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?
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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,
...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.
*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.
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.
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..
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.
Meaning of Shirk according to The Qur'an
" Worshipping anyone or anything besides Allah " or " distributing anything exclusive to Allah, to anyone or anything else "
Meaning of Tawheed according to The Qur'an Worshipping none but Allah. Affirming whatever is exclusive to Him, Him alone.
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
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks