ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MUSULMAN« MUSULMAN » is a previously used french word for « muslim » |
ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE
MUSULMAN ANDRE SERVIER TRANSLATED BY WITH A PREFACE BY LOUIS BERTRAND LONDON 1924 |
I have not the honour of M. Andre
Servier's personal acquaintance: I only know" La Psychologie du Musulman," of
which he has been kind enough to send me the manuscript. The work impresses me
as excellent, destined to, render the greatest service to the French cause
throughout Northern Africa, and at the same time to enlighten the natives
themselves as to their own past history.
What I admire most of all is
his vigorous assault upon the great mass of French ignorance. One of the
prejudices most likely to lead us to disaster lies in the belief that our
African rule is nothing more than an incident in the history of the country, in
the same way as we look upon the Roman dominion. There is a number of writers
who persistently main-tain that Rome made hut a short stay in Africa, that she
remained there but a century or two. That is a monstrous error. The effective
empire of Rome in Africa began with the destruction of Carthage, 146 B.C., and
it only came to an end with the Vandal invasion about the year 450 of the
Christian era- , say six hundred years of effective rule. But the Vandals were
Christians who carried on the Roman civilization in its integrity, and who spoke
and wrote Latin. In the same way, the Byzantines who succeeded them, even if
they did not speak Latin officially, were able to regard themselves as the
legitimate heirs of Rome. That went on until the end of the seventh
century.
So that Africa had eight hundred and fifty years of effective
Latin domination. And if we consider that under the hegemony of Carthage the
whole region, from the Syrtes to the Pillars of Hercules, was more or less
Hellenized or Latinized, we arrive at the conclusion that Northern Africa had
thirteen hundred years of Latinity, whereas it can only reckon twelve hundred
years of Islam.
The numerous and very important ruins that even up to the present time cover the country bear witness to the deep penetration of Greco-Latin civilization into the soil of Africa. Of all these dead cities the only one the uninstructed Frenchman or even the Algerian knows is Timgad. But the urban network created by the Romans embraced the whole of North Africa up to the edge of the Sahara; and it is in these very regions bordering on the desert that Roman remains are most abundant. If we were willing to go to the trouble and expense of excavating them, were it only to bring to light the claims of Latinity in Africa, we should be astonished by the great number of these towns, and as often as not by their beauty.
M. Andre Servier is well
aware of all this; but he goes a good deal further. With a patience and
minuteness equally wonderful, he proves scientifically that the Arabs have never
invented anything except Islam-that" secretion of the Arab brain," that they
have made absolutely no addition to the ancient heritage of Greco-Latin
civilization.
It is only a superficial knowledge that has been able to
accept without critical examination the belief current among Christians during
the Middle Ages, which attributed to Islam the Greek science and philosophy of
which Christianity had no longer any knowledge. In the centuries that have
followed, the Sectarian spirit has found it to be to its interest to confirm and
propagate this error. In its hatred of Christianity it has had to give Islam the
honour of what was the invention, and, if we may so express it, the personal
property of our intellectual ancestors. Taking Islam from its first beginnings
down to our own day, M. Andre Servier proves, giving chapter and verse, that all
that we believe to be " Arab" or " Musulman," or, to use an even vaguer word, "
Oriental," in the manners, the traditions and the customs of North Africa, in
art as well as in the more material things of life-all that is Latin,
uncon-sciously, or unknown to the outside world-it belongs to the Middle Ages we
have left behind, our own Mediaevalism that we no longer recognize and that we
naively credit as an invention of Islam.
The one and only creation of the Arabs is their religion. And it is this religion that is the chief obstacle between them and ourselves. In the interests of a good understanding with our Musulman subjects, we should scrupulously avoid everything that could have the effect of strengthening their religious fanaticism, and on the contrary we should encourage the knowledge of everything that could hring us closer together-especially of any traditions we may have in common.
It is certainly our duty to respect the religious opinions of the natives; but it is mistaken policy for us to appear more Musulman than they themselves, and to bow down in a mystical spirit before a form of civilization that is very much lower than our own and manifestly backward and retrograde. The times are too serious for us to indulge any longer in the antics of dilettantism or of played-out impressionism.
M. Andre Servier has said all
this with equal truth, authority and opportuneness. The only reserves I would
make reduce themselves to this: I have not the same robust faith as he has in
the unlimited and continuous progress of humanity; and I am afraid that he is
under some illusion in regard to the Turks, who are still the leaders of Islam,
and are regarded by other Moslems as their future liberators. But all that is a
question of proportion.
I am willing to believe in progress in a certain
sense and up to a certain point; and I have no hesitation in agreeing that the
Turks are the most congenial of Orientals, until the day when we, by our want of
foresight and our stupidity, provide them with the means of becoming once more
the enemy with whom we shall have to reckon.
LOUIS
BERTRAND.
PARIS,
23rd September, 1922.
CHAPTER
I
France needs a Musulman policy inspired by realities and not by
received opinions and legends - We can only understand any given portion of the
Musulman people by studying Arab history, because of the solidarity of all
Musulmans and because Islam is nothing but a secretion of the Arab brain - There
is no such thing as Arab civilization - The origins of the legend - How modern
historians and the scholars of the Middle Ages were deceived - The Arab is a
realist and has no imagination - He has copied the ideas of other peoples,
distorting them in the process - Islam, by its immutable dogmas, has paralysed
the brain and killed all initiative
CHAPTER
II
For any comprehensive knowledge of Islam and the Musulman, it is
necessary to study the Desert - The Arabian Desert - The Bedouin - The influence of
the Desert - Nomadism - The dangerous life - Warrior und bandit - Fatalism - Endurance -
Insensibility - The spirit of independence - Semitic anarchy. Egoism - Social
organization - The tribe - Semitic Pride - Sensuality - The ideal - Religion - Lack of
Imagination - Essential characteristics of the Bedouin.
CHAPTER
III
Arabia in the time of Mahomet - No Arab nation - A dust or tribe without
ethnic or religious bonds - A prodigious diversity of cults and beliefs – Two
mutually hostile groups: Yemenites and Moaddites - Sedentaries and
nomads - Rivalry of the two centres: Yathreb and Mecca - Jewish and Christian
propaganda at Yathreb - Life of the Meccans - Their evolution - Federation of the
Fodhoul - The precursors of Islam.
CHAPTER
IV
Mahomet was a degenerate Bedouin of Mecca - Circum - stances made him a
man of opposition - His lonely and unhappy boyhood - Camel - driver and shepherd - His
marriage to Khadija - His good fortune. How he conceived Islam - Islam was a
reaction against the life of Mecca - His failures at Mecca - He betrays his
tribe - His alliance with the men of Yathreb - His flight - First difficulties at
Medina - How he had to resort to force - The principal cause of his success: the
lure of booty - The taking of Mecca - Triumph of the Prophet - His death.
CHAPTER
V
Mahomet's doctrine - Islam is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality. The
practical essentials of Islam - The Koran is the work not of a sectarian but of a
politician - Mahomet seeks to recruit his followers by every possible means - He
deals tactfully with forces he cannot beat down, and with customs that he cannot
abolish - Musulman morality - Fatalism - The essential principles of the reform
brought about by the Prophet - Extension to all Musulmans of family
solidarity - Prohibition of martyrdom - The Musul - man bows to force, but keeps his
own ideas - The Koran is animated by the spirit of tolerance, Islam is not; the
fault rests with the commentators of the second century, who by stereotyping the
doctrine and forbidding all subsequent modification, have rendered all progress
impossible.
CHAPTER
VI
Islam under the sucessors of Mahomet - Even in Arabia the new faith was
only able to impose itself by force - The first Musulman conquerors were actuated
by the desire for plunder not by any anxiety to proselytize - The expansion of
Islam in Persia, Syria and Egypt was favoured by the hostility of the natives
of those countrIes to the PersIan and Byzantine Governments - The struggle for
influence between Mecca and Medina, which had contributed to Mahomet's success,
was continued under his successors, sometimes favourable to Medina, under the
Caliphates of Abu-Bekr Omar and Ali, sometimes to Mecca, under the Caliphate of
Othman - The Mecca party finally triumph with the coming of Maowiah - Conflicts
between the tribes, between individuals, chronic anarchy: characteristics of
Musulman society and the causes of its future ruin.
CHAPTER
VII
Islam under the Ommeyads - The Theocratic Republic becomes a Military
Monarchy - The Caliphate established at Damascus, where it comes under Syrian
influence, that is to say, Greco-Latin - The rivalries which divided Mecca and
Medina break out between these towns and Damascus - The conquest of the Moghreb,
then of Spain, realized through the complicity of the inhabitants, anxious to
get rid of the Greeks and Visigoths - The attempted conquest of Gaul fails owing
to the stubborn resistance of the Franks, and marks the limit of Musulman
expansion - The Ommeyad dynasty, extinguished in orgies of Byzantine decadence,
gives place to the dynasty of the Abbassides.
CHAPTER
VIII
Islam under the Abbassides - The Caliphate is transferred - Irom
Damascus to Bagdad, where it comes under Greco-Persian influence - Through the
administration - the Barmecides, ministers of Persian origin, the Caliphs
surround themselves with foreign savants and men of letters, who give to their
reign an incomparable splendour; but, in their desire to organize Musulman
legislation, the Caliphs, under the inspiration of the Old Musulmans, fix the
Islamic doctrine. Immutably and render all progress impossible - This was the
cause and the beginning of the decadence of Mahometan nations - Spain breaks off
from the Empire, setting an example of insubordination which is to find
imitators later on.
CHAPTER
IX
Islam under the last Abbassides - The Musulman Empire on the road to
ruin - The Arab conquerors, drowned in the midst of subject peoples and incapable
of governing them, lose their war - like qualities by con - tact with
them - Good - for - nothing Caliphs, reduced to the role of rois faineants, are
obliged in self - defence to have recourse to foreign mercenaries, who soon become
their masters - Provinces in obedience to nationalist sentiment break away from
the Empire - The last Abbasside Caliphs retain possession of Bagdad only - Their
dynasty dies out in ignominy.
CHAPTER
X
Causes of the dismemberment of the Musulman Empire - The chief is the
inability of the Arabs to govern - The history of the Caliphs in Spain is
identical with that of the Caliphs at Damascus and at Bagdad: the same causes of
ephemeral grandeur, the same causes of decay - There was no Arab civilization in
Spain, but merely a revival of Latin civilization - This was developed behind a
Musulman facade, and in spite of the Musulmans - The monuments attributed to the
Arabs are the work of Spanish architects.
CHAPTER
XI
Arab decadence in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt - The provinces,
relapsed into barbarism temporarily under Arab dominion, are re-born into
civilization as soon as they are able to free themselves - General causes of the
decay of the Arab Empire: Political nullity - Absence of creative genius - Absence
of discipline - Bad administration - No national unity - The Arab could only
govern with the collaboration of foreigners - Secondary causes: Religion, the
vehicle of Arab thought - Too great a diversity among the conquered
peoples - Despotic power of the prince - Servile position of women - The Islamization
of the subject peoples raised them to the level of the conqueror and allowed
them to submerge him - Mixed marriages - Negro influence - Diminution of the
Imperial revenues - The mercenaries
[CHAPITRE XII of the french edition] |
CHAPTER
XII [= chapter XIII of the french edition]
The Musulman community is theocratic - Religious law, inflexible and
immutable, regulates its institutions as well as individual
conduct - Legislation - Education - Government - The position of women - Commerce
- Property - No originality in Musulman institutions - The Arab has imitated and
distorted - In his manifestations of intellectual activity he appears to be
paralytic, and since he has impregnated Islam with his inertia, the nations who
have adopted this religion are stricken with the same sterility - All Musulmans,
whatever their ethnic origin, think and act like a Bedouin barbarian of the time
of Mahomet.
CHAPTER
XIII [= chapter XIV of the french edition]
The Sterility of the Arab mind is apparent in every manifestation of
intellectual activity - Arab civilization is the result of the intellectual
efforts of non - Arab peoples converted to Islam - Arab science, astronomy,
mathematics, chemistry, medicine, is only a copy of Greek science - In history
and geography the Arabs have left a few original works - In philosophy they are
the pupils of the School of Alexandria - In literature, with the exception of a
few lyric poems of no great value, they are under the inspiration of Greek and
Persian models - The literature of the Moors in Spain is of Latin inspiration - In
the fine arts, sculpture, painting and music, the nullity of the Arabs is
absolute
CHAPTER
XIV [= chapter XV of the french edition]
The psychology of the Musulman - Steadfast faith in his intellectual
superiority - Contempt ana horror of what is not Musulman - The world divided into
two parts : believers and infidels - Everything that proceeds from infidels is
detestable - The Musulman escapes all propaganda - By mental reservation he even
escapes violence - Check to the attempts to Introduce Western civilization into
the Musulman world - Averrhoes [French edition : - Khéréddine. Le Cheikh Gamal ed Dine. Sawas Pacha. - Tentatives infructueuses de l'Angleterre en Égypte, de la France en Algérie et en Tunisie. - L'idéal musulman : le Mahdisme et le Califat.]
CHAPTER
XV [= chapter XVI of the french edition]
Islam in conflict with European nations - The Nationalist movement in
Egypt - Its origin - The National Party - Moustafa Kamel Pasha - Mohammed Farid Bey -
The popular party - Loufti Bey es Sayed - The party of constitutional reform - Sheikh
Aly Yousef - The attitude of England - Egyptian Nationlist's intrigues in North
Africa [French edition : - Le mouvement nationaliste en Tunisie. -L'évolution de la mentalité tunisienne. - Erreurs commises par le Gouvernement du Protectorat.]
[CHAPITRE XVII of the french edition] |
[CHAPITRE XVIII of the french edition] |
[CHAPITRE XIX of the french edition] |
CHAPTER
XVI [= chapter XX of the french edition]
France's foreign Musulman policy - We should help Turkey - The lessons
of the Wahabite movement - In the Musulman world the Arab is an element of
disorder, the Turk is an element of stability - The Arab is doomed to disappear;
he will be replaced by the Turk - A policy of neutrality towards the Arabs: of
friendly support towards Turkey - Conclusion.
* * *
France needs a Musulman policy inspired by realities and not by
received opinions and legends - We can only understand any given portion of the
Musulman people by studying Arab history, because of the solidarity of all
Musulmans and because Islam is nothing but a secretion of the Arab brain - There
is no such thing as Arab civilization - The origins of the legend - How modern
historians and the scholars of the Middle Ages were deceived - The Arab is a
realist and has no imagination - He has copied the ideas of other peoples,
distorting them in the process - Islam, by its immutable dogmas, has paralysed
the brain and killed all initiative
That France is a great Mahomedan Power may be a commonplace,
but it is a truth that ceases to be a platitude, however often repeated, when we
remember that our country holds in tutelage more than twenty million Mahomedans;
and that these millions are firmly united by the solidarity of their religion to
the formidable block of three hundred million adherents of the
Prophet.
This block is divided superficially by racial rivalries, and
even at times by conflicting interests. But such is the influence exerted by
religion upon individuality, so great is its power of domination, that the mass
forms a true nation in the midst of other peoples, a nation whose various
portions, melted in the same crucible, obedient to the same ideal, sharing the
same philosophic conceptions, are animated by the samc bigoted belief in the
excellence of their sacred dogma, and by the same hostile mistrust of the
foreigner-the infidel. Such is the M usulman nation.
Islam is not only a
religious doctrine that includes neither sceptics nor renegades, (1) it is a
country; and if the religious nationalism, with which all Musulman brains are
impregnated, has not as yet succeeded in threatening humanity with serious
danger, it is because the various peoples, made one by virtue of this bond, have
fallen into such a state of decrepitude and decadence that it is impossible for
them to struggle against the material forces placed by science and progress at
the disposal of Western civilization. (2) It is to the very rigidity of its
dogma, the merciless constraint it exercises over their minds, and the
intellectual paralysis with which it strikes them, that this low mentality is to
be attributed.
But even such as it is, Islam is by no means a negligible
element in the destiny of humanity. The mass of three hundred million believers
is growing daily, because in most Musulman countries the birth-rate exceeds the
death-rate, and also because the religious propaganda is constantly gaining new
adherents among tribes still in a state of barbarism.
The number of
converts during the last twenty years in British India is estimated at six
millions; and a similar progress has been observed in China, Turkestan, Siberia,
Malaya and Africa. N everthe-less the active propaganda of the White Fathers is
successfully combating Moslem proselytism in the Dark Continent. It behoves us
then, as Le Chatelier says, to make an intelligent study of Islam, and to found
thereon
1 De Oastries, "L'IsIam."
2 Andre Semer, "Le
Nationalisme MusuIman " ; P. Antomarohi,
3 Le
Nationatisme Egyptien"; Henry Marchand, "L'Egypte et Ie Natme
Egyptien."
A Musulman policy whose
beneficent action may extend not only over our African colonies but over the whole Musulman world. We have got to realize the
necessity of treating over twenty million natives in some better way than
tacitly ignoring them. For they will always be the only active population of our
Central and West African colonies, whilst their present numerical superiority in
Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco cannot fail to increase as time goes on.
(1)
Only by a thorough understanding of the mentality and psychology of
the Musulman, and by discarding prejudice and legend, can we achieve any really
useful and permanent work.
It would be puerile to imagine that we can
safely confine this study to our own Musulman subjects, with the object of
governing them wisely. As we have already remarked, the Musulman is not an
isolated individual; the Tunisian, the Algerian, the Moroccan, the Soudanese are
not individuals whose horizon stops at the artificial boundaries created by
diplomatists and geographers. To whatever political formation they may belong,
they are first and foremost citizens of Islam. They belong morally, religiously,
intellectually to the great Moslem Father-land, of which the capital is Mecca,
and whose ruler - theoretically undisputed-is the Commander of the Faithful.
Their mentality has in the course of centuries been slowly kneaded, moulded and
impreg-nated by the religious doctrine of the Prophet, and as this doctrine is
nothing but a secretion of the Arab brain, it follows that we must study Arab
history if we want to know and understand any portion of the Musulman
world.
1 Alfred Le ChateIier, "La Politique MUsulmane."
Such a
study is difficult, not from any dearth of documents-on the contrary, they
abound, for Islam was born and grew up in the full light of history-but because
the Moslem religion and the Arabs are veiled from our sight by so vast a cloud
of accepted opinions, legends, errors, and prejudices that it seems almost
impossible to sweep it away. And yet the task must be undertaken if we wish to
get out of the depths of ignorance in which we are now sunk in regard to
Musulman psychology.
Jules Lemaitre was once called upon to introduce to
the public the work of a young Egyptian writer on Arab poetry. The author, a
novice, declared with fine assurance that Arab literature was the richest and
the most brilliant of all known literatures, and that Arab civilization was the
highest and the most splendid. Jules Lemaitre, who in his judg-ments resembled
Sainte-Beuve in his preference for moderate opinions, felt some reluctance to
counter-sign such a statement. On the other hand the obligations of courtesy
prevented him from laying too much stress upon the poverty and bareness of Arab
literature. He got out of the difficulty very cleverly by the following somewhat
reserved state-ment:
" It is difficult to understand how a civilization
so noble, so brilliant, whose manifestations have never lost their charm, and
which in times past had so remarkable a power of expansion, seems to have lost
its virtue in these latter days. It is one of the sorrows and mysteries of
history."
As the observation of a subtle mind, accustomed never to accept
blindly current opinions as such, this is perfectly justified. For if we admit
all the qualities that are habitually attributed to Arab cIvilization, if we are
ready to bow in pious awe before the fascinating splendour with which poets and
historians have adorned it, then it is indeed difficult to explain how the
Empire of the Caliphs can have fallen into the state of decrepitude in which we
see it to-day, dragging downward in its fall nations who, under other
governance, had shown unquestionable aptitudes for civilization.
How is
it that the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Berbers, as soon as they became
Islamized, lost the energy, the intelligence and the spirit of initiative they
exhibited under the domination of Greece and Rome? How has it come about that
the Arabs themselves, who, according to the historians, were the professors of
science and philosophy in the West, can have forgotten all their brilliant
accomplish-ments and have sunk into a state of ignorance that to-day relegates
them to the barbarous nations?
If we persist in asking these questions,
it is for the sole reason that we have never really got to the bottom of the
causes of the rapid expansion of Arab conquest, that we have never placed this
conquest in its proper historical frame, in a circle of excep-tionally
favourable circumstances. We have never penetrated the psychology of the
Musulman, and are consequently not in a position to understand how and why the
immense Empire of the Caliphs went to pieces; how and why it was fated to
collapse; how, stricken by paralysis and death by a rigid religious doctrine
that dominated and controlled every act of daily life, every manifestation of
activity, having no conception of material progress as an ideal worthy to be
pursued, how this baneful influence has kept its adherents apart from and
outside of the great currents of civilization.
In all that concerns Islam
and the Musulman nations, we, in Europe, live under the shadow of an ancient
error that from the remotest epochs has falsified the judgment of historians and
has often led statesmen to assume an attitude and come to decisions by no means
in accordance with actual facts. This error lies in crediting the Arabs with a
civilizing influence they have never possessed.
The mediaeval writers,
for want of exact docu-mentation, used to include under the designation of Arabs
any people professing the Moslem religion; they saw the East through a fabulous
mirage of those legends with which ignorance then surrounded all far distant
countries; they thus laboured unconsciously to spread this error.
In this
they were helped by the Crusaders, rough and coarse men for the most part,
soldiers rather than scholars, who had been dazzled by the superficial luxury of
Oriental courts, and who brought back from their sojourn in Palestine, Syria or
Egypt, judg-ments devoid of all critical value. Other circum-stances contributed
equally to create this legend of Arab civilization.
The establishment of
the government of the Caliphs in the North of Africa, in Sicily, and then in
Spain, brought about relations between the West and the countries of the Orient.
In consequence of these relations, certain scientific and philosophical works
written in Arabic or translated from Arabic into Latin, reached Europe, and the
learned clerks of the Middle Ages, whose scientific baggage was of the lightest,
frankly admired these writings, which revealed to them knowledge and methods of
reason-ing that to them were new.
They became enthusiastic over this
literature, and, in perfect good faith, drew from it the conclusion that the
Arabs had reached a high degree of scientific culture.
Now, these
writings were not the original pro-ductions of Arab genius, but translations of
Greek works from the Schools of Alexandria and Damascus, first drawn up in
Syriac, then in Arabic at the request of the Abbasside Caliphs, by Syrian
scribes who had gone over to Islam.
These translations were not even
faithful repro-ductions of the original works, but were rather compilations of
extracts and glosses, taken from the commentators upon Aristotle, Galen, and
Hippo-crates, belonging to the Schools of Alexandria and Damascus; notably of
Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, Porphyrius, Iamblichus, Longinus, Proclus, etc.1 And
these extracts already distorted by two succes-sive translations, from Greek
into Syriac, and from Syriac into Arabic, were still further disfigured and
curtailed by the spirit of
intolerance of the Moslem scribes. The thought of the Greek authors was drowned
in the religious formulae imposed by Islamic dogma; the name of the author
translated was not mentioned, so that European scholars could have no suspicion
that the work before them was a trans-lation, an imitation, or an adaptation;
and so they attributed to the Arabs what really belonged to the
Greeks.2
The majority of the mediaeval scholars did not even know these
works, but only adaptations of them made by Abulcasis, A vicenna, Maimonides and
Averrhoes. The latter drew especially from the "Pandects of Medicine" of Aaron,
a Christian priest of Alexandria, who had himself compiled certain fragments of
Galen and translated them into Syriac. The works of Averrhoes, Avicenna and
Maimonides were translated into Latin, and it was from this latest version that
the mediaeval scholars made acquaintance with Arab science.
1 BartheIemy
Saint-HiIaire, " Hist. de l'EcoIe d' AIexllndrie,"
2 Snouck Hurgronje, "Le
Droit MusuIman,"
It is well to remember that at that epoch the greater
part of the works of antiquity were unknown in Europe. The Arabs thus passed for
inventors and initiators when in reality they were nothing but copyists. It was
not until later, at the time of the Renaissance, when the manuscripts of the
original authors were discovered, that the error was detected. But the legend of
Arab civilization had already been implanted in the minds of men, where it has
remained, and the most serious historians still speak of it in this year of
grace as an indisputable fact.
Montesquieu has remarked: "There are some
things that everybody says, because somebody once said them."
Moreover,
the historians have been deceived by appearances. The rapid expansion of Islam,
which, in less than half a century after the death of Mahomet, brought into
subjection to the Caliphs an immense empire stretching from Spain to India, has
led them to suppose that the Arabs had attained a high degree of civilization.
After the historians, the contemporary men of letters, in their fondness for
exoticism, contributed still more to falsify judgment by showing us a
conventional Arab world, in the same way as they have shown us an imaginary
Japan, China, or Russia. (1)
It is in this way that the legend of Arab
civiliza-tion has been created. Whoever attempted to combat it was at once
assailed with Caliph Haroun-al-Raschid's presents to Charlemagne-that wonderful
clock that struck with astonishment the contem-poraries of the old Emperor with
the flowing beard. Then so many illustrious names are quoted: Averr-
1
Dr. Gustave Le Bon, "La Civilization des Arabes.'
hoes, Avicenna,
Avenzoar, Maimonides, Alkendi, only to mention those best known. We shall show
later on that these names cannot be invoked in favour of Arab civilization, and
that moreover that civiliza-tion never existed. There is a Greek civilization,
and a Latin civiliza-tion; there is no Arab civilization, if by that word is
meant the effort personal and original of a people towards progress. There may,
perhaps, be a Musul-man civilization, but it owes nothing to the Arabs, nor even
to Islam. Nations converted to Mahomet-anism only made progress because they
belonged to other races than the Arab, and because they had not yet received too
deeply the impress of Islam. Their effort was accomplished in spite of the
Arabs, and in spite of Islamic dogma.
The prodigious success of the Arab
conquest proves nothing. Attila, Genseric and Gengis Khan brought many peoples
into subjection, and yet civilization owes them nothing.
A conquering
people only exercises a civilizing influence when it is itself more civilized
than the people conquered. Now, all the nations vanquished by the armies of the
Caliph had attained, long before the Arabs, a high degree of culture, so that
they were able to impart a little of what they knew, but received nothing in
exchange. We shall come back to this later. Let us confine ourselves for the
moment to the case of the Syrians and the Egyptians, whose Schools of Damascus
and Alexandria collected the traditions of Hellenism; to North Africa, Sicily,
and Spain, where Latin culture still surVived; to lPersia, India, and China, all
three inheritors of illustrious civilizations.
The Arabs might have
learnt much by contact with these diff'erent peoples, It Was thus that the
Berbers of North Africa and the Spaniards very quickly assimilated Latin
civilization, and in the same way the Syrians and the Egyptians assimilated
Greek civilization so thoroughly that many of them, having become citizens of
the Roman or of the Byzantine Empire, did honour in the career of art or letters
to the country of their adoption.
In striking contrast to these examples,
the con-quering Arab remained a barbarian; but worse still, he stifled
civilization in the conquered countries.
What have the Syrians, the
Egyptians, the Spaniards, the Berbers, the Byzantines become under the Musulman
yoke? And the people of India and Persia, what became of them after their
submission to the law of the Prophet?
What has produced this illusion,
and misled the historians, is the fact that Greco-Latin civilization did not
immediately die out in the conquered countries. It was so full of life that it
continued for two or three generations to send forth vigorous shoots behind a
frontage of Mahometanism. The fact explains itself. In the conquered countries
the inhabitants had to choose between the M usulman religion and a miserable
fate. "Believe or perish. Believe or become a slave," such were the conqueror's
conditions. Since it is only the rare souls that are capable of suffering for an
idea-and such chosen souls are never very numerous-and since the religions with
which Islam came into collision -a moribund paganism, or Christianity hardly as
yet established-did not exert any considerable influence upon men's minds, the
greater part of the conquered peoples preferred conversion to death or slavery.
" Paris is well worth a Mass: " we know the formula.
The first
generation, made Mahomedans by the simple will of the conqueror, received the
Islamic impress but lightly, keeping its own mentality and traditions intact; it
continued to think and act, in consideration of some few outward concessions to
Islam, as it had always been used to do. Arabic being the official language, it
expressed itself in Arabic; but it continued to think in Greek, in Latin, in
Aramaic, in Italian or in Spanish. Hence those translations of the Greek
authors, made by Syrians, translations that led our mediaeval scholars to
believe that the Arabs had founded philosophy, astronomy and
mathematics.
The second generation, brought up on Musulman dogma, but
subject to the influence of its parents, still showed some originality; but the
succeeding generations, now completely Islamized, soon fell into
barbarism.
We observe this rapid decadence of successive generations
under the Musulman yoke in all countries under Arab rule, in Syria, in Egypt and
in Spain. After a century of Arab domination there is a complete annihilation of
all intellectual culture.
How is it that these people who, under Greek or
Latin influence, have shown such a remarkable aptitude for civilization, have
been stricken with intellectual paralysis under the Musulman yoke to such a
degree that they have been unable to uplift themselves again, notwithstanding
the efforts of Western nations in their behalf? The answer is that their
mentality has been deformed by Islam, which in itself is only a product, a
secretion of the Arab mind.
Contrary to current opinion, the Arab is
devoid of all imagination. He is a realist, who notes what he sees, and records
it in his memory, but is incapable of imagining or conceiving anything beyond
what he can directly perceive.
Purely Arab literature is devoid of all
invention. The imaginative element apparent in cerlain works, such as the"
Arabian Nights," is of foreign origin.1 We shall prove that in the course of
this study. It is, moreover, this absence of the inventive faculties, a Semitic
failing, that accounts for the utter sterility of the Arab in the arts of
painting and sculpture. In literature, as in science and philosophy, the Arab
has been a compiler. His intellectual beggary shows itself in his religious
conceptions. In pagan times, before Mahomet, the Arab gods had no history, no
legend lends poetry to their existence, no symbolism beautifies their cult. They
are mere names, borrowed in all probability from other peoples, but behind these
names there is-nothing.
Islam itself is not an original doctrine; it is a
compilation of Greco-Latin traditions, biblical and Christian; but in
assimilating materials so diverse, the Arab mind has stripped them of all
poetical adornment, of the symbolism and philosophy he did not understand, and
from all this he has evolved a religious doctrine cold and rigid as a
geometrical theorem :-God, The Prophet, Mankind.
This doctrine is
sometimes adorned by the nations who have adopted it and who have not the barren
brain of the Arab, with quite an efflorescence of poetry and legend. But these
foreign ornaments have been attacked with savage violence by the authorized
representatives of Islamic dogma, and since the second century of the Hegira the
Caliphs have decided, so as to avoid any variation of the religious dogma, to
lay down exactly the spirit and the letter in the works of four orthodox
doctors. It is forbidden to make any interpretation of the sacred texts not
sanctioned by these works, which have fixed
1 Dozy, CTI Essai sur
I'Histoire de l'lslamisme."
the dogma beyond all possibility of change,
and by the same stroke have killed the spirit of initiative and of intelligent
criticism among all Musulman peoples, who have thus become, as it were, mumified
to such an extent that they have stayed fixed like rocks in the rushing torrent
that is bearing the rest of humanity onward towards progress.
From this
time forward, the doctrine of Islam, reduced to the simplicity of Arab
conception, has carried on its work of death with perfect efficiency inasmuch as
it governs every act of the believer's life; it takes charge of him in his
cradle, and leads him to the grave, through all the vicissitudes of life, never
allowing him in any sphere of thought or activity the least vestige of liberty
or initiative. It is a pillory that only allows a certain number of movements
previously fixed upon.
To sum up: the Arab has borrowed everything from other nations, literature, art, science, and even his religious ideas. He has passed it all through the sieve of his own narrow mind, and being incapable of rising to high philosophic conceptions, he has dis-torted, mutilated and desiccated everything. This destructive influence explains the decadence of Musulman nations and their powerlessness to break away from barbarism; it equally explains the difficulties that confront the French in Northern Africa.
* * *
For any comprehensive knowledge of Islam and the Musulman, it is
necessary to study the Desert - The Arabian Desert - The Bedouin - The influence of
the Desert - Nomadism - The dangerous life - Warrior und bandit - Fatalism - Endurance -
Insensibility - The spirit of independence - Semitic anarchy. Egoism - Social
organization - The tribe - Semitic Pride - Sensuality - The ideal - Religion - Lack of
Imagination - Essential characteristics of the Bedouin.
To know and understand he Musulman, We
must study Islam. To know and under-stand Islam, we must study the Bedouin of
Arabia; and to know and understand the Bedouin, we must study the Desert. For
the desert environment explains the special mentality of the .Bedouin, his
conception of existence, his qualities and his defects. Consequently it explains
Islam, a secretion of the Arab brain; and finally it explains the Musulman that
Islam has run into its rigid mould.
An immense plateau, rocky and sandy,
1,250 miles long with an average breadth of 500 miles, surrounded by a girdle of
mountains with peaks rising 6,500 and occasionally 10,000 feet; between this
lofty barrier and the sea a fertile strip of country 50 to 60 miles wide. That,
in a few strokes, is the general aspect of Arabia. 1
1 PaIgrave, "A
Year's Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia "; Larroque, "Voyage dans l'
Arabie heureuse"; Strabo, Lib. xvi.
The plateau is indeed what the
Bedouins call it, "the land of terror and of thirst." Situated for the most part
in the tropics, and shut off from the softening influences of the sea by a
mountain wall that arrests the moist winds and causes the rain to fall on the
coastal strip, it presents every variety of desert nature: the lava desert, or
Harra; the stony desert, or Hammada; the desert of sand, or Nefoud, moving
dunes, alkaline plains, and "sebkas," whose salt crust breaks under one's
footsteps.
The whole scene is wild and mournful. Those gentle undulations
that rest the eye in countries with a normal climate, where centuries of
cultivation have formed the soil, are unknown in the desert. There everything is
disjointed, rough, bristling with hostility. In the basaltic and millstone
regions the rocks are hewn into sharp edges. The undulations of the surface are
abrupt and steep, without any gradual transition.
If one could imagine
the chain of the Alps submerged in alluvium up to within 800 to 500 feet of the
summit, one would see nothing but a series of domes, peaks, needles, fallen
rocks and denuded columns rising abruptly from the ground. That is what the
Harra looks like, with its tortured skyline recalling vast cosmic
upheavals.
Then there is the Hammada, a barren plain of stones, a vast
glittering extent of naked rocks, with all the weariness of one colour, where
the wind has swept away every particle of vegetable earth, where extremes of
heat and cold have split up the soil into slabs and splinters-a monstrous chaos
of broken stone, where no living thing can flourish. (1) 1 De Laborde and
Linnant, " Voyage dans l' Arabie Petree."
Further on is the Nefoud, a sea
of sand passing out of sight, from whence emerge high dunes like huge waves
petrified, with parallel gullies formed by the wind that keeps them incessantly
in motion. Of one uniform tawny tint, this barren plain is of an appalling
monotony. It is the domain of death, and either burns or freezes. The porosity
of the sand multiplies the surfaces of absorption and of radi-ation, and the sun
by day heats it up to such a degree that one dare not venture across it; at
nightfall it loses this heat almost instantaneously, and becomes covered with
frost.
Under the effect of the wind which is bottled up in these gullies,
possibly also from expansion, the dunes give out strange sounds, which add to
the wild horror of the solitude. They literally hum, like a metallic top, and
some travellers have compared the noise to that made by a thrashing-machine. 1
Gautier, "Le SaHara Algerien."
Then there are vast stretches of gypsum,
of a whiteness that is unbearable under the burning glare of the sun. And again
there are the" sebkas," once salt lakes, now dried up, on the surface of which
the salt mixed with sand forms a crust full of holes over a
quagmire.
Throughout the country vegetable soil is very scarce. Reduced
to an impalpable powder by the general dryness, it is carried away by the wind,
and is precipitated by the action of rain in less dry countries. Being subject
within the same period of twenty-four hours to torrid heat and extreme cold
(140° to 18° Fahr.), swept by winds either burning or freezing but always dry,
the soil, whatever its nature, is stricken with barrenness.
Vegetation is
rare in the desert; in the absence of rain, it can only obtain nourishment from
water in the subsoil, and so can only thrive in deep basins, where the
water-bearing stratum is near the surface. There are a few stunted plants in the
ravines and the wadies-Iong depressions at the bottom of which one may find a
little moisture by digging-some Artemisias, Brooms and Halophytic plants. Here
and there, in sheltered places, a few puny shrubs of acacia and tamarisk carry
on a forlorn struggle against the ever-encroaching sand.
There are no
rivers, no springs, a few wells, far apart, constantly being covered by the
shifting sand, and having to be cleaned out every time by the thirsty
traveller.
Any considerable collection of human beings is impossible amid
such hostile natural surroundings; they would be decimated by hunger and thirst.
So there are no towns, nor even villages; only starveling families, for ever
preoccupied by the anxieties of their existence, wandering in these wastes
strewn with ambushes.
But if, leaving these dreary solitudes, one crosses
the mountain barrier enclosing them, one descends suddenly into a wonderful
country. The coastal region, watered by sea breezes, fertilized by the wadies,
which in rainy weather roll in torrents from the heights, is, in comparison with
the desert plateau, a land of plenty and delight. Between Medina and Mecca this
strip is widened by the granitic plateau of N edjed, an important mountain mass
that catches the rains and feeds numerous springs. 1 Maurice Tamisier, "Voyage
en Arabie."
Here are wells that never dry up, and oases where beneath the
palms there is a two-storied vegetation of fruit trees, cereals, and perfume
plants. Here too are pastures where horses, camels and sheep can
thrive.
These are the favoured countries of the Hedjaz, of Assir, Nedjed
and the Yemen, of Hadramout and Oman, with populous towns such as Medina with
Yambo as its port, Mecca with its port of Djeddah, Taif, Sana, Terim, Mirbat and
Muscat. And yet the attraction of these fertile regions has not depopulated the
desert.
The Bedouin has remained faithful to his desert, and as, by the
side of the sedentary, less active tribes of a gentler mode of living, he
represents the man of action restless and brutal, it is he who in the end has
imposed his manners and mentality upon the whole of Arabia. It is him,
therefore, that we have to study. No historical research is needed; immobility
being the leading characteristic of the Arab tribes,1 the Bedouin has not
changed. Such as he was when Mahomet drew him from his idol-worship, so we see
him exactly described in the book of Genesis, in the passages relating to
Ishmael or Joseph, or well represented in the bas-relief of the palace of
Nineveh recording scenes from the wars of Assurbanipal, even so is he at the
present day.2
The desert condemns the individual to a special sort of
life which develops certain faculties, certain qualities and certain defects. It
is an existence full of difficulties, with danger everywhere; from the marauder
prowling round the tent or round the flock, meditating a sudden dash: from the
wind-enemy that dries up the water-hole and smothers the meagre vegetation in
sand: from the rival who occupies a coveted pasture: from the soil that cracks
into chasms.
The desert imposes as a first condition of existence
-nomadism. It is not for pleasure that the Bedouin
is always travelling, but
from stern necessity. Cultivation being impossible on a barren soil deprived of
vegetable humus and moisture, man is doomed to the shepherd's trade. But the
pasturage, composed of sickly herbs growing in depressions sheltered from the
wind, are of short duration and small extent. The flocks eat them down in a few
days, when the shepherd must set about finding others; hence the necessity of
being always on the move. When a pasture is found, he must make sure of its
possession against other rivals, and, on occasion, use violence. It is a life of
fever and of fighting, a rough and dangerous life.
1 Dozy, "Rist. des Musulmans
d'Espagne," t. i., p. 3; Delaporte,
" La vie de Mahomet," p. 47; Larroque,
op. cit. p. 109.
." Lenormant, " Hist. des peuples Orientaux,'" VI., p. 422; Strabo,
LIb. v. 1; Noel
DeSvergers, " Rist. de l' Arable."
But seldom can the Bedouin
satisfy his hunger; he has everything to fear from nature and from man. Like a
wild beast, he lives in a state of perpetual watchfulness. He relies chiefly
upon robbery. Too poor to satisfy his desires, devoid of resources in an
ill-favoured country, he is always ready to seize any chance that offers-a camel
strayed from the herd provides him with a' feast of meat: a sudden dash upon a
caravan or the douar (camp) of a sedentary tribe furnishes him with dates,
spices and women.
The practice of arms and the hard training he has
always to live in have developed his warlike faculties; and, as it is these that
enable him to triumph over the dangers of his wandering life and to procure the
only satisfactions possible in the desert, he has come to consider them as his
ideal.
The coward and the cripple are doomed to contempt and death. The
respect of his neighbour is in proportion to the fear with which he inspires
him. To win the praise of poets and the love of women,he must be a brilliant
horseman, skilled in the use of sword and spear.
The women themselves
have caught something of the martial spirit of their husbands and brothers;
marching in the rearguard they tend the wounded and encourage their fighting men
by reciting verses of a wild energy: "Courage," they chant, "defenders of women.
Strike with the edge of your swords. Wear the daughters of the morning star; our
feet tread upon soft cushions; our necks are decked with pearls; our hair is
perfumed with musk. The brave who face the enemy, we press them in our arms; the
base who flee, we cast them off and we deny them our love." 2
The
necessity of providing for his own needs makes the Bedouin an active man; he is
patient because of the sufferings he has to endure; he accepts the inevitable
without vain recriminations. 3 It is not Islam that has created fatalism, but
the desert; Islam has done no more than accept and sanction a state of mind
characteristic of the nomad. His adventurous life gives the Bedouin courage,
boldness, and if not contempt for death, at any rate a certain familiarity with
it. Necessity compels him to be selfish. The available pasturage is too scanty
to be shared, he keeps it for himself and his own people; it is the same with
the watering place. He kills his infant daughters, who are the source of
difficulties; and sometimes even his little boys, when the family is becoming
too numerous. Hard on himself, he is hard upon others too; holding his life so
cheap, he thinks nothing of his neighbour's. "Never has lord of our race died in
his bed," says a poet. "On the' blades of swords flows our blood, and our blood
flows only over sword-blades. "4
1 Dozy, "Hist. des Musulmans d'Espagne,
t. i., pp. 16, 17; Perron, "Les femmes Arabes avant l'Islamisme."
2 Caussin
de Perceval, "Essai sur l'Rist. des Arabes avant l'Islamisme," t. ii., p.
281.
3 Herder, "Idees sur la philosophie de l'Histoire," p. M3.
4 " El
Samaoual.
"We have risen," says another poet, "and our arrows have flown;
the blood which stains our garments scents us more sweetly than the odour of
musk."l
"I was made of iron," Antal' exclaims, " and of a heart more
stubborn still; I have drunk the blood of mine enemies in the hollow of their
skulls and am not surfeited."
In illustration of this insensibility may
be quoted , two incidents in the life of Mahomet: Seven hundred Coraidite Jews
who had been taken prisoner, were having their throats cut by the side of long
graves, under the eyes of the Prophet; as night was falling, he had torches
brought, so as not to put off the mournful business till the morrow.2 A number
of Arab captives, taken at Beder, were being put to death, to one of them who
begged for mercy the Prophet said: "I thank the Lord that he has delighted my
eyes by thy death"; and when the dying man asked who would take care of his
little child, Mahomet replied: " The fire of hell. "3
The solitary life
of the Bedouin has developed his spirit of independence; in the desert the
individual is free; he obeys no government; he escapes all laws. There is but
one rule-the rule of the strongest. 4
Sometimes, when their independence
was threatened by neighbouring nations, Romans, Persians or Abyssinians, the
tribes assembled together to defend their liberty, but as soon as the danger was
past they dispersed.
1 Safy Il Dine II Holli.
2 A Savary, Koran, p.
47.
3 Haines, "Islam a Missionary Religion," p. 36.
4 G. Sale. "
Observations historiques et critiques sur Ie Mahometisme. "
When
Abraha-el-Achram invaded the Hedjaz with forty thousand Abyssinians, and after
having reduced Tebala and Taief set himself to penetrate the fortress of Mecca,
the neighbouring tribes leagued together under the command of Abd-el-Mottaleb;
but when once the enemy had been driven back, the tribes resumed their liberty.
1 This spirit of independence, this exaggerated development of individuality
appears at every turn in the course of Arab history. The Caliphs had to struggle
without ceasing against the turbulence of the tribes, who were hostile to all
regular government and incapable of submitting to discipline. It was these
tribal rivalries that in the end broke up the unity of the Empire by adding an
element of disturbance to the disruptive forces of the conquered
nations.
The spirit of anarchy is characteristic of the Semite;2 wherever
he rules, there follows disorder and revolution. Jewish history, and that of
Carthage, provide us with numerous examples; and, nearer our own time, the
crisis of authority that has overturned Russia, has recruited its most powerful
leaders and theorists from the Jewish element.
Any concentration of
population is impossible in the desert owing to the lack of resources; at the
same time, an isolated individual would be too feeble to contend with the
dangers of a wandering life. Hence the Bedouins have been obliged to group
themselves in families, and this is the basis of their social organization. The
family enlarged has grown into the tribe, but the members of the same tribe do
not all live together; they form small family groups united by the solidarity of
birth and community of interests.
1 Sedillot, " Histoire des Arabes," t.
i., p. 43.
2 Renan, "Etudes d'histoire religieuse."
All the
individuals of a tribe recognize the same common ancestor; they call this
acabia, congenital solidarity, a rudimentary form of patriotism. In this way the
Koreich, to whom Mahomet belonged, trace their descent back to Fihr-Koreich, of
tradition-ally free origin, for he was regarded as the descendant of Ishmael by
Adnan, Modher, etc.1 The members of the same tribe are, literally, brothers;
moreover this is the name by which men of the same age address each other. When
an old man speaks to a young one, he calls him" Son of my brother."
The
Bedouin is ready to make any sacrifice for his tribe; for its glory or its
prosperity this egoist will risk his life and property. "Love your tribe," says
a poet, "for you are bound to it by ties stronger than any existing between
husband and wife. "2
Throughout the whole course of Musulman history,
wherever the Arabs are found, in Syria, in Spain, or in Africa, one notes the
devotion of the individual to his tribe, at the same time as the rivalry between
the different tribes. The notable upon whom the Caliph has been pleased to
confer a high appointment loses no time in devoting himself to the interests of
his own tribe, and at once arouses the anger of the others, who intrigue against
him until they procure his disgrace, when the game begins over again with
somebody else.
The Bedouin lives for himself and his tribe, beyond it he
has no friends; his neighbour is the man of his tribe, his relation.
Faithfulness to his pledged word, honesty and frankness only concern members of
the tribe, the contribules. 3
1 Seignette, "Traduction de Sidi Khelil,"
p. 700.
2 Abu' Labbas M Qhamed surnamed Mobarred, quoted by Ebn
Khallikan
in "La vie des ommes illustres."
3 Dozy, op. cit. p. 40.
Each tribe
selects as its chief the most intelligent habits of sobriety and plunged into
the worst debauchery. Mahomet declared that he loved three things better than
all else: perfumes, women and flowers. This might be the Bedouin's device; it is
at any rate his ideal, and the Prophet did not forget it. His paradise is a
place of carnal pleasures and material enjoyments, such as a nomad of the desert
pictures to himself.
Ceaselessly absorbed by the cares of his adventurous
life, the Bedouin concerns himself only with immediate realities. He fights to
live and cares but little for philosophy. He is a realist, and not a theorist;
he acts and has no time to think.
