A look at the origins and currents of nationalism which were developing and flowing through the Arab and Turkish regions of the ‘Uthmani [Ottoman] Khilafah in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
By Tarek ‘Abdur-Rahmān
The Ottoman Empire began in a modest fashion through the beylik of Osman Ghazi centred around the town of Söğüt in north-western Anatolia in 1299CE. Historians herald the beginning of the Empire as Osman’s territories expanded rapidly in the early years and decades of the 1300s. The Ottomans themselves called their state “Devlet-i Osmaniyye”, Turkish for “The State of Osman”, with a strong Islamic character from its very inception. From then on, the Ottomans began to consolidate their State and expand prodigiously under a succession of energetic and remarkable rulers, replacing the Byzantines as the major power in the Eastern Mediterranean and crossing into the straits of Europe.
By the beginning of the fifteenth century, almost the whole of Anatolia had fallen to the Ottomans. The subsequent conquest of Constantinople in 1453 (renamed to ‘Istanbul’ – city of Islam) by Mehmed II heralded a golden age for the Ottomans. The crushing victories over the Shah of Safavid Persia, as well as the conquests of modern-day Egypt, Syria and Hejaz between 1515-18 under Selim I, marked the formal transfer of the Caliphate from the weak ‘Abbasids to the Ottomans. The Caliphate consequently reached its apex under Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-66), a great patron of culture, overseeing a brilliant civilization excelling in the various arts, sciences and intellectual endeavours. It was an economic, military and political powerhouse, the like the world had hardly witnessed previously.
It was a universal Empire in its cultural scope, holding together in a single framework of order and administration, regions of the Balkans, Asia Minor, Western Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, various ethnic groups – Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars, Rumanians, Turks, Arabs, Kurds and Armenians; different religious communities – Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, Maronite and other Christians, and Jews of more than one kind; and different social orders – peoples of the cities, peasants of the plains and river-valleys, villagers of the mountains (Albania, Eastern Anatolia, Kurdistan and Lebanon), nomads of the steppe and desert. The multifarious peoples were incorporated into the Ottoman system politically, militarily, agriculturally, fiscally, commercially, socially, and artistically through administrative, educational and architectural structures. This remarkable diversity and cultural synthesis was a source of strength for the Empire in the first few centuries as the different groups of people collectively contributed to the cultural, military and intellectual fabric of the Empire, each in their own unique capacity.
Inevitably however, as occurs to all civilizations and empires, after its golden heyday the ‘Uthmani Khilafah began weakening on a slow but steady path of decline. This happened due to a range of reasons – including a disastrous new succession policy instituted by Sultan Ahmed I (reigned 1603-17), which dictated that the next Sultan would be confined to the Palace till his ascension. This meant he would be deprived of valuable experience in governance, policy and skills of military. Thus the 300 year-old tradition of the resourceful, dynamic and able leaders of the Ottoman State was over, leading to incompetent and inexperienced Sultans. This resulted in a long period of abject administrative instability. Value was no longer placed in skill, and bribery and favouritism plagued the government. There was also economic decline due to inflation as European nations brought massive quantities of gold and especially silver – which the Ottoman economy was based on – from their conquests of the New World, which devalued the Ottoman currency according to the economic laws of supply and demand.
The Wahhabi threat and the regional hegemony of Mehmed Ali in Egypt, disastrous 1768-74 Russo-Turkish war and Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt in 1798 highlighted the Ottoman government’s weakening military strength and lack of control over its territories. A seemingly endless string of defeats in battle with the Habsburgs & Russia, led Selim III to believe by 1792 something was seriously wrong with the Ottoman military make-up. This signalled the era of European style reforms, which beginning with military reforms slowly encompassed other areas of life, ushering in the Tanzimat reforms of the 1800s. This was a complete reorganization of the Ottoman government: a series of laws that modernized it according to European contours. The old system based on Shar’iah – Islamic laws and norms – which had brought it so much success was now gone, replaced by a new framework of centralised administration and secular law. All these factors contributed to the eventual downfall of the Khilafah.
The focus of this piece however will be the role another chief factor played; that of nationalism, which began to manifest itself in its various quarters and provinces. Its origins can be traced to Europe, as revolutions broke out across the continent based on the notion of establishing nation-states, and began to exhibit itself through intellectual changes produced by new schools, coming of the printing press and newspapers and translation of books from English or French. The idea caught on with officials, teachers and merchants: a nationalism explicitly secular but having a concealed religious element. It caught on first with the Serbs and Greeks, then Rumanians and Bulgarians created their own nation-states, then the idea spread to Armenians, then the Turks themselves, and to the Arabs, Albanians and Kurds.
ORIGINS OF THE ARAB NATIONALIST MOVEMENT
The origins of the Arab national movement can be traced to political activities, immediately following Ibrahim Pasha’s withdrawal from Greater Syria (Ash-Sham). American missionaries aimed to revive the Arab spirit, which they considered to be in a slumber for many centuries under Turkish rule. The first step was a supply of Arabic textbooks and school manuals, created by Eli Smith and his colleagues.  The avidity with which these books were seized upon showed that minds were awakening to the ideas disseminated. Meanwhile missionaries were rapidly opening schools in various parts of Syria. Their first foundations being in Beirut, Jerusalem and Lebanon. By 1860 they had established thirty-three schools attended by approximately one thousand students, of whom nearly one-fifth were girls. The crowning establishment however was the founding of the “Syrian Protestant College” in Beirut which provided high school education and eventually attained university status, which was to become an institution that played a leading role in defining the country’s future – in particular its Arab national identity. Two key figures in the establishment of these educational institutions and the Arab nationalist cause, were Nasif Al-Yaziji and Butrus Bustani.
NASIF AL-YAZIJI & BUTRUS BUSTANI
Nasif Al-Yaziji was born in 1800 in Lebanon to a Christian family, hailed for his diligence and prodigious memory. His exploration of libraries took him into the heart of the lost world of classical Arabic literature, kindling the Arab in him and a desire to revive the past. He was known for his purist attempts to emulate the classical Arab writers and wrote books of grammar, logic and prosody which governed the teaching of the science of Arabic long after his death.
The other figure Butrus Bustani, was also a Christian Arab from Lebanon, born in 1819. He was a multi-linguist, proficient in over six languages and had an outstanding ability in assimilating knowledge and worked closely with the American Protestant Mission until his death. He began to publically express the need for an Arab identity and called for a revival of literature and scholarly works in Arabic. Following the religious tensions and hatred pouring forth from the Maronite/Druze civil war of Mount Lebanon in 1860, Bustani published a small weekly journal called the “Clarion of Syria” where he voiced his vision of a Syrian fatherland. Three years later in pursuance of the same objective he established the “National School” to provide boys of all faiths, education based on religious tolerance and patriotic ideals. Nasif Al-Yaziji served as principal teacher of Arabic. The school achieved fame swiftly and attracted pupils from all corners of Syria.
In 1870, he began Al-Jenan, a fortnightly political and literary review whose motto he gave, “Patriotism is an article of faith” which was published with fair regularity during the rest of his lifetime. He compiled a compendious dictionary of the Arabic language in 1870 appearing in two volumes, and also an Arabic encyclopaedia, “Al-Muhit al-Muhit” – “the Ocean of Oceans” – of six elaborate volumes. It was at this time he came to be known famously as the Master and Father of the Arabic Renaissance. He made large strides in forging a nationalism for Arabs by adopting and contextualizing European political and social values and education while maintaining a distinct nationalism, patriotism and Arab identity. All of this was to the advancement and continuation of the Arab cultural and literary renaissance at large that moved from Syria to Egypt and Lebanon. Education, for Bustani, was the main vehicle to achieve an Arab identity and nationalism and it was only by the mass production of literature and its speedy circuit throughout the Middle East, that such an identity could be formed. He took a non-sectarian approach and worked to bring together both Christians and Muslims into the greater agenda of the revolution of Arab identity and culture. His prolific output and ground-breaking work led the creation of modern Arabic expository prose. Educated by westerners, he was a fierce secularist, playing a decisive role in formulating the principles of Syrian nationalism.
