” The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power had a comparable population to France, despite having ten times the land area.” When was this? Perhaps the Ottoman Turks themselves were only comparable in number with the French, but in- say- the sixteenth century I doubt that the population of North Africa, Arabia and large chunks of Asia and Europe were comparable in population with France, leaving aside the fact that the area ruled was much more than ten times as large as France anyway. A better comparisn would be with Venice- one of the first proto-capitaist states- and its empire, which had a population less than a tenth as large and an empire about a hundredth as large as the ottoman empire but could still effectively resist Ottoman expansion for about two hundred years.

Salam, I just got to say that I am absolutely shocked by some people’s attitudes. At what point do we stop and think to ourselves, “let’s talk about how someone got drunk 500 years ago”. I see that they want to debate the issue of whether or not someone is a wali, pious person, or whatever, but to talk about this by bringing up accusations of drunkardness etc, just isn’t on.

Just a few points:

1)So what if one side says Selim was a wali and one side doesn’t? If you want to debate this, then don’t stoop so low as to mention praying and drunkedness.

2) I am disgusted at Jinnzaman’s lack of respect, he just seems to go around causing irrelevant debates about thermodynamics, matter being uncreated etc. Just look at his arguments with the Shaykh at Sunnianswers.

3) How many Shaykhs and rulers have been contraversial in the past? Many. Ok, Ibn Iyas was around at the time of Selim, so what? How many Imam’s have criticised each other and been contemporaries? Too many to count. Did Ibn Iyas meet Selim, did he see that he didn’t pray and was drunk? Why is Ibn Iyas’s word any more true than Selim’s other contemporaries?

4) What’s worse? Drinking or talking about matter being uncreated and bringing up useless debates? Who’s better? Someone who fights for Islam or someone who talks about a decent topic but then brings it down to the gutters by talking about a dead person’s alledged indecency?

5) If you want to believe that Selim was a tyrant, then be my guest. But don’t talk like it has been proven, and don’t ask us to believe in the word of one Imam in that particular era because it suits your beliefs. And I am not talking about Yusuf, I am talking about Jinnzaman.

6) Boy tribute in Europe? Doesn’t anyone know that slavery was around in those days? Why do the Ottomans have to apologize? Why not Salahadin or Harun Rasid or any Muslim ruler in history? Oppresive innovation? Would any slave think they weren’t being oppressed? Would you like to be taken as a slave? Would you think it made a difference whether you were taken as a slave during war or thereafter?

Come on bros, let’s get over this rubbish. Leave Selim and every caliph alone. And Jinnzaman, stop causing trouble, stop bringing up issues like thermodynamics, and Shaykh Nazim’s alledged bidas and every other useless points like you have done on Marifah! And before you ask, no, i am not a murid. Just a sinner. :)

Hmmm, the post has been taken off the brothers blog.

Sorry, I should have emphasised that even by muslim standards at the time the forcible conscription and conversion of subject children was immoral and illegal. Even when the ottomans imposed boy-tax on their subjects the practise had muslim critics. That was one of the points I was making. The other, the caliphophiles’- to coin a phrase- enthusiasm for restoring slavery, still stands too. You are confusing the janissaries at different times, H. In the early days the janissaries were conscripted from Balkan christian subjects and were not allowed to marry and- given the continual military activity of the ottoman empire- had to be regularly replenished. Later they were allowed to marry and effectively became a hereditary “caste” with no need- or desire, because it would reduce their privileges- for further admissions. They were also militarily obsolete by then against European or European-trained armies but refused to learn new skills or abandon old privileges. Then you could justifiably compare them with the mamelukes. Incidentally, IJ, the fact that janissary conscription “was ended long before the Ottoman empire fell,” may not “excuse local hostility to Muslims” but time does not necessarily estroy gruges: the muslims who still lament the fall of Andalus regret something that happened even longer ago. One of the main causes of Serb- and Croat- hostility to muslims is partly a class element- it’s noteworthy that propaganda for the muslims of Bosnia-Herzevogina in the Yugoslav wars emohasised the midle-class and administrative backgrounds of many of the muslims, without realising that it was precisely that class-aspect which inspired hostility- and partly that they are thought of as hereditary quislings, opportunists who converted for privilege and who want to keep those privileges. When Bosnia-Herzevogina came under Habsburg control the main concern of the native muslim elite was that they should retain their secualar privileges, which included control of the last serfs in Europe. In Yugoslavia muslim was an ethnic- hereditary- classification and identity rather than a religious one.