The Wahhabis Seen through European Eyes (1772–1830)

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 91 As regards military information, there was the news of two unsuccessful ex-peditions by the pasha of Baghdad, the first led by the sheikh of the Arab tribeof Muntafiq, reported to have been killed by a hired assassin, and the secondundermined by corruption at the level of command. On a second front thesharif of Mecca, by now on the defensive, had been dealt an equally crushingblow – an incursion by Ghalib in the direction of Najd had in fact been blockedat the oasis of Khurma in March 1798.73 The peace recently imposed on thesultan of Muscat and the very recent successful attacks on al-Taʾ⁠ if, as also onMedina and Mecca, were confirmation that the danger had now extended overthe entire Arabian peninsula and that the assassination of the old monarch,ʿAbd al-ʿAziz, would change nothing since he had already delegated the mili-tary command to his son some years earlier. Eighty or ninety thousand men(scarcely fewer than those estimated by French sources) and sufficient ships tokeep navigation in the Persian Gulf under control thanks to an alliance withthe coastal ʿUtub Arabs intensified the belligerence of the new kingdom.74Here, however, the account became somewhat vague. It was inhibited by thealmost total lack of chronological references and a complete ignorance con-cerning the dynasty – the deceased ʿAbd al-ʿAziz is presented at times as theson of the leader ʿAbd al-Wahhab and at others as the son of an unidentifiedSaʿud. There was also the traditional uncertainty regarding the founder of thesect (whether ʿAbd al-Wahhab or his son Muhammad), and, finally, no distinc-tion whatsoever was made between information derived from Persia and thatfrom elsewhere.75 The assault on Mecca and Medina, the sack of both cities(“attacked and plundered”, no matter what circumstances this formula includ- must be recollected, that the destruction of the holy sepulchres would alone be consid- ered an enormous act of impiety and cruelty; I am led to think this the more probable, as some Armenians, who had fallen in with the party of Wuhabees, gave me a very favoura- ble account of their honesty and humanity.”73 Ibid, pp. 121–22. Two distinct expeditions by the pasha of Baghdad did indeed constitute original, well-founded news. By 1804 both had already been mentioned, one by Browne, the other by Corancez (recalling the leader ʿAli kahya), but had not been included in a single account and consequently ran the danger of being confused.74 Ibid, pp. 123–24. Waring was informed about the murder of ʿAbd al-ʿAziz on a later journey to Bushir in 1804, ibid, p. 125: “It was supposed, by an inhabitant of Kurbulu, whose family had been murdered, and the house destroyed”.75 Ibid, p. 119: “The founder of this religion, Ubdool Wuhab, was a native of Ujunu, a town in the province of Ool Urud; some have been of the opinion that Moola Moohummud, the son of Ubdool Wuhab, was the first person who promulgated doctrines subversive of the Moosulman faith; however this may be, it is certain that one or other of these persons was the founder of the religion of the Wuhabees, and the name inclines me to believe Ubdool Wuhab.” Though a little further on ʿAbd al-Aziz is indicated as the son of ʿAbd al-Wahhab,

92 Chapter 2ed), must have reached Waring only some time after his visit to Shiraz. Nor wasthe mention of this latest shocking event the only reason for questioning thecriteria informing his chapter on the Wahhabis.76 This contradictory information was not all that Waring offered by way ofclarification. In the light of events he finally gave a personal explanation of the“dangerous heresy” which had appeared in Najd. The asserted incompatibilitywith Muslim orthodoxy could be justified, but not for the reason commonlygiven. Abandoning fundamental Koranic precepts (prayer, ablution, almswhich he does not even mention), the prohibition of tobacco, opium and cof-fee (in conformity with the ideas of “many Moosulmans”, at least in the case ofthe first two items), and lastly the violent anathema against an enormous num-ber of believers, proof, if anything, of rigour, offered insufficient evidence orcompletely inadequate reasons for dissent. The only irreparable break with Is-lamic tradition was, according to Waring, the attack on the institution of theMecca pilgrimage. The pilgrimage was in fact no longer merely avoided or pre-vented by ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s proselytes. The armed occupation of the HolyPlaces in the Hijaz had rendered it virtually impracticable. “The foundationstone of Mahometanism”, a sacred duty trampled underfoot, threatened todrag in its wake the “mighty fabric” of a religion which had resisted centuries ofstress and strain and was now, at the first rub with a troop of “Arab reformers”,on the point of collapse.77 a note warns, ibid, p. 120 nt.: “Some accounts make Saoud the father of Ubdool Uzeez”, who in turn then begot a son named Ibn Saʿud, ibid, p. 122.76 Imprecisions and misconceptions (a “cautious and deliberate mode of inquiry is by no means to the taste of our traveller”), the tendency to mention “only a few insulated facts, and these without date”, were early imputed to Waring, in spite of the attenuating circum- stance of his youth and the merit accorded him for his appreciable knowledge of the local languages, cf. [A. Hamilton], “Waring’s Travels in Persia”, in Edinburgh Review, X, 1810, pp. 62–63, 70 (for the probable attribution to Alexander Hamilton, cf. The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, cit., I, p. 441, nr. 344). And a German reviewer observed: “Der Ver- fasser schwatzt viel, aber sagt wenig; er ist ein flüchtiger, folglich kein glaubwürdiger Beo- bachter”, cf. review of: E.S. Waring, Reise nach Sheeraz, in Allgemeine Geographische Ephemeriden, XXVII, 1808, p. 169. Unlike the English critic, who is suspicious of the account of the Wahhabis as well, preferring to consider the latter not as “followers of Mohamed” but as “oriental illuminati”, the German commentator exempts the chapter on the Wahhabis from any blame, even recommending its separate publication, ibid, p. 168.77 E.S. Waring, A Tour to Sheeraz, cit., p. 124: “They have violated the sacred law which forbids armed men approaching within a certain distance of the temple. They have thus destroyed the foundation stone of Mahometanism” (the Biblical origin of the metaphor is evident); “and the mighty fabric, which at one period bade defiance to all Europe, falls, on the first attack, at the feet of an Arab reformer. The event may make a great change in the

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 93 An explanation was thus provided. The theory was that, even if it was rootedin Muslim territory, the new religious teaching threatened with destruction theentire cult which it intended to reform. Suggestive though it was, this interpre-tation was a compromise, since the factors determining such a counterproduc-tive outcome for a movement supposedly inspired by Islam were not madeplain. Equally unclear was the potential effect of this “great change” (a termmodelled on Niebuhr) outside Arabia, especially among Muslims in India, themain preoccupation of the English. In this case, however, Waring was surpris-ingly reassuring, especially considering his ruinous forecast for that same Ko-ranic religion celebrated by Gibbon not long before for its millennial stability.“The temper of the times”, Waring argued, was no longer so favourable for thecreation of religious empires as at the time of Muhammad. There was conse-quently no danger of Wahhabi teachings being instrumental in the creation ofa power in conflict with British interests in the Deccan Plateau. A more spe-cific impediment to the sect’s dreaded expansion lay in the spurious, “supersti-tious” character of the particular Indian variety of Muslim faith imbued withlocal pagan traditions which, in past centuries, had spread from the Indus tothe Ganges.78 How far such optimism was premature would be seen in Patna some twentyyears later with the preaching of Sayyid Ahmad Brelwi, a pilgrim to Mecca in1822, a rebel at home in 1826, whom the English, the local potentates, the Mus-lims and the Sikhs would take a long time to suppress.79 What must have Muhammedan world; for it appears to me almost certain, that the pilgrimages to Mecca have had nearly as great an effect in supporting this religion, as the first victories and conquests of Muhammed.”78 Ibid, pp. 124–25: “Our speculations, on the probable effect of this event, might be carried to a great length; I shall content myself, however, by observing, that the temper of the times is greatly altered since the æra of Muhammed, and that however much Arabia or Persia may be convulsed by religious wars, it is almost impossible for the contagion to extend any further. Numberless are the superstitious observances which have been grafted on the religion of Muhammed in India; and the reliance which the Mooslims place on their conforming to a number of Hindoo customs, totally disqualify them from adopting or understanding a reasonable belief.” Nonetheless exportation of the Holy War to India, to the detriment of the English, was in fact contemplated by Saʿud and expressed in a letter of exhortation to the sultan of Oman in 1805, then passed on by the sultan to David Seton, the English resident in Muscat (“verily thou shalt speedily proceed to the holy war in India, by which thou wilt not be fighting for me but it is incumbent on thee to be obedient to God”), cf. Kelly (1968), p. 108.79 On the so-called Indian Wahhabi movement in Patna, from 1822 up to the 1857–59 popu- lar insurrection all over the peninsula, cf. Balkhi (1983); Bari (1965); Lorimer (1915), I, pp. 2376–77; Margoliouth (1934), p. 1179; Ménoret (2003), p. 80; Peskes (2002), p. 45; Peters

94 Chapter 2seemed most surprising at the beginning of the nineteenth century were War-ing’s arguments in support of his own convictions. The slightly sarcastic re-marks, inserted right at the end of his account, about the shield supposedlyraised by inveterate Hindu superstition against the penetration of any “reason-able belief”, seemed to evoke the idea, hitherto unmentioned but which War-ing had come across before, at least in Niebuhr, that the Wahhabi movementcould in fact be the expression of a type of Deism. He simply reasoned that if,at the time of its greatest glory, even Islam had been forced to advance in Indiaby dint of compromises with local superstitions, and if Christianity, brought byEuropean colonialists, had faced similar opposition, a rationalistic Muslimheresy could hardly expect to be accepted by such a degenerate population.However, the consolation was also a paradox. The guarantee against such fearsconsisted in belittling those very same indigenous traditions which he seemedto expect would guard, more than any other form of defence, against innova-tions from Arabia. But how far could he base his hopes on such reasoning?6 Valentia and Other English Voices: The Din of Hostile Arms at MeccaThe chapter on the Wahhabis was an important reason for the German andFrench translations of Waring’s Tour.80 Soon, however, there were other Eng-lish contributions. In 1806 an anonymous reviewer in the Edinburgh Review,“by the assistance of a friend who has been in the East”, tried using his owninformation to make up for the disappointing omission of the “new sect” inJohn Griffiths’ recent narrative of his journeys in Ottoman territory. The Mus-lim origin of the Wahhabis was by now commonly accepted, and in the reviewthis was not considered to be incompatible with the persistent belief that their (1989), pp. 100–101; Puin (1973), p. 71; Rentz (1972), p. 66; Schwartz (2002), pp. 87–88; Vas- siliev (1998), p. 156. A possible intellectual affinity between Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wah- hab and Qutb ud-Din Ahmad ibn ʿAbd-al Rahim (1703–1762), the Indian Islamic reformer better known as Shah Wali Allah, is suggested by Khan (1968), pp. 35–36.80 Reise nach Sheeraz auf dem Wege von Kazroon und Feerozabad. Aus dem Englischen mit Anmerkungen des Übersetzters, Rudolstadt, 1808–809; Voyage de l’Inde à Chyras. Traduit de l’anglais de M. Scott-Waring, Paris, 1813 (already mentioned as forthcoming by Silvestre de Sacy, cf. [J.-B.L. Rousseau], Description du Pachalik de Bagdad, cit., p. 182 nt., the French version appeared as the third volume of the translation of Morier’s above cited account, edited by Jean Baptiste Benoît Eyriès, cf. Voyage en Perse, en Arménie, en Asie-Mineure, et à Constantinople; Par M. Jacques Morier, Paris, 1813). Neither the French nor the German version contains significant additions or corrections to the chapter on the Wahhabis.

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 95religion was innovative. These conflicting points of view were united in anoriginal synthesis according to which, although the founder ʿAbd al-Wahhabhad not at first wished for any clash with the “Mohammedan faith”, this did infact come about in the wake of the growing success of his preaching. One God,supreme, immaterial, eternal, omnipotent, the recipient of fervent prayer, wassaid to be an established principle recognised by every Muslim at the outset ofthe movement. However, anxious to “reform the old religion” and spurred onby a combination of enthusiasm and ambition, the leader was believed to havegone to the length of promulgating a “new creed” based on his personal inter-pretation of the Koran. This licence in the treatment of the Holy Book, respect-ed since time immemorial, and the obedience refused to the dead ProphetMuhammad probably led the inhabitants of Najd to have further increasingdoubts about the effective adaptability of Islamic precepts to their Bedouinlife. In the course of time a different opinion seemed to prevail, according towhich everyone received a clear idea at birth of right and wrong, thus obviat-ing written revelation.8181 [M. Napier], “Griffiths’s Travels”, in The Edinburgh Review, VIII, 1806, pp. 41–42: “It is now more than half a century, since Abdul Wahab began to promulgate a new creed in Arabia. His first doctrines probably extended no further than his own particular interpretations of the Koran; and his disciples were confined for several years to a few tribes of the desert. By degrees, however, his opinions became more widely spread; his heresies were easily adopted by the illiterate robbers, whom they encouraged with the hopes of conquest and of pillage; and as he found new followers continually flocking round his standard, it is probable that his enthusiasm grew more enterprising, and his ambition more daring. The design of reforming the old religion of his country, seems to have given place in his mind to that of establishing a new one.” And further on, ibid, pp. 43–44: “Of the peculiar doc- trines of the Wahabees, we pretend not to speak with any certainty. They assert, it is said, the unity of the Deity, like the Mahometans; they hold him to be immaterial, eternal and omnipotent; and in their addresses to the Supreme Being, they are fervent and devout. According to them, God has never dictated any written code of laws to men; nor has he made any particular revelation of himself. His existence, they think, is sufficiently mani- fested in his works. His will cannot be mistaken, since he has implanted the distinct per- ception of right and wrong in the human mind, together with the conviction that virtue alone can be agreeable to the Author of nature. They do not deny, however, that Provi- dence has occasionally interfered in the concerns of mortals in an extraordinary manner; and that it has chosen its instruments to promote the cause of truth, to reward the good, and to punish the guilty. Some men, they pretend, such as Mahomet and Abdul, have been distinguished by a peculiar favour of heaven. During their lives, the laws and ordi- nances of these men ought to be obeyed, and their persons venerated. Their authority, however, should cease with their lives; for the plans of Providence will then be furthered by other means, and with other instruments. If this statement be correct, and it comes to us from good authority, it is easy to see that ambition, not less than enthusiasm, dictated

96 Chapter 2 Such “Theism”, perhaps even “sublime”– the writer observed – was muchmore than one might expect of an Arab of the desert and a thousand timespreferable to the whole heavy-going content of the Koran. And yet an inveter-ate tendency to rebellion, imposture and “persecution”, carried out with thesame ferocious intolerance that had existed in the days of Muhammad, hadcorrupted the new message so far as to make it more or less exclusively accept-able to “illiterate robbers” authorised to keep for themselves the spoils wrestedfrom anyone recalcitrant to conversion.82 Browne and Volney were still responsible for this view of the situation, theformer as the first authority to refer to the Wahhabis’ different attitude toprophets both living and dead (supra, Chapter I, note 43), the latter because hewas quoted by Malthus.83 A new theme, perhaps an echo of the contemporarytheological debate in the East, was added to complete the picture. Islamic doc-tors of religion, ulamā, were said to have attempted the recuperation of theapostates by harking back to the exceptional circumstances of Muhammad’smission. Their adversaries, however, were reported to have appealed with his religious creed to the crafty Abdul.” The identity of the informer and friend back from the East mentioned by the author remains obscure (for author’s probable identity as Macvey Napier, publisher of the periodical, cf. The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, cit., I, p. 438, nr. 276).82 [M. Napier], “Griffiths’s Travels”, cit., p. 44: “As far as his [scil: ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s] theism goes, it is, perhaps, more sublime than could have been well expected from an Arab of the desert; but his pretensions to govern the minds and actions of his countrymen, under the special authority of Heaven, betrayed the imposter in the teacher, and the rebel in the reformer. In limiting those pretensions to the period of his life, he probably lost nothing for which he cared; while he assailed the Mahometan faith, without endangering his own immediate power. If, indeed, that power had been exercised only with the view of intro- ducing a religion more rational than Mahomet’s, we should not have much regretted its progress. It is humiliating to think that so many millions of people should consider such a miserable rhapsody as the Koran to be really of divine origin; and yet it is much more lamentable to know the ferocious bigotry and intolerance of its disciples. The dogmatical manner in which a Turkish doctor disposes of the souls of all whom he calls infidel, might excite rather derision than anger, if the insults and the cruelties experienced by strangers in Mahometan countries, did not efface every impression except that of indignation. Unfortunately for the cause of humanity Abdul appears to have had as little tolerance as Mahomet. His sword was stained with the blood of innumerable victims, and whole cities and districts have been desolated by his persecutions.”83 Malthus had referred to Volney in order to document a conflict between Bedouin life and Islamic precepts, but without mentioning the “nouvelle religion” described by the French traveller, cf. T.R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population. A New Edition, very much enlarged, London, 1803, p. 93 (citation lacking in the first edition of the work, 1798).

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 97equal force to events no less exceptional in the life of ʿAbd al-Wahhab, and theno less prodigious expansion of the new faith all over Arabia, with followers asfar afield as Damascus, Aleppo and Smyrna.84 It seemed that two belligerentreligious parties were confronting each other with the miracles of their respec-tive founders. Although the review did not include this topic, we can detect anauthentic motive of inspiration of the Wahhabi movement in the attempt torevive the struggle of the Prophet and his first companions to combat polythe-ism. The difference was that so much impiety now seemed to prevail not, as inthe past, over ignorant pagan desert dwellers devoted to ancient idolatry, butrather among professed Muslims who were denounced for infidelity to theircreed. There was no lack of contradictions in this reconstruction. First and fore-most there was the problem about how to reconcile the rational cult attributedto the new but bellicose sectarians with their acknowledged claim that theyonly desired to cleanse Islam of “baneful innovations” which had nothing to dowith the original spirit of the movement. The writer was forced to admit thatthere was still no “positive certainty” as to how to harmonise such discordantelements. He then proceeded to illustrate the possible consequences of the“revolution” taking place at the time. An audacious “rebel” (Browne’s defini-tion), the Wahhabi reformer was said to have intimated the Turkish sultan toforego the title of “Commander of the Faithful”, thereby attacking the verystructure of the Ottoman Empire, founded as it was on religion. Hampered byhabitual sloth, the court at Istanbul seemed to have failed to derive any benefitfrom either the temporary retreat of the Wahhabis occupying Mecca – in July1803 the invaders of the Hijaz suffered a smallpox epidemic – or the unfortu-nate assassination of the innovator ʿAbd al-Wahhab, whom the writer of thearticle, exactly as in Browne’s original, had obviously confused with the84 [M. Napier], “Griffiths’s Travels”, cit., p. 45: it was said that: “Difficulties and dangers unprecedented in the religious revolutions of the East” had been overcome by ʿAbd al- Wahhab with the help of “frequent interpositions of Heaven.” This news of a possible debate among Muslims concerning circumstances in the preaching of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab comparable to those in the life of Muhammad corresponds to a relatively common tendency in the treatment of Islamic saints and leaders and is also found in the Wahhabi chronicles, above all in connection with the leader’s emigration or hijra and his first reception at al-Dirʿiyya, recycled on the model of the Prophet’s welcome at ʿAqaba in 622 by his auxiliaries, ansār, from Mecca, with the dominant notion that Islam, having become foreign in its homeland, should finally be protected by the Saʿudi dynasty. The question of if and how far Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab claimed for himself a sort of prophetic mission was still looming, cf. Laoust (1939), p. 509; Peskes (1993), pp. 204, 245– 46, 249, 266; Puin (1973), pp. 73 nt., 78, 81, 84; Rentz (2004), pp. 50–51 nt.

98 Chapter 2assassinated Saʿudi king ʿAbd al-ʿAziz. Consequently the Holy City had soonfallen back into the hands of Saʿud, the son and successor of the dead leader,while Medina had been sacked. Such equilibrium was not destined to last long.Indeed, all the evidence suggested that Wahhabis and Muslims, the formermotivated by “fanatical enthusiasm” and the latter by “intolerant bigotry”,would clash on a vast scale. The very survival of the Sublime Porte in Asia wasat stake.85 This was the principal point of community with Waring and the writings ofCorancez and Rousseau which were about to be published. As the expected“revolution” seemed gradually to become absorbed by a process of limited “re-form” within Islam, European observers substituted this much favoured viewwith the equally evocative forecast of imminent political havoc also affectingthe cult. Europe’s familiarity with the spectacle of reigns and dynasties de-stroyed and churches abandoned cast a sombre shadow over Muhammad’spolitico-theological edifice with its fractured foundation stone. A witnesstherefore proclaimed that the honour still accorded the Koran in Asia couldhardly hide the defunct religion indefinitely behind a semblance of life. TheWahhabis’ conquest of Mecca, the break with the millennial government ofsharifs descended from the Prophet and the attack on the spiritual authority ofthe Turkish sultan already meant the virtual collapse of the “mighty fabric ofIslamism”.8685 [M. Napier], “Griffiths’s Travels”, cit., p. 45: “The throne of the sultan is already shaken in Europe. Who can doubt that the propagation of the new faith will rapidly accelerate the dissolution of his power in Asia?” It was believed that the arrogant assumption of the office of Protector of the Holy Places announced to the Ottoman sultan in a letter from freshly conquered Mecca had brought about the Porte’s revenge on the head of the Wah- habi leader by a hired assassin, dagger in hand, ibid, pp. 42–43.86 G. Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, Lon- don, 1809, II, p. 393: “Low as the power of the Turkish empire is now fallen, I do not expect that the Wahabee will completely prevail against it, unless by a communication with Europeans, they obtain supplies of arms and ammunition, and, with them, learn a pro- portion of European discipline. I consider Arabia, however, as lost for ever to the Sultan; and, consequently, that he has ceased to be the head of the Mussulman religion. The order of Mohammed, that his followers should, once in their lives, visit Mecca, can no longer be performed. The sacred city has heard the din of hostile arms, and is in posses- sion of a prince who denies to Mohammed the veneration which he has received for twelve hundred years. His descendants [scil: of Muhammad] will soon cease to reign; and although the Koran may be revered for a longer period throughout a portion of Asia, the mighty fabric of Islamism must be considered as having passed away, from the moment that Suud entered Mecca on the 27th of April, 1803” (the whole passage, but particularly the expression “mighty fabric”, recalls Waring, supra, note 77). For this forecast in Valentia,

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 99 George Annesley Valentia (1770–1844), the author of this forecast, havingreturned from a fruitful exploration of the southern shores of the Red Sea, ex-pressed the fear in 1809 that the “eagles of regenerated France”, no less terriblethan the ancient Muslim invaders of Europe, would extend their protectivewings over the Wahhabi reformers, accelerate the crisis of the vacillating Otto-man Empire, and irrevocably cut off the routes between London and the Brit-ish possessions in India.87 Valentia’s counterrevolutionary emphasis andgeopolitical considerations in his Voyages and Travels reflected, albeit from theopposite point of view, the ideas of the French consuls. His work influencedthe now standard description of the armed occupation of Mecca, the destruc-tion of the venerated sepulchres (including the fate of the monument to thememory of Khadija, the Prophet’s first wife), the profanation of Muhammad’stomb in Medina, said to have been irreparably ruined, the violent attacks onpilgrims held up as they travelled from Syria and Egypt, and the union of differ-ent tribes under the standard of a faith which sanctioned looting and declaredthat the property of inveterate infidels was “not sacred” . Niebuhr was still Valentia’s main source, although he admitted thatNiebuhr’s benevolent view of the Arabs contrasted with his own experience ofblackmail, tyrannical governors, fraudulent and corrupt merchants, and igno-rant and depraved masses, and ran counter to the well-grounded doubtsa more God-fearing observer should have on the state of religion in that “gloomily and somewhat inaccurate”, concerning the eclipse of the religion of Muham- mad, cf. Kelly (1968), p. 101 nt. On his impressions of Arabia, cf. Pfullmann (2001), pp. 429– 30.87 G. Valentia, Voyages and Travels, cit., III, p. 263: “The crescent of Mohammed no longer, indeed, forebodes danger to Christianity, but the equally terrible eagles of regenerated France threaten universal destruction to ancient establishments; and it is apparent, that their formidable master has more particularly formed his plans against the eastern empire of England (…) By entering in alliance with the Wahabee, whose offers had been slighted by the Bombay government, and with the Imaum of Sana, who hated the British name, she [scil. France] should render a continuance in the Red Sea impracticable to any fleet except her own, by cutting off the necessary supplies.” Valentia aimed to emphasise the strategic importance of the islands he had identified along the Eritrean coast which, if occupied by the British, would defeat the enemy’s plans. He was not alone in fearing an alliance between Napoleon and the Saʿudi kingdom: supplies of French arms to the Wah- habis via Mauritius (Ile de France, until December 1810) were considered to be a fact, cf. T. Legh, Narrative of a journey in Egypt and the country beyond the cataracts, London, 1816, p. 30. Some Mauritian French colonials, captured by Arab pirates and having converted to the Wahhabi faith, were even said to have fought against the English side by side with their new coreligionists, cf. A. N***, “Notice sur les Arabes et sur les Wahabis”, cit., pp. 25–26.

100 Chapter 2country.88 Valentia, however, added new local testimony, including informa-tion from at least two Wahhabis. The first was Sidi Muhammad Akil, a wealthyYemeni landowner with Indian connections whom he had met in Mokha inAugust 1804, and the second was a hajj pilgrim, a not further identified ʿAbdAllah whom he had met in the same city and who had been on the pilgrimagewith the conqueror Saʿud in 1803. As “a good friend” this interlocutor hadagreed to show Valentia the text of a “profession of faith” used by his coreli-gionists, in which references to Muhammad and the Koran were respectfullyworded and which seemed to confirm the hypothesis of a local religious dis-pute within Islam.89 A lively description ensues in the Voyages and Travels which, in spite of theWahhabis’ wide-ranging achievements, progressively reduces the scope oftheir theological innovations. “An extraordinary man”, the reformer ʿAbd al-Wahhab, had banned such abuses of the cult as the veneration of saints andthe consumption of liquor, coffee and tobacco, while accusing the Sunnis ofpreaching the supposed eternity of the Koran. He was, however, believed tohave acknowledged the divine inspiration of the book, to have accepted the“sayings of Mohammed”, and to have retained the value of visiting the Kaʿbah.Although Valentia avoided drawing any conclusions, the premises were such asto convince the public that the abolition of the pilgrimage, albeit declared di-sastrous for Islam, was not in fact a prejudicial rejection on the part of theWahhabis. Not only would it actually have been damaging for the economy ofthe new kingdom, but it depended on secondary causes such as the assertedprohibition of the cult of the Black Stone and the use of a maḥmal with the88 To excuse Niebuhr’s “partiality” to the Arabs, Valentia suggests that he frequented Bedouin who were not as corrupt as the urban populations of Aden, Mokha, Jidda, Suez and Cairo. On the material and spiritual decadence of these, not only in Muhammad’s time, but also at the time of the Danish expedition, cf. G. Valentia, Voyages and Travels, cit., II, pp. 354– 55; III, p. 328. To document the religious indifference he deprecated he merely observed that the lower classes did not stop work on Fridays; nor did he seem to see any contradic- tion between the deplorable omission of religious practice and the evident antipathy to the English, the Christian destroyers of Muslim domination in India.89 This is the compendium of Wahhabi doctrine as reported by Valentia, ibid, II, pp. 384–85: “There is only one God. He is God; and Mohammed is his Prophet. Act according to the Koran, and the sayings of Mohammed. It is unnecessary for you to pray for the blessing of God through the Prophet, oftener than once in your life. You are not to invoke the Prophet to intercede with God on your behalf, for his intercession will be of no avail. At the day of judgement it will avail you. Do not call on the prophet; call on God alone.” The other informer, Sidi Muhammad Akil, seems to have supplied his European interlocutor with information on military operations, in particular the defence of Jiddah, still protected in 1804 by a Turkish garrison from Egypt, ibid, pp. 93–94.

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 101accompaniment of trumpets and tambours when on pilgrimage to Mecca. Evi-dence of this was contained in letters from Saʿud to the Turkish sultan SelimIII, reported by Valentia.90 Similarly, although the discussion of the Prophet’srole was only touched on in a brief note on the controversy about Muham-mad’s power of intercession, and although the traditional profession of faith ina sole God and His envoy was transcribed without any comment, his readerswould have had the impression that the profanation of the sepulchre at Medi-na had been no more than a common episode of rapine, thus totally contra-dicting the rejection of the “tradition” concerning Muhammad as maintainedby Corancez and Rousseau. Nothing was said in favour of this theory, althoughthe author repeated that the Wahhabis showed “civil and religious hostility” toall “Mohammedans” without distinction. The assembled material, which was more than enough to prompt a thor-ough revision of Niebuhr’s original information, the only source with whichValentia was unquestionably familiar, was left as it was. The pilgrim ʿAbd Allah,possibly eager to please, declared that he had met the legendary Makrami atMecca twenty-seven years earlier and had received confirmation of the factthat he subscribed to the new cause. Valentia’s entire attention focussed in-stead on the politico-military implications of the Wahhabis’ imminent recap-ture of Mecca early in 1806, just after his final departure from Jidda and the endof Turkish rule there.91 Valentia was entirely preoccupied with the hardships90 Ibid, p. 390. The letter sent from Mecca on 3 May 1803 (very probably the one cited in the Edinburgh Review, supra, note 85), claims that the Wahhabis had behaved peaceably towards the city’s inhabitants, that a local judge, the qādī, nominated by the Porte, was retained, that tombs subject to illicit veneration were destroyed, and that peace with the Ottoman sultan was desired, on condition, however, that he forbid the Egyptian pashas from visiting the Holy Places in the usual scandalous processions. On the principal Wah- habi doctrines and prescriptions, ibid, p. 384; on the “idolatrous” cult of the Black Stone and that of Abraham’s footprint at the well of Zamzam, and on Saʿud’s self-interested calculations concerning the pilgrimage (later also registered by A. de N***, supra, note 64), ibid, p. 389.91 The second and longest Wahhabi occupation of Mecca, from October/November 1805, up to the Egyptian conquest in January 1813, attended by the pilgrimage and preceded in the summer by the capitulation of Yanbuʿ and Medina, was negotiated this time, in February 1806, with Sharif Ghalib who had by now suffered repeated defeats and had given up all hope of holding out in Jidda but secured for himself the income from the port and exemp- tion from taxation for the inhabitants of the Holy City, where he again took up residence. In order to keep an eye on his movements a governor loyal to Saʿud, the aforesaid al- Mudhaifi, was installed at al-Ta⁠ʾif, while Medina remained under the previous governor, Hasan al-Kalay, who had handed the city over to its assailants. Religious instructors were dispatched to the Hijaz with the object of imposing respect for Muslim orthodoxy

102 Chapter 2suffered by the Ottoman Empire, which was no longer represented by a vicar inthe Arabian Peninsula. He dwelt on the corruption and infidelity of the sharifof Mecca Ghalib, the uncertain fate of Aden, Mokha, Yemen and Oman, andthe growing threat to English trade by Wahhabi pirates in the Persian Gulf.92Instead of rectifying current interpretations, he offered a contribution for thefuture. Similar contributions were to follow, from other British envoys in theregion such as Morier, posted with Brydges in Teheran in 1809, and John Mal-colm, also engaged in Persian missions for the East India Company in 1810.These, however, had to be content with confirming the Wahhabis’ close adher-ence to the essentially Deistic doctrine of Islam, as it was more convincinglyconfirmed by sectarians in arms against profane Muslims rather than againstmembers of other religions. No further information was forthcoming from thatquarter.93 according to Wahhabi principles; cf. Brandes (1999), pp. 90–92; Margoliouth (1934), p. 1177; Philby (1930), p. 87–88; Philby (1955), pp. 105–106; Rasheed (2002), p. 21; Vassiliev (1998), pp. 103–104.92 G. Valentia, Voyages and Travels, cit., II, pp. 193–94, 356, 385, 391–92; III, pp. 325–27. Men- tioned without further detail: the seizure of two ships belonging to the English resident at Basra (Manesty), and the delay of the Bombay government which, after naval action against piracy, could in exchange have expected some help from Persia in defence of Northern India.93 Malcolm observes that numerous superstitious ceremonies common among the pilgrims to Mecca and at the Shiʿi sanctuaries of al-Najaf, Kerbela and Mashad, were a deviation from the “principle of pure Deism upon which the Mahomedan religion is professedly grounded”. He then proceeds to illustrate the “reform” undertaken almost a century ear- lier by Sheik Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab with the help of Ibn Saʿud, “the prince of Dereah, the capital of the Province of Nujuddee”. The sect, in evident decline around 1815, was said to be founded on the belief in the absolute oneness of God and the prophecy of Muhammad, literal adherence to the Koran (but without “the whole of the traditions”) and the sacred duty to wage war on all who did not respect the Holy Book and were hated much more than Jews and Christians, as well as the destruction of unworthy places of worship, particularly the magnificent tombs of saints, cf. J. Malcolm, The History of Persia, from the most early period to the present time, London, 1815, II, pp. 378–79 nt. Morier (the future author of the best selling novel The Adventures of Hajji Baba, of Ispahan, 1824) was more prudent. He only informs us that in 1810, when asked to abstain from supporting the pirates in the Persian Gulf, Saʿud was said to have replied that he had no reason to be hostile to the followers of other sects (scil.: English Christians), but only to those “mem- bers of the faith who, having turned away from the Book of the Creator, refused to submit to their own prophet Mahomed”, cf. J. Morier, A Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, cit., p. 374. A letter was effectively addressed in that year by the Saʿudi monarch to Nicholas Hankey Smith, who was in charge of the Persian commercial base at Bushir. It contained the promise that Muslim ships would no longer molest English ones and also a

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 103 Contacts were soon established with exponents of the tumultuous “reform”,contacts rather closer than those maintained by Rousseau, Valentia and otherEuropean diplomats. The Koranic matrix of the movement was thus confirmedand superficial comparison with any past heresy discouraged. There were con-fusing rumours of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s personal interpretationof the Koran and even textual revisions, in particular of the corpus of ḥadīth,which suggested the prospect of an animated debate on the “free examination”of the received texts, perceptible between the lines in Niebuhr’s account andformulated more coarsely in Corancez.94 Nobody yet knew whether all this re- curious metaphor with regard to the vanity of military undertakings (“war in the first place may be assimilated to a young woman, who by her filters stimulates the exertions of an inexperienced youth until she kindles a blaze, and having succeeded in inflaming the ardour of his passions, she retires like an old woman without a husband”). However, the plan of an alliance with the Saʿudi kingdom, thought by Valentia to be a necessary anti- dote should Gardane be successful in Persia, was only contemplated briefly by the East India Company authorities, who became sceptical the moment the proposal was more seriously advanced by a Wahhabi intermediary who shared his coreligionists” concern with the growing threat of Muhammad ʿAli, cf. Kelly (1968), pp. 83, 113 nt., 124, 126, 131–32; Lorimer (1915), I, pp. 193, 650, 1077, 1096; Philby (1930), pp. 75–76, 94 (with expressions of regret at the enduring English diffidence towards the Saʿudi dynasty even during the twentieth century).94 Stories of a special version of the Koran adopted by Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab may account for certain interpretations of the Holy Book giving the impression of novelty to scholars used to the traditional literature and liable to denounce any recourse to unjustifi- ably free readings. He considered the reduction of the study of the Koran to mere ­mnemonics blameworthy, since keeping too literally to the text was bound to give an impression of the contradictions it contained and to cause the superfluous use of expla- nations based on the principle of abrogation, naskh. He questioned even more strongly any presumed knowledge of verses from the Koran omitted by Caliph ʿUthman and of which certain Shiʿis boasted at the time, such as the rāfidah, cf. DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 30, 43, 103–104, 107, 109, 282, 309. Other reports that he repudiated the Muslim tradition, with the consequent distinction between the Wahhabis’ claim to observe the Koran and their lack of observance of the sunna, seem to be based on accusations that the reformer had attributed to himself the ability of “free inquiry” which he did not possess. At the origin of this accusation lay Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s assertion – not an isolated case among his contemporaries – of the need to forego the customary practice of preferring the repetition of conventional interpretations and judgements to direct access to the sacred texts, as if at a certain date, generally made to coincide with the end of the ʿAbbasid Empire in 1258, all capacity for autonomous comprehension had been lost, cf. Caskel (1929), pp. 4–5; DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 12, 29, 56, 106, (here emphasis is on the hostility of numerous ʿulamaʾ⁠ to “free inquiry”, heralding antipathy to the Wahhabi leader); Peskes (1993), pp. 41–44, 104–105; Vassiliev (1998), p.74. More particularly in the case of the ḥadīth,

104 Chapter 2ally was unusual, or whether it did not perhaps correspond to the constantdebate about abrogating a particular verse in the Koran or about the relativeimportance of individual episodes in the Prophet’s life. On closer scrutiny,however, the picture that gradually emerged seemed to offer further evidenceof an analogy with Protestantism, at least equal to that of the confirmed po-lemic against the cult of the saints, their miracles and their intercession. Theseemingly greater tolerance towards Christians and Jews, recorded by almostall the writers hitherto examined, tended increasingly to appear merely as theresult of the minor importance attributed to the religious beliefs of protectedminorities as opposed to anxiety about unacceptable religious practicesamong the majority of Muslims. Similarly, the desire to extirpate heresy in Eu-rope had once caused the most virulent conflicts among the followers of thevarious professed creeds of a single religion, Christianity. English accounts, like those of the Frenchmen Rousseau and Corancez,showed that the rigid monotheism attributed to the new devotees in Najd de-manding strict observance of the Koranic prohibition of “associating” com-mon mortals with God was not altogether divorced from the previous Deisticinterpretation of the Wahhabi doctrine. Establishing an analogy with the Ref-ormation was no obstacle to a more specific association of Muhammad ibnʿAbd al-Wahhab’s preaching with the anti-Trinitarian movements reappearingin the shadow of the Protestant Church and rooted in ancient Christian here-sies such as Nestorianism and Monophyitism which were always consideredoriginally to have inspired Muhammad. In this view, insistence on reducing theProphet to a mere mortal, even talk of omitting his name from the professionof the Muslim faith, a point not so much as mentioned in the compendium ofWahhabi doctrine received by Valentia, must have assumed particular signifi-cance in the eyes of European witnesses who remembered the on-going theo-logical controversies about the nature of Christ. Effective disapproval ofpopular forms of the cult of Muhammad culminating in certain traditionalceremonies in the Holy Places of the Hijaz kept alive the idea that a clamorous the traditions regarding the Prophet corresponding to the definition of sunna, Muham- mad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab considered the criterion of recognised authenticity according to the Koran more important than the veracity of the chain of transmission or isnād, how- ever authoritative the canonical collections might be considered, cf. DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 10, 46–49, 105, 111. There was, however, an undeniable vacillation in the Wahhabi camp between the assertion on the one hand that a scholar need not be an original interpreter or mujtahid in order to derive benefit from the Koran and the sunna, and on the other the acknowledgement of the leader as a renewer of Islam, a mujaddid, advanced among oth- ers by the later chronicler Ibn Bishr, cf. Peskes (1993), pp. 43–44, 209–11.

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 105dissent would oppose the new adepts at least to the pilgrimage, an inalienablecornerstone of Islam, thereby separating them from the faith as a whole. Muslim voices raised against Wahhabi proselytisation tended to grow in di-rect proportion to its success and must have contributed considerably to cast-ing doubt on this and other points. The lamentations of the devotees seemedto accompany the growing impression of the precipitous decline of the tradi-tional faith. A curious travel document, the diary of Abu Talib Khan (d. 1805),an Indian prince of Persian descent and a guest in London between 1800 and1801, was an example for the English public in those years of the sacred horrora Muslim Shiʿi could feel for those who profaned the sanctuary of Kerbela, vis-ited by the narrator eleven months after the Wahhabi incursion.95 As only thesensibility of a pious pilgrim could conceive it, the conflict between the “newsect” and the “Mohammedan Church” (a very curious definition indeed com-ing from the pen of a Muslim writer) was said to be irreparable. It appeared tohave gathered momentum with the persuasion finally reached by ʿAbd al-Wah-hab that the power of intercession possessed by Muhammad and numerous95 While staying at Kerbela where an aunt of his had retired to the sanctuary in preparation for death, Abu Talib learned of the massacre perpetrated by the “Vahabies” – his estimate was of 5,000 victims. For the responsibility imputed to the city’s governor (nominated and punished by the pasha of Baghdad), the information on the sect he obtained, which was only incomplete because of the “indolence” of the inhabitants, cf. Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan in Asia, Africa, and Europe, London, 1810, II, pp. 323–29. A second edition of his Travels appeared in 1814. In the meantime there had been a French translation (1811) and a German one translated from the French (1812). The chapter on the Wahhabis had, how- ever, already appeared in German in Archenholz’s publication, cf. “Die Wahabiten”, in Minerva. Ein Journal historischen und politischen Inhalts, 1811, 3, pp. 281–90. In spite of the events plausibly narrated by Abu Talib, who was of Persian origin but a native of Luc- know, and a friend of the English, suspicion still persisted about the author’s identity and the authenticity of the work; his voyage to Europe in 1798 in the wake of differences with the indigenous authorities of the kingdom of Oudh (now Uttar Pradesh); his reception by fashionable London society; and the circumstances of the preparation of the manuscript on his return to Calcutta in 1803, delivered in 1807 to his translator in Europe, Charles Stewart, a professor of Oriental Languages at Hertford College. In the preface to the sec- ond edition of the Travels Stewart therefore felt the need to propose a future edition of the Persian text (finally edited in Teheran in 1983 by Husain Hadijwam and entitled Masīr-i tālibi: yā Safar-nāma-i Mirzā Abū-Tālib Hān [Destiny of Talib, or Book of the Travels of Mirza Abu Talib Khan]). The greatest attraction of the diary naturally lay in its non- European perspective, culminating in a curious appendix entitled “Vindication of the Liberties of the Asiatic Women”, ibid, II, pp. 401–18, intended as a confutation of the prej- udice against the condition of women in the East, a provocative hypothesis, previously advanced in England by Mary Wortley Montagu.

106 Chapter 2saints was incompatible with Islam and amounted to idolatry. However, theracy narrative and the original perspective of the account was accompanied bya partisan testimony difficult to disentangle and the effect of which not eventhe general tone of the book, which tended to transpose the philosophicalmodel of Montesquieu’s Lettres Persanes into reality, was sufficient to neu-tralise.96 As we saw, the turning point only came with the East India Company’s navalexpeditions against pirates in the Persian Gulf, and above all with MuhammadʿAli’s invasion and the information published by the European travellers in histrain who had reached the Muslim Holy Places. Once the Wahhabis’ halo ofinvincibility had dissolved it was customary to avoid incautious propheciesand commonplace generalisations about the East and the transience of em-pires, never completely divorced from the fickle variables of French or English96 According to Abu Talib the founder, born on the banks of the Euphrates near al-Hilla, was brought up in Najd and from there went to study in Isfahan, in Khorasan and in Ghazni (central Afghanistan), and finally in Iraq, before returning to Arabia. At the close of 1757 (1171 AH) his preaching was originally on the lines of the Sunni Hanafi tradition, but it was not long before it turned into “doctrines entirely new”, based on the assumption that “the whole Mohammedan church” now consisted solely of “associators (giving partners to God), infidels, and idolaters”. The devastation of the saints’ tombs, including that of Muhammad in Medina, should be interpreted as revenge against the Muslim habit of only praying to mediators, in contrast to a more moderate recourse to this expedient by Jews and Christians (the entire passage, between inverted commas in the text, seems to confirm the impression of a direct quotation, in all probability from the Kitāb al-tawḥīd, Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s best known text). The information on the Wahhabi expansion, including some occasional bright touch (the warriors were said to carry their passports for Paradise into battle with them, hung round their necks), ends with the first conquest of Mecca “at the instigation of the Turks”, sic), the submission of Oman almost as far as Muscat, and the development of an autonomous naval force. However, the author predicted the conquest of Basra, al-Hilla and Baghdad, and the arrival of the sectarians at the gates of Constantinople (sic). ʿAbd al- ʿAziz, the old monarch described as still living, is presented as ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s adopted brother who had granted a blind son called Muhammad the title of imām, or ‘supreme Pontiff” in the new religion – doubtless with the usual confusion of families and generations, members of the Saʿudi dynasty and rela- tives of the Wahhabi leader, but also with a very evident loan from Niebuhr by the transla- tor. A letter from ʿAbd al-ʿAziz to the shah of Persia, a justification of the slaughter in Kerbela (though the text seems to refer to al-Najaf), is transcribed to prove the scope of Wahhabi aims and to suggest that Turks and Persians should form an alliance against their common enemy, ibid, II, pp. 329–37. At various points the account betrays its obvi- ously Persian origin. In his diary Rousseau, back from his stay in Persia, also credited rumours of the Wahhabi leader’s birth on the banks of the Euphrates, cf. J.-B.L. Rousseau, Voyage de Bagdad à Alep, cit., p. 95.

Literary Disputes and Colonial Aims 107interests during the Napoleonic period. Investigation into the sect, and aboveall into the religious problem it represented, would now achieve a greaterc­ larity.9797 After Niebuhr, French and English predominance over information on the Wahhabis was undermined by Seetzen’s contribution. In the same years just one article in the journal of the theologian from Marburg, Ludwig Wachler, marked a timid Wahhabi entry into the theological debate in Germany. It was still based on Niebuhr’s writings, followed by those of Rousseau in particular, as well as the German translation of Abu Talib Khan’s Travels. Characteristically, the writer appears incapable of solving the dilemma of whether Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab had merely wanted to reform the religion of the Koran, or whether a “tiefe Wunde” had been inflicted on “Mohammedismus” with the capture of Mecca and the ban on pilgrimages, cf. “Die Wechabiten”, in Theologische Nachrichten, II, 1813, pp. 446–47, 455.

108 Chapter 3 Chapter 3Muslim “Puritans” There are different opinions about the Wahabys’ tenets, and I never met in Syria any person who even pretended to have a true knowledge of their religion. I think myself authorised to state, from the result of my inquiries (…), that the religion of the Wahabys may be called the Protestantism or even Puritanism of the Mohammedans. J.L. Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, 1830 ⸪1 Seetzen before the Emir of WuhabistenThe first direct European testimony of the Wahhabis was the account by theEnglish envoy Reinaud at the court of al-Dirʿiyya, only published in 1805 evenif it referred to an episode a decade earlier (supra, Chapter II, note 67). It con-tained very little about the “new religion”, as the narrator called it, apart fromthe fact that a certain Saʿud al-Wahhabi was the founder and father of SheikhʿAbd al-ʿAziz, by whom Reinaud said he had been received. Here again, modifi-cation of the religion was said to be due to the initiative of a member of theSaʿudi dynasty. The account of the move from al-Ahsaʾ⁠ to the capital of the newdomain, which took him eight days escorted by a “foster brother” of the sover-eign, an Arab from the ʿUtub tribe, consisted of a cursory description of theplaces he saw as “sandy solitude”. The capital al-Dirʿiyya, the object of a week’svisit, had the appearance of a well-built city, watered by a seasonal stream oncultivated land inhabited by an exclusively Wahhabi population, both wild andhospitable. Government was concentrated in the hands of the sheikh andseemed not to include court functionaries but only a mullāh acting as scribe –possibly the “chaplain” later described by Rousseau. For the benefit of the read-er Reinaud added that, since then, the Wahhabi conquests must haveprogressed apace, to include al-Qatif, al-Zubara, even Bahrain (and perhapsKuwait), while the number of soldiers available was estimated at twice the100,000 commonly reported. Little importance was accorded to the actual con-versation with ʿAbd al-ʿAziz, but the result must have been fruitful, at least ac-© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004293281_005

Muslim “Puritans” 109cording to the often repeated reports of frequent intercourse between theWahhabis and the East India Company agent Samuel Manesty in Basra.1 The interest of this testimony lay not only in the text, but also in the personwho had acquired it in Aleppo and transmitted it to Europe. It appearedin German in the Monatliche Correspondenz zur Beförderung der Erd- und1 U.J. Seetzen, “Auszug aus dem Briefe des Hrn. Reinaud an Dr. Seetzen”, in Monatliche Cor- respondenz, XII, 1805, pp. 238–39: “Von Ascha bis Drahîa sind noch acht Tagereisen. Der ganze Weg ist eine sandige Einöde, die nur zuweilen mit Gebüsch bewachsen ist. Drahîa ist eine kleine aber im Arabischen Style schön gebaute Stadt, deren Lage den Aufenthalt daselbst sehr gesund macht. Um die Stadt herum liegen einige gut angebaute Hügel, und die ganze Gegend wird durch einen kleinen Fluss bewässert. Man findet hier einige Früchte, als Weintrauben, Feigen u. s. w., die aber, wie man mir sagte, von den Einwoh- nern sämmtlich schon unreif verzehrt werden. Die in diesen Gegenden hausenden Wha- habee sind sehr wilde, aber auch auf der andern Seite sehr gastfreundliche Menschen. (…) In der Zeit als ich mich zu Drahîa aufhielt, war der Name des dasigen Scheikhs Abdil Aziz Ibn Sand, der Vater des jetzigen. Sand al Whahabee war der erste, der die neue Religion stiftete, und Abdil Aziz schmückte sie nur noch mehr aus. Abdil Aziz war ungefähr 60 Jahr alt; ein schlanker hagerer Mann, und für einen wilden Araber sehr gebildet. Seine Familie belief sich nach den mir darüber mitgetheilten Nachrichten auf 80 Seelen. Er hatte kei- nen Hofstaat, und doch gingen alle Geschäfte durch seine Hände. Ein einziger Schreiber, Namens Mula (the editor notes: «Mula oder molla ist der gewöhnliche Arabische Name aller studirenden Personen), war sein Gehülfe. Seine Truppen bestanden damals aus 100,000 Mann, allein da jetzt die Hofiry, Aneve, Ibn Kalid, und noch andere Arabische Stämme unter seiner Botmässigkeit sind, so glaube ich mich nicht zu irren, wenn ich die Zahl seiner Truppen oder vielmehr seiner Unterthanen, die auf jeden Befehl die Waffen ergreifen müssen, auf 200,000 bestimme. In Drahîa gibt es weder Juden noch irgendeine andere Nation als Whahabee”. For a shorter, more imprecise version of this narrative in Seetzen’s journal on his stay in Aleppo (1803–805), not included in the nineteenth-cen- tury edition of his diaries, cf. Id., Tagebuch des Aufenthalts in Aleppo, Hildesheim-Zürich- New York, 2011, pp. 7, 272 (25 November 1803 and 25 December 1804), specifying that Reinaud was from Zante, of French Catholic parentage and later converted to the Angli- can Church in London, perhaps in order to marry an English woman who then accompa- nied him to Basra. His host “in Adráhiá” was in all probability the “philosophischer Gesetzgeber Wabi”, father of Abdul Asihl, his “General” and “ein sehr rechtlicher Mann”. Despite the ferocity Reinaud attributes to the Wahhabis – during the aforsaid attack on the port of Kuwait, local Arab prisoners were said to have been killed and the blood of one of them used for ablution, cf. Id., “Auszug aus dem Briefe des Hrn. Reinaud”, cit., p. 235 – and further violent acts in the meantime, Seetzen still appeared to believe in the lasting value of Manesty’s name in 1808 and that on his recommendation one could “eine Reise nach Derreija, der Residenz der Nachfolger Abd el Wuhâb’s, mit Sicherheit zu machen” and acquire further information on the “neue politisch-religiöse Monarchie der Wuhaby”, cf. U.J. Seetzen, “Einige Bemerkungen über die Kjerwanen-Strasse von Damask nach Bag- dad”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, XVIII, 1808, p. 511.

110 Chapter 3Himmels-Kunde, a scientific periodical published by Franz Xaver von Zach, di-rector of the astronomical observatory of Gotha. He had received Reinaud’snarrative thanks to the explorer Seetzen who had for some time resided in theSyrian city in the hope of improving his Arabic. He was there from November1803 to April 1805. Of German nationality but a Russian subject – he was bornin Jever, the property of the Romanoff dynasty from 1793 to 1806 – Seetzen leftfor Asia with the intention of reaching Egypt. From there he hoped to continueby caravan, treading in the footsteps of his late compatriot Friedrich Horne-mann, and to make for the heart of Africa in search of the unknown course ofthe Niger beyond Timbuktu. The project, backed by Niebuhr and the anthro-pologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach from Göttingen, sponsored by EmilLeopold August, duke of Gotha, and later by the czar, Alexander I, was to fasci-nate Burckhardt a few years later. Zach, who published calculations of longi-tude made by Niebuhr during his Arabian expedition (based on the originallunar tables of another scientist from Göttingen, Tobias Mayer), consideredSeetzen to be a promising new traveller and undertook to instruct him in thetechnique of measuring geographic coordinates by observation of the heav-enly bodies.22 The exploration of the Lower Niger had been drawn to the attention of Niebuhr when he met an envoy from Tripoli in Copenhagen in 1772 and received news from the Danish set- tlements on the coast of the Gulf of New Guinea. The exploration had given rise to an article in 1790–91 which influenced Hornemann and Seetzen. It was assumed that Muslim domains in Central Africa had relations with bordering principalities to the North, although they were not so hostile to foreigners. Confirmation of this hypothesis was soon to be found in Bruce’s travel diaries, translated into German by Blumenbach, cf. C. Nie- buhr, “Das Innere von Afrika”, in Neues Deutsches Museum, III, 1790, pp. 978, 980–81, 990– 91; Id., “Noch etwas über das Innere von Afrika”, ibid, IV, 1791, p. 427. Seetzen intended to travel with a friend, Ernst Jacobsen, who had had to give up the idea soon after their arrival in Smyrna. For a biography of Seetzen and a description of his movements in Tur- key and Syria, in the Palestinian territories of the ancient Decapolis and Jerusalem, along the shores of the Dead Sea, to Cairo and the region of the Lower Nile, and, finally, his move to Arabia, largely based on information in the diaries, cf. Haberland (2011), pp. xxii- xxvi, Mutzenbecher (1891); Pfullmann (2001), pp. 402–408; Schienerl (2000). For informa- tion about his intellectual formation (his medical studies at Göttingen, the influence of the works of the Enlightenment which included the writings of Baron d’Holbach), his preparation for the journey during his stay at Gotha (financial support was vainly requested from the African Association, which had no means at the time), the publication of the posthumous diaries (first edited with some omissions by the historian Kruse and in which the Hegelian philosopher Hinrichs played an unfortunate role), cf. Bonacina (2010); Haberland (2011), pp. xxvi-xl; Mangold (2004), pp. 43, 55; Müller (1995) (with the descrip- tion of the Seetzen fund in the Oldenburg library); Olivier (1995); Plischke (1937),

Muslim “Puritans” 111 Despite his original objective, Seetzen’s journey initially consisted in tirelesswanderings across Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Sinai and Egypt. He travelled as adoctor by the name of Musa, and his more memorable exploits included hisdiscovery of the ancient cities of the Decapolis – Philadelphia and Gerasa –and his tour round the entire coast of the Dead Sea. He finally disembarked inArabia, where he met his death on the road from Mokha to Sanʿa in distant Ye-men. He was murdered in mysterious circumstances in September 1811, in aplace where, like Niebuhr, he had believed he could move with greater safetythan in the rest of the peninsula.3 In the course of his peregrinations, on whichhe observed attentively even the slightest religious nuance and during whichhe was admitted to the temple of the last members of the Samaritan commu-nity, Seetzen inevitably encountered the problem of the recent Wahhabi doc-trine. An admirer of Holbach and Volney, he frequented a masonic lodge inCairo called the “Pyramid” which was also open to Jews and was presided overby a French interpreter, Louis Antoine Vasse. His orientation was towards theideals of the Enlightenment and the freemasons, and he felt a certain enthusi-asm for a universal political religion as well as an intense dislike of the “infer-nal” sectarian spirit. He was convinced that rational criticism should also beapplied to the sacred texts and that a traveller was required not only to masterthe language, wear local dress and adopt the local diet, but that he should alsosimulate acceptance of the religious beliefs of the countries visited. The resultwas that, once he was in Arabia, he chose to pass himself off as a convert andto wear “the mask of Islam”, all of which favourably predisposed him to a closeencounter with “the new religion” described by Niebuhr.4 pp. 31–42; Schäbler (1995), who clarifies a certain difficulty Seetzen had in understanding the political situation of the countries he visited.3 Contemporary conjectures as to the cause of the murder include Seetzen’s ill-advised dis- guise as a dervish, the innumerable camels he was using for the transportation of his finds, his reputation as a magus (inseparable from his profession as a medical doctor), and even possession of maps of Mecca and Medina drawn in great secrecy. They are reported by the English journalist and traveller James Silk Buckingham and Carl Friedrich Hermann Kruse, the executor of Seetzen’s literary legacy and the editor of his diaries, cf. U.J. Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, Palästina, Phönicien, die Transjordan-Länder, Arabia Petraea und Unter-Aegypten, Berlin, 1854–59, I, pp. xxxviii-xxxix. On Seetzen’s movements in Arabia and his mysterious death in Yemen as he travelled from Mokha to Ta⁠ʾizz after ten months of epistolary silence – as late as 1836 the English missionary Joseph Wolff saw an Arabic manuscript at Zabid which had belonged to Seetzen – cf. Hogarth (1904), pp. 82–83; Nebes (1995).4 Seetzen was firmly convinced that the “Geist der Meinungen”, at work in the name of religion or politics, was mainly responsible for all those “Verbrechen, worüber die Ver- nunft trauert”. He thus proposed, “als Lutheraner”, to be “unter Katholiken ein Katholik,

112 Chapter 3 Its founder, whose name is not mentioned, was described in Seetzen’s travelplan of 1802 as an extraordinary personality, worthy of inclusion among thelegions of the greatest prophets, interesting precisely because of the philo-sophical character of his preaching. “Immortal men”, the dispensers of incalcu-lable good and evil, great innovators like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad,comparable in their power of suggestion to “so many Cagliostros of their times”,had manifested their genius and at times declaimed exemplary moral doc-trines as if by divine ordination and in the guise of miracles. The lands whoseearth they trod might well have preserved something of their ancient power togenerate religions destined to spread throughout the world, the equivalent oftrue political revolutions, although they were apparently undertaken as re-forms of the cult. Seetzen concluded that there was therefore nothing to pre-vent one from imagining that “analogous good fortune” might one day alsosmile upon that “philosophical sheikh of the north-eastern region of Arabia”,whom Niebuhr had previously described as “the harbinger of an extremelysimple religious doctrine”.5 unter Griechen ein Grieche, unter Nestorianern ein Nestorianer”, or, “als Christ”, to be “bald Mahommedaner, bald Brachmane, bald Fetischendiener”, trusting “in den Augen der Aufgeklärtern meinen Charakter nicht zu beflecken” and able to distinguish “Cerimo- nien von einer guten Moralität, die Schaale vom Kerne”, cf. U.J. Seetzen, “Reiseplan ins innere Afrika”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, VI, 1802, pp. 326–27. He was not even dis- couraged by Niebuhr’s warning: “Auch verstehen die Türken in Ansehung der Religion eben so wenig Spas als die Römische Kirche” – which presaged the possibility that the slightest suspicion of a fake conversion might lead the unfortunate traveller to the gal- lows, cf. C. Niebuhr, “Über D. Seetzen’s Reiseplan”, ibid, p. 460. On Vasse (1782–1857), in his youth a Knight of Malta, a French interpreter manqué in Muscat, active in Cairo at the end of 1807 (an unpublished letter of his recounts his meeting with Chateaubriand, who liked to make people believe he was a general there), consul for three decades in later life in a long series of different posts, from Pristina to Candia, Odessa, and even Larnaca, cf. Faivre d’Arcier (1990), pp. 31–32, 91, 147, 180.5 U.J. Seetzen, “Reiseplan ins innere Afrika”, cit., p. 202: “Arabien, Aegypten und Palästina waren von jeher Mütter und Säugammen religiöser Systeme, und ihre Urheber hatten das seltene Glück, ihre Lehre dem grössten Theil der bewohnten Erde zur Norm mitzutheilen. Wie wichtig wurden nicht für das Menschengeschlecht Moses, Jesus – denn Johannes das war, was etwa Huss dem Luther – , Mohammed? Und dem philosophischen Scheche in der nordöstlichen Gegend von Arabien, dem Verkünder einer sehr einfachen Religionslehre, scheint ein ähnliches glückliches Loos beschieden zu seyn. Wenn man gleich nicht läug- nen kann, dass jene unsterblichen Männer manches thaten, was eine strenge Moral ver- dammen würde, indem sie, wie Cagliostro’s ihrer Zeit, allerhand Taschenspieler – und Marktschreierkniffe ausübten, um das Ansehen eines vorzüglich von der Gottheit Begün- stigten und eines Wunderthäters zu erhalten, und sie unter der Maske einer religiösen Reform beständig eine politische Revolution bezweckten, an deren Spitze sie sich zu

Muslim “Puritans” 113 During the early days of his travels Seetzen still harboured this attractiveidea, but it proved to be a growing disappointment. As the guest of the localEuropean residents in Aleppo, he was already under considerable pressurefrom them. His meeting with Reinaud, his acquaintance with the Englishstellen bestrebten: so darf man doch ihren Kenntnissen, ihrem glänzenden Genie undmanchen ihrer moralischen Lehren seine Huldigung nicht entziehen. Ich werde mit sehrgemischten Empfindungen das Vaterland dieser Männer betreten, deren MeinungenJahrtausende hindurch bey zahllosen Generationen so unendlich viel Gutes und sounendlich viel Unheil anrichteten, und zwey der berühmtesten Wallfahrtsörter der Welt,Jerusalem und Mekka, die Centralpuncte von drey am weitesten ausgedehnten Religi-onsparteyen, mit der gespanntesten Erwartung besuchen”. After his arrival in Instanbul(December 1802), Seetzen still described the Wahhabi sheik in his private diary as “einArabischer Eroberer und Stifter einer neuen rein deistischen Religionslehre”, cf.Id., Tagebuch des Aufenthalts in Konstantinopel und der Reise nach Aleppo, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York, 2012, p. 132 (22 Februar 1803); also later described as a “philosophischerGesetzgeber”, supra, note 1. A different version exists of the comparison between Moses,Jesus, Muhammad and the “philosophical sheik of the north-eastern region of Arabia”,evidently intended to safeguard the divinity of Jesus from such an audacious juxtaposi-tion, and without the provocative mention of Cagliostro. I identified it by comparing thetwo collections of Monatliche Correspondenz owned by the Niedersächsische Staats- undUniversitätsbibliothek Göttingen, one in the private collection of the mathematician CarlFriedrich Gauss (shelf mark: Gauss Bibl. 1419), the other a regular library acquisition ofthe periodical (shelf mark: 8 Geograph. 67). The modified text says: “Wie wichtig wurdennicht für das Menschengeschlecht Moses und Jesus, welche es aus dem tiefsten Abgrundedes Aberglaubens zu der erhabensten Stufe des Lichtreichs emporgehoben haben. Nurein so göttlicher Geist wie der Jesus war, konnte sich aus den widersinnigsten Thorheiten,aus der abscheulichsten Intoleranz, die bey diesem verworfenen Volke herrschte [scil.:the Jewish people], zur liebenswürdigsten Weisheit und zu dem menschenfreundlichstenWeltbürgersinn erheben. Nur eine majestätische Gotteswürde vermochte aus so dickenFinsternissen hervorzubrechen. Mohammed, und dem philosophischen Scheche in dernordöstlichen Gegend von Arabien, dem Verkünder einer neuen Religionslehre, scheintein ähnliches Loos bechieden zu seyn. Obgleich sie ihre Lehren mit Feuer und Schwerd zuverkündigen und geltend zu machen suchten: so kann man doch ihren Kenntnissen,ihrem glänzenden Genie und manchen ihrer moralischen Lehren seine Huldigung nichtversagen”. The discrepancy did not escape Schäbler (1995), pp. 120–21, who was able toview and transcribe Seetzen’s original manuscript fully corresponding to the first textreported here. She nonetheless wrongly assumes that the amendment was included in allcopies of the publication. It is not known whether the correction was made by Seetzen onhis own initiative, or by Zach, in which case the traveller himself may not have known ofthe incident since he left Gotha (June, 1802) after delivering the manuscript but before itspublication. But in fact there were definitely two different editions of the same issue, onefaithful to the original, perhaps destined for a more select, enlightened readership (suchas Gauss), the other cautiously emended.

114 Chapter 3consul John Barker, who was also studying the Wahhabis, the hospitality ofCorancez, who was about to send his own article to Le Moniteur, and finally thenews of an essay by Rousseau, all occupied his mind and were mentioned inthe letters he sent home.6 His subsequent stays in Damascus and Cairo pro-duced a radical change of mind. In the Syrian capital early in 1806 the spectacleof the solemn departure of the caravan for Mecca – the pasha on horseback,the throng of dignitaries and the variety of richly adorned pilgrims, the mili-tary escort, even cannon and groups of musicians, the maḥmal at the head ofthe procession (“a camel carrying a rich covering for the Holy Sepulchre, whichall those present respectfully saluted”) – increased Seetzen’s astonishment atthe violent hostility of the Wahhabis to the pilgrimage thus conducted. Thishostility was all the more apparent from the uncertain fate of the pious expedi-tion and the disaster which overtook yet another one in the following year –a grim foreboding for the Ottoman Empire.7 In Cairo rumours of offensive6 U.J. Seetzen, “Fortgesetzte Reise-Nachrichten”, ibid, XI, 1805, pp. 363, 365 (letter to his brother Peter Ulrich Seetzen, the Lutheran pastor at Heppens, 23 May 1804): “Ich brachte neulich einen Tag bey dem Französischen General-Consul De Corançe, und drey Tage beym Englischen Consul Barker in ihren Gärten zu. (…) Der neue Religionsstifter in Arabien, Wahäbi, hat hier zwey Biographen erhalten, den Französischen Consul in Bag- dad, Mr. Rousseau, und den hiesigen Englischen Consul Barker. Die kleine Biographie des erstern ist schon auszugsweise in Frankreich gedruckt, allein ich hoffe in Arabien noch mehrere Nachrichten von ihm einzuziehen”. Similarly in Seetzen’s journal: “Er [scil.: Rous- seau] hat Wuhäbi’s Leben beschrieben; eine kleine Biographie, die aber für Europa vieles Interesse haben dürfte”, cf. U.J. Seetzen, Tagebuch des Aufenthalts in Aleppo 1803–1805, cit., p. 59 (14 January 1804), followed by a transcription of Rousseau’s “Notice sur la horde des Wahabis” in Le Moniteur, as reproduced in Le Journal de Francfort, ibid, pp. 190–92 (27 August 1804). The reference to Rousseau, of evident interest also in relation to the dispute with Corancez, is partly confirmed by the consul’s assertion that he had already finished editing an article on the subject in February 1804 (supra, Chapter II, note 44), and by the first article in Le Moniteur, which appeared on the same day as Seetzen wrote his letter. There is no mention of a biography of the founder of the Wahhabis in Barker’s posthu- mously published memoirs, cf. J. Barker, Syria and Egypt under the last five sultans, Lon- don, 1876. Seetzen also seems to have sent an unpublished Nachricht über die Bewegungen der Wuhabis am Persischen Meerbusen from Aleppo to his mentor Zach (according to Kruse, cf. U.J. Seetzen, Reisen, cit., I, p. xxx) which was perhaps meant to supplement Reinaud’s information.7 U.J. Seetzen, Reisen, cit., I, pp. 296–99: “Der Aus- und Einzug der Pilger ist ein wahres Fest für die Einwohner. (…) Eine Menge Soldaten, besonders Daláty oder Kavalleristen mit ihren langen Cylindermützen, eröffneten den Zug zu Pferde. Dann kamen lange Züge von Kameelen, die mit Zelten, Fourage und Lebensmitteln beladen waren. Dann kamen wie- der viele Daláty. Dann kam ein Trupp usbeckischer Derwische zu Fuss, und diese wurden von einem Trupp Arnaûten gefolgt, welche die Infanterie ausmachen, und sich durch ihre

Muslim “Puritans” 115letters from ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s successor (strictly speaking, his “caliph”) ad-dressed to Muhammad ʿAli, intimating that he should agree to an alliance orprepare to be invaded, gave credit to the idea of another imminent Arab con-quest of Egypt. It was from Cairo that Seetzen sent a final report in which hestill used the expression “new religion”. Not many months later he showed thathe now knew with absolute certainty how dangerous it had become in thewake of the Wahhabi “reform” for Christians to travel in Arabia without a writ-ten declaration certifying their conversion to Islam. Even the Bedouin, onceindifferent to Muslim ceremonies but ultimately subdued into accepting thenew order, were obliged to pay a tax as a contribution to the “war of religion,for the misfortune of mankind”.8 besondere Tracht auszeichnen. Hierauf folgte ein Trupp Paukenschläger, welche zwi- schendurch mit lauter Stimme den Pascha hoch leben liessen. Dann kamen wieder Daláty auf Kameelen, wovon jeder vor sich eine Art langer Drehbassen hatte, die Súmbúra genannt werden, die sich leicht nach allen Seiten drehen lassen und die öfters von ihnen abgefeuert werden. Dann kam ein zahlreicher gedrängter berittener bunter Haufen von Vornehmen, Negern, Mulatten und Weissen, und gleich dahinter der Pascha zu Pferde, mit einem köstlichen Pelze bekleidet und beständig das Volk mit vielem Anstande grüs- send. Hinter ihm waren wieder eine Menge von seinen Hausleuten, Kaufleute, Pilger, Gepäcke etc. Der Zug dauerte von Aufgang der Sonne bis Mittag. (…) Im Anfange ein Kameel, das das reiche Zeug für das heilige Grab trug, dem alle Zuschauer ehrfurchtsvoll grüssten. (…) Die Hâdschys sassen fast alle auf Kameelen auf ihrem Gepäcke (…). Der Pascha von Dschídda ritt vor seiner prächtigen Sänfte; sein Hârim, das heisst seine Wei- ber, sassen in der kleinern Art Sänften, die alle mit Vorhängen versehen und sehr bunt geschmückt waren. Auch einige Kanonen von 6 – 12 Pfunden waren im Zuge, von Kamee- len gezogen”, cf. Id., Tagebuch des Aufenthalts in Aleppo, cit., p. 64 (20 January 1804). As to the fate of the later caravan of 1807, Seetzen learned in Jerusalem that it had apparently not even had permission from the “Regent von Derréïja” to approach Medina. The pil- grims were said to have been “angegriffen und grösstentheils zu Grunde gerichtet, die Uebergebliebenen sich genöthigt gesehen hätten, die eiligste Flucht zu ergreifen, und der Pascha gänzlich beraubt in Damask angekommen sey.” The scarce credit attributed to this account – the Wahhabis may only have asked the pasha to abandon arms and regalia, and he would have chosen to retreat in disarray rather than accept dishonourable conditions – did not prevent Seetzen from noticing widespread grief among the “Mohammedaner”: “Ein böser Unstern verfolgt jetzt die Osmanen: dieser Vorfall und ein neuer Krieg mit Russ­land, welche Begebenheiten könnten wohl niederschlagender für sie seyn?”, cf. Id. Reisen, cit., II, pp. 398–99.8 Id., “Einige Bemerkungen über die Kjerwanen-Strasse von Damask nach Bagdad”, cit., p. 509; Id., “Beyträge zur Kenntniss der arabischen Stämme in Syrien und im wüsten und peträischen Arabien. Akre, im Junius 1806”, in Monatliche Correspondenz , XIX, 1809, pp. 112–13, 124–25. For the last instance of Seetzen’s use of the formula “neue Religion”, cf. Id., “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russisch- Kaiserlichen Cammer-Assessors Dr.

116 Chapter 3 Thus, through Seetzen’s successive accounts dispatched from Syria, Egyptand finally Arabia, all the different earlier interpretations of Wahhabism byEuropeans were reproduced and concentrated in the work of a single author asa complete set of information on the phenomenon. Towards the end of Janu-ary 1806 Seetzen had already been able to note in his diary how ʿAbd al-Wah-hab and his appointed successor Saʿud preached at sword point a religionadhering to the “stark words of the law of the Koran” and collected a contribu-tion known as sicke (perhaps meaning zakāt), while denying Muhammad thetitle of prophet, forbidding pilgrimage to his tomb and declaring it unlawful toinvoke him rather than God. Further particulars of the murder of Saʿud by aPersian merchant mourning a son among the victims of Kerbela, or the mortaldanger represented by the new sectarians even to Christians and Jews, revealedthe peculiar source of this information which was less exact than that of Cor-ancez and Rousseau, albeit contemporary with it – suffice it to note the in-verted roles of ʿAbd al-ʿAziz and Saʿud (the former transformed into a son of thelatter). It came from men of unspecified religious allegiance encountered onthe road between Damascus and Jerusalem who were, however, particularlyshocked by stories of looting at the Shiʿi sanctuary.9 When he arrived in Cairo U.J. Seetzen”, ibid, XVII, 1808, p. 147 (letter from Cairo, 22 September 1807). For the forced payment of tribute money by the Bedouin, cf. U.J. Seetzen, Reisen, cit., III, p. 9. The inti- mations to Muhammad ʿAli in June 1807 “von dem jetzigen Regent von Drehéija, oder dem Chef der Wuhabisten” (presented under the dynastic name of Ibn Saʿud), led Seetzen to conclude that Egypt had been left to choose between delivering itself up to a European power or else renouncing all progress, suffering a Wahhabi invasion and again living through “die Scene von Amru’s Eroberung bald nach Mohammeds Tode”, ibid, pp. 181–82, 197. It should be noted that the letter of Saʿud and another from Ghalib, delivered to Egypt by pilgrims in 1807, are also mentioned by al-Jabarti, according to whom the Saʿudi mon- arch was said to have denied expressing any accusation of having ever used words con- trary to the principles of Islamic law, cf. al-Jabarti, History of Egypt, cit., IV, pp. 85–86. For confirmation of the information in Seetzen that the Wahhabi threat had also reached Egypt, cf. Gran (1979), p. 101.9 U.J. Seetzen, Reisen, cit., I, p. 326: “Wenn die Juden und Christen den Glauben des Wuhâby nicht annehmen, müssen sie sterben. Zur Verbreitung seiner Religion durchs Schwerdt und zur Erhaltung der Truppen bezieht er den Sicke. Abd el Wuhâb hatte keine Kinder und war nie verheurathet. Einer aus seinem Hause wurde für seinen Nachfolger erkannt, und dies war Söaûd, der 8 Söhne hatte. Dieser eroberte Imam Ali und ermorderte dort unter andern den Sohn eines begüterten persischen Kaufmanns und plünderte die Stadt. Dieser schwur ihm Rache. Er war in Bagdad ansässig. Er zog als ein Armer nach Derréija und blieb dort eine Zeitlang als ein unschuldiger Mensch, bis Niemand Argwohn in ihn setzte. Einst beym Gebet nahm er die Zeit wahr, wo Söaûd das Allah hu akbar sprach, und sich dabey niederbückte, und versetzte ihm mit einem kleinen Messer, das er im Busen

Muslim “Puritans” 117in May 1807 Seetzen was able to acquire further information from local schol-ars whom he consulted on the purchase of manuscripts. His sources were thechronicler al-Jabarti, celebrated for his erudition, but more particularly an ob-scure Sheikh Hasan, a Bektashi dervish, who affirmed that he had stayed in al-Dirʿiyya and boasted knowledge of the most controversial religious sects– Druse, Nusayri, Ismaʿili and of course Wahhabi, the latter considered to be areformed “Mohammedan” sect.10 Seetzen’s next journey to Arabia, namely to Jidda in August 1809, followedby his pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina, finally gave him the chance to form afirst-hand opinion of the new masters of the Muslim Holy Places. This mightperhaps have been decisive in spreading information about them in Europe,had not the sudden death of this unfortunate traveller meant the irreparableloss of the last part of his diary.11 His visit to the Hijaz meant that Seetzen, whohad hitherto lived according to the rites of the eastern Christians in Syria,Palest­ ine and Egypt, had now to perfect his adaptation to the East by trans-forming himself into a Sunni Muslim of the Hanafi school of law and undergo- versteckt hatte, einen tödtlichen Stoss. Man glaubte anfangs, er sey von irgend Jemand abgesandt; allein er gestand, dass dies ganz auf seine Anstiftung aus Rachgier geschehen sey. Er wurde ermordert von Abd el Asis, ibn Szöoud. – Die Familie von Vettern etc. soll aus 40 Personen bestehen. Saöûd ist aus Derréija gebürtig und seine Familie wohnt immer dort. Wuhâby geht nach den trocknen Worten des Gesetzes im Koran. Allein er sagt, Mohammed sey kein Prophet, und man müsse nicht zu seinem Grabe wallfahrten, oder ihn statt Gottes anrufen”. According to an earlier annotation, the murderer of “Abdullah Wuhaby” was supposedly a “Schech aus Bagdad”, driven by “Religionseifer”, cf. Id., Tage- buch des Aufenthalts in Aleppo, cit., p. 265 (14 December 1804).10 On his encounters with Hasan and al-Jabarti, cf. Id., “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russisch-Kaiserlichen Cammer-Assessors Dr. U.J. Seetzen”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, XVII, 1808, pp. 157, 162. On the genesis of the principal monotheist religions, Seetzen writes: “Die mosaische Religion gebar die christliche, und beyde vereint die mohamme­ danische, die Sekte der wahabitischen Reformirten nicht ausgenommen”, cf. Id., “Auszug eines Briefes an Herrn von Hammer”, in Fundgruben des Orients, I, 1809, p. 69 (letter from Cairo, 10 July, 1808).11 The diaries published by Kruse, cf. U.J. Seetzen, Reisen, cit., based on the notes Seetzen sent to Europe during his progress, begin with his journey from Aleppo to Damascus (9 April 1805) and break off with his departure from Cairo for Arabia (23 March 1809). Previ- ous sections, omitted by Kruse, have been published in recent years, cf. Id., Tagebuch des Aufenthalts in Konstantinopel und der Reise nach Aleppo, cit.; Id., Tagebuch des Aufenthalts in Aleppo, cit. The Monatliche Correspondenz and Fundgruben des Orients, the only publi- cations available to his contemporaries, are thus still today invaluable sources of informa- tion on the final purely Arabian part of his expedition.

118 Chapter 3ing initiation into the “mysteries” of the “Mohammedan” religion.12 Inparticular, his journey to the tomb of the Prophet, looted three years earlier,was an occasion on which to reflect on the controversial relations of the Wah-habis with Islam and dispel some misinterpretations of the sect’s attitude tocommon Muslims. The result was a brief epistolary review of the main items under debate.Muhammad was held by the Wahhabis to be “as great a prophet as he was[held to be] by other Mohammedans”. Nonetheless, his sepulchre was not to betaken for a place of pilgrimage. Indeed, such worship was to be consideredreprehensible, albeit not yet physically impeded by the garrison at Medina.1312 Id., “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russ. Kais. Kammer-Assessors Dr. U.J. Seetzen”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, XXVII, 1813, p. 77 (letter from Mokha, 17 November 1810): “Ich benutzte meinen Aufenthalt in Dschidda, um mich immer mehr und mehr in die Myste- rien der Islàm einweihen zu lassen; und nachdem ich in allen Stücken einem Mùslim gleich geworden, kleidete ich mich in Pilgergewande (...) und zog am 8. Oct. nach Mekka, dem berühmtesten Wallfahrtsorte in der Welt, ab, um daselbst den Fastenmonat Ramadân zuzubringen”. Having embraced the Hanafi rite, Seetzen continued his religious instruc- tion with a local teacher, Sheik Hamsa, his future travel companion to Yemen: “Ein Zelot in seiner Religion und daher ein gefährlicher Späher für mich”, but an expert on the law of inheritance and the interpretation of the “Sagen des Propheten”, ibid, pp. 160, 172. On the conversion, understood as a disguise, see ibid, p. 166; ibid, XXVIII, 1813, p. 238. This ena- bled Seetzen to make the pilgrimage to the Holy City under the control of the Wahhabis, and ensured good treatment by Sharif Ghalib – at least according to rumours reaching the prior of the Sinaitic monastery of St. Catherine which he reported to an English visitor, John Fazakerley, in February 1811, cf. “Journey from Suez to Mount Sinai (communicated by J. Fazakerley)”, in R. Walpole (ed.), Travels in various countries of the East, cit., p. 380. For the hypothesis that Seetzen did not convert to Islam out of mere opportunism, despite his disenchantment on discovering the true character of the Wahhabi teachings, (“Could he have understood at Mecca that he was close to a universal religion capable of creating of all mankind a brotherhood?”), cf. Weippert (1995).13 U.J. Seetzen, “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russ. Kais. Kammer-Assessors Dr. U.J. See- tzen”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, XXVII, 1813, p. 163 (letter from Mokha, 17 November 1810): “In dieser Moschee (in deren Südost-Ecke) ist die berühmte Grabcapelle des Pro­ pheten, weswegen Medine von so vielen Pilgern besucht wird, obgleich sie sich dies nicht bey den Wuhabisten verlauten lassen dürfen, indem diese den Besuch von Wallfahrts- Örtern, Mekka ausgenommen, gänzlich verbieten. Übrigens halten sie Mohammed für einen eben so grossen Propheten, als es die übrigen Mohamedaner thun. Man versichert, dass Söûd, der jetzige Heerführer von Nedsched, alle Schätze aus dieser Capelle nach Dre- heia fortgeführt habe.” In 1807 Seetzen already knew that the Bedouin in the vicinity of Damascus, affected by Wahhabi teachings, professed their faith as follows: “Ich glaube an den einigen Gott und an Mohammed, Knecht des Gesandten Gottes, der gebohren ward und starb” – which was clearly intended to forestall any undue divine honour accorded to

Muslim “Puritans” 119Of far greater sanctity was the pilgrimage to the Kaʿbah, which the presentruler Saʿud in person – his name is at last correct – scrupulously observed as amonarch honoured with the religious title of imam. The simplicity of his garband the subdued splendour of his train, almost insignificant when comparedwith the magnificence already witnessed along the streets of Damascus, for aninstant suggested to Seetzen that he might join it himself as far as al-Dirʿiyyaand from there go on to Bahrain.14 His description of the pious conquerors,which did not include any mention of the still evident destruction in Mecca,was not entirely favourable. Concerned for Seetzen’s safety, the eminent citi-zens of Mecca, who were his principal hosts, manifested a strong antipathy tothe devotees from Najd. There were no Turkish pilgrims to be seen in the city,even if there were Persian Shiʿis, and there were still reports of caravans oftravellers being massacred.15 The fear of common Muslims at the advance ofSaʿud and his allied tribes, now extending southwards as far as the coastal re-gion of Hadramaut (although the ports of Aden and Mokha were still holdingout), even seemed to have created a new verb, “to wahhabise” (wuhabisiren),indicative of the profound effect such conquests had on laws and customs.16 the Prophet, cf. Id., Reisen, cit., III, p. 33. Precisely this circumscribed idea of Muhammad was the cause of the Wahhabi leader’s notoriety as “ein Mensch ohne Glauben, ein Kaffer” among the Sunnis who are as devoted to the Prophet “so wie die Madonna die Geliebte der katholischen Christen”, ibid, p. 61.14 Id., “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russ. Kais. Kammer-Assessors Dr. U.J. Seetzen”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, XXVII, 1813, p. 170 (letter from Mokha, 17 November 1810): “Söûd, das weltliche Oberhaupt der Wuhabisten, welche ihn schon Imâm zu nennen anfangen, war auch in diesem Jahre mit einer grossen Pilger Karavane angekommen, worunter sich ein paar hundert schiitische Perser befanden. Ich sahe ihn einige male mit seinem Gefolge von etwa hundert ­Reutern, welche mit schweren Bambus-Speeren verse- hen waren, oben mit Straussfedern ge­schmückt. Söûd war sehr einfach gekleidet; er trug einen weissen Abbáje. Personen, die Gelegenheit hatten ihn zu sprechen, versichern, dass er vielen natürlichen Verstand besitze. Ich hätte eine fürtreffliche Gelegenheit gehabt, mit seiner Karavane nach Nadsched und Dreheïa und ferner nach el Bahhrán zu reisen; allein, da meine Bekannten ihn und alle Wuhabisten äusserst hassen: so würde ich alle ihre Achtung verscherzt und mich wohl gar ihren Verfolgungen ausgesetzt haben.”15 A survivor from a caravan of Indian pilgrims intercepted by the Wahhabis on its way from Mokha to Mecca, on the other hand, did not hesitate to praise the religious tolerance shown by the English in Delhi, ibid, XXVIII, 1813, pp. 244–45 (letter from Mokha, 17 November 1810).16 U.J. Seetzen, “Über das Küstenland von Szauáken und Massaúa auf der Westseite des ara- bischen Meerbusens, nebst Bemerkungen über einige Nachbarländer”, ibid, XX, 1809, p. 21 (letter from Cairo, 30 November, 1808); Id., “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russ. Kais.

120 Chapter 3 Seetzen had no time to produce and transmit a summary of the informationhe had gathered. His long last letter to Zach from Mokha of 17 November 1810,published posthumously in 1812–13 before the news of his death, includednews of a summons he had received from the Wahhabi emir of Medina, guard-ed by a military garrison, to be interrogated about where he was from and hissuspicious habit of procuring manuscripts. He was not released until his in-quisitor had been convinced that “he was not a Turk, but a Frank and a Muslimneophyte”.17 With the disappearance of the diary a circumstantial account wasalmost certainly lost of this extraordinary dialogue between a Wahhabi au-thority and a pilgrim from afar who, in his heart of hearts, was, according tonotes made in Mokha in June 1810, a “scientific missionary” convinced that thebuilding round the Kaʿbah could have been put to better use as an astronomi-cal observatory. He was also convinced that enlightenment in the East mightbe achieved by translating fundamental European texts into Arabic in emula-tion of the Jesuits, but after any sign of “religious enthusiasm” had been re-moved.18 Kammer-Assessors Dr. U.J. Seetzen”, ibid, XXVII, 1813, p. 173; ibid, XXVIII, 1813, pp. 235, 240 (letter from Mokha, 17 November 1810).17 “Den 22. Dec. wurde ich von dem Emir der Wuhabisten verlangt. Ich ging zu ihm, und man erkundigte sich, wer ich sey? weswegen ich hierher gekommen? warum ich hier so lange mich aufhalte? warum ich so viele Bücher kaufe? u. s. w. Letzteres hatte zuerst Auf- sehen erregt, und man hatte mich für einen Türken gehalten. Als man hörte, dass ich kein Türke, sondern ein Franke und Neophyt sey, liess man mich wieder abtreten”, ibid, XXVII, 1813, p. 166 (letter from Mokha, 17 November 1810). On his local friends’ fear for Seetzen’s fate, ibid; for the more extensive accounts in the lost diary, if not of this specific episode, certainly of his experience as a pilgrim, ibid, p. 79. It is hard to establish the identity of the emir who supposedly interrogated Seetzen, perhaps Maʿsud ibn Mudhaiyan, head of the Banu Harb, nominated “governor of Medina” by Saʿud, cf. J.L. Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, cit., p. 331. In what state of mind the traveller underwent this interrogation is revealed in a previous note of his: “Die Wuhabiten ermordern jeden, den sie für einen Ketzer (Méschik) halten; (...) man prophezeyt mir einen schlimmen Aus- gang”, cf. U.J. Seetzen, “Auszug aus zwey Schreiben des Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kammer- Assessors, Doctor. U.J. Seetzen”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, cit., XXI, 1810, p. 275 (letter from Suez, 15 May 1809).18 Id., “Astronomische Beobachtungen in Arabien, nämlich in Hedschâs und Jemen”, ibid, XXVIII, 1813, p. 357: “Müsste ich hier nicht verstohlen beobachten, so würde es mir sehr leicht gewesen seyn, die trefflichsten Stellen zu meinen Beobachtungen zu finden, und ich würde keinen Augenblick angestanden haben, das platte Dach von Bêt Alláh oder der Kâba zum Observatorium zu wählen, wozu dies Gebäude, welches einem abgestumpften viereckigen Thurme gleicht, besser geeignet zu seyn scheint, als zu einer Wohnung der Gottheit.” For the causes of the backwardness of the Orientals in the field of Science – national pride, ignorance of European languages, limited distribution of the press, cf. Id.,

Muslim “Puritans” 121 One result at least was clear. In Arabia Seetzen had found the traces not of asimple philosophical religion but of an attempt to reorganise local materialand spiritual relations still inspired by the norms established by Muhammad.There would soon be another account of Mecca during the Wahhabi occupa-tion which would confirm this evidence. An enigmatic ʿAli Bey, a putative de-scendant of the ʿAbbasid caliphs, had been in the Hijaz before Seetzen, whohad heard him mentioned with admiration, but not without suspicion, inEgypt. ʿAli Bey published a lively memoir in France, his adopted country, at thebeginning of the Restoration. Although the political situation sketched out inhis notes was no longer up to date, his work was an important advance alongthe path that would ultimately lead to Burckhardt.2 Badía y Leblich: A Swarm of Bees Round the KaabaConcealed behind the name of ʿAli Bey al-ʿAbbasi was the Catalan travellerBadía y Leblich. With the support of the prime minister of Spain, Godoy, whohoped with his help to promote a dynastic revolution in Morocco, Badía was inLondon in 1802 concluding preparations for his mission and also frequentingthe circle of the African Association under the leadership of Joseph Banks.19After the virtual lack of success of his mission he disembarked in Egypt in May1806 and, perhaps with contemporary developments in Europe in mind, he “Aus einem Schreiben des Russisch-Kaiserlich Kammer-Assessors Dr. U.J. Seetzen”, ibid, VIII, 1803, pp. 441–42 (letter from Smyrna, 27 July 1803). With his desire to act as “ein wis- senschaftlicher Missionär”, Seetzen reflected ideas widespread in the French consulate in Cairo, cf. Id., “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russ. Kais. Cammer-Assessors U.J. Seetzen”, ibid, XX, 1809, pp. 446–48 (letter from Cairo, 17 March 1809). He had written a brief unpub- lished text the year before, eloquently entitled: Die wissenschaftliche Propaganda. Ein Werk des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts.19 The existence of a political aim to the journey, besides the initial scientific reasons, known only to Godoy, is admitted by Badía in a brief account written on his return for the new French government in Spain, cf. Viatjes de Ali Bey El Abbassi (Domingo Badía y Leblich) per África y Assia, Barcelona, 1888–89, I, p. 6 (a Catalan translation of the 1814 French vol- umes, preceded by a short biography of the author). The instructions he received are included in Godoy’s memoirs, with the following description of the traveller: “Courageux, entreprenant, rusé, aventurier par goût, caractère vraiment original, dont la poésie héroïque aurait pu s’emparer; il y avait quelque chose d’oriental dans ses idées; ses pas- sions ardentes, la mobilité de son esprit, le rendaient capable de tout, propre à tout, et singulièrement à la mission que je lui confiais”, cf. Mémories du Prince de la Paix Don Manuel Godoy, traduits en français d’après le manuscrit espagnol par J.- G. d’Esménard, Paris, 1836, IV, pp. 70–71.

122 Chapter 3chose to contact the French Consul Drovetti. On his return from the East hesought an audience with Napoleon in 1808, and was assigned missions in Spain,then ruled by the emperor’s brother Joseph. The exact aim of these missions inNorth Africa, Arabia, Syria and Turkey, the true religion of the supposed Mus-lim ʿAli Bey, believed to be of high Arab lineage, and the source of his lavishmeans which assured him introductions and reception almost everywhere, im-mediately became the subject of controversy. In Cairo it was suspected that theunacknowledged objective of his journey was the Wahhabi kingdom.20 His ac-count, entitled Voyages d’Ali Bey and with a timely dedication to Louis XVIII,was published in 1814 in Paris, where he had returned in order to avoid Spanishpersecution of the afrancesados. The editor defined the work as a “sort of he-roic poem”, extracted from a far greater number of manuscripts which in factwere never published. The fourth and final volume was embellished with draw-ings of Mecca, the Kaʿbah and the great mosque in Jerusalem – places nor-mally inaccessible to Christians. An English version appeared within two yearsand was followed by a less pretentious German one .2120 Hearing about the origins of the presumed ʿAli Bey from informers at the Cairo consulate, where it the fake Arab’s name was said to be Pedro Nuñez), Seetzen credited rumours that the British government had entrusted the mysterious traveller with a mission to the Wah- habi “Caliphe”, cf. U.J. Seetzen, “Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Russ. Kais. Cammer- Assessors U.J. Seetzen”, in Monatliche Correspondenz, XVII, 1808, p. 162 (letter from Cairo, 22 September 1807); ibid, XX, 1809, p. 452 (letter from Cairo, 17 March 1809). Thomas Legh, an English officer in Egypt, thought otherwise. He dismissed Badía as “employed by Bona- parte as a spy”, cf. T. Legh, Narrative of a journey in Egypt, cit., p. 25 nt. Familiarity with Godoy (the “Prince of Peace”) and contact with the African Association are also attributed to Badía by Burckhardt, who met him in Aleppo in 1807 and remembered having heard him mentioned in London, where he had seen a small portrait of him in Banks’ office, cf. J.L. Burckhardt, Travels in Nubia, London, 1819, p. xxviii (letter from Aleppo, 12 May 1810).21 [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi en Afrique et en Asie, Paris, 1814. The text, revised by Jean Baptiste de Roquefort, is preceded by a brief editorial note (8 July 1814) in support of the credibility of ʿAli Bey. In view of “faits qui paroîtroient incroyables” the editor refers to testimonials “des peuples, des consuls et des négociants des diverses nations européennes, qui résident dans les contrées décrites”, ibid, I, p. xv. Maintaining the fiction of the author’s identity, even if the true name of the traveller and his connec- tion with Godoy had already been revealed by Isidoro de Antillón (cf. Principios de geografia fisica y civil. Por D. Isidoro de Antillón, Madrid, 1807, p. 76), did little to help the reputation of the work and fostered fantasies of every sort, cf. Viatjes de Ali Bey El Abbassi, cit., I, pp. 9, 11. In the entourage of Charles IV at Bayonne it was said that Badía was a Jew- ish convert to Islam, while a brilliant reviewer, Robert Southey, was happy to confirm the theory that the mysterious traveller was in fact descended from moriscos forcibly con- verted to Catholicism but still so faithful to his ancestral Muslim religion as to be forced into secrecy in post-Napoleonic Spain in order to escape the “Inquisition now that its

Muslim “Puritans” 123 Among the many original experiences of this strange traveller one of themost remarkable is his participation in the pilgrimage to Mecca under the ruleof the Wahhabis in February 1807, over two years before Seetzen. The mainnovelty was Saʿud’s own active participation in the ceremonies, likely to dispelany doubt as to the observance of the Muslim precept. But more interestingstill was a lengthy description of the Wahhabi pilgrims. Badía, a guest of SharifGhalib, described them as veritable conquerors. They had indeed been so inthe previous year and Badía’s error was probably due to the irate inhabitants’impression of repeated invasion.22 An astonishing apparition of pilgrims sim-ply clad in the ihram but armed, with no musical instruments, banners or mil-itary trophies, wound their way towards the Kaʿbah amidst the confusedsounds of prayer and “shouts of holy merriment”. Soon, overcome by “holy zealin the house of God”, they had pressed on in the direction of the Black Stoneand then abandoned themselves to a wild circular movement round the sacredbuilding, resembling a crazed “swarm of bees”. The guns resting on their shoul- claws are grown again”, cf. [R. Southey], “Travels of Ali Bey”, in The Quarterly Review, XV, 1816, p. 299 (for the attribution to Southey, cf. H. Shine, H. Chadwick Shine [ed.], The Quarterly Review Under Gifford. Identification of Contributors, Chapel Hill, 1949, p, 52, nr. 387). The English translation (also supported by Alexander von Humboldt, who wrote about it to his friend Helen Maria Williams) still does not mention Badía as the author, but does refer to his visits to London in 1802 and 1814, cf. Travels of Ali Bey in Morocco, Tripoli, Cyprus, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and Turkey, London, 1816, I, pp. v-vi, ix-x. For the Ger- man translation, cf. Ali Bey’s el Abassi Reisen in Afrika und Asien. Aus dem Französischen, Weimar, 1816. For information about the personality and the journey of Badía y Leblich (rumours of his presumed Jewish origin were also spread by William Bankes on the alleged basis of documents he had seen in Istanbul), for the undoubted value of his reve- lations in Mecca, the suspicions of political compromise, and his obscure death in Syria (1819) attributed by unreliable witnesses to poison on the orders of the English – still loyal to Napoleon during the Hundred Days, he must have felt ill at ease in France during the Restoration – cf. Bidwell (1995), pp. 27–31; Faivre d’Arcier (1990), pp. 95–96, 173; Hogarth (1904), pp. 80–82, 96 nt.; Pfullmann (2001), pp. 38–46; Sabini (1981), pp. 71–83 (by then the latter was about the only scholar to suggest that Badía had become a sincere Muslim).22 The error noted by J.L. Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, cit., p. 254, caused some confusion about the actual date of Badía’s stay in Mecca, which was in fact 1807, not 1806. The Cata- lan traveller may have been bewildered by the enormous stir Saʿud’s presence created among the pilgrims, whereas the king had merely directed the recapture of Mecca from a distance the year before. Ghalib, initially suspicious of the self-styled ʿAli Bey, was later to allow him the supreme honour of taking part in the ritual cleansing of the Kaʿbah, and was to proclaim him “serviteur de la maison de Dieu la défendue”, cf. [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit, II, pp. 315–18.

124 Chapter 3ders had smashed numerous lights hanging round the perimeter of the colon-nade, apparently unintentionally.23 The power of the new arrivals seemed irresistible. Before them the authorityof the sharif and any other potentates was “annihilated”, especially when thetreatment meted out to the Syrian caravan the year before was recalled. Badíatherefore decided to dedicate a special section to the Wahhabis, Chapter XX ofthe second volume of the Voyages, a kind of intermezzo in the narrative, based,he asserted, on information received not only from the inhabitants of Mecca,but from the “reformers” themselves.24 Historical information, in contrast to23 Ibid, pp. 320–22: “Qu’on se figure une foule d’individus étroitement serrés les uns contre les autres, n’ayant de vêtements qu’un petit pagne autour des reins, et quelques uns, une serviette passée sur l’épaule gauche et sous l’aisselle droite; du reste, entièrement nus et armés de fusils à mèche, avec un khanjear ou grand couteau recourbé à la ceinture. (…) J’en vis défiler une colonne qui me parut composée de cinq à six mille hommes, tellement serrés sur toute la largeur de la rue, qu’il ne leur auroit pas été possibile de remuer la main. La colonne, précedée de trois ou quatre cavaliers armés d’une lance de deux pieds de long, étoit terminée par quinze ou vingt autres, montés sur des chevaux, des chameux et des dromadaires, avec une lance à la main, comme les premiers; mais ils n’avoient ni dra- peux, ni tambours, ni aucun autre instrument ou trophée militaire. Pendant leur marche, les uns poussoient des cris d’une sainte alégresse, les autres récitoient confusément des prières à la haute voix, chacun à sa manière. Ils montèrent dans cet ordre jusqu’à la partie supérieure de la ville, où ils commencèrent à défiler par pelotons pour entrer dans le temple par la porte Beb es Selem. (…) Déja les premiers pelotons, pour commencer leurs tours de la Kaaba, s’empressoient de baiser la pierre noire, lorsque d’autres, impatients sans doute d’attendre, s’avancent en tumulte, se mêlent avec les premiers, et bientôt la confusion, parvenue à son comble, ne permet plus d’entendre la voix de leurs jeunes guides. A la confusion succède le tumulte. Tous veulent baiser la pierre noire, ils se préci- pitent; plusieurs d’entre eux se font jour, le bâton à la main: en vain un de leurs chefs monte sur le socle, près de la pierre sacrée, pour ramener l’ordre; ses cris et ses signes sont inutiles, parceque le saint zèle de la maison de Dieu qui les dévore ne leur permet pas d’en- tendre la raison, ni la voix de leur chef. Le mouvement en cercle s’augmente par l’impul- sion mutuelle. On les voit à la fin, semblables à un essaim d’abeilles qui voltigent confusément autour de leur ruche, circuler sans ordre autour de la Kaaba, et, dans leur empressement tumultueux, briser avec les fusils qu’ils avoient sur l’épaule toutes les lampes de verre qui entouroient la maison de Dieu”. On the circumstances of Saʿud’s stately pilgrimage to Mecca in February 1807 with delegations from each province and the Arabian tribes under his authority, on the Syrian caravan being repulsed on that very occasion, on the expulsion of the remaining Turkish troops in the Hijaz, cf. Philby (1955), pp. 108–109.24 [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit, II, pp. 335–36: “C’est d’eux-mêmes que je tiens la plupart des renseignemens que je donnerai sur leur secte.” Only the deter- mination to avoid alienating the favour of Ghalib would have stopped Badía from

Muslim “Puritans” 125more credible reports already available from Corancez and Rousseau, inducedhim to locate the birth of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab in the neighbour-hood of Medina, postdating it to about 1720. Only later, after completing hisstudies in that city and observing the cold reception with which his professedideas were met, was the Wahhabi leader driven to move to Central Arabia,among the Bedouin largely “indifferent to the cult” and so, it might be assumed,more receptive to his own message. Arrival at al-Dirʿiyya in 1747 and the con-version of the local prince, a certain Ibn Saʿud, desiring to gain authority overthe local war-torn tribes – this point was in accordance with the most creditedaccounts, although Badía failed to mention the reformer’s assent to such a planof conquest – was finally to ensure a political basis for the “reform” and to initi-ate the formidable expansion of the kingdom. Here Badía reconstructed the precepts of the sect on the basis of more sub-stantial elements than merely biographical ones. Far from considering himselfa prophet, the Wahhabi founder had adhered strictly to Koranic revelation andmerely repudiated the “particular doctrines”, “detailed devotional practices in-troduced by the doctors”, “superstitious principles with little or nothing to dowith the simplicity of the [Muslim] cult and morality”, in the light of whichWahhabi principles must have looked like “innovations”.25 Muhammad was presenting himself “auprès du sultan Saaoud, comme je desirois, afin de le connoître plus particulièrement”. Badía attributed the expulsion and dispersal of the Syrian caravan in 1806 and the retreat in 1807 to lack of respect for the conditions imposed, which consisted in not being accompanied by women, soldiers or artillery, not visiting Medina and not bringing a “riche tapis que le Grand-Seigneur envoyoit tous les ans pour couvrir le sépul- cre du Prophête” (an allusion to the maḥmal), ibid, pp. 329, 453–54.25 Ibid, pp. 441–42: “Le Scheih Mohamed ibn Abdoulwehhàb náquit aux environs de Médine: je n’ai pu savoir le nom du lieu où il reçut le jour, ni l’époque exacte de sa naissance, que je place vers l’année 1720. Il fit ses études à Médine, où il séjourna plusieurs années. Doué d’un esprit peu commun, il reconnut bientôt que les minutieuses pratiques de dévotion introduites par les docteurs, ainsi que certains principes superstitieux, qui s’écartoient plus ou moins de la simplicité du culte et de la morale du Prophète, ou qui n’en étoient qu’une surcharge arbitraire, avoient besoin d’une réforme, comme attentatoires à la pureté du texte révélé. Il prit en conséquence la résolution de rappeler le culte à sa simpli- cité primitive, en le purgeant des doctrines particulières des docteurs, et en le renfermant dans le texte littéral du Kour-ann. Médine et la Mecque, trop intéressées à soutenir les anciens rites, ainsi que les usages et les préjugés populaires qui les enrichissoient, n’étoient pas propres au succès des innovations proposées par le réformateur. Il prit le parti de diriger ses pas vers le Levant, afin de s’insinuer parmi les tribus d’Arabes Bédouins, qui, plus indifférentes pour le culte, et trop peu éclairées pour soutenir ou défendre leurs rites particuliers, n’étant d’ailleurs intéressés au soutien d’aucun, lui lassoient plus de faci- lité pour répandre et faire embrasser son système sans courir de danger. En effet,

126 Chapter 3still considered the highest and greatest prophet. His name was retained in theprofession of faith. Only honorific titles and forms of the cult dedicated to himwere censured, in particular pilgrimage to his tomb in Medina and legendswhich had grown up around his name, such as that according to which he hadphysically ascended to heaven after death (the “night journey”). His cult andthat of the saints, “a very grave sin”, was what the Wahhabis found most scan-dalous, together with other customs irreconcilable with the duty of honouringGod alone, and which even “educated Muslims secretly despised, although be-fore the people they made a show of respecting them”.26 Hence the firm con-viction of the new devotees that they were authentic Muslims, as they calledthemselves, and the consequent abrogation of the four Sunni rites which haduntil then been considered orthodox. This was information that Badía was thefirst to provide and was in contrast with Brydges’ and Browne’s affirmation thatthey observed the Hanbali tradition, probably the result of rumours intendedto depict Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab as dangerous and subversive.27 However, a clear Abdoulwehhab se fit un prosélyte d’Ibn-Saaoud, prince ou grand schek d’Arabes, établi à Draaïya, ville distante de dix-sept journées à l’est de Médine, dans le désert. C’est de ce moment (1747) que date la réforme d’Abdoulwehhab.”26 Ibid, pp. 444–45: “Déjà les musulmans instruits méprisoient secrètement ces supersti- tions, quoiqu’ils fissent semblant de les respecter aux yeux du peuple. Mais Abdoul­ wehhab déclara hautement que cette espèce de culte rendu aux saints est un péché très grave aux yeux de la divinité, puisque c’est partager des honneurs qui ne sont dus qu’à Dieu. En conséquence ses sectateurs ont détruit les sépulcres, les chapelles et les temples élevés à leur honneur. En vertu de ce principe, Abdoulwehhab a défendu, comme un péché très grave, tout acte de vénération ou de dévotion envers la personne du Prophête. Ce n’est pas néanmoins qu’il refuse de reconnoître sa mission; mais il prétend qu’il n’étoit qu’un homme comme les autres, dont Dieu s’étoit servi pour communiquer sa parole divine aux mortels, et qu’après sa mission il étoit rentré dans la classe ordinaire des créa- tures humaines. C’est par cette raison que le réformateur a défendu à ses sectateurs d’aller visiter le sépulcre du Prophête à Médine; aussi, toutes les fois qu’ils parlent de lui, au lieu d’employer la formule adoptée par les autres musulmans: Notre Seigneur Mouhamméd ou Notre Seigneur le Prophête de Dieu, ils disent simplement Mouhamméd”. On the declared falsity of the Prophet’s ascension to Heaven after death, ibid, pp. 442–43; on the complete profession of the Muslim faith of the Wahhabis, ibid, p. 447.27 Ibid p. 442: “Nous avons dit que cette réforme était absolument restreinte au texte du Kour-ann; qu’elle rejetoit toutes les additions des expositeurs, des imans, et des docteurs de la loi. En conséquence, les réformateur supprima la différence des quatre rits ortho- doxes, nommés Schaffi, Màleki, Hànbeli et Hàneffi”. Elsewhere, however, Badía shows a certain perplexity as to this information. He says that the imām of the four schools still directed prayers in the sanctuary of Mecca in rotation and that he had met Wahhabis adhering to one or other of these rites, ibid, p. 366; III, p. 6. Rumours of the suppression of the four Sunni law schools can probably be traced back to the first dispute in Najd

Muslim “Puritans” 127distinction was supposedly drawn in the Wahhabi camp between members ofother religions and supposed Muslims. The former were stigmatised from thestart as “infidels”, kāfirun, the second as schismatic and heretical, mushrikun,guilty of giving companions to God”.28 against Wahhabi expansion, for example to the aforesaid Ibn Suhaim.The dispute origi- nated with the concern among local Hanbali ʿulamāʾ about the appearance of an innova- tor in their midst, cf. Delanoue (1982), I, p. 102; Hartmann (1924), p. 184; Peskes (1993), pp. 52, 77–78. Connected with this was the accusation that the Wahhabis had formed their fifth school, cf. DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 21, 31, 51, 110–11; Laoust (1939), p. 534; Laoust (1965), p. 331; Schwartz (2002), p. 71. Such accusations, unfounded in themselves and intended to brand the adversary as heretical, did at least reflect the sincerity of Muham- mad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s desire – he was himself a Hanbali jurist, although his writings do not entirely confirm this – and that of other Muslim reformers to return to the primi- tive source of the faith (the Koran and the sunna) and to go beyond mere imitation based on membership of a school, cf. Cook (1992), p. 199; Laoust (1939), pp. 521–22; Nallino (1937); Peskes (1993), pp. 9, 33–34, 38, 44; Peskes (2002), pp. 40–41; Peters (1989), pp. 92–93. According to DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 83, 96, 106, 249, in contrast with the views prevailing at the time, we should also keep in mind the possibility that freedom in interpreting the sacred texts and respect for different traditions had been maintained during the eight- eenth century to a greater extent in the Hanbali camp than in any other school, thus cre- ating a stimulus for Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab.28 [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit, II, p. 446: “Les Wehhabis se disent les musulmans par excellence; aussi, lorsqu’ils parlent de l’Islàm, ils n’entendent par ce mot que les personnes de leur secte, qu’ils regardent comme le seule orthodoxe. Les Turcs et les autres musulmans sont à leur yeux des schismatiques Mouschrikìnns, c’est-à-dire, qui donnent des compagnons à Dieu; mais ils ne les traitent pas néanmoins d’idolâtres ou d’in- fidèles Coffàr”. Badía maintained that the Wahhabis drew a theological distinction between “infidels” (kafirūn) and Muslims who had sinned by “association” (shirk), having “associated” an idol with God, thus offending the fundamental dogma of the oneness of God. Hence their definition as “associationists”, mushrikūn, or, misleadingly, as “heretics”. This seems to reflect in Badía’s words an argument advanced in self-defence by the follow- ers of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab against the accusations of their adversaries. The latter in fact imputed to the Wahhabis the abolition of such a distinction in law and deed. They thus accused them of seeing the sin of “association” and apostasy proper as being equivalent, resulting in the sect’s treatment of common sinners as true “infidels” against whom every good Muslim would be expected to wage a meritorious “holy war”, as against renegades guilty of deeds against the truth now acknowledged as monotheism. It was in this sense that the head of the Wahhabis was said to have relapsed into the Kharijite h­ eresy and to have justified the murder of Muslims by other Muslims in flagrant violation of Koranic precepts. In less radical terms it was maintained that Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab had wrongly imposed excommunication (takfīr, “accusation of unb­ elief”), and that he had excluded from the Muslim field, as if they were idolatrous, all those believers in the Koran who, in good faith, habitually mingled popular cultic mani­festa­tions with

128 Chapter 3 What the practical implications of this difference in condition actually werewas not specified. However, Badía thought that the mere failure to acknowl-edge it was at the root of the error made by those European witnesses andwriters who had imagined the Wahhabi teaching to be completely new. Thismisunderstanding had been abetted by long-standing misrepresentations,among which the author cited the superficial analogy, in fact introduced byChristians, of Muhammad with Jesus, the failure to understand the Islamicsense of what “prophecy” meant, and the undifferentiated use of the terms“Muslim” and “Ottoman”. As a result the belief subsisted that all revealed bookshad been equally devalued by the Wahhabis, that “the messenger of God” wasin their eyes a mere sage, even a “philosopher” in the eighteenth-century sense,all reference to his divine mission being expunged, and that the followers ofsuch a doctrine could no longer consider themselves Muslims.29 The names of the writers guilty of such a misapprehension were not men-tioned. In the notes, however, the editor Roquefort called to account Co-­rancez’s recent Histoire, drafted at a distance from the scene of events, in which the worship of God or, in the case of doctors of law, even scholars who put the imitation of human authority before the direct study of the revealed text, cf. Caskel (1929), p. 5. Here emphasis was on “fanaticism” – takhassub – of which the Wahhabis were accused, not only by their detractors, cf. Laoust (1939), pp. 514, 525, 529; Nallino (1937); Peskes (1993), pp. 18, 83–94, 135, 157–58, quoting the aforesaid polemicist Ibn ʿAfaliq, who observed to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab that sparing thousands of infidels was preferable to mis- takenly killing a single Muslim; Vassiliev (1998), pp. 77–78, 83, 106. Badía’s account, intended at least in part to absolve the Wahhabis from this charge, meets with the approval of DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 244–45, 308, who suggests that Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s undoubtedly strict definition of the sin of “association” (even branding rep- robates as “infidels” in his Book of Monotheism) was misinterpreted in practice during the first Saʿudi kingdom. The Wahhabi leader, on the other hand, was said to have recom- mended in his writings not the proclamation of a Holy War, but rather renewed preaching and instruction, with a “battle” (qitāl) only if the missionary task were to be hindered by arms. The monarch ʿAbd al-Aziz was said to have introduced in the name of religion the blunter procedure of justifying the violence necessary to subjugate populations declared guilty of unbelief, cf. De-Long-Bas (2004), pp. 59, 64, 71, 81–83, 200, 221, 223, 236, 250, 253; similarly (but without mentioning Badía) Oliver (2002), p. 80.29 [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit, II, p. 445: “Les chrétiens ont, en géné- ral, des idées fausses ou confuses sur les Wehhabis. Ils s’imaginent que ces sectaires ne sont pas musulmans, dénomination sous laquelle ils désignent exclusivement les Turcs, et confondent souvent les noms de Musulmàn et d’Osmanli.” See also ibid, pp. 446–47: “Ils (scil.: the Wahhabis) regardent Mouhhammed comme le dernier véritable prophête ou envoyé de Dieu, et nullement comme un simple savant, ainsi que le disent les chrétiens en parlant de la croyance des Wehhabis.”

Muslim “Puritans” 129the Wahhabi leader was still represented as inclined to consider himself in-spired, while his followers were shown on the one hand to be faithful to theKoran, and on the other to be cold towards Muhammad and hostile to “Mus-lims”, meaning “Turks”.30 Badía’s assessment was unjust in so far as it appreci-ated the progress made by Corancez and his rival Rousseau far less than theaccount in Volney. Nonetheless, it promoted understanding of the originalityof Badía’s own contribution, which seemed to offer at least plausible solutionsto still unresolved contradictions, also considered as such by the public.31 Anydoubts about the Wahhabis’ opinion of Muhammad and the tradition of thepilgrimage, or the nature of the devastation of Mecca, were soon dispelled. Thedepleted number of pilgrims, though real and which Badía’s estimate in 1807 atabout 8,000, should not be considered the result of persecution by the sect, butrather a natural mitigation of an age-old religious enthusiasm. Destruction wasnot indiscriminate, having only included buildings of doubtful religious sig-nificance, chapels and places of pilgrimage dedicated to saints and Muham-mad’s relatives from his uncle Abu Talib to his daughter Fatima, places ofworship on the Mountain of Light and Mount ʿArafa – a chapel which, accord-ing to tradition, originated with Adam – and Sharif Ghalib’s palace, the symbolof his “annihilated” power. What did seem deplorable was the fate of Medina.The sack of the Prophet’s tomb, the removal of the official custodians, and the30 Ibid, p. 445 nt.: “Il est remarquable que l’auteur de l’histoire des Wehhabis (qu’il appelle improprement Wahabis), imprimée à Paris en 1810, soit tombé dans cette erreur, et dans plusieurs autres qu’on pourra aisément reconnoître en comparant son ouvrage avec la description d’Ali Bey. Telle est la différence qui existe et qui doit exister entre des rensei- gnements pris sur les lieux, et d’autres pris à quatre cents lieues de distance, c’est-à-dire, à Alep, qui étoit alors la résidence de l’auteur de l’histoire.” For further errors imputed to Corancez, ibid, pp. 447–48 nt. To do him justice Corancez had, like Rousseau, merely said that though Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab did indeed claim descent from Muhammad, he did not consider himself to be a prophet (supra, Chapter II, notes 16, 48).31 The case of Southey can serve as an exemple. He did not hesitate to follow Badía in repu- diating Silvestre de Sacy’s comparison of Wahhabis to Qarmatians, merely based on geo- graphic proximity and other chance analogies, “their tenets being widely different”. Neither did he consider the general opinion concerning the presumed fatal consequences for the “Mahommedan system” of the new reform – he made no mention of Waring and Valentia – any more reliable since Islam, “not likely to survive as a conquered religion”, would, if anything, have much more to fear if the Ottoman provinces were annexed by Christian powers – as Southey evidently hoped might happen for religious reasons, cf. [R. Southey], “Travels of Ali Bey”, cit., p. 336.

130 Chapter 3ban on the pilgrimage all threatened the future of the city, which not evenBadía, who had been held up and robbed along the way, was able to reach.32 Badía’s report clarified considerably the matter of the Wahhabis, but it alsogave rise to further questions concerning the purely theological dispute. Themention of presumed Wahhabi “innovations”, bid a⁠ʾ, a term used by the move-ment’s detractors, and the asserted lack of involvement of their followers inany recognised law school, seemed to confirm the suspicion of a profoundbreak with the past, also attested by Corancez and Rousseau in their referencesto the repudiation of “Muslim traditions”. The object of this disagreement wasonly partly defined more clearly, since Badía made no mention of the ḥadīth,merely observing vaguely that all “additions” to the Holy Book by interpretersand jurists should be considered repudiated. On this basis the accusation of“heresy” against the Wahhabis, who then themselves turned it against theiradversaries, still seemed only to be explained in part. The manifold prescrip-tions and customs of the cult not based on the Holy Book and the fact thatmost Muslim theologians applied two truths to certain vulgar popular super-stitions might well have provoked the devotees from Najd – some of this couldbe gleaned from Niebuhr’s account – but were insufficient to explain the ac-cusations against them, nor did they throw any light on their conduct as awhole. The Wahhabis, implacable in prohibiting the cult of the saints – oftenveritable half-wits mistaken for inspired men, as Badía noted – and in con-demning the use of rosaries, amulets and other artefacts and natural objects towhich miraculous qualities were imputed, abandoned themselves enthusiasti-cally to the traditional rites of pilgrimage, including clearly irrational ceremo-nies such as the stoning of the devil, aspersions at the miraculous well ofZamzam and kissing the Black Stone.33 In the light of this conduct, their indig-nation at customs of dubious morality – the use of tobacco, silken clothes, anonly partly shaven head when visiting Mecca – and their violent treatment of32 On the capture and ransom of the caravan bound for Medina, the measures taken by the Wahhabis to discourage the pilgrimage, and the complete destruction of Muhammad’s tomb according to the testimony of the former “trésorier” or defterdar and other custodi- ans of the temple expelled from the city and concentrated in the same camp as Badía, cf. [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit., III, pp. 28–33, 35–36. For a list of items destroyed and prohibitions in Mecca, in this case with negative consequences for trade connected with the cult, ibid, II, pp. 327–28, 332–33, 378, 452.33 Ibid, p. 450: “Les Wehhabis ont défendu aux pélerins les stations du Djebél Nor ou mon- tagne de la lumière, et les autres stations de la Mecque, comme superstitieuses; cepen- dant ils font celle de l’Aàmara, et vont à Mina jeter des petites pierres contre la maison du Diable: tel est l’homme!” The theological justification for this act is noted, because the Prophet Muhammad in person had inaugurated the throwing of stones, ibid, p. 339.

Muslim “Puritans” 131Muslims guilty of including acts of magic in the cult, seemed to be so greatlyexaggerated as to arouse the suspicion that there was a stronger motivationand virtually to obliterate the theoretical distinction between specific trans-gressions concerning the prohibition of “associating” mere humans with Godand any behaviour typical of true “infidels” which Badía reconfirmed. How farthis distinction might be rooted in specific acts and beliefs rather than in un-derlying intentions and resistance to better teachings was still not specified.34 To these difficulties Badía finally found a solution by focussing principallyon political and national divisions unconnected with the doctrinal sphere. Thewords of his interlocutors had sounded very reasonable, leading him to believethat their professed adherence to the exclusive revelation contained in the Ko-ran could hardly explain their degeneration from simple religiosity to intoler-ant fanaticism. It was to be supposed, rather, that by calling themselves“Wahhabis”, Bedouin Arabs, who could doubtlessly become civilised but werestill largely uneducated, cloaked their loathing for ethnic Turks in devotionalfervour. This came all the more naturally since, in Arabia, the Turks weregenerally perceived as corrupt oppressors. More particularly, it was to be as-sumed that Muhammad ibn Saʿud and his successors had taken advantage ofthe spiritual impetus of the new religious movement to introduce a policy ofarmed expansion based on the choice of conversion or death foisted on theirenemies.35 The theological loathing nurtured by the sect was thus devitalised,34 Remarkably enough neither Badía nor any other early European witnesses, even when affirming Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s loyalty to Hanbali tradition, appear ever to have heard of a question closely connected with this subject and much debated in the later literature (following Ignaz Goldziher, 1878): the question of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al Wahhab’s debt to the ideas of the Hanbali theologian and jurist Ahmad ʿAbd al-Halim ibn Taimiya (1262–1328). Ibn Taimiya had vehemently denounced the fact that the title of “Muslim” had been usurped by the Mongol demolishers of the ʿAbbasid caliphate, invok- ing armed resistance against them, and even over the centuries remaining the main inspirer of all radical opposition to every kind of foreign domination in Muslim territory. While Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s first adversaries in Najd even imputed to him polemically the exacerbation and misrepresentation of the doctrines of Ibn Taimiya, cf. Peskes (1993), pp. 40, 79, 84, 88, his name is not mentioned in early European writings. This is probably due to theological ignorance, but it could also corroborate the opinion of DeLong-Bas (2004), pp. 52–53, 108, 247–48, 256, convinced as she is that Ibn Taimiya’s bel- licose spiritual legacy, rather than being appropriated by the Wahhabi leader, had in fact become part of the official doctrine of the first Saʿudi kingdom merely as a specious justi- fication for the state of war with the Ottoman authorities.35 On the “prétexte” of religious reform as an instrument of conquest (“pour attaquer les tribus voisines”), on the backwardness and “barbare” language of the Wahhabis, on their inclination to armed robbery, though only of enemies and infidels, on their loathing of

132 Chapter 3without Badía having to play down the recent excesses of violence committedin Arabia in the name of the faith but in fact due to quite different motives. A“religion of equality”, restricted to austere, rarefied dogmas, an Islam basedsolely on the Koran as again announced by Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab,would not displease the self-styled “Muslim philosopher” ʿAli Bey, who wasquite prepared to see in the new movement an indispensable stage, howeverimperfect and turbulent, in the controversial process of reforming and limitingthe revelation of Muhammad to the rational content it had always contained.36 the Turks (“dont le nom seul suffit pour les mettre en fureur”), and also the uncultivated potential inherent in their gifts of forbearance and obedience, cf. [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit., II, pp. 324, 450; III, p. 34. Badía, who even declares that he had made the acquaintance of a “brillante [Wahhabi] jeunesse” in Mecca, cannot resist noting a strident contrast between his own positive impressions and those of common pilgrims and the inhabitants of the Hijaz, ibid, II, pp. 335–36: “Je dois à la vérité d’avouer que je trouvai beaucoup de raison et de modération chez tous les Wehhabis à qui j’adressai la parole. (…) Cependant, malgré cette modération, ni les naturels du pays, ni les pélerins ne peuvent entendre prononcer leur nom sans frémir, et ne le prononcent eux-mêmes qu’en murmurant.” This widespread discontent in the Hijaz with the Wahhabis observed by Badía must have been caused by four main factors. The first was the doctrinal pre- sumption of the conquerors, considered uneducated and still partly nomadic natives from the pagan areas of Arabia. Then there was the secretly nurtured bitterness at the destruction of venerated monuments and the compulsory study of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s works. According to Ibn Zaini Dahlan “they began to teach the religion of the herdsmen! But even the most ignorant inhabitant of Mecca knows more than the most important of them!” And finally there was the financial loss suffered by the population of Medina as the result of the city being included among the territories subject to taxation. All this is confirmed in Peskes (1993), pp. 112, 135, 144–46, 318–20; Vassiliev (1998), pp. 79, 92, 138. An eloquent manifestation of this discontent is to be found in a supposedly con- ciliatory address by Saʿud to the inhabitants of Mecca in April 1803 in which, besides con- cessions to their customs (the consumption of coffee, love poems, panegyrics of sovereigns, the use of drums in battle and tambourines at weddings, etc.), the inhabitants of the city were said to be as backward in their religion as the so-called “peoples of the Book”, by which were meant Jews and Christians in need of further instruction in mono- theism, cf. Cook (2000), p. 172; Peskes (1993), pp. 144–45.36 “Philosophie”, with its conventional words of approval for the “simplicité du culte et de la morale du Prophête”, expressed in Voyages, cf. [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit., I, p. ix; II, p. 441, made Badía the target of Southey’s sarcasm, according to which only thanks to his hierophobia, that is the “philosopher’s disease”, (“A Spaniard may be forgiven for this – better is any faith than the faith of St. Dominic and Philip the Sec- ond”) could the traveller hide from himself the all too evident presence of clerics in Mus- lim society, cf. [R. Southey], “Travels of Ali Bey”, cit., p. 310. Exactly how Badía intended his own opinion to be received emerges more clearly in an exclamation concluding the

Muslim “Puritans” 133 Further information of a political and military nature included sporadicallyin other chapters of the Voyages – the Kerbela massacre, the conquest of theentire Arabian peninsula “except for Mokha and a few other fortified cities inYemen and Fortunate Arabia”, the geographical position of al-Dirʿiyya, the dis-cipline of the troops, etc. – added little or nothing to the information alreadyexisting in Europe. Although the account was published in 1814, it in fact stillreflected the situation of 1807. The Wahhabi leader Abu Nuqta, a native of Ye-men but in fact from ʿAsir, a southern region of the Hijaz, who died young in1811, was described as still living and presented in the act of parading throughthe streets of Mecca with Saʿud. He was ascribed the role of potential protago-nist in the not unlikely event of a split in the movement after the king’s demise.Sharif Ghalib who, over the years, was to become a supporter, albeit an am-biguous one, of Muhammad ʿAli, was described as still living under the rule ofSaʿud, cowed, impoverished and retaining only residual power. This was so de-spite an agreement with the new occupiers of the Holy Places that Ghalib wasstill to receive the taxes from Mecca and Jidda, apparently the only taxes leftfor him to collect, at least in theory, by the Wahhabi party. The Ottoman sultan,the instigator and hypothetical beneficiary of the Egyptian expedition whichwas about to be launched against Mecca, still seemed remote and inert. Hisname was no longer mentioned during religious functions anywhere in theSaʿudi kingdom and his scanty garrisons, initially consigned to the forts, werelater expelled from the entire Arabian Peninsula and were in danger of exter-mination throughout their retreat.37 By contrast, Badía’s admiration for thepower of the sect, almost at its peak in 1807, was sincere. Faced with the eco-nomic and demographic decline of the idle sedentary population of Mecca,refractory to all agricultural and mining work – “This country probably aboundsin minerals, but such treasures will remain hidden for as long as the ignoranceof the inhabitants lasts” – with no books or schools and where the immoralityof women was widespread, at least when compared with severe Muslim cus-toms, the Wahhabis had had the merit of effecting, “without a bloodbath”, atrue “political revolution” in the Hijaz. description of his personal participation in the pilgrimage to Mecca, cf. [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit., II, pp. 331–32: “Aucun culte ne présente aux sens un spectacle plus simple, plus touchant et plus majestueux! (…) Philosophes de la terre! Permettez à Ali Bey de défendre sa religion (…). Ici il n’a point d’intermédiaire entre l’homme et la divinité: tous les individus sont égaux devant le Créateur; tous sont intime- ment persuadés que les œuvres seules les rapprocheront ou les écarteront de l’Etre suprême, sans qu’aucune main étrangère puisse faire changer l’ordre de cette justice immuable.”37 Ibid, pp. 432–34, 438, 456–57; III, pp. 5–6, 27.

134 Chapter 3 Only in the concluding observations was there any echo of later develop-ments in Europe and Asia. Badía thus announced that the establishment of theWahhabi movement as a modern caliphate would encounter a major obstaclein the very same strict moral and religious principles which had until then con-tributed so greatly to its victory, and of which Badía had approved for otherreasons. If unattenuated, the norms so far established threatened to precludeany future growth of the sect and to cause insurmountable resistance by themultitude subscribing to traditional forms of the faith opposed with such de-termination by the movement – forms which, though superstitious, offeredgreater consolation and came closer to elementary human needs.38 According to these forecasts at least, the enlightened philosophy Badía pro-fessed seemed finally to yield to the new views of the Restoration on the socialbenefits of ancestral religiosity and the causes of Napoleon’s eclipse. The espritde conquête nurtured on virtue, in this case the virtue of “religious fanaticism”,was threatened with extinction in both Arabia and Europe by simple contactwith its natural rival, esprit de commerce (“trade with foreigners will inadver-tently make clear the error of an almost unnatural austerity”). It seemed realis-tic to predict that regret for the really much more humane civil and religiousdisorders of the past, possibly together with the weakening of the new faith,was likely to extend even as far as Najd, since the Wahhabis, vainly engaged inhampering the development of profitable economic relations even with mem-38 Ibid, II, pp. 458–59: “Je trouve un grand obstacle à la propagation de la réforme hors des déserts de l’Arabie, dans l’extrême rigidité des principes presque incompatibles avec les mœurs des nations qui ont quelques idées de civilisation, et qui sont accoutumées aux jouissances qui l’accompagnent; de sorte que si les Wehhabis ne se relâchent pas de la sévérité de ces principes, il me paroît impossible que le wehhabisme puisse se propager dans les pays qui entourent le désert. Alors cette grande population, qui ne produit et ne consomme presque rien, restera toujours dans son état de nullité au fond de ses déserts, sans autres relations avec le reste du monde que ses brigandages sur les caravans ou sur les bâtiments qui lui tomberont sous la main, et les difficultés qu’elle pourra opposer au pélerinage de la Mecque. Mais le temps lui apprendra que l’Arabie, sans les relations com- merciales des caravanes et du pélerinage, ne peut pas exister. La nécessité forcera alors à se relâcher de cet intolérantisme envers les autres nations, et le commerce avec les étran- gers leur fera sentir insensiblement la vice d’une austérité qui est presque contre nature; peu-à-peu le zèle se refroidira; les pratiques superstitieuses, qui sont toujours l’appui, la consolation et l’espérance de l’homme foible, ignorant ou malheureux, reprendront leur empire; et dès-lors la réforme du wehhabisme disparoîtra avant d’avoir consolidé son influence, et après avoir versé le sang de plusiurs milliers de victimes du fanatisme reli- gieux. Telle est la triste vicissitude des choses humaines”. Aspiration to the caliphate and the “révolution politique” represented by the conquest of Mecca are mentioned earlier, ibid, pp. 434–35.

Muslim “Puritans” 135bers of other religions, could no longer count on military success. The echo ofthe first Wahhabi defeats by the invader Muhammad ʿAli inevitably made animpression in Europe and on the Catalan traveller himself who had returnedfrom Arabia. At home he was already confronted by a popular anti-French up-rising steeped in Catholic piety and was ultimately forced to witness the col-lapse of Napoleon’s European order based on warfare. It might thus haveseemed permissible to suppose that the Wahhabi “revolution” would in turngive way to the powers of restoration – Ottoman pashadoms, traditional Mus-lim customs – or that it might even turn out to be no more than a phase typicalwithin every society subject to constant oscillations between opposite poles,consisting, on the one hand, of the intermingling of rustic virtue with ferocityand, on the other, of immorality hand in glove with refinement.39 After the publication of the news of the Saʿudi retreat from Mecca the read-er might the more readily have been assailed by doubts even if they were notformulated explicitly in the Voyages. However, although Badía conceded thatthe Wahhabis’ religious thrust had run out of steam, he warned the publicagainst trusting in the total defeat of the sect, “invincible not through theirmilitary strength, but because of the nature of their uninhabitable country”and which had never been submitted by aggressors.40 In fact no one was yetable to tell which side the armed conflict would finally favour. Nor could therole of revolutionary or restorer be assigned with absolute certainty either tothe religious reformer who had appeared in Najd some time earlier or to theAlbanian pasha who had recently gained considerable fame as the “regenera-tor” of Egypt. From now on European testimony from Arabia either supportedMuhammad ʿAli’s war of liberation against the usurpers of the Muslim HolyPlaces, or expressed admiration for the Wahhabis’ patriotic resistance to thedanger of foreign occupation. A propensity, however vague, towards one ofthese two positions was also to condition future opinions about the religionprofessed by Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, which was no longer consid-39 Classification of the first Wahhabi movement by Badía and other European witnesses vacillated between “revolutionary” and “reactionary”. Observers today classify so-called “fundamentalist” Muslim movements in similar categories, cf. Bascio (2007), p. 228; Cam- panini (2003), pp. 180–81; Peters (1989), p. 95 (“Fundamentalism is often seen as a syno- nym of Conservatism. This is not correct”); Philby (1930), p. xix (the latter with a typically paradoxical formulation: “The reactionary fanaticism of his [scil.: Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s] puritanical system paved the way for the ordered progress of a modern state”).40 [D. Badía y Leblich], Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi, cit., II, pp. 459–60: “On pourra conquérir momentanément la Mecque, Médine et les villes maritimes; mais de simples garnisons, isolées au milieu d’affreux déserts, pourront-elles tenir long-temps?”

136 Chapter 3ered original. In their individual accounts, observers would once again givevoice to their discordant sympathies for one or other of the opposing sides.3 European Testimonies of the Redemption of MeccaThe 1811 Egyptian invasion of Arabia, successful in recovering the Muslim HolyPlaces sixteen months later, diminished, but without totally obliterating, theimpression of a great future for the Wahhabi movement. The presence of Mu-hammad ʿAli in the Hijaz from August 1813 to June 1815, the death of Saʿud inApril 1814, and an amazing victory won at Basal over his successor ʿAbd Allah inJanuary 1815 were not yet sufficient to warrant faith in the imminent fall of theSaʿudi kingdom in Najd. The pashas’s troops still encountered considerable ob-stacles even after entering Medina and Mecca. Adverse weather conditionsproved increasingly worrying. The shortage of news and the heavy cost of theundertaking took their toll on Egypt, long weighed down by Mamluk andFrench taxes imposed once again by the new ruler in Cairo. A flattering com-parison of the Wahhabis even seemed possible with the partisans Napoleonconfronted in Spain and Russia who had also been assisted by climatic, na-tional and religious factors.4141 We can only mention here the principal stages of the Egyptian expedition in Arabia which took Muhammad ʿAli’s army seven years. The landing at Yanbuʿ in October 1811 led by Tusun Pasha was followed by the Wahhabi rout of the invaders on the way to Medina at the Wadi al-Safra⁠ʾ in December. This delayed the occupation of the city in October 1812 for almost a year. Thanks to the complicity of Sharif Ghalib and the simultaneous with- drawal of the Wahhabi garrisons no fighting was involved in the occupation of Jidda nor later in that of Mecca (January 1813). A further Egyptian defeat at the oasis of Turaba was compensated for by the subsequent capture of the former Wahhabi governor of al-Taʾ⁠ if, ʿUthman al-Mudhaifi, in the autumn of 1813. He was transferred to Istanbul and there beheaded. The arrival of Muhammad ʿAli to direct operations in the Hijaz in September 1813 led to a break with Sharif Ghalib in December 1813. Ghalib was deported to Cairo and eventually exiled to Thessalonica. If further Egyptian defeats on the way to ʿAsir near Turaba and during an attempt to disembark at al-Qunfudha in the winter of 1813–14 had no worse consequences this was because of Saʿud’s sudden death in May 1814. ­Muhammad ʿAli, however, then won a great victory over the new Wahhabi leader ʿAbd-Allah at Basal in January 1815, thus gaining complete control of the Hijaz. He returned to Egypt in triumph. Tusun Pasha’s subsequent arduous advance eastwards into the province of al-Qasim led to a truce with ʿAbd-Allah in the summer of 1815 until, following the failure of peace nego- tiations in Cairo in the autumn of 1816, hostilities were renewed by the Egyptians under Ibrahim Pasha, his brother Tusun having died of the plague. A long siege of the capital of the area, al-Rass, in October 1817 was followed by the conquest first of al-Qasim and then

Muslim “Puritans” 137 Seen from Cairo, certain remarkable circumstances seemed to support thiscomparison. All landed property and hard currency in Egypt were requisi-tioned for the purposes of war. “Arabs, Copts, even negroes” were recruited toswell the inadequate number of “Turkish” militiamen conscripted in the Bal-kans, and nothing less than the deposition of Muhammad ʿAli was plotted dur-ing his absence. The cost of individual military successes was high and affordedthe pasha only temporary satisfaction. “Every victory diminished his army”,“new hordes”, hardened by the trials of the desert, advanced against him andwere always ready to intercept supplies across the Red Sea.42 It seemed so evi-dent to the public that they were witnessing the labours of Sisyphus that in1817, only a year before the capture of al-Dirʿiyya, the spectre of the anti-Napo-leonic guerrilla in the Iberian peninsula could still be used as a threat by theFrench consul in Egypt, Joseph Roussel, to let it be known at home how a prob-able defeat, with a possibly fatal effect on the whole region, awaited the Egyp-tian troops under Muhammad ʿAli’s son Ibrahim Pasha, recently arrived inNajd to complete the occupation of Arabia.43 of al-Shaqra⁠ʾ. The province of al-Washm was occupied in January 1818 and the Egyptians finally entered the heartland of Najd and conquered Durma in March 1818, numerous local Bedouin tribes having defected to the Egyptian side. This prepared the way for the final siege of al-Dirʿiyya between April and September 1818, culminating in the city’s capitulation. The destruction of the Saʿudi capital, which was never again to be reinstated as such but was replaced by al-Riyad, and the rapid evacuation of the entire region com- pleted by Ibrahim Pasha in January 1819 marked the end of the conflict and the apparent eclipse of Wahhabi power. ʿAbd Allah was first taken to Cairo as a prisoner and then beheaded in Istanbul together with his retinue in December 1818, cf. Brandes (1999), pp. 100–26; Lorimer (1915), I, pp. 1081–89; Philby (1930), pp. 92–102; Philby (1955), pp. 121– 46; Vassiliev (1998), pp. 140–57; Weygand (1936), I, pp. 69–115.42 H. Light, Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Holy Land, Mount Libanon, and Cyprus, cit., pp. 32–33: “The war of the Wahabbees, though begun with such brilliant success, did not continue favourable to the arms of the Pasha: new hordes advanced against him; every victory diminished his army, which was recruited with great difficulty. The inhabitants of the desert, inured to long and speedy marches, capable of supporting every fatigue in their burning sands, satisfied with the coarsest and scantiest food, were formidable enemies to the Turkish soldiers; who, accustomed to the plenty of Cairo, required constant supplies of necessaries from Egypt, which the shores of the Red Sea could by no means afford them. The convoys were often cut off by the activity of the Wahabbees, who, ever on the alert, came down in large bodies, when the smallness of the Turkish force ensured suc- cess.”43 E. Driault (ed.), La formation de l’empire de Mohamed Aly de l’Arabie au Soudan (1814–1823). Correspondance des consuls de France en Égypte, Le Caire, 1927, p. 81: ”Les déserts de l’Ara- bie sont aux Turcs ce qu’étaient les guérillos d’Espagne pour nous, et lorsqu’un despote usurpateur [scil.: Muhammad ʿAli, implicitly compared with Napoleon] veut tout à lui et

138 Chapter 3 The situation on the eastern seaboard of the Arabian Peninsula was equallycomplicated. Here the Wahhabis bore the brunt of the reactions of Englandand the sultan of Muscat to piracy by the coastal Qawasim tribes, allies of theSaʿudi monarch and bold enough to threaten both British shipping and thePersian coasts44. Even the capture and destruction of the pirate bases of Raʾ⁠ sal-Khaimah and Shinas in January 1810 afforded the English and the Omanivictors only short-lived tranquillity. The outcome of the contest remained un-certain, and the attempt to establish European influence over the territoriesproved vain, at least until the 1820 truce when the former Pirate Coast, re-named the Trucial Coast, finally became the first nucleus of the future TrucialStates, now the United Arab Emirates.45 tout pour lui, il est rare que sa cupidité ne finisse par lui être funeste” (Roussel to the Duke of Richelieu, from Alexandria, 30 September 1817). During the same period al-Jabarti in Cairo notes public readings of the ḥadīth of al-Bukhari, repeated for five consecutive days to invoke victory for Ibrahim Pasha, of whom nothing more had been heard, cf. al-Jabarti, History of Egypt, cit., III, p. 396.44 [A. Dupré], Voyage en Persie, Paris, 1819, I, p. 403: “Les pirates s’emparent tous les jours sans crainte et sans péril des bateaux caboteurs. Ils descendent sur la côte, et enlèvent les femmes, les enfans, les troupeaux; ils se sont même établis sans obstacle dans plusieurs îles du golfe.” Also ibid, II, p. 41: “Les bateaux de Bender-Bouchêhr servent au cabotage de ce port avec le golfe, et sur-tout avec Bassora. Mais aujourd’hui, pour naviguer, ils se ras- semblent en convoi au nombre de quinze ou vingt, par la crainte des Wahabis, qui vien- nent exercer des pirateries sur toutes ces côtes, et osent même attaquer les navires anglais.” Having arrived in Persia with Gardane, Dupré went along the coastal regions in search of a base for a possible French fleet on its way to India.45 For an account of the 1809–10 Anglo-Oman expedition, cf. H. Jones Brydges, An Account of the transactions of His Majesty’s Mission to the court of Persia, cit., II, pp. 35–44; on his return Maurizi also supplied information on the mission. English military moves against the Qawasim pirates were almost as complicated as the Egyptian campaign in Central Arabia, and English witnesses were not always reliable. The pirates’ bases in the Persian Gulf had been a danger to East India Company navigation since 1778. They were not, how- ever, allied to the Saʿudi kingdom or driven by religious motives until 1799. After a first retaliatory move on the part of the English fleet in 1805–806 had led to a merely ephem- eral truce, further repeated seizures of British shipping caused the English authorities in India, in concert with the sultan of Muscat, to move on a grand scale against Ra⁠ʾs al- Khaimah and Shinas, albeit with little success, in 1809–10. A memorable event was the capture in 1808 of the brig Minerva, of which almost the entire crew were killed and the wife of Captain Taylor taken hostage with her child, held up to ransom, and only released after payment. Ultimately, after extensive renewed piracy in 1812 and repeatedly unsuc- cessful negotiations, a second conclusive naval expedition was launched against Ra⁠ʾs al- Khaimah. It was seconded by the eclipse of the Wahhabi movement in 1819–20. It took twelve warships armed with more than a hundred cannon and over 3,000 combat troops

Muslim “Puritans” 139 Thanks to the involvement of foreigners and their various contacts withindividual members of the religious movement, these military expeditions,though fraught with difficulties, were nonetheless of decisive importance inbetter acquainting Europe with Wahhabi religion and history. Adventurers inevery sense of the word, originally attracted to the East by the disorders of therevolutionary and Napoleonic wars, and later by their inability to adapt to thepeace established by the Congress of Vienna, regular army officers with limitedduties, men such as the Frenchman Joseph Vaissière (1786–1845), the ItaliansVincenzo Maurizi and Giovanni Finati and the Irishman George Forster ­Sadleir(1789–1859), in fact lacked the necessary culture and spirit of discovery whichinspired Niebuhr, Seetzen and Badía y Leblich. They nonetheless provideda­ ccounts of personal experiences which were at least readable and partlyc­ redible, and they supplied information of later use to authors drafting moreimportant works of greater accuracy. Meanwhile the re-establishment of s­ tablecontact between the Arabian Peninsula and the neighbouring countries, Mu-hammad ʿAli’s benevolent attitude to Europeans and, after the fall of al-Dirʿiyyain September 1818, the forcible creation of a small colony of illustrious Wah-habi deportees in Cairo, all contributed to an improvement in the circulationof information and in some cases even of documents. It was the enterprising Maurizi, rather than the others, who tackled theproblem of the Wahhabis’ religion. He was a papal subject whose revolution-ary sympathies had forced him to take refuge in the East, as a doctor in theservice of the sultan of Muscat between 1809 and 1811, and again in 1814. HisHistory of Seyd Said, published in London in 1819 under the auspices of GoreOuseley, former British ambassador in Persia and barely perturbed by the ru-mour of Napoleonic espionage accompanying his protégé, was principally anaccount of events under the ruling sultan which included much autobiograph-ical information and general considerations on the East. It was evident fromthe preface that the recent destruction of the capital of Najd by the Egyptians,also reported in the press, had left the author with a “great desire to inform theworld of the origin of this Mohammedan sect”.46 In Muscat some years earlier to bring about the drafting of a preliminary peace treaty and the establishment of the first British garrison on that coast, cf. Hajri (2006), pp. 77, 111–13; Hamilton (2010), pp. 89–90; Kelly (1968), pp. 17–21, 99–166; Lorimer (1915), I, pp. 180–85, 442–43, 634–70; Philby (1930), pp. 90–92, 104–105, 110; Troeller (1976), p. 15; Winder (1965), pp. 37–38, 47–49.46 [V. Maurizi], History of Seyd Said, Sultan of Muscat. By Shaik Mansur, a Native of Rome, London, 1819, pp. xix-xx. A further eighty letters (still in need of translation for publica- tion), sent to Europe by Maurizi during his stay in the East, remained in manuscript. Mau- rizi’s personality and adventures, like those of Finati and Sadleir, are known principally through what they wrote and the information in the preface to their respective narratives.

140 Chapter 3a conversation between Maurizi and Saʿud’s emissary – a sort of moral censorimposed on the sultan of Oman as one of the conditions of peace in 1803 – wasdescribed as the best opportunity he had in Arabia to form an idea of the Wah-habi doctrine. Belief in the divine origin of the Koran and its angelic transmis-sion; opposition to all cults of prophets, including that of the leader Muhammadibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab; the justification and even sanctification of the persecu-tion of the Turks, with anyone following a different form of Muslim observancebeing degraded to “heretics” as opposed to “true believers”; the ban on fer-mented drinks, coffee and tobacco; a degree of tolerance towards “infidel” mi-norities (supposedly Christians and Jews) as long as they were willing tosubmit, should all be considered established facts which the writer himselfmay have gathered from his predecessors. However, in addition to these items,Maurizi claimed to know that, even if Muhammad was a man beloved of Godwho deserved emulation, he was blamed by the Wahhabis for being responsi-ble for the subsequent misrepresentation of his own teachings. It was he whofirst indulged in the original deplorable tendency to misuse his personal au-thority and that of the Holy Book which was imitated by his successors to theincreasing detriment of the faith.47 In order to avoid the reaction to the revolutionary upheavals in Rome, Maurizi first went to Turkey and then to the Arabian Peninsula. He stayed there for three years, from 1809 to 1811, acting as the personal physician of Sayyid ibn Sultan, the sultan of Muscat, before moving to Baghdad and then entering Persian service. He ended his life impoverished in London after having tried his luck in India and Brazil. His employer’s direct involvement in military operations against the Qawasim pirates and the dreaded Mutlaq al-Mutairi’s Wahhabi warriors at the oasis of al-Buraimi enabled him to visit the interior of Oman and the present United Arab Emirates. On the unquestionable importance of his Arabian experiences, but also on much of his information being only partly credible, cf. Bidwell (1995), pp. 199–200; Hajri (2006), p. 138; Hamilton (2010), p. 111; Hogarth (1904), p. 135; Pfullmann (2001), p. 294.47 [V. Maurizi], History of Seyd Said, Sultan of Muscat, cit., pp. 40–41: “We do not differ from other Musaleems, or Muselims (Mussulmen) except in thinking that Mahomet arrogated to himself too much authority; and, that the Koran was sent to the earth by the hands of angels, and not that of man, who has even dared to falsify many of its doctrines; we also consider that the prophets, and especially Maamèt ìben Abdulvaàb, were beings like our- selves; and, therefore, not worthy of being addressed in prayer, although deserving of admiration and imitation for their piety and moral conduct. There is but one God, the Koran is his word, and mankind his children, who are bound to love him, in return for the proofs of his affection they are constantly receiving. True believers are strictly enjoined to persecute infidels, and oblige them to adopt the true faith. Not only fermented liquors are prohibited by our law, but music, the smoking of tobacco, and the drinking of coffee, are considered to have a tendency to evil. We rigidly inculcate an adherence to the precepts