Armenia and Her People; or, The Story of Armenia by an ArmenianFilian, George H.
History
Armenia and Her People; or, The Story of Armenia by an Armenian
Filian, George H.
Armenia; Armenian question
Nobody who has not lived in Turkey can realize how hopeless, almost
self-contradictory, it is to talk of "reforming" Turkey. It could
not be reformed and be Mohammedan Turkey; the lack of reform or power
of reform is just what makes it what it is. The root of the evil is
Mohammedanism itself; it is embodied social stagnation, corruption,
ultimate ruin. Neither the Sultan nor the Turks can improve the state
of the Empire, even if they wished. The usual "broad-minded" statements
about Mohammed and his religion are simply elaborations of ignorance,
made up out of men's own minds, and what they think must be true. It
is customary for writers to talk in this fashion:--"Mohammedanism is a
half-way house to Christianity; Mohammed converted the heathen Arabs
to a belief in the true God. Mohammed established a great religion
and a great Empire," etc., etc. There is no truth in this, for all its
plausible sound. Mohammedanism is not even on the road to Christianity;
and Arabia, Asia Minor, and Palestine were all much better off before
the Mohammedan conquest than after it. Buddhism and Brahmanism are
better religions than Mohammedanism. The Chinese, the Japanese, the
people of India are much better than the Turks. The Chinese Emperor and
the Japanese Mikado are far better men than the Mohammedan Sultan. The
heathen religions rear better men than Mohammedanism. The Mongols
are more humane and sympathetic than the Turks. Heathenism at its
worst, though a low form of religion, is really a form of religion;
but Mohammedanism is not a religion at all. Then what is it? It is a
system of imposture and false pretense, and of lives of human lust
and cruelty. Mohammed practiced all these, and his successors have
done the same, and taught the same ever since; and the system means
just that now, and nothing else. There is neither love nor sympathy,
manliness nor humanity in Mohammedanism. Can a system lacking all
these be considered a religion? This is the substance of Mohammed's
teachings:--"Love your fellow believers, hate and slay all who refuse
to accept your religion. Marry as many wives as you can afford; if you
can afford but one do not repine, for you shall have seven thousand
to enjoy in Paradise. If you conquer a country, show no mercy to the
people unless they embrace Islam; if they refuse, either kill them or
make slaves of them." What sort of reforms can you expect in Armenia,
or in Turkey, when the very religion that is to make people better,
inculcates such principles? If one does not know a language he cannot
speak it; if he has not a principle he will not practice it; how
can the Sultan, a vicious man to begin with, trained in a religion
calculated to make a cruel and licentious animal even out of a decent
man, reform anything? His very religion forbids it; he cares nothing
for the religion when it stands in his way, but he will follow its
injunctions to please the Mohammedans, especially when they gratify
and justify his worst passions.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account