Jews and the Ottoman Empire

[Das ka das]

Even before the collapse of the Ottoman empire the Armenian's were savagely massacred in 1894 in what came to be known as the Hamindian massacres by the Ottoman Sultan. The otoman's treated non-muslims and later non-turks as second class citizens and were hated by even the Arabs.

One should not forget the devshirme which enslaved over 200,000 young boys and forcefully conscripted them into the janissary corps after giving them a choice of converting to Islam or death. In some Christian majority areas, over 20 percent of the male children were taken in the devshirme. And let us not forget the imperial harem which was composed mainly of Christian girls kidnapped to please the libido of the sultan. But then again Akbar is lauded by our historians for having mainly Hindus in his harem. For this very reason all Muslim rulers were secular. :thumb:

 

[civfanatic]

One should not forget the devshirme which enslaved over 200,000 young boys and forcefully conscripted them into the janissary corps after giving them a choice of converting to Islam or death. In some Christian majority areas, over 20 percent of the male children were taken in the devshirme. And let us not forget the imperial harem which was composed mainly of Christian girls kidnapped to please the libido of the sultan. But then again Akbar is lauded by our historians for having mainly Hindus in his harem. For this very reason all Muslim rulers were secular. :thumb:

Those 200,000 slaves were among the most powerful people in Europe and received extravagant wages.

It's always funny when people compare Ottoman military slavery with European or Arab chattel slavery.

 

[civfanatic]

Even before the collapse of the Ottoman empire the Armenian's were savagely massacred in 1894 in what came to be known as the Hamindian massacres by the Ottoman Sultan. The otoman's treated non-muslims and later non-turks as second class citizens and were hated by even the Arabs.

All of those ethnic massacres spurred by nationalist and religious fervor happened in the final decades of the Empire. The Ottoman Empire lasted for over 600 years. Again, it is idiotic to judge the entire polity based on those events.

It is sad that some people are unable to look at history from an objective lens.

 

[Das ka das]

Those 200,000 slaves were among the most powerful people in Europe and received extravagant wages.

It's always funny when people compare Ottoman military slavery with European or Arab chattel slavery.

True, but they were uprooted from their homes and forced to accept a foreign faith. Slavery is slavery.

 

[civfanatic]

True, but they were uprooted from their homes and forced to accept a foreign faith. Slavery is slavery.

"Slavery" in this case is just a word. Janissaries were called "slaves" because they were the personal troops of the Sultan, under the Sultan's personal command (as opposed to the command of nobles and subordinates). The whole point of devshirme was to create a military and administrative elite that was personally loyal to the Ottoman state, i.e. the Sultan, and to prevent subordinate nobles from usurping power. In the later Ottoman Empire, the janissaries themselves became the most powerful force in the empire and installed/removed Sultans as they fancied. Can you show me any other instance where the "slaves" had more power than their own "master"?

Although most parents would not willingly give up their children to foreign strangers, and there are indeed instances of resentment in the Christian provinces of the empire, there are also cases where families voluntarily submitted their children into the system and bribed officials to let their children in. The opportunities provided by the Ottoman system of devshirme to lowly peasant children were unmatched elsewhere in Europe, such as the world-class education of the Enderun school (Enderun School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Obviously, the Ottoman system of devshirme is morally unacceptable by modern standards. But can it really be compared, for example, to the Arab and European enslavement of millions of black Africans and their socioeconomic subjugation, or for that matter the relegation of entire communities to social damnation on the basis of "impure birth" in historic India? I think that is highly questionable.

Also, on the topic of the thread, the Jews were exempt from devshirme.

 

[Das ka das]

"Slavery" in this case is just a word. Janissaries were called "slaves" because they were the personal troops of the Sultan, under the Sultan's personal command (as opposed to the command of nobles and subordinates). The whole point of devshirme was to create a military and administrative elite that was personally loyal to the Ottoman state, i.e. the Sultan, and to prevent subordinate nobles from usurping power. In the later Ottoman Empire, the janissaries themselves became the most powerful force in the empire and installed/removed Sultans as they fancied. Can you show me any other instance where the "slaves" had more power than their own "master"?

Although most parents would not willingly give up their children to foreign strangers, and there are indeed instances of resentment in the Christian provinces of the empire, there are also cases where families voluntarily submitted their children into the system and bribed officials to let their children in. The opportunities provided by the Ottoman system of devshirme to lowly peasant children were unmatched elsewhere in Europe, such as the world-class education of the Enderun school (Enderun School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Obviously, the Ottoman system of devshirme is morally unacceptable by modern standards. But can it really be compared, for example, to the Arab and European enslavement of millions of black Africans and their socioeconomic subjugation, or for that matter the relegation of entire communities to social damnation on the basis of "impure birth" in historic India? I think that is highly questionable.

Also, on the topic of the thread, the Jews were exempt from devshirme.

Glad you brought up the evil Brahmins yet again. Yes yes the Ottomans were angels compared to the evil Brahmins :bs:

 

[civfanatic]

Glad you brought up the evil Brahmins yet again. Yes yes the Ottomans were angels compared to the evil Brahmins :bs:

Where did I use the term "brahmin" in my post? I was simply comparing the Ottoman devshirme system with other contemporaneous systems. If you want to criticize one system as "immoral", then you must also compare it to others that existed in history.

Yeah, forcing 200,000 peasant boys to become social elites was more evil than condemning untold millions of people to social marginalization.

