Chapter XX: Camps of Refuge, 1915-17 332 (6)

In the following month, July, 1878, the Congress of the Great Powers met in Berlin, to adjust the differences and make a smaller map for Turkey both in Europe and Asia. The indefatigable Patriarch, Bishop Nerses, sent a special deputation[106] to Berlin to petition the Congress for a Christian governor over Armenia, like that of Lebanon since 1861, and the European Powers themselves constituting the guardians of the Christian Armenians. The Congress of Berlin saw at once the justice and moderation of the Armenian request, and as a result we have the sixty-first Article of the Treaty of Berlin. But with an inexplicable stupidity, and with a criminal credulity, this Congress left the whole matter in the hands of the Turkish government, as if that wicked power was ever ready and willing to do what is right and proper, and the European Powers were to take the simple attitude of “watching over their [reforms] application.”

The Sixty-first article runs:

“The sublime Porte engages to realize without delay those ameliorations and reforms which local needs require in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds. It undertakes to make known from time to time, the measures taken with this object to the powers who will watch over their application.”

It is not enough to say that the Turkish government has failed to introduce necessary reforms, to ameliorate the condition of the Christians, or protect them from the atrocities of the Kurds, Circassians, and the Turks, since the signing of the Treaty of Berlin, for it has done more. It has determined, one way or the other, gradually to decimate and finally to exterminate the entire Armenian population in the empire. The facts of the history of the last thirty-five years bear out this assertion.

It was only two years after the signing of the Treaty of Berlin and England’s contract with Turkey that “the disturbances among the Kurds assumed a more general character in September (1880), when new troubles were reported in the district south of New Bajazid in the Sanjak of Mush, and in other parts of the same region. Incendiary proclamations were addressed to the Armenians by the insurgent chiefs, and the governor-general of Van applied to Constantinople for reinforcements but was answered that none could be spared. On the 20th of September the Kurds had destroyed thirteen Armenian villages.”

The powers who fixed their signatures through their representatives to the treaty of Berlin, “through Mr. Goschen, presented a collective note, on September 7, 1880. It refuted the statement of Abedden Pasha, that the government had already begun the work of reform, and after criticising the projected reforms, declared that they had been inadequate to the object in view and that a much greater development of the principles of decentralization and religious equality, the organization of a better police force, more energetic protection against the Kurds, a more definite provision concerning the functions of Governor-General, could alone satisfy the rights and expectations created by the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin.”[107]

“On October 3, without making the slightest references to censures which had been addressed to it, and even appearing completely to ignore the collective note, the Porte, assuming a haughty tone, merely notified the Powers of what it intended to do.”[108]

From this time on it appears that the Powers thought they had done enough. It is also reported that Prince Bismarck expressed the opinion that there would be “serious inconvenience” in raising the Armenian question and the British Ambassador at Constantinople, Mr. Goschen, in anticipation, wrote to Earl Granville: “If they (the Powers) refuse, or give only lukewarm support, the responsibility will not lie with Her Majesty’s Government.”

Thus the abandonment of the cause of justice by the Powers, thus leaving the Armenians at the pleasure of the Turks, paved the way for successive massacres by the latter under various pretenses.

The Circassians, Kurds, and Turks, have always been at liberty to go about well armed, but no Christian was allowed to carry arms of any kind, not even for self-defense. In case he was found with arms, he was arrested and cast into a dungeon of indescribable torture. If the Armenians would protect themselves against their enemies, they were seized upon by military force as insurgents. Yea, a groundless suspicion was enough for the officers, who entered, by force of arms, into the Armenian Church in Erzroum (1890), desecrated the sacred edifice, disturbed the religious services of the Christians, under the pretext of searching for arms. The indignation of the Christians at the violation of their rights cost the lives of several persons, including that of the Armenian bishop of Erzroum.

Notorious Mousa Bey, a Kurdish chief, after committing numerous robberies and cruelties, murdered an Armenian and abducted his daughter; at Bitlis, he tortured an Armenian to death with red-hot iron. At the head of his brigands he fell upon another Christian family and destroyed the entire family, and ravished the women in the village of Dabovank. Many complaints and a multitude of witnesses of his outrages could hardly effect his being brought to Constantinople to answer for those charges. After all these crimes, the Turkish court of Justice--rather of “Mockery,” as the distinguished statesman, the late Mr. Gladstone, called it--acquitted him.

In the summer of 1890 it looked as if the persecution had reached its climax. The _London Daily News_ sent special correspondents to Armenia, and their reports leave no doubt that for some reason or other the Turkish government have resolved to make the lives of the Armenians unbearable.

“There is a well-founded suspicion that the sultan is deluding himself with the idea that, by supplanting the Christian Armenians by Mohammedan Kurds, he can raise up a formidable barrier to the Russian conquest of the province. The immediate result of his asinine policy is to make the Armenians look to the czar as their only powerful friend, and the feeling of indignation in this country is so strong on the subject that it is probable Lord Salisbury would not dare to interfere should Russian troops enter Armenia.”

“Mampre Benglian, the Armenian bishop of Alashgerd, has arrived at Constantinople by way of Trebizond, under guard as a criminal. The charge against him is that he advised his flock to leave Armenia and seek refuge in Persia. The Bishop was arrested and subjected to the most outrageous indignities, insulted, spat at, and flogged, thrown into a dungeon and there confined for some time before being sent to Constantinople. Owing to the remonstrances by the British and Russian ambassadors, he has been given his freedom on parole. A letter from Alashgerd says: ‘We can neither depart nor stay, and no other course is left us but to perish where we are. The Kurds and Turks openly declare that they mean to kill as many Armenians as they can, and that they have full permission.’ The Kurds have set fire to the crops of the Armenians in many places in the vicinity of Bitlis. The situation in Armenia is daily becoming more deplorable. There has been a wholesale massacre of Christians at Moosh.”

