Posted on 05/30/2011 3:10:09 AM PDT by 1010RD
SNIP “The normalization of history,” proclaims the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose government has tried to reintegrate the region by lifting visa requirements and promoting a Middle Eastern trade zone, as it deploys its businessmen along the old routes and exports Turkey’s pop culture to an eager audience.
“None of the borders of Turkey are natural,” he went on. “Almost all of them are artificial. Of course we have to respect them as nation-states, but at the same time we have to understand that there are natural continuities. That’s the way it’s been for centuries.”
SNIP
“A RECREATION OF THE HISTORIC AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT” is how Mr. Davutoglu describes his vision for the region. And indeed, that vision, which is effectively government policy, has touched in a nerve in Turkey, a country with its own unresolved questions of identity.
Just as Arab nationalism still runs run deep, with the fate of Palestine its axis, so does Turkish nationalism, which includes a sense that the country deserves a role in the region, and beyond that at least echoes of its Ottoman age... “It’s been almost 100 years that we’ve been separated by superficial borders, superficial cultural and religious borders, and now with the lifting of visas to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, we’re lifting national boundaries... Turkey is challenging the traditional understanding of policy in the Middle East in place since the 20th century.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That is exactly why, post WWII, there were huge shifts of people migrating to areas where they would be safer.
Pakistan and India are one of the most outstanding examples. Israel is another, where Jewish refugees from all over the globe were welcomed.
The problem in the Middle East is that Saudi Arabia sabotaged completion of the Arab migration. Nearly a million Jews migrated to Israel from their former Muslim-dominated countries (where they were NEVER acknowledged as citizens). Muslims who left the new nation of Israel were not allowed to assimilate into any Muslim nation by the Arab League, under pressure by the King of Saudi Arabia.
Right now, genocide of white and colored South Africans is occurring. I would like to see those folks allowed to immigrate here to North America. They speak English, are by and large well educated, even highly skilled, and understand representational government.
This really isn’t ethnic cleansing, though. In the U.S.A., we are united under a Constitution guaranteeing our rights. That unites us as a nation, and as long a we continue to live by that document’s purpose, ethnic cleansing here does not exist.
even Wikipedia, which tends liberal, admits it was a mixed bag, with occasional massacres. And Jews and Christians had many restrictions, and had to pay “jizra”.
...besides, if you look at the treatment of women, the 70 million plus Hindus killed (”Hindu Kush”), and much too much to list here, in 1300 years of plunder rape conquest etc., saying that occasionally they were nice to productive people who were paying disproportionate taxes, is like Hitler being nice to children and dogs.
An order of magnitude more Africans died in the eastern slave trade, than west. adb means both black and slave.
The Quran is by definition racist, and sexist. not a matter of interpretation. Muhammad (pbuh) OWNED black slaves himself. and took a captive woman as property, after a battle in which her husband was killed.
and he is considered the most perfect man, to emulate...
yes, some Muslims are nice. Some treated Jews nice, in Turkey, and Spain. but they were NOT following the Quran. they were like Catholics who support abortion.
the Quran SPECIFICALLY forbids even being friends with a kuffir.
so if a Muslim was friendly with a Jew (or Christian), they are either violating their own religion’s teachings, or they are practicing taquiyya...
Note the early example of the “blood libel”,
in a sample of what Wikipedia says about Jews in the Ottoman Empire:
There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[26] In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue and destroyed the Torah scrolls, and it was only by forced conversion that a massacre was averted.[24] There was a massacre of Jews in Barfurush in 1867.[26]
Concerning the life of Persian Jews in the middle of the 19th century, a contemporary author wrote:
...they are obliged to live in a separate part of town... for they are considered as unclean creatures... Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt… For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans… If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him… unmercifully… If a Jew enters a shop for anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods… Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them.[27]
In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were falsely accused of having murdered a Christian monk and his Muslim servant and of having used their blood to bake Passover bread or Matza. A Jewish barber was tortured until he “confessed”; two other Jews who were arrested died under torture, while a third converted to Islam to save his life. Throughout the 1860s, the Jews of Libya were subjected to what Gilbert calls punitive taxation.
In 1864, around 500 Jews were killed in Marrakechand ...
If anyone still even questions why Turkey has no place in the modern EU coalition of states, this should help settle all doubts.
Turkey's army is the eighth largest in the world today. Add to this recent events, such as Turkey becoming closer and closer to Iran, and you can get a sense that a New Ottoman Empire is realistically possible. Amenejehad was in Turkey recently, and while there, did something which most people don't grasp the import of. He prayed 'behind' a Sunni imam. This was a non-verbal declaration that he, and the Shiite clerics he fronts for, would be willing to unite under a Sunni banner to advance common interests.
Turkey, united with Iran, makes a decent-sized core for a New Ottoman Empire, a united Islamic Caliphate, which hasn't been seen in over 80 years. Other nations in the area, particularly those targeted in this 'Arab Spring' may well follow Iran in looking to Turkey to be the public face of their aspirations. The major sticking point could be Egypt, which has its own ideas about its destiny. As part of the consolidation of the New Ottoman Empire, watch and see what relationship Turkey will have with whatever comes to the fore in Egypt. The may well be an armed conflict if Egypt chooses not to subordinate itself to the Turko-Iranian plan...
the infowarrior
Can Turkey Unify the Arabs?
Is this a trick question?
Even at the height of its secularism, Turkey has always had a lot of nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire, so it can be hard to tell where the nostalgia ends and actual territorial ambition begins.
I don’t see a new Selim the Grim on the horizon. I bear a lot of grudging admiration for Selim, whose conquests in only three years rivaled those of the most famous conquerors in history, and he did it all against Muslim Arabs. He conquered Syria and Palestine and Egypt and the entire Arabian Peninsula, which has hardly ever been done in human history.
Very perceptive.
After all, the Ottoman Empire (or Osmanic Empire) was an Islamic Empire. "Nationalists" exist in the Moslem world, though Nationalism is very much secondary to Islam (regardless of sect, ethnicity, culture, or 'artificial borders').
Besides, Iran, post-Islamic conquest & by majority, remained a Sunni country for approximately a 1000 years. Shia Islam only became the official state religion during mid to latter part of the Safavid dynasty in Iran (circa 16-17 century). Even then, Shia Islam was enforced, mainly, for political purposes of the Safavid rulers. IOW, they tried to forcibly combine Iranian nationalism with Islamic ideology & give it a unique identity.
To my knowledge, the Turks, overall, hold much stronger religious beliefs than many average Iranians or even Arabs. One difference is that many Turkish religious leaders have better all-around education than most Mullahs & Ayatollahs in Iran. Therefore, they are more appealing to the middle class, at least in Turkey.
Um, I was referring specifically to the Ottoman Turks, not the rest of Islam.
Yeah, I'd like that. The Turks go back to Central Asia, Arabs go back to Arabia, and Christians are the majority in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa.
Actually, the Ottoman Empire for most of its existence was near to the ideal of a multicultural society. Each ethnic/religious group was classed as a millet, with its own laws and leaders. The Sultan ruled over all the millets, but as long as they obeyed him they were generally left alone to run their own affairs.
Most of the massacres of Greeks, Armenians, etc. you reference took off in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Turks were trying to become a "real" nation-state of the European type. Young Turks and all that.
As with European nation-states, "minorities" had to be assimilated, expelled or exterminated if Turkey was to become a real nation.
I don't mean to imply the Ottoman Empire was some sort of tolerant paradise in early days, but there is no question that the Turks trying to apply European-style nationalism made things worse for minorities.
That the minorities had their own nationalisms, in many cases claiming the same land, certainly didn't help.
"Millet" defined as: the separate legal courts pertaining to "personal law" under which communities (Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law and Jewish Halakha law abiding) were allowed to rule themselves under their own system.
Then one can argue that Iran today, under the Mullahs' rule, has been running a near to the ideal of a multicultural society, a type of "millet", as well.
So long as other officially recognized 'religious' communities obey the Supreme Leader (a type of Sultan or Caliph), respect the fact that Iran is officially a Shia Islamic State, and publicly adhere to wider Islamic laws & rule (e.g. dress code/hejab), then they are free to run their own affairs within their own community (but, not when those affairs involve a moslem). That right is legally protected in the Islamic Republic Constitution. Religious minorities are even permitted to elect a representative to represent them in the Parliament, in Iran.
Actually, the concept of "millet" was used for the communities of the Church of the East under the Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia in the 4th century [long] before establishment of the Ottoman Empire. Related posts
The difference is that the Sassanid of Persia were not pressuring others to convert to Zoroastrianism, by direct or indirect means. Nor did they mind if a Zoroastrian by birth converted to another religion, as long as the convert stayed loyal to the Persian Empire. This, to me, is closer to 'nationalism' than millet associated with Islam or any Islamic Empire/Dynasty.
Historically inaccurate. Persia was at war with the (Christian) Roman Empire for centuries. The Romans persecuted Zoroastrians in their empire and the Persians retaliated on the local Christians. Though there may be some question which side started it. In any case, it happened, despite the fact it has long disappeared down the memory hole for today's Christians, especially in the West.
http://www.oxuscom.com/persecution.htmPersians
The Persians also persecuted the Manicheans and probably other religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
BTW, I do not claim the Ottoman millet system is ideal or desirable, only that it approximates the multicultural idea, probably about as closely as any government can. Certainly a republican popular government cannot function on such a basis, only an autocratic system.
Nonetheless, it is a well-known fact that Persia was at war with Roman Empire long before Roman Empire became "Christian". Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire before Christianity was officially recognized by them (the rest is in the link I provided in post #54, including persecutions of Christians in the Sassanid era in Persia) -- Most bona fide historians & history books confirm these facts.
Your 2nd link (wikipedia) Manichaeism also says these:
"Although there is no proof Shapur I was a Manichaean, he tolerated the spread of Manicheanism and refrained from persecuting it in his [Sassanid] empire's boundaries." "With the assistance of the Persian Empire, Mani began missionary expeditions." "After failing to win the favor of the next generation of Persian royalty, and incurring the disapproval of the Zoroastrian clergy, Mani is reported to have died in prison awaiting execution by the Persian Emperor Bahram I"
The last wiki statement, about Bahram I, may well be true. Though, it an historical fact that Zoroastrianism was not made the official religion of Iran until the latter part of the Sassanid Empire, and after Christianity became officially accepted in the Roman Empire. And, unlike Islam, the objective of the Sassanid was neither to impose nor to convert others to Zoroastrianism.
I wasn't talking about the ideal or perfection. My point was that "Millet" system was not unique to Ottoman Empire. That the concept existed pre-Islam. Ottoman Empire simply borrowed it and adapted it to suit their own needs in the Islamic context.
Unsure what you mean by Certainly a republican popular government cannot function on such a basis, only an autocratic system.? I'd say multiculturalism has its 'challenges' whether under an autocratic or a democratic system. Then again, multiculturalism is not only about religion. Perhaps, it'd be best not to allow a multicultural society at all. Otherwise, someone can always claim persecution by someone else, in one form or another.
Turks hate Arabs and Arabs hate Turks.
The Maghreb hates Egypt who hate the Levant who hates Arabia who hates Persia who hates India.
Nobody can figure out Indonesia and Malaysia.
Sunni hate Shia and Shia hate Sunni, and everyone hates the Alawi.
But everyone LOVES Bollywood, which is in Hindi.
Confusing?
You bet.
My point was that a truly multicultural system can function where all of the “cultures” are more or less equal in subservience to a supreme autocrat.
It, IMO, cannot function, by definition, in a constitutional republic where one culture is “the people” in control of the government. All other “peoples” in such a case will feel oppressed.
IOW, oppression of all will work. Oppression of some by others won’t, for a truly multicultural society.
OK, now it makes perfect sense. ;^)
I understand what you mean. Very interesting. Well worth having, perhaps, a separate thread on the subject to further discuss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.