Why couldn't Armenians....

[gmd]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Turco, the right to bear arms or even to arm bears cannot be compromised. Please stay on the wrong cost with your extremist views.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

You cannot become both religious and nationalist.

Hmm why? I am neither nationalist nor secular.. what is your problem with me? Oh most probably I am not even Turk. You should love me much

So how can discrimination goes with Allah becoming just? Just curiosity..

Absolutely. It is better to choose word more carefully.

Tax issues is totally different. There were christian subject who did not pay tax but become soldier. Anyway, Muslim countries also made a lot discrimination or where do you think 60.000 greek at istanbul gone?

That is totally absurd. I am zero nationalist and I will fight any country muslim or not who attack my country. You know, we should use same standart for all people includes nonmuslims or muslims. If Muslim rulers are harsh, You should fight against them. Personally I prefer to fight against saddam than UK.

I should also say, there is not any nationalism which is not contradict with islam. Islam banned it. That is all..

You brought up a good deal of issues. they all have to be evaluated carefully.

NAtionalism: We are allowed to appreaciate our heritage and culture, so as long as it doesn't compromise harmony between muslims. Currently the entire world is by default the state system - the system that emerged out of europe 300 yrs ago. Given that this the standard of the world - nations - it is okay to ignite nationalism so as long as it could be used to further Islam within a state. For example, Czar Alexander 3rd of russia's russification process, orthodoxy was one of his principles, orthodoxy being a part of the russian identity. in this context, he used religion to further national ends, like the fascists during wwII, however, from an Islamic point, in scenarios such as pakistan vs india or turkey vs greece, its okay to use nationalism because no harm is being done between muslims. but to encourage nationalism that will lead to war between muslims is apostasy (kufr).

Take a look at western history - a bloodbath. We muslims have fought one another in the past, but our wars were fewer and further in between. The Ottoman Empire kept peace in the middle east for 200 years. There was a period of 200 years with no war between muslims!!!!! We spent that time fighting only non-muslims - how productive was that!!!!

And about fighting evil muslim governments. Islamically, justice is obligatory. A great muslim scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiyyah said that "if a just non-muslim government were to take out a non-just muslim government, then at that moment, the just non-muslim government is superior. " However, there are disagreements with this opinion for other reasons. If you know a little about the history of Islamic scholarship, you will see that there is strong tradition amongst our scholars of standing up against injustice and oppression by the corrupt, evil and oppressive. The four imams of Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'at (Sunni Islam) all were tortured except for one, and he was poisoned to death.

[crusader1492]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Lets get back to the subject of this thread before it gets any further off track. This thread is not about Islamic theocracies.

[Palavra]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

You brought up a good deal of issues. they all have to be evaluated carefully.

NAtionalism: We are allowed to appreaciate our heritage and culture, so as long as it doesn't compromise harmony between muslims. Currently the entire world is by default the state system - the system that emerged out of europe 300 yrs ago. Given that this the standard of the world - nations - it is okay to ignite nationalism so as long as it could be used to further Islam within a state. For example, Czar Alexander 3rd of russia's russification process, orthodoxy was one of his principles, orthodoxy being a part of the russian identity. in this context, he used religion to further national ends, like the fascists during wwII, however, from an Islamic point, in scenarios such as pakistan vs india or turkey vs greece, its okay to use nationalism because no harm is being done between muslims. but to encourage nationalism that will lead to war between muslims is apostasy (kufr).

Take a look at western history - a bloodbath. We muslims have fought one another in the past, but our wars were fewer and further in between. The Ottoman Empire kept peace in the middle east for 200 years. There was a period of 200 years with no war between muslims!!!!! We spent that time fighting only non-muslims - how productive was that!!!!

And about fighting evil muslim governments. Islamically, justice is obligatory. A great muslim scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiyyah said that "if a just non-muslim government were to take out a non-just muslim government, then at that moment, the just non-muslim government is superior. " However, there are disagreements with this opinion for other reasons. If you know a little about the history of Islamic scholarship, you will see that there is strong tradition amongst our scholars of standing up against injustice and oppression by the corrupt, evil and oppressive. The four imams of Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'at (Sunni Islam) all were tortured except for one, and he was poisoned to death.

You are not nationalist and you care for justice. Hmm.. So what do you think about 1915 events? were we innocent or were we criminals? You would fight against ottoman autorities or armenian rebellions?

By the way lets not forget, Some religious leaders also said "Do not rebel a muslim ruler even If he is not just"

Also becoming a non-muslim do someone guilty? If becoming a non-muslim does not make someone guilty. why do we have right to fight against non-muslims?

By the way, about ottoman peace, ask it to arabs or some other nations.

[crusader1492]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

The exchange between Turco and Palvara is interesting as it is a microcosm of the split in Turish society where one side is stanchly secular and the other Islamic.

...it's just another salient example that the artificial Turkish state is still suffering from an identity crisis.

[Palavra]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Crusader you are wasting your time. As I said before I am not secularism supporter. Infact I hate Turkish type of secularism.

And I think Turco is not secularist too.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

The exchange between Turco and Palvara is interesting as it is a microcosm of the split in Turish society where one side is stanchly secular and the other Islamic.

...it's just another salient example that the artificial Turkish state is still suffering from an identity crisis.

- absurd. i could say the same about armenia by adducing disputes in these forums. point is: we'll get no where.

[crusader1492]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Crusader you are wasting your time. As I said before I am not secularism supporter. Infact I hate Turkish type of secularism.

And I think Turco is not secularist too.

Let me guess then..you are a "humanist", right?

[Palavra]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Let me guess then..you are a "humanist", right?

Haha absolutely not. "Humanism" is a stupid dreamy ideal.

[crusader1492]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

- absurd. i could say the same about armenia by adducing disputes in these forums. point is: we'll get no where.

Yes you could. But, we don't have to deal with the toxic and explosive nature of religion problems (especially the Islamic type) in Armenia...Turkey does.