The probable future of the Mohammedan religion as having an influence over large masses of mankind is a problem which must recur to many at a time such as the present, when the British nation has seriously set itself the task of suppressing one of the most formidable fanatical outbreaks of modern times. The disturbances in Beyrout and other Syrian cities ; the reluctance of the Mussulman sailors to serve in the transports going to Egypt; the obvious and apparent bond which exists between the Ulemas, or most learned Mohammedan authorities, and the insurgents in Egypt, all seem to point to the existence of a widespread impression among Mohammedan nations that the present struggle is not simply one of Englishman against Egyptian, but one of Christian against Mussulman. It will therefore be interesting to enquire whether Mohammedanism is in itself a power for evil ; whether the moral principles which it inculcates are such as to render it impossible that the nations holding to it should survive ; and whether the fact of being a follower of Mahomet necessarily renders a man an intolerant fanatic. To all these questions a learned authority in Indian Jurisprudence, namely, Professor Alaric Rumsey, of King's College, London, in a work recently published gives a most emphatic negative. His researches into the laws and precepts of Mohammedanism have convinced him that in many respects the Mussulman has framed his civil law more in accordance with the precepts of religious equality than have the Christian nations. To the question why it is that, if such be the case, the morality practised and the customs actually in force in most Mohammedan communities are so debased and degrading, he replies that this is due to the influence of the Turk, who is essentially a rude barbarian, having no more true appreciation of the religion which he professes and practically controls than Pizarro or Alva had of the spirit of Christianity.
If we look at those countries where the Mohammedan is under Turkish rule, and compare them with those in which better government has elevated rather than debased the religion and the morality, it will at once become apparent that there is much truth in the contention here put forward. In Turkey itself, in Syria and Egypt, and in all the countries of Barbary slavery and polygamy are prevalent in their grossest forms. Social morality and good faith in public intercourse have sunk to their lowest ebb. Avarice has become a disease, and peculation or violent extortion are almost the only roads to wealth, grandeur, and power. Even the single virtue of temperance, with which the Turk was for a long time credited, is by no means universal among the wealthier classes. In short, there is little that morality inculcates that the Turk performs, and there is still less that it forbids which he abstains from. As a contrast to this ignoble condition take that of the Mohammedans in India. In that country it is no exaggeration to say that the Mohammedans comprise the pick and cream of its vast population. The best soldiers of the native army are Mussulmans, the best workmen and servants in the cities are of the same sect. There is very little of unthinking fanaticism about the Indian Mohammedan. He is a careful thinker and a close reasoner. What is more to the purpose still, he lives a much more moral and temperate life than his co-religionist in other parts of the world.
It is evident, therefore, that the faith of the Koran will not of itself necessarily degrade a people. Indeed, it is observable from the tendency of some of the laws derived from that book that it ought to have a contrary effect. This is so even with the marriage laws of the Mohammedans. According to the strict Mussulman law a woman is protected from many disabilities to which even in many Christian countries she is subjected. She has power after marriage to do as she pleases with her own property. She cannot be forced to marry unless with her own free consent. Sometimes, as in cases where she is asked by her near relations, a simple smile is construed to mean consent ; but to any one else an explicit answer in the affirmative is required. Again, the law prohibits a man of inferior social position from aspiring to the hand of one who is very much higher in the scale, and it enforces the maintenance of the wife by the husband. In some cases it is lawful for the Cadi to decree the dissolution of a marriage if it be proved that the husband has neglected to provide for his wife for the space of one month. The laws of inheritance, again, are certainly more in accordance with the spirit of Christianity than a great many of the unjust provisions which have come down in European laws as relics from the feudal times. Such customs as primogeniture and entail are unheard of. Every man's property is at his death divided equally among his nearest relations. He has the power to bequeath one-third of it in any way he may choose, but the remainder must in all cases be divided according to a most elaborate system of priority among his relatives. Even the slave is to a certain extent protected by the strict letter of the Mohammedan law; and as for strangers and heretics, they are at any rate treated with greater moderation than is generally supposed. Any person who professes his or her belief in the Scriptures of the Old Testament is recognised as orthodox in so far as to be allowed the privilege of marriage with a true Moslem. It was under the consistent observance of these principles that the Arabs succeeded in building up that great Empire of Granada which in an age of darkness and superstition became a centre of culture and philosophy.
The fate which has befallen the creed of the Mohammedans under the government of the gross and sensual Turk supplies a striking instance of the rule laid down by Buckle, in his “History of Civilisation" : that a barbarous and debased nation will soon degrade the morality to be found in any religious system. Certainly it ought to be remembered that many of the elements of social tyranny, of which the Turk has made ample use, such as polygamy and slavery, are to be found sanctioned in the Koran; but these elements have been exaggerated and the higher and better parts of the system minimized by the barbarian instincts of the people. The Turks, it should not be forgotten, are Mongolians, identical in race with those wild hordes of Central Asia who, after carrying on the most sanguinary wars with the Chinese for centuries, at last conquered their adversaries, and became incorporated with that people. The Ottoman Turk, the European representative of this remarkable race, has retained many of the original advantages of the hardy desert rangers, such as bravery and the power to command, which his Asiatic relative, the Mongolian Chinaman, has long since lost. But in respect of the utter lack of intellectual or spiritual development he remains as much a barbarian as his ancestors were a thousand years ago. The strange succession of events which placed in the possession of the chief of this race the Caliphate of the Prophet Mahomet has been the means of abolishing whatever efficacy his faith had as a social regenerator. Perhaps, in the end, it may also prove to have been the means of hastening the advance of a nobler and purer faith. But this again is only to be accomplished by the Western nations replacing—as has been done by England in India — the rule of the Tartar by that of some people of higher and more conscientious aims.
South Australian Register 1882 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/43335897
No comments:
Post a Comment