His faculties of observation have been
developed at the expense of his imagination, and without imagin-ation no
progress is possible. It is this that explains the stagnation of the Bedouin
over whom centuries pass without in any way changing his mode of
life.1
The Arab is in fact totally devoid of imagination; a contrary
opinion is generally held and must be revised. The impetuosity of his nature,
the warmth of his passions, the ardour of his desires have caused him to be
credited with a disordered imagination. His language, poor in abstract words,
and only able to express an idea exactly by the help of similes and comparisons,
has maintained the illusion. N ever-
theless, the Arab is the least
imaginative of beings; his brain is dry; he is no philosopher; and he has never
put forth an original thought, either in religion or in literature.
1
Dozy, "Essai sur l'Histoire de l'Islam."
Before Islam, the Bedouin, just
emerged from Totemism, worshipped divinities personifying the heavenly bodies or
natural phenomena: the stars, thunder, the sun, etc. But he has never had a
mythology. Among the Greeks, the Hindus, the Scandinavians, the gods have a
past, a history; man has moulded them to his own likeness, he has given them his
passions, his virtues, and even his vices. The gods of the Bedouin have no
distinctive character; they are mournful divinities, one fears them, but one
knows them not. The Arab Pantheon is inhabited by lifeless dolls, of whom,
moreover, the greater part were brought in from outside, notably from
Syria.1
Further, the Bedouin had not much respect for his idols; he was
quite ready to cheat them by sacrificing a gazelle when he had promised them a
sheep, and to abuse them when they did not respond to his wishes. When Amrolcais
set out to avenge the murder of his father, on the
Beni-Asad, he stopped at the
temple of the idol Dhou-el-Kholosa to consult fate by means of the three arrows,
called " command," " prohibition" and" wait." Having drawn" prohibition," which
forbade his projected vengeance, he tried again; but" prohibition" came out
three times running; he then broke the arrows and throwing the pieces at the
idol's head, cried: " Wretch! if it had been your father that had been killed,
you would not have forbidden me to avenge him. "2
There is the same
absence of imagination in the conception of Islam; its very simplicity is a
reflection of the Arab brain; whilst its dogmas are borrowed from other
religions. The principle of the unity of God is of Sabean origin; as is also the
Musulman prayer and the fast of Ramadhan.3
1 " Lenormant," p. 469;
Fresnel, II Lettres sur l'hist. des Arabes
avant l'Islamisme."
2 Dozy,
"Hist. des Musulmans d'Espagne," t, i., pp. 21-22.
3 Renan, "Etudes
d'histoire religieuse."
If the mosque is without adornment, that is not
from any pre-meditated design, but simply because the Arab is incapable of
adorning it; it is bare like the desert, bare like the Bedouin brain.
The
Arab conception of the world was borrowed from the Sabeans and the Hebrews. The
religious sects that came into being under the later Caliphs, and whose subtle
doctrines exhibit an overflowing imagination, are of Indian and Egyptian
inspira-tion. They represent exactly a reaction on the part of the subject
peoples against the barrenness and poverty of the Musulman dogma and the Arab
spirit.
In literature there is the same intellectual destitu-tion. The
Arab poets describe what they see and what they feel; but they invent nothing;
if some-times they venture on a flight of imagination, their fellow-countrymen
treat them as liars. Any aspira-tion towards the infinite, towards the ideal, is
unknown to them; and what they have always considered as of most consequence,
even from the remotest times, is not invention but precision and elegance of
expression, the technique of their art. Invention is so rare a quality in Arab
literature that when one does meet with a poem or a story in which fancy forms
any considerable element, it is safe to say at once that the work is not
original, but a translation. Thus in the" Arabian Nights" all the fairy-tales
are of Persian or Indian origin; in this greatcollection the only stories that
are really Arab are those depicting manners and customs, and anecdotes taken
from real life.
The oldest monument of pre-Islamic poetry, the Moallakat,
are poor rhapsodies copied from one model: when you have read one of them you
know the rest. The poet begins by celebrating his forsaken dwelling, the spring
where man and beast come to quench their thirst, then the charms of his
mistress, and finally his horse and his arms.1
"When the Arabs, by virtue
of the sword, had established themselves in immense provinces and turned their
attention to scientific matters, they displayed the same absence of creative
power. They translated and commented upon the works of the ancients; they
enriched certain special subjects by patient, exact and minute observation; but
they invented nothing; we owe to them no great and fruitful idea."2
From
what has gone before, we may sum up the characteristics of the Bedouin in a few
essential traits: he is a nomad and a fighter, incessantly preoccupied by the
anxiety of finding some means of subsistence and of defending his life against
man and nature; he leads a rough life full of danger. His faculties of struggle
and resistance are highly developed, namely physical strength, endurance and
powers of observation. Necessity has made him a robber, a man of prey; he stalks
his game when he espies a caravan or the douar (camp) of some sedentary tribe.
Like a wild beast, he sees a chance when it arises.
An egoist, his social
horizon stops at the tribe, beyond which he knows neither friend nor neigh-bour.
A realist, he has no other ideal than the satisfaction of his material wants-to
eat, to drink, and to sleep. Having no time for thought or contemplation, his
brain has become atrophied; he acts on the spur of the moment, we might almost
say by his reflexes; he is totally devoid of imagina-tion and of the creative
faculty.
1 See translation of the MoaUakat by Caussin de Perceval.
2
Dozy, loc. oit. pp. 13-14; Sedillot, "Rist. des Arabes," II., pp. 12, 19, and
82.
Finally, a simple creature, not far from primitive animality-a barbarian. Such is the man who has conceived Islam and who by the strength of his arm and the sharpness of his sword, has carved out of the world this Musulman Empire.
* * *
Arabia in the time of Mahomet - No Arab nation - A dust or tribe without
ethnic or religious bonds - A prodigious diversity of cults and beliefs – Two
mutually hostile groups: Yemenites and Moaddites - Sedentaries and
nomads - Rivalry of the two centres: Yathreb and Mecca - Jewish and Christian
propaganda at Yathreb - Life of the Meccans - Their evolution - Federation of the
Fodhoul - The precursors of Islam.
Knowing
the desert and the Bedouin, it is not impossible perhaps to form some idea of
what Arabia must have been in the time of Mahomet. There was no such thing as an
Arab nation, if by that name we mean an aggregation of persons subject to a
regular government, knowing themselves to be of common origin and pursuing the
same ideal. Caussin de Perceval, who has collected into three volumes the
chronicles relating to pre-Islamic times, has been unable to draw from these
documents any ensemble of facts linked together logically that would convey the
impression of a nation.1 There is nothing but a dust, as it were, of tribes
without connecting ties, without solidarity, in continuous conflict for trivial
objects: cattle-lifting, abduction of women, disputed watering-places and
pastures. 2 There is no com-munity of origin, none of those traditions handed on
from generation to generation that produce solidarity.
1 Caussin de
Perceval, "Essai sur l'Hist. des Arabes avant l'Islamisme.' ,
2 Prideaux, "
Vic de Mahomet" ; Ockley, " Rist. des Sarrazins."
A barbarous country,
cast like a barrier into the midst of the ancient civilizations of Asia and the
Mediterranean, protected by its deserts from invasion and with barely accessible
coasts, Arabia has served as a place of refuge for all fugitive peoples,
oppressed or dispersed from Persia, India, Syria and Africa;1 too poor or too
savage she has escaped the great conquerors. Part of Syria was indeed under the
rule of the Greek Emperors of Constantinople; the Arab coast of the Persian Gulf
was under the domination of the kings of Persia; and a portion of the Red Sea
littoral was for a time under the Chris-tian kings of Abyssinia; but the
influence of these conquerors was always confined to these restricted regions.2
The ambition of the invaders was broken at the coast, and discouraged by the
poverty of the country. ""What is there to be found in your country? " asked a
certain king of Persia of an Arab prince who had applied for the loan of some
troops and offered in return the possession of a province. "Sheep and camels! I
am not going to risk my armies in your deserts for such a trifle. "3 The only
people who came to stay were fugitives and wanderers, all the wreckage of the
old civilizations.
In the attempt to extract some general idea from the
rubbish-heap of the Arab chronicles we may succeed in arranging these scattered
families in two principal groups: the Yemenites, and the Moaddites.4 The former,
the Aribas of the Musulman writers, that is to say the Arabs properly so called,
came from Irak and India two thousand years before the Christian era; they
reigned in Babylon in 2218 B.C., and in Egypt at the same period under the name
of the Shepherd Kings.
1 Herder, "Idees sur la philosophie de
l'Histoire," p. 420.
2 Lenormant, op. cit. t. V., p. 337.
3 Dozy, op. cit.
p. 47.
4 Sedillot, "Hist. Generale des Arabes," t. i., p. 24.
They
established themselves in the Yemen, but were driven out later and dis-persed
over the whole of Arabia. 1 The latter, the Moustaribas of the Musulman
chroniclers, that is to say" those who had become Arabs," came from Syria and
Chaldea. A section of these immigrants, to which the ancestors of Mahomet
belonged, claimed to be descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham.2
A
lively antipathy separated these two ethnic groups. The Yemenites had as their
centre Yathreb, which subsequently became Medina: the Moaddites had Mecca. The
Yemenites, estab-lished in fertile regions, became a settled people devoted to
agriculture; the Moaddites were nomads, shepherds and camel-drivers.
This
is merely an outline sketch; in reality, all these tribes, of whatever origin,
lived in a state of the most complete anarchy-the anarchy of the Semite. 3
Without any bond to unite them, with no past, and with none of those great
traditions that float like a flag over succeeding generations, constituting a
common patrimony of pride and glory, these robbers and camel-drivers, shepherds
and husbandmen, living from hand to mouth, have no history; their monotonous
existence-a struggle for daily bread-leaves no more trace than the camel tracks
on the sand of the desert dunes.
There is not even any religious
connection;4 each tribe had its protecting idol, a vague souvenir of the worship
of their forefathers. Here and there a few Jewish tribes from Syria, some
Christian tribes from the Shepherd Kings.
1 Sylvestre de Sacy, "Memoire
sur l'Histoire deB Arabes avant Mahomet. "
2 Kazimirsky, "Introduction a la
traduction du Koran," p. 3.
3 See Diodorus of Sicily, Liv. ii.; Herodotus,
Lib. aiL; Strabo, Lib. xvi.; Dion Cassius, Lib. liii.
4 Burckhardt, op. cit.
p. 160.
There was no government, no social organization beyond the family
and the tribe. Neither art nor literature is to be found among men absorbed by
the anxieties of a dangerous life; there are indeed a few rhapsodical poems
bearing a distant resemblance to the songs of our troubadours. There was no
other ideal than the satisfaction of immediate wants, no aim in life beyond the
pursuit of the daily subsistence-a prey, a lucky dash, a copious meal, such was
their ideal; it might perhaps suffice for an individual shrunk into his own
egoism, it could never be the ideal of a nation.1
These warriors and
robbers were willing epicures, and their poets would seem to draw their
inspiration from the same source as Horace: "Let us enjoy the present, for death
will soon be upon us."2 How-ever, in the midst of this general anarchy of
tribes, wandering or sedentary, one fact has stood out clearly from the remotest
ages-the antagonism of the Yemenites and the Moaddites; it is the old quarrel
between the settled people and the nomads, between the husbandman and the
shepherd. This antagonism was carried on into the conflict between Yathreb and
Mecca.
Yathreb, more favoured than Mecca as regards climate, built
against the moiSt mountain mass of Nejed, was surrounded by fertile lands. Its
inhabitants devoted themselves to agriculture and petty trading, and as these
are stationary occupa-tions, they became sedentary.
1 Burckhardt, op. cit.
p. 41. 2 Moallaka of Amr-Ibn-Kolthoum.
2 Mcallaka of
Amir-Ibn-Kolthoum.
Their manners grew gentler, so much so that after
centuries of quiet life, they constituted at the time of Mahomet a peaceable
population of cultivators, artisans and small shop-keepers.1 The Jews and
Christians, who had come in considerable numbers from Syria, propagated their
religious doctrines; and the Christian ideas of human brotherhood and
forgiveness of injuries had in a vague way got into men's minds. The Jews,
cradled in the old Messianic tradition, spoke freely of the coming appearance of
a messenger from God. The worship of idols, undermined by both Jews and
Christians, was to a certain extent abandoned. In short, in a period of general
anarchy. Yathreb was a town in which order was maintained, and was the most
peaceable city in Arabia.2
Mecca, 250 miles to the south-west, lying in a
sandy hollow, surrounded by bare and barren hills, was the abode of unruly men
engaged in stock-breeding and the important caravan traffic. In contact with
sea-faring nations through its port of Djeddah, it had become the principal
entrepot of whatever trade there was at that time between the Indies and the
countries of the West-Syria, Egypt and even Italy. 3 To Mecca came the caravans
from India and Persia, laden with a precious freight of ivory, gold-dust, silks
and spices.
The men of Yathreb, wishing to share these tempting profits,
had tried hard to divert a portion of the traffic to their city; in this they
had not succeeded, for. three reasons: firstly, because the caravans preferred
Mecca as a sort of half-way house.
1 Larroque, "Voyage dans la
Palestine," p. 110.
2 G. SaIe, "Observations hiilt. et critiques sur Ie
Mahometisme," p.473.
3 Carlyle, "Heroes," p. BO.
Lying at an equal
distance of thirty days' march from the Yemen and from Syria, it allowed them
whether on the outward or on the return journey, to winter in Yemen and to spend
the summer in Syria. 1 Secondly, because the Meccans, being enterprising people,
did not wait for the great caravans, but organized small private caravans of
their own, bartering the products of Syria, Egypt and Abyssinia against those of
the Euphrates valley, of Persia and of India. The camels of the Koreich were
loaded with costly burdens in the markets of Sana and Merab, and in the ports of
Oman and Aden.2 The people of Mecca became the carriers of the desert, the
brokers between the peoples of Asia and the Mediterranean. The men of Yathreb,
husbandmen and small shopkeepers, were incapable of any such enterprise.
Finally, because Mecca had always been from the remotest ages, a place of
pilgrimage, to which men repaired to bow down in the temple of the Kaaba before
a certain black stone said to have been brought down from heaven in the time of
Abraham by the servants of God Almighty.3 Diodorus of Sicily records that, in
the lifetime of Caesar, the Kaaba was the most frequented temple in Arabia. The
Koreich, the tribe to which Mahomet belonged, were the guardians of this temple,
an office that brought them in appreciable profits.
Thus both religion
and commerce made Mecca an important social centre, bringing her great
pros-perity, and thereby exciting the envy of the men of Yathreb. They detested
the Meccans, who returned the sentiment with interest. Moreover, they dis-liked
them for their licentious mode of living. Rich, broad-minded, troubled by few
scruples, idolaters, recognizing no law beyond the satis-faction of their own
desires, the Meccans were hedonists, holding in contempt the refinements of
morality.
1 Qot'B Eddin Mohammed El
Mekki, " Hist. de la Mekke."
2 Massoudi.
3 Sedillot, op. cit. t. i., p.
12; Dr. Lebon, "La Civilization des Arabes," p. 117.
A poem of the period
gives an exact idea of their moral state: "In the morning, when you come," says
the poet to his friend, "I will offer you a brimming cup of wine, and if you
have already enjoyed this liquor in deep draughts, never mind; you shall begin
again with me. The companions of my pleasures are young men of noble blood,
whose faces shine like the stars. Every evening, a singer, dressed in a striped
robe and a saffron-coloured tunic, comes to brighten our company. Her dress is
open at the throat; she allows amorous hands to stray freely o'er her charms. .
. . I have devoted myself to wine and pleasure; I have sold all I possessed, I
have dissipated what wealth I acquired myself as well as that which I inherited.
You, Censor, who blame my passion for pleasure and fighting, can you make me
immortal? If all your wisdom cannot stave off the fatal moment, leave me in
peace to squander everything on enjoyment before death can reach me. Tomorrow,
severe Censor, when we shall both of us die, we shall see which of us two will
be consumed by a burning thirst. "1
The men of Yathreb were
narrow-minded, of the peasant and shopkeeping spirit, and were moreover
lnfluenced by Jewish and Christian propaganda; they lived parsimoniously on
small profits and quick returns. Compared to the wealthy caravan-owners of
Mecca, who were great business schemers, they were small men, of austere morals,
of regular habits, peaceable temperament and affable. 2 The Mcccans treated them
with sovereign contempt, as misers, cowards and eunuchs. Returning insult for
insult, the men of Yathreb called them bandits and
highwaymen.
I Tarafa.
2 Fis-Sahmoudi,
" Hist. de 1a Medine. Trad. Wustenfeld."
Religion was dragged into the
quarrel. The Jews established in Yathreb had succeeded in converting certain
families of the Aus and the Khazdradj. The Meccans, attached to the old
idolatrous worship, not from religious conviction but by mundane interest, since
the Kaaba attracted many visitors and customers, took advantage of these
conversions to lash their adversaries with the epithet of Jews.
The
rivalry between Yathreb and Mecca was of considerable importance; for, in the
midst of general disorder these two towns represented the only centres of Arab
thought. It was their quarrels that favoured the development of Islam, and at a
later date became the cause of troubles and divisions in the Musulman Empire. If
Mahomet, disowned by the Meccans, hunted and threatened with death, had not
found refuge and support at Medina, it is more than probable that his great
adventure would have miscarried, and that his name would have fallen into
oblivion like those of so many other prophets of the same period.
Owing
to their enterprising spirit, the Meccans soon became very rich. The caravan
trade, doubled by the trade in slaves, returned huge profits. These Bedouins
became all at once merchant princes, and gave themselves corresponding
airs.
Prosperity has its effect upon character; it diminishes the
fighting spirit, and produces a con-servative tendency. One does not risk one's
life without thinking twice about it, except when one has nothing to lose;
bellicose nations are always the poorest, and among fighting men the keenest in
a raid are those who are not yet loaded up with booty.
The well-to-do man
wishes to enjoy his competence, and this he can only do when order and security
pre-vail. Having acquired wealth, the men of Mecca intended to live a pleasant
life; their interests were seriously compromised by the general state of anarchy
that prevailed, under cover of which their caravans were being held up to ransom
by robber bands, and by the conflicts between tribes which also interfered with
their traffic. They were very indignant at these acts of brigandage on the part
of the Bedouins, and preached respect for the property of others. Being men of
action, the Meccans were not content merely to advocate the principles of order,
they took steps to impose them. With this object several important personages of
the tribe of the Koreich founded a sort of league, in A.D. 595, called Hilfel
Fodhoul, or the Fodhoul federation. The Fodhoul intended to com-bat by every
available means the anarchy that was so injurious to trade and consequently to
their interests; they first attempted to suppress, or at least to reduce the
conflicts between tribes by instituting truces, or suspensions of hostilities,
under the most diverse pretexts: such as the Holy Month, a pilgrimage, important
markets, etc.1 They even strove to bring the tribes together in groups, to
federate them, using different methods to secure their object.
They began
with what one might call an appeal to Arab patriotism; that is, to their hatred
of the foreigner. In this connection an event occurred that favoured their
projects. The Abyssinians, led by the Negus Abrahah, had made an attempt to take
Mecca, whose wealth excited their envy. The neigh-bouring tribes, under the
threat of a common danger, had agreed to combine under the leadership of Abd
el-Mottaleb, and had repulsed the enemy.
1 Al Kazouini and Al
Shahrastani.
The Negus having then turned his arms against the Yemen, had
been driven out by the tribes united under the command of a Hemyarite prince. 1
On receiving news of this last success, Abd-el-Mottaleb went in person to Saana
to congratulate the Hemyarite prince in the name of the Koreich. This was a
noteworthy step, as signifying solidarity, when sons of the same Fatherland drew
together in mutual understanding. As soon as the enemy had been driven out, the
tribes at once resumed their liberty; but the Fodhoul, encouraged by the success
of their initiative, set to work to exploit the Bedouin sentiment of xenophobia.
Circumstances favoured their propaganda, since the Abyssinians on the west, the
Greeks on the north, and the Persians on the east were all threatening Arabia.
The Fodhoul were also contemplating a unification of the language, as a means of
bringing the tribes together. People can only agree when they understand each
other, and for this to be possible they must speak the same language. But Arabia
was a perfect Babel of different dialects; the thread running through them all
was certainly Arabic, but debased in each tribe by mispronunciation, or by the
use of local expressions, to such an extent that a Bedouin of Nejed could not
understand a man from the Hedjaz, and the latter could not make himself
understood by his fellow-countryman of the Yemen. 2
The Fodhoul made very
clever use of the poets, a sort of bards or troubadours, who sang the exploits
of warriors and of lovers in every tribe. "These bards were commissioned to
create a more general language.
1 Caussin de Perooval, op. cit.;
Sylvestre de Sacy, "Memoire sur l'hist. des Arabes."
2 Sylvestre de Sacy,
"Rist. dell Arabes avant Mahomet."
Their verses, which were recited
everywhere, were to fix once for all the words intended to represent ideas: when
several families made use of two different words to express the same idea, the
word the bard had chosen was the one to be adopted, and thus the Arab language
was gradually formed. "1
Finally, the Fodhoul tried to create unity of
religion-a difficult task-as each idolatrous tribe had its own protecting
divinity; but there were Jewish tribes at Yathreb and at Khaibar, Christian
tribes in the Hedjaz and the Yemen, whilst the Sabean creed and Manicheeism
counted their adherents on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Each tribe held to
its own beliefs. The Fodhoul could not dream of fighting against idolatry, since
the temple of the Kaaba brought many visitors to Mecca. As astute men, superior
to vulgar superstition, they conceived the ingenious idea of melting all the
different creeds together so as to make one, and thus satisfy everybody. They
drew the outlines of a sort of Arab religion which, whilst respecting the
ancient customs of the Bedouins, would find room for certain Sabean, Jewish, and
Christian beliefs. That is how they came to adopt the Sabean principle of one
God over all; and the Messianic idea of the Jews as to the coming appearance of
a prophet charged to establish the reign of justice. As certain tribes claimed
to be descended from Abraham, they made a great deal of this patriarch, to
please the Jews and Christians.
It is evident that the Meccans, whose
minds had been widened by foreign travel, were very clever men. In working, from
commercial interests, for the rapprochement of the tribes and for a fusion of
beliefs, they were, without suspecting it, clearing the ground for Islam. The
Fodhoul were the precursors of Mahomet, who, moreover, being a member of their
league, without doubt drew from this association many ideas the source of which
could not be accounted for in any other way.
1 Sedillot, op. cit. p. 44.
* * *
Mahomet was a degenerate Bedouin of Mecca - Circum - stances made him a
man of opposition - His lonely and unhappy boyhood - Camel - driver and shepherd - His
marriage to Khadija - His good fortune. How he conceived Islam - Islam was a
reaction against the life of Mecca - His failures at Mecca - He betrays his
tribe - His alliance with the men of Yathreb - His flight - First difficulties at
Medina - How he had to resort to force - The principal cause of his success: the
lure of booty - The taking of Mecca - Triumph of the Prophet - His death.
Knowing the Bedouin Of M.ecca., that is to say the nomad trasformed by city life, by long journeys abroad, and by wealth acquired in the caravan trade, it is possible to understand what Carlyle called "The Man Mahomet." Mahomet was a Bedouin of Mecca, but a degenerate Bedouin; and, in addition, he was through force of circumstances always in opposition to the environment in which he lived: a rebel against the only sentiment the Bedouins held in common- tribal clanship.
1 There is a great wealth of
books dealing with Mahomet: Abulfeda, "Life of Mahomet"; Ibn-Hisnam,
"Sirat-el-Resul"; Tabari, "Chronicle"; Gagnier" Life of Mahomet"; Prideaux,
"Life of Mahomet"; Boulainvilliers, " Life of Mahomet" ; Turpin, " History of
the Life of Mahomet" and" History of Al Koran"; Sprenger, "Life and Education of
Mahomet" and "Mahomet and the Koran"; W eil, " The Prophet Mahomet" and" History
of the Islamic Peoples since Mahomet" ; Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, " Mahomet and
the Koran" ; Garcin de Tassy, " A Statement of the Musulman Faith" and
"Doctrines et devoirs de 1110 religion musulman'" Castries, "L'Islam"; Charles
Scholl, "L'Islam at son fondate'ur"; Maracci, "Introduction a la traduction du
Koran"; Oelsner, "Mahomet."
He misunderstood and tried to injure the
interests of his tribe and of his native city. His propaganda was carried on
against the Koreich and the Meccans, in spite of all they could do, with the
support of their enemies. The reasons for his attitude may be easily
explained.
In comparison with the wealthy magnates of Mecca, Mahomet was
a pauper. His family, the Hachems, formerly well-to-do, had fallen upon evil
days, until they had become the poorest family in the Koreich. They were living
upon the guardian- ship of the temple of the Kaaba, that is to say, upon the
gifts of the pilgrims.1 Mahomet's childhood was passed in poverty and sadness;
to a feeble father and mother, weakened by privation and sedentary life, he owed
a sickly constitution and excessive nervousness. Silent and impressionable,
subject to epileptic attacks, his character became more gloomy still from the
fact of his wretched condition. Loving solitude, " always tormented by a vague
uneasiness, weeping and sobbing like a woman when he was not well, wanting in
courage, his character formed a strange contrast with that of the Arabs-hardy,
energetic, and warlike, who knew nothing of day-dreams and considered it a
shameful weakness that a man should shed tears, even for the loss of the objects
of his most tender affection."2
He was a degenerate Bedouin, stunted by a
sedentary life. His youth was one long struggle against poverty.
1 Weil, "Le
Prophete Mohammed."
2 Dozy, op. cit.
He lost his father two months
after he was born (.570), and six years later his mother, Amina, a gentle,
sickly creature subject to hallucinations.1 From his earliest years he knew the
harsh lot of an orphan without means, in a community where power and wealth
alone received consideration. He suffered in silence from his feebleness, his
poverty and the contempt with which he was treated by the rich caravan-owners
about him. He withdrew into himself; his character hardened, and from that time
he must have felt some animosity towards the people of Mecca. On the death of
his mother (576), he was taken in by his grandfather, Abd-el-Mottaleb, a kind
old man, who had no time to surround him with the family affection he needed, as
he died three years later (579). Young Mahomet then passed into the family of
his uncle, Abu- Taleb, who as a busy man of affairs had no time to waste in
maudlin sentimen-tality. Being a man of action, he made what use he could of the
child; he made him a camel-driver, and it was in this capacity that Mahomet,
between the age of ten and fourteen, made several journeys into Syria and the
neighbouring countries.
It is claimed, though without much probability,
that in the course of these journeys he made the acquaintance of 8 N ertorian
monk, who taught him the elements of Christianity. 2 Mahomet was then very young
to get any good out of such lessons, and it is probable that later on he had
better opportunities of getting to know the Christian principles in Arabia
itself, where the followers of the Galilean were numerous. On his return from
these journeys, Abu-Taleb having collected together the tribes around Mecca to
repulse the Negus Abrahah's Abyssinians,
1..Kasimirsky, Introduction to
the translation of the Koran, p. Vll.
2 Prideaux, "Vie de
Mahomet."
Mahomet had for the first time to face the dangers of war.
Nervous, impressionable and sickly, he could not bear the sight of the
battle-field; he ran away, and as this behaviour exposed him to the ridicule of
his associates, he left his uncle's service and did not go back to Mecca.1 To
gain his daily bread he had to become a shepherd: the poorest of trades and the
humblest social position. He was then twenty-five years of age (595). He felt
his position so humiliating that he accepted a job as assistant to a travelling
cloth merchant named Saib. The chances of business led Saib and his new man to
Hayacha, an important market to the south of Mecca; there Mahomet made the
acquaintance of a rich widow, Khadija, who was engaged in the caravan trade. He
entered her service, first as camel-driver, then as manager, and finally as
partner. 2 He served her with devotion and gratitude, for he was grateful to her
for having rescued him from misery. Khadija was forty, and in a country where
feminine beauty fades so early she might have been considered an old woman;
still, passion was not yet extinct in her heart.
Like all neurotic
subjects, Mahomet submitted to the influence of his surroundings and of
circum-stances; poverty had made him timid and taciturn; prosperity gave him
back his assurance, and an active life his vigour. Khadija fell in love with
him; it may have been the last passion of a woman before the inevitable
renunciations of old age, or the necessity of taking a second husband to look
after her interests. Mahomet, who had known the hard school of poverty, did not
reject the opportunity that chance had thrown in his way; he married Khadija. He
married her more from gratitude than from love; possibly interest may have had
some share in his decision.
1 Sprenger, "Vie et
enseignement de Mahomet"
2 Abulfeda, "Vie de Mahomet," trad. Noel
Devergers.
Henceforth his future was assured. He devoted his energy and
his intelligence to the development of his business. For ten years he led the
rough and spacious life of a caravan leader. At thirty-five he was a rich man.
He was at that time a fine strong fellow, hardened by misfortune, softened by
experience, educated by travel and association with his fellow men, believing in
his star, sure of his own abilityandparts. His cousin Ali, son of Abu-Taleb, has
drawn a living portrait of him: "He was of medium height, with a powerful head,
a thick beard, his hands and feet rough; his bony frame denoted vigour; his
countenance was ruddy. He had black hair, smooth cheeks and a neck like that of
a silver urn."1
From thirty-five to forty Mahomet enjoyed the comforts of
his affluence, but in a simple way, without ostentation. In his young days he
had been offended by the ostentatious way in which the Meccans lived; he was
careful not to fall into the same snare.2 He lived, moreover, apart from his
fellow-citizens and even from the people of his own tribe, whom he did not like,
as the mere sight of them brought back recollections of his unhappy childhood.
They on their part held him in but light esteem; they had known him when he was
poor, and they grudged him his rapid rise to fortune, accomplished without any
assistance from them, by 8 marriage with an elderly widow, a ridiculous bargain
in a country where masculine pride demands young virgins hardly yet veiled; they
reproached him for his breakdown on the field of battle; some of them had seen
him crying like a woman; in short, they looked upon him as an inferior
being.
1 Abulfeda, op. cit. p. 94.
2 De Castries, "L'Islam," p.
49.
Mahomet lived alone with Khadija, giving free rein to his dreamy and
contemplative temperament. Every year, during the sacred month of Rhamadan, he
withdrew to a mountain near Mecca, Mount Hira, whose caves provided a natural
shelter. There in the solemn calm of silence and solitude, he remained whole
days in meditation. It is not impossible to imagine the basis of his thoughts:
he was certainly not dreaming the grandiose dreams that some historians have
alleged. Islam did not spring all at once from his brain, like Minerva from the
brain of Jove; he was not aiming so high nor so far ahead, and if the dim light
that glimmered in one corner of his skull has since become a dazzling
brilliancy, it has been due to circumstances that the future prophet neither
foresaw nor could have foreseen. Devoid of imagination, like most of the
Bedouins, it was not of the future that Mahomet was dreaming in his cave on
Mount Hira, but of the past and of the present. He saw once more his youth of
wretchedness, of privations and humiliations among the wealthy Meccans, at a
time when, alone and poor, he had been obliged to accept the most humble
employments in order to keep body and soul together.
He thought of the
insolent pride of these caravan men, enriched by their boldness and by the
renown amongst the idolatrous tribes of the temple of the Kaaba, that Pantheon
of pagan divinities. He thought of the injustice of this barbarous society,
where the weak were the victims of the strong. He thought of the abomination of
the inter-tribal conflicts, and above all of that unhappy battle where he had
gone through all the apprehension of fright and where he had incurred the
disgrace of flight under the eyes of his fellow-citizens. Possibly he may have
recalled to memory some of the ideas dear to the Fodhoul : the reconciliation of
the tribes by the unity of beliefs and the pursuit of a common object; possibly
also he may have thought of the propaganda of the Jews of Yathreb, in favour of
one God.l One God! that would mean the suppression of the idols of the Kaaba, it
would be a blow dealt to the authority of Mecca. This idea pleased him as it
gratified his spite; and from the spirit of opposition, he was prepared to
cherish any projects whose realization would injure the purse-proud Meccans: the
equality of men, the condemnation of licentious life, the pulling down of the
rich, the return to the pure morals of the earlier days of the world, of which
the Jews and Christians sang the praises from their Bible: the generous
aspirations that have at all epochs constituted the ideal of those whom life has
bruised.
These reflections probably alternated with hallucinations,
crises of his nervous temperament, crises that are frequent in a debilitating
climate, that in the sultry hours of the day afflict the mind with a torpid
gloom, a state of half-sleep conducive to dreams and the seeing of
visions.
Another idea would be haunting his mind; the Jews, propagating
their Messianic traditions, were announcing the coming appearance of a prophet
who would re-establish the reign of justice. These traditions had found some
credit among the Bedouins, especially at Yathreb, and Mahomet, desirous of
playing a rOle, above all desirous of avenging the humiliations he had suffered
in times past, was perhaps led in a period of hallucination to believe himself
to be this predestined man, this messenger from God.2
1 Weil, "Hist. des
Peuples de l'Islam depuis Malomet."
2 Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, "Mahometet le
Korau."
One day, on coming out of one of his trances, he told the story
of it to Khadija: "I was in a deep sleep when an angel appeared to me; he held
in his hand a piece of silken stuff, covered with written characters; he gave it
to me saying: 'Read.' I asked him, 'What shall I read?' He wrapped me in the
silk and repeated: 'Read. ' I repeated my question: 'What shall I read.' He
replied: ' In the name of God who has created all things, who has created man of
clotted blood, read, by the name of thy Lord who is generous; it is He who has
directed the scripture; He has taught man that which he knew not.' I pronounced
these words after the angel and he departed. I awoke and went out to walk upon
the mountain side; there I heard above my head a voice which said: ' Oh,
Mohammed, thou art the man sent by God and I am Gabriel.' I lifted up mine eyes
and I saw the angel: I stood motionless, my gaze fixed upon him until he
disappeared."
Khadija accepted the new faith; it would have been
astonishing if she had not done so; for, accord-ing to the manners of the
period, a wife could not think differently from her husband: besides, Khadija
was fifty-five, and she loved Mahomet.
The second disciple of the new
prophet was Zaid, his slave; but a slave is certainly obliged to obey his
master. The third disciple was Ali, the son of Abu-Taleb, a youth of sixteen, of
an enthusiastic temperament who later on was to show a pronounced taste for
adventure. Ali was the Don Quixote of Islam.
After all, these three
conversions were hardly likely to draw the crowd by their example;
neverthe-less, Mahomet tried to convert his fellow-citizens. His efforts were
received with laughter and low jokes, but he was not discouraged. After three
years of determined efforts he had succeeded in gathering round him thirteen
followers, of whom all except Ali were persons of no consequence or influential
connections. In his desire to play a bold stroke, he gave a banquet to forty
notables of the Koreich tribe, and there, with great eloquence, he expounded his
doctrine: The worship of idols is only a lie; the coarse images of wood and
stone at the Kaaba are nothing but vain simulacra, without consciousness and
without power. There is but one God who has created the world and man. He,
Mahomet, was the Prophet, the Messenger of this one God. That is the true faith;
outside this all is error. Were the men of the Koreich ready to support this
doctrine? If they were, their salvation was assured; if not, they would come to
make acquaintance with the torments of burning Gehenna.
Ali, alone of all
those present, in obedience to his generous temperament, declared himself ready
to defend the new belief. The others went into fits of laughter and made
sarcastic replies to the summons of which they were the object.
When the
affair became known, the Meccans made great fun of these pretensions of the son
of Abd' Allah, of this once ragged lad who owed his fortune to his marriage with
a decrepit widow, and who wept like a woman at the least provocation. A prophet!
this former shepherd! a messenger from God? this coward who had fled from the
battle-field! Nonsense! he was overwhelmed with ribbald jeers.1 They were
specially indignant that he should have dared to belittle the idols and to
proclaim the existence of another divinity; any such belief would bring ruin on
the temple of the Kaaba and com-promise the prosperity of the town; to propagate
it was, therefore, an injury to the community; it was to ignore his sacred
obligations to the tribe; to set himself in opposition to established usage; to
act the part of an enemy.
1 Qot'B Eddin Mohammed EI-Mekki, "Hist. de la
Mecque."
Their laughter turned to indignation; from laughing at this
dreamer they came to look upon him as a traitor. Abu- Taleb, faithful to family
clanship, could not forget that this erring soul was of his own blood, and tried
by wise counsels to divert him from his ridiculous project; he advised him if he
would not give up his ideas, at least to keep them to himself. Mahomet wept, but
refused to renounce what he regarded as the true faith. Realiz-ing that he was
not making any progress with the Koreich, he addressed himself to the strangers
who frequented Mecca. He found complaisant listeners among the men of Yathreb,
of whom some even promised him their support, and that for two reasons; first,
because the Jewish propaganda had accustomed them to the idea of one God and to
the idea of a prophet sent by that God; then and especially, because the new
faith vexed the people of Mecca, and struck a blow at the renown of the temple
of the Kaaba. Mahomet, hated as he was at Mecca, became a valuable asset for
Yathreb.
These negotiations did not escape the notice of the Koreich, but
added fuel to their hatred. Mahomet became in their eyes an enemy, a traitor to
the most sacred obligations of family solidarity, a renegade who was deserting
his tribe to come to terms with their bitterest enemies. The mob rose in riot
against this wretch who attempted to interfere with his fellow men in the free
enjoyment of their life; their hatred increasing, he was denounced as an enemy
of religion, an abominable blasphemer; he was made an outlaw, together with
those who shared his views; and, but for the influence of Abu-Taleb, he would
have been killed. He realized the danger and fled. For months he lived out of
Mecca, in the caves of Mount Hira, carrying on his propaganda among the
caravans. who passed within reach.
During this time, Abu-Taleb, who
believed his nephew to be out of his mind, made use of his authority to try and
appease the anger against him. It was a difficult task; however, in 619, he
obtained the removal of the interdict that had been passed upon Mahomet, who was
thus at liberty to re-enter Mecca. By the advice of his uncle he was more
prudent, but Abu-Taleb died in the same year and Khadija soon afterwards (620).
Left thus alone, Mahomet carried on his propaganda; but convinced that he had
nothing to expect from the Meccans, he had an interview with the men of Yathreb,
who had made overtures to him (621). Lengthy negotiations followed; the Prophet
hesitated: to come to an understanding with Yathreb would be in the eyes of
Mecca the worst of treasons; the desire of success carried him away, and he
finally came to a decision in the course of a meeting that took place on Mount
Acaba (622). 1
The men of Yathreb offered him their support and an asylum
in their city, but they added a condition that disclosed their motives: "If he
were to be recalled by his fellow-citizens, would Mahomet desert his allies? "
"Never! " replied Mahomet, "I will live and die with you. Your blood is my
blood; your ruin shall be mine. I am from this moment your friend and the enemy
of your foes." This Was the form of oath used when a man changed his tribe.
Mahomet had just committed the worst of crimes; by uniting himself to the men of
Yathreb he had broken the tic of blood with the Korcich, a sacred bond that the
Bedouins scrupulously respect.
1 Delaporte, "La Vie de Mahomet," p.
225.
When the Meccans learnt of this agrcement their fury knew no bounds.
This time there was no one to protect Mahomet; Abu- Taleb was dead. They
resolved to rid themselves of the traitor. Each of the tribes of Mecca and its
allies named a judge:
there were forty of them.
Mahomet was not the
man to face this danger; he fled with his followers, Zaid, Ali, Abu-Bekr, his
new father-in-law, Othman, his son-in-law, and Omar. This was the Hegira, of
date September, 622. From that day, Yathreb became the city of the Prophet,
Medinet-el-N ebi, which has been corrupted into Medina. It is with this flight
to Medina that Islam commences. If the men of Medina had refused to receive him
it would have been all up with the new religion; it would have remained the
project of an idle dream. Left to the Meccans who would certainly have put him
to death, the Prophet would not have been able to realize his work. Islam,
therefore, owes its birth to the hostility between Mecca and Medina. Its first
manifestations were acts of hostility against Mecca, and the adhesion of Yathreb
to the new
faith was inspired by policy rather than religion.
Mahomet
was received at Medina with sympathy because he was the enemy of Mecca; but,
when the first moment of enthusiasm had passed, this popula-tion of shopkeepers
and husbandmen called upon him to fulfil his promises. In fact, they had done
what they thought was a good stroke of business; they were bent on ruining the
rival city so that they might come into its prosperity. Mahomet was to carry it
out. First of all he built a Mosque; in opposition to the Meccan temple of the
Kaaba he built a temple at Medina. Then he had to commence hostilities, although
he was by no means a believer in fighting. In plunging into warlike ad ventures
he obeyed two motives: first, to satisfy the Medinans, and, secondly, to get
himself out of a difficult situation.
He was very much discussed. The
Meccans not having been able to get rid of him by murder, tried to blacken his
character; they had emissaries in Medina itself, charged to undermine his rising
influence, to hold him up to ridicule, to show that he was just a man like any
other, subject to the same weaknesses, the same passions, and above all,
incapable of working miracles. 1 Mahomet was equally opposed by the Jews, who,
regarding him as an impostor, refused to accept him as the prophet announced by
their scriptures. His enemies pressed him with insidious questions; they called
upon him to prove the truth of his mission: if God Almighty was with him, why
did He not intervene in his favour?2 His disciples were equally troublesome; at
every moment they asked him for guidance, and he had to have incessantly on his
lips verses from his holy book to indicate the rules of conduct according to the
new religion. His slightest actions were examined; his public life, commented
upon by everyone, must not show any inconsistency. He had also to look after the
direction of his most zealous disciples, Ali, Zaid, Abu-Bekr, Omar and Othman.
To escape from these worries, he decided upon action. War satisfied at the same
time the lust for booty of those who saw in the affair merely an opportunity for
pillage and the generous passion of the true believers, burning to impose their
faith on the infidel. Warlike successes were, moreover, the only miraculous
proof the Prophet could offer of the divine protection.
1 Abulfeda, "La
Vie de Mahomet."
2 Sedillot, "Hist. des Arabes."
Such were the
conditions under which, after many hesitations, he attacked the Meccans. It was
a success: at Beder (624) his followers defeated six hundred Meccans. This
victory confirmed his prestige, but it had the drawback of exciting the ardour
and ambition of the Medinans. A second affair enabled the Koreich to take their
revenge at Mount Ohod.
Mahomet, to please his followers and to satisfy
his own resentment, would willingly have continued the struggle against Mecca;
he had his own vengeance to wreak upon the insolent Koreich who had mocked him
and driven him out, but the reverse at Ohod revealed the danger of any such
enterprise. The Meccans were fighting men; the Medinans on the contrary were
only shopkeepers and agriculturalists. To carryon hostilities against these
powerful enemies was to risk an irreparable check. It was important then in
order not to abandon all action, to seek some less redoubtable antagonists, for
instance, the Jewish tribes. This explains the successive attacks on the
Cainoca, the Lalyan and the Mostelik. There were fine opportunities for looting;
the beaten Jews were driven out and their goods were divided among the Bedouins.
It might be said that the attraction of loot was the most powerful propaganda
for the new religion, and that it brought in more disciples than all the
Prophet's harangues.
It was in the exaltation produced by these easy
triumphs that Mahomet, playing the bold game, sent threatening messages to
Chosroes II., King of Persia, to Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, to the Negus
of Abyssinia and to the Governor of Egypt. In doing this he did not run any
great risk, seeing that these sovereigns were not particularly anxious to
interfere with a country bare of all resources.
The successes already
gained had not only given the Medinans some warlike training, but had had the
further effect of grouping around them all the fighting tribes avid for plunder.
Mahomet could now contemplate attacking Mecca. His expedition,
organized in
secret, was perfectly successful. On the 12th of January, 630, Mecca fell into
the hands of the Musulmans.1 On that day the men of Medina had promised
themselves to make these haughty merchants pay for their unbearable contempt.
"This is the day of slaughter, the day when nothing shall be respected," had
said the chief of the Khazradj; but Mahomet removed him from his command, and
ordered his generals to observe the greatest moderation. The Meccans witnessed
in silence the destruction of the idols in their temple, the true Pantheon of
Arabia, which then contained three hundred and sixty divinities worshipped by as
many tribes; and, with rage in their hearts, they recognized in Mahomet the
messenger from God, whilst inwardly promising themselves to be avenged some day
on these rustics, these Jews of Medina who had had the audacity to beat
them.2
However, as clever men, they knew how to hide their wrath; they
essayed to gain the Prophet's confidence, to make him forget. the past and to
work themselves into all the important posts. It was thus that Abu-Sofian, the
indomitable Koreichite, who had led the engagement at Ohod against Mahomet, now
made his submission, and gave his son Maowiah to the Prophet as secretary. This
example of adroit diplomacy was followed by the majority of the Meccan
notables.'
1 Gagnier, "Vie de Mahomet."
2 Dozy, op. cit. p.
28.
Knowing by experience that an open conflict is not always the surest
way to win, they accommodated themselves to circumstances. But the rivalry
between Medina and Mecca was not extinguished. It will be met with again, for it
dominates the whole of Musulman history. For his part, Mahomet, wishing to
increase the number of his adherents, did not take any unfair advantage of his
victory. Contrary to the wishes of the Medinans, he did nothing to impair the
religious prestige of his native city. The Kaaba, by a process not unknown
else-where, became the temple of the one true God.
The taking of Mecca
established the success of the Prophet. Those scattered tribes who had remained
hostile or indifferent made their sub-mission in the course of the following
years. About A.D. 682, almost the whole of Arabia was Musulman, if not at heart,
at any rate in outward seeming. To commemorate his triumph by a cere-mony that
would strike the imagination, Mahomet made a solemn pilgrimage to Mecca, in 682.
More than forty thousand M usulmans accompanied him. After the customary
devotions-pagan devotions that he took over on account of Islam-he ascended
Mount Arafat and harangued the crowd. Summing up the main outlines of the new
doctrine, he cried: " 0, my God, have I fulfilled my mission? " and every voice
answered: " Yes, thou hast fulfilled it." On his return to Medina, he fell into
a mortal sickness; at the mosque he announced his approaching death, and died
soon after in the arms of his favourite wife, Aisha.
It would convey a
false idea of Mahomet if he were to be represented as a sort of divine
personage, surrounded by an atmosphere of fervour and respect-ful adoration. To
his contemporaries, Mahomet was the leader of a party rather than a religious
personage. He imposed himself by force rather than by persuasion. It is possible
that his preaching may have had some effect on the unsophisticated Bedouins, and
that it may have seemed to them like an expres-sion of the divine will; but it
is quite evident that his immediate entourage did not take his Messianic role
seriously. There were among his company certain Meccan, sceptics who knew
Mahomet's life, his gene-alogy, his humble and difficult beginnings, his
failures, and who saw in him nothing but an upstart favoured by a concatenation
of circumstances. Many of these followers, especially those most recently
converted, seem to have been actuated by the desire to exploit his influence;
but very few of them looked upon him as a prophet. Their scepticism is shown by
the attitude of some of them towards him. His secretary, Abd-Allah, who took
down the divine revelations from his dictation, did not hesitate to alter their
meaning so as to be able to make fun of them amongst his friends. He carried his
facetiousness so far that Mahomet was obliged to dismiss him.
It is
notorious that one of his favourite wives, Aisha, deceived him; causing a
scandal that the Prophet could only silence by a declaration which he claimed to
be inspired by God, but which deceived nobody . We know that in the course of a
discussion a certain Okba spat in his face and nearly strangled him. We know
also that a Jew of Khaibar, whom Mahomet was endeavouring to conciliate, tried
to poison him. These are sufficient indications to lead us to suppose that the
Prophet did not inspire among his contemporaries those sentiments of admiration
and respect of which we find the expression in writings subsequent to his
decease.
Mysticism only came into Islam later, when the Arabs, leaving their country, mixed with other nations. The Bedouin had not imagination enough to weave a legend round Mahomet. It was the Islamized foreigners, Syrians, Persians and Egyptians who created this legend and who, passing the history of the Prophet through the mill of their imagination, embellished it to the point of making of it a sort of mystical romance.
