/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The Ottoman Law of Fratricide



kritikvernunft
09-24-2016, 03:28 AM
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?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
M.I.A.
09-24-2016, 10:27 AM
surely there is at least a third option.


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

kritikvernunft
09-24-2016, 10:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
surely there is at least a third option. .... it's not game of thrones.
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.
Reply

M.I.A.
09-24-2016, 11:32 AM
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]
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
anatolian
09-24-2016, 01:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft

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?
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
Reply

Serinity
09-24-2016, 01:47 PM
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.
Reply

Born_Believer
09-24-2016, 06:04 PM
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.
Reply

kritikvernunft
09-25-2016, 01:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer
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.
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)
Reply

Zafran
09-25-2016, 01:47 AM
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.
Reply

Zafran
09-25-2016, 01:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer
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.
Many sultans were children of slave women/concubines - just look through the valide a sultans.
Reply

kritikvernunft
09-25-2016, 03:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Furthermore fratricide is haram ...
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.
Reply

Zafran
09-25-2016, 04:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft
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.
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]
Reply

Born_Believer
09-25-2016, 01:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft
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)
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.
Reply

kritikvernunft
09-25-2016, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer
If you look at Hafsa, her being regarded as a slave is a new historical assumption.
Daughter of Crimean Khan Meñli I Giray.[7][8] or more likely a Christian slave[9]
[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
format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer
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.
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]
format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer
If you actually read more than just wikipedia and study more historical sources you will find even more information.
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.
Reply

Akeyi
01-04-2017, 03:39 PM
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.
Reply

azc
01-04-2017, 04:47 PM
Fratricide is a crime against humanity. A man can become a beast for the power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fratricides
Reply

Akeyi
01-04-2017, 04:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Fratricide is a crime against humanity. A man can become a beast for the power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fratricides
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.
Reply

azc
01-04-2017, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akeyi
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.
from Islamic point of view it's not allowed
Reply

ardianto
01-04-2017, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akeyi
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
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.
Reply

Muezzin
01-04-2017, 07:19 PM
Alternatively, the ruling sultan could just... not sire any children with his slaves.
Reply

Akeyi
01-04-2017, 07:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
from Islamic point of view it's not allowed
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Alternatively, the ruling sultan could just... not sire any children with his slaves.

one

one by one by starting from the bottom

format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Alternatively, the ruling sultan could just... not sire any children with his slaves.
First lets make this clear they dont just kill their sons. They do it when KID WANTED TO BE IN POWER. IT IS CALLED REBELLION AGANIST ISLAMIC STATE. WHICH WAS A DREAM FOR THE INFIDELS WHEN IT HAPPENED.

just like in the times of our prophet in ottoman empire people used to get married at younger ages.
13-14 was the ages of getting married. When a human is able to marry he would get married. It is western world's or jew's job to making getting married harder. Harder the getting married easier to fall in trap of zina.

For example nightmare of the infidels سلطان سليمان اول‎, if i am correct he killed one of his sons for trying to make coup. And he couldn't kill other one and tausands of people died in the war with that kid. But problem is he had more than 20 kids. But all of them died. Only 2 selim was alive when he died. Death was very common in that ages. And if a baby sits to throne then pashas would lead the islamic state and it would lead in splitting the land then infidels wouldn't have anything to fear. And all of heirs die empire would collapse.


format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
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.
but to secure the position
There are too many examples just in the history of ottoman empire. If rebels don't get killed their army which is a muslim army would fight with another muslim army. And infidels would be happy. It is only done to achieve stability in the islamic state.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc
from Islamic point of view it's not allowed
I can not say it is allowed. Because i am a muslim. But it is clear that if you dont kill the heir who tries to rebel then armies will fight. Millions of muslims will die. I think it iis more merciful this way.

It is so nice that islam doesn't force us to use a specific way to lead our country. If we have sharia. And nothing higher than sharia. Which there are some other things like having a council and other things. Then we can use any system we wanted.

And عبد الحميد ثانی said i never signed any paper of islamic state without having wudu. And in ottoman empire sultan was not the greatest power. If shaykh al-islam doesn't give a fetwa for anything then it would not happen.
Reply

ardianto
01-05-2017, 01:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akeyi
There are too many examples just in the history of ottoman empire. If rebels don't get killed their army which is a muslim army would fight with another muslim army. And infidels would be happy. It is only done to achieve stability in the islamic state.
If rebel kill the oppressive ruler who often kill innocent people, we can say this killing is to save people. But if a prince kill other princes who yet become ruler, clearly, the purpose of this killing is for eliminating rivals in getting the throne, not to save people.
Reply

azc
01-05-2017, 03:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akeyi
one one by one by starting from the bottomFirst lets make this clear they dont just kill their sons. They do it when KID WANTED TO BE IN POWER. IT IS CALLED REBELLION AGANIST ISLAMIC STATE. WHICH WAS A DREAM FOR THE INFIDELS WHEN IT HAPPENED.just like in the times of our prophet in ottoman empire people used to get married at younger ages.13-14 was the ages of getting married. When a human is able to marry he would get married. It is western world's or jew's job to making getting married harder. Harder the getting married easier to fall in trap of zina.For example nightmare of the infidels سلطان سليمان اول‎, if i am correct he killed one of his sons for trying to make coup. And he couldn't kill other one and tausands of people died in the war with that kid. But problem is he had more than 20 kids. But all of them died. Only 2 selim was alive when he died. Death was very common in that ages. And if a baby sits to throne then pashas would lead the islamic state and it would lead in splitting the land then infidels wouldn't have anything to fear. And all of heirs die empire would collapse. There are too many examples just in the history of ottoman empire. If rebels don't get killed their army which is a muslim army would fight with another muslim army. And infidels would be happy. It is only done to achieve stability in the islamic state. I can not say it is allowed. Because i am a muslim. But it is clear that if you dont kill the heir who tries to rebel then armies will fight. Millions of muslims will die. I think it iis more merciful this way.It is so nice that islam doesn't force us to use a specific way to lead our country. If we have sharia. And nothing higher than sharia. Which there are some other things like having a council and other things. Then we can use any system we wanted. And عبد الحميد ثانی said i never signed any paper of islamic state without having wudu. And in ottoman empire sultan was not the greatest power. If shaykh al-islam doesn't give a fetwa for anything then it would not happen.
No, brother, seeking the leeway to legitimize fratricide can't be justified. No where millions of soldiers were killed in any revolt in any dynasty .
Reply

Akeyi
01-05-2017, 01:31 PM
First let me get this STRAIGHT MY FRIENDS.

First you should know the strentgh of the command chain in ottoman army.

To beat infidels ottoman empire had to be better than them. In europe there were lord who had their own army. And in times of war they could refuse because of too many reasons.

But in ottoman empire third greatest power is sadrazam. In the times of second siege of Wien. Which was not ordered by sultan but sadrazam thought it would be nice. Sadrazam had almost ganze ottoman army with him. When siege failed padişah was too far away. Send a ferman which he ordered sadrazam to be killed. Sadrazam self ordered to kill himself in a secret place to keep army stabil. Because army loved him. This is and should be the obedience to eminül müminin between muslims.

In time of another padişah his one son gathered army and leaved his training city without taking permission. Then ottoman empire had to stop fighting infidel call highest ranked people from all over the world. And fight with this kid's army. Then kid run to another land. Now tell me how much people might be dead.

Maybe not millions. Because even though having 20 kid was ok. People used to die so quickly. I had a brother which not my blut brother but told me. He was almost from another land. He told me that in where he lived there was a tradition. Because of where he lived too cold is babies would die from cold. So they had a system to prevent this but that is another subject. What i mean is maybe not millions died. But millions became unrest. Ottoman empire never had 1 million people in a single battle since ww1.

