Why Arabs Lose Wars (a military analysis)

The janisary was NOT a Christian slaves regiment

Janissaries were Muslims but were discriminated (initially) on the basis of race by the Ottomons. As far as I know they were they were bought by the Ottomons at a very  young age from Christian families and raised as Muslims. Strict discipline was enforced over them. I read somewhere that they got castrated by the Muslims. Though the Janissaires were initially discriminated, they did get their rights later  and found a legitimate place in the Turkish society.

Community wrote: Indeed underestimating the enemy is dangerous and obviously should be avoided. this is not an underestimation of the enemy though, it is just an observance that with dictatorships the armies are a reflection of the way in which they rule, through fear and mistrust and these two have a very disadvantuous impact on a military. I believe the arabs would make a formidable force if they were'nt so focused on remaining in power no matter what the cost. Because clearly the costs have a negative impact on society and their armies. But instead of remaining in power they should focus on freeing their people from this opressive mentality of keeping people ignorant to be able to be in charge of them and keeping them under through fear politics. Once this happens you will see the arab world rising with the fruits of islam, which amongst others are knowledge nobleness and dignity for the whole of mankind. Without islam i do not think the arabs will be able to achieve this. And islam is not about achieving power but the realization that all power belongs to Allah, and that we as human beings need to better ourselves, and aslong the ones who are given power do not keep you from gaining knowledge or hold knowledge back from you so they can stay in power and as long they do not forbid you from practising your faith, this is freedom, and this is the way forward.

I see your interpretation of Islam and that of mine  much different. In the present context, upholding Islam to me means imposing the Sharia (that however, doesn't mean that I am claiming to be a perfect myself). Dictatorship is not an Arab phenomenon alone. Outside the West and Japan, democracy is an exception (at least, that was the case only 15 years back).

Although, those who are in power are rich, most of the Arabians are very poor. That probably explains why corruption is so rife amongst them (people take to earning through illegal means if they cannot earn enough through legal means). If the distribution of the wealth is even, corruption automatically tends to be less. But for distribution of wealth to be even, corruption should be less. I see the Arabs and also, most of the Third World, caught up in this vicious cycle. 

One way of ensuring more even distribution of wealth is to generate  employment. But that, in turn, won't happen if the corruption is high.

ZamanH wrote: Community wrote: Indeed underestimating the enemy is dangerous and obviously should be avoided. this is not an underestimation of the enemy though, it is just an observance that with dictatorships the armies are a reflection of the way in which they rule, through fear and mistrust and these two have a very disadvantuous impact on a military. I believe the arabs would make a formidable force if they were'nt so focused on remaining in power no matter what the cost. Because clearly the costs have a negative impact on society and their armies. But instead of remaining in power they should focus on freeing their people from this opressive mentality of keeping people ignorant to be able to be in charge of them and keeping them under through fear politics. Once this happens you will see the arab world rising with the fruits of islam, which amongst others are knowledge nobleness and dignity for the whole of mankind. Without islam i do not think the arabs will be able to achieve this. And islam is not about achieving power but the realization that all power belongs to Allah, and that we as human beings need to better ourselves, and aslong the ones who are given power do not keep you from gaining knowledge or hold knowledge back from you so they can stay in power and as long they do not forbid you from practising your faith, this is freedom, and this is the way forward. I see your interpretation of Islam and that of mine  much different. In the present context, upholding Islam to me means imposing the Sharia (that however, doesn't mean that I am claiming to be a perfect myself). Dictatorship is not an Arab phenomenon alone. Outside the West and Japan, democracy is an exception (at least, that was the case only 15 years back). Although, those who are in power are rich, most of the Arabians are very poor. That probably explains why corruption is so rife amongst them (people take to earning through illegal means if they cannot earn enough through legal means). If the distribution of the wealth is even, corruption automatically tends to be less. But for distribution of wealth to be even, corruption should be less. I see the Arabs and also, most of the Third World, caught up in this vicious cycle.  One way of ensuring more even distribution of wealth is to generate  employment. But that, in turn, won't happen if the corruption is high.

"I see your interpretation of Islam and that of mine  much different. In the present context, upholding Islam to me means imposing the Sharia"

The reason for my interpretation of islam being like it is, is because i look at the meaning of the name "islam" itself, it means submission for the sake of peace(with Allah). And how one achieves peace with Him is through observing His laws and commands and leaving that which He forbids, doing what He likes for us to do and leaving what He dislikes. I understand the sharia as being detailed in the koran. But i think the shariah has become more and more influenced by intolerant and unjust interpretations and this results in injustice instead of the true goal of the true shariah which is justice. Maybe examples like the Taliban and other examples has made people see the shariah in a wrong light and someone needs to correct the mistakes made by men in it and give it back it's true function which is justice and not injustice, see i believe when the prophet judged between people, there was not many people who would see his judgement as unjust. But rather as atleast more just then the judgment passed by the polytheists and the people without faith. So i think what should be foremost is justice, and not blind adherence to something that has after all been under the influence of men. Justice can be discussed and agreed upon. And this discussion should not only be made by religious scholars but also by the people whom the laws will affect especially women. People should remember i feel, that with judging mercy and forgiveness and doing things the best way and thus the most effective way possible should be at the top of all other considerations.

"If the distribution of the wealth is even, corruption automatically tends to be less. But for distribution of wealth to be even, corruption should be less. I see the Arabs and also, most of the Third World, caught up in this vicious cycle."

I think this is very true, what do you think about the US policy towards debt relief and aid for Africa, in that they will relieve them of their debt and give them aid on the condition that the nations involved fight and end corruption? Do you think this is a reasonable and achievable condition?