File 756/1917 Pt 2-3 ‘ARAB BULLETIN Nos 66-114’ [‎354v] (717/834)

— 116
of the Shaib Shaba south westward to Tarabah. This is un
doubtedly the recognized boundary between the Buqum and
Sebei tribes, and comes within ten miles (W.) of Khurma.
This is my opinion, whilst Ibn Saud and others would carry the
boundary back fifty miles westward to Wadi A seasonal or intermittent watercourse, or the valley in which it flows. Aqiq.
“ Ibn Saud claims Khurma as being within his jurisdiction,
not only on religious and territorial but also on historical,
administrative and tribal grounds. He asserts that the whole
population of Khurma are Wahabis and, as such, have religious
claim on the protection of the people of Nejd and Ibn Saud.
“ I believe that Turkish documentary evidence would
establish the boundary sixty miles west of Khurma to Wadi A seasonal or intermittent watercourse, or the valley in which it flows.
Aqiq. Shaib Shaba is the only possible natural boundary.
The Sebei tribe is essentially a Kejd tribe.
Ibn Saud is prepared to renounce his claim to Khurma
if the Sebei express a preference for Sherifian rule.”
Mr. Philby suggests that the Sherifial appointment of
Khalid was superogatory and that when his predecessor died,
Khahd was merely recorded in the Turkish registers as the
rightful recipient of the subsidy for guarding the pilgrim route.
Accusations of aggression, religious propaganda and inter
ference m tribal matters from each side against the other form
the biggest part of the matter in our files. That Ibn Saud’s
missionaries have been active for some years is quite certain,
but Beduin information is always very unreliable, and it is
a hopeless task to try to ascertain which side in each raid
was the actual aggressor or to decide accurately whether
a particular raid by the partisans of one disputant was not
merely a counter-raid made in return for a previous raid by
the opposite side. In any case, the responsibility for the various
acts o aggression that have occurred is a question of secondary
importance and does not affect the major dispute.
Conclusion.
It will be observed that the whole question almost certainly
rests largely on the 1910 treaty made between Ibn Saud and
, mg . lt 18 ver -^ suggestive that King Husein refused
° thls tr eaty when asked to do so by Colonel Wilson
and that Emir Abdullah also failed to fulfil a promise he made
to obtain a copy of the document.
treaty terms ’ as g iven b 7 the
nouf of kh ’ FeiSa1, d ° n0t agree ’ and be tliat
none of them is the correct or complete one.
corro.nLo d ’ 0n .^ he ^ other ban d, states that his treaty and
correspondence with the King form proofs of his claim; no