have a saying in ruling.

That's a totally wrong comparison. The original Turkic Bulgars were a minority which ruled over the Slavic majority. They didn't "deny" their original identity and ancestors. They simply mixed with their Slavic subjects and lost it through a natural process of slow assimilation.

Nothing of that kind happened with the Ottoman Turks. Sure, Arabic and Persian influences were quite strong, but that doesn't mean that the Ottomans became Arabs or Persians and "enemies" of Turks. Sure, they subdued other Turkmen dynasties and suppressed the Turkmen Kizilbash rebellions, but that was basically a socio-political and religious conflict, it had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the rebels. I am sure that there were lots of sedentary Sunni Turks who were loyal to the dynasty and were not "discriminated" anyhow (why they should be anyway?).


And it's very annoying to see somebody praising Selim II here, who were the murderer of thousands of Alevi Turkmens. He is responsible for the Sunnification of Anatolia.

Well, Sunni Islam was already present in Anatolian cities when Selim started to suppress the Kizilbash Turkmens. Actually, the Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta who visited Anatolia in the first half of the 14th century commented with a clear satisfaction that there were no "heretics and sectarians" among Turks. Of course, he didn't know any Turkish, so this observation must be taken with a grain of salt, but it shows that Sunni Islam had deep roots in Anatolia long before Selim.

By the way, the Safavids in Persia later abandoned their Kizilbash faith and converted to mainstream Shia Islam, which is definitely much closer to Sunna than to Alevism.


Ataturk said '' How happy is the one who says "I am Turk" '' as a declaration of victory against pro-ummah Ottoman rule in Anatolia and their efforts to suppress the national feeling of Turks for centuries.

Why do you think that the Ottomans tried to suppress "the national feeling" of Turks? They were well aware of their Turkish roots and used Turkish as the official language. I am also not sure if it is not a bit anachronistic to talk about a "national feeling" in the Middle Ages.

[Onur]

That's a totally wrong comparison. The original Turkic Bulgars were a minority which ruled over the Slavic majority. They didn't "deny" their original identity and ancestors. They simply mixed with their Slavic subjects and lost it through a natural process of slow assimilation.

Nothing of that kind happened with the Ottoman Turks. Sure, Arabic and Persian influences were quite strong, but that doesn't mean that the Ottomans became Arabs or Persians and "enemies" of Turks. Sure, they subdued other Turkmen dynasties and suppressed Turkmen Kizilbash rebellions, but that was basically a socio-political and religious conflict, it had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the rebels. I am sure that there were lots of sedentary Turkish Sunni Turks who were loyal to the dynasty and were not "discriminated" anyhow (why they should be anyway?).
I completely agree with what you wrote above. Ottoman authorities only suppressed alevi Turks because they feared that Safavid rulers might have destroy their authority by creating a civil war in Anatolia. They feared that the alevi Turks in Anatolia might ally with Safavids against the Ottomans. The conflicts between Turks is nothing new, it`s something always happened for centuries before Selim III. For example, shortly before the war in Ankara, Timur sent a letter to Ottoman sultan Bayazit and said that "There is one God, so there must be a single Sultan in the world. This world is too small for two of us"

Kemaliste is just overly emphasizing this, probably because of his alevi roots.


Well, Sunni Islam was already present in the Anatolian cities when Selim started to suppress the Kizilbash Turkmens. Actually, the Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta who visited Anatolia in the first half of the 14th century commented with a clear satisfaction that there were no "heretics and sectarians" among Turks. Of course, he didn't know any Turkish, so this observation must be taken with a grain of salt, but it shows that Sunni Islam had deep roots in Anatolia long before Selim.
I have to lean towards Kemaliste here because about 15% of Turkish population is alevi today and it wouldn't be wrong to estimate that the alevis were about 50% before Selim III`s persecutions. It`s quite known that he killed some of them and expelled a lot of people to Safavid territories. He probably reduced the number of alevi Turks in Anatolia to half back then.


Why do you think that the Ottomans tried to suppress "the national feeling" of Turks? They were well aware of their Turkish roots and used Turkish as the official language. I am also not sure if it is not a bit anachronistic to talk about a "national feeling" in the Middle Ages.
I agree with you again.

[Anarch]

Sure, I can understand why the Ottoman Empire would deny Turkish identity - the same reason the American Empire denies white American identity, to keep the minorities in line by attempting to universalise the core culture. It fits what I've read.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Ottomans were muslims first and most,,,then anything else.The ottoman empire was a religious one and in islam nationality is not more important than religion

I ti stvarno popušila tu bajku :rolleyes:

[Sultan Suleiman]

well islam is not like christianity so you could never expect that from the ottomans,islam openly forbids any kind of nationalism "an arab is not better than a nonarab,neither is an non arab better than an arab,they are only judged by their relation to God'"...these were the last words of prophet

And it's this sheepish hadith following mentality which fucked Bosniaks so many times trough history. :picard1:

[Sultan Suleiman]

you see now all these countries have become more religious,and you see how the minorities in those countries have it better now


:lol00002::lol00002::lol00002::lol00002::lol00002: :lol00002:

The amount of fail in this statement... Just makes me speechless.... :picard1:

[Partizan]

Ottoman dynasty is no different than Bulgarians who denied their original identity and ancestors. They were highly under the influence of Persian and Arabian cultures and acted like an enemy toward Anatolian people consisting of Turkmens, who were not allowed to enter the palace, thus could not have a saying in ruling.

:bored: Bored to hear same thing from different mouths again and again...

Aşın biraz kendinizi :)


And it's very annoying to see somebody praising Selim II here, who were the murderer of thousands of Alevi Turkmens. He is responsible for the Sunnification of Anatolia.

Didn't Shah Ismael kill any Sunni Turkomans in Azerbaijan and Iran?It was vice versa,you guys forget golden rule of history...You can't observe a historical event with today's conditions.


Jalali revolts were an inevitable response to this attitude of Ottomans toward Anatolian people.

They were just some bandits,not some "idealist warriors against evil Ottomans".And reason was Anatolia's poorness after explores of Europeans,the region where was on silk road become worthless and of course it affected peasants.


Ottomans were made pay for what they did to this people, by Anatolians theirselves under the command of Ataturk. The last Sultan, whose ancestors used to wallow in extreme luxury, died patheticly in an ordinary hotel with no money and no property left behind him. And other dynasty members suffered in poverty for decades in abroad. Such an exemplary story.

Vahidettin=/=Whole Ottoman dynasty.


Ataturk said '' How happy is the one who says "I am Turk" '' as a declaration of victory against pro-ummah Ottoman rule in Anatolia and their efforts to suppress the national feeling of Turks for centuries. Eh, only a descendant of Karamanids (the Anatolian Beylik destroyed by Ottomans) could be succesful in defeating them. Epic revenge is epic. :)

Atatürk himself built statues of Ottomans like Piri Reis and Fatih the Conqueror.Let Gökçe Fırat answer you about Atatürk's views on Ottomans:

http://www.turksolu.org/sehit/secmeosmanli1.htm


“Atatürk Osmanlı’ya karşıydı, biz de karşı olalım” şeklinde bir basitleştirici tavır genel olarak Atatürkçü kesimde hakim.

Hatta yıllarca Osmanlıcılık yapan ülkücü kesim bile son dönemde Osmanlı düşmanlığına soyunmuş durumda.

Peki ama Atatürk Osmanlı’ya düşman mıydı?

Elbette hayır.

Atatürk “hayatta en hakiki mürşit ilimdir” diyen, bilimsel bakış açısını koruyan bir insandı ve her şeyden önce tarih bilinci son derece sağlamdı.

Öncelikle şunu belirtelim Atatürk Osmanlı’yı yıkmamıştır. Osmanlı zaten 1. Dünya Savaşı’ndan yıkık çıkmış ve Mondros’la yok olmaya terk edilmiş bir devletti. Osmanlı’yı Atatürk değil Batılı devletler yıkmıştı.

Ama Atatürk Osmanlı’yı kurtarmak değil yeni bir Türk devleti kurmak için yola çıkmış ve bunu başarmıştır. Yeni bir devlet demek eski devletle bağları kopartmak demekti, çünkü yeni devletin meşruluğu burada ortaya çıkacaktı.

O nedenle Atatürk, Saltanatı kaldırdı, halifeliği ilga etti!

Kanunların isimlerine dikkat edersek, Atatürk’ün bir tarihi değil, bir tarihi yönetim ve idare şeklini ortadan kaldırdığını görürüz.

Böyle de yapmak zorundaydı, çünkü modern çağın yönetim şekli saltanat olamazdı.

Fakat Atatürk bunu yaparken ve Osmanlı Devleti ile yeni Türk Devleti arasına kesin bir sınır koyarken, hanedanı ülke dışına sürerken, çok akıllıca bir şey daha yaptı; Osmanlı tarihini dışlamadı, hatası ve sevabıyla o tarihi de Türk Tarihinin içine yerleştirdi.

Şimdi kimi Atatürkçülerimiz “Osmanlı Türk değildi, biz Osmanlı’nın devamı değiliz” diyor. Ve bunun çok büyük bir ilericilik olduğunu düşünüyor.

Ama Atatürk hiç de onlar gibi düşünmüyordu!

Atatürk Osmanlı için her zaman Türk terimini kullanmıştır. Söylev ve Demeçlerini açıp okursanız Atatürk’ün “Osmanlı Türkü”, “Osmanlı Türkleri” ibaresini kullandığını görürsünüz. Ve hiçbir zaman da Osmanlı’nın Türk olmadığını iddia etmemiştir.

Yine Atatürk tarafından hazırlanan “Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatları” kitabı Osmanlılardan “Osmanlı Türkleri” şeklinde bahseder. Aynı şekilde Atatürk’ün bizzat hazırlığına katıldığı dört ciltlik “Tarih” kitabında da Osmanlı’dan “Osmanlı Türk İmparatorluğu” şeklinde bahseder.

Eğer referansımız Atatürk olacaksa, Atatürk’ün tarih görüşünü benimsiyorsak elbette Atatürk’e kulak vermeliyiz. Ama Atatürk’ün yanlış yaptığını düşünüyorsak, bunu da açıkça söylemeliyiz.

Atatürk’ün tarih anlayışında Cengiz Han da Türk tarihinin değerleri içinde sahiplenilir, Osmanlı ile savaşan ve onu yenen Timur da. Bugün kimi ulusalcıların Farsçı dediği Selçuklu da Türk tarihi içindedir, Osmanoğulları da!

Atatürk’ün Türk tarihi içine almadığı tek kesim ise Şah İsmail’in Safevi devletidir. Tarih kitaplarında Şah İsmail’in Türk olduğu geçmesine karşın Safevi Devleti Türk devletleri içine alınmamıştır.

Bu da enteresandır, bugün kimi Alevi kesimler ısrarla Safeviler’in Osmanlı’dan daha Türk olduğunu iddia etmektedir ama anlaşılan Atatürk’ün bundan haberi yokmuş!


To me,people who disown Ottomans from Turkish history aren't acting different than Islamists who want to disown Atatürk...

Atatürk de benim,Yavuz da benim,Kanuni de benim!

[Sultan Suleiman]

Well they can have that attitude i do not deny it, but it is unislamic and they cant change the hadiths and Koran verses since it openly states an arab is not better than a non-arab.


Honey hadiths were made up for political purposes. All of them came 250-350 years after the Prophet's death and if you think that bunch of illiterate sand people could keep 1,5 MILLION saying without any "enriching" for 3 centuries you have quite a surprise waiting for you when you pick few of them up and actually READ FEW NON-CHERRYPICKED ONES.

