The Emergence of the Modern Middle East

8/11/2019 The Emergence of the Modern Middle East

1/16

The Emergence of the

Modern Middle East*

*A course ministered by Professor Asher Susser of the University of Tel Aviv, Israel in

partnership with www.coursera.org, with some new elements added by Deijenane

Santos.
http://www.coursera.org/http://www.coursera.org/http://www.coursera.org/


2/16

Week 01. Class 1.1.

The Middle East in the Modern Era

What is the Middle East?

Al-Shark al Awsat (Arabic); Ortadgu(Turkish); Khavar-

e Miyanech (Persian); Hazmizrach Ha Tichon (Hebrew).

Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval historian,

created the term Middle Eastin 1902. Arab and non-Arab peoples have been

calling the region like that since then.

The term "Middle East" was coined in 1902 by American naval officer Alfred T.

Mahan, who was regarded as an expert in sea power and world affairs. Writing

for London's National Review, Mahan used the new term in calling for the

British to strengthen their naval power in the Persian Gulf. As scholar Roderic

Davison explains, Mahans Middle East "was an indeterminate area guarding a

part of the sea route from Suez to Singapore." The new coinage played off the

terms "Near East" and "Far East," already in use. Source:

http://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtml
http://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtmlhttp://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtmlhttp://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtml


3/16

Where is the Middle East?

Owl and Mouse 2008: www.yourchildlearns.com

All the Arab countries from Morocco in the West to the countries in

the Gulf. Non-Arab countries: Turkey, Iran and Israel.

Time defined in the region according to the

Gregorian/Western Calendar.
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/http://www.yourchildlearns.com/http://www.yourchildlearns.com/


4/16

Space The Middle East has been

defined by outsiders, which reminds us of the enormous influence

of foreigners, mainly Europeans in the region.

State Structure:

Europe nation-state X Middle East state-nation

In the Middle East, imperial powers set with local rulers and created states

where there was none before. So, one cannot define Middle East nations as

nation-states, but rather state-nations, once an artificial state was created

before there was any nation in it. Quite the opposite situation when it comes

to European nations. Its reasonable to say that The Middle East borders were

the work of outsiders therefore they are a foreign patch work, which didnt

take into account the local cultural and geographical realities and peoples.

To prove the arbitrary

manner in which the Middle East states were created, rumor has it that the

British State Secretary for Colonies in 1921, Winston Churchill, who later

would become Prime Minister, once said that he created Transjordan, the


5/16

current Kingdom of Jordan, with the stroke of pen, one Sunday afternoon in

Cairo. This story is known as Churchills hiccup, once it tells that the reason

why Jordans borders are so erratic, forming a zigzag where it finds Saudi

Arabia border was because before creating the frontiers of the region,

Churchill had exaggerated in the use of alcohol.

(Jacobs, Frank. Winstons Hiccup: Borderlines, New York Times, 2012.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/)

Countries artificially created (state first, nation later)

Jordan (1921)

Syria (1946)

Palestine

Lebanon (1943)

Iraq (1919)

The XIX Century

During the XIX century the Middle East went through some very importantperiods of reforms based on the impact ofwestern ideasin the region. One of

these ideas was nationalism, which until this moment, didnt have the same

appeal as it had to the European peoples, once the Middle East peoples

normally identified themselves on the base of religion, being this aspect the

first source of denomination for them.

Until the late 19th century and early 20th, the Ottoman

Empire had ruled the Middle East for 400 years without much questioning,

with only some movements of contestation in time, but nothing that could

have any impact on the legitimacy of the empire.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/


6/16

Tanzimat(reorganization)-1839-1876

Modernizing and centralizing

From theocracy to secularization

Identities began to emerge in a European style (language, territory, culture).

Islamic Reform It took place during the late part of the XIX century. It was

a synthesis between Western science and Philosophy with Arab religion

(Islamic thinkers tried to unite the West and the East.

1967Islamic Revival (radical)

State Interest Arabism (nationalism in Western style + Islam).

Week 01. Class 1.2

What is the Modern Era?

Where do we start?

Why do we start where we start?

Modern Era 1798(Napoleons invasion of Egypt)

With his invasion it started a long period of rapid and radical change.

