1 Introduction: Unearthing and Historicizing the Mosul Incident

Although some incidents have shaped the course of history, they remain buried where they are because they have not been investigated enough. In this respect, unearthing the Mosul Incident and placing it in a historical narrative means much more than closing the chronological gaps within the history of Post-Constitutional Mosul. Because the preferences, policies and practices associated with this particular incident have not been closely examined and interpreted until now. This book identifies the various facts, notions and arguments that a collective violence incident introduced, and develops a contextual framework. Because the Mosul Incident is an extremely important case in terms of associating the origins and motivations of collective violence in modern Iraq with Post-Constitutional Iraq. By overcoming the historical rupture between Ottoman Mosul and Modern Iraq, the book eventually questions the continuity, legacy and causality of violence in Iraqi history.

The actual motivation behind this book is the deep interest towards Mosul’s domestic security conditions and the provincial law enforcement agencies during the Second Constitutional era. As an Ottoman province hosted by ancient Mesopotamia, known as the cradle of civilizations and comprised of fertile lands between the Euphrates and Tigris, Mosul deserves a chief interest on the historical scene of Iraq. Since the modern Iraq inherited the sociocultural codes of Ottoman bureaucracy, understanding the Ottoman provincial authorities becomes relevant and vital for a better understanding of today’s Iraq. Fewness of studies on the Middle East of the Second Constitutional era always pushed me to study on provincial histories for closing the gaps and contribute to building modern histories. Besides, particularly Mosul had always drawn my attention as a province of clashing interests and as a center of gravity between Anatolian heartlands and Mesopotamia. Multiplicity of Muslim and Non-Muslim elements, their networks with other countries and exposedness to the power focuses make this province remarkably strategic as well. Tribal mobility is also a key element to understand the Iranian border disputes, British and Russian provocations, and domestic conflicts.

In fact, my primary purpose when starting this study was to take a closer look at the public order incidents in Mosul. I was planning to examine the corruption, misconduct, administrative violation, and resort to violence facts in the Provincial Administration and law enforcement units. However, the archival records that I came across at the very beginning of my study took me to a much bigger incident. The document was titled as “Necessary measures were taken to end the incident that occurred when a soldier of the Kirkuk mule cavalry harassed the Muslim women while he was drunk”.1 The major incident triggered by this individual violation mentioned in this document would cost the province several years and occupy the Central Authority for a long time. The incident, which started with the harassment of a Muslim woman by a drunken mule cavalry in a downtown square of Mosul, quickly escalated between Arab and Kurdish elements and later almost turned into a provincial civil war. Therefore, it was directly or indirectly linked to many unexpected developments happening throughout the Mosul province during that period. These developments had left provincial administrators under heavy imputation, even caused their dismissals, and triggered the Siege of Sulaymaniyah by Sâdât-backed irregular forces. Due to public order and security concerns, a Joint Task Force (Müretteb Kuvvet or Kuvve-i Mürettebe) was formed, and the process was closely monitored by the Ministries of Interior, Justice and War. The investigation and trial process of the Mosul Incident had also serious repercussions and resulted in the rebuilding of Mosul's judicial infrastructure. In short, the Mosul Incident, one of the most critical thresholds of Mosul after the declaration of the Constitution in 1908, was in front of me and was waiting to be solved like a puzzle.

The main objective of this book is to analyze the tensions created by the shifting power balances in Post-Constitutional Mosul through different contexts. The Mosul Incident, which occupied even the parliament for a while, is very contributive in terms of understanding the power shift from the religious cliques inherited from the Hamidian period to the Post-Constitutional administrative cadres. The polarization between the Sulaymaniyah Sub-Governorate (Süleymaniye Mutasarrıflığı) and Sadaat al-Barzanjiyya was allegedly resulted in the conspiracy, banishment (teb'id ~ ﺗﺒﻌﻴﺪ), and murder of Sheikh Said, according to the Sâdât's point of view.2 The banishment and murder of Sheikh Said, an iconic legacy of the Hamidian regime, first provoked religious and tribal groups against the state authority and then resurrected the mutual dislike between Arabs and Kurds, ancient in the Iraqi Lands (Hıtta-i Irâkîye). The study closely examines the claims, complaints, and accusations of both Sulaymaniyah Notables (Ashraf / Eşrâf) and Sâdât as opposing parties. Later, these two opposing parties were articulated with different elements and turned into two separate blocs or fronts. In the study, it is seen that the Notables of Sulaymaniyah, who received the support of the CUP branch and Sulaymaniyah Sub-Governorate against the persecution of Sheikh Said, formed a bloc. Sâdât, who formed an alliance with Kurdish tribes, sufi orders, associations and villagers after the banishment and murder of Sheikh Said, seemed to form the other bloc. However, the study indicates that the Arab Ulema from Mosul, who was later involved in the equation and actively participated in the Mosul Incident formed a third bloc with Mosul Notables and changed the course of events at all costs. This bloc, whose spokesman was Reshid al-Omari (Reşid el-Ömeri - ‏رشيد العمري‎) as the founder of the Mosul branch of the Society of Mohammedan Union (Cemiyet-i İttihâdiye-i Muhammediye), claimed that they were unjustly stigmatized and criminalized after the incident. The intention and solidarity of the Mosuli Ulema and Notables in this incident is an extremely valuable example to have a grasp of the genetics of the Arab-Kurdish Dispute that has reached present-day Iraq. Therefore, the study traces an incident that occurred with the involvement of these three parties, tries to understand the strategic backgrounds of each party, and shows what a multi-layered public disorder incident in the Ottoman locality might cost.

At this point, the different views and dissensus of bureaucrats and Governors towards Sheikh Said and the Mosul Incident are also observed in the study. For instance, in front of the Unionist Governor Zeki, who was thought to be Anti-Sâdât from his critical discourse; we see Governor Reşid, who was thought to be Pro-Sâdât from his sympathetic discourse and whom he was alleged to protect and favor Sâdât through different alliances. While Zeki was alleged of being a spectator or even favoring in the alleged conspiracy against Sâdât, Reşid was seen as the bureaucrat who exposed the conspiracy network and justified Sâdât. The fact that both Governors were subjected to such contrast and contradictory allegations shows how different the attitudes of local bureaucrats can be in the face of such a large-scale public incident. However, this dissensus was not only among local bureaucrats. As we will see in some inter-Ministerial correspondence, the Minister of War Ali Rızâ Pasha had adopted a more cautious, objective and even moderate attitude towards Sheikh Said after his banishment. Despite allegations from the Ministry of Interior (Dâhiliye Nezâreti), he argued that Said should not be accused without a detailed investigation and even praised Said's symbolic position in the entire Kurdish community. Of course, these can be perceived as the views of a pragmatic statesman who does not attempt to confront and provoke the Kurdish community in the region. Consequently, the ultimate aim of studying Mosul Incident is to shed light on Post-Constitutional bureaucracy on Mosul, to observe the Provincial Administration shifts closely, and to analyze the power struggle between Sâdât and the state authority after the Hamidian regime.

The study focuses especially on two Governors, the Governorship of Zeki, when the incident broke out, and the Governorship of Reşid, when the investigations intensified. In the first part of the study, it will be examined how the network of relations between Sulaymaniyah authorities and Sâdât caused Sheikh Said to be banished from Sulaymaniyah. Here, the Society of Unionist Charity (Cemiyet-i Hayriyye-i İttihâdiye), which was established under the leadership of Sheikh Said and perceived as a rival to the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihâd ve Terakki Cemiyeti) Sulaymaniyah branch, gains additional importance. In addition, the duality of the CUP Mosul branch and their intervention in the function of the Provincial Administration will be examined under a separate chapter and will shed light on the Post-Constitutional atmosphere in Mosul. The second part, on the other hand, analyzes how the Mosul Incident occurred in general and how provincial administrators were unable to manage the crisis. Different personal narratives revealing the brutality experienced and the allegations of negligence and conspiracy were also reviewed within the framework of this...