File 705/1916 Pt 2 'Arab revolt: Arab reports; Sir M Sykes' reports' [‎193r] (383/450)

informed of the real state of public feeling. A newspaper that thrives by scare-
mongeimg and detects a bloody revolution lurking behind every little innocent noise
ot the hour, deserves something harsher even than the Press Act. But the newspaper
that deliberately suppresses the truth, trifles with the deep-seated religious convictions
of a section of the people, or fails to point out the gravity of any large movement of
▼public opinion is a traitor to the peace of the land.
. I ns t ea d, therefore, of hastening to denounce the recent manifestation of Moslem
feeling, the really helpful and serviceable frame of mind would be to try to understand
it and gauge its true character and significance. No one with his eyes and ears about
him can deny that the feeling exists in marked intensity. The resolutions adopted by
the Council of the All-India Moslem League, of the provincial leagues of Lahore, Calcutta,
and Madras, and by representative public meetings at various Moslem centres like
Lucknow, Calcutta, and Delhi (the Delhi meeting having been summoned by almost
all the notable Moslem religious leaders and presided over by the Imam of the Jam’i
Mosque), cannot be set down to the wire-pulling of agitators and dismissed with cheap
sneers. We know how deep and bitter is the resentment caused to Mussulmans by the
mischievous and fatuous effusions of a few newspapers like the C£ Statesman,” and we
can well respect and admire the self-restraint they are showing in face of such insult
and provocation. But this restrained attitude of the Mussulmans, in spite of
misrepresentation and calumny, should not blind one to the anxiety and alarm which
have been agitating their minds since the news of the Arab revolt in the Hejaz was
first published in this country. To understand this fully it is necessary to realise how
a Mussulman looks at the situation created by the action of the Sherif of Mecca. The
question is purely of a religious nature and goes to.the roots of the Moslem faith.
First of all, it should be remembered that Moslems are enjoined by the most
positive commandments of the Koran and their Prophet to keep the sacred soil”—
where the Kaa’ba or the “ House of God ” is situated—absolutely immune from all
manner of desecration, strife, and bloodshed. To preserve the safety and sanctity of
the holy places is the supreme duty of the Caliph of Islam, who exercises it in trust
for the “ faithful,” and who on that account commands the spiritual allegiance of the
entire Moslem world. A petty Arab chieftain, like the Sherif, should first of all be
“ capable of exercising supreme temporal authority and independent of all outside
control,” and he should command the allegiance of all Moslems before he can assume
the office of the protector of the holy places. What has alarmed the Mussulmans is
that the Sherif of Mecca has no such capacity and even a temporary success of his
action would imperil the integrity of their holy land.
Some “friends” of the Mussulmans are congratulating them on the heaven-sent
opportunity to appoint a Caliph who is directly descended from the Prophet. They do
not know that the supreme attribute of the Caliph is his fitness and not his lineage.
The Sherif of Mecca's assumption of the Caliphate by the simple fiat of a Calcutta
newspaper will not do. For, to quote Mr. Ameer Ali, “ there cannot be two Imams
coexisting at one and the same time.” The present lawful Caliph has not yet been
deposed, and he can only be deposed “by the consensus of the people (Ijmat-ul-Ummat)
for consistent and flagrant infringements of the rules of religion and law,” and not by
the fatwa of the “ Statesman,” or of an Indian newspaper at Allahabad. It would be
much more safe and proper and decent if these “ friends” of the Mussulmans left the
Mussulmans themselves to decide a question which is of such vital moment to their
faith.
From this brief analysis of the character of the office of the Caliph as “ Servant
and Keeper of the Holy Places,” one can readily see why it is that the situation in the
Hejaz has caused the liveliest anxiety and concern to Indian Mussulmans. Those who
have tried to belittle these feelings do not know the facts. It is not a matter in which
the professional politician or agitator has carried all before him. No wire-pulling was
needed in this case to get up clumsy shows and half-hearted demonstrations to impress
or embarrass the Government. But, as a matter of fact, only a few public demonstrations
of Moslem feelinir have been allowed to take place, owing to the good sense of Moslem
leaders and their anxious solicitude to avoid any semblance of organised agitation.
And yet the “Statesman” denounces them as “agitators . . . . ; who are in reality
condemning the Government of India and are implicitly showing their
sympathy with Enver Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. .” The wickedness and levity of this statement can be
explained only on the hypothesis that this Calcutta journal considers itself to be safe
from the operations of the Press Act and can apparently indulge in cowardly slander
and abuse of His Majesty’s loyal Moslem subjects with perfect impunity.
It need hardly be emphasised that the Mussulmans have implicit faith in the