Results of Islam—Untruthfulness—Superstitions—Pilgrimages—Divining—Jins and dīvs—The evil eye—Trivial commandments—Entertainments—Islam includes rather than controls the life—Two purposes better than one—Ceremonial uncleanness.

It is now necessary for us to touch on some aspects of Mohammedanism in Yezd with which it was impossible to deal fully while sketching the essential system. In the last chapter we were primarily dealing with the religious ideas that had been brought to bear upon the country as influences, but in this chapter we shall speak rather more of their results. First of all, I should like to give two stories. I give the two, because one is the account of a conversation which I had with a man who was not an orthodox Shiah; and, although I fancy I have heard similar remarks made by men whose orthodoxy was unimpeachable, it is well to be on the safe side. I had been[116] challenged to give my reasons for preferring Christianity to Mohammedanism, and in reply I gave an account of a conversation I had had with another Mohammedan only a day or two before. I had been trying to show him that lying was a sin, and he had replied to me: “It’s all very well for Ferangis to say that; but the fact is that they can’t tell lies, and we can.” I quoted this story simply as bringing out very forcibly a common Persian idea, for Persians trust Ferangis implicitly, not because they respect them, but because they believe they have a constitutional difficulty in telling lies. Having quoted it, I went on to say that as we all acknowledged in theory that truth-telling was right, it was reasonable to infer that a religion which had produced a mental constitution supposed to be incapable of falsehood, was better than a religion which had produced the exact contrary. The answer of the Mohammedan was that truth-speaking and honesty had nothing to do with religion, but were purely a matter of climate. “In that case,” I said, “the people of Persia ought to speak the truth very well, for one of the Greek historians who lived before the Mohammedan era declared that the Persians were[117] famous for speaking the truth.” “But who does not know,” said the Mohammedan, “that the climate of a country changes entirely every two thousand years?”

At another time a Mohammedan of undoubted orthodoxy was answering a similar position, only he was trying to explain away not only the difference in honesty, but also in other matters. He said: “These facts cannot be denied, but they prove the truth of Islam, and not its falsity. If you find that thieves have broken the doors and windows of a house, do you not conclude that there is something worth stealing inside?” I have reason to believe that this is a well-known retort, for other Europeans in other parts of Persia have been met by it. It is therefore well worth examination. I myself find in it two assumptions which seem to me to be peculiar features of Islam. First there is the assumption that the possession of the treasure gives no safety to the doors and windows: that is to say that the possession of true religion does not in any way assist the keeping of God’s commandments. The fact is that Mohammed’s commandment is not expected to be a source of spiritual strength, but only a set of orders. Then there is the equally un-Christian[118] assumption that the keeping of the moral commandments of God is in no sense the treasure, but something entirely extraneous to it, which is not essential to the state of the treasure-holder. These two assumptions are to be found running through the whole of Persian Islam, and producing the most extraordinary results. Very few Mohammedans will hesitate to acknowledge the low state of Mussulman morality as opposed to that of the Armenians, or even of the Parsis, whom they regard as little better than idolaters. If a Mussulman of the teacher class has anything to gain by confessing or making it plain to an infidel that he has been guilty of gross sin, he will not consider that he has in the least forfeited his claim to a superior position by doing so.

Of course being non-ethical the religion becomes superstitious. The Mohammedan considers that there is no known principle by which the commands of the Deity can be connected and understood, consequently he admits actions in his religious code which we should regard as ridiculous. The whole theory of Mussulman pilgrimages is absurd, and the practice is even more so. What can be more intrinsically foolish, as well as heartless and cruel, than the custom of sending off[119] the old women, when they are past work, to some holy shrine, under the impression that, if they die on the very difficult journey, as in a certain class of cases they generally do, they will go straight to Heaven? It is rather a ghastly custom to send vast quantities of bodies for interment in the exceedingly inadequate space at Qum, over a country where there is no vehicular transport. But the natural demand for a more easy set of roads to Heaven has caused a multiplication of such practices as these far beyond anything that was originally taught in the mosques. Things have gone so far in this respect, that the most popular edition of the Quran in Persia is a very minute round one in two parts, absolutely illegible, and only suitable for wearing in a sewn-up case.

As in most superstitious countries, we find a number of superstitions connected with divining; and these are largely sanctioned by the mullas, who will divine with the Quran in a mosque for a fee. The commoner form of divining is with a rosary, rather on the plan of “Two, four, six, eight, Mary at the cottage gate.” Persians use this to an extent that is hardly believable. They will consult the beads as to whether to send for the doctor, and again, after he has come, to see[120] whether they should buy the medicine he prescribes, and finally, after buying it, they consult them once more before deciding whether the patient shall take a dose. At the same time it is quite permissible to “call threes.” A woman with raging toothache got permission from the beads to send for a European lady to extract the tooth, but on taking the beads for the extraction after her arrival they were unfavourable, so arrangements were at once made for divining with the Quran at a mosque, which would of course overrule any result with the beads. A Persian will consider himself quite justified in breaking a business engagement if the beads tell him he had better avoid the interview; indeed very often he will not so much as fix a date for the payment of a bill before he has consulted his almanac, and discovered which are the lucky and which are the unlucky days.

CORPSES EN ROUTE TO THE QUM CEMETERY.

SANDY DESERT NEAR YEZD.

The vast empty deserts which surround Yezd, and the huge mountain ridges which form the horizon are to the Yezdi by no means empty. It is an axiom of science that Nature abhors a vacuum, and it is a corresponding psychological law that the human imagination cannot tolerate absolute emptiness. So the Yezdi, like the[121] Arabian, peoples his deserts with jins and dīvs and devils, and wherever there is a space not filled in he imagines strange forms of animal life. At the risk of being considered superstitious myself I must own that I should like to see some of the travellers’ tales of Persia more carefully investigated, particularly those relating to the existence of very large lizards which are dangerous to human life. One is familiar with the defences that are being constantly brought forward for the fable of the sea-serpent; how that the sea is after all an almost unknown waste, only crossed in a very few places by well established water-roads that can be most easily avoided; and although the desert cannot be said to afford as much cover as the ocean, for it is not possible to plunge below the surface at any point at any time, still its vast expanses are almost as untraversed and unknown as the ocean wastes, and there are not a few places, especially in the mountains, honeycombed with caves and clefts. This however is a digression. In such a country as I have described, with its vast and barren solitudes, it would be difficult for a people to exist and maintain their reason, if they did not believe in something corresponding to the jins and divs. Consequently we find jins in the keyholes, jins in[122] the qan’ats, divs in the mountains, divs in the rocks, anywhere, everywhere, a vast population filling up the huge interstices left by Nature. Most of this population is malevolent; so naturally the ordinary Persian is a mass of charms: nobody goes about without cold iron in his pocket, and a large number of people wear either the sacred book in its entirety, or large portions of it somewhere about their person. Also they are terribly afraid of the evil eye; and numbers of their charms, especially for the children, are directed against it. It is not that they think the evil eye common: any Persian will tell you that very few people have it, but they all know of at least one case, and they are terribly afraid of it, sometimes refusing to admit strangers to their house until they are satisfied they have not got it. If a mother sees a dead body before the birth of her child, then, unless she takes the precaution of placing some salt on the corpse, and afterwards putting a little of it in the child’s eye, her child will inevitably have the evil eye, and everything that is pleasing to its eye will be cursed. The evil eye is likely to kill children of tender years, so very young children are always hidden under the chādar when carried in the street.

[123]

These superstitions are exceedingly general, and sometimes co-exist with a certain amount of intelligence and education. I remember a man who had obviously been in touch with some of the Persian mystics, and was quite capable of discussing and more or less understanding complicated ideas, telling me that he considered that the silkworm owners in the Yezd district were exceedingly wise in refusing to admit strangers to see the worms. He explained to me that they were creatures of such extreme harmlessness and guilelessness that they were peculiarly susceptible to malevolent influences from the outside world.

