In Accusing The Natives Of A Deliberate Crime In The Commission Of
Perjury, We Do Not Sufficiently Reflect Upon The Difference Of The
Religious Principles Which Actuate Christians, And The Heinous Nature
In Their Eyes Of The Sin Of Calling Upon A God Of Purity To Witness
Their Falsehoods.
If we could administer an oath to a native, the
profanation of which would fill him with equal horror, we should find
that he would speak the truth.
A case in point occurred lately at
Aden. There are a class of Mohammedans who are great knaves, many
being addicted to cheating and theft: the evidence of these men cannot
be depended upon, since for the value of the most trifling sum they
would swear to any thing. Nevertheless, although they do not hesitate
to call upon God and the Prophet to witness the most flagrant
untruths, they will not support a falsehood if put to a certain test.
When required to swear by a favourite wife, they refuse to perjure
themselves by a pledge which they esteem sacred, and will either
shrink altogether from the ordeal or state the real fact.
The following occurrence is vouched for by an eye-witness: "A Somali
had a dispute with a Banian as to the number of komasies he had paid
for a certain article, swearing by God and the Prophet that he had
paid the price demanded of him for the article in question; but no
sooner was he called upon to substantiate his assertions by swearing
by his favourite wife, than he threw down the article contended for,
and took to his heels with all speed, in order to avoid the much
dreaded oath." It will appear, therefore, that there is scarcely any
class of persons in India so utterly destitute of principle, as to be
incapable of understanding the obligation of an oath, or the necessity
of speaking truth when solemnly pledged to do so, the difficulty being
to discover the asseveration which they consider binding.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 244 of 293
Words from 67115 to 67449
of 80716
