The Ottoman Law of Fratricide

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]

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

I don't find fratricide acceptable. Nor do I think The Prophet 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 and the Sahabahs.
And Allah knows best.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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