File 756/1917 Pt 2-3 ‘ARAB BULLETIN Nos 66-114’ [‎248v] (505/834)

— 304 —
an instance of these may be quoted one which occurred imme
diately after the fall of the Abbasids, when the Hafsite Sultans
of Tunis adopted the title of Emir el Muminin —Lord of the
Faithful. This is a special designation of the Cahphs; but their
Caliphate never went beyond this, though they maintained
their title officially till their fall in 1534 a.d.
2 Arab historians, contemporary or directly subsequent to
these events, referred to the matter in a disrespectful manner.
Abulfeda, writing in Syria in 1329, heads his chapter on this :
“Mention of the recognition of an individual as Caliph , and,
in the course of his narrative, speaks of the so-called Abbasid
as “ the black Caliph."
A modern Turco-Arab, Hasan Husni el Tueirani, wrote a
pamphlet in 1891 in favour of the Ottoman Caliphate, but
considered the so-called Abbasid an impostor.
3 It should be noted that Baibars, not being an Arab by
race and, therefore, in no way descended from the Meccan tribe of
Koreish, could not himself have aspired to the Caliphate.
4 A symptom which has occurred also among other than
Turkish sovereigns!
5 Quoted from the original Italian version of the treaty
(see de Martens Recueil des principaux traites, Goettingen
1791-1801, Vol. IV, page 612), which alone bears the signatures
and seals of the plenipotentiaries of both parties. The French
translation, which the Russian Government subsequently had
printed and published in 1775, renders the mistake even worse
by saying : “ Ils se regleront a 1’egard de Sa Hautesse comme
‘ Grand Calife du Mohametisme ', selon les preceptes que leur
present leur roi . . . " Similarly, the other French version
given by G. Moradounghian, Recueil d'actes internalionaux de
VEmpire Ottoman, Paris, 1897-1903, Vol. I, page 322 : “ Et qiie
S.M. Le Sultan est regarde comme le Souverain Calife de la
religion Mohametane ...” The Turkish text, which was made
for Moslems, could not contain a similar mistake, and therefore
reads : “ Since my personal sovere : gnty maintained by equity
is that of Head (Imam) of the Faithful and Caliph of those
confessing the unity of God ...” Similarly, the Italian text
speaks of “ customs of religion ”, and the French version :
“ ceremonies of religion.” But the Turkish version reads :
Umur i diniye we mezhebiye —Religious affairs pertaining to
the mezheb, or of the Hanafite school of canon law (ritual, civil,
judicial and penal). The Turkish text is contained in the
Muahedat Megmuasi, Constantinople, 1294-1307 a.h., Vol. Ill,
page 256.
b Or in any case they made use of it with pleasure if what
D Ohsson writes is true. He states that the credit of the