PDA

View Full Version : Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”



Argamemnon
10-28-2010, 08:07 PM
Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”

Change to counter Turkish influence: observers"

CAIRO (Mustafa Suleiman)

As part of an initiative to change school curricula and revolutionize textbooks, Egypt’s Ministry of Education crossed out the word “conquest” in reference to the Ottoman presence in Egypt and replaced it with the term “invasion.”

With the start of the new academic year, the Ministry of Education announced the implementation of radical changes to school textbooks in elementary and junior school stages.

"Ghazw" vs. "Fateh"

We changed much of the curricula and replaced old textbooks with new ones in order to cater to the mentality of modern students in the 21st century
Education Ministry official“We changed much of the curricula and replaced old textbooks with new ones in order to cater to the mentality of modern students in the 21st century,” a ministry official told Al Arabiya.

According to press reports, the ministry sent confidential reports to education departments all over Egypt that contained the changes. The daily independent al-Dostour obtained a copy of these reports.

One of the most striking and controversial changes, the newspaper reported, was calling the Ottoman advancement into Egypt “ghazw,” meaning invasion, instead of “fateh,” meaning conquest, which was used for decades in all school textbooks in reference to Ottoman and Islamic presence in the country and the rest of the region.

Fateh, which literally means “opening” in Arabic, means annexing a territory to the nation that seized it. It is commonly used to denote a benevolent intention to spread justice in this territory and/or save it from an oppressive occupier.

This term has been used in reference to the Islamic presence outside the Arabian Peninsula. It was usually considered to have taken place in order to spread the then new religion (Islam) and gather people under the banner of Ummah (nation).

In contrast, the word “ghazw” in Arabic denotes a military incursion that primarily aims at occupying a country for plundering its wealth and exploiting its people and usually involves violence and extensive military action.

Turkish influence

Egypt is trying to counter Turkey’s expanding role in the region especially that many observers are linking this current role to the Ottoman Empire, considered by historians the last Islamic caliphate. This change in particular is seen against the backdrop of the growing Turkish influence in the Middle East, said educational expert Gamal Abdul Hadi.

“Egypt is trying to counter Turkey’s expanding role in the region especially that many observers are linking this current role to the Ottoman Empire, considered by historians the last Islamic caliphate,” he told Al Arabiya.

The new textbook, part of the history course, states that Ottomans invaded Egypt because they wanted to expand their influence to the East and Egypt, as the heart of the Muslim world, was their way to do so.

According to the book, Ottomans used religion only as a means of tightening their grip on the Arab world.

“They took advantage of the fact that the medieval mentality was prevalent in the Arab world,” says the textbook. “It is a mentality that basically depended on taking things at face value and on theoretical rather than practical sciences.”

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/20...20/119764.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Zafran
10-29-2010, 03:29 AM
salaam

more bogus arab nationalism from Egypt.

peace
Reply

جوري
10-29-2010, 04:00 AM
don't feel so bad, in Egypt everyone has problems with everyone, north vs. south, east vs. west, christian vs. Muslim.. the country is a frank mess.. what a shame
Reply

Junon
10-29-2010, 03:09 PM
Salaam

Its a pity that Hosni Mubarak and his cohorts want to engage in petty nationalism.

Mind you, they don't seem to be too bothered by attempts to 'Americanise' Egypt. (culture, TV etc ad infinitum) and too follow orders from Washington like a faithful puppy.

So wonder whats going on?

PS. Ive seen some jokes made about Alarabiya, some of my friends call it Alamreeka :p
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Argamemnon
10-29-2010, 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
don't feel so bad, in Egypt everyone has problems with everyone, north vs. south, east vs. west, christian vs. Muslim.. the country is a frank mess.. what a shame
I don't feel bad because of this particular issue, I feel sad because this attitude is so widespread in the ummah. It's an obligation for Muslims to help each other and act in unity; it's farz and yet nobody cares.

:w:
Reply

marwen
10-29-2010, 05:39 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Zafran
more bogus arab nationalism from Egypt.
May be you're right, but in my opinion these changes to the educational system have nothing to do with nationalism. I think it's purely for political reasons. You know many muslim countries, especially some arab govs are indirectly ruled by western policy. Some presidents are like puppets, they only do what they are ordered to do by other political powers having interests in the middle-east region, and want to strike some muslim country with another muslim country.
Therefore I'm really worried about these stupid decisions of the egyptian minister of education.

That's said, I only support the Othmani khilafa because as a muslim I support the presence of an islamic khilafa of any kind, and because at the beginning, the othmani khilafa was led by righteous othmani rulers who didn't descriminate between all muslims.
But I can't support the othmani presence in the muslim world at the end of the khilafa, because at the end of its time, the late othmani rulers started to act unfairly and it becomes like an Empire who is just exploiting and milking the islamic countries under its reign, and I think that is one of the main reasons the othmani khilafa collapsed (in addition to other external reasons of course).

But although the othmani rulers acted wrongly in its last century, we still cannot call it "invasion", because it's still an islamic khilafa, not a strange invasion. That's why I feel that these late decisions of the egyptian government is really an external political tactic to make fitna in the region and also to destroy the islamic history/civilisation and islamic constants, as a plan to eliminate islam from the region and to eliminate any idea from muslims' minds to rebuild the islamic khilafa again.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-29-2010, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
more bogus arab nationalism from Egypt.
Who knows, maybe Egypt is planning to attack Turkey one day to get revenge.. you never know with today's "mu'minun"...
Reply

Maryan0
10-29-2010, 06:22 PM
I don't think conquest is the nicest term to use in reference to other Muslims if the empire was Islamic and not Turkish.

Salam
Reply

marwen
10-29-2010, 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Who knows, maybe Egypt is planning to attack Turkey one day to get revenge.. you never know with today's "mu'minun"...
Bro we should not reason in terms of revenge, this will take us away. Besides there is no reason.
It's just politics. If, like you said, Husni Munbarak decided one day to mess up with Turkey, the reason would be just because he wants to do a favour to Israel and company.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-29-2010, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by marwen
Bro we should not reason in terms of revenge, this will take us away. Besides there is no reason.
It's just politics. If, like you said, Husni Munbarak decided one day to mess up with Turkey, the reason would be just because he wants to do a favour to Israel and company.
LOL, it was meant to be a joke..

Long live all Arabs and Turks and others who were righteous and served Islam - and those who will serve Islam in the future.

"O glorious army, o glorious soldier - Allāhu akbar" (I tried to translate the whole thing but it's hard because Ottoman Turkish is different). It's all about defending Islam !!! Long live the Ottomans...

Reply

Zafran
10-30-2010, 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by marwen
:sl:

May be you're right, but in my opinion these changes to the educational system have nothing to do with nationalism. I think it's purely for political reasons. You know many muslim countries, especially some arab govs are indirectly ruled by western policy. Some presidents are like puppets, they only do what they are ordered to do by other political powers having interests in the middle-east region, and want to strike some muslim country with another muslim country.
Therefore I'm really worried about these stupid decisions of the egyptian minister of education.

That's said, I only support the Othmani khilafa because as a muslim I support the presence of an islamic khilafa of any kind, and because at the beginning, the othmani khilafa was led by righteous othmani rulers who didn't descriminate between all muslims.
But I can't support the othmani presence in the muslim world at the end of the khilafa, because at the end of its time, the late othmani rulers started to act unfairly and it becomes like an Empire who is just exploiting and milking the islamic countries under its reign, and I think that is one of the main reasons the othmani khilafa collapsed (in addition to other external reasons of course).

