The Life of Mohammad Part 31

"Like Christian chivalry, which came later, Arab chivalry had a code of its own. No man was worthy to be a knight unless he possessed the following qualities: kindness, valour, amability, poetical talent, eloquence, bodily strength, skill in horsemans.h.i.+p, and cleverness in handling spear, sword and bow....

"In 1139, the Wali of Cordova having laid siege to Toledo, belonging to the Christians, Queen Berengaria, shut up in the city, sent him a herald to bid him take notice that it was unworthy of a brave, gallant and generous knight to attack a woman. The Arab general retired forthwith, asking as sole favour, to be allowed the honour of saluting the Queen....

"The Arab chronicles of Spain are full of stories of the same kind, proving how wide-spread were these knight-errant-like qualities; and a very religious learned man, Barthelemy St. Hilaire, admits most loyally how greatly European customs are indebted to them. In his book on the Qur'an, he says: "Through having intercourse with the Arabs and copying them, the boorish barons of the Middle Ages toned down their rough habits; and the knights, without lessening their bravery, became cognisant of more delicate, n.o.ble and humane sentiments. It is doubtful whether Christianism alone, despite its benevolence, would have inspired them with these feelings."

"The reader may perhaps ask why, under these conditions, the influence of the Arabs is so unappreciated in our day by learned men who, by their intellect, seem far above all religious prejudice. That is because independence of opinion is more apparent than real, and we are not at all free to think as we like about certain subjects. The hereditary prejudices professed by us against Islamism and its disciples have acc.u.mulated during too many centuries not to have become part and parcel of our organism....

"If we join thereto other prejudices also hereditary, and increased in each generation by our detestable cla.s.sic education: that all sciences and literature of the past spring solely from Greeks and Romans, we can easily understand that the great influence of the Arabs in the history of European civilisation is generally slighted.

"In certain minds, it will always seem humiliating that it is owing to the Moslems that Christian Europe shook off barbarism...." (Dr.

Gustave Le Bon, _La Civilisation des Arabes_.)

What caused Islam to fall so rapidly, after having, during the eight centuries of its domination in Spain, placed that country not only at the head of occidental civilisation, but also causing it to s.h.i.+ne quite as brilliantly from Delhi and Bokhara, as far as Constantinople and Fez?

The first cause may be found in the non-observance of the strictly levelling principles that the Prophet had so much trouble to establish while he lived, and which were the motives of his successes and of those of the first Caliphs. One example will serve to show how rigorously these principles were applied in the beginning: "A rich, powerful, and proud monarch, Jabala, newly converted, struck violent blows in the face of a poor Bedouin, who had accidentally pushed against him while he was performing his devotions round the Ka'bah.

Without bringing into account the rank of the delinquent, or the danger of estranging such an important personage, the Caliph Umar thought that, for the honour of the future of Islam, equality in the eyes of law and justice should override all other considerations, and he condemned King Jabala to undergo, at the hands of the humble Bedouin, the same chastis.e.m.e.nt as had been inflicted on him."

With such strict principles, no one could possibly be proud of anything but his personal merit; and emulation gave birth to miracles for the greater good of Islam. No men were chosen as chieftains except those who deserved that honour, and once elected, they were blindly obeyed because they were sincerely admired and respected.

Unfortunately, the complete observance of this master-thought of the Prophet turned out to be ephemeral, and already under the rule of Usman, the third Caliph, aristocratic prejudices began to regain their evil influence. In vain Mohammad had said to his beloved daughter, Fatimah-tuz-Zahra: 'Work, and reckon not that it sufficeth for thee to be the Prophet's daughter;' the sons of most unimportant people despised their Mussulman brothers of more lowly origin, and thought that their social rank exempted them from making those efforts without which no progress can be realised. Moreover, rivalry between folks more proud of their forbears than of their own works, gave rise again to fractricidal struggles, as ruthless as in the past; and with them, the disorganisation and general anarchy which had paralysed the Arabs of pre-Islamic times. Having lost all taste for study; separated and exhausted by incessant civil wars, the Moslems were only able to offer puny resistance to the Christians, who dreamt of revenge and had profited by these dissensions to organise themselves.

In the past as in the present, Islam might have avoided the greater part of its misfortunes if it always remembered this last adjuration of the Prophet in his sermon of the Valedictory Pilgrimage: 'Never forget that each Mussulman should be a true brother to every other Mussulman!'

The second cause of its decline arose from one of the primordial qualities of Islam. The conformity of its dogma, almost entirely devoid of supernaturalism, to the exigencies of reason, was at first inestimably advantageous for science which remained free from the hindrances of superst.i.tion. This suffices to explain the rapid rise of its civilisation. But the Moslem mind had gradually been lulled, being satisfied with the magnificent results attained by the enthusiasm reigning in the first centuries of the Hegira. Henceforth, it was at the mercy of animal pa.s.sions and fetis.h.i.+sm, in certain newly-conquered countries. The cult of Saints and Intercessors, "Awliya," or "Murabitun," borrowed from the Christians and so strictly forbidden by the Qur'an, took the place of the cult of Science and, by its gross superst.i.tions, barred all progress. Philosophers like Averroes, tried to struggle, but it was too late; the evil was too deeply rooted among the ma.s.ses who called these enlightened men unG.o.dly, and demanded that they should be put out of favour....

These two causes of decay are ancient, and contradict the real doctrine of the Qur'an. On the other hand, there is one, dating from the nineteenth century only, and which seems to be in accordance, if not with the spirit, at least with the letter of the Holy Book. It is that which results from the prohibition of any interest whatsoever being received for money lent.

"_They who swallow down usury, shall arise in the Resurrection only as he ariseth whom Satan hath infected by his touch. This, for that they say, 'Selling is only the like of usury': and yet Allah hath allowed selling, and forbidden usury._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 276.)

The excellence of this principle is unquestionable, and, until the last century, the slight inconveniences which might have troubled the Moslems in consequence of usury practised among them by Jews and Christians, were not to be compared with the advantages of this precept of the Qur'an. But at the present time, when credit is indispensable to all great undertakings and when bankers have become the real masters of the world, Islam, by adhering with exaggerated rigidity to the text of these verses, is momentarily reduced to financial and political ruin.

[Sidenote: THE FUTURE OF ISLAM]

Such, we think, rapidly summarised, are the three leading causes of the decline of Islam. Is there no remedy for this state of decay? Are the three hundred millions of Moslems spread over the surface of the globe, to be condemned to remain eternally in the sad situation established for them beyond the pale of modern civilisation? We think not.

For the two first causes, the remedy is simple: it consists in returning to the principles inst.i.tuted by the Prophet. The remedy for the third is to be found perhaps in a less strict interpretation of the letter, but certainly in accordance with the spirit of the Sacred Text. Enlightened Moslems are fully aware of this and henceforward, they will take care not to confuse banking operations with the sordid usury condemned by the Prophet.

The wounds inflicted on Islam during the last century have at last awakened it from its lethargy. Its very defeats have shown the necessity of adopting the scientific method of its conquerors. Islam recalls to mind the words of the Prophet: "Go, seek for Science everywhere, even in far China. The benefits of Science are superior to the benefits of devotion. On the Day of Resurrection, the ink used by learned men and the blood poured out by martyrdom will be measured: neither shall be preferred."

Renovators, men of genius, such as the celebrated Shaykh Abduh, have pointed out the right road to Islam, proving to Moslems that the teaching of Mohammad agrees with that of modern civilisation.

Thereupon, myriads of young men have gone through courses of European study and show wonderful facility, without losing any part of their native originality; and, very soon, innumerable Moslems will take their places in the modern world without fear of any disparaging comparisons.

Does this mean that the empire of Islam, following the example of j.a.pan, will regain its rank among great political Powers? Considering that the future of nations depends on the will of Allah, it is always presumptuous to predict it. Besides, political might is the most ephemeral of all; a few months are enough to overthrow the most formidable empires. Such power proves nothing as regards the vitality of a religion, and is not absolutely necessary for the subject we treat.

There are, indeed, conquests differing from those of armies. The imperialism of the Israelites, which disappeared centuries ago, has never given the slightest sign of a return movement and yet few peoples possess at present the power of the Jews. Persecution was for them the great educator, and nowadays, in all the nations of Europe and America, the Jews, thanks to their activity and intelligence, occupy the front rank. Why does not the same effect, due to the same cause--persecution--take place among the Moslems, who, for the most part, are first, cousins to the Israelites and who possess the advantage of numbers?

Objections are against the possibility of such a revival: Fatalism, Fanaticism, Polygamy. Let us examine them.

