THE SITUATION IN PERSIA (1896).
I.
--Shrine of Shah Abdul Azim
--Death of Nasr-ed-Din Shah
--Jemal-ed-Din in Tehran
--Shiahs and Sunnis
--Islam in Persia.
The famous shrine and sanctuary of Shah Abdul Azim, about five miles
from Tehran, is a very popular place of pilgrimage with the inhabitants
of the town, and its close neighbourhood to the crowded capital makes it
a great holiday, as well as religious, resort. This shrine has been
specially favoured by many sovereigns, and particularly by those of the
present dynasty. On the Mohammedan special weekly day of prayer and
mosque services, Friday, called Juma, or the day of the congregation,
Shah Abdul Azim is visited by great numbers of people.
On Friday, May 1, this sanctuary was the scene of one of the saddest
events which has ever happened in Persia--the murder within its sacred
precincts of Nasr-ed-Din Shah, a monarch who was about to celebrate the
jubilee of a reign which will always be remembered, not only for its
remarkable length, but also for its peaceful character and general
popularity. The proof of this popularity is that Nasr-ed-Din Shah was
able to leave his country on three occasions for visits to Europe, and
returned each time to receive a welcome from his subjects. This in
itself is unprecedented in Eastern history.
I little thought when I had the honour of conversing with him in October
last that it was possible that a King so admired and loved by his
people, and then looking forward with pride and pleasure to the
celebration of his approaching jubilee, should perish in their midst by
the hand of an assassin within five days of the event.
Passing over what in the early years of his reign, through the
exigencies of the times and the pitfalls of intrigue, led to the
shedding of blood, we see in his later years a reluctance to inflict
capital or severe punishment which almost amounted to a serious fault.
I remember an instance of this in the case of a notorious highway
robber, guilty of many murders, who was spared so long, that it was only
on the bad effect of leniency becoming prominently dangerous to traders
and travellers that the extreme penalty was sanctioned. I have already
mentioned how the people had learnt to put their trust in the late
Shah's desire to protect them against oppressive government in the
provinces, and how he had made himself popular with the military and
nomad tribes. The crime which has caused his death will undoubtedly be
regarded as sacrilege, both with reference to the life which was taken
and the sanctuary which it violated. And the abhorrence of the crime
will strengthen what it was intended to end or weaken, viz., the
influence and power of the Kajar dynasty. With the impressionable
Persians there will be but one feeling, of shuddering horror that such a
thing could be done by one of their own faith, who was a subject of
their Sovereign.
A criminal of the deepest dye can abide with perfect impunity in the
Mohammedan sanctuary, and the tranquillity of this sacred safety, we are
told, brings reflection and repentance to work the redemption of many
from evil ways. Thus we can understand how horror-struck the nation must
be at the thought of the Shah being mortally wounded while in the pious
act of kneeling in reverence on passing the chain which marks the actual
line where the 'bast' or sanctuary begins.
The murder is said to have been prompted by the well-known agitator,
Jemal-ed-Din, who, though called an Afghan, is really a native of
Hamadan, in Western Persia; but having travelled and resided a short
time in Afghanistan, the term 'Afghani' was added to his name. He was
well known in Tehran in 1891 for his vehement and violent public
speaking against all Western innovations. I have seen it stated that it
was owing to him the tobacco monopoly was withdrawn, as he had roused
the Moullas throughout Persia, and wellnigh brought about a revolution.
Jemal-ed-Din no doubt took a strong part at Tehran in the agitation, but
he was in no way such a prominent leader of it as has been represented.
The sudden introduction of systematic labour and Excise regulations
under foreign direction, by which it was said a few depots were to
displace the numerous retail shops and stalls, at once created a
hostile army of unemployed small owners of hereditary businesses, who
worked on the fears and feelings of the mass of the people. The Moullas
and guild-masters then took the lead, and brought about the cancelment
of the concession. All this I have previously described. It suited well
the nature of a stormy petrel like Jemal-ed-Din to find himself in
Tehran at that time, and he became an inflammatory public orator of the
hottest kind. At first he confined himself to speaking against the
tobacco monopoly and all European enterprise, and on his violent
speeches being made the subject of some remonstrance, the Shah said that
the Persians had long enjoyed great liberty of speech, and with them
words generally took the place of deeds. But this freedom was
misunderstood by Jemal, who gradually grew bolder, until his
revolutionary utterances went beyond all endurance. He scarcely veiled
his contempt for the Crown, and his opinion that all should combine to
rid Persia of the rule of the Shah and the continuance of the Kajar
dynasty. He was warned, but would not listen to reason; he was then
arrested, and informed of the decision to deport him from Persia. On the
day of his departure from Tehran under escort, he managed to make his
escape, and took sanctuary in the same shrine of Shah Abdul Azim where
the Shah was mortally wounded on May 1 by his follower, Mirza Mohamed
Reza. Jemal opened negotiations with the Government from his asylum, and
was finally persuaded to leave Persia quietly. It was said that he
received generous treatment in the matter of his leaving, but I am aware
that he stated he had cause for complaint on this head. We must bear in
mind, however, that he was a hot hater of the Shah, and a thorough
'irreconcilable.' On quitting Persia he went to Constantinople, where he
appeared to be allowed such free expression of disrespect to his
Sovereign that the Shah addressed a remonstrance to the Sultan, who
stated in reply that Jemal was leaving for some remote place to employ
himself in literary work.
As a native of Hamadan, Jemal-ed-Din is a Persian subject; he is also of
the Shiah faith, though it is believed that, in order to make things
easy for himself, he passes as a Sunni where the State religion is of
that creed. He was well received by the Shah on his visit to Tehran in
1890 as a man of learning and letters, and it is said that he accepted
and enjoyed his hospitality. This, however, did not prevent him plotting
against his royal host, and doing his utmost to compass the downfall of
the Kajar dynasty. He probably saw clearly during his stay in Persia
then that the Shah's authority rested too strongly in the minds of the
people, by reason of his long and peaceful reign and mild rule, to give
any hope of a successful revolution during his lifetime. And it may have
been in this connection that recourse was had to assassination.
Jemal-ed-Din is credited among Orientals with a powerful energy and will
in working on the enthusiasm of others, and establishing a moral
despotism over them. His disciple, Mohamed Reza, appears to have
resembled his teacher in reckless disregard of kindness, and
determination to render evil for good. In him a willing hand was
apparently found to carry out the first part of Jemal-ed-Din's programme
for the reformation of Persia, but the possibility of madness in the act
of murder was not foreseen. For the horror of the crime has been so
intensified from being committed in the holy shrine of the sainted Shah
Abdul Azim, that its object must be defeated in the most complete
manner, and the reaction will result in stronger attachment to the
throne of the Kajars.
Jemal-ed-Din held a brief for the union of Sunni and Shiah, an idea
which from time to time has found favour with some advanced leaders of
the former faith. He spoke of the gain to Islam in sinking their
religious differences, and joining to form one Church and one creed. He
was said to be very earnest on this point, and he succeeded in planting
his opinions in Persia, as shown by the subject being still occasionally
discussed. But the idea is entirely of foreign growth, and is generally
introduced by enthusiasts like Jemal-ed-Din, who have exchanged their
Persian national pride of Church and State for the ambition to see Islam
ruling as one power from Constantinople to Pekin. These visionaries fail
to see what thoughtful Persian politicians and Churchmen know well, that
the Shiah schism has preserved Persia as a nation, for without it the
incentive to popular cohesion would long ago have ceased.
The annual Passion-play to commemorate the murder and martyrdom of the
progeny of Ali, and the solemn fast-days when their assassins are
cursed and reviled, which are observed all over Persia, serve to keep
alive their patriotism and pride of independence, for with the Persians,
religion and patriotism are synonymous terms. There is probably no
country where Church and State are more closely and fortunately bound
together than Persia. Had the sovereignty not been Shiah, it would long
ago have disappeared between its Sunni neighbours. With them the
persecution of the 'accursed Rafizi,' as they speak of the sect, is the
exercise of a holy duty, and their enslavement by Sunnis is a
meritorious act, giving the heretics an opportunity of benefiting by
example, and of rescue from perdition by conversion to the orthodox
faith. Thus it was that the Hazaras and Shiah inhabitants of the small
principalities on the head-waters of the Oxus were sold into Sunni
slavery, and the purchase of the Shiah Circassians in the Turkish
markets was justified on the same grounds. The bitter experience of ages
has taught all Shiahs that, once helplessly at the mercy of the Sunnis,
there must be absolute submission on all points. This conviction has
buried itself deep in the minds of the Persian people, and they now and
then are painfully reminded of the savage readiness of their Sunni
neighbours to emphasize the fact.
In 1892 a bazaar quarrel in Herat between Sunni and Shiah traders grew
to a disturbance, and culminated in some of the latter, Persian
subjects, being slain and their goods plundered, the Moullas solemnly
pronouncing their judgment that it was 'lawful' for Sunnis to take the
lives as well as the property of the heretical Shiahs. The Shah, on the
representation of the Meshed religious authorities, addressed a
remonstrance to the Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, who, being a strong and wise
ruler, made reparation. The religious antagonism is very bitter in
Afghanistan, and were it not for the warlike character and good fighting
qualities of the Shiah Kizzilbash tribe at Kabul, their presence at the
capital would not be tolerated by the bigoted Moullas. The common danger
makes the Kizzilbashes a united band and dangerous foe, and arms them to
be always ready to fight for their lives. They have become a power which
it is the policy of the rulers to conciliate, and thus secure their
support. But notwithstanding this, the fanatical hatred of the orthodox
Sunni, as representing both Church and State, cannot be suppressed. I
was with General Sir William Mansfield (the late Lord Sandhurst) when
he, being Commander-in-Chief in India, had a conversation with the Amir
Sher Ali of Kabul on general subjects, in the course of which the Amir,
in rather a captious manner, made some sharp remarks on what he called
the hostile differences in the Christian Church; Sir William rejoined by
referring to the great division in Islam between Sunni and Shiah, and
asked if there were many of the latter faith at Kabul. A look of
displeasure passed over Sher Ali's face as, half turning towards his
people who stood behind him, he said, in a severe tone, 'Yes, there are
a few of the dogs there, sons of burnt fathers.'
