Big K

oh really?...superficial..aren't you?

__________________
When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent.
-Fuzuli

Big K

have you ever been in balkans?...

phillip

You should understand that I'm not trying to paint the Turks as happy lovey-dovey people, the most tolerant the world had ever seen. They just happened to be the most tolerant in that region of the world during that time period, whether it was Jews, Christians, or the various Muslim sects.[/quote]

Allright, the Catholics were a poor choice, but I knew that going in. Still, since you wanted to compare to other religions of the period I offered Buddhist and Jewish, which you did not comment on. Would they have tolerated Orthodoxy or changed it? This discussion is about tolerance isn't it?

phillip

No. Is that a prerequisite?

phillip

Is that your best shot?

Ironduke

There are marked differences between Buddhism and Judaism on the one hand and Islam and Christianity on the other.

Judaism is not a universalist religion, it does not claim to be the faith for every man. Neither does Buddhism, which is half-religion, half-philosophy and has no god. It would be more apt to draw comparisons to Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, or the Roman state religion, religions with universal claims.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

phillip

It would be "more apt" if you answered the question rather than display your in-depth knowledge of the worlds religions and then try to select for me the proper ones to choose for comparisons. By the way, the Roman State religion was Pagan, until the time of Constantine. You must have meant to say Roman Catholic
I'm sure other readers are getting bored with our bantering...I certainly am, so I will not reply to your answer. Have fun with it.

snc128

ACTUALLY,I am not...
I was following you two carefully to learn more and participate ahead.

__________________
action speaks louder than words

Ironduke

I'm not leaving it to you to select the proper religions for comparison -- it's just plain improper to compare Judaism and Buddhism to Islam and Christianity because they aren't universalist religions. Neither one claims to be the sole, universally correct religion for every last person in the world. Islam and Christianity do make that claim. Zoroastrianism, for example, is a universal religion. The Romans had the Imperial Cult which saw the deification of emperors both deceased and living, which became the civil religion of the Empire, in which worship was expected in addition to whatever pagan religion citizens and subjects practiced.

Big K

nope....just enough...

Khan_Han

If by stating that there is no difference between the Turkic peoples and Turkish Peoples, I am a "Turanist", then so be it...However, we both know that you are perfectly aware of what I was reffering to. Please do not distort my words.

I suggest you read: "Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World" by Hugh Pope. ISBN: 1-58567-641-1

This book outlines the importance of the Turkic world and how it sits on the worlds largest oil reserves.

Some groups deny that the Turkish peoples are Turkic because they are scared that such recognition will bring closer the two peoples. If this occurs then there will be a new major power because from unity comes power. Power to exert inflence and control over dwindling oil reserves!! Russia also did this to the Azeri's. They forced them to change their names to names which had the prefic -nov! They prevented them from expressing their culture in a bid to prevent cultural diversity and assimilate them into mainstream russian population etc etc

Khan_Han

(1) I can sense your intollerance!
(2) The Ottoman Sultan was just doing what his Christian counterpart did in the past in Spain. The Great Mosque of Cordoba was converted into a Church and it still remains a church till this day!
(3) The Turkish Republic under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk declared Hagia Sofia a museum and it remains till this day a museum! Muslims are not allowed to prey in it either. Hagia Sofia has a budget of $100 million dollars per year. This budget is mainly used for the restoration and preservation of this magnificiant structure! I invite you to go see Hagia Sofia for yourself before making false assumptions!
(4) What was the Anglo-saxons doing when the Ottomans were "invading" Hellenic territories? Weren't they invading Africa and India in a bid to exploit their resources? What were they doing with African children? Taking them back to Britain for Slave labour!!
(5) Religious tolerance is just something which the Turks are known for! Turkey is the only country in the Middle East where Jewish peoples can prosper!

phillip

2) I think the mosque should have remained a mosque myself. Others in our group will tell you that that was the usual result of a conquest at the time...you know, par for the course.
3)Yes, it's a museum today but we were discussing it in terms of 1453. Even today the lower icons, on the first floor, are still covered so it's a museum not showing all it's treasures and still under Moslem religious bans.
4) I guess history speaks for itself on the Anglo-saxons.
5) Well, the Jews seem to do ok everywhere else in the world so that is not so important now but in the past it was.
Anyway, they are now your military allies. Perhaps with low cost Turkish labor
you will both prosper.

neyzen

In 1453, Turks had the right for demolishing Hagia Sophia and they had right for 3 days pillage. It was normal for that time period. They didn't.

Ayasofya Camii
Here is some photos of Hagia Sophia. As you can see there are also icons on the walls. Muslims can not worship here even if the state allows them. (Islam does not allow worshiping under icons.) It is a museum and it show its all treasures. If it is not, there must be reason for it. But reason can not be "Moslem religious bans".

Low-tech

If I may interject here, Western nations do acknowledge that their former colonial exploits were negative and brutal, and most importantly unacceptable, in the modern world. The entire "Imperial age" history went thru a complete revision in what is taught at schools and the legacies of things like the triangle trade, the colonization of the new world, Africa, Australia and countless other nations and cultures is not something regarded with beaming pride nowadays.



Most people see the attitudes and worldviews in that era as a huge veil of a flawed, racist, cultural supremacy manifested in a sense of paternalism from which the alterior motives was pure greed and exploitation of foriegn subjects, one part nationalism, another part religious, final part animal.

I noticed with Turkish posters here and elsewhere they have the same familiar reluctance to concede the negative aspects on what was essentially their own "colonialism"........preferring to argue the merits of a paternal relationship with former holdings under the Ottomans.

So I agree yes, the Imperial powers where more far reaching and worst, but most western people, academics, scholars can accept and acknowledge the views of those who were oppressed, enslaved and exploited. Alot of Turks on the net, I've notice, cannot in the slightest confront their own "skeletons in the closet", so to speak.

I see the victim card being drawn alot, claims that the Empire was being attacked and underminded on all sides and such..............name any empire in history that wasn't.