Fact or Fiction?

[Soviet Russia]

This is a little bit long, but I strongly recommend you guys to read.

@Will

No surprise, you haven't changed a bit

But if we count the total amounts of killings, 'Christian' countries can beat the rest of the world (including the historic civilizations) on amount of civilian killings.

The problem here is, we always consider them as "Muslims" without having a deep investigation on their ideals, personal and ideologic backgrounds..

Will claimed that the conquest of Turks, Spain by Arabs, Middle East blabla were done by Muslims.. However, none of us call Nazi Germany's mass-murders as "Christians done it" or France's war crimes in Africa, colonization of China, America, Australia... Britain did not go to India for touristic purposes..

We don't call those 'Christian' (but they were definitely Christian societies) but we easy tag any Muslim-background-involved war as "Muslims did it".

No. That is definitely not fair.

As for the Middle East, everyone knows that that region only had 3 peaceful era:

First, when it was being ruled by the prophets of Israel.

Second, when it was being ruled by the earliest Islamic rulers.

Third, the Ottoman rule, after the Crusaders.

You are free to ask that to anyone. And also note that, it was Ottomans who let the Jews return to Middle East not the Crusaders. Also (I studied some Ottoman history, not much) it is well known that Ottomans let all Christian churches stay in Jerusalem; and gave them total autonomy.

Maybe you do not know, but even today; the relationship and legal dividends of holy 'duties' among those Churches are being done by the Ottoman system. Neither Britain nor Israel changed the system, because it works pretty well.

Armenian Genocide issue is a different problem; because the rulers of the Ottoman Empire at that era were not Islamists. The Three Pashas and their government were under heavy German/Prussian influence; and they were trying to remove religion out of the law system. We can call that, their actions against Armenians were not religious but political; since the Armenians were sided with Britain/Russia and that was a threat to the Ottomans/Germany/Austria-Hungary alliance.

Will, WWI did not demolish Ottomans only; but it destroyed the last remaining empires of the world: German Empire, Turkish Empire, Russian Empire, Austrian Empire. We can say; WWI was a conflict between the 'New World Powers' and the 'Old World Powers'. Unlike WWII, there were no extremists and radicals (such as fascists or communists). WWI was totally political, and if we name a side as the 'radicals', it'd be the Allies They were trying to change the world, while Central Powers wanted to preserve it. If the Central Powers were to win the war; today's world would be totally different (by the means of economy, state regimes, political stiuations)

@Z

You are definitely right. What writes in Quran is, "not to touch any non-Muslim" if they are not trying to use force or taking hostile actions against. And no matter what the stiuation is, no one can harm the women and children.

However, unfortunately, due to dirty politic reasons, groups such as al-Quaida, try to tag Islam over their names, to gain support. I can say, the Western world also has a guilt, because during the most of the 19th and 20th century, Turkish state was the only Muslim state of the world, which means the rest of the Muslims were colonized. That led them to be less developed, they grew hate and blamed the West for everything.

I mean, if there were a strong Muslim (or Muslim majority) nation today (maybe Turkey is the closest candidate for that); the Muslim population of the world would be more relaxed, since they would have a strong power to rely on instead of extremists or Iran.

This summer, I've travelled to Syria and I saw that people there, especially the educated youth; trusts Turkey a lot and they see Turkey's soft power and diplomatic skills as a chance of "peace" for the region.

C'mon, we have to realise that those people are also human and they also love, get sad, cry, laugh as you do. Religion is just a part of their lives and they also would love to live in peace and dialogue.

@Will again

Did you know that, Ottomans were the #1 economical support behind the protestans against the Holy Rome / Germany?

[Will]

This is a little bit long, but I strongly recommend you guys to read.

@Will

No surprise, you haven't changed a bit

But if we count the total amounts of killings, 'Christian' countries can beat the rest of the world (including the historic civilizations) on amount of civilian killings.

The problem here is, we always consider them as "Muslims" without having a deep investigation on their ideals, personal and ideologic backgrounds..

Will claimed that the conquest of Turks, Spain by Arabs, Middle East blabla were done by Muslims.. However, none of us call Nazi Germany's mass-murders as "Christians done it" or France's war crimes in Africa, colonization of China, America, Australia... Britain did not go to India for touristic purposes..

We don't call those 'Christian' (but they were definitely Christian societies) but we easy tag any Muslim-background-involved war as "Muslims did it".

No. That is definitely not fair.

As for the Middle East, everyone knows that that region only had 3 peaceful era:

First, when it was being ruled by the prophets of Israel.

Second, when it was being ruled by the earliest Islamic rulers.

Third, the Ottoman rule, after the Crusaders.

You are free to ask that to anyone. And also note that, it was Ottomans who let the Jews return to Middle East not the Crusaders. Also (I studied some Ottoman history, not much) it is well known that Ottomans let all Christian churches stay in Jerusalem; and gave them total autonomy.

Maybe you do not know, but even today; the relationship and legal dividends of holy 'duties' among those Churches are being done by the Ottoman system. Neither Britain nor Israel changed the system, because it works pretty well.

Armenian Genocide issue is a different problem; because the rulers of the Ottoman Empire at that era were not Islamists. The Three Pashas and their government were under heavy German/Prussian influence; and they were trying to remove religion out of the law system. We can call that, their actions against Armenians were not religious but political; since the Armenians were sided with Britain/Russia and that was a threat to the Ottomans/Germany/Austria-Hungary alliance.

