I noticed he said "Sir" instead of either "Your highness" or "Your Majesty". I guess he was very careful not to say these words otherwise they would have given the disguised monarch away.
@@rzru3k to be fair Ibrahim was very shady too... Even if he did great service to the harem, he was rapey, uncouth and unprofessional. He also sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire by scheming and bribery.
@@tedhubertcrusio372 the fate of ottoman empire was sealed by suleyman itself and his pride ibrahim loved suleyman and especially his son mustafa ibrahim wanted to make ottomans like a new rome civilised with great culture and also he wanted to conquer rome kapudan pasa red beard was a close friend to ibrahim they both had good reason and strong plan to conquer whole europe byt suleyman idiot and his treator wife with her sons seal ottoman empire for pride suleyman was a peacfull guy but not smart
@@rzru3k ibrahim got too much power and started thinking he himself was the king. He wouldve also killed Suleiman if he had gotten too much allies. Also lets not forget how much threat he was to Hurrem, so Suleiman had to take action
You'll probably seem some europeans like me or americans saying the judge doled out some serious punishment, but I'd say he's strict, but fair. The punishment for adultery may look harsh, but the leniency shown for the process of the law is a testament to how well organised the Ottoman Empire was in its height of power, compared to the same era europe, where adultery was an offense which usually ended up with way harsher punishments and much less proper defense or hearings of any kind.
If he isn’t able to produce 4 witnesses, he should swear by Allah 4 times that he isn’t lying and that they were committing adultery and should ask Allah once to curse the person that is lying, and if the accused object, they must do the same thing.
no, from my knowledge, that's not the case. 4 witnesses mean that the deed was done in public and public sins are punishable, but if the witnesses are less than 4 then that means it was done privately and it is between Allah and his slave. correct me if I am wrong.
Seeing magnificent videos I get why Suleiman remain lovable figure in Turkey history next to Ataturk I mean imagine nation kingdom empire leader go citizen peasants life undercover I would go fainted for week if I find king doing these
Either the women did the gossip or the husband did to put the idea into people’s heads to imagine something or being nosey in the first place. And she is stuck with the jerk besides.
The word is so polysemic that it beggars belief how often ‘to cut off’ is simply understood as ‘amputation’ (for which, incidentally, the Arabic language has an entirely different term, which is al-batr). The common understanding that q-t-aa means ‘to cut off’ the left hand of a thief (bizarrely not his right hand!), contradicts the verse, which clearly uses the plural ‘hands’: (‘his or her hands [aidiyahuma]’), indicating that the best way to keep a thief’s hands(!) off society is to send him or her to prison. Surely, to cut off both hands of a thief would be a barbarity that not even the most scrupulous fuqaha" have ever contemplated. A clear mistake by the jurists was to associate q-t-aa with a complete amputation of the entire (one) hand. However, other verses of the Book, in which q-t-aa of hands is discussed, prove that alternative readings are possible. In verse 31 of Sårat Yusuf we hear, for example, of women who accidentally cut their hands after they became ecstatic over the beauty of Joseph Other verses suggest even more different renderings of q-t-aa, such as ‘to cut across’: Nor could they spend anything (for the cause)-small or great-nor cut across [ yaqãatåna] a valley, but the deed is inscribed to their credit... (Al-Tawba 9:121) Or ‘to sunder’: Those who break God’s covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder [yaqãatåna] what God has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth... (Al-Baqara 2:27) Or ‘to wipe out’: Of the wrong-doers the last remnant was cut off [quãita]. Praise be to God, the cherisher of the worlds. (Al-Anaam 6:45) Or ‘to break ties’: 18 All translators without exception (i.e., including AhA) render la-uqaããitanna as ‘to cut off’ and do not seem to see a problem in the (technically) impossible sequence of punishment from amputation to crucifixion. Then, is it to be expected of you, if you were put in authority, that you will do mischief in the land, and break your ties [tuqaãtãiå] of kith and kin? (Muhammad 47:22) Or ‘to divide’: We divided them [qaãtanahum] into twelve tribes or nations... (Al-Aaraf 7:160) In light of these semantic variants of q-t-aa, we conclude that the expression ‘to cut the thief’s hand’ cannot be interpreted as ‘amputation by knife or sword’. Instead, we must consider alternative forms of punishments, such as imprisonment, which equally deters convicted thieves to ‘put their hands’ on items that they might steal. Imprisonment also allows society to release fully rehabilitated criminals back into society unharmed, thus fulfilling God’s command to forgive and show mercy in the face of a thief’s repentance and remorse: But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, God turns to him in forgiveness; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful. (Al-Maaida 5:39) Unlike a merciless, indiscriminate revenge for theft by corporal punishment, the possibility of imprisonment permits judges to impose different penalties that take the seriousness of each act of theft into consideration. In serious cases, such as stealing intelligence through espionage or embezzling money on the corporate or state level, the judge might interpret this as a serious threat to national security and our economy and impose the maximum sentence (analogous to the penalty for ‘corruption in the land’, see further below). But if the theft is of a much smaller scale, a lesser sentence will be more appropriate, and convicted criminals could be released from prison on parole if they no longer pose a threat to their community and society as a whole. None of this flexibility is, however, possible if sentences stipulate an indiscriminate amputation of the thief’s hand, regardless of how serious the crime is and regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place. It has become the norm in most legal systems today that one should not go to the extreme and cut off the thief’s hand. Given that, in referring to a thief, the Book always uses the active participle sariq (‘the one who steals’), referring to someone who is still actively engaged in criminal activities in contrast to someone who has profoundly repented of his crime, we should seriously reconsider our current understanding of theft and adopt a more flexible stance towards it (which, we believe, a well-organised prison system can clearly provide).