The problems with the definition of Modern Era beginnings after

Napoleons invasion of Egypt:


7/16

It brings a hidden assumption that the Modern Era in the Middle

East was created only and solely through European supremacy

and influence on an area, stagnated, in decline etc.

There is a historical debate about the starting pointfor the Modern

Era.

According to Benedetto Croce Historyis always written from the

present perspective, therefore, it is always a contemporarything. He

says that since the present is always changing, so is History, once it

is written in current times.

The idea of seeing Napoleons invasion of Egypt as the sole impetus

for the modernization and change of the Middle East has been

challenged lately.

The Thesis of Decline

The 16thcentury was the peak of the Empire in the time of sultan

Suleiman, the Magnificent (1494-1566). Since mid-16thcentury, the

Ottoman Empire was in a 350-year linear decline(half of the

empires existence was in this decline).

The Middle East was a stagnant society

It was resurrected only by Western Enlightenment and vitality,

which brought about the modernization of the Middle East.

Contradictions of the Thesis of the Decline

Well after the XVII century, vibrant cities, with centers of government

and courts of law, centers of learning arts and crafts existed in the

Ottoman Empire. There was also trade between the Ottomans and

the West, therefore the empire was not a stagnant, rotten entity.

Although it is true that the empire didnt expand After the Battle of

Vienna in 1683 there was no expansion and the empire kept having

constant territorial retreat, but this was a relative retreat, not a

linear decline, as assumed by the Thesis of the Decline.


8/16

If we compare the greatness of the time of sultan Suleiman, the

Magnificent, it is clear that the empire went on decline, but from this,

it not wise to assume that the Ottomans started a total failure.

The Defeat of Vienna: territorial contraction.

On one hand the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe

The term sick man of Europe

started to be applied to the Ottoman Empire from mid-19th century

as a way of describing the political weakness of the entity compared

to the power once displayed by it in old times.

The Ottoman Empire enjoyed continued legitimacy, even when

rebellions brought down the ruling sultan, the empire remained

intact until the rise of nationalismin late XIX century.

Until late 1800s, the empire and its legal system were not

questioned. The legal system was seen as fair and reasonable.

European style was introduced in the educational and legal systems

and it had an impact in the collective identityof the peoples living

under the Ottomans.

Difficulties faced by the Ottoman Empire in the 19thcentury

Territorial losses as exemplified by the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt.

Nationalist uprisings in the Balkans (Christians, Serbs, Greeks,

Bulgarians)

Western advance and advantage (science, technology, power

projection).


9/16

Arab speaking provinces still dominated by the Ottomans.

From Yemen to Libya: frequent rebellions against ottomans since the

end of the XVI century, a sign of weakness, but the empire survived

these rebellions showing its resilience.

The XVII century was a period of growing decentralizationof the

empire with the empowerment of local potentates and social classes.

Was change initiated only by Westerners?

Did Napoleon initiate it?

Did Napoleon interrupt it?

Have changes been already occurring in the Middle East before

Napoleon?

There is no theory, but its possible to reach a balanced conclusion.

The Napoleonic phase was a key to a new period of rapid change, but one that

added a quantum leap forward to an ongoing process.Dror Zevi1.

Colonial interaction with its negatives created an unprecedented change in

the Politics, Economy and most importantly in the sphere of ideas, the erosion

of tradition, ideas are more dangerous than occupation.

__________________________________

1Back to Napoleon?Thoughts on the Beginning of the Modern Era in the Middle EastDror Ze'evi. This article resurrects an old and well-known problem of periodization:

locating the beginning of the modern period in the Middle East. In the past quarter ofa century or so it has been the focus of a debate that, though seldom articulated orpresented as such, stands at the core of studies of the modern era. Two basicapproaches have been offered. One, often described as Orientalist, has suggested that

the modern period in the Arab Middle East was ushered in by Napoleons invasion in1798. Those who adopt this approach find a clear correlation between the invasion,emblematic of 'the impact of the West', and the beginnings of modernization andprogress in a stagnant Middle East. The other, revisionist stance raises serious doubts


10/16

about this correlation and suggests other timetables according to which modernityhad its roots in the region itself or in continued interaction with the West before thearrival of the French revolutionary army. The article suggests a third option whichtakes into account new approaches to history that view modernity itself as a set ofhistorical phenomena created mainly by and through the colonial encounter. Source:http://www.tau.ac.il/

Week 01. Class 1.3.

