Historical Route of Modern Saudi Kingdom from Ibnu Khalduns elements of civilization

RISE AND FALL OF CIVILIZATION(IITC 6036)Historical Route of Modern Saudi Kingdom fromIbnu Khalduns elements of civilizationBy:Sharifah Noorulhuda binti Habib EliasAimunderstanding the thirty years process towards the establishment of monarchial Saudi Kingdom(1902-1932). critically appreciate and analyze the formation of modern Saudi state in the light of Ibnu Khaldun related ideas or elements of civilization.The Historical Route of Saudi StateThe First Saudi state (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt

The Second Saudi State(1824-1891) versus the Second Revolt

The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt

The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab(WAHHABISM)strict subscription to the literal apparent meaning of the texts of the Quran and Sunnah who are salaf al-alih?doctrine of absolute tawhid (monotheism)Renouncing all innovations (bida), disbelief (kufr) and polytheism (shirk) primarily in intercessions from living and dead holy men and shrine cultsPractice (amal) MUST genuinely (reflect inner belief (mn) or else entitled to unbeliever or hypocrite (munfiq)barring repentance (tawbah) under certain circumstancesUnbelievers, polytheists and hypocrites among Muslims are justified to be smothered.

The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt Muhammad bin Saudruled town of Diriyyah, later on established the First Saudi State also known as Emirate of Diriyyah, King of Saud (1744-1765)

6The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt

http://najd2.wordpress.com/The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt PLEDGED ALLIANCE (OATH OF 1744) to dedicate themselves to restoring the pure teachings of Islam to the Muslim community.

The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab wrote letters to people and scholars to enter the field of jihad, by means of debate and scholarly work, to remove elements of polytheism which existed in their countries such as Iraq, Egypt, India, Yemen and Syria. Al-Rasheed (2002) writes that Muhammad bin Saud died in 1765 after various military campaigns in the form of what seen as punitive raids (p. 23) by leaving the leadership to his son, Abd al-Aziz bin Muhammad.The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt Scholars such as Abd al-Rahim (1976), Abu Hakim (1967) and Cook (1998) agree that his leadership expanded into Riyadh, Kahrj and Qasim by 1792 (as cited by Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 21) Then, his forces went so far as to gain command of the Shia holy city of Karbala in 1801. Up to this point, they destroyed grave markers of saints and monuments taking their defence in abolishing the Islamic taboo: polytheism. This caused the assassination of Abd al-Aziz (1803) by a Shiite in Diriyyah mosque.The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt The death of Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab in 1792, did not put out the spirit of conquest among the Saudis. The son of Abdul Aziz Bin Muhammad, Saud ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud, set out forces to bring the region of Hijz under his rule following the mechanism of punitive raids. Taif was the first city to be captured (1802), and later the two holy cities of Mecca (1803) and Medina (1804). Again the Wahhabi exponents instructed the destruction of the domed tombs of the prophet and the caliphs in Medina (Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 21). For Muslims outside Wahhabism the raids were savage and unjustified in terms of destroying holy sites and tombs. It continued so until Saud ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud died 1n 1814 leaving his son Abdullah to face the Ottoman.The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt The Ottomans had exercised its rule over the holy cities since 1517 through suzerainty. Saudis version deduced that it is the suspicious concern with the growing power of the Saudis, Sultan Mustafa IV of the Ottoman Empire commanded his Egyptian allies, Mohammad Ali Pasha to reconquer the area. Ali sent his sons Tusun Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha who proved victorious in plundering Diriyyah and massacred several Wahhabi experts. Abdullah bin Saud bin Abd al-Aziz, the ruler of Diriyyah (1814-1818), was sent to Istanbul and later on executed (beheaded)The First Saudi State (1744-1818) versus the First Revolt

