Q) Confessionalism vs secretarianism

Religious sects in Leb- There are 18 officially recognized religious groups. These include four Muslim groups (Shia, Sunni,
Alawites and Ismaili), 12 Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, and 10 smaller groups), Druze, and Jews.

Confessionalism, in a religious sense, is a belief in the importance of full and unambiguous assent to the whole of a religious
teaching. Confessionalists believe that differing interpretations or understandings, especially those in direct opposition to a held
teaching, cannot be accommodated within a church communion.
HISTORY OF WORD- Historically, the term confessionalism for the first time was used in mid-19th century.
The phenomenon of confessionalism and the term “confession”, from which the term confessionalism derived, is much older,
referring to ones individual belief, then collective belief. In the 16th and 17th centuries the term confession was only used for the
documents of belief while the religious communities of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were referred to as “religious
parties”, different “religions” or “churches” - not as confessions. In the late 18th century the term confession started to expand to
religious bodies sharing a common creed. The international Congress of Vienna in 1815 still didn’t use the term confession to
mark different Christian denominations. Labelling Christian groups “confessions” implied a certain degree of civil progress and
tolerance, accepting that other parties also claimed absolute truth. The Roman Catholic Church refused to consider itself as
merely a confession. The term confession in different languages implies different notions (faith or denomination in English,
croyance, culte, communauté religieuse in French). Nowadays confessionalism is of minor relevance in European state churches.
It rose to importance in the early 19th century and vanished in the 1960s. This is why some scholars talk about this time-period as
a "second confessional age", comparing the dimensions of confessionalism with the "first confessional age".
CONFESSIONALISM IN LEBANON- In Lebanon, the concept of confessionalism holds an important political meaning, since
political power and governmental bureaucracy are organized according to religious confessions. For example, the National Pact
(an unwritten covenant) and later the Taif Agreement provide for a Maronite Christian president, a Sunni Muslim prime minister,
and a Shia Muslim speaker of parliament. This is an example of political confessionalism.
The repartition of assembly seats on a confessional basis in the Middle East was invented by the Ottoman Empire (e.g. in the
Ottoman Parliament) and continued in several post-Ottoman countries with reserved seats for non-Muslim, namely Christian,
minorities (Syria, Jordan, Iraq), or for all religious communities including Muslim subgroups and Christian churches (Lebanon).
more than eighty years later, confessionalism remains the system of government implemented in Lebanon. All posts in
government and seats in the legislature are apportioned amongst different religious groups according to a political agreement, as
the relative demographic weight of those groups is unknown.[3] The constitution of 1926, amended after the Taif Agreement of
1990 and the Doha agreement of 2008 specified that there should be 54 Christian deputies and 54 Muslim deputies, even though
in practice there are 64 deputies each. The Lebanese constitution also guarantees segmental autonomy to 18 recognized
communities in the country in domains such as education. [6] Lebanon also presents other characteristics of confessionalism. Since
2005 Lebanese politics has been polarized around two trans-religious coalitions [7] with the majority never able to govern alone.
CONTROVERSY- The idea of confessionalism can generate considerable controversy. Some Christian denominations,
particularly newer ones, focus more on the "experience" of Christianity than on its formal doctrines, and are accused by
confessionalists of adopting a vague and unfocused form of religion. Anti-confessionalists, declaring that the confessionalist view
of religion is too narrow and that people should be able to seek religion in their own way. Confessionalists generally counter that
the "spirit and values" of any given faith cannot be attained without first knowing truth as given in formal dogmas.

SECRETARIANISM
Sectarianism is a political or cultural conflict between two groups which are often related to the form of government which they
live under. Prejudice, discrimination, or hatred can arise in these conflicts, depending on the political status quo and if one group
holds more power within the government. Often, not all members of these groups are engaged in the conflict. But as tensions rise,
political solutions require the participation of more people from either side within the country or polity where the conflict is
happening. Common examples of these divisions are denominations of a religion, ethnic identity, class, or region for citizens of a
state and factions of a political movement.
While sectarianism is often labelled as 'religious' and/ or 'political', the reality of a sectarian situation is usually much more
complex.