The Turkish government has revised the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin, and the other signatory Powers have silently consented to it. The following is the Turkish revision: “The sublime Porte engages to realize without delay such maltreatments, persecutions, oppressions, outrages, cruelties, and murders in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and guarantees the security of their enemies, the Kurds, Circassians and the Turks, and will acquit them in case of their being brought to justice, and will assist them in case the Armenians rise against them in self-defense, by force of arms, and will declare the Christians as rebels. It, moreover, undertakes to make known to the civilized and Christian powers from time to time, that Mohammedanism and barbarism go hand in hand.” This is just what Turkey has been doing with the silent consent of the European Powers. Of course, Turkey is the chief criminal in the case and the other Powers have been accessories of her crime. And England’s share of that crime is confessed by the best of England’s sons:

“The only effect of the Anglo-Turkish convention has been to increase the confidence of the sultan that he can do as he pleases in Armenia notwithstanding Article LXI of the Berlin Treaty.

“England, therefore, is responsible in three ways. She destroyed the Russian guarantee exacted by the Treaty of San Stefano. She framed the ‘watching’ clause of the Berlin Treaty, and then, to preclude all possibility of effective pressure upon the Turk, she concludes the Cyprus convention which established an illegal British protectorate over the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan.”[109]

“In the field of Eastern politics generally the conspicuous result has been the failure--the complete, humiliating, and irretrievable failure--of the traditional policy pursued by England of supporting the Turk against Russia. That policy, first attempted by Mr. Pitt, in 1791, against the vehement protests of Mr. Burke[110] but presently abandoned, was warmly espoused by Lord Palmerston. It prompted the Crimean war of 1853, and was embodied in the Treaty of Paris of 1856. It had the lifelong support of Lord Beaconsfield, who by refusing to join Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1876 in applying pressure to the sultan, brought on the war of 1877. Public opinion in Great Britain, outraged by the Bulgarian massacre, prevented him from giving the armed support of Great Britain to the Turks in that year. But he was able to revert to and enforce that policy in the negotiations of 1878, which substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stefano, and it dictated the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish convention.”[111]

The Armenian question is simply this: Whether the Armenians should enjoy the liberty of conscience and of action according to the laws of civilization and Christianity, or whether they should be annihilated by the inveterate enemies of civilization and Christianity, the Turkish rulers. The Armenians brought this question to the decision of the Berlin Congress. The Congress decided that the Armenians must enjoy freedom of conscience and action according to the _laws_ of civilization and Christianity. Turkey, by her representatives, agreed and consented to the decision and promised to have civilized laws, and give freedom to Christianity. But no sooner was the Congress dissolved and the representatives of the nations returned to their respective governments, than the Turkish government took up the work of annihilation of the Christian Armenians. The decision, without any action on the part of the Powers, encouraged the Turk to return to his mire to wallow in.[112] The historian’s sad duty is to describe the beast and his bestial acts, so far as it is permissible, and to point out the sources wherefrom he derives his power.

This work of extermination has been carried on in different ways in certain parts of the country. While in the interior small groups of Armenians have been killed and done away with, in the cities imprisonments, tortures, exiles, assassinations and compulsive conversions to Ismal have been in vogue. The following letter dated June 26, 1891,[113] published in _L’Observateur_, from its Constantinople correspondent, will show some ways of doing away with the Armenians:

“I have already written you, that in consequence of the late disturbances at Constantinople most of the Armenian prisoners have been banished, in small groups, to various distant places, in order not to attract the attention of the public. Is it possible ever to pen the tortures that these unfortunates are suffering in Turkish prisons? The penal system in Turkey is still in its primitive state, and has undergone no improvement since the time of Sultan Mehmed II (1451-1481). Many prisoners have not been able to stand the tortures inflicted upon them, and the death of one of them, Vartan Calousdian (a young man twenty-six years of age), is a new proof of their atrocities.

“The parents of this young man, hearing of his death in prison, succeeded in securing, through the almighty ‘backshish,’ the remains of their beloved in order to inter him in their family grave. While the attendants of the Church at Galata were washing the body according to the custom of the Armenian Church, they could not withhold their tears, and they were awe-stricken at the sight of numerous wounds which marked the body. The poor young man had many of his ribs broken, the palms of his hands and the bottom of his feet were burned and his breast and back striped with long burns....

“Similar cases occur quite often in Asia Minor, but the local authorities conceal them with the utmost care, and make every effort to keep them from the people. The Armenians have not even the right to emigrate from this barbarous country. I telegraphed to you yesterday that the governor of Trebizond prohibited about one hundred Armenian emigrants from leaving the port on the Massangeric steamer ‘Niger.’”

Without the slightest fear of exaggeration the reader can stretch the compass of his imagination to picture to himself the pitiable condition of those prisoners and their families in Asia Minor and Armenia proper. There was neither press nor the influence of the foreign powers; neither facilities of rapid communication, nor the possible use of the telegraph system which is controlled by the government; nor did any safety exist in the post-office system; letters were often torn open with the pretense of suspicion, where “similar cases occur _quite often_, but the local authorities concealed them with utmost care.” These unfortunate prisoners were tortured and starved to death in those filthy and infectious jails; their wives were exposed to the assaults and outrages of the enemies of their religion, their daughters were abducted and proselyted by threats, their little ones were crying for bread, but there was none to provide for them. They and their homes and families were completely ruined. Like the lambs on the thousand hills of Armenia, the Christian inhabitants of Western Asia were turned over to the Mohammedan wolves by the European Powers.

