3 ms·

This has little to do with the religion itself or the koran (e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries). It's about a certa

by return0 10y ago

This has little to do with the religion itself or the koran (e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries). It's about a certain culture that seems to be gaining ground within this religion. That said, i agree that the silence and reluctance to defend western values has done more harm than good. There is a belief that we can't have a firm discussion about what values we want allow the west to have without killing each other. That's immature and wrong, resulting in shameful incidents such as the coverup of the Cologne rape incidents. State actors from all sides consider the populace "too immature" to handle the truth.

zeveb 10y ago
> e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I don't know how tolerant they really were. Look up the janissaries, the jizya and the rest of the details of dhimmitude. It's probably better described as 'sufferance' rather than 'tolerance.' I'll grant that they were probably more tolerant than Western Europe was at the time, given that they let Jews & Christians reside in the empire during centuries when Jews & Moors were expelled from European nations.
acqq 10y ago
> the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I've never heard something like that. What was that tolerance, can you please specify? They didn't kill all the Christians, but that would be against their religious texts, as long as the "people of the book" (the way the Christians and Jews are referred to) accept to pay the tax that only they have to pay, they can live. Specifically, and certainly not "tolerant" Ottomans also enforced the "tribute in blood," which actually wasn't supported by their religious texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme
- return0 10y ago
  I am only talking about religious tolerance, and only to contrast it with the modern radical islamic hateful version. Of course the ottomans were invaders and they did commit atrocities. The Jannissaries however were not primarily a means of inflicting terror or to promote conversion to islam. By (forcefully) recruiting non-muslim boys, who thus did not have family connections to power, the Jannissaries were guaranteed to be faithful to their masters (same reason why they weren't allowed to marry). They were well compensated and were high ranking officers ; They could be compared with the use of Eunuchs in china.
  - acqq 10y ago
    > The Jannissaries however were not primarily a means of inflicting terror or to promote conversion to islam. Excuse me? "Not primarily to inflict terror"? The custom of mothers making their own children disabled with their own hands only to prevent them being taken away, their old memories destroyed, is not the result of the terror? The total number of people living there was much smaller then than today. The non-muslim boys were regularly taken away from their families and converted to Islam. The forceful conversion existed, the pressure to non-muslims existed (and that was surely not the only one) exactly to push the non-muslims to finally convert, which actually succeeded among Albanians and in Bosnia. And that explains the religious separation of that part of Europe today. There were no Muslims there before. Now millions. Not to mention that the Ottomans very non-peacefully fought wars up until Vienna, which was under siege twice. Start with 1359 then look at the following pictures through the years here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1359 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_O...

by return0 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago

> e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I don't know how tolerant they really were. Look up the janissaries, the jizya and the rest of the details of dhimmitude. It's probably better described as 'sufferance' rather than 'tolerance.' I'll grant that they were probably more tolerant than Western Europe was at the time, given that they let Jews & Christians reside in the empire during centuries when Jews & Moors were expelled from European nations.

acqq 10y ago

> the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I've never heard something like that. What was that tolerance, can you please specify? They didn't kill all the Christians, but that would be against their religious texts, as long as the "people of the book" (the way the Christians and Jews are referred to) accept to pay the tax that only they have to pay, they can live. Specifically, and certainly not "tolerant" Ottomans also enforced the "tribute in blood," which actually wasn't supported by their religious texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

return0 10y ago
I am only talking about religious tolerance, and only to contrast it with the modern radical islamic hateful version. Of course the ottomans were invaders and they did commit atrocities. The Jannissaries however were not primarily a means of inflicting terror or to promote conversion to islam. By (forcefully) recruiting non-muslim boys, who thus did not have family connections to power, the Jannissaries were guaranteed to be faithful to their masters (same reason why they weren't allowed to marry). They were well compensated and were high ranking officers ; They could be compared with the use of Eunuchs in china.
- acqq 10y ago
  > The Jannissaries however were not primarily a means of inflicting terror or to promote conversion to islam. Excuse me? "Not primarily to inflict terror"? The custom of mothers making their own children disabled with their own hands only to prevent them being taken away, their old memories destroyed, is not the result of the terror? The total number of people living there was much smaller then than today. The non-muslim boys were regularly taken away from their families and converted to Islam. The forceful conversion existed, the pressure to non-muslims existed (and that was surely not the only one) exactly to push the non-muslims to finally convert, which actually succeeded among Albanians and in Bosnia. And that explains the religious separation of that part of Europe today. There were no Muslims there before. Now millions. Not to mention that the Ottomans very non-peacefully fought wars up until Vienna, which was under siege twice. Start with 1359 then look at the following pictures through the years here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1359 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_O...