ملاحظات كتبها توماس ووكر أرنولد، بتاريخ ١ مايو ١٩٢٢، و١ يوليو ١٩٢٢ وأغسطس ١٩٢٢ [و‎‎١] (٤/١)

P 373
Con Jidential.
Note by Sir T. W. Arnold, dated 1st May 1922, on Government
of India's telegram of 22nd April.
(Extract of letter to Sir A. Ilirtzel.)
Of the five alternative clauses you give in your letter, (v) suggests a way
(v) "Nothing in this treaty affects in any way 011 ^ ^ difficulty, but there are Certain
the exercise of any purely religious functions in advantages 111 changing the wording, as
accordance with the tenets of the Moslem religion. ' follows : —
"Nothing in this treaty shall be held to interfere with the privileges assigned
to the Caliph by the consensus of opinion in the Moslem world."
This statement is (1) in harmony with the declared policy of the British Govern
ment that the Caliphate is a matter for the Moslems to settle, and that it will not
interfere, but Avill leave the Moslems free to come to any agreement among them
selves in regard to this institution. (2) It can be interpreted as leaving to the
Caliph suzerainty over the Holy Places (provided, of course, that the Moslems
generally agree to give it to him), but it avoids the objection of recognising the
Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and admits of the election of any other Moslem potentate
as Caliph; but so long as the whole bod}' of Moslems agree to recognise the Sultan
oL 'Turkey as Caliph (as a matter of historical fact, the}* never have so recognised
him in the past, and probably never will in the future), they can allow him any
privileges they like as head oi' their faith. (''>) It embodies a weU-recognised
principle of Moslem law, "consensus of opinion "' (IjnuV), which is the theoretical
basis in Moslem law for the election of a Caliph ; you will find Abdur Rahim's
"Principles of Muhammadan Jurisprudence' (Madras, London, 1911) illuminative
on the matter; please see page 384 (lines 9, 10), and page 134 (line JO), and
Index, page 423 (s. v. IjimV). By theory, the ollice of Caliph is still elective,
even in Turkey, though almost every Ottoman Sultan has, in practice, nominated
his successor; but the depositions of Sclim III, (1808), Abd ul-Aziz (1876), and
Abd ul-Uamid (1909) by a fatwa of the Shaik ul-lslam, are clear and recent
vindications of the right of election. But apart from such considerations, the
proposed clause ought to satisfy the demands of the Indian Moslems, for if the
Caliph has " spiritual ' powers, 0 then the Moslems are free to give them to him,
provided that they have a consensus of opinion (Ijma'), and Tjma' is a fundamental
principle of their own religious law. If the Indian Moslems object to the proposed
clause, they must throw over their religious law. (4) On the other hand, the
political freedom ol" the Arab States may be safeguarded by keeping the Foreign
Ofhce's article (i). Bui if my proposed
(i) • Turkey hereby renounces in tavour oi the clause be inserted, could not (i) be
independent Arab rulers concerned all rights ami i i <( rni i • u n *
titles which she couhl claim on any ground " " 01 c ed J 1,6 J wkish Government
hereby renounces , cvc. Since
the Turkish Constitution, it is surely possible to speak of the Government of Turkey,
and thus avoid using Turkey for the Sultan of Turkey (whom the Indian Moslems
identify with the Caliph), and the objectionable insertion of the word "temporal"
(as proposed by the Government of India) becomes unnecessary, as the Government
of India's purpose is achieved by the new clause I have proposed.
Note by Sir T. W. Arnold, dated 1st July 1922.
Of the formulae proposed by Mr. Wakely. the first, viz., "Xothing in tins treaty
purports to affect, or shall be held to affect, any spiritual privileges assigned to the
Caliph by the tenets of the Moslem religion," seems to meet the objections of the
Government of India, and, of the two, to be less likely to give rise to difficulties in
the future.
There are certain objections to the alternative phrase, "any authority in the
sphere of religion assigned to the Caliph by the tenets of the Moslem faith " :—
(i) This phrase implies that there is the same distinction between the religious
and the temporal, in the Moslem theory of the Caliphate, as in Christendom. But in
Moslem theory the Caliph is at one and the same time the head of the Church and
the head of the State ; when he declares Jihad against Christians and other
unbelievers, or when he appoints qadis (judges), he is exercising both his religious
and his temporal authority. Obedience to him as head of the State is a civic duty
and at the same time a religious duty, and when he declares Jihad, every adult male
Moslem is bound by Moslem law to obey the summons, not merely as a believer, but
also as a member of the Moslem qnam, nmmat (nation, state, community), which is
* You will note that I propose " privileges " as being a safer term.
5700 30 9.'22