The history of Ottoman transportation as a whole still remains to be written. To date, scholars have concentrated mainly upon the institutional aspects of the problem. Thus Cengiz Orhonlu in his pioneering work has dealt with attempts on the part of the Ottoman administration to maintain street and road paving, establish ferryboat services, control river navigation, and ensure the safety of public roads. Boat traffic within Istanbul, which linked the different parts of the Ottoman capital and thus ensured their mutual integration, was also treated mainly from the Ottoman administration's point of view.1 After Orhonlu's untimely death, research into the institutional framework supporting Ottoman communications was continued by other scholars. Particularly the arrangements intended to supply official couriers with post-horses have recently been made the object of several monographs.2

Mecca's existence depended primarily on its location near the most important trade route in western Arabia which linked the surplus-producing region of Yemen with Syria. The route branched near Ayla in the north to proceed to Gaza on the Mediterranean and also to Egypt. Another route branched near Mecca to proceed in a northeasterly direction toward al-Ubulla, Ḥīra, and eventually Sasanid Persia. The commercially advantageous location of Mecca was enhanced further by the Zamzam waterwell which made Mecca a convenient stop in the trade of antiquity. Also the concept of the ḥaram, the sacred area, and its center, the Ka⊂ba, made Mecca the object of pilgrimage during the sacred months, pilgrims/merchants traveled with security of life and property and went to Mecca to trade their commodities.

One way that social scientists categorize and describe political regimes is to analyze the nature of the executive branch of government, particularly the makeup of cabinets. The assumption is that the structure of the cabinet and the class background, and the educational or occupational training of ministers reflect the nature of the regime. Those at the top of the state may represent certain groups in society or be particularly responsive to the demands of the social groups from which they come. Background characteristics may also be a good indicator of the style of rule. Education, training, age, occupational career, all indicate how decision-makers think, how they organize to approach problems, how they issue orders and use subordinates. The institutional background of ministers may reflect the importance of various institutions in society, for the connection of institutions through individuals at the top of the state may be a good indication of which specialized constituencies must be consulted, which command power and which control political, economic, and social resources.

The archival material in Istanbul, which presents a unique picture of the mechanism of patronage in Islamic architecture, has evoked only sporadic attention from the time of Ahmet Refik's valuable publications of pertinent Ottoman documents. Indisputably, however, the greatest contribution has been that of the late Ömer Lutfi Barkan, whose direction of a team of researchers on the surviving account books for the construction of the mosque of Süleymaniye and its associated complex/külliye (foundation inscription dated 964'1556–1557, though the works almost certainly continued beyond this date) has resulted in the apperarance of a remarkable work, Süleymaniye Camii ve Inşaati, Vols. I, II (Ankara 1972–1979). The documentation covers a period of roughly seven years and gives virtually a day-to-day picture of the sequence of construction and the constitution of the labour force. This is not the only story the documents have to tell, as Barkan first pointed out almost twenty years ago.

Albert Hourani's survey of “The Present State of Islamic and Middle Eastern Historiography” has one obvious lacuna: it fails to mention the author's own (Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939).1 This masterpiece, published in 1962 when its author was forty-seven, has left its mark on a whole generation of English-speaking scholars of the Middle East.

Hisham Sharabi writes: “I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Albert Hourani, whose pioneering work, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1789–1939, is an indispensable reference to any study of modern Arab intellectual history.”2

Egypt is a less developed country that made use of foreign capital to accelerate its rate of economic development and growth.

In 1960 Egypt embarked on long-term economic development planning. A Five-Year plan (1960–1965) was followed by a Seven-Year plan (1965–1972). In planning for economic development, Egyptian authorities relied heavily on foreign capital.

In the summer of 1976 Kuwait, after more than thirteen years of legislative experience, suspended its constitution, abolished the legislature, and embarked on what it called an “evaluation” of its democratic experience. After the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the downfall of the shah, Kuwait set up a special advisory committee to study, evaluate, and recommend the political system most appropriate for Kuwait. In 1980 the committee recommended a return to representative institutions. In March 1981, a legislative assembly was elected and was entrusted with the responsibility of drafting a new constitution and ratifying the basic statutes of the country.