Abdullah Quilliam (Henri De Léon) and Marmaduke Pickthall 87
the British government had no faith in his abilities as a peace negotiator and
refused the application. After the war he became involved with the various
efforts by prominent British Muslims to argue and campaign for a just treaty
for the Turks.
Unfortunately Pickthall allied himself with Mushir Hussain Kidwai, Dusé
Mohamed Ali and Mirza Hashim Ispahani in the formation of the Islamic In-
formation Bureau whose aim was to provide “true information about Turkey
and other Muslim matters”. Although supported by other prominent British
converts, including Quilliam, the Government and the security forces were
more concerned with the more extreme political views of the three Asian
Muslims mentioned above. The group was to become known as the “Wok-
ing Gang”. They were placed under surveillance and Kidwai was described as
“the most dangerous of the Woking Mosque gang, a body which includes such
agitators as Marmaduke Pickthall and Arthur Field and is in communication
with all the most dangerous conspirators in this country and abroad”.47 The
constant reference to being branded a traitor, anti-British, and linked to con-
spiracy, and the consequent inability to find employment would finally disil-
lusion Pickthall and in September 1920 he left for India to take the editorship
of the nationalist Indian newspaper, the Bombay Chronicle, in which role he
proved a fervent supporter of the Kilafatist cause and Indian independence.
He returned to Britain shortly before his death in 1936. Once again he would
find himself at odds with Quilliam who remained a strong supporter of the
British Empire in India.
Conclusion
The differences between Pickthall and Quilliam, in spite of their considerable
similarities, not least their strong allegiance to the Turkish-Ottoman cause,
their shared belonging to a religion that aroused antipathy and suspicion in
Britain, their mutual commitment to the Woking/London Muslim communi-
ties and their status as eminent members of a small band of converts, demon-
strate the difficulties of such allegiance to Islam and resonate to the present
period. The positions taken up by the two prominent Muslim converts high-
light the complexity of allegiance to Islam during periods when the nation was
involved in major conflict with Muslim powers. The confusion of religious iden-
tity and political allegiance dates back to the period when converting to Islam
was known as “going Turk”. Arguably this conflation of identity and suspicion
47 See Gilham, Loyal, 228.