This is a country with good subordinate and normal and cruel leader .The entire story would explain how great you are Not doing some good thing or A beautiful word written in the book😂.
How can one witness, that too a woman whose attestation is considered to be equal to one half of a persons, testify a sin punishable by shariah and be enough for a verdict? Since we need more than one witness of a sin/crime and she only makes half.
Hudood crimes generally have very strict evidentiary standards that are almost impossible (such as 4 male witnesses who saw the crime in public). The design of the Sharia is so that punishments like stoning are basically impossible to carry out but still have the letter of the law in place to show the detestability of the crime. Jewish law is very similar in this aspect. The punishment (footwhiping) is a Tazir or discretionary punishment the punishes the sin without the need for the 4 witness standard
Yes but the judge changed it to a fine. This would not be zina [adultery] , but fahisha [immoral conduct], as the judge put it, for adultery to be proven, it would have to be done openly in public. This legal injuction makes it impossible to accuse anyone of adultery for malicious reasons. Islamic law is very flexible. It has nothing to do with the interpretation given to it by the Taliban.
@@sparephone8228 I was objecting to him beating them for a crime that may not have happened. As you said there was no proof they committed adultery why 100 strokes or 50 coins for a crime that could not be proven? There are muslims in over a hundred countries and many Muslim majority countries. I know stoning is not really Islamic. I don’t love she had to go home with the guy who wanted her dead.
@@kristinesharp6286 The husband had a witness, the woman. I agree being a peeping tom isnot a moral or ethical thing to do. However a judge has to use his intelligence to come to a decision. He clearly thought it was not adultery, but maybe fahisha[ unseemly] that they were half naked.
In ancient kingdoms, such "just-in-time" judgments were common. However, this practice contradicted the principles of justice. According to Islam, a witness must be a credible individual, which means that every witness should be thoroughly vetted. Witness testimony alone is not sufficient; there must also be supporting evidence. Therefore, a Qazi (judge) must carefully vet witnesses and examine all evidence before arriving at a decision. It is unclear whether these practices, often depicted in stories, were reflective of reality or merely dramatized for entertainment. A real judge would never rely solely on hearsay to deliver a verdict.
It's Drama named Muhtesem Yuzel. Secondly stoning people is also in Torah and Bible. And why don't question nuns in chruch why there isn't a nude nun in chruch?
@@thehat4215 You're missing my point. Stoning people is beyond cruel. Where is justice when people behave like animals? And I'm not saying that women should be naked but have you seen how Muslim women dres?! You can't even see their eyes!
You are right it was the execution by the bronze bull. Btw Women were considered sinful and unclean by nature in ancient and medieval Europe and held responsible for Adams expulsion from heaven according to early Christian priests. They always turn a blind eye towards their tainted and most cruel history
@@Tsiribreezesyou came to youtube watching scene of a series and you say this? Bruh your bible is worse go read the punishment it has, then talk. Get your sick head somewhere else.
Literally there are 3 female rulers in this drama have you not saw it. See full episodes all besides that Valida Sultana(Mother of Sultans) were also very powerful
@huskyyfluff ah yes, let's pretend Ottoman Empire was a Noble empire, that this didn't happen a hundred years ago, and that it doesn't matter even if it happened that long ago. Our brothers want to pretend d they are the victims. Hahaha
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how he recognizes his Sultan immediately yet stays quite about it
They have such an amazing friendship
I noticed he said "Sir" instead of either "Your highness" or "Your Majesty". I guess he was very careful not to say these words otherwise they would have given the disguised monarch away.
and yet he gave him a terrible advice to kill Ibrahim
@@rzru3k to be fair Ibrahim was very shady too... Even if he did great service to the harem, he was rapey, uncouth and unprofessional. He also sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire by scheming and bribery.
