The Ottoman Law of Fratricide

The Ottoman empire implemented the principle of rule by slaves, in which the successor to the current Sultan would be one of the sons that he would have sired to his slave girls. Most other civil servants were also purchased, captured, or otherwise confiscated by the Ottoman State for the purpose of governing the empire. Just like the Ottomans, I personally also prefer rule by slaves. Therefore, I would have a vested interest in the fact that such system would have to keep working properly.

One problem that occurred was that the Sultan could have more than one shahzade (Ottoman Prince). These other shahzade could challenge the authority of their ruling brother. Therefore, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror's Law of Governance imparted the right of executing the male members of the dynasty to his son. Two sultans cannot live in the same country. If any of my sons ascend the throne, it acceptable for him to kill his brothers for the common benefit of the people (nizam-i alem). The majority of the ulama (muslim scholars) have approved this. Let action be taken accordingly.

I personally also think that this basic principle is sound. However, I also think that there may be ways to avoid some of the bloodletting that goes with it.

It would be possible for the Sultan's household to only keep the first-born son, and from there on to dispose of all other males born to the Sultan's slave girls, before they are able to remember their names. If you put the Sultan's non-successor son in an unidentified basket indistinguishable from the baskets of nine other male orphans of similar age, on a rotating wheel, it should be possible rotate this wheel long enough until nobody present can remember which basket contains the Sultan's son. Each orphan would now be 10% likely to be the Sultan's son. Next, we can repeat this procedure in ten other cities or locations, and turn the wheel again. Now, each orphan is 1% likely to be the Sultan's son. We could repeat this procedure often enough in order to guarantee that the likelihood of an orphan to be the Sultan's son would drop below a chosen treshold, for example, 0.025%. Of course, this procedure is limited by the number of male orphans available in the empire. This would also encourage the Sultan to provide enough resources for the upkeep of orphans, since his own sons would be amongst them.

What do you think? Would it be better to let the successor-shahzade execute his brothers or better to dispose of them as unidentifiable orphans?

surely there is at least a third option.


....it's not game of thrones.

M.I.A. said:

surely there is at least a third option. .... it's not game of thrones.

Click to expand...

They had decided that doing nothing was not an option:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fratricide

In the Ottoman Empire a policy of judicial royal fratricide was introduced by Sultan Mehmet II whose grandfather Mehmet I had to fight a long and bloody civil war against his brothers (which brought the empire near to destruction) to take the throne. When a new Sultan ascended to the throne he would imprison all of his surviving brothers and kill them by strangulation with a silk cord as soon as he had produced his first male heir. The largest killing took place on the succession of Mehmet III when 19 of his brothers were killed and buried with their father. The aim was to prevent civil war. Reflecting public disapproval, his successor Ahmed I abandoned the practice, replacing it with life imprisonment in the Kafes, a section of the Ottoman palace.

well if it's any consolation all empires only have a time..

19 ways of acquiring strength.. and all they ever felt was weakness.


it's a strange place..

Allah swt raises and lowers as he wills.



from elsewhere on the forum:

letters of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh thread

3-A Letter to Chosroes, Emperor of Persia
"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians."
‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi was chosen to carry the letter. This envoy carried it to the king of Bahrain but we do not know as yet if the latter despatched to Chosroes by one of his men or chose ‘Abdullah himself.
The proud monarch was enraged by the style of the letter as the name of the Prophet had been put above his own name. He tore the letter into shreds and forthwith dictated a command to his viceroy in Yemen to send a couple of troopers to arrest the Prophet and bring him to his presence. The governor, Bazan by name, immediately sent two men to Madinah for the purpose. As soon as the men reached Madinah, the Prophet was informed by a Divine Revelation that Pervez, the emperor of Persia, had been murdered by his son. The Prophet disclosed to them the news and they were stunned. He added asking them to tell their new monarch that Islam would prevail everywhere and outstrip the sovereignty of Chosroes himself. They hurried back to Bazan and communicated to him what they heard. Meanwhile, Sherweh, the new monarch sent a letter to Bazan confirming the news and bidding him to stop any procedures as regards the Prophet till further notice. Bazan, together with the Persians in Yemen, went into the folds of Islam, and gladly signified his adhesion to the Prophet. [Fath Al-Bari 8/127,128]

Click to expand...

kritikvernunft said:

What do you think? Would it be better to let the successor-shahzade execute his brothers or better to dispose of them as unidentifiable orphans?

Click to expand...

Salam. I like the Ottoman history but I recognize their mistakes as well. There is no need for any kind of deification of any historic figure. Fratricide has nothing to support. Yours could be an example for the survival of the shahzada but we have a more acceptable, more humanistic and more intelligent example of the first khaliphas *election*. They could have elected the Sultan from the existing Shahzadas as in the first Islamic State. But Ottoman Empire ruled by not only Islamic laws but also Turkish tradition. According to Turkish tradition the sate was the common wealth of the ruling family so had to be distributed between the sons of the dead Khan(King) like a heritage. Almost all of the Turkic states before the Ottoman Empire endded up with the same fate of fragmentation.. So Mehmed thaught that it was a good idea...Ahmed's idea looks more humanistic but it caused the rise of mentally ill Sultans

I don't find fratricide acceptable. Nor do I think The Prophet :saws1: would agree to such a method.

Do you think the Sahabahs r.a. would kill their brothers or the Caliphate, may Allah protect us, to protect the people? What kind of mindset is that........

we should follow the example of The Prophet :saws1: and the Sahabahs.
And Allah :swt: knows best.

I'm curious when you say the empire instigated "rule by slave", when did this occur? Simple historical research on the matter finds that most of the sultans were born of non slave mothers. Some were daughters from high ranking families, some were even princesses from other kingdoms. I can't see any in early Ottoman rule who were slaves but rather legal wives.

Born_Believer said:

I'm curious when you say the empire instigated "rule by slave", when did this occur? Simple historical research on the matter finds that most of the sultans were born of non slave mothers. Some were daughters from high ranking families, some were even princesses from other kingdoms. I can't see any in early Ottoman rule who were slaves but rather legal wives.

Click to expand...

This is a historical list of Valide Sultan (mother of the Sultan) of the Ottoman Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valide_sultan It was the second position in the Ottoman Empire, below her son the Sultan, but before another slave, the Grand Vizier (the prime minister). If you follow the link for each Valide Sultan, you can check their origin. Here are approx. the first five Valide Sultans:

* ???: Hafsa Sultan, Greek Christian slave by origin

* Cecilia: Nurbanu Sultan, abducted and captured from Paros island, Jewish or Venetian by origin

* ???: Safiye Sultan, captured by pirates, Albanian

* Anastasia: Kösem Sultan, bought as a slave by the Bosnian governor, Greek

* Nadia: Turhan Hatice Sultan, captured during a Tatar raid, Ruthenian (Ukrainian)

Mamuluks arose in a similar fashion - they just deposed there slave masters and became rulers themselves. Egypt/delhi sultanate.

Furthermore fratricide is haram - elections are a much more healthier and better way.

Born_Believer said:

I'm curious when you say the empire instigated "rule by slave", when did this occur? Simple historical research on the matter finds that most of the sultans were born of non slave mothers. Some were daughters from high ranking families, some were even princesses from other kingdoms. I can't see any in early Ottoman rule who were slaves but rather legal wives.

Click to expand...

Many sultans were children of slave women/concubines - just look through the valide a sultans.

Zafran said:

Furthermore fratricide is haram ...

Click to expand...

There is this article by Elmira Akhmetova, Fratricide in the Ottoman history, discussion from an islamic approach, who seem to have collected a good part of the historical fiqh, which ultimately seeks to rest on axiomatic Divine Law.

For example, in the case of Sultan Osman II's decision to engage in fratricide, she mentions that Shaykh al-Islam (Grand Mufti) Es’ad Efendi did not desire to issue a fatwa and that the Sultan had to take it from Qadi-Asker (Military Judge) Tashkopruzade. If the princes did not actively claim the throne, they actually fall under protection of Al-Ma’idah 5:32, Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind, which explains the decision of the Grand Mufti not to go along with the Sultan.

Still, the majority of the ulama would usually agree to validate the Sultan's decision and issue a fatwa in support, based on Al-Kahf 18: 80-81, And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief, and Al-Baqarah 191, And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Syrian Hanbali scholar Karmi (d. 1624), said that the execution of princes was a virtue of the Osmanli dynasty, as it was the lesser evil. Karmi narrates the collapse of the Moroccan sultanate due to the lack of fratricide in the sultanate.

kritikvernunft said:

There is this article by Elmira Akhmetova, Fratricide in the Ottoman history, discussion from an islamic approach, who seem to have collected a good part of the historical fiqh, which ultimately seeks to rest on axiomatic Divine Law.

For example, in the case of Sultan Osman II's decision to engage in fratricide, she mentions that Shaykh al-Islam (Grand Mufti) Es’ad Efendi did not desire to issue a fatwa and that the Sultan had to take it from Qadi-Asker (Military Judge) Tashkopruzade. If the princes did not actively claim the throne, they actually fall under protection of Al-Ma’idah 5:32, Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind, which explains the decision of the Grand Mufti not to go along with the Sultan.

Still, the majority of the ulama would usually agree to validate the Sultan's decision and issue a fatwa in support, based on Al-Kahf 18: 80-81, And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief, and Al-Baqarah 191, And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Syrian Hanbali scholar Karmi (d. 1624), said that the execution of princes was a virtue of the Osmanli dynasty, as it was the lesser evil. Karmi narrates the collapse of the Moroccan sultanate due to the lack of fratricide in the sultanate.

Click to expand...

fascinating article, the conclusion of the artilce sums up the position of Ottoman fratricde law being aganst the maqasid al-sharia:

[/QUOTE]Accordingly, Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah includes all fields dealing with human beings, environment, animals, economic or political activities; all has its own specific objectives, but all are for promoting healthy progress of the society. So, can we justify fratricide as it looks as a way to provide well-being and stability of society? From my understanding of Maqāsid Al-Sharī’ah, never. As history proves, fratricide never provided well-being of society, but the Osmanli history was full of political intrigues, revels and treachery.

In fact, Maqāsid Al-Sharī’ah includes both: material and spiritual progress; and progress in this world and hereafter. It is concerned with salvation of all individuals and entire community. It includes all material and spiritual, emotional and physical aspects for all individuals without any exception and entire community. It also includes humans and animals, environment in a holistic view. Therefore, from my understanding, any innocent person cannot be sacrificed for the benefit of other people as all are considered equal in front of Allah SWT.

The Objectives of Sharī’ah is to bring salvation and well-being to all members of society.

In addition, protection of human life (hifz nafs) is considered one of the five essential Maqāsid. The life of every human being is sacred in Islam. Every person, regardless of his social background or ethnicity, is entitled to be protected by the government. But as we can see from the Osmanli tradition of succession, many princes were killed by the government (!) due to their nobility and elite origin. So, the Osmanli tradition of fratricide cannot be considered a virtue, because wrong-doing can be never called a virtue.

In conclusion, fratricide is incomprehensible both emotionally and conscientiously. Many argue that it was one of the elements that kept the Osmanli Sultanate alive for centuries. But still, although it was a workable tool to keep the territory united and relatively stable, it cannot be considered Islamic, permitted and the right way of succession. Rather, the Osmanli ruling elite adopted it from their earlier tradition and just tried to achieve its permission in Islam by the Qur’anic verses and maslahah concept. Yet, killing of non-guilty person never can be justified in Islam regardless of his social class, ethnicity and religion. Life of all humans is sacred and no one can be sacrificed for the benefit of others[/QUOTE]

kritikvernunft said:

This is a historical list of Valide Sultan (mother of the Sultan) of the Ottoman Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valide_sultan It was the second position in the Ottoman Empire, below her son the Sultan, but before another slave, the Grand Vizier (the prime minister). If you follow the link for each Valide Sultan, you can check their origin. Here are approx. the first five Valide Sultans:

* ???: Hafsa Sultan, Greek Christian slave by origin

* Cecilia: Nurbanu Sultan, abducted and captured from Paros island, Jewish or Venetian by origin

* ???: Safiye Sultan, captured by pirates, Albanian

* Anastasia: Kösem Sultan, bought as a slave by the Bosnian governor, Greek

* Nadia: Turhan Hatice Sultan, captured during a Tatar raid, Ruthenian (Ukrainian)

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know if this is pure ignorance or lies but the very text your quote does not simple mention them as slaves. If you look at Hafsa, her being regarded as a slave is a new historical assumption.

If you take Nurbanu for example, there are several theories of her origin, them ost popular being that she had been the spouse (i.e. wife) of one of the princes who then went onto give birth to the future sultan.

If you actually read more than just wikipedia and study more historical sources you will find even more information.

I honestly think mods here should vet threads like this for historical accuracy.

Born_Believer said:

If you look at Hafsa, her being regarded as a slave is a new historical assumption.

Click to expand...

Daughter of Crimean Khan Meñli I Giray.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] or more likely a Christian slave[SUP][9][/SUP]
[7] Kasaba, Reşat. A moveable empire: Ottoman nomads, migrants, and refugees. University of Washington Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-295-80149-0. Hafsa Sultan, the daughter of the Crimean ruler Mengli Giray Khan.
[8] Peter G. Bietenholz; Thomas Brian Deutscher (2003). Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, Volumes 1-3. University of Toronto Press. p. 298. ISBN 978-0-802-08577-1. Suleiman i (Solymannus), known in the West as Suleiman the Magnificent, was the son of *Selim i and Hafsa Sultan, the daughter of Mengli Giray
[9] Alan Fisher (1993). "The Life and Family of Suleyman I". In İnalcık, Halil; Kafadar, Cemal. Süleymân The Second [i.e. the First] and his time. Isis Press. That she was a Tatar, a daughter of the Crimean Khan Mengli Giray, was a story apparently begun by Jovius, repeated by other western sources, and taken up by Merriman in his biography of Suleyman

Born_Believer said:

If you take Nurbanu for example, there are several theories of her origin, them ost popular being that she had been the spouse (i.e. wife) of one of the princes who then went onto give birth to the future sultan.

Click to expand...

There are several theories about the ethnic roots of Nurbanu, none of which is generally accepted:
* Jewish origin: Turkish historian Ahmet Refik believed she was of Jewish descent,[6] followed by some Turkish historians.[7]
* Cecilia Venier-Baffo: The Venetian[who?] claimed she was a daughter of Nicolò Venier and Violanta Baffo, abducted in Paros island when it was captured by Hayreddin Barbarossa.[5]
* Kalē Kartanou: In 1992, B. Arbel challenged the view that she was really of Venetian descent. For him the most plausible theory is that she was a Greek from Corfou named Kale Kartanou.[5]

Born_Believer said:

If you actually read more than just wikipedia and study more historical sources you will find even more information.

Click to expand...

I only read materials that are freely available online, and purposely ignore everything else. A source that cannot be published online, especially for reasons of copyright, is of no value whatsoever, and must be ignored. I apply the same policy concerning software and source code. I ignore, will never install, and will not use any program that is not published under the General Public License (GPL) or a compatible license.

Furthermore, I do not mind that particular academics only want to publish in journals that are inaccessible to the public, but the corollary of that behaviour is that the public should and will ignore them. My opinion is that it is also a requirement for the public to stop funding them with their taxes. Hopefully, with the next economic crisis, the State treasury will implode, and then it will be finished with all the posturing and grand-standing, funded with money confiscated from a hapless audience. As far as I am concerned, let them go begging in the streets.

NOONE CAN SPEAK BADLY OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T OUR PROPHET'S STATE. BUT THEY CALLED THEMSELVES WE ARE. IT MEANS THEY WERE IN THE PATH OF IT.

BUT SLAVE SYSTEM OR FRATRICIDE SYSTEM IS A BLESSING.

I dont know if you guys know but turkey trying to be in the path of state of our prophet again.

First slave system. It is a blessing. Because even the language of turks are militarisch. If you look at the verbs you understand it. Turks were a militarisch empire. Even though not just turks but whole muslims were minority in ottoman empire. Ottoman empire ruled by muslims. Greatest power in ottoman empire was sultan who is a muslim. Second is sadrazam. Whole system of kapıkulu were established on system of devshirme. This means taking children of not muslim families. And making them muslim and making them serve islam.

There is something called people who goes to heaven with chains. I dont know if anyof you know. But if you search it you will find it. Our prophet already talked about that. At least that is what i read. Also an empire who calls himself servants of holy lands Mecca and Medine. And also wants to carry name of sword of islam needs to scare infidels which ottoman empire did that very nicely. An empire like this needs to be strong. And strong empires becames not merciful. But ottoman empire was a sharia state. So sharia forbiid it. Without slave system turks who were soldiers of mongols then escaped to anatolia. Without slave system turks would raze every city in europe. Because occuping a city is very costly. Not every city was like egypt.

And an empire who needs to be strong needs a stark leader. Best of the candidates of course should be the one who is going to lead.

Fratricide is a crime against humanity. A man can become a beast for the power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fratricides

azc said:

Fratricide is a crime against humanity. A man can become a beast for the power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fratricides

Click to expand...

It

It is a blessing otherwise power hungry beast would start civil wars. Soldiers would make coups and kill other soldiers who support other heirs. Only way to stop civil war is this thing.

There is a rule in islam. If we can't gain full of something we take the part we can. It is better to kill a man to save millions.

Akeyi said:

ItIt is a blessing otherwise power hungry beast would start civil wars. Soldiers would make coups and kill other soldiers who support other heirs. Only way to stop civil war is this thing. There is a rule in islam. If we can't gain full of something we take the part we can. It is better to kill a man to save millions.

Click to expand...

from Islamic point of view it's not allowed

Akeyi said:

There is a rule in islam. If we can't gain full of something we take the part we can. It is better to kill a man to save millions

Click to expand...

The purpose of fratricide is not to save people, but to secure the position. Fratricide caused by ambition for power. And killing like this is not justified in Islam.

Alternatively, the ruling sultan could just... not sire any children with his slaves.