Letter from Sir Frederic Aarthur Hirtzel, India Office, to the Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office, dated 13 Sep 1922 [‎4r] (7/10)

7
authority as the head of the Muslim Church has continued throughout the period of
Muslim history. It is obvious that so far as the outlying independent Muslim
kingdoms were concerned, the separation between (he territorial sovereignty and
religious authority of the Caliph quel those territories took place from the date when the
rulers of these outlying tracts ceased to be viceroys of the Caliph. Moreover, this
brief survey of history regarding the Khilafat makes it clear that during some three
centuries there was an absolute separation between the religious authority of the
Caliph and territorial sovereignty, for during that period the Caliph ceased to be the
ruler of any part of the Muslim world. In other words, with the disintegration of the
Muslim Empire, w hile the territorial sovereignty of the Caliph continued to shrink
in proportion to the territories directly under his sway, his spiritual authority or
suzerainty as the Caliph of Islam continued to be recognised all over the Muslim
world, it is for this reason that tlie Khutba has always been read in the name of the
Caliph in all mosques in all countries, no matter who may be their territorial
sovereign. Sultan Caliph's territorial authority, therefore, may be cut down as a
result of the proposed treaty in respect of the liberated Arab territories; but this
cannot affect his spiritual authority as the Caliph of Islam over these tracts. It is for
this very reason that even when King Husain declared the independence of the
Hedjaz from the Turkish rule and was actually at war with the Turks, Khutha used
to be read as before, in the name of the Sultan Caliph even in his (llusain's) own
mosque at Mecca.
In the new formula suggested by the Secretary of State, the underlying idea is
assignment to Caliph by consensus of opinion in the Muslim world of certain
privileges. This again is, I venture to think, based on a misapprehension. The
authority of Sir Abdur Rahim, cited towards the end of the telegram in support of
this position, has no application whatever to this case. In the passage in question,
that learned author, in speaking of cases where there is no express rule in the Muslim
Code or precedent in Muslim history governing a particular case which may arise for
decision ; or, to quote his own words, where the Muolim community are " left to their
own resources" and are "called upon to solve " an important problem. As a case in
point, he cites the election of Abu Bakr as the iirst Caliph. As I have already
observed, the Holy Prophet had himself died sonless and had not nominated his
successor, and, in consequence, solution of the problem of succession to him was
rightly had by application of the principle of " Ijma " or consensus of opinion, be it
noted in that case, not of the whole Muslim world, but of " the Companions of the
Prophet." In the present case no such contingency has arisen or can arise, requiring
a decision by consensus oi; opinion. For centuries past the Khilafat has descended
to the Sultan of Turkey in accordance with the rule of succession, and the present
Sultan became the lawful Caliph of Islam on his acccession to the throne. Neither
the war nor the fact that portions of the pre-war Turkish Empire have now become
territorially independent can all'ect the continued maintenance of his spirtual authority
as the Caliph of Islam. That remains intact, and can come to an end only with his
death or abdication and the succession of another to him as Sultan Caliph (see Sir
Abdur Kahim's work, page 136, section II., " Customs and Usages , ■). Moreover, the
principle of "Ijma ' or consensus of opinion may, in certain cases, be applicable to
the election of a new Caliph. But it ea-n -have nothing whatever to do with the
exercise by the Caliph of his authority as the Religious Head or Suzerain of Islam
when once he has become the Caliph whether by succession or election or otherwise.
To the exercise of that authority and of the privileges attached to his position as the
Viceregent of the Prophet, he is entitled so long as he retains his position as Caliph.
Md. Siiafi , Barrister-at-Law,
13th May 1922. Member for Education and Health.
ENCLOSURE No. 8 :— Telegram from Secretary of State to Viceroy, 25t1i May 19^2.
Your telegram dated the 9th May, 571 S. As regards immediate question of
amendment of Treaty of Sevres, I understand that you agree that there is no question
of including in treaty any positive provision for maintenance of Sultan's religious
suzerainty and for any other details in connection with Caliphate. It is necessary to
know what maintenance of religious suzerainty is intended to mean in practice, but
question what action, if any, can be taken (consistently with principle that Khilafat
question is one for Moslems alone) to bring about detailed arrangements at Holy
Places indicated in your telegrams dated the 22nd April and 9th May will remain for
further consideration apart from terms of treaty. Immediate question is how to give
5708 C