Devshirme and sexslavery in Ottoman

Baldtastic · Nov 8, 2013

Reis said:
Not true.

The devshirme system is simply the modified version of the Ghulam and Ghilman systems , the roots of it lying in the Azatan class of the Sassanids.
You can find similar examples from the Abbasids to the Mamlukes.

If you read the rest of the post you quoted, your see i'm basing that information
on what i have been told in this thread.

I didn't know it was such a central part Islam though (Abbasids to the Mamlukes).

Ayazid · Nov 8, 2013

Reis said:
I personally am not aware of Shia being raided and taken as slaves , that is if they were not captured during a war with Iran.
Let us also be clear on one thing : no person belonging to the Ottoman millet whether Christian or Muslim can be simply raided let alone taken as a slave.
Raids were restricted only to foreign countries.

Actually, after the conversion of Iran to Shia Islam during the Safavid rule, the Sunni Turkmens of Karakum used to raid nearby regions of Iran in order to capture slaves, on the pretext that they were heretics and not true Muslims. This ended only during the second half of the 19th century.

Quoting a middle 19th century European account:

As the Persians are of the Shia sect, and the Turkomans of the Sunni, the latter justify themselves on the ground that to seize on a Persian and sell him is lawful; others, however, are more sincere, and own that if the Persians, instead of Shia, had been Sunni, then they themselves must have turned Shia, — as the circumstance of being of the same religion might have interfered perhaps with their present lucrative trade. These religious scruples do not prevent them, however, from capturing persons of their own religious persuasion and their own tribe, with whom they happen to be in enmity, and fixing enormous prices for their release.

Efendi · Nov 8, 2013

antocya said:
Sorry I don't really understand your post here.

Devsirme system isn't fair.

Outcome of It isn't necessarily a tragedy.

Reis · Nov 8, 2013

Ayazid said:
Actually, after the conversion of Iran to Shia Islam during the Safavid rule, the Sunni Turkmens of Karakum used to raid nearby regions of Iran in order to capture slaves, on the pretext that they were heretics and not true Muslims. This ended only during the second half of the 19th century.

Quoting a middle 19th century European account:

I know of this , they also raided into Afghanistan but I fail to see the connection to the Ottoman Empire.

Baldtastic said:
If you read the rest of the post you quoted, your see i'm basing that information
on what i have been told in this thread.

I didn't know it was such a central part Islam though (Abbasids to the Mamlukes).

Traditionally it was Turks,Circassians and sometimes various peoples of the Caucasus that were recruited to the Ghulam-Ghilman system.

El Cid · Nov 8, 2013

El Cid said:
If you think you can run away with inaccuracy and half true postulates then you are completely wrong. With the facts of the Umars Pacts, Jizya, Dhimma, diaries of Niebuhr, increasing of indigenous people under Islamic rule, the facts that Europe had and has the majority of the world’s jewish population, the facts that Ottoman Empire used Christian slaves, I can easily encounter your views.

Bemoaning will not save you.

One has made me aware of this. There should be a "decreasing", not "increasing" as i have written above.

Ayazid · Nov 9, 2013

Reis said:
I know of this , they also raided into Afghanistan but I fail to see the connection to the Ottoman Empire.

There is none. Just an interesting historical fact. On another note, it's kind of ironic that the Turkmens of Central Asia acted as defenders of Sunni orthodoxy, whereas the nomadic Turkish clans of Anatolia were known for their "heretic" tendencies.

Reis · Nov 9, 2013

Ayazid said:
On another note, it's kind of ironic that the Turkmens of Central Asia acted as defenders of Sunni orthodoxy,

I dont know if the raided Iran because of their faith or because it was close undefended and selling slaves was a big part of their income.

Ayazid said:
whereas the nomadic Turkish clans of Anatolia were known for their "heretic" tendencies.

Depends on the clan and the region.Usually the newer ones from remoter regions were more likely to be lax in their religious views.

Afrasiyab · Nov 9, 2013

El Cid said:
It doesn’t change anything at all – You are practicing quibbling and euphemism.

What does not change what?

I never stated “all” but a “majority”. Nor did I use the term “wives”, since I referred to concubines/sexslaves.

And my post was not a response to yours solely; the conversation was heading to that corner through others and I made an entry.

That is a false statement. The mostly of the sexslaves brought into the harem for sultans or rich Muslim men were of Christian origins and from raids or war since Islamic law forbade capturing other Muslims. Political diplomacy of sending women into the harem or as princesses from Christian sphere covers a tiny and insignificant part of the whole scale. - So no, it was not a common practice.

What's false? Of course they were majority Christian because a Muslim cannot be enslaved, as I said before. And you are wrong, look into the haseki (sultan's wife who gave birth to sons) in the Ottoman Empire. Most of them belonged to royal families.

I cannot erase a contemplation that only exists in your mind. If you try to make an effort and scan my posts, then you would realize that I have never mentioned “all”but a “majority”. - So you better book an appointment for the ophthalmology and refrain from idiosyncratic postulates onwards if you cannot distinguish between "all" and "majority

Again, I was not responding to you solely. If I had, I would have quoted you. And you are not funny if you were trying to make a joke here. After all, the main purpose of the thread seems to bash the Ottomans, not the curiosity or knowledge. Au revoir.

El Cid · Nov 9, 2013

Afrasiyab said:
What does not change what?

What?

Afrasiyab said:
And my post was not a response to yours solely.

Solely? That doesn’t imply that your post not was aimed to me as well.

Afrasiyab said:
What's false?

Your insinuation that the majority of the sexslaves/concubines was a result of diplomacy from Christian sphere and that it was a common practice.

Afrasiyab said:
And you are wrong, look into the haseki (sultan's wife who gave birth to sons) in the Ottoman Empire. Most of them belonged to royal families.

Again, we are not debating “wife”, but sexslaves/concubines.

Afrasiyab said:
Again, I was not responding to you solely.

Well, “solely” doesn’t imply that your post not was aimed to me as well.

Afrasiyab said:
And you are not funny if you were trying to make a joke here .

Why do you think it was a joke?

Afrasiyab said:
After all, the main purpose of the thread seems to bash the Ottomans, not the curiosity or knowledge.

Nope. I am honestly interesting. That you don’t like these topics I brought is your problem.

Afrasiyab said:
Au revoir.

Auf wiedersehen.

Search

Search

Devshirme and sexslavery in Ottoman

Baldtastic

Ayazid

Efendi

Reis

El Cid

Ayazid

Reis

Afrasiyab

El Cid

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions