Introduction

Despite its manifold ramifications and wide range, the history of the Turks in Egypt has until now failed to receive the care and attention that it deserves. There can be no doubt, however, that the turning of the Turks, in the wake of their migration from Central Asia, toward the west and to Egypt, birthplace and homeland of one of the world’s most ancient civilizations, as well as their special contributions to Islamic history in terms of a particular understanding of governance and military management and the dynamic cultures with which this brought them into fruitful contact, must constitute a rich and deep field for scholarly research.

From the Tulunid dynasty (868-905) to 1952, Egypt’s rulers (those of the Fatimid period excepted) were either Turkish in origin or were raised and educated according to the norms of the Turkish state and its culture. Naturally, this is not an easy matter for modern nationalist thinking to accept. Nevertheless, the claim that this constitutes an unusual or unprecedented situation within the context of Islamic history is not to be taken seriously. This book does not set out to prejudge the topic by making value judgments; it aims, rather, to examine the history of the Turkish and Arab peoples, and in particular the special relationship between the Turks and Egypt that forms the backbone of this study, depending on the facts of history alone. It is only subsequent to such an exercise that judgments can be made.

We have dealt in detail in an earlier study with the period that begins with the initial encounter between these two nations and runs to the end of the eighteenth century, attempting to sketch the main features of their interac-tions.1 Immediately thereafter we undertook the publication of a detailed list of Islamic architectural monuments constructed in Cairo during the classic period of Ottoman rule (1517-1804).2 Now, in this present study, we attempt to cast light on the final chapter in this historic relationship, which started at the beginning of the nineteenth century and continues until the present.

At the very moment that Europe was acquiring predominance and the Ottoman Empire, sensing that the balance of power had shifted to its disadvantage, had decided to close the gap between the two sides by embarking on a campaign of modernization, initially in the military sphere, a curious and significant event occurred in the Ottoman-Egyptian relationship. This event is embodied in the assumption by Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, then an Ottoman army officer of the rank of serge§me (chief commander of irregular troops), of the governorship of Egypt in 1805, followed by his and his dynasty’s rule over the country, which continued until 1952. This dynasty became an essential factor in the penetration of Turkish culture into Egypt, a society whose roots lie in Arab tradition and culture, and thus in the formation of Egypt’s modern culture. This interaction is a major feature of this 150-year historical period, and it has remained unstudied until today. Its impact, which spread with the establishment of the central bureaucracy and the creation of the army, touched areas that had escaped Ottoman influence during the classic Ottoman period.

In this study, we have tried to cast light on such Turkish influences on Egypt’s administration and society as we have been able to discover, starting at the beginning of the nineteenth century. We have likewise provided bibliographies of Turkish books and periodicals printed in Egypt starting with the reign of Muhammad ‘Ali, and of books translated from Turkish into Arabic and printed in Egypt. As a natural complement to this process we have devoted detailed attention to the reign and character of Muhammad ‘Ali, which form the background to this study.

To understand better the character of Muhammad ‘Ali and of the reforms that he carried out, or sought to carry out, we must view matters within their wider, Ottoman, perspective. In so doing, we must also accept that Ottoman rule, which lasted three centuries, left an important mark on Egypt’s legal, cultural, and economic systems. Taking this classic Ottoman system as his starting point, Muhammad ‘Ali commenced his work under the inspiration of the Ottoman reforms that were under way at that time in Istanbul and of which he, in his eminently practical way, was able to create a particular model. In many areas, among them the army, this model, despite its Ottoman roots, included in its mix varying proportions of French influence and ended up assuming a form that was reinforced as needed by a diversity of elements. This transition occurred in an ad hoc and unpremeditated fashion. Thus the reform movement in Egypt, though inspired in its origins by the modernization campaigns taking place in Istanbul, capital of the Ottoman Empire, assumed, in the end, a distinctive character of its own. This new combination, which manifested itself also in the cultural field, produced a new Ottoman-Egyptian paradigm alongside the Ottoman-Turkish paradigm.

