Islamophiles / Regressive Left - Liberal non-Muslims who are desperate to protect the Religion of Peace

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Chemical snorfare said:
Kristi Winters and Steve Shives have just gone on a total sperg, about how Sargon is a literal Nazi worse than Hitler for saying Jews arent White.

SJs confuse me :/
Click to expand...

"White" is an arbitrary definition of who is superior (or inferior) at the time. Irish and Italians weren't in the US in the 19th century. During apartheid in South Africa, Japanese were and Chinese weren't, for Cold War political reasons.
 
Jewish Samaritans have been living in the Holy Land since the time of Jesus (they're prety much forgotten despite being all that's left of the Roman Era population there partly because they're few in number cause they kept fighting Jewish wars of Independence into the Middle Ages ) and have kept their bloodlines pretty pure for the most part from any of the countless invaders that have gone into that region of the place (they are more genetically similar to modern Jews than to people living in Gaza and West Bank) and they look pretty white.
7MAQ_the_senior_cantor_leading_the_processional_dale_lazar_credit-640x400.jpg


Similar to how Copts look like they belong in Spain or Italy or Greece as opposed to what you think of modern day Egyptians.
 
Last edited:
Save the Loli said:
The strange part is there are actual Western Jews who say they aren't white.
Click to expand...

It's a point of contention in the Jewish community, as some identify more with Israel (and the historical peoples there, who arguably weren't white) than others who see Judaism as a cultural heritage / potentially racially inclusive religion. It's usually the super Orthodox who don't see themselves as white because they have very strict rules on who you can marry and who's a Jew, but there's a lot of liberal virtue signalers out there as well.
 
Part IIIa The Conquest of Constantinople.

(Note this turned into a much longer thing so, here's background on Constantinople and why the Ottomans would want the city)

"The City of the World's Desire"

By the mid 15th century, the empire of the Romans is struggling. What had once encompassed all of Greece, Anatolia, Bulgaria and the Balkans was now reduced to the City of Constantinople and a few miles of farms outside the city, a few rocks in the Mediterranean and some small holdings in southern Greece. Yet in spite of this, the Byzantine Empire still commanded a certain amount of respect in the world. This was primarily due to their ownership over Constantinople.

Known as the "City of the World's Desire, Constantinople was an exceptionally important city for a few reasons. It was where East met West, where Europe gave way to the Middle East and the Orient and it was a city where a multitude of cultures met and traded and exchanged ideas. Constantinople was also a holy site for Christianity. Yet there was division in the Christian church at the time, and this division was ripe for exploitation.

While Constantinople was a city in Christian hands, it was not in the hands of the Catholic Church. It was held by Orthodox heretics. Beginning in the 11th century, the two churches had split from one united church. There had been division over whether the Latin or Greek rites were the correct ones. The Greeks were also angered by the existence of the Holy Roman Empire, when they themselves were actually the Roman Empire.

When the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome excommunicate each other, Orthodox and Catholic are born. Many of the Latin popes wanted to re-unite the two churches (in fact the first crusade could be interpreted as an effort to do just that). Yet, any hope of peaceful reconciliation between the two churches was shattered in 1204 with the fourth crusade... most of the Latin Knights never made it to the Holy Land... instead the Venetians dropped them off in Constantinople, and the crusaders proceeded to butcher their fellow Christians and ransack the city. A brief Latin empire is established over Constantinople, but the city is later recaptured by the Niceans... And as such, the empire continues to lose power at an alarming rate. Now the Orthodox Greeks despise and deeply mistrust the Catholics, Further ensuring the wane of the Byzantines and the rise of another power in the region.

And there are two powers in the Mediterranean that really want Constantinople for themselves, The Ottoman Turks and the Venetians...

So the big question right now is "Were the Byzantines doomed?"

It's complicated. The empire was barely hanging by a thread, and the Ottomans had a much larger army and the Venetians had an extremely powerful fleet. But the Byzantines had two things going for them, the lessons learned during the 4th crusade and some really thick, really strong walls. A siege is really expensive and there's no fucking way in hell the Byzantines were going to surrender the city to anybody. So the idea was to "turtle" behind the Theodosian walls, and survive long enough for the enemy army to become demoralized and wait for reinforcements from Eastern Europe, or another power, wanting to defend Christendom...

But nobody was coming to help the Byzantines and without help... they were doomed.
 
gettyimages-873651210-1510596002.jpg


Ibtihaj Muhammad's Barbie Will Be the First to Ever Wear a Hijab

For Ibtihaj Muhammad, making history has become second nature. During the 2016 Summer Olympics, she became the first U.S. Olympian to compete while wearing a hijab. Then she became the first female Muslim-American to bring home a medal when she won bronze for sabre fencing.

