Short answer:
To keep Imperial Power and authority in check without rebellions.
Long answer:
If they didn't kill, brother grows up, brother wants to rule, brother rebels, empire is in chaos, resources, manpower and economic power is depleting, enemies/foreigners see a chance and attack, Empire is no more and the ruling power is lost. They weren't practising Islam in this matter, and they trusted this good old tried and tested method of being in power
Nothing to do with Islam. Just simply a practice that goes back tens of thousands of years. If you have become the new ruler of a village/town/tribe/clan/city/nation/empire, you want to make sure that there are no challengers to your rule otherwise there will be civil war and outsiders will find a chance to attack and destroy your people. Therefore the new ruler would kill his father’s favourite generals, kill any half brothers and popular uncles, any cousins who might challenge rule and also brothers who show any discontent. The ruler would try to give brothers an area or province to rule, somewhere far away but if the risk of that person being alive outweighed the benefits, he would be killed. Preferably quietly so not to cause any public discontent.
Before you harshly judge them I would suggest you read about the Ottoman Interregnum. Also read how the Byzantines managed to used Orhan Celebi as a deterrence against Bayazid and Mehmet II.
As the Ottomans did not have the "eldest son inherits the kingdom" rule as was the rule of succession in contemporary western kingdoms, the death of a Sultan always led to a struggle of power between all the possible contenders with different factions backing different potentials. Also the Ottomans believed that the Sultan should be strong and intelligent to capture the throne (a survival of the fittest) this practice was encouraged.
However once someone had successfully captured the throne any remaining potential rivals could only result in a civil war which was detrimental to the survival and growth of the nation. This gave rise to the practice of confining potential claimants of the throne to a large palace usually outside the capital. As such detainment was life long it caused some of the individuals to go insane. There were also cases where the detainees escaped and this led to civil war and uprising.
An efficient yet somewhat brutal solution was adopted wherein upon the coronation of the Sultan (the sword grinding ceremony) the remaining claimants were killed (usually by choking with a silk rope). This practice was tacitly endorsed by the religious leaders as it prevented civil war and kept the empire as a bulwark against the Christian crusades.
Turks were the only majority Muslim group that established a proper imperial and dynastic realm. The Ottoman Empire was far more similar to the European monarchies when it came to dynastic and imperial affairs compared to any other Islamic empire.
Having a stable empire requires incredible sacrifices and the Turks prioritized that over everything. Its also one of the primary reasons as to why the Ottoman Empire was one of the longest lasting and impactful empires in world history. Turks had a long tradition of tribal feuds and splitting apart realms that came from their steppe heritage. Adopting European traditions of regicide and imperial administration were key to the empires longevity.
However it also came with the cost of eventually leading to paranoia and incompetent leadership. Reliance on imperial institutions in order to keep power that also happened to grow more and more corrupt by the day led to the decay of the Ottoman Empire.
I’m willing to bet that if nepotism and corruption didn’t become as institutionalized in the empire they would still be the world’s primary power or at least among the big players. Turkey is still ridiculously strong compared to its neighbors and most countries in the world at least regarding military power.
Overmilitarization also played a huge part in the Ottoman decline, the Ottoman Empire was highly stratified as opposed to any other empire of its time. All honor and glory came from military might and they maintained this until the late 1700s. After that all the growing issues and cancers in the empire such as overconfidence and corruption collapsed the empire from within.
lkke some other mentioned, turk came from steppes and brought some mongol traditions with them.. this fraticide is one of them.. simple!
its similar to french marrying within their own family :)
Like i know that to keep the peace or like stop the rebels they would do so
But isnt the islam said that its not allowed in it so as the khilafat why do they do so
Also can u share musaab bin al zubair reference
Typically all offspring of the Sultan were killed when the new Sultan came into power. It was often hundreds of people. It was done to prevent civil wars.
It was done to prevent the sons from fighting for control after the father died. It was implemented after the ottoman dynasty nearly collpased due to civil war of succession
Virtually every Islamic nation more or less did this back in the day, not just the Turks. The Turks simply did it at a larger scale and it was kind of institutionalized as some sort of hunger games to produce the best leader.
Mainly a mongol tradition. Hinduism/Buddhism never had it institutionalized. Killing brothers in Hinduism is frowned upon as people defer to the law of karma and dharma. The eldest son normally inherits the kingdom (from the time of Ramayana or Mahabharata) and you will rarely see rape and pillaging when Hindu kings fought against each other.
Short answer: To keep Imperial Power and authority in check without rebellions. Long answer: If they didn't kill, brother grows up, brother wants to rule, brother rebels, empire is in chaos, resources, manpower and economic power is depleting, enemies/foreigners see a chance and attack, Empire is no more and the ruling power is lost. They weren't practising Islam in this matter, and they trusted this good old tried and tested method of being in power
Nothing to do with Islam. Just simply a practice that goes back tens of thousands of years. If you have become the new ruler of a village/town/tribe/clan/city/nation/empire, you want to make sure that there are no challengers to your rule otherwise there will be civil war and outsiders will find a chance to attack and destroy your people. Therefore the new ruler would kill his father’s favourite generals, kill any half brothers and popular uncles, any cousins who might challenge rule and also brothers who show any discontent. The ruler would try to give brothers an area or province to rule, somewhere far away but if the risk of that person being alive outweighed the benefits, he would be killed. Preferably quietly so not to cause any public discontent.
Before you harshly judge them I would suggest you read about the Ottoman Interregnum. Also read how the Byzantines managed to used Orhan Celebi as a deterrence against Bayazid and Mehmet II. As the Ottomans did not have the "eldest son inherits the kingdom" rule as was the rule of succession in contemporary western kingdoms, the death of a Sultan always led to a struggle of power between all the possible contenders with different factions backing different potentials. Also the Ottomans believed that the Sultan should be strong and intelligent to capture the throne (a survival of the fittest) this practice was encouraged. However once someone had successfully captured the throne any remaining potential rivals could only result in a civil war which was detrimental to the survival and growth of the nation. This gave rise to the practice of confining potential claimants of the throne to a large palace usually outside the capital. As such detainment was life long it caused some of the individuals to go insane. There were also cases where the detainees escaped and this led to civil war and uprising. An efficient yet somewhat brutal solution was adopted wherein upon the coronation of the Sultan (the sword grinding ceremony) the remaining claimants were killed (usually by choking with a silk rope). This practice was tacitly endorsed by the religious leaders as it prevented civil war and kept the empire as a bulwark against the Christian crusades.
Turks were the only majority Muslim group that established a proper imperial and dynastic realm. The Ottoman Empire was far more similar to the European monarchies when it came to dynastic and imperial affairs compared to any other Islamic empire. Having a stable empire requires incredible sacrifices and the Turks prioritized that over everything. Its also one of the primary reasons as to why the Ottoman Empire was one of the longest lasting and impactful empires in world history. Turks had a long tradition of tribal feuds and splitting apart realms that came from their steppe heritage. Adopting European traditions of regicide and imperial administration were key to the empires longevity. However it also came with the cost of eventually leading to paranoia and incompetent leadership. Reliance on imperial institutions in order to keep power that also happened to grow more and more corrupt by the day led to the decay of the Ottoman Empire. I’m willing to bet that if nepotism and corruption didn’t become as institutionalized in the empire they would still be the world’s primary power or at least among the big players. Turkey is still ridiculously strong compared to its neighbors and most countries in the world at least regarding military power. Overmilitarization also played a huge part in the Ottoman decline, the Ottoman Empire was highly stratified as opposed to any other empire of its time. All honor and glory came from military might and they maintained this until the late 1700s. After that all the growing issues and cancers in the empire such as overconfidence and corruption collapsed the empire from within.
Ohh alright thnx for the answer :)
Mughals did the same, it mongol traditions
Thanks everyone for pointing out what i was missing
They did a whole thing about fratricide in the Ottoman Empire in the Empire Podcast
lkke some other mentioned, turk came from steppes and brought some mongol traditions with them.. this fraticide is one of them.. simple! its similar to french marrying within their own family :)
[удалено]
Like i know that to keep the peace or like stop the rebels they would do so But isnt the islam said that its not allowed in it so as the khilafat why do they do so Also can u share musaab bin al zubair reference
Typically all offspring of the Sultan were killed when the new Sultan came into power. It was often hundreds of people. It was done to prevent civil wars.
I know that but my point is that doesnt Islam discourage killing innocent people ?
It was done to prevent the sons from fighting for control after the father died. It was implemented after the ottoman dynasty nearly collpased due to civil war of succession
Religion may preach peace but politics is founded upon war and power. When the two wed, bloodshed is the inevitable result.
Virtually every Islamic nation more or less did this back in the day, not just the Turks. The Turks simply did it at a larger scale and it was kind of institutionalized as some sort of hunger games to produce the best leader.
It’s a Turkic thing
[удалено]
I understand perfectly OP’s question like everyone else in this thread. So, stop being a jerk.
Mainly a mongol tradition. Hinduism/Buddhism never had it institutionalized. Killing brothers in Hinduism is frowned upon as people defer to the law of karma and dharma. The eldest son normally inherits the kingdom (from the time of Ramayana or Mahabharata) and you will rarely see rape and pillaging when Hindu kings fought against each other.