Today I learned the origin of "Turkish" succession

[bitparity]

i.e. "kill all your brothers."

"The more generally accepted view of the Sunni Muslims was that the caliphate was elective, and any member of the Quraysh, was eligible... But the patriarchal caliphate ended in regicide and civil war, and with it the experiment in elective sovereignty. Thereafter, the caliphate became, in practice, even if not in theory, hereditary in two successive dynasties, the Umayyads and the Abbasids. The elective principle remained strong enough to prevent the emergence and acceptance of any regular rule of succession, such as the primogeniture of the European monarchies." -- The Middle East, Bernard Lewis.

Basically, Islamic succession was originally elective. When that system failed, it became hereditary, but with a twinge of "electiveness" in the sense of a military election, i.e. civil war. Each pretender would be backed by his electorate (various supporting generals and the soldiers) and they would contest succession in the court of the battlefield.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Well, "Turkish" succession was originally hereditary, though not always to the eldest son. For example, the starting Seljuk sultan in the 1066 scenario (Alp Arslan) is the eldest son of Çagri Bey, who was the eldest son of Mikail Bey, but Mikail Bey was the second son of Selçuk himself.

Fratricide was introduced by Mehmet II in 1451 and continued until 1603; it was in response to the Interregnum of 1402-1413 (the time of his grandfather), when practically all the sons of Bayezid I declared themselves sultan at some point after Bayezid I was captured at Ankara.

 

[bitparity]

Well, "Turkish" succession was originally hereditary, though not always to the eldest son.

Right, but this answers the question why the hereditary succession was not via an established rule like primogeniture. It's the legacy of the elective system of the first caliphs.

 

[victimizer]

Islam is generally opposed to primogeniture, even in civilian life. e.g. if a merchant dies, his property is divided among all his sons, wife and daughters, never simply given to the eldest son.

The inheritence system in Islam is very clear, and obviously opposed to privileging the eldest son or a favorite son. That might be the source of the "turkish succession" system.

 

[handynasty33]

In Sunni Islam the Caliphate was truly elective in the the reign of the Rashidun caliphs, but the most important traits were that the Caliph should be descended fro Quraish (the tribe of the
prophet), a pious Muslim, and he should have the qualities of a leader.
The system was perfect in the beginning, however; because of the instability of the Muslim world in the reign of the
first Ummayed Caliph Muawiyah the system was replaced by more ensured succession method which was primogeniture or Agnatic seniority.
Shia Islam is completely different regarding to succession laws. Shia Caliphate succession depends on the succession of the Immamate which differs between Shia sects as each sect has its own lines of Imams, which all begin from Ali
the cousin of the prophet.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Right, but this answers the question why the hereditary succession was not via an established rule like primogeniture. It's the legacy of the elective system of the first caliphs.

No, it's coincidence (a fortuitous one maybe, but coincidence nonetheless) and it's not derived from the rules of Caliphal succession (which were changed soon enough to become hereditary). It's a left-over from Central Asia. Any elective component was "suggested" by the Chinese. And it wasn't too different from what the Mongols practiced.

The "Turkish" system of inheritance was practiced by Turks who were pagan, Buddhist, Nestorian, Manichean or Muslim. Just because most Turks today are muslims doesn't mean that they didn't sample other religions on the way. And why did they become muslim, then, you may ask? Well, the standard history is that they thrashed the Arabs, who recognised their superior military skills, and then employed them. According to this history, the Turks became muslims because they were enraptured by the sophistication of the Arabs, a sense of obligation and Divine Will. A rather different reading suggests the thrashing was (at least) mutual; Islam was adopted because the Arabs were obviously culturally superior and for political reasons, as insurance against pressures from the east.

Nor were all western "Turks" (by then a rather diluted Central Asian racial strain!) muslim even as late as the 14th century, but shamans and buddhists remained, even in the west. In the east, buddhism continues among some.

After that digression, it might be worth noting that the codification of fratricide occurred in Mehmet II's time, and is regulated by kanun rather than sharia practise. And generations of (Turkish) islamic scholars have performed legal contortions trying to justify it from the point of view of religion, all absolutely hopeless, IMO.

 

[unmerged(362834)]

In Sunni Islam the Caliphate was truly elective in the the reign of the Rashidun caliphs, but the most important traits were that the Caliph should be descended fro Quraish (the tribe of the
prophet), a pious Muslim, and he should have the qualities of a leader.

I might add another prerequisite to being a caliph or king : being adult! There had never been a capliph of 1 yo, never! If the caliph / sultan died before he has one adult son, then the title goes to one of his adult brothers, uncles or cousins! No regency!

Please, doomdark! everyone! give us this option in succession laws... whether kids can directly inherit titles, or give them to the closest adult relative! Having brothers will finally be useful when playing as a muslim ruler! it's a detail, but it would make such a huge difference!

The system was perfect in the beginning, however; because of the instability of the Muslim world in the reign of the
first Ummayed Caliph Muawiyah the system was replaced by more ensured succession method which was primogeniture or Agnatic seniority.

Actually, even when it turned hereditary,"electiveness" didn't completely disappear! Sultans, caliphs, governors... are not legetimate untill they receive people's allegiance. Giving allegiance to a man that satisfies the above perequisites, meant that people authorized him to make decisions in their names as long as he'll be respecting laws...

In theory, giving allegiance is completely voluntary... it means people can't be forced to give it!

In practice however, it was very risky to refuse to give allegiance to someone that had been choosen by caliphs/sultans! Most of the times, unhappy dynasty members received some kind of compensation, like being emir somewhere...

To prevent succession crisis, most sultans and caliphs used to take allegiance for the successor they choose long before they die! Of course, before choosing someone, they sounded out their advisors, vizirs and eminent family members! Anyway, succession was not the privilege of sultans' sons... there are plenty of examples among the Abbasid, the Ummeyad and the Fatimid dynasties, where allegiance went to brothers, uncles or cousins!

 

[handynasty33]

I might add another prerequisite to being a caliph or king : being adult! There had never been a capliph of 1 yo, never! If the caliph / sultan died before he has one adult son, then the title goes to one of his adult brothers, uncles or cousins! No regency!

Please, doomdark! everyone! give us this option in succession laws... whether kids can directly inherit titles, or give them to the closest adult relative! Having brothers will finally be useful when playing as a muslim ruler! it's a detail, but it would make such a huge difference!




Actually, even when it turned hereditary,"electiveness" didn't completely disappear! Sultans, caliphs, governors... are not legetimate untill they receive people's allegiance. Giving allegiance to a man that satisfies the above perequisites, meant that people authorized him to make decisions in their names as long as he'll be respecting laws...

In theory, giving allegiance is completely voluntary... it means people can't be forced to give it!

In practice however, it was very risky to refuse to give allegiance to someone that had been choosen by caliphs/sultans! Most of the times, unhappy dynasty members received some kind of compensation, like being emir somewhere...

To prevent succession crisis, most sultans and caliphs used to take allegiance for the successor they choose long before they die! Of course, before choosing someone, they sounded out their advisors, vizirs and eminent family members! Anyway, succession was not the privilege of sultans' sons... there are plenty of examples among the Abbasid, the Ummeyad and the Fatimid dynasties, where allegiance went to brothers, uncles or cousins!

Everything you've said is perfectly right but about the prerequisite "being an adult" it truly is an official requirement,however; this rule has been violated many times especially in the Abassid period just
like the prerequisite of being a member of Quraish which was violated by the Turkish Ottomans.

 

[fargoniac]

Speaking of sucession laws, I'd like to, in Gavelkind, determine who gets what.