centuries of its domination in Spain, placed that country not only at
the head of occidental civilisation, but also causing it to shine
quite as brilliantly from Delhi and Bokhara, as far as Constantinople
and Fez?
The first cause may be found in the non-observance of the strictly
levelling principles that the Prophet had so much trouble to establish
while he lived, and which were the motives of his successes and of
those of the first Caliphs. One example will serve to show how
rigorously these principles were applied in the beginning: "A rich,
powerful, and proud monarch, Jabala, newly converted, struck violent
blows in the face of a poor Bedouin, who had accidentally pushed
against him while he was performing his devotions round the Ka'bah.
Without bringing into account the rank of the delinquent, or the
danger of estranging such an important personage, the Caliph Umar
thought that, for the honour of the future of Islam, equality in the
eyes of law and justice should override all other considerations, and
he condemned King Jabala to undergo, at the hands of the humble
Bedouin, the same chastisement as had been inflicted on him."
With such strict principles, no one could possibly be proud of
anything but his personal merit; and emulation gave birth to miracles
for the greater good of Islam. No men were chosen as chieftains except
those who deserved that honour, and once elected, they were blindly
obeyed because they were sincerely admired and respected.
Unfortunately, the complete observance of this master-thought of the
Prophet turned out to be ephemeral, and already under the rule of
Usman, the third Caliph, aristocratic prejudices began to regain their
evil influence. In vain Mohammad had said to his beloved daughter,
Fatimah-tuz-Zahra: 'Work, and reckon not that it sufficeth for thee to
be the Prophet's daughter;' the sons of most unimportant people
despised their Mussulman brothers of more lowly origin, and thought
that their social rank exempted them from making those efforts without
which no progress can be realised. Moreover, rivalry between folks
more proud of their forbears than of their own works, gave rise again
to fractricidal struggles, as ruthless as in the past; and with them,
the disorganisation and general anarchy which had paralysed the Arabs
of pre-Islamic times. Having lost all taste for study; separated and
exhausted by incessant civil wars, the Moslems were only able to offer
puny resistance to the Christians, who dreamt of revenge and had
profited by these dissensions to organise themselves.
In the past as in the present, Islam might have avoided the greater
part of its misfortunes if it always remembered this last adjuration
of the Prophet in his sermon of the Valedictory Pilgrimage: 'Never
forget that each Mussulman should be a true brother to every other
Mussulman!'
The second cause of its decline arose from one of the primordial
qualities of Islam. The conformity of its dogma, almost entirely
devoid of supernaturalism, to the exigencies of reason, was at first
inestimably advantageous for science which remained free from the
hindrances of superstition. This suffices to explain the rapid rise of
its civilisation. But the Moslem mind had gradually been lulled, being
satisfied with the magnificent results attained by the enthusiasm
reigning in the first centuries of the Hegira. Henceforth, it
was at the mercy of animal passions and fetishism, in certain
newly-conquered countries. The cult of Saints and Intercessors,
"Awliya," or "Murabitun," borrowed from the Christians and so strictly
forbidden by the Qur'an, took the place of the cult of Science and, by
its gross superstitions, barred all progress. Philosophers like
Averroes, tried to struggle, but it was too late; the evil was too
deeply rooted among the masses who called these enlightened men
ungodly, and demanded that they should be put out of favour....
These two causes of decay are ancient, and contradict the real
doctrine of the Qur'an. On the other hand, there is one, dating from
the nineteenth century only, and which seems to be in accordance, if
not with the spirit, at least with the letter of the Holy Book. It is
that which results from the prohibition of any interest whatsoever
being received for money lent.
"_They who swallow down usury, shall arise in the Resurrection only as
he ariseth whom Satan hath infected by his touch. This, for that they
say, 'Selling is only the like of usury': and yet Allah hath allowed
selling, and forbidden usury._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 276.)
The excellence of this principle is unquestionable, and, until the
last century, the slight inconveniences which might have troubled the
Moslems in consequence of usury practised among them by Jews and
Christians, were not to be compared with the advantages of this
precept of the Qur'an. But at the present time, when credit is
indispensable to all great undertakings and when bankers have become
the real masters of the world, Islam, by adhering with exaggerated
rigidity to the text of these verses, is momentarily reduced to
financial and political ruin.
[Sidenote: THE FUTURE OF ISLAM]
Such, we think, rapidly summarised, are the three leading causes of
the decline of Islam. Is there no remedy for this state of decay? Are
the three hundred millions of Moslems spread over the surface of the
globe, to be condemned to remain eternally in the sad situation
established for them beyond the pale of modern civilisation? We think
not.
For the two first causes, the remedy is simple: it consists in
returning to the principles instituted by the Prophet. The remedy for
the third is to be found perhaps in a less strict interpretation of
the letter, but certainly in accordance with the spirit of the Sacred
Text. Enlightened Moslems are fully aware of this and henceforward,
they will take care not to confuse banking operations with the sordid
usury condemned by the Prophet.
The wounds inflicted on Islam during the last century have at last
awakened it from its lethargy. Its very defeats have shown the
necessity of adopting the scientific method of its conquerors. Islam
recalls to mind the words of the Prophet: "Go, seek for Science
everywhere, even in far China. The benefits of Science are superior to
the benefits of devotion. On the Day of Resurrection, the ink used by
learned men and the blood poured out by martyrdom will be measured:
neither shall be preferred."
Renovators, men of genius, such as the celebrated Shaykh Abduh, have
pointed out the right road to Islam, proving to Moslems that the
teaching of Mohammad agrees with that of modern civilisation.
Thereupon, myriads of young men have gone through courses of European
study and show wonderful facility, without losing any part of their
native originality; and, very soon, innumerable Moslems will take
their places in the modern world without fear of any disparaging
comparisons.
Does this mean that the empire of Islam, following the example of
Japan, will regain its rank among great political Powers? Considering
that the future of nations depends on the will of Allah, it is always
presumptuous to predict it. Besides, political might is the most
ephemeral of all; a few months are enough to overthrow the most
formidable empires. Such power proves nothing as regards the vitality
of a religion, and is not absolutely necessary for the subject we
treat.
There are, indeed, conquests differing from those of armies. The
imperialism of the Israelites, which disappeared centuries ago, has
never given the slightest sign of a return movement and yet few
peoples possess at present the power of the Jews. Persecution was for
them the great educator, and nowadays, in all the nations of Europe
and America, the Jews, thanks to their activity and intelligence,
occupy the front rank. Why does not the same effect, due to the same
cause--persecution--take place among the Moslems, who, for the most
part, are first, cousins to the Israelites and who possess the
advantage of numbers?
Objections are against the possibility of such a revival: Fatalism,
Fanaticism, Polygamy. Let us examine them.
Can Mussulman fatalism fit in with a real effort on the road to
progress?
If some criticisms are justified by the way in which fatalism is
understood by certain followers of the Murabitun, it has never
possessed the importance ascribed to it. Islam is not more fatalist
than determinism, and it is still less than Christianism which adheres
strictly to the letter of the following precepts of the Gospel:
'Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on.' (ST. MATTHEW, VI, 25.)
Why then accuse fatalism of having paralysed all effects among the
Moslems, when the Prophet was one of the most active, persevering and
energetic men that the world has ever known; and when Islam is the
only religion which, no sooner founded, was followed immediately by
such a marvellous épopée and such splendid civilisation? The word
"Islam" signifies "resignation to the decrees of Allah," that is to
say: to that which looks as if it could be mastered by energy and
courage. "_Say: O my people! Act as ye best can._" (THE QUR'AN, IV,
135.) Far from being the cause of weakness, such resignation becomes
the source of incomparable moral strength for the Believer, fortifying
him during the ordeals of adversity.
In their intercourse with civilised beings belonging to other
religions, will not Moslems be stopped by the implacable and
irreducible fanaticism of which they are accused? The main object is
to see if this fanaticism is not one of the countless legends
inimically invented during the Middle Ages. In order to permit the
reader to form an opinion, here are some extracts chosen among
thousands of the same kind.
According to Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jari said: "A man of the Banu Salim ibn
Awf, named Al-Husayn, father of two sons who were Christians, whilst
he was a Mussulman, asked the Prophet: "Ought I not force my children
to embrace Islamism? They will have no other religion than the
Christian religion!" Allah (may He be glorified!) thereupon revealed
for this man the following verse: "_Let there be no compulsion in
Religion._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 257.)
When the Christian ambassadors of the Hijr territory came to see the
Prophet at Al-Madinah, he offered them half of his Mosque so that they
might say their prayers therein. He rose to his feet one day, as a
funeral procession went by, and when he was told that it was only a
Jew's burial, he replied: 'Is it not a soul?' He also said: 'He who
ill-treateth a Jew or a Christian will find me his accuser on the Day
of Judgment. With ungodliness an empire may last; but never with
injustice.'
Notwithstanding all legends, never, beyond the Hijaz, which means the
sacred territory and its vicinity, did Moslems use force to obtain
conversions. The Spanish Christians were never molested on account of
their belief during the eight centuries of Mussulman domination. Many
of them, indeed, occupied the highest posts at the Court of the
Caliphs of Cordova. On the other hand, these same Christians, as soon
as they became conquerors, immediately exterminated all Moslems
without exception. The Jews, who had lived in peace under Arab rule,
were treated in the same way.
In his _Voyage Religieux en Orient_, the Abbé Michon pays homage to
truth by this exclamation: 'It is a sad thing for Christian nations
that religious tolerance, the great law of charity between the
peoples, should have been taught by Mussulmans.' (Quoted by Comte de
Castries, in his book on Islam.)
What about the Armenian massacres? will be alleged against us. Our
answer is that every time they have not been provoked by rebellions
and conspiracies, they are condemned by all true Moslems just in the
same way as the massacre of all the Moslems in Spain is condemned
nowadays by true Christians.
But the Armenian massacres were never the outcome of religious causes,
for never have the disciples of Mohammad thought of imitating the
followers of Torquemada by forcing the Armenians to choose between
conversion and death at the stake. Besides, Moslems do not lean
towards proselytism. Strictly speaking, they have no missionaries, and
if their religion, at the present day, is the one that causes the most
conversions in Africa and Asia, it is, as A. Burdo justly remarks: 'by
a kind of moral endosmose.' (_Les Arabes dans l'Afrique Centrale._)
A good example, free from any proselytizing attempts, produces in
religious souls a much more powerful impression than the importunities
of cathechists. Despite his hostility to Islam and his partiality, the
"savant" Dozy is obliged to acknowledge that In Spain, formerly: 'it
is a positive fact that many Christians became converted to Islam out
of conviction.'
The rule of conduct of a Mussulman towards the followers of other
religions is fixed by these words of the Qur'an: "_To you your
religions; and to me my religion._" (CIX, 6.)
How can a Mussulman be intolerant, when he venerates alike the
Prophets honoured by Jew and Christian? For him, Moses, who spoke with
Allah; and Jesus, inspired by Allah, deserve the same veneration as
Mohammad, the friend of Allah. "_We make no distinction between any of
His Apostles._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 285.)
Never does any Mussulman dare to utter the slightest insult towards
Jesus; never would he allow any to be uttered in his presence, even
coming from the lips of people of Christian origin who consider Jesus
to be responsible for sacerdotal errors. To insult Jesus would be to
insult the Qur'an which orders Him to be revered. We were privileged
once to witness the uncommon sight of a Mussulman condemned by a
Christian judge for having struck a Jew who, in the presence of this
disciple of Mohammad, had made outrageous remarks on the birth of
Jesus.
Let us now compare the respectful attitude of the Moslems as far as
Jesus is concerned, with the manner in which Europeans behave when
Mohammad's name is mentioned. In the Middle Ages, monks and
troubadours represented him to be either some monstrous idol, or an
incorrigible drunkard, fallen on a dung-heap and devoured by hogs.
Hence, they pointed out, the repugnance of his disciples for
swine-flesh. We should never be done if we tried to quote all that in
former times sprung from the fertile imagination of Mohammad's
enemies.
