BOKHARA, THE HEAD QUARTERS OF MOHAMMEDANISM.
"Bokhara, mirevi divanei
Laiki zen djiri zindankhanei."
Thou wilt to Bokhara? O fool for thy pains,
Thither thou goest, to be put into chains.
Mesnevi.
It has frequently been noticed by travellers in Central Asia, and we have likewise remarked upon it, that Bokhara considers itself the great pillar of Islamism, and the only pure fountain of the Mohammedan religion. Nor is it the Bokhariots alone who take this view, but all the rest of the Mohammedan world, in whatever region or country, unite in looking up to and extolling the Turkestan capital for possessing this exclusive privilege. The pilgrim from Central Asia, whether travelling in Asia Minor, Arabia, or Egypt, is received with marked veneration and respect, and is regarded as the very embodiment of every Islamitic virtue. The western Mohammedan, especially the Osmanli, deeply wounded by the innovations our civilization has introduced into his native country, turns to his kinsman and co-religionist from the far East, and gazing at him with a look of extreme piety, finds comfort at the aspect of him, who in his eyes still represents the religion of the Prophet, pure and undefiled. Heaving a sigh, he exclaims: "Ha Bokharai Sherif!" (yes, the noble Bokhara), which utterance is meant to express his whole mind.
The difference that exists between Eastern and western Mohammedanism in Asia is indeed a remarkable phenomenon, and deserves a closer examination. Upon my asking the Mollahs in Bokhara how it happened that they were better Mohammedans than the people in Mekka and Medina, where Mohammed had actually lived and taught, they answered: that "the torch, although sending its light into the far distance, is always dark at the foot,"—Mekka being meant by the foot of the torch, and Bokhara the far distance. In an allegorical sense this may be correct, but Europeans are not silenced by similes of that sort; and, since the fact deserves attention, we will endeavour to ascertain, first—the essential points of the difference in question; and, secondly—the causes for it. Upon examining in detail the various points of contrast between Eastern and Western Mohammedanism, the chief characteristic feature is, no doubt, the wild fanatic obstinacy with which the Mussulman, in the far East, clings to every single point of the Koran and the traditions, looking with terror and aversion, in the true spirit of the Oriental, upon any innovation; and, in a word, directing all his efforts to the preservation of his religion at that precise standard which marked its existence in the happy period (Vakti Seadet) of the Prophet and the first califs. This standard, however, is not sufficiently apparent, since Islamism, in those countries, has assumed a form such as a few eccentric interpreters among the Sunnites desire, but which, so far as our knowledge extends, has never existed in reality.
Fanaticism, the chief cause of hypocrisy and impiety, has disfigured every religion, so long as mankind, living in the infancy of civilization, has been unable to perceive the pure light of the true faith. All nations and all countries have given proof of its existence, but nowhere does it appear in such glaring colours, or wear such a disgusting aspect, as in the East. Here, religion, in order to improve the mind, deals chiefly with the body; here, in order to exercise moral influence, the devotee is occupied with physical trifling, and, neglecting the inner man, as may be supposed, every one strives for outward appearance and effect. In Bokhara the principle reigns paramount: "Man must make a figure,—no one cares for what he thinks." A man may be the greatest miscreant, the most reprobate of human creatures; but let him fulfil the outward duties of religion and he escapes all punishment in this as well as in the next world.
The very popular prayer of the thief Abdurrahman (Duai-duzd Abdurrahman) illustrates most strikingly this opinion. It consists of about fifteen to twenty sentences, and its substance is as follows: "When the Prophet (the blessing of God be upon him!) lived in Medina, he went one afternoon upon the terrace of his house, in order to perform his devotions. He looked about with his blessed eyes and saw in his part of the town a funeral procession pass through the streets, followed only by a few persons, and the coffin surrounded by a marvellous brilliancy, not unlike a sea of rosy light. As soon as he had finished his prayer he hastened to the spot, joined the funeral procession, and saw, to his great amazement, that the shine did not leave the coffin, even when let down into the grave. The Prophet could not recover from his surprise; he went to the wife of the deceased, and asked what and who her husband had been. 'Alas!' she answered, with tears, 'God be merciful unto him, his death is a blessing to all, for throughout his life he was a highwayman and murderer; and the tears of widows and orphans he has caused to flow, are more than the water he has drunk. He lived only to cause unhappiness to others. I have often remonstrated with him, but in vain. He lived as a sinner, and as a sinner he died!' 'What!' exclaimed the Prophet, with ever-increasing astonishment, 'Did he possess no single good quality, has he never shown repentance?' 'Alas, no!' she sobbed out; 'the only thing he used to do every evening after his wicked daily work, was to read over these few lines (and she showed the prayer), and then fell asleep, and woke to sin anew on the morrow.' The Prophet looked at the prayer, and recognising at once its marvellous efficacy, he has left it behind to exercise the same virtue upon all orthodox Mussulmen." The moral drawn from this narrative needs no explanation; and it is easy to imagine how many Central Asiatics, furnished with such a recipe, à la Tetzel, will commit the most atrocious deeds, and retain withal the consciousness of being pious and religious men.
