Will you read the Quran in Armenian?

[Dave]

Remember laz? they are still not asimilated. After WW1 Turkey is just 7 million(and all of them is not Turk), and you claim there were 2 million Armenians, most probably they would rule Turkey.

They were 2 million before WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_Population

Historical hypotheticals aside, who cares? If whatever Armenian ruler 1700 years decided that all Armenians were to be Christian had instead decided they were to be Islamic, and subsequently they had good relations with the Ottoman Empire, would this have ended the world?

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Arabs say Turks mistreated them for hundreds of years and considered them inferiors. Even the Muslim Albanians rebelled against Ottoman authority. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic world was where it was before the Ottoman Empire.

On top of that, the Safavid Persians were the Ottoman Turks' no.1 ennemies for some time. What makes you think Armenia would have been Sunni (like Turks) instead of Shiites (like Iranians and Azeris)? If Armenia was Shiite it would have secured a war against the Ottoman Empire, instead of Turkish friendship.

Imagine what Armenia would have been like if it was ruled by Islamic clerics similar to those in Iran.

[radar]

you are so confused with your identity problems. go to a therapy and make peace with your history. It is not something very good or very bad being Armenian or Christian or Turkish or Muslim or whatever. These are the facts of nations that brought up from history. You are the last racist community in the world

[Sip]

Anonymouse, Islam is mostly vague, commenting islam is much important.(You can comment it like al kaide or like others) But A woman can work If she want, Islam dont interest it. Islamic system dont make people perfect, people make islamic system fine.

That's not what he said. He said Islam treats women as inferiors to men. In some countries they are worth 1/2 the man in a court for example (in terms of the value of their testimony). All in all, among the more popular organized religions, Islam is by far the most violent, curel, and barbaric. Not to say the rest are any good either of course.

[Murtaza]

Comment it like that way, and It make islam most violent, curel, and barbaric.

[Sip]

Exactly my point. A non muslim, or anyone who denounces islam is an infidel to be dealt with in violent ways. At least true Christianity teaches the "turn the other cheek" philosophy though with barbaric muslims in the world, that as you can imagine is somewhat impractical in real life.

[radar]

Islam is not violent or barbaric. Just fundemantalists are like that. I do not bomb anywhere in Ankara at my daliy life

[Sip]

In the same way there are people who call themselves Catholics for example who use contraception (birth control). That doesn't make Catholicism any different ... it just makes those people less "Catholic"

[Murtaza]

Sip this is not true, my english is not enough for this discussion, but If you look past, christians used violence to nonbeliever more more than muslims. But for know, Islam use force much.

for True christianity, we can also say, True islam say threat all people with justice.And as you can imagine this is somewhat impractical in real life too. For exp: Armenian exiles and killing are complately against islam. But most of armenians think, It is barbaric way of islam.

[radar]

When Christians were living at Dark Ages, living a primitive life without any science, art, philosopy, without city life, when Christians were barbaric bloody tribes who even do not know how to clean, at the same ages Islam was only civilised culture in the world. Christians learned medical, chemistry, mathematics, philosopy, trade, arts, etc. from Muslims. And after barbar Christians invaded Islam countries and plunder its wealth they learned how to be civilised. At those times Islam was rising, after 15th century European Christian culture rised and Islam declined.
So it is not the problem of Islam. It is about rise and fall of civilisations. Unfortunately most of the Islam countries live at poverty, lack of democracy and live a fundamentalist kind of Islam. That's true, but this doesn't give you the right to label Islam itself since remember ho Christians were fundamentalist and Muslims were civilised at history.

[nakharar]

I don't know where you got your misconceptions but your ignorance reeks up to here.

When Christians were living at Dark Ages, living a primitive life without any science, art, philosopy, without city life, when Christians were barbaric bloody tribes who even do not know how to clean, at the same ages Islam was only civilised culture in the world. Christians learned medical, chemistry, mathematics, philosopy, trade, arts, etc. from Muslims.

The above paragraph is so idiotic, I feel sorry for myself for commenting on it.

I don't blame you, if you have never heared of the philosophy of St. Augstine, the beautiful romanesque churches, the Gothic renaissance in the 11th century, the Hanseatic league stretching from the Baltic to Flanders, the Italian city states. That all happened before the 15th century. How do you think the Renaissance happened? It didn't drop from the sky did it? Neither was it transfed by the Muslims through osmosis. It was the result of a long process of accumulation. The Renaissance is the natual outcome of this. What you call the "Dark Ages" is considered antiquated by all historians. After the split of the Roman Empire into two and the demise of the western part of the empire an interim period followed where the modern nations of Europe gradually came into being. The chaos and constant warfare is just that, a temporary phase in the glorious entity that is Europe. We can't say the same for your part of the world can we?

And after barbar Christians invaded Islam countries and plunder its wealth they learned how to be civilised. At those times Islam was rising, after 15th century European Christian culture rised and Islam declined.
So it is not the problem of Islam.

I've never heard such hypocritical trash before. How do you think Islam spread? Through benevolent conversions? A religion that is based on warfare, where even the prophet took part in battles. Whereas Jesus turned his other cheek and died on the cross. The whole of Anatolia and North Africa was subjected by the Arab hordes who spread their religion with the might of the sword within 15 years. At least it took Christianity 300 years to establish itself as the state religion of the Roman Empire and another 1000 in northern and eastern Europe. Since when do plunderers become civilized? The Huns came and disappeared as did the Mongols. Your own Ottomans were plunderers par excellence. Their economy was based on brigandage and looting. Like locusts they went from one place to the other when resources dried up. Nomads are like that since they are incapable of creating they have to live off someone else's lands and goods.

It is about rise and fall of civilisations. Unfortunately most of the Islam countries live at poverty, lack of democracy and live a fundamentalist kind of Islam. That's true, but this doesn't give you the right to label Islam itself since remember ho Christians were fundamentalist and Muslims were civilised at history.

True. But what your biggest mistake is that Muslims do not circumspect themselves and still wallow in their misery. There are some cultural and religious traits that hold you back, but for convenience sake you don't want to face them at all. At least you Turks are somewhat better off because of Ataturk. Secularism took off your blinders, but apparently it didn't go enough since you voted for that Islamist guy. Old habits die hard it seems. How come that even the most backward Asian and African countries overtake Muslim countries in all aspects? When the petro-dollars dry up Arab countries will even fall behind African countries economically. I'm going to post you the UN's Arab Human Development Report. It's nothing less than heartwrenching.