The Ottoman Empire and Islam

[irosie91]

kinda symbolic

 

[Picaro]

What 'changed' re Islam was Peter the Great's modernization of Russia, and its entry on to the 'world stage', so to speak, in tandem with it's defeat at the gates of Vienna, Martin Luther's coup, and the Venetians and Catholics no longer able to support its rape of Byzantium. Most people don't know Venice and many of the Papal hierarchy supported Islam's wars against the Byzantines, the 'Crusader' states, and against Greek Orthodox kingdoms and fiefs in general. Catholic priests manned and directed the bombards used to breach the wall s of Constantinople.

Many Jews were always allies as well when it was an opportunity to massacre Christians, something the Orthodox never missed a chance to do. Some of Rosie's friends still want to help out Islam and its mass murders of 'Christians'.

<B>Israeli Settler Rabbi Praises Islamic Takeover Of Europe</B>

Islamization of Europe a good thing

Don't buy the idiotic crap that their hatred is because of 'Da Crusades' and 'Da Inquisition n stuff'; that's a load of pure BS. This genocidal wish goes all the way back to Jesus, before Islam, before Catholics. Ignore the guilt trip rubbish. Many were 'discriminated against' in the West because they allied with Islam against Christian countries whenever possible and couldn't be trusted in any war between Christians and Islamist butchers, and isolated themselves, not the other way around, when living in Christian countries.

Under Islamist rulers, they enjoyed their privileged positions by harassing and abusing Christians, so they can't whine about that in the West, either.

Maimonides: Islam Good, Christianity Bad, Muslims Bad, Christians Good

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In the link above:

The Millet System
While analyzing the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic character, one must keep in mind that much of the empire’s population was not Muslim. Large communities of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all lived in the empire. At some times, Muslims even formed a minority of the empire’s population. At no time in the empire’s history were non-Muslims forced to abide by any Muslim laws. Instead, a system of religious pluralism, known as the millet system, was implemented. In the millet system, each religious group was organized into a millet, or nation.
Each millet was allowed to run by its own rules, elect its own leaders, and enforce their own laws on their people. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II had the Orthodox Christian community of the city elect a new patriarch, who served as their leader. By not enforcing Islamic laws on non-Muslims, the Ottoman Empire ensured social and religious stability and harmony within its borders for much of its history. Contrary to this, throughout the rest of Christian Europe, religious freedom only began to take root in the 1700s and 1800s. Denial of rights and persecution of non-Christians continued, however, as is seen in the Holocaust of the 1940s and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s.

So....is the "more modern" islam a warped version of what its original intent was and did the downfall of the Ottomans cause it..kinda like the fall of what happened in the ME caused the rise of radical extremists we are fighting today?

Ignore the Appeasers' Fake History

No. After huge conquests, the Moslem oligarchs became corrupt, lazy, and permissive (much like our own ruling-class pigs after Middle America won World War II for them). They only lost at Vienna because the general would get all the booty if the city surrendered instead of being sacked. His troops got soft and careless, so they lost to the Poles, the last and most effective Crusaders. If someone like bin Laden had taken over the day before, September 11, l683, the Ottomans would not have reached a turning point at the Battle of Vienna. If he had taken over months before, he would have attacked Vienna immediately and Islam would have gone on to rule the world.

 

[irosie91]

In the link above:

The Millet System
While analyzing the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic character, one must keep in mind that much of the empire’s population was not Muslim. Large communities of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all lived in the empire. At some times, Muslims even formed a minority of the empire’s population. At no time in the empire’s history were non-Muslims forced to abide by any Muslim laws. Instead, a system of religious pluralism, known as the millet system, was implemented. In the millet system, each religious group was organized into a millet, or nation.
Each millet was allowed to run by its own rules, elect its own leaders, and enforce their own laws on their people. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II had the Orthodox Christian community of the city elect a new patriarch, who served as their leader. By not enforcing Islamic laws on non-Muslims, the Ottoman Empire ensured social and religious stability and harmony within its borders for much of its history. Contrary to this, throughout the rest of Christian Europe, religious freedom only began to take root in the 1700s and 1800s. Denial of rights and persecution of non-Christians continued, however, as is seen in the Holocaust of the 1940s and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s.

So....is the "more modern" islam a warped version of what its original intent was and did the downfall of the Ottomans cause it..kinda like the fall of what happened in the ME caused the rise of radical extremists we are fighting today?

