Article

2005-03-11 Terror Networks & Islam

Islam And Democracy: The Emerging Consensus

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-03-11 00:00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 My reading of this may be terribly off, but I don't think so...

Obviously, this essay requires a glossary so that key terms, such as "Islamist", are perfectly clear.

Note that, as used, it means little more than a Believer. Little is said about the depth or conviction of belief or the measures that an Islamist will go to see his belief system triumph. In this I happen to agree with him, for his usage confirms my hypothesis: the Mythical Moderate Muslim is merely an untapped Islamist. A resource to be called upon when needed.

If this interpretation is accurate, consider this:
"The Islamist's view of politics and state rests on their fundamental premise that Islam is not a "religion" in the sense in which we speak of Christianity and Hinduism today, i.e., a code of religious beliefs and doctrines, a mode of spiritual orientation, or a set of some outward rituals. Islam is a complete way of life; it covers the entire spectrum of human activities. Islam means total commitment and subordination of all aspects of life - individual, social, economic, political, international - to God. Hence, Islam is both religion and politics, church and state, joined in a single goal of serving God and implementing His commandments."

I, again, agree wholeheartedly with him. It must be dealt with as an ideology with one goal: domination. This is from their own mouths and writings - and there seem to be no means by which a differing ideology can peacefully coexist with Islam. It has the track record of 1400 years of aggression and violence as its primary tools for growth. It has all of the characteristics of, and should be treated as, a disease, a pathogen.

On the other side, how poorly they understand democracy, about which they write so much with such grand confidence. I suggest they also need a glossary. I think they missed the mark entirely.

Example:
"There seems to have emerged a general agreement among mainstream Islamists that democracy is the spirit of the Islamic governmental system, even though they reject the philosophical assumption of Western democracy that sovereignty rests with the people. They maintain that the majority's voice can constitute the basis for legitimate exercise of political authority in an Islamic state only if it recognizes and remains within the perimeters of God's political and legal sovereignty. God's sovereignty is understood to have been represented in the Shari`ah, a systematic code of moral-legal imperatives derived from the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamists also argue that since the Qur'an commands Muslims to conduct their collective affairs through mutual consultation (shura) and grants the privilege of God's vicegerency (khalifa) to the entire Muslim community rather than to a single individual or a specific group or class of people, the selection of a Muslim ruler must be based on the free will of the Muslim masses."

This guy has mistaken sovereignty as the key definition of democracy. Pfeh - not true. Consent of the governed, with recourse and redress, is the key. Consent of a population that are free to choose, support or oppose, grant or withdraw proxy, elect or recall, anyone and any aspect of government. In missing that key point regards democracy, he misses everything else - and the rest is just poop piled very very high upon a false assumption: democracy is only about having a vote where the elected are then the officials of a sovereign govt and, it seems implied, then free to govern as they see fit. Pfeh. That's the smallest aspect of the term and has little to do with true democracy. Without consent and redress, he's described the shit-joke-democracies of the world. That ain't us, son.

The money quote is true, though I doubt he understands how clearly he has put it - at least from the POV of a true child of democracy:
"In conclusion, it may also be pointed out that if democracy has to take roots in Muslim Societies, it will have to seek legitimacy from Islam, otherwise it will remain an alien idea. Democratic movements in Muslim societies that are based primarily on secular liberalism will have little, if any, prospects of reaching the Muslim masses."

Yes, you're quite right here, Dr Dingdong. Indeed, you know your own kind. Some of us do, too. But you still don't know us.

My $0.02.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 8:47:14 AM|| 2005-03-11 8:47:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "The Islamist's view of politics and state rests on their fundamental premise that Islam is not a "religion" in the sense in which we speak of Christianity and Hinduism today, i.e., a code of religious beliefs and doctrines, a mode of spiritual orientation, or a set of some outward rituals. Islam is a complete way of life;

You know what's funny is that every religion that I have ever been exposed to says the same thing about itself that it is more than a mere religion like the others, that unlike them it is a complete way of life as if this claim proved superiority.

There are much better and more valid ways to judge a religion. How about them original texts for one? When a religion goes looking for itself and its origins, what are they reading? What message are they getting from their holy books and how do they implement what they learn, how do their holy books materialize in life.

Anyone who resorts to such a claim is full of shit from the get go. Every religion is a complete way of life.

Posted by peggy 2005-03-11 9:25:00 AM|| 2005-03-11 9:25:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 .com

As for your comments, i have to say ditto. You said it all as far as I'm concerned. *slam and democracy boils down to fine talk without any real understanding. This is why the muslims could have the classic works of democratic Greece but could never utilize them in any potent way. They have had and I think always will have this unshakable conviction that they have nothing to learn from anyone. They have all they need to know already and it will never occur to a large portion of muslims that what they find in their faith are distorted versions of otherwise successful ideas.

