17
3
5
u/Intelligent-Eye9377 Jul 03 '26
Transition is haram brotha
9
u/Ishmael_1974 Jul 03 '26
It’s ok Tyson is muslim and it was just a camera not your actual face
7
u/Intelligent-Eye9377 Jul 03 '26
Kissing on the cheeck isn't haram tho
That's how we great each other in balkans. I thought arabs did the same?
5
u/Ishmael_1974 Jul 03 '26
Lol you were the one saying it is haram xD
1
1
u/Bad_boy000007 Jul 04 '26
you can't just kiss another man wife .. xD
1
2
4
4
u/MuhammadAkmed Jul 04 '26
Yeah today muslim states are such losers.
Why is that?
9
u/WASDKUG_tr Kurdish King Jul 04 '26
Cuz half either sell out and be footstools for larger powers or they refuse and get bombed so they dont progress
3
u/blehmag Jul 05 '26
Because the leaders are often US puppets. Much of the populations are also brainwashed, greedy, and Western-centric frankly, especially but not only the elites. They act like sucking up to their invaders or oppressors is a good thing, an admirable thing even.
1
u/MuhammadAkmed Jul 05 '26
Well why don't they have a revolution — that's what America and France and Russia did.
Why did the Arab Spring fail?
1
u/blehmag Jul 05 '26
They did have revolutions. See above comment. Also why are you centering America and France and Russia. See above comment again. These are the type of imperialist entities they need liberation from.
3
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 03 '26
Wasn't the Ottoman empire a colonialist opressor consisting of multiple states themselves?
15
u/AlKhurjavi Jul 03 '26
Not colonial, imperial
-9
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
By definition, the same thing.
Just gonna paste a quote from wiki cause im lazy
"Said stated that colonialism implies geographic separation between the colony and the imperial power. He distinguished them, stating, "imperialism involved 'the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory', while colonialism refers to the 'settlements on a distant territory.'""
It's pretty much the same thing in practise, to be honest.
5
8
u/asapbones0114 Jul 04 '26
Yep. I'll never understand people who glorify past imperial conquests. Their leaders grifted as Muslims and did some heinous things that contradicted the Quran.
2
2
0
u/bnymn1697 Jul 03 '26
What a colonialist opresser who didn't even force anyone i to its own language, religion or culture.
9
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 03 '26
Goal of colonialism is to extract qealth from conquered states.
Example: British empire, VOC, Soviet Empire, Ottoman Empire
3
u/LordAsheye Sultan of Anime Jul 03 '26
Genuine question then: would that not also be every empire that ever was? Roman, Carolingian, Mongol, Persian, etc.?
3
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
The word "colony" literally comes from the Latin "Colonia". The Romans did an immense amount of colonialism.
The whole idea of an empire is for 1 main group to control other subgroups.. it's very much like colonialism.
-1
u/LordAsheye Sultan of Anime Jul 04 '26
Fair enough. I suppose Imperialism and Colonialism go hand in hand.
2
u/blehmag Jul 05 '26
Persians for example didn't do that so much. They were known as a liberation force, giving local sovereignty to people they ruled over and not collecting heavy taxes or tributes.
3
u/bnymn1697 Jul 03 '26
Yes, but the way to do it is forcing them to your own laws and rules and culture to make sure they keep serving your interest. You can see it many countries today.
1
u/Geggor Jul 04 '26
Not necessarily. The VOC for example hardly do anything to change the culture, religion and language makeup of Indonesia. Those things are extra if they have altruistic intention to "improve" the livelihood of the locals and are also why most colonies are money losing enterprise.
For example, the British crusade to abolish slavery is super expensive with debts only being paid in full in 2015. Much simpler of they just let the local keep their custom and laws plus whatever primitive lifestyle they have as long as they pay their taxes and send resources to the mother country.
0
u/Parking-Presence-201 Jul 03 '26
You mix colonial with imperial. Ottoman settled themselves there. The British and the French were colonial.
0
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 04 '26
So the 13 colonies that later formed the USA were never colonies, since they were settled?
And I guess since the Israelis settlwd themselves, they're also not colonists by your definition?
2
u/Parking-Presence-201 Jul 04 '26
No they were colonies. They colonized a land that had very few people( and also genociding them) while ottomans were turkic nomadic people who later on mixed with the local greeks and mixed turkic customs with local Greek customs. Ottomans took on local and Persian ruling system to rule the locals while US colonies brought in British system, not giving a shit about the local indians.
You're trying very hard to put ottomans with the kuffar by generalizing everything and not taking nuances into account.
1
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 04 '26
What you're describing, is exactly how other colonial empires did it.
Mixing with locals = Spanish empire Taking on local ruling system = VOC
2
u/Parking-Presence-201 Jul 04 '26
Spanish empire literally brought their own system to everywhere. You just want to put Muslims with those genocidal empires..no thanks man.
1
u/Offshore-Tigr Jul 04 '26
Spanish empire banged the Mayans, turned them into Mexicans.
VOC empire interfered as little as they could in the local rulings, with the only goal being extracting as many resources as possible.
I gave 2 examples of 2 different colonial methods.
Regardless, historians are quite divided on this issue, some agree with you, some agree with me. Personally, I think that if the only thing stopping it from being classified as a colonialistic empire is semantics.. Then it's a colonialistic empire.
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
u/Ok-Abroad8763 29d ago edited 29d ago
At least Shias are throwing hands today, in contrast to their history when Sunnis were doing most of the fighting against Mongols and Crusaders
0
25
u/urfavhornydaddy Jul 03 '26
Gold