THE KORAN AND THE BIBLE
The peculiar state of mind which has enabled the Turk to commit outrages
on humanity that have shocked and insulted the entire race have been
due to three things: his own nature, the teachings of the Koran and the
example of the Prophet. This is what Gladstone means when he speaks of
the “combination of his nature and his religion.”
This is better understood when we take into consideration that other
branches of the Mohammedans have made great contributions to the progress
and culture of the world. The Arabs have distinguished themselves in
architecture, science, poetry, art and letters. It is the opinion of that
distinguished churchman, Canon William Barry, expressed in an article in
_The Nineteenth Century and After_ for August, 1919, that other Moslems
should repudiate the Turk and his outrages. Canon Barry says:
“Wise Moslems, instead of being stirred up in defense of a
system condemned by history and experience, should be led to
perceive in the Turk, not any ‘Bulwark of Islam,’ but a stain
upon their civilization, a lapse from the glory of their
illustrious Caliphs, a scandal and a weakness not to be
endured any more.”
In support of this, one has only to hark back to the splendid days of
Bagdad and Cordova.
In the days of Haroun al Raschid, Bagdad was renowned as the greatest
city in the world, a center of refinement, learning and art. This monarch
is described as having gathered about him a brilliant company of poets,
jurists, learned men and wits. That civilization has left behind one
classic which has immortalized it—even though it naively treats of a
monarch who had a new wife every night whose head he cut off in the
morning.
But here we have the same old story: Bagdad fell into insignificance
after it came under the sway of the Turks; and at the time of its final
capture in 1638 by the Sultan Murad IV, that monarch massacred most of
its inhabitants, contrary to the terms of capitulation.
The Moors have left behind them in Spain monuments of architecture
which are to this day a delight to the world; we have only to cite
the Mosque—now the Cathedral—at Cordova, and the Alhambra of Grenada.
The famous Algebra of Omar Khayyám was written in Arabic and many
contributions to science and literature have first appeared in that
language. The Arab of Africa is described by travelers as the noblest
specimen, physically, of the human race, and even the casual tourist who
has touched at Algiers, has confirmed this fact by observation of the men
in its streets. The difference, mentally, between the Arab and the Turk,
is thus depicted by Buckhardt:
“The Arab displays his manly character when he defends his
guest at the peril of his own life and submits to the reverses
of fortune, to disappointment and distress with the most
patient resignation. He is distinguished from the Turk by the
virtues of pity and gratitude. The Turk is cruel, the Arab is
of a more kindly temper; he pities and supports the wretched
and never forgets the generosity shown him even by an enemy.”
Without having gone deeply into the subject, I am convinced that the
Turks are the only branch of the Mohammedan faith which has never made
any contributions to the progress of civilization or produced anything
which, as Sir Edwin Pears says, “the world would gladly keep.” They have
been destructive and not constructive.
To understand how human beings could have developed such traits of
ferocity and have left such a record of massacres, and for the benefit of
those who believe that a high state of civilization is now to be built up
by these people who have definitely rejected the teachings of Christ, let
us cast a glance at the comparative doctrines of the Koran and the Bible.
That the teachings of the New Testament are infinitely more softening
and uplifting than those of the Koran, no one can deny after a brief and
intelligent comparative study. The general spirit of the latter book—and
the statement is made despite the contention of those commentators who
hold the contrary—is that of spreading its doctrines and the power and
dominion of its followers by the sword; to destroy the unbeliever or make
him pay tribute. It is polygamous in its teachings.
It is founded on the Old Testament and in it appear the chief historical
characters of that book. It is completed, or rounded out, by much of
Oriental fable and belief in supernatural beings, such as the Jinns of
the _Arabian Nights_; to which are added the so-called _Revelations
of the Prophet_. Some of these are merely for the purpose of allowing
Mohammed to gratify his own desires, as, for instance, the case in which
one of his friends is commanded by the angel to give his beautiful wife
to the Prophet.
A great literature of commentary has grown up around the Koran, and
it would be possible for its defenders to find much in it preaching
tolerance, but its general effect upon its disciples, combined with the
example of the Prophet’s life, convincingly prove that Mohammedanism
is a creed to be spread by the sword. Written originally in Arabic, it
is claimed for it that its beauties can only be appreciated in that
language and that the lines in which it is composed make a peculiar
appeal to its readers and linger in the memory.