In 1847 Bustani, Al-Yaziji and Mikhail Mishaga under the auspices of the American Mission established the first literary society in the Arab world, “The Syrian Association for the Sciences and Arts” with only Christian members, which tackled and published its deliberations on themes such as women’s rights, history and their fight against superstition. It was dissolved in 1852 but its inner circle went on to establish the “Syrian Scientific Association” a few years later in 1857, which was much bigger in scope, featuring a multi-sectarian society of intellectuals who pushed for Arab independence from the Ottomans.  For the first time probably in the 350 years of Ottoman domination, a common ideal had brought the warring creeds together; an interest in the progress of the country as a national unit, a pride in the Arab inheritance their bond.
It was at a secret gathering of certain members of the society that the Arab national movement may be said to have uttered its first cry. Ibrahim Yazeji, son of the influential Nasif, composed an ode to patriotism, which sang of the achievements of the Arab race and the glories of Arabic literature and called upon Syrians to band together and shake off the Turkish yoke. It spread precipitously in a hushed manner due to its treasonable message. It appealed especially to students, stamping their minds with racial pride. The poem was instrumental in fostering the national movement in its infancy. With its utterance the movement for political emancipation sang its first song.
MUHAMMAD ABDUH & RASHID RIDA
The currents of Arab nationalism were also apparent in the writings of Muhammad Abduh and his best-known disciple, Muhammad Rashid Rida. In their vision of following the Salafiyya, drops of the intellectual burgeoning of Arab nationalism were found under the guise of Islam. Abduh dated the decline of Islam to when the ‘Abbasid Caliph Al-Mu-tasim used Turkish and Dailamite mercenaries as Pretorian guards. Under the influence of these “barbarians” according to Abduh, the intellectual civilization of Islam withered and wilted, for they “wore Islam on their bodies, but nothing of it penetrated their soul.”
Rida similarly postulated in his periodical Al-Manar, that “most of the lands which the Turks conquered were a burden on Islam… and are still a warning of clear catastrophe… that the greatest glory in the Muslim conquests goes to the Arabs, and that religion grew, and became great through them”. Thus implicit in the argument is a glorification of Arab Islam and a depreciation of Ottoman Islam, which saw the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the glorious dawn, the Umayyad period, the promise of forenoon, and the ‘Abbasid period, the splendour of noon. All stages that followed signalled the sad decline and shades of night slowly closing in.
ABD AL-RAHMAN AL-KAWAKIBI & NEGIB AZOURY
These ideas were further strengthened in a more resounding manner by Abd al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi who belonged to Rida’s circle. Kawakibi often used to say, “If I had an army, I would have overthrown the government of Abdul Hamid in twenty-four hours.” In his book “Umm al-Qura” he mentions the Muslims are a dead people, whose stagnation is a result of tyranny, and of the absence of racial and linguistic bonds among Muslims, and partly for this reason the Ottoman Caliphate is not fit to preserve Islam. He also provided a list of twenty-six reasons to prove the superiority of the Arabs and why the Caliphate should devolve to them. Some consider him as the first true intellectual precursor of modern secular Pan-Arabism; there were no reticences or half-tones in his claim that the Arabs were better than the Turks. Also with his idea of a merely spiritual caliphate, he took the first step towards a purely secular politics. He was fully of the opinion that religion should be separated from state and there should be a symbolic Pope-like figure of a Caliph. Such an idea was an essential prerequisite of nationalism.
The ideas of Al-Kawakibi, a few years later were given even more precision by a Christian, Negib Azoury, who seems to be a shady character who may have been a French agent. At any rate it is certain he approached French sources for money for his seditious activities. In 1905 published in Paris a book titled, Le Reveil de la Nation Arabe dans l’Asie Turque which further expounds Al-Kawakibi’s idea of a spiritual Arab Caliphate. He also envisioned an Arab empire whose “natural frontiers” would be the valley of the Euphrates and the Tigris, the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. The throne of this empire would be taken by a prince of the Khedivial family, he explained. This was a landmark aspiration, as it constituted the first open demand for the secession of the Arab lands from the Ottoman Caliphate. It should be marked the demand was made by a Christian, for Muslims were generally wary of any move that might disrupt the Ottoman Caliphate, the only great Muslim power in the world.
