Abd-ul-Hamid's use of his power as Caliph—What the Moslems think of him—British Mohammedan subjects —The validity of the Ottoman claims to the Caliphate —The mistaken policy of British Statesmen in opposing them—Danger of alienating the Mohammedan world—The errors of English writers.

There can hardly be found in the history of nations a more fortunate tyrant than the autocrat of Yildiz Kiosk. Besides all the circumstances I have noted, Abd-ul-Hamid has at his back the authority of the Caliphate, which he can, when he chooses, ingeniously employ for his own ends. The devotion of the Mussulmans of Turkey and the respect of orthodox Mohammedans of other countries for the Caliph are very great, and becoming greater every day. As a matter of fact, the attachment of Mohammedans is to the office of the Caliph rather than to his person, and according to the qualities necessary for the man who holds it, a true Caliph must be a perfect specimen of humanity. If he cannot fulfil the prescribed conditions of the Islamic religious law, that law orders the faithful to depose him, and justifies the election of a proper Caliph. There are not lacking in the history of Islam instances in which the Caliph has been deposed solely on these religious grounds. It is almost impossible for these people to comprehend that the present Sultan does not possess any of these good qualities, and is therefore quite unworthy of his office. The Sultan employs subtle methods that he may pose before the Mohammedans as the true Caliph and the sole champion of the Islamic cause, and spends immense sums of money for the same purpose. In reality, however, he should be known as the worst enemy of Islam, as no Moslem ruler has ever brought by his misdeeds so much shame upon his faith as he has. Anyone who has observed his career closely knows that his actions are diametrically opposed to the principles of the Mussulman law and creed. But it is the hardest thing in the world to make Moslems understand this. Those in Turkey are just beginning to understand what he really is, but outside Turkey he is held in blind veneration by all Moslems. An Englishman, who had great experience of the East, and who followed the Prince of Wales during his tour round the Colonies, told me that the further you go away from Turkey the greater is the influence of the Sultan among the followers of Islam.

In pursuance of my remarks on the way in which the Sultan makes use of the influence of the Caliphate for his personal ends, it may perhaps be of some interest if I make some general remarks on the Caliphate, and the influence of the Caliph among the Mussulmans of the world. It must be remembered that Great Britain has under her rule or protection a very large number of the followers of Islam. Some authorities say that her Moslem subjects are five times as many as those who belong to Turkey itself. It follows that this immense Mohammedan population in Great Britain's Eastern dominions will some day prove of the highest importance in determining the direction of her policy in the East There are now symptoms of rivalry between the Sultan of Turkey and those British authorities whose business it is to maintain their country's prestige and influence in the Moslem world. It is on account of this rivalry that some British writers and politicians try to represent the religious influence of the Sultan as being less than it is, while others seek to deny the validity of the Ottoman Caliphate. That the present Sultan is unworthy of the title cannot be questioned; but the validity of the claim of the occupant of the Turkish throne to the office, quite apart from his character, is incontestable. Those who deny this, or seek to depreciate the influence of the Ottoman Sultanate on orthodox Mohammedans, periodically shower abuse on Turkey, as was done during the Armenian agitation, perhaps with the view of creating a breach between the Moslem populations of British territories and Turkey. And I cannot but think that this policy is having just the opposite effect. The study of the English language is increasing steadily but surely among the Mohammedan subjects of Great Britain, and so they read or hear many of the hostile sentiments published and uttered in England against the Ottoman Caliphate, and become suspicious and irritated. In fact, the more this hostility is displayed, the closer will become the attachment of the Moslem subjects of England towards the Ottoman Caliphate. Such alienation of feeling, which is at present latent, will be anything but favourable for England in case of international complications in some part of the Orient. There are European Powers who may take advantage of it, and use it against the interests of the British Government The speech of the Kaiser delivered at Damascus must still be fresh in the memory of many people. It was certainly with the object of increasing the influence of his country in the East that he said that he would stand side by side with the head of three hundred million Mohammedans. A highly connected Russian once told me that during Queen Victoria's reign Great Britain waged over fifty different wars, small and great, and added that most of these wars were carried on against Mohammedan peoples in different parts of Asia and Africa, in order to crush their independence and take their countries. Very likely he used to relate this to other compatriots or co-religionists of mine whom he met, so that the idea became popular, and would add to the belief that Great Britain is the worst enemy of the cause of Islam. "Supposing that the fanaticism of the Mohammedans under our rule were stirred up by Turkey, what could they do?" a proud Jingo once asked me, at a time when some persons were urging Lord Salisbury to send the British fleet over the mountains of Asia Minor to avenge the Armenian wrongs. "We could put them down," added this Jingo, with an increased air of proud confidence, "any time and anywhere." Yes, in the East we know England's might, and we all admire the Englishman's great tenacity in defence of the interests of his country. But there are instances in history of small and backward nations having inflicted irreparable damage on mighty Powers, and Mussulmans will not always fight—if it should, unfortunately, ever come to fighting—with spears and mediÆval weapons. They will not easily be exterminated or subjugated; nor is it true that the Mohammedans will ever be won over by conversion, as the missionaries assert. These millions of Mohammedans will continue to exist, and some day there will certainly be a general awakening among them, which will make the adoption of modern methods and means of war imperative. I do not imagine that it would be to Turkey's interest to alienate Great Britain by attempting to stir up her Moslem subjects, and I am sure that when once the present regime is over, everyone in Turkey will heartily, welcome the re-establishment of England's prestige. There is, therefore, no sound reason for the attitude of malignant jealousy towards the Ottoman Caliphate which some Englishmen have chosen to adopt It seems to me that past generations of British statesmen must have had sounder statesmanlike qualities than the present generation, for they used to benefit their country by the influence of that Caliphate. For instance, during the earlier periods of the conquest of India, the English representative in Turkey requested the Porte to use its good offices in the court of certain Mohammedan rulers of India in favour of his country.

