You may have heard that the Islamic Day ends at Maghrib (sunset) time. Imagine a society which actually lived this rather than it being an interesting fact.
The Ottoman Turks commence their reckoning of time from sunset. This is with them the twelfth hour, an hour later it is one o’clock, and so on till the twelfth hour in the morning (6 a. m.), when they begin again. This is called alatourqa (Turkish), to distinguish it from European time, which is called alafranqa (French, European).
ref:
Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-grammar: A Practical Method of Learning the Ottoman-Turkish Language
By V. H. Hagopian
Published by Groos, 1907
Speaking about Ottoman Time, below is an excerpt of an interesting article about Ottoman timepieces:
One, by the Arab scientist al-Jazari, called the “Book of Knowledge of Mechanical Contrivances,” also known as the “Treatise on Automata,” furnished detailed drawings of over 50 mechanical devices, including clocks. The other, by the astronomer Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma’ruf, published in Istanbul, described the mechanics of astrolabes and observational telescopes as well as weight-driven clocks. These indicated hours and minutes and could determine the time of prayer “without having to observe the heavenly bodies,” that is, when indoors or on overcast days.
The detail provided by al-Jazari and Taqi al-Din amounted to a “how-to-do-it” manual for the Ottoman clockmakers, who seem to have been the first among Muslims to actually go ahead and construct an elaborate mechanical timepiece.
As in medieval Europe, where the first geared clocks are believed to have appeared in monasteries to help regulate the daily prayer services, so in Istanbul the first Turkish clocks were made in the tekkes, or monasteries, of the so-called “Turkish monks,” the Mevlevi Dervishes, better known to Westerners as the “Whirling Dervishes.” The Mevlevis were considered the most intellectual of the Dervish orders and were well known for their interest in music and the arts. They acquired an interest in making mechanical clocks, their elders now suggest, to help initiates of the order observe fixed prayer times during long periods of meditation. More reliable than sundials and not requiring as much attention as a waterclock, the clocks also provided a focus for the communal life of the monastery.
As artisans, the Mevlevis prided themselves on producing flutes, embossed swords and other objets d’art. Clock-making required a combination of talents. The purely mechanical aspect drew upon the genius of scholars like Taqi al-Din, who had studied Arabic and Persian scientific writings, while making the outer encasement required the coordinated skills of metalworkers, cabinet makers and jewelers. Available manuscripts say very little about the actual method of manufacture, but it is apparent that the Mevlevis spent several years on each timepiece, with only the most basic of hand tools. Occasionally, the same artist would make the entire apparatus, from the inner gearwork to the intricately embellished case.
The outer design frequently took the shape of the Mevlevi headdress. This consisted of a felt hat like a tall, overturned plant pot, encircled at the base with a turban; it served as a symbol of the order and usually appeared as a sign on top of the tekke or on the Dervishes’ gravestones.
An extraordinary example of encrusted jewel work and embellishment is the round wall clock signed by Shahiz, made about 1650. Covered with filigree work with inlaid rubies, emeralds and diamonds, the face is in the form of a wreath in blue enamel with white numbers, and the back—which, of course, was rarely seen—is also richly engraved with leaves and fleurons. A pocket watch, made by Meshur Sheyh Dede in 1702, shows, as well as hours and minutes, Gregorian and Arabic calendars and the signs of the Zodiac.
A clock made by Mehmet Sükrü in 1853, thought to be the only one of its kind, has a double escapement mechanism which permits it to operate unaffected by extremes in temperature. Another, made by Ahmed Dede about 1865, has a combination escapement and pendulum mechanism which is also insensitive to variations in temperature and is accurate to less than one second per 24 hours.
Many of these timepieces, now on display at the Topkapı Palace, were presented to the Sultan by the Mevlevis as a sign of their loyalty. A 16th-century illuminated manuscript shows a procession of different artisans before Sultan Murad III, and an account of their visit in a royal diary mentions among those who presented themselves to the Sultan the “magic” Mevlevi clockmakers. As the assembled audience watched in amazement, the diary tells us, they entered the hall with an oversize model of a clock gearwork mounted on a wagon. A hammer automatically struck the gearwheel, turning a second wheel which, the chronicler observes, “could perform the work of a dozen persons.” The Sultan and his audience burst into applause and cheered the clockmakers as they pulled their display away.
….
The small number of Turkish clocks in the Topkapı Palace collection doesn’t indicate, as might be assumed, that European competition eventually forced the Turkish clockmakers out of business. In fact the Turkish clocks were, from the beginning, a labor of love by scholar-craftsmen motivated by religion, their interest in art and devotion to the Sultan. They were never concerned with profits or large-scale production. In fact, before the Republican regime banned all Dervish orders in 1923, the Mevlevis probably actually made few more than the some 30 timepieces known to have survived in the Sultan’s palaces and in the houses of their order, a uniquely Turkish contribution to Muslim craftsmanship.
ref: “Saudi Aramco World: Topkapi’s Turkish Timepieces – James Horgen
A few Naqshbandi shaykhs cultivated relations with Ottoman sultans. We recall Ishaq Bukahri al-Hindi, for whom Sultan Mehmed II built the first Naqshbandi tekke of the capital shortly after the conquest [6]. Uzun Muslihuddin, a khalifa of Ahmad Bukahri from the area of Kastamonu near the Black Sea, had Sultan Bayezid II remove an ‘injustice’ (zulm) against the local population, having informed the sultan that local “pious people” had seen the Prophet “saddened” in their dreams [7]. Ahmad Sadiq Tashkandi and Sa’ban Efendi were both close to Sultan Murad III, the first perhaps initiating him into the tariqa and the second having him visit his tekke in the Fatih district on several occasions. When Ahmad Sadiq died in the plague of 994/1586, the sultan is said to have suspended the work of the Imperial Council for three days [8]. However, the relations that all these individuals established with the members of the Ottoman dynasty and governing elite were squarely within the traditional mold of Sufi Shaykhs extending spiritual advice, guidance, and sustenance to the powerful in exchange for patronage. Not one of these individuals was involved in dynastic or factional conflicts or influenced crucial political decisions. In other words, none of this amounted to anything close to Ahrarian politics.
ref: Le Gall, Dina (2005). A Culture of Sufism: Naqshbandi’s in the Ottoman World, 1450-1700 (pg 139) New York: State University of New York Press.
[6] Ayvansarayi, Hadikat ul-cevami, 1:219
[7] Taskopruzade, Shaqaiq, 1:561-62; Baldirzade, Revzat el-evliya, 37a; Belig-iBursevi, Guldeste-i riyaz, 180
[8] On the first, see Sadiqi, Manhaj, 11b-12a; NEvizade Atai, Hadaik, 362; Selaniki, Ta’rih-i Selaniki (Freiburg reprint), 211-12. On the second, Mustafa b. Hayreddin, Silsile-i hocagan, 14b; Nevizade Atai, Hadaik, 371-72, 380; Selaniki Tarih-i Selaniki (ed. Mehmet Ipsirli), 1:343-44
Comments:
A clearer picture of Naksibendi relations with politics emerges. They had little to do with political squabbles, but often represented the interests of the weak to the powerful.
The character of the Sultans is again demonstrated as it wasn’t Shaykhs visiting Sultans, but Sultans visiting and sitting at the feet of Shaykhs in Fatih district of Istanbul.
Which political leader of today would react to an injustice on the account of a Shaykh’s recounting of a dream of the Prophet (S)?
Le Gall says spiritual advice was given in exchange for patronage, but discounts the reality that this advice was given to commoners who had no patronage to give as well. The understanding of the wealthy giving sadaqa to support dergahs which fed and housed the poor and the saintly is somewhat beyond the scope of a Non-Muslim reading of sufism.
When trying to understand the connection between Mureed and Sheykh, the story of Uways al Karani (R) is a key which will open up understanding, especially in these days where students are often seperated by their teacher in many physical ways.
In the example of Uwaysal Karani (R) we find also the power of spiritually connecting to the teacher, which is possible even over vast distances.
It is interesting to note here that the key of Uwaysal Karani’s (R) example is closeness and attachment to the Prophet (S), not attempts at independence and de-emphasis.
It is with emphasis on the teacher and love for the teacher he never met which gave Uwaysal Karani (R) his particularly high status.
One chapter of Sahih Muslim is dedicated to the hadith of Uwaysal Karani (R)
So my advice to you is stick to your own guide like Uwaysal Karani (R), who loved his guide deeply from afar.
–
‘Umar bin Khattab reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger (S.A.W.) as saying: Worthy amongst the successors would be a person who would be called Uways. He would have his mother (living with him) and he would have (a small) sign of leprosy. Ask him to beg pardon for you (from Allah). [Saheeh Muslim, Book 31, Number 6171]
His name was Uways, he was known as Uways al-Qarani because he lived in a village called “Qaran” in Yemen. Uways bin ‘Amir al Muradi al-Qarani (Radia-Allahu’anhu) was a very pious and noble person. Although his life was insignificant from a worldly point of view, he is renowned and honored amongst all Muslims, Sufis in particular, for his piety, practice of zuhd (asceticism) , as well as a deep love and affection for the Beloved Messenger of Allah (Salla’llahu’ alayhi was salaam). It is said that he spent all his hours in solitude, fasting, night vigil and salat (prayers). Uways al-Qarani was presented the blessed cloak of Rasulullah (S.A.W.) on the Holy Prophet’s instruction. It is preserved in Istanbul, Turkey. He had embraced Islam while the Beloved Prophet was still alive. He naturally had a very strong desire to see the Prophet but since his mother was very old and she needed his constant care and attention, he could not visit the Beloved of Allah. As a reward of his service to his mother, he was treated as a Sahabi (Companion of Prophet) by the Prophet even though he could not see him personally. His name entered the list of Sahaba only because of his strong intention to see the Allah’s Beloved Messenger. When Uways al-Qarani received a message about the Beloved Prophet, that he had lost a tooth in the battle of “Uhud”, Uways pulled one of his own teeth out (because of his love towards the Beloved Prophet).
Once the Companions asked the Beloved Prophet: “Has Uways Qarani ever visited you? The Beloved Prophet replied: “No, He never watched me physically, but spiritually he met me.”
He had asked his mother’s permission to visit Allah’s Most Beloved Messenger Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam, and she said: “You have my permission to go, see him once, and come straight back. If the Messenger Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam is at home, you may meet with him; if not, come straight back here.” Uways made a journey of three months on foot, from the Yemen to Madinah the Illuminated. When he reached Rasulullah Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam’s house, he knocked on the door and Hadrat Aisha Radi allahu Anha, wife of the Chosen Prophet and Mother of the Believers opened the door. She told him that Rasulullah Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam was in the Masjid.
Uways Radi allahu Anhu remembered his promise to his mother and replied: “Please convey my salaams to my Beloved Rasulullah Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam. Kindly inform him that Uways came from the Yemen, did not find him at home, and is returning to the Yemen, since he does not have permission from his mother to meet him in the mosque.”
When the Rasul Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam came home from the mosque, he found the radiance of Uways in his house. Hadrat Aisha Radi allahu Anha told him what had happened, and conveyed Uways’s salutations. His blessed eyes looked towards Yemen and the Beloved Prophet Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam said: “The fragrance of our friend is reaching us.” The noble Companions asked: “If Uways is your friend, why did he not stay to see you?” Rasulullah Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam replied: “He complied with a promise given to his mother and he is serving her.”
The Beloved Prophet Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam said “Uways will come back to Madinah the Illuminated, to meet me, but we will not meet physically, for I shall then be united with my Lord ”
Rasulullah Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam said that when Uways Radi allahu Anhu came back to Madinah he was to be given his cloak, and asked to pray for the Community of Muhammad Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam. He also mentioned that a light was visible on one of Uways’s hands.
During Hadrat Umar Radi allahu Anhu’s Caliphate, a number of Yemeni’s visited Madinah the Illuminated and Hadrat Ali and Hadrat Umar Radi allahu Anhu ajmain approached them and enquired about the Saint, Uways Radi allahu Anhu, from the village of Qaran. The Yemenis said they knew of no such saint, but they did point out that a camelherd from that village, who seldom mixed with other people, preferring to spend his time in worship, alone among the camels. Hadrat Ali and Hadrat Umar Radi allahu Anhu ajmain then approached Hadrat Uways Radi allahu Anhu, greeted him, conveyed the greetings of the Messenger Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam, and presented him with his blessed cloak. But he was reluctant to accept. “Surely there is some mistake!” he exclaimed, in his desire to hide himself. Seeing the light upon his hand, however, they cried: “You are the saint described to us by Allah’s MessengerSalla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam, for he told us about the light on your hand.” They also reported to him the wish of the blessed MessengerSalla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam that he should pray for the Community of Muhammad.
Hadrat Uways Radi allahu Anhu rubbed the blessed cloak over his face and eyes and kissed it. Then he asked to be left alone. When he was alone he held the cloak and began to pray: “0 Allah this cloak is the cloak of Your beloved Messenger. He has presented it to me, but I refuse to wear it unless You pardon the Community of Muhammad Salla Allahu ta’ala ‘alayhi wa Sallam.” He then repeated his prayer in exactly the same words. As he was about to repeat his prayer a third time, Hadrat Ali and Hadrat Umar Radi allahu Anhu ajmain came beside him. He cried: “Oh, you came too soon! Upon my first supplication, Allah granted me forgiveness for one third of the Community; on my second, He forgave two-thirds of the Community. In my third request I was pleading for pardon for the entire Community of Muhammad – then you came along!”
As with people in every age, the Yemenis were unaware of the presence in their midst of such a saint, whose prayers were accepted. They imagined him to be an ordinary camelherd. The Friends of Allah, do not seek fame, and as such hide themselves away from other people.
-
I’ve been approached by a few people for thoughts and discussion about a petition going around regarding the Wikipedia entry on the Prophet (Sallahu’alaihiwassalam). I did scan the article on Wikipedia, and of course it has numerous mistakes, but certainly not the level that requires such a blunt response against, of all things in the article, the pictures.
Only two ancient illustrations on the article are showing something supposedly representing the Prophet’s (S) face. The rest of the illustrations of the Prophet (S) are from Sunni artists, who were careful about concealing the Prophet’s (S) face and even hands.
The flattened look, the lack of perspective and depth of the artists of the centuries long past was quite intentional. The ulema of the time understood that the art was not intended to be realistic, not approach anything akin to an idol, nor should it be any aggression against Allah’s authority as the Creator. This avoidance of true realism is the reason why traditional Islamic art was based in calligraphy (a calligraphic lion, bird, etc are all part of the tradition) or the Ottoman/Persian miniature style.
It is from the illustrated text “Seyr-i Nabi” that the first picture was taken for the Wikipedia article.
It is impossible to find one ‘scholar’ who criticized Sultan Murad III, the Shaikh ul Islam of the time, or other religious authorities for ordering the illustration of Seyr-i Nabi, the authoritative work of Seerat in Ottoman times. The work which Seyr-i Nabi is based from has been used in contemporary Seerah’s including Martin Ling’s popular “Muhummad”.
For those who have an issue with how 13th and 15th century artists could represent the Prophet (S) in the first place, covered or not, in the scenes and situations of his life, then one only has to think about the very well established fact that the Prophet (S) spoke about being seen in dreams:
“He who sees me in a dream has certainly seen me, because Satan can not take my form.”
(Bukhari, Muslim)
As this text and other art was widely known and accepted well until the actual fitnah of disunity and the abandonment of Muslims from the Khalipha of Islam for western imitation, I see no reason why we are so quick to judge this Seerat book, the pictures within it, or its free distribution of one of its pages on Wikipedia. Rather I find the exception that people take to this a representation of a revisionist mentality towards Islam.
Illustrated Seerat books like this are still housed in Topkapi palace in Istanbul, along with the Prophet’s (S) turban and other artifacts representing Islam.
If there is an particular picture the petitioners have an issue with, then it would be better to address it specifically and with proper reason and context. Personally I take issue with the attempt to wipe out Seyr-i Nabi from the history books.
This should be recognized as a more sectarian issue regarding particulars of Islamic art rather than some broad affront against Muslims.
Whosoever comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him. – Sahih Muslim
A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings. – Yavuz Selim (Selim I)
Sultan Saladin was a famous Muslim Sultan. Countless versions of his life story have been told in historical texts, novels, cartoons and even on the big screen. He was known for his justice and sincerity.
Yet, it was only 60 years after his death that civil war entered creating a split empire, various brothers and relatives maintaining power over individual states. This eventually allowed the non-Muslim Mongols to tear through and assassinate the Sultans and Caliphs, end the dynasty and ransack Muslim land and libraries.