THE RISE OF TURKISH NATIONALISM
This was one spectrum of the nationalist sentiments which was brewing in the ‘Uthmani Khilafah. The other movement was just as dangerous, if not more to the survival of the Khilafah: the foment of Turkish nationalism, which had no real inter-connexion between the Arab movement apart from both of their derision for Sultan Abdul-Hamid II and his rule.
One of the most prominent figures trumpeting the call for westernizing reforms and nationalism on the Turkish scene was Namık Kemal, known as the apostle of two ideas in Turkey: freedom and fatherland. In a long series of articles, essays, novels, plays and poems, he brought to the Turkish Muslim reader these two key ideas of the French revolution, adapted to Muslim traditions and attitudes. His writing had far-reaching, revolutionary impacts which reverberated through to the next generation, including influencing Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He was profoundly impressed by the achievements of European civilization and thought all the best elements of European civilization could be paralleled in Islamic civilization. His political theories were derived from Montesquieu and Rousseau, which he attempted to merge with the principles of the Shari’ah, and his ideas on the practice of government were taken from the parliaments of London and Paris.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ‘YOUNG TURKS’
The first attempt to organize a revolutionary group was in June, 1865 where a group of six, Namık Kemal being one of them, held a meeting to establish their secret society in Paris. Little is known of its original programme and its headquarters became the Paris residence of Prince Mustafa Fazil. Many new and significant ideas first found Turkish expression in their writings, and their influence on the thoughts and actions of the generations followed were extensive. The society grew rapidly, and claimed 245 members at a later date.
In February, 1867 they named themselves the “Young Ottomans” – later popularly known as the “Young Turks” – and a year later produced their own first paper from London, the Hürriyet (Freedom) which Kemal and Ziya Paşa were closely associated with. The first issue contained a leading article entitled, “Love of One’s Country is Part of the Faith”, speaking of an Ottoman patriotism similar to the European countries. Meanwhile another figure, Ali Suavi, published a journal called Ulum (Science) from Paris, where he expressed a distinct Turkish loyalty, clearly differentiated from an Islamic or Ottoman loyalty. The publication which reached Turkey through various channels, aroused some interest.
Another figure was Mehmed Bey, who was a member of the palace and governing circle and was one of the founding members of the Young Ottomans. Yet espousing more radical views he parted with them and published a paper called Ittihad (Union) in Turkish, Greek, Arabic and Armenian. He then moved to Geneva and published a journal called Inkilab (Revolution), which introduced a new portentous word in the Turkish political vernacular [that of ‘revolution’].
VATAN YAHUT SILISTRE & INCREASING MOMENTUM
One of the most ground-breaking strides in ushering in sentiments of patriotism was Namık Kemal’s melodramatic play Vatan yahut Silistre (Fatherland or Silistre). First produced in 1873, it was immensely popular with students in the military schools, who smuggled copies back and forth under the noses of their instructors. The four acts of the drama deal with an episode in the defence of the Turkish fortress of Silistria against the Russians in 1854. The play burns with fervent patriotic sentiment and is full of rousing appeals to the Ottomans to love their country and defend it against its enemies. In it the ideas formulated in Kemal’s leading articles in Hürriyet and Ibret find dramatic expression. This aroused such dangerous enthusiasms that Kemal was imprisoned in Cyprus for over three years as a result.
With increasing severity in censorship from 1890-1 onwards, the Young Turks were the source of the most significant productions of Turkish journalism through newspapers and periodicals published in growing numbers by Young Turk exiles in France, Switzerland, England, Egypt and elsewhere. Even with censorship, three of their daily newspapers had about 12,000 – 15,000 circulations which reached and influenced the members of the small educated elite. It was in the schools and the nurseries of the civil and military elite that the seeds of revolution were sown. Many Turkish writers have described the atmosphere of discontent and revolutionary ferment in the Hamidian schools, especially in the provincial centres, less subject to the immediate control of the palace.
Teachers and students alike read the forbidden writings of Namık Kemal and Ziya Paşa, talking and dreaming of freedom and fatherland. Niyazi Bey, the hero of the revolution of July 1908 how a teacher introduced poems by Kemal, under whose influence “an intoxicating patriotism prepared… my innocent heart for revolutions”. A further nucleus of the Young Turks formed in 1889 called the “Committee of Union and Progress” (C.U.P.). Its founders were four medical students and grew rapidly, winning adherents among the cadets in the civil, military, naval, medical and other high schools in Istanbul. Ahmet Rıza, one of the most fearless of the Young Turks was among them who began to publish a fortnightly journal, the Mesveret which smuggled through the foreign post offices and other channels and began to circulate in Istanbul, helping to increase the numbers of the society and was instrumental in keeping the spark of the Young Turk movement alive.
COUP TO REMOVE SULTAN ABDULHAMID II
In 1896, conspirators from the secret group prepared a coup d’état to depose the Sultan. The plot was discovered, leading to the swift arrest of those involved.  A development which led to much excitement amongst revolutionaries a couple of years later was the Sultan’s brother-in-law Prince Sabahattin, fleeing to Europe due to the lack of freedom he felt in the Empire. This made the headlines in Europe and revived party activity. In 1902 Prince Sabahattin and his brother convened the inaugural “Young Turk Congress” in Paris. Forty delegates from various regions in the Empire discussed their concerns regarding its status. The Prince and his supporters agreed on military intervention and the governor of Tripoli, Recep Pasha, agreed to give them troops to forcibly depose Abdülhamid. Pasha changed his mind however and the plan was abandoned.
Meanwhile in 1905 Kemal Atatürk graduated from the Turkish War Academy as a staff captain and was posted to Ottoman Fifth Army Headquarters in Damascus. He came into contact with a secret society, Vatan (Motherland) which he soon became head of, changing its name to Vatan ve Hürriyet (Motherland and Freedom) and establishing a branch in his hometown, Salonika. Here also patriotic sentiment and resentment led to another more effective revolutionary organization being established: the Ottoman Freedom Association (Osmanli Hürriyet Cemiyeti) by nine members, both civilians and military officers. In 1907 they joined with the C.U.P. under their name.
In the same year, the Second Young Turk Congress convened in Paris, attended by Prince Sabahattin and Ahmet Rıza – being the dominant figure, now the most influential figure representing Turkish nationalism – and his supporters and Armenian representatives. They listed the aspects they were dissatisfied with the Abdülhamid administration and finally agreed to the use of armed force to achieve revolution.
In July 1908, the world heard in shock, that the Turkish Third Army Corps, stationed in Macedonia had revolted against Abdülhamid and forced him to reinstate the Constitution of 1876. News began to trickle out that the bloodless revolution had been carried out by the C.U.P. Wild rejoicing brought people into the streets, the C.U.P. motto, “Liberty, Justice, Equality, Fraternity” appeared everywhere. The Sultan ironically, only improved his popularity with the developments. Patriotic sentiments ran high as three plays were performed, including Kemal’s arousing Vatan.
Hopes for a new era were subjected to two rude shocks however. On October 5, the vassal state of Bulgaria proclaimed its independence, and the next day Austria-Hungary annexed outright the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which she had occupied since 1878. The only means of Ottoman pressure was a trade boycott, which was fairly effective.
There was a counter revolution on April 13, 1909, by the religious factions of common soldiers and theological students deeming the new regime irreligious, violating the Shari’ah. Soldiers invaded the Chamber of Deputies and ousted the C.U.P.-installed government and took control of the capital. There was however no real vision and political strength of the movement, as troops loyal to the C.U.P. marched on Istanbul from Salonika and put down the rising and restored their regime. They hastened to make judicial and financial amends for the events. In light of the counter-revolution the C.U.P. decided to get rid of Abdülhamid once and for all with a Fatwa from the Shaykh ul-Islam. In 1876 Sultan Abdülhamid had come to power through a coup led by political figures and army officers, and 33 years later left his position in a similar manner. His younger brother Mehmed V was installed in his place.
