Hi lurqer - re your earlier post:
As for the Ottoman Empire, not only did they have the Sharia...
There was no Sharia during the Ottoman Empire. Yes, the Padishah was also the Califh of the Muslim religion, but there was no "Sharia" - no women got stoned to death, no little thief had his hand cut off because he stole a loaf of bread, etc. There were "Kadi"s, who acted for local judges, but there is nothing that suggests that they were anywhere as fanatical nor cruel as the sharia judges of our day.
..., but exercised a particularly heinous practice of devshirme.
I am impressed that you even know the word "devshirme" :) I only know about it because I have the Ottoman period is sort of a hobby with me. However, you use the word incorrectly.
The "devshirme" were the young people the padishah's men selected from the conquered lands, to be educated in the "Ottoman Way" and serve as functionaries, soldiers, and even pashas - there were many "vezir"s (highest rank after the Padishah) who were devshirmes.
Take a look at this:
i-cias.com
---------------------------------------------------
Young Christian boys were taken away from their families in the Balkans and made into the property of the sultan in order to become part of the army or the administration. Devsirme is Turkish for "gathering".
The system of devsirme was introduced under sultan Murad 2 in the 1420's, and was a result of the military needs of the fast growing empire: it needed loyal army troops in high numbers, as well as reliable civil servants in the palace and in the administration.
The system was designed to not develop any hereditary aristocracy which could threaten the position of the sultan and his family. Hence, only non-Muslims could enter the devsirme. And even if the devsirme could marry after they finished their training and left the palace, their sons were Muslims, and could not enter the devsirme.
---------------------------------------------------
Christian fathers were annually forced to appear in town squares with their sons, the strongest and brightest of whom would be sized from their parents, converted to Islam and trained to be the Sultan's elite fighting force, the Janissaries.
I am afraid that was not so. Curiously, converting them to Islam were not part of the plan, as you can see in the above excerpt.
The separation from parents was the extent to which the devshirme practice was "heinous". The rest of it (physical as well as theoretical training, languages, etc) was pretty good and there were posts of important responsibility that awaited the bright ones.
Not a system I would like to lose a son to, obviously, but I would hesitate to call it "heinous".
By the way, I am especially intrigued by the way the Ottoman Empire has not converted the conquered lands in Balkans and the rest of Europe to Islam, and left them pretty much to themselves except for the devshirme and the non-Muslim tax they were to pay. Hence the reason why they are still Christian to this day, although they have spent quite a while under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
I grant you that the Qur'an has a famous tolerance verse "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2:256). But what has been the practice?
If we put aside the current media hype, who listens to the madmen a little too much, I feel we can see this in a more rational view. The Ottoman Empire, for example, has not forcibly converted Europe to Islam. There are places out there where Muslims and non-Muslims live together in peace and tranquillity, in countries of Muslim majorities, and nobody is being forcibly converted.
The Qur'an also states that Muslims must "fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute [jizya] out of hand and are utterly subdued" (Sura 9:29).
Agrees with what the Muslims did, it seems. They conquered, and then got the tax. They did not forcibly convert, though, which is far more than what we can say about the Roman Empire.
Remember the Muslims conquered largely Christian lands. Now these lands are predominantly Muslim
That's a very general statement. And as such, quite incorrect. Again, please take a look at the Ottoman Empire, which was the last time the Muslims had the force to conquer anything. You will see that they did NOT convert the lands they conquered, but were satisfied to take the devshirme and the tax. Hence today's Christian Europe, despire the fact that the Ottoman Empire stretched well into Europe, just until Vienna, actually.
In lower Egypt, the Copts, crushed and ruined by taxation and subjected to torture, rebelled (832). The Arab governor ordered their villages, vines, gardens, churches, and the whole region to be burned down; those who escaped massacre were deported.
I am not sure quoting something that happened in the year 832 A.D. strengthens any view on today's Islam. Yes, those were cruel times. One can also find quite a few such incidences of cruelty and injustice in Christian Europe. Does that mean it is in some way the religion's fault? Probably not.
Are you familiar with the The Knights Templar? I was fascinated with the subject at some point and read up quite a bit on their history, which included a whole book that dug up the documents relating to how they were finally annihilated by the Inquisition, with the collaboration of the Pope and the King of France. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it the fault of Christianity, and would it be correct to bring it up today as an example of how horrible this religion is? No.
The jizya had to be paid in public with the tax official hitting the payer on the head or back of the neck symbolizing the subjugation.
I am not sure about that. Even if true, it just shows that those were uncivil times.
Rather I will merely state again that I’ve come to believe that a serious cultural problem exists. – not a few wild-eyed extremists.
Such a thing would not happen today, but I feel you might be hard pressed to prove that it did not happen anywhere else on earth at the time and that the Ottoman Muslims were singularly egregious in this respect of degrading their fellow citizens.
Part of the problem is the intimate intertwining of church and state.
Obviously, that is a serious problem, and is no secret in a country that calls itself an "Islamic Republic". Just like the revolution in Europe and the subsequent rise of secularism, I am sure Muslims will also do their own revolution.
Another part of the problem is an inability to accommodate change. The modern world places a high premium on swiftness to change. The lethargic pace of change in the Muslim world will condemn them to fall ever further behind. This in turn will reinforce their view of themselves as being victims. As victims, they will strike out at their perceived victimizers. If America continues to behave as it has recently, it will (IMO) continue to be perceived as the number one victimizer.
Very interesting view. I believe you have an important point there. I am afraid the current US administration does not look at the issue in such depth, though. Their strategy seems to be "Bomb now, ask questions later, but not before securing the oil" and we may all live to regret that. I am afraid of a future where this strategy will cause the problem to spiral out of control, all the way into WWIII. |
