THE TURK AND HIS CREED
Love thyself last: cherish those hearts that hate thee
Corruption wins not more than honesty.
Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace
To silence envious tongues. Be just, and fear not:
Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s,
Thy God’s, and truth’s; then if thou fall’st....
Thou fall’st a blessed martyr.
SHAKESPEARE, _Henry VIII_
AS I indite these pages, the rule of the Turk seems to be irrevocably
destined to pass from Europe, not in consequence of his religious
fanaticism, even less on account of his supposed cruelty, but owing to a
feature of the Turkish character which is shared by other races whose
instincts are in perpetual conflict with the modern surroundings of
their existence. The North American Indian cannot be converted from
habits engendered in the past. In a lesser degree the same may be said
of the Celt in conflict with the Anglo-Saxon, and the Slav with the
Teuton. In spite of a dominion of centuries in Europe, the Turk is still
in his heart, and even in his habits, an Asiatic, and not only an
Asiatic, but an Asiatic of a peculiar type—a born horseman with little
aptitude for plodding, sedentary occupations, herein displaying marked
divergence from the highly cultivated Chinese and Japanese.
In the most recent development of affairs in the Near East there is
indeed something pathetic in the evident yearning of the Turk to turn
towards his home—Asia. Instinctively his longing is directed towards the
East, the resting-place where he may hope to be unmolested.
Professor Vambéry, writing to me under date November 12, 1912,[20] says:
“The fate of our poor Turkish friends is sealed. They will get rid of
the cumbersome European ballast, and it is to be wished that they should
be able to recuperate in Asia, where they cannot be replaced by any
other Moslem nation. Their collapse in Europe was inevitable, and it is
only the suddenness of the fall which has surprised me.”
Footnote 20:
See Appendix, p. 284.
But even if we accept the view that the Turk is by nature something of a
nomad, and as such has never been much else than a stranger, an Asiatic
in Europe, this should not deter us from recognizing the sterling human
qualities which every unbiased foreigner who has visited the country
must have observed as innate in the Turks as a people, and which mark
the best of all classes.
And yet, with their minds centred on material aims, immersed in the
humdrum conditions of life which this all-absorbing activity indicates,
accustomed to subdue their feelings until many of them have lost the
faculty of expressing, let alone giving way to, strong passion, how
difficult it is for Europeans to form an idea, to realize what
unrestrained human passions are like when they flare up in fierce
hearts, and to make allowance for them. This must be more particularly
the case when they are called into play by those traditional antagonisms
of race to which many of the harrowing tragedies of the East are due;
for other forms of crime, or rather instigations to crime, are probably
fewer among the Turks than among Europeans. I was once a witness to a
desperate encounter between some Montenegrins and Greeks in a German
beer-house in Pera, and the memory of the diabolical fury of the
Montenegrins is still present to my mind, together with the quiet
self-control of the proprietor, an old Prussian soldier of ’66 and of
’70, who at last succeeded in calming the disputants. The passionate
hatreds of the Near East are practically unknown to us.
With due reservation regarding these fierce outbursts, commonly, but in
my humble opinion most unjustly, attributed to religious fanaticism, I
am still of opinion that the Turk is far from being inclined by nature
to cruelty. His kind treatment of animals, of horses and dogs, and of
the birds in the air, which he takes no pleasure in shooting, speaks
volumes for the humane attributes of the Turk, whose deep attachment to
his own family and kindness to dependents nobody who knows the East can
call into question. For instance, English governesses in Turkish
families are treated with such consideration that they endeavour to
avoid meeting their own countrymen and countrywomen, for fear that the
difference in our treatment of dependents should expose them to
humiliation in the eyes of their Turkish masters and mistresses.
As regards the accusation of fanaticism and intolerance so liberally
levelled against the Turk, what are we to say to the incontrovertible
fact that the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem has been under the protection
of Turkish soldiers for centuries, and that no instance has ever been
put on record of sacrilege or desecration at their hands, or could have
been, since the Koran prescribes veneration for Christ and everything
appertaining to our Saviour? How does this fit in by contrast with the
record of rapine and destruction which all through the Reformation
marked the struggles between Roman Catholics and Protestants, not only
on the Continent of Europe, but also in England and Scotland, where, for
instance, the ruins of the Cathedral of St. Andrews bespeak savage
passions which are not extirpated even to-day from the hearts of many
so-called Christians? Is it not a fact that only a few years ago, when
the Eucharistic Congress was being held in London, the British
Government could not see its way to allow the Host to be paraded through
the streets of Westminster, whilst in Constantinople, on the day of
Corpus Christi, the Host is borne through the streets escorted by
Turkish Mohammedan soldiers? The dead of the Orthodox Greek Church are
publicly exposed to view, a proceeding not allowed in Greece. Only a
short time ago the dead body of their Archbishop, attired in his full
robes, seated in his Archiepiscopal chair, was paraded through the
streets and followed by a crowd of Greek prelates, accompanied and
protected by Turkish soldiery. This happened whilst fierce war was
raging between Greek and Turk, without a voice being raised by the Turks
to deprecate a religious ceremony being held in public by enemies of
their faith and country, and belonging to a creed which the Turks are
supposed to loathe and detest.
The very words “The Terrible Turk,” with their grim alliteration, seem
to flow naturally from our tongue, without ever suggesting the thought
that the Turk might be more than justified in applying the epithet to
others. The Anglo-Saxon pesters him with his missionary activity, the
Italian has robbed him of Tripoli, the Greek has annexed Crete and
several islands, the latter-day German intrudes upon him with his noisy
presence and his pestering commercial-traveller instincts, but above all
the terrible Russian silently hovers ready to swoop on his country like
some huge bird of prey.
The European, at least of the English-speaking world, who visits
Constantinople for the first time usually arrives with extraordinary
preconceptions regarding the mysterious ways, the cruelty and fanaticism
of the Turk. If he be one of the open-minded few, a prolonged residence
in Turkey will usually suffice to banish his previous opinions, to
inspire him with sympathy, and to make him marvel how it could have been
possible to harbour such false notions regarding a people and a country
concerning which the average European knows so little. For there can be
no doubt that our early training, the one-sided ideas of our youth due
to clerical teaching from generation to generation, are the main causes
of our conception of the Turks as cruel and depraved. Who of us has not
been shocked as a boy in visiting the Chamber of Horrors at Madame
Tussaud’s and viewing the array of coloured prints depicting the
horrible tortures said to have been inflicted upon dishonest traders in
Turkey?[21] Well might Turkish Ambassadors have protested long ago
against this method of prejudicing the English mind against Turkey, as
Bismarck did in Paris, after the 1870 war, against the public exhibition
of M. Edouard Détaille’s well-known picture, “Nos Vainqueurs,” which was
removed in consequence. But the Turk is accustomed to suffer wrong in
silence, and, as far as I know, has never complained officially.
Footnote 21:
As far as I recollect no explanation is vouchsafed with these drawings
that they refer to the Turkey of the past. Hence the likelihood that
many a cockney visiting Madame Tussauds goes away with the impression
that they treat of Turkish practices of to-day.
The mystery attached to polygamy, our imaginary ideas concerning the
position of Turkish women and the harem, may also have a great deal to
do with our prejudice against the Turks.
We are taught in our youth to look upon the Crusades as expeditions
undertaken to protect the Tomb of Christ from the desecrating hands of
the Infidel. Serious historians are no longer under any delusion as to
the political character of the Crusades. Thus if the Sacred Sepulchre
was ever endangered by the Turks, how came it to pass that it was not
destroyed long before the Christians ever reached Jerusalem? Is it not
an historical fact that Jerusalem was in the possession of the Turks for
centuries before the idea of protecting the Holy Sepulchre ever occurred
to the Popes? If the Crusades were justified as undertaken for the
protection of the Christians against the Turks, how came it to pass that
so few Christians in the East ever joined the Crusades? From what we
know of Christian fanatical intolerance, even down to comparatively
recent periods, is it not rather more than likely, supposing the Holy
Sepulchre had been situated in a Christian country, that its very site
would long ago have been obliterated?
In the course of my various visits to Constantinople I used often to
look up my kind friend Ahmed Midhat Effendi, and our many conversations,
always fraught with instruction for me, embraced every imaginable
subject. They turned especially upon the Mohammedan religion and the
attitude of Christianity towards Islam, not merely in our time, but
throughout past centuries. It needed no great powers of persuasion to
convince me that the European frame of mind towards the Mohammedan world
must needs be the outcome of a one-sided version of events. How could it
be otherwise in view of the inaccessibility of the records of Mohammedan
history? Thus Lessing’s drama of “Nathan the Wise,” and the portrayal of
Sultan Saladin as the ideal type of chivalry and religious tolerance,
struck the Western world at the time as a revelation. To-day no serious
person who has given the slightest attention to the subject can doubt
that, whatever may have been the policy of aggression of the great
Moslem conquerors, the spirit of Islam was one of broad religious
tolerance at a time when such a quality was practically non-existent in
Europe. When Sultan Selim proposed to offer the Christian population of
his dominions the alternative of embracing Islam or expatriation—or, if
you will, extermination—it was the Sheikh ul Islam who appealed to the
precepts of the Koran prescribing the duty of the Sultan to protect and
safeguard his subjects, whatever their faith, which prevented Selim from
carrying out his intention. It was thus owing in a large measure to the
Koran that the Christian population in Asiatic and European Turkey was
protected and enabled to prosper in days when no European public opinion
could have possibly intervened on its behalf. While the Turk was thus
practising religious tolerance Jews were burnt at the stake in Christian
Spain; the most intelligent portion of the inhabitants of France, the
Huguenots, were being persecuted for their faith and driven from their
homes by Louis XIV, and in England the penalty of death awaited the
priest who dared to say Mass.
These are weighty historical facts, without fully and constantly
realizing which it is practically impossible for a Christian born and
bred to be fair to the Mohammedan Turk, and approach the study of his
customs and character in an impartial spirit.
Ahmed Midhat, in drawing my attention to a recent publication concerning
the conduct towards Christians prescribed by the Koran for Mohammedans,
wrote to me some years ago as follows:
“I do not know whether this document will be sufficient to bring home to
you the calumny which the Christian world launches at us, in attributing
to us a hatred for everything that is not Mohammedan, and more
particularly for Christianity and Christians as such. But if you believe
in my honesty, accept my assurance, tendered on my oath as a devout
Mohammedan, on my honour as a gentleman, that such hatred has never
existed among us....
“Quite recently I read Count de Castries’ excellent book on the Islam
faith.[22] De Castries is an old French officer who has lived many years
in the Algerian deserts, and has become almost an Arab himself in
language, habits, and even in religion. I call his book excellent not
merely because it is favourable to us, but because it reveals the
attitude of the Christian world towards Islamism. I recommend you
strongly to read it. But before you do so, I would like to tell you that
we Mohammedans have never produced a single poet or prophet in the East
who has written against Christianity and Christians in the spirit of
those thousand abominations in which the Italian, French, and Spanish
troubadours sang of Islam. You will not find a single line in all our
literature of the kind such as the hundreds cited by De Castries from
Christian writers, and which justly arouse his indignation. I do not
exaggerate, my dear friend, I merely tell you the naked truth. You can
defy the Christian world to cite, not a single Mohammedan writer, but a
single line in the whole of our popular literature which could inspire
hatred of the Christian. Even the wars of the Crusades, which lasted
through centuries, were powerless to change the sentiment of tolerance
towards the Christian world, a sentiment for ever rooted in the spirit
of the Koran—the Word of God revealed by His Hadis (the words of the
Prophet) and by the legislation of His Imams the so-called Cheriat.
Footnote 22:
“L’Islam: Impressions et Études.” Par le Comte Henri de Castries.
Paris: Armand Colin.
“The hatred which the Christian world attributes so gratuitously to us
is only the reflection of its own animosity towards us. The centuries
which have elapsed since the Renaissance have been unable to efface this
hatred from the spirit of Christianity. It is now half a century since
Orientalists of different countries have been doing their best to
eradicate these voluntary errors, and to spread the truth with regard to
Islamism; but they have not been able to change the old Christian
antagonism with regard to us. The last Græco-Turkish war fully
demonstrated this. ‘Cet animal est bien méchant. Quand on l’attaque il
se défend!’ Our legitimate defence against unprovoked aggression was
accounted a crime because the aggressors were Christians and according
to the words of the mediæval troubadours we are the ‘Adorers of Moham.’
“I see that thoughtful minds, such as Father Hyacinthe, Draper, Carlyle,
and others, are supposed to have investigated the tenets of Islamism. Is
it really possible to make serious investigations into what you have
been accustomed to look upon as a ‘multitude of contradictory and
false[23] conceptions—the barbarous ideas of a false Prophet, the
sanguinary aspirations of a barbarian’?
Footnote 23:
That this outburst is not entirely unprovoked or unjustified seems to
be proved by an extract from a public speech of the late Lord
Salisbury, in which he spoke of England’s antagonist in Egypt as
representing “the most hideous side of barbarism which a false
religion can produce”—this religion (the Mohammedan) being that of
sixty millions of British subjects.
“And here I would say: The time for these blackguardisms, the fashion
for these blasphemies, has passed. We live to-day in an age when
everything has to submit to the process of analysis. We no longer rest
satisfied with abstract ideas or despotic dicta. We insist upon the
results of exact observation and study; we ask for concrete, logical
judgment. You must study the Mohammedan faith; you must institute a
fair, well-balanced comparison between our creed and other religions
before you are in a position to judge, much less to condemn. Is such a
comparison feasible? To my mind it is a task of supreme difficulty, and
yet without an attempt in that direction it is impossible to be fair and
unbiased towards the Mohammedan world.”
An accusation against Islam which Midhat resented more than any other
was its supposed antagonism to letters and learning, an accusation
which, by the way, is sufficiently refuted by the history of the Moors
in Spain. In this connexion Midhat used to cite the following words of
the Koran: “Advance with your lances in order to make room for your
pens”—the term for “lance” and “pen” being identical in Arabic. The
Koran thus intended to convey the idea that warlike advance was only to
make way for opportunities of culture and enlightenment.
Talking one day to Midhat on these and kindred matters, I said:
“Midhat, they tell me at a certain Embassy that you are a fanatical old
Turk who hates the stranger within the gates; though, to be frank with
you, if I were a Turk, I too should hate them with a vengeance, after
all the uncharitable things they say about Turkey.”
“And I tell you,” replied Midhat, “that you have only to read up the
unbiased records of our history to learn that tolerance is the very
basis of our conduct. Does not the word of Mohammed tell us: ‘Whosoever
does wrong unto a Christian or a Jew shall find me as his accuser on the
Day of Judgment’? Do not the Jews and the Mohammedans keep the same
fasts and almost the same festivals? The principal difference I detect
between them and us is that the Jews do not believe in Christ or
Mohammed; whereas the Mohammedans believe in Moses, Christ, and the
Prophets.
“The history of the Crusades (which has long since been, so to speak, a
monopoly of the Christian world) is the greatest source of injustice to
the Saracens. To-day it is acknowledged by those experts who have
investigated this vast subject that the Christians domiciled in the East
rarely made common cause with the Crusaders, and that those who did so
were not molested by the Saracens after the withdrawal of the former.
When the Crusaders of the Third Crusade got as far as Constantinople
they found that the Byzantine Emperor and his Christian subjects were in
close alliance with the Saracens. History relates that instead of
directing their efforts against the Saracens, the Crusaders on more than
one occasion fell out among themselves and robbed the Greeks. In fact,
wherever the Crusaders went they brought rapine and seduction with them.
Neither do we ever hear how it came to pass that the Christians in Asia
never joined the Crusaders against the Saracens or assisted them in any
way. Thus we are bound to assume that as far as their religion is
concerned the Christian population was, at least at that time, not
molested by the Mohammedans.
“I tell you that a Christian place of worship has never been desecrated
by a Turk, except, as at the taking of Constantinople, during the heat
of battle. And for this very simple reason: that the Koran expressly
lays down that a Christian church is sacred as an edifice devoted to
God, and must be respected as such. You yourself have had ample
opportunity of seeing that this injunction has been strictly carried out
in the past by the untouched condition of the many Christian monasteries
on the road between Trebizond and Erzeroum. You can see it even in
Constantinople to-day, where many mosques which were formerly Greek
churches still show the images of Christian saints on the walls restored
to-day, as they were over 500 years ago, notably in the Kaarie
Mosque.[24] The fresco images of the saints of the Byzantine Church look
down from the walls upon the Mohammedan worshippers.
