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.