CHAPTER XII.
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.