Footnote 24:
Midhat Effendi himself took me over this particular mosque during one
of my visits to Constantinople.
“As a matter of fact, it is wonderful to me how little differentiates
the Moslem faith from the tenets of Christianity. It is true we do not
accept the Trinity, but neither was it accepted as a dogma by the
Evangelists; indeed, it is never once mentioned in the Old or New
Testament. Also, at the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325) only two hundred
priests, backed by Constantine the Great, accepted this doctrine, but
two thousand two hundred priests refused to subscribe to it.
“We Mohammedans accept Jesus as the Son of God. We also believe in the
Holy Virgin. Indeed, in more than one respect the Mohammedans deviate
little in their faith from the old Arian Christians of the period of
Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 400 A.D. It is only
within living memory that in self-defence Mohammedans have entered into
a polemical contest with the Christian world. Even the notorious Lebanon
troubles had little or nothing to do with religion and intolerance as
such. They were almost entirely political in origin and character.”
In a conversation which I had in November 1904 with Ahmed Midhat, he
gave me the following explanation with regard to the creed of Islam:
“Je crois à un seul Dieu et ses anges et ses livres sacrés et ses
Prophètes, et que le Bonheur et le Malheur viennent de lui. Jésus est
parmi eux et qu’au dernier jour il sera là comme intercède auprès de
Dieu. Nous ne demandons rien de Mahomet. Nous ne nous prosternons pas
devant lui; il n’est pas notre idole. Il a besoin de nous. Nous prions
Dieu pour son salut dans l’autre monde. Il est notre précepteur, notre
Socrate. Pour devenir Mussulman il y a deux phrases qu’il faut citer et
croire:
“(1) La ilahe illa Allah: Il n’y a Dieu que Dieu—Allah. Il n’est digne
d’être adoré que Dieu.
“(2) Mohammadune ressoul Allah: Mahomet est son prophète.”
* * * * *
Thus far Ahmed Midhat, who at least was[25] sincere, living as he
preached, according to the laws of Mohammed. He was one of the living
forces of the Islamic world, whose name was known and honoured
throughout Asiatic Turkey, as I had opportunity to convince myself in
the fastnesses of Kurdistan, and have already related.
Footnote 25:
Since this was first drafted I have been obliged to alter it into the
past tense. For a letter I recently addressed to my friend comes back
to me through the British Post Office at Constantinople, with the word
“deceased” stamped upon it. When and how Ahmed Midhat passed away I
know not; but were he alive I feel sure that the misfortunes of his
beloved country would soon have broken his big but childlike heart.
Fortunately, the Christian world is not quite so blind to the human side
of Mohammedanism as Midhat imagined. The late Sir Richard Burton—than
whom no European possessed a keener insight into Oriental life—was once
asked by a friend what creed he professed. He made the following reply:
“I profess no creed; but if you ask me what I am, I would say more
nearly Mohammedan than anything else. There is something sterling in
that religion. The Mohammedans do what they profess, which is more than
most Christians do.” I for one believe that it is this sincerity which
is the source of Turkish courage and Turkish dignity in misfortune.
Not only difference of religion, but the Oriental form of government
explains the antagonistic attitude of the Western world towards Turkey
and her Sovereign. As Khalif of Islam, the Sultan, according to Ahmed
Midhat, comes in for the ill-will harboured unconsciously for centuries
towards Islam by the Christian world. As an autocrat he also incurs the
jealous displeasure of a rival Power—not the King of England nor the
President of the United States, but the real governing despots of
England and America—the easily excited passions of the masses; far more
powerful, more prejudiced and intolerant than any ruling Sovereign in
our time. This is indirectly proved by the fact that hatred of the Turk
has manifested itself most passionately in those countries in which
public opinion, with all its ignorance of other lands, ministered to by
a sensational Press, is most powerful. Neither Scandinavia, Germany,
Italy, nor France shares this bias to the same degree; and yet who would
assert that they are not intelligent, educated communities imbued with
high standards of conduct? For many years past these passions have been
fed by those who have had an interest in fanning them into open flame.
According to Napoleon I, a lie needs but twenty-four hours’ start in
order to become immortal. What are the chances of dispassionate truth
when the start is one not of hours, but of generations?
The Turk may continue to deny officially this or that; but who reads
with an open mind what he has to say for himself? Only those who have
seen with their own eyes—such men as Burton, Gordon, Hobart, and the
late Admiral Commerell—have been fair-minded towards the Turk. The
wealthiest men throughout the Turkish Empire are Greeks and Armenians;
and yet we are asked to believe that these Christians, who probably own
three-fourths of the real estate in the Turkish Empire, are sufferers
under a grasping despotism!
On one occasion I was conversing with the chairman of the Ottoman Bank,
Sir Edgar Vincent, who has since resigned and returned to England. He
was tired of Constantinople. An Englishman of social tastes, he lacked
congenial intercourse in Turkey. But one thing he told me he felt he
should miss terribly in returning to Europe—the extraordinary freedom in
Turkey! And as if by the irony of fate, it is this very liberty, this
tolerance in Turkey which has powerfully contributed to the downfall of
the Turk in Europe. For it is from Robert College, the Christian
educational institution on the Bosphorus, which owes its very existence
to the tolerance and benevolent munificence of successive Sultans that a
number of Christian subjects of Turkey have gone forth into journalism
and persistently blackened the character of the Turks and their ruler.
The following testimony to the spirit of Turkish tolerance was handed to
me the last time I was at Constantinople by a distinguished
fellow-countryman. I transcribe it here as it seems but natural that
evidence from such a source should carry more weight than that of even
the most unsophisticated Mohammedan:
“All religions are tolerated by the law of Turkey, and those who profess
them are granted the fullest liberty to practise them. The only
conditions exacted by the State are that each religious body must be
duly authorized and that a responsible chief must be appointed, with
whom the Government can treat in case of need.
“These spiritual heads enjoy several very remarkable privileges. They
are ex-officio members of the Councils of the Provinces and Communes in
which they live, and are thus enabled to protect the interests and
rights, spiritual and temporal, of the members of the communion.
“The internal administration of all matters spiritual and temporal
connected with their respective communities is entrusted by the Turkish
law to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch, Grand Rabbi, Vekel, or Sheikh,
as the case may be. They are also members of the Grand Council of the
nation sitting at Constantinople, which regulates and prescribes the
rights of the various communities.
“The communities recognized by the State, and which enjoy the privileges
I have named as well as perfect liberty, are the following:
“1. Orthodox Turks, Orthodox Bulgarians, Armenians, Syrians, Jacobites,
Copts, and Chaldean Nestorians.
“2. Rites in communion with Rome, viz. Latin Catholics, Uniate
Armenians, Uniate or Melchite Greeks, Uniate Chaldeans, Uniate Syrians,
Uniate Copts, Uniate Bulgarians and Maronites.
“3. Protestants of every description—Anglicans, Presbyterians, English
and American Methodists, Baptists, etc.
“4. Four different types of Jews, five of Metoualis, and six of Druses.
“The Moslem finds it most difficult to understand and distinguish the
difference between the to him amazing variety of sects all professing
the Christian faith; this is one of the causes of the sterility of
Christian missions in the East. The Turk lumps them together as
_giaours_ and regards them all with contemptuous indifference,
wondering, indeed, why they did not remain in their own countries to
convert each other, or at least to arrive at a common agreement as to
what is the Christian faith before thrusting their antagonistic creeds
upon the contented Moslem. Nevertheless, he is very tolerant of what he
considers their eccentricities, and provides a guard at the Holy
Sepulchre at Eastertide to prevent the Greek and Latin Christians from
massacring one another for the love of God.
