Who joined the British/ French against the Ottoman Khilafa?

[unknownprince]

Mostly all the Arab "nations" won their "independence" by allying with the British and French against the Ottoman Islamic Khilafa.

These Arabs joined them in ranks against Osmania.

Had this great betrayal not happened the Muslim world would have been in a better shape today.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

while the arabs certainly got screwed by the sykes-pinot agreement, and their mistake is a lesson for us all to learn, the turks did themselves no favour with their policies towards the arabs

the arab liberation movement against the turks had many legitimate grounds

[randolph85]

every group of people has sided with kaffirs at one time or another. no one group is innocent.

[unknownprince]

while the arabs certainly got screwed by the sykes-pinot agreement, and their mistake is a lesson for us all to learn, the turks did themselves no favour with their policies towards the arabs

the arab liberation movement against the turks had many legitimate grounds

well, no policy was worthy enough to call for the end of the Islamic Khilafa.

No policy is worthy enough to join the West, and break Islamic unity.

In return, Israel got its "independence" and there you have it.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

well, no policy was worthy enough to call for the end of the Islamic Khilafa.

No policy is worthy enough to join the West, and break Islamic unity.

In return, Israel got its "independence" and there you have it.

Well the reality is, the Turks were oppressive to the Arabs. Jamal Pashas heavy handedness and Turkish arrogance lost them the support of the Levant Arabs, and thats just one example

Allah humbles the arrogant

[randolph85]

well, no policy was worthy enough to call for the end of the Islamic Khilafa.

No policy is worthy enough to join the West, and break Islamic unity.

In return, Israel got its "independence" and there you have it.

in the end, the khalifa was just one in name, not in practice. while it would of been preferable for the arabs not to of sided with the outsiders, the turks didn't do themselves any favors. there was hardly any islamic unity there. the west only takes advantage of self created weaknesses, its the muslims themselves who create these cracks in the ummah. the west like the parasite that it is, takes full advantage. we should be blaming ourselves for these cracks, instead of blaming the outsiders for doing something we expect them to do. the west are wild dogs, we shouldn't expect kindness from them. we should, however, expect kindness and brotherhood from our own kind.

israel got its independence decades after the end of the ottoman empire, the ottoman empire ended because it was the weakest it had ever been and collapsed. israels independence is due to the weakness of all muslims in the middle east, not just the turks or the arabs.

[Bengal_Tiger]

The Ottoman Empire towards is end was corrupt and centred around Rumelia (i.e Istanbul and Thrace/southern Bulgaria).

Even the actual Turks in Anatolia were neglected.

The western powers sought to divide the Turks and Arabs so sent their agents to spread nationalism amongst both groups, ultimately culminating in the break-up of the Khilafah.

Most Arabs did not betray the Ottomans. 1/3 of the army that fought the British in Gallipoli were Arabs. It was mainly the Hashemites led by Sherif Hussein that fought the Turks, plus they were encouraged to by a British agent and spy.



British spy, T.E. Lawrence.

[Bengal_Tiger]

By the way if the British themselves did not admit to, and brag about, T.E. Lawerence and if his role and identity had been kept hidden then.....anyone who said
that "A British spy played a part in the Arabs fighting against the Ottoman Khilafah" would be labelled a "conspiracy theorist".

Point is there were and are many agents implanted in the Muslim world, and not all are necessarily white-skinned Christians such as T.E Lawrence, but can include their proteges.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Mostly all the Arab "nations" won their "independence" by allying with the British and French against the Ottoman Islamic Khilafa.

These Arabs joined them in ranks against Osmania.

Had this great betrayal not happened the Muslim world would have been in a better shape today.

AshrafGhaljay, I don't want to sound mean or arrogant but your view on this matter is exactly that of a person who is unaware of all the facts surrounding this case. Let me explain..

In 1853, the British and French allied with the Turks and fought the Russians in the Ukraine (The Crimean War). Why would the kuffar British and French help the Shadow of God on Earth and the Deen of Islam? In fact, the British and then the French, to a lesser extent, had artificially kept the Ottoman Empire afloat for more than a century so that Russia would not be able to expand into the Mediterranean.

In the early 1800s, Mehmet Ali Pasha revolted against Constantinople and his forces directly threatened the existence of the Ottoman Empire. And again, the European powers came together to defend the Ottoman Empire from disintegration from what they called the Oriental Crisis. They offered to recognized Mehmet Ali's independence if he stopped fighting against the Ottoman Sultan.

My point is that this wasn't an all-powerful Caliphate that could have saved the Muslim world from anything. The Ottoman Empire had declined to the status of a Western European bulwark against Russian expansionism in Asia and the Middle-East.

So by the First World War, the Allies would have annexed most of the Ottoman Empire even without the support of the Arabs tribesmen. To blame the defeat of the Ottoman Empire on the Arab rebels is naive at best. In any case, it was the Sultan who had surrendered in Constantinople and had become a puppet of the Allied powers. In order to save his throne, he had signed the humiliating Treaty of Sevres with the Allied powers.

It was only after four years that the "secular kufar" threw out the occupying Allied powers from Anatolia, pushed back the Greeks to their islands and established Turkish independence with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. And it was these secular nationalists led by Mustafa Kamal Ataturk who abolished the Caliphate. If it were up to the British, they would have still been using the Caliph as their puppet.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Those same Arabs (Saudis, Kuwaitis , UAE) Shaikhs are the ones who are the Pamperers and Purse Strings of the Taliban today.

[unknownprince]

I am well aware of the facts, and of the discrimination. However, it was not as extensive as some Arabs make it to be. There were Arab generals and important viziers.

Many of the Ottoman cavalry were Arabs. If there was discrimination, it was not blatant aparthied or Jim Crow laws going on as you had in South Africa and the United States, respectively.

However, The Turks were not bombing Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia.

The Islamic Khilafa would have transitioned.

Point is, the Arabs joined with the Kufar to fight against the Islamic Khilafa. They did this everywhere, allowing the Westerners to divide them. Indian Muslims (todays Indian and Pakistani Muslims) also betrayed the Mughal Empire and joined with the British to fight them.

Today, the Ummah would have been better intact rather then broken apart as it is now.

The Turks spread Islam all over to Bosnia and Ablbania, deep into Europe. The Arabs should have afforded that to them.

The Turks were not killing the Arabs with airstrikes and such.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

I am well aware of the facts.

Yet you still blame the Arabs for the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, which was, by then, not a beacon to spread Islam, but a Western European vassal meant to prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold in the Middle East.

The Turks were not bombing Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia.

And what does that have to do with anything?

The Islamic Khilafa would have transitioned.

Really? Vassal kingdoms transform? So why can't the Karzai government transition? Why not put down our guns and start supporting them? If an Ottoman Caliph sitting in the lap of the Allied powers can transform then we must all have similar hopes for Mr. Karzai.

Point is, the Arabs joined with the Kufar to fight against the Islamic Khilafa. They did this everywhere, allowing the Westerners to divide them.

So your people are sheep that one white man can manipulate them so easily? What does this say about your own estimation of your kith and kin? The Arabs wanted freedom from the Turks who had treated them like the camels of the desert and the British helped them.

Today, the Ummah would have been better intact rather then broken apart as it is now.

Intact the same way it was under the Ottomans with independent kingdoms in Persia and Afghanistan with the Hindustani princely states, the vassal-states of Central Asia, the vassal kingdoms of South-East Asia and the semi-autonomous and colonized Muslim states of Africa?

Will a state stretching from Morocco to Malaysia be viable? Who will provide its leadership? Will the Arabs accept the hegemony of the more populous Indian Muslims? How will uniformity be achieved in such a kingdom? The Caliphate that you dream about never was and never will be. The Ottomans were a conquering empire - their caliphs drank the fine wines of Rhodes, they enjoyed the company of beautiful Slavic slave-girls, they enjoyed music and luxury, they killed all their brothers and their word was the law. That's a fry cry from the geographically much smaller Abbassid Caliphate that your type fantasizes about. No, in fact, the Abbassids indulged in more luxuries and deviance than the Ottoman caliphs...

The Turks spread Islam all over to Bosnia and Ablbania, deep into Europe. The Arabs should have afforded that to them.

A drop in the ocean. What about the Greeks, the Serbs, the Croats, the Romanians, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians, the Macedonians, etc? In fact, 1/4th of the population of Anatolia itself is still Alevi (non-Muslim).

In fact, the Albanians converted to get into power.

The Turks were not killing the Arabs with airstrikes and such.

Yeah, they were busy massacring the Armenians. And now that they're done with them, they're busy slaughtering tens of thousands of Muslim Kurds with airstrikes and such.

[Daruish]

Mostly all the Arab "nations" won their "independence" by allying with the British and French against the Ottoman Islamic Khilafa.

These Arabs joined them in ranks against Osmania.

Had this great betrayal not happened the Muslim world would have been in a better shape today.

Read about Pakis, how they used to fight under british flag against Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, world war 1 and 2. Islam brotherhood is BS, wake up, Islam is nothing but Arab imperalism. Arab will treat you like S@@@, thank your allah that your in west not in some Islamic Arab country.

[unknownprince]

[QUOTE=Levanaye Zalmaye;515583]

Yet you still blame the Arabs for the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, which was, by then, not a beacon to spread Islam, but a Western European vassal meant to prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold in the Middle East.

The Ottoman empire a Western vassal state ? Im afraid you dont know the facts. The West hated the Ottomans because they were an Islamic caliphate. Such animosity is the real reason why Turkey has still never been admitted into the EU. You need to brush up on your history.

The West hated the Ottoman Turks, and still do today.

Your thoughts contradict each other. On one hand your explaining to me why the Arabs betrayed Islam and joined the British and French Kufar to fight the Ottomans, but at the same time you are saying the Ottomans were a Western vassal against Russia? Brain war going on in your head? So the British/French were fighting their own vassal state, and wish it to be destroyed?

No, The Arabs have been treacherous for a very long time. They sold out the Palestinians too. The Turks were running an empire. If Arabs wanted to run it, they should not have broken up their own Khilafa, and revel in bloodletting. Why should anyone be patronized without merit? Arabs can not rule, they can only join outsiders to fight their brothers. Even today, you see how Kuwait and Saudi Arabia joined the US in fighting Iraq.

And what does that have to do with anything?

what does anything have to do with anything? It is very relevant.

Really? Vassal kingdoms transform? So why can't the Karzai government transition? Why not put down our guns and start supporting them? If an Ottoman Caliph sitting in the lap of the Allied powers can transform then we must all have similar hopes for Mr. Karzai.

Ottomans were not sitting in the lap of Western powers. They were the sworn enemy of the West, and that is why the West joined with the Arabs to destroy it. Are you saying that the Ottomans allied with the very people intent on destroying them? First, this completely contradicts every facts, and second it is as stupid as saying that Afghans fight for Pakistan , which is what you do.

So your people are sheep that one white man can manipulate them so easily? What does this say about your own estimation of your kith and kin? The Arabs wanted freedom from the Turks who had treated them like the camels of the desert and the British helped them.

Afghans, and specifically Pashtuns can not be manipulated by anyone which is why they have destroyed another empire. Its already destroyed.

Intact the same way it was under the Ottomans with independent kingdoms in Persia and Afghanistan with the Hindustani princely states, the vassal-states of Central Asia, the vassal kingdoms of South-East Asia and the semi-autonomous and colonized Muslim states of Africa?

This is all baseless and only your opinion. I already addressed this ridiculous theory of yours. I will say it again. The West hated the Ottoman Turks, and still do today.

Your thoughts contradict each other. On one hand your explaining to me why the Arabs betrayed Islam and joined the British and French Kufar to fight the Ottomans, but at the same time you are saying the Ottomans were a Western vassal against Russia? Brain war going on in your head.

This is as questionable as saying Afghans from Helmand to Paktia fight for Pakistan.


The Ottoman Empire also welcomed Jews. It brought Islam and justice to many parts of the world. As always this never lasts because some people like the Armenians refused to be ruled by others.

The Arabs, however, were Muslims, and other than the fact that they did not rule, had nothing to complain about. They were doctors, mathematicians, and Generals in the Ottoman Army.

Discrimination is when you assume the Arabs had the same merit to rule as the Turks, but that was not the case. Their empires on the other hand only knew infighting and power struggles. In the prime of the Ottoman Empire, rebellious sons and brothers were executed for the sake of the Ummah to avoid division.

Such a practice is purely in the interest of safeguarding the Ummah, and it was effective.

[Daruish]

Yet you still blame the Arabs for the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, which was, by then, not a beacon to spread Islam, but a Western European vassal meant to prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold in the Middle East.



And what does that have to do with anything?



Really? Vassal kingdoms transform? So why can't the Karzai government transition? Why not put down our guns and start supporting them? If an Ottoman Caliph sitting in the lap of the Allied powers can transform then we must all have similar hopes for Mr. Karzai.



So your people are sheep that one white man can manipulate them so easily? What does this say about your own estimation of your kith and kin? The Arabs wanted freedom from the Turks who had treated them like the camels of the desert and the British helped them.



Intact the same way it was under the Ottomans with independent kingdoms in Persia and Afghanistan with the Hindustani princely states, the vassal-states of Central Asia, the vassal kingdoms of South-East Asia and the semi-autonomous and colonized Muslim states of Africa?

Will a state stretching from Morocco to Malaysia be viable? Who will provide its leadership? Will the Arabs accept the hegemony of the more populous Indian Muslims? How will uniformity be achieved in such a kingdom? The Caliphate that you dream about never was and never will be. The Ottomans were a conquering empire - their caliphs drank the fine wines of Rhodes, they enjoyed the company of beautiful Slavic slave-girls, they enjoyed music and luxury, they killed all their brothers and their word was the law. That's a fry cry from the geographically much smaller Abbassid Caliphate that your type fantasizes about. No, in fact, the Abbassids indulged in more luxuries and deviance than the Ottoman caliphs...



A drop in the ocean. What about the Greeks, the Serbs, the Croats, the Romanians, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians, the Macedonians, etc? In fact, 1/4th of the population of Anatolia itself is still Alevi (non-Muslim).

In fact, the Albanians converted to get into power.



Yeah, they were busy massacring the Armenians. And now that they're done with them, they're busy slaughtering tens of thousands of Muslim Kurds with airstrikes and such.

Afreen! Besyaar Oshyar astee bader jan e gul. If Punjabis can serve British for 200 years even when British would not allow them to sit, eat or speak in their presence but later get Pakistan as reward to their service to British then why can't we build our Afghanistan with American support?