In Andalus (Moorish Spain), after the overthrow of Hisham III, the land holdings devolved into weak city states ruled by various Emirs which eventually led to the inability to respond to Ferdinand and Isabella’s Inquisition and subsequent usurpation of Granada.
Is participating in a power struggle enough to consider a person an immoral ruler? Is relinquishing power the only moral option? The Islamic understanding of a great leader has been unique in that it is generally understood that the best leaders are those who have power thrust upon them, rather than demanded or taken by force (or won by seeking office). Most modern Muslims apply this principle to an extreme, and end up having a distaste for looking at the struggles between leaders of the past.
However, when examining upright rulers within Islamic history it becomes clear that the motivations of consolidation of power seemed to be completely separate from the desire of power itself. Sultan Saladin, widely considered a Wali (Friend of Allah) by Sunni tradition and defender of the Holy Cities from Crusaders, fought numerous Muslim leaders of sub-states in the process of consolidation. Yet somehow, the deaths of Muslims in the struggles that occurred in the process of securing power are not considered to be a black mark on his reputation.
The truth of the matter is that it has always been understood that successorship and power was in the hands of those whom Allah has given power and success to. If leaders were moved by spiritual wisdom and political forces to gather power to ensure better protection of their Muslim territories, or if there indeed were rebellious factions to the obvious leader of the people, then the unfortunate reality is that battles were necessary.
Examples of the conflicts which resulted from the consolidation of power that arose between Muslims are numerous within Islamic history.
Sultan Nur ad-Din desired to consolidate Muslim power and unify the Muslim states. By the fortune of the recent deaths of various Sultans, he was able to gain control over a large territory between the Euphrates and the Nile. Only Damascus remained, where Sultan Mujir ad-Din had agreed to pay tribute to the Crusaders for their protection. Sultan Nur ad-Din was eventually able to overthrow Sultan Mujir ad-Din and establish a solid front against the Crusaders. Sultan Nur ad-Din also brought Egypt under his control as well, taking it from the Shia Fatimid dynasty.
However, it wasn’t until Sunni Muslims began facing external forces that the critical nature of minimizing such instability and disturbances became apparant. It was the forces of the Crusaders, the Mongols and Persians that made clear the need for a strong unified leadership.
When Raynald of Chatillon directly threatened to attack Makkah during the course of the Crusades, Sultan Saladin ended up using the combined forces of the Muslims to secure and recapture Jeruselem. In the course of these battles he ended up using Egyptian land as a safehaven and used Syria to wait and consolidate his power. All of this would not have been possible with separate sovereign empires, independently bargaining for their safety, determining their own strategies, and certainly would have left Muslims at the mercy of petty squabbles.
It is clear that such consolidation of power was a necessary evil in order to unify Muslims under the strongest leadership possible. Certainly it is only with this system in place that made it possible for Muslims (with the Ottomans) to hold the longest-reigning dynasty in world history.
Yet, this dynasty is questioned quite often on the moral compass of its leadership, especially by Muslims. Muslims who, by mere fortune of having eaten the fruits of the sacrifices of these people, find it quite easy to turn back and complain about this or that from the hundreds of years they relied on the Ottomans to protect them. One example, beyond the necessity to battle Muslim states, was the practice of ‘fratricide’ supposedly put in place by the Ottomans.
Modern day Muslims tend to view the Caliphs and Sultans as invincible tyrants, free to have their whim obeyed at each turn. The reality was the Sultans lived in complex political times, their relatives were representing other powerful political groups with their own interests, Viziers from previous administrations and commanders and statesmen representing noble families wielded great influence. The motivations for power were not simply personal ambition but a representation of a vast families, political parties, provinces.
In Ottoman times, the simple presence of a lateral royal personality caused great havoc. Such individuals would constantly be approached to rally some area under their banner and seek to gain greater control or become puppets of another.
Upon the succession of Sultan Murad II, the Byzantine Empire released Mustafa Celebi and declared him the rightful heir to the Ottoman Sultanate. Of course, this was with prior agreement that a number of provinces would be turned over to the Byzantines should he succeed in claiming the throne. Sultan Murad II was able to properly defeat this rebellion and in Gallipoli executed Mustafa Celebi. This same situation occurred again in Sultan Murad’s reign when the Byzantines used his younger brother Mustafa to distract Sultan Murad from his siege on Constantinople by supporting an uprising in Anatolia.
