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.
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 causes. 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-indulgences in wine, and in general devout believers are
absolutely tee-toddlers. The cultivation of 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.
Next: Chapter XXXV | Previous: Chapter XXXIII | Book Contents | Book main page | Back to Top