Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

may defend himself if smitten, and sometimes does both with much effect.

We may cite an anecdote or two in illustration of this important difference between the Persians and all other Moslems. From this it will appear that the naturally tolerant temper of the Persians receives all encouragement from the government, and that less from political motives than from a principle of justice. The first is a circumstance that happened in the early part of this century in the province of Azerbijân, then under the government of Abbas Meerza, heir apparent of the king who at that time reigned, and father of the monarch now upon the throne. One day, in the month of January, 1807, a Persian belonging to the household of the prince, thought fit to insult publicly an Armenian merchant in the city of Tabreez, and to grossly revile him, for no other reason than the difference of their religions, the Armenian being a Christian. Not content with personally affronting the Christian merchant in the most outrageous manner, the man launched out into the most atrocious abuse of Christ himself, his gospel and his cross.

These blasphemies so aroused the indignation

of the Armenian, that he could contain himself no longer, but laid violent hands upon the aggressor, mauled him severely, and left him extended upon the ground. The man, covered with dirt and blood, presently got up, and went to the palace of the prince his master, to prefer a complaint against the Armenian merchant by whom he had been so roughly handled. He took good care, however, to suppress the real cause of the quarrel, and interlarded his story with many false allegations against the merchant. The prince had too much penetration, and understood his countrymen too well not to discover, in the circumstantial details which the man gave, grounds for suspecting the truth of his statement. He therefore determined to hear the matter in full divan. The Armenian was summoned to allege what he had to say in his own defence, and those who had witnessed the fray were called to give their testimony. After hearing the declaration and the evidence, the divan was convinced that the Persian had, without provocation, attacked the Armenian, by his blasphemies against Christ, and that the other had for this cause only, inflicted chastisement upon him.

With a view to prevent similar offences in

future, and to satisfy the minds of the Christians resident in the country, the prince determined that the decision in this case should be given under the sanction and authority of his recognised guardians of the Mohammedan law. He therefore convened a divan, composed of the sheikh-ul-islam and the principal ulemas of his city, and proposed the following questions, which he required them to answer :—

1. "Was the Lord Jesus (Hazreti Issa) a real prophet of God ?"

Ans. "Yes."

2. "Are the laws contained in his noble gospel (Indjilisherif) just or not?"

Ans. "They are just.”

3. "Is it permitted by our laws to blaspheme the Lord Jesus and his noble gospel?" Ans. "No: it is not permitted."

Upon these unanimous decisions of the ulemas, the prince ordered the merchant to be set free, and his own servant to be punished with a hundred strokes of the bastinado, and he further dismissed him from his service. This was intended as a warning to those who should be disposed to insult the professors of the Christian faith; it made at the time a strong impression, and had a most salutary

[ocr errors]

effect. But one cannot reflect upon it without lamenting that those who were thus prepared to treat Jesus with respect, could not see in him not only "a prophet," but a Redeemer, and in his "noble gospel," not only "a just law," but a message of salvation and eternal life to a ruined world, to be received by faith.

The other anecdote is this :—In April, 1815, the neighbourhood of Teherân, the metropolis, was visited by a most extraordinary drought. The sheikh-ul-islam of that city conceived that he was performing an action well pleasing to God and the king, in leading the populace to believe that the drought, and the consequent dearth of the productions of the soil, formed a punishment inflicted upon them for permitting the city to be polluted by the presence of the wine stores kept by the Armenian Christians. The people were at length so excited that they proceeded in a large body to the quarter inhabited by the Armenians, and, in the presence of the sheikh, pulled down one of the churches, and demolished the houses of several dealers in wine. Considering that the use of wine is strictly forbidden by the Moslem law, there was certainly some just cause of displeasure that the permitted use of it to the Christians

afforded facilities by which Moslems were seduced into transgressions of their law. But we quote the anecdote for the sake of the lesson of toleration which grew out of it—and certainly nothing could justify the riotous course taken on this occasion, by those whose craving for the forbidden drink created the supply of and trade in the liquor, which the Christians would otherwise have kept only for their own use.

The king heard of it, and was much incensed. He sent for the sheikh-ul-islam, and the chief of those who had acted upon his instigations. "Audacious wretches !" he said, "who commanded you to do this deed? What law authorizes such proceedings? Is the sheikhul-islam your sovereign, and the ruler of this country? You have violated the laws of my dominions, and by them I condemn you! Depart from my presence." The legal penalties were immediately enforced; and the culprits were obliged to pay the Armenians a penalty of a thousand tomans (five hundred pounds.) The king then sent for the principal persons among the Armenians: "It is my wish," he said to them," that all my subjects, of what religion soever they be, should enjoy a just liberty and

« AnteriorContinua »