BOKHARA, THE HEAD QUARTERS OF MOHAMMEDANISM.
"Bokhara, mirevi divanei
Laiki zen djiri zindankhanei."
Thou wilt to Bokhara? O fool for thy pains,
Thither thou goest, to be put into chains.
MESNEVI.
It has frequently been noticed by travellers in Central Asia, and
we have likewise remarked upon it, that Bokhara considers itself
the great pillar of Islamism, and the only pure fountain of the
Mohammedan religion. Nor is it the Bokhariots alone who take this
view, but all the rest of the Mohammedan world, in whatever region
or country, unite in looking up to and extolling the Turkestan
capital for possessing this exclusive privilege. The pilgrim from
Central Asia, whether travelling in Asia Minor, Arabia, or Egypt, is
received with marked veneration and respect, and is regarded as the
very embodiment of every Islamitic virtue. The western Mohammedan,
especially the Osmanli, deeply wounded by the innovations our
civilization has introduced into his native country, turns to his
kinsman and co-religionist from the far East, and gazing at him with
a look of extreme piety, finds comfort at the aspect of him, who
in his eyes still represents the religion of the Prophet, pure and
undefiled. Heaving a sigh, he exclaims: "Ha Bokharai Sherif!" (yes,
the noble Bokhara), which utterance is meant to express his whole
mind.
The difference that exists between Eastern and western Mohammedanism
in Asia is indeed a remarkable phenomenon, and deserves a closer
examination. Upon my asking the Mollahs in Bokhara how it happened
that they were better Mohammedans than the people in Mekka and
Medina, where Mohammed had actually lived and taught, they answered:
that "the torch, although sending its light into the far distance,
is always dark at the foot,"--Mekka being meant by the foot of the
torch, and Bokhara the far distance. In an allegorical sense this
may be correct, but Europeans are not silenced by similes of that
sort; and, since the fact deserves attention, we will endeavour
to ascertain, first--the essential points of the difference in
question; and, secondly--the causes for it. Upon examining in
detail the various points of contrast between Eastern and Western
Mohammedanism, the chief characteristic feature is, no doubt, the
wild fanatic obstinacy with which the Mussulman, in the far East,
clings to every single point of the Koran and the traditions,
looking with terror and aversion, in the true spirit of the
Oriental, upon any innovation; and, in a word, directing all his
efforts to the preservation of his religion at that precise standard
which marked its existence in the happy period (Vakti Seadet) of
the Prophet and the first califs. This standard, however, is not
sufficiently apparent, since Islamism, in those countries, has
assumed a form such as a few eccentric interpreters among the
Sunnites desire, but which, so far as our knowledge extends, _has
never existed in reality_.
Fanaticism, the chief cause of hypocrisy and impiety, has disfigured
every religion, so long as mankind, living in the infancy of
civilization, has been unable to perceive the pure light of the
true faith. All nations and all countries have given proof of its
existence, but nowhere does it appear in such glaring colours, or
wear such a disgusting aspect, as in the East. Here, religion,
in order to improve the mind, deals chiefly with the body; here,
in order to exercise moral influence, the devotee is occupied
with physical trifling, and, neglecting the inner man, as may be
supposed, every one strives for outward appearance and effect. In
Bokhara the principle reigns paramount: "Man must make a figure,--no
one cares for what he thinks." A man may be the greatest miscreant,
the most reprobate of human creatures; but let him fulfil the
outward duties of religion and he escapes all punishment in this as
well as in the next world.
The very popular prayer of the thief Abdurrahman (Duai-duzd
Abdurrahman) illustrates most strikingly this opinion. It consists
of about fifteen to twenty sentences, and its substance is as
follows: "When the Prophet (the blessing of God be upon him!)
lived in Medina, he went one afternoon upon the terrace of his
house, in order to perform his devotions. He looked about with his
blessed eyes and saw in his part of the town a funeral procession
pass through the streets, followed only by a few persons, and the
coffin surrounded by a marvellous brilliancy, not unlike a sea of
rosy light. As soon as he had finished his prayer he hastened to
the spot, joined the funeral procession, and saw, to his great
amazement, that the shine did not leave the coffin, even when
let down into the grave. The Prophet could not recover from his
surprise; he went to the wife of the deceased, and asked what and
who her husband had been. 'Alas!' she answered, with tears, 'God be
merciful unto him, his death is a blessing to all, for throughout
his life he was a highwayman and murderer; and the tears of widows
and orphans he has caused to flow, are more than the water he has
drunk. He lived only to cause unhappiness to others. I have often
remonstrated with him, but in vain. He lived as a sinner, and as a
sinner he died!' 'What!' exclaimed the Prophet, with ever-increasing
astonishment, 'Did he possess no single good quality, has he never
shown repentance?' 'Alas, no!' she sobbed out; 'the only thing he
used to do every evening after his wicked daily work, was to read
over these few lines (and she showed the prayer), and then fell
asleep, and woke to sin anew on the morrow.' The Prophet looked
at the prayer, and recognising at once its marvellous efficacy,
he has left it behind to exercise the same virtue upon all
orthodox Mussulmen." The moral drawn from this narrative needs no
explanation; and it is easy to imagine how many Central Asiatics,
furnished with such a recipe, _à la Tetzel_, will commit the most
atrocious deeds, and retain withal the consciousness of being pious
and religious men.
What strikes a European most of all, in seeing this principle of
outward formulas reduced to practice, are the laws of cleanliness,
which, in Central Asia, are observed with strict and scrupulous
exactness, although, as is well known, the most disgusting
filthiness is to be met with. By the Mohammedan law the body becomes
unclean after each evacuation, and requires an ablution, according
to circumstances, either a small (abdest) or a great one (gusl).
The same has to be observed with respect to the clothes, which are
subjected to a purification if touched by the smallest drop of
water.[18] The cleaning of the body is strictly performed amongst
all Mussulmen; nor, on the whole, is the law about the clothes lost
sight of; but I have never seen people in the West of Asia, as in
Bokhara, repeat their prayers stark-naked, from a religious scruple,
that their clothes might have been defiled without the eye having
detected it. It is extremely ridiculous, that in any religion, as is
the case in the Mohammedan, whole volumes should be written as to
the manner in which its followers are to cleanse their body after
each large or small evacuation. The law, for instance, commands the
istindjah (removal), istinkah (ablution), and istibra (drying),
_i.e._, a small clod of earth is first used for the local cleansing,
then water, at least twice, and finally a piece of linen, a yard in
length, in order to destroy every possible trace. In Turkey, Arabia,
and Persia, only one of these acts is performed,--the istinkah; but
in Central Asia all three are considered necessary; and in order to
prove the high standard of their piety, zealous Mohammedans carry
three or four such clods of earth, cut with a knife that is used for
no other purpose besides, in their turbans, to have a small store
at hand. This commandment is often carried out quite publicly in
the bazaars, from a desire to make parade of their conscientious
piety. I shall never forget the revolting scene, when I saw one
day a teacher give to his pupils, boys and girls, instructions
in the handling of the clod of earth, linen and so forth, by way
of experiment. It never occurs to any one that such a tenet is
disgraceful, nor does any body perceive that these extremes of
physical cleanliness lead directly to the extremes of moral impurity.
[18] In the eyes of Eastern people, dogs and Europeans are classed
together, as making water against the wall. Throughout the East
people squat down during the action, for fear lest in a standing
position a drop might touch and thus pollute their clothes.
The extreme severity with which the law of the Harem is executed in
Bokhara, is looked for in vain among the Western Mohammedans, or
even among the fanatic sect of the Wahabites. This law, so contrary
to nature, has necessarily been the cause of a certain vice equally
contrary to nature, and which, although it exists among Turks, Arabs
and Persians, is confined within a comparatively narrow limit, and
condemned as a "despicable sin" by the interpreters of the Koran as
well as by public opinion. In Central Asia, especially in Bokhara
and Khokand, this atrocious crime is carried to a frightful extent,
and the religious of these countries considering it a protection
against any transgression of the law of the Harem, and declaring it
to be _no_ sin, marriages _à la Tiberius_ have become quite popular;
nay, fathers feel not the smallest compunction in surrendering their
sons to a friend or acquaintance for a certain annual stipend. Our
pen refuses to describe this disgusting vice in its full extent; but
even the few hints we have thrown out are sufficient to show the
abyss of crime to which an exaggerated religious fanaticism degrades
mankind.
It is just the same with the prohibition of spirituous liquors.
The Koran commands not only abstinence from wine, but from all
intoxicating drinks, for this reason, that a state of intoxication
would be attended by neglect of prayer, or of any other pious duty.
The Western Mohammedans interpret this commandment as referring only
to wine (sharab) in the strict sense of the word, and consider
drinking arak (brandy) already a much less offence; many, indeed,
are of opinion, that since it has not been expressly mentioned in
the Koran, it would not be regarded as a sin to drink it with water.
In Turkey and Persia brandy is as much in favour among the better
educated classes, as wodki in Russia; but in Bokhara both brandy
and wine are very rarely met with. Even those who do not confess
the Mohammedan religion, such as Jews and Hindoos, cannot drink it
except clandestinely, and the mere pronouncing the words sharab and
arak, is a sin in the eyes of the orthodox. With facts like these
one would expect the greatest sobriety among the people, but alas!
how terrible is the substitute hypocrisy has invented!
The Central Asiatics make a distinction between fluid and solid
spirits. The former are strictly forbidden, whilst the latter, by
which all narcotics are understood, are looked upon as perfectly
innocent. The famous opium-eaters of Constantinople, who, at the
present day almost extinct, were seen daily, at the beginning of the
century, in the notorious square of Direkalti, and admired by all
passers-by--the various hashish-eaters in Egypt--the lovers of the
comparatively harmless teryak in Persia,--all these are as nothing
in comparison with the bengis[19] of Central Asia.
[19] Beng is the name of the poison which is produced from the
canabis indica.
In the first-named countries opium has a rival in "pater bacchus,"
and holds, therefore, a divided empire; but in Turkestan, where the
"jolly god" is a stranger, it reigns paramount, and its destroying
power is fearful. The number of beng-eaters is greatest in Bokhara
and Khokand, and it is no exaggeration to say that three-fourths
of the learned and official world, or, in other words, the whole
intelligent class, are victims to this vice. The Government looks on
with perfect indifference, while hundreds, nay, thousands, commit
suicide. It never occurs to any one that a prohibition should be
made on this subject, but if a man were convicted of having tasted a
drop of wine, he would be beheaded without any further ado.
These errors, together with many others of the same kind, must no
doubt be ascribed to an eccentric scrupulousness in observing the
existing laws. Strange as they are, they appear less surprising
when compared with those views and opinions which arose in Eastern
Mohammedanism in consequence of a different interpretation of those
traditional dogmas, which are not only rejected as erroneous, but
flatly condemned by the learned Mohammedans of the West. Among
these we are struck first of all with the religious orders or
pious fraternities, which are spread in an extraordinary manner
over Central Asia, and are subject to such strict regulations,
and conducted with a fervour which contrasts singularly with the
character of Eastern nations, especially the Central Asiatics. In
the Western Islamitic countries we meet with the various orders
of the Oveisi, Kadrie, Djelali, Mevlevi, Rufai, Bektashi, &c.,
which, at all times treated with civility by the Ulemas, were
never able to attract within their magic circle more than a few
individuals of a heated imagination; whereas, on the contrary, the
Nakishbendi, Makhdumaazami, in Bokhara and Khokand, embody large
masses of the population, who are appointed, guided, and governed
by the officers of the order, representing the temporary supreme
chief. Every community, however small in numbers, comprises one
or more Ishans (priests of the order) beside the lawful Mollah,
Reis, &c.; and I have often felt astonished at witnessing the blind
obedience and respect paid to the members of the order as compared
with the former. It need scarcely be added, that these influential
Ishans stand frequently in the way of the Government, but it has
never ventured to offer them any check or resistance, regarding,
as they do, religious orders as inseparable from Islam. Mohammed
expressly stated, "_La Ruhbanitum fil Islam_"--"no monks in Islam."
Nevertheless the Khan, his ministers, even many Ulemas, in spite of
the latter, regarding the Ishan as powerful rivals, and hating them
accordingly, are in the habit of adopting the outward attributes of
one or the other order, out of deference to public opinion.
The judicial procedure of Eastern Mohammedans is equally
remarkable. They entirely reject the Urf, _i.e._, the decision of
the judge, based upon his own judgment and convictions, in cases
where the Sheriat (the laws of the Koran) is insufficient; as also
the Kanun, _i.e._, laws framed by later legislators. The latter they
regard as heretical innovations, and they take the Sheriat, or the
code of laws emanating from the Koran, as their sole and infallible
guide. That the laws Mohammed framed twelve hundred years ago for
the social wants of the simple Arabs, should not suit every clime
and epoch, can be no matter of surprise. In Turkey and Persia the
necessity for reform has long been felt. The Governments of these
countries have tried in all cases to supply the deficiencies of
their primitive codes by supplemental additions, however much the
opinions of the Ulemas resisted such a step, naturally foreseeing
from it, as they did, the downfall of their power. In Turkestan,
not only the Mollahs, but the Government, and everybody in fact,
is highly indignant at the very idea of a supplement. In their
eyes the Koran is "as fine as a hair, as sharp as a sword, and
satisfies all possible wants of life;" whoever thought differently
would be treated as a wicked man and an infidel. People eat, drink
and dress, in strict conformity with the precepts of the Koran;
it is the standing rule, by which all taxes and toll-moneys are
levied, the standard, by which all wars are conducted, and the guide
for directing their relations with foreign powers! Upon the same
principle, any innovation in domestic life is strictly forbidden
as _sin_. England, Russia, and other modern states, of whom the
Koran makes no mention, cannot be recognised by the Tartar rulers
_de facto_; on the contrary, they consider it their duty to oppose
them as intruders by the law of the Djihad (the religious combat),
a policy which will, of course, as already sufficiently shown, lead
them to entire destruction.
With regard to the Shiitish Persians, the Eastern Mohammedans stand
in a very different relation to them from their Western brethren.
This religious schism, as is well known, has often been the cause
of long and bloody wars,--under the pretext of a temporary quarrel.
Ever since the first dissensions took place between the dynasties
Akkoyunlu and Karakayunlu, Turks and Arabs have frequently been
opposed to the Persians in destructive and calamitous wars: deep
hatred and bitter resentment separated the two sects, and the
former succeeded in ejecting their Shiitish enemies from the bond
of Islamism. The Persian is looked upon as an heretical Mussulman,
but always as a Mussulman; he is admitted to the holy cities and all
places of pilgrimage, the orthodox Sunnite does not object to pray
with him in the same mosque, and in modern times the hatred between
the Osmanli and Persian has already so far diminished that the
latter is permitted by law to intermarry with the former.
In Central Asia there exists no trace of anything of the kind. Here
the Persians are hated and persecuted as fiercely as on their first
appearance among the Shiitish sect. In the year 945 of the Hidjra,
they were declared outlaws and infidels by the fetwah of a certain
Mollah, Shemseddin Mohammed, a native of Samarkand, and living in
Herat at the time of the Sultan Husein Baikera. This fetwah has
done much injury to the poor inhabitants of Iran, for, although
the marauding Turkomans would have taken them prisoners without
any form of law, they would not have been sold in the market-place
of fanatical Bokhara, had not the brand of the Kafir qualified
them for it, only such men being saleable. Whatever cruelties were
practised on them, were all committed under the pretext of punishing
an unbeliever, and though Eastern Mohammedans try to vindicate the
Mollahs of Turkestan, by pointing out that the Persians recognize
one and the same Koran, and one and the same prophet, yet they
declare the fetwah to be just and proper, and protest against all
assertions to the contrary, of the West-Mohammedan learned men, as
ignorance and error.
There are essential distinctions also in the ritual of the Eastern
and Western Mohammedans. I doubt very much whether, even at Bagdad
and Damascus, during the most brilliant period of Islamism, officers
(Reis) were daily traversing the streets, stopping everybody in the
midst of their daily occupations in order to hear them the prayer
Farz-i-Ayin, and punishing the ignorant on the spot. This is
actually being done in Bokhara at the present day. In the various
ceremonies of circumcision, marriage, and burial, the Central
Asiatics have several customs of their own, entirely heterogeneous
to western Islam; their daily prayers, which have to be repeated
five times, consist here of more Rikats (genuflexions) than in
other countries; and it is curious, at the Ezan (call to prayer),
the Turkestans most carefully avoid all tune or melody, and recite
it in a sort of howl. The manner in which the Ezan is cried in the
West, is here declared sinful, and the beautiful, melancholy notes,
which, in the silent hour of a moonlit-evening, are heard from the
slender minarets on the Bosphorus, fascinating every hearer, would
be listened to by the Bokhariot with feelings only of detestation.
In addition to the above let us bear in mind the many mosques,
medressas, all filled to overflowing with worshippers, the
Karikhane, _i.e._ houses, where blind men recite the Koran the whole
day long, the numerous Khanka, where fanatics roar out their Zikr
day and night, and with which institutions every city is crowded;
then let us picture to ourselves the various gestures, the severely
earnest looks and the whole appearance of the Mollahs, Ishane,
Dervishes, Kalenters, and ascetics, one of wild fanaticism, and it
might perhaps be possible to form an idea of Bokhara, of this pillar
of Islam, these headquarters of an over-strained religious zeal, and
where the religion of the Arab Prophet has degenerated into a form,
such as the founder no doubt never wished his work should assume.
From here it has spread with the same tendencies over Afghanistan
to India, Kashmir, and the Chinese Tartary, and northwards as far
as Kazan. In all these places the spirit of Bokhara has taken firm
root, for Bokhara is their teacher, and neither Constantinople
nor Mekka, but Bokhara is looked up to as their sole guide. It is
here that our civilization will encounter more serious obstacles
than in Western Asia, and Russia most likely has already made this
experience with respect to the Nogai Tartars. It would be a matter
of regret, if the English Government should not as yet have felt
this to be the truth with her 40 millions of Mohammedan subjects in
India. The consequences would be sure and inevitable.
So much at present for the difference between Eastern and Western
Mohammedanism, and without much research we shall find the principal
causes to be as follows:
Firstly, Asia, the chief seat and fountain-head of religious
fanaticism, is found, the more we advance eastward, the more true to
its ancient type. As in general the inhabitants of India, Thibet,
and China are more eccentric, more religiously fanatical, or, in
other words, more Asiatic, than the followers of Islam, in the same
measure the Eastern Mohammedans are more zealous than their Western
co-religionists.
