PERCY T. MAGAN by Percy T. Magan

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 29, 1909

PERCY T. MAGAN

By Percy T. Magan

The Turkish Revolution—No. 4

PERCY T. MAGAN

The Ottoman Idea

IN the last issue of the REVIEW we studied the rise and history of the Young Turk movement, and sketched the main features of the remarkable revolution which that movement has effected. In this article I shall endeavor to make plain the fundamental causes which have inspired all this recent activity in Young Turk ranks, and which have prompted the thought of revolution at this particular time.

The battle of Marathon was fought in the year 490 B. C. On one side were eleven thousand Europeans—Greeks. On the other side were one hundred ten thousand Asiatics—Persians. The event of the day was an overwhelming victory for the European, or western, nation. The Persian army was utterly routed, and forced to retreat to Asia.

This battle was one of the decisive battles in the world's history. The result of it was supposed to have settled for all time the white man's superiority over the yellow, the brown, and the black man. From that day forward it was presumed to be an incontrovertible fact that no Asiatic race could stand before Europeans.

The world-shaking victories of Japan over Russia have sent this theory tumbling down the abyss. The verdict of Marathon has been annulled. A small nation of Asiatics humiliated the arms of a great European power into the very dust. Forever in the Oriental mind is the idea shattered that he must be ground down beneath the mailed heel of Europe. Orientals have determined that the exploitations of their territories by Western powers must cease. The marvelous successes of the Japanese have awakened the “Asiatic spirit.” If, they say, the doctrine is to prevail of “Europe for the Europeans,” and “America for the Americans,” then it shall be the “Orient for the Orientals.” It is this which has stimulated China, with her history of forty centuries, to renew her youth. It is this which has brought about the “awakening of China.” It is this which has produced the “unrest in India,” and a feverish determination upon the part of the Hindu people to bring to an end forever the rule of Great Britain in their land. In the near future the “kings of the East” intend to force a settlement on this question. See the two remarkable works treating upon this subject—“The Reshaping of the Far East,” and “The Truce in the East and Its Aftermath,” by Henry Putnam Weale, the Macmillan Company, New York.

Now there is no question but that the extraordinary successes of Japan, and “China's energetic pulling of herself together” have had a remarkable and electric effect upon the Mohammedans of the Ottoman empire. “The heathen Buddhists, formerly despised as blackest infidels, now appear as shining lights and examples in their eyes.”

To the deeds of the people of the far East—the Japanese—must be attributed the vision of liberty, and freedom from interference by the great powers, toward which the people of the near East—the Ottoman Turks—are striving.

All Islam is awakening, and is determined to come into her own, politically and nationally as well as religiously. I have already mentioned the manifestations of this spirit in the popular “unrest in India,” which ever since the Russo-Japanese War has given the British government so much concern. Then there are the nine million Mohammedans of the Nile lands. These “are unbounded in their enthusiasm at the revival of the constitution in Turkey.” True, the Turks have never enjoyed much popularity with the Egyptians. At the present moment, however, they all join together in longing for the restored sovereignty of the constitutional calif.

Among the Russian Mohammedans, i. e., the Tartars, the same spirit is moving. Their national consciousness has been roused by the Russian Talmi constitution. It is difficult to describe their delight at the revival which has taken place among their fellow tribesmen and coreligionists in Turkey. So manifest is this exultation, that the Mohammedan faction of the Russian Douma has sent a congratulatory address to the Turkish Parliament, the appended text of which is instructive:—

“The Moslem faction of the Russian Douma desires to offer this day, the day of the opening of parliament, hearty good wishes to their Osmanli fellow tribesmen and coreligionists. We congratulate the deputies, and through them the whole Ottoman nation, on this happy day. We heartily hope that Turkey, awakened to a new existence, may grow and flourish under the protection of freedom. We feel and realize how great must be her joy on this day, and it finds an echo in our hearts.”—Tewfiklet, President of the Mohammedan Faction.

From India and from Java and from Sumatra like messages of congratulation have been received. All of these breathe words of joy and enthusiasm over the successes of their brethren in the Turkish empire.

In other words, this Pan-islamic sentiment, this determination of the followers of the Arabian “prophet” to come together and make themselves a dominant factor in the world's affairs, is traveling everywhere with an almost incredible celerity and tremendous power. It must be taken into account, for in the near future it will have to be reckoned with. It is a part of the very quintessence of “the Eastern question.” It is one of the signs that “the Eastern question” is getting acute, and that it will soon be up for settlement.