What strikes a European most of all, in seeing this principle of outward formulas reduced to practice, are the laws of cleanliness, which, in Central Asia, are observed with strict and scrupulous exactness, although, as is well known, the most disgusting filthiness is to be met with. By the Mohammedan law the body becomes unclean after each evacuation, and requires an ablution, according to circumstances, either a small (abdest) or a great one (gusl). The same has to be observed with respect to the clothes, which are subjected to a purification if touched by the smallest drop of water.[18] The cleaning of the body is strictly performed amongst all Mussulmen; nor, on the whole, is the law about the clothes lost sight of; but I have never seen people in the West of Asia, as in Bokhara, repeat their prayers stark-naked, from a religious scruple, that their clothes might have been defiled without the eye having detected it. It is extremely ridiculous, that in any religion, as is the case in the Mohammedan, whole volumes should be written as to the manner in which its followers are to cleanse their body after each large or small evacuation. The law, for instance, commands the istindjah (removal), istinkah (ablution), and istibra (drying), i.e., a small clod of earth is first used for the local cleansing, then water, at least twice, and finally a piece of linen, a yard in length, in order to destroy every possible trace. In Turkey, Arabia, and Persia, only one of these acts is performed,—the istinkah; but in Central Asia all three are considered necessary; and in order to prove the high standard of their piety, zealous Mohammedans carry three or four such clods of earth, cut with a knife that is used for no other purpose besides, in their turbans, to have a small store at hand. This commandment is often carried out quite publicly in the bazaars, from a desire to make parade of their conscientious piety. I shall never forget the revolting scene, when I saw one day a teacher give to his pupils, boys and girls, instructions in the handling of the clod of earth, linen and so forth, by way of experiment. It never occurs to any one that such a tenet is disgraceful, nor does any body perceive that these extremes of physical cleanliness lead directly to the extremes of moral impurity.
The extreme severity with which the law of the Harem is executed in Bokhara, is looked for in vain among the Western Mohammedans, or even among the fanatic sect of the Wahabites. This law, so contrary to nature, has necessarily been the cause of a certain vice equally contrary to nature, and which, although it exists among Turks, Arabs and Persians, is confined within a comparatively narrow limit, and condemned as a "despicable sin" by the interpreters of the Koran as well as by public opinion. In Central Asia, especially in Bokhara and Khokand, this atrocious crime is carried to a frightful extent, and the religious of these countries considering it a protection against any transgression of the law of the Harem, and declaring it to be no sin, marriages à la Tiberius have become quite popular; nay, fathers feel not the smallest compunction in surrendering their sons to a friend or acquaintance for a certain annual stipend. Our pen refuses to describe this disgusting vice in its full extent; but even the few hints we have thrown out are sufficient to show the abyss of crime to which an exaggerated religious fanaticism degrades mankind.
It is just the same with the prohibition of spirituous liquors. The Koran commands not only abstinence from wine, but from all intoxicating drinks, for this reason, that a state of intoxication would be attended by neglect of prayer, or of any other pious duty. The Western Mohammedans interpret this commandment as referring only to wine (sharab) in the strict sense of the word, and consider drinking arak (brandy) already a much less offence; many, indeed, are of opinion, that since it has not been expressly mentioned in the Koran, it would not be regarded as a sin to drink it with water. In Turkey and Persia brandy is as much in favour among the better educated classes, as wodki in Russia; but in Bokhara both brandy and wine are very rarely met with. Even those who do not confess the Mohammedan religion, such as Jews and Hindoos, cannot drink it except clandestinely, and the mere pronouncing the words sharab and arak, is a sin in the eyes of the orthodox. With facts like these one would expect the greatest sobriety among the people, but alas! how terrible is the substitute hypocrisy has invented!
