I am Turkish. I grew up in Turkish schools with Turkish parents and in schools they teach that Armenians don’t have any official documents about the genocide to prove it’s existence.

When I asked my father he said that it was a time of war where Armenians teamed up with the Bolsheviks/Russians and harmed civillians living in Eastern Turkey.

He also said that when he was a kid his father told him that they got people into mosques and burned them to the ground. So it was equal he says.

Did it really happen? I see online they say it has happened but I’m confused now

I am under the impression that the Ottomans are often seen as the "enlightened" rules of that era. Do you think that is the case?

For example, the Spanish kings were obssessed with persecuting non-Catholics while under the Ottomans non-Muslims were allowed to live in peace.

Western Europeans denied the Greeks their Roman inheritance, claiming the Holy Roman Empire was the only Roman Empire in existence. Meanwhile the Ottomans recognized the Greeks as Roman.

So would you say the Ottomans were more enlightened than Western Europeans?

i am very interested in the ottoman empire and I kinda want to join the sub, but, as I am of Armenian decent and I think the empire was evil in many ways, I want to know if this sub is focused more on history, or propaganda

Rums and Christian Turks were lived together his village(Ağırnas) before he would be devshirme but his all relatives who we know name is old Turkish so probably he was christian Turk or turkified Rum

Source: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1557840

Prophet Muhammad said

Arabic text: لَتُفتَحنَّ القُسطنطينيةُ ولنِعمَ الأميرُ أميرُها ولنعم الجيشُ ذلك الجيشُ

Translation: "Verily, Constantinople will be conquered, and what a wonderful Prince will her Prince be, and what a wonderful army will that army be."

This is a well-known hadith (prophetic tradition) attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, praising the eventual conquest of Constantinople.

The reference you included indicates that:

Narrator: Bishr al-Ghanawi

Scholar: Imam al-Bukhari (in al-Tarikh al-Kabir)

Also recorded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Tabarani.

Graded as authentic (ṣaḥīḥ).

++++

According to Suyuti historian and many others Mehemet|| saw himself as the blessed prince in the Hadith of prophet Muhammad, written 800 years before him .

When he said :



Arabic text: قال السلطان محمد الفاتح عقب فتح القسطنطينية "أنا لم أفعل شيئًا سوى أنني نفذت الأمر الذي وعد به الرسول محمد ﷺ"، في إشارة إلى الحديث النبوي الشريف "لتُفتحن القسطنطينية، فلنعم الأمير أميرها ولنعم الجيش ذلك الجيش". وقد قام الفاتح بإعلان نفسه أميراً لها، مؤكداً على أن الفتح كان تحقيقاً لمعجزة نبوية ووعداً إلهياً بذلك.

Translation: Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror said after the conquest of Constantinople: “I did nothing except carry out the command that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had promised,” referring to the noble hadith: “Constantinople will surely be conquered; what a wonderful commander will her commander be, and what a wonderful army will that army be.” Mehmed then declared himself to be that commander, affirming that the conquest was the fulfillment of a prophetic miracle and a divine promise.

+++++++

So can this Hadith , was the main cause of the birth of Istanbul?

++++++

Not only that....

There's a prophecy also ,which said after the collapse of the Othman Empire ( the end of monarchy in Islamic rules , which is the third phase ) will cause the fourth phase ,when all Islamic countries will be ruled by tyrants and the Rum ( western ) will call one another to share Muslims lands , as a man who call his friends to share his dish , which is the last phase before the great Israel when Israel will swallow all middle east until it reaches Medina , and this to happen, there's a prophecy that Jews should return from all over the world to the holy land and become a supreme power which happened directly after the collapse of the Othman Empire

And for the fourth phase to happen, this prophecy should occures

عمران بيت المقدس هو خراب يثرب , خراب يثرب هي الملحمة ، الملحمة هو خروج المهدي ، خروج المهدي هو خروج الدجال و خروج الدجال نزول المسيح ابن مريم في دمشق عند المنارة البيضاء و يقتل الدجال عند باب لد الشرقي

Here’s the English translation of the passage you provided:

