Page 126 - Su'udi Relations with Eastern Arabi & Uman (1800-1870)

Masqat to settle their differences.1044 While ‘Abd Allah held no objections to
the proposal, he called Pelly’s attention to his own views with regard to both
Masqat and the British government. Like all his Su‘udi predecessors, ‘Abd
Allah based his claim of authority over Masqat on the principle of payment of
zakah by a subordinate ruler to a supreme one. ‘Abd Allah wrote: “You [Pellyl
as well as others know that they [rulers of Masqat] arc our subjects and have
given zakah to our ancestors for years past.”1045 The Su‘udl amir, trying to
avoid the unnecessary interference and conflict that could emerge from British
involvement in the matter, reminded Pelly of the previous (and still existing)
understanding between the Su‘udl state and the British government “that the
people of the land should be our subjects and that you should not interfere with
them on any account whatsoever.’’1046 However, ‘Abd Allah also recognized
the right of the British government to handle matters relating to the sea as it
saw fit.1047
In the other letter, Amir ‘Abd Allah replied to Pelly’s ultimatum, stating
that the demands under consideration would require consultation and
discussion with Pelly. Furthermore, ‘Abd Allah promised to send an envoy to
facilitate a prompt solution to the British-Su‘udl differences.1048 As for the
incident at Sur, ‘Abd Allah held the Janabah tribe responsible, but added that
it was incumbent upon himself to try to recover damages from the tribe.1049
In April, Muhammad b. Mani‘ arrived at Bushire from al-Riyad to meet
with Pelly.1050 He submitted to Pelly a written declaration outlining the Su‘udl
desire for a peaceful continuation of amiable relations between the Su‘udl state
and the British government, while maintaining the connection with ‘Uman.
The declaration, which secured the approval of both the Resident in the Gulf
and his superiors, stated that the Su‘udls would not “injure or oppose British
subjects residing in territories under the authority of Abdullah b. Fysul. ”1051
With regard to the territory of‘Uman, the declaration stated that the Su‘udis
would not “injure or attack the territories of the Arab tribes in alliance with the
British Government, specially of the kingdom of Muskat, further than in
receiving the Zukat that has been customary of old. ”1052
In the meantime, the government of Masqat was keeping busy with the
aftermath of Thuwaynl’s death. Salim immediately became ruler of the
country, but his reign was short and troubled. The challenge to the newly-
established regime came from Thuwayni’s brother, Turk! b. Sa‘Id, who
believed that he had a superior claim to authority in ‘Uman. To assert his
pretensions, Turkl engaged in petty wars against Salim, trying to overthrow
him and win over the country. However, Turki’s attempts were frustrated
partly because Salim had major support from the tribal chiefs, and partly
because of the intervention of the political Resident. As a result, Turk! was
forced to retire into temporary exile in India.1053
A later and more serious challenge was posed by ‘Azzan b. Qays and his
Ibadi confederates, who had long awaited an opportunity to topple the
government of Masqat, set up an Ibadi Imamate in its place, and revive its
political and religious institutions. The leading figures advocating the rise of
the Imamate and its re-establishment at the expense of the ruling party at
Masqat were ‘Azzan b. Qays, Sa‘Id b. Khalfan al-Khalill, Muhammad b.
Sulayman al-Gharibi, and §alih b. ‘All.1054 By this time, each of these
personalities had fallen out with Salim b. Thuwayni for personal reasons, and
each had become an enemy.

120