Can Mussulman fatalism fit in with a real effort on the road to progress?

If some criticisms are justified by the way in which fatalism is understood by certain followers of the Murabitun, it has never possessed the importance ascribed to it. Islam is not more fatalist than determinism, and it is still less than Christianism which adheres strictly to the letter of the following precepts of the Gospel: 'Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.' (ST. MATTHEW, VI, 25.)

Why then accuse fatalism of having paralysed all effects among the Moslems, when the Prophet was one of the most active, persevering and energetic men that the world has ever known; and when Islam is the only religion which, no sooner founded, was followed immediately by such a marvellous epopee and such splendid civilisation? The word "Islam" signifies "resignation to the decrees of Allah," that is to say: to that which looks as if it could be mastered by energy and courage. "_Say: O my people! Act as ye best can._" (THE QUR'AN, IV, 135.) Far from being the cause of weakness, such resignation becomes the source of incomparable moral strength for the Believer, fortifying him during the ordeals of adversity.

In their intercourse with civilised beings belonging to other religions, will not Moslems be stopped by the implacable and irreducible fanaticism of which they are accused? The main object is to see if this fanaticism is not one of the countless legends inimically invented during the Middle Ages. In order to permit the reader to form an opinion, here are some extracts chosen among thousands of the same kind.

According to Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jari said: "A man of the Banu Salim ibn Awf, named Al-Husayn, father of two sons who were Christians, whilst he was a Mussulman, asked the Prophet: "Ought I not force my children to embrace Islamism? They will have no other religion than the Christian religion!" Allah (may He be glorified!) thereupon revealed for this man the following verse: "_Let there be no compulsion in Religion._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 257.)

When the Christian amba.s.sadors of the Hijr territory came to see the Prophet at Al-Madinah, he offered them half of his Mosque so that they might say their prayers therein. He rose to his feet one day, as a funeral procession went by, and when he was told that it was only a Jew's burial, he replied: 'Is it not a soul?' He also said: 'He who ill-treateth a Jew or a Christian will find me his accuser on the Day of Judgment. With unG.o.dliness an empire may last; but never with injustice.'

Notwithstanding all legends, never, beyond the Hijaz, which means the sacred territory and its vicinity, did Moslems use force to obtain conversions. The Spanish Christians were never molested on account of their belief during the eight centuries of Mussulman domination. Many of them, indeed, occupied the highest posts at the Court of the Caliphs of Cordova. On the other hand, these same Christians, as soon as they became conquerors, immediately exterminated all Moslems without exception. The Jews, who had lived in peace under Arab rule, were treated in the same way.

In his _Voyage Religieux en Orient_, the Abbe Michon pays homage to truth by this exclamation: 'It is a sad thing for Christian nations that religious tolerance, the great law of charity between the peoples, should have been taught by Mussulmans.' (Quoted by Comte de Castries, in his book on Islam.)

What about the Armenian ma.s.sacres? will be alleged against us. Our answer is that every time they have not been provoked by rebellions and conspiracies, they are condemned by all true Moslems just in the same way as the ma.s.sacre of all the Moslems in Spain is condemned nowadays by true Christians.

But the Armenian ma.s.sacres were never the outcome of religious causes, for never have the disciples of Mohammad thought of imitating the followers of Torquemada by forcing the Armenians to choose between conversion and death at the stake. Besides, Moslems do not lean towards proselytism. Strictly speaking, they have no missionaries, and if their religion, at the present day, is the one that causes the most conversions in Africa and Asia, it is, as A. Burdo justly remarks: 'by a kind of moral endosmose.' (_Les Arabes dans l'Afrique Centrale._)

A good example, free from any proselytizing attempts, produces in religious souls a much more powerful impression than the importunities of cathechists. Despite his hostility to Islam and his partiality, the "savant" Dozy is obliged to acknowledge that In Spain, formerly: 'it is a positive fact that many Christians became converted to Islam out of conviction.'

The rule of conduct of a Mussulman towards the followers of other religions is fixed by these words of the Qur'an: "_To you your religions; and to me my religion._" (CIX, 6.)

How can a Mussulman be intolerant, when he venerates alike the Prophets honoured by Jew and Christian? For him, Moses, who spoke with Allah; and Jesus, inspired by Allah, deserve the same veneration as Mohammad, the friend of Allah. "_We make no distinction between any of His Apostles._" (THE QUR'AN, II, 285.)