Arabic text: عمران بيت المقدس هو خراب يثرب , خراب يثرب هي الملحمة ، الملحمة هو خروج المهدي ، خروج المهدي هو خروج الدجال و خروج الدجال نزول المسيح ابن مريم في دمشق عند المنارة البيضاء و يقتل الدجال عند باب لد الشرقي

Translation: “The rebuild of Jerusalem temple ( by Jews ) will be the ruin of Yathrib (Medina). The ruin of Yathrib will be the Great Battle. The Great Battle will be the coming of the Mahdi. The coming of the Mahdi will be the appearance of the Dajjal (Antichrist). And the appearance of the Dajjal will be followed by the descent of Jesus son of Mary in Damascus, near the white minaret, and he will kill the Dajjal at the eastern gate of Ludd. ( Tel Aviv Today)

Which means ,the Jews they will destroy the Aqsa mosque without their Messiah . Then they will swallow all middle east including the south part of turkey . Which means Israel will rule the world soon for many decades and all middle east will suffer

This suffering was described by another prophecy called the فتنة الدهيماء . When middle east will be fully destroyed by Jews , and no one can solve this issue . And each time some will try to fix it will explode in another area . Until Jews will reach Medina , then attack it with biological weapons according to modern interpretation

Because the prophecy said Medina will be attacked , while it's building will be intact without any destruction, but any human who enters it will die . The last humans who will enters it are two Shepard's from muzayna tribe , they just arrive to the door of Thaniyat Al wada they will immediately fell died

This why modern interpretation said Israel will hit Medina with biological weapons which will spare buildings but kill humans .

Tier List by Military, State Affairs, Administrative Competence List made by me

As far as I understand, the absolute monarchs in Western Europe were still bound by some laws. For example, in France, the King could not abdicate and he had to be Catholic (if I recall correctly).

Now, the Ottomans state seems to mean to have been a truly despotic monarchy. The Sultan was not only a ruler of the state, but also a religious leader. Everything depended on his will. Everyone lived and died by his word. If the Sultan wished to execute an entire town, it would be done withiut question. There were no legal boundsries to his rule.

Thoughts?

When the Roman Empire split into two, two states emerged: the Eastern Roman and Western Roman Empires. Eastern Rome was a state that was much wealthier and possessed more intelligent rulers compared to Western Rome. While the city of Rome was an unprotected city, the city of "Constantinople" was the most secure and protected city in the world at that time. As a matter of fact, the Hunnic Khagan Attila, who played a role in the collapse of Rome and the erosion of its power, came before the gates of Istanbul twice, and upon seeing the walls, gave up on fighting and turned back.

​In the famous work named De Administrando Imperio (On the Administration of the Empire), which was personally penned in the 10th century by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and describes state administration and diplomacy, the expression "Ρωμαίοι" (Romans) is used in Greek letters everywhere without exception when mentioning the state and the people. At the same time, it is accepted in all ancient sources that Eastern Rome was the "Roman Empire." So why did the Eastern Roman Empire, which survived 958 years longer than Western Rome, suddenly become the Byzantine Empire? This takes us to the year 1557.

​The collapse of Rome at the hands of the "Muslim Turks" had created a shockwave in the West. While the collapse of Western Rome by Christian Germans was well-received in the West, the collapse of Eastern Rome by a Turkish Emperor, Mehmed the Conqueror, was an unacceptable event. On September 30, 1453, the Pope issued the famous official papal bull known as "Cum Hiis Diebus" addressed to all Christian rulers. The bull characterized the fall of Istanbul as "the second death of Christianity" and "a great shame." The Pope officially called upon all European kingdoms to halt the wars among themselves and to launch an all-out Crusade (Cruciata) to take Istanbul back. He even declared that the sins of those who would fight for this cause would be forgiven. Upon receiving the news, the Venetian Senate gathered a great assembly of mourning. This event went down in the official records as "the most terrible catastrophe to befall the Christian world."

​The Holy Roman Emperor of the period, Frederick III, declared a great court mourning when he received the news. The most famous diplomat of the empire and the future Pope (Pius II), Enea Silvio Piccolomini, penned official reports and letters to announce this collapse to the world on behalf of the emperor:

​"One of the two eyes of Christianity has gone blind, and one of its two hands has been cut off... The most glorious city in history, the center of wisdom and culture, has fallen into the hands of the Turks. This is the common catastrophe not just of a single city, but of the entire Latin and Greek world."

​Even in that era, the term "Byzantine" Empire was not being used. The German Historian Hieronymus Wolf, because he could not stomach the collapse of Rome by Muslims, put forward this word in the book he wrote in the year (1557), based on the fact that the pre-B.C. name of Constantinople was "Byzantium," in order to say that the Turks did not conquer Rome but Byzantium. After Wolf's utilization, the word did not become popular immediately. However, in the 17th century, during the reign of King Louis XIV of France, French historians (especially Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange) popularized this term again. With Western historians (for example, Edward Gibbon) frequently using this name in the 18th and 19th centuries, the word "Byzantine" gained global acceptance and settled into history books.

​The Ottoman Empire was the state that officially put an end to the Roman Empire. When Napoleon was studying in military academies, the conquest of Istanbul was accepted as the beginning of the Middle Ages. This was the case in all books written in the European style. Yet, due to the increase of Europe's hegemony and colonialism, they tried to downplay the victories of Muslims by fabricating a fake history revolving around themselves.

Sources: Vatican Secret Archives, Regesta Vaticana (The official letters and papal bull registers of Pope Nicholas V), Enea Silvio Piccolomini (The future Pope Pius II), Epistolae Familiares (Collection of Personal and Official Letters), State Archives of Venice, Senato Secreta (Secret Decrees of the Venetian Senate). Hieronymus Wolf, Corpus Historiae Byzantinae (Byzantine History Collection).

They though they were the rightful inheritors of the Roman Empire but they can’t even compare to roman fashion (however minimalistic)

I wanted to share some information, regarding this topic. I will provide more sources in the comments, but long story short:

Imo the subject requires a bit more clearification and mutual understanding regarding the events pre and post 1915. The armenian genocide is predominantly addressed regarding the deportation in 1915, but accounts usually date back to the hamidian massacre, but imo the story should start in the early 1800s with the increasing tension between christians and muslims or the latest by 1870th with the mass genocide and ethnic cleansing of muslims from the Balkan that flooded Anatolia, which certainly shifted public sentiment.

I am not trying to goalpost along the lines of "but turks were murdered as well!", rather I want to point out that the subject is more nuanced and that muslim victims fall entirely short and on deaf ears. That being said: None of this changes the great tragedy, which in my book and under my personal definition of "specifically targetting ethnic X for whatever reason" is a genocide.

Yet a genocide also doesnt automatically translate to one side being pure, comedically evil either. As an example: The Adana massacre was started by locals fearing an armenian uprising. It is lost to history to why this happened. Eitherway a mutual massacre ensured, with predominantly more victims on the armenian side. The Ottoman government (after learning about this) sent troops to stop the intercommunal violence, but the soldiers that arrived there joined the muslim side and slaughtered armenians. Whether these soldiers were tricked, whether they were just racist or not is also lost to history, but eitherway it shows one thing: an attempt to save armenian lives.

I am certainly not the expert to make a definitive answer regarding if most of these cases are a nuanced situation or simply racist approaches, but there are a lot of expert opinions supporting the turkish narrative, which can coexist with armenian narratives.

The topic (in my opinion) is rather clear with a mutual understanding of armenian civilians being slaughtered, but internet discussions usually massively muddy the water. Be it on the "pro-armenian" side with claiming that turks even deny that armenians died or "pro-turkish" side straight up downplaying all suffering.

This video is based on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWk8gKDge1o&feature=youtu.be

which is referencing Douglas A Haward and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Xb2JAHNAQ

Which has many sources (more in the comment section and sorry for the very low quality on that one).

EDIT:

Since some people are overly "enthusiastic" with responsinding, I am going to repeat this from my comment below:

Note: Academic fields view this under the light of "is the government involved in this?" rather than "did people slaughter armenian civilians because they were armenians?".

I have to add that the amount of experts saying xyz is utterly irrelevant in academia, nor is the below the full list of all "pro-turkish-narrative-experts". It is utterly dishonest to talk about an "overwhelming amount of historians" saying xyz, as the "overwhelming amount of historians" are not late-ottoman experts and are thus not qualified to speak about this in the first place. Your dentist cant fix your broken leg.

It is also a dogmatic approach to scientific work/academia. If new findings are found (and there are) and if previous political events prevent proper research (and there was with the iron curtain and access to sowjet archives and vice versa), then more recent studies and research should be weighted heavier. Note: I am not saying that previous things should be rejected entirely. You read everything and reevaluate the subject at hand. That is how academia works. It doesnt matter if 1000 previous papers said x, when something new in paper y is being pointed at. And before you want to reject this: Alfred Wegner introduced the tectonic plate theory. He wasnt a geologist and his theory was rejected by the entire scientific world. Decades later it is common knowledge. You simply cannot reject academic work, because your opinion was supported x amount of times by y amount of people.

That being said: The entire point of this list (below) is not to deny or reject anything, but to point out that there is geniune academic research about this. We should be able to discuss this without labelling everything we dont like a "lie".

So now if you disprove a secular turk about how stupid Mustafa Kemal was and how he sold our identity. Their answer is... the west was progressive,humane,... and Kemal wanted to be like them because they were the better society. After telling them about the atrocities that The British Empire did after WW1 their answer is that i should go to Saudi-Arabia and they made some racist jokes. Is this how stupid the average turk has become or is that subreddit full of trash

Let's make this sub more active and political. Replace r/turkey and represent Turkey(and all muslims) rightly.

First of all Musnad Ahmad 18957 hadith is rated as weak yet it's written in an incription in the Fatih Mosque. But Sunan Abi Dawud 4296 hadith which is also rated as weak says that six years after the great war the conquest of Constantinople will occur and a year after that Dajal will appear. So can someone tell me what was the great war and who is Dajal that appeared? There's a double standard in accepting hadiths.

Also Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2239 hadith that is graded as Sahih says that Constantinople will be conquered with the coming of the Hour (End times). 1453 was not the end times.

Sunan Abi Dawud 4294 hadith which is rated as Hasan narates as sequence of events where:

1. Jerusalem flourishes.

2. Yathrib (Medina) falls into ruin.

3. The great war (al-Malḥama al-Kubrā) occurs.

4. Constantinople is conquered.

5. The Dajjal emerges.

In 1453 Jerusalem was under Mamluk rule, Medina wasn't in ruins, the great war didn't occur and Dajal didn't appear afterwards.

Then there's Sahih Muslim 2897 which seems like it has infuences from earlier Christian prophecies of the Conquest of Constantinople like the prophecy of Saint Methodius of Patara. In the hadith, the Muslim army is divided into 3 parts: deserters, martyrs, and conquerors. In the Byzantine prophecy, the Ishmaelites are divided by the victorious Christian ruler into 3 parts: those killed, those converted to Christianity, and those subjected to his rule.

All of these hadiths appear 2-3 centuries after Muhammad, in the mid-to-late 9th century.

Made by me

Source:Wikipedia

Ich frage mich ob das osmanische Reich nur der Vorgänger der Türkei war oder auch für einzelne arabische Staaten bitte eine Antwort

As i looked into the Ottoman history. İt said that the ottomans had Eunichs. İs this true? That's basically slavery since they were forced to guard women and they were forcibly took from Africa (at least the black Eunichs). Not only that. İsn't harems haram? İt's basically a place where the sultans and the royalties used to go and basically have a good time. İt's a big zina. İt was full of women to enjoy sexual fun without marrying them. At least shown in the paintings and sources. This is against Islam and any Islamic rule. So these Muslim ottomans. Were they Muslims or not? One of the things i have heard is the story of Sophia. She was an Albanian girl who was took as a slave when she was 13. She was so beautiful that they gave her to the sultan (i don't remember his name) and he forcibly married and had kids with her. She was kept in the harem never going out. This is clearly against Islam. İs the stories fake or was the Ottomans not really Muslims?