File 301/1921 'MESOPOTAMIA: INTELLIGENCE REPORTS' [‎11r] (32/586)

>0
15
retired to Ms^wTcrantey^Vhence^’sent to^to^Vud^V”* 1161 P ”* and
able »^\ S f a Htil etad "" «“ ^nd that^Sed”^
vMth h^'iiL P TT 45)- ^ Sahh has n °w returned and has come up to Baghdad
W S^wtenTmeST t 8 * baCk ' -? e pr ° Speot of Sisal’s becoming
friction S his Whef A1^?’ l° W r™ r ’ ^ lth anxiet y- He ^aw inevitabl!
xiicnon witn ins tribes.^ All Arabs Imng m tents m the Shamivah despri Hp
declared, were his subjects—this would include the Dhafir and the ‘ Amarat
htTel''', ? h**™ a f lways been reok oned as ‘Iraq tribes. Finally he announced
his fixed determination to capture Hail, if it cost him everything he possessed
down to the ring on his finger. ^ s e possessed,
Hamid al Khamis professes to regard the possible fall of Hail without
18 Y £r ° m ‘ IraQ ' Pahad Be «- aIs »> says that Ibn Sa'ud
would be satisfied if once he were seated in Hail and that his claims over the
ourTorie^ continues 68 ^ n ° m ° re tilan blUlf - Meantime the diswdei - ^
o4. A small section of the Dhafir under ‘ Ali ibn Dhuwaihi are Mutadai-
yinin, i.e., converts to Ahhwanism ( see No. 16, para. 45, where an exaggerated
report was given). It is probably these who recently attacked some Shammar
near Chuwaibdah, on the Basrah-Ur railway and carried off their camels. They
were however pursued and the loot was recaptured. Ibn Dhuwaihi is reported
to have moved off towards Lmah. 1
XT A21 r th u er . ^ ? hafiri raid is re P orted from the Qusur, immediately
st of Najaf, but the tacts are not yet clear. The Qusur report describes this
party as masquerading under the guise of Akhwan, their object being to attack
h ahad Beg. They fired at Haiyadhiyah village but were beaten off. They
then seized a caravan of 200 camels carrying arms to Samawah, after which
they rounded up an encampment of Solubah al Ukhaidhir, west of Karbala,
and seized 500-600 camels. The Solubah pursued them, but they were 300
rifles strong and got off. This version seems of doubtful truth as the Solubah
T 6 S!? ^ amel °wners; the other story comes from Basrah, according to which
the Dhafir party was commanded by Barghash ibn Humud al Suwait and was
righteously employed in preventing the importation of arms into ‘Iraq. Bar
ghash seized 160 rifles and much ammunition and is waiting the instructions of
Government as to their disposal. No mention is made of the Solubah episode
nor of the attack on Haiyadhiyah.
. 56 - Another affair, reported from Basrah, must undoubtedly be reckoned
m the score against the Akhwan. Six mounted ‘ Ajman attacked two Shammar
Toqah families at Rumailah, seven hours from Zubair, killed two men and looted
all their animals and gear. As the administration of Zubair has just been
taken over by a Mudir appointed by the Arab Government after the deposition
of Shaikh Ibrahim, it was of importance that Government authority should be
vindicated. Accordingly the Shaikh of Kuwait was asked to intercept the
raiders. He succeeded in arresting two of the six near Jahrah; the other four
took refuge among ‘Ajman, owning allegiance to Ibn Sa‘ud, who were grazing
their flocks five hours to the south-west.
57. The High Commissioner has received two letters from Ibn Sa‘ud,
dated July 10. The first deals with the pilgrimage and relates the great
difficulties experienced by Ibn Sa‘ud in preventing his people from making the
Haji this year, the expostulations of the religious leaders and his reply that he
was moved by his consideration for the welfare of his subjects, having heard
that the King of the Hijaz was posting armed tribesmen in the hills to fall
upon the pilgrims. This news he received from Khalid ibn Mansur in a letter
written in June, a copy of which he encloses. Ibn Sa‘ud has clearly strained
his authority to the utmost in forbidding the pilgrimage and has thus pre
vented the very awkward collisions whicji in the present temper of Najd and
Hijaz must inevitably have occurred.
58. The second letter deals with a grievance against Fahad Beg ibn
Hadhdhal, whose son Mahrut intercepted in November a caravan of arms coming
from Syria. Ahmad Thanayan, then in Baghdad, brought a complaint on this
subject before the High Commissioner in May, on receipt of a letter from Ibn
Sa‘ud dated March. The letter maintained that the arms were destined for
himself and that Ibn Hadhdhal had no right to seize them. Ibn Hadhdhal’s
defence is that he receives a subsidy from us on condition that he prevents the
importation of arms and that this caravan was coming by the ordinary track
to the Shamiyah.