LEB
Lebanon is an eastern Mediterranean country that has the most religiously diverse society within the Middle East, comprising 18
recognized religious sects.[3][4] The primary religions are Islam and Christianity. The Druze are about 5% of the citizens.[5] Outside
of Lebanon, Lebanese people (including diaspora) are mostly Christians.[6][7] It is also estimated that a large proportion of its
population are refugees (1.5 million out of a bit over 6 million in 2017), which affects statistics. [3] The refugees, mostly Syrian or
Palestinian, are predominantly Sunni but also include Christians and Shia. [3]
Lebanon differs from other Middle East countries where Muslims are the overwhelming majority, and more closely resembles
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania; both in Southeastern Europe, in having a diverse mix of Muslims and Christians that each
make up a large proportion of the country's population. Christians were once a majority inside Lebanon and are still a majority in
the diaspora of the nearly 14 million Lebanese people living outside of Lebanon. The president of the country is traditionally a
Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shia Muslim.
DEF OF SEC IN LEB- Sectarianism in Lebanon refers to the formal and informal organization of Lebanese politics and
society along religious lines. It has been formalized and legalized within state and non-state institutions and is inscribed in
its constitution. Lebanon recognizes 18 different .These include four Muslim groups (Shia, Sunni, Alawites and Ismaili),
12 Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, and 10 smaller groups), Druze, and Jews.
The foundations of sectarianism in Lebanon date back to the mid-19th century during Ottoman rule. It was subsequently
reinforced with the creation of the Republic of Lebanon in 1920 and its 1926 constitution and in the National Pact of 1943.
Sectarianism shapes Lebanese society on different levels. At the political level, distribution of key state figures and parliamentary
seats is done on confessional basis. Also, parties are often organized along confessional lines. Partly due to the state's inability to
provide the necessary services, parties and sects provide welfare services to the population, recreating sectarian divide at the
societal level. The sectarian affiliation may also shape the access to economic opportunities depending on which group controls
the area or sector. Finally, family law is determined by confessional community, with difficulties in entering an inter-faith
marriage.

Q) WHY DON’T WE CALL THE OTTOMANS TURKS?

WHY IS IT NOT ACCURATE TO CALL THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE TURKISH?

The Ottoman Empire was one of the mightiest and longest-lasting dynasties in world history. This Islamic-run
superpower ruled large areas of the Middle East, Eastern Europe and North Africa for more than 600 years. The chief
leader, known as the Sultan, was given absolute religious and political authority over his people. While Western
Europeans generally viewed them as a threat, many historians regard the Ottoman Empire as a source of great regional
stability and security

The Ottoman Empire ruled in Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe, and Turkey was right in the
middle of it all. Prior to that, present-day Turkey was part of the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire.

The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923 - in opposition to the Ottoman Empire.The modern Republic of Turkey cannot
be the Ottoman Empire, because it was founded after the Ottoman Empire. In succession to it, yes. But not in direct continuation
of the former polity, as the Sultanate was abolished by the new Turkish parliament in 1922. There was a break which led to the
establishment of modern Turkey. Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire. All instutions, economical system and government system
of Ottoman Empire actually ended after WWI and legally ended at October 29 1923. Founder of the Modern Turkey was
sentenced to death by Ottoman Sultan but after the Turkish National Independent War, Sultan and his crew abandoned the capital
and legally accepted that the Empire ended. Turkey was a brand new country and all instutions of the country is totally adopted to
the modern world despite the Ottoman Empire. All poltics, military organizaton and diplomatic perspective completely changed.
Seljuks were not Ottomans and Turkey is not Ottoman Empire.

Turkey today is the 4th biggest producer of vegetables and the 10th biggest producer of fruit. It is industrialized). Turkey’s
culture today is mostly influenced by Europe. It is the pinnacle of the Islamic world.

