Page 60 - Arabiab Studies (IV)

50 Arabian Studies IV
attracted by the opportunity to plunder under the banner of their
new religion. This, of course, did not explain acts of piracy
committed before 1803. The idea of Unitarian fanaticism served to
confuse the inconsistent policy of Bombay in trying to suppress the
Qawasim without becoming entangled with their mainland over-
lords.
It is difficult to reconstruct the QasimT point of view. In the few
documents we have—communications translated and preserved by
the Company—the QasimT shaykhs understandably denied any
illegality. In 1814, an exchange took place between the British
Resident at Bushahr, Lieutenant William Bruce, and Hasan b.
Rafomah, a QasimT shaykh who had been appointed by the
WahhabTs as governor at Ras al-Khaymah. The correspondence
ended in an abortive agreement, but it deserves attention because
it presents the shaykh’s view of QasimT maritime activity and his
own relationship with Dir‘iyyah—or perhaps his view as he wished
it to be understood by the British. Early in 1814, Bruce had sent a
letter to Hasan regarding certain attacks off the coast of Sind
against vessels sailing under British colours. Also, a complaint
against the Qawasim was sent to AmTr ‘Abdullah b. Sa‘ud at
Dir‘iyyah. Replies from Hasan and ‘Abdullah reached Bruce in
October, 1814, by way of Hasan’s envoy, one Hasan b. Ghayth. In
part, the Sa‘udi Amir said:
Your communication has been received regarding the proceedings of the
Joasmees (Qawasim] towards your people. You are well acquainted that I
have never authorized either the Joasmees or any other tribes to molest or
interrupt any of your people. Your letter reached me at the time that
Hassan bin Rehma the Ameer of Joasmee was in attendance, the purport
of which was made known to him. He replied that to his knowledge no
property of the English had been taken by him. I have now directed him
to write to you that whatever property can be proved against him he is to
deliver up to you.9
He closed by asking Bruce to ‘let me know who are your subjects
and their distinguishing marks. ...’ Hasan’s response is worth
quoting at length:
... I went to meet Abdclla bin Soud and there saw your letter to him
regarding me; you are well acquainted that anything that may be proved
[against us?] we will restore, without your replying to Abdclla bin Soud or
anyone else. You mention that our vessels go towards Sind which is very
right, but we have scarce brought anything from that quarter merely a
little coarse, red rice, small quantity of wheat, a little cotton and some
iron: but other tribes also visit this quarter, the Joasmees who are subject
to Seyad Saide of Muscat and others who take property and then charge
[us?] with having done it. ... The treaty [of 1806] between us is very full