Prevent and why it's okay for young Muslims to be radical.

[Genivaria]

And the Pope isn't the leader of the Catholic Church.

Don't p*ss in my ear and tell me it's raining.

1: Catholicism =/= Al-Islam
2: That paragraph doesn't counter my point.

Yes and it does actually, sorry that my point went over your head.

[Highever]

If it is in the United States at least, this advocacy for a separate religious court or otherwise allowing one religion to police itself completely violates the establishment clause. In other nations, it seems to completely violate equal protection.

Yet again, the law allows for private arbitration in this manner it doesn't matter if its Islamic or not, you could go to a "court" that claims justice based on Martian legalism and it'd be okay as it is a civil case where two parties mutually agreed to arbitration of their case in this fashion, if this was actually the case Judge Judy would be out of the job.

In civil cases that allow private arbitration and both parties are Muslim, I do not think that necessarily violates anything. Having one religion have its own official criminal court along side the US court system however, is not at all valid under the Constitution.

[ECKU]

No one said that a country should abandon its kufr.

Hence why I said there should be reform.

What are you talking about? And what's with the "little"?

Caliphs aren't the head of Al-Islam.

I can admit that i don't know everything there is to know about Islam. So if i am wrong then forgive my arrogance, but from what research i have done in the past and reading i am doing right now, it would seem that the Caliph is the leader of the Sunni Islam faith. And that this was recognized at the time by those living in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere. Please inform me how i am wrong-if in fact i am.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=462608&p=35936940#p35936940

[Khataiy]

Yet again, the law allows for private arbitration in this manner it doesn't matter if its Islamic or not, you could go to a "court" that claims justice based on Martian legalism and it'd be okay as it is a civil case where two parties mutually agreed to arbitration of their case in this fashion, if this was actually the case Judge Judy would be out of the job.

In civil cases that allow private arbitration and both parties are Muslim, I do not think that necessarily violates anything. Having one religion have its own official criminal court along side the US court system however, is not at all valid under the Constitution.

Understandable, I agree, and I actually said this, there is no practical reason for it in the west.

[ECKU]

1: Catholicism =/= Al-Islam
2: That paragraph doesn't counter my point.

Yes and it does actually, sorry that my point went over your head.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=462608&p=35936948#p35936948

[Highever]

In civil cases that allow private arbitration and both parties are Muslim, I do not think that necessarily violates anything. Having one religion have its own official criminal court along side the US court system however, is not at all valid under the Constitution.

Understandable, I agree, and I actually said this, there is no practical reason for it in the west.

Most other western democracies have similar provisions like the establishment clause as well. Regardless, precisely. If two private parties in a civil suit want to go that way it should be fine, so long as nothing violates any laws of the country or state.

Though I think there may be some issues in some cases, such as divorce.

[ECKU]

Discussion of a Caliph belong in the IDT, not here. Sorry for the threadjack.

[Khataiy]

Understandable, I agree, and I actually said this, there is no practical reason for it in the west.

Most other western democracies have similar provisions like the establishment clause as well. Regardless, precisely. If two private parties in a civil suit want to go that way it should be fine, so long as nothing violates any laws of the country or state.

Though I think there may be some issues in some cases, such as divorce.

This is my exact view and what I am saying.

[Highever]

Most other western democracies have similar provisions like the establishment clause as well. Regardless, precisely. If two private parties in a civil suit want to go that way it should be fine, so long as nothing violates any laws of the country or state.

Though I think there may be some issues in some cases, such as divorce.

This is my exact view and what I am saying.

Yes I know, I was trying to state that I agree with you, my bad.

[Khataiy]

This is my exact view and what I am saying.

Yes I know, I was trying to state that I agree with you, my bad.

No problem.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Kernel hated Islam and banned the hijab

Who is Kernel? And that doesn't change the fact that non-Muslim were in practicality considered second class citizens and were not at all equal, being insultingly called gavours and being unable to testify in court. Nor does it somehow make the Hamidiye not a thing, which were created specifically to harass and murder non-Muslims and in particular Armenians. Pretty much everything leading up to the actual Genocide was largely due to religious differences of the Armenians.

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

[ECKU]

Who is Kernel? And that doesn't change the fact that non-Muslim were in practicality considered second class citizens and were not at all equal, being insultingly called gavours and being unable to testify in court. Nor does it somehow make the Hamidiye not a thing, which were created specifically to harass and murder non-Muslims and in particular Armenians. Pretty much everything leading up to the actual Genocide was largely due to religious differences of the Armenians.

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

You mean Kemal?

[Khataiy]

Who is Kernel? And that doesn't change the fact that non-Muslim were in practicality considered second class citizens and were not at all equal, being insultingly called gavours and being unable to testify in court. Nor does it somehow make the Hamidiye not a thing, which were created specifically to harass and murder non-Muslims and in particular Armenians. Pretty much everything leading up to the actual Genocide was largely due to religious differences of the Armenians.

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

Some even say he was an Atheist, I've even heard claims he was Christian albeit an irreleigious one.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

You mean Kemal?

Yeah

[Al Mumtahanah]

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

Some even say he was an Atheist, I've even heard claims he was Christian albeit an irreleigious one.

Yes so to the his movement to Islam is crazy, he was as staunch an enemy of Islam as Churchill.

[Highever]

Who is Kernel? And that doesn't change the fact that non-Muslim were in practicality considered second class citizens and were not at all equal, being insultingly called gavours and being unable to testify in court. Nor does it somehow make the Hamidiye not a thing, which were created specifically to harass and murder non-Muslims and in particular Armenians. Pretty much everything leading up to the actual Genocide was largely due to religious differences of the Armenians.

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

The Armenian Genocide began long before Kemal was any sort of factor outside of being a military commander. Even more, genocide of Armenians before The Armenian Genocide began even longer before.

Your stipulation was that secular nationalism was the primary factor in what lead to and caused the Armenian genocide, which is completely false. Religion was what first soured Ottoman views of Armenians and led to early discrimination and oppression and later on widespread murder of Armenians. The Young Turks continued the long standing attacks on the Armenians, but for their own reasons.

[ECKU]

Some even say he was an Atheist, I've even heard claims he was Christian albeit an irreleigious one.

Yes so to the his movement to Islam is crazy, he was as staunch an enemy of Islam as Churchill.

Idk much about Churchill's views on Al-Islam beyond that (in)famous quite of his, but yeah, Kemal was a DHaalim that should never have been leader.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Kernel is what autocorrect did to Kermal. Ethnic differences. Only tenuously connected to religion, like Jews in Nazi Germany. Kermal was a non Muslim.

The Armenian Genocide began long before Kemal was any sort of factor outside of being a military commander. Even more, genocide of Armenians before The Armenian Genocide began even longer before.

Your stipulation was that secular nationalism was the primary factor in what lead to and caused the Armenian genocide, which is completely false. Religion was what first soured Ottoman views of Armenians and led to early discrimination and oppression and later on widespread murder of Armenians. The Young Turks continued the long standing attacks on the Armenians, but for their own reasons.

The Ottomans ruled a lot of Christians (more than Muslims for most of their history) for hundreds of years, then suddenly the secular nationalists tstar taking over and want ethnic purity within a decade and it's because of Islam?

[Highever]

The Armenian Genocide began long before Kemal was any sort of factor outside of being a military commander. Even more, genocide of Armenians before The Armenian Genocide began even longer before.

Your stipulation was that secular nationalism was the primary factor in what lead to and caused the Armenian genocide, which is completely false. Religion was what first soured Ottoman views of Armenians and led to early discrimination and oppression and later on widespread murder of Armenians. The Young Turks continued the long standing attacks on the Armenians, but for their own reasons.

The Ottomans ruled a lot of Christians (more than Muslims for most of their history) for hundreds of years, then suddenly the secular nationalists tstar taking over and want ethnic purity within a decade and it's because of Islam?

In part, yes. Or more generally, religious intolerance. At least the events that occured prior to 1918.

Unless you can somehow pin the Hamidian Massacres on the Young Turks who were not a thing for another decade, and which was perpetrated by Sultan Absul Hamid II specifically to enforce pan-Islamism.

[Highever]

Also, you are acting as if the Ottomans never did anything to its religious minorities in any of its history before the Armenian genocide which is...laughably false.

[Al Mumtahanah]

The Ottomans ruled a lot of Christians (more than Muslims for most of their history) for hundreds of years, then suddenly the secular nationalists tstar taking over and want ethnic purity within a decade and it's because of Islam?

In part, yes. Or more generally, religious intolerance. At least the events that occured prior to 1918.

Unless you can somehow pin the Hamidian Massacres on the Young Turks who were not a thing for another decade, and which was perpetrated by Sultan Absul Hamid II specifically to enforce pan-Islamism.

No, I wouldn't pin it on them, but I wouldn't say the Holocaust was religiously motivated just because earlier pogroms against Jews were.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Also, you are acting as if the Ottomans never did anything to its religious minorities in any of its history before the Armenian genocide which is...laughably false.

Make no mistake: I hate the Ottoman Empire, they were brutal and evil and treated even Muslims horrendously, which is why the Arabs rebelled.

[Highever]

In part, yes. Or more generally, religious intolerance. At least the events that occured prior to 1918.

Unless you can somehow pin the Hamidian Massacres on the Young Turks who were not a thing for another decade, and which was perpetrated by Sultan Absul Hamid II specifically to enforce pan-Islamism.

No, I wouldn't pin it on them, but I wouldn't say the Holocaust was religiously motivated just because earlier pogroms against Jews were.

I have already said that after 1918, the Armenian genocide that was continued by the newly independent Turkey was done so for its own reasons. Your original stipulation was that the sole cause and reason that lead to the Armenian Genocide was entirely secular nationalism. And that is not at all true.

[Highever]

Also, you are acting as if the Ottomans never did anything to its religious minorities in any of its history before the Armenian genocide which is...laughably false.

Make no mistake: I hate the Ottoman Empire, they were brutal and evil and treated even Muslims horrendously, which is why the Arabs rebelled.

Then the fact that you implied there was never any sort of tensions or issues in the Ottoman Empire regarding its religious minorities until the Armenian Genocide is indeed puzzling. Though I am sure it is just me talking, but this statement of yours makes it seem like it doesn't truly matter what they did to other religions and minorities until they started actions against the Arabs.

[Rojava Free State]

Also, you are acting as if the Ottomans never did anything to its religious minorities in any of its history before the Armenian genocide which is...laughably false.

Make no mistake: I hate the Ottoman Empire, they were brutal and evil and treated even Muslims horrendously, which is why the Arabs rebelled.

Turkey has a history of treating its minorities like crap. Mass killing Armenians, Greeks and chaldeans. Burning down Albanian villages. Shelling Kurdish cities and aiming for civilians centers. This is just Turkish history right here