Never does any Mussulman dare to utter the slightest insult towards Jesus; never would he allow any to be uttered in his presence, even coming from the lips of people of Christian origin who consider Jesus to be responsible for sacerdotal errors. To insult Jesus would be to insult the Qur'an which orders Him to be revered. We were privileged once to witness the uncommon sight of a Mussulman condemned by a Christian judge for having struck a Jew who, in the presence of this disciple of Mohammad, had made outrageous remarks on the birth of Jesus.

Let us now compare the respectful att.i.tude of the Moslems as far as Jesus is concerned, with the manner in which Europeans behave when Mohammad's name is mentioned. In the Middle Ages, monks and troubadours represented him to be either some monstrous idol, or an incorrigible drunkard, fallen on a dung-heap and devoured by hogs.

Hence, they pointed out, the repugnance of his disciples for swine-flesh. We should never be done if we tried to quote all that in former times sprung from the fertile imagination of Mohammad's enemies.

The first Orientalists were no kinder. In the eighteenth century, Gagnier, a most learned man, after blaming the Abbe Maracci and Doctor Prideaux for their impa.s.sioned insults, speaks in his turn of Mohammad as 'the most villanous of all men; the most deadly of Allah's enemies; the idiotic Prophet,' etc., whilst claiming to speak in guarded terms!

The companions of the Prophet have likewise not been spared from the earliest times. So that the barbarity with which Cardinal Ximenes burnt the marvellous libraries of the Moslems of Spain should be forgotten, many calumniators invented the famous legend of the conflagration of the libraries of Alexandria, by order of the Caliph Umar, thus fully showing the slanderers' great disdain for chronology.

These collections of books had not been in existence for several centuries when Islam was revealed to the world. The first library, that of Bruchium, containing four hundred thousand volumes, was destroyed by fire during the war of Caesar against the Alexandrians; and the second, that of Serapeum, comprising two hundred thousand volumes, bequeathed by Antony, was completely pillaged in the reign of Theodosius.

These ridiculous legends are dying out gradually at the present day; and yet we prefer their candid fanaticism to the malicious calumny with which certain writers, still impregnated with medieval pa.s.sionate partiality, try from behind a screen of Oriental science, to belittle one of the men who do the most honour, not only to history, but to the history of humanity.

After having adopted the modern civilisation of Christians, may not the Moslems conclude by adopting their religion as well? To answer this question, we need only quote the opinion of an author who, although a fervent Christian, acknowledges facts most loyally. In the course of a remarkable study of Islam, he writes:

"Islam is the only religion which has no recreants--It is very difficult, if not impossible, to form an exact idea of the spiritual state of a Moslem evangelized by a Christian. We can only imagine something very near it, by trying to realise in our minds the feelings of an enlightened Christian whom an idolater might be trying to convert to his gross, superst.i.tious cult." (_L'Islam_, by Comte Henry de Castries.)

Islam, in spite of its irreducibleness, offers Christians many proofs of its feelings of veneration towards Jesus. Therefore, whence comes the hatred with which the followers of Christ pursue Mohammad even in our present century of tolerance--not to say religious indifference?

Is it because of its Asiatic origin? Was not Christianism essentially Asiatic, before Saint Paul had stripped it of Jewish trappings? Jesus declared: 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' (ST. MATTHEW, XV, 24.) Is it because of its doctrine? The doctrine of Islam is almost the same as that of certain Protestant sects. Is it because of the remembrance of the Crusades? Despite the years that are past, this remembrance has still disastrous influence over many ignorant minds, but if that was all, it would not suffice to explain away the ostracism shown in Europe to Islam.

We must seek therefore some other cause, and we find it furnished by the example of the only religion really reviled and persecuted in the same way.

There exists a Protestant sect, the Mormons. After prodigies of will-power, labour and intelligence, they have transformed one of the saddest regions, a mere salt desert, into a thriving country. Europe and America ought to have applauded this work of civilisation, unanimously and enthusiastically. Far from so doing, every sect of Christianity forgot their own disagreements and united themselves against the Mormons with the same feeling of reprobation.

Of what crime were they guilty? They practised polygamy like the Moslems. Such is the true explanation of the mystery: Islam is warned that it will never be granted recognition unless it renounces polygamy.