Now, there's about to be a Barbie created just for her — and it will be the first to ever wear a hijab.

The doll is being created for Mattel's "Shero" Barbie line, which honors women who break boundaries and expand the possibilities for women everywhere, according to Mattel. Other Shero dolls have been modeled off of Ava Duvernay, Emmy Rossum, Gabby Douglas and Misty Copeland.

“I think it's revolutionary for Barbie to take a stand in this moment that we’re in – and I would say, as a country, to have a doll wear a hijab and be the first of its kind,” Muhammad said to PEOPLE. In a statement to Bustle, she added: "Through playing with Barbie, I was able to imagine and dream about who I could become. I love that my relationship with Barbie has come full circle. Now, I have my own doll wearing a hijab that the next generation of girls can use to play out their own dreams."

Model Ashley Graham, another Shero Barbie recipient, presented the doll to Muhammad at Glamour's 2017 Women of the Year Summit.

Muhammad’s doll will be available in 2018, so start calculating how many you'll need to buy for all the women in your life.
 
Jan_Hus said:
Here's a Jan Hus history series on the Ottoman Turks...

Part 1... The Folly of Youth/Don't Trust an Italian

I happen to really enjoy the history of the Ottoman Empire. It's fascinating and the stories of palace intrigue are really quite stunning. However, even though I'm fascinated by their history, It's important to note that they were capable of stunning acts of brutality.

Lets begin in 1444...
The Ottoman Empire and Hungarians have just signed a 10 year truce after a long and bitter war. After this, the Sultan, Murad II, decides to abdicate, leaving his 12 year old son Mehemet (Yes, that Mehemet) as the new Sultan. Rumors of Ottoman weakness cause renewed fervor and an interest in a new "Crusade"

The main "bulwark of Christendom" in 1444 was Władysław III: King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania AND the King of both Hungary and Croatia. At the age of 18, this young king had the weight of the world on his shoulders. He was, to put it bluntly, way in over his head and as such, he was influenced by many of the older men around him. One of these men was an Italian Cardinal by the name of Julian Caesarini. Caesarini was famous for preaching for a (failed) crusade against the Hussites, and he filled the young king's head with tales of Crusades and glory. The Cardinal was emphatic that the king would be in no real danger since a joint Papal/Venetian fleet were to keep the main brunt of the Ottoman army locked in Anatolia, allowing the young man to forge a name for himself. As such, he breaks the truce with the Ottomans. And he goes off, confident that he'll be successful against a boy sultan.

However, Murad II later returns to help his son out.

Since Wladyslaw was such a young king with no real power of his own, he was very eager to prove himself against the Ottoman menace. A 20,000 man army made up of Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Teutons and later supported by Bulgarian rebels and Wallachians assemble at Varna. It's important to note that the young Polish king was not actually the primary commander. That honor went to John (Or Jan) Hunyadi, a grizzled Hungarian Voivode (Hungarian kiwis can correct me but I believe the equivalent noble rank in the West is Duke) and a war veteran. *Note I can probably work up a post about Hunyadi's skill as a tactician later. Conspicuously absent from this army are units from France and England... They're still embroiled in the Hundred Years War. But no matter, the papal and Venetian fleets are sure to keep the Ottoman army locked away...

Imagine then the shock of the Europeans to find themselves facing the entire 60000 Ottoman army, with Murad II at its helm. Remember those Venetians? Yeah they were pretty eager to see the Hungarians brought to heel, so they actually provided transport for the Ottoman army. i.e. the exact opposite of what the Cardinal had said would happen.

So facing desperate odds, Hunyadi actually has some success in breaking the Ottoman Siphai (Heavy Calvary) lines. The young Wladyslaw sees this, and not realizing that his army and his life are in grave danger decides to directly attack the van of the Ottoman Sultan. The Sultan was protected by his guards, The Janissary Corps and they absolutely shred the inexperienced king and his Guard Cavalry.

The reprisals of the Sultan's Janissaries were brutal. They dismember the young king and mount his head atop a pole and also steal his armor and shield for trophies...

To be continued in part II... The Janissary Corps and the conquest of Constantinople.
Click to expand...

Why do we not want kebab? Let me give the following extract. Its wikipedia because I'm too tired to translate now, but it shows the Kebab Kunning to its best.






Suleiman the Magnificent took personal command of an Ottoman relief army which included 6,362 Janissaries.[1]On 21 August, the Ottoman relief army reached Buda and engaged in battle with Roggendorf's army. The Habsburg army was defeated and 7,000 men were slaughtered or drowned in the river. Roggendorf was also wounded in the battle and died 2 days after of his injuries.

