Is Mythology the turth disguised as a Tale? or a Tale to disguise a Turth?

[Kormin]

I must say I rather am enjoying this new turn the thread has taken, I know nothing about the Islamic culture so ill abstain from commenting there. but it is nice to see a real discussion about something that is based in reality.

All religions have committed atrocities, all religions have secrets, and all religions support the removal of the rest. ok, now the air is clear about that.

America isn't a christian nation, yes the majority of us do follow that sect, and America wasn't attack for being christian so that line of conversation should be dropped. we were attacked because a fanatical rouge group felt the west was corrupt, yes alot of it is, personally i think hitting wallstreet would have been a better blow against corruption.

personally i though invading the middle east was like using a nuke to kill a fly, a series of surgical strikes against high level terrorists would have made a much better point. the point being "we can find you", "we will kill you", and "we value human life", but hey, to late now.

I just felt like clearing the air about us "anti-moooslim" americans, alot more americans actually share my opinion too. please go back to discussing the islamic way of life, im learning some interesting things here.

[Danik]

As Islamists are guests in Europe they should be happy with the fact that they have equal rights as the others, instead of trying to get privileges or taking over a country - because Christians don't have that in fundamentalist countries.

If christians did get privileges and take over other countries, it'd be fine for muslims to do so as well?

And that's exactly what they was doing since 7th century to the fall of Ottoman Empire. How do you think they became a World religion? Trough knocking on the door? 

[YourStepDad]

As Islamists are guests in Europe they should be happy with the fact that they have equal rights as the others
?

Privileges according to religion?

You truly are living in some backwards world of yours.

[war300]

In fact, Britain government wanted us to abolish the caliphate. It was such a pain in their asses(forgive me my Lord) and they relaxed after 1924. I think if we didn't abolish the caliphate, we could use it against imperialists but it's too late.

If the government didn't abolish the caliphate, our lands would've seen more chaos and bloodshed.

You're right in one aspect but do you know the international recognition of Turkey was after the abolishment of the caliphate? Turkey declared its independence and a new state was founded in 1923. However, the British government recognised Turkey after we abolished the caliphate. Likewise, Turkey was recognised by most of the Western governments as well after abolishment of Caliphate. In fact, the western goverments had been waiting for abolishment of the caliphate since lausanne. The British King V. George gives an opening speech about the lausanne in the house of commons on 10th January, 1924 and talks about a parliamentary bill which was related to lausanne, "As soon as this Bill has been passed, the Treaty will be ratified, and a new era will open." (CAB/23/46, p. 424) he says, according to the British National Archives. It's not hard to guess what made them happy and excited. In another study, Hakan Özoğlu, the professor of the University of Central Florida, shows " Unlike Turkey, both American and French authorities had known that the Turkish government would abolish the caliphate, one week before the abolishment" according to the report dated 25.02.1924.
Abolishment of the Caliphate in the perspective of westerners
 

If you think it's the British that influenced us, then you are wrong. If the caliphate hadn't been abolished, they would have an ally, the caliph, willfully agreeing upon the protectorate of the British to see his lands, the empire, the throne and his long banished family to be restored to its former "glory".

Well, it's a fact and what we both think is not important. Besides, you're saying the Caliph would be the firm ally of Britain. On the other hand, you must remember how Abdul Hamid II had been annoying with his caliphate card against the British government before he was deposed. He was threatening western imperialists with rebellions in their Muslim colonies and it was like he led the British government on a merry chase which resulted in money and time wasting for them.  The British government knew this and was willing to hear the last of the Caliph and Caliphate.

@By the way, I'm sorry if I have grammatical errors, bro.

I'd rather deal with my own problems where the newly formed Republic still under many dangers, than to give spiritual charity and "awakening".

Well, actually this was the only way of surviving as an independent state from lausanne..

Islamophobia is such a hilarious word. Why should a small fundamentalist minority decide the laws instead of the majority, and call it discrimination if the government denies that?

Well, you know well your democracy.

As Islamists are guests in Europe they should be happy with the fact that they have equal rights as the others,

Equal rights? Sorry but I'm laughing my ass off...

instead of trying to get priveleges or taking over a country - because Christians don't have that in fundamentalist countries. So if I don't want Koran to be the constitution of my country, practically I'm islamophobe?

That's very funny. Are you paranoiac or something?

Islamophobia is such a hilarious word. Why should a small fundamentalist minority decide the laws instead of the majority, and call it discrimination if the government denies that?Our democracy is one sided. As Islamists are guests in Europe they should be happy with the fact that they have equal rights as the others,we have so called freedom and rights for them. instead of trying to get priveleges or taking over a country Yes, racism and paranoia. They both make xenophobia.  Christians don't have that in fundamentalist countries. We're fundamentalists from now on. So if I don't want Koran to be the constitution of my country, practically I'm islamophobe Peril of Muslim. 

Indeed...

I don't blame anyone but this one above is.../I changed my mind...

You're saying that Islamic countries have prejudice against you or jews but you're supposed to know what the fanatical zionists have been doing in Palestine. Israel used phosphor bombs in their assault on Gazza in 2009. It was a war crime but the result? Yes, as we always thought. I can give dozens of examples. Similarly, the U.S. the superpower of the world, created false enemies and destroyed world trade center.

So because some Jews committed crimes, prejudice about all Jews is justified?

No, Israel is trying to justify its massacres in Palestine by using holocaust card against Europe and squelching protests with crocodile tears.

[Papa Lazarou]

Weren't you saying that the prejudice some Muslims have against Jews was justified?

[Danik]

As Islamists are guests in Europe they should be happy with the fact that they have equal rights as the others,

Equal rights? Sorry but I'm laughing my ass off...

Here in Norway they have, and even extra holidays.

instead of trying to get priveleges or taking over a country - because Christians don't have that in fundamentalist countries. So if I don't want Koran to be the constitution of my country, practically I'm islamophobe?

That's very funny. Are you paranoiac or something?

And I have a reason to be - all the freedom fighters and martyrs which are eliminating infidels to get to paradise.

[war300]

Weren't you saying that the prejudice some Muslims have against Jews was justified?

Yeah, no. This isn't what I want to say and you can't justify prejudice in this sense.  Muslims in the region are not object to Jews but what both Israel and the U.S. have been doing is making them out of favor from Middle East peoples' perspective and increasing anti zionism. Then it results in their being more opposed to Israel and America, naturally...

instead of trying to get priveleges or taking over a country - because Christians don't have that in fundamentalist countries. So if I don't want Koran to be the constitution of my country, practically I'm islamophobe?

That's very funny. Are you paranoiac or something?

And I have a reason to be - all the freedom fighters and martyrs which are eliminating infidels to get to paradise.

Well, I have nothing to say about that. What's the next, "the revenge of the crusader"?  I'm not going to answer your paranoiac stuff but this one above tragically reminds me of the empty rhetorics of your fellow citizen Anders Breivik. Yet you haven't come to your senses after him.
 I believe the majority in Europe will make conscious decisions and bring the wisdom forward in spite of every thing...

[Si-A-erra.]

This thread has definitely had a turn for the better. my contribution being:

1. All organised religion is corrupt, all holy books ARE corrupt  (no one can truly claim their book is the word of god) . I myself was brought up a catholic but I believe religion should stay away from any kind of government, Also anyone who holds a holy book's opinion on a subject above common sense is a bit of an idiot, they were written down by a guy born a few centuries before, and have no relevance in today's world.

2.On the other hand religion does have a useful role of teaching people about morality and caring for other people, but I have to disagree with the view that a religious person somehow has better morals than a non believer.


I wonder if it is possible to start a new religion in modern times (none of this aliens and rapture bullshit).

[Swordmaster]

In fact, Britain government wanted us to abolish the caliphate. It was such a pain in their asses(forgive me my Lord) and they relaxed after 1924. I think if we didn't abolish the caliphate, we could use it against imperialists but it's too late.

If the government didn't abolish the caliphate, our lands would've seen more chaos and bloodshed.

You're right in one aspect but do you know the international recognition of Turkey was after the abolishment of the caliphate? Turkey declared its independence and a new state was founded in 1923. However, the British government recognised Turkey after we abolished the caliphate. Likewise, Turkey was recognised by most of the Western governments as well after abolishment of Caliphate. In fact, the western goverments had been waiting for abolishment of the caliphate since lausanne. The British King V. George gives an opening speech about the lausanne in the house of commons on 10th January, 1924 and talks about a parliamentary bill which was related to lausanne, "As soon as this Bill has been passed, the Treaty will be ratified, and a new era will open." (CAB/23/46, p. 424) he says, according to the British National Archives. It's not hard to guess what made them happy and excited. In another study, Hakan Özoğlu, the professor of the University of Central Florida, shows " Unlike Turkey, both American and French authorities had known that the Turkish government would abolish the caliphate, one week before the abolishment" according to the report dated 25.02.1924.
Abolishment of the Caliphate in the perspective of westerners

The British government already recognised the government in Ankara as its de facto government (rather than the one sworn to the Imperial Throne in Istanbul). The victories against the Greek had shown that the Turkish presence in the area is not vanished but strengthened as well. One hilarious thing is that, all the battles fought in the Western front was done against the Greeks, but all the diplomacy was done with the British, but not Greece itself. So the fate of caliphate was under the Turkish hands but not British. What I've meant from bloodshed is the internal bloodshed. Like it happened as "31 March Incident" which was the massacre of officials and supporters of the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki) and also other innocent people, as a counter revolution for the 1908 constitution, which also cost the sultanate of Abulhamid Han. My point, had the caliphate not been abolished, you would've seen loads of 31 March Incidents in all of Turkey.

If you think it's the British that influenced us, then you are wrong. If the caliphate hadn't been abolished, they would have an ally, the caliph, willfully agreeing upon the protectorate of the British to see his lands, the empire, the throne and his long banished family to be restored to its former "glory".

Well, it's a fact and what we both think is not important. Besides, you're saying the Caliph would be the firm ally of Britain. On the other hand, you must remember how Abdul Hamid II had been annoying with his caliphate card against the British government before he was deposed. He was threatening western imperialists with rebellions in their Muslim colonies and it was like he led the British government on a merry chase which resulted in money and time wasting for them.  The British government knew this and was willing to hear the last of the Caliph and Caliphate.

@By the way, I'm sorry if I have grammatical errors, bro.

Back during the time of Abdulhamid Han, things were different. Ottoman Empire was still not small, even though they've lost significant amount of lands in the Balkans, they still had Syria, Arabia, Libya, Iraq and also Jerusalem. So it was actually the best time to use his title of Caliph than ever, as the demographics of Ottoman lands changed largely to a more muslim population than it was before. Now that the caliphate was being threatened, and most of the Muslim lands at the hands of Imperial authorities, the best help would've come from those people, who have failed to submit Turkey under their mandate.

It's okay, I still understand what you're trying to say.

This thread has definitely had a turn for the better. my contribution being:

1. All organised religion is corrupt, all holy books ARE corrupt  (no one can truly claim their book is the word of god) . I myself was brought up a catholic but I believe religion should stay away from any kind of government, Also anyone who holds a holy book's opinion on a subject above common sense is a bit of an idiot, they were written down by a guy born a few centuries before, and have no relevance in today's world.

2.On the other hand religion does have a useful role of teaching people about morality and caring for other people, but I have to disagree with the view that a religious person somehow has better morals than a non believer.

It's better to say the people who believe in organised religion is corrupt, than to say all organised religions are corrupt. As for morality, I have to disagree with you. Who can dub himself as a non believer? Everyone believes in something even though they may deny it. You may not believe in the teachings of any organised religion but you still follow a path that you believe it is best to follow, don't you? If anyone dubs themselves a non believer, they are either mistaken or really follow no path, and no morality.

And that's exactly what they was doing since 7th century to the fall of Ottoman Empire. How do you think they became a World religion? Trough knocking on the door? 

Riight, so it was  Islam that everyone agrees that it's a World religion, but not Christianity? The whole ******** colonialist Christian countries did worse than Islamic countries. You are correct about the spread of Islam under Ummayads though, but Ottomans were far more tolerant than any other Muslim countries. How do you think the Balkans still remained mostly Christian even though they were under Ottoman control for more than 300 years?

The best example of door knockings would be the Spanish Reconquista and colonialism I guess. The whole Incan culture was destroyed in less than half a century. Hell, even during the Reconquista, most of the persecuted Jews and Muslims took refuge in Ottoman lands, mostly because of Sultan Beyazid II.

[war300]

The British government already recognised the government in Ankara as its de facto government (rather than the one sworn to the Imperial Throne in Istanbul). The victories against the Greek had shown that the Turkish presence in the area is not vanished but strengthened as well. One hilarious thing is that, all the battles fought in the Western front was done against the Greeks, but all the diplomacy was done with the British, but not Greece itself. So the fate of caliphate was under the Turkish hands but not British. What I've meant from bloodshed is the internal bloodshed. Like it happened as "31 March Incident" which was the massacre of officials and supporters of the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki) and also other innocent people, as a counter revolution for the 1908 constitution, which also cost the sultanate of Abulhamid Han. My point, had the caliphate not been abolished, you would've seen loads of 31 March Incidents in all of Turkey.

Wait, having two governments was a disadvantage for Turkey against the British government in the way of treaty. The British government recognised the new government of Turkey in order to reach the general aim. They had already reached an agreement with our government during the lausanne and we were recognised officially after they had the caliphate abolished. I don't know if you've noticed it before but the British navy left Istanbul without firing a shot. Furthermore, as you saw in the claims which I quoted from firm documentaries, the official history is not innocent at all. What we were taught and what really happened are very different from each other. Apart from lausanne, this "31 March Incident" was a conspiracy of those who called themselves "the Committee of Union and Progress". It was like the other miserable military junta movements in the political history of Turkey but yes, I agree with your point of view. What I say doesn't change anything and it's all water under the bridge. If we didn't abolish the caliphate, the western states would certainly strive to secure themselves and try to make us deal with rebellions like in 1925. Despite having several strong documentaries, I can't post them because they're in Turkish.

Back during the time of Abdulhamid Han, things were different. Ottoman Empire was still not small, even though they've lost significant amount of lands in the Balkans, they still had Syria, Arabia, Libya, Iraq and also Jerusalem. So it was actually the best time to use his title of Caliph than ever, as the demographics of Ottoman lands changed largely to a more muslim population than it was before. Now that the caliphate was being threatened, and most of the Muslim lands at the hands of Imperial authorities, the best help would've come from those people, who have failed to submit Turkey under their mandate...

Yet we could use the caliphate effectively against them. 
----------

It's better to say the people who believe in organised religion is corrupt, than to say all organised religions are corrupt. As for morality, I have to disagree with you. Who can dub himself as a non believer? Everyone believes in something even though they may deny it. You may not believe in the teachings of any organised religion but you still follow a path that you believe it is best to follow, don't you? If anyone dubs themselves a non believer, they are either mistaken or really follow no path, and no morality.

Yeah, tell him our faithful victory at Gallipoli. 

[Swordmaster]

Apart from lausanne, this "31 March Incident" was a conspiracy of those who called themselves "the Committee of Union and Progress". It was like the other miserable military junta movements in the political history of Turkey but yes, I agree with your point of view. What I say doesn't change anything and it's all water under the bridge. If we didn't abolish the caliphate, the western states would certainly strive to secure themselves and try to make us deal with rebellions like in 1925. Despite having several strong documentaries, I can't post them because they're in Turkish.

Wait, are you saying that that incident was started by CUP?

31 March Incident was not started by the CUP, but by rather those who were against them. It was a bloody massacre, and the committee martial officials just literally marched with an army towards Yıldız Palace, even though it is still controversial that those rebel factions were supported by the Sultan himself. If there's a conspiracy, it'd be the committee's act to dethrone the sultan, not just start a massacre.

Yet we could use the caliphate effectively against them. 

By threatened I meant the Turkish government, the caliph using what power he still has to use against the newly formed Republic.

[Kormin]

This thread has definitely had a turn for the better. my contribution being:

1. All organised religion is corrupt, all holy books ARE corrupt  (no one can truly claim their book is the word of god) . I myself was brought up a catholic but I believe religion should stay away from any kind of government, Also anyone who holds a holy book's opinion on a subject above common sense is a bit of an idiot, they were written down by a guy born a few centuries before, and have no relevance in today's world.

2.On the other hand religion does have a useful role of teaching people about morality and caring for other people, but I have to disagree with the view that a religious person somehow has better morals than a non believer.

It's better to say the people who believe in organised religion is corrupt, than to say all organised religions are corrupt. As for morality, I have to disagree with you. Who can dub himself as a non believer? Everyone believes in something even though they may deny it. You may not believe in the teachings of any organised religion but you still follow a path that you believe it is best to follow, don't you? If anyone dubs themselves a non believer, they are either mistaken or really follow no path, and no morality.

religion is organized morality, not morality is religion. the morals of someone who follows no god are waaaaaay stronger then the ones that do, why? because they don't need the threat of divine punishment to do the right thing.

Organized religion is corrupt, yes the practitioners aren't, but the religion itself is. take christianity, its what i was raised so i know it best, christians have thrown off many of the teachings/laws of the old testament because they are outdated with the coming of christ. but as soon as you mention Gay Marriage, they jump on you with the book of leviticus...from the old testament. religion cannot exist without followers, therefore, the religion is as corrupt as its followers.

I dub myself a non-believer. I follow no god, bend my knee at no alter, and honestly don't care about the mythology people call religion. I live a moral life because its right, not because a god makes me,  and if there is a god and he doesn't let me enter his afterlife. then he doesn't deserve to be called god.

[Swordmaster]

I dub myself a non-believer. I follow no god, bend my knee at no alter, and honestly don't care about the mythology people call religion. I live a moral life because its right, not because a god makes me,  and if there is a god and he doesn't let me enter his afterlife. then he doesn't deserve to be called god.

That's what I was trying to say, even though you say you are a non believer, you still a follow a path right? That makes you believe in something. My point was to change the meaning belief, and religion from the general context.

[Si-A-erra.]

By non believer I mean that you do not follow organized religion sorry.

And I have to agree with Kormin, you shouldn't have to have the threat of damnation or hell to behave well, you should do it because you are genuinely a good person and not just following what others think is right, because as we all know the majority isn't always right.

[Swordmaster]

By non believer I mean that you do not follow organized religion sorry.

And I have to agree with Kormin, you shouldn't have to have the threat of damnation or hell to behave well, you should do it because you are genuinely a good person and not just following what others think is right, because as we all know the majority isn't always right.

The threat part is actually how you see it IMO. Some people see it as a threat, others would see it as the line towards uncertainty of how your actions are perceived. In Turkish we call it "mahalle baskısı", it can be translated as "pressure of the general opinion", that makes you do things that most people do, or things you accept in which you normally may not, as most people accept. In Islam, it is said that everyone's beliefs are to themselves, and no one can ever interrupt or interfere with the belief of others. This is the best way to be tolerant and rational when you want to discuss such fragile matters I believe.