* * *
Mahomet's doctrine - Islam is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality. The
practical essentials of Islam - The Koran is the work not of a sectarian but of a
politician - Mahomet seeks to recruit his followers by every possible means - He
deals tactfully with forces he cannot beat down, and with customs that he cannot
abolish - Musulman morality - Fatalism - The essential principles of the reform
brought about by the Prophet - Extension to all Musulmans of family
solidarity - Prohibition of martyrdom - The Musul - man bows to force, but keeps his
own ideas - The Koran is animated by the spirit of tolerance, Islam is not; the
fault rests with the commentators of the second century, who by stereotyping the
doctrine and forbidding all subsequent modification, have rendered all progress
impossible.
ISLAM is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality, or, more
exactly, it is all that the unimaginative brain of a Bedouin, obstinately
faithful to ancestral practices, has been able to assimilate of the Christian
doctrines. Lacking the gift of imagination, the Bedouin copies, and in copying
he distorts the original. Thus Musulman law is only the Roman Code revised and
corrected by Arabs; in the same way Musulman science is nothing but Greek
science interpreted by the Arab brain; and again, Musulman architecture is
merely a distorted imitation of the Byzantine style.
It may be asked how
it was that Christianity, which had its adherents in Arabia, did not develop
there as it did elsewhere. First, because the Arabs, protected by their deserts,
had never been the objective of propaganda supported by force; also because its
dogmas were too complicated for the Bedouin understanding; and finally, because
it refused unswervingly any compromise with traditions, customs or local
superstitions: such as polygamy, pilgrimages to the temple of the Kaaba, the
sacred month, circumcision, etc. Mahomet simplified Christianity, or rather, for
he did not go about it consciously with any preconceived plan, he distorted it
without meaning to do so, by interpreting it so far as it was possible for an
Arab brain to interpret it. He has borrowed from it all that did not clash with
the ideas and customs of the Bedouins: the unity of God, the mission of the
Prophet, the immortality of the soul.
The Arabs had long been prepared
for the conception of a one and only God, an ancient Sabean belief. It appears,
moreover, that the temple of the Kaaba counted among its numerous idols one more
powerful or more celebrated than the others-Ilah,1 which might be compared to
the Hebrew Eloah. They were also prepared for the notion of a prophet by the
Messianic traditions of the Jews and Christians. As to the idea of the
immortality of the soul, the worship of ancestors leads logically to it. Mahomet
rejected as abominable errors what he himself could not understand, or what
would have been incompre-hensible to the Arab brain, or would have clashed with
the customs of the Bedouins. The result was a strange medley of
beliefs.
The general doctrine of Islam is simple: one supreme God, like
that of the Jews and Christians;2 no Trinity, no Son of God,3 the place of the
Holy Ghost, as intermediary between the Prophet and the Divinity, is taken by
the angel Gabriel.
1 Caussin de Perceval, "Essai sur l'Hist. des Arabes
avant l'Islamisme.' ,
2 Koran, Ch. II, v. 59.
3 Ibid., Ch. IV, v.
169.
The angels are divine messengers, but they are mortal and will come
to life again, like other creatures, at the last day of judgment. The Jews, by
denying the heavenly mission of Christ, have incurred the male-diction of the
Almighty. The Christians have gone astray in inventing dogmas that have not been
revealed; but the faithful of both religions can attain salvation, since they
admit the two cardinal principles -the unity of God and the last judgment. Jesus
Christ is a prophet, but not the son of God; he is the spirit of God, " Rohou
Illahi " ;1 he was miraculously conceived by the Virgin Mary. 2 At the end of
time he will come down to earth again to exterminate the infidels and to
inaugurate the reign of happiness and justice.3
After death, punishments
or rewards will be allotted to those who have followed or transgressed the
divine precepts. The pains of Hell are eternal or not, according to the will of
the Almighty. There is a Purgatory. 4 Paradise is reserved for those true
believers who have done good and led virtuous lives. Religion alone does not
insure salvation, good works are needful,5 but this point is
doubtful.
God rules the world absolutely, and in the humblest details; he
has regulated everything in advance, but is able to modify his
decisions.6
The use of fermented liquors is forbidden, and of certain
foods considered injurious to health-dead animals, or those that have not been
bled, blood, and the flesh of the pig. 7 Mahomet did not concern himself
specially with nature or of person in the Supreme Being, but it also indicates
that God is the sole agent, the sole force, the sole action that exists, and
that all creatures, matter or spirit, instinct or intelligence, are purely
passive; whence the conclusion: all things are as God pleases.
1 Koran,
Ch. II, v. 254.
2 Ibid., Ch. III, v. 3, and Ch. XIX, v. 20.
3 Ibid., Ch.
IV, v. 157.
4 Ibid., Ch. 1..X V, LXVI, LXXVI.
5 Ibid., Ch. II, v. 23, and
Ch. IV, v. 25,
6 Ibid., Ch. II, IV, X.
7 Ibid., Ch. V-VI,
XVI.
This incommensurable Being, before whom all creatures are reduced to
the same level of inertia and passivity, knows no other rule, no other restraint
but his sole and absolute will. 1
We find in the Commentaries of Beydaoui
and in the Miskat el Mesabih, a tradition that leaves no doubt as to the
conception that Mahomet and his contemporaries formed of the divinity. When
Allah resolved to create man, he took into his hands the clay that was to serve
in forming humanity, and in which every man pre-existed; dividing it into two
equal portions, he threw one into Hell, saying: "Those for everlasting fire";
then, with equal indifference, he threw the other into the sky, adding: " Those
for Paradise."
Is there any need to point out the misleading influence of
such a doctrine? Acts regarded by man as good or bad become in reality all the
same; they have no other value than that attributed to them by the arbitrary
will of the Almighty. This is the annihilation of all morality. And as the M
usulmans find themselves in that half of the Creator's clay destined for the
delights of Paradise, it makes little or no difference whether they are good or
bad : it is enough for them if they practise the outward observances that
distinguish a good Musulman from the unbeliever.
The outward worship
comprised five essential practices:
11 Palgrave, "A Year in Central
Arabia."
First, prayer, five times a day, preceded each time by an
ablution. 1 This was a practice borrowed from the Sabeans. Note that, with the
Musulmans, prayer is rather an act of adoration and of devotion than a request
addressed to the Almighty, Who knows our legitimate needs without our pointing
them out to Him.
Second, fasting during the sacred month of Rhamadan;
this again is a Sabean custom. 2
Third, giving alms, which consists in
giving to the poor the tenth part of one's income.3 This alms-giving,or Zekkat,
is levied by the Government, acting on the principle that this institution
having in view the general utility, it behoves the Government, as representing
the community, to regulate the use to which it is put.4
Fourth, the
pilgrimage to Mecca, a custom of the idolatrous tribes. 5
Fifth, the Holy
War, or religious propaganda (Djihad). The Djihad is a duty; the world being
divided into two parts, Musulmans and non-Musul-mans, the Dar el Islam, or land
of Islam, and the Dar el Harb, or land of war. "Complete my work," said the
Prophet, " extend the house of Islam to all parts. The house of war is God's,
God gives it to you. Fight the infidels until there shall be none
left."
It follows from this precept that war is the normal state of
Islam. The orthodox interpreters have, moreover, settled this point with
particular care: The true believer must never cease to fight those who do not
think as he does, except when he is not the stronger party. "There can be no
peace with the infidel, but, when the Musulmans are not in sufficient force,
there is no harm in their giving up the Djihad for a certain time."
1
Koran, Ch. II, IV, XX.
2 Ibid., Ch. II.
3 Ibid., Ch. II.
4 Pellissier
de Reynaud, " Les Annales Algeriennes," t. iii., p. 483.
5 Koran. Ch. II,
XLII.
This last recommendation explains the attitude of Moslems
temporarily subject to a foreign power. Reduced to impotency, they conceal their
impatience whilst they are waiting for the advent of " Moul-es-Saa," the Master
of the hour, the man of genius who will be able, with divine protection, to
bring together all the forces of Islam for the deliverance of the believers from
the unbelievers' yoke.
This mixture of pagan customs, Sabean practices,
and doctrines borrowed from Christianity shows the eclectic character of Islam,
or rather of the Koran; for it is desirable to establish a distinction between
the Koran and Islam. The Koran is animated by a certain spirit of tolerance;
Islam, on the contrary, has become an intolerant religion that admits no idea
from the outer world, not even such as are outside the purely denominational
sphere.
The Koran is not the work of a sectarian blinded by narrow
prejudice; it is the work of a politician anxious to draw to himself by all
possible means the greatest number of adherents. According to the circumstances,
Mahomet flatters, promises or threatens; but the flattery and the promises are
more frequent than the threats.
The reason is obvious: he is striving to
establish his doctrine; he therefore does his best to make it seductive by
accepting now the prejudices of one party, and now the customs of another. He
makes no frontal attacks upon received ideas or inveterate habits; he includes
them bodily in his doctrine, softening them down when they do not please him. In
the same way he does not fight openly powers too firmly established; he
compromises with some of them and gives way to others, ready to stand up to them
when circumstances permit.
It was thus that he handled the Christians,
the Jews, and the Sabeans because they were numerous in Arabia. "The
Christians," he says, " will be judged by their Gospels; those who judged them
otherwise would be prevaricators. . . . Only enter into discussion with Jews and
Christians in sincere and moderate terms. . . of a truth Musulmans, Jews,
Christians, and Sabeans, all those who believe in God and in the last judgment
and who do good will be rewarded at His hands; they will be exempt from fear and
from punishment. "1 Later on he attacks them, but with prudence.
In the
same way, he seeks to make himself the champion of women, of whom he speaks
always with benevolence, and whose position he tried to ameliorate.2 Before his
reform, women and children could not inherit; and, what was even worse, the
nearest relation of the defunct took possession of his women and their property,
in the same way as he took over his slaves together with their savings. Mahomet
gave women the right to inherit and often insisted in their favour. His last
sermon at Mecca contained these memorable words: "Treat your wives well; they
are your helpers and can do nothing by themselves." He well knew that if a woman
is a slave by day, by night she is a queen, and her influence is at all times
worthy of consideration.
He also tried to win over the slaves by making
their enfranchisement easier and by recommending it as a meritorious action. He
laid down that a slave who conceives to her master thereby acquires her
free-dom, and that the son of a slave by a freeman is free.
1 Koran, 011.
II, IV, V, VII.
2 Ibid., Ch. IV.
If we would explain the attitude of
the Prophet by an illustration taken from modern life, we could find no better
comparison than to a parliamentary candidate during his electoral campaign. Like
him, Mahomet does not trouble about the quality of his supporters, but their
number; and to secure their votes he is ready to make any concessions; he shuts
his eyes to divergences of opinion, and moderates his requirements.
So,
in order not to clash with Arab customs, he accepts polygamy, but he tempers it
by limiting the number of wives to four, and by improving the position of the
wife and of the children. In the same way he accepts circumcision, slavery, the
sacred month of fasting, the pilgrimage to Mecca, the worship paid to the stone
at the Kaaba, all of them rites of Arab paganism.
The same desire to
please is found in the picture he paints of the paradise promised to the elect;1
it is such an ideal as a Bedouin would form in his mind: shade, cool springs,
charming women who do not grow old; it is a catalogue of what the nomad finds in
an oasis on returning from his wanderings in the desert. The singing-girls do
not grow old, or at least one does not see them aging, because they abandon
their profession as soon as age renders them less desirable.
As an able
politician, Mahomet handles all with tact and tries to please everybody. He only
imposes one condition: acceptance of Islam and the recog-nition of his divine
mission. 2 The majority of his personal conceptions, those that he seems to have
evolved from his inner consciousness, are inspired by this desire of recruiting
followers, and, above all, of keeping them in the Musulman faith and prevent-ing
them from forsaking it.
1 Koran, Ch. LXIX, LXXV.
2 Caussin de
Perceval, op. cit.
There are two of these conceptions that dominate all
Islam and which have exercised considerable influence over Musulman peoples. The
first is the extension to all true believers of the spirit of solidarity which
animates the members of the same tribe. Among the Bedouins the social horizon
stops at the tribe; his neighbour is a man of the same tribe, a relation, a
cousin in some degree. Outside the tribe he has no neighbour, and therefore no
social obligations. In proclaiming the brotherhood of all his adherents, Mahomet
succeeded in making of Islam a closely united family, and of creating between
the individual members sentiments of clanship of which we can observe the power
at the present day. The tribe, it is true, did not always forget their ancient
rivalries, especially during the first centuries of Islam; and Moslem history
abounds in incidents provoked by family antagonism; but, with time, hatreds and
misunderstandings were toned down, and if at certain periods of the splendour of
the Empire of the Caliphs the tribes, having no outside enemy to combat, gave
free rein to their independent spirit, it is no less true that, as soon as Islam
was menaced, they remembered their religious brotherhood and formed a united
front against the common enemy. (And we see how at the present time every blow :
struck against the freedom of any Musulman people sends a tremor at once through
the whole of Islam.
This solidarity was a great attraction for the
conquered nations, and it was the desire to profit by it that brought over most
of the recruits to Islam. 1
1 De Castries, "
L'Islam," p. 85; Seignette, "Introd. a la trad. de Khalil."
Every convert at once
enjoyed all the privileges of a Musulman: a foreigner and an enemy the day
before, he became by simple conversion an equal and a brother. "Know," said
Mahomet, in his last sermon at Mecca, "know that you are all equal among
yourselves, and that you form a family of brothers." This spirit of solidarity
is kept up by the custom of the pilgrimage to Mecca. The peremptory duty imposed
upon the Believer to visit the Holy City at least once in his life has
contributed in the greatest measure to maintain the unity of belief throughout
Islam, as well as the sentiment of religious brother-; hood. Every year, around
the temple of the Kaaba, representatives of every portion of the Musulman world,
from India to Morocco, meet, mix together, live in intimate association,
performing side by side the same rites, the same practices, and communicating in
the same ideal. All divergence of opinion, all nascent heresy, are immediately
swept away by the great breath of unity that passes over these people prostrate
in adoration of the same idea. No other religion offers anything com parable to
this pilgrimage to the city which is, according to the Arab expression, the' '
Navel of the Islamic faith."
The second original conception of the
Prophet is his prohibition of martyrdom. He frequently insists upon this point:
the Musulman should not suffer for his beliefs. If he is the stronger, he ought
to impose them, but if he finds himself too weak to resist with any prospect of
success, he must submit for the time being to every foreign law that is forced
upon him by violence. According to a fundamental precept of Islamic law, the
dogma of constraint, his powerlessness takes from his conduct all blameable
character.1
1 Sawas Pasha, "Etudes sur la theorie du Droit Musulman";
Snouck Hurgronje, "Le Droit Musulman."
For him to obey a non-Musulman
power, or even one hostile to Islam, is not to abjure his religion, but simply
to avoid useless suffering. He makes a semblance of yielding, but preserves
intact in his heart his faith and his ideas. Whatever his attitude, the Musulman
never ceases to be a Musulman; but as soon as the power that renders the
constraint effective ceases, he must immediately throw off the law imposed upon
him, under penalty of incurring eternal punishment.
By the dogma of
constraint, the Musulman is protected from all violence. Whatever the
circum-stances and the vicissitudes, his conscience remains intact. Under the
threat of force he can bind himself by the most solemn oaths, but they are mere
empty words. This is an example of the theory of the" scrap of paper" that the
Germans have made famous. The merit of martyrdom disappears, but abjuration
becomes impossible. 1 The result is that the brain of the true believer is
unassailable, impenetrable, irremediably closed to outside ideas; and it is this
that explains why for centuries past the Musulmans have not made any concession
to progress, and have abandoned none of their beliefs.
It is this, that
explains also the return to ancestral practices of so many of the French
Algerian subjects, officers or officials, who, after a career loyally
accomplished, to all appearance, under foreign rule, go back, when circumstances
permit, to their old habits.
1 De Castries, "L'Islam," p.
211.
They have been able to live in our midst and to give the illusion
that they have adopted our manners and our conceptions, without being in the
very least affected by our ideas. In spite of outward concessions to the manners
of the time, they preserve intact their robust faith that admits neither
compromise nor argument, and naIvely delights in its" credo quia absurdum."
1
Mahomet certainly never anticipated an intran-sigence carried to this
extreme, as he himself never scrupled to borrow from other religions what-ever
he thought would be useful. How then, has Islam, contrary to the spirit of the
Koran, become intolerant? The answer is that the Koran no longer influences
individuals; it is no longer the Koran that directs and regulates the conduct of
the faithful. The Koran is not, as is generally believed, the civil and
religious code of the Musulmans. It contains potentially the whole of Islamic
legislation; it constitutes a sort of quintessence of the laws, but it cannot
replace them. It is the law of the Musulmans, just as the Pentateuch is the law
of the Jews, and the Gospel that of the Christians. The same causes have
produced the same effects in the three religions. In the early centuries of the
Church, the Christian councils forbade the interpretation of the Gospels and
substituted for them as a code the body of the canon law; in the same way the
Jews substituted the Talmud for the Pentateuch; so the Caliphs, the successors
of Mahomet, in accordance with the doctors of the Faith, forbade all exposition
of the Koran outside of the four orthodox com-mentaries, which from that time
down to the present have formed the Corpus Juris of Musulman nations. This body
of law, sanctioned by the unanimous accordance of peoples and princes, is the
law, of divine authority, according to their belief, like the Koran of which it
is the expansion.
This work was accomplished in the second century of the
Hegira, at a period when Islam, triumphant and commanding irresistible material
force, had no longer any need to use tact in dealing with authority; but
dictated its will and pleasure to all nations, and enforced them by
violence.
1 Louis Rinn, "Marabouts at Khouan."
The leaders of the
Musulman armies confronted the infidel with this formula: "Abjure or die; abjure
or be a slave." Thus, to gain a knowledge of the real doctrine of Islam, of that
which has influenced the Moslem nations, recourse must be had not to the Koran
but to the interpretations of the Koran made by learned doctors of the Faith.
They have fixed the doctrine and have rendered it definitive, unchangeable and
in consequence imperfectible. And as among the Musulmans it is the law of
religious inspiration that regulates every act, it has been impossible for them
to accept any progress, even in matters that do not affect the Faith, as for
example matters of an economic or scientific nature.
The spirit of the
orthodox interpreters of the Koran is utterly different from that of Mahomet.
The Prophet's intention was to appropriate from other nations everything that
seemed capable of strengthening his doctrine and attracting disciples. It was a
liberal conception that might have made Islam the universal religion.
Unfortunately, the doctors of the Faith have made any accommodation or any
addition impossible. By their action a blind fanaticism has replaced the liberal
spirit of the Koran, and has killed any germ of progress in Islam. The
immutability of its institutions has ended in moulding individuals and the whole
nation. It is this that explains how the Moslem nations have remained and still
remain insensible and even hostile to Western civilization.
The Believer
cannot accept, without abjuring, any truth of whatever nature if it is not
Islamized, that is to say, unless it is proved to him that it is supported by
one of the sacred foundations laid by God and his Prophet. But it is not
permissible for anyone in Islam to establish this proof; it is, therefore,
impossible to introduce into the Law, and conse-quently into society, the
modifications dictated by the evolution of ideas and the progress of
science.
To understand this - "immobilization" of the Moslem nations one
would have to imagine what the Christian world would have become if, no
distinction having been established between the spiritual and the temporal, it
had remained under the discipline of the canon law of the earlier centuries. The
autonomy accorded to each of these two powers has allowed the temporal to
develop in accordance with the progress of the times, without having to rebel
against the spiritual. Among Moslems this distinction does not exist; the
religious law is at the same time the civil law, God is the legislator; every
act of a Believer, whatever it may be, depends upon His will, and is submitted
to His judgment. This conception has made of Islam a society under theocratic
government, like the vanished societies of Egypt and the Orient; and it is
abundantly clear that any such society, obstinately hostile to all evolution,
i.e., to all progress, can only stagnate outside the civilizing currents that
are bearing humanity towards the future. To rise out of its immobility it would
have to denY its faith; but no Musulman in any part of the world has ever
thought of such a thing without horror.
Islam stands in this modern world like a mournful statue of the past.
* * *
Islam under the sucessors of Mahomet - Even in Arabia the new faith was
only able to impose itself by force - The first Musulman conquerors were actuated
by the desire for plunder not by any anxiety to proselytize - The expansion of
Islam in Persia, Syria and Egypt was favoured by the hostility of the natives
of those countrIes to the PersIan and Byzan - tine Governments - The struggle for
influence between Mecca and Medina, which had contributed to Mahomet's success,
was continued under his successors, sometimes favourable to Medina, under the
Caliphates of Abu-Bekr Omar and Ali, sometimes to Mecca, under the Caliphate of
Othman - The Mecca party finally triumph with the coming of Maowiah - Conflicts
between the tribes, between individuals, chronic anarchy: characteristics of
Musulman society and the causes of its future ruin.
THE work of Mahomet, too rapidly accom-plished,
rested upon slender foundations. One cannot profoundly modify the mentality of a
people in twenty years, to the extent of extirpating from their brains all germs
of former beliefs. To attain such a result, it would be necessary to act upon
several successive generations, and the Prophet died before the gener-ation he
had conquered for Islam had been replaced by its successor. "Conquered" is the
right word; since it was mainly by force that he had imposed his doctrine, and
by ministering to the Bedouin's love of plunder. Every recalcitrant tribe was
immedi-ately attacked and its goods confiscated; yielding to violence and
accepting the new faith, it was in turnwon over by the lure of booty, and joined
up with the other Musulmans to attack and pillage the next one.
It was in
this manner that Islam spread rapidly over the whole of Arabia; but this method
of expansion had its special danger. When there were no more infidels to be
robbed, how were the bellicose instincts of the new believers to be satisfied?
With-out the attraction of booty, which in their eyes constituted the chief
merit of Islam and their reason for remaining faithful to a cause which procured
them numerous material satisfactions, would they not abandon it, would they not
forsake the Musulman fraternity to return to their old inter-tribal quarrels?
Mahomet had thought of all this, and of starting the Bedouins upon the conquest
of Syria; but illness had compelled him to delay the execution of this project
until death prevented him from undertaking it. This combination of circumstances
was very nearly fatal to the new religion. Cowed by force, possibly also
influenced by the moral ascendancy of the Prophet, and by the prestige that an
uninterrupted series of successes had given him, the tribes had remained
faithful because they feared him; but, as soon as his illness became known, the
more turbulent among them rose. Before his death, Mahomet learned that in the
Yemen a certain Aihala-the-black, who combined the possession of immense wealth
with an alluring eloquence, was claiming to be the bearer of a divine message,
had driven out the Musulman Sheikhs, and had taken several towns. 1 The
Prophet's death was the signal for a general rising.2 The old rivalry between
Mecca and Medina broke out afresh; the importance that had accrued to Medina did
not suit the pride and ambition of the Meccans.
1 Al Soheili.
2 Syl.
de Sacy, "Vie de Mahomet."
The latter, and the tribes who were allied
with them, could only bear with simmering impatience the yoke of the shopkeepers
of Medina, whom they despised, and who, moreover, made themselves unbearable by
their religious bigotry.
Incited by ambition, false messengers from God
were arising on all sides and drawing in their train the tribes hungering for
pillage. Musulman Sheikhs, refugees, " Defenders" and" Ansars," driven out by
the insurgents, were arriving at Medina every day. The number of false prophets
and the success of some of them show what a favourable soil Arab anarchy offered
to impostors; they also explain how Mahomet had been able to conceive and carry
into effect his own project.
Starting from the most distant regions, the
revolt drew nearer and nearer, until the city of the Prophet was in danger. 1 It
Was a critical moment. In omitting to nominate his successor, Mahomet had left
the field clear for every ambition. The Meccans were in a turmoil, intending to
seize the power that the Medinans were just as determined to retain.
The
man to whom all indications naturally pointed was his cousin and son-in-law Ali,
one of his first converts. But Ali had a deadly enemy in his own family, Aisha,
the favourite wife of Mahomet, who had never forgiven Ali for having once cast
doubt upon her conjugal fidelity. 2 Her resentment was aggravated by feminine
rivalry between herselfand Fatima, Ali's wife, and the daughter of the Messenger
of God. In short, Aisha was dead against Ali and intrigued against him with such
energy as to cause his rejection.
1 Dozy, op. cit. p. 31.
2 Koran, Ch.
XXIV; see note by Kasimiraky in his translation, p 280.
Then, winning
over to her party the companions of Mahomet, those who had followed him in his
flight from Mecca to Medina, and had shared his good and evil fortunes, she got
them to accept her father, Abu-Bekr. The companions resigned themselves to this
choice on the instance of Omar, because it was necessary to come to an immediate
decision in order to put a stop to Meccan ambitions.
So Abu-Bekr was
proclaimed Caliph. He was a man of simple manners, who, in spite of his
unexpected elevation, lived in poverty. When he died, he left behind him a
worn-out garment, one slave and one camel. A true patriarch, after the Medinans'
own heart; he had one great quality-energy; and he possessed what had given
victory to Mahomet and was lacking to his enemies-an unshakable conviction, a
bigoted faith. 1 He was the right man in the right place.
This old man,
of good-natured aspect, took his stand in the midst of general insurrection, and
with the implacable firmness of a believer began Mahomet's work over again. He
knew what men to select as his assistants, notably, one Khalid, a fighting
Sheikh of wild character, of cold-blooded, calculating cruelty. whose mere name
struck terror. His orders from the Caliph were brief and to the point: "Destroy
the apostates without pity by fire and sword, by every sort of torture." Khalid
obeyed to the letter: there were tremendous hecatombs in the N ejed and in the
Yemen. The insurgents, decimated, hunted and surrounded, were slaughtered by
thousands, their goods pillaged or destroyed.2 Other Sheikhs, worthy rivals of
Khalid, accomplished the same task in the central and southern regions, and in a
few months order was re-established.
1 Tabari, "Annales musulmanes."
2
Al Beidawi and Abulfeda, " Vie de Mahomet."
It would be a great
mistake to suppose that Islam made its way into men's minds by the
attractiveness of its doctrine. Even in Arabia, Mahomet's own country, it could
only gain recruits by violence, and it was the same elsewhere. In all countries,
nations in subjection to an alien Power, as in Egypt, North Africa and Spain,
anxious to change masters in the hope of bettering their condition, received
Islam at first as an instrument of liberation; 1 but as soon as their first
experiences had revealed to them the intolerable tyranny of a bigoted religion,
they revolted. But it was then too late. Islam, with irresistible material force
at its disposal, broke down all opposition and drowned all inclination to rebel
in a sea of blood. And then, generations passed away; the new generations,
brought up in the Musulman faith, enclosed in its narrow dogmas, became fixed in
resignation and no longer dreamed of changing either their beliefs or their
masters.
The massacres perpetrated in Arabia under the orders of Abu-Bekr
compelled the tribes to re-enter the narrow way, not because they were convinced
of the truth of Islam, but because they were satisfied that for them the new
religion had, in default of any divine right, a tremendous argument of physical
force. The insurgents resigned themselves therefore to being Musulmans, but
their orthodoxy was more than doubtful. If apostasy was not to be thought of
because of the implacable severity of its punishment, these converts by force
had neither piety nor sincere faith.
1 Ch. Mills. "Hist. du
Mahometisme."
Men who considered vengeance as the most sacred of all
duties, could not be expected to show any great respect for a religion that had
cost them the lives of so many of their kindred.1 They were ignorant of its most
elementary principles. Arab writers have given us some typical examples of this
ignorance that throw a curious light upon the morals of the early Moslems. An
old Bedouin had arranged with a young man to let him have his wife every other
night, and, in return, the young man was to watch the old man's flock. This
curious arrangement came to the ears of the Caliph, who ordered the two men to
appear before him, and asked them if they were aware that their religion forbade
a man to share his wife with anyone else. They swore they had no idea of
it.
Another man had married two sisters: "Don't you know," asked the
Caliph, "that religion forbids what you have done? "
" No," replied the
offender, " I hadn't the least idea of it, and I must say I can't see anything
wrong in the act you are finding fault with."
" The text of the law is quite
clear, nevertheless. You will at once repudiate one of the two sisters, or I
shall cut your head off."
" Are you speaking seriously? "
" Very
seriously."
" Oh, well, it's a detestable religion that won't let you do such
things. "2
The unfortunate man never even suspected, so great was his
ignorance, that in answering in such a fashion he was running the risk of being
beheaded as a blasphemer or an apostate.
Abu-Bekr had no illusions as to
the quality of the new converts, nor as to their real sentiments. And, realizing
that it was expedient to give them some opportunity of pillage, he enrolled them
forthwith in the Musulman armies he was sending into Syria and Irak.
1
Dozy, pp. 36 -37.
2 Abu-Ismail A Bacri, "Fotoub ecb-Cham."
He thus rid
himself of a lot of trouble-some people, whilst making them serve the cause of
Islam.1
We generally form a false conception of the Musulman armies; they
were more of the nature of hordes than of regularly ordered troops; there was no
organization and no discipline or cohesion. The tribes formed so many separate
corps, each under its own standard carried by the Sheikh or by a warrior
appointed by him. The whole presented a spectacle of inconceivable
disorder-horse and foot all mixed up together, some half clothed, others loaded
up with stolen garments; each man armed according to his own fancy with a bow or
a pike, a mace, a sword, or a spear. The women followed up the fighting men to
take part in the sack and guard the booty. 2 These hordes have often been
represented as dominated by a superhuman faith and courting death with a sort of
fanatical joy, in the hope of gaining paradise. This is a mistake: with the
exception of some few companions of Mahomet who, as it were, formed the Staff,
and who were animated by sincere convictions, the mob of fighting men had but
one idea-loot. It was this that made them successful. These starving Bedouins
rushed like beasts of prey on the rich provinces offered to their rapacity.
Without any sort of organized commissariat, they could only live on the
conquered people; to live they must first conquer. Victory to them meant not
only loot, it gave them all the material enjoyments they could wish for-food,
women and slaves.
1 Noel Desvergers, "Hist. de l' Arabie."
2 Ockley,
"Hist. des Sarrazins," p. 253; Sedillot, " Rist. des Arabes."
The desert
men, accustomed to the hardest privations and to the modest profits to be had
from robbing caravans, became enthusiastic followers of Islam when once they
knew the intoxicating delights of devastated provinces, cities put to sack,
women ravished; but religious faith had no part in this enthusiasm.
Such
were the hordes that rushed to the conquest of the world.
Under the command of the terrible Khalid, they first attacked Irak, which was then under the rule of the Persian Sassanides.1 Irak-el-Arabi comprises the valley of the lower Tigris and Euphrates, a flat, fertile alluvial plain, which the moisture of the soil and the mildness of the climate made a regular oasis. The population, peaceable and hard-working, lived entirely by agriculture: a people of husbandmen and gardeners, who had carried the science of irrigation very far. 2
The richness of this
territory had from all time excited the envy of its neighbours; of the hordes of
Turkestan, on the north and east, of Byzantine Emperors on the west.The Bedouins
hurled themselves upon it like a herd of famished beasts. The orchards of fruit
trees, the verdant gardens intersected by irrigation channels, amid thriving
villages, all seemed to them like a paradise.3
The inhabitants made a
fierce resistance; they held to their property and their religion-Mazdeism or
Zoroastrianism, a lofty belief that conceived the world as in prey to two powers
in eternal conflict-good and evil.
1 Th. Noeldeke, c, Hist. des
Perses et des Arabes au temps dell Sassanides."
2 EI Macin.
3 Kremer, "Hist.
du Khalifat."
But Khalid employed such" fright-fulness " against those
who held out that the population, terrorized by the spectacle of burnings, rape
and murder, resigned themselves to conform to Islam, and thereby saved their
property. 1
As soon as Irak was quiet, Khalid turned upon Syria, where
Mothana was already operating. The Byzantines who ruled the country, intoxicated
by recent successes gained over the Persians, devoted themselves to the
pleasures of life; and, to fill up their time as gentlemen of leisure, gave
themselves up to philosophical and religious discussions: vain subtleties of a
barren casuistry with which their name is for ever connected. Verbal strife was
then very keen between the different Christian sects-the monophysites, the
catholics and monothelites, to name only the principal ones.2
The Emperor
Heraclius, who had a passion for these doctrinal futilities, troubled himself
but little about the Musulmans; when he heard of their advance, he contented
himself with sending a rein-forcement of five thousand men to Antioch.3 He
estimated that this would be enough against a ragged horde without discipline;
but he forgot that the contest between these ragamuffins and his Greek soldiers
was unequal. The former, famished and possessing nothing, were fighting to live,
to seize by violence all that they lacked; whereas his Greeks, well endowed with
worldly goods, and fond of life, lost everything in losing their lives; so they
fought cannily.
The Bedouins, avid for plunder, excited by the promises
of their leaders, who extolled the delights and the wealth of Syria, overpowered
the Greeks. Possibly they were helped by dissensions among the Christians, and
it is probable that, in the blindness of religious passions let loose, certain
sectaries, to get rid of their adversaries, favoured the Musulman
inrush.
1
Dozy, "Essai sur l'Hist. de l'Islamisme."
2 Lebeau, "Hist. du
Bas-Empire."
3 Ockley, "Conquete de la Syrie, de la Perse et de l'Egypte par
Ils Sarrazins."
It was proved that Romanus,
Governor of Bosra, betrayed his own people and sold himself to the
invaders.
Syria was abominably pillaged. For the first time the Musulmans
were fighting a Christian community, and one would have expected, on the faith
of the Koran, that they would have shown some moderation towards those whom the
Prophet had called" people of the Book," and whom he had on several occasions
enjoined them to treat with consideration.
Far from it: the Christians
were treated as idolaters and apostates, " with fire and sword and all manner of
tortures, " according to the letter of Abu-Bekr's barbarous order. And this
proves that Islam, a doctrine conceived in a barbarian brain for a nation of
barbarians, only enjoins moderation when under restraint; but that, whenever
possible, it resorts to violence in every form.
In Syria, as in Irak,
massacres alternated with burnings. The citizens of Damascus who, after a
furious resistance, had been authorized by a solemn treaty to leave the country
and to carry with them part of their belongings, were treacherously attacked as
soon as they had got into open country, and were robbed and massacred.l It was a
singular method of propaganda, but the Bedouins cared little about gaining
recruits for Islam, and their leaders had not desired them to proselytize; booty
was the only thing that mattered. Abu-Bekr died with the satisfaction of having
pacified Arabia in two years, and won two important provinces for Islam. To
avoid fresh troubles, he had before his death nominated as his successor Omar,
who had been one of his staunchest supporters at the time of his elevation to
the Caliphate.
1 Sedielot, op. cit. p. 135.
The election of Omar
(634-644), a refugee from Mecca at the time of the Prophet's flight, was another
triumph for the Medina party, 1 and greatly exasperated the Meccans. Omar
achieved the conquest of Syria and added to it that of Palestine. The Bedouins
found themselves all at once in the midst of a refined people, who had inherited
the rich treasures of Hellenic culture; and these undisciplined hordes, without
laws and without social organization, must have been greatly astonished by the
spectacle of a regularly constituted society, in which individuals, each forming
part of the machinery of a wisely ordered administration, could not perform the
simplest acts without having to conform to rules laid down.
Omar was
inspired by this organization to establish the first foundations of Musulman
government, of that Caliphate government that was destined to rule so many
nations later on. An able administrator, he conceived the idea of turning the
Musulman victories into money; he regulated the pillage, and made the vanquished
pay indemnities. Thus Jerusalem, by the payment of an annual tribute, purchased
the right to preserve its churches and to practise its own religion. The
citizens of Aleppo escaped massacre by paying three hundred thousand pieces of
gold;2 and other cities bought themselves off in the same way. In this wise
measure of Omar is to be found the origin of the Caliphate treasure, which was
to attain such fabulous proportions under the Ommeyads and Abbassides. But if
Omar respected for the moment . -and from financial considerations-a faith it
would have been dangerous to persecute, since it prescribes martyrdom, he took
guarantees for the future.
1 Fes-Soyouty, "Hist. des Khalifes."
2 Oh.
Mille, " Hiet. du Mahometisme."
Christian parents were free to practise
their religion, but the education of their children was taken out of their
hands. Arabic became the official language; all posts, all favours and
privileges were granted exclusively to Musulmans; so that people were led
imperceptibly to renounce their beliefs.1 This regime of favour limited to
Musulmans upset Syrian society. The humble and the outcast made haste to adopt
the new religion; because, becoming as it were overnight the equals of the
conqueror, they passed from the condition of servants to that of masters. Owing
to this turn of the wheel of fortune, it was the Syrian proletariat, to borrow a
modern expression, who administered the country, under Arab overlordship; whilst
the well-to-do classes, restrained by consider-ations of self-respect and
refusing to make terms with the conqueror, were suddenly impoverished by the
loss of their privileges.
Syria, pacified and subjected to tribute,
escaped further pillage. This was not to the liking of the Bedouins, whose sole
preoccupation was loot; Omar therefore sent them to Egypt under Amru (689).
Egypt, under the rule of the Greeks, was at that time profoundly divided, first
by race antagonism between the Greek conquerors and the natives of the country,
and then by religious quarrels. The Egyptians had adopted Christianity; but, in
this Alexandrine centre, where so many new ideas had fermented on the decline of
paganism, the Christian doctrines had not been able to preserve their primitive
purity. A whole literature had been developed to satisfy the tendencies of
Egyptian mentality: apocry-phal Acts of the Apostles; Revelations of Elias, and
Al Wakedi. of Sophonius, etc. ; finally, the Christians, hesitating amid a
hundred heresies, had adopted the monophysite doctrine of Eutyches, condemned in
415 by the Council of Chalcedony. They formed under the Patriarch of Alexandria,
a church independent of the papacy. 1 Persecuted for their ideas by the orthodox
Emperors of Constantinople, and burdened by vexatious taxation, they received
the Musulmans as liberators. Thus betrayed, and drowned in a hostile population,
the Greeks were beaten at the first encounter. Some cities held out, but they
were compelled to surrender through the treachery of the Christians, the Copts,
as the Arabs called them. By 641 the whole country was in the hands of the
invaders.
The Copts were rewarded for their treachery; they first
obtained numerous privileges and were authorized to practice their religion in
consideration of the payment of an annual tribute of two ducats a head. In the
first year, 640, this yielded twelve million ducats; a considerable sum for that
period.2 Encouraged by this result, Omar extended the tax to all the
inhabitants, and then proceeded to tax the landed proprietors according to the
value of their estates.
As the Copts, by their knowledge of the language
and customs of the country, were the only people capable of replacing the Greek
officials in the conduct of a complicated administration, it was they who filled
the various posts and who especially collected the taxes. They grew rich at this
trade; all the money of the country passed through their hands, and some of it
stayed there. Their prosperity was their undoing. A century later, as the result
of a change of Musulman policy towards foreigners, we see the Copts, whose
property had aroused envy, abominably robbed and treated as pariahs.
1
Theophanus, Chron.
2 Ai Wakedi.
It went to the length of their being
compelled to wear blue turbans to distinguish them from Musulmans, and of their
priests being branded with a red-hot iron. Later still, when religious
fanaticism had increased, they were reduced to such a pitiful condition that the
greater part of them had to abandon their faith.
At the same time as he
was carrying on the conquest of Syria and Egypt, Omar continued that of Persia,
rendered more feasible by the previous occupa-tion of Irak under Caliph
Abu-Bekr. At the outset, the Persians resisted, with varying fortune; they were
finally beaten at Cadesia (684), where Roustem, their national hero, perished,
and at Djalulah and Nehavend, where their king Iez-Dedjerd was forced to take
flight.l The Musulmans took possession one after the other of Assyria, Media,
Suziana, Perside and the Persian provinces placed under the authority of China.
The loot was immense; after the battle of Cadesia alone each horseman received
the value of six thousand dirhems, and each foot soldier two thousand
dirhems.2
Islam now ruled over vast territories, but its influence was far
from having penetrated the manners of the people. Even in Arabia, with the
exception of Medina where a sort of mystic puritanism reigned, its dogmas were
little observed, and, for the matter of that, were unknown to the majority of
the Bedouins. The Meccans, impatient of the yoke of Medina, and exasperated by
the triumph of their rivals, set the example of insubordination. They violated
the precepts of the Prophet for the sheer pleasure of disobedience, from the
spirit of opposition.
1 Malcolm, "Hist. de Ia Perse."
2 Sedillot,
"Hist. des Arabes."
Accustomed to the enjoyments wealth provides, their
minds enlarged by foreign travel, it was repugnant to them to have to bow to the
mummeries of the ragged bigots of Medina; but, too cunning to engage in any open
conflict against the doctrines of Mahomet, they were satisfied with merely not
observing them. Thus, they drank wine, they had wives in excess of the number
permitted, they neglected the fasts and gave themselves up to gambling;1 and
yet, in spite of their contempt for the men of Medina, they humoured them,
waiting for an opportunity of taking their revenge. They intrigued to obtain all
the important appointments. It was in this way that Maowiah, son of Abu-Sofian,
who had been secretary to the Prophet, managed to get himself appointed Governor
of Syria. Omar was glad enough to be rid of an influential and troublesome
member of the Koreich party, of a " black sheep," notorious for his disorderly
life and perfect contempt of all religious laws.
In Syria Maowiah assumed
the style of a grand seigneur. Fascinated by the manners of the inhabitants, who
had acquired by contact with Byzantine civilization a love of pleasure and a
science of luxury and well-being undreamed of in Arabia, he forgot all about
Islam, the Prophet and the Caliph. In the wealthy society of Damascus, where all
the subtleties of philosophy, all the refinements of Greco-Latin decadence were
known, nobody cared anything about religion or morals; in view of the
uncertainty of the future, they made haste to enjoy the present, without
stopping at vain scruples. Maowiah lived in .a beautiful dream; he wrote his
enthusiasm to his friends at Mecca and drew for them so attractive a were now
charged to watch over the interests of Islam.
1 Qot' Beddin Mohammed EI
Mekki, " Hist. de Ia Mekke."
Merwan, a cousin of the Caliph, became his
secretary and vizier; he was the son of Hakam whom the Prophet had cursed and
banished for treachery after the taking of Mecca.
Maowiah was maintained
as Governor of Syria; he was the son of Abu-Sofian, leader of the troop that had
beaten Mahomet at Ohod, and had besieged him at Medina. His mother, Hind, was a
virago who had made herself a necklace and bracelets out of the ears and noses
of the Musulmans killed at Ohod; she had opened the belly of Hamza, the uncle of
the Messenger from God, and had dragged out his liver and torn it to pieces with
her teeth.1
Abd-Allah, foster-brother of the Caliph, was appointed
Governor of Egypt. Formerly, when secretary to the Prophet, he had been cursed
by him for having intentionally altered the meaning of certain revelations in
order to turn them into ridicule among his friends.
Walid, his
half-brother, was Governor of Kufa; he was the son of Okba who had spit into
Mahomet's face; on another occasion he had almost strangled him; later, when he
was made prisoner by the Prophet, and condemned to death, he had cried: " Who
will take care of my children after me? " and Mahomet had replied: "The fire of
hell! " The victim's son, the child of hell as he had been called, seemed
anxious to justify this prediction. One night, after a supper made merry by wine
and the presence of some pretty singing-girls, as the dawn was approaching he
heard the muezzin intone the call to prayer from the top of a minaret.
1
Dozy, p. 47.
His brain still fuddled with the fumes of wine, and without
any other garment but his tunic, he betook himself to the mosque and there
stuttered through the customary formulae; then, with the swagger of a drunkard,
to prove to himself that he had not drunk too much, he asked the congregation
whether he should add another prayer. "By Allah! " thereupon cried a pious
Musulman, "I expected nothing else from such a man as thou; but I never thought
they would send us such a Governor from Medina."
Such were the
personages, who, favoured by the feebleness of an old man, exercised authority.
The Caliphate of Othman was the Caliphate of the comrades; it was the
exploitation of Islam by the Koreich party, of whom the most active representati
ve at that time was Maowiah, Governor of Syria. The Meccans took advantage of
circumstances to avenge themselves upon the Old Musulmans of Medina. Several
companions of the Prophet were maltreated; the generals who, under Abu-Bekr and
Omar, had conquered Irak, Syria and Egypt, were dismissed, and their places
filled by members of Othman's family or by favourites. The commandments of
religion were disdained; morals were relaxed; the customs of paganism were once
more in the ascendant.1
There was an outburst of indignation at Medina;
the citizens were exasperated by seeing power escape them; fuel was added to
their wrath by Ali, Zobeir and Talha, who were intriguing for the Caliphate, and
having based their hopes on the speedy demise of Othman, now dreaded the
ambition of the Meccans. On her side, Aisha, displeased with the attitude of the
Koreich towards her, was intriguing among the tribes, inciting them to revolt
and giving them as leader an ambitious young man named Mohammed, the son of
Abu-Bekr, whose vanity she had flattered and played upon.
1 Es Samhoudi,
"Hist. de Medine."
All this ill-feeling was focused upon Othman. A
trivial incident precipitated events: when the Caliph went up into the pulpit at
the mosque for the daily sermon, he took the same seat as Mahomet used to do,
instead of sitting two steps lower down, as his predecessors had done. This
action, probably unconscious, was exploited by the Caliph's enemies, who accused
him of making light of the memory of the Prophet. The former companions of
Mahomet called upon him for an explanation, and he ill-used their messenger. On
the following day, as Othman was about to take his usual place in the mosque,
the Old Musulmans struck him and he would probably have been killed but for the
intervention of Ali, always generous. An excited mob, at the instigation of
Mohammed, son of Abu-Bekr, a tool of Aisha's, besieged the Caliph's house and
called upon him to resign. Othman refused; the insurgents then forced their way
in and killed him. 1 The unfortunate old man paid with his life for his
attachment to family solidarity.
During his Caliphate, Othman had added
Armenia to the countries already subject to Islam. This province, taken from the
Byzantines by the Persians, was torn by religious conflicts; the Byzan-tines had
spread Christianity among the people, but the nobles of the country had remained
faithful to their old traditions and still practised Mazdeism. The Persians,
taking an opposite line, persecuted the Christians and gave all the government
posts to Ghebrs. The latter committed such exactions that the people, dying to
get rid of them, welcomed the Musulman. invasion.
1 Tabari,
"Annales"'
In Egypt, the new Governor, Abdallah Ben Saad, the unfaithful
transcriber of verses from the Koran, a creature of the Koreich party, invaded
Tripolitania and Byzacene (now Tunisia), moved by no very keen desire to make
converts to Islam, but rather to give opportunities for pillage to his
undisciplined troops.1 Under Roman rule these provinces had been cele-brated for
their marvellous prosperity. The Roman colonists were rough peasants, who knew
how to force the soil to yield, and had transformed the country into one vast
orchard by developing the cultivation of the olive and by a system of
irriga-tion that no other nation has surpassed. But the Vandal invasion had
ravaged this fertile country and destroyed the greater part of the irrigation
works; and the Byzantines, in their hasty operations, had not succeeded in
restoring the former prosperity. A government overburdened by officials, the pet
vice of the Emperors, entailed considerable expenditure: the consequent taxation
weighed heavily upon the Berbers, who in the exasperation of their poverty were
in a chronic state of revolt. 2 Like so many other nations, they saw in the
Musulmans their chance of freedom. Gregory the patrician, Governor of the Greek
possessions in Western Africa from the Barca desert to the Straits of Gibraltar,
raised a "' scratch" army which was decimated at the first encounter. The
Musulmans gained considerable booty; at the sack of Suffetula (SbeitIa) alone
every horseman received three thousand pieces of gold, and each foot soldier one
thousand.