The Ottomans then occupied the city, which in its turn was celebrating the liberation, with a trick: Suleyman invited the infant John II Sigismund Zápolya with the Hungarian noblemen into his tent, meanwhile the Turkish troops began to slowly infiltrate into the fort as "tourists" seemingly in admiration of the architecture of the buildings. However, at a sudden alert they wielded their weapons and disarmed the guards and the whole garrison thereafter. At the same time, the Hungarian noblemen felt uncomfortable in the sultan's tent and wanted to leave. In that moment, on the outcry of the sultan "The black soup (coffee) is still to come!" ("Hátra van még a feketeleves!" in Hungarian) the Turkish soldiers disarmed the Hungarian envoy. All of them were allowed to leave with one exception: Bálint Török, whom Suleyman considered a possible powerful opponent. He was taken into captivity and was transferred to Yedikule Fortress, where he spent his remaining life. The Royal Court, the noblemen and citizens of Buda were allowed to leave the city with their possessions unharmed.


Fun Fact, Török means Turkish. Guess that name was not really fitting for him!

Does this remind anybody of anything? We sure see the parallels. Slavs do too.

Voivod or vajda is a very "popular" slavic rank , or at least was in the middle ages. So there is no one clear definition for it. The hungarian rank was pretty much akin to a Duke in its power.

Janus Hunyadi was the voivod of Transylvania, a rank that basically made him a small king in his own right. This rank was beholden only to the king, and not the palatinus or nador, the king's "judge" who often acted as a surrogate king himself, should the king be a minor for example.
 
Last edited:
Overlapping with the paedophile apologists thread:

There are 5 countries with an age of consent lower than 13. These are Sudan (puberty, in practice 10), Yemen (9), Afghanistan (9), the Maldives (9), and, of course, Saudi Arabia (none at all). These shameful 5 are all linked by something.
 
Last edited:
Pointless Pedant said:
Overlapping with the paedophile apologists thread:

There are 5 countries with an age of consent lower than 13. These are Sudan (puberty, in practice 10), Yemen (9), Afghanistan (9), the Maldives (9), and, of course, Saudi Arabia (none at all). These shameful 5 are all linked by something.
Click to expand...

I think the Saudis still steal the cake with the none at all.
 
There's way too many people that excuse this shit with "well their culture is different"
I heard that said straight to a woman who got beaten up by her muslim ex-boyfriend
What have we westerners become
 
I've never understood that excuse. It used to be part of American "culture" to have slaves, but nobody in their right mind would defend that.
 
Piga Dgrifm said:
I've never understood that excuse. It used to be part of American "culture" to have slaves, but nobody in their right mind would defend that.
Click to expand...

It's a lame excuse to not offend people. Apparently people who screech about reactionaries all the time don't want to bother too many actual reactionaries.
 
Complexities of "Ottoman Tolerance"
I apologize for the rambling nature of this post but some things need to be said.

I've seen it argued before that the Ottoman Empire was somehow more "moral" than other empires in Europe because they were "tolerant" of religious and ethnic minorities in their empire. Even more infuriating, I've seen it said that the Ottomans were much more enlightened and "progressive" than the rest of Europe. Truth be told, countries and empires didn't do anything out of the kindness of their hearts at this time, everything was born of necessity.

Even more so, I've seen Islamophiles use the Ottomans, an empire built mainly on Persian, Turkish, Byzantine and Islamic law, to claim that all Muslim empires (based on Arabic tribal law) in this time period were a-okay. It's important to note that states like Saudi Arabia and the Wahabbi ideology HATE the Ottoman interpretation of Islam because it's not Arabic.

While the Ottomans had seperate legal systems built in for their religious and ethnic minorities, (called "Millets"), they still required non muslim provinces to pay a tax either in gold (jizya) or in blood (devshirme). This was not seen as a punitive tax on the part of the Ottoman court, but one paid for the continued protection of these minority provinces. The way these millets worked was as follows. Lets say you're an Orthodox. You'd pay taxes to the Ottoman government as a subject and be subject to the Jizya tax just like every other religious minority. You probably didn't think much of it because it because you aren't subject to Sharia. You're still subject to the same religious laws you were under the Byzantines. You have your own courts and you're still subject to the Patriarch. However, in the event that you get into a legal spat with a Muslim, yeah that spat would be handled by the Islamic court. (You're going to lose this one). And if you lived in a frontier province like Armenia? Congrats you now get to enjoy raids by Caucus tribesmen, other Turkic raiders and Kurdish raiders, raids which the Ottomans did little to stop...

It's much more accurate to say that the whole idea of "Ottoman Tolerance" was a system born of necessity. The empire encompassed a wide range of religious creeds and ethnicities and to forcibly convert or repress them all would cause the empire to implode. In fact the largest landowner in the empire was the Orthodox Church, who had enjoyed and benefited from Ottoman protection. The Pasha himself enjoyed the title "protector of the Orthodox Church", given to him by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

There was a reason why an Islamic ruler held this title. Remember the 4th crusade? The wounds it left ran so deeply that the Byzantines felt more comfortable being ruled by Islam, rather than a Latin power, and the thought of rule by Venice was seen as especially repellant.