@@tedhubertcrusio372 the fate of ottoman empire was sealed by suleyman itself and his pride ibrahim loved suleyman and especially his son mustafa ibrahim wanted to make ottomans like a new rome civilised with great culture and also he wanted to conquer rome kapudan pasa red beard was a close friend to ibrahim they both had good reason and strong plan to conquer whole europe byt suleyman idiot and his treator wife with her sons seal ottoman empire for pride suleyman was a peacfull guy but not smart
@@rzru3k ibrahim got too much power and started thinking he himself was the king. He wouldve also killed Suleiman if he had gotten too much allies. Also lets not forget how much threat he was to Hurrem, so Suleiman had to take action
Ebusud Effendi was such a brilliant and wise judge
ua-cam.com/video/3Od_kPLXsyY/v-deo.html hebat pak , ini videonya syaikh Abdul hakim Murad mualaf dari cambridge soal Ebusuud effendi
But he favoured hurrem and was against mustafa. Earlier one was better than him.
For his time maybe he was a fine jduiciary, fair in the period, however not by modern standards.
6:23 LOL Ebu be like "Really, you think I won't see you snooping in my court, boss?"
A judge with so much wisdom.
You'll probably seem some europeans like me or americans saying the judge doled out some serious punishment, but I'd say he's strict, but fair. The punishment for adultery may look harsh, but the leniency shown for the process of the law is a testament to how well organised the Ottoman Empire was in its height of power, compared to the same era europe, where adultery was an offense which usually ended up with way harsher punishments and much less proper defense or hearings of any kind.
finally someone who understands a bit history. I take off my hat for you!
Theres a stone tablet with Suleimans portrait in the US Capitol Building because the Ottoman justice system heavily influenced the US justice system.
@@chancellorpalpatineakathes6130I suppose that the Ottomans landed on the moon in the 16th century as well?
@@bernardmcavoy1864 don’t believe me look it up. There’s a few other stone portraits
@@chancellorpalpatineakathes6130The Americans modeled their government on Rome
SULTAN SULAYMAN WAS DOING GOOD JOB TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON BETWEEN THE SOCIATY.
SAME LIKE OMER BIN KHADAB.
This guy is a great judge. But there are not many like that to go around and a lot of judges.
What a great judge.👍
I’m thrilled he let the kids alone.
1:01 beautiful eyes. That kids eyes is just wow
Best is the last thing the ludge says to the Sultan !!!!! Omg best ever !!!
I like this judge!
Love the Judge Ebu Suud
ما شاء الله ، القاضي خبير في الشريعة الإسلامية. إنه قاضي جيد
If he isn’t able to produce 4 witnesses, he should swear by Allah 4 times that he isn’t lying and that they were committing adultery and should ask Allah once to curse the person that is lying, and if the accused object, they must do the same thing.
Even in that case no stoning would be done, but they would just be separated
no, from my knowledge, that's not the case.
4 witnesses mean that the deed was done in public and public sins are punishable, but if the witnesses are less than 4 then that means it was done privately and it is between Allah and his slave.
correct me if I am wrong.
thats when the husband doesn't have any witnesses at all, this case is different
and in that case no one is stoned and the womens honor remains unsullied
Seeing magnificent videos I get why Suleiman remain lovable figure in Turkey history next to Ataturk
I mean imagine nation kingdom empire leader go citizen peasants life undercover
I would go fainted for week if I find king doing these
next to ataturk?who prohibited quran and adan?
Surely Turkish Judge Caprio.
In my country the word for the courthouse and the judge are sud and sudija, we loved Ebusud Effendi
I guess you are from a Slavic country... I am quite sure the etymology of "sud" in Slavic languages has nothing to do with this. )
Either the women did the gossip or the husband did to put the idea into people’s heads to imagine something or being nosey in the first place. And she is stuck with the jerk besides.