There is no improving or modifying democracy. It is as the Greeks defined it and it only works for those who can admit that and practice it accordingly. That is, all citizens have not just a right to vote but the liberty to criticize, protest, debate and if necessary overturn any system of government. All that is left for us to do is to ensure that both the franchise and liberty are together extended to every free and capable soul on earth once they reach the age of discernment.

Democracy without liberty is a sham.

Posted by peggy 2005-03-11 9:43:34 AM|| 2005-03-11 9:43:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 peggy - And that inability to actually grasp other systems will never change, as long as they indoctrinate from birth and hold captive through threat and duress for life, crushing free thought, individualism, every form and aspect of liberty, and filling the victims (yes, I hold they are victims, but that does not change the threat or the eventual necessary response) with various blind hatreds, obvious lies, strictures against association - where they might learn they have been lied to, and any hope of ever emerging from the morass that is Islamic society.

I suggest that either we'll take their children away from them and patiently wait for 2 generations for the insanity to die out from lack of replication -- or we will be forced at some future point to decimate them en masse. That is the saddest thing I have ever come to know and accept. Unlike certain trolls, I am appalled by our lack of options and what I believe will transpire.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 9:56:15 AM|| 2005-03-11 9:56:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Religion's are a way of life. But one need not belong to a church or even believe in the diety of Christ to follow a Christian lifestyle. I'd wager that many of those in America who claim to be atheists, or Jews, practice Christianity to a much greater degree than they realize. Do you attempt to live your life in accordance with the beliefs of forgiveness, charity, faith and hope? Our Nation was founded as a Christian nation and those beliefs have become incorporated into "the American Way". Jews and Christians (and others) understand that following the 10 Commandments leads to a better personal life and society than does ignoring those 10 rules. Thus, one not need to call themselves a Christian, to follow a Christian lifestyle.

Look at alcoholics in a 12 step program. No better example of Christianity in action exists in our society today. Sinners are welcome ....confess, ask for forgiveness and strive to do better (walk in Christ) each and every day. No, I'm not an alcoholic.

While this is an outstanding study...I disagree with his conclusion. What I see is that the Islamic society's are undergoing what Christian societies began undergoing with Blackwell. Or look to Rome and follow the Roman Catholic Church. And as for human rights and the rights of women, slavery existed in our society less than 100 years ago and women only got rights yesterday. Look how far we have come in such a short time. Why don't we think a similar reformation can occur in the Islamic world.

We have to understand that when you want a democracy - it means that you have to respect the rights of the majority and protect the rights of the minority. The majority of those in Islamic nations want to practice Islam as a way of life. I think it's a stretch to say they want to bow to the Caliphate any more than Catholics are willing to bow before the Pope. I think it is an insult to think that we can move beyond the rule of kings and theocrats - while maintaining our personal/religious beliefs ...but the Islamists can't. What? Is there something different in our genetic makeup that makes us superior to these little brown folk?

Nobody speaks for Muslim's anymore than one individual speaks for Christians. I was heartened by the beliefs that he claimed these leaders espoused. It just seems to me that they a few centuries behind and are just now undergoing the same enlightenment that we went through back in the 1700's.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 10:13:35 AM|| 2005-03-11 10:13:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Peggy, you state, "every religion that I have ever been exposed to says the same thing about itself that it is more than a mere religion like the others, that unlike them it is a complete way of life as if this claim proved superiority."

Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote Jesus as having said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." So the founder of Christianity was pretty clearly espousing an apolitical message. How faithful his followers have been in adhering to that message is certainly debatable. However, there is no such stumbling block for Muslims

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-11 10:28:22 AM|| 2005-03-11 10:28:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I have to go soon, so I want to say one more thing..

And that is that I believe that many people do not understand what role it is that religion plays in people's lives.

First...think of this example. Many of us believe in civil rights - but how many of us believe in the current civil rights movement?

Now..with that in mind - think of our churches/synagogues today. Just like the concept of civil rights exists without the civil rights movement - the concepts of religion exist outside the buildings that house them.

Maybe some of you don't need assistance right now - but billions of people need help in coping with death, with despair and with life in general. What religions do is they provide an anchor - a lighthouse if you will - in a dark world that helps many avoid the rocky shoals of life. They depart the lessons of the deathbed - the same kind of wisdom that you grasp after someone dies or I'd assume as you near it yourself. Upon death - you don't regret missing a pay raise or getting that cool job - but rather you regret deeper more meaningful things and you delight in the people that you love and shared your life's experience with. All the other stuff is just fluff in life. Religion - all religions - help guide people to live a better life though community, sharing and helping others in their darkest time of need.

And again - before you go off on Islam and women's rights, etc. - remember that we had slavery and women had no rights in America not so long ago.