But fitne in this thread is this thread is too long no one read what i wrote and because of you guys all write with bias fitna can exist.
Reply

M.I.A.
01-05-2017, 07:58 PM
ok so.. would you describe what has hapened in iraq and syria as a current example of how an empire is weakened by lack of stern leadership.

and how challenges to that leadership affect muslim peoples and muslim armies within the land?

because those have not been caused by fraternal divisions..

those same situations that you describe are independent of fratricide.

...im having an existential crisis, i am unable to impose my will..

and even if i did impose it, i have no understanding to what end.

but you understand, as a person ages his influence is made his own..his hands put forward..

the iron.

its extremely strange that allah swt raises and lowers as he wills..
Reply

azc
01-06-2017, 05:26 PM
^ but brother is adamant to justify fratricide as halal by his own logic which hardly anybody can accept
Reply

Scimitar
01-06-2017, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
surely there is at least a third option.


....it's not game of thrones.
Well actually, it is :D

Scimi
Reply

Akeyi
01-06-2017, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
ok so.. would you describe what has hapened in iraq and syria as a current example of how an empire is weakened by lack of stern leadership.

and how challenges to that leadership affect muslim peoples and muslim armies within the land?

because those have not been caused by fraternal divisions..

those same situations that you describe are independent of fratricide.

...im having an existential crisis, i am unable to impose my will..

and even if i did impose it, i have no understanding to what end.

but you understand, as a person ages his influence is made his own..his hands put forward..

the iron.

its extremely strange that allah swt raises and lowers as he wills..
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
^ but brother is adamant to justify fratricide as halal by his own logic which hardly anybody can accept
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
Well actually, it is :D

Scimi

youguy

you guys know nothing i will solve all this problems by opening a dajjal thread but i dont have time now
Reply

Scimitar
01-06-2017, 06:28 PM
The Ottoman Rulership was a Kingship, reigning tyranny on its non Muslim subjects.

The Qur'an specifically mentions not to destroy buildings where Allah is worshipped, nor to convert them to masjids by force - yet the Ottomans apparently didn't care for Qur'an. Because they did exactly that.

But to add insult to injury, the Ottoman Turks took the first born male children of the non Muslim nobles (namely Christian boys) and forced them into slavery for life... and in some cases even castrated the boys.

I can go on and on, my intent is not to show up the Ottomans, they did that themselves anyway, but to show that the Ottoman Empire was the decline of Muslim values - the rest, you can find yourself,

Krit, you must be insane to constantly make such threads based off such idiotic premises, like Fratricide. Sheesh.

Where do you get off? on other peoples sufferring or something? Gosh,

Scimi
Reply

Scimitar
01-06-2017, 06:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akeyi
...by opening a dajjal thread but i dont have time now
You walked into that one...

...Dajjal, a very interesting topic, and one I am quite familiar with all things considered.

I do not see how taking this topic offtopic into dajjal territory is gonna help you...

...oh waiiiiit, I see your game - the hadeeth about constantinople right? Some scholars estimate that the hadeeth still requires fulfilment so as you can see, you rest your laurels on muddy waters.

The hadeeth has a continuation of narrative also, in that dajjal will come forth...

so again, you are absolutely stuck here.

I do not believe the conquest of Constantinople has occurred yet, because Turkey is a secular nation and your most prized masjid, the Blue Mosqu is a tourist attraction where non Muslims enter with their shoes on... I was actually removed from Friday Jummah prayer from that very same masjid by a security guard while I was praying my Sunnah salaat, he removed me forcefully so the tourists can enter with their shoes on... not just this, but a plethora of reasons prove that the kings of Turkey were not in compliance with shariah.

Turkey needs conquering.

So yeah, start that thread on dajjal, you may have bitten off more than you can chew - eschatology is one of my interests.

Scimi

EDIT: 95% turks are secular and nationalist patriots... forget concept of Ummah, these guys don't follow our Islamic narrative, they follow their own narratives.

Scimi
Reply

Scimitar
01-06-2017, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft
*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.
Your brain is wired soooo wrong, I would not know where to begin.

Dude, you need help.

The internet is full of BS. And you love it.

Scimi
Reply

M.I.A.
01-06-2017, 07:25 PM
well.. ironically.. i did not coin the phrase..

in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

but again, it seems only to be a means to an end.

..i am having an existential crisis.

is the world just a meat grinder?

if the point is not to establish empires then what is it?
Reply

Akeyi
01-06-2017, 07:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
The Ottoman Rulership was a Kingship, reigning tyranny on its non Muslim subjects.

The Qur'an specifically mentions not to destroy buildings where Allah is worshipped, nor to convert them to masjids by force - yet the Ottomans apparently didn't care for Qur'an. Because they did exactly that.

But to add insult to injury, the Ottoman Turks took the first born male children of the non Muslim nobles (namely Christian boys) and forced them into slavery for life... and in some cases even castrated the boys.

I can go on and on, my intent is not to show up the Ottomans, they did that themselves anyway, but to show that the Ottoman Empire was the decline of Muslim values - the rest, you can find yourself,

Krit, you must be insane to constantly make such threads based off such idiotic premises, like Fratricide. Sheesh.

Where do you get off? on other peoples sufferring or something? Gosh,

Scimi
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
You walked into that one...

...Dajjal, a very interesting topic, and one I am quite familiar with all things considered.

I do not see how taking this topic offtopic into dajjal territory is gonna help you...

...oh waiiiiit, I see your game - the hadeeth about constantinople right? Some scholars estimate that the hadeeth still requires fulfilment so as you can see, you rest your laurels on muddy waters.

The hadeeth has a continuation of narrative also, in that dajjal will come forth...

so again, you are absolutely stuck here.

I do not believe the conquest of Constantinople has occurred yet, because Turkey is a secular nation and your most prized masjid, the Blue Mosqu is a tourist attraction where non Muslims enter with their shoes on... I was actually removed from Friday Jummah prayer from that very same masjid by a security guard while I was praying my Sunnah salaat, he removed me forcefully so the tourists can enter with their shoes on... not just this, but a plethora of reasons prove that the kings of Turkey were not in compliance with shariah.

Turkey needs conquering.

So yeah, start that thread on dajjal, you may have bitten off more than you can chew - eschatology is one of my interests.

Scimi

EDIT: 95% turks are secular and nationalist patriots... forget concept of Ummah, these guys don't follow our Islamic narrative, they follow their own narratives.

Scimi
i will analyze your answer sentence by sentence but i hope you can read it without bias.

The Ottoman Rulership was a Kingship
There are rules in islam if they are fit. Then way of ruling is up to us.

1 SHARIA, ottoman empire was a sharia state. And even Şeyhül islam was higher than sultan if he doesn't give fetwa then job would not be done. And it was best state since 4 khalif.
2 giving consignation to the ehl, i translated myself it means every job should given to the one who done it best.
3 congress, ottoman had a divan. Divan was greatest congress. But even courts was able to judge sultan.

The Qur'an specifically mentions not to destroy buildings where Allah is worshipped
So you are saying Christians worshipping the same god we do ? they saying that prophet isa is son of god

nor to convert them to masjids by force
Ottoman empire gave greatest freedom to another religions as long as they dont do harm to themselves and us. I can give too many examples of how they they were free to worship. Look at the borders ottoman empire were. You can see plenty of examples.


the Ottomans apparently didn't care for Qur'an.
The word apparently is the word keeping you from falling in the great danger my friend. Ottoman empire was Quran and hadith. Like i wrote in the first sentence. If seyhülislam doesn't give fetwa this thing can not be done. Just give me an prove that they didn't do it and i will explain it to you. Until very close time we were i mean all of the muslims were using the water pipe ottoman empire built. And sending people to hajj was costet greater than sieges. They called themselves we are the servants of the mecca and medine. Ottoman empire was an empire done what he done only to spread word of Allah.

But to add insult to injury, the Ottoman Turks took the first born male children of the non Muslim nobles (namely Christian boys) and forced them into slavery for life... and in some cases even castrated the boys.
WRONGWRONGWRONG

First read there was a hadith about people who go to heaven with chains. And ottoman empire didn't take first born. There were rules. And some families lied just to send their kid. Because this kid could be the sadrazam. Sadrazam means he will have a greater army than sultan. After the padişah he is the second most powerful man. And there are too many rules. If family have only 1 boy child it can not be taken. So even this first rule shows us what you wrote is wrong. And like i said this is a great system.

and in some cases even castrated the boys.
NO NEVER OTTOMAN EMPIRE NEVER DONE THAT . AND BECAUSE OF THIS CHINESE PALACE SAID THAT WE ARE DOING THIS TO OURSELVES BUT OTTOMANS DONT DO THAT.


i am reading and reading but you really wrote with anger i guess.

Ottoman empire called themselves we are the DEVLET-I ALLIYYE-I MUHAMMEDIYE.

We are the state our prophet established.

But you are right about last sentences turkey is a secular state. But what made turkey secular is Süfyan.
You can search it.

Turkey became worst than infidels. Uncountable numbers of people died just because they didn't wear infidel hats. They called atatürk Half god in papers. Ataturk had more statues than any other leader in the whole word. Arabic alphabet changed to latenisch alphabet. I am a fat guy but i could fit in just pants of a ottoman man. But they are forced to wear what infidels wear. Even adhan changed by force. They put chairs to mosques to made them like churches. And forbid praying in arabic. Forbid reading quran. Made women wear things infidels wear. And so much. But to achieve that they used an army calls himself mehmetçik. Mehmet is the name of the Sultan who conquered Istanbul. Mehmet is short version of Muhammed name is found to protect name of Muhammed. Because if man becomes a bad man they can tell bad things to Name Muhammed. This is the culture of ottoman empire. And like i wrote to make people be like infidels. These people shouldn't be like infidels. And there are too many things done to make this people be like infidels. So it means this people were so much like they should have. And if all those things could happened A great thing should have happened. When all of this things happened people thought dajjal und süfyan is came.
Reply

anatolian
01-06-2017, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
EDIT: 95% turks are secular and nationalist patriots... forget concept of Ummah, these guys don't follow our Islamic narrative, they follow their own narratives.

Scimi
I have already stated my opinion on the original subject. I just would like you to elaborate this one. First of all, I really don't know what you guys mean with "secular" when you are refering to people. This itself requires a thread in itself. Secular means without religion. Do you mean %95 of Turks are without religion? Do you think Turks are an atheist nation? Or do you simply mean not religious? These two are different things. If the second one, what is your base for it? Also, I would like to learn your source of information for the number %95. Is it your own assumption?

Since when being nationalist patriot contradicts Islam? Loving your nation is not discouraged in Islam.

As for your last phrase, there is some truth in it, although you are a little away from understanding it. You and many others may oppose it but there is something called "Turkish Islam" but this also requires an entire thread. What I need to ask here is what are the narratives those guys are following different from yours? Pls give us some examples..
Reply

Serinity
01-06-2017, 08:12 PM
:salam:

Fratricide? Who could ever justify such a devilish act? If anything, Islam condemns it vehemently. To kill a brother for the people? For the better of society? What kind of non sense is this? Fratricide has nothing to do with Islam.

Allahu alam.
Reply

Akeyi
01-06-2017, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity
:salam:

Fratricide? Who could ever justify such a devilish act? If anything, Islam condemns it vehemently. To kill a brother for the people? For the better of society? What kind of non sense is this? Fratricide has nothing to do with Islam.

Allahu alam.


exactly
islam even forbids killing humans. i would say islam even forbids killing other stuff both then it would be putting that thing in bad position.

but if we dont kill those who deserve to kill then we are the cruel people. Rebels should be dead. Or armies would fight with each other
Reply

M.I.A.
01-07-2017, 08:40 PM
very interesting, i almost draw parallels with the story of moses AS..

although it is not relevant.

*edit

...wait i meant king herod o_0 that works too.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-02-2016, 08:21 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!