Q) Rise of ottoman empire

On 1517, Bayezid’s son, Selim I, brought Syria, Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt under Ottoman control.
The Ottoman Empire reached its peak between 1520 and 1566, during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. This period was
marked by great power, stability and wealth.
Suleiman created a uniform system of law and welcomed different forms of arts and literature. Many Muslims considered
Suleiman a religious leader as well as a political ruler.
It is believed that the Ottoman Empire was able to grow so rapidly because other countries were weak and unorganized, and also
because the Ottomans had advanced military organization and tactics for the time. In the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire's expansion
continued with the defeat of the Mamluks in Egypt and Syria in 1517, Algiers in 1518, and Hungary in 1526 and 1541. In
addition, parts of Greece also fell under Ottoman control in the 1500s. During the reign of Sulayman I, the Turkish judicial
system was reorganized and Turkish culture began to grow significantly. Following Sulayman I's death, the empire began to lose
power when its military was defeated during the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

Q) FALL OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Throughout the rest of the 1500s and into the 1600s and 1700s, the Ottoman Empire began a considerable decline in power after
several military defeats. In the mid-1600s, the empire was restored for a short time after military victories in Persia and Venice.
In 1699, the empire again began to lose territory and power subsequently.
In the 1700s, the Ottoman Empire began to rapidly deteriorate following the Russo-Turkish Wars. A series of treaties created
during that time caused the empire to lose some of its economic independence. The Crimean War, which lasted from 1853 to
1856, further exhausted the struggling empire. In 1856, the independence of the Ottoman Empire was recognized by the Congress
of Paris but it was still losing its strength as a European power.
In the late 1800s, there were several rebellions and the Ottoman Empire continued to lose territory. Political and social instability
in the 1890s created international negativity toward the empire. The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 and uprisings by Turkish
nationalists further reduced the empire's territory and increased instability. Following the end of World War I, the Ottoman
Empire officially came to an end with the Treaty of Sevres.

Q) base superstructure approach to history linked to the longue duree

Base and superstructure are two linked theoretical concepts developed by Karl Marx. Base refers to the production forces, or
the materials and resources, that generate the goods society needs. Superstructure describes all other aspects of society.
In Marxist theory, society consists of two parts: the base and superstructure. The base refers to the mode of production which
includes the forces and relations of production into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. The
superstructure refers to society's other relationships and ideas not directly relating to production including its culture, institutions,
political power structures, roles, religion, media, and state. The superstructure can affect the base. However the influence of the
base is predominant.
Freudo-Marxism and sex-economy
Freudo-Marxist Wilhelm Reich's discipline of analysis known as sex economy is an attempt to understand the divergence of the
perceived base and superstructure that occurred during the global economic crisis from 1929 to 1933.[10] To make sense of this
phenomenon, Reich recategorized social ideology as an element in the base—not the superstructure. In this new categorization,
social ideology and social psychology is a material process that self-perpetuates, the same way economic systems in the base
perpetuate themselves. Reich focused on the role of sexual repression in the patriarchal family system as a way to understand
how mass support for Fascism could arise in a society.

Can the base be separated from the superstructure?

John Plamenatz makes two counterclaims regarding the clear-cut separation of the base and superstructure. The first is that
economic structure is independent from production in many cases, with relations of production or property also having a strong
effect on production.[13] The second claim is that relations of production can only be defined with normative terms—this implies
that social life and humanity's morality cannot be truly separated as both are defined in a normative sense

Link between superstructure and Base

Society's superstructure includes the culture, ideology, norms, and identities that people inhabit. In addition, it refers to the social
institutions, political structure, and the state—or society's governing apparatus. Marx argued that the superstructure grows out of
the base and reflects the ruling class' interests. As such, the superstructure justifies how the base operates and defends the power
of the elite.
Neither the base nor the superstructure is naturally occurring or static. They are both social creations, or the accumulation of
constantly evolving social interactions between people.

Q) Why were Europeans able to surpass WANA?

1 reason why the European union was able to surpass WANA

Fernand Braudel was a French historian born on 24 August 1902 in Luméville-en-Ornois, France.He is probably the most
important economic historian of the twentieth century. His contributions are found in huge studies of economic history as well as
in the development of widely encompassing historical methods. His theory Longue Durée, or long term, is an approach to history
writing developed by historians of the Annales school such as Fernand Braudel. It focusses on events that happen nearly
imperceptibly over a long period of time, on slowly changing relationships between people and the world. Braudel’s theory
argued that “France was the product not of its politics or economics but rather of its geography and culture”. Another great lesson
of Braudel’s longue durée has been to allow us to see clearly not only the singularity of our world, but its uniqueness as well —
uniquely, a world that has now expanded to become global, a world that consists of the three analytically distinct but
functionally,
and existentially, inseparable structural arenas, as never before existed.
Europe surpassed Asia technologically by the year 1500. At that time, western Europe had already modernized its armies, navies,
factories, banks, and universities to a level that notably surpassed anything available in Asia, and those advantages were starting
to yield results in terms of European military victories and a re-organization of global trade routes in Europe’s favor.
The WANA Institute is concerned with development and sustainability for the people of the West Asia-North Africa region. This
terminology is preferred to Middle East-North Africa (MENA).
The term ‘Middle East’ was coined over a century ago and is geographically ambiguous. Our region is only east when considered
from the perspective of Europe. By acknowledging the region’s interdependence, we gain a platform for authentic, cooperative
solutions geared towards lasting change.
Q) why do we say WANA instead of MENA?
MENA, an acronym in the English language, refers to a grouping of countries situated in and around the Middle East and North
Africa. It is also known as WANA, which alternatively refers to the Middle East as Western Asia.
The WANA Institute is concerned with development and sustainability for the people of the West Asia-North Africa region. This
terminology is preferred to Middle East-North Africa (MENA).
The term ‘Middle East’ was coined over a century ago and is geographically ambiguous. Our region is only east when considered
from the perspective of Europe.
The WANA Institute advocates for a definition of the region less rooted in political geography, but rather in human
geography. The pairing of West Asia and North Africa reflects the key patterns of development in the region, geopolitical
interdependencies, and the nature of key threats and challenges. This definition acknowledges the principal economic and
geopolitical factors that link and influence the region’s development. These include the growing economic influence of Turkey,
the resource holdings of the Gulf States, and the influence of Iran and Israel on regional stability.
By acknowledging the region’s interdependence, we gain a platform for authentic, cooperative solutions geared towards lasting
change.

Q) WHATS TANZIMAT
period of reform in the Ottoman Empire that began with the Gülhane Hatt-ı Şerif in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional
Era in 1876.
The Tanzimat era began with the purpose of modernization, desiring to consolidate the social and political foundations of the
Ottoman Empire. It was characterised by various attempts to modernise the Ottoman Empire and to secure its territorial integrity
against internal nationalist movements and external aggressive powers. The reforms encouraged Ottomanism among the diverse
ethnic groups of the Empire and attempted to stem the tide of the rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire.
ORIGIN- The reforms emerged from the minds of reformist sultans like Mahmud II, his son Abdulmejid I and prominent, often
European-educated bureaucrats, who recognised that the old religious and military institutions no longer met the needs of the
empire. The reforms were heavily influenced by the Napoleonic Code and French law under the Second French Empire as a
direct result of the increasing number of Ottoman students being educated in France.
MOTIVES- The ambitious project was launched to combat the slow decline of the empire that had seen its borders shrink and its
strength weaken in comparison to the European powers. There were both internal and external reasons for the reforms.
The primary purpose of the Tanzimat was to reform the military by modernizing and taking inspiration from European armies.
The Ottoman Empire was made up of a multitude of different cultures and the secondary priorities of the Tanzimat reforms were
aimed at balancing the social structure that previously favored Muslim subjects. The Ottoman Empire hoped that getting rid of
the millet system would lead to direct control of all of its citizens by the creation of a more-centralized government and an
increase of the legitimacy of Ottoman rule. Another major hope was that being more open to various demographics would attract
more people into the empire. There was fear of internal strife between Muslims and non-Muslims, and allowing more religious
freedom to all was supposed to diminish this threat. Giving more rights to the Christians was considered likely to reduce the
danger of outside intervention on their behalf.
ITS EFFECT IN LEB- In Lebanon, the Tanzimat reforms were intended to return to the tradition of equality for all subjects
before the law. However, the Sublime Porte assumed that the underlying hierarchical social order would remain unchanged.
Instead, the upheavals of reform would allow for different understandings of the goals of the Tanzimat. The elites in Mount
Lebanon, in fact, interpreted the Tanzimat far differently from one another, leading to ethno-religious uprisings among newly
emancipated Maronites. As a result, "European and Ottoman officials engaged in a contest to win the loyalty of the local
inhabitants — the French by claiming to protect the Maronites; the British, the Druze; and the Ottomans by proclaiming the
sultan's benevolence toward all his religiously equal subjects.

