Who conquered who? Turk or Arab

Both culturally and geographically Turkey, Egypt and Iran (Istanbul, Cairo, Tehran) are the centre of middle east. This is a fact. Not an opinion.

"Middle East" is a subjective concept created by the Western Europe. Eastern Europe was considered as the Near East, Asia Minor, Arabia, Iran, etc. were cosidered as Middle East and the rest was "Far East" and we, the "Middle Easterners" still use this Euro-centric concept. We define ourselves according to Europe. America is more eastern than Japan. Why don't we call there Far Far East?

As for the topic, Arabic culture has a stronger but indirect influence in the cultural sphere but in the political sphere Turkish influence was stronger since the Abbasid times...

I think the subject should be approached a little bit different, and I'll give a few examples of influences by Turks on Arabs in different fields.

1) Turkish words do exist in Arabic dialects, and indeed some people used to know Turkish back in the Ottoman days. My grandfather was a Syrian Arab, and he knew Turkish as well.

2) The crescent moon and star "symbol" were first used by the Ottomans, and are now used worldwide in many ways.

3) In Egypt but most of all Syria, the Hanafi school of jurisprudence has a prominent role because of the Ottomans. The same goes for the Ash`ari school of theology.

4) The Ottoman Caliphate produced many outstanding scholars of Islam that contributed to various Islamic sciences. This influence is not solely on Arabs, but it includes Arabs who rely on these scholars and their contributions.

5) The Ottoman Caliphate left many mosques and influenced others in their design in Arab lands.

This is not to say that the Turks influenced the Arabs more than the Arabs influenced the Turks, but there certainly was influence for the Turks had an important role in the Muslim world for many centuries. As for who conquered who, Islam is what conquered them both. Turks used to be pagan slaves and they became Sultans, while from the Arabs came the Prophet and the Caliphs. The dynamics of religion is what makes it very hard to measure it all between them.

Also, as for Islam being a way of life; in Islam religion is understood as something that is central in all aspects of ones living, inward and outward. This is not something fundamentalist, but something orthodox. If orthodoxy is to be considered fundamentalist, then that is fine by me.

Ma`salam

Actually , Turks were invited by Arabs, Turks did not really conquered Arabs, they just governed them. Strange but really, Abbasid Caliph called Toghril Begh to Baghdad.

Khazars, Gok Turks, Turgish, Karluks fought against Arabs but in the middle of 8th century, peace was restored between Turks and Arabs.

That is why despite the various fanatism on both Turks and Arabs, we really get on well with each other. I personally like them.

Side note:

Does anyone know how many Arabic words are used in the Turkish language of Turkey? The more I think about it seems that one could speak Turkish and include an Arabic word in each sentence and not lose a beat. The flow and meaning would remain.  

It is wrong. You can't change a whole language spread from Balkans into Mesopotamia just by a revolution, and Ataturk didn't intend to do that. He wanted to create a new court language that is the same with the regular people's language. So the Turks of the Ottoman Empire have spoke nearly the same amount of Arabic words with modern Turks. Most Arabic words were just used by official documents, that neither an anatolian villager or a Turk in Bosnia used to understand much of it.

So basically, we just purified some of the regular language, just like Egyptians and Syrians did in theirs.

As for the question;

We Turks ruled practically, but arabs and also persians ruled mentally, filosophically.