The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


TC illegal again

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Murtaza » Sun May 29, 2005 11:14 pm

Kifeas wrote:
Murtaza wrote:
Kifeas wrote:


Do not give this site as a reference because everybody can simply log into it and edit, add and delete the text.


I give other cites too.
Or why are you rejecting Maj Mahal made by Turks?
Make a quick research and you will find trues about it.
Find a History book and read If you dont believe.

My friend,
Why it has become the most important issue for you to prove to everybody that Taj Mahal was build by Turks? I didn't want to dispute this issue but draw attention to the fact that wikipedia sometimes may include inaccurate data, due to the fact that people can go there and change it's content.



Dont you understand?
Because you are underestimate Turkish culture.
Just a reaction.
But I dont understant why greeks are so hopelessly try to belittle Turkish Culture.
why?
Can you give me answer?
Because if you accept a culture inferior, You will accept people ,who comes from that culture, also inferior.
Murtaza
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:26 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Sun May 29, 2005 11:30 pm

Murtaza
But I dont understant why greeks are so hopelessly try to belittle Turkish Culture.


Get used to it, its a way of life for many GCs, they hate everything Turkish which of course includes us.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Kifeas » Mon May 30, 2005 12:29 am

Murtaza wrote:

Dont you understand?
Because you are underestimate Turkish culture.
Just a reaction.
But I dont understant why greeks are so hopelessly try to belittle Turkish Culture.
why?
Can you give me answer?
Because if you accept a culture inferior, You will accept people ,who comes from that culture, also inferior.

Me?
What did I say?
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Murtaza » Mon May 30, 2005 8:32 am

Kifeas wrote:
Murtaza wrote:

Dont you understand?
Because you are underestimate Turkish culture.
Just a reaction.
But I dont understant why greeks are so hopelessly try to belittle Turkish Culture.
why?
Can you give me answer?
Because if you accept a culture inferior, You will accept people ,who comes from that culture, also inferior.

Me?
What did I say?


You(Greeks)
Murtaza
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:26 pm

Postby MicAtCyp » Mon May 30, 2005 10:12 pm

Garbitsch wrote: It is regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of Islamic architecture.


Yeah right. Taken straight out of the Instabul tourist guide.

If that was a masterpiece, then you must tell me why? Because it copied the architecture of Ayia Sophia which was built 1000 years before? Give me your reasons, not quotes from a tourist guide!

Look I am not saying it is not an impressive building. I am not saying it has no "oriental air, or it is not good. It is a worthy piece, and if I would ever go to Constantinoupolis I would love to visit it, after I visit Ayia Sophia of course.

However everybody here seems to forget our original points. Our points were NOT if the Ottomans made buildings but how they contributed to civilisation as we define it being poetry,sciences, literature, architecture etc etc... by advancing it

********************************

Murtaza wrote: Learn about blue mosque.


Keske ayni bildiysen Partenon icin.
I think it's time for you to understand what you read. Go back in this thread and see what I first wrote.Then you maybe in a position to reply correctly.

Who said the Ottomans did not copy the Architecture, the kitchen and muzic and even most of the ruling system of Byzantium? The original question was not whether they made equal buildings.
The question was whether they moved civilisation forwards or stagnated it to the 500 AD period by taking it back 1000 years.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby Murtaza » Mon May 30, 2005 10:21 pm

MicAtCyp wrote:
Garbitsch wrote: It is regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of Islamic architecture.


Yeah right. Taken straight out of the Instabul tourist guide.

If that was a masterpiece, then you must tell me why? Because it copied the architecture of Ayia Sophia which was built 1000 years before? Give me your reasons, not quotes from a tourist guide!

Look I am not saying it is not an impressive building. I am not saying it has no "oriental air, or it is not good. It is a worthy piece, and if I would ever go to Constantinoupolis I would love to visit it, after I visit Ayia Sophia of course.

However everybody here seems to forget our original points. Our points were NOT if the Ottomans made buildings but how they contributed to civilisation as we define it being poetry,sciences, literature, architecture etc etc... by advancing it

********************************

Murtaza wrote: Learn about blue mosque.


Keske ayni bildiysen Partenon icin.
I think it's time for you to understand what you read. Go back in this thread and see what I first wrote.Then you maybe in a position to reply correctly.

Who said the Ottomans did not copy the Architecture, the kitchen and muzic and even most of the ruling system of Byzantium? The original question was not whether they made equal buildings.
The question was whether they moved civilisation forwards or stagnated it to the 500 AD period by taking it back 1000 years.


Are you a architect MicAtCyp?
Sorry But you are not one who know what about you are talking.
You were telling Taj Mahal didnt made by Turks but Mongols.
Even without enough investigation.
And now you are claiming these. You are just attacking without knowledge.

How do you know Blue Mosque is copy of Aya Sofia?
And Do you realy think ottomans copied all think from Greeks?

Ney? Do you have it?(Music)
Ebru? I am sure you dont idea what it is?
Also our theater are much different than Greeks.(Karagoz,Orta oyunu)
Hat? I dont think there is a art like this at Greeks.

Ah and yes Ottomans learned something from Greek.(I think greeks learn from others too. If dont It is realy bad for you guys.)

The question was whether they moved civilisation forwards or stagnated it to the 500 AD period by taking it back 1000 years. [/quote]

I dont even take care of this question.
They did good think, They helped civilizations. And Later they stagnated.
Lost their energy for life. And they just finished.
A standart life of Empires.
Murtaza
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:26 pm

Postby detailer » Mon May 30, 2005 10:22 pm

MicAtCyp,

I would like to learn why do you think ottomans took it 1000 years back.
User avatar
detailer
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 7:09 pm

Postby Murtaza » Mon May 30, 2005 10:25 pm

detailer wrote:MicAtCyp,

I would like to learn why do you think ottomans took it 1000 years back.


He dont think and He dont know he just accuse.
I saw how he claimed wrong things when he dont know anything.
But He think himself a history profesor, a architect who know Greek and Ottoman style.
And He is even a politician who know ottomans just copied Greek system of rule.
Murtaza
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:26 pm

Postby Murtaza » Mon May 30, 2005 10:31 pm

http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-si ... r_by=title

Read it, I know you know nothing.
You dont even want to learn something you comment.
But At least read what write.

The Sultanahmet mosque, known as the Blue Mosque, is the central element of the complex built by Ahmed I (1603-1617) and was completed after the sultan's death in 1617. Its architect is Mehmed Aga (d.1622), whose epithet "Sedefkar" refers to his mastery in mother-of-pearl. The mosque is considered to be the last example of Ottoman classical architecture; Mehmed Aga was an apprentice under Sinan (1450?-1588) and Davud Aga (d.1598), two architects whose works have defined the style of this period.

The mosque is composed of a large prayer hall unified under a single dome and an open courtyard to the northwest. It is oriented thirty-nine degrees east of south. An outer precinct, enclosed by a stonewall with windows, wraps around the mosque and court on all sides except for qibla. The elevation drops sharply towards the Bosphorus on the qibla wall side where a separate terrace and a royal kiosk were built on a partial basement.


The mosque precinct has three gates on Sultanahmet Square (the former Byzantine hippodrome) and three gates along the northeast wall. The two side gates on the square are built with pavilions above the gate. Among the three gates to the northeast, the northernmost one leads into the madrasa-mausoleum complex, while the remaining two open onto a large site where the first Ottoman University (Dar'ülfünun) was built by Architect Fossati in 1854. The building, that in 1876 was appropriated by the Ottoman parliament and later the Ministry of Justice, was destroyed by fire in 1933; its site has been maintained as a public park. The third gate on this side is located next to the Koranic school, which abuts the precinct wall on the outside. The qibla terrace, composed of an inner walled garden and an outer deck which had rental housing, has a gate on either side with passageways leading down into the market street (arasta) and neighborhood below. A fire swept through the area in 1912, following which the market street was rebuilt; the outer deck is currently used for parking.


Elevated from the surrounding grounds, the mosque courtyard is entered through three portals with cascading steps. The main entrance is to the northwest in axis with the central gate on Sultanahmet
Square. It is deep and has a stalactite semi-dome. Inside, a domed arcade frames the court on three sides and the mosque portico -- with arches slightly wider and taller than those of the arcade - completes the gallery on the fourth side. The two side entrances are found on either end of the domed portico. At the center of the courtyard, in axis with the main entrance, is a hexagonal fountain. It is crowned by a pent roof raised on elaborately carved arches that spring from six marble columns; this roof has recently been replaced by a small dome. The columns of the arcade and the portico are also carved from marble as well as porphyry, and the floor is paved with marble tiles.


The courtyard has two rows of superimposed windows -rectangular below and arched above- that are placed at regular intervals on all three façades, which are topped with a marble balustrade. A double-story gallery runs along the court on the exterior, with ablution spigots provided at its basement level. This narrow gallery, which has a slanted roof at the level of the upper court windows, is continued at a grander scale and flanks the prayer hall on either side where it is roofed with domes and barrel vaults, interrupted only by the projecting piers.


The prayer hall's main entrance is from the courtyard and there are two secondary side entrances. The main entrance is highlighted by the raised central portico dome, which bears a marble Quranic panel on its tall drum. Set in a niche with a stalactite semi-dome, the entry has a triptych foundation plaque. The prayer hall is a rectangle, slightly wider than it is long. Inside, it is spacious and open, with a focus around the tall central dome. The dome sits on pendentives carried on four colossal piers or "elephant feet" that delineate the central court. Beyond the court, the space is extended by use of semi-domes and buttresses that transfer the lateral loads to piers set inside the walls. The central dome is surrounded by four semi-domes below its drum, which are wrapped by smaller semi-domes -- three on all sides except for the qibla wall. The semi-domes are braced with buttresses on either side that are articulated with hipped roofs and domed turrets. This structural arrangement provides for a spacious and open interior and creates an effect of cascading domes on the exterior. The composition ends at the four corners where small single domes complete the pyramidal succession.


The flow of space on the interior is uninterrupted except for a few functional elements. There is a muezzin's platform elevated on columns in front of the southern pier, which has geometric patterns carved in its marble balustrade. An elaborately decorated wooden pulpit is set adjacent to the opposite pier. The royal lodge (hünkar mahfili), a screened platform raised on arches carried on precious marble columns, is located behind this pier and occupies the bay underneath the eastern corner dome. It is accessed from inside the mosque, as well as from the royal kiosk outside. An arcade, with balustrades at the balcony level, follows the entire length of the interior walls with the exception of the qibla wall. It is broken up into segments by the projecting structural piers and the supporting piers of the smaller semi-domes, which replace the arcade columns on their way down.


The qibla wall has been differentiated in its design from the other walls to accommodate its special function. Where the peripheral extensions on three sides are covered with three semi-domes, the qibla recess is composed with two semi-domes on the sides, joining a straight wall in between, where the tall marble frame of the mihrab niche is positioned at the center. The piers supporting the structure, which project freely into the mosque interior on three sides, have been restrained along the qibla wall, resulting in a flatter but more subtly varied surface. A slender marble minber rises along the pilaster to the right of the mihrab, and is crowned with a golden crescent above its conical cap.


The mosque, named after its donor Sultan Ahmed I, has been donned the name "Blue" by foreign travelers based on the Kütahya tiles in dominant tones of blue, turquoise and green that cover most of its interior. The interior galleries have displays of tiles composed in panels at the balcony level depicting gardens with cypresses, flowers and fruit trees, but the most precious tiles have been used to decorate the royal lodge, which has notable jade and gilt work in its marble mihrab niche. Similar motifs, painted in gold and corresponding colors, adorn the multiple convex facets of the elephant feet above their marble bases, two of which are furnished with fountains. This rich polychrome complexion of the interior comes alive with sublime light flooding the interior from three tiers of windows on the walls and numerous others pierced into the domes: The central dome has twenty-eight windows in its drum and each of the four semi-domes has fourteen. Colored glasses on windows were originally imported from Venice, but have since been replaced with modern substitutes. The preacher's pulpit, doors and window shutters display mastery of woodcarving and mother of pearl inlay of the period. The mosque holds many treasures, such as Quranic tablets from the hand of the renowned Ameti Kasim Gubari, while many others have been lost or placed in museums. The interior has been renovated several times, as early as 1837, and also more recently.


The Sultanahmet Mosque has the unusual feature of having six minarets, four of which rise from the corners mosque and two lower minarets placed at the front corners of the courtyard. The four around the mosque have three balconies each, while the courtyard minarets are furnished with two. All six minarets have fluted shafts and balconies with stalactite corbels. The northeastern minaret was restored in 1955.


There is a royal kiosk (hünkar kasri) to the southeast of the mosque, which was rebuilt recently following destruction by fire. It features, for the first time in Ottoman architecture, the entry ramp, which allowed the sultan to enter the lodge mounted on his horse. The ramp leads up to a loggia with a view over the Bosphorus, with two retiring rooms on one side and a connection to the royal lodge inside the mosque on the other. Today, the royal kiosk is home to the Carpet and Kilim Museum (Hali ve Kilim Müzesi) that displays historic samples from mosques around Anatolia.
Murtaza
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:26 pm

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue May 31, 2005 1:09 pm

I haven't responded to this thread in a while now, so I am writing this post to answer to various comments that people have been making.

To Viewpoint:

I am a Greek Cypriot in terms of my modern political identity, and I am Greek in terms of my historical consciousness.

To Murtaza:

I am sure you know a lot more about Turkish and Ottoman history than I do, as I said my knowledge derives from the Greek understanding of the Ottomans, not from an inside understanding like yours. I would like it if you could enlighten me about aspects of Turkish history, for instance what you mentioned about "most of Turkish history is about Turk fighting Turk".

To Erol:

I am aware that my comments have been very harsh, and this derives both from a "logical" and an "emotional" component. The logical aspect of my criticism against the Ottoman empire, is that it was a militaristic empire, and I generally dislike militaristic empires. Not all civilizations / empires have been like this you know, others have focused on agriculture and trade, others on art and science, others on war and conquest. Sure, you can find elements of art in militaristic civilizations, and you can find elements of war in science-oriented civilizations, but the over-riding identity of a civilization remains. My evaluation of the Ottoman empire is that it was essentially militaristic, that its life-blood was the conquest of territories and the subjugation of peoples who were then used as a source of income to finance further wars. When the Ottoman empire lost its appetite for war, it also lost its will to live and thus became the "sick man of Europe". Modern Turkey, I would say, is a totally different civilizational project, much more creative and forward looking than its historical predecessor. It was created by a people who had grown sick and tired of the whole Ottoman lifestyle, so I don't see why my criticism of the Ottoman empire should offend you - your own ancestors have criticized the Ottoman empire much more harshly than I ever could.

Now to the "emotional" component of my outburst: Within the identity which my historical consciousness gives me, I still feel deeply hurt by the destructve effect which the Ottomans had on Greek civilization. I feel that the invasion of Asia Minor, the conquest of Constantinople, the turning of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, the subjugation of what is today modern Greece, the fact that Greeks were treated like second-class citizens for four hundred years, the fact that Greek children were forcibly converted to Islam in order to be used as soldiers - all these facts make me deeply bitter and resentful of what the Ottoman empire was, in much the same way that a modern Jew feels deeply bitter and resentful of everything that the third reich of Adolf Hitler stood for.

As I said above, in no way do my feelings of resentment about the Ottomans translate into resentment about modern Turks. In fact, I admire the efforts that modern Turks have been making over the last century to transform their society and institutions. The fact that Turkey was one of the few countries to not take part in the Second World War, is surely a testimony to her new-found identity as a peaceful nation. My respect for modern Turks grew last week when I was in Istanbul, because the academics and politicians I met there struck me as creative, clear-headed, forward-looking and decisive. That is why I hold hope for the future of our region, because both Turkey and Greece are undergoing a transformation for the better.

Having said all that, I do feel alienated when I hear excuses being made about the Ottomans ... just like you feel alienated when GCs make excuses about crimes that were committed by Greeks and GCs in the 1960s. Just because 400 years have passed (as compared to 40 years for the events that caused grief to the TCs), doesn't mean that somehow the responsibility for evil deeds of is somehow erased. History is useful when it is used to cleanse away old wounds, and just as it would help the reconciliation of GCs and TCs if GCs openly admitted where their ancestors went wrong forty years ago, so it would help the overall reconciliation of Greeks and Turks if the Turks were to admit where their ancestors went wrong four hundred years ago.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests