Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”

[Argamemnon]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[Argamemnon]

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/n...ecure-exponential-growth-in-trade-volume.html

 

[GreyKode]

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.

 

[titus]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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/christian_egypt/christian_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".

 

[titus]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[جوري]

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!

 

[Maryan0]

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

 

[titus]

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.

 

[جوري]

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!

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[Zafran]

Heres the issue with Japan

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

 

[titus]

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?

 

[Zafran]

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?

 

[Argamemnon]

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.

 

[titus]

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.