Fratricide has existed in history since the beginning of creation. It can occur when conflicts arise between a father and his son, a brother and his sibling, or an uncle and his nephew, leading them to kill each other. The first murder in history was between the two brothers Cain and Abel, the sons of Prophet Adam, peace be upon him.
The killing continues to happen despite Islamic law strictly forbidding it without just cause. Islam honours human life and blood, as clearly stated in the Quran in Surah Al-Isra: “And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right.”
However, some claim that Ottoman sultans enacted a law permitting them to kill their brothers, using this as evidence to label them as brutal and argue that their governance practices were disconnected from Islamic culture. This prompted me to investigate whether this claim was false or accurate, and it seems some circumstances led the sultans to commit this act. At the same time, it became clear that much of this narrative is a modern fabrication.
Firstly, there is no doubt that we must distinguish between fratricide committed on the day of ascension to the throne and fratricide committed for other reasons. Some Ottoman sultans indeed killed their brothers for various reasons, either because the brother rebelled, leading to war between them, or due to suspicions of conspiracy or fear that opponents might overthrow the sultan and install his brother instead.
Another truth is that Orientalists who attributed this charge to the Ottomans have been confused. All rulings that allowed fratricide were linked to rebellion or insurrection against the state, which is fundamentally part of Islamic law. The so-called “Law of Fratricide” is merely a component of statutes related to rebellion against the Ottoman state.
The Ottomans enacted laws related to rebellion against the state that applied to the general public, with specific details for princes. The founders of the Ottoman state were tribal, and according to the customs and traditions of the tribal system, it was tough to kill a brother, even if the state was at risk of collapse.
Once the Ottomans transitioned from a tribal state to a supreme state governing the Islamic nation, the perception shifted from valuing brotherhood over the state to valuing the state over brotherhood. Thus, this law and the special provisions for princes were established to remove any embarrassment in killing a brother if he rebelled against the state, making it mandatory to fight against him.
The law describes rebels against the state as “bagha,” which refers to disobedient Muslims who have declared rebellion against government orders. Execution is not the only option; the death penalty is enforced only if these rebels persist in their insurrection and defiance. The primary aim is to seek reconciliation to prevent bloodshed.
This punishment was not unusual in those times, and even today, in modern civil states, acts of rebellion, coups, and public disturbances are classified as high treason, which is punishable by death in many countries.
The article concerning the execution of rebellious princes states: “If the sultanate falls to any of my sons, it would be appropriate to kill his brothers to establish world order. Most scholars have approved of this, and it must be implemented,” meaning fighting the brother to maintain the foundations of public order, where “the world” refers to the Islamic nation and state.
This law was later called the “Law of Fratricide” when researchers examined documents derived from the original law in the Royal Library in Vienna. Many stories, often exaggerated or fabricated, have been built around this, involving fratricide and the killing of sons, cousins, and even children.
Many attributed the law to Sultan Mehmed II, also known as Mehmed the Conqueror. However, the Mamluks ruled Egypt during his time, and the Abbasid Caliph was under their protection. The supreme Ottoman state did not represent the entire Islamic world until the reign of Selim I, making it more likely that Suleiman the Magnificent instituted this law.
We can refute these accounts by noting that many Ottoman sultans had brothers who succeeded them without conflicts or disputes. For example, Sultan Mustafa I succeeded his brother Sultan Ahmed I in 1617, Sultan Ibrahim I succeeded his brother Sultan Murad IV in 1640, Ahmed II succeeded his brother Suleiman II in 1791, and Sultan Osman III succeeded his brother Mahmud I in 1755. There are numerous examples of a brother succeeding another.
Additionally, when reviewing the works of historians who lived during the Ottoman era, such as Al-Jabarti, there is no mention of a law permitting fratricide. Even if we consider Al-Jabarti biased as an Ottoman, other historians who disliked the Ottomans, such as Ibn Ilyas, who despised Selim I for executing Tuman Bay, did not mention the law. Ibn Ilyas described Selim I in the harshest terms, so if such a law existed, he would have undoubtedly used it as evidence against the corruption of the Ottoman sultans.
Moreover, none of the prominent scholars and religious figures throughout the Ottoman Caliphate ever condemned or protested against this law, which is further evidence that it was likely fabricated later to tarnish their reputation.
Upon ascending the throne, we cannot deny that fratricide occurred twice: first, when Sultan Murad III came to power, and second, with his son Mehmed III. This period was known as the “Sultanate of Women,” during which the palace women wielded significant influence over the government.
According to several historians, including the Orientalist Kreysig, Sultan Murad’s wife, Safiye Sultan, she orchestrated the assassination of the sultan’s eighteen sons to secure the throne for her son, in collaboration with her servant, the Agha of the Palace, who was in charge of managing the palace.
All scholars agree that killing is a crime, and Allah does not permit the killing of a Muslim without just cause. Even Ottoman jurists condemned this act despite a few weak fatwas issued in favour of the sultans. However, it cannot be generalized; it only happened twice out of 35 sultans, while others were killed for different reasons.
As for the claims against Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, this great sultan supposedly killed his infant brother Ahmed, which is nothing but an illogical fabrication. Astonishingly, we rely on European historians who cannot be trusted with our local history, as they have consistently levelled baseless accusations against our significant figures.
Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror is one of the greatest sultans of the Ottoman Empire, but Europeans tried to tarnish his image, portraying him in the worst light. There is a historian named Steven Runciman, an English historian and Orientalist, who accused Mehmed in his book on the Byzantine civilization of practising sodomy. Runciman claims that when Mehmed conquered Constantinople, some Byzantine nobles came to greet him, and he supposedly took a liking to one of the boys and took him in.
This is undoubtedly a ridiculous and false accusation, as is the claim that he killed his brother Prince Ahmed, who was not even two years old.
Prince Ahmed died as an infant during his father’s reign before Mehmed ascended to the throne. Some say he drowned while his nurse was bathing him, but the claim that Mehmed killed him is entirely unfounded.
We cannot take our history from European Orientalists, especially regarding the Ottoman sultans, as they harbour deep animosity towards them and their achievements. We must be honest and not let politics and national differences distort our history.
