If my brother sees this video, I'm gonna have to buy him something nice to make up so, please help me! 💵 Support Al Muqaddimah financially: Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
This is wonderfully morally unsettling. It rings a bell with some things in Early Medieval Europe: the Merovingians were constantly killing their brothers, and in the history of Anglo-Saxon England the mother who favours (and intrigues for) her son against the son of another wife or "wife" is known. I'd thought of this as unbridled sibling rivalry, but now I can see it as a political policy. Thank you.
Fratricide might seem plausible from a worldly rational/technical view but once religion gets involved a justification of it can be problematic, no muslim should trynna defend a Nimrod-ish solution as there's no need to risk getting held accountable due to the transgression against an infant you weren't even involved in
@@SignsBehindScience the fratricide policy was never popular among the general public and it grew to be unpopular among the ulema, the body of Islamic legal scholars. We have examples like the killing of Mehmed III’s brothers, many of whom were infants, causing a public outcry. After the reign of Ahmed I, the custom became less frequent and the brothers of the Sultan were spared and kept under a sort of house arrest inside the palace. When Osman II would have his brothers executed, the Sheik-ul-Islam issued a fatwa disapproving, but they were killed anyway. Into the 17th century the fratricide policy was discontinued.
Selim's war against his father and brothers was worth a little bit more exploring in my opinion. His princedom was legendary, he even vassalized parts of Georgia and fought against Kizilbashs of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Still a pretty good video, keep up the good work.
Yes, Selim but Selim's war wasn't really significant in terms of fratricide, you know. He didn't go far and beyond in any way to kill his brothers. Maybe another video.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT Fair point but him being a seventh son who was stationed in a relatively newly acquired troubled borderland (Trabzon) while managing to overthrow his father, execute his remaining brothers and nephews is an impressive feat. He also arguably surpassed Fatih Sultan Mehmet in the conquering department with his lightning conquests in 8 short years. He was the definition of the term 'survival of the fittest' in my honest opinion. I look forward to see you delve deeper into him as he was not a pleasant person but boy, was he an efficient ruler.
The Ottoman solution makes sense in its own twisted way. What has always puzzled me is why the Chinese never needed a similar practice. They too had harems and lots of competing princes and a powerful throne that attracted anyone. So why weren't there more Ottoman-style civil wars in China. I know there were a few but nowhere near as many as one would expect. I realize I probably need to ask this question on a Chinese history channel but perhaps the Ottoman empire can provide some insights.
Chinese the Chinese system has 2 things: First, Confucianism is a strong binding rule, so Chinese princes can't openly murder each other like the Ottomans. Furthermore, the final will of the dying emperor is paramount, and thus whoever the dying emperor names as his successor will have such a massive legitimacy and bureaucratic support advantage that discourages his rival brother from trying to take the throne from him. Second, the Chinese have Crown Prince, which tend to be the eldest, but it isn't that uncommon for the eldest to be banished/stripped of his title to open the way for others. Most Chinese princes didn't fight for the throne itself, but for the position of Crown Prince. As such, their "games" happen under the watchful eyes of the still-living emperor, and thus civil war or even murder is simply not an option for them - at least as long as their father still watching..
During the 3rd to 7th centuries, the Chinese frequently employed civil war as a method of succession, and when things were done more smoothly (such as the old king/emperor getting taken out by a coup), new kings/emperors still often had to kill opposing male relatives, including the old king's/emperor's sons (who were often also the new king's/emperor's brothers or nephews), the old king's/emperor's in-laws, and their own brothers after the coup's instigators became the new most powerful faction and started to splinter.
The rules of kings are different from the rules of peasant. Yeah sure XD It just takes a serious round of Crusader Kings to start arguing that killing that child in his birthday was absolutely necessary to save countless lives and definitely that two counties you gained were completely a fortunate coincidence. Great video. I study Habsburg Spain and honestly im gonna binge watch your channel because I know shamefully little about the muslim world after Al-Andalus.
I swear, I hope that after I die, God doesn't make me answer for the crimes I committed in Crusaders Kings because that would be a hell of a long list.
One cannot helped but wondering what must be the thoughts in the heads of the ulama before the presence of Sultan Mehmed II when the Sultan decided to make it legal for all of his sons to did such a thing to one another for the sake of the Sublime Ottoman State's stability and the safety and prosperity of its peoples.
Until Sultan Ahmed I, they were all silenced by the Sultan. The Ulema were strong, but the Sultan was ready to lose soem of his power to ensure his state's stability, which means that he didn't care much about the Ulemas rebelling. Plus, they were probably convinced only after the horrific ottoman interregnum to some extent because of its trauma, but then started to rebel on it again until Sultan Ahmed I was enthroned
The reason why the ottomans needed fratricide was because the Sultan was too powerful, so his power was too attractive, and they were able to make too much destruction with that power, especially if they were in civil wars. Bear in mind that the ottoman empire was one of the most highly centralised states in all of europe, which actually was one of the reasons for its absolute strength at first, then europe caught up with ottoman centralisation with the end of feudalism. So, fratricide might have been avoided if the Sultan had some limits on power with more accountability. Rather, the Sultans used the Grand Viziers to shift blames and accountability to them.
The system was indeed why the Ottomans got their appealing expansion and administration. The one who messed up the system was Mehmed III. He ordered his 19 brothers including infants to get executed once he ascended to the throne. This action upset people in the court and harem even when he passed away his successor son Ahmed I. didn't attend his funeral due to the resentment and he was the one who installed the ''Ekber ve Erşed'' the eldest and the most mature system thus unintentionally started the sequence of inexperienced sultans resulting in the empire's downfall
Ottoman sultans typically only had a couple sons. Fewer sons meant fewer brothers to fight for the throne. And typically a mother in the Ottoman harem would only be allowed to bear one son. That way all of her attention could go toward protecting and educating the one son, and it meant her loyalty couldn't be divided. Hurrem Sultan was an exception. Sultan Murad III was also an exception. He fathered not one or three sons, but 19, and it was that error that led to the tragedy of Mehmed III that turned the people against fratricide.
Religious teachings go out the window, whenever practicality is concerned. Which Is why I am no longer religious, and no longer hypocritical in such sense.
That's why the true Islamic system of governance was Al Khilafah Al Rashidah. This is theThe essence of true governance in Islam can be encapsulated in the concept of Al Khilafah Al Rashidah. This system embodies principles of justice, unity, and moral integrity that are essential for a thriving society. In contrast, while the Ottomans and Mughals undeniably contributed to the cultural and political landscapes of their times, their legacies were marked by complexities that highlight both achievements and failures. Are they truly the models we should aspire to? As we navigate today’s challenges, perhaps it’s vital to reflect on the foundations of Al Khilafah Al Rashidah and envision a political structure that honors its ideals while adapting to contemporary realities. Should we not strive for a governance system that emphasizes collective welfare and accountability, rather than merely replicating past empires? political system we need. The Ottomans and Mughals had both good and bad aspects; they are not our model to follow.
I wonder if the addition of a "Crown Prince" position (like with the Chinese) would benefit the Ottomans. The Crown Prince will receive such a legitimacy boost and support from the entire bureaucracy to discourage his brothers from upsurging his throne once it has been passed down; and since the prince's power struggle will happen while the sultan still alive, it will mitigate the worst aspect of these struggle like the civil wars and mass executions, while still force the princes to prove their capabilities to their father to be selected as Crown Prince.
I don’t think it’s specific to Ottomans. Henry VIII of England wiped out all his Plantagenet cousins to secure the Tudor dynasty and prevent another War of the Roses. The Ottomans weren’t following Turco-Mongol tradition, more like following the negative example of the Byzantines who were destroyed by endless civil wars. The Ottomans didn’t want to follow Byzantine tradition.
To be fair in case of henry VIII their (eg de la pole, pole, stafford or other english noble with plantagnet blood) extended family is spared and some able to maintain rich property
There was an easier non-haram way of succession: Simply appoint the most religious and leadership savy amongst the people while avoiding family succession. This is what the first four rightly Caliphs did and it worked. This is just an example of how when you abandon the sunnah things only get worse
Valid point. Instead of appointing the most righteous, they turned it into a pure monarchy. Even worse, I don’t believe that western monarchies were this excited to slaughter every single male relative….. He says it was effective… but which is the most powerful monarchies today? Britain, and technically Saudi. What did they both do? Use that power to assign their relatives extremely powerful positions due to their control over there region and world.
precisely, which is why it should be argued that the Khilāfat-ur-Rāshidah was the only truly legitimate Caliphate, which ended with the murder of the 4th Khalifah, Hadhrat Ali bin Abi Thalib (ra). All subsequent “Caliphates” were therefore Caliphates in name only and their system of government had more in common with the other dynastic empires than the Rāshidīn.