But although the othmani rulers acted wrongly in its last century, we still cannot call it "invasion", because it's still an islamic khilafa, not a strange invasion. That's why I feel that these late decisions of the egyptian government is really an external political tactic to make fitna in the region and also to destroy the islamic history/civilisation and islamic constants, as a plan to eliminate islam from the region and to eliminate any idea from muslims' minds to rebuild the islamic khilafa again.
salaam

The later Ottoman rulers were far better then anything pan arabism has produced in the past years - You should look up abdul hamid II and how he dealt with the early zionists. The later rulers were not bad - they were still trying to modernise the empire - until the arabs got drunk on nationalism and decided to rebel - after that I'm afraid the arabs have been getting slapped around all over the place.

By the way dont get mixed up with Aturk and the later Ottoman Caliphs - Both were radically different.

Promoting nationalism is a political motive. Thats why they are re-writing history.
Reply

Zafran
10-30-2010, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Who knows, maybe Egypt is planning to attack Turkey one day to get revenge.. you never know with today's "mu'minun"...
Salaam

- Turkey is still in a very strong though - besides nobody can go to war in the region without the Godfather (USA) and its servant (Isreal) actually letting it happen.

peace
Reply

marwen
10-30-2010, 07:06 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
By the way dont get mixed up with Aturk and the later Ottoman Caliphs - Both were radically different.
Aturk ? Do you mean Atatürk ?

Originally Posted by Zafran
The later rulers were not bad - they were still trying to modernise the empire - until the arabs got drunk on nationalism and decided to rebel - after that I'm afraid the arabs have been getting slapped around all over the place.
LOL. Bro Zafran, although you're condemning the stupid arab nationalism and I'm with you in that, but you're speaking out of nationalism too lol : You're assuming later Ottman caliphs never made mistakes.
I agree that the biggest number of Othman Khalifs were righteous, even the later ones. But some of them acted wrongly too. It's true Othman rulers, seen from outside, were trying to protect the Othmani Empire, But in the inside of islamic empire they were lately doing many mistakes. I don't want to report history back because it's not our main subject here, but every one knows how late othman rulers treated arabs. They were not considering arabs as their muslim brothers, but as inferior individuals, as part of their empire and kept just to profit from them. Mainly this maltreatment of arabs by othmans, the poverty, the bad conditions and bad education : therefore many arabs forget their islamic knowledge and the sense of islamic unity, and they resorted to nationalism and rebelling. They were stupid, but we should be fair enough to admitt that there were causes to this stupid nationalism. And we should be fair enough also to admit that every part of the islamic world (be it Turks, Arabs or others) have committed his own mistakes which led muslims today to this bad position in the world. No one is exempt from doing mistakes.

Although it was a little bit off topic, but I just replied to clarify that part. And I don't care about arabs or turks or any ethnicity. I only care about muslims. As muslims we should be fair and correct the ones who are wrong, and thank the ones who are right, and never attack each other.
Reply

Zafran
10-30-2010, 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by marwen
Aturk ? Do you mean Atatürk ?


LOL. Bro Zafran, although you're condemning the stupid arab nationalism and I'm with you in that, but you're speaking out of nationalism too lol : You're assuming later Ottman caliphs never made mistakes.
I agree that the biggest number of Othman Khalifs were righteous, even the later ones. But some of them acted wrongly too. It's true Othman rulers, seen from outside, were trying to protect the Othmani Empire, But in the inside of islamic empire they were lately doing many mistakes. I don't want to report history back because it's not our main subject here, but every one knows how late othman rulers treated arabs. They were not considering arabs as their muslim brothers, but as inferior individuals, as part of their empire and kept just to profit from them. Mainly this maltreatment of arabs by othmans, the poverty, the bad conditions and bad education : therefore many arabs forget their islamic knowledge and the sense of islamic unity, and they resorted to nationalism and rebelling. They were stupid, but we should be fair enough to admitt that there were causes to this stupid nationalism. And we should be fair enough also to admit that every part of the islamic world (be it Turks, Arabs or others) have committed his own mistakes which led muslims today to this bad position in the world. No one is exempt from doing mistakes.

Although it was a little bit off topic, but I just replied to clarify that part. And I don't care about arabs or turks or any ethnicity. I only care about muslims. As muslims we should be fair and correct the ones who are wrong, and thank the ones who are right, and never attack each other.
Thats not the assumption - the assumption is that the Ottoman caliphs were far better then any arab nationalist leader unless you can show otherwise - for starters they kept the title Caliph - secodnaly they still saw themselves as an Islamic empire unlike the arab nationalist who were a exculsive group for the arabs.

Your confusing the caliphs with Ataturk and the concept of modern Turkey - the Turkish nationalist did see themselves better then the arabs but the caliphs were not nationalist - thats why the institution of Caliph was destroyed by Ataturk to promote his own brand of Turkey - but this all happend after the west was about to carve up the empire - it didnt happen before WW1 - The arabs rebeled not because they were seen to be inferior but because of British agents like Lawrence of Arabia promised them nationalism if they supported the British - which they did - weakening the Caliphate.

The Ottoman caliphs were muslim to the end - soon as the arabs came in power they became puppets of western powers.

We can still see the effects today and what arab nationalism has achieved.
Reply

titus
10-30-2010, 03:48 PM
The new wording is more accurate.

Egypt was not invaded out of charity or self defense. It was a war of conquest.
Reply

جوري
10-30-2010, 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by titus
The new wording is more accurate.

Egypt was not invaded out of charity or self defense. It was a war of conquest.
Are you Egyptian? if not then I'd refrain from speaking about places you've never been and know nothing of!

all the best
Reply

marwen
10-30-2010, 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Thats not the assumption - the assumption is that the Ottoman caliphs were far better then any arab nationalist leader unless you can show otherwise - for starters they kept the title Caliph - secodnaly they still saw themselves as an Islamic empire unlike the arab nationalist who were a exculsive group for the arabs.
I know that the khilafa is the best way to rule the islamic countries. I'm totally anti-nationalist muslim. I'm not even comparing between the caliphs and nationalist leaders.
I was only discussing the later period of islamic khilafa in the ottoman empire, that I thought it has to do with the thread topic, because I said that, although there have been some kind of tension between the ottoman empire and arab countries, the introduction of the term "Invasion" is incorrect because the islamic empire is already established in the islamic world and Egypt is already part of the islamic Khilafa before ottomans took the lead. There is no invasion.
I dunno how we ended up talking about arabic nationalism..
I support the Ottoman Empire in general. I just mentioned that there were some errors within the Empire near the end of its days, and to be fair we should consider these errors so muslims don't do them again. Yes, I agree that nationalism is one important factor of the separation between muslims and the decline of Ummah. Another factor is the errors made by the later caliphs of the ottoman Empire and that led to the weakening of the empire and the growing of problems between the caliphs and the countries which are under his control. Some of these errors (I will not expand about this point because this is not a history thread) : At the end of the empire, the caliphs become weak and could not control the whole empire; there was a disconnection between the caliph and the different rulers who are ruling the different parts of the empire. This encouraged some unsupervised rulers to do wrong things like collecting money by overtaxing people and opressing them. Also, the governance was transmitted by inheritance : only the descendants of the ruling family have the right to become a caliph/ruler.

Originally Posted by Zafran
Your confusing the caliphs with Ataturk and the concept of modern Turkey
No I'm not confusing the tow concepts. The Ataturk era is another story. I'm talking about the later period of the Uttoman Empire, before Ataturk abolished the empire.
The first generation of ottoman caliphs were pious muslim leaders who did many successful conquests to expand the islamic ummah and they dedicated themselves for islam.
But The later generations, although they kept the same form of the ottoman empire, they made also some mistakes.
Reply

titus
10-30-2010, 06:47 PM
Are you Egyptian? if not then I'd refrain from speaking about places you've never been and know nothing of
Will you tell all of the members of this forum that are not American not to comment on the United States?

Your contention is a ridiculous one.
Reply

جوري
10-30-2010, 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Will you tell all of the members of this forum that are not American not to comment on the United States?

Your contention is a ridiculous one.
you speak of a very personal Egyptian experience and sentiment of which you obliviously have no knowledge --
so in fact you are the one who is ridiculous, how could you possibly know whether or not they saw the Ottoman rule as an invasion? Most observant Muslim Egyptians should you interview them would contend that being under a Muslim Empire rule ottoman or not is far better than the new secular, debauched regime or the monarchy that preceded it which was very much a product of British imperialism. Maybe in your mind you view a dissolution of the Ottoman's a blessing and their rule an invasion but the miserable life under British or French colonialism as a liberation but as stated prior don't speak for a people or a country whose history, culture, religion are elusive to you at best-- even your analogies are inane. What were you hoping for, for your all too frequent silly comments to be swept under the rug?
Reply

Argamemnon
10-30-2010, 09:38 PM
Ali Imran 103

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided."
Reply

Zafran
10-30-2010, 10:13 PM
salaam

But The later generations, although they kept the same form of the ottoman empire, they made also some mistakes
I want to know what these mistakes were - like giving some historical examples

we ended up talking about arab nationalism because thats the reason why Egypt is changing there text books against the Ottoman empire.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-30-2010, 10:13 PM
During the Ottoman era people didn't consider themselves "Syrians", or "Turks" etc. The "Ottomans" never called themselves "Turks" (I believe until 1876). Even the Ottoman/Turkish language was rather a mix of Arabic and Persian...
Reply

Zafran
10-30-2010, 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
During the Ottoman era people didn't consider themselves "Syrians", or "Turks" etc. The "Ottomans" never called themselves "Turks" (I believe until 1876). Even the Ottoman/Turkish language was rather a mix of Arabic and Persian...
Salaam

Your right - the ethinc idea came way later when ideas of self determinism were introduced based on ethnic lines.

peace
Reply

marwen
10-30-2010, 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I want to know what these mistakes were - like giving some historical examples
I can't find good english texts reporting the accurate history, not all western references are reliable sources. But I think this website is summing the most important factors of the decline of the Ottoman Islamic Empire :
http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman3.html

This website is unfortunately in arabic, I don't know if you speak arabic. But it gives a clear explanation of the advantages of the Ottoman empire and also the reasons of its fall, mainly external (European threats), but also internal factors :
http://www.saaid.net/Minute/mm72.htm
I'm unable to translate this whole page right now. But I will report the main factors of decline mentioned in that page :
- corruption of some rulers.
- spread of suffism/bid'ah in the empire.
- ignoring the Shariah in some rules and using many man-made rules.
- the external threat of european countries / the crusades.
- the expanding area of the empire and the growing difficulty to control it with traditional ways.
- scientific and intellectual regression.
- neglecting islamic dawah in the non-muslim regions of the empire, and requiring just the Jiziah (taxes) from them.
- Separatist movements inside the empire, encouraged by the enemies of islam.
- misconduct in the repartition of wealth : giving money to people who don't deserve it.
- the "Inkishari" army, founded by the sultan Ur-Khan. The army was formed from initially non muslims who were converted to islam and the army ruled the diffent countries of the empire. Most of the members of that army used to act badly, starting to drink Alcohol and rip off peoples properties. So the sultan Mahmud II was obliged to get rid of the "inkishari" Army in the year 1241 Hijri.
- the caliphs did not lead the armies by themselves, but they delegated it to incompetent leaders who messed it up.
- the sultans isolated themselves and focused on their castles.
- the ottoman state took many debts from european countries, but they were unable to pay them back. The european counties used these debts as a trap and a trick to take over parts of the empire.
Reply

marwen
10-30-2010, 11:53 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Ali Imran 103

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided."
Hope the islamic khilafa be restored back and all the muslims will be unified politically, as they are unified religiously.
Sorry bro Argamemnon if we were a little bit off topic, we were just discussing to have a clearer vision of what causes have made us so weak today, and to learn from the past mistakes, to not do them again if we want to start a new islamic Unity. It's our only intention.
Reply

Zafran
10-31-2010, 01:33 AM
Salaam - my reply in blue.

Originally Posted by marwen

I can't find good english texts reporting the accurate history, not all western references are reliable sources. But I think this website is summing the most important factors of the decline of the Ottoman Islamic Empire :
http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman3.html

This website is unfortunately in arabic, I don't know if you speak arabic. But it gives a clear explanation of the advantages of the Ottoman empire and also the reasons of its fall, mainly external (European threats), but also internal factors :
http://www.saaid.net/Minute/mm72.htm
I'm unable to translate this whole page right now. But I will report the main factors of decline mentioned in that page :
- corruption of some rulers.Yes its bound to happen but corruption was always there in any empire not just the Ottoman empire - if we campare there corruption to do todays leaders there isnt a big difference maybe today the leaders are worse
- spread of suffism/bid'ah in the empire.and......sufism was going on the early period of the empire as well when it was expanding under sulimen the magnificent
- ignoring the Shariah in some rules and using many man-made rules.The shariah is broad but "man made law" we're being used before as well in the Ottoman empires height of power so how can they explain for the decline or even a mistake
- the external threat of european countries / the crusades.The Ottomans kept the european powers at bay only until the arab revolt was it destroyed
- the expanding area of the empire and the growing difficulty to control it with traditional ways.Yes the need to modernise is this a mistake? The ottomans were trying modernise but they got a setback in the war.
- scientific and intellectual regression.You cant blame the ottomans for that -
- neglecting islamic dawah in the non-muslim regions of the empire, and requiring just the Jiziah (taxes) from them.The ottomans didnt do much dawah even in there rise but they did convert people through the devsirme system which was a "man made system" - doesnt explain the decline or mistake its Just the way it governed the empire.
- Separatist movements inside the empire, encouraged by the enemies of islam.
- misconduct in the repartition of wealth : giving money to people who don't deserve it.For example?
- the "Inkishari" army, founded by the sultan Ur-Khan. The army was formed from initially non muslims who were converted to islam and the army ruled the diffent countries of the empire. Most of the members of that army used to act badly, starting to drink Alcohol and rip off peoples properties. So the sultan Mahmud II was obliged to get rid of the "inkishari" Army in the year 1241 Hijri. Yes but the janissery army was a succesful tool in the early years only later when it became renegade did the sultan destroy it - I dont think this was a mistake on the caliphs part. The janissey army was to blame for that
- the caliphs did not lead the armies by themselves, but they delegated it to incompetent leaders who messed it up.
- the sultans isolated themselves and focused on their castles.
- the ottoman state took many debts from european countries, but they were unable to pay them back. The european counties used these debts as a trap and a trick to take over parts of the empire.This was to modernise the empire - the famous railway line that which was meant to link Germnay and the Ottoman empire, the new army and navy was all there from european money to modernise the empire. I wont call it a trap at all.
Not all these are mistakes - you just listed the usual decline of the Ottoman empire and blamed it on the Ottomans themselves - You don know that the early Ottomans had similar ideas as well and ran the empire in a similar way. Later they did try to modernise the empire but due to too many forces trying to destroy the empire the Imperial powers and the nationalist arabs - it couldnt last.

peace
Reply

Muhaba
10-31-2010, 03:03 AM
^^there is no way to make a building without making the individual bricks. how can you expect the khalifat to be restored? no one's going to come go "poof" (or wave a wand and go abracadabra) which will restore the khilafat. each and every muslim first needs to improve themselves, then their household, as well as preach to the non-muslims and then when everyone in society is the best muslim, who knows, maybe Allah will restore the khilafat.
Reply

titus
10-31-2010, 03:08 AM
how could you possibly know whether or not they saw the Ottoman rule as an invasion?
This is simply a case of Muslims attempting to whitewash and make excuses for history.

The conquests are a fact, regardless of the reasons for Egypt to admit it.

The Muslims that invaded Egypt did not do it out of the kindness of their of their hearts or to help the population and to claim so is naive at best.

If this was not invasion, then why did so many people die trying to keep them out?
Reply

Zafran
10-31-2010, 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by titus
This is simply a case of Muslims attempting to whitewash and make excuses for history.

The conquests are a fact, regardless of the reasons for Egypt to admit it.

The Muslims that invaded Egypt did not do it out of the kindness of their of their hearts or to help the population and to claim so is naive at best.

If this was not invasion, then why did so many people die trying to keep them out?
How many people died? and whats funny is that the Egyptians and Jerusalem welcomed the Muslims as they didnt like the previous regime.

Ofcourse they did - the early muslims were full of religous zeal and saw spreading Islam as a helpful thing - they wanted to share it to the world and if people didnt accept it no problem they could live as they wanted as long they payed there taxes to the autority. One of the reasons why it took ages for syria, Egypt and palestine to become muslim majority places becasue the populations didnt convert all at once.
Reply

titus
10-31-2010, 04:12 AM
How many people died?
In which battle? Or which siege?

What number of casualties would make this invasion acceptable?

Ofcourse they did - the early muslims were full of religous zeal and saw spreading Islam as a helpful thing - they wanted to share it to the world and if people didnt accept it no problem they could live as they wanted as long they payed there taxes to the autority.
I could go on and on about the double standard that many have concerning this.
Reply

Zafran
10-31-2010, 04:16 AM
Originally Posted by titus
In which battle? Or which siege?

What number of casualties would make this invasion acceptable in your eyes?



I could go on and on about the double standard that many have concerning this.
It doesnt matter if I accept the liberation - History shows that it was a liberation for the people of Egypt-
Reply

titus
10-31-2010, 04:20 AM
Then you support the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, since one of the purported reasons was the improvement over the previous regime?

What, exactly, is the difference?

One could easily argue that the American version of help is even more altruistic since they actually leave the native population in charge instead of taking over the rule of the country.

Like I said, a double standard when it comes to Muslims conquering their neighbors and Muslims being conquered.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-31-2010, 05:14 AM
They should dump Christianity and Islam and go back to worshiping Ra and Osiris :D That egyptian pantheon was pretty cool.
Reply

Zafran
10-31-2010, 05:29 AM
Originally Posted by titus
Then you support the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, since one of the purported reasons was the improvement over the previous regime?

What, exactly, is the difference?

One could easily argue that the American version of help is even more altruistic since they actually leave the native population in charge instead of taking over the rule of the country.

Like I said, a double standard when it comes to Muslims conquering their neighbors and Muslims being conquered.
Oh there is a difference - the US is still killing and fighting the people of Afghanistan and Iraq - Its not an easy argument of the US invading Iraq and Afghainstan for alturistic motives - Even the US government is clear about that.

You dont have to be smart to see the US invasions have been pure failures in convincing the populations - whilst the muslims were liberators - Just ask the egyptians, Syrians and palestinains and look at how they see history. Now do the same for the Afghanis, Iraqis - people in Nicaragua or Vietnam for the US.

when did the US ever say it was all out in conquering muslims anyway?
Reply

titus
10-31-2010, 01:00 PM
Its not an easy argument of the US invading Iraq and Afghainstan for alturistic motives
Sure it is. Self defense and to help out the native population are easy arguments for the invasions.

The same cannot as easily be said for the Muslim invasion, since if their motives were truly to liberate them then they would have let the natives Egyptians (and Persians, Spaniards, etc.) rule themselves. Instead they imposed their own rule and enriched themselves, while the Americans at least can point to their helping the Iraqis and Afghans set up their own governments instead of making Iraq and Afghanistan a part of the United States.

I know that Muslims like to believe their history of conquering was a string of liberations, but that is from a biased eye. Muslims of the time did not even try to convince people that the wars were for liberation. They admitted it was to spread Islam and to enrich Muslims. It was only later that Muslims attempted to rewrite history by claiming the wars were to liberate the poor people of any nation that happened to border them.

whilst the muslims were liberators - Just ask the egyptians, Syrians and palestinains and look at how they see history
The real question is what the people of the time thought, not what their ancestors think over a thousand years later.
Reply

marwen
10-31-2010, 01:15 PM
Originally Posted by titus
The Muslims that invaded Egypt did not do it out of the kindness of their of their hearts or to help the population and to claim so is naive at best.
From the beginning of history, there was a clear difference between an invasion and a conquest. A conquest is a way to spread a religion or a civilisation in new places of the world. Even in christianity, there have been conquests to spread the christian belief and civilisation. There is other ways to spread a religion, like dawah, preaching or missionary compaigns, like how its done today. But in the first ages (7th century), conquests were the only available means to contact other distant populations. For example, because Romans dominated North Africa, in order to reach the population there, muslims needed to go there with an army and try to present islam to the people and invite them to be under the protection of the islamic state, even if they chose to remain non muslims.
I can't call this an invasion. An invasion is different from a conquest. Yes, in both of them there are probably some casualties, but the objectives of an invasion and the way invadors consider/treat invaded peoples are different from a conquest.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-31-2010, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Sure it is. Self defense and to help out the native population are easy arguments for the invasions.

The same cannot as easily be said for the Muslim invasion, since if their motives were truly to liberate them then they would have let the natives Egyptians (and Persians, Spaniards, etc.) rule themselves. Instead they imposed their own rule and enriched themselves, while the Americans at least can point to their helping the Iraqis and Afghans set up their own governments instead of making Iraq and Afghanistan a part of the United States.

I know that Muslims like to believe their history of conquering was a string of liberations, but that is from a biased eye. Muslims of the time did not even try to convince people that the wars were for liberation. They admitted it was to spread Islam and to enrich Muslims. It was only later that Muslims attempted to rewrite history by claiming the wars were to liberate the poor people of any nation that happened to border them.



The real question is what the people of the time thought, not what their ancestors think over a thousand years later.
It would be interesting to know what sources you have used to come this (rather biased and inaccurate) conclusion. Were the Byzantine and Roman empires more tolerant and peaceful than Islamic empires for instance? Quite the contrary, even different Christian denominations were extremely intolerant and hostile towards one another.

It's a historical fact for example that before the conquest of Istanbul many Greeks preferred Ottoman rule over the Catholics. In general, religious tolerance and peaceful coexistance were non-existent in non-Muslim societies. Religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence are relatively new phenomena in the western world. These are historical facts also accepted by reputable western scholars.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-31-2010, 02:01 PM
What happened to all the natives after the arrival of westerners in North America and South America? And in Australia and New Zealand? It's interesting to note that I have never heard westerners (especially those who dislike Islam) complain about the brutal Roman and Byzantine rule over the locals.
Reply

جوري
10-31-2010, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
They should dump Christianity and Islam and go back to worshiping Ra and Osiris That egyptian pantheon was pretty cool.
I am pretty sure most Egyptians enjoyed sacrificing their lives building large graves to their Pharaohs, mummifying them and then taking their brains out for they were useless...

Sad thing is in fact Egypt has never been able to rid itself of its Pharaohs with the current mad cow president a prime example of one!

The term Pharaoh amongst Egyptians is synonymous with a tyrant I guess that goes to show how cool it was living under paganism ..

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-31-2010, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
It would be interesting to know what sources you have used to come this (rather biased and inaccurate) conclusion
Ignore that.. he just always has to have something to say that is contradictory!

My ancestors and myself are grateful for the fat'h that happened in Egypt and neighboring countries.. al7mdlillah for the greatest gift ever.

:w:
Reply

Argamemnon
10-31-2010, 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by marwen
Hope the islamic khilafa be restored back and all the muslims will be unified politically, as they are unified religiously.
Sorry bro Argamemnon if we were a little bit off topic, we were just discussing to have a clearer vision of what causes have made us so weak today, and to learn from the past mistakes, to not do them again if we want to start a new islamic Unity. It's our only intention.
Insha Allah bro.. you can discuss anything you like, it's all relevant.

:w:
Reply

Zafran
10-31-2010, 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Sure it is. Self defense and to help out the native population are easy arguments for the invasions.

The same cannot as easily be said for the Muslim invasion, since if their motives were truly to liberate them then they would have let the natives Egyptians (and Persians, Spaniards, etc.) rule themselves. Instead they imposed their own rule and enriched themselves, while the Americans at least can point to their helping the Iraqis and Afghans set up their own governments instead of making Iraq and Afghanistan a part of the United States.

I know that Muslims like to believe their history of conquering was a string of liberations, but that is from a biased eye. Muslims of the time did not even try to convince people that the wars were for liberation. They admitted it was to spread Islam and to enrich Muslims. It was only later that Muslims attempted to rewrite history by claiming the wars were to liberate the poor people of any nation that happened to border them.



The real question is what the people of the time thought, not what their ancestors think over a thousand years later.
Self defence only applies on your borders - how can you shout self defence when your invading the people and after a few years the poeple are still fighting the invaders? Actually this is part of the US's problem it acts like an empire yet does not give any benefits to the people it invades - Its one of the reasons why its terrible at changing the circumstances of the country like Iraq and Afgahnistan. Thye invade destroy the country then its up the Iraqis and the Afghanis to re build it.

Ofcourse the muslims thought by spreading islam they were doing a good thing (they were also countering the Byzantines) but if the people didnt want to no problem as long as they paid there taxes - it was better living under muslim rule then Byzantine rule.- Furthermore Muslims didnt just "enrich themselves" look at cities like Baghdad, Cordaba, Cairo, Kufa - cities made in the lands that were taken over - increasing trade and standard of living. Not only that people were actaully part of an empire where they were proctected and belonged unlike the US and its invasions. Which is destroy the country, Give money and get out of there.

The ancestors probably prefered Muslim rule then Byzantine.
Reply

Argamemnon
10-31-2010, 07:14 PM
The two enemies have decided to increase their mutual trade to $10 billion in only 2 years.

Turkey, Egypt take steps to secure exponential growth in trade volume

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/ne...de-volume.html
Reply

GreyKode
10-31-2010, 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Sure it is. Self defense and to help out the native population are easy arguments for the invasions.

The same cannot as easily be said for the Muslim invasion, since if their motives were truly to liberate them then they would have let the natives Egyptians (and Persians, Spaniards, etc.)
I am egyptian therefore I will only comment about the situation in egypt. You claim to have a degree in history and yet you either know nothing about the conquest of egypt or you have deliberately hidden the truth. You do know that the muslims were a minority when they conquered egypt and how the orthodox christians were flying from happiness when the muslims came to liberate them from the romans.
Reply

titus
11-01-2010, 04:46 AM
Were the Byzantine and Roman empires more tolerant and peaceful than Islamic empires for instance? Quite the contrary, even different Christian denominations were extremely intolerant and hostile towards one another.
I never said that the Muslims were not more tolerant. I said they were not liberators.

Just because a slave is transferred from a violent master to a less violent one does not mean he is free.
It would be interesting to know what sources you have used to come this (rather biased and inaccurate) conclusion.
Can you find a non-biased (i.e. non-Muslim) source that claims that the main goal of the Muslim invaders was to liberate the Egyptians? It is no secret that their goal was to conquer and rule Egypt, not to liberate it.
Self defence only applies on your borders - how can you shout self defence when your invading the people and after a few years the poeple are still fighting the invaders?
I was referring to those that claim that Muslims invaded Persia, Egypt, etc. because they considered them a threat. Do not mistake me, I do not condone the American invasion of Iraq, I think it was a huge mistake.

I am simply comparing the excuses given for invading other countries and their similarities.

You do know that the muslims were a minority when they conquered egypt and how the orthodox christians were flying from happiness when the muslims came to liberate them from the romans.
Yes, the Muslims were a minority. No, the Christians were not ecstatic, although some did support the invaders.

Many were apathetic since they were simply trading one foreign slave master for another.
Reply

Zafran
11-01-2010, 02:47 PM
I never said that the Muslims were not more tolerant. I said they were not liberators.

Just because a slave is transferred from a violent master to a less violent one does not mean he is free.

what are you on about here? who actually isnt a slave? everybody has to pay taxes and fallow the ruling power anytime and anywhere you live - going back the muslim conquest was a liberation from Byzantine rule, even the Copts saw them as liberators.

Can you find a non-biased (i.e. non-Muslim) source that claims that the main goal of the Muslim invaders was to liberate the Egyptians? It is no secret that their goal was to conquer and rule Egypt, not to liberate it.
Yes to rule over and provide protection to them from the Byzantines - they were definitly seen as libertators from the Byzantine empire

The pre-Islamic period for the Copts was marked by two major events, the beginning of the Coptic calendar in AD 284, in commemoration of the persecution suffered by Egypt's Christians and the establishment of an independent Egyptian Church in 451 AD, following the council of Chalcedon which condemned the monphysite theology. Thereafter the relations between Egypt's Copts and Constantinople were strained as the Copts refused to recognize the religious authority of the Patriarchs of Alexandria appointed by the Byzantine State. These clerics were given widespread administrative power, in 550 AD, against the political and the religious dominance of Egypt by the outsiders. This opposition may in part account for the Copts acceptance of the Muslim conquest in 640 AD who saw the Muslims as liberators from the Byzantine yoke
source - http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/christi...ian_egypt.html

In surrendering to the Arab armies, the Byzantines agreed to the second option. The Arab conquerors treated the Egyptian Copts well. During the battle for Egypt, the Copts had either remained neutral or had actively supported the Arabs.
- source - http://egypttourinfo.com/arab-conquest-of-egypt.html

I was referring to those that claim that Muslims invaded Persia, Egypt, etc. because they considered them a threat. Do not mistake me, I do not condone the American invasion of Iraq, I think it was a huge mistake.

I am simply comparing the excuses given for invading other countries and their similarities.
Your the one who brought up self-defence in the first place, nobody used this as an "excuse".
Reply

titus
11-01-2010, 03:41 PM
what are you on about here? who actually isnt a slave?
I don't consider people ruling themselves as slaves.

I do consider a foreign power ruling your country against its will as slaves.

Do you think the Copts would have preferred to rule themselves or have foreign rulers?
going back the muslim conquest was a liberation from Byzantine rule, even the Copts saw them as liberators.
They may have seen them as the lesser of two evils certainly. Liberators do not take over control of you. They set you free.

In surrendering to the Arab armies, the Byzantines agreed to the second option. The Arab conquerors treated the Egyptian Copts well. During the battle for Egypt, the Copts had either remained neutral or had actively supported the Arabs.
You forgot to quote the options.

Muslim conquerors habitually gave the people they defeated three alternatives: converting to Islam, retaining their religion with freedom of worship in return for the payment of the poll tax, or war.

Or to put it another way- Convert, pay us, or die.

This is liberation?

Your the one who brought up self-defence in the first place, nobody used this as an "excuse".
You are right. It was an excuse brought up in another thread concerning the "liberation" of Persia.
Reply

Zafran
11-01-2010, 11:26 PM
I don't consider people ruling themselves as slaves.

I do consider a foreign power ruling your country against its will as slaves.

Do you think the Copts would have preferred to rule themselves or have foreign rulers?
nobody rules themselves - everybody is ultimately a slave be it "foriegn" or not.

The Copts couldnt govern themselves they needed protection and still somehow keep there way of life - the muslims gave them that option and proected them as long as they paid there taxes.

They may have seen them as the lesser of two evils certainly. Liberators do not take over control of you. They set you free.
The muslims allowed the population to keep there old way of life as long as they kept paying taxes in return they got security which they couldnt provide themselves. Especially from the Byzantine empire.

You forgot to quote the options.

Muslim conquerors habitually gave the people they defeated three alternatives: converting to Islam, retaining their religion with freedom of worship in return for the payment of the poll tax, or war.

Or to put it another way- Convert, pay us, or die.

This is liberation?
Or to put in another way

Choose our way of life and conform fully to the rulers, - keep your own way life as long as you pay taxes and conform to the rulers and you will be protected from internal and outward threat - or fight us and we call the autorities in - sound similar?

You are right. It was an excuse brought up in another thread concerning the "liberation" of Persia.

Your the only one who brought the "excuse" of self defence in this thread.
Reply

جوري
11-01-2010, 11:41 PM
Do people pay taxes in the western world or do I imagine so? their jizya offers them protection not just in the obvious sense in that they are exempt from army duty and Islamic charity which is in fact alot more than their jizyah.. what hypocrites do these westerners make..
listen chap, once the west abolishes taxes can you come and speak to us of the ills of Muslim imposed tax..

and again don't speak for a people whom you know nothing of. I still have a great aunt who kept her Jewish faith when she married my uncle, she was originally from Morocco. People throughout the middle east didn't view Muslims as invaders but liberators and accepted Islam with open arms, my family being one and we are certainly grateful for those alleged 'invaders' for having given us the gift of Islam, in spite of your desperate efforts to convey otherwise. Perhaps you might want to brain wash us the way your media brainwashes you daily so that your points would have some semblance of credibility although I can't imagine a methodology that would prove successful in that regard!


what a hoot!
Reply

Maryan0
11-01-2010, 11:43 PM
From what I've read there was no invasion or conquest by the Ottomans. The Abassid Kaliphate that ruled that part of north Africa at that time became weakened and power was than transfered to the Ottomans.:hmm:
Salam
Reply

titus
11-02-2010, 06:19 AM
our the only one who brought the "excuse" of self defence in this thread.
I already admitted this and said you were right. What else do you want?

Do people pay taxes in the western world or do I imagine so?
Sure. Germans pay taxes to the German government. Swedes pay taxes to the Swedish government.

You don't have the French paying taxes to England.

That is the difference. The Egyptians were paying money to foreigners to "protect" them.

The muslims allowed the population to keep there old way of life as long as they kept paying taxes in return they got security which they couldnt provide themselves. Especially from the Byzantine empire.
This is still not liberation.

When I think of liberation I think more along the lines of how the US liberated the Phillipines during WWII. At the time they could not defend themselves so the US liberated them from the Japanese, and then helped them to a point where they could defend themselves. They did not force them to decide between paying taxes to the US government or being killed or becoming a part of the United States.

Liberation is what the Allies did to France during WWII. They help them get away from their oppressors and then helped them get back to being independent.

What the Muslims did in Egypt was more like what the Soviet Union did with East Germany, Poland, etc.

The Soviet Union did not liberate Poland any more than the Muslims did Egypt. Just because the majority of Egyptians over time became Muslim does not make the invasion a liberation.
Reply

جوري
11-02-2010, 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by titus


Sure. Germans pay taxes to the German government. Swedes pay taxes to the Swedish government.

You don't have the French paying taxes to England.

That is the difference. The Egyptians were paying money to foreigners to "protect" them.
How can they be foreigners when 90% of Egypt converted to Islam? the 'Invaders' multiplied at a rate that rivals the natives? Sometimes I worry about your train of thought!

This is still not liberation.
That is your opinion.. your opinion is neither history nor the reflection of the indigenous population!

When I think of liberation I think more along the lines of how the US liberated the Phillipines during WWII. At the time they could not defend themselves so the US liberated them from the Japanese, and then helped them to a point where they could defend themselves. They did not force them to decide between paying taxes to the US government or being killed or becoming a part of the United States.
It doesn't matter to me what you think on the side or how it relates to this thread, your entire track of thought is completely self-serving!

all the best!
Reply

Zafran
11-02-2010, 03:12 PM
This is still not liberation.

When I think of liberation I think more along the lines of how the US liberated the Phillipines during WWII. At the time they could not defend themselves so the US liberated them from the Japanese, and then helped them to a point where they could defend themselves. They did not force them to decide between paying taxes to the US government or being killed or becoming a part of the United States.

Liberation is what the Allies did to France during WWII. They help them get away from their oppressors and then helped them get back to being independent.

What the Muslims did in Egypt was more like what the Soviet Union did with East Germany, Poland, etc.

The Soviet Union did not liberate Poland any more than the Muslims did Egypt. Just because the majority of Egyptians over time became Muslim does not make the invasion a liberation
Your wrong about this - the United states beacame a superpower after WW2 - The US still have militery bases all over the world - Japan still has a cap on its militery and a year ago there were demostartions against the militery bases america had in Japan - The world war is a great example of the US actaully increasing its sphere of influence around the world against the Soviet Union. Both imperial powers. Furthermore the example of Germany is a great example of imperial forces dividing the country up.

after the war america was preety much supereme in western europe and in the pacific - you forget that France was an ally of the US and GB - if it would have been the enemy it would have definity had a few militery bases and strong sanctions imposed on it just like Germany (which was divided and conquerd by both sides which you forgot to mention) and Japan (which still has US militery presence there even though it is unpopular). Lets not forget that the US doesnt act unless there is a benefit for it.

The US has militery bases in the mid east as well and keeps the saudis "happy" as long as the oil goes one way that is -

Soviets never developed east germany - the muslims did develop Egypt - Cario, Al Azher etc creating a mutual benefical place for the population and the rulers.
Reply

titus
11-02-2010, 03:18 PM
There is a difference between influence and control.

If Japan or Germany wanted those bases out of their country they could simply not renew the contracts.

These bases are not forced upon them. Sure, they US uses their economic superiority to induce these countries to allow the bases, but if the countries are willing to forgo the rent for them then the US would leave.

That is a far cry from what happened in Egypt. Despite being the dominant super power and having those countries at their will, neither Germany, France, Japan nor any other country conquered during WWII became a part of the United States. Egypt was absorbed to become part of an empire.
Reply

Zafran
11-02-2010, 03:43 PM
Originally Posted by titus
There is a difference between influence and control.

If Japan or Germany wanted those bases out of their country they could simply not renew the contracts.

These bases are not forced upon them. Sure, they US uses their economic superiority to induce these countries to allow the bases, but if the countries are willing to forgo the rent for them then the US would leave.

That is a far cry from what happened in Egypt. Despite being the dominant super power and having those countries at their will, neither Germany, France, Japan nor any other country conquered during WWII became a part of the United States. Egypt was absorbed to become part of an empire.
Theres no contarct its one way - the american way.

The population wants them out not just in Japan - but what about the mid east? do you realy think america is going to leave its oil intrests in Iraq, arabia and now it wants Iran? - what about the sea around Iran do you think the US realy wants its navy to leave that area - do you think it will allow it? These bases are forced upon the mass population especially the mid east as it is americas sphere influence and it has all the black gold it wants there - its not going anyway without a fight - the latest wars are a good example of the that. Specifically Iraq.