1 Al Wakedi.
2 Diehl, "L' Afrique Byzantine."
The
Greeks, realizing the difficulty of the situa-tion, owing to the hostility of
the Berbers, hastened to
come to terms with Abdallah Ben Saad who, in
consideration of an indemnity of two and a half million dinars, consented to
return to Egypt. We can judge from this example that Othman's generals concerned
themselves but little with religious propa-ganda; they preferred cash. Neither
Khalid, Amru nor Zobeir would have acted thus.1 Othman's actual conquests were
therefore trifling.
After his assassination, the Old Musulmans, fearing
the intrigues of the Meccans, hastened to raise Ali to the Caliphate, in spite
of the active opposition of Aisha. This was the revenge of the Medinans. Of a
generous disposition, and, moreover, well pleased to be at the head of affairs,
Ali would willingly have avoided reprisals; but, to satisfy the people about him
he had to put orthodox Musulmans into all government posts in place of Othman's
favourites. But this did not prevent them from forming factions.
Talha,
Zobeir, and Mohammed, the son of Abu-Bekr, in causing Othman to be assassinated
had calculated on taking his place. Disappointed in ambition, they took up a
position hostile to Ali; they left Medina with rage in their hearts and joined
forces with Aisha who was cursing the new Caliph with all the passion of a woman
and an Oriental.
Posing hypocritically as the avengers of Othman,
secretly supported by the Meccans, they took refuge in Mesopotamia where they
collected together all the malcontents. Ali followed them and defeated them in
the battle of the Camel (656). Talha and Zobeir were killed; Aisha, taken
prisoner, had to implore her enemy's pardon. This success assured to the Caliph
the submission of Arabia for the time being as well as of Irak and Egypt: there
remained Syria.
1 Sedillot, p. 160.
The Governor, Maowiah, gave
out that he could not serve under a man who had not only left the murder of his
kinsman unpunished, but had even granted favours to the assassins. As a matter
of fact, Maowiah cared little about the call of the blood, but was tortured by
ambition. He was very popular in Syria through his open-handedness, his
luxurious court, and his liberalism; he had, moreover, amassed considerable
wealth, had set up an army of his own, and aspired to the Caliphate.
1
The moment seemed to him to be propitious. Ali counted but few friends;
the murder of Othman, of which he was innocent, but which was, neverthe-less,
laid to his charge, had cost him the moral support of the masses. Maowiah
calculated that, whenever he should take up the position of the avenger of his
old relative, he would receive unanimous approval; but above all he counted upon
his money to bring him adherents. He had besides one valuable auxiliary, Amru,
the conqueror of Egypt, who was popular throughout Islam and who, on his
dismissal by Omar, had thrown in his lot with the Koreich.
At the head of
an army of eighty thousand men, Amru marched against Ali. 2 The rivals met in
the plain of Sellin on the western bank of the Euphrates. The Caliph, feeling
little confidence in the fidelity of his troops, hesitated to give battle, and
attempted negotiations, but without result.
1 Dozy, " Essai sur l'Rist.
de l'Islamisme."
2 Ch. Mills, " Rist. du Mahometisme."
Battle was
joined; on the side of Ali, the old companions of the Prophet accomplished
prodigies of valour; their staunchness was on the point of succeeding, when Ali
was the victim of an act of treachery of which the Arab authors have related all
the details. .l It will be well to give a resume of them, as they throw a clear
light upon the psychology of the Musulman.
At the moment when Maowiah,
certain of his defeat, was making ready to fly, he caught sight of one of his
counsellors, Amr, the son of Aci: " You, who pride yourself upon your cunning,"
he said, " have you found a remedy for the disaster that is threatening us ? You
know I have promised you the governorship of Egypt if we win. What is to be
done? "
Amr, who had spies among Ali's people, replied: " You must order
all your men who possess a copy of the Koran to tie it to the end of their
lances; at the same time you will declare that you appeal to the decision of the
book. I guarantee that this is good advice."
Foreseeing the possibility
of defeat, Amr had arranged this stratagem in advance with several of the
leaders of the opposing army, notably with a certain Akhath, a man of well-known
perfidy.
Maowiah followed Amr's advice and ordered the Korans to be tied
to the lances. So little had the Holy Book spread that in this army of eighty
thousand men only five hundred copies could be raised. But that was enough in
the eyes of Akhath and his friends, who, pressing round the Caliph exclaimed: ""
We accept the decision of the Book of God; we desire a suspension of
hostilities."
"This is an infamous trick," said Ali with indignation, "the
Syrians hardly know what the Koran is."
" But since we are fighting for the
Book of God, we cannot refuse to admit it."
1 Masoudi and
Khahrastani.
" We are fighting to compel the pagans to submit themselves
to the laws of God. Do you suppose then that this Maowiah and Amr and all the
rest of them trouble themselves about religion and the Koran? I have known them
from childhood, they are scoundrels."
" That does not matter, they are
appealing to the Book of God, and you are appealing to the sword. "
"
Alas! I see only too clearly that you mean to desert me. Go then, and rejoin the
coalition formed formerly against our Prophet! Go and re-unite yourselves with
these men who say: "God and his Prophet, all that is lies and imposture! '
"
" Send an order at once to Akhtar (the leader of the cavalry) to
retire; if you don't, the fate of Othman awaits you."
Knowing that they
would not shrink from carry-ing out their threat, Ali yielded. He sent the order
to retreat to the victorious general who was pursuing the enemy at the sword's
point. Akhtar refused to obey. Then a new tumult arose. Ali repeated his
order.
" But doesn't the Caliph know that the victory is ours? " cried
brave Akhtar. "Shall I turn back at the moment when the enemy is about to suffer
a complete rout? "
" And what good would victory do you if in the
meanwhile Ali was killed? " said an Irak Arab, one of the messengers.
The
general resigned himself to retreat; fighting ceased; Ali sent to ask Maowiah in
what way he counted upon adjusting their differences by the Koran. Maowiah
replied that they should each name an arbiter, and that these two personages
should decide according to the Book of God.
Maowiah chose his faithful
counsellor Amr, son of Aci. Ali had at first named his cousin, Abd' Allah; but
as it was objected that his near kinsman would naturally be partial, he proposed
Akhtar, the victori-ous general. This choice was also rejected, under the
pretext that Akhtar, being one of the principal actors in the struggle could
hardly be looked to for counsels of moderation.
" Very well," said Ali,
"name the arbiter yourself! " Akhath, the treacherous ally of Maowiah,
was
chosen.
"But," cried Ali, in a climax of indignation, " Akhath is
my enemy, he detests me because I took the governorship of Kufa away from him."
This protest was in vain; Ali was given to understand that he must conform to
the general opinion, otherwise he would be forced to do so.
The result of
the arbitration could not be doubtful; Maowiah was proclaimed Caliph. Refus-ing
to accept such a judgment, Ali collected together the few faithful followers who
stood by him and wished to continue the fight. Deserted by his troops, who had
been won over by the bribes of his rival, he lost Egypt and Arabia one after the
other. It was then that the fanatics resolved to suppress the authors of this
fratricidal contest, Ali, Amru, and Maowiah, in order to restore calm. But Amru
and Maowiah were only wounded, whilst the unlucky Ali, the poor Don Quixote of
Islam, was killed.
His son Hassan was proclaimed Calip,h by the
inhabitants of Kufa; but Maowiah was the real sovereign since he reigned over
Syria, Egypt, and Arabia (661).
The period of which the chief events
have just been sketched is chiefly occupied with the rivalry between Mecca and
Medina. The Medina party triumphed at first with Mahomet, when he fled from
Mecca and took refuge with them; they also triumphed under his successors,
Abu-Bekr and Omar. The Mecca party took their revenge with Othman; fortune
forsook them with Ali, but returned to them with Maowiah. This rivalry between
Mecca and Medina dominates the whole history of Islam. It reveals the
individualist spirit of the Arab, at the same time as it exposes to view the
germ of the evil that later on was to contribute to the ruin of the Empire of
the Caliphs.
The period between the death of Mahomet (632) and that of
Othman (656) was of capital importance to the Arabs and to Islam. In the short
space of twenty-four years, the Bedouins, driven by poverty and the lust of
plunder, left their deserts and rushed upon countries of Greco-Latin
civilization. In Persia, Syria, and Egypt, they came into close contact with
populations impregnated with Hellenism and Latinism, and naturally fell under
their influence: they passed in a stride, as it were, from barbarism to
civilization.
The Islam that they carried with them in their warlike onslaught was then but a poor sort of faith, bare as the desert, empty as a Bedouin brain; but this faith, still only a babbling of religion, was not yet codified, drawn up and fixed; it rested merely upon two or three general principles, thus leaving room for a whole development of religious sentiments. The Arabs, incapable of invention, ignorant and illiterate, brought nothing to the peoples they subjected; on the contrary, they borrowed every-thing from them-methods of government, scientific knowledge, arts, and crafts. Their education was to be begun and carried through by the people they had vanquished; they became Latinized and Hellen-ized to the very feeble extent permitted by the coarseness of their nature. Islam loaded itself with foreign beliefs, especially with what it borrowed from Christianity. If this process of assimilation could have gone on, if it had not been arrested in the second century of the Hegira by the Abbasside Caliphs, the Arabs would have been completely Latinized and Islam would have been dissolved in the Christian religion. But, from their contact with Greco-Latin civilization and with Christianity, the Arabs and Islam have preserved a sort of reflected lustre which has been mistaken for a civilization of their own, and has induced belief in an originality they never possessed. Nevertheless, these foreign contributions were so little in accord with the Arab spirit that they produced a hostile reaction which, from the beginning of the second century of the Hegira, has tended furiously to purify Islam, and to bring it back to its primitive nakedness. It was this reaction that dragged down into barbarism the nations subjected to the Arabs and stifled the last efforts of Greco-Latin civilization.
* * *
Islam under the Ommeyads - The Theocratic Republic becomes a Military
Monarchy - The Caliphate established at Damascus, where it comes under Syrian
influence, that is to say, Greco-Latin - The rivalries which divided Mecca and
Medina break out between these towns and Damascus - The conquest of the Moghreb,
then of Spain, realized through the complicity of the inhabitants, anxious to
get rid of the Greeks and Visigoths - The attempted conquest of Gaul fails owing
to the stubborn resistance of the Franks, and marks the limit of Musulman
expansion - The Ommeyad dynasty, extinguished in orgies of Byzantine decadence,
gives place to the dynasty of the Abbassides.
With Maowiah the dynasty of the Ommeyads begins. The
scene of the struggle for power is shifted. The leading Meccan families have
emigrated to Syria where, through the favour of the new Caliph, they enjoy all
the good things in his gift. It is now the Koreich of Mecca who govern Islam
from Damascus. The Medina party, the Old M usulmans, the strict believers,
faithfully devoted to the doctrine of Mahomet, struggle no longer against Mecca
but against Damascus, or rather against Syrian influence. For, whilst the
Koreich of Mecca, now established in Damascus, held power nominally, it was in
reality the Syrians who exercised it; that is to say, a non-Arab people,
converts of recent date, who had as yet received but a faint impression of
Islam. And as the Syrians were of Greco-Latin civilization, the struggle was in
the end between this classical influence and Arab mentality.
The Syrians
had recovered their former position; for, whereas under the Caliphate of Omar
they had been treated as pariahs, under Maowiah they enjoyed untrammelled
freedom.1 A clever people, intellec-tually emancipated, little troubled by
scruples of conscience and capable of adapting themselves to circumstances with
wonderful pliability, they had willingly gone over to Islam, since their
conversion enabled them to enjoy the same rights and privileges as their
conquerors. But, nevertheless, under the outward show of Mahometanism they had
kept intact their own customs and mentality. And as, by their knowledge and
education, by their Greco-Latin culture, they were the only people capable of
holding administrative posts, it was they who governed on behalf of the Arab
conqueror. Their activity did not stop there. As heirs to the Byzantine
civilization, of a culture incomparably superior to any that may have been
possessed by the Arabs, they had given to Rome the family of the" Syrian
Emperors," who reigned from Septimus Severus to Alexander Severus. Au courant
with the latest advances in science, art, and the philosophy of the Greco-Latin
schools, they exerted a considerable influence upon every phase of contemporary
thought.
In the Damascus of that day the greater part of the Greek and
Iatin authors were known; many people read them in the original, whilst numerous
Syriac translations placed them within reach of the masses. People were quite
carried away by their enthusiasm for the theories of the various philosophers.
1 G. Veil, "Hist. des Califes."
Before the Arab conquest, in the
time when Christianity prevailed, they carried on controversies on the most
strained subtleties of religious meta-physics; they argued about the human and
the divine nature of Christ; at Damascus they were monophysite, that is to say
they considered any distinction between the two natures impossible, since the
divine had absorbed the human nature. 1
Syrian architects, by combining
Greek with Persian art, had created what came to be called Byzantine art. It was
they, notably, who con-structed the first domes; that of Santa Sophia (582) is
the work of the Syrian Athemios of Thrales. 'We see to how high a degree of
intellectual culture the Syrians had attained, and how far superior they were to
their Arab masters-rough, coarse soldiers, solely preoccupied with the
enjoy-ment of life without troubling themselves as to what philosophers might
think about it.
The Syrians took up the education of their conqueror;
they taught the ignorant Bedouin the science and art of Greece; the Bedouin did
not understand it all, his brain was not yet sufficiently supple; he retained of
this teaching only just so much as was accessible to him, but what he did retain
was in its essence exclusively Greco-Latin. "What he acquired was Greco-Latin
civilization as assimilated by the Syrians, that is to say, somewhat distorted
in transmission through an Oriental mentality.
Those Arabs who had
emigrated to Syria came completely under this foreign influence; as primitive
creatures, they were at once captivated by the science of luxury, of comfort and
of elegance seen at its best in this refined society. The comfortable houses,
the baths, the choice food, the dress, the perfumes, the perverted pleasures of
sense filled them with delight of which they had had no previous conception.
1 Lebeau, "Hist. du Bas-Empire."
They made no resistance to the
temptation to imitate the Syrians and to live as they did. The Caliph set them
the example: Maowiah was an intelligent Bedouin and a hedonist' in one. From the
time when he was a provincial governor, under the Caliphate of Omar, he had
adopted the manners of the country. Raised to supreme power, he continued a mode
of life that responded to his tastes. The Musulman Court at Damascus came to
resemble the former Byzantine court; it copied, sometimes to the length of
caricature, its elegance, its luxury, and its pleasures. Syria may be said to
have been the tomb of Arab energy; there the Bedouins attained a certain degree
of culture and refinement; but they lost their sobriety and their powers of
endurance. Byzantine civilization followed the course of its evolution under
Musulman domination, and the conquering Bedouin, incapable, by reason of his
ignorance, of giving any sort of direction to this evolution, could only admire
from a distance and from below. 1
This Arab-Syrian society formed a
remarkable contrast to that of Medina; in the latter it was a Musulman society,
such as Mahomet had imagined, or such at least as his bigoted disciples had
evolved from a too narrow and too strict interpretation of the Prophet's
injunctions. In Syria it was a Byzantine society behind a Musulman facade. The
two societies could neither understand nor like each other. The violent strife
which had formerly divided Islam through the rivalry of Mecca and Medina was
followed by the exasperated hostility of Medina against Damascus.
1
G. Weil, I'Hist. des Califes."
The Medina party set their hopes upon
Hassan, son of Ali, who had been proclaimed Caliph at Kufa; but this young man,
the degenerate son of the most noblerepresentative of Islam, was nothing .but an
effeminate voluptuary, leading a life of debauchery and low sensuality
surrounded by women and favourites. He would have been quite content to continue
his life of pleasure; but his party, amongst whom was Kais, the Defender, son of
Saad, a wild fanatic, compelled him to take the field. He resigned himself to
their demands, much against the grain, but conducted the war with such indolence
and such notorious incapacity that his troops were soon decimated. It is even
probable that this cowardly creature tried to insure himself against the future
by treating secretly with Maowiah. In any case, he made his first check a
pretext for concluding an arrangement with his rival, by which he gave up his
claims to the Caliphate in consideration of a magnificent pension.
Kais
had to get back to Arabia with a few faithful followers; he took refuge in
Medina, where the inhabitants, discouraged and unable to contend openly against
the Caliph, were forced to disguise their feelings and hope for better times
(661).1
Maowiah, relieved from the anxiety of civil war, continued his
life of luxury and entertainments; and, as it took a great deal of money to keep
up such state, he set himself to get it out of the conquered peoples.
Circumstances compelled him to take up the role of administrator, in which he
displayed marked ability. He entrusted the government of Egypt to his faithful
Amru, who was instructed to squeeze the people. Maowiah even undertook cer-tain
conquests. Whilst he was governor of Syria, he had taken possession of the
islands of Crete, Cos, and Rhodes (649).'
1 Es.Samhoudi, " Hist. de
Medine."
In 655 he had destroyed an important section of the fleet of
Constantine II., off the coast of Lycia. He now conceived the idea of attacking
Constantinople, but his efforts were in vain. The Greeks had made a discovery
which assured them a marked superiority over their adversaries-" Greek fire
"-which enabled them to burn ships from a distance and had a terrifying effect
upon their assailants. Greek fire may be said to have prolonged the existence of
the Byzantine Empire. Maowiah looked for more easily attainable success in
another quarter: he sent an army into Byzacena-the present Tunisia-where, aided
by dissensions among the Berbers and by their hostility to the Greeks, this army
took possession of the province (665).1 The Caliph entrusted the government of
the conquered territory to a Musulman fanatic, Okba Ben N afa. Impelled by
proselytizing zeal, the latter overran North Africa, burning, slaughtering, and
pillaging. He reached the farthest shores of Morocco; and it is said that,
carried away by religious exaltation, and finding his task all too soon
accom-plished, he rode into the sea, and when his horse could go no farther,
cried: "God of Mahomet, if I were not held back by these waves, I would go on
and carry the glory of thy name to the confines of the Universe! "2
It
would be a mistake to conclude from the rapid conquest of the Moghreb that Islam
had at its disposal any prodigious material force. Okba's troops numbered no
more than a few thousand men, but they were war-worn veterans and hungry for
plunder. The Greek troops, even less in number, were of poor quality, and the
Berbers, who formed the bulk of the population, were hostile to them.
1
Diehl, "11 Afrique Byzantine."
2 Abd-Er-Rahman Ibn Abd-EI-Hakem, the earliest
historian of the Moslem invasion of the Moghreb.
These same Berbers,
almost all of them Christians, were not very learned in the matter of dogma;
their belief was freely tinged with paganism; the majority of them knew no more
than the bare outline of the Christian tenets, and were ignorant of the details
of its doctrine and worship. The reason is simple: the language of religion was
Latin, and the country Berbers only spoke a dialect allied to
Phoenician.
Saint Augustine has frequently insisted upon the difficulties
that the general ignorance of the Latin tongue placed in the way of Christian
missionaries in Africa. 1 And as the numerous Christian sects, divided by
metaphysical subtleties, threw further confusion into the native mind by their
discussions and their polemics, the rural populations, incapable of establishing
any distinction between Christianity and Islam, not unnaturally mistook for
Christians those who spoke to them of a one and only God, of the day of
resurrection, of a messenger sent by God, and of a revealed Book, all
expressions that could equally be applied to the God of the gospels, to Christ
and to the Holy Scriptures. 2 So that from the very first the Berbers received
the Musulmans without hostility; some of them saw in the invaders Christian
schismatics; the majority looked upon them as liberators who came to rid them of
their Greek oppressors.3
Later on, when they came to know the Arabs
better and made acquaintance with the bigoted tyranny of Musulman law, they
changed their opinion; but then the time for resistance had gone by.
1
Saint Augustine, Serm. 25, Id. De Moribus; Manichoeorum C. 19. '
2 H. Ritter,
"Hist. de la philosophic chretienne."
3 Ibn Adhari, " Hist de l' Afrique et
de l'Espagne."
Thinking to escape from the Greeks, they had fallen into
the hands of other masters just as pitiless and in addition
fanatical.
Before his death, Maowiah, under the advice of the Koreich
emigrants in Syria, and with a view to benefiting his own family, wished to make
the Caliphate hereditary. To avoid the election which it had hitherto been
customary to hold, he appointed his son Yezid as his successor Yezid, the son of
a high-spirited Bedouin mother, had been brought up in the desert in the rough
and dangerous life of a nomad.Blunt in speech, he despised the pomp of palaces,
the etiquette of courts, the hypocritical diplomacy of refinement.1 He was a
haughty Bedouin, rough, generous, capable of the worst violence and of the most
crazy liberality, with no other rule of conduct than the gratification of his
passions. He loved sport, the pleasures of the table, women, wine, and play; he
troubled himself but little about religion, but believed just about enough in
God and his Prophet to be a Musulman; but any strict observance of the Koranic
commandments was not to be expected of him.
As he was wont to give
expression to his thoughts crudely, without tact or reserve, and as he treated
the faithful believers as hypocritical bigots, he was looked upon by the Old
Musulmans of Medina as a horrible pagan. Having the support of the Syrians, who
regarded him as a worthy successor to Maowiah, a young wild animal whom they
proposed to tame, he was able to laugh at the indignation of the pious
party.
He had a difficult start: the Hedjaz and Irak, judging the moment
propitious, rose in revolt for various reasons. The peasants of Irak, who had
only been broken to Islam by the worst acts of violence, loathed the Arabs,
whose exactions had ruined them; they longed to escape from the necessity of
paying the heavy tribute demanded by the conqueror, and to regain their
liberty.
1 G. Weil," Rist. des Califes."
The people of the Hedjaz
claimed to conserve the right of proclaiming the sovereign, in the hope of
nominating one of them-selves, and of keeping the seat of the Caliphate at
Medina.
This was the old opposition of the men of Medina to Damascus and
the Ommeyads; and it was further increased by the contempt with which Maowiah
had treated the Arab provinces.He had forced upon them governors of
inconceivable brutality, such as Ziad, his adopted brother, who, accompanied by
spies and executioners, mercilessly stamped out every show of
insubordination.
It was in these circumstances that Hassan, the eldest
son of Ali, the former adversary of the Caliph, had been poisoned at Medina;
that Aisha, the intriguing widow of the Prophet, had been killed; that Hejer, an
important personage in Kufa, too devoted to the cause of the Alides, had been
executed, and that at Bassora eight thousand rebels had been exterminated in a
few months. In short, the men of Medina, who had always been staunch in their
bigoted puritanism, would not allow the highest dignity in Islam to be entrusted
to a prince who in their opinion was a Musulman in name only.
The rebels
confided the defence of their cause to Hussein, the second son of Ali, who was
distinguished by his energy and by his hatred of the Ommeyads. When he heard of
the coming of Yezid, he exclaimed: "Never will I recognize Yezid as my
sovereign; he is a drunkard and a debauchee, and is mad upon
hunting."
Impetuous by nature, Hussein took up the struggle with more
vigour than ability; and being drawn into an ambush he was killed (680). When
the news of his death reached the Hedjaz, the fervent Musulmans were astounded;
it seemed as if the divine protection had forsaken them; they were plunged into
depression, when Abd' Allah, son of the Zobeir who had been Ali's enemy, came to
revive their resentment and had himself proclaimed Caliph at Medina. It was an
act of madness. Yezid, with considerable forces at his command, took possession
of the town and treated it with implacable rigour. He handed it over to pillage
for three days; the mosque, containing Mahomet's tomb, was turned into a stable
for the horses of the cavalry; women were violated; children were either
massacred or taken into slavery. As for the survivors, they were only spared
after they had acknowledged themselves Yezid's slaves and had given him the free
disposal of their property. The former nobility of Mecca, who had emigrated to
Syria, avenged themselves upon the new religious aristocracy of
Medina.
The Medinans had to resign themselves to their fate. But there
were some, of proud soul and ardent faith, who preferred to seek a refuge in
exile rather than submit. In their search for a new country far enough away from
the conqueror for them to be able to live in peace, they found a refuge in the
Moghreb where they formed very vigorous communities. It is in these communities
that are to be found the origin of the Zaouias, or centres of religious
propaganda. By their unremitting piety the refugees exercised a powerful
influence over the Berbers of whom they gradually made a complete moral
conquest. It is to them that certain portions of the population of the Moghreb
owe their attach-ment to Islam and their bigoted fanaticism.
Even down to
the present day, nowhere in all the provinces of Dar-el- Islam is the M usulman
religion observed and practised with such fervour. It is the old spirit of
Medina that, driven out of Arabia, has remained alive and active among the
Berbers through all the intervening centuries.
Yezid intended to continue
his work of pacifica-tion; but death cut it short (683).
There followed a
fresh period of anarchy, with all the provinces in a state of effervescence,
each one of them claiming the right to choose the Caliph, and, lest they should
be anticipated, actually nominating him. The Hedjaz nominated Abd' Allah, son of
Zobeir, but he lacked the boldness that compels for-tune to yield her favours.
Syria chose Maowiah II., son of Yezid; but, as the son of a drunkard, brought up
in the effeminate manners of the palace, he was a feeble creature who dared not
face battle, and who, moreover, worn out by precocious indulgence in pleasure,
died soon afterwards. Some thought of Walid, grandson of Abu-Sofian and a former
governor of Medina, but the plague carried him off. Others thought of Khalid,
the brother of Maowiah II., but he was still a child.
There was the same
ferment in Irak, in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt. Each town elected a Caliph whom
it dismissed the following day in order to nominate another. Islam was in a fair
way to sink in anarchy when Hussein came upon the scene, the general of the army
that had been operating in the Hedjaz. He arrived with a candidate, Merwan, son
of Hakem, and a cousin of Maowiah.
A sort of diet was convoked at Djabia
to examine the claims of this applicant, and consumed forty days in its
deliberations. There was some fear of the friend of Hussein: " If Merwan gets
the Caliphate," they said, " we shall be his slaves; he has ten sons, ten
brothers, ten nephews."1 But Hussein had powerful arguments at his disposal, he
had the army; his choice had perforce to be accepted; nevertheless the Syrians,
anxious for their interests, demanded guarantees; and the Caliph had to pledge
himself solemnly to govern only in accordance with the counsels of those who had
nominated him, and in addition, to designate as his successor the young Khalid
who was meanwhile to receive the governor-ship of Emesa (Horns).
By
Hussein's advice, Merwan used force, pacify-ing Syria and Mesopotamia and then
Egypt by fire and sword. He was about to deal with Arabia when death carried him
off (684).
His son, Abd-el-Malik, ignoring the promises made to Khalid,
the son of Yezid, had himself proclaimed Caliph (685). There ensued renewed
movements of revolt; Mecca and Medina rose, then Irak, determined to recover her
independence-Irak seething with every form of heresy and schism.2 In one
district Islam would take on the colour of Mazdeism, in another that of
Christianity; here Mazdeism would ally itself with Christianity; else-where, the
three religions would blend together; Irak was thus a perfect Babel of beliefs
and dogmas;3 fanatics ready for martyrdom rubbed shoulders with agnostics;
austere believers lived side by side with agreeable Epicureans. Burning
conflicts naturally arose, leading to a state of anarchy that exhausted the
country.
Abd-el-Malik re-established order by energetic measures. In 690
he had succeeded in imposing his rule upon the Eastern provinces of the
Empire.
1 Ibn-Khaldoun.
2 Gobineau, "l,es relig. et philosophies de
1'.Asie centrale." 3 Sylvestre de Sacy, ," Expose de la religion des
Druses."
There remained the Hedjaz, in a chronic state of revolt against
Damascus. This time it was Mecca that, under the lead of Abd' Allah, son of
Zobelr, was directing the movement. Abd-el-Malik sent a cer-tain Hadjadj,
formerly a schoolmaster, who had become chief of the army, through favour,
against Mecca.1 Hadjadj laid siege to the sacred city, an act of sacrilege in
the eyes of the believers, but of indifference to him. Abd' Allah held out for
eight months; then became discouraged and talked of surrender. His mother, a
wild Bedouin, dissuaded him from this course in words of Roman pride:
"
Mother," said he, "my friends are forsaking me, and my enemies are again
offering me very acceptable conditions. What do you advise me to do? "
" To
die," she replied.
"" But I am afraid that if I fall into the hands of the
Syrians, they will avenge themselves upon my body."
"' And what does that
matter to you? Does the slaughtered sheep suffer, then, if she is skinned? "
These rough words brought a blush of shame to Abd' Allah's cheek; he hastened to
assure his mother that he shared her sentiments, and that he had only meant to
prove her. Shortly afterwards, he came again into her presence, armed from head
to foot, to bid her a last farewell. As she pressed him to her heart her hand
felt a coat of mail.
" When one has decided to die, one has no need of
this," said she.
"I only put on this armour to give you some hope," said he,
somewhat disconcerted. "' I have bid adieu to hope; take this off! "
1
Ibn-Kotaiba.
He obeyed her, and having prayed awhile in the Kaaba, this
hero without heroism threw himself on to the foe and met an honourable death.
His head was sent to Damascus, and his body nailed to a gibbet upside
down.1
Damascus remained the capital of the Empire, whilst Mecca and
Medina had to resign themselves to being no more than religious
centres.
Hadjadj then pacified Irak, Khorassan, and Seijestan.
Abd-el-Malik was able to taste in peace the joys of supreme power. Carrying on
the tradi-tion of his predecessors, he adopted the pomp and luxury of the
Byzantine emperors. His court followed suit. In contact with sceptics the faith
became blunted; the Koran was still regarded as the sole code, but the
observance of its commandments was neglected. The Caliphs set the example of lax
observance; Yezid drank wine, in spite of the express prohibition of the
Prophet; Abd-el-Malik struck coins bearing his own image girt with a sword.
These tendencies, exaggerated by the flattery of courtiers, were followed by the
greater number; a too rigid piety came to be looked down upon. In contact with
so many diverse nations-Greeks, Syrians, Persians, Egyptians, and Berbers, Islam
lost its primitive purity; its principles deteriorated. Sects who borrowed their
ideas from the doctrines of philosophers and from foreign religions, sprang up
on all sides, interpreting the Musulman dogmas in a hundred different ways. The
result was a prodigious mixture of beliefs and superstitions which engrafted
themselves upon Islam and modified its original inspiration. 2 This influence of
foreign nations upon the Arabs is of considerable importance, and will be
studied in greater detail in the further course of this essay.
1
Ibn-Kotaiba.
2 Sylvestre de 8acy, op. cit.
Before his death,
Abd-el-Malik, knowing all he owed to Hadjadj, recommended him to his son
\tValid: " My son," said he, " always have the most profound respect for Hadjadj
; it is to him that thou owest thy throne; he is thy sword; he is thy right arm,
and thou hast more need of him than he hath need of thee."
Walid, raised
to the Caliphate without opposition, took in hand the pacification of Africa.
The Berbers, in accordance with their fickle character, had not been long in
rising against the Arabs; taking everything into account, they preferred the
Greeks. And so, profiting by the difficulties in which the Caliphs found
themselves involved through interior divisions, they joined forces with their
former masters in opposition to the Musulmans.
One of Walid's generals,
Hassan, then invaded Byzacena (Tunisia), penetrated as far as Kairouan, founded
by Okba, but which had been retaken by the Berbers in alliance with the Greeks;
he then attacked Carthage, which he took by assault and destroyed, after having
put it to the sack. But his task was not yet ended; he had still to subdue the
Berbers of the interior. The latter, habitually disunited, were, for a wonder,
now united at the call of a woman of great prestige: Kahina. Endowed with
superhuman energy, skilful to profit by the most trivial events to draw from
them ingenious deductions, brave almost to foolhardiness, she exercised a
power-ful ascendancy over the tribes who rose at her appeal. Circumstances were
favourable to her; after the sack of Carthage, Hassan's troops, loaded with a
fabulous booty, were not at all anxious to risk fresh adven-1 Soyouti, "Tarikh
and Kholafa." tures; they wished for time to enjoy what they had won, and their
general had to take them back to Egypt to let them get rid of their
wealth.1
The Berbers, emboldened by this hasty retreat, plundered the
country. Hassan then returned to Africa determined to make an end of Kahina. But
she, cleverly avoiding a set battle, sought to tire out the enemy by rear-guard
skirmishes, and to starve him by making a desert of the country round him. " The
Arabs," she said, " want to take towns, gold and silver; whilst we only want to
keep our fields for cultivation and pasture. I think, therefore, there is only
one plan to follow: that is to waste the country in order to discourage them.
"2
By her orders, plantations of trees, the remains of the Roman
orchards, were destroyed, houses burned, springs either poisoned or stopped, so
that the land from Tripoli to Tangier which used to form one immense garden with
villages scattered here and there, was turned into a wilderness.3
But the
Berbers were incapable of any sustained action patiently pursued in common; they
were divided by rivalries and Kahina was betrayed and killed.
Walid made
an independent province of the Moghreb which was soon populated by Musulmans who
had emigrated from Arabia as a consequence of religious quarrels. Arabs and
Berbers finally amalgamated, their mutual resemblance in manners and feelings
levelled the barriers which neither the Romans, the Vandals, nor the Greeks had
been able to pass, and the Berbers became the firmest supporters of the Musulman
cause.
1
1bn Adhari, op. cit.
2 En Noueiri, "Trad. par de Slane, en appendice a
l'Hist. des Berberes. "
3 Abd-er-Rahman 1bn Said and
El Kairouani.
When the war was carried into Spain, some of them, however,
refused to associate with the Arab population, and their descendants, under the
name of Kabyles, are now living in the mountains of Algeria, preserving their
national character and their hatred of the foreigner.
Moussa ben Noceir,
who had been appointed governor of the Moghreb, and whose people he knew from
having lived amongst them, succeeded by his able policy in winning the
confidence of the Berbers. 1 Taking advantage of their rivalries and
differences, he made use of certain sections of them to assist him in subduing
the others. He enlisted the better elements in his own troops, thus adding to
their power and number. Having at his command considerable forces, he wished to
employ them in further con-quests. Spain tempted him. He had been led to
interest himself in it during the course of the struggles he had had to maintain
against the Visigoths near Ceuta. These people had been established in the
Iberian peninsula since the fifth century, and also occupied certain points in
Moghreb-el-Aksa.
An unexpected occurrence caused him to hasten the
execution of his project. Count Julian, the Governor of Ceuta, desirous of
avenging an insult, offered him his assistance and advice. Moussa took him at
his word, and sent twelve thousand men over into Spain, the greater part of them
Berber volun-teers attracted by the lust of plunder and led by one of their own
chiefs, Tarik.
There happened here again what had formerly happened in
the provinces subject to the Persian and Byzantine Governments: the native
population, dis-contented with their lot, received the Musulmans as liberators.
Spain, wasted by a succession of improvident governments, was then in a state of
open anarchy.
1 E. Mercier, "Hist. de l' Afrique
septentrionale."
The evil dated from far back, from the time of the later
Caesars.The people were divided into five classes: the rich, the favourites of
fortune, great landed proprietors, living in idleness on the labours of
metayers, and slaves.1
The plebeians of the towns, a riotous mob,
formidable on account of their numbers, and trading upon the fear they inspired,
lived, without working, on the free rations of the government and the charity of
the rich. The curiales, small proprietors living in the towns, were charged with
the administration of muni-cipal affairs. These functions had been entrusted to
well-to-do people because in case of necessity they made up out of their own
purses the deficits due to the insolvency of the tax-payers-by no means an
enviable post, involving heavy obligations. The curiales were not even able to
escape by tendering their resignations or by selling their property, because the
office was in its nature hereditary and because they were not allowed to dispose
of their property without the authorization of the Emperor, the owner of the
soil. Sometimes these unfortunate men, weary of an intolerable existence,
abandoned every-thing and ran away; but they were reinstated in their curia by
force, so that the curial dignity, formerly considered as a privilege, amounted
to a disgrace and a punishment.2
The rural population comprised colonists
and slaves; the colonists occupying an intermediate position between the free
proprietor and the slave. He was, in fact, a sort of metayer, handing over to
the owner of the land a settled proportion of the harvest; he could contract a
marriage and could hold land, but he could not alienate his property without the
consent of his overlord.
1 Dozy, "Rist. des Musulmans
d'Espagne."
2 Sismondi, " Rist. de la chute de l'Empire Romain," t. i., p.
50.
He paid a personal tax to the
State, which had become very heavy in consequence of the ever-increasing demands
of the Emperors and the parasitism of the urban population. Colonists were
liable, like slaves, to corporal punish-ment and were forbidden to change their
rank. They were slaves not of a master but of the soil, and were attached to the
fields they cultivated by an indissoluble hereditary bond, the proprietor not
being able to sell his fields without the colonists nor of the colonists without
the fields (adscripti glebae)1
As for the slaves, their position is too
well known for it to be necessary to recall it.
Such a polity was
necessarily in a state of unstable equilibrium, since the individual, apart from
the rich who were in a small minority, had no interest in maintaining the
regime. The curiales, the colonists, and the slaves were too wretched not to
hope for some improvement in their position from a change of government. The
population of the towns, accus-tomed to a parasitic life, reckoned upon enjoying
this privilege under any regime, and the prospect of troubles could only be
pleasing to them as favouring plunder. So it happened that when the barbarians
wished to penetrate into Spain, they met with no serious opposition."On the
approach of the Barbarians who advanced sombre, irresistible, and inevitable,
men sought to forget their danger in orgies of feasting and drunkenness, to
exalt their brains by the delirium of the debauch.
1 Giroud, " Essai Bur
l'Rist. du Droit francois au Moyen-Age," t. 1., p. 147.
Whilst the enemy
was forcing the gates of their town, the rich, drunk and gorged with food,
danced and sang, their trembling
lips sought to kiss the bare shoulders of beautiful slaves, and the people, to
accustom them-selves to the sight of blood and to intoxicate themselves with the
reek of carnage, applauded the gladiators who cut each others' throats in the
amphitheatre."1 The Vandals, the Visigoths, and the Suevi ravaged the country,
aided in their work of destruc-tion by the ruined small proprietors, by the
slaves, and by the townspeople. But their yoke was much more grievous to bear
than the former authority of Rome. The people, robbed of all they possessed,
treated as slaves and subjected to excessive war levies, soon hated the invaders
as they had hated the Caesars. Every scourge of the Roman epoch was still in
existence: property in the hands of a privileged few, slavery, and general
serfdom, by virtue of which the cultivators were assigned to the land.2 The
Christian priests were the only ones who had gained by the change. From having
been despised and jeered at by the sceptical Romans, they became the
counsellors, the directors of conscience of the Barbarians; but they were not
equal to the situation; possibly they were overpowered by numbers; however that
may be, instead of moderating the brutal instincts of the mass and of preaching
to them the lofty sentiments that had been the glory of the downtrodden Church,
they flattered their passions and their vices; instead of condemning slavery,
they themselves held slaves. Once risen to power, they had forgotten the
teachings of Christ.
1 Salvien, Liv. vi.
2
Bureau de la Malle, "Econ. pol. des Romains," t. ii., p. 54.
Spain under the Visigoths
was even more unhappy than under the Romans; so that when the troops of Moussa
appeared and the Musulman leaders had announced that all those who submitted
would enjoy the same rights as their conquerors and would pay no more than the minimum taxes prescribed by the Koran, the
populace received them with joy. Roderic, the king of the Visigoths, deserted by
his best auxiliaries, was defeated and slain in the first encounter near Xeres
(711). It needed only this to bring the worm-eaten Empire down in ruins. The
malcontents and the oppressed made the invaders' task an easy one.
The
serfs remained neutral from fear of saving their masters; the Jews rose and
placed themselves at the disposal of the Musulmans.1 By 718 the entire peninsula
had been brought into subjection.
In Spain there was a repetition of what
had taken place in Syria. The people having been under Latin influence for
several centuries had attained a high degree of civilization and were possessed
of an intellectual culture incomparably superior to that of the Arabs. The
misgovernment of the later Caesars, the exactions and brutality of the Visigoths
had paralysed its economic activity and created a state of lawlessness little
favourable to the arts and sciences; but they had natural aptitudes and a stock
of acquired knowledge that enabled them under a more liberal rule rapidly to
recover their former prosperity.
The rule of the conquering Arab was of
this character: the taxes he imposed were insignificant in comparison with those
of the preceding governments. The land, taken out of the hands of the rich class
who held immense estates, badly cultivated by metayers and by slaves
discontented with their lot, was equitably divided among the inhabitants of the
country. It was worked with zeal by its new possessors and yielded abundant
crops. Commerce, freed from the fetters which had impeded it and relieved of the
heavy taxes that had borne it down, developed to considerable
proportions.
1 Dozy, op. cit., p. 35,
The slaves, being allowed by
the Koran to redeem themselves by the payment of a reasonable indemnity, set to
work with a will. The result was a state of general well-being that caused the
Musulman rule to be accepted with favour at first. 1
The Arabs, incapable
of administering the country themselves, passed on this duty to the Spaniards.
As in Syria, they adopted the manners and customs of a conquered people more
civilized than themselves, and allowed themselves to become softened by the
luxury and refinement of Latin decadence. It was once more possible to cultivate
literature, the arts and sciences; a new fire of civilization was kindled, or
rather relighted, for it was the flame of Greco-Latin genius that sprang up from
the ashes under which the barbarism of the Visigoths had buried it. The
government was Arab and Musulman, but the community, saturated with Latin and
Christian ideas, reacted upon the conqueror and effected a change in his
mentality. He in no way contributed to this renaissance, being quite devoid of
intellectual culture; he merely noted it, .without power to direct or influence
it. As for Islam, it did not concern itself with individuals.
Moussa
cared little about religion, and his auxiliaries, Berbers for the most part,
cared even less. Being besides very little versed in the dogmas and principles
of the doctrine in the name of which they had conquered Spain, they left the
inhabitants to accommodate themselves to the commandments of the Sacred Book in
their own way. 2 The result was a singular mixture of Christian and Musulman
ideas.
1 Dozy, op. cit.
2 De Castries, "L'Islam," p. 85.
This
laxity exasperated the pious believers from Medina who formed part of the
conquering army, and was duly reported to the Caliph. Moussa and Tarik, accused
of ungodliness, were recalled to Syria. The former was disgraced, then exiled to
Mecca, where he ended his days in misery; the latter was detained in Asia, where
he was provided with a command.
Under the Caliphate of Walid, the
Musulman Empire was greatly extended; to the conquest of Spain must be added
that of Tartary and part of India; so that Islam now reigned from Spain to the
Himalayas. His successors added little in the way of conquests. His brother
Soliman died prematurely after a reign of two years (715-717).
Omar, a
cousin of the preceding, a vassal of the Alides, drew upon himself the hatred of
the Ommeyads and was poisoned (717-720). He was succeeded by Yezid II., brother
of Soliman. It was during this Caliphate that the Musulmans attempted the
conquest of Gaul. Here for the first time Islam experienced a check, of which it
will not be difficult to point out the causes.
In Syria, Persia and
Egypt, in the Moghreb and in Spain, the invader had been assisted by the hatred
of the inhabitants of the country for their foreign rulers, whether Byzantines,
Sassanians or Visigoths. The position of Gaul was different; set free from the
Roman yoke, then upset by the barbarian invasion of the fifth century, the
country had passed through a long period of anarchy; but the instinct of
self-preservation and possibly some obscure sentiment of order had induced the
various tribes who were jostled together in a prodigious mixture, to form
themselves into groups according to their interests and affinities.
At
the moment of the Musulman invasion, the country was not under the rule of any
foreign power, which would have created malcontents ready for revolt, as was the
case in the territories enslaved by Greece and Persia; but, being divided into
provinces forming so many small kingdoms, satisfied with their lot, devoted to
their customs, and moreover possessing great fighting qualities and that
roughness of manners that makes warriors, they were ready to defend their
independence.
This was one primary cause of the Arabs' check. Instead of
finding a welcoming population hailing them as liberators, they were confronted
by men fiercely resolved to defend their liberty to the death. 1
When
they had crossed the Pyrenees and were about to invade the N arbonnaise, they
met with a furious resistance from Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, who was determined
to guard his privileges.
If the Musulman invasion had been more rapid, it
might have been successful by virtue of surprise; but it was slow. The N
arbonnaise was like a shield that warded off the first blows whilst the other
provinces, warned of their danger, made preparations for the struggle. It would
seem too that the invaders had certain failings: they allowed themselves to be
captivated by the charms of the ladies of the South. One of their leaders,
Othman, married Eudes' daughter and revolted against his General, Abd-er-Rahman
or Abderame. These weaknesses and this treason retarded the Arab
advance.
They crossed the Pyrenees in 719-720; in 724 they were still
waging war in the Narbonnaise; in 725 they had pushed forward an outpost into
Burgundy, but they had had to withdraw it, and in 780 they were trying to get
possession of A vignon and the Tarraconaise; it was only in 782 that, having
subdued the southern provinces, they were able to advance towards the North,
where they came into collision with the Francs under Charles, son of Pepin
d'Heristal.
1 Michelet, "Hi,st. de France ,"
It had taken them
twelve years to come to the battle of Poitiers. This delay was a second cause of
their repulse.
It must also be borne in mind that the Arabs and the
Berbers found themselves in a country new to them. Gaul was in those days an
inhospitable region; centuries of cultivation have since made it more sanitary,
and it is difficult at the present day to picture to oneself the country
intersected by broad and deep rivers, covered by impenetrable forests and
marshes. The soil, sodden with water like a sponge, sank into quagmires where
both horse and foot were caught. The cold and damp climate must have tried these
men accustomed to the mildness of Oriental skies and to the dryness of Arabia
and the Moghreb. Camping out in the mud and the rain, poorly protected by
clothing made solely to keep off the heat of the sun, they were attacked by
sickness; the pasturage of marshy grass was fatal to their horses, and when, at
Poitiers, they had to give battle to the Francs in a decisive action, they were
undoubtedly in a condition of inferiority. This was the third cause of their
failure.
The Francs, hardy warriors, accustomed to a rough life in an
unfriendly climate, in constant conflict with man and with nature, were not
effeminate like the Byzantines, the Persians or the Visigoths. Indifferent to
wounds or death, they were wild fighters resolved to conquer or to die. When
they appeared at Poitiers, clad in mail covered with the skins of wild beasts
which gave them a terrific nspcct, and uttering savage cries, they terrified the
A rabs, and that was the fourth cause of defeat.
There was yet another:
The invaders were divided; the old quarrels of Arabia had followed them into
Spain; the Musulman army included refugees from Medina, partisans of Ali,
creatures of the Ommeyads, besides Berbers and Visigoths, all of them incapable
of understanding one another. There were rivalries and even treachery: witness
the defection of Othman.
From all these causes, the Musulmans were beaten
at Poitiers; their discouragement was so great, their stupefaction so profound,
that they did not even attempt a counter-attack, but fled by night, leaving
their baggage in the hands of the Francs. W estern civilization was saved. If
Islam had triumphed then, France might have been to-day at the level of a
Turkish province.
In the course of a few years, the Musulmans lost all
the places they had held in the south of France, and in 789 Charles Martel drove
them finally out of the country.
During these events, the Caliph Yezid
II. had died after a reign of four years, and had been replaced by his brother,
Hicham (724-748).
Driven out of Gaul, the Musulmans of Spain penetrated
into Sicily, where local dissensions gave them an easy success. The Musulman
Empire had now attained its apogee: embracing Asia and the whole of the
Mediterranean basin, it was greater than the empire of Alexander and almost as
extensive as the Roman Empire; but, by the very reason of its size, it was
fragile, for it ruled over people who were too dissimilar to coalesce in a
stable empire, and the rapidity of the conquest had left no time for them to
adapt themselves to the Islamic discipline. In addition to all this, the Arab
was too uncultivated intellectually to have any influence over people who were
his superiors in knowledge and in their tradi-tions; on the contrary, it was he
who came under their influence, notably in Syria, in Egypt and in
Spain.