[Partizan]

Honey hadiths were made up for political purposes. All of them came 250-350 years after the Prophet's death and if you think that bunch of sand people could keep 1,5 MILLION saying without any "enriching" for 3 centuries you have quite a surprise waiting for you when you pick few of them up and actually READ FEW NON-CHERRYPICKED ONES.

I'm from "Gog and Magog" tribe according to some Hadiths :picard1:

Or according to some Hadiths,marrying with blacks is forbidden :picard1:

Do those things sound close to Islam's nature?

[Sultan Suleiman]

I'm from "Gog and Magog" tribe according to some Hadiths :picard1:

Or according to some Hadiths,marrying with blacks is forbidden :picard1:

Do those things sound close to Islam's nature?

She is like Leliana when you confront them with something they don't like or show them non-cherrypicked verses from their holy books they will ignore all the facts spew some retarded insults and still stick with their silly conviction how they are right.

[Partizan]

She is like Leliana when you confront them with something they don't like or show them non-cherrypicked verses from their holy books they will ignore all the facts spew some retarded insults and still stick with their silly conviction how they are right.

I like her but...This Sunni mentality just play into Islamophobes' hands.As you can see I answered everything Ficus and Supreme tried to falsify from Qu'ran.When they understand attacking from Qu'ran is impossible,Bukhari comes to help them :)

[Sultan Suleiman]

I like her but...This Sunni mentality just play into Islamophobes' hands.As you can see I answered everything Ficus and Supreme tried to falsify from Qu'ran.When they understand attacking from Qu'ran is impossible,Bukhari comes to help them :)

Biggest pile of shit and bile I have read in my life. It's like Old Testament on steroids, with it's retarded advices and mind-numbing anecdotes from "Prophet's life".

[Insuperable]

well islam is not like christianity so you could never expect that from the ottomans,islam openly forbids any kind of nationalism "an arab is not better than a nonarab,neither is an non arab better than an arab,they are only judged by their relation to God'"...these were the last words of prophet

So what are you trying to say? That Christianity is ok with that type of nationalism? :picard1:

[Sultan Suleiman]

So what are you trying to say? That Christianity is ok with that type of nationalism? :picard1:

I think she might be referring to Ustaše and other Catholic based/supported fascists.

[Insuperable]

I think she might be referring to Ustaše and other Catholic based/supported fascists.

It does not sound like it the way she wrote it because Ustase are not Christianity

[Sultan Suleiman]

It does not sound like it the way she wrote it because Ustase are not Christianity

Do you reject the fact that Ustaše had full support of Vatican in atrocities against Serbs?

[Ayazid]

I have to lean towards Kemaliste here because about 15% of Turkish population is alevi today and it wouldn't be wrong to estimate that the alevis were about 50% before Selim III`s persecutions. It`s quite known that he killed some of them and expelled a lot of people to Safavid territories. He probably reduced the number of alevi Turks in Anatolia to half back then.

It's likely that many or most Anatolian Turkmens in the early 16th century were Kizilbash Alevis, but I rather wanted to point out that Sunni Islam didn't just pop out there out of nowhere when Selim came to power, but that it was present there since the Turkish invasion and establishment of Turkmen principalities. It's safe to say that the urban Islam was generally quite normative and orthodox, unlike the rural Turkmen version of the faith (predecessor of Alevism).

[Insuperable]

Do you reject the fact that Ustaše had full support of Vatican in atrocities against Serbs?

Vatican is not Christianity. By Christianity I mean beliefs in Christ teachings not organized religion or alleged crimes which "holy" people commited in the name of Christianity which are the opposite of what they were taught.

However Vatican supported Ustashe in efforts for realization of a Croatian Catholic state and this support many to this day have understood as support in atrocities against Serbs or others. Right after the racial laws were proclaimed Vatican's view and relationship towards Ustashe started to change.

[Cannabis Sativa]

Didn't Shah Ismael kill any Sunni Turkomans in Azerbaijan and Iran?It was vice versa,you guys forget golden rule of history...You can't observe a historical event with today's conditions.


Ok, starting kiddo. Sultan Mehmed II killed thousands of Hurufis in Edirne, part of today's Bulgaria etc...(predecessors of Alevis), Selim the Grim slayed tens of thousands Alevis, Murat IV also did with their Bosniak divisions we sent the heads of his beloved balijas back to their Sultan. Karagöz Pasha of your Magnificent Suleiman was pretty fucked up while commiting because we had Şahkulu :). Şahkulu was a God for sure. Then we have Kalender Çelebi, the holiest, still nightmare of your Devil's asskissing divisions. This is not about Jalalis, this is about bill of rights, a struggle of centuries not about economic reasons at all.

Comparing to Sunnis killed in Iran or Azerbaijan, Alevi casualities are so so enormous. Dirty tactics of Ottomans was based on encouraging radical religious kurds against Turkmen Alevis and nothing else. At least Shah Ismail Hatayi the ruler of Azerbaijan did not allow those Shafi Kurds to slay his own people in Anatolia. That's the fact.

Haq, the almighty, may you be keep us far from the face of Shimr, venom of Yazid, and the enemy of Turkman. :)

[Partizan]

Ok, starting kiddo. Sultan Mehmed II killed thousands of Hurufis in Edirne, part of today's Bulgaria etc...(predecessors of Alevis), Selim the Grim slayed tens of thousands Alevis, Murat IV also did with their Bosniak divisions we sent the heads of his beloved balijas back to their Sultan. Karagöz Pasha of your Magnificent Suleiman was pretty fucked up while commiting because we had Şahkulu :). Şahkulu was a God for sure. Then we have Kalender Çelebi, the holiest, still nightmare of your Devil's asskissing divisions. This is not about Jalalis, this is about bill of rights, a struggle of centuries not about economic reasons at all.

