Be as specific as you can, referring to events, individuals, groups, places, dates. I.

Identify
the following in 1-2 sentences. Your responses must be drawn from lecture, discussion,
and/or readings (Cleveland and discussion readings).

1. Edward Said In his 1978 book Orientalism, he defines “orientalism” as the exaggerated,
mythic differences between the “Occident” (the West) and the “Orient” (the East) and the
presumption of Western superiority. From Orientalism: “... the imaginative examination of
things Oriental was based more or less exclusively upon a sovereign Western consciousness out
of whose unchallenged centrality an Oriental world emerged, first according to general ideas
about who or what was an Oriental, then according to a detailed logic governed not simply by
empirical reality but by a battery of desires, regressions, and projections” (16).
1 ½ . Fernand Braudel French historian (1902-1985) who wrote The Mediterranean and
Civilization and Capitalism; dominant leader of the Annales School of historiography in the
1950s and the 1960s. Throughout his work, he emphasized the role of large-scale socioeconomic
factors in the actual making and writing of history.
Before Braudel and his Annales approach, history either focused on short-span or a history of
events. Braudel believed that continuities in the deepest structures of society were central to
history: history was not formed by discontinuities because “upheavals in institutions lied beyond
the reach of conscious actors.”
2. Historiography The study of historians’ methods in developing history as an academic
discipline, including the various tools, sources, theories, etc. used to explain history.
Historiography also examines what interests historians over time: for example, there’s been a
shift away from traditional diplomatic, economic, and political history in favor of social and
cultural studies, and examining history through intersectional lenses.
3. Jean-Leon Gerome’s “The Snake Charmer”

“The Snake Charmer” (1879) is an oil painting by Jean-Leon Gerome; it was also used as the
front cover of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Linda Nochlin, an art historian, deems the painting
“orientalist:” the painter presents a photorealist scene because of the highly detailed wall, thus
convincing the onlooker that the painting is a realistic depiction of Ottoman life and a realistic
depiction of the “exotic Orient.” In reality, “The Snake Charmer” represents the French painter’s
beliefs and desires regarding the “Orient” and Western colonial ideology.
4. Orientalism and production of knowledge about the Middle East The idea that the Orient
and Occident are geographically, politically, and disproportionately separate entities has
definitely informed the study of the Middle East. For example: the belief that modernity and
democratic values are Western products exported to the East (and would not otherwise arise in
the Ottoman Empire) is orientalist because it assumes that A) The West’s civilizing mission is
valid, B) the “East” is incompatible with modernity, and C) democracy is entirely western
5. The Eastern Question As the Ottoman Empire started to lose power (especially in European
military defeats), European powers started to stake out and safeguard military, strategic, and
economic interest in Ottoman lands. For European powers, whether the Ottoman Empire should
survive, be turned into spheres of influence, colonized, divided up, etc. remained an open
question.
6. Al-Jabarti A prominent Egyptian scholar who resided in Cairo for most of his life. He mostly
wrote about the French occupation of Egypt, which he framed as a time of terror and panic. The
French were not popular in Egypt.
7. Muhammad Ali Pasha, Governor of Egypt Governor of Egypt from 1805-1848. Territorial
expansion and sustained reform until the treaty of london in 1839.
8. Sultan Selim III: Sultan from 1789 to 1806. Known for Centralization efforts and military
reforms motivated by military losses. Overthrown by the Janissaries who opposed his
centralization efforts.
9. Charter of Alliance: Also known as the Deed Agreement, is an agreement between the
Grand Vizier and local rulers. Local leaders had to pledge loyalty to the Sultan and the central
Ottoman government, as well as respect orders from the Grand Vizier.
10. Nizam-i Cedid The New Order: reforms carried out by Sultan Selim III to catch up with
Europe politically and militarily. The term is also used to refer to the army established under
those reforms in 1797 after the Russo-Turkish war. The army was disbanded in 1806 when Selim
was overthrown.
11. Mahmud II: Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1808-1839. Centralization and military
reforms modeled after European style. Bribed janissaries and destroyed the derbys. Destroyed
the janissaries after they refused to be integrated into his new army.
12. Khedive Ismail The Khedive of Egypt and Sudan from 1863 to 1879, and the grandson of
Muhammad Ali of Egypt. His philosophy was the following: My country is no longer in Africa;
we are now part of Europe. It is therefore natural for us to abandon our former ways and to
adopt a new system adapted to our social conditions. He drove Egypt into debts to European
powers, and he was disbanded at the hands of the UK in the context of the Urabi revolt.
13. Tobacco Protest of 1891 A revolt carried out by the Shia majority in Iran after the 1890
tobacco concession that was granted to Great Britain by the Shah. He had granted a full
monopoly on the production, sale and export of Tobacco for 50 years in exchange for payments.
The Shah cancelled the concession in 1892.
14. Mujtahids An Islamic Scholar qualified to teach ijtihad, the analysis and answering of
Islamic legal questions.
15. Alafranga & Alaturka Two lifestyles in the Ottoman Empire that emerged as a result of
European, and more specifically French, influence. Alaturka describes the more traditional
Turkish/Ottoman lifestyle, whereas Alafranga describes the French lifestyle. These two concepts
are a prominent theme in Felatun Bey and Rakim Efendi.
16. Constitutional moments The introductions of constitutions in various places in the Islamic
world beginning in the mid 19th century, beginning with the Armenian constitution in 1860 and
finishing with the Afghan constitution in 1923.
17. Constitutional revolutions in Iran and the Ottoman empire The constitutional revolution
in Iran was a result of the strong dependence of the country on foreign powers. The government
relied on concessions for functionality, but the benefits rarely reached the people. The people
revolted against foreign exploitation in 1905, and a constitution was signed in 1906. The
constitutional revolution in the Ottoman Empire refers to the revolution by the Young Turks in
1808 to restore the constitution of 1876.
18. Arabism vis-a-vis Ottomanism
→ Ottomanism first emerged in the mid 1800s, especially in the Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane
(1839) and the Hatt-i Humayan (1856) documents: both decrees sought to unify the
Ottoman Empire under a secular definition of common Ottoman citizenship rather than
religious lines. The Young Turks in the early 1900s picked it back up, tried to achieve
Ottomanism by implementing a constitution and abolishing the millet system, which taxed
non-Muslims.
→ Arabism somewhat appeared as a response to Young Turk policies that replaced wealthy
Arabs with officials loyal to the Young Turks. Arabism was a celebration of Arab cultural
identity where supporters formed literary clubs, reform societies, and clandestine organizations;
was also a way for Arabs to protest the Young Turks. NOTE: This was not a nationalist
movement, as A) Arabists wanted to stay in the Ottoman Empire, and B) Most Arabs supported
Ottomanism anyway.
19. The Great Powers in the Greek War of Independence Russia, France and the UK had all
shown interest in the Ottoman Empire. Through diplomacy, the three great powers had agreed
that there should be no significant unilateral gains for one country. After the OE refused to
negotiate with the Greeks, the three great powers intervened on the side of Greece. After the
battle at Navarino Bay in 1827, Ali withdrew. After the Sultan refused to concede in 28, Russia
declared war on the OE, but through diplomacy, way able to avoid conflict with Britain.
20. Decentralization under the Ottoman Empire In the 18th century, the individual parts of
the Ottoman Empire became increasingly autonomous from Istanbul, resulting in a loss of
authority of the Ottoman central government. The decentralization was codified in 1808. As a
result of the decentralization and territorial losses, consecutive Sultans implemented
centralization reforms, which were resisted by the Janissaries.
21. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab Founder of the Wahhabi movement, aimed at adapting the earliest
principles of the prophet Muhammed. This is part of the greater trend of Islam as a form of anti-
Imperialism. Through an alliance with Muhammad ibn Saudi, he was able to capture Mecca, just
to be driven out by Ibrahim Pasha later.
22. Sanusiyya A traditionalist Islamic movement founded by Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sanusi that
aimed to restore the purity of Islam by focusing solely on the Quran and Hadith. Part of the anti-
Imperialist trend in Islam, members of this movement resisted Italian, French and British
colonialism.
23. Al-Urwah al-Wuthqa A newspaper jointly published by Jamal al Din al-Afghani and his
student Muhammad Abduh, both Islamic intellectuals looking to retool Islam.
24. The Mahdist State In the context of Muhammad Ahmad’s al-Mahdiyya movement, the
Mahdist state was a movement against Egyptian influence in Sudan. Ahmad’s declares himself
the Mahdi (the savior) of the state in 1881, and later declares a caliph after capturing Khartoum.
25. Krikor Odian Author of both the Armenian Constitution in 1860 and the Ottoman
constitution in 1876.
26. Osmanlilik Turkish word for “Ottomanism”, the concept of an Ottoman identity that arose
prior to the first constitutional era and that could unite the different ethnic and religious fractions.
It was strongly promoted by the Young Ottomans.
27. Midhat Pasha The Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire from 1876 to 1877, and briefly in
1872. He was crucial in the establishment of the Ottoman constitution in 1876 as he believed
doing so could prevent foreign invasion.
28. Muzaffar al-Din Shah The Shah of Iran from 1896 until 1906. He ran Iran into more debt
by making concessions to Europe and taking loans from Russia (the state was not strong enough
to collect taxes). This caused a revolt in 1905, and the signing of a constitution in 1906.
29. Butrus al-Bustani Butrus al-Bustani (1819-1883), Lebanese, scholar of Al-Nahdah, or the
“Awakening”
● Converted to Protestantism, founded the National School in 1863
● Created an Arabic dictionary, several periodicals, and eleven volumes of an Arabic
encyclopedia, which included scientific insights from Europe
● Part of the greater economic and literary renaissance for Arab Christians in Syria and
Lebanon that was started by foreign Christian missionaries and the printing press
30. The CUP A secret protest society formed in 1889 by students in the military-medical
academy. In 1895 and 1896, Sultan Abdul Hamid uncovered the movement and exiled its
members. But by 1908, rising discontent and falling salaries resulted in a revolt by the Third
Army. Following an unsuccessful counter-revolt, the CUP finally gained full control of the
government in 1909 as a military dictatorship under Enver, Jamal, and Talat Pashas. Talat was
the most competent and became Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. The CUP was
mostly concerned with lifting censorship, building the military, expanding education, and
promoting Ottomanism.
31. Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876-1909)
 ● Fairly conservative, catered to the “religious establishment” instead of the secular
Tanzimat; Downplayed Ottomanism in favor of Pan-Islamism: the idea of reuniting an
Islamic ummah under the rule of a single caliph
● Major achievements:
○ Hijaz railway from Damascus to Medina, opened in 1908 to facilitate the annual
pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina; Railways linked Istanbul to Vienna by 1883
○ Some “acceleration” of Tanzimat reforms, especially education:
■ In response to Christian missionary schools popping up across the empire,
the Ottoman state constructed 51 new secondary schools from 1882-1894.
■ An official state curriculum emphasized European “pedagogical
techniques” as well as loyalty to the Sultan and Islamic theology.
○ Increased diplomacy between Germany and the Ottoman Empire:
■ Railway from Berlin to Baghdad across Anatolia
■ Kaiser Wilhelm II’s two state visits in 1889 and 1898
● Major controversies:
○ Censorship of the press
○ Official school curricula not very flexible
○ Public discussion of politics was forbidden
○ Extensive spy network
○ Massacres of Armenian villages in the late 1890s (partially in response to rising
nationalist movements)
● Deposed in 1909 by the Young Turks; succeeded by his younger brother Mehmet V
(1909-1918), who has basically a figurehead
32. Jihad Made in Germany
● The 1914 Ottoman jihad proclamation was portrayed by the Allies as a German scheme
to revolutionize Muslim populations in the Ottoman Empire; Aksakal combats this by
pointing out the following:
● There is a historical precedent of declaring jihad in warfare, and was used as geopolitical
tool to legitimize conflicts and stir nationalist sentiments. Jihad is also a cultural
construct, unbound by one single hadith or Quranic verse.
● Had certain pros: could be used as nationalist glue (esp in international conflicts), could
mobilize the religious population, and connotes a sense of urgency
33. Amir Shakib Arslan (1869-1946) was a Druze prince from Lebanon who became a strong
supporter of Sultan Abdul Hamid II’s Pan-Islamic policies. He was a journalist, poet, and local
political figure who believed that the reform of Islam would revive the Ottoman Empire.
Regarding Ottomanism: Arslan regretted the Sultan’s overthrow, but accepted the CUP’s
regime in order to preserve the Empire and its Islamic core. The CUP wanted Arslan’s favor, so
they elected him into the Ottoman parliament in 1914. For the Arslans, a wealthy Arab family,
Ottomanism and the CUP presented meaningful political benefits.
34. The Paris Arab Congress of 1913
 ● Party of Ottoman Administrative Decentralization (f. 1913) was highly active in the Paris
Arab Congress of 1913.
○ Started by discontented, wealthy Arab nobles who wanted to return to their
previous status and gain more autonomy under the Young Turks
○ Successfully pushed the Young Turks to appoint four Arabs to the Ottoman
Senate and appoint an Arab president to the Paris Arab Congress