The Middle East in the XIX century: the structure of society

Groups: components of society individuals. Michael Yapp: different groups Groups based on birth, family, extended family, tribe, religious division Religion: people in the Middle East define themselves, first and

foremost, by their religious association

Muslim (majority); Orthodox Christians; Jews, Coptic. (In the Europeanpart of the empire the Christian majority was 2 to 1).

Compact Minorities (located in a particular territory): MaroniteChristians in Mount Lebanon, Alawisin North Western Syria, and alsopartially in Lebanon (communal identity)

Orthodox Christians (who were not a compact minority) had muchenthusiasm to support Arab nationalism difference in political affiliationwhen it comes to minorities.

The Ottomans govern these minorities through their own institutions-Millet System the subjects of the Ottoman Empire were organizedinto well-defined categories on the basis of their religion, each forming a

separate Millet. Allowed to rule themselves according to their own legalsystems. Minorities, autonomous peoples, not all subjects in theOttoman Empire were under the same legal authority. Non-Muslimssubjects used pay taxes (jizyah/cizyec-per capta) that Muslims didntpay. But, according to historical records, only 1/3 of the citizensactually paid the tax.

Every community had their legal and educational systems

The community of Muslim had an internal division (sunni-shii)

This division goes back to the 07thcentury and its not about religious

dogma but politics.

It was about who was to become the Caliph after the prophet

Ali (who was the son-in-law of the prophet and supposed to be the 4th

caliph) faction = Shi at Ali

The Alawis and the Druze are breakaways Shiisects, which emerged in

the 10thand 11thcenturies.

Official Establishment Islam Represented by Sheikh al- Islam (chief

religious authority in the Ottoman Empire).

Popular Islam Sufi orders to which large portions of the Muslim

population belonged.
http://www.tau.ac.il/http://www.tau.ac.il/http://www.tau.ac.il/


11/16

Social Hierarchy Government (military and bureaucracy); religious

establishment (judges, interpreters of the laws); those outside the

government (merchants, peasants, tribesmen, townsmen, guildsmen,

notables these ones from the provincial parts of the empire serving as

a bridge between the rulers and the ruled)

In the XIX century, Middle East society tax collectors did undergo

major transformation (land owner-town-village this one as a center of

government education and commerce X ignorant peasants part and

parcel of revolutionary politics in the Middle East in the XX century.

The government was more centralized and thus more powerful.

Landowners grew even stronger and tensions between them and the

peasantry grew even greater.

A new educational system (European) was introduced and the impact of

European influence engendered a new group of educated secular people

(a new class) and this group weakened the status of the religious

establishment, though association with religious communities, tribe

and family remained the core organizing principle of society.

The issue of ideas led to the even increased importance of the religious

minorities.

Week 01. Class 1.3.2

The Middle East in the 19thcentury- the Economy

Population the estimation for 19thcentury Middle East total

population was around two million people.

Iran 6 million

Ottoman territories 24 million

Egypt 3.5 million (increased 25 times)

At this time the Middle East was underpopulated.

Beginning of the 19thcentury

Reasons:

European Powers


12/16

WarsEuropean Powers; Persians X Ottomans

Famine (Egypt and Iraq were dependents on the flow of the

rivers Nile, Eufrates and Tigris, respectively, then when

there was a low fall of rain they were in serious trouble.)

Disease (1/6 of the Egyptian population died in 1785

because of a plague. Over 300,000 people died in Istanbul

because of the plague in 1812)

Birth Control (mainly abortion)

Demographic Revolution in the 19thcentury

Introduction of Western Medicine

Public Health measures

Better communications and transportation

Increased security

Loss of provinces in Europe= less Christians

From 1912 to 1923,1stquarter of the 20th century,

there was a demographic disaster 20% of the

Anatolian population died and 10% emigrated (the

were the main land mass of Turkey). These people

died and run away from war and other inflictions.

During the XIX century and the emergence of the

nationalist idea, there was a trend that can be

called the territorialization of identity, under the

impact of European ideas, these religious minorities

sought a territorial identity in the form of a state =

clashes the Armenians

In the wake of WWI, the overpopulated Middle East

already had a problem of lack of food that persists

until this day

Economic terms Britain and France were the

leading commercial powers in the XIX Middle East.