The following poem, which is translated and recomposed from the original by Mr. Thomas G. Allen, Jr., appeared with an article by the same gentleman in the New York _Herald_, about twenty-five years ago. The object of the writer was to show how the inflammatory and revolutionary literature had provoked the Turks, who, almost driven out of Europe, were also threatened in Asia. The following is his closing words:

“And now the Turks are threatened in Asia itself. Is there no possible reconciliation between the conflicting elements? Is the unity of civilization to be had only by the sacrifice of whole populations, and those above all, which [the Turks] are distinguished by the highest moral qualities--Uprightness, truth, manliness, courage and tolerance?”

Tastes surely differ. Even the bloodthirsty and bestial Turks are distinguished by the highest moral qualities according to Mr. Allen. Here is the revolutionary poem:

ADDRESS TO THE ARMENIANS

Stand firm, O Armenians! Stand firm for the land
That gave thee in childhood her cherishing hand;
Stand firm for thy country, thy cradle, thy grave,
The country that reeks with the blood of the brave.

’Tis here in their dungeons, ’mid torture and moan
The blood of thy fathers so freely has flown;
And this is the land where still thou hast saved,
Great glories and names, on thy memory engraved.

’Tis here, for his home, and the pleasures it brought,
Our ancestor, Haik, so courageously fought;
And Vartan, that champion of sweet liberty,
Broke asunder the chains of foul slavery.

O Freedom, thou blessing that nations have craved,
How long has thy ensign and emblem here waved!
How many Armenians, so noble and brave,
For thee have gone down to a premature grave!

Though fortune has struck it with terrible blows,
And left alone Armenia a prey to its foes,
Though subdued, yet unconquered, our nation still lives,
To break the slave bonds that a base tyrant gives.

Armenia still lives, and out to the world
Her flag of distress she now has unfurled;
In torture and pain she utters the cry,
“With freedom to live; with slavery to die.”

Oh, why should our strife be rewarded with pain,
And the blood of our bravest be poured out in vain!
Oh, why should our country’s most sorrowful wail,
Have stirred noble souls to a cause that must fail!

Oh, why should this effort of unceasing pace,
These brave souls, be given without even a trace!
For this can it be that our country fares worse,
And even must bear with this terrible curse?

Nay, never! Thank God, the day’s soon at hand
When victory shall marshal our patriot band!
For this we have prayed--but alas! ever so,
Our prayers are unanswered as years come and go.

But if ever thus the fates may decree,
Then welcome we death that our souls may be free;
Let kind Mother Earth to her bosom enfold
The corpse of a nation, all bloodless and cold.

The nations, astonished, may view her dark grave,
And see the ruined homes they neglected to save;
And thousand of hearts with repentance may grieve
For the lost Christian nation they failed to relieve.

FOOTNOTES:

[104] Literally, “Loose-headed,” in the sense of undisciplined volunteers.

[105] Norman, “Armenia and the Campaign of 1877,” p. 372.

[106] This deputation consisted of Bishops Mugurdich, Khrimian, Khorene NerBey, DeLusignan and Prof. Minas Tcheraz.

[107] Appelton, Annual Cyclopædia, 1880, p. 689.

[108] Greene, “The Armenian Crisis in Turkey,” p. 78.

[109] _The Westminster Gazette_, Dec. 12, 1894, reprinted in the _Armenia_, London, Jan. 1, 1895.

[110] The following is part of Burke’s address quoted by Bryce: “I have never before heard that the Turkish Empire has been considered any part of the balance of Powers in Europe. They despise and contemn all Christian princes as infidels, and only wish to subdue and exterminate them and their people. What have these worse than savages to do with the Powers of Europe but to spread war, destruction, and pestilence among them? The ministers and the policy which shall give these people any weight in Europe will deserve all the bans and curses of posterity.” Quoted from Bryce’s.

[111] Bryce, “Transcaucasia and Ararat,” p. 519, 4th ed.

[112] II Peter, 2:22.

[113] Reprinted in _The Ararat_, New York, July 30, 1891.

XII

THE GOSPEL AND THE KORAN

The condition of affairs in Turkey since the signing of the Treaty of Berlin has been growing from bad to worse. The persecutions, unjust imprisonments, constant tortures, exiles and executions of the Armenians have been pointing to such terrible massacres as have been taking place.

The real and underlying cause of this state of things must now be more emphatically pointed out than it has yet been. In order to do this, certain facts of history must be briefly rehearsed. No Mohammedan can be expected to be any better than Mohammed himself; that he was a sensual, cruel and bloodthirsty man, and a relentless enemy to Christianity, Christians and the Jews, is manifest from the facts of history, his life and his teaching. “Christianity finds its ideal man in the Christ of the Gospels; the Moslem finds his in the Prophet of the Koran and the traditions.”

Some of the teachings of Christ and His disciples, and Mohammed and his followers will be put side by side to show the incompatibility of the one with the other, on account of the Heavenliness of the former and the infernality of the latter.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. Matt. 22:39.

Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them even as Elias did? He rebuked them.... For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them. Luke 9:54-56.

There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. I Tim. 2:5.

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. Mat. 5:44.

Jesus said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matt. 22.29-30.

We are the sons of God, we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him. I John 3:2.

THE KORAN

O true believers, wage war against such of infidels as are near you, and let them find severity in you. Al Koran, chap. 9.

Verily the worst cattle in the sight of God are those who are obstinate infidels, and will not believe. Al Koran, chap. 8.

When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them. Al Koran, chap. 47.

There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His apostle.[114] The Mohammedan Creed.

O prophet, wage war against the unbelievers, and be severe unto them, for their dwelling shalt be hell. Al Koran, chap. 9.

“The meanest moslem (the Mohammedan) will have in Paradise, 80,000 servants, seventy-two _houris_ or girls of Paradise.[2]

“Mohammed declared that when he looked down into hell, he found the greater part of the wretches confined there to be women.”[115]

Go ye, therefore and make disciples of all nations. Matt. 28:19.

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23-34.

Fight thou against them until they pay tribute by right of subjection, and they be reduced low. Al Koran, chap. 9:29.

“The Lord destroy the Jews and Christians.”[116] Mohammed.

(The above is Mohammed’s last prayer before he died.--Author).

The Bible gives women a place of great importance and service both in the Old and New Testaments. The temple had its women’s court, the synagogues and early churches had their respective places for women. Their importance and helpfulness both in the church at home and abroad are of inestimable value. But Mohammed confined them, wholesale, to the infernal regions. Ali Bey (1807) (a great authority on Mohammedanism, and a devout Mohammedan himself, whom the late Dr. Jessup quotes in his work above referred to), says: “As the prophet has not assigned any place for women in his Paradise, the Mohammedans give them no places in the mosques and have exempted them from the obligation of frequenting the public prayer.”

There is one more point of the Koran that might be contrasted with the teaching of the Bible, namely, that Mohammed fostered the arrogance and pride of his followers, without substantiating his claim:

“Ye are the best nation that has been raised up unto mankind.” Al Koran, Chap. 3:106.

The Bible gives us some passages like the above, but they are infinitely different in depth, height and breadth. “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” I Peter 2:9. Christian religion requires “_holiness_, without which no man shall see God.” Heb. 12:14. “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.” Matt. 5:8. Christ requires of His followers an _inward_, as well as an outward, conformity to the Character of God. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,” is the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. Mohammedanism requires of its devotees the following five things: A confession of faith that there is but one God and that Mohammed is his prophet, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and a pilgrimage to Mecca. For salvation, repentance is the only means.

“Christianity recognizes the freedom of man, and magnifies the guilt and corruption of sin, but at the same time offers a way of reconciliation and redemption from sin, and its consequence through the atonement of a divine Saviour and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

“Mohammedanism minimizes the freedom of man and the guilt of sin, makes little account of its corrupting influence in the soul, and offers no plan of redemption except that of repentance and good works.”[117]

Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who reigned from 1876-1909, was considered by many to be a conscientious Mohammedan. Claiming also--as all the sultans from the time of Selim I--to be the lawful successor of the prophet and Defender of the faith. He was, therefore, both the head of the Mohammedan religion and also the ruler over the Mohammedan states. In the mind of a faithful successor of Mohammed, the prophet is the only ideal and his conduct the only guide to follow. To revive Mohammedanism then means the suppression of all other religions as well as the building up of all the Moslem institutions. These he continued to do until the time of his deposition.

Mohammed and his immediate successors offered to the conquered the choice of one of three things--Islam, slavery, or death. Some of the conquered accepted Islam, and thus ended their trouble on earth; others were put to death by the conquerors, who saved their victims from the misery of the world; those who neither accepted Islam nor were put to death were made semi-slaves. Both the Arabs and later the Turks needed some source of revenue which they derived from the subject nations, and also needed a class of skilled artisans and laborers. The Greeks and Armenians were very important for the maintenance of the Turkish empire, especially in its early years, and up to the middle of the last century. These nations, whether Armenians, Greeks, Jews or Syrians, however, were considered no more than prisoners of war, and were always liable to have the offer of Islam or death presented to them at any time as the caprice of the ruler may choose.

Again, the hatred and arrogance instilled into the minds of the devotees of the religion of Mohammed by the prophet and his imitators, fill every devout Mohammed with the desire, not so much to see the conversion of the world to Mohammedanism, as to wish and pray that Allah may destroy the infidels--non-Moslems--and give all their possessions to the Mohammedans. Hence, the official prayer of the Mohammedans which was used throughout Turkey and daily repeated in the Cairo Azhar University by the ten thousand Mohammedan students from all lands. It is translated from the Arabic:

“I seek refuge with Allah from Satan, the _regiem_ (the accursed). In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful! O Lord of all Creatures! O Allah! Destroy the infidels and polytheists, thine enemies, the enemies of religion! O Allah! Make their children orphans, defile their abodes, and cause their feet to slip; and give them, and their families, and their households, and their women, and their children and their relatives by marriage, and their brothers, and their friends, and their possessions, and their race, and their wealth, and their lands, as booty to the Moslems, O Lord of all creatures.”[118]

The writer has attempted in the preceding few pages to show, from the Koran and from such writers as the late Dr. Jesup of Beirut (Syria) and the late Dr. Washburn of Constantinople, who had been in contact with Mohammedanism and Mohammedans almost half of a century or more, whose authority and integrity cannot be questioned, what Mohammedanism is and what it teaches. No Mohammedan ruler, or a common believer in Mohammed’s religion, especially one who claims to be his successor, dare do otherwise than what the Koran and the example of the prophet teach him. Not one of the grants, permits, promises of reform, liberty of religion, protection of persons, honor and property of the Christian subjects in the empire, made by the sultans under pressing circumstances, or by pressure from without, were ever intended to be kept. Because they could not conscientiously fulfill those promises and remain faithful Mohammedans.