II. Answer in 4-6 sentences. Your responses must reflect lecture, discussion, and/or
readings (Cleveland and discussion readings)

Why did Napoleon invade Egypt in 1798? Does this mark the beginning of the “modern”
era in Egypt? Why or why not?
Egypt is rich in resources and potential, but the people are barbaric. With this message to Paris,
he hoped that his invasion could gain traction. As the French were unpopular in Egypt, locals
tried to resist the Napoleonic invasion without a proper military or equipment. The traditional
narrative is that it took Napoleon to “wake of Egypt” (and MENA asa whole), and to incentivize
Egypt to begin modernization. This narrative, however, incorrectly assumes that these ideas were
not there beforehand. It was still a significant turn as the power vacuum left by it enabled the rise
of Mehmet Ali.

How did Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1808) reorganize the Ottoman armed forces? How did
this affect the existing military apparatus?
Sultan Selim reformed the Ottoman armed forces according to the “New Plan”, also known as
the nizam-i jedi, aimed at increasing Ottoman military strength and strengthening the authority of
the Ottoman central forces. The members of the new army were drawn mainly from Anatolian
peasant youth, and were given European-style weapons and uniforms. They were also trained by
Europeans. The Janissaries, military corps formerly loyal to the state, saw the new corps as a
threat to their independence and overthrew Selim III. The Sipahi, on the other hand, never
revolted and finally retired completely in the era of Mahmud II.

How did the Charter of Alliance of 1808 (also known as the Deed of Agreement) affect the
relationship between the central State and the empire’s provinces?
The Charter of alliance was an agreement between the Grand Vizier and the ayans (local rulers
and loyals who had gained increasing autonomy under decentralization). It strengthened the hold
of the Ottoman central government. The ayans pledged to be loyal to the Sultan, assign military
units to the Sultan’s army, and obey orders from the Grand Vizier given that they were not
illegal. It is notable that all the signatories were Muslim, indicating a lack of engagement of the
Christian and Jewish communities throughout the Empire.

What were the primary goals of the Tanzimat? (1839-1876)

The Tanzimat was a period of intense reforms throughout the Ottoman Empire, aimed at holding
the Empire together and strengthening the grip of the central government. Early documents
emphasized life, honor and property of individuals, the abolition of tax farming, and a reform to
the system of conscription. All documents during the period emphasized the secular equality of
all subjects of the Empire, irrespective of religion. Overall, the documents were framed around
uniting all Ottomans under the concept of “Ottomanism”. The Nationality law of 1869 promoted
a common citizenship regardless of religion.

What was the significance of the Decree of 1839? What about the Decree of 1856, and the
Nationality Law of 1869? What were the objectives behind them?
These three documents were all significant for the same reason: they all expanded the
legal equality between all subjects of the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of religion or ethnicity,
and followed the ultimate goal of holding the empire together. This was likely part of a broader
goal to hold the Empire together and to promote the idea of “Ottomanism”. The Gülhane Decree
of 1839 was the first major document of the Tanzimat reforms, and pledged equality of all
religions, emphasized property rights, spoke out against tax farming, and set standardized
conscription mechanisms. The Decree of 1856 expanded on that, emphasizing the unity of the
Empire under “Ottomanism” and breaking down the autonomy of millets. The Nationality law
cumulated the previous law, by guaranteeing own citizenship to all Ottoman subjects.

What was the significance of the Damascus Affair of 1840? What were its causes?
The Damascus Affair spoke of a trial held in 1840 in Damascus that found sixteen Jews guilty of
killing a Capuchin missionary and their servant to use their blood for ritual purposes. It is the
only time in Middle Eastern history that accusations of a ritual killing resulted in a trial and
sentence. There are multiple narratives of what caused the affair, including anti semitism. Mary
C. Wilson, a professor at UMass Amherst, however, hypothesizes that it was indeed French
geopolitical interests that were driving the trial. According to Wilson, the French were looking to
get a foothold in Syria by earning the trust of the Christian communities throughout the region.
This was all driven by the fundamental French assumption that the Christians of the Empire
wanted to separate themselves.

What effects did the 5-7 million Muslim refugees coming from the Balkans, the Caucasus,
and Crimea have on Ottoman demography, identity, politics, and finances between 1783-
1915?
The loss of Balkan territory, together with the arrival of many Muslim refugees, significantly
tilted the demographic composition of the Empire. It increased the number of Muslims compared
to the number of Christians (in the middle of the 19th century, the OE was 50% Muslim, but by
1907, that proportion had increased to 75%). The influx of refugees meant that ethnicity and
religion were more likely to become politicized, as the refugees had been persecuted on those
grounds. This is seen by the jihad declaration of 1914, which gained significant political traction
among the new Muslim inhabitants of the Empire. The demographic shift also prompted a closer
link between religion and Ottoman identity, as seen of the emergence of the term “Islamic
World”. It also resulted in the financing of projects to connect the Islamic world to one another,
as for example seen by the railway connecting Anatolia to the Levant.

What was the significance of the Armenian Constitution of 1863?

First of many constitutions in the era of Constitutionalism in the Middle East. It was significant
(a) because it set precedent for trend, (b) because it was authored by Krikor Ordan, who also
wrote the following Ottoman Constitution, (c) because it limited the power of the patriarch, and
(d) because it established a national assembly, which was to be followed by many other
parliaments in the region.