Q) MILLET SYSTEM
Millet system was created by the Ottoman empire.
In the Ottoman Empire, a millet was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional
community was allowed to rule itself under its own laws. Despite frequently being referred to as a "system", before the
nineteenth century the organization of what are now retrospectively called millets in the Ottoman Empire was not at all
systematic. Rather, non-Muslims were simply given a significant degree of autonomy within their own community, without an
overarching structure for the 'millet' as a whole. During the 19th century rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, as result of
the Tanzimat reforms (1839–76), the term was used for legally protected ethno-linguistic minority groups, similar to the way
other countries use the word nation. The word millet comes from the Arabic word millah means "nation".[3] The millet system has
been called an example of pre-modern religious pluralism
The millet system is closely linked to Islamic rules on the treatment of non−Muslim minorities living under Islamic dominion
(dhimmi). The Ottoman term specifically refers to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which minorities
were allowed to rule themselves (in cases not involving any Muslim) with fairly little interference from the Ottoman government.
Today, the word "millet" means "nation" or "people" in Turkish, e.g. Türk millet it also retains its use as a religious and ethnic
classification; it can also be used as a slang to classify people belonging to a particular group (not necessarily religious or ethnic.
Q) DHIMMI
term for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection.   The word literally means "protected person", referring to
the state's obligation under sharia to protect the individual's life, property, as well as freedom of religion, in exchange for loyalty
to the state and payment of the jizya tax, in contrast to the zakat, or obligatory alms, paid by the Muslim subjects.
Dhimmi were exempt from certain duties assigned specifically to Muslims if they paid the poll tax (jizya) but were otherwise
equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.

