Understanding the Enemy

I said "your knowledge of the Ottoman empire is based upon some Islamic apologist viewpoint". No doubt, written by an apologist for the faith, accepted as fact by you. It doesnt make you an apologist. Simply uninformed.

I notice that you use a site that describes itself as: This site is owned by the Hyde Park Christian fellowship - an informal network of Christian researchers in the UK, whose primary interest is the academic study of all issues relevant to Islam and Christianity.
 
Werbung:
“it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”


Said the Ottomans to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
 
“it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”


Said the Ottomans to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

What exactly is your point?
 
I believe the point he was making was that ...

I believe his point was-
"On the note of repressive caliphates -it was certainly not the case with the Ottoman Empire of around 1400-1600. They were one of the most free socities".
 
I notice that you use a site that describes itself as: This site is owned by the Hyde Park Christian fellowship - an informal network of Christian researchers in the UK, whose primary interest is the academic study of all issues relevant to Islam and Christianity.

Just the first site to come up on a google search. If you are trying to imply that it is not accurate, feel free to dispute any facts presented. I notice you use "arguement" which seems to take the form of proclamations of fact with nothing whatsoever to base them upon.
 
Just the first site to come up on a google search. If you are trying to imply that it is not accurate, feel free to dispute any facts presented. I notice you use "arguement" which seems to take the form of proclamations of fact with nothing whatsoever to base them upon.

I'm not saying one thing or another about the site. I just find it intriguing in relation to your accusations of others as having used muslim biased sources and calling them apologists. It seems a bit hypocritic.
 
I'm not saying one thing or another about the site. I just find it intriguing in relation to your accusations of others as having used muslim biased sources and calling them apologists. It seems a bit hypocritic.

????? Say what???? His characterization is innaccurate. We dont even know who his source is. Doesnt matter. Another pointless response.
 
What kind of campaign is this? Six-plus years after 9/11; while the Taliban attempts an Afghanistan comeback; as Islamist terrorists cause mayhem in Algeria and occupy huge swaths of tribal Pakistan; despite "United 93" and "The Kite Runner," a library-full of books, presidential commissions, congressional hearings, and four election cycles—despite all of that, a strange, Victorian reticence about naming the enemy in the contest for the human future in which we are engaged befogs this political season.

Such reticence is an obstacle to victory in a war we cannot avoid and in which we must prevail. For if there is one thing certain in this season of great uncertainties, it is that the war against jihadism will be staring the next president of the United States in the face at high noon on Inauguration Day, 2009.

That is what we are fighting: jihadism, the religiously inspired ideology which teaches that it is every Muslim's duty to use any means necessary to compel the world's submission to Islam. That most of the world's Muslims do not accept this definition of the demands of their faith is true—and beside the point. The jihadists believe this. That is why they are the enemy of their fellow Muslims and the rest of the world. For decades, an internal Islamic civil war, born of Islam's difficult encounter with modernity, has been fought over such key modern political ideas as religious toleration and the separation of religious and political authority in a just state. That intra-Islamic struggle now engages the rest of humanity. To ignore this, to imagine it's all George W. Bush's fault, or to misrepresent it because of a prudish reluctance to discuss religion in public, is to repeat the mistakes the advocates of appeasement made in the 1930s.....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/105583

Unusual moment of clarity for Newsweek.
 
No, not at all. As I have been saying, the Ottoman empire was still a savage place at times and the religion certainly did its ideology no favours. However, compared to the Christian governments of the time it was far less repressive.

The Ottoman Empire was far from idyllic, by anyone's standards. For one thing, slavery was a vital part of the Ottoman way of life, up until 1908. The same could not be said for Western Europe. In addition, the Ottoman's practiced racial and ethnically motivated slavery, as evidenced by their use of Janissaries throughout the course of their history.

The first Janissary units comprised war captives and slaves, selecting one in five for enrollment in the ranks (Pencik rule). After the 1380s Sultan Mehmet I filled their ranks with the results of taxation in human form called devshirmeh: the Sultan's men conscripted a number of non-Muslim, usually Christian Balkan boys, taken at birth at first at random, later, by strict selection – to be converted to Islam and trained. Initially they favoured Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians and Albanians (who also supplied many gendarmes), usually selecting about one boy from forty houses, but the numbers could be changed to correspond with the need for soldiers. Boys aged 14-18 were preferred, though ages 8-20 could be taken. Initially Greeks formed the largest part of the Janissary units[citation needed]. As the Turks expanded their borders, the devshirmeh was extended to also include Bulgarians, Serbs and other Balkan countries, later especially Ukraine and southern Russia. The Janissaries started accepting enrollment from outside the devshirmeh system first during the reign of Sultan Murad III (1546-1595) and completely stopped enrolling devshirmeh in 17th century. After this period, volunteers were enrolled, mostly of Muslim origin.[
3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
 
The Ottoman Empire was far from idyllic, by anyone's standards. For one thing, slavery was a vital part of the Ottoman way of life, up until 1908. The same could not be said for Western Europe. In addition, the Ottoman's practiced racial and ethnically motivated slavery, as evidenced by their use of Janissaries throughout the course of their history.
not just slavery, they would take little boys from their mothers, kill the father, rape the little boy and make him a slave.
 
The Ottoman Empire was far from idyllic, by anyone's standards. For one thing, slavery was a vital part of the Ottoman way of life, up until 1908. The same could not be said for Western Europe. In addition, the Ottoman's practiced racial and ethnically motivated slavery, as evidenced by their use of Janissaries throughout the course of their history.

3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary


No one is saying the Ottoman Empire itself was idyllic but keep in mind it spanned almost 600 years and towards the end was quite decadent and degenerate. Many of it's practices need to be taken in context with the world at the time and most slavery is ethnically motivated.

In terms of religion, the Ottoman Empire was far more tolerant then the countries of "Christendom":

From Wikipedia:
Before adopting Islam — a process that was greatly facilitated by the Abbasid victory at the 751 Battle of Talas, which ensured Abbasid influence in Central Asia — the Turkic peoples practised a variety of shamanism. After this battle, many of the various Turkic tribes — including the Oghuz Turks, who were the ancestors of both the Seljuks and the Ottomans — gradually converted to Islam, and brought the religion with them to Anatolia beginning in the 11th century.

The Ottoman Empire was, in principle, tolerant towards Christians and Jews (the "Ahl Al-Kitab", or "People of the Book", according to the Qu'ran) but not towards the polytheists, in accordance with the Sharia law. Such tolerance was subject to a non-Muslim tax, the Jizya.

Under the millet system, non-Muslim people were considered subjects of the empire, but were not subject to the Muslim faith or Muslim law. The Orthodox millet, for instance, was still officially legally subject to Justinian's Code, which had been in effect in the Byzantine Empire for 900 years. Also, as the largest group of non-Muslim subjects (or zimmi) of the Islamic Ottoman state, the Orthodox millet was granted a number of special privileges in the fields of politics and commerce, in addition to having to pay higher taxes than Muslim subjects.[33],[34]

The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II allowed the local Christians to stay in Constantinople (Istanbul) after conquering the city in 1453, and to retain their institutions such as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. In 1461 Sultan Mehmed II established the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. Previously, the Byzantines considered the Armenian Church as heretical and thus did not allow them to build churches inside the walls of Constantinople. In 1492, when the Muslims and Sephardic Jews were expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II sent his fleet under Kemal Reis to save them and granted the refugees the right to settle in the Ottoman Empire.

The state's relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church was largely peaceful, and recurrent oppressive measures taken against the Greek church were a deviation from generally established practice. The church's structure was kept intact and largely left alone but under close control and scrutiny until the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831 and, later in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Ottoman constitutional monarchy, which was driven to some extent by nationalistic currents, tried to be balanced with Ottomanism. Other Orthodox churches, like the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, were dissolved and placed under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate; until Sultan Abdülaziz established the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 and reinstated the autonomy of the Bulgarian Church.

Similar millets were established for the Ottoman Jewish community, who were under the authority of the Haham Başı or Ottoman Chief Rabbi; the Armenian Orthodox community, who were under the authority of a head bishop; and a number of other religious communities as well.

Compare that to the treatment of other religions in the Christian monarchies of the time: the Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of Jews, the emergence of "blood libel" etc. etc.

I strongly suspect if you were a member of the non-ruling religion - you might be better off in the Ottoman Empire then in say, Catholic Spain.
 
not just slavery, they would take little boys from their mothers, kill the father, rape the little boy and make him a slave.

Slavery was pretty common around the world during much of the Ottoman's period. How is what you are describing any worse then what went on in America prior to emancipation?

A number of people maintained slaves. Christians enslaved Muslims. In fact, there was an explicit legal justification for the enslavement of Muslims based upon scripture therefore permitted for Christians to enslave non-Christians.
 
Werbung:
Slavery was pretty common around the world during much of the Ottoman's period. How is what you are describing any worse then what went on in America prior to emancipation?

A number of people maintained slaves. Christians enslaved Muslims. In fact, there was an explicit legal justification for the enslavement of Muslims based upon scripture therefore permitted for Christians to enslave non-Christians.

slavery is still very common now.
what this has to do with understanding the enemy is beyond me.

9 internet cables cut in the Middle East, usually communication is the first target before a military attack.
the USS San Jacito is docked in Israel Feb 1, anti-missile capability.
it's a new moon and the last friday prayers will be soon. when the cleric blesses the crescent we may see some fireworks.
Iran has started another nuclear plant near the border of Iraq today... still defiant of the UN who has clearly warned them. Russia delivered fuel to them last month.

now what slave have to do with the activities of the next few weeks means... I have no idea but I do understand the enemy.

further, take a count of how many factories have exploded in the US in the past 2 years. then go to the DOT site and count the number of hazmat incidents without an explanation. add train derailments and you will see which cell of AQ is out there and their location. or you can talk about thing that happened 800 years ago... it's up to you.
 
Back
Top