Will, WWI did not demolish Ottomans only; but it destroyed the last remaining empires of the world: German Empire, Turkish Empire, Russian Empire, Austrian Empire. We can say; WWI was a conflict between the 'New World Powers' and the 'Old World Powers'. Unlike WWII, there were no extremists and radicals (such as fascists or communists). WWI was totally political, and if we name a side as the 'radicals', it'd be the Allies They were trying to change the world, while Central Powers wanted to preserve it. If the Central Powers were to win the war; today's world would be totally different (by the means of economy, state regimes, political stiuations)

@Will again

Did you know that, Ottomans were the #1 economical support behind the protestans against the Holy Rome / Germany?

I really don't see how you can call Nazi Germany a "christian" society. Most leading nazis were hostile to christianity (Himmler in particular). Germans themselves may have been christian but the leadership wasn't operating on any religious factors. They even had muslim SS battalions.

Britain's conquest of India was for commercial reasons. While there were missionaries, they caused a lot of problems leading to the 1857 Mutiny, after which they were effectively banned from operating outside of a couple of towns.

As for the ottomans, the germans during WW1 called on the Turkish Sultan to declare a jihad against the "infidel british" which if it had been handled better could have been devastating, considering the numbers of muslims under british rule at the time.

I really don't see how you can call the central powers conservative when it was the germans who sent lenin to russia with the express purpose of plunging it into chaos.

The Ottoman Empire was fairly tolerant by the standards of the time (except the armenian massacre), but there was still a strong Islamic element to their actions. The way they turned the Haga Sophia from a cathedral to a huge mosque is evidence of this, not to mention the kidnapping of christian children to turn into janissaries.

[Soviet Russia]

Kidnapping? We're talking of a age that being a soldier was the highest position that a villager can have. Many of those 'kidnapped' children became the top state officers, including the Grand Vizier (2nd man of the state).

Haha, right, Germans let Lenin go back to Russia; but that was not for they support his ideas And I see no difference between WWII Germany's and WWI Turkey's "view on religion" since most of the rulers were not any religious.

[-Z-]

very interesting comments here... Soviet Russia you go a long way to explain your point of view, and it makes sense.


Will (while making some interesting remarks) always wants to separate people, and to make believe things about vast majorities of populations, often about race, this time about religion.

you can not judge a person or group of people by their religion.

Z

[Will]

very interesting comments here... Soviet Russia you go a long way to explain your point of view, and it makes sense.


Will (while making some interesting remarks) always wants to separate people, and to make believe things about vast majorities of populations, often about race, this time about religion.

you can not judge a person or group of people by their religion.

Z

Z, you cannot deny that the philosophies and doctrines of some religions can vary wildly, and this can and does lead to very different behavior from adherents of these. You don't see me attacking Buddhists or Sikhs here. Why? because neither of these is particularly aggressive.

Don't get me wrong. I don't view Christianity as superior to Islam from any kind of theological standpoint, but I was raised as a Christian and it happens to be the state religion of my country, so I have a certain cultural bias. I am an atheist who considers christianity more compatible with Britain from a cultural standpoint, not a religious one.

[Soviet Russia]

Is not that mosty because that Buddhist or Sikh majority cultures had never challenged Germany/France/Britain before..

[-Z-]

I see your points Will, and indeed, perhaps christianity fits british culture better.

I am glad to see that you understand your own Bias.

Z

[Will]

Is not that mosty because that Buddhist or Sikh majority cultures had never challenged Germany/France/Britain before..

Britain fought Tibetian rebels who were buddhist at one point. And Sikhs have and still do form some of the most effective combat units of the British Army (Gurkhas)

When I say "aggressive" I mean that neither of those religions is particularly evangelistic. They aren't overly focused on spreading their faith unlike christianity or islam, which often ends up being done by force.

[Soviet Russia]

They aren't overly focused on spreading their faith unlike christianity or islam, which often ends up being done by force.

Islamic states' idea was 'liberating' those lands from their feudal lords, quite like communism or today's democracy-bringer-USA It is often misunderstood since people think all those wars were done to spread religion; however in an Islamic state (for example Ottomans), there is no pressure over other religions. Ottomans actually tried to 'unite' all God-centered religions (Islam, various Christian churches and Judaism) live. Thus, they made their capital Constantinapol as the city that the leaders of Sunni Islam, Orthodox Christians (Greek, Armenian and Bulgarian Churches) and Judaism. They'd probably do the same with Pope (bringing him and his church to Constantinapol) but as we know, they could not.

[Will]

Islamic states' idea was 'liberating' those lands from their feudal lords, quite like communism or today's democracy-bringer-USA It is often misunderstood since people think all those wars were done to spread religion; however in an Islamic state (for example Ottomans), there is no pressure over other religions. Ottomans actually tried to 'unite' all God-centered religions (Islam, various Christian churches and Judaism) live. Thus, they made their capital Constantinapol as the city that the leaders of Sunni Islam, Orthodox Christians (Greek, Armenian and Bulgarian Churches) and Judaism. They'd probably do the same with Pope (bringing him and his church to Constantinapol) but as we know, they could not.

Christians under Muslim rule were second-class citizens however.