He gave the right punishment according to islam unlike that overconfident lutfi pasha
❤️ From India 💕
You indians so stubborn, no need to say I'm from india
No body asked about nationality
Hey, me too
@@mramsayo1025 Not only Indian a lot westerners watch this drama it is also watched by many countries Presidents and Prime Minister's
Judge is wise
The word is so polysemic that it beggars belief how often ‘to cut off’ is simply understood as ‘amputation’ (for which, incidentally, the Arabic language has an entirely different term, which is al-batr). The common understanding that q-t-aa means ‘to cut off’ the left hand of a thief (bizarrely not his right hand!), contradicts the verse, which clearly uses the plural ‘hands’: (‘his or her hands [aidiyahuma]’), indicating that the best way to keep a thief’s hands(!) off society is to send him or her to prison. Surely, to cut off both hands of a thief would be a barbarity that not even the most scrupulous fuqaha" have ever contemplated.
A clear mistake by the jurists was to associate q-t-aa with a complete amputation of the entire (one) hand. However, other verses of the Book, in which q-t-aa of hands is discussed, prove that alternative readings are possible. In verse 31 of Sårat Yusuf we hear, for example, of women who accidentally cut their hands after they became ecstatic over the beauty of Joseph
Other verses suggest even more different renderings of q-t-aa, such as ‘to cut across’:
Nor could they spend anything (for the cause)-small or great-nor cut across [ yaqãatåna] a valley, but the deed is inscribed to their credit... (Al-Tawba 9:121)
Or ‘to sunder’:
Those who break God’s covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder [yaqãatåna] what God has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth... (Al-Baqara 2:27)
Or ‘to wipe out’:
Of the wrong-doers the last remnant was cut off [quãita]. Praise be to
God, the cherisher of the worlds. (Al-Anaam 6:45) Or ‘to break ties’:
18 All translators without exception (i.e., including AhA) render la-uqaããitanna as ‘to cut off’ and do not seem to see a problem in the (technically) impossible sequence of punishment from amputation to crucifixion.
Then, is it to be expected of you, if you were put in authority, that you will do mischief in the land, and break your ties [tuqaãtãiå] of kith and kin? (Muhammad 47:22)
Or ‘to divide’:
We divided them [qaãtanahum] into twelve tribes or nations... (Al-Aaraf 7:160)
In light of these semantic variants of q-t-aa, we conclude that the expression ‘to cut the thief’s hand’ cannot be interpreted as ‘amputation by knife or sword’. Instead, we must consider alternative forms of punishments, such as imprisonment, which equally deters convicted thieves to ‘put their hands’ on items that they might steal. Imprisonment also allows society to release fully rehabilitated criminals back into society unharmed, thus fulfilling God’s command to forgive and show mercy in the face of a thief’s repentance and remorse:
But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, God turns to him in forgiveness; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful. (Al-Maaida 5:39)
Unlike a merciless, indiscriminate revenge for theft by corporal punishment, the possibility of imprisonment permits judges to impose different penalties that take the seriousness of each act of theft into consideration. In serious cases, such as stealing intelligence through espionage or embezzling money on the corporate or state level, the judge might interpret this as a serious threat to national security and our economy and impose the maximum sentence (analogous to the penalty for ‘corruption in the land’, see further below). But if the theft is of a much smaller scale, a lesser sentence will be more appropriate, and convicted criminals could be released from prison on parole if they no longer pose a threat to their community and society as a whole. None of this flexibility is, however, possible if sentences stipulate an indiscriminate amputation of the thief’s hand, regardless of how serious the crime is and regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place. It has become the norm in most legal systems today that one should not go to the extreme and cut off the thief’s hand. Given that, in referring to a thief, the Book always uses the active participle sariq (‘the one who steals’), referring to someone who is still actively engaged in criminal activities in contrast to someone who has profoundly repented of his crime, we should seriously reconsider our current understanding of theft and adopt a more flexible stance towards it (which, we believe, a well-organised prison system can clearly provide).
Does anyone know which episode this is
Always on their video descriptions :)
Episode 71
@@jtal7144 THANK YOU!
@@MagnificentCentury and in 80% link doesnt work: "private video" - so we can't see which ep is this.
This is a country with good subordinate and normal and cruel leader .The entire story would explain how great you are
Not doing some good thing or
A beautiful word written in the book😂.
Episode?
How can one witness, that too a woman whose attestation is considered to be equal to one half of a persons, testify a sin punishable by shariah and be enough for a verdict? Since we need more than one witness of a sin/crime and she only makes half.
They got a tazir punishjment , not the huddud one
Hudood crimes generally have very strict evidentiary standards that are almost impossible (such as 4 male witnesses who saw the crime in public). The design of the Sharia is so that punishments like stoning are basically impossible to carry out but still have the letter of the law in place to show the detestability of the crime. Jewish law is very similar in this aspect. The punishment (footwhiping) is a Tazir or discretionary punishment the punishes the sin without the need for the 4 witness standard
The testimony of a woman does not count as half in these issues
@@Mustafa777. Not impossible but rare. They do happen in a Muslim society.
@@Fabbjusuf There's difference of opinion.
How can 3 drachma come down to 13 coins? Lol. Translation error?
I don't get where is the error...
Dirham is a silver coin and obviously it is much more valuable than other coins
What ep?
71
A neighbor looking through a piece of cloth says she saw something in a window of a house and two people get beaten?
Yes but the judge changed it to a fine. This would not be zina [adultery] , but fahisha [immoral conduct], as the judge put it, for adultery to be proven, it would have to be done openly in public. This legal injuction makes it impossible to accuse anyone of adultery for malicious reasons. Islamic law is very flexible. It has nothing to do with the interpretation given to it by the Taliban.
@@sparephone8228 I was objecting to him beating them for a crime that may not have happened. As you said there was no proof they committed adultery why 100 strokes or 50 coins for a crime that could not be proven? There are muslims in over a hundred countries and many Muslim majority countries. I know stoning is not really Islamic. I don’t love she had to go home with the guy who wanted her dead.
@@sparephone8228 why wasn’t the woman fined or beaten for looking in the window?
@@kristinesharp6286 The husband had a witness, the woman. I agree being a peeping tom isnot a moral or ethical thing to do. However a judge has to use his intelligence to come to a decision. He clearly thought it was not adultery, but maybe fahisha[ unseemly] that they were half naked.
It's Drama(TV Show) man named Muhtesem Yuzel based Ottoman Empire
In ancient kingdoms, such "just-in-time" judgments were common. However, this practice contradicted the principles of justice. According to Islam, a witness must be a credible individual, which means that every witness should be thoroughly vetted. Witness testimony alone is not sufficient; there must also be supporting evidence. Therefore, a Qazi (judge) must carefully vet witnesses and examine all evidence before arriving at a decision. It is unclear whether these practices, often depicted in stories, were reflective of reality or merely dramatized for entertainment. A real judge would never rely solely on hearsay to deliver a verdict.
Канейди бизни судияларимиз хам шунака адолатли булса еди инсонларга несбатан
Cutting hands, forcing women to dress as chandeliers and stoning people to death.... Truly a religion of peace and understanding!
It's Drama named Muhtesem Yuzel. Secondly stoning people is also in Torah and Bible. And why don't question nuns in chruch why there isn't a nude nun in chruch?
@@thehat4215 You're missing my point. Stoning people is beyond cruel. Where is justice when people behave like animals? And I'm not saying that women should be naked but have you seen how Muslim women dres?! You can't even see their eyes!
You are right it was the execution by the bronze bull. Btw Women were considered sinful and unclean by nature in ancient and medieval Europe and held responsible for Adams expulsion from heaven according to early Christian priests. They always turn a blind eye towards their tainted and most cruel history
@@Tsiribreezes im not much of a religious but she cooked you just there.
@@Tsiribreezesyou came to youtube watching scene of a series and you say this? Bruh your bible is worse go read the punishment it has, then talk. Get your sick head somewhere else.
Is that the fruit merchant from Viva La Dirt League?
His Pargali Pasha edict was pure nonsense.
I still prefer the jury system.
😍
Salmon is also ine of the monsters and NADJI ACTUALLY HAS A MEANING. HE IS SCREWED TOO.
ENJOY YOURSLEF SALMON. YOU AND KADIROV BOTH.
Magnificent century to...present day Turkey. LMAO
It seems that those peoplw who accused fro adultery is giving caning. For khalwat
Where are the women?
Thi is TV show named Muhtesem Yuzel
It's based on Sultan Suleman live
Literally there are 3 female rulers in this drama have you not saw it. See full episodes all besides that Valida Sultana(Mother of Sultans) were also very powerful
Court is so boring. Even today. ; )
It's not, if you are a professional, have sound knowledge and love your profession.
ua-cam.com/video/3Od_kPLXsyY/v-deo.html
Did they bring up the Armenian genocide and Assyrian genocide to this judge?
Ah yes, those two things definitely happened in the 16th century.
@huskyyfluff ah yes, let's pretend Ottoman Empire was a Noble empire, that this didn't happen a hundred years ago, and that it doesn't matter even if it happened that long ago. Our brothers want to pretend d they are the victims. Hahaha
@@selvamthiagarajan8152 You sound insane
Some of the punishment was too leninent . Those fornicating should have given 100 lashes as in the Quran
No! That is only for unmarried people who are found to fornicate with 4 probe witnesses
Kinda feels like a backward society almost Dystopian
Suleiman was a great ruler but a worst father
Episode?
71