And when nationalism began as a concept... yeah... I trust you've heard of the Armenian Genocide, but they also worked on genociding minority Greek and Assyrians in their lands. The Armenian genocide is especially sad when one considers that when the Balkans and Greece had been given independence, the Armenians had been staunchly loyal to their oppressors...
 
Jan_Hus said:
Complexities of "Ottoman Tolerance"
I apologize for the rambling nature of this post but some things need to be said.

I've seen it argued before that the Ottoman Empire was somehow more "moral" than other empires in Europe because they were "tolerant" of religious and ethnic minorities in their empire. Even more infuriating, I've seen it said that the Ottomans were much more enlightened and "progressive" than the rest of Europe. Truth be told, countries and empires didn't do anything out of the kindness of their hearts at this time, everything was born of necessity.

Even more so, I've seen Islamophiles use the Ottomans, an empire built mainly on Persian, Turkish, Byzantine and Islamic law, to claim that all Muslim empires (based on Arabic tribal law) in this time period were a-okay. It's important to note that states like Saudi Arabia and the Wahabbi ideology HATE the Ottoman interpretation of Islam because it's not Arabic.

While the Ottomans had seperate legal systems built in for their religious and ethnic minorities, (called "Millets"), they still required non muslim provinces to pay a tax either in gold (jizya) or in blood (devshirme). This was not seen as a punitive tax on the part of the Ottoman court, but one paid for the continued protection of these minority provinces. The way these millets worked was as follows. Lets say you're an Orthodox. You'd pay taxes to the Ottoman government as a subject and be subject to the Jizya tax just like every other religious minority. You probably didn't think much of it because it because you aren't subject to Sharia. You're still subject to the same religious laws you were under the Byzantines. You have your own courts and you're still subject to the Patriarch. However, in the event that you get into a legal spat with a Muslim, yeah that spat would be handled by the Islamic court. (You're going to lose this one). And if you lived in a frontier province like Armenia? Congrats you now get to enjoy raids by Caucus tribesmen, other Turkic raiders and Kurdish raiders, raids which the Ottomans did little to stop...

It's much more accurate to say that the whole idea of "Ottoman Tolerance" was a system born of necessity. The empire encompassed a wide range of religious creeds and ethnicities and to forcibly convert or repress them all would cause the empire to implode. In fact the largest landowner in the empire was the Orthodox Church, who had enjoyed and benefited from Ottoman protection. The Pasha himself enjoyed the title "protector of the Orthodox Church", given to him by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

There was a reason why an Islamic ruler held this title. Remember the 4th crusade? The wounds it left ran so deeply that the Byzantines felt more comfortable being ruled by Islam, rather than a Latin power, and the thought of rule by Venice was seen as especially repellant.

And when nationalism began as a concept... yeah... I trust you've heard of the Armenian Genocide, but they also worked on genociding minority Greek and Assyrians in their lands. The Armenian genocide is especially sad when one considers that when the Balkans and Greece had been given independence, the Armenians had been staunchly loyal to their oppressors...
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia didn't emerge until after the downfall of the Ottomans anyway. In the time of the Ottomans, Arabia, outside the Ottoman controlled Hejaz, had various tribal kingdoms, one of which, Najd, led by the house of Saud, went on to found Saudi Arabia in 1932. I wouldn't describe any of those tribal kingdoms as "empires", though.

These tribal kingdoms were much less tolerant than the Ottomans, because, as you explained, they didn't need to be. There were almost no infidels in the desert, so their treatment wasn't a concern.
 
Pointless Pedant said:
Saudi Arabia didn't emerge until after the downfall of the Ottomans anyway. In the time of the Ottomans, Arabia, outside the Ottoman controlled Hejaz, had various tribal kingdoms, one of which, Najd, led by the house of Saud, went on to found Saudi Arabia in 1932. I wouldn't describe any of those tribal kingdoms as "empires", though.

These tribal kingdoms were much less tolerant than the Ottomans, because, as you explained, they didn't need to be. There were almost no infidels in the desert, so their treatment wasn't a concern.
Click to expand...
I was speaking more of modern times. The KSA actually had to be told to stop bulldozing Ottoman forts.
 
Jan_Hus said:
I was speaking more of modern times. The KSA actually had to be told to stop bulldozing Ottoman forts.
Click to expand...

Najd and Hejaz were at war with the Ottomans during World War 1, so it's easy to see why they weren't too keen on them once they formed their kingdom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom