Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

HISTORY AND RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OF THE DRUSES.

THE Druses, or as they call themselves the Unitarians [Mowahhidûn], of Mount Libanus, have, for several hundred years, been the subject of much curious speculation among European travellers and antiquaries. The attention of the Christian world was first attracted to their character and history, towards the close of the fifteenth century, when one of their hereditary chiefs took refuge in Italy from the storms of his own country. An opinion was soon broached by some fanciful theorist, and propagated throughout Europe, that the Druses were the remnant of the Christian colonies established in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades; a hypothesis countenanced, and perhaps suggested, by the coincidence of the name with that of Dreux in France, and the traditionary story of a Count de Dreux who had actually made a settlement not far from Mount Libanus. There was something romantic in this supposititious pedigree which awakened the sympathies and amused the fancy of all Christendom, an effect greatly heightened by the conduct of the Syrian refugee, who, with the singular complaisance peculiar to his nation, professed a strong attachment to the Christian faith, and a firm belief in his own European extraction. And here it may be observed, that much of the misconception and erroneous theory which have prevailed in relation to this people, has arisen from the strange trait in their character and manners just alluded to, a remarkable facility in conforming externally to the rites and opinions of those with whom they come in contact. Whether this policy has been adopted from motives essentially connected with their religious system as requiring

strict secrecy in relation to their creed and ritual, or whether it has been suggested altogether by a dread of the persecuting spirit which characterizes all orthodox Mohammedans, and especially the Turks, is a doubtful and disputed question. It is a fact, however, that they do not hesitate in practice to humour, as it were, the prejudices of their neighbours. An intelligent traveller informs us, that the mosque at Deir-el-Kamr, though sedulously garnished and well filled, whenever visited by a Turkish officer, is for the most part totally deserted, the minaret being only used to proclaim lost cattle and announce the current value of provisions.* We learn from the same authority, that the hereditary chiefs are circumcised and carefully instructed in the forms of prayer prescribed by the moslem ritual, while on the other hand, they do not scruple to drink wine and eat pork, very often go to church when one is within reach, and sometimes by way of a compliment to a Maronite monk or bishop, suffer their children to be publicly baptized. This compliance with the forms of Christianity, it must be owned, seems to be suggested less by a dread of persecution than a wish to elude investigation, and may indeed be regarded as a circumstance unparalleled in the history of other sects. In view of such an anomalous spirit of toleration and conformity, we can scarcely wonder at the discrepancy which appears in the various opinions that have been prevalent in relation to this people, both in Europe and the East. By some they have been classed as a society of Mohammedan schismatics, by others as a spurious variety of Christians, while many have regarded them as nothing else than a race of disguised idolaters. To the same cause we may perhaps ascribe the exaggerated statements which their own immediate neighbors have in past times propagated with respect to their moral character as a community, and the

* Niebuhr's Voyage. Vol. II. p. 353. Amst. 1780.

impure rites performed at their religious celebrations. There can be no doubt, it is true, that the moral principles established in their system, and the moral practice thence arising, are by no means unexceptionable. But the inquiries of enlightened travellers have clearly proved from the testimony of unbiassed Mohammedans and Christians, that the dark shade of the descriptions often given of their moral character, is attributable, in a good degree at least, to the malignity of hatred or the credulity of ignorance.* That their real sentiments and character are as little known to the other oriental sects, as to the inhabitants of Europe, may be gathered from the fact, that the native Christians of Aleppo, on observing the private and mysterious meetings of the English masonic lodge established there, immediately concluded that the Druses were no less than an order of Free Masons. It is, therefore, not at all surprizing, that the history and character of this peculiar race, though so long the subject of inquisitive research, have been involved in such impenetrable mystery, and are even now so little understood. Mere obstinate refusal to disclose their secret would probably have failed of accomplishing the end, particularly if combined with an austere and fastidious separation from every other sect. But this singular practice of assuming any garb and professing any creed which convenience or interest recommends, without, however, giving up their own distinctive system of belief, has served as an impervious veil for the concealment of their mysteries. We shall endeavor to assign some reasons for this characteristic anomaly, after a brief review of the authenticated facts which constitute the history of the Druses so far as it is known. The authentic information on this subject, though it amounts to very little, is scattered through a number of miscel

* See the travels of Niebuhr, Volney, and Burckhardt, in Syria and the Holy Land.

+ Niebuhr. Vol. II. p. 356.

laneous books of travels, geography, and history. Nothing more will be here attempted than a connected exhibition of these facts, with some additional illustration derived from Mohammedan authorities.

It is a remarkable circumstance, though one which can scarcely be disputed or denied, that almost all the heterogeneous and conflicting heresies, which have mangled the religious system of Mohammed, since the time of its foundation, may be traced to their primary source, in political divisions and commotions. As might have been expected from the character of the system itself, a multitude of fanatical separatists and metaphysical neologists arose, even before the death of the false prophet. But the seeds of total and radical disunion were first sown in the violent dissensions which arose on the choice of the first Khalif or successor of Mohammed. The claims of Ali, as the first who had espoused the new religion, and as a kinsman and confidential friend of the impostor, were so obvious and imposing, that the preference given to another could not fail to create a powerful and zealous party in his favor. His death and the abdication of his son, instead of allaying this violence of feeling, served only to enlarge the breach, so that the whole series of Khalifs posterior to Ali had to encounter a perpetual opposition on the part of these malcontents, more or less formidable in proportion to their strength and the weakness of the government. When the family of Abbas obtained the supreme power, the number and influence of the followers of Ali were felt to be so great, that an attempt was made to deduce the pedigree of Al Abbas from one of Ali's sons. This genealogy, however, was so obviously strained, that the pretension was abandoned by the reigning family; but the tacit acknowledgment which had been given of the prior right of the Alides fixed forever the division of the two great parties of Shiahs and Sonnis, the former maintaining the divine right of Ali, and the latter the legitimacy

of the first three Khalifs. This, however, by no means continued the only matter in difference between them. A marked diversity of character was soon exhibited and con stantly increased; and though each of these great sects was, in process of time, subdivided by a multitude of petty schisms, the same generic character pervaded all. Nor is the state of things, in this respect, materially different at the present time. The Shiahs, even now, have a manifest leaning towards wild speculation and fanatical enthusiasm, and the Sonnis towards the opposite extreme of blind or hypocritical formality. This fact admits of an easy historical solution. The sect of the Shiahs, though its date is for the most part referred to a later period, had its origin, no doubt, in the party heats with which Islam was inflamed on the death of the false prophet. The zeal of the partisans of Ali, originally warm, and fomented by the successive elevation of three pretenders to the regal and pontifical authority, gave a character of violent extravagance to the sect which perpetuated their sentiments and feelings, and this characteristic spirit soon infected their doctrinal opinions. As the fundamental principle upon which they built, was the priority of Ali and his offspring to all other families and individuals, their great object naturally was the exaltation of his merits and claims to pre-eminence of rank. In the prosecution of this end, they were not contented with asserting the advantage which his peculiar relations to the Prophet gave him over his competitors. They soon began to call in the aid of the marvellous and preternatural-ascribing to Ali a super-human nature, and ending at last in a direct apotheosis. This last doctrine, it is true, has never been espoused in all its length and breadth by the great body of the Shiahs, but it has always prevailed extensively among the members of that sect, and is indeed nothing more than their avowed opinion carried out to all its consequences. It is easy to imagine the effects of such a spirit, when once it

[ocr errors]

2

« PredošláPokračovať »