Comparing to Sunnis killed in Iran or Azerbaijan, Alevi casualities are so so enormous. Dirty tactics of Ottomans was based on encouraging radical religious kurds against Turkmen Alevis and nothing else. At least Shah Ismail Hatayi the ruler of Azerbaijan did not allow those Shafi Kurds to slay his own people in Anatolia. That's the fact.

Haq, the almighty, may you be keep us far from the face of Shimr, venom of Yazid, and the enemy of Turkman. :)

Do you think both Yavuz and Ismael thought with 21.th century's nationalism?

People rebelled in both sides and both empires had to suppress their rebellions,it's just that.

[Cannabis Sativa]

Do you think both Yavuz and Ismael thought with 21.th century's nationalism?

People rebelled in both sides and both empires had to suppress their rebellions,it's just that.

Yavuz hired kurdish-Sunni Imams(İdris-i Bitlisi) for his excessive fantasies from Iran. I bet you have some knowledge about it. :)

[Partizan]

Yavuz hired kurdish-Sunni Imams(İdris-i Bitlisi) for their excessive fantasies from Iran. I bet you have some knowledge about it. :)

İdris-i-Bitlisi wasn't Kurdish,I guess there weren't even Kurds in 16.th century :picard1: Perhaps Persian...Don't let Kurds mentally mastrubate by tracing their ancestry back to 1500's :)

I can't wipe Yavuz out from Turkish history,his era was golden age of Ottomans...I guess you know about treasure and seal stuff...

[Yalquzaq]

That Shah Ismail killed Sunni Turkomans in Azerbaijan and Iran are generally a misunderstanding.

He indeed killed many members of the Ak-Qoyunlu tribe in Tabriz specially, thousands of them, but it was because of his particular hate against them.

Ak-Qoyunlu were responsible for the death of his father and his brothers, and he had to escape from Ardabil and hide in Gilan as an infant himself for several years as he was also ordered to be killed by Ak-Qoyunlu ruler Rustam himself.

It has to be mentioned that all of tribes joined Safavids, even those who were formerly a part of the Ak-Qoyunlu confederation, without any opposition.

[Ayazid]

Nope. Umayyad rulers were actively following Arabization of whole middle-east and they were regarding Arab race as supreme. They were regarding Iranian and other muslims as 2nd class people under Arabs.

There are some interesting hadith related to this topic, which are as I believe forgeries from the Umayyad period (and maybe even later).

Some of them are:


Love the Arabs for three reasons, because I am an Arab, the Qur'an is Arabic and the speech of the people of Paradise is Arabic.

The official language of Paradise is Arabic. Maybe there will be free courses for everybody. :picard1: :D


The best of people are the Arabs, and the best of the Arabs are Quraysh, and the best of Quraysh are Bani Hashim.

Good reason to forge an Arab genealogy if you don't have one. In the Middle Ages some Berber tribes in North Africa invented legendary stories about their alleged origin from ancient Arabs who migrated there and forgot their pure Arabic language. :rolleyes:


The leaders are from Quraysh.

The implication of this one was that the Ottoman claim to the Caliphate was never accepted by Arab clerics, since the Ottomans obviously couldn't prove any genealogical connection to the Quraysh tribe (moreover being non-Arabs).



The current Salafi Wahhabi groups also follows this policy today and they look upon non-Arab muslims with certain humiliation.

Well, it's true that they propagate a unified bedouin Arabian Islam at the expense of all local variants, but I think that even they are at least verbally egalitarian. They are retarded anyway. :rolleyes:

[kabeiros]

So even the Ottomans themselves didn't like their Turkic origin? They used the word Turk with the same meaning that Greeks used it (to denote barbarian insticts and lack of culture)?

[Partizan]

So even the Ottomans themselves didn't like their Turkic origin? They used the word Turk with the same meaning that Greeks used it (to denote barbarian insticts and lack of culture)?

I just proved that it was an urban legend in first page,also Onur did.

Don't jump everything just for bashing Turks and mentally mastrubating yourself.

[Ayazid]

The conflict between the Ottomans and Turkmens was fuelled by sectarian divisions, but it wasn't something unique. Even in Central Asia there was an intense conflict between local sedentary dynasties and nomadic Turkic tribes.

Let's see how the khan of Khiva Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur (1603–1663), who was definitely well aware and proud of his Turkic origins dealt with local Turkmens:


Throughout the period of his rule (1643–63), Abu’l Ghazi was constantly in conflict with the Turkmens. He strengthened his state with help from Uzbek tribes, distributing among 392 Uzbek dignitaries the best-irrigated land in the khanate. As a result of this land and water redistribution, the Turkmens were deprived of their farmland in Khwarazm. Abu’l Ghazi, an educated man, wrote two historical works, the Shajara-i Tarākima [Genealogy of the Turkmens] and Shajaratu’l Atrāk [Genealogy of the Turks], but nonetheless he behaved with great brutality towards the Turkmens, massacring them and driving their women and children into slavery. (p. 133-4)

History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 5: Development in contrast: from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001302/130205e.pdf

[Onur]

There are some interesting hadith related to this topic, which are as I believe forgeries from the Umayyad period (and maybe even later).

Some of them are:

The official language of Paradise is Arabic. Maybe there will be free courses for everybody. :picard1: :D
Did you know that there are some muslims who believes this shit today? They think like everyone will speak Arabic in heaven.


Well, it's true that they propagate a unified bedouin Arabian Islam at the expense of all local variants, but I think that even they are at least verbally egalitarian. They are retarded anyway. :rolleyes:
Yes they are totally retarded primitive beings.

