Religious Police

http://news.aol.com/article/saudi-woman-sentenced-to-lashes/375581

This is an article I found on AOL news. It describes how a 75 year old woman in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to four months in jail and forty lashes for asking two men to deliver her five loaves of bread. 

Granted I understand Islamic beliefs are much different than Catholic and other beliefs but this seems extremely harsh. She is a recent widow and only asked for a loaf of bread. According to the article women are not allowed to mingle with men that are not immediate family. The "religious police" as they call it convicted her and she is not currently carrying out her sentence because of appeals.

I believe the "religious police" are an outrageous idea. Even Saudi's are complaining that they have been overstepping their boundaries more and more. 

This is just another example of the differences between Middle Eastern culture and American culture, even so I don't see how you can defend such action and punishment, even if you are from that region.

The Proclamation

Reading the Proclamation it resembles the American Bill of Rights in many ways. I always think its interesting to see how others have adapted to history, as people say we must learn from history, or become history. Numerous laws that the Gulhane Proclamation lay out were first made in the Bill of Rights of American society. 

Security for Life, Honor, and Fortune or from the Bill of Rights - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.

Each one shall be publicly judged - or from the Bill of Rights - due process and trial by jury.

The list goes on and on. This document seems to lay out the laws and guidelines to being a successful territory. The United States Bill of Rights does exactly that and it seems these two documents could go hand in hand, except they were written more than a hundred years apart. 

Zayni Barakat

I found aspects of this book interesting, and aspects very hard to follow. Being a historical fiction I did find its hard to really know what is total truth and what is story telling. The names also confused me as I found myself having to look back and figure out who was who. I liked how the book described the structure of power and how every official seemed to be spying on another. That made the book very interesting and gave it sort of a dramatic twist. 

Barakat himself was a very interesting man and I believe he was the first of his kind. His radical ways may not have been suitable for the time period and his time as Muhastib but he definitely turned a few heads with his approach. Speaking with people directly was a new idea that the people loved, but the officials hated. It seemed like anything that was good for the people the other officials did not like. Even the Sultan says that anytime someone wants justice you come and shoot him down, which really describes how officials seem threatened by other power. But how different is that really from todays society. Its all about power and people in positions of power become fearful that they will do something or someone else will do something that will affect their status and position. 

To Die in Jerusalem

The movie was both very informative but also very frustrating for me. I still fail to understand each sides stance on the conflict. To me the Palestinian's seem very defensive and the Israeli's seem very aggressive, wether right or wrong on either side thats how it appears to me. Both on a large scale and a smaller scale. The movie deals with two families who have fallen victim to a suicide bombing. The Palestinian families daughter was the bomber and the Israeli families daughter was the victim. I think it describes very well the differences in thought that each side has. By describing in detail from such a small scale it shows the magnitude of the larger scale. I think the Palestinian family seems to defend her daughter, especially when the father says dying like that is an honorable way to go because everyone is going to die sometime anyway. 

 

I sympathize more with the Israeli mother, but more with the Palestinian people. I try to understand how the Palestinians feel because they are being occupied by force and it seems they do not live free in their own land. However, the violence they use in retaliation effects this one Israeli mother in such a way that I must sympathize with her. She was only going to the supermarket and that is no place to die. I understand that Israelis are using force in Palestine and that the Palestinians seem to have no choice but to use force back. It just seems that suicide bombing is a cowardly thing to do. Granted the occupation is nothing to be proud of either. I guess I don't really sympathize with either of them now. 

 

I appreciate what Rachael's mother is trying to do, she sincerely wants to meet Ayat's parents to see how they really feel about the situation. If she can see how they speak to her she can understand if they truly knew what Ayat was planning. It seems to me that Rachael's mother has good intentions with speaking to the other mother but they turn it into an argument. The whole discussion was supposed to be about the bombing and they just want to talk about the occupation, like Rachael's mother planned the whole occupation. But Ayat actually did plan the bombing and thats all Rachael's mother wanted to know. 

 

While watching the film I tend to feel like they use God as a scapegoat and that everything is God's fault. I am Catholic and I don't feel that God truly makes you do anything, free will is a real concept. Rachael's mother was an individual effected by a bombing and Ayat's mother is an individual effected by the occupation. Neither one of them win in this situation. 

Slavery

Yesterday was our big discussion on The Imperial Harem. One of the most controversial issues we discussed was slavery. Its interesting to compare slavery of the Americas and Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. I tend to feel that the only reason we compare the two is because of the term "slavery." The slavery in the Americas was different than the slavery in the Ottoman Empire. Yes both were technically against the will of the two parties, but the situations of the two were completely different. The slavery in the Ottoman Empire was a life of luxury and opportunity. Even though it was required for these women to live in the Harem and do their duties there it allowed for success and opportunity. If these women were capable of receiving education and wealth then it doesn't seem so bad to me. Looking at the slavery in the Americas there was no opportunity for luxury or advancement in society. Everything in American slavery was forced labor and much harsher conditions than those of the Ottoman Empire. I don't believe they are comparable, yes they were both called slavery but I find it hard to believe that these women were very upset about being in the Harem. These women did it for their children as well. I think slavery is the wrong term for the women of the Harem, maybe another term would be more accurate for their situation.

Success

When we talk about the Ottoman Empire we usually talk about all the things they did differently than other empires in history. I think some of these things really contributed to its extended success. Something that I find very interesting was their idea of tolerance. At this time period who would think that an empire would come in and take over rule, but not force people to change their ways of life. Not changing their religion may have kept the successful times for the Ottoman Empire. Of course Islam was the first and most powerful religion in this society but they did not force it on Christians and Jews. I also think it is interesting how the Millets worked in society. Each religion had their own courts and depending on who had conflicts a certain religious court was chosen to deal with them. This is extremely groundbreaking, not having the Muslim courts rule over every conflict really helped allow the other religions of the empire to feel they could have an impact on their own lives even though they have been over ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Its really interesting to see the successful things the Ottoman Empire accomplished, and to see other empires make mistakes that they could have learned from other empires before their time. 

The Start of the Ottoman Empire

In class we talked about the three conditions to the uprising of the Ottoman Empire. Those conditions being the migration westward to where the empire would be set up, the Mongol Invasion, and the Crusades. Whenever we talk about history and the events of the past I always tend to think how things would be now if something were different in history. Take the three conditions for example. How would the empire and the Middle East look now if any one of these three conditions happened differently, or not at all. It could have changed the entire complexion of the geographic region, and even the people who live there now.  Think about The Battle of Nanzikert (the Seljuqs vs. the Bizentyne Empire). Lets just say that the Bizentyne Empire prevailed and stood for "x" amount of years more. Who knows what that empire could have accomplished for good, or destroyed for the worst. The whole Middle East, and even the world would be so much different then it is today. This would mean that the Ottoman Empire would not begin in 1299. I guess it may be pointless to think about these things seeing as it has already happened and the world is how it is. But just keep in mind how the smallest detail could alter history.