ISLAM AS A FACTOR OF THE PROBLEM.
It is with reluctance that I approach this side of the question. It is
not desirable that the subject be complicated or embittered by religious
animosities. But unfortunately these animosities do exist and have
always formed a primary and essential feature in all the relations of
the Turks with their Christian subjects. A writer who styles himself
“Diplomatist,” in a recent review article of considerable merit,[48]
with a stroke of the pen, disposes of this phase of the subject by
characterizing it as “pure moonshine.” But real diplomatists do not find
it so easy to dispose of, nor do the great historians treat it as
moonshine. The fanatical gleam that I have often caught in the eye of
Turks and Kurds was never suggestive to me of the mild rays of the lunar
orb, but seemed rather like a gleam from the political Crescent, whose
baleful influence dominates the East.
The question is not concerning the merits of Mohammed or of
Mohammedanism in the abstract. I have a profound respect for the Prophet
of Arabia, who might have been another Apostle Paul, but for the fact
that the corrupt church of that day failed to give that young and ardent
seeker after God a true and worthy conception of Christianity. I would
fain admit the high conception of the Mohammedan ideal, portrayed so
skilfully by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith in his lectures before the Royal
Institution of Great Britain.
But such considerations are irrelevant to the present discussion, which
is simply, What are the practical bearings of Islam upon the question of
reform or of reconstruction in Turkey?
As has been already shown in Chapter VI., the Ottoman Government is a
_politico-religious system_. This is the necessary constitution of any
Mohammedan sovereign state, but the conception has special force and
vitality in Turkey, whose Sovereign claims to be the successor of
Mohammed, and thus the Calif of the Mohammedan world. The whole fabric
of the Turkish Empire rests on a religious foundation. This religious
foundation is not the general religious principle in man, but the
particular form of religion established by Mohammed.
To what _extent_, now, does Islam enter into the political structure? We
find on investigation that it is part and parcel of the bone and sinew
of the organism in Turkey called the State,—called so by courtesy on
account of its faint analogy to what is understood in other countries by
that name. The Turkish army is exclusively a Mohammedan army, the
national festivals are Mohammedan festivals, the official calendar is a
Mohammedan calendar, both as to year and month, the laws are based on
the Koran and Mohammedan tradition, the expounders of the law are
Mohammedan judges, and even testimony is a religious act of which only
true believers are, in the nature of the case, capable. It is not denied
that the testimony of Christians is allowed to be _given_ in Turkish
courts, but that does not signify that it is _valid_ evidence in the
eyes of the Court, especially when a Mohammedan is involved. Even the
different formulæ used show this. In the case of a Mohammedan it is,
“His Lordship, So and So, testified to the face of God”; in the case of
a Christian it is, “Mr. Blank stated.”
In Article 63 of the Treaty of Berlin we read Turkey’s solemn (it is
hard to suppress a smile) promise to the European Powers in regard to
the rights of Christians before the law: “_All shall be allowed to give
evidence before the courts without distinctions of creed._” The
practical application of the above clause is shown in the official
reports of British Consuls.[49]
Mr. Wilson, Consul-General in Anatolia, writes:
“In the greater portion of Anatolia, though Christian evidence may be
received, no weight is attached to it. When Moslem and Christian
evidence are opposed to each other, the latter is disregarded. For
instance, three Christians are travelling along a road, and one of them
is robbed by a man well known to all of them; in the action which
ensues, the robber has only to prove an _alibi_ by two Moslem false
witnesses to gain his case.”
Mr. Chermside, Vice-Consul at Sivas, writes:
“As regards the acceptance of Christian testimony, theoretically is it
accepted in all _Nizam_ courts. Hearing testimony, however, and
attaching the relative importance to it that, from its tenor and
consistency, it is entitled to, are very different matters; and there is
no doubt that, especially in civil cases, tradition, sympathy, and
education prejudice the _Hakim_[50] against it—sentimental
considerations, however, are not proof against the love of gain.”
According to the latter part of this quotation, the spirit which
animates the courts of Asia Minor may be defined as fanaticism tempered
by corruption. The following is the opinion of Mr. Everett, Vice-Consul
at Erzerum: “The first consideration of the administrators of justice is
the amount of money that can be extorted from an individual, and the
second is his creed.” The only doubt as to the morality of the Turkish
magistrates appears to be whether they are more corrupt than fanatical,
or more fanatical than corrupt.