To administer this vast empire would have required men of rare
energy and superior intelli-gence; but as we have seen, Syria was fatal to the
Caliphs.
Walid II. (748), the successor to Hicham, was an effeminate of
the lowest description. His religious indifference was so great that he did not
even go to public prayers-a sacred duty for the Caliph-and openly made fun of
the Koran.l The people of Damascus, although they were by no means austere
believers, declined to recognize him, and proclaimed another Ommeyad, Yezid III.
(748). 'Valid II. was killed in a skirmish.
In the absence of any
energetic sovereign capable of imposing his rule, the number of rival claimants
increased. A grandson of the celebrated Merwan I., also called Merwan, sought to
tempt fortune and marched upon Damascus; he found on his arrival that Yezid III.
had just died, and he had only to step into his place.
But the grandsons
of Abbas who claimed direct descent from the paternal uncle of the Prophet, and
who had taken over the claims of the Alides, set on foot an agitation to enable
them to seize power. The old struggle was resumed; the governor of Khorassan, A
bu-Maslem, raised the people in revolt, and, hoist-ing the black flag of the
Abbassides on his palace at Merou, proclaimed as Caliph first Mohammed,
great-grandson of Abbas, then, on his death, his son Ibrahim.
There were
thus two Caliphs; Merwan had Ibrahim assassinated, but Abdul-Abbas, Ibrahim's
brother, took his place and marched against Merwan.
1
Ebn-Shonah.
The battle was going in favour of the Ommeyads, when an
unforeseen incident reversed their fortunes. At the moment when the Abbasside
army was giving way, Merwan dismounted from his horse to rest himself; his
horse, startled, rushed into the melee, and the Ommeyad combatants, thinking
that their leader had been killed, took flight. The Abbassides were triumphant;
Merwan took refuge in Egypt, where he was killed.
The Abbassides took
severe reprisals upon the vanquished. The Prophet's descendants avenged
themselves at last upon those whom they had always considered as usurpers; the
relations and favourites of the former Caliph were massacred without mercy. A
grandson of Hachem had one hand and one foot cut off, and in this mutilated
state he was paraded through the towns of Syria mounted upon a donkey and
accompanied by a herald who exhibited him as though he were a wild beast,
crying: "Behold Aban, son of Maowiah, he whom they called the most accomplished
knight of the Ommeyads. " Hicham's daughter, the princess Abda, was stabbed. At
Damascus there were numerous executions; in one day alone, ninety Ommeyad
leaders were beheaded. These bloodthirsty reprisals won for their author,
Abdul-Abbas, the surname of EI Saffah, the bloodthirsty.
In such wise
came to its end the dynasty of the Ommeyads. Islam owed them much; it was they
who built up its power. Free from fanaticism, they had left some liberty to the
vanquished peoples, and thus in Syria, in Egypt and in Spain, they had allowed
Greco-Latin civilization to put forthnew flowers. The Ommeyads, instructed and
polished by the Syrians, were to some extent and possibly unconsciously, the
heirs and successors of the Byzantine Emperors. As such, they deserve some
recognition. With their successors, the Abbassides, there begins the reaction of
narrow fanaticism against liberty of conscience; the reign of blind piety and
persecution; it is also the reaction of the Arab spirit, coarse and ignorant,
against Greco-Latin culture.
Islam may possibly have gained; civilization has certainly lost.
* * *
Islam under the Abbassides - The Caliphate is transferred - Irom
Damascus to Bagdad, where it comes under Greco-Persian influence - Through the
administration - the Barmecides, ministers of Persian origin, the Caliphs
surround themselves with foreign savants and men of letters, who give to their
reign an incomparable splendour; but, in their desire to organize Musulman
legislation, the Caliphs, under the inspiration of the Old Musulmans, fix the
Islamic doctrine. Immutably and render all progress impossible - This was the
cause and the beginning of the decadence of Mahometan nations - Spain breaks off
from the Empire, setting an example of insubordination which is to find
imitators later on.
THE revolution which carried the
Abbassides to power was the result of a threefold reactionary movement: First,
the reaction of the Old M usulmans, of the pious believers, faithfully attached
to the traditions of Mahomet, who regarded the Ommeyads not only as
usurpers-since they were not descended from the Prophet and had not accepted the
principle of election for the nomination of the Caliph-but also as bad
Musulmans, because their ancestors had persecuted Mahomet, and because they
themselves, indifferent in matters of religion, had adopted Syrian manners and
had allowed Greco-Latin civilization to develop.
Then, there was the
reaction of Eastern against Western Asia; the populations of Irak, roughly
handled by the Ommeyads because they had defended the cause of the Alides, and
held in a condition of servile
dependence, had given their support to the Old Musulmans, not from any respect
for tradition or from religious scruples, but from the spirit of revenge, to get
rid of their oppressors. Finally, the reaction of the Arab or Bedouin spirit
against Greco-Latin and Christian civilization which threatened to absorb
Islam.
There was also a question of egoistic interests, as to the seat of
the Caliphate. The Old Musulmans intended that it should be brought back to the
Hedjaz, either to Mecca or to Medina; the people of Eastern Asia were equally
determined to uphold the claims of their own cities. The two parties came to an
understanding at first to fight the Ommeyads, and to avenge themselves upon
Syria and the Syrians whom they overwhelmed with reprisals and whose prosperity
they did their best to ruin. Similarly, they were of one mind in deciding that
Damascus should no longer be the seat of the Caliphate; but, when it came to
choosing the new capital of Islam, their agreement came to an
end.
Abdul-Abbas (750-754), who was not particu-larly anxious to go
either to Mecca or to Medina, set up his court first at Anbar. On his death, his
brother, Almansur (754-775), who succeeded him, chose Kufa as his residence; but
as this town contained too many zealous partisans of the Alides, he decided to
found a new city: Bagdad, on the bunks of the Tigris, near the former Seleucia,
in the middle of Eastern Asia.
This choice aroused discontent among. The
Syrians, the Ommeyads, and even among the Old M usulmans of the Hedjaz; and
since all these parties, though divided by burning rivalries, were slrongly
represented in Spain and in the Moghreb, they stirred up risings in those
countries. Spain proclaimed a Caliph of her own choice, naturally an Ommeyad
(755). Without going to this length, the Moghreb nevertheless isolated itself,
and the two provinces lived apart from the rest of the Empire.l
It was
ordained as the destiny of the Arabs that they should undergo foreign
influence.With no, intellectual culture of their own, no artistic, literary or
scientific past, devoid of creative genius, they were obliged in all that
related to the domain of the mind to accept the help of the foreigner. The
Ommeyads had come under Syrian, that is to say, Greco-Latin influence; the
Abbassides came under Persian or rather Greco-Persian influence; for Hellenic
thought, more or less distorted, had penetrated everywhere in the ancient
world.
The administrative methods of the Ommeyads were copied from those
of the Byzantines; the government of the Abbassides was inspired by Persian
methods. The provincial governors remind us of the former Satraps. Endowed with
the most extensive powers, they administered the country, and collected the
taxes, by means of which they raised and maintained armies, paid the officials,
provided for the construction and maintenance of public buildings, and sent any
surplus there might be to the Caliph.
This system of administration had
one advantage: it enabled each province to be given the sort of government best
suited to its necessities and its customs; but it had also a corresponding
disad-vantage: inasmuch as it left too much independence to populations
insufficiently penetrated by the Musulman ideal, and gave too much authority to
the Governors..
1 Dozy, "Hist. des Musulmans d'Espagne."
The
latter enriched themselves by scandalous exactions, and surrounded themselves
with devoted followers; then, when they felt them-selves sufficiently strong,
they rebelled against the central power. 1 This is what had already happened in
Khorassan and in Spain; it was to take place later in almost all parts of the
Empire.
Almansur tried to remedy this defect by frequent changes of the
Governors, and by keeping the representatives of the great families out of these
appointments: but it was a vain precaution-the nobodies he substituted for them
committed worse exactions still, and were no more loyal.
Bagdad was the
case of Damascus over again: the Arabs adopted the manners of the country which
were no better than those of the Syrians and Byzantines. Almansur was surrounded
by a pomp copied from that of the Sassanian kings. The revenues of the Empire
were estimated at thirty millions sterling, which permitted him to display a
luxury hitherto unheard of and which was fatal to the Arab character. Surrounded
by a brilliant court, dwelling in a wonderful palace, the Caliph became an
Asiatic potentate, who only appeared in public on rare occasions, in the midst
of an impressive pomp that one finds reflected in the" Thousand and One
Nights."
This desire to shine produced at the same time some fortunate
results. Wishing, like the Persian sovereigns, to surround himself with all that
could contribute to heighten the splendour of power, Almansur showed favour to
men of learning and writers and, as there were none of these among the Arabs,
his liberality went necessarily to foreigners. There were numerous men of
letters in Persia.,
1 Quatremere, "Mem. hist. sur la dynastie des
Khalifes Abbassides."
Certain Christian schismatics and philosophers
exiled from the Platonic school of Athens in consequence of the persecutions of
Justinian, had introduced into the East the seeds of Western civilization. As in
Syria, these men of letters were able to continue their labours from which the
Arabs were to benefit at a later date.
Almansur caused translations to be
made by Syrian and Persian scribes of the principal Greek authors: Aristotle,
Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, Archimedes, and Ptolemy; it was these
translations, more or less accurate, that initiated the Arabs into the
scientific discoveries of antiquity. 1 As in Syria, and for the same reasons,
there was a reawakening of civilization behind a Musulman front, but this
blossoming owed nothing to Arab genius ; all its sap and all its colour
proceeded from Hellenic thought, modified and sometimes distorted by Asiatic
influences.
Moreover, it was not so much the Caliphs them-selves who
favoured art and letters as their ministers, the Barmecides, of Persian origin,
who for a century exercised a preponderating influence at the court of the
Abbassides. It was these highly educated and widely cultivated men who
supplemented the intel-lectual deficiencies of the Caliphs; who educated them
and filled their court with men of learning and of letters. It was they, too,
who took in hand the adornment of the city and who designed and carried out
those works of public utility that the Arab authors attribute to the Abbassides.
The sole authors of the Musulman splendour of this period were the Barmecides,
that is to say, Persians, so little Islamized that their enemies accused them of
remaIning pagans.
1 Yacoub-Artin Pasha, "L'instruction publique en
Egypte," pp. 11 and 12.
Mohammed al Mohadi (785) and his son, AI Hadi
(786), who succeeded Almansur, followed his example; or, to put it more
correctly, the Barmecides kept them in the right way ,for it was they who in
reality wielded power; but the pomp and opulence of the earlier Abbasside
Caliphs were surpassed by Haroun-al-Raschid (786-809) who has remained in
history as the most complete type of Oriental sovereign. 1 Sometimes incredibly
generous, ready to pardon any offender and to give lavishly, picking up beggars
in the street to raise them to high dignities, protecting the widow and orphan,
helping the unfortunate, punishing crime like a knight errannt, and then, cruel
beyond belief, when the old Arab instincts came through the thin varnish of
borrowed civilization, the murder and exile of the Barmecides who had been the
builders of Abbasside prosperity. At one time all smiling good-nature, and then
odiously proud; brave to fool-hardiness, and then degrading himself in the
lowest orgies; vindictive and magnanimous, crafty and loyal; always actuated by
excess of feeling: in short, all the qualities and all the defects of the
Bedouin appeared in him in the most startling way, still further enhanced by the
influence of Asia.
With the exception of two expeditions, against the
Empress Irene of Constantinople (790) and against her successor, Nicephorus
(802), both success-ful, and entailing on the vanquished the payment of a
tribute of sixty thousand dinars, the reign of Haroun-al- Raschid was quiet and
devoted entirely to administrative reform. It was an immense task. A complete
organization had to be created, as much from the financial as from the
legislative point of view.
1 Quatremere, op. cit.
2 Schlumberger,
"L'Epopee Byzantine."
It was necessary to centralize the payment of
public expenses and the collection of the State revenue. This was made up of the
produce of the taxes: djezieh, or poll tax on infidels living in a Musulman
country; kharadj, land tax paid by non-Musulmans; tithe levied on M usulmans ;
excise duties on the exploitation of mines; estates reverting to the State for
want of heirs; and the tribute imposed on foreign nations.
Acting on the
wise counsels of the Barmecides, Haroun-al-Raschid employed the immense revenues
of the Empire in useful ways. High schools and libraries were founded for the
diffusion of scientific knowledge borrowed from the works of Greek antiquity.
The Arab language was propagated in all parts of Asia and finally dethroned the
former dialects. 1 In order to comply with the exigencies of a new nomenclature,
it had to be enriched by foreign words taken from Greek and Aramaic. Greek,
Syrian, Persian and Indian savants, attracted by the liber-ality of the Caliph,
gave instruction to the Arabs.
Thanks to their efforts, mathematics,
astronomy and astrology, medicine, chemistry and alchemy were held in honour and
made some progress. The Arabs, still ignorant, were slowly emerging from their
barbarism by drawing from the treasury of Greco-Latin labours the knowledge they
lacked. They were diligent pupils and remarkable compilers; and if, for want of
creative spirit, they may have added nothing to the discoveries of antiquity,
they did certainly help to spread them abroad. For this reason the Abbassides,
and above all their ministers, the Barmecides, deserve to figure among the
benefactors of humanity.
1 Sedillot, "Hist. des Arabes."
It was
also necessary to establish a Musulman legislation. Up to that time, the Caliphs
or their representatives were dispensing justice by drawing upon the Koran and
tradition. This resulted in the formulation of judgments and interpretations
often contradictory; and the necessity soon became urgent to fix a doctrine of
jurisprudence, to draw up a code which whilst giving some direction to the
judges should also afford some guarantee of justice to the contending
parties.
This was a work of capital importance, and one that has had
considerable influence upon the destinies of the Empire;1 since by fixing the
Islamic doctrine immutably, it has rendered all progress impossible, and has had
a paralysing effect upon the Musulman community. It will be dealt with in a
special chapter; but we may here remark with astonishment that this work,
undertaken in a liberal spirit by the Abbassides should have led to results so
completely opposed to the ideas which had inspired it; and that, drawn up as it
was by the order of sovereigns so tolerant that many of them were accused of
irreligion, this code should have become the instrument of the most bigoted
fanaticism.
The great mistake of the reign of Haroun-al-Raschid, a gross
fault that was fatal to the future of the Abbassides and even to that of the
Empire, was the disgrace of the Barmecides. These Persian ministers, men of
eminent intellectual capacity and of a genius that enabled them to face the
vastest enterprises, had given enlightened guidance to the Musulman Empire. They
were the builders of the prosperity of the Abbassides and of Musulman grandeur.
1 Seignette, "Introduction a la trad. de Khalil."
With their
disappearance, the Arab sovereigns, left to themselves, were quite unable to
direct this immense concourse of dissimilar nations, and the Empire fell into
decay. It affords one more proof of the incapacity of the Arabs for government
and especially for administration.
The successor to Haroun-al-Raschid was
his son, Amin, an incapable and effeminate man, who after some years of
fruitless reign, had to hand over power to his brother AI Mamun
(818-883).
AI Mamun, who cared less about pomp but was a more cultivated
man than his father, exercised a most fortunate influence. Surrounded by the
elite of Greek, Syrian, Persian, Copt and Chaldean savants, he collected at
great expense the works of the school of Alexandria, and had them translated
into Arabic and distributed. He multiplied the existing establishments for
instruction and even founded a school for girls, at which the professors were
women from Athens and Constantinople. Educated by foreign savants in the cult of
Greek literature, indifferent to religious ordinances, he displayed a very
liberal spirit towards non-Musul-mans. He entrusted the greater part of the work
of government to Greeks and Persians. His tolerance even caused him to be
accused of ir-religion, especially when he refused to rage against a new sect,
Zendekism, that had arisen in Khorassan by contact with Mazdeism.1 His love of
knowledge was so great that it gave rise to the legend that he declared war upon
the Emperor of Constantinople because the latter had refused to send him a
certain celebrated mathematician of the name of Leon. Arab authors were given to
exaggeration, and it is probable there were other causes for this war, notably
the extreme reluctance of the Greeks to pay the annual tribute formerly imposed
by Haroun-al- Raschid.
1 Sylvestre de Saey, "Expose de la relig. des
Druses."
From this time (829), hostilities were resumed between the
Greeks and Arabs and continued with varying fortunes until 842, under the reign
of Motassem, who succeeded Al Mamun.
Al Motassem followed the example of
his predecessors; like them, he encouraged science and literature; and like them
he was not disposed to favour fanaticism. The struggle of the Old Musul-mans
against the influence of foreign civilizations, born under the first Ommeyad
Caliphs, continued more fiercely than ever.
From the remotest times,
there had always been two parties in Islam: the fanatical party, bound to a
narrow interpretation of the Koran and to a rigorous submission to its dogmas,
and the party of those who sought to enable the Musulman community to benefit by
the progress realized by other nations-Greeks, Syrians, Persians, etc.
In
reality, the Old Musulmans were originally the men of Medina, that is to say,
the representatives of the Mahometan reaction against the old pagan Arab
traditions upheld by the men of Mecca. But when the Caliphate was transferred to
Damascus by the Ommeyads, and later to Bagdad by the Abbassides, Medinans and
Meccans joined forces to resist Greco-Syrian and Greco-Persian influence. They
repre-sented, therefore, the Arab, the Bedouin spirit moulded by Islam. It was
these two conflicting tendencies that brought into being so many sects all
mutually unyieldingly antagonistic. 1
Under Motassem, one of these sects,
drawing its inspiration from Greek philosophic thought, assumed a development
peculiar to itself, that of the Motazelites, who upheld the doctrine of free
will.
1 Hammer, " Hist. des Assassins. Trad. Hellert and
Lanonrais."
This sect was furiously opposed by the religious party.
Motassem protected the Motazelites; if their principles had prevailed, the
Musulman world would have been able to develop along the lines of progress and
civilization; but the fanaticism of the Old Musulmans carried the day, and the
Caliph was unable to lead his liberal ideas to victory. 1
His successor,
Wathiq (842-846), renewed these efforts in favour of the Motazelites and of the
liberty of conscience; but he too failed. He had other anxieties; the Greeks
wishing to free themselves from the obligation of paying tribute, resumed
hostilities. The Emperor Basil was successful in recovering possession of the
towns in Cilicia lost by his pre-decessors.
This was the beginning of the
fall of the Abbas-sides, and, it may be said, of the conquering Arab. From this
date, troubles followed closely upon one another. Caliphs incapable and without
authority led a useless existence. Religious schisms, palace intrigues, popular
risings, revolts of the conquered provinces, the competition of rival pretenders
to the supreme power, insubordination in the army and the ambition of military
leaders ruined the prosperity of the Musulman community. The immense Arab
Empire, too hastily founded, by a people devoid of intellectual culture and
especially of political and administrative capacity, crumbled and sank in the
throes of anarchy.
1 Sylvestre de Sacy, op. cit.
* * *
Islam under the last Abbassides - The Musulman Empire on the road to
ruin - The Arab conquerors, drowned in the midst of subject peoples and incapable
of governing them, lose their war - like qualities by con - tact with
them - Good - for - nothing Caliphs, reduced to the role of rois faineants, are
obliged in self - defence to have recourse to foreign mercenaries, who soon become
their masters - Provinces in obedience to nationalist sentiment break away from
the Empire - The last Abbasside Caliphs retain possession of Bagdad only - Their
dynasty dies out in ignominy.
From the
death of Wathiq (846), the Musulman Empire of the East moves forward to its
fall. The general causes of this may be noted. The Arab conquerors, swamped in a
flood of subject nations, submitted to their influence. This was the more
difficult to avoid as in imposing their religion on the conquered they thereby
raised them to their own level in regard to status. Every foreigner on
conversion became the equal of the conqueror, enjoying the same rights and the
same privileges. But the greater part of the subject peoples, the Syrians,
Egyptians, Greeks, and Persians, were more cultivated, better educated, more
civilized, and more refined than the Arabs, and were alone capable of assuming
the different functions of administration. They alone possessed the
intellec-t,unl culture, the experience and the knowledge necessary for the
organization of conquered provinces. They thus became the real masters, and it
was they who practically controlled the power. At Damascus, the Syrians. had
governed in the name of the Ommeyads; at Bagdad, the Barmecide ministers, of
Persian origin, ruled on behalf of the Abbas-sides.
As the new converts
had kept their mentality and their customs, and as they were in far greater
numbers, they imposed them on the Arabs to such an extent that, under the
Musulman label, the local manners survived; that is to say Greco-Persian
manners, the manners of a people already corrupted by the vices of
decadence.
In this atmosphere of hyper-refined civilization, the
conquerors lost their warlike qualities. As they were devoid of the most
elementary intellectual culture, they could not exercise any sort of directive
influence on a population superior to them; they were not masters but pupils;
they learned and they copied; and naturally, by a very human tendency, they
assimilated especially the vices; they became effeminate and corrupted.
1
By their military success, by their power and their wealth, the
Abbasside Caliphs had inspired the neighbouring nations with a fear that secured
them a long period of peace. This repose was fatal to them. The Bedouins,
created for fighting and a rough life, lost their boldness and vigour. Thc
prodigious wealth resulting from the tribute imposed upon conquered nations and
from the revenues of the conquered provinces accomplished their
corruption.
Finally, the abuse of a power almost without limits had
weakened the Caliphs. Surrounded by a luxury till then unheard of, their heads
turned by the base flattery of courtiers; disposing, at their pleasure, of human
lives, they became despots only comparable to the Roman Emperors of the
fall.
1 Weil, "Hist. des Califes,"
The last Abbassides were
notorious for their cruelty, their vices, their irresponsibility, and their
incapacity. In the defects of these men, degraded by the abuse of pleasure,
without character and without energy, we recognize the signs of the degeneration
of a race played-out, worn out too soon by too abrupt a change in its conditions
of existence, and corrupted by contact with too advanced civilizations. In less
than three centuries the Arabs fell to the level of the Byzantines and the
Persians.
The years that followed the death of Wathiq were one long
crisis of anarchy. Popular risings and intrigues in the palace rendered the
power of the Caliphs precarious; and they strained every nerve to get the utmost
of enjoyment out of their ephemeral royalty by giving themselves up to the
vilest debauchery. Their court hastened to enrich themselves by the most
scandalous exactions. The intellectuals adopted the vain subleties of
Byzantinism; everything became a matter for cavil, science, philosophy, and
especially religion.
The Musulman doctrine was complicated by all the
hypotheses of the Greek philosophers and by every superstition of the vanquished
peoples. It was a chaos of beliefs; every day some new sect appeared only to add
to the existing confusion. The one would claim that the universe is infinite,
which is a serious heresy; another would demand mathematical proofs before it
would believe; yet another, seeing that it was impossible to discover truth
among so many religious doctrines that contradicted one amother, preached
agnosticism; certain rhetoricians admitted the existence of God and the mission
of the Prophet, but rejected the other dogmas; others more circumspect denied
the mission of the Prophet.1
Thus there was no religious unity, any more
than political unity. Each province, having preserved its customs, considered
itself as an isolated State; certain of them showed a tendency to break away
from the Empire. Since 750, Spain, and later the Moghreb, had set the example of
this emancipation, and as their revolt had remained unpunished, owing to the
weak-ness of the later Abbassides, other provinces, notably Khorassan, had
followed their lead. The Musulman Empire was decomposing with the same rapidity
as it had been constituted.
AI Moutawakil (846-861), Wathiq's successor,
begins the series of incapable sovereigns. He was a sickly, perverted, and
unbalanced creature, who displayed the worst aberrations. He surrounded himself
with fierce wild beasts, to whom his favourites had to pay court. An eccentric
and a monomaniac, in constant fear of assassination, he saw enemies everywhere
seeking to destroy him. Haunted by mad hallucinations, he committed abominable
crimes: one day he caused one of his viziers to be burnt alive; on another, he
summoned the officers of the palace to a banquet and had them all massacred.2
Neverthe-less, he was a man of refinement and a dilettante, loving beautiful
verses and eloquent discourses. He was the Nero of Islam. His son, AI Moutanser,
assassinated him and seized power (861), but he died soon afterwards, worn out
by debauchery (862). A grandson of Caliph AI Motassem succeeded him, borne to
power by the Turkish guard. From this date the order of succession was no longer
observed; henceforth it was the mercenaries of the palace who made and unmade
the Caliphs.
1 Sylvestre de Sacy, "Expose de la relig. des Druses."
2
Sedillot, "Hist des Arabes."
Since 842, under the reign of AI
Motassem, as the Arabs, grown wealthy and weak, showed some reluctance to expose
their lives, it had been found necessary to enrol prisoners of war; those from
Turkestan having shown themselves the best soldiers, it was from them that the
palace guards were selected. These mercenaries, at first the instruments of
domina-tion in the hands of the monarch, soon imposed their own will; it was a
repetition of what had happened in Rome at the time of the fall. 1
The
foreign troops, subjected to a rough discipline during the Caliphate of Wathiq,
set themselves free on his death. It was they who proclaimed Al Moutawakil;
then, finding him too mean, they helped his son, AI Mustanser, to get rid of
him. Finally, they compelled the latter to exclude his brothers from the
succession and to nominate AI Moustaln Billah as his successor.
From that
time onward the Caliphs pass like puppets-the Turkish troops, paid by a
pretender, raise him to power, then, having got their wages, they depose him to
earn the bribes of the next one.
AI Moustain reigned three years
(862-866), and was replaced by his brother, AI Moutazz (866-869). T'he latter,
soon deposed, was succeeded by a son of Wathiq, Al Mouthadi Billah (869-870).
The mercenaries killed him because he wanted to bring them under some sort of
discipline. A second brother of AI Moustaln, AI Moutamid, was raised to power
(870-892). He tried to get the better of the general anarchy, but the task was
quite beyond his powers.
1 Quatremere, "Mem. hist. sur la dynastie des
Khalifes Abbassldes. "
The provinces too hastily conquered formed a whole
without unity. The subject populations accepting Islam and thereby enjoying the
same rights as the conqueror, absorbed the Arab element. 1 The Arabs, on the
other hand, incapable of exerting any directive control, submitted to the
influence of foreign manners and customs. Regional nationalism asserted itself,
often encouraged by ambitious governors who dreamed of emancipation; whilst
another sentiment urged them to revolt-the desire to escape payment of the
tribute.
Following Spain, Khorassan had broken with the central power;
and Tabarestan followed its example in 864. In 870, a certain Yakoub-es-Soffar-
Yakoub the coppersmith, so-called because his father had been of that trade-had
raised the standard of revolt in Sedjestan, and had then taken possession of
Khorassan and Tabarestan, thus carving out for himself a small independent
kingdom of which the principal towns were Meru and Nichabour. He was even aiming
at the Caliphate. To get rid of him, AI Moutamid recognized his sovereignty over
the provinces he was holding (877), an act of weakness that served to encourage
other ambitious spirits.
Ismael-ibn-Saman, governor of Khowaresm and of
Mawarannahar, revolted. An adventurer took possession of Bassorah by the aid of
negro troops from Zanzibar, and held out there until 882. Ahmed-ben- Thoulou, a
freed Turk, to whom the government of Egypt and Syria had been entrusted,
refused to pay the tax (877), and declared himself independent. The Empire was
falling into liquidation; there was no energetic sovereign to re-establish
order. The Caliphs passed without leaving any trace but the memory of their
debauchery and incapacity: AI Mouthadhid (892-902), AI Mouktafi (902-908), AI
Mouktadir (908-982), AI Qahir (982-934), AI Radhi (984-940).
1 Dozy,
"Hist. des Musulmans d'Espagne."
Jezireh separated itself from the Empire
and formed a small State of which Mosul was the capital.
The Turkish
troops, now all powerful, pursued their intrigues. AI Qahir was imprisoned by
the palace guards, who put out his eyes and then threw him into the street,
where he was reduced to begging his bread.
AI Radhi, fearing the dangers
of power, handed over all authority to an Emir-el-Omra, Emir of Emirs, and lived
as a roi faineant. This was a fresh cause of trouble, for the ambitious
intrigued for the Emirate. 1 The head of the Turkish troops led a revolt,
besieged the Caliph in his palace and compelled him to recognize him as Emir
(940). From this time onward, it was the Emirs who governed-like the mayors of
the palace-the Caliph had no longer any 'authority.
Under the reign of Al
Mouttaki (940-944), who succeeded AI Radhi, Armenia, Georgia, and the small
provinces on the borders of the Caspian Sea broke away from the Empire. The
districts around Bagdad did the same, so that there remained nothing for the
Caliphs beyond the city itself. The sovereign had become a laughing-stock in the
hands of the Emir-el-Omra, or rather of the Turkish troops who set up one of
their officers as Emir. One of the lnttcr condemned AI Mouttaki to death,
accusing him of having intrigued against him (944), and proclaimed in his place
AI Moustakfi.
1 Quatremere, op. cit.
The citizens of Bagdad,
exasperated at being governed by Turkish mercenaries who squeezed them,
revolted, and summoned to their aid the Bouids, who had carved out for
themselves a small State out of the former Persian Empire. The Bouids drove the
Turks out of Bagdad, and one of them, Moez-ed-Doulat, proclaimed himself
Emir-el-Omra (945) and nominated AI Mouti, a member of his family, as Caliph
(945-974).
More than ever, it was the Emir who really governed; the
nominal Caliphs pass like shadows: Al Tai (974-991), AI Qadir Billah (991-1031),
AI Qaim Bi-Amr-Illah (1081-1075). Some of them, to fill up their idle time,
devoted themselves to letters, others to debauchery.
Bagdad, ruined by
palace intrigues and popular outbreaks, lost its influence and prosperity;
deprived of its commerce and of the provincial revenues, it was a head without a
body. 1 But life revived elsewhere: in Egypt, in Syria, in Persia, and in India,
where representatives of the great local families wielded the
sovereignty.
The last Abbassides succeeded each other through the
intrigues of the Emirs; AI Mouqtadi (1075-1094), AI Moustadhir (1094-1118), AI
Moustarshid (1118-1135), AI Raschid (1185-1186), AI Mouqtafi (1186-1160), AI
Moustanji (1160-1170), AI Mousthadi (1170-1180), AI Nasir (1180-1225), AI Dahir
(1225-1226), AI Moustansir (1226-1243), Al Moustasim (1248-1258). The last was
strangled by the orders of Houlagan, when this Mogul sovereign took possession
of Bagdad.
1 Weil, " Hist. des Califes."
The Abbasside dynasty
came to an end in ignominy. Incapable of either government or administration,
devoid of all political intelligence, preoccupied by the sole pursuit of
pleasure, the Arab sovereigns were only able to play their part by allowing
themselves to be guided by foreigners. All of them, even the most brilliant,
were but puppets in the hands of Syrian or Persian ministers who pulled the
strings. As soon as this help ceased, their power collapsed.
After all,
the splendour of the rule of the Ommeyads and of the earlier Abbasside Caliphs
was nothing but the reflection of Greco-Syrian and Greco-Persian civilization.
The Arabs could not hinder the ultimate expansion of this civilization, but they
did not contribute to its brilliancy. It was the Syrians, the Greeks, and the
Persians, Islamized by force, who, in spite of the barbarism of the conqueror,
produced the effort that has been wrongly ascribed to the Arabs; and this effort
was paralysed, and then completely blocked, when Musulman doctrine, fixed by the
doctors of the faith and made absolutely immutable, stopped all innovation, all
progress, all adaptation.
It was in the second century of the Hegira that
this deadly work was accomplished; and it is from that date that the decadence
of the Empire of the Caliphs began. Insensible at first, because of the residual
culture of the conquered, who in spite of their forcible conversion to Islam,
had kept their mentality and their intellectual baggage, it became more
accentuated in the succeeding generations, in proportion as they, brought up in
the narrow prison of M usulman dogma, lost their national
qualities.
Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was-and it remains-incapable of adapting itself to civiliza-tion. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.
* * *
Causes of the dismemberment of the Musulman Empire - The chief is the
inability of the Arabs to govern - The history of the Caliphs in Spain is
identical with that of the Caliphs at Damascus and at Bagdad: the same causes of
ephemeral grandeur, the same causes of decay - There was no Arab civilization in
Spain, but merely a revival of Latin civilization - This was developed behind a
Musulman facade, and in spite of the Musulmans - The monuments attributed to the
Arabs are the work of Spanish architects.
The principal cause of the collapse of the power of the Arabs
was their inability to administer their conquests. The secret of the success of
the Greek and Roman conquerors lay in the fact that they possessed in their own
countries a perfectly organized system of administration, which they had only to
apply to the subject peoples with certain modifications to adapt it to their
manners and customs. They thus brought to the vanquished a regime of order,
bringing with it . prosperity that caused the latter to forget the brutalities
of conquest.
The Arabs were not in possession of any such organization,
they had not even a State; for the nomad tribes lived in freedom, obeying no
authority, no directing power, no administration; theirs was, in fact, a regime
of anarchy.
When the successors of Mahomet realized their conquests, they
were obliged, in the absence of any Arab organization, to adopt that which they
found in existcnce in the conquered provinces: and they could only carry it on
by the help of the people they had conquered. Their political inferiority was
thus evident from the first day and inevitably diminished their prestige.
Finally, the Musulman religion, conceived as it was for the use of a
collectivity of nomads, was with difficulty adapted to the manners and customs
of sedentary nations whose mentality and necessities were quite different. Thus,
as was inevitable, it was not long before there were colli-sions of sentiment
and wounded feelings on both sides. The various peoples, stupefied at first by
the impetuosity of the Arab onrush, soon recovered their self-possession and
tried to regain their inde-pendence.
But the Arabs, intoxicated by their
success, took reprisals with such" frightfulness" that the conquered peoples
resigned themselves in terror to their servitude. The Arabs, then believing that
they were safe from any further danger, tasted the joy of living. In contact
with the old Greco-Syrian and Greco-Persian civilizations they became softened
and lost their warlike qualities, so utterly that the Caliphs had to enrol
foreign troops to ensure the defence of the Empire.
As soon as the
subject nations became aware of this enfeeblement, they took up once more their
projects of independence. Several causes urged them to this course:
1. Regional nationalism, naturally exasperated by the farce of foreign domination, and the desire of the people to be governed by men of their own language and mentality.
2. The utter incapacity of the governing Arabs, an incapacity which prevented them from improving" the administration of the conquered provinces and compelled them to wink at the exactions of foreign officials.
3. The desire to get out of paying the tribute. In the subject provinces, every individual paid taxes, raised in the case of non-Musulmans, and reduced for the converted. These taxes were largely increased by the corruption of the collectors. The money squeezed out of the vanquished served to enrich the Arab governors; the surplus went to Damascus or Bagdad to maintain the luxury of the Caliphs, so that the Musulman domination appeared as an exploitation of the conquered nations for the benefit of the Arabs.
4. The dissensions which divided the conquerors. The Alides intrigued in Persia, the Ommeyads in Syria, in Spain, and in the Moghreb, the Old Musulmans in Irak. All these rivals, eager to injure one another, sought to recruit partisans among the non-Arabs, and this propaganda could only serve to impair unity and to increase the spirit of insubordination.
5. The ambition of the governors. As part of the bad organization of the Arab Empire, the provincial governors were allowed a measure of independence that made them the equals of the Caliph in their own province. They collected the taxes without any control; they recruited the troops necessary for their defence; this liberty led the ambitious by imperceptible degrees to revolt against the central power.
6. The exasperating rigour of
the fanatics. In Islam there have always been rigid defenders of the Koranic
dogma; these fanatics triumphed in the second century, when they obtained the
immutable fixation of their doctrine. From that time onward they busied
themselves in imposing their ideas and behaved with so little moderation that
they became intolerable.
These diverse causes were not always in
operation at the same time; according to circumstances and places, it was now
one and now another that was in the ascendant. In one province it would be the
spirit of nationalism that led to revolt; in another it would be the desire to
avoid the payment of taxes; or again, it might be rivalries among the Arabs; or
perhaps the ambition of a governor or of some military leader; but in every
case, one of these causes was found to be at the root of the movement for
emancipation.
Thus in Spain, schism was provoked by hostility to the
Abbassides. The superior officers of the army , Arab or Berber, were the
proteges of the Ommeyads ; so that on the coming of the Abbassides, anxiety to
preserve their privileges led them to revolt. Two of these leaders, Somail and
Yusuf, exercised power in the absence of a sovereign. The latter was not long in
presenting himself.
An Ommeyad, Abd-er-Rahman, a descendant of the Caliph
Hashem who, after incredible adventures, had escaped the massacres ordered by
Abul-Abbas-es-Saffa and had taken refuge in Africa, crossed over to Spain.l
Received with enthusiasm by the par-tisans of the Ommeyads, he had himself
proclaimed Caliph, after getting rid of Yusuf and Somail who had attempted to
oppose his intentions (756).
This was the beginning of the Caliphate in
Spain, of which the history was very much the same as that of the Caliphates of
Damascus and Bagdad. There were the same causes of grandeur and the same reasons
for decay. As in Syria and in Mesopotamia, the Arabs found in Spain an advanced
civilization, a reflection of that of Rome; and being quite without culture
themselves, they fell under the influence of the people of the country, imitated
their customs, and adopted their vicious habits.
1 Dozy, op. cit. p. 299,
t. i.
Ignorant of the arts of administration and government, they
surrounded themselves with Syrians, Berbers, and Spaniards, converts to Islam,
who exercised authority on their behalf. These new Musulmans, brought up in
Latin traditions, revived, in spite of their barbarous conquerors, the fire of
Latin genius. In contact with a refined society, the Arabs became corrupted,
lost their warlike qualities, and were no longer in a position to maintain
order. Power slipped from their hands. The history of Cordova is a repetition of
that of Damascus and Bagdad, and furnishes fresh proof of the incapacity of the
Arabs for government.
Abd-er-Rahman I. (756-787) had the qualities of the
Ommeyads, and their defects: bravery, pride, generosity, perfidy, cold-blooded
cruelty, and sensu-ality. His court rivalled that of Bagdad 1 in its pomp. He
was in addition a man of refinement, with literary pretensions. After having
caused one of his old friends to be assassinated, he would go and dream in his
gardens at Cordova; and there, under the shade of the palms and orange trees, he
would compose sentimental poems like the following:
" Beautiful palm,
thou art, like myself, a stranger in these parts; but the winds brush thy fronds
with their soft caress; thy roots find a hospitable soil and thy leafy crown
expands in a pure air. Ah! thou would'st weep, even as I weep, could'st thou
feel the troubles that prey upon me ! Thou hast no fear of fate, whilst I am
exposed to its buffets.
1 De MarIes, "Rist. de la
oonquete de I'Espagne par les Arabes. "
When a cruel destiny and
the vengeance of the Abbasside drove me into exile from the country of my birth,
many times did I shed tears under the shade of palms watered by the Euphrates;
but alas! the trees and the river have forgotten me, and thou, beautiful palm,
thou dost not lament justice!"1
Abd-er-Rahman had a difficult beginning:
the chiefs, Arab and Berber, who had cut themselves adrift from the Empire in
order to be free, entered into league against him. Some he bought over, others
he had killed, and in the end he remained undisputed master. At his death, he
left to his son, Hashem I. (787-795), a situation practically clear of
difficulties.
The new Caliph bore little resemblance to his father.
Bigoted to excess, he was completely in the hands of religious personages,
notably of the great Medinan doctor, Malik, one of the four orthodox
interpreters of the Koran. These fanatical doctrin-aires sought to impose their
ideas upon the people. and set to work with a brutality that turned all
consciences against them.2
The Spanish nation was conquered only in
appearance; the lower class alone, who had obtained advantages by being
converted to Islam, accepted Arab domination without excessive animosity; but
the aristocracy, robbed of their lands, the Christian priests reduced to a
miserable condition, the Visigoths fallen from power, all detested the invader
and preached revolt. The want of tact on the part of the fakis only added fuel
to their hatred.
1 Ibn Adhari, ." mst. de l' Afrique et de l'Espagne,"
2 Alkhbar
MedJmoua, . .
Thus it happened that Hashem's
successor, EI-Hakem (795-821) had to suppress several revolts. Wishing to
counteract the ill-timed zeal of the fakis, he incurred their animosity and had
to baffle their intrigues. WVhether against them or against the populace he
employed violent methods: fire, the sword, and poison; he was a rough fighter,
unre-strained by any scruples: witness this poem that he wrote for his son
before his death: 1
" As a tailor uses his needle to sew together pieces
of stuff, so have I used my sword to re-unite my separated provinces; for, since
the age when I began to think, nothing disgusted me so much as the dismemberment
of the Empire. Ask today on my frontiers if there is any part of it in the
enemy's power; they will tell you No; but if they say Yes, I will fly there clad
in my cuirass with my good sword in my fist. Ask too if the skulls of my rebel
subjects, which, like colocynth apples split in two, bestrew the plain and
whiten in the sun's rays; they will tell you that I have smitten them without
giving them any peace. Stricken with terror the insurgents fled to escape death;
but I, always at my post, I laughed at death. If I have spared neither the women
nor their children, it is because they have threatened my family; the man who
cannot avenge outrages offered to his family has no feeling of honour and
everybody despises him. When we had finished exchanging sword-strokes, I forced
them to drink a deadly poison; but have I done any more than pay the debt that
they had forced me to incur to them? Of a truth, if they have found death, it is
because their destiny willed it thus. I leave you, then, my provinces pacified,
0 my son! They are like a bed on which thou canst sleep in tranquillity, for I
have taken care that no rebel shall trouble thy slumbers.
1 El-Maqqari,
., Analecta sur l'hist. d'Espagne," trad. Dozy. L
EI Hakem's successor,
his son, Abd-er-Rahman II., advised by the Syrians and Spaniards of his court,
wished to rival in splendour the Caliphs of Bagdad. He lived the life of an
Epicurean, solely preoccupied with tasting the delights of existence, leaving
the cares of power to his favourites. Of these, one was a faki, the Berber
Yahia, a pupil of the celebrated Malik, a fierce sectary, a wild tribune, who
busied himself chiefly with religious questions; another was a Persian musician,
a sort of adventurer, of an incredible verbosity and self-confidence, who set
the fashion; another, an Islamized Spaniard, the eunuch N asr, deceitful and
cruel, with all the hatred of a renegade for the Christians; finally, there was
the Sultana Taroub, an intriguing woman, devoured by a thirst for gold, who took
advantage of the Caliph's infatuation for her to pile up wealth. 2
The
Musulman fanatics, protected by Yahia and the eunuch Nasr, committed such
excesses of zeal that they aroused a movement of revolt among the Christians. As
in the heroic times of the Church, there was no dearth of fanatical devotees who
sought martyrdom and who, there being no idols to destroy, insulted the Musulman
magistrates. A Christian priest named Prefectus, having insulted a Cadi, was put
to torture. Before dying, he predicted the death of the eunuch Nasr, his
executioner. But, by a curious coincidence, Nasr had been commissioned by
Taroub, the favourite, to poison the Caliph.
l Ibn-Adhari, trad.
Slane
2 Ibn-Adhari
3 Cardonne, "Hist de l' Afrique et de l'Espagne," trad. Dozy,t. ii., p. 85. . Makkari,
"Ibn Khalikan."
The Caliph, warned by some suspicions, compelled him to
drink the fatal cup, so that the eunuch died the very next day after Prefect us
suffered; the Christians did not fail to attribute this end to the curse of the
martyr, whom they considered as a saint. The example of Prefectus was followed
by numbers of the faithful, who by their sacrifice reawakened the Christian
sentiments of the masses. Most serious troubles resulted from these
events.
Abd-er-Rahman II, having died in the midst of all this, his son,
Mohammed (852-886), found himself at grips with the gravest difficulties; first
from the intrigues of Taroub, who wanted to raise one of her own children to
power, and secondly from the exasperation of the Christians. Outbreaks took
place on all sides; he drowned them in blood; at Toledo, eight thousand
Christians were massacred; churches were destroyed, and the Musulman religion
was declared obligatory. 1
These persecutions merely increased the zeal
of the faithful. Eulogius, the principal head of the Church, publicly insulted
Mahomet and Islam in order to earn martyrdom, and was executed in 859.
To
form any idea of the exaltation of the Christians, it is necessary to read the
criticisms passed upon Islam by the authors of the time:
"This adversary
of our Saviour," said a monk speaking of Mahomet, "has consecrated the sixth day
of the week-which, because of the passion of our Lord, should be a day of grief
and fasting-this day he has devoted to eating and drinking and debauchery.
Christ exhorted his disciples to chastity; this man has preached coarse
delights, unclean pleasures, incest, to his followers.
.
1 Ibn
Adhari.
2 “Christ preached
marriage-but he, divorce Christ recommended fasting and sobriety-but he,
feasting and the pleasures of the table.”1
The mountaineers of Andalusia,
worked up by the priests, renounced Islam which had been forced upon them, and
under the leadership of a certain Ibn-Hafcoun, rose to recover their
independence. By a few lucky strokes, they caused serious losses among the
Musulman troops. EI Mondhir (886-888), on his way to carryon the struggle with
the rebels, was poisoned by his brother, Abd' Allah, who seized
power.
Abd' Allah (888-912), was a man of tortuous policy. His character
presents a singular mixture of perfidy and devotion. Entirely without scruple
although a bigot, he violated the most solemn engage-ments, committed the worst
crimes, and yet at the same time was subject to fits of religious fervour;
witness the following melancholy poem, composed in a period of
remorse:
"' All the things of this world are but ephemera; there is
nothing stable here below. Make haste, then, sinful man, to bid adieu to all
mundane vanities, and become a true believer. In a little while, though wilt be
in thy tomb, and damp earth will be cast upon thy face, but lately so beautiful.
Apply thyself solely to thy religious duties; give thyself up to devotion, and
try to propitiate the Lord of heaven." 2
1 Alvaro, "Indiculus
luminosus."
2 Ibn Adhari.
Alarmed by the revolts which were breaking
out on all sides, Abd' Allah made a truce first with Ibn-Hafcoun; but this step,
having produced an effect contrary to his expectations, he resumed the struggle,
with varying fortunes.
His grandson, Abd-er-Rahman III., at the age of
twenty-two, succeeded him (912-961). He was a sovereign of rare energy and great
courage, probably the greatest of the Caliphs of Spain.
He assumed
command of the Musulman troops in person and pacified the country in a few
months. He even extended his influence into Africa. He reorganized the public
treasury, which had been emptied by his predecessors, and caused the taxes to be
collected regularly so that they produced annually a total exceeding six million
pieces of gold; of this he devoted one third to current expenses, another third
to embellishments, and the remaining third he placed in reserve. In 951, he had
in his coffers more than twenty million pieces of gold. A wise and tactful
administration caused the old quarrels between Christians and Musulmans to be
forgotten, and brought back prosperity once more. Commerce developed to such an
extent that the customs duties inward and outward were sufficient to meet the
public expenditure. His reign was for Musulman Spain a period of unquestionable
splendour.1 And yet, Abd-er-Rahman was not happy: having caused one of his sons
to be executed for plotting against him, he was so tortured by remorse that it
hastened his end. He expressed his grief in the following verses, which were
found after his death: " Fifty years have gone by since I became Caliph: wealth,
power, pleasure-I have enjoyed them all, I have cxhausted them all. Rival Kings
respect me, fenr me, and envy me. All that a man could desire, that has II caven
granted me.
1 Dozy, t. ii., p. 35O.
Ah ! well, in this long spell
of apparent happiness, I have counted up the days when I have been really happy,
and I have found them to amount to fourteen. Mortals, form a just estimate of
power, of the world, and of life." 1
The very remarkable record of work
accomplished by Abd-er-Rahman III. was carried on by his son, EI Hakem II.
(961-976), who, having imposed peace on the neighbouring Christian princes,
administered the finances of the Empire with prudence. He made such economies in
sumptuary expenditure that he was able to reduce taxation. Under the advice of
Islamized Spaniards of his court, he protected art and letters as no other
Caliph had done before him. Keen to educate himself, he attained a degree of
intellectual culture very rare at that time. He had a passion for rare and
valuable books, and kept a number of scribes in the principal towns of
Islam-Bagdad, Damascus, Cairo, and Alexandria, whose business it was to make
copies of any remarkable works. His library at Cordova contained over four
hundred thousand volumes. In order to spread the advantages of education and the
blessings of religion, he created numerous primary schools and many superior
colleges, where selected professors taught grammar, rhetoric, and even
philosophy, after Aristotle. 2 The University of Cordova, reorganized under his
care, became celebrated; the liberality of the Caliph drew to it the most
renowned doctors of the Musulman world: Abu-Ali-Kali, of Bagdad, taught there
everything connected with the ancient Arabs, their history, their proverbs,
their language, and their poetry.
1 Ibn Adhari.
2 Ibn-Khaldoun,
"Prolegomena."
These lessons were subsequently collected and published
under the title of Amali or lectures.1 Ibn al Koutia taught grammar. Abu- Bekr
ibn Moawia, of the Koreich, dealt with the traditions relating to Mahomet. 2
Thousands of students flocked from all parts of the kingdom to follow the
teaching of these illustrious masters.
From among the young students of
this U niver-sity there emerged the man who was to give to the power of the
Caliphs its greatest expression of might and splendour, but who was at the same
time to ruin it by his ambition: Abu-Amir Mohammed, better known as AI Manzor
(the victorious). Sprung from a middle-class family, but devoid of scruples and
anxious only to succeed, he raised himself by means of skilful intrigue to the
highest offices. Beginning as a poor public writer, then secretary to the Cadi
of Cordova, he was recommended to the Caliph's favourite Sultana, Sobh (Aurora),
who engaged him as administrator of her eldest son's estates, the child being
then five years olds. 3 Thanks to the Sultana's interest, whose lover he is said
to have been, he was appointed inspector of the Mint, an important post, which
by placing at his disposal, almost without check, considerable sums, enabled him
to form a following of devoted partisans. Sent into Mauretania to supervise the
conduct of the Caliph's generals, he succeeded by tact and discretion in winning
the friendship of both officers and men. On his return, EI Hakem II., feeling
himself seriously ill, made him major-domo to his son, Hasheml, who was still
too young to wield power.
1 Ibn-Khaldoun, trad.
Slane.
2 Ibn-Adhari.
3 Cardonne, " Hist. de l' Afrique et de
l'Espague."
On Hakem's death, Abu-Amir
Mohammed, ridding himself very cleverly of the personages who might stand in his
way, proceeded, with the con-nivance of Sultana Sobh, to relegate Hashem II. to
the women of the harem, and himself assumed power. 1 fter a few military
successes over the Christian princes of the neighbouring States, he took the
title of AI Manzor, the victorious, and then that of Malik Karim, the
magnanimous king. Having fallen out with Sultana Sobh and threatened with
dismissal, he extorted from Hashem II. a declaration handing over to himself the
conduct of affairs. His ambition was his ruin. In order to maintain his prestige
and popularity, he engaged in a ruinous war with the Christian States. Defeated
at Kalat Annozer by a coalition of the princes, and wounded in the course of the
action, his pride was so mortified that he made no struggle against death
(1002).2
Hashem II. might have taken advantage of this opportunity to
resume power; but he did nothing. Dividing his time between the women of his
harem and religious exercises, he allowed Abd-el-Malik, the son of AI Manzor, to
govern in his place. But the new regent had not the qualities of his father.
This was the beginning of the downfall of the M usulman Empire in Spain; the
causes of its dissolution can already be discerned:
The absence of any
national unity. The con-querors, drowned as they were in the flood of a hostile
population who, though outwardly converted to Islam, had preserved their own
mentality; their customs, and the sentiment of nationality, formed a minority
incapable of exercising any directive lnfluence. The Arabs were, in fact, merely
encamped in the countries they had hastily con-quered; their occupation was
precarious; whilst their Semitic mentality kept them outside the pale of Latin
civilization.
1 Ibn-Adhari.
2 Dozy, " Hist. des Musulmans
d'Espagne."
The subject population was divided against itself; the
Islamized Spaniards lived on bad terms with the Christians, who regarded them as
renegades; the Berbers, who formed the great bulk of the army, hated both Arabs
and Spaniards alike, and were only concerned to live at the expense of either
one or the other. The Caliph, kept apart from he people, was powerless to impose
his will. A court composed of adventurers and servile courtiers, in haste to get
rich, isolated him from the masses. And then, in addition, there was the
constant menace of the neighbouring Christian States, which had become the
refuge of all the malcontents, of all those who had been robbed, of all those
who had refused to make any sort of compromise with the conqueror and had
preferred to abandon their property rather than deny their faith. This menace
kept alive in the hearts of the vanquished the hope of revenge, in the belief
that some day the invader would be driven out.
This fragile structure had
been kept together after a fashion by energetic rulers having at their
disposi-tion an irresistible military force; but as soon as power fell into the
hands of incapable Caliphs, the hostile elements, who had been kept together by
force, withdrew from their compulsory alliance, and anarchy took the place of
order.
Abd-el-Malik had been barely tolerated. The Spanish people, with a
vague consciousness of their dignity, bore with increasing impatience the rule
of a parvenu without any real authority. The situation was aggravated after the
death of Abd-el-Malik, when his brother, Abd-er- Rahman wanted to take his
place. The hatred which had long been accumu-lating against this family of
parasites broke loose. As the imbecile, Hashem II., did not intervene, various
pretenders came forward, notably a certain Mohammed, in whose favour the Caliph
abdicated, and who took the surname of EI-Mahdi Billah.1
This meant civil
war and anarchy. Abd-er-Rahman was murdered by the populace; EI-Mahdi put Hashem
II. into close confinement and gave out that he was dead, which did not improve
the situation. A grandson of Abd-er-Rahman III, Soleiman, was proclaimed Caliph.
The palace mer-cenaries, under the lead of a certain Wadhih, killed EI Mahdi,
under the pretext of restoring Hashem II, they then killed Wadhih who was
abusing his power.
Soleiman took Cordova; and when he reproached Hashem
II. with having abdicated in favour of his rival Mohammed, the Caliph replied,
joining his hands: " Alas! you know I have no will; I do what they tell me! But
spare me, I beseech you, for I declare again that I abdicate, and I appoint you
my successor."2 This language shows the depth of cowardice into which Hashem had
fallen.
In the provinces the Berber leaders revolted; the populace betook
themselves to pillage; adventurers arose on all sides to foment these troubles.
There were several Caliphs attempting to reign at the same time: Ali Ibn Hamoud;
then a grandson of Abd-er-Rahman III., Abd-er-Rahman IV. (IOlp); then Kassim
(1028); then a son of Abd-er-Rahman IV., Abd-er-Rahman V. (1028); then an
Ommeyad, Mohammed II. al Mostakfi (1024); then Yahia, son of Ali Ibn Hammoud
(1025); then Hashem III. al Motamid, elder brother of Abd-er-Rahman V.
(1026-1029), a roi faineant who passed his life at table, between actors and
dancing-girls.
1 De MarIes, "Hist. de la
conquete de l'Espagne par les Arabes."
2 Ibn-Adhari.
Drivcn from
power, this ne'er-do-well who cared only for wines, flowers, and truffles, was
replaced by a sort of Senate, made up of Viziers and other influential
personages (1029).1
Each province and every town of importance became a
separate State; Cordova fell from its rank as the capital and was supplanted by
Seville, where the executive power had been entrusted to the Cadi, Abul-Kassim
Mohammed, of the family of the Beni-Abbad or Abbadites. To put an end to these
rivalries and re-establish some sort of order, he made use of a stratagem. He
had found, in the person of a mat-weaver of Calatrava, the living double of
Hashem II., and he claimed that the Caliph was not dead, that he had found him
in a prison; and he gave the outward signs of power to this mat-weaver,
reserving the real governing power to himself (1035).2
His son, Abbad
(1042), succeeded him as hadjib or prime minister to the so-called Hashem II.
Suspicious, corrupt, treacherous, given up to drunken-ness, tyrannical, and
cruel, this man seemed to combine in his own person every possible defect. He
got rid of the pseudo-Caliph and reigned under the name of Abbad II. in the
midst of general anarchy. His son, AI Motamid (1069), less corrupt, tried to
restore order; but his attempts were unfortunate; and in despair he entered into
an alliance with Alphonse V. (1080). The latter, in case of success, reserved
for himself Toledo, leaving to his ally Badajoz, Granada, and Almeria.
1
Dozy, op. cit.
2 lbn-Adhari.
This understanding was specially
favourable to the Christian King in giving him possession of Toledo and thus
delivering to the Spaniards all the fortresses on their side of the Tagus, and
giving them a solid base of operations for the future. 1
The Arabs,
feeling their situation precarious, appealed to the Almoravid Y ousef ben
Tafsin, established in Morocco, whose warlike successes and great qualities
centred upon him the hopes of the Musulman world. They realized that in doing
this they were merely changing masters; but, as Al Motamid expressed it, they
would rather be calmel-drivers in Africa than swineherds in
Castile.
Yousef crossed over into Spain (1086) and obtained a first
success over the Christians; he was about to follow this up when the death of
his son compelled him to return to Morocco. Left to himself, AI Motamid
sustained severe reverses; the Christians, led by chiefs of the highest courage,
such as the famous Rodrigo de Campeador (The Cid), took possession of the
province of Murcia (1087).
At the request of Al Motamid, Yousef returned
to Spain, where, taking advantage of the rivalries of the Arab leaders and of
the complaisance of the Berber chiefs, he carved out for himself a State in the
south of the peninsula, where his authority was exercised without opposition
(1090-1094). There remained only one independent Musulman State, that of
Saragossa, where Mostain, of the family of the Beni-Hamed, ruled. On his death,
Saragossa was handed over to the Almoravids (1110).
Yousef owed his
success to the fakis who had carried on an active propaganda on his behalf and
who had legalized his usurpation by religious texts. Him-self very devout, he
rewarded them by according them the most extensive privileges. It was a reign of
narrow fanaticism and of religious oppression carried on by Islamized Berbers
who scrupulously observed the letter of the Islamic dogma and applied the
commandments of the Koran with inflexible rigour. This regime was prolonged
under Y ousef's successors, Ali and Teshoufin, up to 1148.
1 De Marles,
op. cit.
The intellectual culture, developed by Islamized Spaniards under
the patronage of liberal-minded Caliphs, was annihilated. The poets had to
exclude every licentious expression, every profane metaphor from their writings,
and to limit themselves to extolling the benefits of Islam; the philosophers had
to confine themselves to a servile imitation of the orthodox writers; men of
science were obliged to desist from researches which carried them beyond the
narrow borders of dogma. Even Ghazzali, the great Musulman theologian, whose
works had been called the proof of Islamism, was ranked among the ungodly. It
was the destruction of all thinking, the return to barbarism.
Naturally,
the Christians and Jews were persecuted with the utmost rigour. For fifty years
Musulman Spain lived under the rough discipline of ignorant and bigoted
sectaries who set themselves the task of killing every tendency towards progress
at its birth. 1
Exasperated by this unbearable tyranny, the people
finally rose against the bigots. They were aided in their rebellion by the Arab
chiefs, who wished to free themselves, and also by the neighbour-ing Christian
States. It was the time when the enthusiasm that had aroused the great crusading
movement was still vibrating. The Christian princes, taking advantage of the
hostility of the people against their Musulman oppressors, engaged in the
struggle. The moment was favourable.
1 Dozy, op. cit.
The Berber
Almoravids had lost their warlike qualities through their residence in Spain;
whilst the Spaniards, who had been converted, detested their tyrants more than
ever. Alphonse of Arragon made several successful incursions into Andalusia
(1125); Alphonso VII. of Castile took Xeres (1133); Roger Guiscar took
possession of Candia and Sicily, and his son conquered the islands of the coast
(1125-1143).
The Almoravids having lost all prestige, a certain Mohammed
ben Abd' Allah gave himself out as the Mahdi, the Messiah who was to regenerate
Islam; and from Africa, where he had just founded the dynasty of the Almohades,
he crossed over into Spain (1120-1130). His successor, Abd-el-Moumen
(1180-1160), accomplished the conquest of Africa, and then fought in Spain
against the Christian princes. His son, Yousouf (1172-1184), carried on the war
with alternating success and failure, and his successor, Yacoub, took up the
holy war against the Christians (1184). He took Calatrava, Toledo, and
Salamanca. 1
The accession of the Almohades was the result of the
movement of reaction against the fanaticism of the Almoravids. Thanks to the
liberal spirit of the members of this dynasty, civilization which had been
stifled by bigoted ignorance, shone with a new brilliancy by the help of
Islamized Spaniards. The same fact may be noted throughout the whole course of
Musulman history: namely, that whenever the religious party is in the ascendant,
and the Caliph is amenable to its suggestions, civilization is stifled and there
is a retrogression of the subject peoples towards barbarism. On the other hand,
there is an expansion of civilization as soon as the subject people are able,
thanks to the administration of a tolerant prince, to develop freely their
national qualities.
1 De MarIes, op. cit.
When Islam triumphs, it
is the Arab spirit that dominates, that is to say a spirit poor in imagination,
incapable of invention, and which, being quite unable to conceive anything
beyond what it perceives directly, observes scrupulously, fanatically, the
letter of the sacred texts. When the religious party ceases to wield power, the
subject people, left free to think and act, escape from the narrow pillory of
Islamic dogma and obey the inspirations of their own genius. It is a further
proof of the deadly_influence of Islam. The expansion of civilization that was
produced in Spain under the tolerant administration of the Almohades, following
the fanatical tutelage of the Almoravids, shows once more the correctness of
this view.
The reign of Yacoub marks a renaissance of Latin civilization.
Belles lettres, which had been disdained by the coarse and devout Africans, were
once more held in honour; poets and men of science were understood and
appreciated, and sumptuous monu-ments on every side bore witness to the wealth
and liberality of the Almohades.
Mohammed - el- Nasr (1205), who
succeeded Yacoub, at first followed his example, but moved by ambition he had
dreams of military glory and wished to undertake expeditions against the
Christians. In 1205 he took the Balearic Isles, and was so intoxicated by this
success that he lost all prudence, and in 1210 invaded the neighbouring
Christian States.1
This was a blunder; for Islam no longer had at its
disposal armed forces adequate for the realization of conquests. The Berber
armies, corrupted by contact with Latin civilization, had lost their powers of
endurance and their bravery and had become nothing more than hordes of
undisciplined old soldiers. On the other hand, the Christians, fired by
religious zeal, were possessed of formidable armies.
1 Sedillot, "Hist.
des Arabes."
As soon as the Musulmans made their attack, Pope Innocent
III. preached a crusade and sixty thousand foreign volunteers crossed the
Pyrenees in response to his appeal and joined forces with the Spanish
Christians. A great battle fought in the plains of Tolosa ended in the defeat of
the Musulmans (1212). The Christians, encouraged by this success, followed it up
by a succession of victories. The Islamized Spaniards, who had only remained
quiet from fear of reprisals, now rose. The Arab and Berber leaders, wishing to
be free, followed their example, and there ensued a fresh period of anarchy,
which was fatal to the Almohades. The successors of Mohammed-el-Nasr, Abu
Yacoub, and Almamun tried in vain to stem the disorganization of the Empire. The
Christians continued their successful progress until in 1232 the dominion of the
Almohades in Spain was totally destroyed.
Of the Musulman States there
remained only Granada whose sovereign, Mohammed al-Hammar, was able to make a
show of resistance. Granada had become the refuge of those Musulmans who could
not submit to a foreign yoke. Threatened on all sides, they united together and
thus enabled the kingdom of Granada to subsist for more than two centuries
(1288-1492); but its fall was fated. EI-Zagal, one of the successors of Mohammed
al-Hammar, capitulated in 1492.1
That was the end of Islam in Spain. What
had happened elsewhere happened again in Spain: the Arabs transplanted into the
country were, so to speak, poisoned by Latin civilization.
1 Dozy, "
Hist. des. Musulmans d'Espagne."
It is indeed notable that the Arab has
never been able to profit by the intellectual or scientific achievements of
other nations; he has contracted their defects, but he has shown himself
incapable of assimilating any of their good qualities. The reason of this is
simple. The law, of religious inspiration, which rules tyrannically every act of
a Musulman, and which has been based upon Arab customs, that is to say, the
customs of a barbarous people, does not expressly condemn the grosser forms of
pleasure; contrary to Christianity, Islam does not preach continence nor the
contempt of sex. With the exception of the prohibition of fermented liquors, it
leaves the faithful complete liberty in all that concerns material enjoyments.
Mahomet boasted of his love of perfumes, of women, and flowers. But the law of
Islam fixes in a rigid and unchangeable way the intellectual limits that the
Musulman cannot pass without denying his faith. It has thus prevented those who
accept it from bene-fiting by the progress of civilization realized by other
nations, without defending them against the vices of these same nations. The
consequence has been that whilst remaining intellectually barbarians, the
followers of the religion of Islam have assimilated the vices of societies
refined by an ancient civilization.
In Spain, the Arab became weakened by
contact with Latin culture. The man of war became effeminate. Being quite
unable, from his want of intellectual equipment, to exert any influence over the
mentality of the newly converted, he was content to impose himself by force; and
thus power slipped from his hands as soon as a more easy life and the abuse of
material pleasures had caused him to lose his qualities of vigour and endurance.
The vanquished, in response to the sentiment of nationalism, revolted as soon as
he felt himself strong enough and drove out the invader.
The expansion of
civilization, which was produced in Spain under the reign of tolerant Caliphs,
was due entirely to Islamized Spaniards, that is to say, to Latins who, in spite
of their conversion, had kept intact their mentality and their genius. Even the
Arab literature of Spain shows the effect of Latin influence. 1 Within the
limits allowed him by the law of Islam, the conquering barbarian has submitted
to the impress of the conquered, more civilized than himself. As everywhere
else, the Arab has copied, but has invented nothing. The monuments of Cordova,
of Seville, and of Granada, are the work of Spanish 'architects. The Arab gave
the orders, but no instructions. The Caliph said: "I want a palace," but he
could never find any Arab capable of drawing up the necessary plans, and had to
entrust this duty to Islamized Spaniards; just as at Damascus and at Bagdad, it
was Syrian and Greek architects who erected the monuments wrongly attributed to
the Arabs.
1 Dozy, op. cit.
* * *
Arab decadence in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt - The provinces,
relapsed into barbarism temporarily under Arab dominion, are re-born into
civilization as soon as they are able to free themselves - General causes of the
decay of the Arab Empire: Political nullity - Absence of creative genius - Absence
of discipline - Bad administration - No national unity - The Arab could only
govern with the collaboration of foreigners - Secondary causes: Religion, the
vehicle of Arab thought - Too great a diversity among the conquered
peoples - Despotic power of the prince - Servile position of women - The Islamization
of the subject peoples raised them to the level of the conqueror and allowed
them to submerge him - Mixed marriages - Negro influence - Diminution of the
Imperial revenues - The mercenaries
IT
would be wearisome to follow through all its details the history of the
provinces brought into subjection to the Arabs. It may be briefly summarized.
The same causes having produced everywhere the same effects, the various
countries conquered by the Arabs followed the example of Spain and worked for
the dismemberment of the Empire. In Persia, in Mesopotamia and in Egypt, it was
above all nationalist sentiments, awakened by foreign domination and
strengthened by religious persecution, that drove the people to
revolt.1
This movement towards independence reveals a remarkable fact,
already noted in the case of Spain: the provinces fallen into barbarism under
the Arab by ambition, embarked on civil war which ruined this vast empire and
led to its dismemberment.
1 'Th. Noeldeke. "Hist. des
PeJ'ses et des Arabes au temps de Sassanides."
In 877, a freed Turkish
mercenary, Ahmed ben Thoulon, to whom Caliph AI Motamid had entrusted the
government of Egypt and Syria, declared himself independent of the Empire. His
motive was ambi-tion, but he was aided by the people who were weary of Arab
constraint. Once rid of the heavy hand of the Abbassides, the two provinces
which had been almost ruined by the exactions of officials and by religious
persecution, soon recovered their former prosperity. Ahmed ben Thoulon, who had
only recently been converted to Islam, had but a very slight acquaintance with
the subtleties of the faith; and being anxious for popularity, he displayed a
liberal spirit, calmed the zeal of the fanatics, protected the arts and
sciences, raised monuments with the help of Egyptian and Syrian architects, made
roads, opened canals and set up markets.
His son, Khomarouiah (884),
following his example, allowed complete liberty to the indi-vidual, surrounded
himself with an elegant court, and distinguished himself by his prodigality. At
the instigation of the learned men of the country, he had an immense menagerie
built at Mesrah where wild animals of every sort were kept.
The
Fatimites, who succeeded the Thoulonides, ruled as they had done with the
assistance of the great local families.l Moez-Ledinilla (9~58-975), who was the
first Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, and who founded EI Kahira, and his successor
Aziz-Billah (975-996), by their liberal administration, favoured the development
of commerce, of industry, and agriculture; whilst by their generous treatment
they encouraged writers and savants.
1 Makrizi, "
Ittiaz-el-Hounafa."
Ibn-Younes, the Egyptian, had his observ-atory, like
the astronomers of Irak, and was able to compose his celebrated astronomical
tables. l The prosperity of this province increased until the revenue from it
alone was equal to what had formerly been collected by Haroun-al-Haschid from
the whole extent of the Empire.
In spite of the folly of Hashem, a sort
of Oriental Nero who distinguished himself by sadic excesses (996-1020); in
spite of the incapacity of Dhaber (1020-1086); in spite of the disappointed
ambitions of Abu-Tamin Mostanser (1086-1094), Egypt con-tinued to be prosperous
until 1171, when for a time she again fell under the dominion of the Abbassides.
From 1171 to 1258, when the last Abbasside died, was a period of barbarism and
anarchy further accentuated by the enterprises of the Christian Crusaders, which
began in 1096. 2
The Abbasside Caliphs, weakened by a life of debauchery,
were too feeble to offer any effective opposition to the taking of Antioch
(1098) or of Jerusalem (1099). It was a Seljuk, Emad-ed-Din Zenghi, who had
carved out for himself an independent kingdom between Djezireh and Irak el
Arabi, who led the Musulmans against the Christians and arrested their
advance.
His work was continued by his two sons, Sif-ed--Din and
Nour-ed-Din. The latter, notably, took Damascus, then threatened by the
Crusaders; whilst one of his lieutenants, Shirkuk, took Egypt in hand.
1
Sedillot, op. cit.
2 "Recueil des hist. orientaux des
Croisades."
Shirkuk's nephew, Salah-ed-Din, the Saladin of our
chronicles, overthrew the Fatimites (1171).1 On the death of Nour-ed-Din in
1174, he became the ruler of Egypt, of Syria, of Mesopotamia, and of Arabia. In
1185, his Empire extended from Tripoli, in Africa, to the Tigris, and from the
Yemen to the Taurus mountains. He took from the Christians Acre, Ascalon and
Jerusalem (1187). On his death, the ambition of his sons broke up this Empire;
one of them took Egypt, another Damascus, and the third took Aleppo and Upper
Syria. This was the dynasty of the Aioubites. The two former were dispossessed
by their uncle Malk-Adhel-Sif-ed-Din, who reunited into one State Egypt and
Lower Syria and took Tripoli from the Crusaders (1200-1218). On his death there
was a further dismemberment. In the thirteenth century, the Musulman Empire was
no more than a cloud of small States wrangled over by the representatives of the
different dynasties and the partisans of the various sects, of whom the most
active at that time were the Ismailiens or Hachichin, who came to light in
Persia about 840, under the inspiration of Mazdeism.
A new race of
conquerors, the Mongols, now invaded Asia Minor and added to the general
anarchy; after making themselves masters of Tartary and China, Genghis Khan and
his successors fell upon the Musulman Empire (1258).2 Egypt and Syria held out
until 1517. Power passed finally out of the hands of the Arabs, who disappeared
before more warlike conquerors-the Turks and the Mongols; they had no longer any
political existence beyond the confines of the peninsula, and disappeared
henceforward from the history of the nations of the Orient.
1 Michaud, "
Hist. des Croisades."
2 Djouvaini, "Tarrikhi Djihan Kouchal";
Rashid-ed-Din-Fadh' Allah, " Djami al-Tawarikh."
Having now reviewed the
history of the Arab Empire from its origin down to its final collapse, it may
not be beyond the bounds of possibility perhaps to unravel the causes of its
decline and fall.
There were certain general causes, connected with the
Arab temperament and mentality, and resulting from the natural shortcomings of
the Arab, from his customs, from the conditions of his existence during
centuries in a special milieu-the desert.
Then there were secondary
causes, consequent upon the mistakes committed by the Arabs as
conquerors.
Taking first the general causes, we find that the Arabs were
never a political people, capable of great aims and of patient effort in view of
their realization. They were a nomadic people, primitive, simple beings, not
very far removed from animalism, obeying their instincts, unable to curb their
passions or to control their desires. Powerless to conceive a higher interest,
to cherish a lofty ideal, they have always lived a life of indiscipline. Subject
to chronic anarchy, the Arab has never been able to subordinate his individual
egoism to the pursuit of any great collective task, to the realization of any
national ambition
Even at the time of their greatness and power, they
were a sort of federation of egoisms, brought together and kept together by the
pressure of circumstances, but ready at any moment to fly at each others'
throats.
Incapable of invention, they have copied, but have never been
able to create. Incapable of progress, they tolerated the forms of government
they found in existence in the lands they conquered, but they could never
improve upon those forms, nor replace them by any other.
A homely
illustration will explain our meaning.
"The intelligence of an Arab
rises as high as the faculty of imitation. Put him on a motorcar or a locomotive
engine, and after a certain time of apprenticeship, they will be able to drive
it; but if the machine should get out of order, he will be quite incapable of
repairing it, and still less could he make a new one.”
In the same
way, the Arab conqueror succeeding to civilized peoples such as the Persians or
the Byzantines, has been able to take over their system of administration; he
has even been compelled to adopt it, since he could not substitute for it any
scheme of his own devising; he has been able to assure the working of the
adopted system for a certain time; but as soon as circumstances called for some
modi-fications, he has not been able to effect them, since he had no gift of
invention or creative genius; and when the system got out of order for want of
measures rendered necessary by new conditions, by the evolution of ideas and of
manners, he could neither repair it nor replace it by any system of his own. The
machine of government wore out rapidly and finally stopped running; and when it
stopped, ruin followed.
In Northern Africa, the conquering Arab was
unable to repair the barrages and other hydraulic works that had enabled the
Romans to endow the country with unexampled agricultural prosperity.
He
made what use he could of them, so long as they lasted; but, when they fell into
ruin, either by the ravages of time or by wanton destruction, the prosperity of
the Moghreb collapsed, drought struck the land with barrenness and the desert
took the place of fields and orchards.
The Arab is no administrator. A
careless nomad, accustomed to live from hand to mouth, submitting to the
accidents of daily life without being able to foresee them, and never dreaming
of providing against them, he is quite incapable of government. So true is this
that the capital of the Empire has never been in Arabia; it was for a time in
Syria, then in Mesopotamia, then in Spain, then in Egypt; that is to say,
wherever the Caliphs found foreign collaborators with the talents necessary to
make up for their own shortcomings. So long as these collaborators were strong
enough to impose their will, behind the facade of Caliphal power, there was some
appearance of government. But, when the conquering Arab, intoxicated by his
successes or blinded by religious fanaticism, wanted to rule by himself, anarchy
immediately succeeded to order and the whole structure went to pieces. At no
period did the direction of the affairs of the Empire proceed from Arabia, so
that there could never be any national power, any national ideal, national
interest or national unity.
The various provinces were always split up by
rivalries, because each one of them, in view of the inability of the Conqueror
to impose discipline and directive, preserved its own particular ideals, its own
ambitions, friendships and hatreds; so that the Arab Empire was never anything
better than a mosaic of ill-assorted blocks without bond or cohesion.
The
Arab is a barbarian. Up to the time of Mahomet, Arabia was inhabited by
shepherds and robbers; there is no evidence of the existence of a society, of
any collective organization or intellectual movement. When these primitive
beings, solely preoccupied by the satisfaction of material desires, sprang
forward to the conquest of the world and fell into the midst of nations far
advanced in civilization, they became rapidly corrupted. When the Bedouin,
brought up to the rough life of the desert, accustomed to privation and
suffering, was transplanted to Damascus or Bagdad, to Cordova or to Alexandria,
he soon became a prey to all the vices of civilization; the half-starved
creature was ready to burst with indigestion; the Spartan, by necessity,
hitherto, became at once a Sybarite.
Unable to restrain his instincts, he
entered into the enjoyment of an easy life and became perverted. Coarse and
ignorant, he succumbed to the influence of subordinates more civilized than
himself. He never had any authority but that of physical force; and when that
passed from him by reason of his debasement, he forfeited all power. When
foreign assistance was withdrawn, he became himself again -the Bedouin
Arab.
The Bedouin cannot conceive any condition better than his own; he
cannot imagine anything that does not actually exist, that he cannot see that he
does not possess. Driven by the keen desire for plunder, he left his desert and
rushed to the conquest of the world. In contact with more civilized people he
imitated, copied, and adopted all that he had been powerless to imagine for
himself. He borrowed his religion from the Jews and Christians; his scientific
knowledge and his legislation from Greco- Latin civilization; but whilst copying
he has often missed the pure spirit of the original and distorted that which was
beyond his limited understanding. In so far as he has been thrown into close
association with other peoples, he has succumbed to their influence, parodied
their luxurious habits and their refined manners; but as soon as this foreign
influence has been withdrawn, he has not been able to keep what he has learnt,
but has fallen back into his original character as a coarse and ignorant
Bedouin. It was in this way that after the fall of the Barmecides, their
talented Persian ministers, the dynasty of the Abbassides, which up to then had
had a brilliant career, fell suddenly into insignificance and
decay.
Taking a bird's-eye view of Arab history, it is seen to be divided
into several periods coinciding with the influence exercised by different
foreign nations; there is the Syrian period, during the Caliphate of the
Ommeyads; the Persian period, during the reign of the Abbassides; then the
Spanish and the Egyptian periods, under their successors. During one period only
the Arabs acted alone, this was during the reign of the first successors of
Mahomet, and it should be noted that during this period the Arabs confined their
efforts to conquest, plunder and destruction.
So far as the Bedouin has
been submerged by foreigners, he has unconsciously come under their influence,
and has been licked into some sort of shape by contact with them; and it was due
to this circumstance that a certain expansion of civilization took place that
has been falsely attributed to the Arabs, whereas its real authors were the
Syrians, the Persians, the Hindus, the Spaniards, and the Egyptians. But as soon
as the Bedouin has been left to himself, he has relapsed into his ancestral
barbarism, the anarchical barbarism of the desert robber.
These appear to
he the general causes that explain the rapid decay and final collapse of the
Arab Empire. But there are secondary causes whose influence upon its destinies
was less only in degree. These causes are numerous:
In the first place,
religion. Islam, as we have already said many times, is a secretion of the Arab
brain; it is the adaptation of Judeo-Christian doctrines to Arab mentality. For
want of imagin-ation, the Bedouin has failed to animate his belief with any
lofty ideal; it is very plantigrade, without horizon, like his own thought. Its
ideal is the ideal of a nomad, of a dweller in the desert, of a primitive still
floundering in the mud of material things-of animal satisfactions, eating,
drinking, enjoying, sleeping-the poor philosophy of a brute whose mind does not
penetrate the causes of things: of a fatalist who submits to events and resigns
himself to whatever may happen.
Such a doctrine, anything but favourable
to the development of intellectual faculties, was further aggravated by the
clumsy zeal of fanatics, who, in the second century of the Hegira, succeeded in
fixing it immutably, in crystallizing it, and, worse still, in clothing it with
a sacred character by alleging its divine origin, thus making of it an
intangible whole, and rendering any later evolution, any modification, any
progress impossible.
Having thus become ossified, immutable,
imper-fectible, this doctrine has withstood the action of centuries; it is today
what it was at the time of the Abbasside Caliphs. As it was forced upon the
subject peoples, and as they, to avoid persecution, finally adopted it, it has
stifled free will, together with the power of evolution and of accepting the
teach-ings of experience; it has lowered their minds to the level of Arab
mentality. Those countries which were able to free themselves in good time from
the Arab yoke and to escape from the Musulman religion, like Spain, Sicily, and
Southern France, have kept their capacity to progress, and have been able to
follow the course of their destiny as civilized nations; the others who, before
their Islamization had shown undoubted aptitudes for progress, such as Syria,
Persia and Egypt, have sunk into barbarism since their conversion, and have
stayed there.
The deadening influence of Islam is well demon-strated by
the way in which a Musulman comports himself at different stages of his life. In
his early childhood, when the religion has not as yet impreg-nated his brain, he
shows a very lively intelligence and a remarkably open mind, accessible to ideas
of every kind; but, in proportion as he grows up, and as, through the system of
his education, Islam lays hold of him and envelops him, his brain seems to shut
up, his judgment to become atrophied, and his intelligence to be stricken by
paralysis and irremediable degeneration.
Yet another cause that has
hastened the decline of Arab dominion is to be found in the great diversity of
the conquered peoples. The Arab Empire was formed haphazard as conquest followed
conquest. The conquered nations, tribes, and colonies were divided by different
interests, aspirations and neces-sities; there was no national unity. The chief
bond of cohesion in a State is a common language, which brings about a close
communion of ideas, and is materialized in a sort of way by the creation of a
capital city, a vital centre, the heart as it were of the nation.
The
Arab Empire was never conscious of any such unity. The Latins, Greeks, Slavs,
Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Egyptians, and Berbers, brought together by the iron
will of the conqueror, could neither understand each other nor fraternize nor
combine for the pursuit of any common ideal. They formed a shapeless and
ill-assorted whole. As soon as the authority that imposed an artificial cohesion
upon them disappeared, they parted company and the Empire
crumbled.
Another cause of decadence was the despotic power of the
prince, at once temporal and spiritual head of the State. Whilst such tremendous
power might yield remarkable results in the hands of a man of genius, it became
an instrument of ruin when wielded by an incapable; but men of genius are
unfortunately rare, and, as we have seen, apart from a few exceptions, the
Caliphs were inferior to their task.
The absence of any law of succession
was a further cause of decline. By neglecting to fix any rule to regulate the
succession, Mahomet left the door open to intrigue and ambition of all kinds;
and this element of destruction was still further aggra-vated by the
insubordinate spirit of the Arabs and by the rivalries that split up every
tribe.
The servile position of women, imposed by Islam, has been and
still remains a cause of decadence for the Musulman community. Relegated to the
harem, a beast of burden amongst the poor, a creature for pleasure amongst the
rich, the wife, shut off from the outer world, remains the depositary of
ignorance and prejudice; and as it is she who brings up the children, she
inculcates the traditions 01' barbarism of which the egoism of the male has
constituted her the guardian.
The gravest error committed by the Arab
conqueror was in compelling the conquered peoples to become converts to Islam.
By the fact of conversion, the vanquished became the equal of his vanquisher,
entitled to enjoy the same rights, the same privileges; and as in the majority
of cases he was his superior in intelligence and intellectual culture, he came
to exercise a preponderating influence; so that the conquering Arab, by the very
reason of the rapidity and extent of his conquests, found himself, as it were,
drowned in a sea of foreign peoples who imposed their manners upon him and
corrupted him. They dominated him all the more easily as he was incapable,
through want of knowledge and experience of taking the lead and of establishing
his moral authority.
The same mistake had been committed by the Romans in
former days, when they had granted the citizenship to barbarians.
"An
exchange was established between Italy and the Provinces. Italy sent her sons to
die in distant lands and received in compensation millions of slaves. Of these,
some were attached to the land, cultivated it, and soon enriched it with their
bones; others, crowded together in the towns, atten-tive to the vices of a
master, were often freed by him and became citizens. Little by little the sons
of freed men came to be in sole possession of the city, composed the Roman
people, and under this name gave laws to the world. From the time of the
Gracchi, they alone nearly filled the Forum. Thus, a new people succeeded to the
Roman people, absent or destroyed. "1
1 Michelet, " Hist.
Romaine"
The systematic Islamization of the vanquished had a still more
fatal consequence for the Arabs. The greater part of the slaves were Negroes,
that is to say they belonged to an inferior race, absolutely refractory to all
civilization. By accepting Islam, these slaves raised themselves to the level of
their masters; mixed marriages were frequent and numerous, and thus the Arab
blood was impoverished. This crossing effectively corrupted and debased the Arab
race.
Everywhere else, in Syria, in Persia, in India and Egypt, in the
Moghreb and in Spain, mixed marriages enabled the subject population to submerge
their conqueror. The Arab race was diluted to such an extent that it is
impossible to find a single
representative of it to-day, among the Musulman
peoples, outside of Arabia.
The Islamization of the vanquished had yet
another consequence: it diminished the revenues of the Empire. What constituted
the wealth of the Caliphs and enabled them to display a pomp and magnificence
that reinforced their authority was the tribute paid by non-Musulmans in
consideration of the right to preserve their own beliefs. When, after the second
century of the Hegira, the fanatics compelled the vanquished by their
persecutions to become converts to Islam, the new Musulmans became the equals of
the Arabs, they ceased to pay tribute, and the treasury of the Caliphs was soon
emptied.
When, through the increasing effeminacy of the Arabs who had
lost their warlike qualities of strength and endurance, and had betaken
themselves to mercantile pursuits, the Caliphs could no longer recruit Arab
soldiers, they were obliged to have recourse to foreign mercenaries. This was
the origin of the Turkish, Slav, Berber and Spanish troops, who, under the last
Caliphs, ended by disposing of power and choosing the sovereign. Mercenary
troops, who by their turbulence had hastened the downfall of the Roman Empire,
in the same way contributed to the ruin of the Arab Empire.
Such were the multiple causes that brought about the decadence and final collapse of Arab dominion.
* * *
[CHAPITRE XII of the french edition]
The Musulman community is theocratic - Religious law, inflexible and
immutable, regulates its institutions as well as individual
conduct - Legislation - Education - Government - The position of women - Commerce
- Property - No originality in Musulman institutions - The Arab has imitated and
distorted - In his manifestations of intellectual activity he appears to be
paralytic, and since he has impregnated Islam with his inertia, the nations who
have adopted this religion are stricken with the same sterility - All Musulmans,
whatever their ethnic origin, think and act like a Bedouin barbarian of the time
of Mahomet.
Having studied the history of
the Arab Empire and penetrated the causes of its decline and fall, we are in a
better position to understand the psychology of the Musul-man, or rather that
deformation that has come about through Arab influence, with Islam as its
instrument, in every individual who has adopted this religion.
The
Musulman community is theocratic; every-thing in it is regulated by religious
law, the most trivial actions of the individual as well as its institutions. God
is the supreme master. Know-ledge is not considered to be a means of knowing Him
better, or of serving Him more intelligently. Human intelligence and human
activity have no other object than to glorify Him. The individual is brought to
this conception by a whole network of measures and enactments woven by the
doctors of the faith in the second century of the Hegira.
Ibn-Khaldoun
says in his Prolegomena that one of the distinctive marks of Musulman
civilization is the practice of teaching the Koran to young children. He might
have added that the teaching of the Holy Book, to the exclusion of all else,
constitutes the curriculum of primary, secondary, and higher studies. God being
the dispenser of all good things, everything is brought back to Him-science, the
arts, and all manifestations of human activity. To know His word is the sole
preoccupation of the faithful; but the Koran is written in a dead language that
a Musulman cannot understand without special study; and so, to simplify the
task, he has had to be content with reading the sacred text without seeking to
understand it, To read well, to pronounce the words correctly, there you have
the whole scibile of the nations of Islam.1
Moreover, it would be of no
service to a believer to be able to understand the divine word, since he is not
allowed to interpret it, nor to take it as his rule of conduct by applying it to
current events. The interpretation of the Koran has been fixed once for all by
the orthodox commentators; this interpretation is final, and no Musulman may
modify it under penalty of apostasy. This formal and irrevocable prohibition
shuts the Mahometan nations off from all progress. Executed at barbarous epoch,
the ortho-dox interpretation has for a long time past fallen short of the
progress in every domain realized by civilized nations; the world has evolved,
but the true believer, entangled in a net of obsolete texts, cannot follow this
evolution. In the midst of modern States he remains a man of the Middle Ages.
1 Sawas Pasha, "Et. sur le Droit musulman."
To convince oneself
of this it is only necessary to make a cursory examination of the various
institutions of the Islamic community.
Legislation.- The Koran is,
in principle, the source from which the Musulmans have drawn their inspiration;
but Mahomet had neither the time, nor possibly even the intention of
establishing an exact doctrine settled in all its details. In his anxiety to
attract followers, he tried his best to please everybody. He was a diplomatist
and a tribune rather than a legislator. According to circumstances, he expressed
an opinion or a theory which he had no hesitation in repealing on the following
day, if the interest of the moment demanded it.
Again, the Koran contains
commandments so contradictory that it would be difficult to extract any precise
rules of conduct from it, beyond the recognition of the unity of God and the
mission of His Messenger. In this way Mahomet at one time declared that
Christians and Jews, people of the Book, were to be respected for the same
reason as Musulmans; and at another time that they were to be exterminated
without mercy. This is but one example of his contradictions; many others might
be quoted. The consequence is that the Koran is a singularly confused code, and
that the successors of the Prophet, charged with its application, were sometimes
very much embarrassed. The more scrupulous of them surrounded themselves with
counsellors chosen from among those who had lived on intimate terms with the
Messenger of God and were supposed to know his mind. Others acted on the
inspiration of the moment, often enough according to their own good will and
pleasure. But when the tide of Arab conquest had extended the Empire, the
Caliph, finding it a physical impossibility to dispense justice by himself
unaided, had to delegate his powers, and as it would be dangerous to leave each
of these delegates at liberty to interpret the sacred texts for himself, the
necessity of drawing up a code sufficiently precise for their use was
recognized. 1
The work roughly drafted by the earlier Caliphs and
continued after them in different parts of the Empire, was finished by certain
jurisconsults who were the founders of the four orthodox rites: Malekite,
Hanefite, Chafeite, and Hanbalite. The work of each of the four interpreters of
the Koran, conceived on the same principles, is a sort of compilation of very
diverse texts. These are:
1. The commandments of the Koran.
2. The
sayings of the Prophet, recorded by his early companions. The word of God
(Koran), and the conduct of his Envoy (Sounnet), are the chief sources of
Musulman law. The divine word was communicated by the angel of the Lord to
Mahomet, and by him transmitted to men, in terms identical with those the angel
had used and which the Elect of the Most High (Moustafa) had faithfully
preserved in his memory. The conduct of the Prophet is similarly the result of
divine inspiration, direct and immediate; it comprises the sayings, the actions,
and the approba-tions, explicit or tacit, of the founder of Islam. God and the
Prophet are the Musulman legislators; their legislation is, according to the
sanctioned phrase, a precious gift of lIeaven.2
But the commandments of
God (Koran) and those of the Prophet (Sounnet) were not sufficient to meet all
cases; it was, therefore, necessary to complete them.
1 Seignette, "
Introd. it la trad. de Khalil."
2 Sawas Pasha, op. cit.
The jurisconsults, incapable of accomplishing this work by drawing from their own inner consciousness, sought elsewhere the inspiration they lacked. The sources from which they drew are known:
3. Roman Law, which was in force in the majority of the newly conquered countries-Syria, Egypt, and Moghreb. But in adopting these laws, the Arabs distorted them to such an extent that their original signification was lost;
4. Pre-Islamic customs which,
while not con-demned by the Koran, were considered as approved; and others which
had been modified by the Prophet without having been abolished;
5. The Old Testament, for the commandments relating to murder and adultery; 1
6. Judgments delivered by the
Caliphs in accord-ance with the Koran.
According to the orthodox
commentators who fixed the doctrine, legislation is the acquaintance of man with
his rights and duties. This knowledge is obtained by study of the science of law
which comprises both philosophy and morals.
Philosophy lays down the
relations of man to other beings, and between man and the Legislator par
excellence, who is God. Morality teaches the rela-tions which ought to exist
between the individual members of a community, or between the individual and the
community. It forms the conscience of the man and that of the Judge, and
strengthens it to the point of enabling the one and the other to distinguish
beauty (legality) from ugliness (illegality).2
The four interpretations
of the Koran represent four different texts. Wherever Musulman law is in force
every believer may choose one or other of these interpretations; but his choice
once made, he must see that his conduct conforms to it.
1 S.Levy, "Moise,
Jesus, Mahomet."
2 Sawas Pasha.
The works of the commentators have
replaced the Koran itself to such an extent that the Koran can no longer be
quoted in support of a judgment. A legal decision stated as being based upon a
text directly derived from the revealed Book would be null and void, and might
entaila penalty upon its author. Such a mode of proceeding would constitute, in
effect, a heresy, and would be regarded as an attempted insubordination to the
orthodox interpretations. These are final and unchangeable. No one has any right
to modify them by extension or restriction.
But, as they were drawn up in
the second century of the Hegira, at a barbarous period, they have immobilized
the Musulman community, and now they hinder its evolution. They have afflicted
the brains of all believers with irremediable stagnation; and so long as they
are in force, those believers will remain incapable of progress and
civilization.
Education.-According to the Musulman doctors, human
knowledge is derived from two principal sources-reason and faith. Again, the
sciences form two classes: the rational (Aklia) and the imposed or positive
(Ouadiya).1
1 Ibn-KhaIdoun, "Prolegomena"; Ebn-Sina. "De divisione
Scientiarum."
The rational comprise those that man can acquire by his own
reason, without the help of revelation: such are geography, mathematics,
chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.; they are considered as secondary, and in
the programmes of teaching, or curricula, they yield the first place to the
sciences of revelation that man owes to the divine generosity. These comprise
two categories:
The sciences of language, or instrumental sciences
-reading and writing, which allow one to approach the study of the
Koran.
The sciences of law which treat of the reading of the revealed
Book and of the legislative appli-cation of the divine words, made by the
orthodox interpreters.
The sciences of law are subdivided into sciences
of origin and sciences deduced from these original sources. The sciences of
origin concern the study of the sources of religion and of law, that is to say
the Koran and the conduct of the Prophet. This study comprises first the reading
of the Koran and of the Hadith, or collected sayings of Mahomet; it is the
application to the sacred texts of the principles taught by the sciences of
language. As soon as one has acquired the perfect reading of the Koran, one
proceeds to the explanation of the words which together make up the revealed
Book; this is called the annotation.
When the student possesses a
complete knowledge of the origins or sources, he passes on to the study of the
deduced sciences, that is to say, those that flow from the sources properly
so-called: viz., the Koran and the Hadith. They comprise the study of religious
doctrine and of the beliefs connected with it, and of the theory of law and of
the applications of the law.
Law forms part of the theological sciences
because it enables one to distinguish the licit from the illicit, good from
evil, according to the commandments of the Koran and of the Hadith., "The theory
of law forms the first subdivision of legislative sciences. The applications of
law are divided into three distinct groups. The first refers to human actions
having a religious character: prayer, fasting, the obligation of giving alms,
the pilgrimage, the holy war; the second refers to legal dispositions concerning
human actions of a purely social and contractual character.
Such is
Musulman education: it is pure scholas-ticism. It may be well to add that this
education is given in the mosques, that each professor takes the course that
suits him, and each student follows the lectures of his favourite professor. N
either matricu-lation nor diplomas limit the entire liberty enjoyed by the
professors and their pupils. There exists, how-ever, one form of recognition of
the studies pursued. Each professor delivers to the most meritorious of his
pupils an authorization to teach in their turI1 (Idjaza). The Idjaza is
delivered either in writing or it is given orally by the professor, not for one
science or for a group of sciences, but just for one book read or learnt, for
one definite branch of a science; for instance for one reading of the Koran, for
several of these readings, or for all the readings; for the Hadith, for grammar,
for caligraphy, or for one or several of the commentaries. 2
Such an
education is almost fruitless, since the scientific part is suppressed in favour
of the theological part. It benumbs the brain and renders knowledge
stationary.
A nation might read the Koran and explain minutely every word
for centuries without advancing one step on the road to progress. By marking
time, as it were, in the tedious repetition of a tiresome lesson, the mind loses
its elasticity, its sagacity, and its curiosity; the intellect becomes atrophied
and incapable of an original effort. It is here that we must seek for the cause
of the intellectual torpor of Musulman nations.
1 SaWas Pasha.
2
Yacoub Artin Pasha, op. cit.
The Musulman Community: The
Government.-In studying any Musulman institution, we must never lose sight of
the fact that the laws governing it are of a religious order. The Musulman
community is steeped in a religious atmosphere. The language and the legislation
are the gifts of God; everything in Islam is contained in religion. Public and
private instruction, administration, justice, finance, the assessment of taxes,
international relations, peace, war, commerce, the arts, trades, and
profes-sions, the exercise of charity, public security, public works, all have a
religious character. Nothing can be maintained, nothing will work except through
religion and through its ordinances. A learned Asiatic calls the peoples of
Islam "Corpora ecclesiae.” 1
The government, like the other institutions,
is of religious inspiration. The Caliphate, a mode of government that succeeded
to the patriarchal administration of the Prophet, was a religious institution
fraternal and popular. Musulman authors give the following definition of it:
"Musulmans should be ruled by an Imam (Caliph) having the right and authority to
watch over the observance of the precepts of the law, to see that legal
penalties are enforced, to defend the frontiers, to raise armies, to levy the
fiscal tithes, to suppress rebels and brigands, to celebrate public prayer on
Fridays and the feasts of Beyram, to judge the citizens, to admit juridical
proofs in contested cases, to marry children under the legal age, of either sex,
who have no natural guardians, to proceed finally to the division of legal
booty. "2
In its origin, in conformity with the institutions of the
Prophet, the Caliphate was not a despotic government.
1 Sawas Pasha.
2
" Catechisme de l'imam Nedjem-ed-Din Nassafi."
"The theocratic law of
Islam forbids any individual to act capriciously, solely according to his
personal leanings; it ordains and protects the rights of private persons; it
imposes on the sovereign the duty of taking counsel before action. This law has
been imposed by God upon his impeccable Prophet, although, as such, he had no
need to consult anybody, since he was acting under divine inspiration and was
endowed with all perfections. But that injunction was only laid upon the Prophet
for a high reason, which was to establish an obligatory rule for all who should
come after him.”1
This theory fell into disuse when the Arabs, extending
their conquests, found themselves in the midst of people accustomed to despotic
rule, like the Syrians, the Persians, the Egyptians, etc. The Caliph then became
an absolute sovereign and the Cali-phate a sort of military despotism which had
its apogee about the second century of the Hegira, with the dynasty of the
Abbassides. As it was at this period that the foundations of the different
institutions were fixed by law, it followed that the doctrine relating to
government was naturally inspired by that which then existed, and that the
principle of the absolute power of the Caliph became a dogma. The doctors of the
faith who drew up the legislative texts intended to reserve to themselves a
share in the government by specifying that the prince could not decide upon any
matter without first consulting them; but as they were at the mercy of his will
and pleasure, it was he who, in reality, exercised power without
control.
In fact, the Musulman sovereign is an absolute monarch, a
military war-lord and a religious ruler in one. He has the power of life and
death over his subjects.
1 Ibn-Khaldoun, "Du Souverain."
The best
proof of this is that they pay a capitation tax, a sort of ransom or permission
to live, for which the official receipt bears these significant words: "Ransom
from being beheaded." Whoever owns property is only the usufructuary of his
estate; on his death, the sovereign can claim the whole or part of his
heritage.
The role of the prince would be a crushing burden for one man;
but in the East, where one soon becomes a believer in the minimum of effort, the
Caliphs were not long in finding a means of lighten-ing their task by delegating
their powers to a Vizier. The latter passed his own on to the Pasha; the Pasha
shuffled off his duties on to the Bey; the Bey on to the Caid, and the Caid on
to the Sheikh. Such a division of authority augments the number of oppressors,
favours bribery and corruption, and hands over the population to an innumerable
rabble of parasites.
The Vizier takes the sovereign's place in the
administration of affairs, the command of the army, and the supervision of the
officials. His office is a dangerous one; the holder serves as a buffer between
prince and people; he must endure the caprices of the one and incur the hatred
of the other; but the position is so lucrative, it admits of so much extortion,
that candidates have never been wanting.
Administrative decisions are
taken by a divan or Council of State, composed of high personages; but they,
chiefly concerned to carry favour with the prince or with his Vizier, are but
servile creatures, ready for any compromising actions.
The Ulemas,
or doctors of theology and juris-prudence, form a special body whose duty is to
watch over the observance of the fundamental laws to register as religious
dogmas the decrees issued by the Council of State. This control is purely
theoretical, since the Ulemas depend upon the goodwill and pleasure of the
sovereign. They are, in addition, charged with the dispensation of justice.
Their supreme head is the Sheikh-El-Islam, who must be consulted when a law is
to be decreed, a tax imposed, or a war undertaken; he has under his orders the
Cadis who dispense justice without appeal.
The purely civil authority is
wielded by the Pashas or governors, whose business it is to see to the
maintenance of order and the payment of taxes.
In principle, there can
only be one sovereign in Islam-the Commander of the Faithful. According to the
Hadith, he should be of Koreich origin; but, in the absence of a suitable member
of that family, it is the man who at the moment has the disposal of the material
force that guards the interests of the Empire. His nationality matters little;
for the Musulman has only one country-Islam. He does not die for his country but
for his faith. He is neither a Turk, an Egyptian, nor an Arab; he is simply a
Believer.
To conclude, Caliphate government is a barbarous government,
that of a conquering minority, occupy-ing countries subdued by force of arms,
and solely concerned with exploiting them to its profit. It is a government of
parasites, indifferent to the needs and the interests of the community. The
Arab, incap-able of devising anything new, has retained his primitive conception
of government, necessitated by circumstances, at the time when he was rushing to
the conquest of the world.
The Position of Women.-If we were to go
by the commandments of the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet, the Musulman
woman might be regarded as enjoying favourable treatment. As an able
diplomatist, Mahomet tried to win over woman to his cause and to make an ally of
her at a time when he was struggling with his own people. This desire shows
itself in all his sermons, and indeed the Bedouin woman does owe a great deal to
him. Before his time, she was a sort of inferior being, without legal position,
a slave to the good pleasure of the male. Mahomet tried to tone down the extreme
egoism of the barbarous customs of which she was the victim.
Exhortations
to kindness abound in the Koran:
"Fear the Lord, and honour the womb that
bare thee. . . 0h Believers! it is not lawful for you to make yourselves the
heirs of your wives against their will, nor to hinder them from marrying again
when you have put them away, so that you may take away from them a portion of
what you have given them. Be kind in your behaviour towards them. If you wish to
change one woman for another, and you have given one of them a hundred dinars,
let her keep it all. 1
" Are you keeping your wife? treat her properly:
are you divorcing her? do it generously." 1
There is the same spirit of
benevolence in the sayings of the Prophet collected in the Hadith: " God
commandeth you to be kind to your women; they are your mothers, your daughters,
your aunts."
In his own actions Mahomet set the example of kindness. He
used often to amuse himself among his women; and the story is told that one day
he was running races with Aisha, and she beat him; but the second time it was
the Prophet who won. Then Mahomet said to her: "The game is equal, O
Aisha."3
1 Koran, Ch. IV.
2 Ibid., Ch. II.
3 Sheikh
Mohammed-es-Senoussi; "Epanouissement de la fleur."
One day he invited
some Abyssinians to come and play at his house, and asked his wife to be present
at their games; but, in order that she should not be seen by the audience, he
placed her between the two doors of the house and stood in front of her,
remaining in this position until she had finished watching the players. Then,
when his wife had returned to her own apartments, the Prophet, addressing the
com-pany, said: " The best of Believers is he who shows the most gentleness and
delicacy towards women. The first among you is he who is most amiable with his
women, and I am better than you as regards my own."1
Before his death,
Mahomet again insisted in favour of a cause that was dear to him:
"Treat
women well; they are your helpers and they can do nothing by themselves; you
have taken them as a property that God has entrusted to you and you have taken
possession of them with divine words."
It must at the same time be
admitted that the Prophet has also made certain concessions to male jealousy,
and that he has recognized certain Arab customs: "Virtuous women are obedient
and sub-missive, those who disobey you will banish to a separate bed and you
will beat them."2
"Bid the women who believe to lower their eyes, to
observe continence, to allow none but their out-ward charms to be seen, to cover
their bosom with a veil, to let none but their husband, their father, or their
husband's father see their charms. . . or children who cannot distinguish the
difference of sex. Women must not wave their feet about in a way to display
their hidden charms.”
1 Sheikh Mohammed-es-Senoussi.
2 Koran, Ch. IV,
v. 38.
3 Ibid., 0h. XXIV
One day a woman asked the Prophet what were
the duties of a wife towards her husband: to her he replied: " A wife should not
leave her home without her husband's leave; it is this consideration that
justifies the use of the veil. "1
In their intimacy, she should comply
with all the desires of the male. "Go to your field as you like";2 which the
commentators explain as follows: "Venite ad agrum vestrum quomodocumque
volueritis, id est stando, sedendo, jacendo, a parte anteriori, seu
posteriori."
Mahomet has not spoken of the education of women. The
majority of the commentators hold that she ought to be forbidden to learn
writing, poetry, and composition, because these studies con-tain a pernicious
element that might spoil her mind and character.
If account be taken of
the usual customs of his day, it cannot be denied that the Prophet sensibly
ameliorated the position of women; but there hap-pened to her what happens in
the Musulman community in every direction of thought.
Mahomet was of his
time; it was impossible for him to foresee the evolution in ideas and in manners
that would be accomplished after him. His words were applicable to the present
and not to the future. If he could have foreseen this future, it is probable,
given his temperament, that he would have accepted its progress. Unfortunately,
the orthodox inter-preters of the Koran and of the Hadith, in the narrowness of
their minds and in the blindness of their fanaticism holding to the letter
rather than to the spirit of the sacred texts, fixed for all time the position
of the Musulman woman; and as they took for their basis the customs of the
period, they rendered any ulterior improvement impossible.
1 Sheikh
Mohammed-es-Senoussi
2 Koran, Ch. II,.
Humanity has made some progress
since the second century of the Hegira; the Musulman community has been unable
to follow this evolution. The consequence is that women are treated to-day,
throughout Islam, as their female ancestors were treated in the time of the
Prophet. But what was then progress is nowadays retrogression.
The
Musulman woman thinks and behaves as did the ladies of Mahomet's harem. Isolated
from the life beyond her threshold, she remains in the bar-barism of ancestral
custom. Her present position, compared with that of the women of other
religions, is that of a slave. A magnificently got up animal, a beast of
pleasure in the rich man's house; a beast of burden among the poor; she is
nothing but a poor creature handed over to the good pleasure of the male.
Condemned to ignorance by the egoism of man, she cannot even build in hope upon
the future. She is the eternal cloistered captive, the eternal slave. Her
ignorance and her barbarism have their weight upon the children she rears and to
whom she trans-mits her opinions and prejudices. Ignorant herself she creates
others like her; a barbarian, she spreads barbarism around her; a slave, she
gives her children slaves' souls, together with all the vices of a servile
nature-dissimulation, lying, and deceit.
Commerce.-It has already
been said, but it cannot be too often repeated, that everything, in the Musulman
community, assumes a religious character.
All manifestations of human
activity are subjected to dogma, and can only be developed within the limits
fixed and sanctioned by the rules of the faith. Commerce does not escape this
tutelage, the laws that regulate it are inspired by
religious
considerations.
"The object of every contract," says Khalil,
" should be: first, free from defilement; second, use-ful; third, lawful;
fourth, possible. So the following cannot be the object of a contract: manure,
damaged oil, forbidden meat, an animal on the point of death, a sporting-dog, a
stray camel, anything detained by violence in the hands of a third
party."
The Koran having forbidden usury, 1 the inter-preters have " gone
one better" on this prohibition. Musulman law qualifies as usury not only
illicit gain, as we understand it, but " all profit or advantage discounted or
allowed in the exchange of gold and silver or in the exchange of foodstuffs. . .
the wages taken in kind by the goldsmith from the weight of metal given to him
to work up, or by the master of the oil-press on the weight of olives to be
crushed; every combination suspected of concealing a loan under the form of a
sale or amounting to a usurious profit." 2
In his desire to hinder usury,
the Musulman legislator has fallen into subtleties that verge upon the absurd.
As an example, the following clause: " One cannot buy for gold what has been
sold on credit for silver, nor for one currency that which has been sold in
another."3 Lending at interest is forbidden in principle, but as it was
difficult to suppress it altogether, it was replaced by sleeping partnership and
by real pact or contract.
1 Koran, Ch. III, v. 125.
2 Khalil, t. i.,
Oh. II. 3 Ibid., t. i., Ch. II.
"Sleeping partnership is a contract under
which one entrusts money to a merchant, for him to trade with, on condition of
participation in the profits thereof. "1 This fonm of loan was in existence
among the ancient Arabs long before Islam; it was by a contract of this nature
that Mahomet became the partner of Khadija.
"A real pact is a contract
for a consideration, unilateral, creating a personal obligation to give a
certain corporeal object, of a different nature from the thing received and not
consisting of cash. "2 It is a form of barter.
The attraction of gain
being in reality the principal element in all commercial activity, the
legislator has not been able to abolish the loan at interest. He fights with
energy against usury; he solemnly declares that the exchange of produce or of
objects ought not to give rise to any gain, but he immediately adds this subtle
restriction: "unless these things do not differ in the use to which they are
destined. Thus, one may demand for a donkey of the Cairo breed two Arab donkeys;
for a race-horse two pack-horses; more young animals in exchange for a
full-grown one; a sword of good make for several ordinary swords.”2 There you
have the loan at interest not only tolerated, but authorized. Who is going to
interfere with the lender and compel him to swear that he has given a race-horse
to the borrower, who pledges himself to repay two pack-horses, when in reality
the horse lent may be identical in kind with the horses repaid, one of these
representing the interest on the capital advanced?
1
Ibn-Arfa.
2Ibn-Arfa. . Khalil, t. ii., Ch. I.
Property - In
that which concerns property there is the same desire and the same impossibility
of preventing usury. Mortgage is forbidden, but its place is taken by pledging,
or rahnia. "By rahnia is meant that which is handed over as the security for a
debt.” 1 Musulman law distinguishes the pledging or pawning of a movable
possession from the hypothecation of revenue, or nantissement, of an immovable
possession. This sort of contract, far from hindering usury, favours it. The
creditor is authorized to enjoy the pledged possession; but this enjoyment,
which represents the interest on his capital, often exceeds in value what our
legislation considers as a lawful rate of interest. In the majority of cases,
the borrower being unable to pay his debt, the lender keeps the pledged
possession and disposes of it, as the real owner, for a ridiculous
price.
Property among a barbarous people is threatened by manifold
dangers, and notably from spoliation. Musulman law tries to protect it, and it
is with this object that it has instituted habous, the idea of which was
inspired by the Novellae and the Institutes of Justinian. The habous is an
institution according to which the owner of a property renders it inalienable by
making over the enjoyment of it to some pious object or work of public utility,
either immediately or on the extinction of the intermediate inheritors whom he
names.2 The head of a family thus protects his possessions from the extravagance
of his heirs or from the covetousness and encroachment of influential
personages.
There are also two liabilities to be noticed which encumber
Musulman property, and which were, and still are, the cause of numerous quarrels
between Europeans and natives-the rights of sport and of pasture. "N 0 man may
forbid hunting and fishing, even on his own land.
1 Ibn-Arfa.
2 J
Terras, "Essai sur les biens Ha.bous."
No man may forbidcommon rights of
pasture on his waste lands or on land from which the crops have been
reaped."1
Landed property among the Arabs is subjected to a communistic
regime. The land belongs to God, represented by the Caliph, who leaves the use
of it to the Musulman community. This regime which is suitable to nomadism is
fatal to the development of agricultural labour.
1 Khalil, t. xxi., Ch. II.
* * *
The Sterility of the Arab mind is apparent in every manifestation of
intellectual activity - Arab civilization is the result of the intellectual
efforts of non - Arab peoples converted to Islam - Arab science, astronomy,
mathematics, chemistry, medicine, is only a copy of Greek science - In history
and geography the Arabs have left a few original works - In philosophy they are
the pupils of the School of Alexandria - In literature, with the exception of a
few lyric poems of no great value, they are under the inspiration of Greek and
Persian models - The literature of the Moors in Spain is of Latin inspiration - In
the fine arts, sculpture, painting and music, the nullity of the Arabs is
absolute.
THE sterility of the Arab
mind is apparent in every manifestation of intellectual activity, and more
particularly in letters, in art, and in science, whose culture calls for
qualities of originality and imagination. When the Arab wished to embark upon a
literary, artistic, or scientific work, he had nothing to draw upon in his own
inner conscientiousness; so he copied and imitated, without ever originating
anything.
What is called" Arab civilization," in so far as any
manifestation of Arab genius is concerned, has never had any real existence. The
civilization that passes under that name is due to the labour of other peoples
who, subjected to Islam by force, continued to develop their aptitudes in spite
of the persecutions of their conquerors.
When the Arab people, under the
earliest successors of Mahomet, undertook wars of conquest, they were a horde of
rude barbarians, innocent of any intellectual culture, or of any artistic or
scientific attainments. As compared with the Greeks, Per-sians, and Egyptians,
they were in much the same situation as the Berbers of Northern Africa find
themselves to-day in relation to European nations.
A series of unforeseen
successes precipitated the Bedouins into the midst of civilized nations, who
exerted an incontestable influence upon them; nevertheless they were slow to
assimilate foreign attainments. The earliest works in the Arab language were
composed under the rule of the Abbasside Caliphs, not by Arabs, but by Syrians,
Greeks, and Persians, converted to Islam. It was only towards the third century
of the Hegira that the Bedouins began to be civilized. It is to this period that
the translations of Greek, Syrian, Persian, and Latin works may be dated, which
revealed to the conquering Arabs stores of knowledge of which they were totally
ignorant, and introduced among them the elements of former
civilizations.l
But this foreign influence only made itself felt upon
those Arabs who had left their country to settle in Syria, in Persia, or in
Egypt. The bulk of the nation who stayed in Arabia were shut off from this
influence, and remained in a state of barbarism.
To give the name" Arab
civilization" to the artistic, literary and scientific movement that by a false
documentation is made to coincide with the accession of the Abbasside Caliphs,
is to fall into error.
1 Yakoub Artin Pasha, "L'instruction publique en
Egypte" pp. 11 and 12.
In the first place, because the Arab element only
participated in it to an extent hardly perceptible; and further, because this
movement was the result of the intellectual activity of foreign nations only
converted to Islam by force; and finally, because the movement was already in
existence in the countries conquered by the Arabs long before their arrival. The
Syrian, Persian, and Indian works which are the manifestation of this
intellectual movement, and which carryon the Greco-Latin work, are anterior to
the Musulman conquests. It is, then, in defiance of fact to attribute this
artistic and scientific effort to the Arabs, and to give the name of " Arab
Civilization" to an intellectual movement due to the Syrians, to the Persians,
to the Hindus, unwilling converts to Islam, but who, nevertheless, had preserved
the qualities of their race. In reality, the movement was nothing more than the
continuation, and, as it were, the ultimate flowering of Greco-Latin
civilization. It is easy to prove this.
When Caliph AI Manzor (745-755),
fascinated by the brilliancy of Byzantine culture and advised by Syrian, Greek,
and Persian officials, who filled the various offices of the Empire, wished to
spread the knowledge of science, he caused translations to be made into Arabic
of the principal Greek authors: Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides,
Euclid, Archimedes, and Ptolemy. There were Syriac ver-sions of these authors
already in existence, and the task of translating them into Arabic was therefore
entrusted to Syrian scribes. It was through these translations that the Arabs
made acquaintance with the Greek works, and upon them that they worked in the
first instance. But the Syrian scribes, too recently converted to Islam to be
fully imbued with Musulman dogma, were content to translate the Greek authors
faithfully. The Arab fanatics consequently found these versions not sufficiently
orthodox; certain passages wounded their religious feelings; so, when they were
sufficiently instructed to do without their Syrian intermediaries, they hastened
to bring out new translations in accordance with Arab susceptibilities, and in
harmony with Musul-man conceptions. They suppressed everything in the Greek
works that seemed to them contrary to the teachings of Islam; they added the
religious formulae with which they were familiar, and they even carried their
zeal to the extent of causing the names of the original authors to
disappear.
These compilations were made not from the original Greek, nor
even from the Syriac versions, but from Arabic translations made from the Syriac
by Syrian scribes, so that the thought of the original authors was not only
distorted by these successive interpretations, but even falsified by Musulman
fanaticism.
These shapeless or distorted works, to which it is difficult
to give a name, passed current during the Middle Ages as the original
productions of Arab genius. Their true character was not discovered until much
later, when, at the time of the Renais-sance, the Greek manuscripts were exhumed
from ancient libraries and there were scholars capable of translating
them.
It was in this way that there were falsely attributed to the
astronomer, Maschallah, who lived during the reign of Haroun-al-Raschid, certain
treatises on the astrolabe and the armillary sphere, which were nothing but
distorted reproductions, according to the method described above, of Arabic
versions made by Syrians from Syriac translations of the works of Ptolemy. 1
About the same time, Ahmed ben Mohammed Alnehavendi, who, by the way, was a
Persian converted to Islam, drew up some astronomical tables from the same
source.
Under the reign of Al-Mamoun, Send ben Ali and Khaled ben
Abd-el-Malek Almerourandi, who measured a degree of meridian, did no more than
apply the theories of Greek mathematicians. Another astronomer, Mohammed ben
Moussa Alk-howarezmi, an Islamized Persian, drew up some tables after Hindu
authors; and other tables were composed by Ahmed ben Abd' Allah Habach, from
Ptolemy, and writers of his school.
The famous Al Kendi, who enjoyed such
a great reputation in the Middle Ages, and who was known as the Philosopher par
excellence, was an Islamized Syrian Jew. His works on geometry, arithmetic,
astrology, meteorology, medicine, and philosophy, were translations or
compilations from Aristotle and his commentators.
Other astronomers and
mathematicians, such as Albumazar, AI N airizi, and Albategui-the two latter
being Persians-were compilers from writers of the school of Alexandria. In fact,
in astrology and astronomy the Arabs were merely imitators.
Born in
Chaldaea before the dawn of history, then imported into Egypt, this science was
introduced into Greece, where its confused principles and observa-tions that had
been transmitted orally from generation to generation, were co-ordinated and
fixed in writing.
Ptolemy's Almagest may be regarded as a com-plete
statement of the astronomical attainments of
antiquity. It was from this
work, known to them by Syriac versions, that the Arab authors quarried, and upon
which they commented, under a hundred different forms, without adding anything
to the original.
1 8edillot, "Hist. des Arabes."
To the study of
mathematics the Arabs in like manner contributed nothing new. 1 For a long time
they were credited. with the invention of algebra, whereas they did no more than
copy the treatises of Diophantus of Alexandria, who lived in the fourth century;
but, as the source from which they drew was unknown in the Middle Ages, they
were looked upon, quite wrongly, as the originators.
The numerals
commonly called Arabic, and the system of notation which bears the same name,
come from Hindustan. The Arabs themselves call arith-metic " Indian reckoning,"
and geometry " Indian science" (hendesya).
Arab knowledge of botany was
obtained either from the treatises of Dioscorides, or from Hindu and Persian
works.2 In chemistry, or rather alchemy, they were the pupils of the Alexandrian
school. Djeber and Rhazes, the latter an Islamized Persian, did no more than
copy the works of Alexandrian Hermetism.3
There is the same absence of
invention in regard to medicine. From the third century of the Christian era,
Greek physicians had found their way into Persia, where they founded the
celebrated school of Djondischabour, which soon became the rival of Alexandria.
1 Sedillot, "Recherches pour servir a l'hist. des sciences math.chez les
Arabes."
2 Clement Mullet, "Recherches sur l'hist. naturelle et physique des
Arabes."
3
Berthelot, "Origines de la chimie "; Hoefer, "Hist. de la chimie. "
They taught
especially the doctrines of Aristotle, of Hipparchus, and of Hippocrates, which
the Persians readily assimilated. Mesue, one of their pupils, of Persian origin,
became physician to Haroun-al-Raschid, and composed several treatises in
imitation of Hippocrates, among which may be quoted his Demonstrations, a
Pharmacopeia, and some papers on fevers and on food.1
But it was
especially at Alexandria that Greek medicine emerged from empiricism and assumed
a really scientific character.
Herephiles and Erasistratus by their works
pre-pared the way for Galen, who was to give this science its full development.
The treatises of Galen, under the name of Pandects of Medicine, were compiled
and translated into Syriac by Aaron, a Christian priest who lived at Alexandria
in the seventh century. This Syriac version was translated into Arabic in 685,2
and is the source from which the Arab physicians drew, notably Serapion,
Avicenna, Albucasis, and A verrhoes, whose Koullyat is a downright translation
of Galen. The only Musulman who introduced anything new into medicine was
Rhazes, who died in 982: he was a Persian. He introduced the use of mild
purgatives and of chemical preparations into pharmacy; he was regarded as the
inventor of the. seton and advocated the study of anatomy. 3
Ali ben el
Abbas, who carried on the work of Rhazes and who drew up a course of medicine,
was equally a Persian.
The celebrated Avicenna (Abu Ali Hossein ibn
Sinna, 980), was born at Afchanah, in Persia. His best known work, the Kanoun,
is a compilation of the treatises of Galen, from the Syriac versions.
1
Leclerc, "Rist. de la Medecine Arabe."
2 Diguat, "Rist. de la Medecine."
S Sedillot,
" Rist. des Arabes."
In a Latin translation, the Kanoun was very popular
in Europe during the Middle Ages, and was looked upon as an original work. A
vicenna cared so little for Musulman dogma that he used to drink wine, and
recommended its use to others.
The treatises of Albucasis, Avenzoar, and
Aben-Bithar, all three of them natives of Spain, are also reproductions, more or
less faithful, of the writings of Galen, of Aaron, and of the Alexandrine
physicians, reproductions made from Syriac translations.
Maimonides,
wrongly considered as an Arab doctor, was a Jew born at Cordova in 1185. Of a
scientific mind, and indifferent to Musulman dogma, he drew upon himself the
persecutions of the Almo-hades, and had to take refuge in Egypt. His Aphorisms
of Medicine were translated into Latin in 1409; his treatise on the preservation
and regulation of health in 1518. It was through them that Greek medical science
was known in the Middle Ages.
The Arabs have especially excelled in
directions that do not call for great powers of imagination, notably in history
and geography. The Syrian and Persian writers supplied them with abundant
materials from which they drew without displaying any remarkable critical
faculty. This resulted in compilations, often crude, such as the works of
Masoudi (956): Akhbar and Zeman, history of the time; Kitab Aousat, the midway
book; M'oroudj-ed-Dheheb oua Maadin-el-Djewahir, the fields of gold and the
mines of precious stones. Such is also the work of Ebn-el-Athir: Kemal al
Taouarikh, the complete chronicle, beginning with the creation of the world and
ending at the year A.D. 1231.
As much might be said of the abridged
history of Aboulfeda, the prince diplomat and warrior, who sought relaxation
from the anxieties of power in writing a sort of universal history, of which the
first part comprises the patriarchs, the judges, and the kings of Israel; the
second, the four dynasties of the ancient kings of Persia; the third, the
Pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Greece, and the Roman Emperors; the fourth, the
kings of Arabia before Mahomet; the fifth, the history of various nations, such
as the Syrians, the Sabeans, the Copts, the Persians, etc., and the events that
happened since thc death of Mahomet up to A.D. 1828. This work is only original
so far as Arab history is concerned. The same remark applies to the
UniversaiHistory of the Syrian Aboulfaradj (1226-1286).
Borhan-ed-Din
Motarezzi (1145-1285) collected a great number of Arab traditions, affording
some curious references to pre-Islamic manners. Of the same genre is Nowairi's
Historic Encyclopaedia of the Arabs, and the History of the Arab Conquest of the
Peninsula, by Ebn-el-Kouthiah, and Tabari's Arab History, all original works
containing valuable information. 1
A place apart should be accorded to
Ibn-Khaldoun (1882-1406), whose Annals contain the history of the Arabs up to
the end of the fourteenth century, and that of the Berbers. He is one of the few
Musulman writers who is not content with merely compiling from previous
documents.
He deals first with historical criticism and its methods; then
he studies the community and its origin; gives a succinct description of the
globe, and examines the influence which diversity of climate may exert upon man;
he then goes into the causes of the development and decadence of States, among
nomadic peoples and in the midst of large concentrations of population.
1
Silvestre de Sacy, "Anthologie Arabe,"
He treats of work in general,
enumerat-ing the various professions, and finishes with a classification of the
sciences. He was born at Tunis, and was of Spanish origin.1
In geography,
the Arabs have left some works of indisputable originality. Their conquests, the
obliga-tion upon them to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and their commercial
travels enabled them to make the acquaintance of regions unknown to the Greeks.
Their highly developed faculty of observation led them to record valuable
information. They gave a faithful transcript of reality; the greater part of
their accounts are strictly accurate :2 such, for instance, as those of
Ibn-Batuta, of Ibn-Djobeir, of Ibn-Haukal, of Ibn-Khordadbeg, of Aboul-Feda, of
Istakhri, of Bekri, and of Edrisi.
In philosophy, the Arabs, incapable of
conceiving any system of their own, adopted those of Greece, of Persia, and of
India. It was chiefly through works of the Alexandrine school that they were
initiated into this branch of science. The Ptolemies, by their princely
liberality, had drawn to this great city numbers of learned men from all parts
of the then-known civilized world, notably from Greece, from Syria, and from
Persia. These savants, whose works extend from the third to the end of the fifth
century, were well acquainted with the various hypotheses to which the human
brain had given birth. Thanks to them, Oriental and Greek philosophy-two
absolutely different conceptions-were fused together. 3
1 Sedillot,
"Hist. des Arabes."
2 Reinaud, "Introd. it la geogr. d'AbuIfeda."
3
Matter, " Hist. de l'Ecole d' Alexandria."
Oriental philosophy,
represented by Jewish and Christian doctrines, was steeped in a mysticism of
which we should have to seek the origin in the religious beliefs of India.
Musulman Sufism, which came into existence about the second century of the
Hegira, seems to derive from Buddhism, and did, as a matter of fact, come from
India. Man purified by meditation, trance, and the strict observance or certain
rules, could raise himself to the divinity and become identified therewith. It
was Sufism that. inspired the founders of the various religious brother-hoods of
Islam, which are so many manifestations of Oriental mysticism.
Greek
philosophy, on the contrary, founded upon reason and logic, is divided into two
leading con-ceptions: the peripateticism of Aristotle and the spiritualism of
Plato. It was the Platonic theories that served as the link or bond of union
between Greek realism and Oriental mysticism. 1
Peripateticism was
introduced into Alexandria about the second century A.D., by Alexander of
Aphrodisias; but, under the influence of Jewish and Christian doctrine, the pure
fount of Aristotle was somewhat diverted and defiled. Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus,
Porphyrius, Themistius, Syrianus, David the Armenian, Simplicius, John Philopon,
Jam-blichus, were the more or less faithful disciples of Aristotle from whom the
Arabs derived their inspira-tion. The latter knew the works of these authors
through the versions and commentaries of the Copts; but they were never in
possession of the original works of Aristotle.2
It was under such
circumstances that the treatises of Honani and of Yahia the grammarian, upon'
Aristotle, and those of Alkendi, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Avenpace upon Plato,
were written.
1 Michel Nicolas, "Etudes sur Philon d' Alexandria " A.
Feuillee "La philosophie de Platon." '
2 Juies ,simon, "Hist. de l'Ecole d'
Alexandrie."
The Arabs also knew, through the medium of thc commentators
of the Alexandrine school, 1 the tradi-tions relating to the Seven Sages and to
the minor philosophers; but they copied more especially the works of the
successors to Aristotle, particularly those of Themistius, of Alexander
Aphrodisias, of Ammonius Saccas, and of Porphyrius.2 Plotinus and Proclus were
held in great esteem among them. The discourses of Apollonius of Thyana, of
Plutarch, and of Valentinian were familiar to them. They adopted the ideas of
these authors, often distorting them, either because they did not understand
them, or because they wished to make them fall in with Musul-man dogma; but they
added nothing that could be accepted as original.
One of the latest and
most celebrated Arab philosophers, A verrhoes, wrote commentaries upon
Aristotle, with extracts, that made his reputation at a time when the works of
the Greek philosophers were unknown. The system known in the Middle Ages and at
the Renaissance by the name of Averrho-ism has nothing original about it. It is
merely a resume of doctrines common to the Arab peripa-teticians, and borrowed
by them from writers of the Alexandrine school. But A verrhoes had the luck of
the last comer, and was considered as the inventor of doctrines which he had
only set out in more complete form.3 As Averrhoes knew no Greek, he knew the
writings of Aristotle only through Arabic versions made from Syriac and Coptic
translations.
A vicenna, who brought out an Encyclopaedia of philosophic
science, compiled the works of the Greek peripateticians, and of the Oriental
philosophers, from Arabic translations of Syriac versions. 4.
1 Vacherot,
"Hist. critique de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie."
3 Ravaison, " Essai sur la
metaphysique d' Aristote."
3 Renan, "A verrhoes et l' A verrhoisme."
4
Mehrens, "La philosophie d' Avicenne."
Oriental philosophy, the mysticism
of the Sufis, found its most celebrated interpreter in AI Ghazzali (1058), who
borrowed his doctrines from the Jewish and Christian mystics of the School of
Alexandria.1 'Whilst recognizing, with Aristotle, the sacred rights of reason,
Al Ghazzali held that" the truths estab-lished by reason are not the only ones,
that there arc others to which our understanding is not capable of reaching,
that force us to accept them, although wc cannot deduce them by the aid of logic
from known principles; that there is nothing unreasonable in the supposition
that above the sphere of reason there is another sphere, that of divine
manifestation, and that, although we may be completely ignorant of its laws and
its methods, it is sufficient that reason should be able to admit its
possibility."
This is the door open to dreams and wanderings of the
spirit. Oriental mysticism was not long in supplanting Greek logic, and the
Musulman fanatics received with favour the theories of AI Ghazzali, who became
the philosopher of orthodoxy. One of his writings, Vivification of the sciences
of religion, had such celebrity that it gained him the title of Hojiet-el-Islam,
the proof of Islamism.
Between these two philosophical tendencies: the
logic of Aristotle and Oriental mysticism, a crowd of secondary influences may
be discerned-Byzantine, Egyptian, Persian, or Indian. Each of the subjectcd
nations in turn gave up to the conqueror a portion of its conceptions. The Arab,
incapable of drawing anything from his own inner depths, copied, adaptcd,
imitated, and distorted. It is in these foreign influences that must be sought
the origin of the religious sects that divided Islam.
1 Dugat, "Hist.
des philosophes et des theologiens musulmans."
These sects carne into
being wherever the Arab spirit, coming into collision with other religious
conceptions, brought about a sort of fusion of doctrines.
Finally, there
is not, properly speaking, any Arab philosophy; there are adaptations to the
Arab spirit, to the Arab mentality, of Greek, Alexandrine, and Oriental
philosophic doctrines; from these adapta-tions philosophy has gained nothing;
its equipment of knowledge has not been increased; its horizon has not been
extended. The Arabs have left the doctrines of Aristotle and of the Jewish and
Christian philoso-phers just as they were transmitted to them. They have copied,
but they have neither invented nor improved.
It is curious to note that
the ablest grammarians, those who have best explained the mechanism and the
spirit of the Arabian tongue, are Islamized foreigners, Persians, Syrians, or
Egyptians.1 Siba-waih, Farezi, Zedjadj, Zamakschari are Persian converts. The
lexicographers, Ismail ben Hammad Djewhri and Firouzabadi are also
Persians.
Among the rhetoricians and philologists the majority are either
Persians or Syrians, such as Ebn-el-Sekaki, who has been compared with
Quintilian for clearness and with Cicero for the richness of his style;2 or AI
Soiouthi, who treats of the purity, the elegance, and the vigour of the Arab
language, and joining example to precept, quotes passages from the most esteemed
authors as witnesses in support of his dicta.
It is only fair to
recognize that the Arabs have produced quite a number of remarkable grammarians.
The Arab mind, particularly well adapted to compil-ation, to minute analysis and
to commentaries which call for little imaginative effort, has found a congenial
field in grammatical study.
1 Silvestre de Sacy, " Chrestomnthie
arabe."
2 Sedillot. " Rist. des Arabes,"
Treatises both in prose and
in verse abound; and all are crammed with quotations, for the proper
appreciation of which it would be necessary to know a crowd of writers whose
works have not come down to us.
In literature properly so called, in the
literature of imagination, even more than in the sciences, the poverty of
invention of the Arabs and the barrenness of their minds is made apparent. The
only original productions of Arab genius are thc M oallakat.
From the
remotest ages there have been poets in Arabia, a sort of troubadours, who went
from tribe to tribe, from market to market, reciting their verses.l In those
days the most important market was that of Okadh, in the Hedjaz. The poets used
to come there to display their talent; there they held literary tourneys, and
the poem that Wvas adjudged the best was inscribed in letters of gold and hung
up in the temple of the Kaaba. It was this practice that gave the name
Modhahhabat (gilded), or MIoallakat (suspended, or more probably, considered as
having a great value, from the root, allaka).
The subject, the form and
the rhythm are invariably the same. Those that have come down to us, the
Moallakat of Imroulkais, of Tarafa, of Nabiga and of Amr ibn KhoItoun are
compositions of a hundred lines each. The author celebrates his native country
and his sweetheart; he bewails his distant separation from them; then he boasts
of his own exploits, praises his horse, his arms, and turns his enemies into
ridicule.
1 Larroque, " Voyage dans la Palestine."
They are exact
pictures of the nomad, warlike lire of the Bedouins before Mahomet's time. Their
literary value is about equal to that of the ballads of our own
trouveres.1
Then there are some songs collected in the Kitab el Aghani,
belonging to a period a little later than the Moallakat: the complaints of a
lover separated from his mistress, or rejected by her; the martial strains of a
warrior; clamourings for vengeance; the glorification of a tribe, or of a feat
of arms; insults addressed to an enemy. These little pieces recall our own
ballads of the Middle Ages. This is about all that can be attributed to Arab
genius, to its personal inspiration.
Immediately after the death of
Mahomet, when the Arabs were precipitated by their conquests into the midst of
peoples more civilized and more refined than themselves, their literature was
not long in showing the effect of foreign influence. In contact with Byzantines
and Persians, the poets, like the warriors, became more effeminate. They sang no
longer of battles or of vengeance; they changed them-selves into courtiers, and
sang the praises of the Caliph and of influential personages from whom they
hoped to receive favours and presents. To please the all-powerful master, who
lived in the style of a King of Persia or of a Byzantine Emperor, in the midst
of luxury and pleasure, they sang of good cheer, of wine and the love of women.
As these subjects lack variety, they endeavoured to brighten them up by a
studied refinement of expression, by virtuosity of style, by the use of archaic
and erudite expressions, by flashes of wit and the play upon words.
1
Caussin de Perceval, "Rist. des Arabes avant l'Islamisme,"
Such was Arab
literature in the time of the Ommeyads and of the earlier Abbassides, when
Motanebbi, Ibn Doreid, Abu L’Oli, and Omar Ibn Faradh were its principal
representatives.
From the time of the Caliphates of Haroun-al-Raschid and
EI Mamoun, when the Arabs were initiated into Greek scientific knowledge through
Syriac and Arabic translations of the works of antiquity, their literature
became exclusively didactic. Their poets composed in verse treatises on grammar,
on prosody, on astronomy, on mathematics and on jurisprudence. These efforts
have no more original value than the prose works of their scientific writers.
They are compilations made from Syriac versions; and this literature, which
embraces several centuries, reveals the poverty of the Arab spirit and its
power-lessness to draw forth anything from its own inner
consciousness.
Fable and allegory occupy an important place in this
literature. Here again the Arabs merely reproduce the compositions of India,
Persia and Greece, adapting them to their own mentality and the dogma of Islam.
Calila and Dimla is a trans-lation from the Persian; the fables of Lokman are
copied from those of India and Greece; they were very probably compiled by a
Christian of Syria.
The few Arab romances that have come down to us are
likewise of foreign inspiration. The elements of intrigue and of the
supernatural in the Thousand and One Nights are borrowed from the Persian; only
the scenes of Arab life are original, and they are realistic representations
without imaginative embellishment. 1 The same may be said of the Romance of
Antar, a sort of prose epic depicting the warlike life of the
Bedouins.
.
1 Dozy, "Hist. des. Musulmans d'Espagne,'
Epic and
dramatic poetry, which depend upon high imaginative gifts, do not exist among
the Arabs, a further proof of their poverty of imagination.
There was in
Arab literature one incompar-able period: the Andalusian period. Under the
Ommeyads of Spain, the Arab language was used to express original thought, a
thing that had never happened to it before. Richness of invention, abundance of
natural feeling, freshness of expression, fine and delicate ideas, such are the
characteristics of the poems of this epoch. Unfortunately, they are not of Arab
but of Latin inspiration. The greater part of these poems were composed by
Islamized Andalusians, that is to say, by pure Latins; the rest by Arabs born in
Spain who had received Latin culture. We can see the Latin genius shining
through their productions; we find in them impulses of imagination, feelings
expressed with a grace and delicacy unknown to the best Arab writers. As a
historian has remarked: 1 at the bottom of their heart there always remains
something pure, delicate and spiritual that is not Arab.
In modern times,
Arab literature has remained sterile; since the later Abbasside Caliphs it has
produced no work worthy of remark; it has lived and still lives on its
past.
In the schools, otherwise exclusively religious, they continue to
read the Koran and the com-mentators thereon, as well as the old works on
jurisprudence and grammar; but no educated Arab appears to be capable of
producing a new work. So, then, the Musulman community, fixed in the
con-templation of the past, feels no need to think other-wise than did the
generations that have preceded it. Islam, a secretion of the Arab brain, has
paralysed their minds and has set up an impassable barrier between the Musulman
and the rest of the world.
1 Dozy, op. cit.
In the fine arts, the
Arabs have shown no more originality than in science and letters; in sculpture
and painting their nullity is absolute.l A reason for this inferiority has been
sought in the religious law which forbids the representation of living things.
But the Koran only expresses this prohibition in one single passage, and even
there in somewhat vague terms: " 0 believers, wine, games of chance, statues,
and the drawing of lots are abominations invented by Satan. Abstain from these
and you shall be happy. 2
It is almost certain that by the word statues
the Koran meant representations of the pagan divinities, that is, idols. It is
the old commandment of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven
image. . . thou shalt not worship them." Mahomet never dreamt of forbidding the
artistic imitation of living things in painting and sculpture. In the Arab text,
the word statue is rendered by ansab, the plural of nasb, a word that means a
carved stone in a place consecrated to a protecting divinity. In another passage
in the Koran the word nasb is used to mean altar. That is just the meaning it
has in the passage we are dealing with. It is, therefore, by an error of
interpretation that the commentators have extended this word to include statues
and the representations of living things. This narrow inter-pretation has not
been accepted by all Musulmans. Both in Persia and in India forms of living
things are often found in the arabesques. Makrizi records that Maowiah caused
himself to be represented on the coinage girt with a sword.3
1 Prisse
d'Avesne, "L'art arabe."'
2 Koran, Ch. V, v. 92.
3 Makrizi, "Monnaies
musulrnanes," trad. de Silvestre de Saey; Victor Langlois, "Numisrnatique des
Arabes avant l'Islamisrne."
It is only fair to point out that poetry has
been far worse treated in the Koran than sculpture; and yet that has not
hindered the Arabs from cultivating it : " Shall I tell you," we read in the
revealed Book, "' which are the men upon whom the demons descend and whom they
inspire. They descend upon every liar taken in the act and teaching what their
ears have picked up. But, the greater part lie. These are the poets whom erring
men follow in their turn. Do you not see that they follow all roads like madmen,
that they say what they do not do? “
But poetry has continued to blossom
in spite of the maledictions of the Prophet. It is not, therefore, unreasonable
to suppose that if sculpture and painting have not been developed, it is because
the Arabs have no aptitude for them. A further proof lies in the fact that they
did not practise these arts in the days before Islam, when they must have been
cognisant of them through their relations with Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and
Persians. Their artistic nullity must, therefore, be attributed, not to the
religious law, but to their national inaptitude. The religious law is nothing
but the expression of the Arab spirit, and so it has treated with disdain what
the Arab despises as being beyond his powers.
In architecture, there is
no sign of Arab origin-ality.2 The nomadic Bedouin never troubled about it, for
he lived in a tent. In towns like Mecca and Medina, the architecture was of a
primitive character, with mud walls and roofs of palm leaves. The famous temple
of the Kaaba was merely a modest enclosure of stone and sun-dried mud bricks.
1 Koran, Ch. XXVII, v. 221,
2 Ga.yet, "L'art arabe,"
The
first mosque that Mahomet built at Medina, after his flight from Mecca, was a
very humble construction in sun-dried brick.l
The Arabs only became
acquainted with archi-tecture when they left their native country; in Syria and
Persia they saw Byzantine and Persian monuments, in both cases inspired by Greek
art.2 The Greeks were the great initiators of the East in architectural matters;
it was they who constructed the greater number of the palaces of the kings of
Persia, and it was from them, finally, that the Arabs drew their inspiration.
The dome, so wide-spread in Musulman countries, is of Persian origin; it was
adopted by the Greeks, and then by the Byzantines. Syrian architects, combining
Greek art with that of Persia, have contributed to the creation of what has come
to be called Byzantine art. It was the Syrian, Anthemios of Tralles, who drew
the plans of Santa Sophia (582-537), in which we find all the character-istics
of the art wrongly attributed to the Arabs: the dome, lacework in stone,
mosaics, coloured tiles, and " arabesques." But the dome had long been in use in
Persia, as is proved by the dome of the Hall of Audience of Chosroes I., and
that of the palace of Machita, built by Chosroes II. It was Persia that invented
the arch; all the domed and arched work in the world sprang from Persia. The
dome and the arch were known in Rome from the first century; the most ancient
examples of them are to be found at Tivoli, in Hadrian's villa, and also in the
Baths of Caracalla, in Rome.
Those mural decorations, which were
afterwards called Arabesques, had their origin in Greece and Egypt.
1
Bourgoin, "Precis de l'art arabe."
2 Bayet, "L'art Byzantin"'
The
immense halls with ceiling supported by a forest of columns are equally of Greek
origin. The great Mosque at Cordova, and the Alhambra at Granada are the
products of Greco-Latin art, like the embossing and the cut-plaster-work of
their walls and ceilings. 1
It was long believed that our mediaeval
artists had come under the influence of Arab art. We now know that this was not
the case, not only because there was no such thing as Arab art, properly
speaking, but also because it was not through the intervention of the Arabs that
Oriental art was introduced into France. The numerous objects found in church
treasuries, and which have been wrongly attributed to the Arabs, in reality owe
nothing to them; such as still remain have been identified and leave no
possibility of doubt in this respect. For example, a piece of ivory representing
an Eastern King squatting on an elephant, is a chessman of Hindu workmanship;
the bowls are Persian; the sword of Charlemagne, preserved in the Louvre, is of
Persian workmanship. The precious materials used to wrap up relics, such as the
shroud of Saint Victor or that of Saint Siviard, at Sens, are Persian fabrics;
another, decorated with a frieze of elephants, which may be found at the Louvre
comes from India. It was Persian art that the Crusades brought to us, the art of
the period of the Sassanian kings, that is to say, of an epoch of Persian
reaction against the Arabs.
1 Koudakof, "Hist. de l'art
Byzautiu."
But Oriental art was introduced into France well before the
Arab invasion, and indeed before the Crusades, by the Greeks and Syrians who
were to be found trading to Narbonne, to Bordeaux, toLyons, and even as far as
Metz, in the time of the Merovingians.1
In the fifth and sixth centuries,
France came under the influence of Byzantine art. Sculpture in low relief,
arabesques, and the sculptured lacework which were in fashion in the sixth
century, came from Persia and from Syria; their origin goes back to the Assyrian
and Egyptian artists.
The discoveries of Foucher at Gandhara have made
known that it was the Greeks who followed in Alexander's train who taught Asia
the principles of bas relief.
In music, the Arabs have shown the same
nullity as in other branches of the fine arts. In a general way, the Musulmans
considered it as a mercenary art, putting it in the same class as dancing.2
Ibn-Khaldoun, in his Prolegomena, speaks of it with a certain contempt: "We
know," he says, "that Maowiah reproached his son Yezid severely for being so
fond of vocal music, and that he forbade him to indulge in it." And in another
passage: " One day, I reproached an Emir of royal birth for his eagerness to
learn music, and I said to him:
" That is not your business and does not
become your dignity.'
" How is that? “ he replied. “Don't you know that
Ibrahim the son of EI Mahdi (the third Abbas-side Caliph), excelled in this art,
and was the first singer of his day?”
"’By Allah! 'I answered him. 'Why
do you not rather take his father as your model, or his brother? Don't you know
that this passion caused Ibrahim to fall below the rank held by his family? '
"
1 Louis Gillet, "Rist. des arts."
2 Salvador Daniel, "La musique
arabe."
The song and the dance were held in but light esteem in both Rome
and Greece; and, as the Arabs imitated the fashions of Greco-Latin civilization,
it is not impossible that they adopted its prejudices against
music.1
Throughout Musulman history the constant operation of two
conflicting influences may be noted. On the one hand it is the influence of
foreign nations hastily converted to Islam, the Syrians, Persians, Hindus,
Egyptians, and Andalusians who tend to introduce their foreign civilization into
Islam. At the periods when this influence is preponderant, there is a great
expansion of culture, with the Arabs standing, as it were, outside, and which is
accomplished in spite of them.
On the other hand, there is the influence
exercised by Arab elements, hostile to all progress, to any innovation.
Incapable of conceiving any better state, the Arab intends to remain as he is, a
shepherd, a soldier or a wanderer. Other nations are urging him to civilization,
he resists them with all his forces -with the inertia of his apathy, his
ignorance and his intellectual paralysis. When he is in the ascendant, he
arrests all forward movement; gradu-ally, by means of his religion, he
introduces his mentality and his conceptions into the manners and customs of the
subject peoples; and in the course of a few generations he succeeds in
afflicting them with his own paralysis and stagnation.
These two
influences have opposed each other for centuries, with varying fortunes. In the
end, the Arab influence, supported by material force, has carried the day, to
the ruin of all civilization.
1 Yacoub Artin Pasha, "L'instruction publique en Egypte."
* * *
The psychology of the Musulman - Steadfast faith in his intellectual
superiority - Contempt ana horror of what is not Musulman - The world divided into
two parts : believers and infidels - Everything that proceeds from infidels is
detestable - The Musulman escapes all propaganda - By mental reservation he even
escapes violence - Check to the attempts to Introduce Western civilization into
the Musulman world - Averrhoes
FROM the point at which we have arrived in this .essay,
it is not impossible to understand and to explain the psychology of the Arab,
and consequently of the Musulman. For the Musulman, whoever he may be, subjected
for centuries to the religious law, in itself an expression of the Arab mind,
has received so deep an impression from it as to have become totally Arabized.
To understand the psychology of the Arab, the mechanism of his brain, is by the
same token to account for the psychology of any given Musulman. The African
Berber thinks on the same lines, and acts on the same lines as the Syrian, the
Turk, the Persian, the Cossack, or the native of Java. All these people being
Islamized think and behave as the Arab does.
The religious law, of Arab
inspiration, that has been imposed upon the Musulman world, has had the effect
of imparting to the very diverse individuals, of whom that world is composed, a
unity of thought, of feeling, of conceptions and of judgment. The scale that has
served to measure this thought, these feelings, etc., is an Arab scale; and
consequently the minds of all Musulmans have been levelled down to the stature
of the Arab mind.
The chief characteristic of the Arab, and therefore' of
the Musulman, is a fixed belief in his own intel-lectual superiority. Incapable
as he is, through the barrenness of his mind and the poverty of his imagination,
of conceiving any other condition than his own, any other mode of thought, he
firmly believes that he has arrived at an unequalled pitch of perfection; that
he is the sole possessor of the true faith, of the true doctrine, the true
wisdom; that he alone is in possession of the truth, no relative truth subject
to revision, but truth intangible, imperfectible -absolute Truth. As an example
of this pretentious claim, we may quote one of the most influential members of
the Committee of Union and Progress, Sheik Abd-ul-Hack, a civilized Young Turk;
writing a few years ago in a Musulman review, published in Paris, he said: "
Yes! the Musulman religion is in open hostility to all your world of progress.
Under-stand, you European observers, that a Christian, whatever his position may
be, by the mere fact of his being a Christian is regarded by us as a blind man
lost to all sense of human dignity. Our reasoning with regard to him is as
simple as it is definitive. We say: the man whose judgment is so perverted as to
deny the existence of a one and only God, and to make up gods of different
sorts, can only be the meanest expression of human degradation; to speak to him
would be a humiliation for our intelligence and an insult to the grandeur of the
Master of the Universe. The presence of such miscreants among us is the bane of
our existence; their doctrine is a direct insult to the purity of our faith;
contact with them is a defilement of our bodies; any relation with them a
torture to our souls. Though detesting you, we have condescended to study your
political institu-tions and your military organization. Over and above the new
weapons that Providence procures for us through your agency, you have yourselves
rekindled the inextinguishable faith of our heroic martyrs. Our Young Turks, our
Babis, our new Brotherhoods, all our sects, under various forms, arc inspired by
the same idea, the same necessity of moving forward. Towards what end? Christian
civilization? Never! Islam is one great inter-national family. All true
believers are brothers. A community of feeling and of faith binds them in mutual
affection. It is for the Caliph to facilitatc these relations and to rally the
Faithful under the sacerdotal standard." 1
Convinced that he is the elect
of God (Moustafa), assured that his people is the one nation chosen among all
others by the divinity, the Musulman has the certitude of being the only one
called to enjoy the celestial rewards. And so, for those who do not think as he
does, for the wanderers who do not follow the straight way, he feels a pity made
up of contempt for their intellectual inferiority, of horror for their
decadence, and of compassion for the frightful future of punishment that awaits
them.
This conviction, which nothing can weaken, inspires the Musulman
with an inalienable attach-ment to his traditions. Outside Islam there can be no
safety; outside its law, no truth, no happiness. The evolution of foreign
nations, the increasing accumulations of their knowledge, scientific progress,
the improvements effected by human effort in material well-being leave him
indifferent. He is the Believer, par excellence, the superior, the perfect
Being.
1 This declaration appeared in Le Mecherouttiete, a review edited
by Sherif Pasha, Paris, August, 1912.
This conception, as has been truly
remarked, 1 divides the world into two parts: Believers and Infidels. The
Believer is in a state of perpetual waf with the Infidel, and this right, this
duty of eternal war can only be suspended: "Make war," says the Holy Book, "on
those who believe neither in God nor in the last judgment, who do not regard as
for-bidden what God and his Prophet have forbidden, on those who do not profess
the true religion, until they, humbled in spirit, shall pay tribute with their
own hands.'
The Musulman, convinced of his own superiority, will not
suffer any teaching. As typical of his mode of reasoning, we may quote the words
of a Young Tunisian, Bechir Sfar: "The North of Africa is inhabited by an
amalgam of peoples who claim descent from a celebrated race, the Arab race, and
who profess a religion of unity, the Musulman religion. Now, this race and this
religion conquered and colonized an empire more vast than the Roman Empire. The
North Africans alone have to their credit sixty years of domination in the South
of France, eight centuries in Spain, and three centuries in Sicily. . . . This
slight digression is made with the object of recalling to those who might be
tempted to forget it that we belong to a race, to a religion, and to a
civilization equal in historical glory and in the force of assimilation to any
other race whatever, to any other religion or civilization of ancient or modern
peoples." 2
1 Snouck Hurgronje, "Musulman Law."
2 Bechir Sfar, "Las Ha
bous en Tunisie."
Intellectually, the Musulman is, nevertheless, a
paralytic; his brain, subjected in the course of centuries to the rough
discipline of Islam, is closed to all that has not been foreseen, announced and
specified by the religious law. He is, therefore, systematically hostile to all
novelty, to all modifi-cation, to all innovation.
Whatever exists has
been created by the will of the Almighty. It is not for man to modify His work.
If God had wished that what exists should be different, he would have made it
so, irrespective of all human volition. To act is thus, to some extent, to
misunderstand the divine decisions, to wish to substitute human desires for
them, to commit an act of insubordination. Such a conception puts all progress
out of the question; and, in fact, immobility is the essential characteristic of
every Musulman community.
As has been remarked, "the Musulman, remain-ing
faithful to his religion, has not progressed; he has remained stationary in a
world of swiftly moving modern forces. It is, indeed, one of the salient
features of Islamism that it immobilizes in their native barbarism the races
whom it enslaves. It is fixed in a crystallization inert and impenetrable. It is
unchangeable; and political, social or economic changes have no repercussion
upon it.” 1
Renan has shown that the Semites were incapable of rising to
the conception of a general idea. A Musulman would willingly associate with
Europeans in Christian anti-clericalism, but he would never tolerate the least
attempt against his own belief. One instance, among a hundred others, may be
given of this assertion: Some years ago there met at.
1 Besson, "La
Iegislation civile de l' Algerie."
Algiers an Oriental Congress, at which
European, Egyptian and Turkish savants were present. They dealt first with
biblical exegesis. Certain linguists sought to prove that several passages in
the Old Testament were apochryphal and that they had consequently no historic
value. Nobody protested. But, when these same savants wished to exercise their
erudition and their critical powers upon the Koran, their Musulman colleagues
protested with the most lively indignation against what they considered as
sacrilege. The discussion became so heated that: the Governor-General had to
intervene.
As has been seen, the Musulman escapes from all propaganda; he
even escapes from violence, because Islam authorizes him to bow for the time
before superior force, when circumstances require it. The religious law in no
way imposes upon him an attitude which might expose him to danger or to
reprisals. It even permits him, in case of extreme peril, to transgress the
dogmas. The commentators on the Koran quote numerous examples of this liberty:
Ammar Ben Yasir was excused by the Prophet himself for outwardly praising pagan
gods and insulting Mahomet, at a time when in his heart he was firmly attached
to the Musulman religion. This procedure was admitted by the earlier doctors of
the Law. Afterwards, it was recommended to employ ambiguous expressions as far
as possible, words of double meaning, to give less force to these denials. The
practice was called taqiyyah, after a passage in the Koran. 1 It was used by the
Shiites in their constant propaganda against the Ommeyads.
1 Ch 6. III,
v. 27.
We even find taqiyyah used to satisfy private interests, in oaths
for instance; it consists in the use of words with a double meaning or in mental
reservation. 1 The Musulman may, therefore, bend to foreign authority when he is
not strong enough to resist; he may even make terms with it, and accept titles
and favours; but, as soon as he feels himself in a position to revolt, he should
immediately do so; it is an imperative duty.
In the twelfth century, A
verrhoes wanted to Islamize Greek knowledge, in order to incorporate it into
Islam. He was looked upon as an ungodly man and was persecuted.2 In modern
times, the same attempts have been made from time to time, and have ended in the
same failure. It is not without profit to dwell upon these efforts, as they
explain the poverty of the results attained by the efforts of European nations
in Musulman countries: Francc in North Africa; England in India and Egypt;
Holland in Sumatra; and Italy in Tripolitania.
The various societies for
social emancipation, Masonic Lodges, League of the Rights of Man, Educational
League, the Positivist Society, etc., have, since the middle of the nineteenth
century, multiplied their efforts to spread their liberal doctrines among
Musulmans. They have failed in their task because the neophytes to whom they
addressed themselves were not sincere. Those who seemed completely emancipated
showed, at the touch-stone of events, that they had preserved their prejudices,
their hatreds, and their Oriental mentality entire.
1 Snouck Hurgronje,
"Musulman Law."~
2 Renan, "Averrhoes et l' Averrhoisme."
A curious
example may be quoted: A member of all the Societies of free thinkers, and
notably of the Positivist Committee, of which he was the delegate for Turkey,
Ahmed Riza, in his newspaper Michveret, covered with obloquy the means of
government employed by Abd-ul-Hamid; he demanded liberty of the Press; he
proclaimed the equality of the races of the Empire, and the necessity of the
existence of political parties; in this, he spoke as a free thinker, as a
disciple of the French Revolution. But he changed his note as soon as he was in
power. As president of the Ottoman Chamber, he had no word of pity for the
victims, no word of indignation for the assassins, after the massacres of Adana,
when more than twenty thousand Armenians were done to death; he allowed the new
law against the Press to be voted, which suppressed all independence of thought
in Turkey. In July, 1910, he silenced those liberals in the Chamber who demanded
the abolition of the state of siege that had been in force since the revolution
of the 18th April, he raised no protest against the executions of liberal
politicians by court martial. In Paris, he declared himself a free thinker, but
at Constantinople, he regularly performed the "namaz" (prayer) in the Chamber,
so as to assure the religious party of his profound faith.
More recently,
in 1922-1923, the government of Angora furnished a fresh example of incurable
Musulman fanaticism. This Government, which claims to be actuated by modern
ideas, deposed the Sultan whom it accused of making terms with foreigners and of
not showing himself sufficiently firm in defence of the interests of Islam. One
of its members, Abeddin Bey, deputy for Logiztan, tore off his neck-tie in the
tribune and made the assembly, before rising, vote the prohibition of the use of
wearing apparel made abroad. Other deputies declared their determination to
restore the faith to its primitive austerity. They demanded punishments for
Turkish women of easy virtue who sold their favours to infidels. They made the
wearing of the orthodox head-dress obligatory; they forbade the use of alcohol,
and even of wine; they decreed the closing of the European schools. During the
war against the Greeks, the Turkish journals called the Musulman soldiers:
Moujahid (from Djihad, holy war), that is to say combatants for the faith,
soldiers of the holy war; and those who fell on the field of battle, Chahid,
i.e., martyrs.
One might multiply examples to prove that the Musulman
is beyond the reach of foreign influences; that, in spite of appearances, he
preserves his peculiar mentality, his profound faith, his deep-rooted hatreds;
that he is refactory to all civilization.
The Musulman community can
neither bc modified nor improved; it is crystallized in an unassailable formula;
its ideal is exclusively religious, or rather, it is twofold: one half
religious, the other political-Mahdism and the Caliphate.1
Mahdism is the
realization on earth of religious aspirations, through the intervention of a
personage chosen by the divinity-the Mahdi; it is thc supremacy of the Islamic
faith over all other religions.
The Caliphate is the ideal of the Islamic
State, placed under the sceptre of a Caliph. It is the liberation of the
Musulman peoples bowed beneath the infidel yoke; it is the restoration of the
defunct splendour of the Musulman Empire, such as it was under the successors of
the Prophet, under the Ommeyads and the Abbassides. 2
1 Servier, "Le
Nationalisme musulman."
2 Montet, "De.l'etat present et de l'avenir de
I'Islam."
These two forms of the Musulman
ideal are not always in perfect accord: they sometimes clash, although, after
all, their aim is identical, namely, the triumph of Islam.
The hopes of
the Caliphites centre by preference upon the most powerful independent Sultan,
who is the protector and the natural champion of Islam; at the present moment it
is the Ottoman Sultan; but the office and the sentiments upon which it rests are
always international.
The Mahdist movements, on the contrary, are
essentially the expression of local discontent. It is the Musulman form of that
hatred which among aU nations and at all times arrays the conquered against
their conquerors. So long as Islam exists, the Mahdist doctrine will be the
spark that may at any moment set ablaze the discontent of the natives. There is
no colonial policy capable of indefinitely avoiding these fatal sentiments and
the sudden troubles to which they may give rise.
The doctrine of the
Caliphate, on the other hand, is essentially political; it is of a higher, more
complex order; its conception calls for a more developed intellectual culture;
it is that of the Young Turks, of the Young Egyptians, of the Young Tunisians,
of the Young Algerians; and to-morrow, it will be that of the Young Moroccans,
as soon as the instruction now being given in the French schools shall have
partially civilized the natives of Morocco. At the outset, the Caliphate idea
was religious, like every other manifestation of the Musulman spirit; but it was
not long in extending its borders to embrace politics, and to dream of a
formidable Musulman power, which should present itself finally as a quasi-laic
restoration of the vanished Oriental civilization, in opposition to the
Christian civilization of Europe.1 In other words, it is Musulman nationalism;
all the faithful of Islam forming part of one ideal country.
The
strangest part of it is that this doctrine of the Caliphate has borrowed its
essential principles from Europe. At the time of the fall of Abdul-Hamid, the
Young Turks firmly believed that they were reviving the French Revolution; a
number of them were Freemasons. One of the masters to whom they appealed, AI
Afghani Leijed-Djemmal-ed-Din al-Husseini, who died in 1897, belonged to an
Egyptian Lodge; he was honoured by the friend-ship of Renan, who has devoted a
eulogistic notc to him, reproduced in his Essays.
Ahmed Riza Bey and Dr.
Nazim, two influential members of the C.U.P., used to belong to the Positivist
Society of France; but both of them have kept their Musulman mentality, in spite
of appearances.
Sawas Pasha, an Ottoman Christian and a liberal thinker,
but who thinks as a Christian and not as a Musulman, says, in his Studies on the
theory of Musulman Law: " One can render not only accept-able to, but even
compulsory on the Musulman conscience all progress, all truth, every legal
dis-position, not hitherto accepted by the Mahometan community or inscribed in
its Law."
Attempts to civilize the Musulmans, inspired by this formula,
ended in failure, because they came into collision with a religion fiercely
conservative and an intransigent fanaticism. It may be admitted that,
theoretically, fanaticism is not incurable; but it has to be recognized
nevertheless that Musulman fanaticism is absolutely irreducible. That is why the
1 Khairallah effort of the Young Turk party towards progl.CSS was, from the
outset, checked by the muss of the faithful, hostile to all innovation. To
maintain itself in power, this party was obliged to deny the principles it had
in the first instance proclaimed.
The revolutionary idea had germinated
in the minds of the Jewish and Christian populations subject to Turkey; and it
was they who prepared the move-ment of emancipation; but as soon as it became an
accomplished fact and the Musulman Turks attempted to set up regular authority,
they reverted to the narrow ideas of religious nationalism and fanaticism. The
formidable insurrection in the Yemen, which tended to the dethronement of the
Sultan of Turkey in favour of a Caliph of Arab race, was nothing but a movement
of reaction against new ideas: against Western ideas. It may be compared to the
Wahabite movement, and had the same object-the restoration of Islam to its
original purity, by ridding it of European admixture.
More recently, the
popular movement which committed the actual direction of the Ottoman Empire to
the government of Angora, was inspired by identical sentiments, and the first
act of the government was to depose the Sultan on the ground of too great a
complaisance towards foreigners.
One of the most eminent Orientalists of
the present day, Snouck Hurgronje, whose works have thrown a startling light
upon the psychology of Musulman nations, has proved irrefutably the falsity of
the theories of Sawas Pasha. 1 It will be useful to sum up his
argument:
1 Snouck Hurgronje, " Musulman Law."
The Creed and the
Law of Islam have become in the course of their evolution less and less
flexible; the political and social happenings of modern times afford ample proof
of this. The question is not what we, with our methods of reasoning, are going
to do with the dogmas of Islam, but rather what Islam itself, following its own
doctrine and its own history, wishes to deduce from them.
Islam would
have to deny in toto its historic past to enter upon the path traced for it by
Sawas Pasha. Doubtless, whether they like it or not, the Musul-mans have to
accommodate themselves gradually to the manners and institutions proceeding from
modern Europe; but it is not to be imagined that the juridical theory, springing
from the very heart of Mahometan populations, which has maintained itself
against all contrary influences, is going to yield to-day to any action coming
from outside. Islam, as soon as it sees itself attacked, withdraws to its
strongest positions.
The Musulman certainly makes some concessions which
do not affect any religious principle: for instance, he accepts the railway, the
telegraph, the steamship; but the civilization which has produced these things,
together with its legislative principles, is, for all the faithful, an
abomination that they will only tolerate under compulsion. As for the young men
educated in French schools, they calmly super-pose foreign science upon their
traditional faith, without making any attempt to reconcile the two.
Islam forms a block of intangible traditions, of prejudices, of bigoted faith. The Musulman, bound by his religion, cannot accept Western progress. The two civilizations are too different, too much opposed ever to admit of mutual interpenetration.
* * *
Islam in conflict with European nations - The Nationalist movement in
Egypt - Its origin - The National Party - Moustafa Kamel Pasha - Mohammed Farid Bey -
The popular party - Loufti Bey es Sayed - The party of constitutional reform - Sheikh
Aly Yousef - The attitude of England - Egyptian Nationlist's intrigues in North
Africa.
In contact with Western nations,
the Musulman has remained stationary, and has made no effort to adapt himself
and his institutions to the requirements of modern times. Under the protection
of his intransigent faith, he has not allowed any outside influence to affect
him; on the contrary, his hostility towards the infidel is more bitter than
ever. The semi-education he has received in European schools has only served to
strengthen his hatred by leading him to imagine that he can do withoutforeign
guidance. It is in response to this feeling that the Musulman Nationalist Party
has been created, which has succeeded in setting the True Believer against the
Infidel in every land governed or protected by a European State. The aim of this
party is the re-establishment of Islamic power and the expulsion of the
foreigner. It is a new form of Panislamism, and a more dangerous form, inasmuch
as it aims at a practical object immediately realizable, and has realist rather
than visionary tendencies.
This movement of emancipation came to birth in
Egypt, as a reaction against English domination. Its leading spirit was Moustafa
Kamel Pasha, who, on the 22nd October, 1907, secured the unanimous adoption at
Alexandria of the programme of the Egyptian National Party of which he was the
leader, namely: " The Egyptians for Egypt, Egypt for the Egyptians. " He added
these words: "vW e are the despoiled, the English are the despoilers. We wish
our country to be free, under the spiritual dominion of the Commander of the
Faithful." But Moustafa Kamel had no time to take action; death cut him off on
the l0th February, 1908, at the very outset of his undertaking.
This was
taken up by his successor in thc presidency of the Egyptian National Party,
Moham-med Farid Bey, who, betaking himself to the most astute methods of
Oriental policy, tried to secure thc support of England's rivals among the
European Powers. This shows that the Young Egyptians were fully aware of their
own incapacity to free themselvcs from foreign tutelage by their own unaided
efforts. They set their hopes first upon France. Moustafa Kamel had addressed a
vehement appeal to the Chambre des Deputes, on 4th June, 1895; but the Chamber
had not thought the time propitious for intervention. The Young Egyptians then
tried to create a movement of public opinion in France, where they found many
willing to listen to them. How could it be otherwise: how could one distrust mcn
who protested their contempt and hatred of England, and in the same breath
claimed to regard France as their spiritual home?
It was a curious
spectacle and one that showed up the subtlety of Oriental duplicity, to see the
Young. Egyptians placing themselves under the aegis of France in order to
intrigue against England, whilst the Young Tunisians and the Young Algerians
addressed themselves to the English, at the time of the Fashoda affair, and to
the Germans during the Tangier incident, in the hope of getting rid of France.
Have we not here a proof that the Musul-man never has any feeling of gratitude
to those who have tried to raise him out of his barbarism, and that convinced of
the superiority of his own civilization, in spite of its decadence, he still
hopes to be able to make it prevail once more?l
Having lost all hope of
any intervention by France, the partisans of Egyptian emancipation turned to
Germany, who from 1900 onwards had been cultivating intrigues with all Musulman
malcontents for the supposed benefit of their foreign policy.
Moustafa
Kamel and Farid Bey devoted them-selves especially to the education of their
party, and to preparing the minds of their followers for the idea of revolt.
Their plan was to make the foreigner unpopular, to represent him as an invader
and a usurper, to show the legitimacy of rebellion against his authority, to
inspire the Musulmans with proud confidence in their own strength by recalling
to them the power of the Empire of the Caliphs. Before proceeding to action, it
would be well to convince their minds of the necessity and the possibility of
action; this conviction once established, there might be some hope of
realization.
With this object, the People's Party was founded, with
Loufti Bey es Sayed as leader, and a simple programme, namely: to obtain step by
step the maximum of liberty, up to the final expulsion of the foreigner; to make
use of the encouragement and the efforts of England to conquer her in the sequel
by means of the weapons which she herself would have forged.
1 Lord
Cromer, Report to Sir Edward Grey, May, 1900.
Education being the most
efficacious arm, the English were to be urged to multiply schools, especially
purely native schools; to replace the European teachers by Egyptians. Later on,
when the protected people were convinced as to their rights, it would only be
necessary to array them against their protectors. This policy, which tends to
raise ruse and dissimu-lation to a system of action, almost to a fine art,
should not astonish us; for it is in exact accordance with the commandments of
the Faith. The true believer is in a state of permanent war with the infidel,
and this law, this duty of eternal war can only be suspended. "Make war," says
the Holy Book, " on those who do not profess the true religion, until they, in
their humiliation, shall pay the tribute with their own hands." This formula
explains the atti-tude of the partisans of emancipation, whether in Egypt, in
Tunis, or in Algiers.
A third party, that of Constitutional Reform, was
founded by Sheikh Aly Youssef, the editor of Al Moayad. He advocated the
maintenance of the Khedivial authority according to the spirit of the Sultan's
Firmans; the creation of a national parlia-ment; free and general primary
instruction, in the Arabic language, that being established as the official
language; and the admission of Egyptians to administrative
appointments.
The foundation of the reform advocated by Sheikh Aly
Youssef is the establishment of Arabic as the official language for education in
the schools of Egypt. By this means the English teachers would be driven away,
and the influence exercised, through their intermediary, by the conquering
people on the protected people, would be suppressed. Education being given
exclusively in Arabic, the rising genera-tion would be preserved from all
dangerous contact with Western ideas. Their minds could be moulded into any
desired form; nationalism and religious fanaticism could be cultivated in them;
they would thus become good and ardent Musulmans, with little instruction
perhaps, but sufficiently tamed, as it were, to obey blindly the orders of the
reformers, and at their bidding to hurl themselves against the English invaders.
Finally, these trustworthy subjects, on leaving school, would enter into the
different services of the administration where they would gradually take the
place of foreigners.
This first step taken, it would then only be
necessary to create a Parliament, a simple matter since the minds of the young
generation would have been prepared for it. A Parliament obtained, intrigues
would be set to work with the great Powers who were England's rivals, and
advantage would be taken of troublous times, of a mutiny in India, of a war in
Europe, of any events that would compel the protecting Power to direct its
attention and its forces elsewhere, to launch the movement of rebellion and
drive out the invader.
England fell into this trap; wishing to show her
benevolence towards Egypt, she began the realization of part of the reforms
advocated by Sheikh Aly Youssef. Notably in all that concerned education she
endeavoured to make it, as far as possible, con-formable to the mentality, the
traditions, and the customs of Musulman people; she set up schools for the
exclusive use of natives, in which the instruction was given in Arabic. A
commission composed of the most eminent personalities of the religious and 1
political world of Egypt was entrusted with the translation into Arabic of
the principal scholastic manuals of Europe, at the same time adapting them to
the prescriptions of the Koran. The Commission in this way founded a library
comprising treatises on geography, history, physics, chemistry, natural history,
etc., drawn up in .Arabic with the usual religious formulae. For the
accomplishment of this imposing task the Committee made use of the works of the
Arab savants of the Middle Ages, from which they borrowed the technical terms
and scientific definitions, so that the Young Egyptian can acquire practical
knowledge in his own vernacular.
We know how he has shown his gratitude
for this generous consideration: the rising generation, edu-cated by England,
and who, without her help, would have remained in the depths of their ignorance,
have arrayed themselves against her; and now, under the delusion that they are
capable of governing themselves, their one idea is to shake off all foreign
tutelage.
Such are the origin and the tendencies of the Nationalist
movement in Egypt, very briefly set out. The theories of the promoters of the
movement, gradually spread abroad by means of the instruction given in the
schools set up by England, are now enlisting the people of Egypt against their
protectors. and are from day to day giving rise to serious
difficulties.
England, breaking away from her customary egoism, has done
her best to extend education among the Egyptian people, and to develop their
prosperity in conformity with the principles and practices of civilized
countries. Her efforts have only led to negative results. .
The Young
Egyptians, educated by England, at England's expense, in English schools, have
ranged themselves against her in the name of Islam, and to the cry of: " Egypt
for the Egyptians."
But, not content to work for the liberation of their
own country, they have intrigued in Tunisia and Algeria, in order to create a
vast movement of Musulman nationalism, thus proving that they are not, as they
claim to be, Egyptian nationalists, but Musulman nationalists. This will cause
no surprise if one will only bear in mind the close solidarity of Musulman
nations, how their religion has cemented them into one perfectly homogeneous
block, in spite of the diversity of races, of origins, and of customs. The
Musulman of India differs strangely in appear-ance from the Bedouin of Arabia;
whilst the latter bears little resemblance to a Turk, an Egyptian, or an
Algerian or Moroccan Berber; and these in turn do not think or act in the same
way as their co-religionaries in Persia, Sumatra, or China. They are sometimes
even disunited. The Arab tribes of the Yemen are constantly in revolt against
Ottoman domination; the nomads who wander between Mecca and Medina do not
hesitate to plunder the caravans of the pilgrims who repair to the Holy Cities;
the Algerian Kabyles treat the Arabized population with contempt, and these in
turn detest the Djerbians and the Mozabites; the Chambaas of the desert are
always ready to hold up to ransom the peaceful inhabitants of the Oases. But
these are intestine quarrels, differ-ences between people belonging to the same
family; but, should any foreign intervention occur, then immediately the
brothers who were at enmity the day before forget their dissensions in the more
urgent need of meeting the infidel. Islam has realized the absolutely
extraordinary work of being able to unite and to bring into communion with the
same ideal, the most diverse peoples, the most unlike in every way, and the most
distant from one another; so perfectly has this solidarity been effected that
any movement in anyone point of Musulman territory necessarily has its
repercussion on all other points. This is exactly the case with the intrigues of
the Egyptian National Party.
The inflammatory speeches of Moustafa Kamel
Pasha and Mohammed Farid Bey, the violent cam-paigns of Al Mooyad, of Al Lewa,
of Al Garidah, and of Al Minbar, the call to rebellion of Loufti Bey es Sayad
and of the Sheikh Aly Youssef have found an echo in other places besides Egypt:
North Africa has thrilled to the voice of these tribunes of Islam. Tunisia was
the first to hear their call, which, coming nearer and nearer, was extended to
Algeria and then to Morocco. So long ago as 1906, during a stormy sitting of the
House of Commons, Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, noted
the rapid development of the nationalist movement:
" All this year," said
he, " fanatical feeling has gone on increasing in Egypt, but it has not stopped
there, it has spread throughout the whole of North Africa."
Since then,
the movement has become still more accentuated, not only on account of the
Italian expedition against Tripoli, which has strengthened the feeling of
solidarity among all Musulmans, but more especially because of the incitements
and intrigues of the Young Turk party, under German encouragement.
The
evolution of this Party is extremely curious. The Young Turk revolution was
organized and launched by a certain number of Turkish intellectuals, of whom the
majority were Christians and Jews educated in the schools and colleges of
Europe, who had derived from their Western enlightenment the idea of introducing
progress into the Musulman world. It is beyond doubt that at the outset this
movement of regeneration was inspired by liberal ideas, and that it did its best
to copy the French Revolution. But, as soon as the Young Turks had obtained
power, they came into collision with the fanaticism of the mass of the people;
they were accused of impiety and of heresy, and under pressure of public opinion
the non--Musulman elements of the revolution were swiftly ejected. The Ottomans
who remained at the head of the movement hastened to make concessions to the
people, so that the original idea of the revolution was completely altered. They
went even further, and did not hesitate to make such a display of intransigent
nationalism as gave rise to various incidents with the European Powers, notably
with Italy. 1
The Great War, and the complications following from it: the
partition of Turkey, the claims of Greece, the occupa-tion of new territory by
England and France have not failed to excite to a high pitch the passions of the
Musulmans, and to accentuate their religious nationalism.
1 Albert Fua, Hist. of the Committee of Union and Progress."
* * *
[chapter XVII of the french edition]
[chapter XVIII of the french edition]
[chapter XIX of the french edition]
France's foreign Musulman policy - We should help Turkey - The lessons
of the Wahabite movement - In the Musulman world the Arab is an element of
disorder, the Turk is an element of stability - The Arab is doomed to disappear;
he will be replaced by the Turk - A policy of neutrality towards the Arabs: of
friendly support towards Turkey - Conclusion.
THE slow work of breaking up the Musulman block, which
should form the foundation of our policy in North Africa, should also be the
basis of our foreign Musulman policy. Islam is the enemy, not because it is a
religious doctrine differing from our own philosophical con-ceptions, but
because it is an obstacle to all progress, to all evolution.
We should,
therefore, scrupulously avoid any policy that could add to the power and
prestige of those nations who are strict adherents to the doctrines of Islam. On
the other hand we should support those who have only received a light impression
of this doctrine, and whose faith is free from bigotry.
The Turks are the
least Islamized of all Musulman peoples.
The Arabs of Arabia, on the
contrary, are those who have received its deepest imprint. And naturally so,
since Islam is nothing but a secretion of the Arab brain: the dogmatic
crystallization of Arab" thought. To support the Arabs is, therefore, to help to
give a new lustre to Islam, that is to say, to a politico-religious conception
of fanaticism and xenophobia.
Throughout all its stages Islam has
witnessed a desperate struggle between the Arab tendency and the tendency of the
non-Arab peoples, converted to Islam by force, who sought instinctively to
recover their liberty. This tendency of the Arab people to revert to the pure
doctrine of the most rigid Islam is illustrated in our own time by the Wahabite
reformation.
Palgrave, who had the opportunity of study-ing this movement
on the spot, has correctly grasped its inspiration, its aim, and its
consequences. "Mohammed-ibn-Abd-el-Wahab," he says, "re-solved to consecrate the
remainder of his life to the restoration of this primeval image of Islam, the
Islam of Mahomet, of the Sahhabah, and now his own; convinced that this alone
was the true, the unerring, the heaven-revealed path, and all beside it mere
human superaddition. With a head full of his project and a heart set on carrying
it into execution, Mohammed, the Wahhabee, returned to his native N ejed, after
an absence of six years, most of which he had passed in Damascus." He declared
that the cholera, then epidemic in the Nejed, was a sign of divine wrath, and
that the best means of fighting the scourge was a sincere return to the fervour
of former days. As a means to this end, there was set up a council of Medeyites
or Zelators. " No Roman censors in their most palmy days had a higher range of
authority, or were less fettered by ordinary restrictions. Not only were these
Zelators to denounce offenders, but they might also, in their own unchallenged
right, inflict the penalty incurred, beat and fine at discretion, nor was any
certain limit assigned to the amount of the mulct, or to the number of the
blows." Not to be present five times a day at public prayers, to smoke, to take
snuff, to chew tobacco, to wear silk or gold, to speak or to have a light in
one's house after the evening service, to sing or play any musical instrument,
to swear by any other name but that of God; in a word, all that seemed to depart
from the letter of the Koran and from the strict commentary of Mohammed-Abd-el-
Wahab, became a crime severely punished. "Rank itself was no pro-tection, high
birth no shelter, and private or political enmities now found themselves masters
of their aim. Moreover, W ahabism, being the very essence of Mahometanism,
brings ruin as its natural consequence. Systematically hostile to commerce,
unfavourable to the arts and to agriculture, it kills everything it touches.
Whilst on the one side it waxes fat on the substance of conquered countries, on
the other its blind fanaticism urges it to make insensate war upon all that it
is pleased to stigmatize by the name of luxury or self-indulgence; it proscribes
tobacco, silk, personal adornment, and by endless petty vexations persecutes the
somewhat unorthodox trader who pre-fers a ship to a mosque, and bales of
merchandise to the Koran. " 1
Palgrave's observations, collected with
impartial-ity, enable us to understand into what a state of decrepitude those
nations fall who blindly follow the Koranic doctrine, and at the same time how
wanting in political prudence we should be if we befriended these
people.
This has been England's great mistake from the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Ignoring the peculiar psychology of Musulman peoples, and
judg ing only from appearances, she thought it worth while to intrigue against
Turkey with the small native States of Arabia; but has only succeeded in
creating so many centres of fanaticism and xenophobia.
1 PaIgrave, " A
Year in Central Arabia."
France has not been much wiser: abandoning the
prudent and well-advised policy of the Monarchy, which always tended to an
entente with the Grand Turk, we have failed to grasp the true role of the
Ottoman Empire, we have finally handed it over to German influence, and have set
it against us, at a time when its help would have been of the greatest use to
us, by upholding the aspirations of the Balkan States, little worthy of our
interest, or by contracting illusory alliances with Arab tribes who have a
supreme contempt for us.
From our particular point of view, as a State
having fourteen or fifteen million Musulmans under our tutelage, we have no
interest in protecting the fanatical section of Islam, whose aim and object is
to rid their co-religionists of all foreign domination.
These same
fanatics do not regard with any more favourable eye the domination of the Turk.
They submit to it, for the time being, because they are not in a position to
break away; but inwardly they curse it. For them the Sultan is by no means the
real Commander of the Faithful; he is no more than a usurper, whose ruin is to
be desired by every true believer. This feeling is easily explained: The
Commander of the Faithful ought to be a descendant of the Prophet, that is to
say, of necessity an Arab, of the Koreich; but the Sultan is not even of Arab
origin, and is, moreover, a Musulman of doubtful orthodoxy.
The Turks
were late comers into the world of Islam. It was in A.D. 1299 that Othman I.,
son of Ortogul, laid the foundations of Ottoman power, favoured by the movement
of regional nationalism which in all the provinces conquered by the Arabs set
the native dynasties against the invaders. Thanks to their numbers, the Turks
rapidly extended their rulc over all parts of the Empire. Only just Islamized,
they passed from the rank of subjects to that of rulers, so that they came but
very lightly under the discipline of Islam. As they were constantly being
reinforced by drafts from the tribes of their nation, they formed at all times a
block sufficiently compact to isolate them from the influence of their
surroundings and to remain inaccessible to Arab propaganda.
Actually,
their influence overlaid the Arab influ-ence to such an extent that at the
beginning of the fourteenth century it was possible to distinguish two perfectly
distinct ethnic strata in the Musulman Empire: the Turkish stratum which drew to
itself every element hostile to the Arabs, and the Arab stratum formed of Arabs
and of Arabized peoples.
As the Turks held the material force, they
imposed their views upon the countries subject to their rule: Turkey in Europe
and Asia Minor; whilst in the other provinces, notably in Arabia, the pure Arab
mentality with its Koranic ideal prevailed.
The present Musulman world is
divided into two portions: the Turks, but slightly Islamized, devoid of
ambition, wishing to live in peace; and the Arabs, penetrated to the marrow by
Islamic doctrine, by Mahometan ideas, and cherishing the hope of re-establishing
the reign of Islam in all its primitive purity as soon as circumstances permit.
This ideal is shared in common not only by the Arabs, but by all strongly
Arabized nations, such as the Persians, Berbers, etc.
This being the
case, it is clear that if the power exercised by the Turks were to suffer any
serious injury, it would be to the profit of the Arabs, that is to say, of the
fanatical element in Islam. The result would be an upheaval of the Musulman
world, an explosion of fanaticism and xenophobia.
The Turks constitute an
element of balance; they oppose their indolence to the fanatical aspirations of
Arabia and Persia; they form a buffer State between Europe and the Asiatic
ferment. So long as they exist we have nothing to fear from Asia. If they were
to disappear, their place could only be taken by either Europeans or Asiatics;
in either case Europe would be in direct contact with Asia, with the necessary
result of a conflict.
It is our interest, therefore, to make the best of
the Turks, to consolidate their power. There is no other people that could
replace them in this role, for it is necessary to be a Musulman to act upon
Musul-mans, and necessary to be a superficial or lax Musulman to be able to
moderate their fanatical aspirations. The Turks fulfil both conditions, and they
are the only people who do so. It is true that strict Musulmans bear their rule
with impatience, but they would never admit the rule of a non-Musulman people;
and the Arabs who, according to orthodox tradition, would be qualified to direct
the Musulman Empire, would only add fuel to the flame of mutual hatred and would
end by letting loose the Holy War.
The Turks could cause no uneasiness to
any European people. They do not dream of any territorial acquisition; content
with their lot, they want nothing. Besides, from want of imngination and from
their indolent tCmperamcnt, they are incapable of conceiving any vast project.
In short, they will never raise themselves among civilized nations to a position
which would permit them at any time to indulge in grandiose ambitions. Their
culture is superficial. \What they have copied of our institutions is nothing
but a caricature; in reality they have shown themselves powerless to rise to the
rank of a great modern State, and the organizations they have borrowed from us
can only be made to work by the help of European agents.
So there is
nothing to fear from Turkish ambition; they are as a people politically fast
asleep. Our interest, therefore, makes it our duty to protect them, to maintain
them as an element of equilibrium in the Musulman world. As a corollary, we
should avoid forming intrigues with their enemies, especially with the Arabs or
Arabized nations who, themselves, are absolutely opposed to our views. The Turks
arc and will remain neutral. The Arabs are and will remain irreconcilable
enemies of Western civilization. They are not only endowed with a mentality
different from ours, but they are, in addition, animated to the last degree in
their bigoted enthusiasm by the desire to impose upon others this mentality
which they regard as the highest expression of human genius.
There is
nothing to be done with these fanatics. They bow to the force of circumstances
for the time being, but as soon as they are in a position to revolt, they
consider rebellion as a sacred duty. There is no evolution to be hoped for from
them; they arc irremediably fixed in their conception; regarding this conception
as perfect, they will never agree to modify it. With regard to them, what we
have advocated in respect to Islam in general, i.e., neutrality, is only an
attitude of policy. We have not got to fight the Bedouins of Arabia, because
from no point of view have we anything to do with them; neither should we aid or
protect them under any pretext. Let us leave them to live their own life, to
their habits and their traditions-inferior beings in the midst of a civilized
world leading the life of barbarians of the remotest ages, they are doomedto
disappear. Other races will absorb them; .the Turks especially are installing
themselves little by little among them, and as the Turks are hard-working and
prolific peasants, they will end by absorbing them, as they have absorbed the
Greeks in certain provinces of Turkey in Europe.
This is the best
solution we could imagine, as it would have the result of reducing the fanatical
element in the Musulman world, and of gradually substituting for it the element
of balance represented by the Turkish nation.
We are, of course, only
speaking of the Turks considered in general, and as an ethnic collectivity. We
are not unaware that at certain times their leaders have manifested and are
still manifesting, for political purposes, tendencies to fanaticism and
xenophobia. It is none of our business to encourage these ten-dencies, which
seem to suggest Arab influence; but, between two evils we should choose the
lesser; and it appears from the evidence of past experience that we should
always find it easier to come to an understanding with the Turks than with any
other Musulman community. But we should never forget that whenever we have to
deal with Musulman people, whoever they may be, they will always, in spite of
appearances, be disposed to respect the law of religious solidarity; and that
any interests which may, for the moment, divide them, would have but a relative
value and would never constitute a harrier to their union, more or less
disguised, against the foreigner. The Musulman, whoever he may be, submits to
the strict discipline of Islam. He acts always in conformity with the higher
interests of Islam. This amounts to saying that he will never really sacrifice
any fraction whatever of the Musulman world to a non-Musulman Power.
It
would, therefore, be perfectly puerile to waste any enthusiasm on the Turks and
to take action on their behalf against any European nation. To do so would be to
expose oneself to deception, for it is certain" beyond a peradventure" that,
once the danger passed, they would feel no gratitude towards the Christians for
having helped them, but would make haste to betray them if the interests of
Islam called for it. What we have said about the Turks is, therefore, only
correct in so far as it has reference to incidents which might occur in the
Musulman world, and not to any conflicts that might arise between Turks and
Christians. In this latter case, we should always range ourselves on the side of
nations of our own civilization.
We have not been able to make this essay
as short as we should have wished, inasmuch as Musulman history being but little
known, we have been obliged for the sake of our argument to give a resume of the
essential events necessary for a correct understanding of the
subject.
The principal ideas may be summarized as follows:
Islam
is a doctrine of death, inasmuch as the spiritual not being separated from the
temporal, and every manifestation of activity being subjected to dogmatic law,
it formally forbids any change, any evolution, any progress. It condemns all
believers to live, to think, and to act as lived, thought and acted the
Musulmans of the second century of the Hegira, when the law of Islam and its
interpretation were definitely fixed.
In the history of the nations,
Islam, a secretion of the Arab brain, has never been an element of civilization,
but on the contrary has acted as an extinguisher upon its flickering light.
Individuals under Arab rule have only been able to contribute to the advance of
civilization in so far as they did not conform to Musulman dogma, but they
relapsed into Arab barbarism as soon as they were obliged to make a complete
submission to these dogmas.
Islamized nations, who have not succeeded in
freeing themselves from Musulman tutelage, have been stricken with intellectual
paralysis and decadence. They will only escape from this condition of
inferiority in proportion as they succeed in withdrawing themselves from the
control of Musulman law.
Among these peoples, the Berbers of North Africa
seem the best fitted to break away from this tutelage. They are but
superficially Arabized; they have a long Latin past; they are no longer subject
to the discipline of a Musulman Government; it is possible for them, therefore,
so to evolve that they may some day re-enter the Latin family. This, of course,
will be a work of time; but it is not beyond the power of the Protectorates, and
should be undertaken and followed up by every possible means, if the French wish
to make of Northern Africa a province of French mentality and aspirations.
THE END