Were Islamic Empires peaceful?
-
Just rubbish baseless propoganda!
bravo
-
I think so too, although I'm against Kemalism.
Selam
You maybe against Kemalism, thats ok, not everyone has to agree with it, and yes I believe some people have taken this nationalistic pride too far. However, you must understand that Attaturk had numerous enemies. I believe he rejected sunni Islam because of the rediculous hadiths and hearsays of the time. He challenged the fundementals of the Imam belief's of the time e.g. women not being able to work, not having rights etc... He seperated religion from government. I bet he was a Quranist ;D
Peace
Hope
Hope
-
Some people here are wondering why I made the comment about Turkish Islam being strongly influenced by Alevism.
The reason is this Turkish Islam was heavily influenced by Turkomen Babas from Khorasan. In modern Turkey, even though the majority of the people identify their Islam as Sunni (and the reason for this is the legacy of the Ottoman Caliphate more than anything else) during Ashura they will mourn Imam Hussayn and his sacrifice at Karbala. This more than anything recalls very old Shia fundamentals. The Turks also ascribe less importance to congregational mosque worship than others, and have more of a belief in saints, visiting gravesites for 'pilgrimage' (a la Alevi). Regarding the Ottoman Empire, this Empire set itself in opposition to the Shia Safavids of Iran, and for this reason proclaimed its own propaganda as heralding the cause of Sunni Islam. However many holders of high office in the Ottomans were members of Alevi-style sufi sects, and the military strength of the Ottomans was purely Alevi/Bektashi.
I learned about Islamic history at SOAS, and still have a lot of information and sources about Turkish Islam and its affinity to Alevism in its unique character. Turkish Islam is a very different kind of thing in practise from what we know as Sunni Islam today. If anyone wants more info or to discuss this topic in more depth, that's fine. However I'm not going further into the Kemalist Nationalist vs Ottoman debate as that will lead nowhere.
-
Some people here are wondering why I made the comment about Turkish Islam being strongly influenced by Alevism.
The reason is this Turkish Islam was heavily influenced by Turkomen Babas from Khorasan. In modern Turkey, even though the majority of the people identify their Islam as Sunni (and the reason for this is the legacy of the Ottoman Caliphate more than anything else) during Ashura they will mourn Imam Hussayn and his sacrifice at Karbala. This more than anything recalls very old Shia fundamentals. The Turks also ascribe less importance to congregational mosque worship than others, and have more of a belief in saints, visiting gravesites for 'pilgrimage' (a la Alevi).
There are 15-20% Alevis in Turkey and also quite a few Sufis (many of them being Bektashias, who are related to the Alevis), so visiting "saints'" graves and other things you mentioned is very likely to be happening. Furthermore, Turkey is a secular republic and many people don't attend the Friday congragational prayer very frequently.
Regarding the Ottoman Empire, this Empire set itself in opposition to the Shia Safavids of Iran, and for this reason proclaimed its own propaganda as heralding the cause of Sunni Islam. However many holders of high office in the Ottomans were members of Alevi-style sufi sects, and the military strength of the Ottomans was purely Alevi/Bektashi.
You seem to be not very familiar with history, or at least Ottoman/Turkish history. The Ottomans had Janissaires (the Sultan's elite troop made up of converts) - since they were converts, they werent very strict when it came to religion so they became Bekstashi Sufis (related to Alevis). These were the Janissaries, not the actual/main army. The high government positions were held by Sunnis and also people who were recruited from the Ottoman "millet system", where young Christians boys were converted to Islam and got raised in an "Islamic" way. They then either became Viziers or part of the Janissary corps. Local rulers, especially towards the end of the Ottoman Empire were locals, such as Arabs. However, the majority of government officials were Sunnis/Turks.
I learned about Islamic history at SOAS, and still have a lot of information and sources about Turkish Islam and its affinity to Alevism in its unique character. Turkish Islam is a very different kind of thing in practise from what we know as Sunni Islam today.
Perhaps because Turkey is a secular state and there are 15-20% Alevis? There are also quite a few Christians and Arabs, fyi.
-
You seem to be not very familiar with history, or at least Ottoman/Turkish history.
If you're serious about discussing this I suggest you first agree to not make personal comments, as I have no wish to discuss with a troll or deal with this new arrogant attitude that dominates the internet these days. If you confirm this I will address your comments in your post.
-
If you're serious about discussing this I suggest you first agree to not make personal comments, as I have no wish to discuss with a troll or deal with this new arrogant attitude that dominates the internet these days. If you confirm this I will address your comments in your post.
Go ahead... But you might want to back up your claims with evidence.
-
'In discussing this matter later with one of Turkey's greatest scholars the writer expressed the impression that the Turkish people while outwardly Sunni were, under cover of their dervish brotherhoods, partially Shi'ite, at least in their tendencies, and certainly mystical rather than orthodox. Whereas, in Moslem lands, the practice of takiye, dissimulation, had grown up to make possible a man's continuing his standing as an orthodox member of a mystic fraternity which emphasized an experiential rather than a traditional and formal approach to reality.' - The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, JK Birge
A key text revealing the tribal and Alevi heritage of Turkish Islam is the Battal Name. Too many examples to list in this, but all Alevi practices like drinking wine, mystical Islamic insight, use of music in a religious context, monastic life in a tekke, mourning of Imam Hussayn etc. are referenced clearly in this epic. And yet, Seyyid Battal Ghazi is considered a Sunni Muslim baba and his grave is visited by Sunni Muslim Turks, and the text attributes his authority as coming from Uthman, the Sunni Caliph.
The reason Turks give less importance to congregational worship is not just because of secularisation under Kemalist Nationalism as you stated. It's because Turkish Islam is a distinct entity with roots deeply entrenched in Alevism. It makes no difference that only a minority of Turks are outwardly Alevi. The substance of the beliefs and practices of Sunni Muslims in Turkey is heavily influenced by Alevism nonetheless. Check 'The Shi'ite Religion' by DM Donaldson, and 'Moslem Schisms and Sects' by KC Seelye.
-
'In discussing this matter later with one of Turkey's greatest scholars the writer expressed the impression that the Turkish people while outwardly Sunni were, under cover of their dervish brotherhoods, partially Shi'ite, at least in their tendencies, and certainly mystical rather than orthodox. Whereas, in Moslem lands, the practice of takiye, dissimulation, had grown up to make possible a man's continuing his standing as an orthodox member of a mystic fraternity which emphasized an experiential rather than a traditional and formal approach to reality.' - The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, JK Birge
"The Bektashi Order of Dervishes"... how reliable in this matter..
Where is their evidence for "Turkish people, while outwardly Sunni were, under cover ( rotfl of their dervish brotherhoods".
A key text revealing the tribal and Alevi heritage of Turkish Islam is the Battal Name. Too many examples to list in this, but all Alevi practices like drinking wine, mystical Islamic insight, use of music in a religious context, monastic life in a tekke, mourning of Imam Hussayn etc. are referenced clearly in this epic. And yet, Seyyid Battal Ghazi is considered a Sunni Muslim baba and his grave is visited by Sunni Muslim Turks, and the text attributes his authority as coming from Uthman, the Sunni Caliph.
Like I said, 15-20% of Turks are Alevis, so this is obviously going to be happening in many parts of Turkey..
Furthermore, if you are reflecting/connecting this to the Turkish society today, then this would not be valid, since many Turks (including many Sunnis) drink wine, since they are not very religous (not because of some Alevi influence in Sunnis like your hoax theorists are trying to tell us).The reason Turks give less importance to congregational worship is not just because of secularisation under Kemalist Nationalism as you stated.
I didnt mention "Kemalist nationalism".. Furthermore, there are many Turks that actually go to congregational prayers. In fact, the building of mosques is increasing
It's because Turkish Islam is a distinct entity with roots deeply entrenched in Alevism. It makes no difference that only a minority of Turks are outwardly Alevi. The substance of the beliefs and practices of Sunni Muslims in Turkey is heavily influenced by Alevism nonetheless. Check 'The Shi'ite Religion' by DM Donaldson.
rotfl
I should have said "reliable evidence" instead of "evidence" in my last reply..
Anyways, believe as you wish.
BTW, have you ever been to Turkey or do you get all your info from these books, websites, etc.? -
Cheers for that, I didn't know when you asked for sources you didn't mean books LOL. Who needs those, right? I have much more documentary evidence by the way. If you have any complaints, go to the nearest phone box and tell someone who cares. Enjoy your personal grandstanding. I don't like your attitude and I'm done talking with you.
-
Cheers for that, I didn't know when you asked for sources you didn't mean books LOL. Who needs those, right? I have much more documentary evidence by the way. If you have any complaints, go to the nearest phone box and tell someone who cares. Enjoy your personal grandstanding. I don't like your attitude and I'm done talking with you.
whatever
You're the one who came up with these claims and I countered them. If you cannot carry on an arguement then it is not my problem, and I don't really care. It wasnt a "grandstanding", rather I an attempt to expose the truth. When I was referring to the sources I was making the point that they are unreliable/have clear a clear bias in them.
If you wish, please share your documentary evidence.