Umayyad inspired Arabs wrote some anti-Turkish hadits too. Here are some;

Alexander the Great (Dhul-Qarnayn) builds a giant wall to prevent Ya'juj and Ma'juj (Gog&Magog=Turks) doing any harm to the people and he imprison them into Scythia;

Allah says of Dhul-Qarnayn:

(Then he followed (another) way) meaning, he traveled from the east of the earth until he reached a place between the two mountains which were next to one another with a valley in between, from which Ya'juj and Ma'juj (God and Magog) will emerge into the land of the Turks and spread mischief there, destroying crops and people. Ya'juj and Ma'juj are among the progeny of Adam, peace be upon him, as was recorded in the Two Sahihs;

(They said: "O Dhul-Qarnayn! Verily, Ya'juj and Ma'juj are doing great mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute'') Ibn Jurayj reported from `Ata' from Ibn `Abbas that this meant a great reward, i.e., they wanted to collect money among themselves to give to him so that he would create a barrier between them and Ya'juj and Ma'juj. Dhul-Qarnayn said with kindness, righteousness and good intentions
http://www.muslimway.org/content/view/10278/37/


Turks are even worse than Dajjal (Antichrist) and they will spread corruption when they go out from Scythia;

(Until, when Ya`juj and Ma`juj are let loose,) We have already mentioned that they are from the progeny of Adam, upon him be peace; they are also descents of Nuh through his son Yafith (Japheth), who was the father of the Turks, Turk referring to the group of them who were left behind the barrier which was built by Dhul-Qarnayn.

(Ya'juj and Ma'juj will be let loose and will emerge upon mankind, as Allah says: (and they swoop down from every Hadab.) They will overwhelm the people, and the Muslims will retreat to their cities and strongholds, bringing their flocks with them. They [Ya'juj and Ma'juj] will drink all the water of the land until some of them will pass a river and drink it dry, then those who come after them will pass by that place and will say, "There used to be water here once.'' Then there will be no one left except those who are in their strongholds and cities. Then one of them will say, "We have defeated the people of the earth; now the people of heaven are left.'' One of them will shake his spear and hurl it into the sky, and it will come back stained with blood, as a test and a trial for them. While this is happening, Allah will send a worm in their necks, like the worm that is found in date-stones or in the nostrils of sheep, and they will die and their clamor will cease. Then the Muslims will say, "Who will volunteer to find out what the enemy is doing'' One of them will step forward and volunteer, knowing that he will likely be killed. He will go down and will find them dead, lying on top of one another. Then he will call out, "O Muslims! Rejoice that Allah has sufficed you against your enemy!'' Then they will come out of their cities and strongholds, and will let their flocks out to graze, but they will have nothing to graze upon except the flesh of these people (Ya'juj and Ma'juj), but it will fill them better than any vegetation they have ever eaten before.) It was also recorded by Ibn Majah. The Second Hadith Imam Ahmad also recorded from An-Nawwas bin Sam`an Al-Kilabi that the Messenger of Allah mentioned the Dajjal one morning. "Sometimes he described him as insignificant and sometimes he described him as so significant that we felt as if he were in the cluster of palm trees.
http://www.muslimway.org/content/view/10160/37/

Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-Bidayah wa'l-Nihayah - The Beginning and the End, provides this general summary - part of which has already been quoted - of the history and future of Gog and Magog (who are usually referred to as 'the Huns' by modern historians), and of the building of the wall by Dhu'l-Qarnayn:

Gog and Magog are two groups of Turks, descended from Yafith (Japheth), the father of the Turks, one of the sons of Noah. At the time of Abraham, peace be on him, there was a king called Dhu'l-Qarnayn. He performed Tawaf around the Ka'bah with Abraham, peace be on him, when he first built it; he believed and followed him. Dhu'l-Qarnayn was a good man and a great king; Allah gave him great power and he ruled the east and west. He held sway over all kings and countries, and travelled far and wide in both east and west. He travelled eastwards until he reached a pass between two mountains, through which people were coming out. They did not understand anything, because they were so isolated; they were Gog and Magog. They were spreading corruption through the earth, and harming the people, so the people sought help from Dhu'l Qarnayn. They asked him to build a barrier between them and Gog and Magog. He asked them to help him to build it, so together they built a barrier by mixing iron, copper and tar.

Thus Dhu'l-Qarnayn restrained Gog and Magog behind the barrier. They tried to penetrate the barrier, or to climb over it, but to no avail. They could not succeed because the barrier is so huge and smooth. They began to dig and they have been digging for centuries; they will continue to do so until the time when Allah decrees that they come out. At that time the barrier will collapse, and Gog and Magog will rush out in all directions, spreading corruption, uprooting plants, killing people. When Jesus, peace be on him, prays against them, Allah will send a kind of worm in the napes of their necks, and they will be killed by it.

Clearly this barrier has now long been breached, and Gog and Magog have now spread everywhere, doing what it has been decreed they must do, until it is time for them to meet their final end after Jesus, peace be on him, has returned to this earth.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Yajuj/gog.html


The judgement day will not come until the Arabs fights against Turks;

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said. "The Hour will not be established till you fight a nation wearing hairy shoes and till you fight the Turks who will have small eyes red faces and flat noses; and their faces will be like flat shields. And you will find that the best people are those who hate responsibility of ruling most of all till they are chosen to be the rulers. And the people are of different natures: The best in the pre-lslamic period are the best in Islam. A time will come when any of you will love to see me rather than to have his family and property doubled."
Volume 4. Book 56. Number 787
http://www.muslimway.org/content/view/4976/

Umayyad inspired Arabs wrote such fake hadits because their precious Umayyad caliphate has been destroyed by the Khazar Turks who believed Judaism. Then in later times various Turkish empires (Seljuks, Mamlukes, Ottomans) completely subjugated all of them `till WW-1. So, we caused a major buthurt for them :D

[Sultan Suleiman]

Did you know that there are some muslims who believes this shit today? They think like everyone will speak Arabic in heaven.


Yes they are totally retarded primitive beings.