One more thing which deserves to be noted is the missionary fire kindled in the heart of every Mohammedan by the Koran and the Mohammedan divines; we refer to the propagation of Islam by the sword. The extension of the Mohammedan religion depends on the expansion of the Mohammedan reign. Hence the sword is the great Mohammedan Missionary.

“Under the head of the civil laws [of Mohammedanism] may be comprehended the injunction of warring against the infidel, which is repeated in several passages of the Koran, and declared to be of high merit in the sight of God; those who are slain fighting in defense of the faith being reckoned martyrs, and are promised immediate admission into paradise. Hence this duty is greatly magnified by the Mohammedan divines, who call the sword the key of heaven and hell.”[119]

Mohammed himself inaugurated this by his teaching and example as the following incident--one of many--shows: There was a Jewish colony settled within a short distance from the city of Medina. They have been happily and prosperously living there for a long time in all things like the Arabs except their religion. They adhered to their ancestral faith and refused to believe in Mohammed as the apostle of God. This was like a thorn in Mohammed’s flesh. He gathered a sufficient force and attacked them. The Jews thought their fortified town was a secure refuge for them wherein they sheltered themselves. Mohammed besieged the town and in a short time reduced it to submission by starvation. Then followed the terrible slaughter of all the men--about eight hundred. It took a whole day, beginning early till late at night, to chop off their heads and throw their bodies into a trench. And the booty, and some women and children, he divided among his faithful warriors, and the rest he sold to the Arabs. But for himself--for his sensual gratification--he selected the most beautiful Jewess, Rihanah by name, and he kept her.

In the following pages the reader will see more of the sequel of his infernal teaching and example in the lives and acts of his followers.

FOOTNOTES:

[114] “When Gibbon declared that Islamic motto ‘There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his apostle,’ asserts an eternal truth and an eternal lie, he truly expressed its duplex and inconsistent character.”--Jesup, “The Mohammedan Missionary Problem,” p. 15.

[115] Jesup, “The Mohammedan Missionary Problem,” (published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Phila.), p. 38.

[116] Schaff’s Religious Encyclopædia, Vol. II, p. 1542.

[117] Barrows, “The World’s Parliament of Religions,” Vol. I, p. 579, the paper on Mohammedanism by Washburn.

[118] Jesup, “The Mohammedan Missionary Problem,” p. 31. Presbyterian Board of Publication, Phila.

[119] Sale’s “Koran,” preliminary discourses, p. 110.

XIII

MASSACRE OF THE CHRISTIANS

The history of Mohammedanism is a continuous warfare against Christianity, and the latter alone has firmly and heroically stood against Islam in Western Asia. But through what tortures, martyrdoms, and massacres did the followers of Christ pass from the beginning of Mohammed’s religion to the present time? The answer to this question would fill volumes.

Hitherto the Turks have shown relentless barbarity, unabated intolerance and unprovoked massacres of the Christians. A very conservative estimate will not allow less than two hundred thousand Christians massacred during the last century by the fanatic followers of the self-made prophet of Arabia.

In 1821-7, during the Greek revolution, thousands of Greeks were put to death who had no other crime than being of the same religion and nationality. “Sultan Mohammed was in the habit of replying to every success of the Greek insurgents by ordering massacres, violations and enslavement in regions without defense, where there were none but women, children and inoffensive merchants.... The Turkish admiral was beaten at Samos; for that reason thirty days were spent in Cyprus in cutting off heads.... The Sultan wished to take new reprisal to terrify the _rayas_ (Christian subjects) and cause the nations of Europe to reflect.” In the island of Chios, though the inhabitants were not in rebellion, but most docile and inoffensive, yet “above forty thousand of both sexes had either fallen victims to the sword, or were selected for sale in the bazaars.” Some fled to the more inaccessible parts of the island. They were assured of their safety by the Turks, guaranteed by the European consuls. But no sooner did they descend from the heights than the Turks put them to death. “The number of those, who became victims of this perfidious act, were estimated at seven thousand.”[120]

“The women and children escaped death, their beauty and youth saving them from massacre. They were, however, to be delivered over at once to the outrageous assaults or to be reserved for the shameful fate of the harem. They were led off in long troops; they were put on the market and sold in the bazaars of Smyrna, Constantinople and Brousa.”[121] Large numbers also suffered death or the worst form of slavery, by the hands of the “unspeakable Turks,” who were neither Greeks nor belonged to the same church, and their only crime also was that they, too, were Christians.

During the war between Russia and Turkey, the Kurds, finding the country in a disturbed condition, plundered many a village and massacred not a few Armenians. But the Turks seem to vie with the Kurds in cruelty. An Englishman, writing of the war between Russia and Turkey, says:

“The Turks with their usual ferocity, commenced a system of carnage at Akhalzik in 1829; every Christian inhabitant was slain.”

In 1843, in the southern mountains of Armenia and Kurdistan, ten thousand Nestorian and Armenian Christians were massacred by the faithful Moslems of Mohammed’s type, and as many women and children were taken captives and sold for slaves. The great explorer, A. H. Layard, three years after this fearful carnage, describes it in the following language:

“When the salughter of the people of Ashita (9000) became known in the valley of Liza, the inhabitants of the villages (1000) took refuge on a lofty platform of rock, where they hoped either to escape notice or to defend themselves against any number of assailants. Bedr Khan Bey (the officer of the sultan, who had charge of the massacre) surrounded the place and watched until hunger and thirst, in hot sultry weather, had done their work. After three days a regular capitulation was signed and sworn on the Koran; their arms were delivered up; the Kurds were admitted on the platform. Then did the slaughter begin. To save the trouble of killing them, they were pitched into the Zab (river) below. Out of about one thousand only one escaped from the massacre. The face of the rock below is still covered with scattered bones of the dead, bleached skulls, long locks of women’s hair, and torn portions of garments they had worn.”[122]

In regard to the massacre of the eleven thousand Christians in Syria in 1860, a very trustworthy writer states:

“The officials of the Porte at Constantinople formed a conspiracy for the blotting out of the Christian name in those parts, they appointed their own creatures to the governments of Damascus, Beirut, Sidon, and furnished them with soldiers, who were posted as garrison in the chief towns inhabited by Christians, under pretense of defending them against the Druses. When all was ready the savage Druses of Hauron were summoned, and they and their brethren of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon immediately set themselves to burning the villages and killing the people without any provocation. They put to death every male, even the infants at the breast, and enslaved as many of the women and girls as they chose. The Turkish garrison at first simply looked on; then they urged the Christians to take refuge in the castles on condition of delivering up whatever weapons they might possess. They swore by the Koran that no harm should be done them. But no sooner were they thus entrapped than the Druses were called in and every one of these helpless victims was shot down or his throat cut in cold blood. The streets of Deirel-Kamr, Hosbayan, and Zahlah flowed with human gore, in which men waded ankle deep. The worst scenes occurred in Damascus, the center of Moslem fanaticism. Here the pasha himself directed the operations, and after the butchery of the Christians and the plunder of their property, their quarter of the city was set on fire and burned down.”[123]

It was due to the same bloodthirstiness of the Turks, inculcated by the infernal teaching of the Koran, and the examples of the former Mohammedan rulers, that the horrible massacres of the Bulgarians took place in 1876. Hon. Eugene Schuyler, then American consul-General, in his preliminary report to the Hon. Horace Maynard, the American minister, at Constantinople, wrote:

“Philippopolis, August 10, 1876.

SIR: In reference to the atrocities and massacres committed by the Turks in Bulgaria, I have the honor to inform you that I have visited the towns of Adrianople, Philippopolis, and Tatar, Bazardjik, and villages in the surrounding districts. From what I have personally seen, and from the inquiries I have made, and the information I have received, I have ascertained the following facts:

“The insurgent villages made little or no resistance. In many instances they surrendered their arms upon the first demand. Nearly all the villages which were attacked by the _Bashi-bazouks_ (irregulars) were burned and pillaged, as were also all those which had been abandoned by the terrified inhabitants. The inhabitants of some villages were massacred after exhibitions of the most ferocious cruelty, and the violation not only of women and girls, but even of persons of the other sex. Those crimes were committed by the regular troops as well as by the bashi-bazouks. The number of villages which were burned in whole or in part in the districts of Philippopolis, Roptchus, and Tatar-Bazardjik is at least sixty-five.

“Particular attention was given by the troops to the churches and schools, which in some cases were destroyed with petroleum and gunpowder.

“It is difficult to estimate the number of Bulgarians who were killed during the few days that the disturbances lasted; but I am inclined to put fifteen thousand as the lowest for the districts I have named.

“... This village after a promise of safety without firing a shot surrendered to the bashi-bazouks, under command of Ahmed Aga, a chief of rural police. Despite his promise, the arms once surrendered, Ahmed Aga ordered the destruction of the village and the indiscriminate slaughter of the inhabitants, about a hundred young girls being reserved to satisfy the lust of the conqueror before they too should be killed. Not a house is now standing in this lovely valley. Of the eight thousand inhabitants not two thousand are known to survive.

“Ahmed Aga, who commanded the massacre, has since been decorated and promoted, to the rank of _yus bashi_ (centurion).

* * * * *

“I am, sir, yours very truly,

“EUGENE SCHUYLER.

“The Hon. Horace Maynard, etc.”[124]

It was in the following year, 1877, that Armenia witnessed new horrors. The correspondent of the London _Times_ wrote of the massacre of the Armenians at Bayazid:

“The scene that ensued [the massacre] was one of unparalleled horror. The town contained one hundred and sixty-five Christian families, and all the men, women and children were ruthlessly put to the sword. A Turkish officer, who visited the town a few days subsequently, states that there was not a single inhabitant left.... In every house he entered small groups of dead were lying shockingly mutilated, and in the most revolting, indecent positions. Captain McCalmont, who visited the place shortly after the Russian relief, states that it is entirely deserted and a mere heap of ruins; also that soldiers were employed for six days in burying the dead, the number of whom it was impossible to estimate.”[125]

“The American missionaries have been forced, for fear of their lives, to take refuge in a boat on the Lake (of Van).... Their Christian charges have been subjected to the grossest treatment--crops cut and carried away, cattle killed, villages burnt, men murdered, and worst of all, women and even children violated. Churches afford no refuge for these wretched mortals. Ten who fled for safety into the church at Utch-Kilissa were there foully murdered.... Hundreds of Christian villages in Armenia, having been gutted and fired by these miscreants, are completely abandoned, and their inhabitants have fled for refuge into the Russian camps. Hordes of fanatics, led by Moolahs (learned), have joined the Turkish army. Their fury is daily fed by the exhortations and addresses of the priests, who have denounced the war as a menace to the Ottoman (Mohammedan) religion, and they are led to commit every conceivable excess against the defenseless Christians, whom they accuse of furnishing information to the enemy. Facts prove the reverse, for as yet not a single Armenian spy has been discovered by the authorities, while several Kurds and Circassians, preferring money to-faith, have paid for their treachery with their lives; in short every spy hanged during this war has been a Mohammedan....