The injustice done to Christians even in commercial transactions is
shown by Mr. Bilotti, Consul at Trebizond:
“Christian evidence is accepted in the town of Trebizond, but I am
assured in the districts, that though the same principle is admitted, no
Mussulman has ever been condemned on the testimony of Christians; so
much so, that the latter are in the habit of having their bonds
witnessed only by Mussulmans.”
Much is said in regard to the truthfulness of the Turks. Consul-General
Wilson writes: “From the peculiar value of Moslem evidence, most of the
false witnesses are Turks.”
As a matter of fact, we thus see that the millions of Christians in
Turkey neither are nor can be considered and treated as citizens of the
state, simply because they do not belong to the religion of the foreign
invaders who rule them. No degree of loyalty can secure for non-Moslems
admission to the army. Christians are rapidly being excluded from even
the humblest positions in the civil lists also, except from such as
Mohammedans are incompetent to fill. The status of the Christian before
the law is that of an alien in regard to his own rights, and of a slave
as far as the interests of Mohammedans are concerned.
And yet we are told that the Ottoman Turks are tolerant of the members
of other faiths. This is true in the same sense that the stomach is
spoken of as being “tolerant” of certain easily digestible articles of
food. Yes, so long as Christians submit to all forms of oppression, and
make no claims in regard to rights which are generally supposed to
belong to all men, they are gladly tolerated.
That the discrimination against Christian subjects is due to their
religious belief, is, further, clearly shown by the fact that
Mohammedans, who abandon the creed of the government, immediately
forfeit their special privileges, and even incur punishment as
criminals. Apostacy from Islam is treason to the Sultan. Converts to
Christianity are arrested and imprisoned. In the rare instances when
foreign governments venture to inquire into such cases, the Ottoman
authorities blandly insist that they care nothing for the man’s
religion, but that he must be arrested for “avoiding conscription,” or
on some other fictitious charge. He is, thereupon, hurried off to some
distant military post, or finds a living grave in an unknown dungeon.
Such is the politico-religious organization called the Ottoman
Government. Can this union of Church and State be dissolved? It can not
be. The bond which unites them, according to Mohammedan doctors, is
vital, as in the case of the Siamese twins.
Inasmuch as the bond cannot be cut, the only remaining hope must be in
improving the health of the two bodies thus indissolubly united.
Unfortunately, no change can be hoped for in the case of either part of
this dual patient. _Mohammedanism at its birth was a malformation_, to
say the least, and will continue so even though restored to a state of
perfect health. In the opinion of every orthodox Mohammedan, the Koran
is a “perfect revelation of the will of God, sufficient and final,” and
“Islam is a separate distinct, and absolutely exclusive religion.”
As attempts are frequently made to convey a contrary impression on this
point, I quote the words of President George Washburn, of Robert
College, Constantinople, an impartial student of Islam, who for
thirty-five years has observed its practical workings in the Ottoman
Empire. At the World’s Parliament of Religions, in Chicago, 1893, he
read a paper on “The Points of Contact and Contrast between Christianity
and Mohammedanism.” His whole treatment is remarkable for its judicial
fairness, and his paper is commended to the reader who may desire a
brief, comprehensive, and fair estimate of Islam.
To the question whether Mohammedanism has been in any way modified,
since the time of the Prophet, by its contact with Christianity, Dr.
Washburn thinks that every orthodox Moslem would answer in the negative.
He adds: “It is very important to bear in mind that there are nominal
Mohammedans who are theists, and others who are pantheists of the
Spinoza type. There are also some small sects who are rationalists, but
after the fashion of old English Deism rather than of the modern
rationalism. The Deistic rationalism is represented in that most
interesting work of Justice Ameer Ali, _The Spirit of Islam_. He speaks
of Mohammed as Xenophon did of Socrates, and he reveres Christ also, but
he denies that there was anything supernatural in the inspiration or
lives of either, and claims that Hanife and the other Imams corrupted
Islam, as he thinks Paul the apostle did Christianity; but this book
does not represent Mohammedanism, any more than Renan’s _Life of Jesus_
represents Christianity. These small rationalistic sects are looked upon
by all orthodox Moslems as heretics of the worst description.”
