4.6.2.1 The Non-Arab States: Iran (part 1)

Loading...

来自 Tel Aviv University 的课程

The Emergence of the Modern Middle East - Part I

676 个评分

Tel Aviv University

The Emergence of the Modern Middle East - Part I

676 个评分

This course will review the emergence of the modern Middle East from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, at the end of the First World War to the present. We will discuss the Ottoman legacy in the region and the Western imperial impact on the creation of the Arab state system. The course will review the rise and retreat of Arab nationalism, the problems of internal cohesion of the Arab states, issues of religion and state, and the evolution of Islamist politics. We will also focus on the evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its impact on the region and will conclude with an in depth analysis of the “Arab Spring” by placing these contemporary revolutionary events in their historical context. Please note that there is a second part to this course which is a direct extension of this part. We highly recommend to continue to the second part after you finish this one (https://www.coursera.org/learn/modern-middle-east-2/home/info).

从本节课中

The Creation of the Middle East State System

In our fourth lesson, we will be speaking about the creation of the Middle East state system in accordance with British and French designs after the First World War. First, we will discuss Egypt and how its distinct historical development gave way to a unique liberal experiment in Egypt during the 1920s and 1930s and consequently to a steady shift toward Islam and Arab nationalism. Second, we will discuss the area of the Fertile Crescent in comparison to Egypt and the creation of British (Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Iraq) and French mandates (Syria, Greater Lebanon) in this region. Our attention will then shift to the non-Arab states. We will learn about the creation of the Republic of Turkey on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire and the sweeping process of modernising reform under Mustafa Kemal. Lastly, we will take a look at Iran, which was, like Turkey, not a new state created by the Great Powers but a country with a long history and cultural tradition. Our discussion on Iran will include an overview of its history from early 16th century onwards as well as the basic principles of the Shi'a which shaped greatly the political culture in Iran.

IV. The Creation of the Middle East State System4:57

4.2 The Fertile Crescent1:07

4.3.1 The French Mandates: The Establishment of Greater Lebanon6:08

4.3.2 The French Mandates: The Establishment of Syria6:25

4.4 The British Mandates0:45

4.4.1 The British Mandates: The Palestine Question2:25

4.4.2 The British Mandates: Trans-Jordan7:38

4.4.3.1 The British Mandates: The Kingdom of Iraq - Part 15:55

4.4.3.2 The British Mandates: The Kingdom of Iraq - Part 27:07

4.5 The Saudis and the Hashemites in the Arabian Peninsula4:56

4.6.1.1 The Non-Arab States: The Republic of Turkey (part 1)3:58

4.6.1.2 The Non-Arab States: The Republic of Turkey (part 2)7:29

4.6.2.1 The Non-Arab States: Iran (part 1)7:02

4.6.2.2 The Non-Arab States: Iran (part 2)7:00

与讲师见面

Professor Asher Susser
Senior Research Fellow
Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies

Like Turkey, Iran was not a new state created by the Great Powers,

but a country with a long historical and

cultural tradition that went back thousands of years.

As of 1501, the Safavids had been established as the ruling dynasty

of Iran, and since the rule of the Safavids,

Iran had become a Shiite controlled state.

And as a state governed by Shiite Islam,

Iran was the natural competitor with their Sunni Muslim Ottoman neighbors.

The Safavids ruled until the early 18th century

followed by a prolonged period of political instability.

And it was at the end of the 18th century that the Qajar Dynasty came to power and

lasted until 1925.

Iran was characterized by a weakness of central government.

One could say that Iran had a long tradition of weak central government.

This had very much to do with the lay of the land.

Either very high mountain ranges in the north and the west or

huge deserts in the center that covered almost all of Iran's land space.

So until the advent of modern means of transport and communications,

it was very difficult to maintain effective central government or

economic modernization for that matter.

Iran had no real army to speak of, like the Ottomans or Muhammad Ali in Egypt had.

Accept for usually not very impressive forces raised by provincial governors.

Iran was a country territorially isolated and very, very far from Europe.

And therefore in the 19th century, we see in Iran a very slow pace of reform.

There are some changes in education, but always about half a century later and

less extensive than we saw with the Ottomans or Egypt.

There is growing economic influence of outside forces and

ensuing economic difficulties.

And Iran was a country historically troubled by the threat of external

influence and penetration.

The borders of Iran were particularly problematic.

Iran was populated by a series of minorities that lived along the borders.

And these ethnic minorities along Iran's borders straddled

the borders with part of their population in Iran and part in neighboring countries.

The Azeris with part of their population in Iran and part in Azerbaijan.

The Kurds in Iran and in Iraq and Turkey.

The Arabs in Iran and in Iraq or the Baluchis in the east who

have part of their population in Iran and part in Pakistan.

In 1900, Iran had a population of about 10 million.

And in this Iranian state, one has to make special mention

of the extraordinary power of the men of religion in the Shiite branch of Islam.

In the Shiite branch of Islam the men of religion tend to be a lot more

influential and powerful than their Sunni rivals.

In Sunni Islam as we have already noted, the gates of each Jihad that is

of independent interpretation were closed in the 10th century.

But the gates of each Jihad were never closed in Shia and

there was always the opportunity which continues until the present day for

the men of religion in Shiite to engage in independent interpretation each Jihad.

In the late 18th century,

there were two schools of thought that emerged in Shiite Islam in Iran.

The one was called the Akhbari school and the other was the Usuli school.

The Akhbari's argued that all answers could be found in the Quran and the Sunna,

that is the traditions of the prophet.

Usuli's argue that answers should be given by living interpreters, the mujtahid.

The man who conducts each Jihad independent interpretation.

And the Usulis argue that answers should be given by living mujtahids and

it was they who emerged victorious.

So you have the principle of imitation with the living mujtahid.

The interpreter is imitated by the believers.

And there is this very small number of the most senior

Ayatollahs who are these interpreters.

And the rank and file, who are the believers and those that are the imitators

of the imitated who is the interpreter of religion.

These men of religion are financially independent of the regime

because they are paid and maintained by the believers.

And as such, they have a very strong economic and

political link with the masses which gives them a great deal of

political influence and at the same time, considerable independence of the regime.

As opposed to the Sunni Ulama who were usually bureaucrats of the ruling regime

as it was in the Ottoman empire and indeed in Egypt of Muhhamad Ali.

So in Iran we have a Constitutional Revolution in 1906.

And this constitution remained in force for five years until 1911.

It was the result of a relatively small movement.

But the Ulama, the men of the religion were a central driving force in this group

that forced a constitution of the Shah of Iran.

They were taking advantage of the weakness of the Qajar Regime of the central

government to further enhance their own influence by imposing

a constitution on the Shah.

But this constitutional revolution, though likened to the Young Turk Revolution

of 1908 is not similar to the Young Turk Revolution at all.

In the Turkish case, in the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, we're talking about

a society that was already undergoing change after a very long period of reform.

This was as a result of a long standing modernization process.

But in the Iranian case, the Constitution Revolution of 1906,

the modernization process hadn't even begun in any serious fashion.

In Turkey, it was the forces of Modernity that were in action in creating

the revolutionary of the Young Turks.

But in Iran, it was actually a coalition of various forces of tradition and

opponents of modernization that had imposed the constitution on the regime.

探索我们的目录

免费加入并获得个性化推荐、更新和优惠。

Coursera 致力于普及全世界最好的教育，它与全球一流大学和机构合作提供在线课程。

© 2019 Coursera Inc. 保留所有权利。

通过 App Store 下载

通过 Google Play 获取