Page images


use of intoxicating drink was at least nominally forbidden. The interdiction is found in the fifth chapter of the Koran, and runs as follows:-"O true believers, surely wine, and lots, and images, and divining arrows, are an abomination of the work of Satan; therefore avoid them that ye may prosper. Satan seeketh to sow dissension and hatred amongst you by means of wine and lots, and to divert you from remembering God and from prayer; will ye not therefore abstain from them?" 1 But the same sacred volume of the Mohammedans also contains at least one if not more phrases which would seem to justify as legitimate the use of intoxicating drinks in moderation. In the sixteenth chapter, amongst God's gifts we find, " And of the fruits of palm trees and of grapes ye obtain an inebriating liquor, and also good nourishment."2 Notwithstanding the argumentative aspect of the question, however, Mussulmans themselves regard wine and other intoxicating liquors as unlawful, and a very large proportion of the faith, whereever they are found, really abstain from their use. That the abstinence is, however, far from universal, we find not only in considering the habits of those who reside in Persia, but also in Turks, Arabians, and Egyptians. That drunkenness was not suppressed in Persia is evident from the various stories narrated to

1 Sale's Koran, p. 84. F. Warne & Co. "Lots, and images, and divining arrows" are explained to mean "all inebriating liquors and games of chance." See also sec. v. and chap. ii. p. 23, where it is said that "in lots and wine there is great sin."

2 Sale's Koran, p. 199.

3 Ibid., pp. 95, 96. Also the present chapter and the chapter on the Egyptians; also Morewood, p. 721, table, from which it will be seen that there were imported into Turkey between the years 1827 and 1834 inclusive, 229,460 gallons of spirits, besides wines, beer, and ale, and that 11,272 gallons of wine were exported from Turkey during the same period.

and by travellers, the debauchery of successive rulers, and the known consumption of large quantities of wine there in modern times. Morewood describes with great minuteness the Persian mode of making wine from the grape, and a kind of brandy which has long been distilled from the lees and weaker kinds of wine. Several descriptions of wine are named by him, of which Shiraz is the most highly esteemed; and quoting Tavernier, a traveller in Persia, he says that in his time 4125 tuns. of that wine alone were made annually. Later writers confirm these statements, and Klemm, one of the ablest German sociologists, says that in Tavernier's time a drink called, "bengueh," prepared from herbs and fortified with hempseeds, was largely drunk. This liquor is evidently the "banga" of the Zoroastrians; and Klemm states that in the royal library at Dresden there is a valuable illuminated Persian MS. relating to its preparation and use. He also says that in the present. day, in some houses in Persia, a kind of brandy called "kokemaar" is given to guests, and that it is prepared from the kernels of fruits, and is intoxicating in the highest degree.

Fraser says of the Mohammedans of Persia that in private they often solace themselves with copious libations from the wine-cup; that "in truth many of the Persians are great topers in spite of the prohibition of their Prophet; and when they betake themselves to this kind of pastime, they seldom stop short of absolute intoxication. . . . They see no disgrace in drunkenness, and envy Christians the supposed privilege of getting

1 Morewood, pp. 85-89.

Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft, by Dr. G. Klemm, vol. ii. pp. 338, 339. Leipzig: Romberg.



tipsy when they choose, without check or reproach." 1 A still more recent traveller and author has published a graphic account of life in Persia which fully confirms. these statements. Arthur Arnold says, "I have never seen people drink ardent spirits in such large quantities as some Mohammedans of station whom I met in travel. A Moslem prince lately asked me why I drank wine. It does not make you drunk. I take arrack,' he added. English doctors in the East are frequently summoned to cases of delirium tremens. . . . The rich Moslem drinks privately, the non-Mussulman publicly. The Moslem drinks at night, the non-Mussulman at all times." 2 Perhaps a majority of Mohammedans, he says, would refuse to drink intoxicating liquors, but taking a large body of servants, very few will regard the Koran as our Good Templars. Amongst the wandering tribes he found the prohibition quite unheeded, and the remarks which he makes concerning their customs, without any special intention to treat of their drinking habits, afford the best evidence of their intemperance. In one place,3 describing a native dinner-party, he says, "A servant walked round the room carrying a large bottle of arrack in one hand and wine in the other. The Khan took half a tumbler of the fiery spirit, and drank it off without winking; most of the guests preferred arrack." Elsewhere he says, "The arrack and wine circulated." He describes amongst the towns which he visited one he calls a temperance city.. "In Koom we found it impossible to refill our empty wine bottles.

1 Fraser's Persia, p. 332. Oliver & Boyd.

Through Persia by Caravan, by Arthur Arnold, vol. ii. p. 322. Tinsley. See also Klemm's Culturwissenschaft, p. 323: "Man geniesst den Wein vornehmlich gern des Abends," he says of all Moslems. 3 Ibid., vol. ii. p. 20. 4 Ibid., vol. i. p. 283.

Something stronger than the Maine Liquor Law prevails in this sacred city, and in that of Meshed, where the brother of Fatima is buried. Intoxicating liquors appear absolutely unattainable, and intoxication is accomplished by those who desire that condition by bhang or opium."

Mr. Arnold is one of those who consider that the Koran does not absolutely prohibit the use of stimulants, but only excess. He, however, seems to acknowledge that practically they are forbidden to Mussulmans. The reflection which naturally occurs to one who reads this account of the ancient and modern Persians, the Zoroastrians of old, and the modern Mohammedans who succeeded them, is that the mere prohibition of the use of intoxicating drinks, even if it has the sanction of religion, is not of itself sufficient to mould a people into sobriety. Where there is wealth without intelligence and education, and the passions are strong, as amongst the higher classes in the East, and in the West too, for that matter, "not even the sages," as the old Chinese writer has it, "will prevent men from indulging in strong drink." Hence the Mohammedans in Persia and elsewhere, although their religion strictly forbids its use, and although, as Mr. Arnold says, the majority may even be abstainers, cannot safely be set down as a race confirmed in habits of temperance. But, strictly speaking, we should not here have treated of the Mohammedans, who are not the descendants of the ancient Zoroastrians, and we must close this chapter with a brief reference to the existing community which lays

claim to that title-the Parsees of India. Their headquarters are notably in Bombay, and they are a small, enlightened, and comparatively wealthy community,



comprising in all not over 105,500 souls, or, according to their historian and champion, Dosabhoy Framjee, somewhat over 110,000. The last-named writer has a high opinion of the sobriety of his co-religionists, and says that although "wines are then (at supper) consumed in large quantities by those who can afford them, it is a fact creditable to the Parsees generally that they drink no intoxicating liquors during the day." But Mr. Arnold has told us of the Mohammedans that they, too, drink at night only, and we know a few Englishmen who do the same, and yet cannot be called sober; so that is no sure guide. We are, however, quite prepared to receive the author's statement in perfect good faith, for it is notorious that they are a community standing in very high moral repute, in which they resemble the modern Jews, Quakers, and Unitarians. This is attributable to their small numbers, comparative isolation, and to the almost entire absence of pauperism in their body. Mr. Framjee, however, gives us some statistics of which he does not appear to have noticed the significance. He took the trouble to analyse the census of Bombay shortly before 1858, and he gives us an account of the various occupations followed by his co-religionists. Amongst them he names the following, it being understood that the numbers include the wives and families of the workers :

417 Bakers and confectioners.

5,468 Domestic servants.

61,298 Bankers, brokers, and merchants.

5,656 Priests.

1 Max Müller's Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i. p. 161.

2 The Parsees, by Dosabhoy Framjee. Smith, Elder, & Co.

« PreviousContinue »