Umayyad inspired Arabs wrote some anti-Turkish hadits too. Here are some;

Alexander the Great (Dhul-Qarnayn) builds a giant wall to prevent Ya'juj and Ma'juj (Gog&Magog=Turks) doing any harm to the people and he imprison them into Scythia;



Turks are even worse than Dajjal (Antichrist) and they will spread corruption when they go out from Scythia;




The judgement day will not come until the Arabs fights against Turks;


Umayyad inspired Arabs wrote such fake hadits because their precious Umayyad caliphate has been destroyed by the Khazar Turks who believed Judaism. Then in later times various Turkish empires (Seljuks, Mamlukes, Ottomans) completely subjugated all of them `till WW-1. So, we caused a major buthurt for them :D

:thumb001:

[Hurrem sultana]

She is like Leliana when you confront them with something they don't like or show them non-cherrypicked verses from their holy books they will ignore all the facts spew some retarded insults and still stick with their silly conviction how they are right.

Why do you compare me with leliana? that hurt:picard1:

[Sultan Suleiman]

Why do you compare me with leliana? that hurt:picard1:

I am sorry...Now I see it was a way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAY low of a punch to compare anyone to that Austrian trog.:(

I hope you can find it in your Podrinjsko heart to forgive me :)

[Hurrem sultana]

Honey hadiths were made up for political purposes. All of them came 250-350 years after the Prophet's death and if you think that bunch of sand people could keep 1,5 MILLION saying without any "enriching" for 3 centuries you have quite a surprise waiting for you when you pick few of them up and actually READ FEW NON-CHERRYPICKED ONES.


Honey,who said i believe that? we have sahih hadiths and daif hadiths..

[Sultan Suleiman]

Honey,who said i believe that? we have sahih hadiths and daif hadiths..

Why do you follow any? They came AFTER the Qur'an and there are literally no concrete sources for them, hell even the Bukari himself stated that he can't vouch for validity of any but few dozen of Hadiths.

[Hurrem sultana]

Because withouth them we have nothing almost to describe things like prayers etc

[Sultan Suleiman]

Because withouth them we have nothing almost to describe things like prayers etc

System of prayers existed before them.

[Su]

Why do you compare me with leliana? that hurt:picard1:

Even that hurt me :picard1::eek:

[StonyArabia]

Salafism is pretty universal and it's greatest scholar a was Albanian not an Arab! Salafism shares some tenants with the more nationalistic Wahabi movement which originated in the mountains of Nejd but it's a vastly different ideology however both were offshoots of the Hanabli Sunni school. Al-Albani for example has been cirtical of Wahabism, and in which many Salafi see it as heretical movement.

The founder of the Wahabi movement was from the Bani Tamim tribe, he managed to convert most of the Nejidi tribesmen into this faith. This man Abdul Al Wahab wanted to bring a purfied Islam from Persian and Turkish influence, the latter became important in the alliance of the Sauds with the British who became the most powerful clan and belonged to the powerful Anizah tribe. Wahabism encouraged the rise of Arabian nationalism and to attack Turkish outposts, it was funded by the British. Wahabism encourages Arabian nationalism through Islamic tenants.

Wahabism was born due to the climate of the Ottoman empire, and when the they began to exert more direct control on Arabia, and this was the result, but the Ottomans were pretty weak and to was to late to assert their direct control on the Arabian tribes.

[Hurrem sultana]

The most important salafi authority was sheykh Albani from Albania but still very pro-arab

[Han Cholo]

Bump!

[Jerban]

All I know is that they're puissies who left Algeria after the country was attacked by French army, they just screwed all the countries they colonized and stole all the goods to construct Istanbul.

[Böri]

* Victory became the shadow of Turk warriors and soldiers.
(Hoca Saadeddin Efendi, Ottoman Sheikh ül Islam, Tacü't-Tevarih)

* Solakzade Mehmed Hemdemi described Mehmed the Conquerer's son, Cem, as son of the Turk who conquered Konstantiniyye.

* Mehmed the Conquerer/Fatih named one of his grandsons after one of the oldest ancestors of Turks, Oghuz Khagan. He named the other Korkut, after the noble Turk scholar Dede Korkut.

* Turks, the elite nation, beautiful Ummah.
(Famous Ottoman Historian Mustafa Künhü'l Ahbar of Gallipoli, 16th Century)

* Ottoman dynasty had conflicts from time to time with the Turkmen followers of Shah Ismail to settle their nomadic Turkmen population but they never had any problem with Turkmens/Turks. It is non-sense to expect them to have either because Ottoman Empire existed because of Turks at first place. They always settled Turkmen tribes to the regions they conquered.

* On the 18th article of the first Ottoman constitution which was declared on 23 December 1876, the official language of the state was defined as Turkish, and the ones who can not speak Turkish language were not accepted as a public officer.

[Instinct]

Turks are the last ethnicity who got independence from Ottoman Empire.

[Dandelion]

Anti-Turkish would be a harsh way of putting it. But I did read that in the Ottoman Empire self-deprecation was very common. Turks were the dominant ethnicity and as such stereotyping Turks was a commonly accepted practice, not in the slightest by Turks themselves.

But it was also common practice of the elites to insist on not being called 'Turk' but 'Ottoman'. That's just an example of snobbishness of the upper classes.

[Ryujin]

Anti-Turkish would be a harsh way of putting it. But I did read that in the Ottoman Empire self-deprecation was very common. Turks were the dominant ethnicity and as such stereotyping Turks was a commonly accepted practice, not in the slightest by Turks themselves.

But it was also common practice of the elites to insist on not being called 'Turk' but 'Ottoman'. That's just an example of snobbishness of the upper classes.

