4 ms·

" During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant

by gkya 10y ago

" During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant following the conquests of Muhammad Ali (pretty much every city that was "liberated" by his forces had a pogrom after party especially Safed and Hebron). " Mind that such pogroms was by levantine and peninsular arab locals, not by the court. Ottoman jews weren't first class citizens, but not second class either. For centuries they were the biggest actors in trade in the empire, until the varlık vergisi of the turkish republic. Even in the worst of imperial times they're better of than european jews who were rogued for jewry. " The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish. " Nobody has a right to fight against anything but extremist terror. Christianity as a political ideology is present everywhere in Europe, in some countries the ruling party is called "christian democrats". Islamic rule is a right of a people that demand it, and as long as they aren't bothering anyone else, nobody but they have a say. And in Turkey, where I am, islam penetrates the laic state just like christianity does in christian-majority countries. That's what religion does, and is for. Today's islamic extremism is a direct result of european expansionism in the territory that actively continued untill WWII. The national state model was imposed on a territory that's under imperial control for millennia, and the states did not represent the populations. Most of these states were and some still are dictatorships or monarchies, and this adds to it as well. Only Turkey was well off as here we have a sound --although wrong-- turkish national ideidentity P.s. my intention was to counter your points, not to defend the article.

dogma1138 10y ago
It really depends on how you define "2nd class citizen". During the 13-15 century the Jews in the Ottoman empire enjoyed quite a bit of freedom, since then it went downhill from silly things like Jews were forbidden to wear silk cloths, to them being forbidden to own land in certain places, to excessive taxation, it really wasn't all peachy. And while I don't want to get into an argument about the role religion does or should play in a democracy, but I'll just say that I think Kemal Ataturk had the right idea. I also completely disagree with you about the source of Islamic Extremism and the cause of it, it's really not a clear cut case as you make it. It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, while it's true for some parts of the middle east (at large) claiming that Iran or Egypt for example do not have a national identity is absurd, and like it or not over the past nearly 100 years quite a few of them formed. You are looking at the middle east as some unique case it is not, many of the nations of Europe was as "young" as most of the middle eastern countries today when WW2 broke out. The German Empire was only founded in 1871. Turkey came out OK because it's mostly came out whole from WW1, and Kamel Ataturk built it into a modern nation, for the longest time it was kept in check by its army and by one of the only functional supreme court's in the region (well at least until recently, some of the things Erdogan did kinda put it now at odds), it also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it.
- gkya 10y ago
  " It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, ... " I meant among the muslim majority countries that spun off after the fall of the empire. Iran has continuously been home to some local sovereign state since 3200 bc. Saying things are not clear cut is sort of a way to divide guilt and avoid it. Nations didn't have time to naturally form in middle east. Almost all states have been formed top to bottom, after WWI, whereas in europe some of the current nations' quest to be a nation stretch at least to the 17th century. Turkey has been established top to bottom and via forced, fascistic westernisation and nationalistic unification, via assimilation and bloodshed, and the people's quest for a real, honourable identity is what the ilk of Erdoğan use to get votes today. I'd love to live in the state Atatürk wanted, but what he did ultimately lead to what we have today, a mess. " [Turkey] also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it. " Just as we cannot call a civilisation/nation cruel and savage for one mistake, we cannot say that it's perfect and all innocent because it got one thing right.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    I'm not saying it's perfect and at all innocent, the "west" (as in modern social democracies) is a far cry from being perfect or innocent, but it's a sure of a lot better than anything else we got right now, or tried before. For the most part it was rare for nations to form naturally, most of them including those in Europe have evolved through quite a bit of mess, and the middle east now is actually "older" than some European countries not that it was pretty either but it was quite different than what the middle east going through. And if we are talking about religious terrorist then it's new even in the scale of the middle east, if you look at early Palestinian/Arab terrorist groups they were socialists/communist, the PLO PLFP AMAL and the likes in the 60-70's had nothing to do with religion. The 1st real religious transformation were the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan they were not only made religious but effectively converted because Islam in Afghanistan at the time wasn't really a religion especially not outside the cities, the literacy rates were extremely low and even now you won't find minarets in the tribal regions. Saudi Wahhabism was introduced into Afghanistan and from that things like AQ grew which started the "global jihad" movements across the middle east, asia and africa. From the Shia side you had the iranian revolution and after the iran-iraq war has ended the IRGC went to work constructing various proxies across the middle east primarily in the form of Hezbollah which now evolved from a fairly small military organization in the early 80's to effectively a nation state within Lebanon.

