Leaving the political aspect, I will say something as to the validity of Turkey's claim to the Caliphate. In discussing this subject some English writers use such phrases as the "pretensions of the Ottoman Sultans" to the headship of Moslems. So long as the great bulk of those who profess that religion recognise that authority, what value can be attached to the attempts to question it on the part of prejudiced outsiders? It is argued that the sect of Shiites, or the unorthodox Moslems, do not recognise the Caliphate in question. But there are strong indications that they too will, sooner or later, recognise it for political if not religious reasons, as the danger threatening the remaining vestige of Islamic independence looms equally large before orthodox and unorthodox alike. One of the arguments brought forward against the Ottoman Caliphate is that the Caliph must be appointed from among the Koreish, the Prophet's own people, and must be his direct descendant. It is probable that the tradition related in connection with this argument is one of the many spurious sayings made up by individuals after the time of Mohammed, as such a just legislator would not show partiality towards his own family and people by restricting to them the privilege of being his Caliphs. According to his doctrine, community of faith is tantamount to community of race, and he founded a perfect democratic equality between his followers, whatever their race or colour, and called them all 'ommetee,' that is, 'my nation.' A Caliph, therefore, need not necessarily be a descendant of the Prophet Besides, he left no male issue; and according to the Moslem law, female issue has not the right of succession, the Caliph being a temporal and not a spiritual head.
Another strong argument is the length of time for which the Ottoman sovereigns have held the title of Caliph. This title was first assumed by the Ottomans during the conquest of Egypt by Sultan Selim I. in 1517 A.D., when the keys of the sacred places of Mecca and Medina were handed over to him at Cairo by a deputation which came from Hijaz expressly to accept him as Caliph. From that moment up till now the Ottoman sovereigns have uninterruptedly held the title, and have been the guardians of the standard of Mohammed. The provinces of Mecca and Medina have ever since that time formed an integral part of the Ottoman empire. A Caliph must be an independent ruler, and must in particular be ruler over those holy places. It would certainly never do if an Arab were appointed as the spiritual head of Islam by a Power of alien faith. Such mischievous suggestions are merely an expression of the political hostility which is often shown by some individuals in England to the Turkish Caliphate. An ultra-patriotic evening paper once said that there could not be a better Caliph than the 'British Raj.' To make the Mussulmans recognise the 'British Raj.' as the supreme religious head of their community is as impossible and ridiculous as to attempt to convert this country to Islam. If Englishmen are really patriotic in guarding and promoting the interests and prestige of their country in the Islamic world, they should not attack the Ottoman Caliphate, but make good use of its influence. Such a suggestion as I have quoted would not appear to the Moslem mind to be a friend's advice, as the general tendency among the Mohammedans is to strengthen the position of the existing Caliphate. This tendency is becoming so evident that some Continental journals have already believed it to be the result of Pan-Islamic organisation, though in reality there is no such organisation.