Turkey Turning Islamist??? Have your say...

[Piling]

Ottoman is not synonymous of "Turks". And Ishaq Pasha Palace is a good example of this art of Kurdistan Northern Mesopotamia and Jazirah, with a strong Armenian influence.

[zurderer]

Ottoman is not synonymous of "Turks".

No It is not, but Turkey is son of ottoman empire.

Also Turks were biggest part of ottoman empire, If ottoman empire is not Turkish, It is absolutely not kurdish, armenian, ext.

And Ishaq Pasha Palace is a good example of this art of Kurdistan Northern Mesopotamia and Jazirah, with a strong Armenian influence.

Pasha is a turkish word, If I am not wrong, Kurds dont use that title.

Art is not belong to places. (or should I call aya sofia as turkish.)

what is relation within this palace and kurds? It is not built by kurds, not financed by kurds ext.

[zurderer]

By the way, I have not any knowledge about armenian architect, but what is armenian effect over Isak paşa palace, I always thougt it is effected from selcuk architect.

[Vladimir]

Don't say that to Turks;).

Hehe indeed this is not a reality my people like.

And there are building made by Kurds in "North-Kurdistan". For instance Ehmede Xani tomb and Ibrahim Pasha palace.

I have no knowledge about Ehmede xani tomb, but If I remember correct, Ibrahim paşa place was made at ottoman times.

Since there were a lot of Kurdish princes/mirs and notables, that doesn't mean they are build by Ottoman Turks.

"It promotes the newly restored Ishak Pasa palace, which is named after a Kurdish chieftain named Ishak. Another important feature is the also recently restored 18th century tomb of the legendary Kurdish writer and poet Ehmedê Xanî, whom wrote the important Kurdish love story "Mem û Zîn”. "

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=12771

[zurderer]

I think(sure) İshak paşa is an ottoman governer(have no idea about his ethnicity.), I couldnot find his kurdish ethnicity, and I dont think It is realy important.

Also I should add, ottomans generaly used local leaders to rule local people.

[Piling]

Of course he was an "Ottoman" governor, but "Ottoman" does not mean "Turk" and you know it. Ottoman rulers at this time had no exitential problem with Armenian, Kurdish and Arab culture. They were terribly persianized at this time also.

[zurderer]

I remember a times, when people were accusing ottomans(so turks) with treating bad to kurds.

But now, When It comes to art, Ottomans were not turks, but kurdish too.

isnt this interesting?

[Piling]

I personnally never said that Ottoman empire treated badly its Kurds. I have a good knowledge of history...

Ottoman empire treated badly its Shiia in 16th and 17th centuries (because of war with Safavids) and repressed Kurdish princes at the end of 19th centory with the aim to control more effectively these semi-independant feodal powers. The motivation could be easily understood.

Ottoman Empire treated very badly its Christians at the end of 19th until the genocide of 1915.

Kurds really began to suffer as Kurds with the foundation of Turkey and Kemalist republic.

[Diri]

I think(sure) İshak paşa is an ottoman governer(have no idea about his ethnicity.), I couldnot find his kurdish ethnicity, and I dont think It is realy important.

Also I should add, ottomans generaly used local leaders to rule local people.

Interesting how ethnicity is important to you when he/she is a Turkish-Ottoman...

But not when he/she is a Kurdish-Ottoman...

[Diri]

Of course he was an "Ottoman" governor, but "Ottoman" does not mean "Turk" and you know it. Ottoman rulers at this time had no exitential problem with Armenian, Kurdish and Arab culture. They were terribly persianized at this time also.

Which brings us over to the Iranic/Aryan title used by the Ottomans:

The word Padesha = Pasha = Shah = King... It's an Aryan/Iranic word... Not Turkish...

[Vladimir]

I remember a times, when people were accusing ottomans(so turks) with treating bad to kurds.

But now, When It comes to art, Ottomans were not turks, but kurdish too.

isnt this interesting?

Kurds called one of the Sultans, the "father of Kurds" or something in this direction. I don't think you can compare the Osmans with the present-day Turks. Religion was more important then Turkishness. Therefore Alevi, Yezidi, Christians were "punished".

[zurderer]

Interesting how ethnicity is important to you when he/she is a Turkish-Ottoman...

But not when he/she is a Kurdish-Ottoman...

Infact I am not, I generally see all ottomans as turks(Turkey Turks.) or vice versa..(our ancestors are ottomans.)

It is true kurds were ottomans, but do kurds accept all ottomans as their ancestors, no..

Ishak Paşa was a man followed ottoman culture

If you refuse that culture, You have no right to claim that person. He was not kurd, but ottomans..

So will you accept talat or enver as your people?

But not when he/she is a Kurdish-Ottoman...

Also It is not kurdish-ottoman, ottoman-kurdish.

Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personnally never said that Ottoman empire treated badly its Kurds. I have a good knowledge of history...

Ottoman empire treated badly its Shiia in 16th and 17th centuries (because of war with Safavids) and repressed Kurdish princes at the end of 19th centory with the aim to control more effectively these semi-independant feodal powers. The motivation could be easily understood.

Ottoman Empire treated very badly its Christians at the end of 19th until the genocide of 1915.

Kurds really began to suffer as Kurds with the foundation of Turkey and Kemalist republic.

I remember wrong, so there were not 1000 year of kurdish slavery?

Kurds called one of the Sultans, the "father of Kurds" or something in this direction.

You are talking about Abdulhamit 2..

I don't think you can compare the Osmans with the present-day Turks. Religion was more important then Turkishness. Therefore Alevi, Yezidi, Christians were "punished".

Indeed, but It is not me who show dislike against others, It is nationalist kurds who talk about 1000 year slavery.

If kurds were ottomans, than there was not slavery. If There was 1000 year slavery of kurds, than there were not ottoman-kurds, but ottomans.

[Diri]

Turks and Turkey does not accept all Osman as their ancestors - they only accept TURKISH Osmani as their ancestors...

What bullocks you are trying to feed people here...

Be a bit less biased, if you can...

[Piling]

Ottoman is a name of a dynasty, and of an empire ! it does not design an ethny, and not even a nationality.. When Ayyubids ruled all the Middle-East Egyptians were still Arabs, I guess, and not Ayyubid-Arabd or Arabs-Ayyubids.

The same thing for Greeks and Syriac living in Konya at Seljuk period. It has non-sense to talk about Greek seljuk or Seljuk Greeks...

And a Turk living in an Ayyubid principality ? or (worse !) in the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia ? An Ayyubi-Turk ? An Armenian Turk ?

Sheref Khan Bitlisî began his career as a Safavid governor, and died as an Ottoman governor. Did it change something to his self-identity ? He was only considered himself as a Kurdish prince.

At this time, religion and tribes were more important than ethny. The idea of nation did not exist with the same concept that nowadays. It is always a great historical mistake to put "modern ideas" in former civilisations.

[zurderer]

Turks and Turkey does not accept all Osman as their ancestors - they only accept TURKISH Osmani as their ancestors...

What bullocks you are trying to feed people here...

Be a bit less biased, if you can...

realy? you mean? Sokullu? Mimar sinan? (They are not turkish.)

can you tell me someone Turks refuse? what about mehmet akif?

Sheref Khan Bitlisî began his career as a Safavid governor, and died as an Ottoman governor. Did it change something to his self-identity ? He was only considered himself as a Kurdish prince.

It is absurd to look past with the your nationalist eyes. I am sure last thing he tought was his kurdishness.

At this time, religion and tribes were more important than ethny. The idea of nation did not exist with the same concept that nowadays. It is always a great historical mistake to put "modern ideas" in former civilisations.

Indeed this is what you did. They were loyal to ottomans, so they were ottomans.Neither kurds nor turks.