Q) RISE OF NATIONALISM
nationalism begins with the idea that the whole of human society is divided into distinct, autonomous groups called nations. A
nation is a group of people speaking a common language, sharing a common culture, a sense of a common destiny, and sharing a
common history. So, nationalism is also a term to describe the common bonds that hold people together within a nation, creating
a new type of community. Tied to this is the idea that individuals' loyalty should be focused on the nation and that each nation
should be able to determine its own future—an idea known as self-determination. So, nationalism is also the idea that the nation
should have that right to govern itself and the right to self-determination. Sometimes, nationalism is expressed in the belief that
one's own nation is better than other nations. In those instances, it can become competitive or discriminatory. The French
Revolutionary era had great importance in the development and spread of nationalism as an ideology. After French ruler
Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power in 1799, he extended the central government of France into all the countries he conquered
across Europe. This was after ten years of war within France, and by now the French people had gained a sense of cohesion
against its enemies. Especially Great Britain. They were able to define themselves both as what they were—"We're French, ça
va?!"—and what they were not—not English, not German, not Italian, nor anything else. The military victories of France helped
to create a common sense of history and identity, making nationalism strongest in France. But here's the funny thing about
nationalism: As Napoleon expanded and his armies occupied many other European countries, those other countries all agreed
national self-determination was the way to go. Uniting against the French regime created a sense of common destiny—a sense of
nationalism.
The rise of nationalism in Europe was spurred by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. American political science
professor Leon Baradat has argued that “nationalism calls on people to identify with the interests of their national group and to
support the creation of a state – a nation-state – to support those interests.” Nationalism was the ideological impetus that, in a few
decades, transformed Europe.
The first full manifestation of modern nationalism occurred in 17th-century England, in the Puritan revolution. England had
become the leading nation in scientific spirit, in commercial enterprise, and in political thought and activity. Swelled by an
immense confidence in the new age, the English people felt upon their shoulders the mission of history, a sense that they were at
a great turning point from which a new true reformation and a new liberty would start. In the English revolution an optimistic
humanism merged with Calvinist ethics, and the influence of the Bible gave form to the new nationalism by identifying the
English people with ancient Israel. English nationalism, then, was thus much nearer to its religious matrix than later nationalisms
that rose after secularization had made greater progress. The nationalism of the 18th century shared with it, however, its
enthusiasm for liberty, its humanitarian character, its emphasis upon individual rights and upon the human community as above
all national divisions. The rise of English nationalism coincided with the rise of the English trading middle classes.

Q) IBN BATUTA
Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Battutah commonly known as Ibn Battuta, was a Berber Maghrebi[1][2][3] scholar and explorer
who travelled extensively in the lands of Afro-Eurasia, largely in the Muslim world, travelling more than any other explorer in
pre-modern history, totalling around 117,000 km (73,000 mi), surpassing Zheng He with about 50,000 km (31,000 mi) and
Marco Polo with 24,000 km (15,000 mi).[4][5][6] Over a period of thirty years, Ibn Battuta visited most of southern Eurasia,
including Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, China, and the Iberian Peninsula.
on June 1325, at the age of twenty-one, Ibn Battuta set off from his home town on a hajj, or pilgrimage, to Mecca, a journey that
would ordinarily take sixteen months. He was eager to learn more about far-away lands and craved adventure. No one knew that
he would not return to Morocco again for twenty-four years. He travelled to Mecca overland, following the North African coast
across the sultanates of Abd al-Wadid and Hafsid. The route took him through Tlemcen, Béjaïa, and then Tunis, where he stayed
for two months.[18] For safety, Ibn Battuta usually joined a caravan to reduce the risk of being robbed. On 17 November 1326,
following a month spent in Mecca, Ibn Battuta joined a large caravan of pilgrims returning to Iraq across the Arabian Peninsula.
[33]
The group headed north to Medina and then, travelling at night, turned northeast across the Najd plateau to Najaf, on a journey
that lasted about two weeks. In Najaf, he visited the mausoleum of Ali, the Fourth Caliph.[34]
Then, instead of continuing to Baghdad with the caravan, Ibn Battuta started a six-month detour that took him into Iran. From
Najaf, he journeyed to Wasit, then followed the river Tigris south to Basra. His next destination was the town of Isfahan across
the Zagros Mountains in Iran. He then headed south to Shiraz, a large, flourishing city spared the destruction wrought by Mongol
invaders on many more northerly towns. Finally, he returned across the mountains to Baghdad, arriving there in June 1327.
Q) CHARLEMAGNE
Charlemagne or Charles the Great succeeded in uniting the majority of western and central Europe and was the first recognized
emperor to rule from western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire around three centuries earlier.
Charlemagne has been called the "Father of Europe" as he united most of Western Europe for the first
time since the classical era of the Roman Empire, as well as uniting parts of Europe that had never been
under Frankish or Roman rule. His reign spurred the Carolingian Renaissance, a period of energetic
cultural and intellectual activity within the Western Church.