Anyways, believe as you wish. There is no point in continuing with you, as you don't seem to be that interested, and tbh, neither am I now.
BTW, have you ever been to Turkey? -
'In discussing this matter later with one of Turkey's greatest scholars the writer expressed the impression that the Turkish people while outwardly Sunni were, under cover of their dervish brotherhoods, partially Shi'ite, at least in their tendencies, and certainly mystical rather than orthodox. Whereas, in Moslem lands, the practice of takiye, dissimulation, had grown up to make possible a man's continuing his standing as an orthodox member of a mystic fraternity which emphasized an experiential rather than a traditional and formal approach to reality.' - The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, JK Birge
A key text revealing the tribal and Alevi heritage of Turkish Islam is the Battal Name. Too many examples to list in this, but all Alevi practices like drinking wine, mystical Islamic insight, use of music in a religious context, monastic life in a tekke, mourning of Imam Hussayn etc. are referenced clearly in this epic. And yet, Seyyid Battal Ghazi is considered a Sunni Muslim baba and his grave is visited by Sunni Muslim Turks, and the text attributes his authority as coming from Uthman, the Sunni Caliph.
The reason Turks give less importance to congregational worship is not just because of secularisation under Kemalist Nationalism as you stated. It's because Turkish Islam is a distinct entity with roots deeply entrenched in Alevism. It makes no difference that only a minority of Turks are outwardly Alevi. The substance of the beliefs and practices of Sunni Muslims in Turkey is heavily influenced by Alevism nonetheless. Check 'The Shi'ite Religion' by DM Donaldson, and 'Moslem Schisms and Sects' by KC Seelye.
Peace Theindian
Majority of Alevis in Turkey are kurdish and not Turkish. They are at present seeking independance from Turkey.
Peace
Hope
-
Well the Moors in Spain valued peace and knowledge and they were able to create an amazing civilization that laid the ground work for the renaissance. It's a shame that Spaniards have buried the truth under christian propaganda and hence no one really knows or appreciates what the Muslims did in Andalucia.
They weren't one of the aggressive ones. Probably ignored the militaristic side a little too much because they were defenseless when the christians attacked. -
Well the Moors in Spain valued peace and knowledge and they were able to create an amazing civilization that laid the ground work for the renaissance. It's a shame that Spaniards have buried the truth under christian propaganda and hence no one really knows or appreciates what the Muslims did in Andalucia.
They weren't one of the aggressive ones. Probably ignored the militaristic side a little too much because they were defenseless when the christians attacked.handshake thanks for that information
-
Peace everyone,
Were Islamic Empires peaceful?
The question can answer itself once we translate the word "islamic". The word "salam/" means "peace" and the derivative form "islam/" (weight ل means "peacemaking". Thus the question can be translated as
Were peacemaking Empires peaceful?
Of course the question becomes self-answering as YES. Unfortunately, the so-called Islamic empires were agressive and took the term Islamic as a meaningless label just like a thief who calls himself "Honest Joe".
Peace,
Ayman
That's a bit selective. If you interpret Islam the more normal way, that would mean an "Islamic" empire is a "Surrendering Empire" or even a "Submissive Empire". And as the Roman Senetor Publius Tacitus pointed out; "Great empires are not maintained by timidity".
-
Peace Liquiddharma,
That's a bit selective. If you interpret Islam the more normal way, that would mean an "Islamic" empire is a "Surrendering Empire" or even a "Submissive Empire". And as the Roman Senetor Publius Tacitus pointed out; "Great empires are not maintained by timidity".
It is not selective. This is the correct meaning for the form "IF3AL"/ISLAM (making "Fa3AL"/SaLAM) in relation to "Fa3AL"/SaLAM. The meaning of "submission" is definitely false. As for "surrender", it is one of the ways of making peace and so it falls under that meaning too.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Can we shift the focus from the Ottomans to the period immediately following Prophet Mohammeds death when we learn from history that Omar and Ali and Muawiyah waged wars against Romans ,Persians and Egypt etc and annexed their territories.I used to wonder how the Prophets companions who were under his training for such a long time do such apparently ignoble and later i found out such unquranic acts.For the orientalists have long tarnished the Prophet and early companions as band of mercenaries because of these early conquests.Disheartened, I used to take refuge in questioning the validity of early reports of infighting amongst the sahaba and their other battles.Till i came across a post from brother Arnold Yasin where he wrote that there could have been only two reasons for the above scenario.1The early muslim community may have been attacked 2The neighboring empires must have obstructed the message of God from reaching their people and their is Quranic sanction for removing such barriers.Are their any historical reports authenticating such a stance? Any other opinions on this matter are welcome.
Javed