Although the battle has been fought, the Russian bear been driven to his den, and the congress of nations at Paris has adopted the Osmanlis into their fraternity, still the “Eastern question,” or the maintenance of Turkey, as a barrier between Russian despotism and European liberty, is far from being settled. For the problem is not solved, in as much as the ways and means for the future permanence of this empire are not proclaimed to the world.
Turkey is apparently secured from Russian animosities, but unless the country be set on a new basis, and rendered capable of maintaining itself, the future of Turkey will inevitably be only a repetition of the past, if not indeed far worse.
This difficult subject will, no doubt, engross the wisdom of Europe, but the present is the moment to be seized, while the indebtedness of the Osmanlis to their allies is fresh in their memories, and the gates of their vast empire stand open to civilization and reform.
Will the Allies again content themselves with mere scrolls, parchments, and state papers like the Tanzimat of 1839? Shall the patriots of the state again be left subject to the sway of a conceited bigotry and blind fanaticism? In a word, shall the country be permitted to feed upon its own vitals until it consumes itself?
The time has arrived when fictitious progress can no longer be tolerated, and a wholesome reaction most take place.
Turkey and its inhabitants have suffered not only from external aggressions, but internal discord has maintained an empire of misrule.
Religious animosity and party spirit have reigned supreme. Greeks and Christians hating each other, Christians denouncing Christians, and the Grand Mufti pouring out the anathemas of the Prophet upon the whole host of giavours. Whence then, in such a population, can any unity of feeling or of action spring? Amor patriæ, philanthropy, progress are all merged in sectarianism and the rage for religious supremacy. Hitherto, Mohammedanism filling the places of authority, and possessing the only permanent foothold upon the territory itself, has left the Christian population without incentive to competition of any sort. Even in the earliest conflicts of Mohammedanism, three proposals were always made to those whose territories were invaded—to join the standard of the Prophet; to adhere to their own religious tenets as tributaries; or the trial by combat; thus evincing a wonderful spirit of liberality in a conquering power, whether the antagonism was that of conquest or propagandism.
Religious toleration was only a wise policy of the Ottoman government, for as long as the rayas were of various creeds and conflicting with each other, the Mussulmans were in no danger. As in union is strength, so in the disunion of the subjects was the safety of the rulers. The rayas, as has been said, losing their own nationality in their condition of servitude, clung to the tenets of their respective creeds, and knew no country, no nationality but that of religion. In Turkey all classes of Christians and Jews have always had freedom of religions worship with the free exercise of their peculiar rites and observances, public and private.
The proof may daily be witnessed in their funeral processions with torches, crosses, and chanting priests, preceded by kavasses or police officers, as the pages of the “Missionary Herald of the American Board for Foreign Missions” amply testify. Besides it is a well known fact that all the Christian churches are privileged to hold vakufs of their own, on the same footing as those of the mosques; the very existence of so many differing creeds, and their constant free discussions, is proof of a great degree of religious toleration.
Even the recent war was the result of this tolerance; for it is well known that the original matter of debate was whether Russia or France, or, in other words, whether the Greek church or the Catholic should control the holy places of Jerusalem!