Donate to help a brother get surgery done insha'Allah!

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    Is this true of Ottomans impaling people? 
    #1
    . Sister.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,208
    Default
    Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement

    The Ottoman Empire used impalement during the last Siege of Constantinople in 1453,[13] though possibly earlier. Ottoman soldiers and authorities would later use impalement quite frequently in the same region during the 18th and 19th centuries, especially during some of the more brutal repressions of nationalistic movements, or reprisals following insurrections in Greece and other countries of Southeast Europe.
    During the Ottoman occupation of Greece, impalement became an important tool of psychological warfare, intended to put terror into the peasant population. By the 18th century, Greek bandits turned guerrilla insurgents (known as klephts) became an increasing annoyance to the Ottoman government. Captured klephts were often impaled, as were peasants that harbored or aided them. Victims were publicly impaled and placed at highly visible points, and had the intended effect on many villages who not only refused to help the klephts, but would even turn them in to the authorities. The Ottomans engaged in active campaigns to capture these insurgents in 1805 and 1806, and were able to enlist Greek villagers, eager to avoid the stake, in the hunt for their outlaw countrymen.[1]
    During the Serbian Revolution (1804–1835) against the Ottoman Empire, about 200 Serbians were impaled in Belgrade in 1814, as punishment for a riot in the aftermath of Hadži Prodan's Revolt.[16]
    The agony of impalement was eventually compounded with being set over a fire, the impaling stake acting as a spit, so that the impaled victim might be roasted alive.[17] Among other atrocities, Ali Pasha, an Albanian-born Ottoman noble who ruled Ioannina, had rebels, criminals, and even the descendants of those who had wronged him or his family in the past, impaled and roasted alive.[17] During the Greek War of Independence (1821–1832), Athanasios Diakos, a klepht and later a rebel military commander, was captured after the Battle of Alamana (1821), near Thermopylae, and after refusing to convert to Islam and join the Ottoman army, he was impaled, roasted over a fire, and died after three days.[1] Others were treated in a similar manner. Diakos became a martyr for a Greek independence and was later honored as a national hero.[18]
    is it true?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    A’salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

    That’s exactly what my Greek parents told me when I became a Muslim more than 30 years ago...no prizes here for guessing that my reversion to Islam was not exactly smooth sailing on the home front.

    But, anyway, I didn’t believe it then, and still can’t, because that’s definitely not Islam (i.e. there’s no compulsion).

    I’ve learnt enough since, however, to know that there are some who wouldn’t hesitate to commit atrocities, claiming to be Muslims, in order to incite hatred against Islam/Muslims and to create enmity.

    The following links contain some interesting information/opinions that I don't necessarily agree with (just thought I'd mention that, coz...yno):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nmeh

    http://radioislam.org/ataturk/jewish.htm

    Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet Muhammad inquired: Have you heard of a city, of which part is in the sea? Yes, they said (understanding him to mean Constantinople). He said: “The Last Hour shall not occur until 70,000 of the children of Isaac shall attack it. When they will come to it they will land down, but they will not fight with arms, nor shower it with arrows. They will only say: ‘There is no god but Allah, and Allah is the Greatest’, and one of its sides will fall. They will recite it for the second time: ‘There is no god but Allah, and Allah is The Greatest’, and another side of the city will fall. Afterwards they will recite for a third time: ‘There is no god but Allah, and Allah is the Greatest’, and then it will be opened to them, and they will enter it and acquire booty. While they will be dividing the spoils, a proclaimer will come to them and say: Verily Dajjal/Anti-Christ has come out. Then they will leave everything and return."
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Omar Abdur Rahman For This Useful Post:

    Sister. (02-Apr-2012)

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    This won't answer everything, but it does explain a lot about the practice of impaling and how it was used against the Muslims by Dracula.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtZUgikJtsM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qAzfK43IU0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rL7A9sWnYo
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AbuAA For This Useful Post:

    Melb (02-Apr-2012), Omar Abdur Rahman (02-Apr-2012)

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    A’salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

    That was excellent Brother Musa, but I think I would have enjoyed the program a bit more without all the interjecting…did I detect a touch of frustration on your part too, lol?

    There’s no doubt Dracula got what he deserved in the end, due to all the Muslims that he ordered to be impaled, but I doubt very much that the Muslims took to impaling people thereafter.

    As I said in my previous post, seeing as that practice is against Islam, I think it is more likely that the enemies of Islam, within those conquered lands, committed those atrocities in order to frame the Muslims and incite enough hatred against them to affect a popular uprising.

    False flag operations are a common practice these days, and I’m sure they were no strangers to a bit of intrigue even in those days, but Allahu Allam. What I do know, for sure, is that the whole idea of impaling people alive and turning them over a fire, like a big souvlaki, while insisting they become Muslims is something very far from Islam.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Omar Abdur Rahman For This Useful Post:

    Melb (03-Apr-2012)

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Wa Alaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

    For this episode I admit I did have to move on quickly through the comments as I knew we had limited time.. May Allah reward those who helped out in the show, they did a great job, however it is correct that the producers were insisting that they interject often as it would make the show interesting, and as they didn't want to, they ended up making comments that sometimes didn't quite fit in well

    The story itself is amazing, knowing how the Muslims fought Dracula. Most people freak out once you mention the premise and say "Whaaaat? Dracula???" That's why I love history
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AbuAA For This Useful Post:

    Islam_Junkie (03-Apr-2012), Melb (03-Apr-2012), Omar Abdur Rahman (03-Apr-2012)

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    . Sister.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,208
    Default
    Wa alaikum assalaam.
    Thanks akhi omar . That's a possibility I suppose.

    Musa your videos about the history of Dracula, or 'Vlad the Impaler', were what led me to look up impaling and that's how I came across the part about Ottomans.

    I just thought of how the Prophet forbade mutilation of bodies and thought if that shaytaan Vlad III was disgusting enough to impale people, why would the Ottomans stoop to his level? I know his head was impaled and taken to Constantinople but that was after he was killed and I reckon he deserved it anyway, but why would later Ottomans impale people especially for crimes they didn't commit (i.e. killing of those men whose forefathers had raped and tortured 2 of Ali whatshisname's female ancestors).

    But if it really was just enemies of Islam impaling people while pretending to be Muslims then that's another story.
    Whoever remembers death often will find a small amount (of worldly things) sufficient for him; and whoever includes his speech in his deeds will speak little.

    Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils, and ever has Satan been to his Lord ungrateful. (Surat al Isra': 27)
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Sister. For This Useful Post:

    Omar Abdur Rahman (03-Apr-2012)

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Impaling is not mutilation. Rather it is a form of capital punishment. It is in some ways not too dissimilar to crucifixion which is something that does not only cause death but intends to prolong it and to cause the person being killed to suffer. As you would know, crucifixion is a punishment mandated in the Qur'an for certain crimes:

    إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. [5:33]
    Therefore I don't see it to be unreasonable that an Islamic Qadhi (judge) may reason to allow this means of execution if it is deemed suitable. As you saw, the Ottomans had thieves and people who caused corruption to be impaled, sometimes it would take days for them to die, as with crucifixion.

    I would suggest looking further into any documents which may show orders of judges or commanders to execute enemies of the Islamic state by impaling to see if there are any discussions regarding the practice and how it may have first came into use by the Ottomans.

    Regarding mutilation of dead bodies, this is what was not allowed by the verses of the Qur'an after Uhud. Meaning if someone were killed by crucifixion, beheading, impaling etc. and then you were to go and slice their body up (as an insult to the dead body) this is what would not be allowed.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to AbuAA For This Useful Post:

    Sister. (03-Apr-2012)

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    A'salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

    Quote Originally Posted by Musa View Post
    Impaling is not mutilation.
    Yes, it's more like a sick fetish (true to its name).

    Rather it is a form of capital punishment.
    Mandated by whom? Allah (SWT) says: Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. [5:33]


    It is in some ways not too dissimilar to crucifixion which is something that does not only cause death but intends to prolong it and to cause the person being killed to suffer.
    It's absolutely dissimilar to crucifixion and, if it's how you describe it in your talk, i.e. that a stick large enough to support the weight of a man is shoved up his backside and pushed in until it comes out of his mouth, I ask whether anyone would even survive until it came out and, if they could, how long the would survive, thereafter, without being able to breath as they obviously wouldn't be able to at that point.

    As you would know, crucifixion is a punishment mandated in the Qur'an for certain crimes:
    Yes, but impaling is not.

    Therefore I don't see it to be unreasonable that an Islamic Qadhi (judge) may reason to allow this means of execution if it is deemed suitable.

    As you saw, the Ottomans had thieves and people who caused corruption to be impaled, sometimes it would take days for them to die, as with crucifixion.

    I would suggest looking further into any documents which may show orders of judges or commanders to execute enemies of the Islamic state by impaling to see if there are any discussions regarding the practice and how it may have first came into use by the Ottomans.

    Regarding mutilation of dead bodies, this is what was not allowed by the verses of the Qur'an after Uhud. Meaning if someone were killed by crucifixion, beheading, impaling etc. and then you were to go and slice their body up (as an insult to the dead body) this is what would not be allowed.
    I'm sorry but I think it is quite unreasonable that anyone inflict punishments other than what Allah (SWT), his Messenger (SAWS) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs (RA) have legislated. Perhaps it was through such departures from Islam, if indeed true, that the Caliphate fell. And, Allahu Allam.

    Finally, I realise Dracula was beheaded, but I wonder why they only put his head on a pole...I mean, they could have put the post up his backside, pushed it through, and then put his head on top, but they didn't.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Omar Abdur Rahman For This Useful Post:

    Sister. (03-Apr-2012)

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Regarding impaling, in many cultures it is seen as a form of crucifixion as is attested to in many references where impaling would be referred to as crucifixion.

    When it comes to the hadd punishment, a qadhi may give a ruling that may specify a specific way for the person to be killed. As you see in the verse it says the person is to be killed or crucified, this is why the way in which the killing is done will differ. Usually it is beheading, though its not uncommon to read of Islamic judges using other methods. I remember recently reading about a qadhi of recent times who commanded a killing to be done by gunfire.

    This is why I say it may not be unreasonable to suggest that some Ottoman judges or commanders of the past may have used impaling to carry out the punishment.

    Regarding surviving impaling, it depends how it is done. If it is done from bottom to top passing the whole body then no doubt the person would not survive. However other times it will be done so only part is impaled.

    I am not sure as there is not much that I can find that mentions anything with surety, but it may be that Dracula's head was cut off in the fighting and all that was recovered was his head. This may explain why only the head was taken.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    Allahu Allam, but I would have thought that when it comes to killing, as mentioned in the verse, that it only be done in accordance to the ways that the Prophet (SAWS) has prescribed or permitted, and not just in any way that suits one’s fancy. Even animals have to be slaughtered in a prescribed manner. And, what happened to Vlad's body? I'm sure it didn't run away, like a chicken without a head, yet they chose to impale just his head...why?
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Omar Abdur Rahman For This Useful Post:

    *saRah* (13-Jun-2012)

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    A’salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu,

    Brother Musa, I recently heard a certain Imam say that impaling was barbaric and the peak of mutilation which, he said, the Prophet (SAWS) has forbidden. But, above you’ve written, to the contrary, that impaling is not mutilation, and seem to imply that it is in fact an acceptable Islamic way to kill (i.e. a fitting punishment under certain circumstances).

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard such contrasting views, on such a serious matter, among learned Sunni Muslims…I mean, is it the peak of haram, or is it a halal [and suitable] punishment for certain crimes? Pray tell what you would say to the Imam, given the opportunity, about his view and what would you advise him to do, if those comments were made publicly, assuming what you’ve written above is indeed the correct Islamic position?

    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. 5:33

    When we look at the tafseers of the 33rd Ayat of Surat Al Maida, we find that Allah (SWT) has prescribed specific punishments for those who fight against the Muslims and do specific acts, i.e. to kill those who have killed, to crucify those who kill & steal, amputation for those who just steal and banishment for those who pose a threat to security.
    You say, with regard to where Allah (SWT) says ‘kill’ or ‘execute’ as in the above translation, that Qadis have discretion as to how a person should be killed/executed, so I wonder whether they are guided, in their decision, by what Allah (SWT) has prescribed in the 45th Ayat of Surat Al Maida, where He says:

    We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. 5:45

    And, if the Qadis [in determining a fitting punishment] are, indeed, guided by 5:45, I can’t help but wonder why it is that they saw fit to impale many, who hadn’t committed that crime, but when it came to the guy who ordered the impaling of so many Muslims, they didn’t impale his ass? It’s a fair question, I’m sure you’ll agree, and that’s partly why I think the Muslims were framed with the charge of shishkebabing those under their authority, by their enemies, with the view to fomenting a popular uprising. But, Allahu Allam.
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Akhi Omar, please read again what I wrote

    I did not say it is an acceptable way to kill, rather I said maybe some Ottomans of the past reasoned that it may have been so. In fact I suggested that we should look to documents of the past to see if this were the case.
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Musa View Post
    Impaling is not mutilation. Rather it is a form of capital punishment. It is in some ways not too dissimilar to crucifixion which is something that does not only cause death but intends to prolong it and to cause the person being killed to suffer. As you would know, crucifixion is a punishment mandated in the Qur'an for certain crimes:



    Therefore I don't see it to be unreasonable that an Islamic Qadhi (judge) may reason to allow this means of execution if it is deemed suitable. As you saw, the Ottomans had thieves and people who caused corruption to be impaled, sometimes it would take days for them to die, as with crucifixion.

    I would suggest looking further into any documents which may show orders of judges or commanders to execute enemies of the Islamic state by impaling to see if there are any discussions regarding the practice and how it may have first came into use by the Ottomans.

    Regarding mutilation of dead bodies, this is what was not allowed by the verses of the Qur'an after Uhud. Meaning if someone were killed by crucifixion, beheading, impaling etc. and then you were to go and slice their body up (as an insult to the dead body) this is what would not be allowed.
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Yes, do re-read it, I never stated that it is sanctioned in the Qur'an or Sunnah as an accepted way of carrying out punishments, however I reasoned that it would not be too odd if a Qadhi decided for it to be acceptable.
    But, above you’ve written, to the contrary, that impaling is not mutilation, and that it is in fact an acceptable Islamic way to kill (i.e. a fitting punishment under certain circumstances).
    It is not mutilation when it is done to kill the person. It is mutilation when it is done after the person is killed, I guess I did not clarify this point.

    Just again, I never said at all it is an acceptable Islamic way, however I suggest that if you want to see why the Ottomans may have done it, it may have been based upon a ruling that allowed it. It would be interesting to look into.
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Musa View Post
    Yes, do re-read it, I never stated that it is sanctioned in the Qur'an or Sunnah as an accepted way of carrying out punishments, however I reasoned that it would not be too odd if a Qadhi decided for it to be acceptable.It is not mutilation when it is done to kill the person. It is mutilation when it is done after the person is killed, I guess I did not clarify this point.

    Just again, I never said at all it is an acceptable Islamic way, however I suggest that if you want to see why the Ottomans may have done it, it may have been based upon a ruling that allowed it. It would be interesting to look into.
    Actually, I had edited my last post before you posted the above.

    But anyway, what do you say about the practice? Is it acceptable in Islam or not? And, if so, for what crimes would it apply?

    I'm not in a hurry for the answers, as I have to go to work now, so please take your time.


    Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu
    Omar
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Wa Alaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

    It is for a Mufti or Qadhi to decide, not for us. If a Mufti or qadhi decides so, then we look at his evidences.
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Senior Member DerGen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    336
    Default
    They did what they did. Where ever they went they brought peace with them. once sultans were the khalifat and ruled by the islam.
    Reply With Quote
     

  26. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    786
    Default
    A’salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu,

    TL;DR = TB*

    I did not say it is an acceptable way to kill, rather I said maybe some Ottomans of the past reasoned that it may have been so. In fact I suggested that we should look to documents of the past to see if this were the case.
    That’s an excellent idea, but do you know for a fact whether any genuine documents, which record the rulings and give the Qadhis’ reasons, still exist? And, if so, where are they, and how can we be sure they’re genuine, if it is indeed true that victors write the history. As Muslims, I think it is not only reasonable, but essential that we forensically examine every detail that’s been attributed to our legacy.

    The Hadith from Sahih Muslim (which I included in my first post of this thread) can, in hindsight, with regard to what’s happened historically, be viewed as a fulfilled prophecy, i.e. the infiltration by the enemies of Islam, into the then Islamic seat of power (Constantinople), by pretending to be Muslims, which subsequently led to its downfall. And, when we critically examine the players involved, in the downfall of the last Caliphate, we find that history does indeed attest to that interpretation of the Hadith, but Allah (SWT) knows best.

    In view of the constant efforts by the enemies of Islam, throughout time, where we learn from the Qur’an that the very Prophets/Messengers (AS) of Allah (SWT) were killed and their Messages changed/hidden, because they (AS), and the Messages/Revelations/Books they were sent to convey, threatened the very authority & power base of the then ‘establishment’, it should come as no surprise to us that such efforts continue to this day. Make no mistake about it, conspiracies do occur…it’s a fact.

    Doesn’t it stand to reason that after having failed to kill the last Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and having failed to change even a single letter in the Qur’an, that they would then concentrate on infiltrating our seats of power and our Scholarship, in order to cause havoc from within, as munafiqs, and rewrite our history in a way that best suits their agenda? Allahu Allam. But, alhamdulillah, we know that although they plan, Allah (SWT) is the best planner…in the end their plans, plots & ploys will come to naught, and we are all destined to return to our Maker (SWT).

    Our predecessors made great efforts to verify & authenticate the validity of traditions/accounts of the Prophet’s (SAWS) and his Companion’s (RA) sayings. Imam Bukhari (ra), for instance, didn’t bother to even listen to an account of a certain person when, after travelling a great distance to meet & hear from him, he found him trying to coax his donkey into moving, by pretending he had some food (he wasn’t prepared to even listen to someone who tried to trick a donkey). But these days, we are so quick to accept anything we hear about our history (and our present), regardless as to who wrote/reported it, even though it doesn’t sit well with us and what we understand about Islam.

    Of course, it could be that our information and/or our understanding is not correct, so, by raising the questions about things that don’t sit well with us, we stand a better chance of coming to the correct understanding because, insha’Allah, someone who has more knowledge will come along and explain it to us in an appropriate manner. But, occasionally, we hear from some that we have no right to question anything that Scholars have said/decreed, and that we don’t even have the capacity to understand the reasons they have ruled, as they have, even if they did explain it, so we feel intimidated and reluctant to raise our concerns/questions.

    It is for a Mufti or Qadhi to decide, not for us. If a Mufti or qadhi decides so, then we look at his evidences.
    I didn’t ask your opinion about the practice to know whether you think it would be ok for us to impale someone. I asked because I want to know the reasons why those who made that judgement in the past did so. I want to see how they justify their decisions in light of the Qur’an & Sunnah because, despite having the technology to do so, I’m pretty sure the Prophet (SAWS) never resorted to that practice. So, if you’re able to get access to authentic documents, that give the reasons why such rulings were made, I’d like to see them.

    The original poster cut and pasted a wikipedia article that also included reference to impaling people and putting them over fire while telling them to become Muslims. So, I’d also like to know whether there’s any proof of that practice being approved of by Muftis or Qadhis.

    They did what they did.
    Yes, but didn’t we all do what we did? I know I did. The question being asked here is, did they really do what we’re talking about…you know, that thing with the stick. No, not that!

    *Too bad.
    Reply With Quote
     

  27. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Servant of Allah abu rashid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Allah's Dunya
    Posts
    3,921
    Default
    There's about as much chance of hearing the truth about the Ottomans from the Greeks as there is of hearing the truth about Palestine from the Zionists.

    The Ottoman period has entered Greek folklore filled with all sorts of imaginary atrocities and claims, most of which are completely fabricated. In fact if one looks at the history, one finds Greeks actually committed the atrocities against Muslims, that they accuse the Ottomans of. European/Christian witnesses themselves, during the various Greek civil wars of "independence" witnessed that the Greeks were utterly brutal in completely eradicating the entire Muslim population of Greece.
    الشعب يريد خلافة من جديد
    Reply With Quote
     

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to abu rashid For This Useful Post:

    *saRah* (13-Jun-2012), At-Ta'if (17-Apr-2012), Omar Abdur Rahman (17-Apr-2012), Palo $oldier (03-Jul-2012), Sister. (17-Apr-2012)

  29. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    686
    Default
    Bosnia and Kosovo are just recent examples
    Reply With Quote
     

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to JalaleddinRumi For This Useful Post:

    Omar Abdur Rahman (21-Apr-2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •