CHAPTER VIII.
ISLAM AS A FACTOR OF THE PROBLEM.
It is with reluctance that I approach this side of the question. It is not desirable that the subject be complicated or embittered by religious animosities. But unfortunately these animosities do exist and have always formed a primary and essential feature in all the relations of the Turks with their Christian subjects. A writer who styles himself “Diplomatist,” in a recent review article of considerable merit,[48] with a stroke of the pen, disposes of this phase of the subject by characterizing it as “pure moonshine.” But real diplomatists do not find it so easy to dispose of, nor do the great historians treat it as moonshine. The fanatical gleam that I have often caught in the eye of Turks and Kurds was never suggestive to me of the mild rays of the lunar orb, but seemed rather like a gleam from the political Crescent, whose baleful influence dominates the East.
The question is not concerning the merits of Mohammed or of Mohammedanism in the abstract. I have a profound respect for the Prophet of Arabia, who might have been another Apostle Paul, but for the fact that the corrupt church of that day failed to give that young and ardent seeker after God a true and worthy conception of Christianity. I would fain admit the high conception of the Mohammedan ideal, portrayed so skilfully by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith in his lectures before the Royal Institution of Great Britain.
But such considerations are irrelevant to the present discussion, which is simply, What are the practical bearings of Islam upon the question of reform or of reconstruction in Turkey?
As has been already shown in Chapter VI., the Ottoman Government is a _politico-religious system_. This is the necessary constitution of any Mohammedan sovereign state, but the conception has special force and vitality in Turkey, whose Sovereign claims to be the successor of Mohammed, and thus the Calif of the Mohammedan world. The whole fabric of the Turkish Empire rests on a religious foundation. This religious foundation is not the general religious principle in man, but the particular form of religion established by Mohammed.
To what _extent_, now, does Islam enter into the political structure? We find on investigation that it is part and parcel of the bone and sinew of the organism in Turkey called the State,—called so by courtesy on account of its faint analogy to what is understood in other countries by that name. The Turkish army is exclusively a Mohammedan army, the national festivals are Mohammedan festivals, the official calendar is a Mohammedan calendar, both as to year and month, the laws are based on the Koran and Mohammedan tradition, the expounders of the law are Mohammedan judges, and even testimony is a religious act of which only true believers are, in the nature of the case, capable. It is not denied that the testimony of Christians is allowed to be _given_ in Turkish courts, but that does not signify that it is _valid_ evidence in the eyes of the Court, especially when a Mohammedan is involved. Even the different formulæ used show this. In the case of a Mohammedan it is, “His Lordship, So and So, testified to the face of God”; in the case of a Christian it is, “Mr. Blank stated.”
In Article 63 of the Treaty of Berlin we read Turkey’s solemn (it is hard to suppress a smile) promise to the European Powers in regard to the rights of Christians before the law: “_All shall be allowed to give evidence before the courts without distinctions of creed._” The practical application of the above clause is shown in the official reports of British Consuls.[49]
Mr. Wilson, Consul-General in Anatolia, writes:
“In the greater portion of Anatolia, though Christian evidence may be received, no weight is attached to it. When Moslem and Christian evidence are opposed to each other, the latter is disregarded. For instance, three Christians are travelling along a road, and one of them is robbed by a man well known to all of them; in the action which ensues, the robber has only to prove an _alibi_ by two Moslem false witnesses to gain his case.”
Mr. Chermside, Vice-Consul at Sivas, writes:
“As regards the acceptance of Christian testimony, theoretically is it accepted in all _Nizam_ courts. Hearing testimony, however, and attaching the relative importance to it that, from its tenor and consistency, it is entitled to, are very different matters; and there is no doubt that, especially in civil cases, tradition, sympathy, and education prejudice the _Hakim_[50] against it—sentimental considerations, however, are not proof against the love of gain.”