What now is that which has come to be known to the cabinets and chancelleries of Europe as the Idée Ottomane, i. e., the Ottoman idea? What are the visions, the ideals, of the Young Turks? What do they aim at, as far as the larger matters of government, and the relation of Turkey to the great powers, are concerned?

First and foremost it must be understood that the members of the Young Turk party are most intensely patriotic. Above all else, they are Nationalists. One of the great cries with which they have rallied the people to their support has been, “Reform from within; hands off from without.” Stated in another way, they are endeavoring to marshal the entire Turkish population beneath their banner, over the issue that the Turkish empire shall be “one and indivisible.” Everywhere they have raised the campaign cry, “One flag; one people.” “The foreign situation, and the temper of a large number of the Turks themselves, alike make it certain that the Ottoman constitution can not be again destroyed without destroying the Ottoman empire as it exists.”—Editorial in the Fortnightly Review; London, January, 1909.

Can the ideal of the Young Turks of a great and powerful united Turkey be realized and made even semipermanent? The internal difficulties which beset a favorable solution of this problem, and which confront the Young Turk statesmen, are enormous. “If the Christian states of Europe can only with the greatest difficulty keep together and govern an ethnically disjointed political body, how can this be accomplished in a state where, besides the ethnical differences, the poison of religious antagonism frustrates all attempts at agreement?” The warring and the jarring, the mutual antipathies of the races in the Turkish empire, are not at bottom chargeable to the form and maladministration of its late government. On the other hand, they are directly traceable to certain permanent and fundamental factors.

Briefly stated, these factors are as follows: There was a day when the world was the domain of the Arab, and when the Turks held dominion over Europe. Not without cause have the great Mohammedan empires of the past declined and decayed. For while the Mohammedans have known how to conquer, they have never known how to govern. They have proved themselves strangers to the art of preserving, organizing, civilizing, and nationalizing the peoples over whom they were victorious in arms. “In Asia, Africa, and Europe the ruling Mohammedans have remained strangers among strangers in a conquered land.” The cause of this peculiar state of affairs lies in the teachings of the Koran. A great authority has summed up the case as follows:—

“The Koran is at the same time a gospel of conquest and of peace; it commands war, yet it enjoins civic and religious toleration. The followers of the prophet are to propagate his gospel with the sword, and to slay those who resist them, but to spare the vanquished and to respect their religion. Following the prophet's precepts, the Mohammedans neither proselytize by means of the church, nor nationalize by means of the school, as do the Christian nations. Hence the nations which were conquered by Mohammedans could preserve their language, religion, and national individuality; and the consequence of this short-sighted policy of toleration and noninterference on the part of the conquerors has been fatal to Mohammedan rule. Owing to this fundamental mistake, Mohammedanism has created everywhere, not nationally organized and homogeneous states, but merely strong military settlements among alien nations, which were allowed to remain alien nations. Although these nations have revolted against Mohammedan rule whenever opportunity offered, the followers of the prophet have not altered their policy in the course of thirteen centuries, for to them the Koran is law. The foregoing makes it clear that the difficulties of the Turkish empire, as those of the ancient Arab empires, have sprung from the fundamental principles, of Mohammedan statecraft and policy which were laid down by the prophet, and the consequences of that policy may clearly be seen in the Turkish empire. European Turkey has about six million inhabitants, of whom only about one third are Turks, and in Constantinople itself the Turks are in a minority. Turkey in Asia and Africa has about nineteen million inhabitants. Of these three millions or four millions are Christians and Jews; and several millions of the Mohammedan inhabitants, such as Arabs and Kurds, are constantly in a state of revolt or of war with their Turkish masters. Turkey is a state, but not a nation. The Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Albanians, Arabs, etc., in the Ottoman empire have no affection for the Turks. They are Turkish citizens only by compulsion, and although they have been inhabitants of Turkey during many centuries, they do not consider themselves citizens of Turkey, but members of a conquered race, and they sigh for their liberty.”—The Fortnightly Review, London, October, 1908; Art., “The Future of Turkey,” by J. Ellis Barker.

In view of all this, the question now arises, Can the Young Turk party maintain, in the midst of such a situation as this, a constitution and a liberal form of government? Can the Turkish statesmen give to these various races and creeds the liberty for which they clamor, and for which the Young Turk party stands? Can the Young Turks do this, and at the same time preserve the Turkish empire?

The task is sufficient to strain the resources of the loftiest public spirit and the most accomplished statesmanship. Few men believe that in the ultimate the Turkish government will be able to weather out the problem. And if by any possible chance Turkey should be able to do so, another, and an even more serious problem will confront her. And if she fails, her failure means the end of her rule in Europe.

Madison, Tenn.