The Janissary institution was abolished because it largely consisted of local Anatolian Turks, which the Palace was unhappy about. Once Ataturk attended a ball in a Janissary costume to point out to this historical development.

http://www.resimle.net/data/media/318/Osmanli%20Yeniceri%20Ataturk%20resmi.jpg

[Ryujin]

Amidst the debate over abolishing the Ottoman Sultanate, Ataturk made this legendary speech in the revolutionary assembly, simply threatening those who were reluctant to put an end to the Ottoman regime:

"Sovereignty and the office of Sultan have never been granted through a debate or a discussion on academic grounds. Sovereignty and the office of Sultan are won by force, by power and violence. It was by violence that the Ottoman dynasty had grasped sovereign and royal prerogatives over Turkish nation. They have maintained their forcible dominion for six centuries. Today the Turkish nation has cried halt to the transgressors and, by an act of rebellion, has repossessed itself of its sovereign and royal prerogatives. This is an accomplished fact. The subject under discussion in not whether or not we are to allow the nation to keep these sovereign and royal prerogatives. What we are discussing is simply whether to give expression to a reality which has already become an accomplished fact. This will be done in any case. If those assembled here, if the Assembly, if all of us see the question in its natural light, I think we shall arrive at the right conclusion. But even if we do not, reality will still find its proper expression in its own way. Only then, some heads may fall".

Erdogan should read this. He should be thankful that some Kemalists don't go extreme and follow their father's instructions like ISIS supposedly does Qur'an. :cool:

[Kabul]

The Ottoman empire was centred around Islam rather than around Turkism. If it were to have functioned as a Turkish nation-state, it would have been plagued with even more revolts than it already was.

[ja.pamjataju]

The Janissary institution was abolished because it largely consisted of local Anatolian Turks, which the Palace was unhappy about. Once Ataturk attended a ball in a Janissary costume to point out to this historical development.

http://www.resimle.net/data/media/318/Osmanli%20Yeniceri%20Ataturk%20resmi.jpg

Why was the palace unhappy about that?

[Ryujin]

Why was the palace unhappy about that?

Because they hated Turkic identity. The palace even formed its own army to confront Turkish forces led by Ataturk who were trying to save the homeland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuva-yi_Inzibatiye

[Pennywise]

Because they hated Turkic identity. The palace even formed its own army to confront Turkish forces led by Ataturk who were trying to save the homeland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuva-yi_Inzibatiye

stop spreading lies and learn some history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries#The_Decline_of_the_Janissaries

btw, Ottomans were not "anti-Turkish" but there is also not such significant ethnic idendity in the empire. This situation was not only for Ottomans of course. Nationalism wasn't excist on the world before the French revolt.

[gültekin]

claime's of some stupid people :
Gagavuz in bulgaria are turkified by Ottomans
Turks in Kosova are bal bla bla
Turks in Bulgaria are bla bla bla
blablabla
blablabla

[Ice]

This is pure alevi/kemalist propaganda.

Ottoman empire is ffs the most successful turkic empire in the history. It's not their fault if they have spread over three continents and ruled over many other ethnicities with different religions. They had to act like emperors, if they acted like clan leaders, the empire would fall apart in two centuries (like mongols). And this would have consequences for all turks, even today. Remember that turkification of anatolia is thanks to seljuks/ottomans and last but not least islam.

[Instinct]

This is pure alevi/kemalist propaganda.

That is not a propaganda. You can accept yourself as an Ottoman but being Ottoman is not an identity for entire Anatolia.



Ottoman empire is ffs the most successful turkic empire in the history. It's not their fault if they have spread over three continents and ruled over many other ethnicities with different religions. They had to act like emperors, if they acted like clan leaders, the empire would fall apart in two centuries (like mongols). And this would have consequences for all turks, even today. Remember that turkification of anatolia is thanks to seljuks/ottomans and last but not least islam.

You can accept the Ottoman heritage for yourself of course but there are millions in Turkey who reject Ottoman identity, not only Alevis but also non-Alevis who prefer a secular ideology or such.

[ja.pamjataju]

The Janissary institution was abolished because it largely consisted of local Anatolian Turks, which the Palace was unhappy about. Once Ataturk attended a ball in a Janissary costume to point out to this historical development.


Quoting this again but going to respond to it differntly. The "which the Palace was unhappy about" seems to fall in line with the view that janissaries were supposed to be the personification of the subjugation/inferiority of Balkan Christian ethnic groups. But Kanuni's best childhood friend Ibrahim was such a person, and he married his beloved only daughter to Rustem Pasha, a Bosnian convert who became grand vizier.

It seems pretty historically obvious that Ottomans were multiethnic, albeit with Turkish roots. But I want to address something directly: a lot of Pan-Turkic and Turanist papers portray Slavonians as subhumans and nothing but slaves of Turks. However it seems like during Ottoman times many Slavonians were actually in huge positions of power and influence, while the ancestors of these Turanist guys were probably herding sheep in Anatolia. Sometimes, though, it seems like powerful Slavonians like elite yeniceri were like Obama is to blacks in America: a few prominent powerful people while the majority are oppressed and subject to racism. So, what is it? Does this Turanist superiority complex stem from a feeling of some kind of "anti-Turkic" quality of the Ottoman Empire, or is it something passed down from the Ottoman Empire which valued Turks more than other ethnicities?

[ja.pamjataju]

stop spreading lies and learn some history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries#The_Decline_of_the_Janissaries

btw, Ottomans were not "anti-Turkish" but there is also not such significant ethnic idendity in the empire. This situation was not only for Ottomans of course. Nationalism wasn't excist on the world before the French revolt.

Not sure if this counts as a doublepost? But I want to leave this here. Some Turks seem to want Osmanli to come back, or take pride in them, but I wonder if they know what they have become...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHtxz4NuQ

This guy is the direct descendent of Kanuni, of Mehmet Fatih. Now he's just a British comedian and when speaking of his name, Osmanoglu, says "it's a silly name."

