ثورة فلسطين - أسبابها ونتائجها
The Palestine Revolt: Its Causes and Consequencesby Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā

Page 466

Normalized
transcript

Printed page 466

الحسيني مفتي القدس ورئيس المجلس الإسلامي الأعلى لفلسطين، ومنها ما هو للجنة التنفيذية للمؤتمر السوري الفلسطيني بمصر (وسننشر ذلك) ومنها ما هو لصاحب الجلالة البريطانية ملك الإنكليز، وقد تبرع لمنكوبي العربَ في هذه الثورة بخمسمائة جنيه، وتبرع نجله ونائبه في الحجاز بمائة جنيه، وأُلفت بأمره لجنة لجمع الإعانات بمكة جمعت مبلغًا يعد كبيرًا من أهل الحجاز، وتبرع صاحب الجلالة اليمانية الإمام يحيى حميد الدين بثلاثمائة جنيه، وشارك العرب في هذا الشعور والعطف على أهل فلسطين مسلمو الأعاجم، ولا سيما في الهند وجاوة بالاحتجاج والإعانات، بل شارك الهندوس مسلمي الهند في عطفهم هذا، وتمنى الجميع لو يرسلون جيشًا منهم إلى فلسطين لحماية المسجد الأقصى وأهله من عدوان اليهود.

بل هذه أول مرة صرَّح فيها شيخ الأزهر ورئيس المعاهد الدينية في مصر بالعطف على المسلمين في أثناء ثورة سياسية بينهم وبين شعب أجنبي تؤيده الدولة البريطانية، بعد أن أجرَّت السلطة المصرية ألسنة علماء الأزهر وألجمتهم، وحرَّمت عليهم ما هو مباح لجميع المصريين من إبداء رأيهم في الأمور السياسية، وقد كانوا من قبل أصحاب الرأي الأعلى والقدح المعلى في جميع المصالح الإسلامية والوطنية، حتى إنهم هم الذين ولَّوا محمد علي باشا على مصر.

ومما يصح أن يذكر بالإعجاب أن صوت الأستاذ الأكبر محمد مصطفى المراغي شيخ الجامع الأزهر ورئيس المعاهد الدينية قد ارتفع في هذه المسألة في وقت خرست فيه ألسنة جميع أمراء مصر وكبرائها الأحرار حتى غير المقيدين بسياسية الحكومة ومشربها، لا الوزراء والرؤساء الرسميين وحدهم، وهو من كبارهم، فهذا فتح جديد في النهضة العربية واليقظة الإسلامية معًا (وسننشر كلامه) .

وقد كنت اقترحت على سلفه المرحوم الشيخ أبي الفضل الجيزاوي في أول العهد بظهور الطمع الصهيوني في المسجد الأقصى، والعثور على صورة لقُبة الصخرة يعلوها العلم الصهيوني - أن يكتب فتوى على سؤال في ذلك تتضمن ما يجب على المسلمين من استنكار ذلك، ووجوب حماية المسجد الأقصى عليهم … فاعتذر رحمه الله فألححت عليه وأكثرت من اللوم حتى غضب، فقال: يا سيد رشيد أتظن أنه ما بقي

English
translation

al-Husayni, mufti of Jerusalem and president of the Supreme Muslim Council of Palestine; some to the executive committee of the Syrian Palestinian Congress in Egypt, which we shall publish; and some to His British Majesty, king of the English. He gave five hundred pounds to Arabs harmed in this revolt, and his son and deputy in the Hijaz gave one hundred. On his order, a committee formed in Mecca to collect aid and raised a sum considered large among the people of the Hijaz. His Yemeni Majesty Imam Yahya Hamid al-Din gave three hundred pounds. Non-Arab Muslims, especially in India and Java, shared the Arabs' sympathy for the people of Palestine through protests and aid. Hindus in India also shared the sympathy of Indian Muslims. All wished that they could send an army of their own to Palestine to protect al-Aqsa Mosque and its people from Jewish aggression.

Indeed, this was the first time the shaykh of al-Azhar and head of the religious institutes in Egypt declared sympathy for Muslims during a political revolt between them and a foreign people backed by the British state. Egyptian authority had held the tongues of al-Azhar scholars and muzzled them, forbidding them to state their political views, although all other Egyptians were allowed to do so. Earlier, these scholars had held the leading voice in all Islamic and national affairs. They had even installed Muhammad Ali Pasha as ruler of Egypt.

It is worthy of admiration that the voice of the grand scholar Muhammad Mustafa al-Maraghi, shaykh of al-Azhar Mosque and head of the religious institutes, rose on this question at a time when all Egypt's princes and leading free men were silent, even those who were not bound by the government's policy and outlook, let alone official ministers and leaders. He himself is one of Egypt's leading men. This is a new opening in the Arab revival and Islamic awakening alike. We shall publish his words.

When Zionist desire for al-Aqsa Mosque first appeared and an image was found of the Dome of the Rock with the Zionist flag above it, I proposed to his predecessor, the late Shaykh Abu al-Fadl al-Jizawi, that he write a fatwa in answer to a question. It would state the Muslims' duty to reject this and protect al-Aqsa Mosque. He excused himself, may God have mercy on him. I pressed him and reproached him so much that he grew angry and said, “Sayyid Rashid, do you think there is no one left

Analysis

Riḍā names letters, donations, committees, protests, and statements he says followed the revolt, including actions by the Saudi ruler, Yemen's imam, and al-Azhar's leader. A near-contemporary Umm al-Qurā notice confirms that a Jeddah relief committee collected £470 and six qirsh and sent it to Amīn al-Ḥusaynī. A later Saudi report gives the king's donation as £500. An official al-Azhar retrospective also reports that Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-Marāghī warned British authorities after the 1929 events. These sources partly support Riḍā's account, but they do not supply the original royal letter, donation receipt, or al-Marāghī statement. The other amounts and Riḍā's claim that this was the first such al-Azhar intervention remain unverified. He promises to publish some of the documents rather than printing them here. He also recalls asking an earlier al-Azhar shaykh for a ruling on al-Aqsa; the reported reply continues on p. 467.

A contemporary Jewish Telegraphic Agency report confirms that Indian Muslims held a sympathy demonstration at a Bombay mosque on 1929-09-08. The adopted resolution opposed non-Muslim control of the Western Wall and demanded annulment of the Balfour Declaration. This supports Riḍā's reference to Indian Muslim protest. It does not establish his broader claims about aid, Hindu participation, Java or a shared wish to send an army.

The claim about Muḥammad ʿAlī preserves an important role for the scholars but makes them too exclusive. Joel Beinin describes a coalition of guild leaders, some Muslim scholars, and ʿUmar Makram that led the Cairo uprising of 1805-05-12 and proclaimed Muḥammad ʿAlī governor. The Ottoman sultan accepted the new situation the next month. The evidence does not support assigning the act to al-Azhar scholars alone.

The response in Java is directly supported for the al-Irshad network. A scholarly history says that a Surabaya committee formed in September 1929, collected money, held meetings, and sent protest telegrams to the League of Nations and the British government. This establishes organized protest and aid, but not participation by all Javanese Muslims or the wish to send an army.

Egyptian responses were also broader than the silence Riḍā assigns to the country's leading figures. Contemporary citations collected by James Jankowski document 1929 statements or protests by Young Men's Muslim Associations in Cairo and Alexandria, ulama and lawyers in Giza, Javanese Muslims in Egypt, and merchants and residents of old Cairo. This supports a varied public response while leaving Riḍā's private exchange and his claim about the first al-Azhar intervention unproved.

Indian support crossed some communal lines. A historical study says the predominantly Hindu Indian National Congress followed a pro-Arab policy and that support intensified after the August 1929 violence. This supports institutional Hindu participation alongside Muslim action. It does not justify treating all Hindus as one body or confirm Riḍā's claim that everyone wanted to send an army.