Treaty of Sèvres (1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions -- Turkey; World War, 1914-1918 -- Turkey
“With regard to the Arabs, about whom you asked me a little while
ago, the delegation are not apprehensive with regard to the
feasibility of an adjustment between the Khalifa and the Arabs. As
I have already pointed out, there is the Quranic injunction: ‘All
Muslims are brothers, wherefore make peace between your brethren.’
That is a duty laid upon us, and recently, at the Bombay Session,
the All-India Khilafat Conference passed a resolution authorising
a delegation to proceed to the Hejaz and other parts of Arabia to
reconcile the Arabs and the Turks. Our interest is in the Khilafat
as Mussulmans. No population and no territory could be so dear to
the Muslim as the Arabs and Arabia. The Turks could not win such
affection from us as the Arabs do. This is the land that we want
to keep purely under Muslim control. Even if the Arabs themselves
want a mandate in that country we will not consent. We are bound by
our religious obligations to that extent. Therefore, it cannot be
through antipathy against the Arabs or because of any particular
sympathy for the Turks that we desire the Khalifa’s sovereignty
over the Island of Arabia. The Turks are much farther removed from
us. Very few of us know anything of the Turkish language; very few
of us have travelled in the Turkish Empire. But we do go in large
numbers to Mecca and Medina. So many of us want to die there. So
many Mussulmans settle down and marry in Arabia; one of my own
aunts is an Arab lady. Wherever we have met Arabs on our journey—we
have had no opportunity, of course, of discussing the subject with
well-educated people, but—we have asked the class of people we have
met what they thought of the action of the King of the Hejaz—‘King’
in a land where God alone is recognised as a king: nobody can ever
claim kingship there. They said his was an act that they condemned,
it was an act they did not in the least like. They considered it
to be wrong; the Arabs spoke disparagingly of it. I do not know to
what extent it may be true, but there are a number of people who
now come forward as apologists for the Arabs. They say that what
Emir Feisal and the Sherif did was to save something for Islam;
it was not that they were against the Turks, but they were for
Islam. Whether this was or was not the fact, it is very significant
that such apologies should be made now. Honestly, we have no
apprehensions that we could not reconcile the Arabs and the Turks.
This is a question which I think the Allied Council, the Peace
Conference, could very well leave the Mussulmans to settle amongst
themselves. We do not want British bayonets to force the Arabs into
a position of subservience to the Turks.”
Resuming the idea he had already expressed, he concluded his speech
thus:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account