How Did The Tanzimat Shaped The Modern Middle East

Before WW1, the Middle East was dominated by outside powers. Egypt was under British control and Persia was divided in to Russian and British spheres of influence. The Ottomans tried to promote change with the Tanzimat reforms which allowed some industrialization and modernization. However, in 1908, the Young Turks took over and

Beginning with Muhammad’s age from the start of 7th century Islam, Islamic culture and politics have gone a great many events and occurrences. Throughout all of its years, it has boasted both a rich culture and technological/intellectual advancements. The preservation of the Quran, developments in mathematics, and the continued emphasis on respect and charitable nature are just some examples of Islamic achievement. However, as with any growing civilization, Islam has evolved beyond what it originated as. The cultural and political life of Islamic civilization beginning in the 7th century to the end of the Abbasids of the 13th century underwent many changes such as the deteriorating view of women in society and the shift from elected caliphates to dynastical caliphate. But, one aspect that persisted were the religious beliefs and traditions followed by the Islamic people.

Ataturk and Reza Shah had a large influence on the governments of Turkey and Iran by secularizing and westernizing each. This secularization has had a distinct role in shaping the language, education, religion and government of both Turkey and Iran. Their end goals were to create a powerful and prevalent world powers that is distinct. Comparing the two countries, there were many similarities between each reformation, but each is distinct in certain aspects.

The reformation of the country of Iran toward Islam caused turmoil among the people because the drastic changes forced on the people were not easily accepted. One of the major changes is that

The independence of Turkey and its early development as a country full of energetic youth required a combination of two almost contradictory ideals : In order to illustrate its disassociation with the past Ottoman authority the new government desired international style which expresses scientific modernization and political liberation; However, the Kemalists also wanted to preserve a certain degree of cultural root in order to boost, if not, maintain nationalistic devotion of its citizens. Consequently, a new hybridization of theses two ideals emerged

The Ottoman Empire actually began to take shape several centuries before the dawn of the early modern period. However, its complete development didn’t take place until 1453 when a Turkish conquest resulted in control of Constantinople. The Ottomans, also known as the Osmanli group of Turks, were not the original Turkish people involved in Middle Eastern affairs. The success of the Ottoman Empire rested on two main

The Ottoman Empire, during its peak, was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the world, where the empire lasted from the fourteenth century until the early twentieth century. The Ottoman Empire stretched from North Africa, Arabs states, and the Balkan. However, just like any great empire, the Ottoman Empire would eventually experience significant problems and potentially lead to its decline as a great power in the European and Asian continent. In order to combat the decline of the empire and bring back their strength in comparison to the European powers, the Ottomans started a period of reform, known as the Tanzimat (1839 – 1876), which means reorganization in Turkish. There were major reforms developed for the empire, but whether they were truly effective is still debated.

It is the intention of this paper to take an insightful look at two significantly major historical empires, the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire. According to Quataert, “the Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest, long lasting and most extensive empires in the history of the world” (3). At its height, the Ottoman Empire had a reign of 600 years and during the 15th and 16th century was recognized as one of the most powerful states on the world’s stage. The Ottoman Empire shared its place of significance with several other places of influence, England, Spain, Rome, France and the Dutch Empire to the west and the Safavid state and the Moghul Empire to the east.

In the early modern and modern periods, the Ottoman Empire had been viewed as an accomplished and robust Muslim dynasty (P.159, Fisher and Oschenwald). With the introduction of gun-powdered weaponry, the Ottomans maintained control over large parts of land.

The Ottoman and Safavid Empires share many similarities. Their courts were set-up alike, each empire advanced artistically, and both were deeply rooted within the Islam religion. Although these empires were alike in many ways, the form of Muslim each empire adopted were different. This paper will focus on the religion used by both empires as a pillar to governing its people, but also the differences between the sub-cultures adopted by each empire.

The main goal of these reforms was to move the non-Muslims from an inferior national to a full subject of the Empire. The thought was that if the Sultan gave his minority subjects more rights, per say, than they would not form a separatist movement. Or worse the subjects separatist movement lobby international support; for example, in the Greek national movement in 1821. The Greeks were assisted by France, Romanov Russia, and The United Kingdom. In this way two causes for the Armenian genocide interweave. At the same time as nationalistic centrifugal forces are pulling the Empire apart, Europe is sticking their hands in Ottoman internal affairs. The Tanzimat Reforms were really a failure, and did not promote equal citizenship among citizens. Nor

At the start of the 18th century, Middle Eastern countries witnessed their Eastern neighbors being overtaken by Western Europe and were faced with a choice: to pick apart or to be picked apart. It was from this dilemma that defensive developmentalism emerged in the Middle East. Empires such as the Ottomans, Persia, Tunisia, and Egypt began the process of centralizing their authority in order to assert effective control over their populations. The chief goal of defensive developmentalism for these empires was to assert their autonomy, whether that be autonomy from the Ottomans in the case of Egypt and Tunisia, or from outside imperialists in the Ottoman Empire and Persia. In order to accomplish these goals, defensive developmentalists undertook extensive reforms to establish their empires as relevant worldwide powers.

Iranians deeply value their social and cultural traditions. The Persian revolution formed the basis through which the country evolved and foundation upon which its empires were established. The Islamic regime practiced by the country formed the basis through which the country’s sophisticated institutions were built. Shah seemed to champion for secularization and westernization (Axworthy,

The rise and expansion of Islam has had a significant impact on the role and rights of women throughout history. Since its origin in the seventh century until modern times, the Muslim faith has somewhat broadened, but has mostly restricted women’s rights in numerous Islamic communities. The history of Muslim women is complex, as it involves many advances and declines in numerous locations, such as Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iran, concerning several subjects, including both civil and social rights. Thus, in general, the rights of Islamic women did not improve significantly over time, instead, conditions remained the same or became worse for women as Islam evolved and spread as a world religion.

British and French were main actors in that period which came after the collapse of ottoman power and state formation. After the industrial revolution and Enlightment, there was a new need for raw materials that counts as the main reason of the European mandate over Middle East(Fawcett, 2005).At that period the states were existed, but not every element of a modern state, because they were under other powers and there were only conflicts, resistance of self-determination, and