“In travelling through Palestine they are as free as in any of our
Indian provinces. The laws may not be perfect—very few are—but they are
found adequate in most cases to protect life and property. It is true
that they were not always so. About a hundred years ago, and, indeed,
until the middle of the nineteenth century, there was as little liberty
in Turkey for the Christians as there is at the present day in Russia
except for the Orthodox Greeks. But all that has long been changed in
the Ottoman Empire. Seventy years ago Sultan Mahmoud thus publicly
expressed himself:
“‘I desire that in future a Moslem shall only be distinguished as such
at his mosque, the Christian at his church, and the Jew at his
synagogue.’
“In these words he manifested his intention to regenerate the Empire by
the complete emancipation and assimilation of the races under his rule;
he announced the inauguration of a new era of reform. But it was his son
and successor, Abdul Medjid, who actually introduced the new system, the
‘Tanzimat,’ by the proclamation of the ‘Hatti-Sherif of Gulhanè’ on
November 9, 1839. This was followed by the establishment of the Criminal
Code in 1840 and the Commercial Code in 1850. Both of these were chiefly
based upon the Code Napoléon and have worked well. But the most
important enactment of all was the publication of the firman of 1854
which guaranteed the perfect equality of Christians and Moslems before
the law. These were the first-fruits of the Sultan’s efforts to carry
into effect the reforms promised by the Hatti-Sherif of Gulhanè. The
next stage of the Tanzimat was reached after the Crimean war by the
Hatti-Humayoun of 1856, which extended the reforms to the civil and
military administrations, etc.” Thus far the authority I have quoted.
When we bear in mind the conservative nature of Orientals generally and
their hatred of any departure from their national practices and
traditions, it is truly wonderful that the changes brought about in the
internal constitution of the Empire by these decrees have not resulted
in a violent upheaval of the Moslem population. It is a remarkable proof
of the respect and veneration in which the Sultan is held by his
subjects that they should have submitted so peacefully to such a
startling revolution in their national life.
It is most unlikely that any other nation would endure for a moment the
encroachment on its status, the abuse of its hospitality, which the
Turks have long submitted to at the hands of different European nations.
No other nation would, in the long run, allow foreign newspaper
correspondents to perpetrate the misrepresentations which have been
indulged in for years past at Constantinople, unless, as in England, it
felt it could afford to ignore calumny. One thing, however, is certain,
that neither in France, Germany, Austria, nor Russia would the
persistent campaign of misrepresentation which was carried on for years
by foreigners enjoying the hospitality of the Turks, paying no taxes and
in some cases making their fortunes in Turkey, be tolerated. All the
above-mentioned countries can furnish cases in which foreign newspaper
men have been summarily ordered to leave the country within a few hours
for comparatively trivial offences. In the United States foreign
journalists of such a type would probably find more serious consequences
await them than mere banishment. No less noteworthy are the disgraceful
facts connected with the promiscuous naturalization of Turkish subjects.
Thus when I was in Constantinople in 1897, it was openly stated that the
Greek Envoy, Prince Mavrocordato, in order to reward a man who carried
his gun for him during a shooting expedition, made him a present of a
Greek naturalization paper. The latter thus became a Greek subject, and
as such entitled to all the immunities which foreigners have been
entitled to under the well-known Capitulations, thanks to the easy-going
tolerance of the Turks. The Armenians, being the most cunning of the
Christian subjects of the Sultan, are the most successful in
perpetrating these naturalization frauds, now and then with the
connivance of foreign Powers.
In the course of my many visits to Constantinople I have repeatedly been
made acquainted with instances of questionable newspaper correspondents
who came up to the Palace with the scarcely veiled intimation that it
was to be a case of pay or slander. During the Armenian disturbances in
1896 a French female journalist went up to the Palace and openly
declared that she intended to be paid or to write up “atrocities.”
Such are a few of the influences which have been at work to cause
trouble in the Turkish Empire, and such the basis upon which is founded
the most hypocritical agitation known the world over, that of the
Russians in favour of their Christian “brethren” in Turkey. Who that has
visited Russia as well as Turkey, and has a spark of fairness left in
his composition, would not cry out in indignation at the hypocrisy of
it?
No wonder Turks are loth to become reconciled to a state of things which
none but this ever-patient race would have put up with so long, and have
turned for sympathy to others who, whatever their selfish motives, have
been less tainted with these intrigues against the laws of hospitality
and common decency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------