Leaving the political aspect, I will say something as to the validity of Turkey's claim to the Caliphate. In discussing this subject some English writers use such phrases as the "pretensions of the Ottoman Sultans" to the headship of Moslems. So long as the great bulk of those who profess that religion recognise that authority, what value can be attached to the attempts to question it on the part of prejudiced outsiders? It is argued that the sect of Shiites, or the unorthodox Moslems, do not recognise the Caliphate in question. But there are strong indications that they too will, sooner or later, recognise it for political if not religious reasons, as the danger threatening the remaining vestige of Islamic independence looms equally large before orthodox and unorthodox alike. One of the arguments brought forward against the Ottoman Caliphate is that the Caliph must be appointed from among the Koreish, the Prophet's own people, and must be his direct descendant. It is probable that the tradition related in connection with this argument is one of the many spurious sayings made up by individuals after the time of Mohammed, as such a just legislator would not show partiality towards his own family and people by restricting to them the privilege of being his Caliphs. According to his doctrine, community of faith is tantamount to community of race, and he founded a perfect democratic equality between his followers, whatever their race or colour, and called them all 'ommetee,' that is, 'my nation.' A Caliph, therefore, need not necessarily be a descendant of the Prophet Besides, he left no male issue; and according to the Moslem law, female issue has not the right of succession, the Caliph being a temporal and not a spiritual head.

Another strong argument is the length of time for which the Ottoman sovereigns have held the title of Caliph. This title was first assumed by the Ottomans during the conquest of Egypt by Sultan Selim I. in 1517 a.d., when the keys of the sacred places of Mecca and Medina were handed over to him at Cairo by a deputation which came from Hijaz expressly to accept him as Caliph. From that moment up till now the Ottoman sovereigns have uninterruptedly held the title, and have been the guardians of the standard of Mohammed. The provinces of Mecca and Medina have ever since that time formed an integral part of the Ottoman empire. A Caliph must be an independent ruler, and must in particular be ruler over those holy places. It would certainly never do if an Arab were appointed as the spiritual head of Islam by a Power of alien faith. Such mischievous suggestions are merely an expression of the political hostility which is often shown by some individuals in England to the Turkish Caliphate. An ultra-patriotic evening paper once said that there could not be a better Caliph than the 'British Raj.' To make the Mussulmans recognise the 'British Raj.' as the supreme religious head of their community is as impossible and ridiculous as to attempt to convert this country to Islam. If Englishmen are really patriotic in guarding and promoting the interests and prestige of their country in the Islamic world, they should not attack the Ottoman Caliphate, but make good use of its influence. Such a suggestion as I have quoted would not appear to the Moslem mind to be a friend's advice, as the general tendency among the Mohammedans is to strengthen the position of the existing Caliphate. This tendency is becoming so evident that some Continental journals have already believed it to be the result of Pan-Islamic organisation, though in reality there is no such organisation.