The ramifying modernization program initiated by Muhammad ‘Ali in Egypt was, at base, an embodiment of the Ottoman paradigm. The impact and influence of this inspirational model may be observed in a number of fields, above all in the formation of the army (which itself became the driving force of modernization in other areas), but also in the establishment of teaching institutions and a printing house, which supplied the former with the books they required. And despite the fact that Egypt looked to the reforms already carried out in Istanbul as a model for its own, Cairo also surpassed Istanbul in some areas. This was true with regard to the army and to printing, in which Egypt quickly became more advanced and realized dazzling successes. Muhammad ‘Ali’s achievements in these two areas were acknowledged throughout the world, including Istanbul, where at times they were met with approbation, at others with envy.

It remains a fact, however, that Ottoman Turkish influence in Egypt was stronger and more widespread during Muhammad ‘Ali’s reign than it had been in the preceding Ottoman period, even though the latter had lasted three centuries. With the growth of a new civil and military bureaucracy in concentric circles around the pasha and his developing dynasty, this influence, which permeated the norms of social life in the areas of dress, food, instrumental and vocal music, and various forms of entertainment and diversion, embraced the new aristocratic and bourgeois classes as well as the milieu of the older notables. This cultural influence depended, at base, on a higher frame of reference, one formed in imitation of the Ottoman culture known as istanbuli, or ‘of Istanbul.’ The more conspicuous manifestations of this influence remained clearly in evidence within Egyptian society until the Second World War, especially among the inhabitants of the big cities. A few surviving examples aside, it may be difficult for us to imagine today, in the opening years of the twenty-first century, the diversity that we attempt to review in this book. However, the literature of the years before the 1950s, which presents a picture of Egyptian society and life in the big cities, bears witness to manifestations of that diversity that are no longer clearly observable, and the same is true of the cinema. Through this study, we attempt to cast light on the question of how the Ottoman Turkish cultural background acquired a greater prominence and diffusion in Egypt during the reign of Muhammad ‘Ali and his family than ever before, and how the sphere of cultural influence, restricted during the classical Ottoman era, broadened to include the central bureaucratic apparatus, the large, newly created army, and the nascent landowning aristocracy.

Using information and detailed evidence concerning these points, the book that we now place before the reader seeks to illustrate further how Ottoman Turkish culture in Egypt developed during Muhammad ‘Ali’s reign, building on the existing limited foundation, and how, thanks to the great importance awarded it by Muhammad ‘Ali and his reform-minded policies, this culture acquired a density and range of influence surpassing those that it had previously enjoyed. In addition, the book aims to cast light on how the final stages of the development of Egypt’s version of that originally Istanbul-oriented culture were formed, and how, thanks to the establishment of modern schools and the printing in large numbers of Turkish books, the native, Arabicspeaking local population—and not just the Turkish-speakers who came to the country from abroad—drew closer to Ottoman Turkish culture, a process that led, as already mentioned, to the appearance of an Ottoman-Egyptian paradigm alongside the Ottoman-Turkish.

In dealing with the growth of Ottoman culture among Turkish speakers in Egypt during and after the reign of Muhammad ‘Ali and its subsequent influence on Arabic speakers, we have kept in mind that the concept of nationalism, which developed into a major intellectual and political current only toward the end of the nineteenth century, did not exist within the Muslim communities and sects living in the three continents falling within the borders of the Ottoman Empire at the start of the same century. That is to say, the claim of absolute superiority over others by one nation and its assertion of its ‘divine’ or ‘historical’ right to rule was unknown among the Islamic peoples in the early years of the nineteenth century; such ideas were absent from the minds of the Turkish and Arab intellectuals with whom, above all, this study is concerned. Such ideas, which had become firmly established in the minds of European, and especially French and British, administrators, were in keeping with the concept of the backwardness of the peoples of Asia and Africa and the need to bring to them the shining lights of civilization. With regard to Egypt, however, it would be inappropriate for us to deal with Turkish-Arab relations within such a framework, for there is insufficient evidence of such an orientation on the part of either party to justify such a discussion.

This study will show that Muhammad ‘Ali sought to transcend the traditional administrative canons applied for centuries by the Ottomans. Thus, when putting in place practical measures aimed at the creation of the modern central administration that he wished to see, and guided by this practical vision, he made specific choices and set specific priorities for his use of Turkish and Arab manpower. Despite the hints of contemporary European writers—none of which, as we shall show at numerous points in this study, have validity—no assumptions based on the ideas of ‘nationalism’ or ‘racial superiority’ lay behind the choices made at that period, and the most important factor determining the hiring policy implemented by Muhammad ‘Ali was the desire to arrive, in the quickest time possible and with success, at a given goal. It followed that, in order to realize this aim, it was necessary, above all, to make use of those who possessed the requisite experience and skills without regard to their ethnic or religious origin.

Muhammad ‘Ali chose experienced Turks (from Istanbul, Anatolia, and Rumelia), Turkish-speaking Ottomans (Kurds, Albanians, and Bosnians), non-Ottoman Muslims belonging to the peoples of the Caucasus (Circassians, Abkhazians, Georgians, and others), Christian Arabs, Orthodox Greeks, Armenians, and Jews living in the Ottoman territories to work with him. One example is his choice of Syrian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, as translators from French into Arabic, and of Turks and Armenians as translators from French into Turkish. At the same time, he continued to use Egyptian Copts in financial matters and accounting, areas in which they had long demonstrated their skills. In this context, his choice of Turks, among whom he was himself numbered, to manage administrative and military affairs, appears entirely natural.

The most sensitive issue in the relations between Turks and Egyptians during Muhammad ‘Ali’s reign and that of his successors arose from the different languages spoken by the ruler and the ruled. The ruling class, whether of Turkish origin or drawn from the various Turkish-speaking non-Arab Muslim peoples or non-Muslim Turkish speakers, constituted, in the eyes of foreign observers, a limited number of ‘Turks.’ We shall see how the often unjust accusations and deliberately misleading statements that occur in the memoirs and reports of foreign observers, and in particular of the writers and travelers who worked to serve the colonial ambitions of their countries and to limit Ottoman influence in Egypt, were attributed—whether or not they contained a grain of truth—to ‘Turks’ of ill-defined identity.

Moreover, one of the most prominent reasons, in our view, lying behind the negative image of the Turk in Egypt was the harshness of the radical changes that the pasha sought to achieve. Muhammad ‘Ali refused to acknowledge

Any obstacle to the establishment of a modern administrative structure, and his methods, which included use of the corvee system for major infrastructural projects such as the digging of canals and building of dams and the press-ganging of thousands of individuals to work on such projects (methods that, in the race to achieve the pasha’s goals in the shortest possible time, paid scant attention to the value of human life and that violate today’s social norms), contributed to notably negative effects on large numbers of people, impacts that remain graven on the mass consciousness and memories of which continue to be handed down from generation to generation. However, despite this heavy price, he realized historic progress for Egypt, in the shape of its modernization and increased strength. It would be a historical paradox, or altogether anachronous, however, to pin the responsibility for all these negative aspects on ‘the Turks’ or, indeed, to attribute them to any nation at a time when concepts of nationalism had yet to appear as an active political force. The absence of any parallel to these harsh measures in the other provinces ruled by the Ottomans in Anatolia, the Arab countries, and the Balkans demands that we view such conduct on Muhammad ‘Ali’s part as attributable to his personal make-up and administrative style. Similar measures were taken for the digging of the Suez Canal under Khedive Isma‘il, for it is a fact that harsh treatment was practiced when local inhabitants were employed on these major projects, which served, first and foremost, the economic and political ambitions of the European powers. That such treatment should be attributed, indiscriminately, to the Turks is reminiscent of the inaccurate comments to which allusion has been made above.

Such issues undoubtedly constitute predicaments for scholars. In this study we cannot ignore such sensibilities as we contemplate specific interchanges between Turkish and Arab culture in Egypt within the Ottoman context. Given that these topics have not to date received a serious and objective treatment based on primary sources, our views and the conclusions that we reach in this area will be restricted to the sociocultural topics already mentioned.

