As I have argued before on this site numerous times, the Ottomans in many terms was the greatest of the Khilafah. It was only bested at time in terms of war by the Umayyad. If you wish to debate this topic in more detail then that can be done easily.
Please look at my previous post. The Bahá'ís were not the only reformers in the Islamic world, there was in fact a strong and influential Islamic reformist movement.Enlightenment could have started in Middle East in middle of 19 century. There were couple Iranian reformers like Bahá'í Faith. If they had succeeded, it would be easier to introduce modern ideas in Middle East.
That seems to be off from what I know of Ottoman history. Before the 19th century, the Ottoman claims to the Caliphate were generally only somewhat more important than the Ottoman claim to the Caiserdom of Rome. It was only with the rise of Pan-Islamic sentiments under the late Ottomans that the Caliphate began to be more important in Ottoman terminology and self-definition.
The Ottomans were a Turkish Islamic empire. Calling them a Caliphate helps better the understanding of Ottoman actions in the late 19th century, but very little before that.
EDIT: I don't mean that the Ottomans were not Caliphal, I mean that calling it a Caliphate it doesn't actually help us understand the Ottoman polity for most of its existence. And I'm sure you understand that jihad has been called by almost anyone around the world.
I would disagree on this point. For instance the Ottomams referred not to their duties as a Turkish or Roman entity in its Jihad against the Shi'i entities of Iran and Iraq. Nor did the Ottomams refer to its Roman or Turkish identity for its conquest of the Mamluks, their conquest was clear: to remove the other claimant of the Khilafah
Further you said it was more important than the Caesardom of Rum, so if that wasn't their greatest title than what was? Obviously it would have been the Khilafah. Further the Ottomans had claimed Khilafah far before 1453, (before the battle of Konya as well) the name it took and its movement after the claim is what most greatly defined the Ottomans in my opinion.
The reasons for the conquest of Egypt remain disputed. To quote The Ottoman Age of ExplorationI would disagree on this point. For instance the Ottomams referred not to their duties as a Turkish or Roman entity in its Jihad against the Shi'i entities of Iran and Iraq. Nor did the Ottomams refer to its Roman or Turkish identity for its conquest of the Mamluks, their conquest was clear: to remove the other claimant of the Khilafah
Against this exhilarating intellectual background, we can pinpoint the true beginning of the Ottoman Age of Exploration to Sultan Selim’s decision to invade the territories of the Mamluk empire in 1516. Th is was a move with overwhelmingly important consequences for later Ottoman history, doubling the size of the empire in a single year and solidifying the Ottomans’ status as the most powerful state in the Islamic world. Yet surprisingly, it is also a decision whose motivations still remain, nearly five hundred years after the fact, shrouded in a thick veil of mystery. Was it intended as a preemptive strike against Selim’s archrival Shah Ismail of Iran, designed to deprive him of a potentially powerful Egyptian ally? Was it instead a political gambit to shore up Selim’s legitimacy on the domestic front, by appropriating the prestigious religious centers of Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medina? Or was it merely the first step in a much grander strategy aimed at pulling the Indian Ocean into the Ottoman orbit and seizing control of the spice trade from the newly established Portuguese Estado da Índia?
Probably no single factor can fully explain Selim’s decision, and even a considerable element of chance may have lain behind the immediate political conditions that brought his army first into Syria and then to Egypt. Still, it seems extremely likely that an interest in the spice trade played at least some role in drawing Selim to the banks of the Nile. And although it remains an elusive goal to determine exactly how and under what circumstances this came about, at least one fact is clear: just as Ottoman geographic knowledge of the Indian Ocean had begun to grow in the years leading up to the conquest of Egypt, so, too, did Ottoman merchant communities begin to establish their first direct commercial ties with the region.
Caliph may have been most prestigious, but Sultan was the most pertinent title as well as the title most Ottoman rulers probably primarily identified as (as we see from European surprise when they learned that one of the last Ottoman rulers thought of himself more as Caliph than Sultan).Further you said it was more important than the Caesardom of Rum, so if that wasn't their greatest title than what was? Obviously it would have been the Khilafah.
The reasons for the conquest of Egypt remain disputed. To quote The Ottoman Age of Exploration
Caliph may have been most prestigious, but Sultan was the most pertinent title as well as the title most Ottoman rulers probably primarily identified as (as we see from European surprise when they learned that one of the last Ottoman rulers thought of himself more as Caliph than Sultan).
Do you ever cite anything, or is your word gospel?
Do you ever cite anything, or is your word gospel?
if Ottoman Empire Were to Remained Neutral During WW1 and so Ataturk would be a Grand Vizier and do more Reforms in the Empire and so Middle East would have Western-Style Enlightenment and More Peaceful.
In my Opinion
If no Arabs wanted to live under the Ottomans why was the Arab rebellion so small?They did pass reforms and reforms after reforms even taking the Sharia and trampling over it. It failed to do much other than lead to eventual genocide of Armenians. As well, whether reforms where passed, no Arab wanted to live under such a rotted regime as the Ottoman at this point.
If no Arabs wanted to live under the Ottomans why was the Arab rebellion so small?