13/16

At the end of the XIX century, most of the Middle

East commerce was with Europe and Middle East

export of raw materials and food items went to

Europe.

As a result of their industrial revolution, Europeans

exported to the Middle East finished goods.

Egypt and the Ottoman Empire in huge debt with

European countries and banks, this situation

slower in Iran, much farther away from Europe, far

less in direct contact with Europe.

Week 01. Class 1.3.3

The Middle East in the 19thcentury- the Politics

Michael Yapp- government was diverse and minimum it didnt

recognize the existence of group and not individuals (?). Muslims

followed the Sharia and Christians and Jews followed their laws.

Tribesman had their own modes of settling disputes, foreigners were

gifted some privileges known as the Capitulations rights and

privileges conferred by the Ottoman Empire to merchants.

Taxation was minimal, law and education was not supplied by the

Central Government, but by the various communities (to outside

observers this gave the impression of a decentralized and even

ineffective government in decline).

Albert Hourani- These were actually adaptations in the style of

governance, according to changing circumstances and they were and

remained quite effective. The locus of power shifted from sultan to the

highest echelons of the bureaucracy in the office of the Grand Vizier

(chief minister of the Ottoman Empire).

Provinces were often controlled by local potentates, as was the case

in Egypt and in other parts of the empire. In the Arab cities of the

empire, there were notable families, some Arab, some Turkish that

assumed positions of wealth and power, but because of the importance


14/16

of religion, these families sent their children to receive religious

education and to become functionaries in the religious and religious

and legal establishments and gained control of religious endowments,

awqaf(Arabic) which were sources of great wealth and political control.

Boys (not girls) were sent to traditional schools, the Qutb and the

Madrasas where they learned the Quranand religious jurisprudence as

well as math sans astronomy.

Week 01. Class 1.4

The Changing Balance of Power with Europe

Up until the middle of the 18th the Ottomans felt equal to

Europe, and before this period, even superior to it.

In the last quarter of the 18th century, a dramatic change

took place: the gap in technology, in science, in the military

and in the economy was shifting in favor of the Europeans.

Medicine advances- increased European population.

Modern shipbuilding economic expansion.

Critical Turning Point: the Russian-Ottoman war of 1768-

1774 (the loss of Crimea in 1783), this Russian victory

brought the Russians to the bank of the Black Sea and

from this period on it was no longer an enclosed Ottoman

lake. The victory brought the Russians ever close to the

straits of Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which lead to the

Mediterranean.

The loss of Crimea didnt only mean the loss of complete

control of the Black Sea, it also meant the first serious loss

of control of Muslim subjects, the symbolic loss of Turkish

control of Muslim peoples. The Ottoman Empire was

supposed to take care of Islam and the Muslims.

The XIX century was the European century


15/16

The belief of Islam superiority was challenged after the loss

of Crimea and had to be revised.

Because of that, in the end of the 18thcentury, sultan Selim

III began the first serious efforts at modernizing the

Ottoman Army, before Napoleons arrival in Egypt. The

reforms were done in 1790s.

These reforms began in the military (the vanguard of

Western modernizing reform. Military offices became the

most westernized of the Middle Eastern societies.

Foreign Languages = Foreign Ideas

Napoleons invasion of Egypt, in the summer of 1798 was

the greatest intrusion in Ottoman lands. It showed the

power of Europe.

In the XIX century, people of the Middle East were exposed

to an explosion of European energy there was a

population growth of 50%, from 1800-1850, Britains

population grew from 16 to 27 million people and London

was the largest city on earth with some 2.5 million people.

Between 1815-1850, Britains exports to the countries of

the Eastern Mediterranean increased by 800%

Europes need for raw material meant olive oil from Tunisia,

silk from Lebanon and cotton from Egypt

European merchants were backed by their home countries

Russians supported orthodox Christians: Serbs and

Greeks, French: Catholics and at a later stage Britain tried

to play this minority game by supporting the Jews and the

Zionist idea in Palestine

Europeans were regularly supporting nationalist ideas of

Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire, with

Christians being the first ones to be affected by Western

ideas: they had a great openness to the Christian West.


16/16

Documents

The Emergence of the Modern Middle East