The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance, With a Consideration of Some of the Factors Which Enter Into the Solution of This Phase of the Eastern QuestionGreene, Frederick Davis
History
The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance, With a Consideration of Some of the Factors Which Enter Into the Solution of This Phase of the Eastern Question
Greene, Frederick Davis
Armenian massacres, 1894-1896; Armenian question
To the question whether Mohammedanism has been in any way modified,
since the time of the Prophet, by its contact with Christianity, Dr.
Washburn thinks that every orthodox Moslem would answer in the negative.
He adds: “It is very important to bear in mind that there are nominal
Mohammedans who are theists, and others who are pantheists of the
Spinoza type. There are also some small sects who are rationalists, but
after the fashion of old English Deism rather than of the modern
rationalism. The Deistic rationalism is represented in that most
interesting work of Justice Ameer Ali, _The Spirit of Islam_. He speaks
of Mohammed as Xenophon did of Socrates, and he reveres Christ also, but
he denies that there was anything supernatural in the inspiration or
lives of either, and claims that Hanife and the other Imams corrupted
Islam, as he thinks Paul the apostle did Christianity; but this book
does not represent Mohammedanism, any more than Renan’s _Life of Jesus_
represents Christianity. These small rationalistic sects are looked upon
by all orthodox Moslems as heretics of the worst description.”
Although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments happen to be
mentioned one hundred and thirty-one times in the Koran, they are only
quoted twice. The fundamental doctrines of Christianity, such as the
Incarnation, the Trinity, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ
are specifically repudiated in the Koran.
The reform of Islam as a system is, therefore, not within the range of
possibility. How about the reform of the Ottoman Government? On this
point I yield the floor to the great historian E. A. Freeman, who will
close the debate[51]:
“There are some people who say the Turks are no doubt very bad, but that
the Christians are just as bad, and have done things just as cruel. Now,
as a matter of fact, this is not true; and, if it were true, it would be
another reason for setting the Christians free; for if they are as bad
as the Turk, it is the Turk who has caused their badness. While other
nations have been improving, the Turk has kept them from improving. Take
away the Turk who hinders improvement, and they will improve like the
others. The slave never has the virtues of a freeman; it is only by
setting him free that he can get them.
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