In what ways did Namik Kemal and the Young Ottomans criticize the ruling regime?
The Young Ottomans:
● Group of journalists, intellectuals, and bureaucrats that flourished under the last two
decades of the Tanzimat (1860s-1870s) (though they were not a coherent or formal
organization)
● Spoke out against the autocratic rule of Ali and Fuad Pashas; believed the two rulers
deprived the Empire of its Islamic political and social values, and was not efficient
enough (even though there was forced adoption of European institutions)
● Called for the following:
○ A more democratic govt through implementing some European models
○ Retaining “Islamic foundations of state and society”
● Example: Advocated for the Islamic tradition of “consultation,” or an absolutist minister
consulting his ministers (as opposed to voting or parliaments)
Namik Kemal
● Prominent members of the Young Ottoman movement
● Developed ideas of Ottoman patriotism and love of the homeland through poetry and
Vatan (Fatherland), a play.
● Believed that Ottomans should place citizenship above their religious identity

What was the significance of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876?

It arose in the context of the Eastern crisis, tax revolts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as an attempt
to sooth dissidents in Balkans. It was significant for three reasons: (1) it emphasized equality
between all subjects of the Empire. This is a term that has appeared in many previous documents
(e.g. in the documents of the Tanzimat reforms), which indicates that it is not working that well.
(2) It was aimed at a greater political goal, namely preservation of the Empire through satisfying
and calming dissidents, and (3) it was only carried out because the government could not
negotiate with the protestors due to foreign interest in the region.
What was the result of the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-78?
The Ottoman-Russian war was a result of revolts and uprisings in the Balkans, mainly due to the
poor conditions that region’s population was living in. The Ottoman Empire tried to crack down
on revolts in Bulgaria and Bosnia, and led a war against Serbia. Things escalated into the
Russian-Ottoman war in 1877, which was won by Russia and its allies. The outcomes were
independence of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Bulgaria, a claim of Ottoman territory by the
Russians (Kars, Batum, Budjak), and through the Berlin Congress in 1878, Austria Hungary was
able to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina, while Great Britain took over Cyprus.

Who was Ahmad Urabi, and why did he revolt? What happened in the revolt’s aftermath?
Urabi Revolt (1879-1882)
Ahmad Urabi was an Egyptian of peasant (fellah) origins who rose through ranks in the army
and became the voice of the peasant population. In 1881, Colonel Urabi and a group of fellow
Egyptian officers protested an impending law that would prevent Egyptian officers of peasant
(fellah) origin from rising through the ranks to officer status. When much of the army supported
Urabi, Khedive Tawfiq rescinded the law; however, the movt turned into a national campaign
against European influence.
The movement had a few goals:
● (1) eliminate foreign control of Egypt’s finances
● (2) Curtail Khedive Tawfiq’s autocracy by establishing constitutional limits
● Return army jobs to over 18,000 Egyptians
After the revolt, Urabi won support of the army, reformist nobles, and the peasantry. In 1882 he
was appointed Minister of War and created a national assembly that would have the power to
determine Egypt’s budget. Elections were subsequently held in November 1881, and the
Constitution was ratified on February 7, 1882. Later in 1882, fearing restriction to the Suez
Canal and noncompliance with financial obligations, the British government bombarded
Alexandria Harbor and then land an expeditionary force at the canal zone. (This was under the
guise of “protecting Christians.”) In the Battle of Tel al-Kebir, the British defeated Urabi’s army,
captured him, and ended up occupying Egypt until 1956.

What was the context for the Tobacco Protest of 1891 in Iran?
The tobacco protest was a revolt carried out by the Shia majority in Iran after the 1890 tobacco
concession that was granted to Great Britain by the Shah (the government was too weak to obtain
revenue via taxation). He had granted a full monopoly on the production, sale and export of
Tobacco for 50 years in exchange for payments. This raised questions on the corruption of the
Shah and the prioritization of the the Iranian government, resulting in protests by the people. The
Shah cancelled the concession in 1892. → see page 107-108 in cleveland

Who was Naini?

Muhammad Husayn Na’ini (Iran, 1860-1936) was an Iranian religious scholar who helped
arrange a fatwa (religious ruling) in support of a constitution during the Iranian Constitutional
Revolution of 1906. He wrote a treatise defending constitutional limits on power in Islamic
terms. Major points of this treatise:
● Islam and principles of equality are inherently tied
● There is a history of resistance in Shi’a Islam, cited those who have followed Husayn are
“resisters of injustice” and “heroes of freedom”
● There are “preservative” (just, democratic) and “possessive” (corrupt, tyrannical) govts

Who was Nazem al-Islam Kermani? Describe his ideas concerning constitutionalism.
NOTE: Prof. Aksal mentioned him briefly on his Feb 20 lecture, when he discussed Elizabeth
Thompson’s book, Justice Interrupted.
● This was a cofounder of the constitutionalist Secret Society in Iran that insisted on a real
legislature with the power to create laws and oversee the national budget. He believed
that a constitutional government should collect taxes fairly, build schools, and reorganize
the bureaucracy to be more meritocratic. He and the group employed Islamic rhetoric in
order to foster support, and though some historians have suggested that this was more
strategic than heartfelt, it was quite successful in uniting many communities within the
state. He believed that change should come from the people and that any legislative
assembly would have a mandate to represent the entire sovereign nation of Iran.
● About Nazem al-Islam Kermani:
○ Born in 1864 in Kirman, a southern Iranian city known for openness to reform
○ Travelled to Tehran at 27 to study philosophy; cofounder of the Secret Society, a
group of reformists
■ Secret Society urged members to pressure religious leaders into
maintaining state welfare; people need education to defend Iran
○ Came from a lower-class, camped out at the British Embassy to protest the
corruption of the Qajar regime
● Views on constitutionalism
○ Wanted a legislature with the ability to appoint a cabinet, pass laws, and oversee a
national budget (free from foreign intervention)
○ Absolute monarchy “caused social backwardness, making Iran fall behind Russia,
India, and Japan” (Thompson 80)
○ Constitutions should respect religious values and the authority of the mujtahids
○ Impoverished people played a role: “The foundation of a constitution, or a
republic, or a house of justice, cannot be solid if brought about by the elite” (81)
■ However, “There is no point to having a constitution in a country full of
ignorant people” (84-85).
○ Assembly represents all of Iranian and is a guardian of Iran’s sovereignty
Who were the people behind the Committee of Union and Progress? How did they come to
power in 1908? What were their objectives? What did they mean by “union and progress”?
The Committee of Union and Progress was a secret protest society formed in 1889 by students in
the military-medical academy and by the rising effendi (upper-middle) class. In 1895 and 1896,
Sultan Abdul Hamid uncovered the movement and exiled its members. But by 1908, rising
discontent and falling salaries resulted in a revolt by the Third Army, who felt the Sultan was
undermining the Empire. The Ottoman Third Army Following an unsuccessful counter-revolt,
the CUP finally gained full control of the government in 1909 as a military dictatorship under
Enver, Jamal, and Talat Pashas. Talat was the most competent and became Grand Vizier of the
Ottoman Empire in 1917. The CUP was mostly concerned with lifting censorship, building the
military, expanding education, and promoting Ottomanism. By “union and progress,” I’m
guessing the CUP sought to unify the empire through embracing “Ottomanism” and sought to
bring progress through education and military reforms.
Note: The CUP (what Ottomans called them) = The Young Turks (what Europeans called them)

How did events in the Balkans in 1909-1913 call into question the Young Turks’ policy of
Ottomanism? How did the loss of European territory change the demographics of the
empire?
As the Ottoman Empire failed to reform, unrest in the Balkans was increasingly emerging. By
1912, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro, countries that technically had gained
independence but still had major populations under Ottoman rule, established the Balkan League.
Confident that they could defeat the Turks, two Balkan wars broke out. As a result, the Ottoman
Empire lost a majority of its European territory. These wars arguably constitute a failure of
Ottomanism: the Ottoman identity was not strong enough to trump the urge for independence in
the context of Ottoman failure to properly govern. After the Balkan wars, the Ottoman Empire
had also lost a major portion of its Christian population. Combined with the influx of Muslim
refugees from the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire became much more Muslim.

Why does Campos refer to “prisons of nations”? How does this phrase relate to her
argument?
“Prisons of Nations:” European diplomats and historians during the 19th century (and until
recently) argued that the multi-ethnic, multi-religious Ottoman Empire was a “prison of nation:”
the empire contained “natural” nations, it was undone by nationalisms of subject peoples, and it
was not a legitimate nation in and of itself.
Michelle Campos takes down this argument in a few ways:
● Ottomanism was popular in the late Ottoman Empire, and being an Ottoman citizen
meant contributing to a “unified Ottoman people-nation,” one that heralded values of
liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice (and likely anti-imperialism)
 ● Ottomans were not preparing for the downfall of the empire, nor was it “imprisoning”
nations until its downfall; rather, “population diversity was a product of, and a powerful
testament to, successful empire building” (Campos 8).
● “The objective distinctions between empire and nation are murky at best; indeed, empires
often acted like nations and vice versa” (Campos 5)

How does Campos present the empire’s ethnic and religious diversity in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries? What does she mean by “civic Ottomanism”?
Campos presents the empire’s ethnic and religious diversity as a strength, and as something that
was not inherently in tension with Ottomanism, given that it was a more secular movement than
Pan-Islamism.
“Civic Ottomanism” is defined as “a grassroots imperial citizenship project that promoted a
unified sociopolitical identity of an Ottoman people struggling over the new rights and
obligations of revolutionary political membership” (Campos 3). In defining what it meant to be
an Ottoman citizen, a shared space of sociopolitical interaction and contestation opened up.
“Equality and brotherhood” were Ottoman values, predicated on belonging to and contributing to
an empire.

What was the purpose of declaring jihad in 1914? What were the risks?
Given the Germans’ difficult position from the start of World War I, as seen by the Schlieffen
Plan, it was important for the Ottoman Empire to rally significant support among their
population when entering the war. The jihad declaration had the potential of giving the war a
greater purpose, and framing participation in the war as an obligation, both to the state (thus, a
somewhat secular framing), and to religion (thus, inspiring the Empire’s Muslim majority).
Given the demographic change that the Empire experienced in the latter half of the 19th and the
beginning of the 20th century, the method could prove particularly efficient among the Muslim
refugees that fled the Balkans. It was also risky because it risked disenfranchising the non-
Muslim population. In addition, tying the war to a religious motive posed a risk in the case of
losing the war, which ultimately did happen.

What is meant by the phrases “secularization of jihad” and “politicization of Islam” (Holy
War Made in Germany? 188)?
Secularization of Jihad:
● Jihad may be a religiously-driven action, but it was not always defined by or in line with
Islamic law. “Jihad” could also be fought by non-Muslims, as evidenced by stories of
Armenian and Greek warriors fighting alongside Muslims.
● Moreover, jihad was used for “secular” ends, such as the geopolitical goal of marshalling
troops or gaining soft power.
Politicization of Islam:
 ● “But if ‘jihad’ became secularized through its employment for secular, political ends,
then the reverse also became true and resulted in the… ‘politicization of Islam.’ Both
framings point to a new type of convergence of politics and religion in the nineteenth
century” (Aksakal 188)
● This is not necessarily new. However, the scale to which this politicization was used is
definitely new, given new forms of communication and universal conscription armies.
● Secularization now on a larger scale as more conflicts could be framed as religious,
especially how anti-imperial narratives were framed as jihad (189).

III. Answer the following essay questions (you will be able to select one from two)

In what ways did Muhammad Ali (1805-48) transform Egypt from a subordinate province
into a fledgling state? Was this a successful transformation? Why or why not?
● Ali rose to power in context of the power vacuum left by the Napoleonic invasion in
1798.
● We transformed Egypt into a fledgling by introducing the first states sponsored
Europeanization efforts that were sustained by governmental institutions:
● 1. Transformation of the Armed forces
○ Conscription of Egyptian peasants
○ Destruction of the Mamluks
● 2. Reorganization of state administration and bureaucracy
● 3. Territorial Expansionism
○ Northern Sudan
○ Western Arabia: drove out the Wahhabi movement from Mecca and Medina
○ Greater Syria in 1831 and 1832 to gain natural resources that Egypt was lacking
○ Anatolia: moved forward into Anatolia after the invasion of Syria
● 4. Educational reforms
● 5. Economy and Finance Reforms
○ Introduction of Heavy Industry
○ Reformation of the tax system
● In some ways, this transformation was successful. Ottoman Sultans came to respect Ali,
and in the case of the Greek Revolt, Sultan Mahmud even asked Ali for assistance. He
transformed Egypt into a regional powerhouse, had conquered a significant amount of
territory, created a functional bureaucracy, and was able to secure a family dynasty: the
Ali rule lasted until 1952, when Fuad II lost power. Egypt was able to maintain relative
autonomy from the Ottoman Empire, more sore than most other regions.
● However, it is important to note that the Treaty of London represented a defeat for Ali.
Egypt lost a lot of the territory it had gained, and through the terms set by the Treaty, lost
a great deal of its military strength and superiority. In this way, some might consider this
to be a non-successful transformation. It is however important to note that certain things,
 such as industry, administrative and educational reforms did remain even after the
London treaty.