AFTERMATH: DISSOLUTION OF THE KHILAFAH & BEGINNING OF NATION-STATES
In conclusion, by 1918 when the C.U.P. government era ended in the chaos of defeat of World War I, they had not lived up to their claims of constitutional freedom and democratic ideals and proved to be autocratic. By 1914, the government was effectively run by a triumvirate: Enver as war minister, Talat as interior minister, and Jemal as navy minister. They nonetheless contributed to the institutional, ideological and social development that was to underlay the emergence of the modern Turkish nation and republic. Turkish nationalism came increasingly to the fore, leaving aside Ottomanism and Islamism, yet was to find its truly crystallizing form under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk.
The Balkan War of 1912 was disastrous to the Empire and within a few months had to cede to Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro almost all its European territory. Westernization and secularization increased, and women made a modest advance in public life.
The defining blow to the Caliphate and Empire came however with the Great War, and especially the developments of Arab nationalism which had taken the form of a rebellion led by the Sharif Husayn of Makkah, backed by the British, who sought an independent Arab Empire. This allowed the British to easily procure Iraq, Palestine and Syria from the Ottoman Empire. After the war, the Empire essentially ceased to exist, as the ultra-nationlist Atatürk ceased power and declared a purely Turkish state in modern-day Turkey.
It is perhaps then indicative, that the convergence of the two nationalist movements, simultaneously brewing in the Arab and Turkish regions led to the ultimate destruction of the ‘Uthmani Khilafah. The British did not keep their promise to Sharif Husayn and divided the Arab world between themselves and France. Arbitrary lines split the Arab world into new nations called Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. Zionist Jews were encouraged to settle in Palestine, creating a new Jewish state – Israel. Egypt continued under British domination to become its own nation, separate from the rest of the Arab world.
Thus what had once been the great flourishing Ottoman Empire, Sultanate, and then Khilafah was no more: the forces of nationalism had dealt it a deathly blow, tearing right through the fabric of their strength; the diverse array of people, backgrounds and religions which were previously an asset – was now replaced by numerous competing nationalistic states at the mercy of foreign powers.
About the author: Tarek ‘Abdur-Rahmān is currently in his second year of Bachelor Arts/Education at the University of New South Wales, Majoring in History. He is a keen Islamic activist & student of Islamic knowledge. You can follow him on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/Musab.Ayyub
 The Latinized version of the original Osmanli or ‘Uthmani as it was otherwise popularly known [Osman is usually regarded as the Turkish form of the Arabic ‘Uthman].
 A beylik was a small independent state led by a Ghazi (a warrior who fought for the defence of Islam) – initially developed from a small loyal militia – who would lead his soldiers to war, moving throughout the Anatolian countryside
 Alkhateeb, F. 2012. The Birth of the Ottoman Empire. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-birth-of-the-ottoman-empire/
 The narrow vertical Western-strip of current-day Saudi Arabia, consisting of Jedda and the Holy Cities of Makkah and Medina. It is a region of much historical importance.
 “Ottoman Empire”, Oxford Islamic Studies Online.
 Albert Hourani, The Emergence of the Modern Middle East (California: University of California Press, 1981), 9.
 Jane Hathaway and Karl K. Barbir, The Arab Lands Under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800 (Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2008), 7.
 Ibn Khaldun, in his brilliant book on historiography, The Muqaddimah, states that “dynasties have a natural life span like individuals” and that “it [a dynasty] grows up and passes into an age of stagnation and then into retrogression.” The insightful words of Ibn Khaldun in 1337 hold true for the history of the last great Muslim empire – the Ottoman Empire.
 Alkhateeb, F. 2012. The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Part 1 Politics and Economics. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-decline-of-the-ottoman-empire-part-1/
 Hathaway and Barbir, Arab Lands Under Ottoman Rule, 220.
 Alkhateeb, F. 2012. The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Part 2 Islamic Decline. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-decline-of-the-ottoman-empire-part-2-islamic-decline/
 Alkhateeb, F. 2013. The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Part 3 Nationalism. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-decline-of-the-ottoman-empire-part-3-nationalism/ [Accessed: 24 Oct 2013].
 Hourani, The Emergence of the Modern Middle East, 16.
 A prominent American Protestant Missionary and Scholar
 “The Arab Awakening”, George Antonius (Hamish Hamilton, London, 90 Great Russell Street, 1945), p. 41.
 Ibid., 42.
 The number one ranked University in Lebanon today, known as the “American University of Beirut”
 “The Arab Awakening”, George Antonius, p. 4..
 Original name in Arabic: “Nafir Suriya”
 Al-Madrasa al-wataniya
 Antonius, Arab Awakening, 49.
 Johnson, Michael (2001). All Honourable Men: The Social Origins of War in Lebanon. I.B.Tauris. p. 138.
 Antonius, Arab Awakening, 53-55.
 The original initial generations of Islam, who were the bastions of Islam in its most pristine form.
 Sylvia G. Haim, Arab Nationalism: An Anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 22.
 Ibid. p. 22-3
 Ibrahim Salim al-Najjar, quoted in Sami al-Dahhan, Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi (Cairo, 1955), 37.
 Haim, Arab Nationalism, 26-27.
 E. Jung, La revolte Arabe (1906-24) (2 vols.; Paris, 1924), gives details of Azoury’s activites; the author was his collaborator.
 Negib Azoury, Le Reveil de la Nation Arabe dans l’Asie Turque, p. i-iii, 245-8.
 Haim, Arab Nationalism, 30.
 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 141.
 Sina Aksin, Turkey: From Empire to Revolutionary Republic, The Emergence of the Turkish Nation from 1789 to the Present (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 34.
 Ibid., p. 142.
 Ibid., p. 173.
 Ibid., p. 152
 Hubb al-Watan min al-Iman
 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 154-6.
 Ibid., p. 173.
 Ibid., p. 194.
 Ibid., p. 195-6.
 Ernest E. Ramsaur, JR., The Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908, (New York: Russell and Russell, 1970), 89.
 Lewis, Emergence of Modern Turkey, 197-8.
 Aksin, Turkey: From Empire to Revolutionary Republic, 48-9.
 Ramsaur, The Young Turks, 93.
 Ibid., 50.
 Ibid., 94.
 Roderic H. Davison, Turkey, a Short History (England: The Eothen Press, 1968), 106.
 Religious ruling.
 Ibid., p. 117.
Aksin, Sina, Turkey: From Empire to Revolutionary Republic, The Emergence of the Turkish Nation from 1789 to the Present, New York: New York University Press, 2007.
Albert Hourani, The Emergence of the Modern Middle East, California: University of California Press, 1981.
Antonius, George, The Arab Awakening, London, 90 Great Russell Street: Hamish Hamilton, 1945.
Alkhateeb, Firas. 2012. The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Part 1 Politics and Economics. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-decline-of-the-ottoman-empire-part-1/ [Accessed: 24 Oct 2013].
Alkhateeb, Firas. 2012. The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Part 2 Islamic Decline. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-decline-of-the-ottoman-empire-part-2-islamic-decline/ [Accessed: 24 Oct 2013].
Alkhateeb, Firas. 2013. The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Part 3 Nationalism. [online] Available at: http://lostislamichistory.com/the-decline-of-the-ottoman-empire-part-3-nationalism/ [Accessed: 24 Oct 2013].
Azoury, Azoury Le Reveil de la Nation Arabe dans l’Asie Turque.
Davison, Roderic H., Turkey, a Short History, England: The Eothen Press, 1968.
Haim, Sylvia G., Arab Nationalism: An Anthology, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962.
Hathaway, Jane and Barbir, Karl K., The Arab Lands Under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800, Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2008.
Johnson, Michael, All Honourable Men: The Social Origins of War in Lebanon, 2001.
Jung, E. La revolte Arabe (1906-24), 2 volumes, Paris, 1924.
Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, London: Oxford University Press, 1968.
“Ottoman Empire”, Oxford Islamic Studies Online.
Ramsaur, Ernest E. JR., The Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908, New York: Russell and Russell, 1970.