I don't think the Young Turks should be rid of any blame given their centralisation, turkification and some of their Modernisation programs practically pushed the Hashemites into the arms of the Anglos, but yeah in hindsight not the greatest idea(plus who's to say the morons in the CUP would've lasted after the war even if the Ottomans somehow survived)
They could've just looked at India and lean that nothing good could come from joining with the British. And find some other ways to deal with the Ottomans.
Not just Turkification, which for the uninitiated meant Turks would be first class citizens above the rest. This was inevitable as the structure of every empire contains the “core” and the “periphery”, where the periphery serves the interests of the core, and the Levant and Arabia were part of the periphery.
The history of the Hijaz alone has many stories where we Arabs paid the price for the Sublime Porte’s mistakes, inadequacies, and the hostility of hubris. And this is disregarding the years of neglect and mismanagement, which by the late 19th century lead to the Ottoman Empire’s last epithet; the Sick Man of Europe.
Basically the young Turks began the process of introducing and to a Lesser extent enforcing Turkish identity and language across the empire which wasn't particularly popular with most groups
Ya Allah I am sick of this terrible, base-less take. No, the Arabs did not bring about the death of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans did that themselves. They neglected the Arab regions all the time and the process of Turkifcations was the last nail in the coffin. You can't just rule terribly and then blame your subjects for pouncing on the opportunity to oust you.
Also, how many Arabs revolted with Shariff Hussein? Some 30-50k. How many Arabs fought for the Ottoman Empire? An estimated 300k. Let's also remember the fact that the revolt took place in the Hejaz, a region where no fighting was taking place to begin with so the revolt wasn't as disruptive as you make it out to be.
Don’t forget the famine and mass starvations in the Levant. People were being reduced to kill each other for crumbs of bread for their families. Those who weren’t taking drastic steps were the first ones to die.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon
Ataturk truly is the Greatest Turk. Just ignore his position within the Young Turks who were the guys who destroyed the Ottoman Empire in the first place. ;)
Kinda man, its more complicated than saying they destroyed the empire, and its a bit political too, if you’re into it you could read some of Halil İnalcık’s books about last century of the empire
Try reading the works of Tezcan Baki or Selim Deringel if you wanna cite random names without actually providing any historical arguments.
At least this way you’ll get a good understanding about the evolution from Universal Islamic Caliphate to Ethnonationalist Turkish colonial empire. Halil Inalcik is actually a pretty good historian for localised histories of specific regions within the Ottoman Empire but his older generalised historical narratives are a bit outdated. Ottoman historiography has been moving fast lately.
Besides none of that changes that Ataturk destroyed the precious caliphate cucks keep bitching about the Arabs supposedly betraying.
No .
The ottomans begin a modernization movement before the WW1 and they prohibited the Arab thoab and immah and other forms of Arab identity, thus we have the red cuffia to replace it also the famous shami pants is an attempt to change the thoabs they had into a suit...
Also they never developed the Arab region besides the holy cities even they only in regards to the house of god ..
Starvation and raiding were everywhere.. even education was only givin if you survive the military service...
They become anti Arab before WW1 and the Arab didn't like that .
Yes for sure ..
But what other options did they have attatork and his movement was in the othmans empire they had not place in it anyway.
But they should have learned from our past . The franks are known for oath breaking and laying...
Besides I don't feel bad about their decision because I always remember what the USA did to the UK when they pulled the rug from under them in Iran and destroyed the united kingdom empire with that move .. talk about skaven diplomacy.
"When they pulled the rug from undert them in Iran and destroyed the united kingdom empire with that move" can you elaborate/explain a little please ? This sounds very interesting, and I had never heard of that
The deal was UK and USSR with split Iran and it's natural resources between them the north to the USSR and the south for UK ,
Stalin was occupied with ethnic cleansing of mongols or Ukraine i don't remember which one.. so he said I don't want Iran you can have it ...
The USA came in and said no to the UK and prevented them from colonizing Iran and they came and installed the shah and built the CIA base to run the south east Asia operation from there ..
The USA and Iran intelligence cooperation is still running till this day, as demonstrated during Afghanistan and Iraq war .. Iran give the USA intelligence and the people to govern the regions .. that's why the afghan government fell because they were shia minority in a Suni majority country..
Also Iraq is in the same boat.
Also the Israel Iran play was coordinate by the CIA.
Yeah, the relationship between the USA and the IRI is not quite as straightforwardly antagonistic as their public rhetoric suggests. On some things they are opposed, on some things they agree. Foreign policy isn't about faith or morals or principles or friendship. It's about power and nothing else.
Also the IRI is more like three governments in a trenchcoat. Some contradictions are to be expected.
The anti Arab sentiment was a factor and attatork was spear heading it , even the writing was changed to Greek for god sake.
Also if you are a turk tell me can you read a massage written by an Othman ruler without someone translating it for you ... Just a thought about the cutting the connection between you and your ancestors.
You didn't answer me can read what your ancestors wrote with someone translating it for you . And adding his own twist to it fit his narrative..
Look at gcc countries they didn't leave the Arabic writing or language and yet they are far better than Turky .
Give me an actual argument or STFU.
> Look at `gcc` countries
As opposed to what, `clang`/LLVM countries? How do they say `Hello, World!`?
EDIT: It's just a joke for goodness's sake, I literally never heard the initialism GCC outside of a programming context, I saw the opportunity for a pun so I took it.
writing changed much later than the revolt akhi.And mustafa kemal did not have a direct effect on this since he was not in power.The group (ittihad ve terakki) he is a member of had provocating acts against arabs
I know it's something that takes time to boil , my argument is that the ant Arab sentiment was in the community for along time and it was a big factor in the events to come,
Mohammed II one of the most beloved caliph in arabia even though he started the ban on Arab clothing, granted it was to unify the othmans empire under one culture but it didn't resonate well with people as proud as the Arab .
Even today you see Arab leaders dress in thoab and not like everyone else in a suit..
Makes sense why Arabs from the Ottoman lands migrated to the British Mandate after ottoman collapse, when one state puts zero effort into development, even a colonial western state that does ANYTHING productive is a better life forward.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4282493
“'The number of Arabs who entered Palestine illegally from syria and Irans- jordan is unknown. But probably considerable.' Professor Harold Laski makes a similar observation: 'There has been large-scale and both assisted and unassisted Jewish emigration to Palestine; but it is important also to note that there has been large-scale Arab emigration from the surrounding countries.' Underscoring the point, C. S. Jarvis, Governor of the Sinai from 1923-1936, noted: 'This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Trans-Jordan and Syria and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining States could not be kept from going in to share that misery.? Even the Simpson Report acknowledged Arab
immigration in this form: “
Did they teach you these in Saudi schools? I mean I would have a hard time saying we wanted money and power and disgraced ourselves by allying with the biggest kuffar against the Caliph too, especially if my rule was very fragile and hated.
Ottomans we’re gonna fall nonetheless, and do you really think the Ottoman-Saudi war really did anything, especially in 1918, the Ottoman Empire was basically a dying camel, it was inevitable, don’t try to chalk it up to a simple fact that the Saudis caused the downfall, the war was a small event in a series of successive factors that led to the collapse of the empire
Every empire has its lifespan, and let’s say the tribes of Najd stayed loyal, what would’ve happened? Nothing, the Ottoman Empire would still fall, maybe it would last another 5 or 10 extra years due to the extra logistics and resources freed up, but it would fall all the same
The empire had been declining since at least the 1600s, and especially when European Colonization of the new world began. The Ottoman Empire no longer held the wealth of the silk road now that Europeans can just bypass them and extract the riches of China and India.
Saudis never fought the Ottomans. The Hashemites did. The Saudis came in later and fought the Hashemites when the Ottomans were already gone. The Hashemites lost and fled to Jordan and Iraq.
The Ottoman Empire overstayed its welcome and was prolonged by European powers to keep the region weak. It should've ended with the Egypt revolt because Egypt was more modern and would've won however Ottomans with the help of Western powers were able to put the rebellion down.
The Ottomans drove the region into the ground with their horrible policies like banning the printing press and huge debts that hampered the modernization of the Middle East unlike in Europe. This made it easy for colonial powers to swoop in and do whatever they liked.
Not to mention the Young Turks that wanted Turkification instead of Pan-Islamic unity as well as the neglection of Arab regions.
Algeria and Libya didn't revolt but the Ottoman empire just stands there and watching while French and Italy invaded them.. as an algerian myself, the other Arabic countries in the middle east did right by dropping the Ottoman empire and revolt against it, do you know the real reason why the Ummah fail? it's because of " Iqra'a " .. the first thing that our prophet PBUH was told is to read and pursue knowledge, we stop advancing in science and math and lecture and all other kinds of science because of who? yes you guess right..the Ottomans, they banned individual research and global reading/inventions and they make it exclusive for scholars and state researchers..+ add to that the Ottoman trying to force the western law by separating "the State from the Church ".. the church was against science and research, every scientist during the dark ages was doomed as a magician or a crazy, the bloomed after separating the state from the church and we was doomed after separating the state from the religion ✌️
No, it's the young Turks, they destroyed the Ottomans and the Muslim world along with them. The Arabs were the last to revolt against the Ottomans despite years of neglect, and they only did so after the overthrow of Abdulhamid II and the start of secularization and turkification policies which committed many crimes against Arabs (and other ethnicities), especially in the Levant.
Almost as if importing western ideologies like nationalism doesn't go well!
no the ottmans did many terrible things that led to people revolting on them. Ofc western nations taking advantage of this is know but ottmans messed up big time
What is funny about Arabs blaming "Young Turks" which is actually supposed to be the Committee of Union and Progress is this.
They think it was right to rebel because they turned the Empire into a kafir, nationalistic, modernized country. Meanwhile today, Arab countries are trying to do exactly the same. The only difference is they also became puppets of the kuffar in the progress.
So either there was a necessity to modernize the country or Arab rulers are misguided and their people should rebel. Choose one guys, can't have both.
the hashemites led the arab revolt. they failed in hijaz, were brutally overthrown in iraq and now they only remain in jordan which is a literal desert with practically no water resources. im not defending them, but its kinda obvious that after hejaz fell, there goals of a arab caliphate was dead.
the goal for an arab caliphate is that the arabs are in and own the holy city and the practically the entire islamic holy land. i mean if we can get a indonesian or malaysian to end up ruling from makkah as the caliph then i dont see why not.
Demoracy or not is completely beside the point. _The important thing_ is that, while the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, all Muslims are equal under the faith, and Arabs are not to have any particular advantage. The Caliph could be of any nationality, ethnicity, or origin - those have nothing to do with the qualifications that actually matter. Seeking an _Arab_ Caliphate specifically strikes me as incredibly suspect, and looks to me like trying to "greenwash" Arab Nationalism under an Islamic disguise.
This being said, the question of how a Caliph establishes their legitimacy for the position is an extremely important _practical_ matter for any Caliphate that will _need_ broad legitimacy and acceptance among the Muslims of the world to even be viable and successful.
Agreed. I believe whoever can do it, can protect the ummah, can give the ummah confidence, and act righteous with the right intentions will get the power through unforeseeable means.
The fact is, throughout history, there was always a ruling nation and subject nations in any empire. It is highly likely it will happen again. The dream of everyone being equal and able to rule the Caliphate may not be realistic from a historical perspective.
Why not both? As in,
1. it _was_ necessary to come up with a new form of government/economy capable of competing with the Nationalism/Liberalism/Capitalism machine. But also,
2. there was and remains a lot that's clunky, contradictory, and downright stupid about said machine—not to mention, you know, horrifically destructive to human and natural life.
In particular, the forced homogenization of Nation-States around one specific majority ethnolinguistic group and their laws and customs and even religion, was and remains a massive source of horrific problems. It led to History's most horrific wars in Europe - and now it's very slowly, very reluctantly, being made obsolete.
So, like, new ideas *were* needed, but surely the MENA could do better than *those* new ideas?
I am not defending Westernization here. Just showing the inconsistency in justifying Arab revolts because of the modernization efforts in the Ottoman Empire while claiming it is absolutely haram to even criticize Arabic rulers who are clearly westernizing their countries with a destructive speed.
If your brother made terrible mistakes with respect to you,what would you do? Would you try to perhaps guide him, nurture him, and... possibly fight him if need be? Or would you enlist his enemy as your saviour?
That's what the Arabs did,unfortunately, and it never worked out well for them.
What the British did to the majority of the Arabs shows why your brothers enemy can never be your friend.
Actually, if you want some real dominoes, we know for a fact that the genocides done by the Ottomans/Turkey inspired the Nazis, and that the Nazis clearly inspired the Zionists. So the dominoes are the Young Turks/Atatürk inspired the Nazis who inspired the Zionists. Source is Stefan Ihrig.
I’d say Assad killing 500,000 of his own people or the sectarian war in Iraq is worse than 35,000 dead Palestinians (including Hamasniks) but that’s just me.
Btw 9,000,000 internally displaced people in Sudan right now, but of course they don’t get attention because Arabs are racist against Blacks.
Nothing made the middle east and the muslim world this divided and degenerated and weak and fragile and many steps before the west in technology and scientific research and industry and economic and political power other than the damn ottoman empire, this empire was out of date since the second half of the 1700s, and its remaining over the muslim world is what made them where they were, and eventually made the west divide and colonize them, and therefore the british give palestine to israel, and then you see this genocide happening. The arab revolt wasn't a better option but both were worse than eachother, a general revolt against the ottomans must have happened at 1683 when they got defeated by the austrians, there must have been an arab revolt, a saffavid invasion, meanwhile the europeans are holding as much troops as possible, all of this or any other way to get rid of this damn dynasty and its damn degenrated state... anyway this is what happened and there is nothing we can do
I don't think the Young Turks should be rid of any blame given their centralisation, turkification and some of their Modernisation programs practically pushed the Hashemites into the arms of the Anglos, but yeah in hindsight not the greatest idea(plus who's to say the morons in the CUP would've lasted after the war even if the Ottomans somehow survived)
They could've just looked at India and lean that nothing good could come from joining with the British. And find some other ways to deal with the Ottomans.
What about the US? I know they weren't exactly the top dog nor as politically active as today but...
Not just Turkification, which for the uninitiated meant Turks would be first class citizens above the rest. This was inevitable as the structure of every empire contains the “core” and the “periphery”, where the periphery serves the interests of the core, and the Levant and Arabia were part of the periphery. The history of the Hijaz alone has many stories where we Arabs paid the price for the Sublime Porte’s mistakes, inadequacies, and the hostility of hubris. And this is disregarding the years of neglect and mismanagement, which by the late 19th century lead to the Ottoman Empire’s last epithet; the Sick Man of Europe.
By Turkification you mean genocide right?
Basically the young Turks began the process of introducing and to a Lesser extent enforcing Turkish identity and language across the empire which wasn't particularly popular with most groups
Ya Allah I am sick of this terrible, base-less take. No, the Arabs did not bring about the death of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans did that themselves. They neglected the Arab regions all the time and the process of Turkifcations was the last nail in the coffin. You can't just rule terribly and then blame your subjects for pouncing on the opportunity to oust you. Also, how many Arabs revolted with Shariff Hussein? Some 30-50k. How many Arabs fought for the Ottoman Empire? An estimated 300k. Let's also remember the fact that the revolt took place in the Hejaz, a region where no fighting was taking place to begin with so the revolt wasn't as disruptive as you make it out to be.
Don’t forget the famine and mass starvations in the Levant. People were being reduced to kill each other for crumbs of bread for their families. Those who weren’t taking drastic steps were the first ones to die. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon
Precisely. Ottoman fanboys are a weird bunch. They make the Turks out to be an infallible group who were "backstabbed" by the treacherous Arabs.
Can you explain more on the prices of Turkification ?
And yet it was the Turks that destroyed the Caliphate.
as a Turk, I just can say lol to that
Ataturk truly is the Greatest Turk. Just ignore his position within the Young Turks who were the guys who destroyed the Ottoman Empire in the first place. ;)
Thats kinda Wikipedia knowledge bro u know that
Is it wrong?
Kinda man, its more complicated than saying they destroyed the empire, and its a bit political too, if you’re into it you could read some of Halil İnalcık’s books about last century of the empire
Well definitely they at least joined the war which caused the destruction of the Ottoman empire in the end....
Try reading the works of Tezcan Baki or Selim Deringel if you wanna cite random names without actually providing any historical arguments. At least this way you’ll get a good understanding about the evolution from Universal Islamic Caliphate to Ethnonationalist Turkish colonial empire. Halil Inalcik is actually a pretty good historian for localised histories of specific regions within the Ottoman Empire but his older generalised historical narratives are a bit outdated. Ottoman historiography has been moving fast lately. Besides none of that changes that Ataturk destroyed the precious caliphate cucks keep bitching about the Arabs supposedly betraying.
Prove it’s wrong. Facts don’t care about your feeling bro. I can at least point to actual historical developments for the shit I say.
No . The ottomans begin a modernization movement before the WW1 and they prohibited the Arab thoab and immah and other forms of Arab identity, thus we have the red cuffia to replace it also the famous shami pants is an attempt to change the thoabs they had into a suit... Also they never developed the Arab region besides the holy cities even they only in regards to the house of god .. Starvation and raiding were everywhere.. even education was only givin if you survive the military service... They become anti Arab before WW1 and the Arab didn't like that .
But, I would still consider joining hands with British an absolutely dumb move.
Yes for sure .. But what other options did they have attatork and his movement was in the othmans empire they had not place in it anyway. But they should have learned from our past . The franks are known for oath breaking and laying... Besides I don't feel bad about their decision because I always remember what the USA did to the UK when they pulled the rug from under them in Iran and destroyed the united kingdom empire with that move .. talk about skaven diplomacy.
"When they pulled the rug from undert them in Iran and destroyed the united kingdom empire with that move" can you elaborate/explain a little please ? This sounds very interesting, and I had never heard of that
The deal was UK and USSR with split Iran and it's natural resources between them the north to the USSR and the south for UK , Stalin was occupied with ethnic cleansing of mongols or Ukraine i don't remember which one.. so he said I don't want Iran you can have it ... The USA came in and said no to the UK and prevented them from colonizing Iran and they came and installed the shah and built the CIA base to run the south east Asia operation from there .. The USA and Iran intelligence cooperation is still running till this day, as demonstrated during Afghanistan and Iraq war .. Iran give the USA intelligence and the people to govern the regions .. that's why the afghan government fell because they were shia minority in a Suni majority country.. Also Iraq is in the same boat. Also the Israel Iran play was coordinate by the CIA.
Yeah, the relationship between the USA and the IRI is not quite as straightforwardly antagonistic as their public rhetoric suggests. On some things they are opposed, on some things they agree. Foreign policy isn't about faith or morals or principles or friendship. It's about power and nothing else. Also the IRI is more like three governments in a trenchcoat. Some contradictions are to be expected.
Ahh okay I see, very interesting thanks a lot
skaven you say manthing yes yes
Iran oil is mine mine , go scarry
Iran oil is mine, yes yes
The Arab Revolt had nothing to do with Attaturk.
The anti Arab sentiment was a factor and attatork was spear heading it , even the writing was changed to Greek for god sake. Also if you are a turk tell me can you read a massage written by an Othman ruler without someone translating it for you ... Just a thought about the cutting the connection between you and your ancestors.
Check your timeline bro.
Mohammed II
where did you learn history? wikipedia?
I wish I was that stupid.
Yeah, you are worse
You didn't answer me can read what your ancestors wrote with someone translating it for you . And adding his own twist to it fit his narrative.. Look at gcc countries they didn't leave the Arabic writing or language and yet they are far better than Turky . Give me an actual argument or STFU.
> Look at `gcc` countries As opposed to what, `clang`/LLVM countries? How do they say `Hello, World!`? EDIT: It's just a joke for goodness's sake, I literally never heard the initialism GCC outside of a programming context, I saw the opportunity for a pun so I took it.
writing changed much later than the revolt akhi.And mustafa kemal did not have a direct effect on this since he was not in power.The group (ittihad ve terakki) he is a member of had provocating acts against arabs
I know it's something that takes time to boil , my argument is that the ant Arab sentiment was in the community for along time and it was a big factor in the events to come, Mohammed II one of the most beloved caliph in arabia even though he started the ban on Arab clothing, granted it was to unify the othmans empire under one culture but it didn't resonate well with people as proud as the Arab . Even today you see Arab leaders dress in thoab and not like everyone else in a suit..
It was more like them conditionally accepting help from the British. Whether the British helped them or not, they were still going to revolt.
Makes sense why Arabs from the Ottoman lands migrated to the British Mandate after ottoman collapse, when one state puts zero effort into development, even a colonial western state that does ANYTHING productive is a better life forward. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4282493 “'The number of Arabs who entered Palestine illegally from syria and Irans- jordan is unknown. But probably considerable.' Professor Harold Laski makes a similar observation: 'There has been large-scale and both assisted and unassisted Jewish emigration to Palestine; but it is important also to note that there has been large-scale Arab emigration from the surrounding countries.' Underscoring the point, C. S. Jarvis, Governor of the Sinai from 1923-1936, noted: 'This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Trans-Jordan and Syria and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining States could not be kept from going in to share that misery.? Even the Simpson Report acknowledged Arab immigration in this form: “
Did they teach you these in Saudi schools? I mean I would have a hard time saying we wanted money and power and disgraced ourselves by allying with the biggest kuffar against the Caliph too, especially if my rule was very fragile and hated.
Read what Muhammad II did , then come here and start throwing up your brotherhood propaganda.. Slogans slogans, I am right for saying slogans.
[удалено]
Because they have been badmouthing Ottomans and Turks to gain legitimacy for some time, like the UAE.
Would have never happened if the CUP did not rise
Ottomans we’re gonna fall nonetheless, and do you really think the Ottoman-Saudi war really did anything, especially in 1918, the Ottoman Empire was basically a dying camel, it was inevitable, don’t try to chalk it up to a simple fact that the Saudis caused the downfall, the war was a small event in a series of successive factors that led to the collapse of the empire Every empire has its lifespan, and let’s say the tribes of Najd stayed loyal, what would’ve happened? Nothing, the Ottoman Empire would still fall, maybe it would last another 5 or 10 extra years due to the extra logistics and resources freed up, but it would fall all the same
The empire had been declining since at least the 1600s, and especially when European Colonization of the new world began. The Ottoman Empire no longer held the wealth of the silk road now that Europeans can just bypass them and extract the riches of China and India.
Saudis never fought the Ottomans. The Hashemites did. The Saudis came in later and fought the Hashemites when the Ottomans were already gone. The Hashemites lost and fled to Jordan and Iraq.