In what ways did the Greek Revolt (1821-32) involve Britain, Russia, France, Egypt, and
the Ottoman Empire? In what ways did it affect the inhabitants of the new Kingdom of
Greece?
● The Greek Revolt resulted in Great Power intervention and an independent Greek state.
● One part of the Greek population resided outside Greece proper, mainly the Greek elite in
Istanbul and some in the Russian Black Sea Port of Odessa. Greeks in Odessa were
mainly active and successful in commerce and trade, whereas those in Istanbul held high
ranks in the Orthodox church. The other
● In mainland Greece, the population was significantly suffering because of lacking
governmental efficiency that resulted from the decentralization of the Ottoman Empire.
Derebeys rose, controlled the land and exploited the Greek peasantry.
● Armed revolt broke out in in 1821 on two fronts:
○ One in the Danubian principalities, which was quickly crushed by the Ottoman
Empire who did not want to lose and territory
○ On the mainland, rebels attacked Ottoman installations and killed Turkish
residents
■ Severe clashes and many civilian deaths between the Greeks and the
Ottomans
■ Animosity spread to istanbul, where members of the Greek elite were
executed
● These anomosities were bad for the Ottoman Empire as they relied
on their Greek populations to translate materials and gain
information out of Western Europe
○ Sultan Mahmud II asked Muhammad Ali of Egypt for assistance in return for the
governorship of Crete
○ Britain: the public supported Greece
○ Russia: asserted right to intervene to protect the Greek orthodox members in
the OE → To not aggravate each other, Russia and Britain, together with
France, offered to mediate peace talks between the Greeks and the Ottomans
(“Eastern Question Diplomacy)
■ Mahmud refused, prompting the allies to send a fleet → battle at
Navarino that resulted in allied victory and Muhammad Ali’s
withdrawal
○ In 1828, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire and moved forward into
Ottoman territory
 ■ Threat to Eastern Question diplomacy → Russia could make significant
unilateral gains
● Russia and Britain, however, decided that it was in both of their
interests to uphold the Empire
■ Treaty of Adrianople: Russia withdrew, decreased its territorial demands,
and declared Greece an independent state supervised by France, Britain
and Russia
○ Despite this, most Greeks remained under Ottoman control
■ What does this mean for Greece? Their foreign policy will be irredentist,
trying to unite their population

How did Iran differ from Egypt and the Ottoman Empire in terms of state power and the
distribution of authority in the second half of the nineteenth century?
The Ottoman Empire
● Tanzimat (1839-1876)
○ Reforms to millet system, but also expansion of state power
■ Education reforms (increased state power over education)
■ New legal codes
● Creation of nizame (secular courts) and Mejelle legal code: a
fusion of both Islamic & European principles, as Euro legal codes
inspired the organization of the Mejelle but legal code was based
in the shari’ah
● Ottoman Constitution 1876
○ Meant to serve as check on autocracy, but restricted sultan’s powers only
minimally
○ More than a legal document - proclamation of Ottomanism
● Ottoman Finances
○ The new programs created under the Tanzimat → financial strain in empire
○ Loans from Europe, defaulted in 1876
○ Decree of Muharram 1881 - surrender of Ottoman financial independence to Euro
interests
Egypt:
● Isma’il the Magnificent (ruled 1863-79)
○ Goal: complete Europeanization of Egypt in short time
○ Europeanized education programs
○ Authoritarian ruler, established power through gifts and bribes
○ Introduction of Mixed Courts to deal w disputes between foreigners and
Egyptians
○ Completion of Suez Canal in 1869 - dramatically decreased distance & cost of
transporting goods between the East and Europe
 ○ Isma’il’s expenditures fueled by Egyptian production of cotton
■ But still needed more money for reforms -- loans from Europe →
bankruptcy in 1876 and loss of political independence resulted
● In short: increased authoritarianism, more reforms and Europeanization, reforms in the
education system, authority increasingly taken by Europeans (or ignored by Europe)
● British Occupation of Egypt (1882-1956)
○ Britain occupied Egypt to safeguard Suez Canal, financially stabilize Egypt, and
keep France from occupying it
○ Lord Cromer’s Rule (1883-1907)
■ Believed in Western superiority
■ Goal was to restore Egypt’s credit by meeting debt payments
● Expanded Egypt’s agricultural production & irrigation system →
cotton became largest export
● Resulted in a good financial standing for a while
● Only Egyptians who really benefited were large landholders
■ Egyptian political institutions weren’t dismantled by British, instead,
British officials gained appointments in office
● Made educated Egyptian class angry bc they believed they were fit
to govern their own country
Iran:
● More and more resources and trade are being controlled by the Russians and the British
(spheres of influence), which would eventually lead to Iran’s downfall
● Euro influence didn’t affect Iran as much as Egypt and Ottoman Emp.
● Maybe b/c it wasn’t as decentralized
Political structure after the Safavids
● Safavid shahs were originally accepted as divinely inspired reps of the Hidden Imam
→ fall of Safavids in 18c and Qajar shahs emerge
● Qajar shahs made no religious claims
● b/c they were secular, the Shi’a ulama said they had exclusive right to religious
interpretations
● Shi’a religious establishment separated from the state, and the two functioned separately
● Shi’a ulama
○ Those empowered to render judgements were called mujtahids
○ Ulama essentially more powerful than shahs (mujtahids held more weight)
Reign of Nasir al-Din Shah (1848-96)
● Weak gov - no administrative ability, no military, not powerful enough to collect taxes
● So didn’t have the same Euro-inspired military reform as Egypt and Ottoman Emp.
 ● Not many admin positions (and the positions that were available, were through bribery &
corruption) - so not the same demand for educated civil servants as in Egypt and Ott
Emp.
Ulama
● Able to maintain independence from central gov bc of financial autonomy
● Shi’a islam doesn’t allow gov to collect ‘zakak’ (charitable donations), so these went to
the ulama
● Viewed as protectors of ppl from central gov
Russia & Britain
● Both regarded Iran as strategically important - allowed state to exist as buffer between
their strategic interests bc neither Britain nor Russia wanted war
● Shah granted British & Russians low-tariff advantages allowing from economic
penetration of Iran → drawn into global economy → exported raw goods
● Britain & Russia fought over economic concessions from the shah
Tobacco Protest of 1891
● 1890 - shah granted English company exclusive right to produce, sell and export Iran’s
tobacco crop
● Shi’a ulama organized & led protest - boycotting tobacco products
● Showed that the ulama could rally the Iranian people into a powerful political force based
in Islamic frames of reference
● Shah was assassinated in 1896
Key takeaways:
● At the turn of the 20th century, in the Ottoman Empire, the ulama opposed a Constitution
because they thought it would limit their power. In Iran, the ulama supported a
Constitution because they thought it would increase their power.

What steps were taken to promote “Ottomanism” over the course of the nineteenth
century?
● The Tanzimat Reforms (1839-1876)
○ Education reforms (increased state power over education)
○ New legal codes
■ Creation of nizame (secular courts) and Mejelle legal code (the secular
courts were notable in that there was a non-religious legal system now)
● Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane (1839) (document from Tanzimat Era)
○ Rashid Pasha was principal architect of document
○ Sultan Abdulmecid pledged administrative reforms and pledged to extend reforms
to all Ottoman subjects regardless of religion
● Hatt-i Humayan (1856) (document from Tanzimat Era)
○ Re-emphasized equality of all subjects
 → both decrees sought to unify Ottoman Empire under secular idea of
“Ottomanism” rather than along religious lines
→ sought to break-down autonomy of “millets” (non-Muslim communities)
through notion of Ottomanism
→ common citizenship regardless of religion
● Young Ottoman movement (1860s-1870s)
○ Intellectuals & bureaucrats who advocated for Tanzimat to be reconciled w
Islamic political tradition
■ Reform & adoption of some Euro institutions was desirable, but had to be
grounded in Islamic tradition
■ Identity borne out of territorial pride rather than religion
○ Advocated for democracy
○ Namik Kemal - key figure among Young Ottomans
■ Famous play called Vatan (Fatherland) → territorial patriotism
● The Constitution of 1876
○ Meant to serve as check on autocracy, but restricted sultan’s powers only
minimally
○ More than a legal document - proclamation of Ottomanism
● CUP/Young Turks
○ Abolished the millet system, which taxed non-Muslims
○ Implemented a Constitution? (Cleveland is not super clear on this)
○ Committed to Ottomanism, not so much Pan-Islamism or Pan-Arabism
○ “In order for the ideal of Ottomanism to be realized, the religious distinctions
between Muslim rulers and non-Muslim subjects had to be abolished in substance
as well as theory” (128)
○ The CUP was mostly concerned with lifting censorship, expanding primary and
secondary education, and improving the military.
Was it a successful project?
● The Empire collapsed, but as Prof. Aksakal noted in class, the Empire was not preparing
to collapse: Ottomans were heavily invested in preserving their empire.
● While the amount of European territory shrank drastically before the war, the idea of the
Ottoman Empire as “the weak man of Europe” was largely fabricated by Europeans.
● The CUP/Young Turks were successful in taking control over the government and
gaining the trust of the Third Army
● The CUP was able to maintain popular acceptance of Ottomanism despite the slight rise
of Arabism following the replacement of Arab nobles from high govt positions
● The CUP was able to balance both Islamism and Ottomanism, as seen by the declaration
of jihad in 1914 (?)
● In conclusion: yes and no, hard to define “success”
Why and how did the Ottoman empire enter the First World War?
Why?
● Why Germany?
○ The alliance would be a major diplomatic achievement for the Ottoman Empire
because it would ensure international security and future industrialization
○ Germany did not have as many interests/colonial holdings as Britain (in Egypt
and Iran), France (Syria and Lebanon), or Russia (Iran)
○ Germany also wanted access to the Straits?
○ Germany wanted the Ottomans to “tie up Russian troops in the Caucasus and
British forces in Egypt and to provide relief to Austria and Germany” (191)
● Russia seemed the most threatening to the Ottoman Empire and so they wanted to join an
alliance that would ensure their security against the Russians
○ A cable revealed that Russia wanted to seize the Straits, and that other European
powers would look away
How?
● Ottoman Empire, however, seemed to not want to join the war unless absolutely
necessary. They believed that Germany would win the war anyway and hence did not
foresee having to end up joining.
● Reluctantly joined the war effort until their alliance was threatened: “Thus while Berlin’s
leaders stipulated as a condition… that the Ottomans intervene immediately,” the
Ottomans waited three months, until October 1914, to start fighting.
● The Ottomans also declared war on Russia because “if the Austrian army is defeated [by
the Entente] Romania will join the Russians” (Aksakal 192).
● The Ottomans soon realized that it would be a long war → needed to support
Germany given its overextension in Europe
● Fear of being divided up by European powers, especially given British imperialism
What role did the declaration of jihad play in 1914?
● Was viewed by Allied propagandists as “the linchpin of a German scheme to
revolutionize Muslim populations in the territories of Berlin’s enemies: British Egypt and
India, French North Africa and the Levant, in the Russian Caucasus and Central Asia”
(185)
● What role did the declaration of jihad actually play?
○ Declaring jihad was aimed at Arabs in particular, as the Empire was trying to
wrestle influence away from the British and maintain Arab support
■ Continued use of Islamism for anti-imperial ends: way of asserting
legitimacy over European encroachment
■ Sought to combat British and Russian influence in Iran (196)
● Islamic unity?
 ○ Did marshall nationalism: “duty for all Muslims,” though non-Muslims could
declare jihad as well. Jihad had been declared at least six times before, and was
used for total mobilization in times of “great struggle”
○ Connected domestic to international politics in the Ottoman Empire
■ Idea that the survival of Islam was tied to the survival of the Ottomans
■ Jihad = protecting the homeland and all the values it stood for
■ As a cultural concept, it was something people could connect to personally
○ Used as a “diplomatic lever:” the threat of jihad was “more effective than the call
itself” (-Sultan Abdul Hamid II)

According to Anscombe “Nationalism would gain significant numbers of converts only

following the establishment of post-Ottoman states.” To what extent do you agree? Support
your essay with at least five pieces of evidence/examples.
Yes, it would gain significant numbers only after post-Ottoman states were created:
1. In Serbia, in 1804, unrest was caused by “the depredations of soldiers,” not by
discontent of the Sultan → not from rising nationalist sentiment (585)
a. “... throughout the first three years of the armed struggle (1804-7), the Serbs
neither asserted a wish for independence nor halted… negotiating with the
Sultan” (587)
2. Bosnia: Tensions were high following attacks from Dalmatia and economic hardship.
Revolts occurred following Mahmud II’s abolition of the janissary corps in 1826
a. Bosnia needed protection; was not a nationalist movement (595)
3. Though there were nationalist writings from Serbia and Greece, literacy among the
Christians in Belgrade (Serbia) was less than 0.5% (600)
4. Literacy was even lower among the Greeks; of the Greek books published between
1749-1832, only 7% of subscribers lived in lands that wanted independence (600)
5. Failed movt in Greece in 1821 to start a revolution; didn’t resonate with Orthodox
Christians at all (601)
6. “The Empire only lost territory to European intervention, never to domestic insurrection,
and it died only in the lethal chaos of WWI, which scarred every other state” (603)
7. There were revolutions in Europe (France, Austria, etc.) that protested absolutism (not so
much vied for nationalism) (605)
No, it would not gain significant numbers only after post-Ottoman states (could have happened
earlier?)
1. Anscombe argues that there is a historical precedent in Balkan uprisings, as seen in the
1792-1839 period (580)
2. In the (early to mid?) 1800s, campaigns were largely fought in the Balkans, and the
working poor faced economic hardship: new excise duties on commodities and
debasement of currency (which caused inflation).
 3. Greek uprising of 1821: following interreligious violence, “the Christians of Greece
revolted in apprehension that Ottoman reform meant only continuation, if not
intensification, of oppression” (589).

What were the principal themes in Ahmed Midhat’s Felatun Bey and Rakim Efendi?
Discuss at least three and provide evidence/examples for each theme.
● Alafranga, Alaturka, and what does it mean to be modern? At the superficial level, the
novel might seem like a clash between two lifestyles: Alafranga, represented by Felatun,
and Alaturka, represented by Rakim. Felatun is on intuition the modern one: he prefers to
speak in French rather than Turkish, he enters an affair with a French woman (Pauline),
and his sense of fashion and cuisine is French inspired. Yet, Rakim does not actually
represent the old fashioned and a pure Alaturka lifestyle. Instead, he constantly engages
with Europeans (e.g. his affair with Josephine, his constant visitations to the Ziklas
family), and remains loyal to his Ottoman roots but appreciates what other cultures have
to offer. Other examples indicating that Rakim might not be all Alaturka include the
absence of prayer in the book, his abandonment of traditional Alaturka principles when
the British Ziklas family comes over for dinner, and his sexual relations with Josephine
and Janan.
● Slavery and its legitimacy. There are many slaves that appear throughout the story, and it
is notable that a majority of them are women. Despite the author’s clear opposition to
slavery, the way in which it is framed can be interpreted as a defense of slavery. Overall,
it shows a very positive treatment of slaves, and in some cases, slavery is even framed to
be a more luxurious way of the life than the alternatives as enslavement gives better
access to education. The most prominent two slaves in the story are the two living with
Rakim, his nanny and his later slave Janan. Nanny takes over the role of the maternal
figure in the story, showing that slaves and their owners can have familial and close
relationships. Janan indicates that she wants to be a slave on multiple occasions, for
example when Rakim offers to be her brother rather than master. He educates her, she is
intelligent (picks up Turkish very quickly, talented at piano, speaks impeccable French),
and in the end, they even end of marrying. Overall, the portrayal of slavery is quite
positive throughout the story.
● Cosmopolitanism of Istanbul. In the period in which the novel was written, Istanbul was a
very cosmopolitan city that was about 50/50 divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.
This cosmopolitanism was well reflected by the novel, as there were all sorts of
nationalities interacting: Ottomans, British, French and slaves of all sorts of ethnicities. In
order to make the impact of the cosmopolitanism higher, the author employed national
stereotypes (e.g. Josephine and the Ziklas family).

In what ways was Islam retooled in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century?
Refer to at least five specific examples to support your argument.
● With a strong history of Western imperial presence in the Middle East and continuous
attempts of European influence, Islam became a force of anti-Imperialism and a united
force of people throughout the Ottoman Empire and the greater Islamic world. One could
say Islam became the glue for a greater identity. This was reinforced by the territorial
losses and the large influx of Muslim immigrants that arrived from the Balkans and
Crimea. This anti-Imperialist sentiment was, however, expressed in different ways. One
major way in which it was expressed was through revivalist movements, that tried to go
back to the roots of Islam and through that tradition resist European influence. The three
most prominent examples are:
○ Wahabi movement: founded by Muhammad al Wahab, this movement sought to
re-adapt the earliest principles of the prophet Muhammad.
■ Through an alliance with Muhammad ibn Saudi in 1744, the movement
was able to capture Mecca, but eventually driven out by Ibrahim Pasha
○ Al Sanussiya, founded by Ali al Sanusi, sought to discard everything that had
become part of Islam that was not based on the Quran or on a hadith
■ Engaged surrounding populations, especially in eastern Libya and Sudan
■ Fought European Imperialism
■ Ruled Libya until the rise of Gaddafi
○ al-Mahdiyya, founded by Muhammad Ahmad, who declared himself the Mahdi
(savior) in 1881
■ Began movement against the Egyptian Empire in Sudan
■ Captured Khartoum and declared Caliph
● Another form of the retoolment of Islam came in a more intellectual form that also
blamed corrupt Arab governments for the state of affairs, together with European
influence
○ Jamal al Din al Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, who rejected European
Imperialism but embraced the integration of “European” technology and science
under to assumption that the Islamic world had had those for a long time
● Some major political figures toward the end of the 19th century began using Islam as a
“transnational glue” and as a unifying force for the Islamic world
○ Sultan Abdulhamid II (1876-1909) catered toward more religious citizens,
neglected the Tanzimat and replaced the ideology of Ottomanism with Pan-
Islamism
■ Uniting Islamic uddah under the rule of a single caliph
■ Built railway from Damascus to Medina