Secondly, the same eccentric fanaticism, which the Central Asiatics
displayed when professing the doctrines of Zoroaster, has been the
cause why their conversion to Islam cost the Arabs so much time
and trouble. It took more than 200 years, before the religion of
Mohammed had completely supplanted the old faith. No sooner had
the conquerors left a town than the newly-converted inhabitants
returned to their old faith, and the town had to be re-conquered and
re-converted. But when the iron perseverance of the Arabs had at
last succeeded in making them Mohammedans, they attached themselves
to the new religion with the same fervour they had manifested in
the old. As early as the beginning of the rule of the Samanides, we
find in Transoxania men of high reputation, throughout Islam, for
their learning and their exemplary piety. Belkh had already then
acquired the name of Kubbetül Islam, the dome of Islam. The city and
neighbourhood of Bokhara were crowded with the tombs of saints and
learned men, and we can easily understand how it happened that these
Turkestani cities had in piety and learning become successful rivals
of Bagdad, the then centre of the Mohammedan world, where devotional
zeal was eclipsed by the splendour of worldly grandeur.
After the extinction of the dynasty of the Samanides, but especially
during the Mongol conquests, no doubt all religious life suffered
a temporary check, but the edifice has never been shaken to its
foundations as in Bagdad, where Helagu, in destroying the phantom
caliphate of Motasimbillah, broke the chief strength of Islam and
scattered it to the winds. In Transoxania, on the other hand, its
energies were being silently strengthened and matured. Timur aimed
at making his native home the chief seat of Mohammedan learning, and
his work was continued, though in a different spirit, by the rulers
of the Sheibani dynasty. It can therefore excite no wonder that
Bokhara has been able to preserve to the present day, that precise
standard of religious asceticism which characterized Islam in the
middle ages.
Thirdly, the great body of the Sunnites has been separated by the
schism of Persia practically, if not morally, into two distinct
parts, and the separation is certain to continue. The pilgrimages
to the holy cities of Arabia have by no means compensated for
the undoubtedly greater intercourse, which, in the times of the
caliphat, could be carried on without fear of disturbance from the
Eastern to the Western frontier of Islam. Sectarian animosity has
been purposely kept alive, and has rendered Persia a dangerous
country to any Sunnitish traveller. Whilst great political changes,
as well as constant intercourse with Christian Europe, combined to
bring the western Sunnites under the influence of foreign social
relations, the Eastern Sunnites, left entirely to themselves, had no
opportunity offered them of introducing either changes or reforms.
They looked with quite as much abhorrence as the Chinese and Hindoos
upon heretical Persia, the only country which afforded them the
means of communication with the West.
The observation which I have offered, that the influences of
European Christianity have divided western from eastern Islam in
many cardinal aspects of faith, may lead many of our readers to
hope, that the ever-increasing communication and interchange of
ideas will gradually effect a total transformation in Asia, or, as
many sanguine travellers of modern times believe, that Asia will be
Europeanised.
The question is naturally one of interest to every one who
wishes (and who does not wish it) for an improvement of the
social relations in Asia, and far too important for a mere
passing examination. Nevertheless, in order to obviate certain
misinterpretations or false constructions, we must remark, that the
above observation is not to be regarded as offering an infallible
test of Western Mohammedan advancement. We have to be careful, not
to mistake for precious metal the tinsel of European civilisation
and modes of thought, with which Young Turkey and Persia endeavour
to garnish their innate barbarism. I must confess the result of
European influence in these countries is hitherto alas! very small
and ineffectual. The inexperienced eye of a tourist is deceived by
their having partly adopted our dress and furniture, but all else is
now just as it was in olden times, and will probably continue so for
a very long time to come.
It is taken for granted that our relations, as Europeans with Asia,
are those, as it were, between a son and his mother, the latter
possessing a certain amount of superstition, with which she finds
it difficult to part. From Asia we received our descent, mentally
and materially, as well as our education, but nobody would reproach
us with ingratitude or want of respect, if we reject the views and
opinions of "our aged parent," and for her own benefit occasionally
press upon her our ideas instead. I use purposely the expression
"press upon," for whatever has been adopted of European civilisation
in Asia up to the present day, has not been the result, either
of conviction or a liking for our social relations, but simply
that of fear. A forced love never lasts, and were we to base our
speculations as to the future of the whole of Asia upon the changes
hitherto effected in western Asia, they would inevitably prove
fallacious.