[Illustration: Scene on railroad pier, Smyrna, where refugees embarked.]
This contention can only be understood, of course, by those who are
versed in the Arabic. It was for a similar reason that _Tupper’s
Proverbial Philosophy_ was at one time universally popular. I have read
the New Testament in the original Greek, in Latin, French, English and
portions of it in German and Swedish and I am competent to state that the
words of Christ lend themselves to translation because of the beauty and
value of the thought intrinsically, and because of the universal appeal,
in every age, which it contains.
The Sermon on the Mount is as overwhelmingly touching and irresistible
in English, French or German, as it is in the original Greek. The same
may be said of the Lord’s Prayer, and of most of the words of the
Master. This is why, when Christianity is blotted out of vast areas of
the earth’s surface by the sword, the club, by the ax and fire, we can
consider that the world has retrograded for some thousands of years in
those regions, and that the interests of the race have in general been
irretrievably injured, no matter who gets the concessions.
The New Testament advocates purity of life and even leans toward
asceticism. Christ himself was unmarried and was of spotless purity.
The Koran is sensual in its teachings, both as to this life and the life
hereafter. It promises the true believer an allotment of paradisiacal
females when he arrives in the other world. What the relation of the
earthly wives will be to this new group is more or less uncertain. This
doctrine of the Koran throws the light very clearly on the contemptuous
regard in which woman is held by the followers of Mohammed.
Such a lofty, pure and beautiful Idyl as the life and death of Lord
Tennyson and his lady is not possible to a creed of polygamy and heavenly
houries. Heaven is thus described in the Koran:
“Therein shall receive them lovely damsels refraining their
eyes from beholding any but their spouses, whom no man shall
have touched before, neither any Spirit (Jinn) and having
complexions like rubies and pearls.”
In connection with this, one must remember that Mohammedans hold the
Koran in deep reverence and believe it literally. Among the great mass
of them, there is not that advanced thought and development of education
which might cause them to regard skeptically their sacred book, as is the
case among Christians. When a Mohammedan dies on the field of battle he
actually believes that he is going straight to a beautiful garden where a
bevy of voluptuous females await him.
According to the Koran, divorce is easy and can be obtained by the
husband simply proclaiming that he is weary of his spouse. The wife, on
the other hand, can only obtain divorce for sufficient cause. In fact,
matrimonial ties in Mohammedan countries are flimsy. No better example of
the ease of Mohammedan divorce can be given than that of Mustapha Khemal,
the Turkish leader, and his wife. The American papers explained that
Khemal himself pronounced the decree, his priestly functions enabling
him so to do; but the fact is that divorce in Mohammedan countries is an
extremely simple process for both high and low.
The Koran teaches non-indulgence in wine, and in general devout believers
are absolute tee-totalers. The cultivation of the grape and the making of
wine does not prevail among the followers of Mohammed.
Circumcision, non-eating of pork, objection to statues and photographs
are all borrowed from the Old Testament, the last named from the
commandment, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.”
Not one Turk in a thousand, if that many, can read the Koran, as it is
written in Archaic Arabic, but the general conception that they are
the faithful and all others are “dogs of unbelievers” is well fixed in
their minds as also the few broad articles of faith hitherto enumerated.
Illiteracy is generally prevalent among the Turkish people, and the
hodjas or priests do not do much in the way of teaching except crying
from the minarets “God is God and Mahomet is His Prophet.” Nevertheless,
during the horrible days of massacre, fire and rape in Smyrna, the Turks
were chanting, with joy: “Their wives shall be widows and their children
orphans.” Hearing this, and thinking of the thousands of babes who were
being made fatherless, or subjected to suffering and death, I could not
help remembering the words: “Suffer the little children to come unto me,
for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Mr. Geddes in his statement asserts that in no instance did he see any
Moslem giving alms to Armenians, it being a criminal offense for any one
to aid them, the object of the deportations being “the extermination of
the race.” The teachings of the Mohammedan cult render it possible to
issue such an order to an entire nation, with the certainty that it will
be universally obeyed.