Societies evolve just like the human species do. Islamic societies are at least 200 years behind us...but they will probably follow the same path that we did - away from kings and tyrants to a more representative form of government.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 10:43:37 AM|| 2005-03-11 10:43:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Sigh.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 10:45:50 AM|| 2005-03-11 10:45:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 .com
we don't have to go the rounds... :-)

But I believe that people are basically the same. A squirrel is a squirrel and a dog is a dog and people are people. There is a reason that religions exist in EVERY single society and have for recorded history.

The US is such a land of weath and opportunity and the churches have become institutions rather than spiritual guides.

Think of religion as the AA for the sinner (ie: every man).

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 10:57:07 AM|| 2005-03-11 10:57:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I have nothing against most religion, especially those that promote self-improvement (i.e. guilt is usually construct vs blame which is a dead end) as I've said 30 or 40 times here on RB.

It makes you happy, gives you hope, peace of mind, and you sleep like a baby -- good for you!

As for the topic. Sigh. Nevermind. HAND.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 11:01:56 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:01:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 well..I can't disagree that as far as religion's go, Islam's cult of blame is self-destructive and not the greatest beacon to follow. But it does provide the other things that religions provide to many - a shared community that (should) help individuals in time of need.

But.. what I was really trying to get at is that what I see in this guy's writing is the same evolution of thought that European societies underwent in the 1700's. I suspect that in 200 more years, maybe the Caliphate can sit next door to the Vatican.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:09:24 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:09:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Mrs. Davis,

I don't disagree with you. What you are saying is alot like what i said about looking at the original texts to judge a religion. What i reject is the worn out argument used by every religion that it alone is a way of life while all the others are just religions blah blah blah. I just think that it is a bad way to judge a religion and everyone claims its true of them and not of others. I make it a practice to ignore it anytime anyone uses it including my own priest. In my mind, Christianity makes so much sense otherwise and he is such a good teacher otherwise that it just isn't necessary to make such a claim.

I think that the teaching that you quoted is a very valuble example of one the of major differences between Christianity and other faiths and anyone who reads the Bible can benefit from it. Christianity is different in that a space is made for a secular government in orthodox practice. Many other faiths only allow for secular government in their more liberal expressions which depart from original traditions. The more orthodox expressions some reject any notion of separation. *slam is a great example of this. Their original traditions unequivocably forbid any separation. We cannot pretend that orthodox muslims are somehow going to become liberals. It is against human nature. There will always be islamic conservatives out there going to their original sources and finding no room for true democracy with full liberty. They will also always be the ones finding justification for violence and they will always be the ones able to claim greater legitamacy because of their greater adherance to tradition.

Thus there will always be strong and bloody resistance to democracy in its best form from a great majority of muslims.

Posted by peggy 2005-03-11 11:10:41 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:10:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 It is against human nature.

You are necessarily implying that Muslims are genetically different. I reject that.

The teaching's that they are raised with are different and yes, self-destructive - but as they collide with the 21st Century - there is nothing that makes them genetically inferior to us and thus unable to evolve towards better governments and ideas. I don't know about you - but I see it happening on a massive scale.

Look at Jessie Jackson and the civil rights movement - a total descent into the same victim, blame and shame culture that Muslim's thrive on. But look at many of today's young blacks - they already reject him and are moving forward towards a better way. That's only a span of like 40 years.

Muslim's aren't inferior beings. Like our own liberals, they have been brainwashed with inferior ideas. It doesn't mean they can't see a better way.

Call me Pollyanna - but I see in this article the same stirrings that were undertaken in our own movement away from tyrants and kings.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:27:22 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:27:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Pollyanna it is. You're ignoring the relevant facts to focus on what makes you feel good, it seems. I wouldn't say there's anything genetic about it - it's all simple, but overwhelming, behavioral indoctrination. See #4 for my response in specifics.

When you've lived in an Islamic country for 4 or 5 years, know their world up close and personal, then you can tell me how it is and how it works and why there's a solution coming someday.

Not happening without removal of the indoctrination - and then it takes at least a full unindoctrinated generation. Same problem the Paleos face - they built a hate machine and now it's had over 2 generations to run. They're fucked, too.

Think about it.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 11:34:50 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:34:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 .com, an instructive example of what you are saying is 20th century Europe. Germany recovered from 12 years of Naziism pretty quickly. Russia still has hardly befun to recover from 72 years of communism. Once all the people who remember the good old days die, it is difficult to return to them.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-11 11:53:05 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:53:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Spot on, Mrs D. It's one of the reasons I hold out hope for the Persians. There are many parents left who remember that life under the Shah wasn't terrible for everyone - only the Islamists. They are the repository of reality which has raised the huge population bubble that thought they were going to experience democracy when they voted in Khatami. Poor souls. So much hope, promise, and potential -- crushed by the most barbaric element of totalitarianism I've ever seen: Islam as Govt.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 11:57:56 AM|| 2005-03-11 11:57:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I don't need to think about it because I AGREE with you. I guess I'm just not expressing myself very well.

I acknowledge they have a hate machine that is self-destructive. What I was attempting to do was make the point that the hate machine is indoctrination - That's MY point, damn it! But as they collide with western values - they are seeing a better way - and moving towards it in much the same way that we did way back when. The scales are falling from their eyes.

As for the religion part of it - I was simply trying to say that religion fills a need that goes beyond Muslim or Christian - a need of faith and community to share life's trials. Just cause you don't need the support doesn't mean you don't ask the same questions or search for the same meanings - maybe you are stonger than others, maybe you have it all figured out ...but it doesn't change the fact that X percentage will need/want the support. Why do you begrudge them that?

It's seperate, don't you see. What religion's offer on one level in terms of support v/s the message itself. The Muslim message of shame and blame is destructive yes...but it doesn't void the other good things that come from belonging to a mosque - meeting people, being a part of something ...the message may be bad - but the people attending aren't bad by nature.

I guess I'm trying to make a point that too much emphasis is being put on what Mullahs say v/s what people do. People go to catholic churches yet still party and don't use birth control, have abortions and get divorced. What they are going to church for is differnt than getting a "how to" list they have to follow. It's much more complex and different for each individual.

We didn't get to where we are by rejecting the church at the time Blackwell came up with these ideas. It all moved forward together.

Shamers and blamers will always exist in one form or another - our own liberals, Jessie Jackson - the preacher down the block - they've always been here, they always will be here.

But the Jessie Jackson types can only exist in a socity that is closed to those who can provide a better message.

I don't know...I've digressed. I see positive things in this article in terms of being willing to move to a more representative government and away from kings. Will it happen tomorrow? No ...we're only about 300 years into it ourselves and women just got equal rights in my lifetime.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 12:13:49 PM|| 2005-03-11 12:13:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Thanks for listening. I've got to go and I'm spent.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 12:16:38 PM|| 2005-03-11 12:16:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 It's funny, 2b. The Jews say the same thing about the Christians, but in reverse. And I imagine the atheists do, too. The virtues are human ones, not just Christian, as are the vices.

But the key difference between Islam and other religions -- on this particular topic -- is that Islam insists on governing every aspect of life for everybody, believer or not. Other religions are willing to govern every aspect of life for their believers within a non-believing society.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-03-11 12:24:29 PM|| 2005-03-11 12:24:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 2B,

I have no idea how you get from me saying that it is human nature to always have a strong socially conservative element in every society to the idea that I am somehow talking about muslim genetic inferiority. I can't even comprehend the thought process.

muslim social conservatives will always be a danger because of what their holy book says. Period.

Posted by peggy 2005-03-11 12:29:45 PM|| 2005-03-11 12:29:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 2b -- Well I'll be damned. Literally, I'm sure.

I believe I made the point regards indoctrination in #4 - as I have on this topic for years. You want it? Fine, take it.

"Why do you begrudge them that?"
WTF? You mean the Muslims? If so, I stated my case quite clearly in #1, #4, and #14, IMHO. If not, well you obviously don't know me -- or my posts here over the last, what, 3 years? Sheesh.

Hey, no sweat. I read the article, thought about it for about 40 minutes, then posted what I thought was a key point the guy missed - as well as statements that we should read as harbingers of conflict. I didn't see any new light at the end of the tunnel. You did. Cool. I've stated what I've come to understand and accept, ugly warts 'n all, do with it what you will. I'm done here.

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 12:39:59 PM|| 2005-03-11 12:39:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Wow. Christianity's savior appeared some 2000 years ago; the Islamic savior showed up almost 700 years later. If they're only 200 years behind us, they've done well! And the internet and satellite TV (even Al Jizz, eventually) will help them catch up. Not this year, and maybe not even in this century, but I believe we will see progress toward tolerance and understanding. But some folks are gonna hafta get rubbed out, along the way.....

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-11 2:22:16 PM|| 2005-03-11 2:22:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 The virtues are human ones, not just Christian, as are the vices. Thank you! TW, you nailed it.

peggy... point taken

.com - No, I didn't mean Muslim's, I meant "people"...your average mom and pop regardless of race/religion/nationality - but never mind. It would take a long MEGO post to explain where I was going with that. But even if I explained, my comment was a cheap shot, not reflective of your POV. Forget I said it.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 3:40:21 PM|| 2005-03-11 3:40:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Yes, Bobby, Islam has more quickly had to wrestle with the idea that it isn't the only one out there. Kudos to them.

However, the world is moving even faster now than it was then, which places them even farther behind the curve. Unfortunately for them, the violence with which they are reacting to this reality, and the ability they -- and we -- have to make the whole planet go boom!, means that they don't get the same kind of time frame we did to complete their maturation process.

Unfair, I know, but I refuse to sacrifice the (literal) existence of my Jewish daughters to the Muslim learning curve.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-03-11 4:16:29 PM|| 2005-03-11 4:16:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 The glass half full
Look - the staunchest Islamists have grasped what our Kings grasped four hundred years ago - that without consent of the people they have no real power. Isn't that wonderful! Once democracy blooms, the Holy Man's power will be limited, like that of the Pope. But because Islam will be exposed to better ideas, it will only take a few generations for their children to shed the destructive tenets of hate and share in the blessings of goodness.

The glass half empty
Even if the Mullah's lose their grip, and democracy takes hold, it will take generations for their children to shed the indoctrination of hate. Will be fighting this battle for our lifetime and beyond.

flip sides of the same coin.

Posted by anon 2005-03-11 5:09:37 PM|| 2005-03-11 5:09:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 anon - Geeeeeeez.

[ranty-rant]
I hope you forgot your sarcasm tags. It's sweet, but the first half of the equation you've posed is just not true. Patently and obviously. This was the first thing that struck me about the essay - the incredible imprecision of terms such as Islamist - and said so in #1.

"the staunchest Islamists" ???

Just who do you think the staunchest Islamists are? This Dr DingDong? CP Abdullah? Khomeini? How about Zawahiri and Zarqawi? I believe they qualify as "staunch" Islamists - as it is used in 99% of the articles I've read. Only from some Islamic site would it get so futzed up as to mean any / all Muslims. Pfeh. The Islamists have grasped nothing. The Mythical Moderates are non-entities until moved to act - in support of their Muslim brothers. And you'll note that is never to stop the Islamists. The 104th Moderate Muslim Braigade has yet to clean out any terrorist Islamist groups. They're sitting on their Muslim hands because they are Muslim First. Period.

The second half of the equation does not begin until the first half is well along and Islamists do not dominate societies and impose Shari'a.

All this fuzzy-wuzzy shit is unsupported by FACTS. It may feel good, but it's just plain stupid to ignore reality - it's fantasizing. Damned dangerous. Those who wish to fantasize, please, by all means, knock yourselves out. Just do it in private and don't diasarm others who might think you know what you're talking about. This is truly dumb and dangerous drivel.
[/ranty-rant]

Posted by .com 2005-03-11 5:33:26 PM|| 2005-03-11 5:33:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Bobby: the Islamic savior

Technically, this is incorrect. There is no such a concept in Islam's tenents as savior (mahdi is the final warrior of submission--the concept of savior is related to a concept of free will). Prophet is the designation. Prophet 'of what' may be a good question... and Rushdie hinted: 'Satanic Verses'.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 5:40:14 PM|| 2005-03-11 5:40:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 My initial letter to a Serbian Lady living in the US

Dear __,
I needed to look up the explict definition of Janisarries so I went to the online encyclopedia - WikiPedia.

There is no entry for Janisarry!

Now anybody can create an entry. As a Serbian I thought you or somebody you know would like a chance to make a "proper" entry with the "proper" slant.
The missing Wikipedia entry goes here.

The best non-political def that google finds is unfortunately PC-Correct and cleaned up:

2. The Spahi and the Janissary

The Ottoman Turk ruler Murad I, who succeeded to the sultanate in 1359 and ruled for thirty years, created a unique regular army about two hundred years before the Europeans started raising regular armies. The Turkish army of this period, like the armies elsewhere, was largely a militia settled on agricultural land in return for military service.
The governors of provinces governed their provinces and commanded their armies. These feudal troops were augmented by irregular unpaid infantry and cavalry who served for the plunder.

The elite of the Turkish army were regular soldiers, 'spahi' cavalry.

The 'spahi' numbered approximately 15,000, they were highly paid, and each man was responsible to recruit and train two to six other men. They were armed with a bow, a sword and a lance and did not wear any armour thereby retaining their capability of manoeuvring; with this system the Turks produced about 100,000 cavalry.

At the beginning of the fourteenth century the Turks organised regular paid infantry but this proved unsatisfactory as the Turks were not accustomed to fighting on foot and did not conform to the necessary discipline. In 1330 it was decided to recruit Christians from the conquered provinces, they were called 'yeni cheri' meaning new troops and the words corrupted to 'janisarry'.

The janissary were recruited by means of blood tax on the Christian provinces, each of which was compelled every year to surrender a quota of boys, between the ages of seven and twelve, distinguished for their strength and intelligence. In the beginning they numbered 20,000 but gradually increased and numbered 135,000 when they mutinied and were destroyed.

The Christian boys while under training received Islamic religious instruction, in 1362 AD special privileges were conferred on them and Turks started to volunteer. In peace time they received no pay, the government provided meat, bread and candles, the commanding officer provided rice, vegetables and butter.

The basic janissary organisation was an 'orta', a company 100 - 300 strong.

Each 'orta' had a red and yellow flag and set of cauldrons for boiling soup and rice; there was a tradition that the 'orta' should not lose its cauldrons in battle and these were guarded by junior officers, if they were lost all the officers were disgraced and the 'orta' was not allowed to parade at public ceremonies. The commander of the janissary was called 'aga', he had a white banner with verses of the Quran embroidered in gold, four flags and three horse tails.

The code of the janisarries was: implicit obedience of their officers;
perfect accord among themselves;
abstinence from luxury, extravagance and practices unseemly of soldiers and brave men;

observance of the religious laws and the tenets of Haji Bektask their patron 'pir';

rules regarding the death penalty, punishment only by their officers;
promotion by merit and seniority;
rules regarding pension;
the keeping of beards, marriage and indulgence in trade was not permitted;
they were required to spend their time drilling and practising the trades of war.

In 1443 they mutinied for the first time, by the middle of sixteenth century the system was corrupted because of the privileges granted to them, in the seventeenth century they started interfering in politics and even dethroned the Sultan.

In 1826, Sultan Mahmud II, obtained a 'fatwa' from Sheikh-ul-Islam that it was the religious duty of the Muslims to do military service and organised the Turkish army on the European pattern;

when the Janissaries mutinied against the new organisation they were driven to their barracks and thousands of them were killed or burnt ending the system.

With these changes in the ways of raising armies and compensating the officers and men the method of compensating military service changed to paid armies which gradually became regular armies.

SHE REPLIED:

In Serbianized version, it's called janjichari (janyichari), yes, they did it to us. It is awful. To send sons back to fight their brothers. Terrible.

But the worst thing the Turks did is torturing and killing people by putting them, alive, on a stick, butt first.

Ivo Andric, a Bosnian Serb who got a Nobel prize for literature, described that scene in his masterpiece, "The Bridge on the Drina". It's translated to English.

It was a required reading in highschool. We analyzed it in detail. People were on the verge of puking. If they made it into a movie, they should get Mel Gibson to direct. ;-))

What's still remaining in Serbian are many Turkish words.

Now after reading this, I finally understand where "ortak" (buddy) comes from.

I didn't even know that word. "Aga" is someone who has a great life, but I already knew where that comes from.

-----

So.. Somebody who has a good grasp on the full historical definition and can hold their emotions in check want to define that word?

Posted by 3dc 2005-03-11 5:47:42 PM|| 2005-03-11 5:47:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 3dc, you've spelled it wrong. janissary
The entry under this spelling is there.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 5:57:31 PM|| 2005-03-11 5:57:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 OK
but that leads to:
Devshirmeh
which leads to:
Dhimmi Peoples
which leads to:
DhimmiWatch

Then to bump back to what the main thread was dancing about....

The Muslim religion outside the Shia is an anarchy. Anybody who wants to can say he is religous and declare a fatwa. No muslim can deny the validity of the fatwa. ergo: evolution may not be possible without a massive thinning of the herd. It, also, explains why the mass is quiet when the Nuts speak. The book demands that they be.

2b: Think about that!

Posted by 3dc 2005-03-11 6:41:56 PM|| 2005-03-11 6:41:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 3dc, anarchy or theocracy, what diff does it make? It has been my long held opinion that Islam has to go as a political ideology. Since there is no separation of political ideology and religion in Islam, then it all can be reduced to simple "Islam has to go". Anihilation of adherents of Islam is not an option--thinning may help some, but ultimately, a slow 'moderation" process won't work, there always be some usama not-bin laiden that would get ideas by simply reading Q'uran, if not in 10 years, then in 50 or 200.

I can think about it all day long, but that does not help much. It would be like moving within some sort of collapsible spiral.

What do you suggest?

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 7:13:02 PM|| 2005-03-11 7:13:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 All these comments are the reason I don't subscribe to organized religion as it exists today. Baptists: If you don't believe our interpretation of the Old and New Testament, you can't go to heaven and will not have "Eternal Life". Islam: If you don't kill "Infidels" and follow to the letter Islamic interpretations of the Quran you will be denied Heaven and Eternal Life. Catholicsism: If you don't follow the edictcs of the Pope and Catholic Hierarchy you will be denied Heaven and Eternal Life. Blind adhereance to religious dogma with no personal responsibility makes a person damned in my opinion. What did Jesus say? Belive on me and thou shalt be saved. (King James Version, which, by the way, I have some issues with). He didn't say I have to follow all the religious edicts of some self-important "religious leader". (see my comments of two nights ago) Humans have an overiding, for the most part, self preservation instinct. This applies to the physical and spiritual. Most religious people want very much to live but know deep down they will eventually die and therefore will follow their religious teachings to insure that they have "Eternal Life". The problem with Islam is that an accolate is insured "Eternal Life" if one kills an infidel in Jihad. Islam is literally a religion of DEATH. Death achieved during killing is elevated in Islam to a gaurantee of Eternal LIfe and rewards of the flesh, eg "72 Virgins". A good life lived under Judaism or Christianity is rewarded with "Eternal Life" and Spiritual rewards. Islam defines the complete debasement of women. Like .com, I am saddened by the fact that we will probably have to kill out this cancer on Human Dignity.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-03-11 7:13:46 PM|| 2005-03-11 7:13:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Oh, I see. suprise..surprise people who run churches or synagogues, like our politicias, are not gods - but SHOCK human and therefore subject to the follies of the human condition......

so just because those who govern and those who preach didn't come from immaculate conceptions - how much better for you to just say a pox on them and pride yourselves in how much better you are for doing nothing but looking down your nose at those who ...for whatever reason be it ambition, pride, or goodness - make it work for others.

Don't be so smug. Just our society has turned Christ into the saccarine white bread Jesus AKA Santa Claus/ToothFairy that will grant your every wish - and you can see that is false - it doesn't mean that you are missing out on the real depth of its meaning.

It's like one of those dots pictures...just because you look at it and don't see it - doesn't mean the picture isn't visible to others.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 8:02:05 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:02:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 2b, DB said "organized religion". Just FYI if you overlooked it.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 8:06:55 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:06:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 .com, DB, sobiesky-interesting comments.

In my opinion, it's not a genetic cause, it's not racial, and in long-view perspective, it's not even WHICH religion you are--it's about humans putting themselves in ritualistic, literalistic trances for whatever cause. That said, the episode in our time IS religion-bound--the unadaptable religion of Islam. The Islamic tradition of submission to tyranny, rapture of death, the petrification of tradition, and the stupification that comes through recitation of texts-these void people of their consciousness of the world around them. The religion has removed will, as one of you said. I would add it has replaced will with a reverence for bloodbaths.

The Enlightenment was a miracle for Western civilization-and it is what differentiates Islamic and non-Islamic societies. IS present day Islamic society WILLING to throw out worn out, failed ideas? We did it when we faced science, learning that the earth isn't flat. Are the minds of Islam fallow to such learning? (And if you think so, why? The only way I could see that is if the better part of "human" in Islam escaped its quarantine and began to think freely.)

The audacity it took us to create flying machines-does Islamic society have that daring when it comes to changing its old, worn out ideas about Jews, about women, about the glory of suicide and murder of innocents, or does it view the attempt as a provocation of God and his laws?

Posted by jules 2 2005-03-11 8:16:48 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:16:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 ..."the hate machine is indoctrination..."

Couldn't agree more with you, 2b.

Posted by jules 2 2005-03-11 8:20:37 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:20:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 I will acknowledge that given the description "Half Full" perhaps I am being a bit of a Pollyanna to think that the Muslim world will change overnight. Actually - half full was a bit kind to me, because the truth is that I was such a pessimist that I was pleasantly shocked to see that the Islamists listed in this article - (and yes .com, I'd say those listed by the author in this article qualify as "staunch") could grasp that they can't rule without consent of the people rather just each and every wanna be claiming they speak for god.

Its true that they plan to use it as an ends to their own means...but so what...it's an evolution for the better if they grasp that only through democratic reforms can they expect to continue to rule. Isn't that how we got rid of kings? In the long run..it will reduce the chance for a Saddam or other tyrant and allow positive evolutions to occur.

I guess where I differ is that I don't believe that these self-proclaimed Mullahs speak for the ordinary mom and dad Muslim anymore than Jessie Jackson speaks for blacks or Pat Robertson speaks for Christians or the Pope speaks for Catholics. Yes...the indoctrination of hate won't go away in our lifetime...but most people - even Muslims - are IMHO good. Let's at least acknowledge that they aren't all bad okay.

TW said she couldn't wait for the Muslim world to kill her children as they come around and get a clue- and she's right. But the WOT will continue and the Jeeha!d losers will fly like moths into the flames of war - the gene pool will improve - and as they are eliminated the world will change for the better.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 8:23:28 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:23:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 jules - good post. And as for the comment about organized religion ...noted.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 8:26:08 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:26:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 re: organized religion - DB I'm sorry I launced unfairly.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 8:32:35 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:32:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 launched.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 8:33:07 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:33:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 2b, you win the prize! The leaders of religions are human and subject to human emotions. The problem I have is sometimes these people convince themselves that their version is "Ordained by God". This applies to all religions that believe in a "God". I happen to believe we are not an "accident" but the human condition is by something's design. Jules, you and I think alike. I have yet to meet someone who looks forward to death as the end of everything. Humans have such a tight hold on life they are unwilling to relinquish it, therefore the belief in "life after death". You will find this in all "religions. I find the teachings of Jesus very closely resemble Buhddhism. Islam glorifies death and hate whearas Christianity glorifies life and love. as I said, I am saddened by the reality that we will have to kill a lot of people to guarentee the survival of the Human race. It is my personal opinion that Islam is a dead end for humanity.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-03-11 8:46:00 PM|| 2005-03-11 8:46:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 DB, I happen to believe we are not an "accident" but the human condition is by something's design.

Well, let's just say that we are participants in that design. There are two concepts that are contained in Vedas. One is the anthropomorphized concept of "God" as is known from most of the religions, the other is more akin to modern concept of conscious multiverse where some form of impetus endowed autonomous conscious entities that exercise creativity by use of free will.

In some form, the second concept can be traced through all the religions, but it has been overlayed by the anthropomorphized God to such a degree that it is barely recognizable.

The belief in "life after death" has similar complexity. There is some core that is based on human experience. I don't believe that the origin of the concept is based on "sucha a hold on life that they are unwilling to relinquish it", people know that they would have to relinquish it, but see no reason do it prematurely. I may have personal reasons to consider this idea to be held as true. With a stipulation that I don't believe we do continue as an individual in the same mold as we are now, if so, then only for duration when this illusion is discarded as untrue.

In most organized religions, the anthropomorphization of God is also influencing the concept of life-after-death. Sort of like a tabloid explanation for a mass consumption.

In Islam, this goes into an extreme where the idea of life-after-death has been rendered into a carnal image of never-ending sexual gratification.
Apparently, that is what Mohammed was after. But he was also after power. This is projected into the Islam core in spades. The glorification of death is meant to increase power (conceptually derived from the black magic type of belief that deity has to be fed to gain favors from it) and the images of sexual conquests in paradise are a carrot that serves to reinforce the thrust of power. The clerics themselves do not readily offer their sacrifice on the altar of Mohammedanism (or that their offspring for that matter). It is for the others to internalize these concepts. If the glorification of death was truly the basic tenent of the religion, we would have no problem with Islam today--they will be all gone to see their maker--Jim Jones/Heavens Gate style.

I am saddened by the reality that we will have to kill a lot of people to guarentee the survival of the Human race.

Maybe not. All we need to do is to render the religion invalid. The chances that we can make atheist of muslims are nil. Therefore, we need to find a way how to replace Islam with something that incorporates basic human values derived from the golden rule that "do unto others as you wish them do unto you". It has to be a sudden, watershed event for it to work, else it would resurface again.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 10:05:32 PM|| 2005-03-11 10:05:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 well..I'm all alone here...but look at Afghanistan. They seem to be able to handle it. I have faith that the Muslim people, despite being given a religion that hinders them by encouraging them to wallow in victimimization, shame and blame ..rather than forgivenss. People are people. It's as crazy to paint a brush across all the people of the Muslim world with the crazy Muslim brush as it is to paint all Americans as automatron Christians. There are crazy wacky jihadis and there are billions of good people.

Remember there are billions of them. I'm not sure that the majority of them are that much worse off than the French or our own shame/blame/victimization liberals. I think, given democracy, they will come around just fine.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:16:08 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:16:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 and one last thought for those of you so quick to blame religion for all the worlds ills. Communism managed to excise organized religion. How many people did communism kill?

The kind of people who whip up jihadi's or commrades to kill are the same.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:22:54 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:22:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 2b, re #43, if you address moi, I think you've misread what I am saying.

re #43, communism is another form of organized religion. It has its specific characteristics that may seem to be antireligious, but the modus operandi is at par with organized religions. Cult of personality replaces a deity (an anthropomorphized God).

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 11:32:47 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:32:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 well...ok...I agree with you about that. But that kind of gets back to my point that need for religion, like government, is a part of the human condition. Isolate humans on a desert island and they will create a religion to help explain that which we can not understand....as well as a government. It's just that for both of those things - some ideas work much better than others.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:49:40 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:49:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 2b, that's what I am saying too. Hencetoforth the word 'replacement' figures in my post prominently.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-11 11:56:05 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:56:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 help explain that which we can not understand and also to provide a sense of purpose and hope.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:56:12 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:56:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 the clock has run out... thanks for the discussion.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-11 11:57:31 PM|| 2005-03-11 11:57:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Prolly too late anyway...

I certainly hope 2b and I are correct not ALL muslims will hafta be killed so we can live in peace, 'cuz if we're wrong, and they ALL hafta go, it sounds like Armeggedon to me!

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-12 12:01:40 AM|| 2005-03-12 12:01:40 AM|| Front Page Top

00:01 Bobby
23:57 2b
23:56 2b
23:56 Sobiesky
23:53 Sobiesky
23:50 trailing wife
23:49 2b
23:45 trailing wife
23:44 Bomb-a-rama
23:40 kachikel
23:34 trailing wife
23:32 Sobiesky
23:22 2b
23:19 Sheik Abu Bin Ali Al-Yahood
23:16 2b
23:15 Sheik Abu Bin Ali Al-Yahood
23:14 Bobby
22:56 trailing wife
22:55 SteveS
22:54 Frank G
22:53 Frank G
22:49 trailing wife
22:43 trailing wife
22:40 trailing wife