Introduction

“It is really astonishing,” wrote Abdullah Quilliam “to hear from the lips of educated English people the most ridiculous and erroneous statements with reference to the supposed doings and sayings of the prophet Mahomed, and the tenets they imagine the followers of Islam to hold.”[1] The ‘erroneous’ statements did not end there. It even included Quilliam’s own ‘community’ that he set up in Liverpool.

There were a number of reasons why Quilliam gained prominence between 1890 till the downfall in 1908. I have pinned some of the reasons to a number of separate yet interrelated events. Feisty as ever, Quilliam would use these controversial events and weave them towards himself and his mosque. From the mosque’s purlieu his detractors chortled at him whilst synchronously the news ran amok; the attention slowly but surely directed back at 8 Brougham Terrace. Unquestionably that invited attacks and jibes – unintended yet inexorable consequence of proselytizing – but it also invited curious members of society, who, in the age of doubting Christianity would happily superficially unite with the Muslims to attack a common enemy. Strictly within European context, Atheists had cordial relation with Quilliam. Both would advertise each other’s works in their respective journals.[2] There was even a time when the ardent anti-Christian Joseph Mazzini Wheeler wrote an article for Quilliam’s The Islamic World.[3] Quilliam made it clear, in his provocative line, that ‘Christianity is expiring—slain in the polemical strife of its professors’ and that ‘the alternatives are Atheism or Islam!’[4] The inspiration of Quilliam’s book titled Footprints Of The Past (1907) may have been derived from the Atheist Joseph Wheeler’s Footsteps Of The Past (1895). Both sides fed each other with information against a common enemy. In today’s time, Muslim-Atheist alliance would appear extremely outlandish, however, the milieu of the time produced a need to bring down what was perceived to be a giant: Christianity. At the same time, the Muslims and Atheists were vying for power, for people’s attention. Quilliam’s agenda is hardly concealed in his motto for the Islamic World “ISLAM FOR THE WORLD AND THE WORLD FOR ISLAM”[5] or in his response to the Sudan conflict, he wrote , “In Islam the true patriot is the sincere Muslim, his brethren the True-Believers, his nationality Islam, his fatherland the world!”[6] The Atheists’ agenda were no different, hence the rise of Atheism and Communist Russia, China, Yugoslavia etc.[7] With the giant humbled, the two headbutted each other for they are no longer in alliance against a perceived enemy, instead, they view each other as threats. Hence why it appears outlandish to call for unity today but understandable at that time.

Back to the events which pushed Quilliam to the fore. As mentioned, Quilliam made sure his presence was known by writing provocative lines or writing about events that would be considered outlandish in the ever dissipating, prim, Christian world. All these events occur in the small window of 1890-1892. Here are some of those events: (1) Conversion of 8 Brougham Terrace into a mosque[8] (2) Quilliam petitioning against the Mahomet play (3) interracial marriages, especially the reputed “first Mahommedan marriage” between Charlotte Fitch and Muhammad Ahmad (4) conversion of H. H. Johnson (which I am writing about in this piece) (5) publication of literature (6) the superficial Atheist-Muslim alliance (7) missionaries ‘reviewing’ Quilliam’s activities (8) attacks of the mosque (9) Quilliam’s unapologetic stand.

‘The Power of Thought’

By late 1889, after being evicted from Mount Vernon Temperance Hall, Quilliam purchased 8 Brougham Terrace and converted it into a mosque.[9] This nondescript ‘old building’ – as one Arab eyewitness would call it[10] – would grow to become a rambunctious menace for some. Quilliam ‘has of late shown signs of being a fanatic’ ran one desperate report.[11] ‘MAHOMET has invaded England’ wrote someone sarcastically.[12] The mosque was a ‘heathen shop’ said another who hated Turks.[13] The controversy surrounding the mosque and reports of it in the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world alerted missionaries and curious minds alike regarding its whereabouts.

Of the curious mind was a certain reverend by the name of H. H. Johnson. He trudged towards the mosque, determined to learn more. ‘It appears that for some months past the rev. gentleman has been in communication with the officials of the Moslem Institute in Liverpool, and been making numerous inquiries on doctrinal points.’ Did the reverend make his mind up after months of inquiry? Indeed, he did. At a talk delivered by Quilliam entitled “The Power of Thought”, which apparently powered the thought of the reverend, Johnson ‘declared his determination to renounce Christianity and embrace Islam. He repeated the “Kalma” or Moslem confession of faith, and signed the roll of membership of the association.'[14] He was embraced, welcomed and adopted the name “Yehiya”, or, H. H. Yehiya Johnson.

Not long after establishing the mosque, Quilliam finally established a boys school, followed by a girls school shortly afterwards. The affable Yehiya was appointed as the headmaster of the school. In January 1893, the efforts of his and others’ bore great fruits. Liverpool Daily Post reported,

“SUCCESS OF THE MOSLEM COLLEGE — The results of the Kens­ington local examination in science, letters, and art were published yesterday, and the recently-formed Liverpool Moslem College is conspicuous for its success in the examination. Every pupil entered from the school has creditably passed and obtained a first-class certificate, while three of the young gentlemen have carried off honours.”[15]

Yehiya would continue to play other roles, for instance, delivering a talk at the usual Sunday evening event which was open for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. His evening lecture was entitled “Inspiration of the Bible” in which he contrasted the Bible with the Qur’an, Bible against itself and concluded that the Bible was “grossly corrupted that all satisfactory evidence of their [Biblical manuscripts] inspiration has been lost”[16].

Ultimately the conversion of Yehiya sent shockwaves. One Christian far away from England, styling himself as “The Wanderer” melancholy wrote “I daresay in these peculiar times we shall soon hear of others [converts to Islam]”[17]

‘A Challenge…’

Of the missionary kind was one thick-moustached reverend Dr. Henry Martyn Clark (1859-1916). On behalf of “The Indian Press”, he launched an independent inquiry into Quilliam’s mosque. But why? It all began because allegedly false news spread in India that some 300 to 500 people had converted to Islam in Liverpool – despite the fact that Fatima Cates, in 1890, mentioned there were 30 converts.[18] The Christians denied it. Some Muslims accepted it. One Riaz-ud-din Ahmad was apparently heading to England and America and issued ‘a challenge’ to the missionary revered Rowland Bateman to join him to investigate whether there are ‘at least 50’ converts to Islam who knew how to pray. Bateman could not make it but appointed his close German missionary friend Herbert Udny Weitbrecht (1851-1937). Riaz-ud-din also could not make it and appointed the former Vice-President of Quilliam’s mosque Rafiuddin Ahmad (1865-1954).[19] There was a minor problem. Rafiuddin did not know Riaz-ud-din. It appears that Riaz-ud-din assumed Rafiuddin was still the Vice-President of Quilliam’s mosque. Unfortunately for Riaz-ud-din, Rafiuddin had recently relocated to London. Thus, Weitbrecht was alone. Nevertheless, Weitbrecht went to the mosque and interviewed Quilliam in 1891.[20] Weitbrecht then appointed Henry Martyn Clark (1859-1916) to launch a full investigation. Clark returned from his holiday in the Highlands to the squalor of Liverpool.

‘Unpretentious looking brick-house’ was his first observation of the mosque. He proceeded to go in and minutely observed everything, providing us with possibly the best eyewitness account of the mosque. The prayer room was ‘draped here and there with Burmese curtains’, the front door knocker was ‘somewhat dilapidated’, Sale’s translation of the Qur’an was placed next to a ‘Damascene Koran-stand’ and many more minute details lost to history. Clark managed to secure an interview with Quilliam, accompanied by the Chief Reporter of Liverpool Daily Post J. Jenkins and an established shorthand-writer J. N. MacWhinnie. This was not the first or last time Quilliam was interviewed regarding his faith. Just before Clark, as mentioned above, Quilliam was interviewed by the German missionary Weitbrecht and around the same time by John J. Pool.[21] Clark, however, came with an agenda – to report his findings regarding Quilliam’s alleged fraudulent activities. Despite that, MacWhinnie’s report remains an excellent guide to Quilliam’s knowledge of Islam and his limited access to Islamic texts. For example, Quilliam never had Saheeh Bukhari or Muslim or any ahadith books for that matter except a few selections of ahadith from a French translation. Such severe limitations would dissipate over time with the arrival of new literature from India and Muslims from all over the world.

Coming back to Clark’s agenda, he wanted to show, amongst other things, that Quilliam was faking the number of converts he acquired over the short period. He did so by alleging (1) Quilliam added names of people as new converts even though they never converted and (2) exaggerating the number of converts. Instead of ‘about 50 converts’, wrote Clark, there were, he presumed, ‘28’. Quilliam adamantly refused to show any non-Muslim (and some Muslims) the membership book which lists all the converts because their names could leak out and some have ‘suffered little matters of petty persecutions by reason of their being Mahommedans, some a little more than that’. Near the end of the interview, Clark asked if he could have one glance at the membership book but Quilliam disapproved again. The interview ended and Clark exited the mosque.[22]

‘Absolute Denial’

Sometime later, Clark went to his friend’s house. Miraculously, his friend’s friend was also present. He was no ordinary friend of a friend. He was an ‘informant’ who was connected with Quilliam, was ‘intimately acquainted with the whole thing [regarding the mosque]’ and had even seen the membership book! If this is no 19^th century miracle, then what could it be? The unnamed informant, who did not know Clark, relayed to his friend that the mosque had no devotion and was ‘decaying instead of increasing’ – considering Quilliam had just returned from Constantinople bearing gifts from Abdulhamid II and his status enhanced, that seems unlikely. If anything, post 1891 would usher in the greatest period of progress Quilliam experienced until the downfall of the mosque in 1908. Either Clark remembered the conversation or he made notes in presence of this stranger and apparently the stranger never inquired why Clark was jotting any notes. Besides the point, this informant’s knowledge of the ‘Institute [mosque] and its ins and out’ was at best derived from his own fantasy. There is no mention of anything specific regarding the mosque or Quilliam. The informant shared devastating news that two alleged converts ‘were put on [the membership book] without their knowledge’! – apparently Quilliam was that lame, he would write random people’s names in the membership book, but for what? Why hide a book that contain lies? Don’t people lie in order to show off? Was Quilliam hiding the book just to amuse himself over fake names? Anyway, such news was music to Clark’s ears. One of the fake converts Clark names is none other than H. H. Johnson![22]

Two days after the interview, on 29^th October 1891, news spread in Liverpool and beyond. The news, in the form of a little sentence in the Liverpool Daily Post and Liverpool Mercury, said,

“A CONTRADICTION – We are requested by the Rev. H. H. Johnson to give an absolute denial to the report recently circulated that he had joined Mahommedanism.”[23]

Clark rejoiced, electrified when he read that day’s newspaper and had to immediately make a note of it in his report: ‘I may mention great capital has been made out of the latest convert’ jotted Clark. Technically it is not Clark’s fault regarding the news, but for Clark to indirectly call Quilliam a liar and not to return to Quilliam to double-check was dishonesty on his part, or simply bad journalism. Worse, Clark completely ignored the next day’s newspaper!

‘Similar cognomen’

Here is what happened. On 20 September 1891, Yehiya converted.[24] Within a week, the newspapers reported his conversion nationwide that a “CLERGYMAN CONVERTS TO MOHAMMEDANISM” and it even reached international media of the day! A month later, a Johnson of Oxford, denied any conversion. This apparent contradiction led Quilliam (or someone else) to respond the very next day, on 30^th October 1891. The response cleared the doubt,

“THE CONVERSION OF A CHRISTIAN CLERGYMAN TO ISLAM – As there appears to be some little confusion as to the identity of the clergyman who renounced Christianity and adopted Mahommedanism some short time ago, and as we are informed there is more than one clergyman of the same name, the secretary of the local Moslem Society [George Khalid Smith] has produced for our inspection the members’ allegiance book of that association. This book commences with the following declaration:–  We, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge our belief in the Moslem Faith, and that we hold the same and none other to be the true religion, and that we believe – 1, that there is only one God; 2, that Mahomet was his prophet; 3, that the Koran is the inspired book and word of God; and each convert on joining signs this declaration. Amongst other signatures in this book is that of the reverend gentleman, which runs as follows:– “Hugh H. Johnson, B.A (Oxon.), M. R. I. A, Valley, Anglesey.” It is, of course, unfortunate that other clergymen bearing a similar cognomen have been confounded with the clerical convert.”[25]

Clark should have made note of this but instead, in line with his agenda, he ignored it – maybe he was not aware of it. The Johnson that converted was from Wales, whilst the Johnson that denied conversion was from, presumably, Oxford. Two different Johnsons, two separate persons. Finally, this miraculous unnamed informant whose alleged knowledge of the mosque was so great and was even ‘one of Mr’s Quilliam’s friends’ shared nothing worthy of notice. The best he shared were missionary tropes and information already in the newspapers. I have to say, this suspicious informant may not have been real or he pretended to be more than he was.

A year later, in May 1892, William Muir, the noted Orientalist of his time[26] managed to get his hands on Clark’s report but not the newspaper in which the Muslims explained the apparent contradiction. Muir could have corresponded with Quilliam but decided not to.[27] A whole decade later, James Monro, a missionary in India[28] and a former police officer investigating Jack the Ripper case, would do no different to what Muir did. What spurred Monro to write was because in India “It is not uncommonly asserted in some Mahommedan quarters [of India]… the religion of Islam is making great and rapid strides in England…” and thus reached for Clark’s report to burst this perceived myth.[29]

Out of the three missionaries, not one had the audacity to inquire further. Though it all began because the wrong Johnson assumed he was the one being spoken of.

‘Senseless vapourings and tissues of falsehoods…”

I did not find any response to Clark’s report but Henri M. Leon, a French Muslim convert in Liverpool[30] claimed that “the fallacy of Dr. Martyn Clark’s statements were exposed ten years ago.”[31] In another section, the editor of The Crescent wrote ‘Mr. Monro’s remarks and those of “Dr. Martyn Clark” have so often been confuted that it is idle to pursue the matter further.”[32] If such response did exist then not only did the missionaries ignore the newspaper which clarified who Johnson was, but they even ignored a full response to Clark’s statements.

Monro’s reliance on Clark, on the other hand, did not go unnoticed. An extract of his book, Moslems in Liverpool, was published in Calcutta’s Oxford Mission Church’s ‘weekly paper’ Epiphany.[33] Riaz-ud-din Ahmad returned from obscurity, rejected the epiphanous extract and immediately sent a reply to the Editor of the paper. Monro made ‘…quite irrelevant remarks…’ wrote Ahmad. Who cares if – if – the converts in Liverpool were of “lower ranks of life, persons as a whole of neither of education nor position”? Were not the followers of Jesus of low ‘ranks of life… neither education or position’ contested Ahmad. ‘I again challenge’ cried Ahmad,

“…Mr. Monro… to appoint a commission consisting of Christians and Muhammedans residing in London. The commission should go to Liverpool, and put the statements made in the pamphlet to the test of truth. If the commission find out after careful examination the number of converts to Islam exceeding one hundred males and females and conversant with the principal doctrines of Islam, then it is hoped Mr. Monro will apologise in the principal Mosques of Calcutta, Hougly and Dacca, and desist in future from publishing such misleading statements in the papers to please his co-religionists.”[34]

Monro had 7 years to start the commission, but no such commission materialized.

Regarding the low-status converts, Leon wrote at length,

“The… paragraph that the Muslim converts in Liverpool are drawn “from the lower ranks of life,” persons “of neither education or position,” will no doubt greatly amuse the British Muslims, seeing that the converts include a Justice of the Peace, two solicitors of the Supreme Court, a professional analyst, an artist, a Fellow of the London Society of Science, a schoolmaster, several property-owners and tradesmen, a member of the executive committee of one of the largest trade-unions in the British Isles, an accountant, an ex-clergyman of the Church of England, &c., &c. The able articles which we are publishing week by week upon the Old Testa­ment, and which were written during his spare time by our much-respected but now deceased brother, W. Dawood Huey, whose widow, married daughter and grandchildren are all members of the Liverpool Muslim  Institution; the lectures delivered from time to time by Brothers Professors H. Nasrullah Warren, F.S.C., Nuruddin Stephen, H. Haschem Wilde, Bros. John (Yehya) Chapman, C. Wahby George, J. Bokhari Jeffery, Sister Ross Warren, and many others, are in themselves surely sufficient proof of the  falsity of the statement that “the Muslim converts in Liverpool are persons of neither education or position.” Amongst the Muslim converts now deceased were also a physician, an ex-Christian scripture-reader, a solicitor, and several tradesmen. The fallacy of Dr. Martyn Clark’s statements were exposed ten years ago. No one among the Liverpool Muslims knows anything of this “Mr. Monro.” These foolish productions of Christian missionaries published thousands of miles away from England are utterly beneath contempt. The British Muslims can employ their time better than taking notice of the senseless vapourings and tissues of falsehoods concocted by a set of silly Christian missionaries.”[35]

It is evident that Leon had no idea that ‘this Mr. Monro’ was the former police officer investigating Jack the Ripper case. If he knew, he may well have written that Monro failed twice: failed in capturing Jack the Ripper and failed in starting a commission.

Conclusion

Jamie Gilham, author of the commendable book Loyal Enemies: British Converts to Islam, 1850-1950, fell into the trap of the media of the time. He writes that Johnson was ‘so anxious’ regarding the mentioning of his conversion, which prompted him to leave England for Egypt.[36] However, in the light of the above, that seems unlikely. According to Quilliam during an interview, Johnson of Wales went to Cairo and ‘is now editing a newspaper in Cairo.’[37] This is confirmed by an article in a Welsh newspaper in 1897. After an inquiry regarding an ‘application for an infant school at or near Dinas, Mr Hugh H. Johnson, writing from Cairo, states that his father was rector of the parish for 22 years…”[38] Was it due to anxiousness if he did travel? Far from it, Johnson gave a lecture openly regarding the corruption of the Bible in front of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. He was the headmaster of an explicit Muslim school. An anxious person would operate behind the scenes.

Johnson of Wales does disappear from The Crescent after June 1893. Presumably that is when he decided to go to Cairo. In October 1893, it mentions that Haschem Wilde is the headmaster of the school.[39] Johnson’s conversion would be re-mentioned by a London based journal Tit-bits which was reprinted in The Crescent, without mentioning what exactly happened to Johnson.[40]

Note: I thank Matt Sharp, the author of On Behalf of the Sultan, for providing me the Freethinker journal.

References

1. Quilliam, W. H. A. 1895. Studies in Islam: A Collection of Essays. Liverpool: The Crescent Printing and Publishing Company. p. 51; Quilliam, W. H. Sept 1894. How Errors as to Islam Originate and are Perpetuated. The Islamic World. 2(17): 138.
2. Quilliam advertised six books of Joseph M. Wheeler, see for instance July 1898. The Crescent. 11(286): 418. The Atheists would review, favourably, Quilliam’s Islamic World, reprinted in June 1893. The Crescent. 1(20): 157. Emin Nabakoff’s speech was succinctly recorded in The Freethinker, reprinted in Jan 1895. The Crescent. 5(105): 23. Emin Leo Nabakoff was a Russian convert to Islam who was a known chess player in Liverpool and eventually he travelled to America. It also mentions a number of Christians converting to Islam in The Freethinker, reprinted in Jan 1895. The Crescent. 5(103): 2. Final example would be the mentioning of how Christianity is about exterminating ‘the aboriginal inhabitants, whereas wherever Mohammedanism goes it saves them, is largely borne out by facts.’ See Dec 1890. Freethinker. 5(52): 620.
3. Wheeler, J. M. June 1894. John Lewis Burckhardt: A Convert to Islam. Islamic World. 2(14): 62-64.
4. June 1893. The Crescent. 1(20): 157.
5. April 1893. The Crescent. 1(13): 98.
6. June 1896. The Crescent. 7(178): 793.
7. Wilson, A. N. 2000. God’s Funeral. Abacus Books.
8. Technically that happened in late 1889, mere weeks before 1890. For that purpose, I lumped the opening of the mosque under the year “1890”. When the mosque opened, it immediately provided food for the poor during Christmas of 1889. See Pool, J. J. 1892. Studies in Mohammedanism. London: Archibald Constable and Company. p. 395.
9. Pool, J. J. 1892. Studies in Mohammedanism. London: Archibald Constable and Company. p. 395; Byrne, O. Jan 1898. A Short History of the Progress of Islam in England. The Crescent. 21(262): 35.
10. 1893. [Untitled]. al-Ustadh. Issue: 30. pp. 766-768.
11. Quilliam’s Band is Failing: He is Said to Be Becoming a Fanatic and the Mohammedans Object. Los Angeles Times, 10/6/1892, p. 3.
12. May 1891. Society: The London Reader. 57(1465): 143.
13. Islam in England. The Times of India, 7/6/1892, p. 5.
14. Pall Mall Gazette, 24/9/1891, p. 6; Leidsch Dagblad (Holland), 29/9/1891, p. 2; Nottingham Evening Post, 25/9/1891, p. 2; South Wales Daily News, 26/9/1891, p. 6; Nov 1891. Church News of the Month. Catholic Champion. 3(12): 275. Yehiya converted on 20/9/1891, see Oct 1893. Islam and the English Press. The Crescent. 2(34): 271-272.
15. Reprinted in Jan 1893. The Liverpool Moslem College. The Crescent. 1(2): 12-13.
16. March 1893. The Inspiration of the Bible. The Crescent. 1(7): 54.
17. The Wanderer. Talk of the Town. The Times of India, 14/10/1891, p. 4
18. Nov 1890. The Spectator. 65(3253): 586-7; The Glasgow Herald, 1/11/1890, p. 7.
19. Rafiuddin Ahmed was at one point the Vice-President of Quilliam’s mosque. He wrote many articles concerning many subjects. Here is a selection: 1901. ‘The Sources of Islam’: A Reply. The Nineteenth Century and After. 49(287): 77-83; 1898. The Proposed Muslim University in India. The Nineteenth Century and After. 44(262): 915-921; 1898. The Battle of Omdurman and The Mussulman World. The Nineteenth Century and After. 44(260): 688-696; 1898. The Future of The Anglo-Afghan Alliance. The Nineteenth Century and After. 43(252): 241-249; 1898. The Queen’s Personal Interest in India. The English Illustrated Magazine. 18: 507-512. 1897. A Moslem’s View of the Pan-Islamic Revival. The Nineteenth Century and After. 42(248): 517-526.
20. Unfortunately, Weitbrecht provides very little about what transpired between the two. See Weitbrecht, H. U. 1914. A Moslem Mission to England. The Muslim World. 4(2): 195-202. For the issuing of the challenge and its failure to materialize, see Monro, J. 1901. Moslems of Liverpool. Calcutta: Methodist Publishing House. For a response to Weitbrecht’s article, see Parkison, Y. N. 1914. The Liverpool Muslim Movement. Islamic Review and Muslim India. 2(4): 166-168.
21. Pool, J. J. 1892. Studies in Mohammedanism. London: Archibald Constable and Company. Chapter 40.
22. Monro, J. 1901. Moslems of Liverpool. Calcutta: Methodist Publishing House; Muir, W. 1892. The “Church of Islam” at Liverpool. Church Missionary Intelligencer. New Series. 17: 413-417.
23. Liverpool Mercury, 29/10/1891, p. 5.
24. There is dispute regarding when Yehiya converted. According to Byrne, O. Jan 1898. A Short History of the Progress of Islam in England. The Crescent. 21(262): 35 he converted on 7/8/1891. There appears to be something odd regarding this date. When talks are delivered, it is on Sunday. But 7/8/1891 was a Friday. The date of 20/9/1891 was published two years after the event and it’s a Sunday. Hence why I used this date instead of what Byrne claimed. See Oct 1893. Islam and the English Press. The Crescent. 2(34): 271-272.
25. Liverpool Mercury, 30/10/1891, p. 6.
26. Gunny, A. 2017. The Prophet Muhammad in French and English Literature, 1650 to the Present. The Islamic Foundation; Buaben, J. M. 1996. Image of the Prophet Muhammad in the West: A Study of Muir, Margoliouth and Watt. The Islamic foundation.
27. Muir, W. 1892. The “Church of Islam” at Liverpool. Church Missionary Intelligencer. New Series. 17: 413-417.
28. Stock, E. 1917. Beginnings in India. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. p. 96.
29. Monro, J. 1901. Moslems of Liverpool. Calcutta: Methodist Publishing House. See also Stock, E. 1916. The History of the Church Missionary Society. London: Church Missionary Society. Chapter 10.
30. There is doubt regarding the identity of this man. For this purpose, I am in line with Ron Geaves’ opinion, that is, Henri de Leon to be a real person, separate from Quilliam. Though after Leon’s death in 1912, Quilliam assumed his identity. Geaves, R. 2013. Islam in Victorian Britain: The Life and Times of Abdullah Quilliam. Kube Publishing, p. 260.
31. Ahmed, R. July 1901. Muslims in Liverpool. The Crescent. 18(445): 55.
32. Sept 1901. Muslims in Liverpool. The Crescent. 18(452): 173.
33. Longridge, G. Talbot, E. Hutton, W. 1910. A History of the Oxford Mission to Calcutta. London: A. R. Mowbray. p. 13.
34. Ahmed, R. July 1901. Muslims in Liverpool. The Crescent. 18(445): 55.
35. Ibid.
36. Gilham, J. 2014. Loyal Enemies. p. 101-102; Gilham, J. 2014. ‘Upholding the Banner of Islam’. Immigrants and Minorities. 33(1): 30.
37. The Moslem Chronicle, 23/1/1904, p. 55. I thank Matt Sharp for providing that. For the same interview but structured differently, see Oamaru Mail, 22/1/1904, p. 4. For part of the interview see The Cornishman, 31/12/1903, p. 3. The interviewer is presumably Herbert Thomas as his name appears in the Cornishman.
38. Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald, 12/11/1897, p. 4.
39. Oct 1893. Distinguished Persians in Liverpool. The Crescent. 2(41): 324.
40. 1893. Islam and the English Press. The Crescent. 2(34): 271

Abdurahman Abouhawas