 

[Das ka das]

Where did I use the term "brahmin" in my post? I was simply comparing the Ottoman devshirme system with other contemporaneous systems. If you want to criticize one system as "immoral", then you must also compare it to others that existed in history.

Yeah, forcing 200,000 peasant boys to become social elites was more evil than condemning untold millions of people to social marginalization.

The only "social marginalization" Sudras had for much of history was that they were not allowed to listen or learn the Vedas, so called Chandalas were neolithic forest tribes that were not part of mainstream society to begin with. And do you not see the inherent intolerance of forcing young boys to convert to Islam on pain of death?

 

[civfanatic]

The only "social marginalization" Sudras had for much of history was that they were not allowed to listen or learn the Vedas, so called Chandalas were neolithic forest tribes that were not part of mainstream society to begin with. And do you not see the inherent intolerance of forcing young boys to convert to Islam on pain of death?

Yes, you are right. For much of history, India was a land where rivers were flowing with milk and honey and gold grew on trees, and the Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Shudras all lived in perfect harmony. The caste system was invented by evil Muslims and forced on Indians, and they also invented untouchability. Did I miss anything?

The shudras were the servile class. Their purpose for existing was to serve the dvija, the twice-born, and to perform manual labour considered unfit for them. They had few "rights" as we would understand them today. They did not enjoy the same social, political, or economic privileges as the dvija, and were second-class citizens in every sense of the term. This remained the case right until the drafting of the Constitution of the Indian Republic, which happens to be written by a man belonging to one of the most marginalized groups in India.

Going back to devshirme, even if we consider it to be an example of evil Islamic intolerance, the actual number of people who actually went through the system was tiny in comparison to the vast Christian population. The very fact that countries like Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania remain overwhelmingly Christian even today is living proof of Ottoman religious tolerance.

 

[prateikf]

One should not forget the devshirme which enslaved over 200,000 young boys and forcefully conscripted them into the janissary corps after giving them a choice of converting to Islam or death. In some Christian majority areas, over 20 percent of the male children were taken in the devshirme. And let us not forget the imperial harem which was composed mainly of Christian girls kidnapped to please the libido of the sultan. But then again Akbar is lauded by our historians for having mainly Hindus in his harem. For this very reason all Muslim rulers were secular. :thumb:

You couldn't get it more correct. Muslim sultan's whether in India or Europe all did the same. how else would they get countless women to fill their filthy harems. Hence they earned forever the hatred of the people whom they ruled for themselves and for their religion as they committed and justified their crimes in the name of their religion. For example the crimes committed by the ottoman sultans on the Serbs motivated the Serbs to fight so fiercely in the Bosnian war of the 90's. Even Ratko Mladic justified the Serbrenica massacres as revenge on the turks.

 

[Das ka das]

You couldn't get it more correct. Muslim sultan's whether in India or Europe all did the same. how else would they get countless women to fill their filthy harems. Hence they earned forever the hatred of the people whom they ruled for themselves and for their religion as they committed and justified their crimes in the name of their religion. For example the crimes committed by the ottoman sultans on the Serbs motivated the Serbs to fight so fiercely in the Bosnian war of the 90's. Even Ratko Mladic justified the Serbrenica massacres as revenge on the turks.

Don't tell that to our fanboys here, They would argue that Ottomans gave peasant women the benefit of living in a luxurious palace and a wealthy lifestyle so they should be grateful to their pimp (Sultan).

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Don't tell that to our fanboys here, They would argue that Ottomans gave peasant women the benefit of living in a luxurious palace and a wealthy lifestyle so they should be grateful to their pimp (Sultan).

Indeed there are too many islamic fanboys in India... Indians are too soft people. In Jammu, we do not tolerate such thuggish moslem behaviour. In fact kashmiri leaders like geelani are scared to come to Jammu. They know millions of nationalist dogras don't tolerate such nonsense....

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

On the other hand, @civfanatic what do you think of this kashmiri song?I know you like to listen to music in other languages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4tKfWn5x-s

 

[MAYURA]

[

It is sad that some people are unable to look at history from an objective lens.[/QUOTE]

certainly describes you as you in your love for islam and hatred for brahmans are trying to justifying castration practiced on christian boys by ottomans as beneficial to them.

it is only internet that tells me that people can stoop to such level.

 

[MAYURA]

The shudras were the servile class. Their purpose for existing was to serve the dvija, the twice-born, and to perform manual labour considered unfit for them. They had few "rights" as we would understand them today. They did not enjoy the same social, political, or economic privileges as the dvija, and were second-class citizens in every sense of the term. This remained the case right until the drafting of the Constitution of the Indian Republic, which happens to be written by a man belonging to one of the most marginalized groups in India.

I wonder if the system adopted by Ottomans would have been implemented by kshatriyas for shudras, how better it had been.


also your assertion that Ambedkar wrote constitution is showing that you are very ignorant as regards history.

he was just a paid agent of british who because of the goodwill of that foolish congress leadership rose to such heights. Shudras were much better than an average men of same lower economic class.

also, the intra shudra discrimination is ruled out.

the chamars ( sc of UP ) themselves do not interdine with chandals so did they oppress them ?


apart from some cases the condition of SCs was quite good.

why not the hindus of pakistan converted during 1800 to 1947 if caste system was so bad ?

the thing is it was not bad as compared to forced induction of boys into armies to use them as cannon fodder in wars