I wonder if there's a good way to communicate this kind of chaotic succession in something like Crusader Kings III? I suppose the issue in gameplay terms is it's hard to get the player in the mindframe that competition amongst their heirs is good for the realm when they have to control one of the heirs on succession and actually engage in that competition themselves. A lot of players already find ways to minimise their succession despite the risks it poses and benefits forsaken in doing so, it's hard to imagine a system that involves a large number of heirs all fighting each other catching on with a lot of CKIII players. I personally would happily go through an automatic civil war on succession if it was a winner takes all arrangement that gave you all the benefits of primogeniture upon victory, especially if the more landed relatives you have to fight for the throne means more land you can revoke and redistribute when all is said and done. Lots of players will just take a vow of celibacy after having one male heir no matter how much incentive you put on the table, they'll still do that knowing that a plague could come along and game over them at any moment- but I suppose if that's how people want to play the game that doesn't have to stop the devs from implementing systems that benefit players more interested in historical roleplay than players metagaming succession and savescumming away all of the reasons that medieval monarchs would want a few spares for their heirs.
While this system ensured the sultan some peace of mind during their reign, it guaranteed civil war every succession, as even the less ambitious princes were still forced to take up arms to defend themselves (and with most princes have their own territory, they certainly have the mean to do so). What's strange to me is that foreign powers weren't that involved in these civil wars - I guess the Ottoman being all surrounded by hostiles made it harder to find foreign allies. If the HRE adopted such system, I bet Germany would see a Great Succession War every generation or so..
It didn’t always avoid civil wars. The Mongal Khans never named successors either and when Ghengis Khan died it did lead to civil wars that split and weakened the Empire.
Mind you that the Ottomans only had ONE civil war during the entirety of its 600 years reign. Allah will judge them, but this policy did spare quite a lot of lives that would otherwise die in a civil war. Personally, I see it as the Ottoman's Noblesse Oblige. Of course Ahmed I later changed it so that it is forbidden but then a worse system replaced it...
The animations of the pictures are moving very fast. Which is causing problems in maintaining attention. Can the movement of the images be slowed down?
These days, terms like "liberal" and "woke" seem to be used as catch-alls for anything people dislike. For example, fratricide is not condoned under any right-leaning ideology, especially those that emphasize the importance of family values. The Mughal and Ottoman practice of fratricide was a relic of a harsh Turkic-Mongol ancestral system, and no Muslim is obligated to defend it. In fact, attempting to justify or reframe it through some "enlightened" revisionist lens is the very definition of being "woke."
A lot of other medieval and early modern states had civil wars between brothers (looking at you Mughals and Carolingians), but yeah I think the lack of codified succession for both of these states and the ottomans made a bad situation a lot worse, Chinese dynasties frequently had more stable succession due to requiring the direct appointing of a successor in the will of the previous emperor or during his lifetime, and Christian medieval and early modern primogeniture solved a similar problem in the west. I do think the risk of execution made it so the house of Osman were less likely to cooperate than other dynasties with stable succession, and thus, more incentive for interfamilial cooperation, basically “yes I am not the king but my brother or nephew or uncle is and I’m going to have a really easy life so I should support my ruling family regardless of not holding ultimate power” the Bourbons and Habsburgs were pretty good at this (the war of the Austrian succession was an example of this failing due to the choice of a female heir, an unprecedented issue)
Not so fast with the facts - the execution of Mustafa at Suleiman's order nearly toppled the Sultan; the riots that ensued were horrific - however that was not fratricide; that was a father killing his son. In a less uncivil society, would it not be better to enlist the aid of a trusted family member than an unrelated person? Of course, that depends on the values of the society one is living in; if you cannot trust your siblings to not kill you, that is not a society that values blood relationships at all which must be a sad place to live. One where you kill your 11 year old brother, whether you knew him or not, is quite primitive and barbaric in many aspects. And why weren't brothers-in-law considered a threat? Because that would require the killing of sisters? Or a surviving and conniving mother or step-mother could just as easily be a threat; possibly even more as the raising of an army was not needed, just a well-placed dash of poison all within the confines of the palace. And then there are the problems of the over-powerful vizirs and the possibility of revolting against the 'winner' of the succeeding generation. Using the logic that fratricide may have been good then killing of all siblings, or other possibly troublesome relatives and past vizirs must be even better, right? No matter how you slice and dice it, murder is murder and whoever commits murder or causes murder to be committed will find the afterlife (if there is such a thing) less than optimal.
