مجموعة ٦/ ٢١(٢) "المملكة العربية السعودية: العلاقات مع حكومة بريطانيا: المفوضية السعودية في لندن والوزير البريطاني في جدة. تمديد معاهدة جدة." [و‎‎١‎٨‎٨] (٧٦١/٣٧٥)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
EASTERN (Arabia).
March 22, 1937.
CONFIDENTIAL.
Section 4.
[E 1639/201/25 Copy No.
Sir R. Bullard to Mr. Eden.-—(Received March 22.)
(No. 33.)
Sir, Jedda, March 4, 1937.
ANT Moslems who expected that the pilgrimage would be made the occasion
either for the holding of a Moslem congress or for some less formal demonstration
of politico-religious solidarity will have been disappointed. In my telegram
No. 11, which I had the honour to address to you on the 25th February, I conveyed
a message from Ibn Saud, in which he stated that in reply to an appeal for
help from the Mufti of Palestine he had advised the mufti to await the finding
of the Royal Commission and to co-operate with the Palestine authorities in the
maintenance of law and order. According to my information the mufti did
not make any political speech throughout the pilgrimage, not even at the meeting
of the Saudi xTrab Toung Men’s Society at Mima, at which he was a guest. The
published report of this meeting represents the mufti as having been called upon
for a speech after a long series of other persons had either made speeches or
recited verses, and as having spoken on “ Islam and Modern Civilisation.” It
would be quite easy to make a violent speech about Palestine which would fit
this title, but I am assured that the speech was non-political.
2. It had been Ibn Sand’s custom for some years to give a dinner of about
a thousand covers to the leading men from the* various countries represented
at the pilgrimage. This year he gave four separate banquets for : (1) Indians;
(2) Egyptians; (3) “pilgrims from the Arab countries”; and (4) “pilgrims
from various countries.” The newspaper report mentions as among the “ various
countries ’ ’ China, the Sudan, and North, South and East Africa. The Malays and
Javanese are not mentioned, but it seems that, in fact, very few of these pilgrims
attend the Royal banquets. It is alleged that they are not remunerative as guests,
because they never make speeches praising Ibn Saud and do not write him up
when they get back to their own countries. The reason given in the press for the
division of the pilgrims into groups is that it gave the King an opportunity to
get into closer touch with them. The innovation would clearly have that effect,
but the splitting up of the pilgrims by countries would also make it more difficult
foi a hot headed speaker to make a pan-Islamic appeal, and this consideration
may have helped to influence Ibn Sand’s decision.
3. A striking feature of the pilgrimage was Ibn Saud’s endeavour to
convince the Moslem world of his orthodoxy. According to the published version
of the speech which he delivered at the Indian banquet, after speaking as he
has done every year about Allah and the Prophet and the Koran he said
“ As to the prescriptions of the sects, we are not against them in
anything. They are all our sects, whether Hanafi, or Shafai, or Maliki or
Hanbah. Our sect is based on proof wherever it may be found \i.e in the
Koran or the traditions of the Prophet], and if proof is lacking and there
is nothing to follow but ijtihad [deduction or interpretation by a person
of learning], then we follow the ‘ ijtihad ’ of Ahmad-bin-Hanbal.”
A similar statement was made by the King in the course of a private interview
whmh he gave to His Highness the Khan of Kelat. According to Khan Bahadur
Ihsanullah, the Indian vice-consul, who was present, the King declared that he
was a Hanbali, but that he respected the other three founders of the Sunni sects
and had adopted various points from their teachings. It does not appear from
the published leports that the King made similar declarations on any other
occasion, but the publication in the Umm-al-Qura of the declaration made at
the Indian banquet shows that it was not intended merely for Indian consumption
[956 y—4]