Superstitions of this kind will be found in all countries, and in most lands there are in addition superstitions that seem to be more intimately connected with the religion. The nature of the country fosters the tendency in Persia, and the Parsis are nearly as superstitious as the Mussulmans. But in Mohammedanism the peculiar difficulty is that there is nothing to guide a man in separating the superstitious practices from any connected with a central true idea. The whole religion is a medley of trivialities. The history of Mohammed and his[124] early admiration for the Jews, with whom he must have been constantly in touch, explains this. He saw the result of their ceremonial law and their national religious customs, binding them together and making them a peculiar people in every action of their household life; but of the parabolic significance of this law, of the doctrinal system which governed it, he saw and was taught very little or nothing. Nor did he want it: he wanted simply the political result, and in getting this he was eminently successful. He copied the system, but he gave to Islam a maximum of ordinances containing a minimum of teaching. After his death the minuti? went on accumulating, until everything in the life of a Mussulman took a religious colour. In Persia the very dress is supposed to be more or less modelled on that worn by the prophet. The people not only kill their animals and eat their food according to the precepts of the Quran, but relying on their very extensive traditions they follow a prescribed religious practice in attitude and language. Shiahs are particularly scrupulous about certain of their washings, and think almost as much about them as they do about the regularity of their prayers. “If I[125] become a Christian, when and how am I to wash myself?” This is one of the commonest questions for an enquirer to put to a missionary. Another very common one is, “How am I to dress?” The Mussulman hardly understands you if you tell him that such points are left to the individual judgment. I remember a Persian trying to prove to me that I could not possibly consider all meats lawful and ceremonially clean, or I should eat cat. It is very difficult to explain to the Yezdi that the drinking of wine at meals is not a necessary Christian institution, and for this reason the consideration of the necessity of maintaining Christian liberty is in Persia rather an argument for total abstinence than against it. In Yezd we are continually being asked whether the commonest peculiarities of European custom, such as eating with a knife and fork, were ordained by Christ. In one house they had to make away with some kittens, and the servant was directed to dig a hole in the compound for their reception. While he was doing so he asked his mistress, “Did your prophet direct you to bury kittens?” But the extreme point of triviality was reached by a man who had seemed a most intelligent enquirer, and had asked me[126] to explain the essential points of Christianity, to which he listened most attentively, appearing to weigh them in his mind. When I had finished, he paused to consider the whole position: “Sahib,” he said very slowly, “man mas’ala dāram.”—“Sir, I have a religious question to bring before you.” I said, “Bifarmāyīd.”—“Please proceed.” “āyā Masīh,” he said very deliberately, “āvāz i sūtrā halāl dānist?”—“Did Christ consider humming lawful?” I reassured him on the point, and tried to explain the spiritual nature of Christ’s teaching. I then left the room to get a book, and, when I came back, he was humming to himself contentedly.

Religion also provides the Yezdi with his entertainments and excitements; the place of the theatre is taken by the Muharram miracle play, and that of the ordinary concert by the rūza khānī or religious recitation, while even street rioting is generally connected with the persecution of people who do not agree with the religious opinions of the rioters. All this serves to strengthen the attachment of the common people to the religious system, which stands to them in the place of country, standard of etiquette, habits of life and code of cleanliness. As a matter of[127] fact religion is not quite the right term for the Mohammedan system, for religion means restraint, and the object of almost all of the other systems called religions has been to present a predominant idea which is to govern and restrain all other ideas and aspects of life. In Mohammedanism there is the predominant idea of the tauhid and paighambari, but this conception more resembles the central doctrine of a philosophy than the governing principle of a religion. To put it in other words, Mohammed sought by his theological teaching rather to include everything than to control everything. Consequently the Mussulman, who reflects the spirit of his master much more than is generally allowed, is never satisfied with himself unless he is using religious language. What he does matters comparatively little, but the way in which he regards his action matters a great deal. If he forgets to mention God’s name, he corrects himself; but to his mind there is little or no blasphemy in connecting God’s name with any action of life, important or trivial, good or bad. The result of this is that those who are accustomed to religions possessing more influence over moral action are amazed at the religiosity of the Mohammedan: but although[128] this religiosity is a fact, the whole wonder of it ceases when the religion is carefully examined. Others are equally astounded at what they consider the hypocrisy of the Mussulman; but this also is a misnomer: a Mussulman is not hypocritical: rather he has taken up a position towards affairs which renders hypocrisy unnecessary.

In Persia, at any rate, there is a further mistake which ought to be guarded against. Islam is not mere worldliness sanctified by the use of religious terms: it includes a great deal of unworldly thought, although it combines all considerations, worldly or unworldly, with little if any distinction. Still it must be owned that the worldly considerations are apt to predominate, for the Persian Shiah seems to be a reflection of Mohammed, who suggested that pilgrimages should be used for purposes of trade, invited people to become Mussulmans for political reasons, and not only winked at the making of converts by threats and terrorism, but laid this down as one of the essential means for spreading the religion. It is not sufficient to call such a system politico-religious, for it not only includes matters of public expediency in the religious idea, but it also[129] sanctifies considerations of expediency that are purely personal. Yet there is one thing that the missionary in such a land as Persia cannot too fully realise; and that is that he is dealing with people who are not in the least ashamed of doubleness of motive. In their view, two purposes are better than one; and when it has been proved that their purposes are worldly, it has still to be considered whether there is not an unworldly purpose as well.

Men frequently come to enquire about Christianity, drawn by what seems to us a strange mixture of motives. They naturally enough put their more spiritual purposes first, for they realise that these are most appreciated by those to whom they talk, and they also consider that things like this ought to have a theoretical priority. Temporal needs are, however, much more pressing, and these have just as much claim to be satisfied by a new religion. Of course such a position is likely to be fruitful, not only of the gravest difficulties, but also of the most lamentable misunderstandings.

It will be readily understood that a system like this can easily be made to cover ideas which appear inconsistent, and as a matter of fact, it is[130] very difficult to define some of the notions which Persian Shiahs hold to a point of fanaticism. For instance, there is room for considerable difference of opinion as to how far the Yezdi regards the foreigner as unclean. The Mohammedan is taught to regard as unclean the eating of certain kinds of food, contact with certain animals, and also contact with the persons of people who have not been ceremonially cleansed. There seem, however, to be degrees of uncleanness. Mohammed in one verse of the Quran declared the food of the Christians and Jews, as well as all food that had been properly prepared by a Mussulman, to be lawful; but we cannot suppose that he regarded these different classes of food as equally clean. Bigoted Persians sometimes ignore this permission of their prophet’s, and declare that it refers only to dry food prepared by Jews or Christians; but in this they are not consistent, for they eat dry food prepared by pagans also.

The truth is that the attitude of the Persian towards the infidel is not altogether decided by Mohammed’s direct teaching, but to a very large extent it is based upon an elementary human feeling which can be found in almost every country under the sun. Most people in England[131] have a physical shrinking from undue contact with other persons. We do not care to drink out of a cup that other people have used, until it has been washed; we should, very few of us, care to take alternate bites at an apple with somebody else, and most Englishmen have a very similar objection to kissing. We are much less particular about contact with the hand, though here also we feel that a line has got to be drawn somewhere. Within the family we are less particular. Of course in connection with these things there is in England a great deal of talk about infection and the laws of hygiene, but the instinct exists apart from any notion of hygiene at all. Now in Persia you have got to remember that everything takes a religious colour, and this has tended to slightly modify the natural instinct, breaking down the wall of reserve within the boundaries of Islam, and giving the feeling the colour of a religious prejudice when applied to the outside world. Of course there are hundreds of Yezdi Mussulmans who will eat freely with a European without the slightest scruple, and a still larger number who do not allow their scruples to make any practical difference: at the same time people who wish to get into close touch[132] with the natives should remember that the feeling of nijāsat, or ceremonial uncleanness, is a somewhat complex one, and that it will be more easy to overcome it if a certain discretion is observed. Persians eating the food of a European are on the look out for anything which is strange and peculiar, and if such peculiarities are observed they naturally feel more strongly the difference between themselves and their host. This not only renders them less approachable, but it also makes them much more shy of adopting Christian ideas, and in the case of enquirers, who, as I have said before, find it very difficult to understand that our customs are not all regulated by religion, a feeling may grow up that the state of Christianity is not possible to a native Persian.

