ENGLAND AND THE CALIPHATE.
Abd-ul-Hamid's use of his power as Caliph--What the
Moslems think of him--British Mohammedan subjects--The
validity of the Ottoman claims to the Caliphate--The
mistaken policy of British Statesmen in opposing
them--Danger of alienating the Mohammedan world--The
errors of English writers.
THERE can hardly be found in the history of nations a more fortunate
tyrant than the autocrat of Yildiz Kiosk. Besides all the circumstances
I have noted, Abd-ul-Hamid has at his back the authority of the
Caliphate, which he can, when he chooses, ingeniously employ for his
own ends. The devotion of the Mussulmans of Turkey and the respect of
orthodox Mohammedans of other countries for the Caliph are very great,
and becoming greater every day. As a matter of fact, the attachment of
Mohammedans is to the office of the Caliph rather than to his person,
and according to the qualities necessary for the man who holds it, a
true Caliph must be a perfect specimen of humanity. If he cannot fulfil
the prescribed conditions of the Islamic religious law, that law orders
the faithful to depose him, and justifies the election of a proper
Caliph. There are not lacking in the history of Islam instances in
which the Caliph has been deposed solely on these religious grounds. It
is almost impossible for these people to comprehend that the present
Sultan does not possess any of these good qualities, and is therefore
quite unworthy of his office. The Sultan employs subtle methods that
he may pose before the Mohammedans as the true Caliph and the sole
champion of the Islamic cause, and spends immense sums of money for
the same purpose. In reality, however, he should be known as the worst
enemy of Islam, as no Moslem ruler has ever brought by his misdeeds
so much shame upon his faith as he has. Anyone who has observed his
career closely knows that his actions are diametrically opposed to the
principles of the Mussulman law and creed. But it is the hardest thing
in the world to make Moslems understand this. Those in Turkey are just
beginning to understand what he really is, but outside Turkey he is
held in blind veneration by all Moslems. An Englishman, who had great
experience of the East, and who followed the Prince of Wales during
his tour round the Colonies, told me that the further you go away from
Turkey the greater is the influence of the Sultan among the followers
of Islam.
In pursuance of my remarks on the way in which the Sultan makes use of
the influence of the Caliphate for his personal ends, it may perhaps
be of some interest if I make some general remarks on the Caliphate,
and the influence of the Caliph among the Mussulmans of the world. It
must be remembered that Great Britain has under her rule or protection
a very large number of the followers of Islam. Some authorities say
that her Moslem subjects are five times as many as those who belong to
Turkey itself. It follows that this immense Mohammedan population in
Great Britain's Eastern dominions will some day prove of the highest
importance in determining the direction of her policy in the East
There are now symptoms of rivalry between the Sultan of Turkey and
those British authorities whose business it is to maintain their
country's prestige and influence in the Moslem world. It is on account
of this rivalry that some British writers and politicians try to
represent the religious influence of the Sultan as being less than it
is, while others seek to deny the validity of the Ottoman Caliphate.
That the present Sultan is unworthy of the title cannot be questioned;
but the validity of the claim of the occupant of the Turkish throne to
the office, quite apart from his character, is incontestable. Those
who deny this, or seek to depreciate the influence of the Ottoman
Sultanate on orthodox Mohammedans, periodically shower abuse on Turkey,
as was done during the Armenian agitation, perhaps with the view of
creating a breach between the Moslem populations of British territories
and Turkey. And I cannot but think that this policy is having just
the opposite effect. The study of the English language is increasing
steadily but surely among the Mohammedan subjects of Great Britain,
and so they read or hear many of the hostile sentiments published and
uttered in England against the Ottoman Caliphate, and become suspicious
and irritated. In fact, the more this hostility is displayed, the
closer will become the attachment of the Moslem subjects of England
towards the Ottoman Caliphate. Such alienation of feeling, which is at
present latent, will be anything but favourable for England in case
of international complications in some part of the Orient. There are
European Powers who may take advantage of it, and use it against the
interests of the British Government The speech of the Kaiser delivered
at Damascus must still be fresh in the memory of many people. It was
certainly with the object of increasing the influence of his country in
the East that he said that he would stand side by side with the head
of three hundred million Mohammedans. A highly connected Russian once
told me that during Queen Victoria's reign Great Britain waged over
fifty different wars, small and great, and added that most of these
wars were carried on against Mohammedan peoples in different parts of
Asia and Africa, in order to crush their independence and take their
countries. Very likely he used to relate this to other compatriots or
co-religionists of mine whom he met, so that the idea became popular,
and would add to the belief that Great Britain is the worst enemy of
the cause of Islam. "Supposing that the fanaticism of the Mohammedans
under our rule were stirred up by Turkey, what could they do?" a proud
Jingo once asked me, at a time when some persons were urging Lord
Salisbury to send the British fleet over the mountains of Asia Minor to
avenge the Armenian wrongs. "We could put them down," added this Jingo,
with an increased air of proud confidence, "any time and anywhere."
Yes, in the East we know England's might, and we all admire the
Englishman's great tenacity in defence of the interests of his country.
But there are instances in history of small and backward nations having
inflicted irreparable damage on mighty Powers, and Mussulmans will not
always fight--if it should, unfortunately, ever come to fighting--with
spears and mediæval weapons. They will not easily be exterminated
or subjugated; nor is it true that the Mohammedans will ever be won
over by conversion, as the missionaries assert. These millions of
Mohammedans will continue to exist, and some day there will certainly
be a general awakening among them, which will make the adoption of
modern methods and means of war imperative. I do not imagine that it
would be to Turkey's interest to alienate Great Britain by attempting
to stir up her Moslem subjects, and I am sure that when once the
present regime is over, everyone in Turkey will heartily, welcome the
re-establishment of England's prestige. There is, therefore, no sound
reason for the attitude of malignant jealousy towards the Ottoman
Caliphate which some Englishmen have chosen to adopt It seems to me
that past generations of British statesmen must have had sounder
statesmanlike qualities than the present generation, for they used to
benefit their country by the influence of that Caliphate. For instance,
during the earlier periods of the conquest of India, the English
representative in Turkey requested the Porte to use its good offices
in the court of certain Mohammedan rulers of India in favour of his
country.
Leaving the political aspect, I will say something as to the
validity of Turkey's claim to the Caliphate. In discussing this
subject some English writers use such phrases as the "pretensions of
the Ottoman Sultans" to the headship of Moslems. So long as the great
bulk of those who profess that religion recognise that authority, what
value can be attached to the attempts to question it on the part of
prejudiced outsiders? It is argued that the sect of Shiites, or the
unorthodox Moslems, do not recognise the Caliphate in question. But
there are strong indications that they too will, sooner or later,
recognise it for political if not religious reasons, as the danger
threatening the remaining vestige of Islamic independence looms equally
large before orthodox and unorthodox alike. One of the arguments
brought forward against the Ottoman Caliphate is that the Caliph must
be appointed from among the Koreish, the Prophet's own people, and must
be his direct descendant. It is probable that the tradition related
in connection with this argument is one of the many spurious sayings
made up by individuals after the time of Mohammed, as such a just
legislator would not show partiality towards his own family and people
by restricting to them the privilege of being his Caliphs. According to
his doctrine, community of faith is tantamount to community of race,
and he founded a perfect democratic equality between his followers,
whatever their race or colour, and called them all 'ommetee,' that is,
'my nation.' A Caliph, therefore, need not necessarily be a descendant
of the Prophet Besides, he left no male issue; and according to the
Moslem law, female issue has not the right of succession, the Caliph
being a temporal and not a spiritual head.
Another strong argument is the length of time for which the Ottoman
sovereigns have held the title of Caliph. This title was first assumed
by the Ottomans during the conquest of Egypt by Sultan Selim I. in
1517 A.D., when the keys of the sacred places of Mecca and Medina were
handed over to him at Cairo by a deputation which came from Hijaz
expressly to accept him as Caliph. From that moment up till now the
Ottoman sovereigns have uninterruptedly held the title, and have been
the guardians of the standard of Mohammed. The provinces of Mecca and
Medina have ever since that time formed an integral part of the Ottoman
empire. A Caliph must be an independent ruler, and must in particular
be ruler over those holy places. It would certainly never do if an
Arab were appointed as the spiritual head of Islam by a Power of alien
faith. Such mischievous suggestions are merely an expression of the
political hostility which is often shown by some individuals in England
to the Turkish Caliphate. An ultra-patriotic evening paper once said
that there could not be a better Caliph than the 'British Raj.' To make
the Mussulmans recognise the 'British Raj.' as the supreme religious
head of their community is as impossible and ridiculous as to attempt
to convert this country to Islam. If Englishmen are really patriotic
in guarding and promoting the interests and prestige of their country
in the Islamic world, they should not attack the Ottoman Caliphate,
but make good use of its influence. Such a suggestion as I have quoted
would not appear to the Moslem mind to be a friend's advice, as the
general tendency among the Mohammedans is to strengthen the position
of the existing Caliphate. This tendency is becoming so evident that
some Continental journals have already believed it to be the result
of Pan-Islamic organisation, though in reality there is no such
organisation.