According to the latter part of this quotation, the spirit which animates the courts of Asia Minor may be defined as fanaticism tempered by corruption. The following is the opinion of Mr. Everett, Vice-Consul at Erzerum: “The first consideration of the administrators of justice is the amount of money that can be extorted from an individual, and the second is his creed.” The only doubt as to the morality of the Turkish magistrates appears to be whether they are more corrupt than fanatical, or more fanatical than corrupt.
The injustice done to Christians even in commercial transactions is shown by Mr. Bilotti, Consul at Trebizond:
“Christian evidence is accepted in the town of Trebizond, but I am assured in the districts, that though the same principle is admitted, no Mussulman has ever been condemned on the testimony of Christians; so much so, that the latter are in the habit of having their bonds witnessed only by Mussulmans.”
Much is said in regard to the truthfulness of the Turks. Consul-General Wilson writes: “From the peculiar value of Moslem evidence, most of the false witnesses are Turks.”
As a matter of fact, we thus see that the millions of Christians in Turkey neither are nor can be considered and treated as citizens of the state, simply because they do not belong to the religion of the foreign invaders who rule them. No degree of loyalty can secure for non-Moslems admission to the army. Christians are rapidly being excluded from even the humblest positions in the civil lists also, except from such as Mohammedans are incompetent to fill. The status of the Christian before the law is that of an alien in regard to his own rights, and of a slave as far as the interests of Mohammedans are concerned.
And yet we are told that the Ottoman Turks are tolerant of the members of other faiths. This is true in the same sense that the stomach is spoken of as being “tolerant” of certain easily digestible articles of food. Yes, so long as Christians submit to all forms of oppression, and make no claims in regard to rights which are generally supposed to belong to all men, they are gladly tolerated.
That the discrimination against Christian subjects is due to their religious belief, is, further, clearly shown by the fact that Mohammedans, who abandon the creed of the government, immediately forfeit their special privileges, and even incur punishment as criminals. Apostacy from Islam is treason to the Sultan. Converts to Christianity are arrested and imprisoned. In the rare instances when foreign governments venture to inquire into such cases, the Ottoman authorities blandly insist that they care nothing for the man’s religion, but that he must be arrested for “avoiding conscription,” or on some other fictitious charge. He is, thereupon, hurried off to some distant military post, or finds a living grave in an unknown dungeon.
Such is the politico-religious organization called the Ottoman Government. Can this union of Church and State be dissolved? It can not be. The bond which unites them, according to Mohammedan doctors, is vital, as in the case of the Siamese twins.
Inasmuch as the bond cannot be cut, the only remaining hope must be in improving the health of the two bodies thus indissolubly united. Unfortunately, no change can be hoped for in the case of either part of this dual patient. _Mohammedanism at its birth was a malformation_, to say the least, and will continue so even though restored to a state of perfect health. In the opinion of every orthodox Mohammedan, the Koran is a “perfect revelation of the will of God, sufficient and final,” and “Islam is a separate distinct, and absolutely exclusive religion.”
As attempts are frequently made to convey a contrary impression on this point, I quote the words of President George Washburn, of Robert College, Constantinople, an impartial student of Islam, who for thirty-five years has observed its practical workings in the Ottoman Empire. At the World’s Parliament of Religions, in Chicago, 1893, he read a paper on “The Points of Contact and Contrast between Christianity and Mohammedanism.” His whole treatment is remarkable for its judicial fairness, and his paper is commended to the reader who may desire a brief, comprehensive, and fair estimate of Islam.
To the question whether Mohammedanism has been in any way modified, since the time of the Prophet, by its contact with Christianity, Dr. Washburn thinks that every orthodox Moslem would answer in the negative. He adds: “It is very important to bear in mind that there are nominal Mohammedans who are theists, and others who are pantheists of the Spinoza type. There are also some small sects who are rationalists, but after the fashion of old English Deism rather than of the modern rationalism. The Deistic rationalism is represented in that most interesting work of Justice Ameer Ali, _The Spirit of Islam_. He speaks of Mohammed as Xenophon did of Socrates, and he reveres Christ also, but he denies that there was anything supernatural in the inspiration or lives of either, and claims that Hanife and the other Imams corrupted Islam, as he thinks Paul the apostle did Christianity; but this book does not represent Mohammedanism, any more than Renan’s _Life of Jesus_ represents Christianity. These small rationalistic sects are looked upon by all orthodox Moslems as heretics of the worst description.”
Although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments happen to be mentioned one hundred and thirty-one times in the Koran, they are only quoted twice. The fundamental doctrines of Christianity, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ are specifically repudiated in the Koran.
The reform of Islam as a system is, therefore, not within the range of possibility. How about the reform of the Ottoman Government? On this point I yield the floor to the great historian E. A. Freeman, who will close the debate[51]:
“There are some people who say the Turks are no doubt very bad, but that the Christians are just as bad, and have done things just as cruel. Now, as a matter of fact, this is not true; and, if it were true, it would be another reason for setting the Christians free; for if they are as bad as the Turk, it is the Turk who has caused their badness. While other nations have been improving, the Turk has kept them from improving. Take away the Turk who hinders improvement, and they will improve like the others. The slave never has the virtues of a freeman; it is only by setting him free that he can get them.
“When we point out the evils of the rule of the Turk, some people tell us that Christian rulers in past times have done things quite as bad as the Turks. This is partly true, but not wholly. No Christian government has ever gone on for so long a time ruling as badly as the Turk has ruled. But it is true that Christian governments have in past times done particular acts, which were as bad as the acts of the Turks. But this argument, too, cuts the other way; for Christian governments have left off doing such acts, while the Turks go on doing them still. The worst Christian government is better now than it was one hundred years ago, or five hundred years ago. The rule of the Turk is worse now than it was one hundred years ago, or five hundred years ago. That is to say, the worst Christian government can reform, while the Turk cannot.
“It is sometimes said that we ought not to set free the Christians for fear that they should do some harm to the Mohammedans who would be left in their land. Now, if the question were really put, Shall a minority of oppressors go on oppressing the people of the land, or shall the majority of the people of the land turn round and oppress the minority who have hitherto oppressed them?—this last would surely be the lesser evil of the two. But there is no ground for any such fear. No one wishes to hurt any Mohammedan who will live peaceably and not hurt Christians. No one wishes that any man, merely because he is a Mohammedan, should be in any way worse off than a Christian, or be put under any disability as compared with a Christian. There is no reason why he should be. For the Mohammedan religion, though it does not command that Christians shall be persecuted, does command that Christians shall be treated as subjects of Mohammedans. But the Christian religion in no way commands that Mohammedan shall be treated as the subject of Christian. Christians and Mohammedans cannot live together on equal terms under a Mohammedan government, because the Mohammedan religion forbids that they should; but Mohammedans and Christians may perfectly well live together under a Christian government. They do so under the governments both of England and of Russia. The few Mohammedans who are left in Greece and in Servia are in no way molested; there are mosques both at Chalkis and at Belgrade. But it is foolish to argue, as some people do, that because men of different religions can live together under a Christian government, therefore they can live together under a Mohammedan government; for both reason and the nature of the Mohammedan religion prove that it is not so....
“The Turk came in as an alien and barbarian encamped on the soil of Europe. At the end of five hundred years, he remains an alien and barbarian encamped on soil which he has no more made his own than it was when he first took Kallipolis. His rule during all that time has been the rule of strangers over enslaved nations in their own land. It has been the rule of cruelty, faithlessness, and brutal lust; it has not been government, but organized brigandage. His rule cannot be reformed. While all other nations get better and better, the Turk gets worse and worse. And when the chief powers of Europe join in demanding that he should make even the smallest reform, he impudently refuses to make any. If there was anything to be said for him before the late Conference, there is nothing to be said for him now. For an evil which cannot be reformed, there is one remedy only—to get rid of it. Justice, reason, humanity, demand that the rule of the Turk in Europe should be got rid of; and the time for getting rid of it has now come.”
This was written seventeen years ago with reference to the discontinuance of the Ottoman power in Europe. Does it not now apply with equal force to the discontinuance of the same régime in Armenia?