The mutual hatred ever existing with Sunni and Shiah has always worked
against very cordial relations between Turkey and Persia, and once
certainly, in the sixteenth century, the fear of Persia, then actively
hostile on the south-eastern border, benefited Austria and Russia by
deterring the Turkish Power, in the days of its triumph and strength,
from extended aggressive operations north and west of Constantinople.
Accordingly, the reconciliation of Sunni and Shiah has long been a
cardinal point of policy with the Porte. While it appears that Austria
thus benefited in an indirect manner through Turkey's fear of Persia, it
is an interesting coincidence that, from the time the latter extended
her diplomatic relations beyond those with Russia and England, which,
for a considerable period, were the only Western Powers represented at
the Shah's Court, Austria has held a prominently friendly position in
Persia. Austrian officers have long been employed in her army, and the
fact of the Emperor Francis Joseph and the late Shah Nasr-ed-Din having
ascended their thrones within three months of each other in the same
year (1848) was regarded by the latter as an association with himself of
the highest honour and amity. And this brings to my recollection a
matter connected with the Austrian Legation at Tehran which occurred
after the deportation of Jemal-ed-Din in 1891. Mohamed Reza, the
murderer of the late Shah, remained in Tehran, and continued the
treasonable practices which had been originated by Jemal, even to the
extent of disseminating his revolutionary opinions by means of printed
papers.
The press used for printing was a lithographic one, and one of the
Mirzas employed by the Austrian Legation having been drawn into Jemal's
secret society, he was induced to set it up in his own house. The usual
informer accomplice was found, or offered himself, for the purpose of
betraying his brethren, and the police became so keen on capture that
oblivious of the privilege enjoyed by the employé of a foreign Legation,
they entered the Mirza's house and arrested him in the act of printing
treasonable papers from the lithographic press. The Mirza was carried
off to prison before the Minister knew of the occurrence, but, on being
informed, he promptly made a strong remonstrance against the violation
of international privilege. The fullest satisfaction was at once given;
the Chief of Police called and apologized, and the prisoner was released
and sent to the Legation.
The Minister conducted his own inquiry, and on undeniable proof of the
truth of what was alleged, he dismissed the Mirza from his post, and
the Persian authorities were then free to arrest him. The Mirza was kept
a prisoner for some time, and was eventually released with Mohamed Reza
and his companions. The Tehran telegram of May 4 tells us that Mohamed
Reza continued his old course of public hostility to the Government, and
was again imprisoned, but once more obtained his release, and was
granted a pension by the Shah, notwithstanding which he remained
discontented, as the 'black-mailer' generally does, greed suggesting
that the price paid for silence is inadequate. This lenient treatment of
the conspirators was quite characteristic of the later disposition of
Nasr-ed-Din Shah, and his averseness to judicial severity.
From what is now known regarding the Mohammedan revival and Church union
contemplated by Jemal-ed-Din, it is obvious that the idea of any
connection between Babism and the crime at Shah Abdul Azim is out of the
question, for the Babis of Persia and Jemal-ed-Din's followers have
little or nothing in common. I have already told how the former are
averse to violent measures, practise no public preaching, and suffer in
silence, while the latter we know shout aloud and try to terrorize.
When Nadir Shah accepted the throne, he insisted on the abandonment of
the Shiah schism and reunion with the Sunni faith, and he went to
extreme lengths in suppressing the unwillingness of the clergy to accept
the arbitrary decree which he issued in proclaiming his mandate. His
attempt to bridge the great gulf between the hostile creeds entirely
failed, and the Persians remained Shiahs. Freedom of thought and liberty
of speech are national characteristics and privileges, and with minds
never thoroughly subjected to severe Church discipline, the people have
been ever ready to indulge in free criticisms on religious and other
matters. They had no desire to study a new religion, even at the command
of their King, and, judging that any change would be irksome, they sided
with the Moullas, and without display refused to be Sunnis. Nadir's
devotion to ambition was greater than his love of religion, and his
object in trying to drive all into one creed was to remove the obstacles
to the progress of his Imperial power among the Sunnis of India,
Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Asia Minor. On issuing his mandate to
form the Shiahs into a new branch of the true faith, he intimated to the
Emperor of Constantinople his high aim at general concord among
Mohammedans.
Islam, as it was forced on Persia, was the faith of foreign conquerors
and oppressors, so it never has had the same considerable influence on
the people as elsewhere. This, taken with their habits of freedom of
thought and love of romance and poetry, inclined them to champion the
Shiah schism, which, on the fall of the Arab power, they adopted for
their National Church. I refer to this in connection with what is now
reported of Jemal-ed-Din's relations with the chiefs of the State Church
party at Constantinople, for in his preachings in Persia there were
clear signs of movement towards a great Mohammedan revival, which was to
restore Islam to its old dominant position in the world.