The Central Asiatics make a distinction between fluid and solid spirits. The former are strictly forbidden, whilst the latter, by which all narcotics are understood, are looked upon as perfectly innocent. The famous opium-eaters of Constantinople, who, at the present day almost extinct, were seen daily, at the beginning of the century, in the notorious square of Direkalti, and admired by all passers-by—the various hashish-eaters in Egypt—the lovers of the comparatively harmless teryak in Persia,—all these are as nothing in comparison with the bengis[19] of Central Asia.
In the first-named countries opium has a rival in "pater bacchus," and holds, therefore, a divided empire; but in Turkestan, where the "jolly god" is a stranger, it reigns paramount, and its destroying power is fearful. The number of beng-eaters is greatest in Bokhara and Khokand, and it is no exaggeration to say that three-fourths of the learned and official world, or, in other words, the whole intelligent class, are victims to this vice. The Government looks on with perfect indifference, while hundreds, nay, thousands, commit suicide. It never occurs to any one that a prohibition should be made on this subject, but if a man were convicted of having tasted a drop of wine, he would be beheaded without any further ado.
These errors, together with many others of the same kind, must no doubt be ascribed to an eccentric scrupulousness in observing the existing laws. Strange as they are, they appear less surprising when compared with those views and opinions which arose in Eastern Mohammedanism in consequence of a different interpretation of those traditional dogmas, which are not only rejected as erroneous, but flatly condemned by the learned Mohammedans of the West. Among these we are struck first of all with the religious orders or pious fraternities, which are spread in an extraordinary manner over Central Asia, and are subject to such strict regulations, and conducted with a fervour which contrasts singularly with the character of Eastern nations, especially the Central Asiatics. In the Western Islamitic countries we meet with the various orders of the Oveisi, Kadrie, Djelali, Mevlevi, Rufai, Bektashi, &c., which, at all times treated with civility by the Ulemas, were never able to attract within their magic circle more than a few individuals of a heated imagination; whereas, on the contrary, the Nakishbendi, Makhdumaazami, in Bokhara and Khokand, embody large masses of the population, who are appointed, guided, and governed by the officers of the order, representing the temporary supreme chief. Every community, however small in numbers, comprises one or more Ishans (priests of the order) beside the lawful Mollah, Reis, &c.; and I have often felt astonished at witnessing the blind obedience and respect paid to the members of the order as compared with the former. It need scarcely be added, that these influential Ishans stand frequently in the way of the Government, but it has never ventured to offer them any check or resistance, regarding, as they do, religious orders as inseparable from Islam. Mohammed expressly stated, "La Ruhbanitum fil Islam"—"no monks in Islam." Nevertheless the Khan, his ministers, even many Ulemas, in spite of the latter, regarding the Ishan as powerful rivals, and hating them accordingly, are in the habit of adopting the outward attributes of one or the other order, out of deference to public opinion.
The judicial procedure of Eastern Mohammedans is equally remarkable. They entirely reject the Urf, i.e., the decision of the judge, based upon his own judgment and convictions, in cases where the Sheriat (the laws of the Koran) is insufficient; as also the Kanun, i.e., laws framed by later legislators. The latter they regard as heretical innovations, and they take the Sheriat, or the code of laws emanating from the Koran, as their sole and infallible guide. That the laws Mohammed framed twelve hundred years ago for the social wants of the simple Arabs, should not suit every clime and epoch, can be no matter of surprise. In Turkey and Persia the necessity for reform has long been felt. The Governments of these countries have tried in all cases to supply the deficiencies of their primitive codes by supplemental additions, however much the opinions of the Ulemas resisted such a step, naturally foreseeing from it, as they did, the downfall of their power. In Turkestan, not only the Mollahs, but the Government, and everybody in fact, is highly indignant at the very idea of a supplement. In their eyes the Koran is "as fine as a hair, as sharp as a sword, and satisfies all possible wants of life;" whoever thought differently would be treated as a wicked man and an infidel. People eat, drink and dress, in strict conformity with the precepts of the Koran; it is the standing rule, by which all taxes and toll-moneys are levied, the standard, by which all wars are conducted, and the guide for directing their relations with foreign powers! Upon the same principle, any innovation in domestic life is strictly forbidden as sin. England, Russia, and other modern states, of whom the Koran makes no mention, cannot be recognised by the Tartar rulers de facto; on the contrary, they consider it their duty to oppose them as intruders by the law of the Djihad (the religious combat), a policy which will, of course, as already sufficiently shown, lead them to entire destruction.
With regard to the Shiitish Persians, the Eastern Mohammedans stand in a very different relation to them from their Western brethren. This religious schism, as is well known, has often been the cause of long and bloody wars,—under the pretext of a temporary quarrel. Ever since the first dissensions took place between the dynasties Akkoyunlu and Karakayunlu, Turks and Arabs have frequently been opposed to the Persians in destructive and calamitous wars: deep hatred and bitter resentment separated the two sects, and the former succeeded in ejecting their Shiitish enemies from the bond of Islamism. The Persian is looked upon as an heretical Mussulman, but always as a Mussulman; he is admitted to the holy cities and all places of pilgrimage, the orthodox Sunnite does not object to pray with him in the same mosque, and in modern times the hatred between the Osmanli and Persian has already so far diminished that the latter is permitted by law to intermarry with the former.
In Central Asia there exists no trace of anything of the kind. Here the Persians are hated and persecuted as fiercely as on their first appearance among the Shiitish sect. In the year 945 of the Hidjra, they were declared outlaws and infidels by the fetwah of a certain Mollah, Shemseddin Mohammed, a native of Samarkand, and living in Herat at the time of the Sultan Husein Baikera. This fetwah has done much injury to the poor inhabitants of Iran, for, although the marauding Turkomans would have taken them prisoners without any form of law, they would not have been sold in the market-place of fanatical Bokhara, had not the brand of the Kafir qualified them for it, only such men being saleable. Whatever cruelties were practised on them, were all committed under the pretext of punishing an unbeliever, and though Eastern Mohammedans try to vindicate the Mollahs of Turkestan, by pointing out that the Persians recognize one and the same Koran, and one and the same prophet, yet they declare the fetwah to be just and proper, and protest against all assertions to the contrary, of the West-Mohammedan learned men, as ignorance and error.
There are essential distinctions also in the ritual of the Eastern and Western Mohammedans. I doubt very much whether, even at Bagdad and Damascus, during the most brilliant period of Islamism, officers (Reis) were daily traversing the streets, stopping everybody in the midst of their daily occupations in order to hear them the prayer Farz-i-Ayin, and punishing the ignorant on the spot. This is actually being done in Bokhara at the present day. In the various ceremonies of circumcision, marriage, and burial, the Central Asiatics have several customs of their own, entirely heterogeneous to western Islam; their daily prayers, which have to be repeated five times, consist here of more Rikats (genuflexions) than in other countries; and it is curious, at the Ezan (call to prayer), the Turkestans most carefully avoid all tune or melody, and recite it in a sort of howl. The manner in which the Ezan is cried in the West, is here declared sinful, and the beautiful, melancholy notes, which, in the silent hour of a moonlit-evening, are heard from the slender minarets on the Bosphorus, fascinating every hearer, would be listened to by the Bokhariot with feelings only of detestation.
In addition to the above let us bear in mind the many mosques, medressas, all filled to overflowing with worshippers, the Karikhane, i.e. houses, where blind men recite the Koran the whole day long, the numerous Khanka, where fanatics roar out their Zikr day and night, and with which institutions every city is crowded; then let us picture to ourselves the various gestures, the severely earnest looks and the whole appearance of the Mollahs, Ishane, Dervishes, Kalenters, and ascetics, one of wild fanaticism, and it might perhaps be possible to form an idea of Bokhara, of this pillar of Islam, these headquarters of an over-strained religious zeal, and where the religion of the Arab Prophet has degenerated into a form, such as the founder no doubt never wished his work should assume. From here it has spread with the same tendencies over Afghanistan to India, Kashmir, and the Chinese Tartary, and northwards as far as Kazan. In all these places the spirit of Bokhara has taken firm root, for Bokhara is their teacher, and neither Constantinople nor Mekka, but Bokhara is looked up to as their sole guide. It is here that our civilization will encounter more serious obstacles than in Western Asia, and Russia most likely has already made this experience with respect to the Nogai Tartars. It would be a matter of regret, if the English Government should not as yet have felt this to be the truth with her 40 millions of Mohammedan subjects in India. The consequences would be sure and inevitable.
So much at present for the difference between Eastern and Western Mohammedanism, and without much research we shall find the principal causes to be as follows:
Firstly, Asia, the chief seat and fountain-head of religious fanaticism, is found, the more we advance eastward, the more true to its ancient type. As in general the inhabitants of India, Thibet, and China are more eccentric, more religiously fanatical, or, in other words, more Asiatic, than the followers of Islam, in the same measure the Eastern Mohammedans are more zealous than their Western co-religionists.
Secondly, the same eccentric fanaticism, which the Central Asiatics displayed when professing the doctrines of Zoroaster, has been the cause why their conversion to Islam cost the Arabs so much time and trouble. It took more than 200 years, before the religion of Mohammed had completely supplanted the old faith. No sooner had the conquerors left a town than the newly-converted inhabitants returned to their old faith, and the town had to be re-conquered and re-converted. But when the iron perseverance of the Arabs had at last succeeded in making them Mohammedans, they attached themselves to the new religion with the same fervour they had manifested in the old. As early as the beginning of the rule of the Samanides, we find in Transoxania men of high reputation, throughout Islam, for their learning and their exemplary piety. Belkh had already then acquired the name of Kubbetül Islam, the dome of Islam. The city and neighbourhood of Bokhara were crowded with the tombs of saints and learned men, and we can easily understand how it happened that these Turkestani cities had in piety and learning become successful rivals of Bagdad, the then centre of the Mohammedan world, where devotional zeal was eclipsed by the splendour of worldly grandeur.
After the extinction of the dynasty of the Samanides, but especially during the Mongol conquests, no doubt all religious life suffered a temporary check, but the edifice has never been shaken to its foundations as in Bagdad, where Helagu, in destroying the phantom caliphate of Motasimbillah, broke the chief strength of Islam and scattered it to the winds. In Transoxania, on the other hand, its energies were being silently strengthened and matured. Timur aimed at making his native home the chief seat of Mohammedan learning, and his work was continued, though in a different spirit, by the rulers of the Sheibani dynasty. It can therefore excite no wonder that Bokhara has been able to preserve to the present day, that precise standard of religious asceticism which characterized Islam in the middle ages.
Thirdly, the great body of the Sunnites has been separated by the schism of Persia practically, if not morally, into two distinct parts, and the separation is certain to continue. The pilgrimages to the holy cities of Arabia have by no means compensated for the undoubtedly greater intercourse, which, in the times of the caliphat, could be carried on without fear of disturbance from the Eastern to the Western frontier of Islam. Sectarian animosity has been purposely kept alive, and has rendered Persia a dangerous country to any Sunnitish traveller. Whilst great political changes, as well as constant intercourse with Christian Europe, combined to bring the western Sunnites under the influence of foreign social relations, the Eastern Sunnites, left entirely to themselves, had no opportunity offered them of introducing either changes or reforms. They looked with quite as much abhorrence as the Chinese and Hindoos upon heretical Persia, the only country which afforded them the means of communication with the West.
The observation which I have offered, that the influences of European Christianity have divided western from eastern Islam in many cardinal aspects of faith, may lead many of our readers to hope, that the ever-increasing communication and interchange of ideas will gradually effect a total transformation in Asia, or, as many sanguine travellers of modern times believe, that Asia will be Europeanised.
The question is naturally one of interest to every one who wishes (and who does not wish it) for an improvement of the social relations in Asia, and far too important for a mere passing examination. Nevertheless, in order to obviate certain misinterpretations or false constructions, we must remark, that the above observation is not to be regarded as offering an infallible test of Western Mohammedan advancement. We have to be careful, not to mistake for precious metal the tinsel of European civilisation and modes of thought, with which Young Turkey and Persia endeavour to garnish their innate barbarism. I must confess the result of European influence in these countries is hitherto alas! very small and ineffectual. The inexperienced eye of a tourist is deceived by their having partly adopted our dress and furniture, but all else is now just as it was in olden times, and will probably continue so for a very long time to come.
It is taken for granted that our relations, as Europeans with Asia, are those, as it were, between a son and his mother, the latter possessing a certain amount of superstition, with which she finds it difficult to part. From Asia we received our descent, mentally and materially, as well as our education, but nobody would reproach us with ingratitude or want of respect, if we reject the views and opinions of "our aged parent," and for her own benefit occasionally press upon her our ideas instead. I use purposely the expression "press upon," for whatever has been adopted of European civilisation in Asia up to the present day, has not been the result, either of conviction or a liking for our social relations, but simply that of fear. A forced love never lasts, and were we to base our speculations as to the future of the whole of Asia upon the changes hitherto effected in western Asia, they would inevitably prove fallacious.