Page 94 - Su'udi Relations with Eastern Arabi & Uman (1800-1870)

lived inland, engaging in agriculture and the tending of flocks.7’5 As early as
1812, the tribe had adopted the reform doctrines and, after a prolonged conflict
with the Masqat! regime, had renounced their allegiance to the Al Bii Sa‘kl
family.716 Although the Banu Bii ‘All tribe had a few boats in their possession
at the time, they were not considered a seafaring people and did not engage in
piratical activity.717 Nonetheless, their attack on two Masqat! vessels and the
murder of a messenger sent by Captain Thompson to remonstrate against their
alleged plundering of the property of a British subject led Thompson to
cooperate with Sa‘id b. Sultan in commanding a joint expedition against the
tribe.718 The war with the Banu Bu ‘Al! resulted in the defeat of the British-
Masqatl troops and had a lasting effect on Captain Thompson personally. 719
His superiors in India found him guilty of having rashly undertaken the
expedition and subjected him to a public reprimand. 720
The defeat of the British by the Banu Bu ‘Al! tribe brought shame to the
British authorities in India and caused their army considerable humiliation. In
order to restore the honour of their reputation and avenge the casualties they
suffered, the British forces dispatched a larger expedition against the Banu Bu
‘All tribe in 1821. This time the British forces got the upper hand: a great
number of tribesmen were killed, their forts were demolished, their date
gardens were cut down, and water channels were destroyed.721
Considerable developments took place over the next few years in both Najd
and ‘Uman. In Najd, Turk! b. ‘Abd Allah had been waging war against the
Egyptian garrisons to revive the Su‘ud! state and establish his own rule. In
‘Uman, Sa‘id b. Sultan, having consolidated his position at home, began to
pursue his designs against other countries. In 1826, Sa‘id sent a fleet to
blockade and capture Bushire, but then withdrew at the request of the British
Resident.722 Two years later he made a final attack on al-Bahrayn and was
disastrously defeated.723 Sa‘id also attempted, unsuccessfully, to annex Zufar
to his territory following the death of its chief, Muhammad ‘Aqll, in 1829.724
Meanwhile, Sa‘id’s hold on ‘Uman and his generally undisputed authority
were soon to be challenged. The tribal and political structure of‘Uman, as well
as Sard’s recent preoccupation with his East African provinces, seems to have
contributed to the decline of Sa‘!d’s position at home and to the rise of
opposing forces. In a country like ‘Uman, where semi-independent chiefs and
governors of provinces belonged to different factions and often had conflicting
interests, the strength of the central government and the vigilance of the
supreme ruler were indispensable in preserving the integrity of the state and
discouraging insurrection and subversive activities. Sa‘!d b. Sultan was
familiar with the politics of the country and did not rule out the possibility of
disturbances in the event of his absence. Nevertheless, he judged it imperative
to direct his energies toward East African affairs and deal with the rising
troubles there. Sard’s first visit to Africa was prompted by an insurrection
against his rule at Mombasa, led by a local governor, Salim b. Ahmad, of the
Mazari* tribe of‘Uman. This trip marked the beginning of the strengthening of
Sa‘Id’s rule in Africa and led to the eventual transfer of his capital and residence
to Zanzibar as well as to the decline of his authority in ‘Uman.725 Apart from
the despair over the possibility of further expansion along either side of the
Persian Gulf, especially after the ill-fated operation against al-Bahrayn, and a
concomitant fear of losing his remote East African dominions as a result of the
new developments there, there were other reasons for Sa‘id’s increasing

90