Page 137 - Su'udi Relations with Eastern Arabi & Uman (1800-1870)

and tribes through the delivery of zakah as a symbol of allegiance. In both
periods, the rulers employed various means and often resorted to coercive
measures to have their superiority acknowledged. On the whole, the activity of
al-Dirhyah’s amirs was carried out with religious fervour, as dictated by the
nature of the vigorous, newly-formed religious and political movement which
held, as a prime objective, the eradication of every sign of religious corruption
and immoral behaviour. Moreover, they partially succeeded in setting up a
state in accordance with their ideology and tradition. However, too little
consideration for political repercussions finally served to their own
disadvantage.
The rulers of al-Riyad, on the other hand, were more temperate, from a
religious point of view, in re-establishing the state, formulating their policies,
and resuming contact with former allies. They continued the traditional
practices of their predecessors in adhering to the reform movement and
esteeming the religious leaders, applying the rules of the Shari'ah, and
enforcing the payment of zakah to the central government. However, they
played down the notion of jihad and made no attempt to revive the pattern of
former times in this respect. The fall of al-Dir‘Iyah, the Egyptian occupation
and the rising British power in the Gulf, and their own personal experience, all
seem to have been factors which made the rulers of al-Riyad less militant in
their proceedings than their predecessors. They conducted a prudent policy
towards the Ottoman and British governments and avoided friction with both
while, at the same time, promoting their own influence in eastern Arabia and
‘Uman. Their proceedings in that direction were politically motivated, aimed
at annexing former dependencies and recovering the alliance and cooperation
of local chiefs.
While Su‘udl supremacy made intermittent headway in eastern Arabia and
‘Uman, it could not establish permanence. Their administration and military
systems were finally insufficient to entrench their rule, protect their interests,
and deter the threat of their opponents. Their difficulties were compounded by
the aspiration of rulers and tribal chiefs in the area who, determined to
preserve their own prerogatives and rights to rule, managed on various
occasions to withdraw their allegiance and weaken Su‘udl influence.
Finally, the British power in the Gulf came to be the major factor in
destabilizing the Su‘udl presence in eastern Arabia and ‘Uman by frustrating
their efforts to make further progress and maintain substantial control. From
the very beginning, the British authorities had associated the Su‘udl presence
in eastern Arabia and ‘Uman with piratical activity. As British influence and
prestige increased in the area through the weakening of the military power of
the maritime principalities and the conclusion of treaties with individual chiefs
to keep law and order on the maritime commercial route, the British
government was able to intimidate the local rulers from allying themselves
with the Su‘udls. At the same time, the British government engaged directly in
discouraging Su‘udl efforts to gain influence in the Sultanate of Masqat and
‘Uman.
The Su‘udls’ presence in the area made a considerable impact on local
culture. A great number of the inhabitants of al-Bahrayn, Qatar, the northern
part of the coast, the Zahirah region in ‘Uman, as well as some of the IbadI
tribes in southern ‘Uman, adhered to the reform movement and adopted the
religious practices and traditions preached by the Su‘udl-Wahhabi leaders.

131