File 756/1917 Pt 2-3 ‘ARAB BULLETIN Nos 66-114’ [‎254r] (516/834)

— 313 —
soon after the Italian occupation, the inhabitants of Tripoli
asked for and obtained, first verbally and then officially, the
re-introduction of Malakite law (Decree by General Caneva,
commanding the Expeditionary Force, dated July 30, 1912).
In the Treaty of Lausanne, this point was not brought up ;
but if the various articles were applied in their entirety, the
Hanafite Kadi would come from Constantinople, and would
nominate his local judges according to the Hanafite school. So,
despite a solemn promise made to the inhabitants, the latter
form of Moslem justice would again be observed.
The Treaty of Lausanne, like that of Kiichuk Kainarje,
founded, as it was, on mistaken premises in complete
contradiction of existing Islamic institutions, was immediately
seen to be unrealisable. Its application would have meant a
continual depreciation of Italian sovereignty. Steps had to be
taken that neither the Kadi should be nominated, nor that he
should appoint the local judges ; on the other hand, in his
absence, the administration of native justice and of the Wakfs
became irregular. The result of this situation was that a series
of difficult questions arose with the Ottoman Government and
with the native population. They were only ended by the
new declaration of war with Turkey, followed by the annulment
of the agreements of Lausanne (Loyal Decree, August 22, 1915).
This bears a striking similarity to the end of the Kiichuk
Kainarje agreements.
It is interesting to note how little attention Turkey paid
to real religious interests in her negotiations with Italy. In
the Treaty of Lausanne no mention is made of the Reis ul-
Ulema, the College of Ulema, Muftis, Imams, or-other persons
having real religious functions devoid of political interests.
According to the Treaty of Lausanne, on the other hand, the
“ religious chiefs ” are the Caliph and the Kadi. It appears
worth while repeating that this error in considering the Caliph
and the Kadi “ religious chiefs occurs only in the unilateral
Italian agreements of Lausanne ; the Turks were careful not to
introduce heresies of this nature in unilateral Turkish or bilateral
agreements. Attention is again drawn in this matter to the
various editions of Article 3 of the Treaty of Kuchiik Kainarje.
Certain newspapers and politicians attempted to justify
the phraseology of the Treaty of Lausanne by declaring that it
conformed with the agreement between Austria-Hungary and
Turkey over the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (F'ebruary
26, 1909). In reality, the only similarity is the right of having
the khutba said for the Sultan “ in his capacity of Caliph.”
This is a right which has survived from the period 1877-
1908 of the Austro-Hungarian administration under Ottoman