File 87/1926 Pt 2 'Arabia: Bin Saud: Relations with H.M.G. Revision of Treaty.' [‎315v] (318/840)

lean be secured. But it is not British Moslems only
that have a grievance against Wahabi restrictions; the
Jeddah reports show that HedjaziS as well as Egyptians
(who have an especial cause for complaint) cherish this
grievance, which is obviously one held by non-Wahabis
against Wahabis. (Is it not possible that among Indian
Moslems there is a proportion,of puritanical tendencies,
who approve the Wahabi discipline?) If it were to prove
•possible to secure in the treaty, or in accompanying
documents, freedom for religious observance on behalf
of British Moslems, a not improbable result would be
the creation of a grievance by Egyptian, Javanese,
Hedjazi and other non-Wahabi Moslems against British
Ifoslems enjoying preferential treatment. A political
^vitfion running right across the natural division of
Islamic sects would be created, and the British
Government would be exposed to hostile criticism as the
creator of this false division.
But the Jeddah reports quoted show that Ibn
Jjfud could not possibly afford to put his name to any
such clause as the Government of India desire, whether in
L the treaty itself (where it would be particularly
inappropriate, and would conflict with another clause
re-affirming His lilajesty^s Government’s policy of
Retention from interference in religious matters) or in
accompanying letters. To give any satisfaction to
Indian Moslems the clause must be published: its
publication would at once rouse the fanaticism of
1 • *
the Ikhwan who are continually driving Abdul Aziz further
* than he apparently wants in the direction of intolerance,
and to whom his moderate policy is already an object
of suspicion and dissatisfaction: and it is not unlikely
that
i'-mm
Min 1
including some
of Ibn Baud’s
family,and possi^J
his father.