“Outrages on Mohammedans, being against the Koran, are visited with great severity; outrages against Christians, who are considered beyond the pale of the law, are left unnoticed. The massacre at Bayazid, the desecration of Russian graves, mutilation of corpses, violation of a flag of truce, and the recent cruelties towards the Christians at Van, all furnish excuses, and valid excuses, too, for a continuance of the war. We cannot hope that a great power like Russia will sit quietly down under the reverses her arms have sustained during the past month, and will permit the Christians, on whose behalf she has ostensibly made war, to be treated in Armenia as they were last year in Bulgaria. She must compel the Porte, by force of arms, to respect the rights of all her Christian subjects, and afford to them equal protection and privilege as to Mohammedans. At present this is far from being the case, Mussulman officials literally treating them worse than the dogs which act as scavengers in their streets. I mean this as no mere figure of speech, but as an actual fact, borne out not only by what I myself have witnessed, but also by reports of occurrences which have come under the notice of many of the American missionaries in Armenia, who daily receive complaints from their Christian congregations of the cruelties and acts of oppression they endure at the hands of the Kurds, whom the Ottoman government have now let loose in Anatolia.”[126]

I have quoted a long passage from Mr. Norman’s book to show the miserable condition of the Armenians who were treated worse than the street-dogs by the Mohammedans, the officers and the rest, and that these outrages were well known in England, yet in the following year, “England at the Berlin Congress, and _England alone_--for none of the other powers took any interest in the matter--destroyed the security which Russia had extorted from the Turkish government at San Stefano, and substituted for the sterling guarantee of Russia, the worthless paper money of Ottoman promises.”[127]

Mr. Norman himself wrote: “Naturally, since I have been here (in Armenia) I have had many, very many, opportunities of conversing with Turkish officers and men on the so-called Eastern question; and the consequence is that, arriving in the country a strong philo-Turk, deeply impressed with the necessity of preserving the ‘integrity of the Empire’ in order to uphold ‘British interests,’ I now fain would cry with Mr. Freeman, ‘Perish British interests, perish our dominion in India, rather than that we should strike a blow on behalf of the wrong against the right.’”[128] England, however, did strike a fatal “blow on behalf of the wrong against the right,” in the negotiations of 1878, when Lord Beaconsfield “substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stefano, and dictated the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish convention.”

Sultan Abdul Hamid not only henceforth had a new lease of life for his empire, but by the British illegal protectorate over his Asiatic provinces, he had also her protection against Russia. And while thus protected, he determined to settle his internal affairs, not by doing what he promised, to the European powers collectively and to England separately, to do, namely, to protect his Christian subjects against robberies, oppressions, outrages and murders, but by systematic and gradual extermination of the Armenians in order to rid himself of the Armenian question. Vambery’s description of the character of Sultan Abdul Hamid II may give us some idea how this crafty man would act: “I never met with a man the salient features of whose character were so contradictory, so uneven, and disproportionate, as with Sultan Abdul Hamid. Benevolence and wickedness, generosity and meanness, cowardice and valor, shrewdness and ignorance, moderation and excess, and many other qualities have alternately found expression in his acts and words.”[129] Sultan Abdul Hamid could do like his master of whom Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and said: “No marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (II Cor. 11:14). He was too shrewd to openly inaugurate the work of extermination of the Christians and the persecution of Christianity, but he did it, first underhandedly, until some Armenians, driven to desperation, resorted to self-defense. Of course in the case of a Christian’s self-defense his resentment of the outrages against the oppressor is considered an act of rebellion, and the acts of robbery, outrage, and murder perpetrated by the Mohammedan upon the defenseless Christians are considered meritorious virtues. St. Paul said, “No marvel”; Sultan Abdul Hamid is transformed into an angel of light, what else can we expect? There were, undoubtedly, many Armenians who did revolt against such perversions of truth. Who can always sit still and look like a statue while the wrong-doer is robbing, outraging and murdering his loved ones, and not revolt against such acts, and not give a blow against the wrong-doer, even if we know that he may be cut to pieces for his doing so? This was the kind of rebellion that some Armenians were accused of.

The Turkish government’s accusation of the Armenians with the device of a revolution was simply made up of the tissues of falsehood, and woven by the iniquity of the head of the government, to shroud the just and righteous cause of the Armenian question; to bury it in an ignominious grave of a rebellion that failed. But there was no rebellion, there could be no rebellion. It was, however, convenient for the British government and some other, equally guilty, governments of Europe, to justify their criminal indifference, or self interests, to pretend that it was and that the Armenians were not persecuted for their religion. The Mohammedan government would not say--for she had no regard for the truth--that she was torturing and slaughtering the Armenians because they were Christians. It is perfectly natural for a corrupt and depraved heart to falsify and declare to those, who ask the reason of her murdering the Christians, to say that she is suppressing a revolution. But for any so-called Christian nation and government, like that of England, accepting Hamid’s excuse and explanation, and declaring that to the world was plainly protecting and defending the criminal at the bar of justice and humanity.

The Turkish government knew, so did the European governments, that an Armenian revolution was an impossibility, and such an excuse was an absurdity. The Armenians, who hardly number two millions, scattered among the eighteen millions of the Mohammedans, the latter having a standing army of several hundred thousand soldiers at their command, would indeed have been fools, and the Turks equal fools to be afraid of such a rebellion, and, therefore, had taken such severe measures to suppress it. Such a thing was not only an absurdity but it was also the most wicked thing both on the part of the Turks and on the part of the friends of the Moslems, who pretended to believe it.

About 1892 Sultan Abdul Hamid called the Kurdish chiefs to Constantinople and supplied them with military titles, uniforms, and modern weapons of war, and sent them back to organize their tribes into “Hamidieh” cavalry regiments, which numbered about twenty-two thousand and five hundred men. The Sultan thus “obtained a power eager in time of peace _to crush the Armenian growth and spirit_.” The Armenians “besought the protection of the co-signatory powers to the Berlin guarantees against the ruthless oppression of the lawless and ruffianly Kurds, _and with the tacit consent, if not the approbation of the powers_, the Porte now appoints their worst enemies as their guardians.”

A few fragmentary instances may show what these--the government’s--licensed robbers and murderers have done. The following is part of a letter written by an American missionary in the summer of 1892 from Southern Armenia:

“We journeyed east of north over the hills, and dropped down into another valley, in the bosom of which nestled the Armenian village of Khundik, of about twenty houses. It was a charming spot, but the oppression of surrounding Kurdish begs (chiefs) was depleting the population. Their church has been reduced to a heap, and they were not allowed to restore it.”

Dr. ----, a medical missionary, writing of his tour under date of October 20, 1892, stated:

“It was somewhat risky going among the Arabkir villages. Robberies were of almost daily occurrence, and the villagers were in a state of constant alarm at night on account of the raids of the Kurds.... The village of Horesik is in a district of perhaps thirty Armenian villages; but it is one of the most oppressed districts in the empire. A long time ago some Turkish feudal chiefs came from abroad, and gradually gained possession of the whole district. They now claim to own all the land, and even the houses which the people occupy, and which the occupants built, and the gardens and vineyards which they planted.”

It was not the Kurds, and some Turkish feudal chiefs alone, but the officers of the government who carry the sword for the punishment of the evil-doer were also among the worst kind of tormentors and evil-doers themselves.

“October, 1892: At all the villages on the lake (Van) soldiers were stationed to keep boats from landing, on account of cholera.... Then the quartering of the soldiers in the villages. You can imagine what that means for the poor Armenians, you can sympathize with them in the idea that the cure is worse than the disease; that they would much rather take the risk of having the cholera than have the soldiers about. And it is not only the soldiers and underpaid gendarmes that oppress the villagers, extorting the best and making no return. An officer, the captain of one thousand, with seven horsemen, had just been at a village we visited. They and their horses were fed with the best and went off without paying anything.”

On the night of the 5th of January, 1893, in several important cities of Asia Minor placards were posted attacking the Turkish government. Who did this was a mystery. A prominent editor of a leading periodical in this country, who was well informed of the condition of affairs in Turkey, said, “the general belief of all classes is that the more fanatical _softas_ (students in the mosques) are the real offenders.” That may have been the case. But later events and instances positively show that the government’s emissaries had done it in order to furnish an excuse for the officers of the government to accuse the Armenians of sedition, and blindfold the European powers who were overanxious to abandon the cause of justice and humanity for any pretext.

Two of these placards were affixed to the gate of the mission premises at Marsovan, but were soon seen and pulled down by persons belonging to the college. Husrev Pasha was appointed to investigate the matter. This official himself had threatened in violent terms both the college and its teachers, “Charging the institution with being a source of sedition, and affirming that the placards were issued from the college.” Those very officials themselves had “declared that the place where the college stood should be as a plowed field.”

On the 29th of January, Professor Thoumanian and later Professor Kayayan, two Armenian teachers of the college, were arrested and imprisoned. There was no evidence of their having issued these placards. On the night of February 1st, the girls’ school was set on fire. The Turkish authorities who declared that they were going to burn the building, after so doing, began to charge the crime upon the college authorities “either for the purpose of exciting the Armenians to revolt, or to cover up the fact that arms and ammunition were concealed in the building. These most absurd charges were sent to Constantinople, and the corrupt officials, who have themselves been implicated in the burning were charged with the duty of investigating the affair. Meantime _numberless arrests_ were made, not only in Marsovan but in all parts of the province. United States Consul, Mr. Jewett, who was stationed at Sivas, went to Marsovan. But his dispatches to our minister at Constantinople, and the minister’s dispatches to him, were interfered with, and it was with the greatest difficulty that he secured any communication with his superior officer.”

The Turkish government could, and had created riots at will, and thus have an excuse to fall upon the defenseless Christians to torture and butcher them: London, February 14, 1893--“A despatch from Vienna says that one hundred and twenty-five Armenians were killed and three hundred and forty were wounded during the recent riot at Yosgat, Turkey.” Constantinople, July 14, 1893--“The British Embassy has received news that three hundred police and Bashi-Bazouks were sent out from Cæsarea in February to arrest so-called refugees in Everek. They looted every Armenian house in the town, and abused the women.”

Here is another despatch from Constantinople under date March 15, 1893: