Only last year the Arabic paper, Es-Zahir, published in Egypt, said: “Has the time not come yet when uniting the suppressed wailings of India with our own groans and sighs in Egypt, we should say to each other, Come, let us be one, following the divine words, ‘Victory belongs to the united forces’? Certainly the time has come when we, India and Egypt, should cut and tear asunder the ties of the yoke imposed on us by the English.” On the other hand, Mohammed Husain, the editor of a paper at Lahore, wrote a treatise on Jihad (1893), stating: “The present treatise on the question of Jihad has been compiled for two reasons. My first object is that the Mohammedans, ignorant of the texts bearing on Jihad and the conditions of Islam, may become acquainted with them, and that they may not labor under the misapprehension that it is their religious duty to wage war against another people solely because that people is opposed to Islam. Thus they, by ascertaining the fixed conditions and texts, may be saved forever from rebellion, and may not sacrifice their lives and property fruitlessly nor unjustly shed the blood of others. My second object is that non-Mohammedans and the government under whose protection the Mohammedans live, may not suspect Mohammedans of thinking that it is lawful for us to fight against non-Mohammedans, or that it is our duty to interfere with the life and property of others, or that we are bound to convert others forcibly to Mohammedanism, or to spread Islam by means of the sword.”

So the question of “religion and the sword” is still an open one among Moslems. It must needs be so long as they obey the Koran and tradition, for Mohammed said, “He who dies and has not fought for the religion of Islam, nor has even said in his heart, ‘Would to God I were a champion that could die in the road of God,’ is even as a hypocrite.” And again, still more forcibly, “The fire of hell shall not touch the legs of him who is covered with the dust of battle in the road of God.” In spite of cruelty, bloodshed, dissension and deceit, the story of the Moslem conquest with the sword of Jihad is full of heroism and inspiration.

—S. M. Zwemer, F. R. G. S. in “Islam.”

[Pg 85]

Selim III, sultan of Turkey from 1789-1807, more formally and openly displayed the spirit and purpose of reform than had any of his predecessors. He had been carefully educated, and conceived the bold design of becoming the regenerator of the empire. He erected a printing-press at Scutari, welcomed intelligent foreigners, employed Christian workmen, and, among many other things, changed the system of taxation. He also called in European generals to train his army, and sought advice from the European residents of his capital. In the meantime, the invasion of Egypt by Napoleon had stirred up the passions of the populace of Constantinople, and the sultan with his unpopular reform measures tottered upon his throne. Russians marched into the Danubian provinces, while a British fleet passed the Dardanelles and anchored at the mouth of the Bosporus. The Janissaries mutinied in 1807 and Selim’s rule ceased. These internal imbroglios had attracted the attention of the world to Constantinople and Egypt, if not to all Turkey.

After the brief reign of Mustipha IV, Mahmud II ascended the throne in 1808. He possessed extraordinary energy and force, and warmly espoused the reform measures of Selim. Resisting Russia’s demand that all Greeks in Turkey should be placed under the immediate protection of Russia, he was soon at war with that country. Napoleon prevented the occupancy of Constantinople by the Russians, but most of the Danube province was lost. A Hellenic revolution was later fermented which broke into open [Pg 86] conflict early in the beginning of mission work in Turkey.

Turkey as a government and as a factor in the relations of Russia to Europe was thus brought to the attention of the West. At the same time there was a revival of interest in the Jews, both in Europe and in the United States. There was a restudying of history and prophecy with new interpretations, which led to the formation of societies to circulate among them the New Testament and to preach to them the gospel of Christ. Naturally, Palestine and Syria came first of all to be recognized as a land that had peculiar claims upon Christians. There was a wide-spread belief that the Jews were about to return to their ancestral home, and that such return would be limited only by the obstructions put in their way by the Ottoman government. Levi Parsons, the first American missionary to Palestine, said, in 1819, just before sailing, “Destroy the Ottoman empire and nothing but a miracle will prevent the Jews’ immediate return from the four winds of heaven.” It was natural that, in their judgment, missionaries ought to be there to receive them when the Ottoman empire, then apparently in its death struggle, tottered to its fall.

Moreover, the Turkish empire embraced the lands of the Bible. There was in the minds and hearts of American Christians not a little of the spirit of the crusaders of the middle ages. Why should the soil trodden by the feet of the prophets and apostles, yes, even by the Lord himself, remain a stranger to the voice of the preacher of righteousness and untouched by the feet of the modern apostle? The instructions given to the first missionaries to Turkey dwelt upon this impressive and moving fact, as did the early letters of the [Pg 87] missionaries. Unlike the crusaders, these aimed at a purely spiritual conquest, but it included the Christian subjection of all races and peoples.

As a part of this same impulse may be placed the interest in the historic Greek and Syrian Churches. Students of Church history were profoundly moved as they learned of the decadence of vital Christianity in these Churches, and they were thrilled with the desire to inaugurate among them a revival that should restore them to their former prominence and power. The purpose to reach Mohammedans does not appear prominent in the earlier documents of this pe............