ملف رقم ٣٤٥ لسنة ١٩٠٨ الجزء الثاني "المحمرة: الوضع. نزاع الشيخ مع والي البصرة. تقليد الشيخ وساماً. تجديد التطمينات للشيخ". [ظ‎‎١‎٧‎٠] (٥٦٦/٣٤٥)

(vide paragraph 6) and the troubles with Moharrem Bey, reported in Mr. Crow’s
despatch No 17 of the 10th iMarch, 1909, to Constantinople, Mr. Crow seems to have
made no complaints against the sheikh, and in the latter case he apparently did not
think the matter of sufficient importance to warrant his sending a copy of his despatch
on the subiect to His Majesty’s consul, Mohammerah. _ The first intimation received by
the latter was a copy of the despatch in question received from the resident at Bushire ' ’
(who had himself received it from the resident at Bagdad), together with a request for
an expression of view on the subject. _ . ,
15. * This is the crux of the accusation against Mohammed Chanan which led to
the attack on Zain, and was the forts et origo mail, though it is wholly denied by the
sheikh. I have made most careful enquiry from several sources, and am unable to
obtain any confirmation of the vah s statements. _ . , _
As regards attacking farms, not only can I obtain no corroboration, but also it is
inherently^mprobable that he would do such a thing, since practically all the farms are
in the hands of his own fellow-tribesmen. The sheikh’s version is that Mohammed
Chanan would not let his men replace those whom Mishri wanted to turn out, and
I believe this to be correct. Mr. Crow tells me he has no information in corroboration
or otherwise of the vali’s statements on this subject. lhat he committed aggression in
Turkish lands is, as far as I can ascertain, untrue. What kind of aggression ? That
he threatened to kill the owners is, as has been said above, an accusation simply based
on hearsay In this connection the sheikh draws attention to the fact that it was the
murder of Mishri’s agent which was first said to have been threatened by Mohammed
Chanan. Later the accusation was that it was Mishri himself whose life was said
to have been threatened. Mohammed Chanan was not present at Dawasir at the
time, and denies that he ever said such a thing. It is, of course, conceivable that one
of his irresponsible followers may have done so.
The last accusation that Mohammed collected an armed force to oppose the
gendarmes of the State is unsubstantiated by any evidence that I can obtain, and
Mr. Crow tells me that beyond the vali’s statement he has heard nothing of it. The
sheikh says, and it is impossible to doubt him in this circumstantial particular, that
the Tabur Agassi and Mohammed Chanan came to his place in the same boat^ and
discussed the question in quite an amicable way, no complaints being made on either
It is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that the sheikh is fully wananted in
saying that there was nothing against Mohammed Cnanan that could not ha\e been
settled by half-an-hour’s conversation with the vali as he tried to arrange; had the van,
instead of discourteously refusing to see the sheikh at all on the subject, discussed
the question with him, and heard the other side, things would undoubtedly have turned
out verv differently. The sheikh believes that Mishri has a spite against Mohammed
Chanan because the latter would not let his men act, in the English working-man s
parlance, as “ blacklegs,” and that he induced the vali to believe that Turkish rule was
being flouted by Chanan. ,
16. The principal chronic accusation made against the sheikh by the Turks is that
he exercises illegitimate influence in Turkey. The influence of the sheikh in Turkish
territory is due to the fact that he is the titular head of more than ^ half of the Arabs
occupying the Turkish bank of the Shatt-el-Arab, and expects, and, in a large measure,
received implicit obedience from them. He is a large landowner, with more extensive
property on the Turkish side of the river than is possessed by any Turkish . su ‘ 3 J e ^-
He owns valuable house property in Bussorah, and though it has been considerably
diminished in value in the last few months by the vali’s expropriation schemes in connec
tion with new roads, the sheikh has not allowed the question to interfere with is
friendly relations with the vali (vide Mr. Crow s despatch No. 14 of the 9th March, 191 ),
asking'only to be treated as well as British subjects were being treated. Had he adopted
a hostile attitude to the vali on this point he would have secured the support of the
influential families in Bussorah, and might have embarrassed the vali very seriously.
Again, when the news of the attack of the vali on the sheikh’s properties was
spread abroad, the latter received numerous voluntary offers of active assistance an
co-operation from almost every important Turkish Arab chief from Amara to ao.
Had he accepted them, and commenced active reprisals against the Turks, he wou ,
* Mohammed Chanan opposed a detachment sent after him for attacking several farms. ( ^ ^
to Persian consul-general No. 18.) Mohammed Chanan committed aggression on Turkish lands, tnr ^
to kill the owners, collected an armed force to oppose the gendarmes of the State, and supporten r
(Acting vali’s letter of May 10.)