I'm a bit worried about this talking point. I assume (CMIIW) you're trying to refute argument of islamophobe when taking fratricide as an example of "islamic barbarism" and I can accept the reasoning of its effectiveness as a 'lesser evil' in a trolley problem. However, what can we actually learn from it? That killing in the name of political stability is accepted? Or taking extremely immoral (in the eye of faith and public) action from a position of leadership for public good (from the leader's perspective) is allowed? I understand that you and anybody else would be against this kind of political killing, but the fact of its effectiveness would become an argument for today's political killing by anyone with power to do it.
Only if he needs a Kidney. Harry is just there in case William needs a kidney or a liver and I mean obviously William wouldn't do it himself, there are people for that 😂
0:21 It has religious justification Ottoman jurists took the fourth caliph ali as example of rebellion against caliphate Ali against muawiyah So it has religious justification
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 ALI wasn't against muawiyah at all, he even tried to avoid wars, and mostly sahabah were with him including big figures, ALI literally did not ban khawarij from praying in his masjid mainwhile they were clearly doing takfeer to him !!! ALI was from the generation of ABU BAKR, UMAR, USMAN, ABDUL RAHMAN IBN AUF, UBADAH BIN SAMIT and all, they were different from others Basically if both are sahabi but making both of them in same line is either ignorance of history or ignorance of ahadees.
If my brother sees this video, I'm gonna have to buy him something nice to make up so, please help me!
💵 Support Al Muqaddimah financially: Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
tis interesting to speculate what might have happened in Europe, for example the War of the Roses, if they had done something similar 🤔
Another reason why these empires have nothing to do with Islam
Bro are you a socialist or something.Capitalism is good.
It depends if your parents are royalty or just rich
You can't unalive your brother today because of woke.
For good
Might makes right
Thanks, Obama!
Don't forget the leftist Satanic pronouns.
Also because you dont stand to inherit a throne if you do…
Your thumbnail 👌 😂 as if an ottoman sultan became a TH-camr
This is wonderfully morally unsettling. It rings a bell with some things in Early Medieval Europe: the Merovingians were constantly killing their brothers, and in the history of Anglo-Saxon England the mother who favours (and intrigues for) her son against the son of another wife or "wife" is known. I'd thought of this as unbridled sibling rivalry, but now I can see it as a political policy. Thank you.
Disclaimer: this stunt was performed by professionals. Please do not try this at home
try this in public
Curse my noble birth
Never was that more applicable than in Ottoman Sultan's children
Fratricide might seem plausible from a worldly rational/technical view but once religion gets involved a justification of it can be problematic, no muslim should trynna defend a Nimrod-ish solution as there's no need to risk getting held accountable due to the transgression against an infant you weren't even involved in
This is precisely what I think.
Pakistan'dan Es-Selamu aleyküm ve Rahmetullâhi ve Berekâtuh
The Sheik-ul-Islam often tried to intervene.
@@johnoparinde2682
بسم اللّٰه الرحمن الرحیم
I'd love to know about that in detail.
@@SignsBehindScience the fratricide policy was never popular among the general public and it grew to be unpopular among the ulema, the body of Islamic legal scholars. We have examples like the killing of Mehmed III’s brothers, many of whom were infants, causing a public outcry.
After the reign of Ahmed I, the custom became less frequent and the brothers of the Sultan were spared and kept under a sort of house arrest inside the palace. When Osman II would have his brothers executed, the Sheik-ul-Islam issued a fatwa disapproving, but they were killed anyway. Into the 17th century the fratricide policy was discontinued.
@@johnoparinde2682 Thanks. My name is also Ahmed by the way.
Selim's war against his father and brothers was worth a little bit more exploring in my opinion. His princedom was legendary, he even vassalized parts of Georgia and fought against Kizilbashs of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Still a pretty good video, keep up the good work.
Yes, Selim but Selim's war wasn't really significant in terms of fratricide, you know. He didn't go far and beyond in any way to kill his brothers. Maybe another video.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT Fair point but him being a seventh son who was stationed in a relatively newly acquired troubled borderland (Trabzon) while managing to overthrow his father, execute his remaining brothers and nephews is an impressive feat. He also arguably surpassed Fatih Sultan Mehmet in the conquering department with his lightning conquests in 8 short years. He was the definition of the term 'survival of the fittest' in my honest opinion. I look forward to see you delve deeper into him as he was not a pleasant person but boy, was he an efficient ruler.
I'm surprised that no one has noticed Dwight Schrute peeking over my shoulder.
3 videos in a week, bro cooking really hard. ❤❤
i’m fucking behind in all my classes, but when Al Muqaddimah drops, I study even less because this shit is way too interesting.
I’m cooked.
Don't worry, just find a brother.
The Ottoman solution makes sense in its own twisted way. What has always puzzled me is why the Chinese never needed a similar practice. They too had harems and lots of competing princes and a powerful throne that attracted anyone. So why weren't there more Ottoman-style civil wars in China. I know there were a few but nowhere near as many as one would expect. I realize I probably need to ask this question on a Chinese history channel but perhaps the Ottoman empire can provide some insights.
Confucianism heavily encourages primogeniture even if they're mentally handicapped (see War of the 8 Princes)
Chinese
the Chinese system has 2 things: First, Confucianism is a strong binding rule, so Chinese princes can't openly murder each other like the Ottomans. Furthermore, the final will of the dying emperor is paramount, and thus whoever the dying emperor names as his successor will have such a massive legitimacy and bureaucratic support advantage that discourages his rival brother from trying to take the throne from him.
Second, the Chinese have Crown Prince, which tend to be the eldest, but it isn't that uncommon for the eldest to be banished/stripped of his title to open the way for others. Most Chinese princes didn't fight for the throne itself, but for the position of Crown Prince. As such, their "games" happen under the watchful eyes of the still-living emperor, and thus civil war or even murder is simply not an option for them - at least as long as their father still watching..
There are some monarchs who fratricied in Chinese history too. One illustrious figure being Tang Taizong. Succession intrigues are dirty.
During the 3rd to 7th centuries, the Chinese frequently employed civil war as a method of succession, and when things were done more smoothly (such as the old king/emperor getting taken out by a coup), new kings/emperors still often had to kill opposing male relatives, including the old king's/emperor's sons (who were often also the new king's/emperor's brothers or nephews), the old king's/emperor's in-laws, and their own brothers after the coup's instigators became the new most powerful faction and started to splinter.
I literally waited for you to post a video, so when the comment section is mostly empty I could quickly comment this and then go away.
"Please don't try this at home" ;) Another highly entertaining and engrossing video, great work.
The rules of kings are different from the rules of peasant.
Yeah sure XD It just takes a serious round of Crusader Kings to start arguing that killing that child in his birthday was absolutely necessary to save countless lives and definitely that two counties you gained were completely a fortunate coincidence.
Great video. I study Habsburg Spain and honestly im gonna binge watch your channel because I know shamefully little about the muslim world after Al-Andalus.
I swear, I hope that after I die, God doesn't make me answer for the crimes I committed in Crusaders Kings because that would be a hell of a long list.
One cannot helped but wondering what must be the thoughts in the heads of the ulama before the presence of Sultan Mehmed II when the Sultan decided to make it legal for all of his sons to did such a thing to one another for the sake of the Sublime Ottoman State's stability and the safety and prosperity of its peoples.
Until Sultan Ahmed I, they were all silenced by the Sultan. The Ulema were strong, but the Sultan was ready to lose soem of his power to ensure his state's stability, which means that he didn't care much about the Ulemas rebelling. Plus, they were probably convinced only after the horrific ottoman interregnum to some extent because of its trauma, but then started to rebel on it again until Sultan Ahmed I was enthroned
They were too busy thinking of why the printing press should be made haram to be involved in silly matters like this.
After witnessing the loss of muslim life and destruction because of brothers fighting. I think they justify it to prevent greater harm.
Had to like that title, will watch the whole video as soon as I have a chance
I will always be amazed that none of these rulers killed all their brothers and then just happend to die before having an heir...
The reason why the ottomans needed fratricide was because the Sultan was too powerful, so his power was too attractive, and they were able to make too much destruction with that power, especially if they were in civil wars.
Bear in mind that the ottoman empire was one of the most highly centralised states in all of europe, which actually was one of the reasons for its absolute strength at first, then europe caught up with ottoman centralisation with the end of feudalism.
So, fratricide might have been avoided if the Sultan had some limits on power with more accountability. Rather, the Sultans used the Grand Viziers to shift blames and accountability to them.
I'm feeling pretty relieved not to be your brother right now 😂
Great video as always! The new format is great!
The system was indeed why the Ottomans got their appealing expansion and administration. The one who messed up the system was Mehmed III. He ordered his 19 brothers including infants to get executed once he ascended to the throne. This action upset people in the court and harem even when he passed away his successor son Ahmed I. didn't attend his funeral due to the resentment and he was the one who installed the ''Ekber ve Erşed'' the eldest and the most mature system thus unintentionally started the sequence of inexperienced sultans resulting in the empire's downfall
STRAP IN BOYS, THIS IS GONNA BE A WIIILD RIDE
Very nice, thank you👍🏼
6:50 Loving your humor in this video LOL
"harmless game of Monopoly" is an oxymoron, Syawish
You're right. I should've known better than that.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT I can't be the only one with PTSD of game nights that generally ended in Dad winning and the youngest sibling crying 😂
I don't have kids, but I'm certainly that dad who gets a little too much into the game and his evil side comes out.
Love the video keep it up man I’m loving this content 😊
The thumbnail of this video is crazy
Can u also cover and analyze history of Solomon, David, Yusuf and other Quranic figures?
very interesting video brother...
Great video as usual
Şehzade Mustafa and many more princes were killed for nothing.
i honestly like the more down to earth style anyway man, keep it up.
Sounds like Hunter x Hunter
Bro's up-to-date
I'm subscribing to Sultan Mehmed The TH-camr.
Syawish hasn't been uploading well these days
Interesting content
Have my upvote for that thumbnail, you comedian.
Ottoman sultans typically only had a couple sons. Fewer sons meant fewer brothers to fight for the throne. And typically a mother in the Ottoman harem would only be allowed to bear one son. That way all of her attention could go toward protecting and educating the one son, and it meant her loyalty couldn't be divided. Hurrem Sultan was an exception. Sultan Murad III was also an exception. He fathered not one or three sons, but 19, and it was that error that led to the tragedy of Mehmed III that turned the people against fratricide.
Religious teachings go out the window, whenever practicality is concerned. Which Is why I am no longer religious, and no longer hypocritical in such sense.
When has Islam been too impractical for you? Many people choose to see it as a test for whether you will do the right thing even if difficult.
If you have not already you should make a video on the pre islamic city of mecca i think the topic is very interesting and you could do it justice.
That's why they had least civil wars.
Ottoman fanboys hate this topic😂
That's why the true Islamic system of governance was Al Khilafah Al Rashidah. This is theThe essence of true governance in Islam can be encapsulated in the concept of Al Khilafah Al Rashidah. This system embodies principles of justice, unity, and moral integrity that are essential for a thriving society. In contrast, while the Ottomans and Mughals undeniably contributed to the cultural and political landscapes of their times, their legacies were marked by complexities that highlight both achievements and failures. Are they truly the models we should aspire to? As we navigate today’s challenges, perhaps it’s vital to reflect on the foundations of Al Khilafah Al Rashidah and envision a political structure that honors its ideals while adapting to contemporary realities. Should we not strive for a governance system that emphasizes collective welfare and accountability, rather than merely replicating past empires? political system we need. The Ottomans and Mughals had both good and bad aspects; they are not our model to follow.
I don't normally comment because as an Irish American this is not my history to comment on, but I loved the title and thumbnail.
I wonder if the addition of a "Crown Prince" position (like with the Chinese) would benefit the Ottomans. The Crown Prince will receive such a legitimacy boost and support from the entire bureaucracy to discourage his brothers from upsurging his throne once it has been passed down; and since the prince's power struggle will happen while the sultan still alive, it will mitigate the worst aspect of these struggle like the civil wars and mass executions, while still force the princes to prove their capabilities to their father to be selected as Crown Prince.
3 videos in a week👏
Ferb, I know what we're doing today
Nature's tested technique to choose "THE ONE"
Whenever you like.😎
From Bangladesh 🇧🇩
I don’t think it’s specific to Ottomans. Henry VIII of England wiped out all his Plantagenet cousins to secure the Tudor dynasty and prevent another War of the Roses. The Ottomans weren’t following Turco-Mongol tradition, more like following the negative example of the Byzantines who were destroyed by endless civil wars. The Ottomans didn’t want to follow Byzantine tradition.
To be fair in case of henry VIII their (eg de la pole, pole, stafford or other english noble with plantagnet blood) extended family is spared and some able to maintain rich property
There was an easier non-haram way of succession: Simply appoint the most religious and leadership savy amongst the people while avoiding family succession. This is what the first four rightly Caliphs did and it worked. This is just an example of how when you abandon the sunnah things only get worse
Valid point. Instead of appointing the most righteous, they turned it into a pure monarchy.
Even worse, I don’t believe that western monarchies were this excited to slaughter every single male relative…..
He says it was effective… but which is the most powerful monarchies today? Britain, and technically Saudi.
What did they both do? Use that power to assign their relatives extremely powerful positions due to their control over there region and world.
precisely, which is why it should be argued that the Khilāfat-ur-Rāshidah was the only truly legitimate Caliphate, which ended with the murder of the 4th Khalifah, Hadhrat Ali bin Abi Thalib (ra). All subsequent “Caliphates” were therefore Caliphates in name only and their system of government had more in common with the other dynastic empires than the Rāshidīn.
The problem is how would you decide that someone is worthy the title? in shahabah era it's not that hard, the choice is obvious, but now?
@@RRRRRRRRRRR956Its impossible to establish a modern day caliphate and I believe we shouldn’t even try to in the first place.
@@aimanmarzuqi4804 exactly, there are more pressing matters to be done
Thumbnail excellence
I wonder if there's a good way to communicate this kind of chaotic succession in something like Crusader Kings III?
I suppose the issue in gameplay terms is it's hard to get the player in the mindframe that competition amongst their heirs is good for the realm when they have to control one of the heirs on succession and actually engage in that competition themselves. A lot of players already find ways to minimise their succession despite the risks it poses and benefits forsaken in doing so, it's hard to imagine a system that involves a large number of heirs all fighting each other catching on with a lot of CKIII players.
I personally would happily go through an automatic civil war on succession if it was a winner takes all arrangement that gave you all the benefits of primogeniture upon victory, especially if the more landed relatives you have to fight for the throne means more land you can revoke and redistribute when all is said and done. Lots of players will just take a vow of celibacy after having one male heir no matter how much incentive you put on the table, they'll still do that knowing that a plague could come along and game over them at any moment- but I suppose if that's how people want to play the game that doesn't have to stop the devs from implementing systems that benefit players more interested in historical roleplay than players metagaming succession and savescumming away all of the reasons that medieval monarchs would want a few spares for their heirs.
Crusaders always crying until you give them hairline
While this system ensured the sultan some peace of mind during their reign, it guaranteed civil war every succession, as even the less ambitious princes were still forced to take up arms to defend themselves (and with most princes have their own territory, they certainly have the mean to do so).
What's strange to me is that foreign powers weren't that involved in these civil wars - I guess the Ottoman being all surrounded by hostiles made it harder to find foreign allies. If the HRE adopted such system, I bet Germany would see a Great Succession War every generation or so..
Fratricide amongst nobles isn't necessarily bad. But when you get 1000s of others killed warring between brothers that is bad. Yeah.
12:50 politics is really a dirty game
If you are Muslim, absolutely it was bad. I think Kane and Able were the examples of why it was bad.
Dude... could you at least not make the title sound like it's still a valid option?
Bro, this is not a legal advice channel.
It didn’t always avoid civil wars. The Mongal Khans never named successors either and when Ghengis Khan died it did lead to civil wars that split and weakened the Empire.
Mind you that the Ottomans only had ONE civil war during the entirety of its 600 years reign. Allah will judge them, but this policy did spare quite a lot of lives that would otherwise die in a civil war. Personally, I see it as the Ottoman's Noblesse Oblige.
Of course Ahmed I later changed it so that it is forbidden but then a worse system replaced it...
TBH, given that the princes had the most to gain from the contest for the throne, it was fair that they be the ones to die rather than peasants.
morality is not subjective from an islamic pov tho, we have objective morals because the source of it is from the all-knowing God making it objective.
The Saudis kind of still do this as does the UAE.
0:22 yes
Seems like something George RR Martin would dream up.
The animations of the pictures are moving very fast. Which is causing problems in maintaining attention. Can the movement of the images be slowed down?
Might makes right !
These days, terms like "liberal" and "woke" seem to be used as catch-alls for anything people dislike. For example, fratricide is not condoned under any right-leaning ideology, especially those that emphasize the importance of family values. The Mughal and Ottoman practice of fratricide was a relic of a harsh Turkic-Mongol ancestral system, and no Muslim is obligated to defend it. In fact, attempting to justify or reframe it through some "enlightened" revisionist lens is the very definition of being "woke."
A lot of other medieval and early modern states had civil wars between brothers (looking at you Mughals and Carolingians), but yeah I think the lack of codified succession for both of these states and the ottomans made a bad situation a lot worse, Chinese dynasties frequently had more stable succession due to requiring the direct appointing of a successor in the will of the previous emperor or during his lifetime, and Christian medieval and early modern primogeniture solved a similar problem in the west. I do think the risk of execution made it so the house of Osman were less likely to cooperate than other dynasties with stable succession, and thus, more incentive for interfamilial cooperation, basically “yes I am not the king but my brother or nephew or uncle is and I’m going to have a really easy life so I should support my ruling family regardless of not holding ultimate power” the Bourbons and Habsburgs were pretty good at this (the war of the Austrian succession was an example of this failing due to the choice of a female heir, an unprecedented issue)
U could make the same argument with killing off ur nobles if ur a king or queen
You should make it explicit that this is part on "how to rule" series. I almost unsubsribed from you.
All hail the algorithm
Jokes on you...I have no brothers. Only sisters. Ottoman me has nothing to worry about.
Imagine if kings were TH-camrs
I am sure that at least some nobility nowdays is .
Not so fast with the facts - the execution of Mustafa at Suleiman's order nearly toppled the Sultan; the riots that ensued were horrific - however that was not fratricide; that was a father killing his son. In a less uncivil society, would it not be better to enlist the aid of a trusted family member than an unrelated person? Of course, that depends on the values of the society one is living in; if you cannot trust your siblings to not kill you, that is not a society that values blood relationships at all which must be a sad place to live. One where you kill your 11 year old brother, whether you knew him or not, is quite primitive and barbaric in many aspects. And why weren't brothers-in-law considered a threat? Because that would require the killing of sisters? Or a surviving and conniving mother or step-mother could just as easily be a threat; possibly even more as the raising of an army was not needed, just a well-placed dash of poison all within the confines of the palace. And then there are the problems of the over-powerful vizirs and the possibility of revolting against the 'winner' of the succeeding generation. Using the logic that fratricide may have been good then killing of all siblings, or other possibly troublesome relatives and past vizirs must be even better, right? No matter how you slice and dice it, murder is murder and whoever commits murder or causes murder to be committed will find the afterlife (if there is such a thing) less than optimal.
Murder is morally wrong. I don't see the nuance here.
Morality is not subjective.
Wait, you’re saying they fought the Afghans in the East??
I honestly just might be uneducated.
Yeah. There were former Afghan mercenaries in what is today UP and Bengal. That's East of Delhi.
Why couldn't they just adopt primogeniture like (most) Europeans did?
Because the oldest son would just think that since he'll get the throne, he can just slack off (like in the Mughal Empire with Dara Shikoh).
well i mean if they wont self-delete, what else you gonna do 😉
hunter hunter reference
👳♂️-if not me, then someone else would
Correct way to clickbait
Who are the 7 & 2 good Ottomon/Mughal sultans?
Long live Sultan Siyawish i guess 😅😂
Did any of the sons just escape? Like just leave the empire or hide out and live under a new name?
Cem certainly tried but failed.
I'm a bit worried about this talking point. I assume (CMIIW) you're trying to refute argument of islamophobe when taking fratricide as an example of "islamic barbarism" and I can accept the reasoning of its effectiveness as a 'lesser evil' in a trolley problem. However, what can we actually learn from it? That killing in the name of political stability is accepted? Or taking extremely immoral (in the eye of faith and public) action from a position of leadership for public good (from the leader's perspective) is allowed? I understand that you and anybody else would be against this kind of political killing, but the fact of its effectiveness would become an argument for today's political killing by anyone with power to do it.
is that the Actor Aamir Khan in Mansa Musa section of Patrons?
Seriously... what did i just watched?
would william unalive harry ?
Only if he needs a Kidney. Harry is just there in case William needs a kidney or a liver and I mean obviously William wouldn't do it himself, there are people for that 😂
He had already thrown him 😂. However he is not a threat
unaliving, lol
Bring back the old AL Muqqaddimah!
Ottoman and their questionable cultures
0:21
It has religious justification
Ottoman jurists took the fourth caliph ali as example of rebellion against caliphate
Ali against muawiyah
So it has religious justification
ALI !!!
ALI against muawiyah ?!
Or muawiyah against ALI ?
@@hammadraza9255 regardless both of them against each other
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 ALI wasn't against muawiyah at all, he even tried to avoid wars, and mostly sahabah were with him including big figures, ALI literally did not ban khawarij from praying in his masjid mainwhile they were clearly doing takfeer to him !!!
ALI was from the generation of ABU BAKR, UMAR, USMAN, ABDUL RAHMAN IBN AUF, UBADAH BIN SAMIT and all, they were different from others
Basically if both are sahabi but making both of them in same line is either ignorance of history or ignorance of ahadees.
@@hammadraza9255 i am not talking about status
Ali is way above muawiya in every thing
I am talking about the events and religious ruling of it
lol
Ottoman had a really dirty culture
Al Muqaddimah: When is it OKAY to UNALIVE your Brother?!🤔
Ghetto Detective: As soon as he disrespect you. 🤛😁
😂😂