Yes, the Ottoman Empire drafted young Christian boys from the Balkans, converted them to Islam and trained them as soldiers for the sultan’s army.
Wow, drafted? Really? Even in your own source (I didnt stick with just the atrocious incident but went on reading the Jannissaries article) it says
According to military historian Michael Antonucci, every five years, Turkish administrators would scour their regions for the strongest sons of the sultan’s Christian subjects. These boys, usually between the ages of 10 and 12, were then forcibly taken from their parents and enrolled in Janissary training. The recruit was immediately indoctrinated into the ways of Islam. He was supervised 24 hours a day and subjected to severe discipline. He was prohibited from growing a beard, taking up a skill other than war, or marrying
This was through the devsirme system
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme
Devşirme was the practice by which the Ottoman Empire conscripted boys from Christian families, who were taken from their families and by force converted to Islam,[1] trained and enrolled in one of the four imperial institutions: the Palace, the Scribes, the Religious and the Military.
The devşirme system humiliated non-Muslim societies controlled by the Ottomans and was resisted.[2][3] There were however cases of Christian parents bribing officials to take their children.[4]
They were technically in a slave status & had no choice as to their future if they wished to live. Some went on to become successful in their role & some were eventually able to exert great power within the organization they were forced in to. Now we call that The Stockholm Syndrome no? Kidnapping children from their homes, carrying them to a foreign country, forcing them to convert to another religion, being under guard 24 hrs a day, not to mention all the sources cite the extremely strict discipline they endured, is there any wonder these kids became what they became? Because some eventually gained status that somehow negates all that was done to them? That is rather twisted thinking to me.
I did not claim that the British did not have anything to do with the problems there, I was saying that the idea that it is the only issue is either, to use your terms, a misunderstanding or a lie.Bostom’s book deals with the historical sources of the conquering, which was centuries before the British. Using your source,
Islamic scholars differ on whether Hindus are People of the Book.[9] The Islamic conquest of India necessitated that the definition be revised, as most India’s inhabitants were followers of the Indian religions. Many of the Muslim clergy of India considered Hindus as people of the book,[9] and from Muhhammad-bin-Kasim to Aurangzib, Muslim rulers were willing to consider Hindus as people of the book.[8] Many Muslims did not treat Hindus as pagans or idol-worshippers,[9] although Hinduism does not include Adam, Eve and the various prophets of Abrahamic religions.
That tells me that, especially in the early days of the conquering, they were not considered people of the book and out of necessity they were later.Also, they are not considered protected until they accept dhimmi status. After all, you cant possible kill that many millions of people, who would pay the taxes to keep the ruling classes in power?
As we have seen, again from this source
Throughout Islamic history, Muslims have used these ayah (verses) to justify a variety of positions towards non-Muslims. In some places and times, Muslims showed a great deal of tolerance towards non-Muslims; in other places and times non-Muslims were treated as enemies and persecuted. Islamic law demands that Muslims treat Jews and Christians as dhimmis, a legal status inferior to that of a Muslim but superior to that of other non-Muslims.
The status of who is considered protected or not is fluid. Depending on how things are going for the empire, the rulers may be benevolent & relax some of the restrictions, other times a scapegoat was needed & they were targets again, the local people have also been known to suddenly scapegoat their local dhimmi populations for some offence against islam or not following the sharia closely enough. Such as the Grenada massacre of 1066, that whole “golden age” of tolerance in Europe by the muslims toward Jews.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre
On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in Muslim-ruled al-Andalus, assassinated Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred many of the Jewish population of the city.[1][2]
Nowadays we jokingly call this “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” but it is no joke.
You have said repeatedly that full sharia is not practiced by any government in the world. That may be true, but does that mean that because the minority populations are not paying jizya they are somehow full citizens with full rights & protections in those places? Even where there is technically a secular government, islam is enshrined in the constitutions of many of them as the highest law of the land. The regular people often take things into their own hands against the minority populations knowing that the police & government will not investigate and punish them harshly. Even today the Copt population in Egypt is protesting the Government because of the lack of protection for them from those who are attacking them. They are being attacked because the islamists claim that some women who allegedly converted to islam to obtain a divorce are being held by the church. the church denies this but the attacks continue.
What about the Christians who are being murdered in Iraq? Is there justification for this other than jihad?
urchase-of-cows-hindus-condemn-attack-on-muslims-by-saffron-activists&catid=57:news-stories&Itemid=18