Ignore the Appeasers' Fake History

No. After huge conquests, the Moslem oligarchs became corrupt, lazy, and permissive (much like our own ruling-class pigs after Middle America won World War II for them). They only lost at Vienna because the general would get all the booty if the city surrendered instead of being sacked. His troops got soft and careless, so they lost to the Poles, the last and most effective Crusaders. If someone like bin Laden had taken over the day before, September 11, l683, the Ottomans would not have reached a turning point at the Battle of Vienna. If he had taken over months before, he would have attacked Vienna immediately and Islam would have gone on to rule the world.

BS-----and----besides "sacked" is not a muslim thing------PILLAGED is a muslim
thing SACKED is a Holy Roman Empire thing

 

[Gracie]

In the link above:

The Millet System
While analyzing the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic character, one must keep in mind that much of the empire’s population was not Muslim. Large communities of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all lived in the empire. At some times, Muslims even formed a minority of the empire’s population. At no time in the empire’s history were non-Muslims forced to abide by any Muslim laws. Instead, a system of religious pluralism, known as the millet system, was implemented. In the millet system, each religious group was organized into a millet, or nation.
Each millet was allowed to run by its own rules, elect its own leaders, and enforce their own laws on their people. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II had the Orthodox Christian community of the city elect a new patriarch, who served as their leader. By not enforcing Islamic laws on non-Muslims, the Ottoman Empire ensured social and religious stability and harmony within its borders for much of its history. Contrary to this, throughout the rest of Christian Europe, religious freedom only began to take root in the 1700s and 1800s. Denial of rights and persecution of non-Christians continued, however, as is seen in the Holocaust of the 1940s and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s.

So....is the "more modern" islam a warped version of what its original intent was and did the downfall of the Ottomans cause it..kinda like the fall of what happened in the ME caused the rise of radical extremists we are fighting today?

Don't have time at the moment to go into details, but the claim it was ever 'more tolerant' and 'secular' is a load of complete rubbish. The were 'tolerant' to a few survivors of their butchery, as long as they brought in money and provided a source of slaves, period.

Did I claim that? Really? Show me where. I said I THOUGHT..or IT SEEMED TO ME...or MAYBE...and asked what others thought. So take your rubbish and shove it up yer ass.

 

[Picaro]

In the link above:

The Millet System
While analyzing the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic character, one must keep in mind that much of the empire’s population was not Muslim. Large communities of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all lived in the empire. At some times, Muslims even formed a minority of the empire’s population. At no time in the empire’s history were non-Muslims forced to abide by any Muslim laws. Instead, a system of religious pluralism, known as the millet system, was implemented. In the millet system, each religious group was organized into a millet, or nation.
Each millet was allowed to run by its own rules, elect its own leaders, and enforce their own laws on their people. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II had the Orthodox Christian community of the city elect a new patriarch, who served as their leader. By not enforcing Islamic laws on non-Muslims, the Ottoman Empire ensured social and religious stability and harmony within its borders for much of its history. Contrary to this, throughout the rest of Christian Europe, religious freedom only began to take root in the 1700s and 1800s. Denial of rights and persecution of non-Christians continued, however, as is seen in the Holocaust of the 1940s and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s.

So....is the "more modern" islam a warped version of what its original intent was and did the downfall of the Ottomans cause it..kinda like the fall of what happened in the ME caused the rise of radical extremists we are fighting today?

Don't have time at the moment to go into details, but the claim it was ever 'more tolerant' and 'secular' is a load of complete rubbish. The were 'tolerant' to a few survivors of their butchery, as long as they brought in money and provided a source of slaves, period.

Did I claim that? Really? Show me where. I said I THOUGHT..or IT SEEMED TO ME...or MAYBE...and asked what others thought. So take your rubbish and shove it up yer ass.

I didn't say you said anything, but now that you've opted to be outed as a knee jerk reactionary moron, don't worry about it, history is just not your thing. Start a knitting circle or something.

 

[Picaro]

What 'changed' re Islam was Peter the Great's modernization of Russia, and its entry on to the 'world stage', so to speak, in tandem with it's defeat at the gates of Vienna, Martin Luther's coup, and the Venetians and Catholics no longer able to support its rape of Byzantium. Most people don't know Venice and many of the Papal hierarchy supported Islam's wars against the Byzantines, the 'Crusader' states, and against Greek Orthodox kingdoms and fiefs in general. Catholic priests manned and directed the bombards used to breach the wall s of Constantinople.

Many Jews were always allies as well when it was an opportunity to massacre Christians, something the Orthodox never missed a chance to do. Some of Rosie's friends still want to help out Islam and its mass murders of 'Christians'.

<B>Israeli Settler Rabbi Praises Islamic Takeover Of Europe</B>

Islamization of Europe a good thing

Don't buy the idiotic crap that their hatred is because of 'Da Crusades' and 'Da Inquisition n stuff'; that's a load of pure BS. This genocidal wish goes all the way back to Jesus, before Islam, before Catholics. Ignore the guilt trip rubbish. Many were 'discriminated against' in the West because they allied with Islam against Christian countries whenever possible and couldn't be trusted in any war between Christians and Islamist butchers, and isolated themselves, not the other way around, when living in Christian countries.

Under Islamist rulers, they enjoyed their privileged positions by harassing and abusing Christians, so they can't whine about that in the West, either.

Maimonides: Islam Good, Christianity Bad, Muslims Bad, Christians Good

Anti-Semitism Always Leaves a Yellow Stain

The guillotine-fodder aristocratic snakes you anti-semites serve twisted the moral of the crucifixion story so that Jews got blamed instead of the eternal allies of every illegitimate ruling class, the religious hierarchy. With absolute mind control, the HeirHead scum created the popularity of persecuting Jews. This rabbi, a flunkie of the plutocracy himself, would never blame the secular ruling class, so he blames Christianity instead.

lol I never said squat about 'crucifying Jesus'; your racist idiot friends peddle that fake snivel all on their own like you just did. Most Christians were Jews, moron, and most of them today are far more Jewish than most Jews as well. I pointed out how your Orthodox Jews made themselves so unpopular in the West and went out of their way to do so for centuries. you don't like the facts, tough shit.

Get together with Rosie and Gracie and smoke some more crack; you're all unhinged already so you have nothing to lose.

 

[Gracie]

In the link above:

The Millet System
While analyzing the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic character, one must keep in mind that much of the empire’s population was not Muslim. Large communities of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all lived in the empire. At some times, Muslims even formed a minority of the empire’s population. At no time in the empire’s history were non-Muslims forced to abide by any Muslim laws. Instead, a system of religious pluralism, known as the millet system, was implemented. In the millet system, each religious group was organized into a millet, or nation.
Each millet was allowed to run by its own rules, elect its own leaders, and enforce their own laws on their people. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II had the Orthodox Christian community of the city elect a new patriarch, who served as their leader. By not enforcing Islamic laws on non-Muslims, the Ottoman Empire ensured social and religious stability and harmony within its borders for much of its history. Contrary to this, throughout the rest of Christian Europe, religious freedom only began to take root in the 1700s and 1800s. Denial of rights and persecution of non-Christians continued, however, as is seen in the Holocaust of the 1940s and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s.

So....is the "more modern" islam a warped version of what its original intent was and did the downfall of the Ottomans cause it..kinda like the fall of what happened in the ME caused the rise of radical extremists we are fighting today?

Don't have time at the moment to go into details, but the claim it was ever 'more tolerant' and 'secular' is a load of complete rubbish. The were 'tolerant' to a few survivors of their butchery, as long as they brought in money and provided a source of slaves, period.

Did I claim that? Really? Show me where. I said I THOUGHT..or IT SEEMED TO ME...or MAYBE...and asked what others thought. So take your rubbish and shove it up yer ass.

I didn't say you said anything, but now that you've opted to be outed as a knee jerk reactionary moron, don't worry about it, history is just not your thing. Start a knitting circle or something.

Read again.
Sorry Rosie. I have "no time at the moment to go into details", but idiots that come running in here and start throwing accusations of something he thinks I said don't deserve my attention further.

 

[Meathead]

Islam and the Ottoman Empire

Interesting reading ^^^
Maybe its me, but from what little scatterings I have found over the years, Islam was not the same Islam of today. It seemed more...tolerant? So my question is...did the fall of the Ottoman Empire cause the change of Islam and how it is practiced today?

The areas occupied by the Ottomans is even today moderate by Saudi and Afghani standards. Traditionally, in the Levant, village idiots are the extremists.

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="Picaro, post:
moron, and most of them today are far more Jewish than most Jews as well

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what does dat mean?

 

[irosie91]

Islam and the Ottoman Empire

Interesting reading ^^^
Maybe its me, but from what little scatterings I have found over the years, Islam was not the same Islam of today. It seemed more...tolerant? So my question is...did the fall of the Ottoman Empire cause the change of Islam and how it is practiced today?

The areas occupied by the Ottomans is even today moderate by Saudi and Afghani standards. Traditionally, in the Levant, village idiots are the extremists.

Saudi and Afghani starndards are a moot point------neither has any KAFFIRIN LEFT.
As to the OTTOMANS -----that scum varies DRASTICALLY over time and place.
Erdogan-----at the moment is a functional village idiot

 

[xyz]

There were Jews in places like Algeria and Yemen, and they were well respected by the local Muslims, until the birth of the Israeli state.

Although the Ottoman Empire did want some children from the occupied non-Muslim areas in Europe to be taken to serve in the Ottoman army.

 

[irosie91]

In the link above:

The Millet System
While analyzing the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic character, one must keep in mind that much of the empire’s population was not Muslim. Large communities of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all lived in the empire. At some times, Muslims even formed a minority of the empire’s population. At no time in the empire’s history were non-Muslims forced to abide by any Muslim laws. Instead, a system of religious pluralism, known as the millet system, was implemented. In the millet system, each religious group was organized into a millet, or nation.
Each millet was allowed to run by its own rules, elect its own leaders, and enforce their own laws on their people. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II had the Orthodox Christian community of the city elect a new patriarch, who served as their leader. By not enforcing Islamic laws on non-Muslims, the Ottoman Empire ensured social and religious stability and harmony within its borders for much of its history. Contrary to this, throughout the rest of Christian Europe, religious freedom only began to take root in the 1700s and 1800s. Denial of rights and persecution of non-Christians continued, however, as is seen in the Holocaust of the 1940s and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s.

So....is the "more modern" islam a warped version of what its original intent was and did the downfall of the Ottomans cause it..kinda like the fall of what happened in the ME caused the rise of radical extremists we are fighting today?

Don't have time at the moment to go into details, but the claim it was ever 'more tolerant' and 'secular' is a load of complete rubbish. The were 'tolerant' to a few survivors of their butchery, as long as they brought in money and provided a source of slaves, period.

Did I claim that? Really? Show me where. I said I THOUGHT..or IT SEEMED TO ME...or MAYBE...and asked what others thought. So take your rubbish and shove it up yer ass.

I didn't say you said anything, but now that you've opted to be outed as a knee jerk reactionary moron, don't worry about it, history is just not your thing. Start a knitting circle or something.

based on PUBLLISHED crap------Gracie makes a VERY LOGICAL REMARK. All
sorts of REVISIONIST history makes the claim of "TOLERANT ISLAM" --controlling
cities in which all people----Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians ----are DELERIOUS
with happiness. This sort of crap shows up even in public school textbooks. She
is REASONABLY impressed by it just as YOU are impressed with the idiotic------
THE JEWS WERE ALLIED WITH DA MUSLIMS. My great great grandfather died as a soldier in the army of EMPEROR FRANZ JOSEF------(am emperor of the "holy" roman empire)----------well---actually---in the filth of both canon law and shariah law---jews
are precluded from carrying weapons
second reich)---------none of my ancestry fought in muslim armies
people------christians

 

[irosie91]

There were Jews in places like Algeria and Yemen, and they were well respected by the local Muslims, until the birth of the Israeli state.

Although the Ottoman Empire did want some children from the occupied non-Muslim areas in Europe to be taken to serve in the Ottoman army.

from where did you get that information? My Yemenite is not here to rebut-----he was
born long before the "birth of the Israeli state" In fact he was rescued from that shariah
shit hole long before the "birth of the Israeli state"------In fact the REASON for the rescue
was the vile filth of shariah law---------a needed move to spare his mom rape and enslavement
by the DHIMMI ORPHAN LAW. Did you have a conversation with a muslim?-----Achamdinejad, perhaps. ---------or are you a muslim with a mosque education? ----

 

[irosie91]

xyz------tell me all about those all those HAPPY JEWS in muslim countries before the
"birth of the Israeli state"--------I got relatives from just about ALL of them (or had----
but got their histories before they died). PS---I did not know that the OTTOMANS
sought non muslim kids for their army-------probably not arabs......maybe Armenians

 

[Coyote]

Folks - this thread is in Religion, and that is Zone 2 - so discuss the topic, which is Islam in the Ottoman era - was it more tolerant - it's not Jews, it's not Islam world wide etc. Posts need to include topical content.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Moonglow]

Islam and the Ottoman Empire

Interesting reading ^^^
Maybe its me, but from what little scatterings I have found over the years, Islam was not the same Islam of today. It seemed more...tolerant? So my question is...did the fall of the Ottoman Empire cause the change of Islam and how it is practiced today?

Remeber that the Ottomans were not Muslim until conversion later after they had migrated from the Asian steppe. Islam has become more militant as it struggles to hold power in a position that is based on ancient societies. Plus you have the divisions of followers in Islam along with different nationalities and tribes which like in Christianity perceive Islam differently.

 

[Coyote]

You also have to take it in historical context. Sure, in comparison to today's world of rights...it would suck. But how did it compare with the other cultures around it? Of course it spanned a huge era of time - and both roseth and sucketh mightily I'm sure.

 

[Moonglow]

Ancient societies the leader is both the spiritual and political positions...Which is how the Muslim nations still operate to a degree..but social mobility and liberty is a rare option.