At the forefront of the evidence for the spurious nature of the accusations (derived from nationalist thinking) by European writers during the struggle for political influence in the region, we may cite Muhammad ‘Ali’s policy with regard to modern educational institutions. As governor of Egypt, Muhammad ‘Ali had recourse to extremely practical means to achieve his ends; when called upon to articulate his basic objective in spreading education, he responded that he paid no attention to any reservations as to ethnicity that might exist in Egypt. Clear evidence for this is to be found in his affirmation, in a document dated 1834, that his intention in establishing modem schools was to spread education and culture among the “sons of men.”3 An examination of Muhammad ‘Ali’s extra-educational policies in the area of civil and military recruitment makes it clear that he favored practical options in those fields too. Thus it was that Turks (meaning speakers of Turkish) came, in view of their experience in these areas, to form the preponderance of those employed in the fields of governance and administration, while Egyptians were given priority where professional training (for example, medicine, agriculture, and engineering) were concerned. Here we must draw attention to two guidelines to which Muhammad ‘Ali accorded special importance. The first of these was the provision of equal opportunities to those young men whom he chose from among Sons of Arabs and Sons of Turks (to use the contemporary terms) for school enrollment. The second was his appointment of young men who had been raised under his protection and who possessed the appropriate skills, irrespective of whether they were Egyptians or Turks, to positions that had previously been occupied by foreigners (Europeans) working in the governor’s service. In so doing, he was pursuing a policy aimed at loosening the country’s ties to the foreigner in the belief that these youths would “both conserve the wealth of the government and be a source of pride to it.”4 The governor applied the same policy to the army, and would express his happiness whenever he witnessed the outstanding qualities of young officers who emerged from among the native population and their progress in soldiering, and strive to promote them.5

It is noteworthy too that Muhammad ‘Ali’s practically inspired preferential policies regarding the education of Sons of Arabs and Sons of Turks were sometimes misunderstood by administrators. In choosing students for enrollment in their schools, the principals of provincial primary schools were of the belief that only the children of the native population were to be targeted and that Sons of Turks would not be accepted therein. Instructions then reached them that all schools were to be open to all people, that they were required to provide an opportunity for education to all boys, and that “there is no objection to the enrollment of the Sons of Turks, should they so desire, in these schools on the same basis as the Sons of Arabs, that is, Egyptians, on condition that health requirements are met.”6

This confirms that the governor, in order to modernize a bilingual society one of whose component parts formed a large majority, and in the light of traditions that had become firmly established over time, far from harboring feelings of racial superiority, designed his policies entirely according to the practical options available and implemented his procedures and measures within this framework. It must always be borne in mind that in these policies and works, in which some, applying modern criteria, may see appalling injustice and abuse of human rights, Muhammad ‘Ali was not attempting to impose on the Egyptian people any nationalist (Turkish or Albanian) feelings that he may have harbored, nor was he subject to any of the incentives or motivations felt by the rulers of colonial possessions to which European writers compared him, for no vision, legal basis, or principle of governance resembling those prevailing in the European states had been used to guide the government of Egypt from the time of its becoming an Ottoman province to the arrival of Muhammad ‘Ali.

There can be no doubt that Egypt during the reign of Muhammad ‘Ali made major progress with regard to the establishment of a modern administration and was successful in completing a number of multifaceted projects for development. It is also clear, however, that, as indicated above, the governor had few of the concerns for the human element that accord with the views of this modern age. In executing his administrative reforms and economic campaigns he trod certain human values underfoot in the name of a broad renaissance and progress on all fronts. Here we shall present some examples of what we have in mind.

The digging and equipping of the Mahmudiya Canal, dug between 1816 and 1819 to facilitate water-borne transportation between the port of Alexandria and the Nile and to revive the economic life of the former, employed three hundred thousand workers. Thousands of these died before the canal, whose fifty-six kilometers were dug using primitive tools, was completed. Likewise, documents show that, with the initiation of a modern educational institution, children sometimes would be taken and enrolled therein without the consent of their families, and while the governor would cover all the students’ needs with regard to food, lodging, and clothes for the period of their schooling, the student was required to learn a craft or profession chosen for him by the government and, on graduating, to work wherever the government decided. Though this conduct may be considered to have constituted a highly important step on the road to progress both for the individuals enrolled in the educational corps and for the society whose revival was its objective, it does nevertheless contradict our present understandings of freedom and human rights. It was also a departure from social norms of behavior and popular custom and, for this reason, met with resistance from the native population. In a yet harsher phase, large numbers of male children were taken, for reasons unconnected to education and without the consent of their parents, and pressed into military service. These were events the like of which Egyptians had never before witnessed and which conflicted with their expectations. Their resistance to these punitive measures developed eventually into a major confrontation between rulers and ruled.

In order to absolve themselves of responsibility, many of the Europeans employed in administrative and economic affairs and infrastructure development advanced the opinion that the confrontation between the ruling class and the local population arose from the racist or nationalist views of the Turks, or were the result of discrimination by them against Egyptians. With the ending of the Muhammad ‘Ali dynasty in 1952 and in light of the prevailing upsurge in political and patriotic feeling, a large number of historians and writers who dealt with this period began to treat such accusations as unquestionable facts, culminating in the appearance of historical writings colored by nationalistic accusations of a kind that the Islamic nations had never before witnessed.

Today, at a time when we see a number of western historians re-evaluating the mistaken opinions and false accusations to be found in the memoirs and reports of the consuls of that age and which reflect either personal perspectives or nationalistic feelings, we see historians in the Middle East still accepting such opinions and accusations without reservation. This is puzzling.

The papers of Hakkakyan Effendi, an employee in the governor’s service, are an example that casts light on how far personal perspectives could go in influencing reports and private memoirs dealing with the Muhammad ‘Ali era, implying that the latter must be used only with the greatest care and caution. Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot has rightly said of the Hakkakyan papers, with their highly contradictory opinions and ideas, that “Hakkakyan, who seemed to have been a bitter man with a touch of paranoia and who was disappointed in not becoming as influential as his other Armenian relatives, therefore resenting them and his employers, regarded himself as an Englishman. . . . He looked upon Egypt from the viewpoint of an outsider.” Despite this, she accepts the statements of Hakkakyan on Muhammad ‘Ali’s hatred of Egyptians without discussion, and on this grave charge bases an analysis of his character.7

While it is not our primary intention in this book to review such matters or respond to them either negatively or positively, on occasion we have found ourselves compelled to do so, as when confronted with them in the secondary sources. It is our belief that such judgments generally were made in the context of political competition and the struggle for influence and with the object of breaking the bonds between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire and converting the former into a colony of one of the rival European powers.

In making our observations on the numerous vestiges of Turkish culture that we have ourselves witnessed in Egyptian society and since embarking upon this study during the sixties of the last century, we have striven to discover, to the extent possible, the evidence and historical bases for these. Here we must acknowledge, as our duty to history, not only the experience gained during the years 1962 to 1966 in preparing the indexes of Turkish printed and manuscript works in the Egyptian National Library, but also the impressions and observations we have been vouchsafed by both Turkish and Egyptian Turks with whom we have become acquainted within the family circle. Some of the resulting information and observations may thus distinguish this study from other sources.

Despite the time that has elapsed since its inception, this book, on which we started work in the 1960s, proposes conclusions that parallel opinions and ideas put forward more recently regarding the history of Muhammad ‘Ali and his era. Both Toledano (1990) and Fahmy (1997), in their works presenting new perspectives on the era of Muhammad ‘Ali, his efforts to modernize Egypt, and the history of that country in the first half of the nineteenth century, have pointed out that it is incumbent upon us, if we are to gain an understanding of the man devoid of patriotic and sentimental reservations and a more objective insight into his place in political and military history, to deal with him within the broader Ottoman context. A treatment of the development of Egyptian society during that era from this perspective will also, they believe, yield a more accurate analysis.

Taking these points as our basis for departure, we have attempted in this book to paint a picture of a cultural phenomenon that lasted for one and a half centuries, in the hope that this book will provide an auspicious overture to further advanced studies.