[Danishmend]

What does "Turanism" have to do with this you fucking morons? Can't you just stop misusing the term? The aim of Turanism or Pan-Turkism is the unification of Turkic peoples. I'm tired of seeing the word "Turanism" in every irrelevant topic.

[Danishmend]

However it seems like during Ottoman times many Slavonians were actually in huge positions of power and influence, while the ancestors of these Turanist guys were probably herding sheep in Anatolia. Sometimes, though, it seems like powerful Slavonians like elite yeniceri were like Obama is to blacks in America: a few prominent powerful people while the majority are oppressed and subject to racism. So, what is it? Does this Turanist superiority complex stem from a feeling of some kind of "anti-Turkic" quality of the Ottoman Empire, or is it something passed down from the Ottoman Empire which valued Turks more than other ethnicities?

You must be watching too much Muhteşem Yüzyıl.142 out of 292 Ottoman Grand Viziers were of Turkish origin. The rest were from various subjects of the empire (Georgian, Arab, Circassian, Bosnian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian etc). Devshirme system was abolished in 16th century anyway, most of the Janissaries thenceforth were Turks. Not to mention Spahis -who were the largest cavalry force in the Ottoman army- were chosen among ethnic Turks from the beginning.

[Pennywise]

Not sure if this counts as a doublepost? But I want to leave this here. Some Turks seem to want Osmanli to come back, or take pride in them, but I wonder if they know what they have become...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHtxz4NuQ

This guy is the direct descendent of Kanuni, of Mehmet Fatih. Now he's just a British comedian and when speaking of his name, Osmanoglu, says "it's a silly name."

come to the point. why did you so obsessed with ottomans? you have only 9 posts, but almost all of them are about ottomans and turks. what kind of ass pain do you have?

[Danishmend]

He is watching too much Muhteşem Yüzyıl (or whatever the fuck its name in his language is), that's all.

[Ryujin]

Not sure if this counts as a doublepost? But I want to leave this here. Some Turks seem to want Osmanli to come back, or take pride in them, but I wonder if they know what they have become...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHtxz4NuQ

This guy is the direct descendent of Kanuni, of Mehmet Fatih. Now he's just a British comedian and when speaking of his name, Osmanoglu, says "it's a silly name."

Don't give a fuck about neo-ottoman idiots most Turks are Republican.

[Instinct]

Don't give a fuck about neo-ottoman idiots most Turks are Republican.

Well, not really. We are at least up to 10-15 million who reject the Ottoman identity.

Many new conservatives think Neo-Ottomanism as a solution within Kurdish problem too. I wish the government could solve any ethnic or religious problem by democratic rights and equality instead of abusing people's history such as Ottomanism.

[Danishmend]

Don't give a fuck about neo-ottoman idiots most Turks are Republican.

Terms such as neo-Ottomanism and Turanism should be banned because most of the time they are misused by morons.

Muhteşem Yüzyıl'ın dozunu kaçırıp forumda Türklere "siz sadece köylü çobandınız" diyen adama cevap vermek kimseyi neo-Osmanlıcı yapmaz. Bana mesnetsizce neo-Osmanlıcı diyen kişinin anasını avradını sikeyim.

[Böri]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHtxz4NuQ

This guy is the direct descendent of Kanuni, of Mehmet Fatih. Now he's just a British comedian and when speaking of his name, Osmanoglu, says "it's a silly name."

This is victory trophy for you obviously.

[Instinct]

Not sure if this counts as a doublepost? But I want to leave this here. Some Turks seem to want Osmanli to come back, or take pride in them, but I wonder if they know what they have become...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHtxz4NuQ

This guy is the direct descendent of Kanuni, of Mehmet Fatih. Now he's just a British comedian and when speaking of his name, Osmanoglu, says "it's a silly name."

Well, he is a result of revolution of Turks. Fortunately, Ottoman Royals had to flee abroad after the republican revolution so this is why we were not threatened by Ottoman Elites.

[Böri]

come to the point. why did you so obsessed with ottomans? you have only 9 posts, but almost all of them are about ottomans and turks. what kind of ass pain do you have?

He can be troll account of a already existing member, like Ringelnatter.

[ja.pamjataju]

come to the point. why did you so obsessed with ottomans? you have only 9 posts, but almost all of them are about ottomans and turks. what kind of ass pain do you have?

Actually all of them are about ottomans ;) It's why I made an account here. No one talks about the bad things that happened back then (everyone's ancestors did bad things but everyone talks crap about the British while no one says anything bad about Ottomans) and I wanted to see what people think.


This is victory trophy for you obviously.

My "victory trophy" is Ataturk and the positive aspects of Western culture he brought, his efforts to end sexism, etc

[Danishmend]

Actually all of them are about ottomans ;) It's why I made an account here. No one talks about the bad things that happened back then (everyone's ancestors did bad things but everyone talks crap about the British while no one says anything bad about Ottomans) and I wanted to see what people think.

What kind of joke is that? Ottomans are the most hated empire/dynasty here actually. I'm not an Ottoman fan myself but I can't let people who watch Muhteşem Yüzyıl (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhteşem_Yüzyıl) 24/7 talk out of his ass. You are so obsessed with Mühteşem Yüzyıl that you can't even post something else. I bet you keep seeing Suleiman and Hurrem in your dreams. :laugh:

[Pennywise]

Actually all of them are about ottomans ;) It's why I made an account here. No one talks about the bad things that happened back then (everyone's ancestors did bad things but everyone talks crap about the British while no one says anything bad about Ottomans) and I wanted to see what people think.



My "victory trophy" is Ataturk and the positive aspects of Western culture he brought, his efforts to end sexism, etc

you probably watched too much turkish soap opera. you're pathetic.

[Faklon]

bump

[Drakoblare]

To all the Greek pagans out there talking about the BYZ:

This is how you sound like.

[Ryujin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfh-q_5cHkk