The first Orientalists were no kinder. In the eighteenth century,
Gagnier, a most learned man, after blaming the Abbé Maracci and Doctor
Prideaux for their impassioned insults, speaks in his turn of Mohammad
as 'the most villanous of all men; the most deadly of Allah's enemies;
the idiotic Prophet,' etc., whilst claiming to speak in guarded terms!
The companions of the Prophet have likewise not been spared from the
earliest times. So that the barbarity with which Cardinal Ximenes
burnt the marvellous libraries of the Moslems of Spain should be
forgotten, many calumniators invented the famous legend of the
conflagration of the libraries of Alexandria, by order of the Caliph
Umar, thus fully showing the slanderers' great disdain for chronology.
These collections of books had not been in existence for several
centuries when Islam was revealed to the world. The first library,
that of Bruchium, containing four hundred thousand volumes, was
destroyed by fire during the war of Cæsar against the Alexandrians;
and the second, that of Serapeum, comprising two hundred thousand
volumes, bequeathed by Antony, was completely pillaged in the reign of
Theodosius.
These ridiculous legends are dying out gradually at the present day;
and yet we prefer their candid fanaticism to the malicious calumny
with which certain writers, still impregnated with medieval passionate
partiality, try from behind a screen of Oriental science, to belittle
one of the men who do the most honour, not only to history, but to the
history of humanity.
After having adopted the modern civilisation of Christians, may not
the Moslems conclude by adopting their religion as well? To answer
this question, we need only quote the opinion of an author who,
although a fervent Christian, acknowledges facts most loyally. In the
course of a remarkable study of Islam, he writes:
"Islam is the only religion which has no recreants--It is very
difficult, if not impossible, to form an exact idea of the spiritual
state of a Moslem evangelized by a Christian. We can only imagine
something very near it, by trying to realise in our minds the feelings
of an enlightened Christian whom an idolater might be trying to
convert to his gross, superstitious cult." (_L'Islam_, by Comte Henry
de Castries.)
Islam, in spite of its irreducibleness, offers Christians many proofs
of its feelings of veneration towards Jesus. Therefore, whence comes
the hatred with which the followers of Christ pursue Mohammad even in
our present century of tolerance--not to say religious indifference?
Is it because of its Asiatic origin? Was not Christianism essentially
Asiatic, before Saint Paul had stripped it of Jewish trappings? Jesus
declared: 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.' (ST. MATTHEW, XV, 24.) Is it because of its doctrine? The
doctrine of Islam is almost the same as that of certain Protestant
sects. Is it because of the remembrance of the Crusades? Despite the
years that are past, this remembrance has still disastrous influence
over many ignorant minds, but if that was all, it would not suffice to
explain away the ostracism shown in Europe to Islam.
We must seek therefore some other cause, and we find it furnished by
the example of the only religion really reviled and persecuted in the
same way.
There exists a Protestant sect, the Mormons. After prodigies of
will-power, labour and intelligence, they have transformed one of the
saddest regions, a mere salt desert, into a thriving country. Europe
and America ought to have applauded this work of civilisation,
unanimously and enthusiastically. Far from so doing, every sect of
Christianity forgot their own disagreements and united themselves
against the Mormons with the same feeling of reprobation.
Of what crime were they guilty? They practised polygamy like the
Moslems. Such is the true explanation of the mystery: Islam is warned
that it will never be granted recognition unless it renounces
polygamy.
We shall not risk trying to defend a custom thus violently condemned,
but content ourselves with making a few observations. As a matter of
fact, polygamy is universal and will last out the world, despite all
present or future legislation. This is denied by none. The only
question is to know if it is preferable to let it be avowed and
limited, or let it flourish hypocritically and boundlessly.
All travellers, Gérard de Nerval and Lady Morgan to wit, have noted
that among polygamous Moslems, polygamy is generally less widespread
than among so-called monogamous Christians. What can be more natural?
For Catholics and Protestants, does not polygamy possess the
allurement of forbidden fruit?
[Illustration: _Tombs of the Khaliphs. Under their rule, Moslem
civilisation enlightened the World._]
By troubling about polygamy, shall we not be set down as
old-fashioned? Without taking other things into consideration, the
needs of modern life render it impraticable in large cities. It will
have died out before long, among civilised Moslems. If the principle
survives, it will only be applied in the desert depths where it is an
imperious necessity.
Will morality improve by the disappearance of polygamy? That remains
doubtful. Prostitution, so rare in most Mussulman lands, will extend
its ravages. A plague, now totally unknown, will break out: that of
the celibacy of women, which causes desolation in monogamous
countries--where, above all, following great wars, it attains
disastrous proportions.
In a study on the future of the French colonies, Charles Dumas,
writing about the Moslems, states: 'No race can gain freedom when it
condemns the half of itself (i.e. its women) to eternal bondage.'
Is it true that Mussulman women are reduced to such a lamentable
situation? It is certain that in the eyes of European women enjoying
untrammelled freedom, the wearing of a veil and semi-claustration as
well, to which the women of Islam are subjected, must seem to be
tokens of the most unbearable slavery. But if these ladies of Europe
heard the reflexions of these same Mussulman women, objects of
monogamists' wives' heartfelt commiseration, they would be surprised
to learn that they, in their turn, are not envied, but charitably
pitied. Besides, the wearing of the veil and claustration are in no
wise religious obligations. The Verses of the Qur'an (XXXIII, 53, 55)
by which these questions are supported, are solely aimed at the
Prophet's wives and not at those of all Believers, as might be deduced
from the inexact translation of verse 55, by Kasimirski.
These practices, put in force many years after Mohammad's death, are
therefore fiercely attacked by numerous champions of the feminine
cause. Among them, we note Qasim Bey Amin, with his book:
"Tahriru'l-Mirat" ("Woman's Emancipation"); and Es Zahawi, the poet of
Bagdad, who wrote a celebrated letter on the veil, and says: 'Woman is
the remedy of youth, the beauty of nature and the splendour of life.
Without women, man is a sterile syllogism--he does not conclude!' And
then, relying on this verse: "_And it is for the women to act as the
husbands act towards them with all fairness._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 228),
he claims complete female freedom.
We will conclude by quoting the words of one of the fair sex, al-Sitti
Malika who, with the consent of her father, Hifni Bey Nasif, formerly
professor at the University of Al Azhar, published a Qasida,
terminating with this verse: 'To unveil, if one is chaste, is no harm;
and if one is not chaste, veils in excess offer no protection.'
At the same times as European queens of fashion have tried to
acclimatise the Turkish veil in the West, perhaps at some future
period, near or distant, the custom of wearing the veil may die out in
the East. In that case, the flower of Mussulman beauty will have been
stripped of its graceful calyx. Will not the woman of the East regret
the mysterious charm she owed to her filmy mask? Will she be
compensated by the advantages accruing to her in consequence of
budding forth in the strong light of civilisation? The example of the
great misery reigning among her sisters of the West, struggling for
life in opposition to men, may perhaps frighten the woman of the East
when, with dazzled eyes, scarcely awakened from harem dreams, she
plunges into the vortex of modern existence. The question is too
delicate. We dare not come to a conclusion. After all, the interest
and possibility of such reforms vary too completely, from one country
to another, so that no general rule can be fixed.
But if we hesitate about passing judgment on the reforms we have just
set forth, we acknowledge unreservedly, to make amends, that the
education of woman is an imperious necessity for the future of Islam.
Education has nothing to do with the above-mentioned customs. It is in
agreement with all the principles of the religion, and during the
period of Islamic splendour, was lavished on Mussulman femininity
whose culture was superior to that of European women in those days.
In the East, education has never disappeared as completely as in some
regions of the Maghrib. During a certain number of years, many
Mussulman women passed their leisure harem hours in educating
themselves, and their new intellectual birth began to be generalised.
From education alone the evolution of manners and customs will proceed
wherever it will be necessary in the sense and proportions creating
the least amount of trouble in the bosom of families.
[Sidenote: CONCLUSION]