With Sultan Beyazid, his brother Cem gave Pope Innocent VIII a figurehead and puppet Muslim king with which to seek resources to launch another crusade. Fortunately for Muslims, the European monarchies rejected the proposal from the Pope at the time. Cem was a powerful figure, capable of rallying people and creating disunity in the Empire. Prior to his capture and use by the Pope, he was able to rally an army of over four thousand and win Anatolia from his brother, until Sultan Bayezid was forced to act against him. Once captured, the European powers and the Pope used Cem often to halt Ottoman advances at the Balkans, threatening his mistreatment or even release.
The overarching threat of enemy use of powerful individuals with the ability to draw large armies did not end there. When the succession was still in play Korkud attempted to buy the jannisaries support by distributing gold which they accepted. However when Selim I arrived in Istanbul in April 1512, they backed his succession and deposition of his father (ref: Uluchay, ‘Yavuz Sultan Selim’ VII 10.125-6, VIII/ 11-12.185-6). Upon succession, Sultan Selim I found the European powers eyeing his brother Korkud to be used in a similar manner to Cem and the Safavid Persians were providing heavy support to his brother Ahmed.
Due to these and numerous other events, Sultan Selim I was forceful in his elimination of lateral competition to the throne, in the interest of unity against enemies of the orthodox Sunni Ottomans. Actual execution became a practice for a period of less than 100 years leading to utter confinement. Either of these approaches were not something taken lightly by the Sultans nor their family. This sacrifice was a very real necessity that became something demanded of the Sultans by the statesmen of the Ottoman Empire, and the Muslim people, in the interest of presenting a unified front and eliminating needless bloodshed.
When imagining the power struggles and hearing of the supposed penultimate power of the Caliphate, one would think: who would be so eager to kill their brother except a power hungry facist? But it turns out this was not the case at all.
Proof that these executions were not the deepest wish of the Sultan is found clearly within the Ottoman archives. Sultan Murat’s Jewish physician, Domenico Hierosolimitano, describes the sacrifice made for stability in describing the ascension of Sultan Murat to the throne (and its consequences for his family):
But Sultan Murat, who was so compassionate as to be unable to see blood shed, waited eighteen hours, in which he refused to sit on the Imperial throne or to make public his arrival in the City [arrival in Istanbul was trigger for the process of ascension], seeking and discussing a way to free his nine brothers of blood who were in the Seraglio… In order that he should not break the law of the Ottoman state … weeping, he sent the mutes to strangle them, giving nine handkerchiefs with his own hands to the chief of the mutes. – ref: Austin, Domenico’s Istanbul
Each of the Sultans lateral competitors to the throne were carrying influences from their families and political allies. Each of the members of the House of Osman had their political fate tied to them at birth. At a certain point, it was commonly known to all involved what would occur when a Sultan succeeded to the throne. Every individuals fate, political allies, and enemies in the family being known to them years in advance. When the men of this family weren’t facing execution, they were facing long-term confinement in the Palace (so as not to rally any potential factions under their flag).
When the assembly of statesmen, legal authorities and commandors assembled to discuss who should ascend the throne after Sultan Mehmed IV (who had accepted abdicating the throne), they decided in favour of his brother Suleyman. This case, like others, indicates the Sultanship was (unlike European kingdoms) transferred through the process of consultation and deliberation of those in authority. Quite similar to what occurred in the time of the Sahabi and the Khulafa Rashidun, not simple ‘nepotism’.
Further, the entire process of the ascension was related by Silahdar Findiklili Mehmed Agha, who was serving as a page in the privy chamber, he (as he notes) ‘witnessed the truth of it all’. This narration demonstrates the manner in which the family of Osman was raised, what they were asked to sacrifice, the manner in which they were ready to die, and the manner in which they accepted Sultanship. The myth of plump princes handed free reign over the world through nepotistic practices disappears quickly. The lessons in here are innumerable, so I will end on this narration of the successorship of Sultan Suleyman Khan (Suleiman II).
The Chief Black Eunuch went to that part of the Palace known as the Boxwood apartment, where Prince Suleyman Khan was confined, and invited him to leave his quarters whereupon, supposed he was to be done away with, the Prince refused to come out. ‘Your majesty, my Sultan, fear not! By God, I swear I intend you no harm. All the imperial ministers and doctors of theology and your military servants have chosen you as the next sultan and are awaiting the honour of your presence. We are at your command.’
His heart still in a state of unease, the Prince replied, weeping, ‘If my removal [i.e. execution] has been ordered , tell me, so that I may perform my prayers in the prescribed form prior to the order being carried out. I have been confined for forty years – ever since I was a child. Rather than dying [a thousand deaths] each [and every] day, it is preferable to die [once] at the earliest instant….’
Again placing a kiss on the Prince’s foot, the imperial officer responded, ‘God forbid, do not say such things, I beg you! It is not a death but rather a throne which has been set up for you’.[When the Chief Black Eunuch stated that all the Prince's servants would attend him] the Prince’s companion by his side, his younger brother Ahmed, offered reassurance, saying, ‘By your leave, do not be afraid, the Agha always tells the truth’ Upon this, the Prince emerged from the apartment Since he was dressed in a robe of red satin and his feet encased in a pair of short, heavy, riding boots- having had nothing to wear for years except clothes of the very meanest and poorest sort – the Agha had one of his own robes brought, a dark bluish-brown broadcloth lined with sable, which he draped over Prince Suleyman’s satin robe, and then, giving his arm to the Prince, conducted him with reverance and deference to the Pavilion of Felicity of the Privy Chamber and seated him on a throne by the pool. The Swordbearer and the pages of the Privy Chamber came forward and, as he advanced in their company toward the imperial Audience Hall, the Prince inquired, ‘Are you going to stop by the Lion House (a former church where animals were kept), all enveloped in darkness, and execute me there?’
‘Oh my Lord’, the Swordbearer answered, ‘how can you suggest such a thing? God forbid, may it be known that your removal from the Boxwood Apartment was in order that you should ascend the throne. See your servant, the Chief White Eunich, along with the imperial messenger, is coming from the Privy Apartments to meet you’ The Chief White Eunuch extended his salutations to the Prince and putting his arm through the Prince’s left arm escorted him to the imperial audience hall and seated him on the throne. In accordance with ancient custom, the sacred turban of the Prophet Joseph, [kept safe] in the Imperial Treasury, was brought forth and placed on the exalted head of the Prince and adorned with three bejewelled plumes, trailing downwards. The point to which the sun ahd risen was but one-and-a-half spears-length high: it was three o’clock.
Prince Suleyman ascended the imperial throne … and the first in line to swear allegiance was the Registrar of the Descendants of the Prophet Muhummad (S), followed by the Grand Vizir’s Proxy and the Chancellor and the chief justices of the provinces of Rumeli and Anadolu and subsequently, the SheykhulIslam with various doctors of theology, and the senior officers of the militia and the sultan’s regiments and the rebels, as well as the head of the Palace Doorkeepers and the chief officer of the Bearers of the Imperial Flask – all swore their allegiance to the Sultan. In turn, the Sultan extended his salutations to the assembled body in the imperial Audience Hall and then honoured the Pavilion of the Privy Chamber by his presence, where he was seated on a throne at the pool. Now, the servants of the treasury and the commissariat and the campaign also came to swear their allegiance.
The Chief Black Eunuch, Ali Agha, came bearing an imperial rescript ordering the confinement of the new Sultan’s brother Ahmed Khan, the deposed Sultan [Mehmed IV], and the two princes … Mustafa Khan and Ahmed Khan; the three were raised up and detained in the Boxwood Apartment. A secret concealed from the inmates in the court and residents of the city, the imperial writ was presented to Sultan Mehmed Khan, who said, ‘ I bow my head to God’s wish. Once imprisoned are we then to be executed? ‘ The Agha replied, ‘ God forbid, your Majesty ! May that day never come. The order only refers only to your being confined.’ That same say, the palace heralds delivered the propitious news to the Queen-mother and were granted an untold number of gifts, and the public crier proclaimed to the city the glad tidings of the imperial accession; and the Firday sermon was orated in the name of the newly enthroned sultan and the coinage now bore his name.
ref [Silahdar Findiklili Mehmed Aga, Silhadar Ta rihi 2.296-8]
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