by gkya 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

It really depends on how you define "2nd class citizen". During the 13-15 century the Jews in the Ottoman empire enjoyed quite a bit of freedom, since then it went downhill from silly things like Jews were forbidden to wear silk cloths, to them being forbidden to own land in certain places, to excessive taxation, it really wasn't all peachy. And while I don't want to get into an argument about the role religion does or should play in a democracy, but I'll just say that I think Kemal Ataturk had the right idea. I also completely disagree with you about the source of Islamic Extremism and the cause of it, it's really not a clear cut case as you make it. It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, while it's true for some parts of the middle east (at large) claiming that Iran or Egypt for example do not have a national identity is absurd, and like it or not over the past nearly 100 years quite a few of them formed. You are looking at the middle east as some unique case it is not, many of the nations of Europe was as "young" as most of the middle eastern countries today when WW2 broke out. The German Empire was only founded in 1871. Turkey came out OK because it's mostly came out whole from WW1, and Kamel Ataturk built it into a modern nation, for the longest time it was kept in check by its army and by one of the only functional supreme court's in the region (well at least until recently, some of the things Erdogan did kinda put it now at odds), it also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it.

gkya 10y ago
" It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, ... " I meant among the muslim majority countries that spun off after the fall of the empire. Iran has continuously been home to some local sovereign state since 3200 bc. Saying things are not clear cut is sort of a way to divide guilt and avoid it. Nations didn't have time to naturally form in middle east. Almost all states have been formed top to bottom, after WWI, whereas in europe some of the current nations' quest to be a nation stretch at least to the 17th century. Turkey has been established top to bottom and via forced, fascistic westernisation and nationalistic unification, via assimilation and bloodshed, and the people's quest for a real, honourable identity is what the ilk of Erdoğan use to get votes today. I'd love to live in the state Atatürk wanted, but what he did ultimately lead to what we have today, a mess. " [Turkey] also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it. " Just as we cannot call a civilisation/nation cruel and savage for one mistake, we cannot say that it's perfect and all innocent because it got one thing right.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  I'm not saying it's perfect and at all innocent, the "west" (as in modern social democracies) is a far cry from being perfect or innocent, but it's a sure of a lot better than anything else we got right now, or tried before. For the most part it was rare for nations to form naturally, most of them including those in Europe have evolved through quite a bit of mess, and the middle east now is actually "older" than some European countries not that it was pretty either but it was quite different than what the middle east going through. And if we are talking about religious terrorist then it's new even in the scale of the middle east, if you look at early Palestinian/Arab terrorist groups they were socialists/communist, the PLO PLFP AMAL and the likes in the 60-70's had nothing to do with religion. The 1st real religious transformation were the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan they were not only made religious but effectively converted because Islam in Afghanistan at the time wasn't really a religion especially not outside the cities, the literacy rates were extremely low and even now you won't find minarets in the tribal regions. Saudi Wahhabism was introduced into Afghanistan and from that things like AQ grew which started the "global jihad" movements across the middle east, asia and africa. From the Shia side you had the iranian revolution and after the iran-iraq war has ended the IRGC went to work constructing various proxies across the middle east primarily in the form of Hezbollah which now evolved from a fairly small military organization in the early 80's to effectively a nation state within Lebanon.