This is Peak Eastern Europe/Balkans

[Deleted member 10913]

yes there were fixed borders when the ottoman took over the balkans you are just lying

you are jumping all over the place

lets say if someone attacked you with a knife but you would end up grabbing your own and killed the attacker
are you guilty or not?

also the crusades arent even the same as the balkans
they were western european + catholic they even beefed w the byzanthines

So you say that there where fixed borders like you have it now

lets say if someone attacked you with a knife but you would end up grabbing your own and killed the attacker
are you guilty or not?

The case however is something like this. You are holding a knif, and your enemy is also holding a knife.
1. You either wait for him to attack you
2. You attack him

The only diffrence that let's you see it as immoral is because your forefathers lost. If they had won the fight they would cheered it.

also the crusades arent even the same as the balkans
they were western european + catholic they even beefed w the byzanthines

There where crusades from the balkans against the Turks. Remember one of the main reason of crusades was because east rome lost in 1071.

 

[goat2x]

So you say that there where fixed borders like you have it now


The case however is something like this. You are holding a knif, and your enemy is also holding a knife.
1. You either wait for him to attack you
2. You attack him

The only diffrence that let's you see it as immoral is because your forefathers lost. If they had won the fight they would cheered it.


There where crusades from the balkans against the Turks. Remember one of the main reason of crusades was because east rome lost in 1071.

they had agreed nation/borders if we cant agree that ottomans had no business there because it wasnt their country then we shouldnt even talk cuz you are dumb


2, thats not true, cuz of the geographical instances + ottomans growing in europe
+
the ottomans clearly wanted the balkans + vienna



so in the last statement you admit that the ottomans took over first? got you LOL
also this analogy is really bad thats like saying as a moroccan i will took over france and ensalve them cuz once their ancestors did that to m.e

 

[Deleted member 10987]

what do you mean by this

After a long period of Globo-homoism progressivsm
People will start back to go their ethnic/religion roots

 

[goat2x]

After a long period of Globo-homoism progressivsm
People will start back to go their ethnic/religion roots

Yes but my point is that religion changing and converting wasnt just a big deal in the old times cuz they were pussies or sum shit
its even a big deal now

 

[Deleted member 10987]

So you say that there where fixed borders like you have it now


The case however is something like this. You are holding a knif, and your enemy is also holding a knife.
1. You either wait for him to attack you
2. You attack him

The only diffrence that let's you see it as immoral is because your forefathers lost. If they had won the fight they would cheered it.


There where crusades from the balkans against the Turks. Remember one of the main reason of crusades was because east rome lost in 1071.

>The only diffrence that let's you see it as immoral is because your forefathers lost. If they had won the fight they would cheered it.

This
It was a good things for ottomans/muslims and bad things for balkanites/christians

Its point of you

 

[goat2x]

So you say that there where fixed borders like you have it now


The case however is something like this. You are holding a knif, and your enemy is also holding a knife.
1. You either wait for him to attack you
2. You attack him

The only diffrence that let's you see it as immoral is because your forefathers lost. If they had won the fight they would cheered it.


There where crusades from the balkans against the Turks. Remember one of the main reason of crusades was because east rome lost in 1071.

and really dumb analogy

in cases there are always one agressor one victim
even if both of you hold the knife someone had to start it meaning first fighting world + first slash or whatever

 

[Deleted member 10913]

But what about now ?
Since nationalism/ethno-fascism is on the rise since 200 years

Fascism died in it's infancy during the 3rd german empire.
Arabs had their own version without the social darwinism during 60s that also failed hard.

its cope he doesnt even make sense
even in 2021 leaving your religion and converting to other is seen as very bad

Well it's not cope. For example muslim countries could never fully transition to a civic state, hence religion is still seen as the main identity and even written on the passport. I would say the most civic sate that was created is Turkey and even here religion is written on the passport. It's also not only a 'muslim thing' Christians in lebanon iraq & egypt see like us apostasy as one of the most negative things

 

[goat2x]

>The only diffrence that let's you see it as immoral is because your forefathers lost. If they had won the fight they would cheered it.

This
It was a good things for ottomans/muslims and bad things for balkanites/christians

Its point of you

No,taking slaves is immoral whether or not your forefather lost or not

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Fascism died in it's infancy during the 3rd german empire.
Arabs had their own version without the social darwinism during 60s that also failed hard.

Well it's not cope. For example muslim countries could never fully transition to a civic state, hence religion is still seen as the main identity and even written on the passport. I would say the most civic sate that was created is Turkey and even here religion is written on the passport. It's also not only a 'muslim thing' Christians in lebanon iraq & egypt see like us apostasy as one of the most negative things

But what about right now ?

 

[goat2x]

Fascism died in it's infancy during the 3rd german empire.
Arabs had their own version without the social darwinism during 60s that also failed hard.

Well it's not cope. For example muslim countries could never fully transition to a civic state, hence religion is still seen as the main identity and even written on the passport. I would say the most civic sate that was created is Turkey and even here religion is written on the passport. It's also not only a 'muslim thing' Christians in lebanon iraq & egypt see like us apostasy as one of the most negative things

read my statement again thats not what i meant

 

[Deleted member 10913]

and really dumb analogy

in cases there are always one agressor one victim
even if both of you hold the knife someone had to start it meaning first fighting world + first slash or whatever

It's more of a fist fight then anything else. Both are agressive. You either hit first pr get hit because dodging is unlikely.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

But what about right now ?

Don't know tbh.

 

[goat2x]

It's more of a fist fight then anything else. Both are agressive. You either hit first pr get hit because dodging is unlikely.

No it isnt
like i said
there is always a victim /Agressor
the victim is agressive after the threatings + battle words + first attack yes.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

No,taking slaves is immoral whether or not your forefather lost or not

Lets say the balkanites invaded and crushed the anatolian beyliks and started to did the same things that the ottomans did to balkanites to the turks
Would you be happy ?

You probably would

 

[goat2x]

Lets say the balkanites invaded and crushed the anatolian beyliks and started to did the same things that the ottomans did to balkanites to the turks
Would you be happy ?

its not about being happy or not at all

 

[Deleted member 10913]

read my statement again thats not what i meant

Elab on your statement then.

'its cope he doesnt even make sense
even in 2021 leaving your religion and converting to other is seen as very bad'

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Don't know tbh.

In turkey ?
Is ethnonationalism on the rise ?
Redpill me on grey wolves

 

[goat2x]

Elab on your statement then.

'its cope he doesnt even make sense
even in 2021 leaving your religion and converting to other is seen as very bad'

you said religion was only a big thing cuz thats what made you part of the nation or sum like that hence thats why taking innocent christian children was moral
and i said no, its even a big thing now if you convert religions the other will see you as traitor just facts

 

[Deleted member 10987]

its not about being happy or not at all

You can be happy of victoried

 

[goat2x]

You can be happy of victoried

yes but you can still feel that it was immoral + the execution could be better
lets say im spnaish (which i am few percent)
im proud of the conquistadors achievements but the way the executed it was very immoral

 

[goat2x]

Elab on your statement then.

'its cope he doesnt even make sense
even in 2021 leaving your religion and converting to other is seen as very bad'

+ also there are balkans songs from that area/era which just proves my point more

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

I tought it was 25 @ThatDjangoWalk

However the case with 124.000 is that all times and locations there where prophets. Out of this number some accounts hold 313 and others 315 also to be Resül.

bk. Ahmed b. Hanbel, el-Müsned 5/265-266; İbn Hibbân, es-Sahîh, 2/77)

I don't know how much were named (Wikipedia says 25), but yes, there were a lot of anbiya if im not mistaken which is very interesting indeed, because it explains the fact that almos every culture and people if not all had religion, they worshipped and had belief in things like magic, jinn (or ghosts if you want) etc, even when they never contacted eachother but still they had similar concepts and systems of belief

I personally don't discard that maybe people like Buda were prophets (i have no proof tho)

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Lets say the balkanites invaded and crushed the anatolian beyliks and started to did the same things that the ottomans did to balkanites to the turks
Would you be happy ?

You probably would

I wouldn't be happy however i also wouldn't argue it was immoral. Only if they imposed christianity.

In turkey ?
Is ethnonationalism on the rise ?
Redpill me on grey wolves

It's not tbh. It was more in the 90s

you said religion was only a big thing cuz thats what made you part of the nation or sum like that hence thats why taking innocent christian children was moral
and i said no, its even a big thing now if you convert religions the other will see you as traitor just facts

Not in civic nationalist countries. Even the fascist ones like italy and germany openly challenges religion because they did not see it as their national identity and even openly challenged it. It was also the case with robbespiere's france.

No it isnt
like i said
there is always a victim /Agressor
the victim is agressive after the threatings + battle words + first attack yes.

This whole thing of victim/agressor doesn't exist in nations right now let alone imperial times.
Let me say it like this.

To be a nation means that you are the agressor otherwise you wouldn't even exist.
Can you state me a pacifist nation?
Like us balkan nation where the agressors. Because that is the only role you can have.

1. You either attacked us we attacked back.
2. We either attacked you and you attacked back.
3. We would stare at each other until one attacked.
Nations just can't dodge or walk away, there postions are fixed, hence can only be agressors.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I don't know how much were named (Wikipedia says 25), but yes, there were a lot of anbiya if im not mistaken which is very interesting indeed, because it explains the fact that almos every culture and people if not all had religion, they worshipped and had belief in things like magic, jinn (or ghosts if you want) etc, even when they never contacted eachother but still they had similar concepts and systems of belief

I personally don't discard that maybe people like Buda were prophets (i have no proof tho)

Yes like the Egyptian had the balance of soul thing
And that in mythologies you can find similarities

 

[goat2x]

I wouldn't be happy however i also wouldn't argue it was immoral. Only if they imposed christianity.

It's not tbh. It was more in the 90s

Not in civic nationalist countries. Even the fascist ones like italy and germany openly challenges religion because they did not see it as their national identity and even openly challenged it. It was also the case with robbespiere's france.

This whole thing od victim/agressor doesn't exist in nations right now let alone imperial times.
Let me say it like this.

To be a nation means that you are the agressor otherwise you wouldn't even exist.
Can you state me a pacifist nation?
Like us balkan nation where the agressors. Because that is the only role you can have.

1. You either attacked us we attacked back.
2. We either attacked you and you attacked back.
3. We would stare at each other until one attacked.
Nations just can't dodge or walk away, there postions are fixed, hence can only be agressors.

1, that wasnt my point again, you said its only was seen as immoral cuz the religion was what made you feel part of the country



thats just so dumb in many ways
by your logic every attack on every nation is justifiable regardless of their position or state cuy muh they could both attack eachother right?
no this is very dumb the victim agressor can be appliable very easily we can also add that one was in their own home while the other wasnt
and again a dumb point, the balkans didnt attack ottomans they tried to defend byznathines and jerusalem lol

 

[goat2x]

I wouldn't be happy however i also wouldn't argue it was immoral. Only if they imposed christianity.

It's not tbh. It was more in the 90s

Not in civic nationalist countries. Even the fascist ones like italy and germany openly challenges religion because they did not see it as their national identity and even openly challenged it. It was also the case with robbespiere's france.

This whole thing of victim/agressor doesn't exist in nations right now let alone imperial times.
Let me say it like this.

To be a nation means that you are the agressor otherwise you wouldn't even exist.
Can you state me a pacifist nation?
Like us balkan nation where the agressors. Because that is the only role you can have.

1. You either attacked us we attacked back.
2. We either attacked you and you attacked back.
3. We would stare at each other until one attacked.
Nations just can't dodge or walk away, there postions are fixed, hence can only be agressors.

also "borders" were present denying this is just dumb

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I wouldn't be happy however i also wouldn't argue it was immoral. Only if they imposed christianity.

It's not tbh. It was more in the 90s

Not in civic nationalist countries. Even the fascist ones like italy and germany openly challenges religion because they did not see it as their national identity and even openly challenged it. It was also the case with robbespiere's france.

This whole thing of victim/agressor doesn't exist in nations right now let alone imperial times.
Let me say it like this.

To be a nation means that you are the agressor otherwise you wouldn't even exist.
Can you state me a pacifist nation?
Like us balkan nation where the agressors. Because that is the only role you can have.

1. You either attacked us we attacked back.
2. We either attacked you and you attacked back.
3. We would stare at each other until one attacked.
Nations just can't dodge or walk away, there postions are fixed, hence can only be agressors.

>I wouldn't be happy however i also wouldn't argue it was immoral. Only if they imposed christianity.

I was talking to the other guy but intersting to see your opinions on this
You wouldnt join a rebellion ?

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

Look, about apostasy...

Nowadays people on the west replaced the known religion system with other kind of beliefs to fulfill their need to believe, like nationalism and other things

I think there are countries (USA, China, Russia, etc) where if you somehow betray the country revealing secrets to others they give you the death sentence, i don't know how they call it in English but there is a name for it

Even the countries that don't apply the death penalty (France, Spain, Germany etc) probably they kill this kind of people if they are a real threat to their interests via secret service like Mossad, MI6 etc and doing it in a more silent way, this is an "equivalent" of apostasy, for them is betrayal of the state which is considered the most high "institution", for us it is betrayal of the religion which is considered the most important thing

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

Yes like the Egyptian had the balance of soul thing
And that in mythologies you can find similarities

Yes bro, look at bowing the head for instance and the fact that it is a sign of respect on many cultures acrosse the globe, and like this we have other known examples

 

[goat2x]

I wouldn't be happy however i also wouldn't argue it was immoral. Only if they imposed christianity.

It's not tbh. It was more in the 90s

Not in civic nationalist countries. Even the fascist ones like italy and germany openly challenges religion because they did not see it as their national identity and even openly challenged it. It was also the case with robbespiere's france.

This whole thing of victim/agressor doesn't exist in nations right now let alone imperial times.
Let me say it like this.

To be a nation means that you are the agressor otherwise you wouldn't even exist.
Can you state me a pacifist nation?
Like us balkan nation where the agressors. Because that is the only role you can have.

1. You either attacked us we attacked back.
2. We either attacked you and you attacked back.
3. We would stare at each other until one attacked.
Nations just can't dodge or walk away, there postions are fixed, hence can only be agressors.

also the balkan analogy is shit
one of the ottomans biggest goal was Vienna and it was because of the trade benefits
so doesnt make sense

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Look, about apostasy...

Nowadays people on the west replaced the known religion system with other kind of beliefs to fulfill their need to believe, like nationalism and other things

I think there are countries (USA, China, Russia, etc) where if you somehow betray the country revealing secrets to others they give you the death sentence, i don't know how they call it in English but there is a name for it

Even the countries that don't apply the death penalty (France, Spain, Germany etc) probably they kill this kind of people if they are a real threat to their interests via secret service like Mossad, MI6 etc and doing it in a more silent way, this is an "equivalent" of apostasy, for them is betrayal of the state which is considered the most high "institution", for us it is betrayal of the religion which is considered the most important thing

>Nowadays people on the west replaced the known religion system with other kind of beliefs to fulfill their need to believe, like nationalism and other things


Now they whorship Science and leftism/progressism


The old west was very based tho

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yes bro, look at bowing the head for instance and the fact that it is a sign of respect on many cultures acrosse the globe, and like this we have other known examples

>Veiling was thus not only a marker of aristocratic rank, but also served to "differentiate between 'respectable' women and those who were publicly available".[1][3] The veiling of matrons was also customary in ancient Greece. Between 550 and 323 B.C.E respectable women in classical Greek society were expected to seclude themselves and wear clothing that concealed them from the eyes of strange men.[5]

>The Mycenaean Greek term 𐀀𐀢𐀒𐀺𐀒, a-pu-ko-wo-ko, possibly meaning "headband makers" or "craftsmen of horse veil", and written in Linear B syllabic script, is also attested since ca. 1300 BC.[6][7] In ancient Greek the word for veil was καλύπτρα (kalyptra; Ionic Greek: καλύπτρη, kalyptrē; from the verb καλύπτω, kalyptō, "I cover").[8]

>Classical Greek and Hellenistic statues sometimes depict Greek women with both their head and face covered by a veil. Caroline Galt and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones have both argued from such representations and literary references that it was commonplace for women (at least those of higher status) in ancient Greece to cover their hair and face in public. Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. Unmarried girls normally didn't veil their heads, but matrons did so to show their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia. Veils also protected women against the evil eye, it was thought.[9]

>A veil called flammeum was the most prominent feature of the costume worn by the bride at Roman weddings.[10] The veil was a deep yellow color reminiscent of a candle flame. The flammeum also evoked the veil of the Flaminica Dialis, the Roman priestess who could not divorce her husband, the high priest of Jupiter, and thus was seen as a good omen for lifelong fidelity to one man. The Romans apparently thought of the bride as being "clouded over with a veil" and connected the verb nubere (to be married) with nubes, the word for cloud.[11]

 

[Deleted member 10987]

1, that wasnt my point again, you said its only was seen as immoral cuz the religion was what made you feel part of the country



thats just so dumb in many ways
by your logic every attack on every nation is justifiable regardless of their position or state cuy muh they could both attack eachother right?
no this is very dumb the victim agressor can be appliable very easily we can also add that one was in their own home while the other wasnt
and again a dumb point, the balkans didnt attack ottomans they tried to defend byznathines and jerusalem lol

Virtue is Right but Might always win

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

>Nowadays people on the west replaced the known religion system with other kind of beliefs to fulfill their need to believe, like nationalism and other things


Now they whorship Science and leftism/progressism


The old west was very based tho

Yes yes, i understand what you mean

But still, they are really into their nations, that is still the highest institution, not science or leftism (by the way, the leftism concept is getting old, probably i would say liberalism maybe)

The state is who finances science, medicine etc, so for them the state is the highest institution, if someone betrays science then who cares, but if that person sells nuclear secrets or any kind of information really to other state etc, then that is considered the biggest betrayal to them

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yes yes, i understand what you mean

But still, they are really into their nations, that is still the highest institution, not science or leftism (by the way, the leftism concept is getting old, probably i would say liberalism maybe)

The state is who finances science, medicine etc, so for them the state is the highest institution, if someone betrays science then who cares, but if that person sells nuclear secrets or any kind of information really to other state etc, then that is considered the biggest betrayal to them

Yeah but of course
You dont let anyone share you secrets

And the west dont really like their nations now
They are very self hating

 

[goat2x]

Virtue is Right but Might always win

?
his fall was trying to justify this whole shit morally
if he said "ye i know but im proud of my countries conquering" no one whould have said shit

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

View attachment 1005785View attachment 1005786



>Veiling was thus not only a marker of aristocratic rank, but also served to "differentiate between 'respectable' women and those who were publicly available".[1][3] The veiling of matrons was also customary in ancient Greece. Between 550 and 323 B.C.E respectable women in classical Greek society were expected to seclude themselves and wear clothing that concealed them from the eyes of strange men.[5]

>The Mycenaean Greek term 𐀀𐀢𐀒𐀺𐀒, a-pu-ko-wo-ko, possibly meaning "headband makers" or "craftsmen of horse veil", and written in Linear B syllabic script, is also attested since ca. 1300 BC.[6][7] In ancient Greek the word for veil was καλύπτρα (kalyptra; Ionic Greek: καλύπτρη, kalyptrē; from the verb καλύπτω, kalyptō, "I cover").[8]

>Classical Greek and Hellenistic statues sometimes depict Greek women with both their head and face covered by a veil. Caroline Galt and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones have both argued from such representations and literary references that it was commonplace for women (at least those of higher status) in ancient Greece to cover their hair and face in public. Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. Unmarried girls normally didn't veil their heads, but matrons did so to show their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia. Veils also protected women against the evil eye, it was thought.[9]

>A veil called flammeum was the most prominent feature of the costume worn by the bride at Roman weddings.[10] The veil was a deep yellow color reminiscent of a candle flame. The flammeum also evoked the veil of the Flaminica Dialis, the Roman priestess who could not divorce her husband, the high priest of Jupiter, and thus was seen as a good omen for lifelong fidelity to one man. The Romans apparently thought of the bride as being "clouded over with a veil" and connected the verb nubere (to be married) with nubes, the word for cloud.[11]

Yes, this is a very good one too, and it is just adding and adding

It just supports more and more what Allah said in the Qur'an

(Interpretation of the meaning):
And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (Qur'ân 10:47)

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e., do not worship Taghut besides Allah)." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). (Qur'ân 16:36)

 

[Deleted member 10987]

?
his fall was trying to justify this whole shit morally
if he said "ye i know but im proud of my countries conquering" no one whould have said shit

He is more proud of spreading Islam
Because he value more Religion than nation
So he see this as morally and he is totally right

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yes, this is a very good one too, and it is just adding and adding

It just supports more and more what Allah said in the Qur'an

(Interpretation of the meaning):
And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (Qur'ân 10:47)

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e., do not worship Taghut besides Allah)." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). (Qur'ân 16:36)

What about people who didnt know about the message before Islam was created (and who didnt received a messanger)

 

[goat2x]

He is more proud of spreading Islam
Because he value more Religion than nation
So he see this as morally and he is totally right

thats pretty sad
not the religion and nation thing

 

[Deleted member 10913]

also "borders" were present denying this is just dumb

*imperial borders that aren't fixed.

1, that wasnt my point again, you said its only was seen as immoral cuz the religion was what made you feel part of the country



thats just so dumb in many ways
by your logic every attack on every nation is justifiable regardless of their position or state cuy muh they could both attack eachother right?
no this is very dumb the victim agressor can be appliable very easily we can also add that one was in their own home while the other wasnt
and again a dumb point, the balkans didnt attack ottomans they tried to defend byznathines and jerusalem lol

I stated that a nation can't take any other role then the 'agressor' in imperial times. seeing this as moral or not does not change the fact. Right now it is not much diffrent to only diffrence is that strong countries don't need to go to war in a clasic sense. They can just bomb a country to the ground or empose sanctions because they are able to do that.

So the 'peacefull balkans' tried to help the 'peacfull eastern romans" who just happened to tried to destroy the Turks off guard.. yea right..
I can simply argue the same. The romans attacked us and we retalliated. The balkans chose to help rome so we also retalliated against them.
In a reversel of fortunes the Turks tried to migrate to Syria on the orders of tge caliph at that time. On our way the romans attacked us and they lost.

If there wasn't a convenant between nations war is morally justified for both.

1. Most of the balkan states did not have this with us

2. If they had they broke it multiple times.

3. Like rome they weren't passive and would likely attack us if we didn't at first hand.

4. Nations are fixed by there geography so something like 'running away' like we see in animals isn't possible. This forces every nation to be a agressor.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

thats pretty sad
not the religion and nation thing

To spread religion ?

 

[Deleted member 10913]

To spread religion ?

Don't know what he said however religion in the case of Islamic empires spread organically for the most part.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Don't know what he said however religion in the case of Islamic empires spread organically for the most part.

Also how did Eastern Rome and turks clashed ?

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Also how did Eastern Rome and turks clashed ?

Once the Turks became muslim we moved westward to be closer to the Islamic world. Various Shia groups had caused secterian civil strife within the empire. So the caliph and Turks allied eachother against the fatimids in egypt.
We wanted to attack them and take damascus and the Holy cities back however the idiot romans tried to attack us for no reason and we fought it out on manzikert. These 'peaceful' balkan states also helped eastern romans on various occasions. The crusades where a reaction to us taking anatolia.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I don't think they are not into nations

What i believe is that they want to expand their nations, like they are trying to "conquer" but in a 21st centurg way, ideologically through smartphones, computers, globalization etc etc etc, probably they are going to start with making the european union a country, maybe then they will join the USA, Russia and others in some kind of coalition, basically the idea of "One Muslim Ummah" with all muslim countries united but in their way and culture etc, thats why they push their views via sanctions to nations, like for example, i heard a person who is somehow knowledgeable (and against muslim culture by the way) about political subjects say that in some Islamic Countries they normally don't accept the secularization of law because they want, but because they are forced to do it

Like for example, let's say Qatar wants to bring a group of army advisors or specialists who will really help them to make their army stronger, or any kind of bussiness you can imagine really, space programs, computer related things etcbut some of them maybe are homosexual, others don't want to go to Qatar because their woman would have to wear hijab, etc etc, this is a silly example but you can undrstand what i mean i think, then, they would force Qatar to change their law, otherwise their military would be weak compared to other countries, or their space program, etc etc, we should unite as muslims and do the same pressure to them

I personally believe we still have real muslims leaders who pray, the problem is that they force them via sanctions, threaths

The good thing is that muslims countries had oil the last century to at least negotiate their way out of that, we will see now Insha Allah what we can do

Sometimes if they can't change it via pressure, they do it via invasion like Iraq, or supporting separatist groups inside the countries to remove the order from the muslim nation etc, USA threatened in the 60s or 70s to Saudi Arabia with an invasions according to a documentary because some oil blockade they did to support Palestine

>What i believe is that they want to expand their nations, like they are trying to "conquer" but in a 21st centurg way, ideologically through smartphones, computers, globalization etc etc etc, probably they are going to start with making the european union a country, maybe then


Its the jews/leftists/progressists/globo homos
Not the west

The west dont exist anymore of before kho
The west died 100 year ago

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Once the Turks became muslim we moved westward to be closer to the Islamic world. Various Shia groups had caused secterian civil strife within the empire. So the caliph and Turks allied eachother against the fatimids in egypt.
We wanted to attack them and take damascus and the Holy cities back however the idiot romans tried to attack us for no reason and we fought it out on manzikert. These 'peaceful' balkan states also helped eastern romans on various occasions. The crusades where a reaction to us taking anatolia.

>Holy cities back however the idiot romans tried to attack us for no reason and we fought it out on manzikert.

Whats the name of the battle where they attacked seljuks ?

>fatimids
They were founded by maghrebis lol

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

What about people who didnt know about the message before Islam was created (and who didnt received a messanger)

The last messenger was Muhammad (alayhi a salat wa salam), he was for ALL mankind

The rest of messengers were send for their respective nations if im not wrong, those who accepted their message will Insha Allah go to Jannah, and those who rejected their message Insha Allah they will go to Jahannam

Those who did not know here it is a hadith a think, maybe you won't understand it so i will explain to you at the end

Imaam Ahmad

narrated that the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: “Four people will protest on the Day of Judgement: a deaf person who does not hear anything, an insane person, a decrepit person, and one who dies in a period where no Prophet was sent (Fatrah). As for the deaf person, he will say, ‘O my Lord, Islam came (to me) while I could not hear’; the insane person will say, ‘O my Lord, Islam came (to me) while children were throwing dung at me’; the decrepit person will say, ‘O my Lord, Islam came while I could not understand anything;’ and one who died in a period where no prophet was sent will say, ‘O my Lord, no prophet came to me.’ Then Allaah will take a covenant from them that they will obey Him and then send one to tell them to enter Hell. By Him in whose Hand is my soul, if they enter Hell, it will be cool and a means of safety for them.”

Basically what i understand from this hadith is that Allah will send someone to order this people to obey Allah and enter in Hell, and if they do it they will enter in Jannah because they obeyed Allah (included those who didn't have a messenger)

 

[Deleted member 10987]

The last messenger was Muhammad (alayhi a salat wa salam), he was for ALL mankind

The rest of messengers were send for their respective nations if im not wrong, those who accepted their message will Insha Allah go to Jannah, and those who rejected their message Insha Allah they will go to Jahannam

Those who did not know here it is a hadith a think, maybe you won't understand it so i will explain to you at the end

Imaam Ahmad

narrated that the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: “Four people will protest on the Day of Judgement: a deaf person who does not hear anything, an insane person, a decrepit person, and one who dies in a period where no Prophet was sent (Fatrah). As for the deaf person, he will say, ‘O my Lord, Islam came (to me) while I could not hear’; the insane person will say, ‘O my Lord, Islam came (to me) while children were throwing dung at me’; the decrepit person will say, ‘O my Lord, Islam came while I could not understand anything;’ and one who died in a period where no prophet was sent will say, ‘O my Lord, no prophet came to me.’ Then Allaah will take a covenant from them that they will obey Him and then send one to tell them to enter Hell. By Him in whose Hand is my soul, if they enter Hell, it will be cool and a means of safety for them.”

Basically what i understand from this hadith is that Allah will send someone to order this people to obey Allah and enter in Hell, and if they do it they will enter in Jannah because they obeyed Allah (included those who didn't have a messenger)

My brother said that those who didnt know will have a special test at the judgement day

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

>What i believe is that they want to expand their nations, like they are trying to "conquer" but in a 21st centurg way, ideologically through smartphones, computers, globalization etc etc etc, probably they are going to start with making the european union a country, maybe then


Its the jews/leftists/progressists/globo homos
Not the west

The west dont exist anymore of before kho
The west died 100 year ago

That is really another wide subject al khawa dialy, it is a complex matter

Sometimes when i say the west i talk about China too hahahaha