everyone please listen

[NumeroUno]

no problem.jpg (80.33 KiB) Viewed 3105 times

[Trophy Hunter]

I am quite aware who the Janissarie were and if you new your history the were revered.
The Janissaries

The Janissaries.-Two notable institutions created by the Ottoman sultans were the military organization of the Janissaries and the civil service, which has been aptly called the "Ruling Institution" by Professor Lybyer. These institutions evolved from the practice by the Ottoman leaders in Anatolia of employing captured prisoners as mercenary troops. Later on, during the conquest of the Balkans, the Turks, with the religious sanction of the grand mufti, took as tribute from the Christian population a percentage of the male children. These became the "slaves" of the sultan. Completely severed from their Christian families, these children were brought up as Moslems and imbued with religious devotion to Islam and loyalty to the sultan. The more able were enrolled in the palace corps of pages and trained to become administrators and officials in the state bureaucracy, the Ruling Institution. The remainder were given a military education and became members of the famous Janissary corps, recognized in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as the best trained and most effective soldiers of Europe

So they kidnapped the children of peoples they conquered, made them slaves, "imbued" them with religious devotion to Islam, and made them into elite soldiers.

Where in there does "peaceful" exist?

[jonriv]

I am quite aware who the Janissarie were and if you new your history the were revered.
The Janissaries

The Janissaries.-Two notable institutions created by the Ottoman sultans were the military organization of the Janissaries and the civil service, which has been aptly called the "Ruling Institution" by Professor Lybyer. These institutions evolved from the practice by the Ottoman leaders in Anatolia of employing captured prisoners as mercenary troops. Later on, during the conquest of the Balkans, the Turks, with the religious sanction of the grand mufti, took as tribute from the Christian population a percentage of the male children. These became the "slaves" of the sultan. Completely severed from their Christian families, these children were brought up as Moslems and imbued with religious devotion to Islam and loyalty to the sultan. The more able were enrolled in the palace corps of pages and trained to become administrators and officials in the state bureaucracy, the Ruling Institution. The remainder were given a military education and became members of the famous Janissary corps, recognized in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as the best trained and most effective soldiers of Europe

So they kidnapped the children of peoples they conquered, made them slaves, "imbued" them with religious devotion to Islam, and made them into elite soldiers.

Where in there does "peaceful" exist?

This was one part of the society and I was rebuffing Sid- they were not "kidnapped"per se, but offered as a "tax" or "tribute"- all citizens were required to do the same in some form. The Janissares were the "Rangers" of their time and lived very priveliged lives compared to their counterparts. In Europe at the same time- it was not uncommon second and third sons to sold/donated to a monastary or some other servitude.

My point was to counteract that Islam had an institutionalized hatred of non-muslims based on scripture. What I tried to point out is historically they did not(in fact being more tolerant than other societies of their time) and that the use of scripture(the Koran) to support recent actions against non-muslims was a recent phenomena supported by a relatively small group of radical muslims and not the vast majority of muslims. I would argue that such arguments and pronouncements made by Sid(and others like him) might sway some in the islamic who harbor a distrust of the west.

My ROTC instructors(hardly leftwingers) had me take the class so that I might better understand the people in an area that I might be called to fight in(know thy enemy) I also took Latin American and Russian History for the same reason. Knowing why people do things is as important in to knowing what they do.

[Sid Barrett]

Jonriv,
Congrats on your education....but like I said before, you can't change history. It is what it is. I view Islam through a broad lens because that is how it must be viewed in order to see the entire picture. Like I stated earlier, your contention that Islam has been "peaceful" for most of its existence is flat out false. The entire basis of the Islamic Caliph is motivated by conquest. The ONLY reason the Caliph experienced a decline in the 1700s - 1900s is because it didn't have the military might to impose its political will.

And this balony about Islam being tolerant is just that...balony. Islam is tolerant of other religions when it can do so on ITS terms. Look at Islamic tolerance in a western country vs. Islamic tolerance in Yeman or Pakistan. Not the same thing my friend.

Like I said before, if you view Islam in its whole and listen to a guy like Ahmedenajad, you will understand why people are concerned.

[jonriv]

Jonriv,
Congrats on your education....but like I said before, you can't change history. It is what it is. I view Islam through a broad lens because that is how it must be viewed in order to see the entire picture. Like I stated earlier, your contention that Islam has been "peaceful" for most of its existence is flat out false. The entire basis of the Islamic Caliph is motivated by conquest. The ONLY reason the Caliph experienced a decline in the 1700s - 1900s is because it didn't have the military might to impose its political will.

And this balony about Islam being tolerant is just that...balony. Islam is tolerant of other religions when it can do so on ITS terms. Look at Islamic tolerance in a western country vs. Islamic tolerance in Yeman or Pakistan. Not the same thing my friend.

Like I said before, if you view Islam in its whole and listen to a guy like Ahmedenajad, you will understand why people are concerned.

What about religious tolerance in Turkey or Egypt??? Ahmedenajad is a wackjob- most Moslem countries hate him(there are still over 600 Christian Churches there). I am sure the Incas or Aztecs can attest to other religious groups imposing their will. The Caliphate was motivated by expansion(as is any empire) for power. As I mentioned before-tolerance of other religions in the West is a recent phenomena(age of enlightenmant) - just ask the Huegenots in France or the Puritans in England. Remember- our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution. Your examples for the most part are despotic and oppressive governments. Pakistan is the weird exception-despite a very large Christian population-it has built in non-muslim rules built into its constitution.- no different than Sweden, where Moslems are not allowed to become citizens. Sid, you paint too broad a picture- you can't condemn Islamic history without acknowledging similar(and sometimes worse) aspects of our own Christian history

[Trophy Hunter]

Christianity isn't any better, you're right, but that doesn't make Islam peaceful by any stretch. You could argue that one is more violent than the other, but the fact is that both are responsible for unconscionable suffering throughout history.

[jonriv]

Christianity isn't any better, you're right, but that doesn't make Islam peaceful by any stretch. You could argue that one is more violent than the other, but the fact is that both are responsible for unconscionable suffering throughout history.

At their root and in their teachings they are both peaceful- many of their teachings are similar since Islam followed a tradition of the other two Abrahamic religions. Throughout history- people have hijacked or misinterpreted teachings of each religion to do some pretty horrible things. I just don't agree with condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a few.

[jonriv]

I just don't agree with condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a few.

When the majority do not speak out against those "few" then they have no argument to support.
When far right religious wackos do something stupid they are summarily condemned and dismissed. When suicide bombers blow up children and innocents the religion is silent

I agree with you to a point. I do wish more(there are some) moslem leaders-especially in this country would speak out more. I feel in the case of palestine- the people there are so desperate and have been screwed-over(mostly by their own leadership) that it must be a very difficult place to speak out.

[fastpitchdad05]

I just don't agree with condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a few.

When the majority do not speak out against those "few" then they have no argument to support.
When far right religious wackos do something stupid they are summarily condemned and dismissed. When suicide bombers blow up children and innocents the religion is silent

When little boys are molested by whacked out religious leaders immediate action is taken!

Oh wait, sorry, no it's not. Not even close. Never mind...

[Sid Barrett]

J/R,
Never once did I prop up or make excuses for the misdeeds of Christianity. Catholic Spain was no Saint in its heyday. That is not my point nor my argument. My beef is with Islam.... and the political correctness that people use to hide its true intentions. Islam is about conquest and it always has been. This is a fact that has not changed since the 7th century.

Unfortunately, Islamic conquest doesn't (or shouldn't) sit well with modern Americans.