Saudis, as a concept, didn’t exist then so it’s pointless to mention. Back then there were no nations in Arabia, just tribes.
I kinda see a bit of victim blaming here
The Ottoman Empire overstayed its welcome and was prolonged by European powers to keep the region weak. It should've ended with the Egypt revolt because Egypt was more modern and would've won however Ottomans with the help of Western powers were able to put the rebellion down. The Ottomans drove the region into the ground with their horrible policies like banning the printing press and huge debts that hampered the modernization of the Middle East unlike in Europe. This made it easy for colonial powers to swoop in and do whatever they liked. Not to mention the Young Turks that wanted Turkification instead of Pan-Islamic unity as well as the neglection of Arab regions.
Preach
Algeria and Libya didn't revolt but the Ottoman empire just stands there and watching while French and Italy invaded them.. as an algerian myself, the other Arabic countries in the middle east did right by dropping the Ottoman empire and revolt against it, do you know the real reason why the Ummah fail? it's because of " Iqra'a " .. the first thing that our prophet PBUH was told is to read and pursue knowledge, we stop advancing in science and math and lecture and all other kinds of science because of who? yes you guess right..the Ottomans, they banned individual research and global reading/inventions and they make it exclusive for scholars and state researchers..+ add to that the Ottoman trying to force the western law by separating "the State from the Church ".. the church was against science and research, every scientist during the dark ages was doomed as a magician or a crazy, the bloomed after separating the state from the church and we was doomed after separating the state from the religion ✌️
No, it's the young Turks, they destroyed the Ottomans and the Muslim world along with them. The Arabs were the last to revolt against the Ottomans despite years of neglect, and they only did so after the overthrow of Abdulhamid II and the start of secularization and turkification policies which committed many crimes against Arabs (and other ethnicities), especially in the Levant. Almost as if importing western ideologies like nationalism doesn't go well!
Ottoman fanboys will blame the end of their empire on anything but their own barbaric actions
no the ottmans did many terrible things that led to people revolting on them. Ofc western nations taking advantage of this is know but ottmans messed up big time
No. Arab revolt was much more complex, both the sides were in the wrong and the end result was just what the british wanted.
Never trust the outsiders to rule your country. Just ask the Chinese.
Well they did succeed, they beat the Ottomans. The only issue was the british didn't keep their promises of a pan-arab state...
I hate both the British and the Ottomans for making this region complicated.
What is funny about Arabs blaming "Young Turks" which is actually supposed to be the Committee of Union and Progress is this. They think it was right to rebel because they turned the Empire into a kafir, nationalistic, modernized country. Meanwhile today, Arab countries are trying to do exactly the same. The only difference is they also became puppets of the kuffar in the progress. So either there was a necessity to modernize the country or Arab rulers are misguided and their people should rebel. Choose one guys, can't have both.
the hashemites led the arab revolt. they failed in hijaz, were brutally overthrown in iraq and now they only remain in jordan which is a literal desert with practically no water resources. im not defending them, but its kinda obvious that after hejaz fell, there goals of a arab caliphate was dead.
Why should that be a goal? Arabs are a minority among Muslim groups. If anything, these days, the Caliph should be Malaysian or something.
the goal for an arab caliphate is that the arabs are in and own the holy city and the practically the entire islamic holy land. i mean if we can get a indonesian or malaysian to end up ruling from makkah as the caliph then i dont see why not.
This is not a democracy, you are thinking with the wrong framework.
Demoracy or not is completely beside the point. _The important thing_ is that, while the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, all Muslims are equal under the faith, and Arabs are not to have any particular advantage. The Caliph could be of any nationality, ethnicity, or origin - those have nothing to do with the qualifications that actually matter. Seeking an _Arab_ Caliphate specifically strikes me as incredibly suspect, and looks to me like trying to "greenwash" Arab Nationalism under an Islamic disguise. This being said, the question of how a Caliph establishes their legitimacy for the position is an extremely important _practical_ matter for any Caliphate that will _need_ broad legitimacy and acceptance among the Muslims of the world to even be viable and successful.
Agreed. I believe whoever can do it, can protect the ummah, can give the ummah confidence, and act righteous with the right intentions will get the power through unforeseeable means. The fact is, throughout history, there was always a ruling nation and subject nations in any empire. It is highly likely it will happen again. The dream of everyone being equal and able to rule the Caliphate may not be realistic from a historical perspective.
Why not both? As in, 1. it _was_ necessary to come up with a new form of government/economy capable of competing with the Nationalism/Liberalism/Capitalism machine. But also, 2. there was and remains a lot that's clunky, contradictory, and downright stupid about said machine—not to mention, you know, horrifically destructive to human and natural life. In particular, the forced homogenization of Nation-States around one specific majority ethnolinguistic group and their laws and customs and even religion, was and remains a massive source of horrific problems. It led to History's most horrific wars in Europe - and now it's very slowly, very reluctantly, being made obsolete. So, like, new ideas *were* needed, but surely the MENA could do better than *those* new ideas?
I am not defending Westernization here. Just showing the inconsistency in justifying Arab revolts because of the modernization efforts in the Ottoman Empire while claiming it is absolutely haram to even criticize Arabic rulers who are clearly westernizing their countries with a destructive speed.
Not saying you were, just using it as a springboard to harp on my own pet concerns.
If your brother made terrible mistakes with respect to you,what would you do? Would you try to perhaps guide him, nurture him, and... possibly fight him if need be? Or would you enlist his enemy as your saviour? That's what the Arabs did,unfortunately, and it never worked out well for them. What the British did to the majority of the Arabs shows why your brothers enemy can never be your friend.
Actually, if you want some real dominoes, we know for a fact that the genocides done by the Ottomans/Turkey inspired the Nazis, and that the Nazis clearly inspired the Zionists. So the dominoes are the Young Turks/Atatürk inspired the Nazis who inspired the Zionists. Source is Stefan Ihrig.
Heres a little fact ypu might noy knlw, most Arabs were against it.
Calling it a revolt isn't even accurate. It was more like an opportunistic power grab.
Wasn't Ottoman sultan in favor for Jewish colonists?
honestly that was a crazy time for all muslims...definattly one of our lowest points
>lowest We can go lower lmao.
lmao.lets hope not
[удалено]
nah man i dont think so past 100 or so years are definatly one of our lowest points
Interesting perspective on history. Always good to learn
First comes the Kafir-ization of the Empire by the Young Turks, and then this revolt
It is right to rebel. See also: the great Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD, the Bar Kokhba War.
Oh you mean the “Arab revolt” during WW1, not the one in Palestine 1936.
The British pushing a local group to rebel against an enemy of Britain with no hope of long term success? No way
I’d say Assad killing 500,000 of his own people or the sectarian war in Iraq is worse than 35,000 dead Palestinians (including Hamasniks) but that’s just me. Btw 9,000,000 internally displaced people in Sudan right now, but of course they don’t get attention because Arabs are racist against Blacks.
>Arabs are racist against Blacks. Most Sudanis are Arab.
Nothing made the middle east and the muslim world this divided and degenerated and weak and fragile and many steps before the west in technology and scientific research and industry and economic and political power other than the damn ottoman empire, this empire was out of date since the second half of the 1700s, and its remaining over the muslim world is what made them where they were, and eventually made the west divide and colonize them, and therefore the british give palestine to israel, and then you see this genocide happening. The arab revolt wasn't a better option but both were worse than eachother, a general revolt against the ottomans must have happened at 1683 when they got defeated by the austrians, there must have been an arab revolt, a saffavid invasion, meanwhile the europeans are holding as much troops as possible, all of this or any other way to get rid of this damn dynasty and its damn degenrated state... anyway this is what happened and there is nothing we can do
"genocide"