Hats off to an absoultely stunning empire

There is a lot to be said about the complexities and efficiency of the Ottoman empire. Looking at its composition, hierarchies and institutions, it is easier to understand how it was one of the most influential empires spanning over centuries. The idea that they would have a form of slavery that is supported by a human tax collected every seven years from non-Muslim families yet enable these same slaves to gain political advancement based on merit, is simply mind-boggling. It puts to shame all of the slave systems that all of the western states ever put together that were oppressive and denigrating to the slaves unlike with the Janissaries that were an integral part of the Sultan's court and were absolutely loyal to him. That is genius in my book, when you conscript so called outcasts of society, in this case non-Muslim children, and incorporate them into your culture and giving them the dignity and opportunity to advance based on their ability. Although they later turned out to be the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, at its peak, the Janissaries were a huge power force that was admired within the Ottoman society. This was regardless of the fact that they were never full Muslims having been inculcated into the faith.

The nature of truth in history

When studying history anyone can tell you that there comes a time when you have to question the authenticity of the writer of a book, the speaker or even the witness account. So much information that we analyze as seekers of knowledge is subject to the vagaries of human emotion, motivation of the source of information or timing of when the information is relayed. So one has to ask what truth is.

My take on such a debate is that everything is to be taken with a grain if not a pinch of salt, maybe even the whole jar; after all historical facts have been twisted time and time again to suit the purposes of who is relaying the truth. But even as i say this, i am also of the opinion that for as long as the lack of objectivity on the part of the source does not totally change the nature or sequence of how events took place, then it is permissible in as much as it gives a variety of opinions and perceptions. This enables the student of history to question opinions, seek different versions of truth, and judge on what is truly acceptable. The sources of history can never be truly objective and unbiased because of the human element so this very weakness of the source is its strength in providing a basis for comparison with other sources.

Challenging the attitudes

First day of class and all i wanted to do was just to sit back and assimilate all that i had missed in prior classes and all that was going on today. To my pleasant surprise what i had been expecting to be an oration of historical facts and events turned out to be a lively debate on the rightness or lack thereof of women covering themselves up primarily in the Muslim culture but also in other cultures such as here in the US.

Whereas some saw it as a means of oppression and couldn't believe that a woman would choose to cover up as a feminist stance or of her own voluntary will, i was of the opinion that its a woman's choice which i would willingly take because of how it can instill confidence, dignity and a higher self-esteem- not to mention that people would likely treat me with more respect than if i were more scantily clad. In fact, i find the hijab could very well be a fashionable item to have in one's wardrobe and i would wear it without either being forced, feeling oppressed or less of a woman. The act of covering oneself up as opposed to minimal clothing impacts how people perceive and react to you and in my mind the choice solely lies in the hands of the woman herself (if not then it should) depending on the impression she is trying to make.