Although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments happen to be
mentioned one hundred and thirty-one times in the Koran, they are only
quoted twice. The fundamental doctrines of Christianity, such as the
Incarnation, the Trinity, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ
are specifically repudiated in the Koran.
The reform of Islam as a system is, therefore, not within the range of
possibility. How about the reform of the Ottoman Government? On this
point I yield the floor to the great historian E. A. Freeman, who will
close the debate[51]:
“There are some people who say the Turks are no doubt very bad, but that
the Christians are just as bad, and have done things just as cruel. Now,
as a matter of fact, this is not true; and, if it were true, it would be
another reason for setting the Christians free; for if they are as bad
as the Turk, it is the Turk who has caused their badness. While other
nations have been improving, the Turk has kept them from improving. Take
away the Turk who hinders improvement, and they will improve like the
others. The slave never has the virtues of a freeman; it is only by
setting him free that he can get them.
“When we point out the evils of the rule of the Turk, some people tell
us that Christian rulers in past times have done things quite as bad as
the Turks. This is partly true, but not wholly. No Christian government
has ever gone on for so long a time ruling as badly as the Turk has
ruled. But it is true that Christian governments have in past times done
particular acts, which were as bad as the acts of the Turks. But this
argument, too, cuts the other way; for Christian governments have left
off doing such acts, while the Turks go on doing them still. The worst
Christian government is better now than it was one hundred years ago, or
five hundred years ago. The rule of the Turk is worse now than it was
one hundred years ago, or five hundred years ago. That is to say, the
worst Christian government can reform, while the Turk cannot.
“It is sometimes said that we ought not to set free the Christians for
fear that they should do some harm to the Mohammedans who would be left
in their land. Now, if the question were really put, Shall a minority of
oppressors go on oppressing the people of the land, or shall the
majority of the people of the land turn round and oppress the minority
who have hitherto oppressed them?—this last would surely be the lesser
evil of the two. But there is no ground for any such fear. No one wishes
to hurt any Mohammedan who will live peaceably and not hurt Christians.
No one wishes that any man, merely because he is a Mohammedan, should be
in any way worse off than a Christian, or be put under any disability as
compared with a Christian. There is no reason why he should be. For the
Mohammedan religion, though it does not command that Christians shall be
persecuted, does command that Christians shall be treated as subjects of
Mohammedans. But the Christian religion in no way commands that
Mohammedan shall be treated as the subject of Christian. Christians and
Mohammedans cannot live together on equal terms under a Mohammedan
government, because the Mohammedan religion forbids that they should;
but Mohammedans and Christians may perfectly well live together under a
Christian government. They do so under the governments both of England
and of Russia. The few Mohammedans who are left in Greece and in Servia
are in no way molested; there are mosques both at Chalkis and at
Belgrade. But it is foolish to argue, as some people do, that because
men of different religions can live together under a Christian
government, therefore they can live together under a Mohammedan
government; for both reason and the nature of the Mohammedan religion
prove that it is not so....
“The Turk came in as an alien and barbarian encamped on the soil of
Europe. At the end of five hundred years, he remains an alien and
barbarian encamped on soil which he has no more made his own than it was
when he first took Kallipolis. His rule during all that time has been
the rule of strangers over enslaved nations in their own land. It has
been the rule of cruelty, faithlessness, and brutal lust; it has not
been government, but organized brigandage. His rule cannot be reformed.
While all other nations get better and better, the Turk gets worse and
worse. And when the chief powers of Europe join in demanding that he
should make even the smallest reform, he impudently refuses to make any.
If there was anything to be said for him before the late Conference,
there is nothing to be said for him now. For an evil which cannot be
reformed, there is one remedy only—to get rid of it. Justice, reason,
humanity, demand that the rule of the Turk in Europe should be got rid
of; and the time for getting rid of it has now come.”
[Illustration:
ARMENIAN REBELS WHO WOULD NOT PAY TAXES.
]
This was written seventeen years ago with reference to the
discontinuance of the Ottoman power in Europe. Does it not now apply
with equal force to the discontinuance of the same régime in Armenia?