As this book is not about Mohammedanism but about the Yezdi, I have perhaps devoted as much space to the religion of Islam in Yezd as is warranted by my choice of subject matter. At the same time there is no doubt that I have left out a great deal that might have been said, even without going into those details of doctrine and practice which it has been my intention to avoid. I have tried to give some idea of what Islam means to ordinary people in an ordinary[133] Persian town, and I have had to dwell rather more at length on points where there was danger of misconception either through too precise a study of the accurate doctrines of Islam, or through a too superficial view of the result. In doing this I fear that I may have passed over too rapidly the more familiar aspects of the religion, the intense excitement of the spectators and actors at the Muharram games, the mourning for Hasan and Husain, the frenzied fanaticism of the mob after a rousing sermon at the mosques, and the close adherence of many Mussulmans to washing and prayers. This is one side of Shiah Islam, but as it is better known I have attempted to give the other. I cannot, however, leave the subject without reminding those who have to do with Persians of two most important things; first, that there is a real spiritual seeking amongst Mussulmans, and that the presence of worldly motives does not preclude it; secondly, that there is real enthusiasm for their religion in spite of latitudinarian ideas. To the Mussulman, as has been before stated, the system of Islam is everything, and he clings to it as dearly as to life itself, for it represents to him every habit that he has formed, and its cause is the[134] cause of every motive that he acknowledges to be possible.

The religious ceremonies which in Persia arouse the greatest enthusiasm and fervour are essentially Shiah. The yearly miracle play in the month of Muharram depicts the death of the Imam Husain, son of Ali and Fātima, and grandson of Mohammed. This is the occasion of the most violent exhibitions of emotion on the part of both players and spectators. Men lash their naked bodies with chains in an ecstasy of frenzy, and the whole crowd bursts into groans and tears of grief. Feeling runs so high, and becomes so unmanageable on these occasions, that the secular authorities have tried to keep the performances out of the larger towns. But the atmosphere which is created is not by any means anti-foreign in a general sense. The Imam Husain was done to death by his co-religionists, and tradition reports that a Ferangi ambassador interceded with Yazīd for the martyr’s life. This ambassador appears in the play, and Persians often try to borrow an English saddle for his horse from the European residents. At the performance at the big village of Taft, which is near Yezd, I think the ambassador was often dressed as a modern Englishman, but I cannot vouch for this. At Yezd itself, the miracle play was not acted; but the carrying of the Nakhl, a ceremony supposed to be fraught with the same kind of danger, took place yearly. The Nakhl is a huge wooden erection hung on one side with daggers, and on the other side with looking-glasses. There are several Nakhls in Yezd, and two are very large. This custom also is connected with the death of the Shiah martyrs. The Nakhl is supposed to be moved from its place in the square by the miraculous agency of[135] Fatima; but a good many people take it on themselves to assist her. Lastly, there is a night set apart for the burning of Omar, the usurping Khalif, and the carrying of the effigy through the town is the occasion of extreme excitement. One cannot help being strongly reminded of Guy Fawkes’ day in England. Omar, it must be remembered, is a Sunni saint.