When is it OKAY to UNALIVE your Brother?!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 жов 2024
- 🔔 Don't forget to like, comment, share and subscribe.
💵 Support Al Muqaddimah financially: Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
💻 Visit my Website: AlMuqaddimah.com
Disclaimer: The maps and flags in the video are not 100% accurate. Some maps and flags are difficult to find and so, are estimations.
🎶 Original Music & Sound Effects created by :
Filip Holm (Let's Talk Religion)
Syawish Rehman (Yours Truly)
🎵 Royalty-free Music by:
Epidemic Sound
❁ Floral Patterns by:
Marjan Qasemi (marjanvart)
If you had a problem with the video, or found something to be incorrect, please send me a message, rather than being a jerk and reporting it.
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.
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 UA-camr
I'm surprised that no one has noticed Dwight Schrute peeking over my shoulder.
Disclaimer: this stunt was performed by professionals. Please do not try this at home
try this in public
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.
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.
Curse my noble birth
Never was that more applicable than in Ottoman Sultan's children
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.
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.
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.
"Please don't try this at home" ;) Another highly entertaining and engrossing video, great work.
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..
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.
Had to like that title, will watch the whole video as soon as I have a chance
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.
There's plenty of examples in European history of brothers fighting for the kingship and even sons and fathers.
Luis XIII's brother was in rebellion with his mother against the king for example and even in the time of his son, Luis XIV, he had to keep an eye on his brother; and this wasn't a new threat as the whole second half of the 100 years war is basically the Duke of Burgundy, the King's brother, trying to carve a separate kingdom for himself with the help of the English.
And on the other hand there's plenty of ordered succession in Islamic history, four brothers and a cousin succeeded Abd-ul-Malik ibn Marwaan without open warfare, their Andulisean branch also had some generation of smooth succession.
I'm feeling pretty relieved not to be your brother right now 😂
Love the video keep it up man I’m loving this content 😊
Great video as always! The new format is great!
Very nice, thank you👍🏼
"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.
Have my upvote for that thumbnail, you comedian.
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 honestly like the more down to earth style anyway man, keep it up.
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.
I'm subscribing to Sultan Mehmed The UA-camr.
Syawish hasn't been uploading well these days
Can u also cover and analyze history of Solomon, David, Yusuf and other Quranic figures?
Ottoman fanboys hate this topic😂
very interesting video brother...
Great video as usual
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
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.
Sounds like Hunter x Hunter
Ferb, I know what we're doing today
Interesting content
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
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.
6:50 Loving your humor in this video LOL
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.
Nature's tested technique to choose "THE ONE"
3 videos in a week👏
Whenever you like.😎
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.
Şehzade Mustafa and many more princes were killed for nothing.
12:50 politics is really a dirty game
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
Seems like something George RR Martin would dream up.
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.
Thumbnail excellence
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..
You should make it explicit that this is part on "how to rule" series. I almost unsubsribed from you.
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.
All hail the algorithm
The Saudis kind of still do this as does the UAE.
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?
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)
That's why they had least civil wars.
The humane alternative of putting them in The Cage (Al-qafus or Kafes) is really what destroyed the Ottomans, it was total isolation from society and normal life (not even allowed to have a wife) sometimes up to 30 years; they came out with damaged personalities and then they were given absolute power!
well i mean if they wont self-delete, what else you gonna do 😉
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.
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.
Might makes right !
Imagine if kings were UA-camrs
I am sure that at least some nobility nowdays is .
👳♂️-if not me, then someone else would
0:22 yes
Long live Sultan Siyawish i guess 😅😂
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).
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.
hunter hunter reference
Ottoman and their questionable cultures
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.
Murder is morally wrong. I don't see the nuance here.
Morality is not subjective.
is that the Actor Aamir Khan in Mansa Musa section of Patrons?
Correct way to clickbait
Seriously... what did i just watched?
Ottoman had a really dirty culture
Bring back the old AL Muqqaddimah!
unaliving, lol
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
8:54 what's your source that Mohammed bin Murad ibn Othman Al-Fatih "legalized" the practice? I could find no credible source that there were a formal "law" or even a fatwa to allow the killing of all brothers regardless of actions or age. As far as I could find this seems to be just another Orientalist slander and lie about a great Muslim leader.
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
Al Muqaddimah: When is it OKAY to UNALIVE your Brother?!🤔
Ghetto Detective: As soon as he disrespect you. 🤛😁
😂😂