How do you think america would react to a saudi militery base in Texas?

Furthermore thats the point - the american influence doesnt give any benefit to the population it influences except the despot that run the show - the musllims actually absorbed the people into the empire and actually giving them protection, right to worship the as long as they paid there taxes.

Your odd you have no problem that the empire you live in can have militery bases everywhere yet have a serious problem with empires actually absorbing people into it and making them part of it and ultimatley benefiting the ruler and the population. A mutual benefit - the american empire relies on the middle man - despots which suck all the benefits that are meant to go to the population.
Reply

Zafran
11-02-2010, 03:55 PM
Heres the issue with Japan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkUCSAAY-M0
Reply

titus
11-02-2010, 03:56 PM
The population wants them out not just in Japan - but what about the mid east?
Then they need to get their government to get them out. Do you think that the US is going to invade Japan if they kick the US off of Okinawa?

Furthermore thats the point - the american influence doesnt give any benefit to the population it influences except the despot that run the show - the musllims actually absorbed the people into the empire and actually giving them protection, right to worship the as long as they paid there taxes.
Sure it does.

Do you think anyone is going to attack Japan (which has almost no military) when the US has a military base there?

Plus the US government pays most countries in which it has bases.

In Egypt, on the other hand, the Muslims did not pay the Egyptians. Quite the opposite. The Egyptians had to pay the Muslims.

the musllims actually absorbed the people into the empire and actually giving them protection, right to worship the as long as they paid there taxes.
The Romans absorbed people into their empire also. Do you argue that their aim was to liberate the people they conquered also?
Reply

Zafran
11-02-2010, 04:12 PM
Then they need to get their government to get them out. Do you think that the US is going to invade Japan if they kick the US off of Okinawa
Japan cant kick off the US( the cap remember) watch the video (post 56) I posted earlier the PM actually resigned because he couldnt move the base - lets see who can move the base - the US wont let it.

Sure it does.

Do you think anyone is going to attack Japan (which has almost no military) when the US has a military base there?

Plus the US government pays every country in which it has bases.

In Egypt, on the other hand, the Muslims did not pay the Egyptians. Quite the opposite. The Egyptians had to pay the Muslims.
Nobody cares about Japan other then China - but thats long shot even though both countries are having disputes. One thing is for certain the US wont let Japan move the base.

Like the mid east where the middle men get the money like the royal family, or mubarak - you know the usual despots - leaving the population with nothing -

Ah but the muslims did develop Egypt as it was part of the empire which ultimatly helped the population and as there where was one ruler and no middle men - unlike america which just gives kick backs to the tyrants. Thats what they are doing in Iraq and even worse were willing to talk to the taleban as long as they dropped there arms. They are realy benefiting the population here.

The Romans absorbed people into their empire also. Do you argue that their aim was to liberate the people they conquered also?
Made them citizens which the US likes to call the people that it controls as well - you dont have a problem with the american empire that you live in which has militery bases all over the world and which doesnt benefit the population that it influences yet you have a problem with an empire that actually did benefit the population?
Reply

Argamemnon
11-03-2010, 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by titus
There is a difference between influence and control.

If Japan or Germany wanted those bases out of their country they could simply not renew the contracts.

These bases are not forced upon them. Sure, they US uses their economic superiority to induce these countries to allow the bases, but if the countries are willing to forgo the rent for them then the US would leave.

That is a far cry from what happened in Egypt. Despite being the dominant super power and having those countries at their will, neither Germany, France, Japan nor any other country conquered during WWII became a part of the United States. Egypt was absorbed to become part of an empire.
You can't compare ancient and 'modern times', civilizations were constantly attacking and conquering one another. Either conquer or be conquered was more or less the rule.

As for the US, they did conquer New Mexico and California which were Mexican lands. In fact, America as a whole was conquered wiping off the locals in the process. No Muslim empire has ever done this.
Reply

titus
11-03-2010, 07:12 PM
You can't compare ancient and 'modern times', civilizations were constantly attacking and conquering one another. Either conquer or be conquered was more or less the rule.
There you go Zafran. There is your self-defense excuse.

The Muslims conquered their neighbors to avoid being conquered.

As for the US, they did conquer New Mexico and California which were Mexican lands. In fact, America as a whole was conquered wiping off the locals in the process. No Muslim empire has ever done this.
True, but you don't see most Americans kidding themselves today and calling it a liberation.
apan cant kick off the US( the cap remember) watch the video (post 56) I posted earlier the PM actually resigned because he couldnt move the base - lets see who can move the base - the US wont let it.
You think the US would attack Japan militarily if they did? I don't.

Made them citizens which the US likes to call the people that it controls as well - you dont have a problem with the american empire that you live in which has militery bases all over the world and which doesnt benefit the population that it influences yet you have a problem with an empire that actually did benefit the population?
If the military bases do not benefit the people then they can have them removed. Sure, there may be economic penalties but no physical force would be used.

The countries choose to keep them there for financial reason and for security reasons. So yes, they do benefit the people in those countries.
Reply

Zafran
11-03-2010, 07:31 PM
You seem to be confused with who you are talking to... but anyway the points are easy to defend

There you go Zafran. There is your self-defense excuse.

The Muslims conquered their neighbors to avoid being conquered.
Nobody has used the word self defence except you even Argamemnon hasnt used the word self defence - you just said before you were wrong and here you are trying to revive it again?

You think the US would attack Japan militarily if they did? I don't
Japan cant get that militery base off there land - Period - I dont think any sane person will argue against that even when the PM of Japan had to resign as he couldnt do what the population of Japan wanted him to do - getting rid of that miltery base.

If the military bases do not benefit the people then they can have them removed. Sure, there may be economic penalties but no physical force would be used.

The countries choose to keep them there for financial reason and for security reasons. So yes, they do benefit the people in those countries.
The militery bases in Japan dont benefit anyone except the US - the PM tries to get rid of them and look what happend to him.

The militery bases of Mid east dont benefit anyone except the despots like the royal saudis or mubarak - the middle men - the population have no benefit at all - actully america helps the despots in keeping the population in check - helping them if they need to deal with some revolts here or there. This is all in favour of the US - the gangsters in the mid east help the US and there intrests.

You believe people can choose to keep the US bases in there country - thats very naive that like me saying the Brits Had a choice to have Roman army in Cornwall! The Brits couldnt take the Roman army off - Period
Reply

جوري
11-03-2010, 07:33 PM
Why are we arguing with Titus? in his provincial mind and probably midwestern town, he would like to view it as a ghazw instead of fat7 in spite of what Egyptians say in spite of what history says.. let him have his moment.. is he convincing anyone -- other than his own person that is?

:w:
Reply

titus
11-03-2010, 07:40 PM
Nobody has used the word self defence except you even Argamemnon hasnt used the word self defence - you just said before you were wrong and here you are trying to revive it again?
He said that it was either conquer or be conquered. How is that not an argument for self defense?

Japan cant get that militery base off there land - Period - I dont think any sane person will argue against that even when the PM of Japan had to resign has he couldnt do what the population of Japan wanted him to do - getting rid of that miltery base.
The Japanese government could have the US leave, the problem was that the PM did not have a enough support to get it done. In other words he made a promise that he couldn't keep.

The militery bases in Japan dont benefit anyone except the US - the PM tries to get rid of them and look what happend to him.
Like I said, there are many in the government that want them to stay. That was why the PM could not get them removed.
You believe people can choose to keep the US bases in there country - thats very naive that like me saying the Brits Had a choice to have Roman army in Cornwall!
Again you confuse two different situations. The Romans had their army in Britain to make sure that Britain remained a part of the Roman Empire. The US is not there in order to keep Japan a part of the United States.
Reply

titus
11-03-2010, 07:43 PM
in his provincial mind and probably midwestern town, he would like to view it as a ghazw instead of fat7 in spite of what Egyptians say in spite of what history says.. let him have his moment.. is he convincing anyone -- other than his own person that is?
And you can keep living in your naive fantasy world in which everyone welcomed the Muslim invaders who conquered them.

Perhaps you have a mental picture of the victorious armies walking into towns with the local population strewing flower petals at the feet of the heroes?
Reply

Zafran
11-03-2010, 07:55 PM
He said that it was either conquer or be conquered. How is that not an argument for self defense?
How is that a argument for self defence - conquest does not equal self defence period - its a paradox.

The Japanese government could have the US leave, the problem was that the PM did not have a enough support to get it done. In other words he made a promise that he couldn't keep.
The couldnt and cannot make the US leave - they have zero capicity do to so - just like the Brits couldnt make the Romans leave.

Like I said, there are many in the government that want them to stay. That was why the PM could not get them removed
No they dont - they scared of the US - thats like saying that there were many Brits that wanted the Romans to stay in England - By they way I like the way you ignore the mid east - has that would totaly make your argument meaningless.

Again you confuse two different situations. The Romans had their army in Britain to make sure that Britain remained a part of the Roman Empire. The US is not there in order to keep Japan a part of the United States.
They are the same except the Roman position being better as they actually benefited the British population - The US is there to defend its sphere of influence or empire. Again you ignore the mid east - being Naive?
Reply

Zafran
11-03-2010, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Why are we arguing with Titus? in his provincial mind and probably midwestern town, he would like to view it as a ghazw instead of fat7 in spite of what Egyptians say in spite of what history says.. let him have his moment.. is he convincing anyone -- other than his own person that is?

:w:
Salaam

I think hes confused - he came here to show us that the muslims were bad beacsue they conquered Egypt but he has no problem with a US militery base in Japan which has had some serious criticism from the population of Japan. Actaully hes defending it - Hes either being naive or is very confused.

Its intresting talking to people with a different angle.
Reply

Zafran
11-03-2010, 08:00 PM
Originally Posted by titus
And you can keep living in your naive fantasy world in which everyone welcomed the Muslim invaders who conquered them.

Perhaps you have a mental picture of the victorious armies walking into towns with the local population strewing flower petals at the feet of the heroes?
You can live in a naive world where the people of Japan and the Mideast love america and its miltery bases!
Reply

titus
11-03-2010, 08:07 PM
How is that a argument for self defence - conquest does not equal self defence period - its a paradox.
He said there were two choices given to the Muslims of the time.

1) Conquer your neighbors or
2) Be conquered by your neighbors

If that is not a self defense argument I don't know what is.

The couldnt and cannot make the US leave - they have xero capicity do to so - just like the Brits couldnt make the Romans leave.
The Brits would require military force to get the Romans to leave. That is not the case with Japan. The PM simply lacked the support in the government to get the US out.

Bad analogy.

They are the same except the Roman position being better as they actually benefited the British population
The Romans benefited the British population? You know they "benefitted" them against their will, right? There were constant rebellions.

The US is there to defend its sphere of influence or empire.
No doubt that is a major part of it.

Again you ignore the mid east - being Naive?
I suppose instead of military bases and payouts that the US should invade the Middle East and make it a part of the United States in order to liberate them? It would benefit them and they would be allowed to keep their way of life. The US would only ask that they pay the taxes to the US that they now pay to their own countries.

Then maybe 1400 years from now they will be talking about how nice it was of the US to conquer them.
Reply

titus
11-03-2010, 08:11 PM
You can live in a naive world where the people of Japan and the Mideast love america and its miltery bases!
I have never claimed that.
Reply

Zafran
11-03-2010, 08:45 PM
He said there were two choices given to the Muslims of the time.

1) Conquer your neighbors or
2) Be conquered by your neighbors

If that is not a self defense argument I don't know what is.
How is are the words conquest and self defence the same? How can you make an argumnet of conquest and self defence at the same time - nobody has so far - they would need to use the word self defence and not conquest. As both words are paradoxes.

The Brits would require military force to get the Romans to leave. That is not the case with Japan. The PM simply lacked the support in the government to get the US out.

Bad analogy.
No we'll use your method of thinking just like the people of Japan dont need an army neither did the Brits - they can just tell the brits to leave. Or even better too many Brits liked the Romans.

The Romans benefited the British population? You know they "benefitted" them against their will, right? There were constant rebellions
Like the rebelion of Boudicaa similar to ww2 and the Atomic Bomb.

I suppose instead of military bases and payouts that the US should invade the Middle East and make it a part of the United States in order to liberate them? It would benefit them and they would be allowed to keep their way of life. The US would only ask that they pay the taxes to the US that they now pay to their own countries.

Then maybe 1400 years from now they will be talking about how nice it was of the US to conquer them.
Nah the style of the US is to bomb, pay and run out - one of the problems of the US empire is that its terrible at taking over populations - It likes the cronies such as the royal family and mubarak to do that part for it. The US just pays them. They do the rest like gangsters. They dont want another Iraq.
Reply

Zafran
11-03-2010, 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by titus
I have never claimed that.

Of course you have - your defending The US and its militery bases - you think they are there because the population chooses to have them -
Reply

جوري
11-03-2010, 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by titus
And you can keep living in your naive fantasy world in which everyone welcomed the Muslim invaders who conquered them.
They were indeed, unless you hear otherwise from the horse's mouth.. here is one mare that attests that they were welcome in my mother land and we are grateful for what they've brought!

Originally Posted by Zafran
Salaam

I think hes confused - he came here to show us that the muslims were bad beacsue they conquered Egypt but he has no problem with a US militery base in Japan which has had some serious criticism from the population of Japan. Actaully hes defending it - Hes either being naive or is very confused.

Its intresting talking to people with a different angle.
I think he is simply under-educated.. westerners in general like to enjoy the self-proclaimed right to speak on behalf of others.. for instance a Muslim woman is oppressed and caged so they speak on her behalf to make her naked by law because in nakedness lies her liberation.
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the locals didn't like those weapons so on their behalf they invaded to rape and pillage destroy along with those mysterious weapons the ancient arts of Babylon and Samaria ..
Afghanistan is a cesspool for heroin addicts so they come invade steal what they can and keep the native body parts as souvenirs..

westerners know best.. why? well it should be obvious.. they have rated themselves and decided so..


These Quranic verses always comes to mind when I read or see anything done by these mindless cretins.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ {11}
[Pickthal 2:11] And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only.
أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـكِن لاَّ يَشْعُرُونَ {12}
[Pickthal 2:12] Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not.

:w:
Reply

Argamemnon
11-04-2010, 02:38 AM
Originally Posted by titus
He said there were two choices given to the Muslims of the time.

1) Conquer your neighbors or
2) Be conquered by your neighbors

If that is not a self defense argument I don't know what is.
We also had to spread God's message because Islam is the true religion - you or others not believing it is irrelevant. Today we have other means to spread Islam and there is no need for wars.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-04-2010, 06:20 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
These Quranic verses always comes to mind when I read or see anything done by these mindless cretins.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ {11}
[Pickthal 2:11] And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only.
أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـكِن لاَّ يَشْعُرُونَ {12}
[Pickthal 2:12] Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not.
The verses certainly ring true even more so these days.
Reply

aadil77
11-04-2010, 07:20 AM
The muslim world has lost all pride in islam, now its all about disassociating themselves from it
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!