The Second Saudi State (1824-1891) versus the Second RevoltFrom 1818 to 1824, the Ottoman Empire maintained a few garrisons in Nejd, as a gesture of their dominance. In 1824 Turki bin Abdullah al- Saud, son of the executed Abdullah, a cousin of Saud bin Abdul Aziz, assumed the Amirship of Nejd. In the course of his rule from 1824 to 1834, he retook Riyadh from Egyptian forces and made it his capital which is some 20 miles south of Dir iyyah, and established the Second Saudi State known also as Emirate of Nejd. The Second Saudi State (1824-1891) versus the Second RevoltUntil 1834, Turki succeeded in retaking most of the lands as recorded by Vassiliev: Arid, Kharj, Hotah, Mahmal, Sudayr and Aflaj from the Ottomans (as cited by Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 23). However, al-Rasheeds version (2002) reveals that the internal strife for power among the Turkis own family led to his murder in plotted assassination by his cousin, Mishri. The series of power fighting among the Saudis proved detrimental throughout the second state. The Second Saudi State (1824-1891) versus the Second RevoltTurkis grandson, Abdullah bin Faysal bin Turki sought protection from the ruler of Ha`il, Ibn Rashdi or the Rashdi (Muhammad bin Rashid) against his nephews and half brother Abd al-Rahman who was in power (ibid., p. 25). Ibn Rashid, tribal leader of the Shammar conquered Riyadh, took Abdullah and Abd al-Rahman as captives while continued to pursue and eliminate Abdullahs nephews who fled to Kharj. The two brothers were allowed to return to Riyadh and Abd al-Rahman ruled as a vassal of Ibn Rashid under his loyal commander Salim al-Sibhan. Abd al-Rahman then formed revolted ally with the people of Qasim against Ibnu Rashid.The Second Saudi State (1824-1891) versus the Second RevoltThe Royal Embassy (n.d.) neglecting the previous facts presented that Ibn Rashdi was a strong political body which rapidly covered the greater part of Najd, and by 1871 after concluding a pact with the Ottomans, captured Hasa. He also made a concerted effort in the Battle of Mulayda (in al-Rasheeds (2002) version it is in response of the betrayal of Abd al-Rahman) to overthrow the Saudi State in 1891. The Second Saudi State (1824-1891) versus the Second RevoltAbd al-Rahman bin Faisal Al-Saud was forced to abandon his struggle and sought refuge with the Bedouin tribes, al-Murrah who camped in the Rub Al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. From there, Abd al-Rahman and his family took exile in Kuwait and established friendship with a-Sabah family. According to Vassiliev (1998), they stayed with pensions of 60 gold liras from the Ottoman government (as cited by Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 25) until 1902. With him was his young son, Abd al- Aziz who later on led the absolute unification of the Arab kingdom. The Second Saudi State (1824-1891) versus the Second Revolt

The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt The young Abd al- Aziz (hereinafter referred to as Ibnu Saud) was resolute to recuperate his territory from the Rashdi familyThe Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt In 1902, Ibnu Saud accompanied by only forty followers according to Kishk (1981) or al-Uthaymin (1997) recorded sixty (as cited by Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 40) marched at night to retake Riyadh (Masmak Fortress in 1902). This legendary event marks the beginning of the formation of the modern Saudi state because it led him to series of campaigns among which in Qasim, Ibn Rashdi (backed by the Ottomans) died in the battle of Rawdat Muhanna in 1906 (Al-Rasheed, 2002, 40).The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt The Ottoman confirmed the Saud as de facto of Qasim and southern Najd (ibid.). It was during this campaign, Ibn Sauds sought help from Kuwaitis (who had signed protection treaty with Britain in 1899). Then, the fertile Hasa (Shiite territory) was next in Sauds hegemony. Al-Rasheeds (2002) version told that towards the outbreak of World War 1, the Ottoman-Saudi convention (1914) was signed to obtain a promise of Ibnu Sauds and the descendants of Rashdi s military cooperation for the Ottomans apart from securing treaty with foreign powers.The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt However, Ibnu Saud had expressed his interest to negotiations with British as subsequent to capturing Hasa. Hence, in 1915, Captain Shakespear was sent to Ibn Saud but he got killed in the Battle of Jarrah that involved the Rashdis. Following this, the Anglo-Saudi treaty was signed in December, 1915 resulted in him receiving shipment of regular weapons and monthly financial subsidies (5000 pound sterling). The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt In November 1916, Ibnu Saud visited Sir Percy Cox (British resident in Gulf) complaining about Ujman raids and Sharif Husayns. Again, British agreed to recognize his hegemony with more promising subsidies and financial support.Prior to this, in July, 1915 Hussein-McMohan correspondence promised the Sharif independence if they continued to revolt against Ottoman Empire and its ally, Germans. The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt The defeat of Ottoman and its allies in World War 1 weaken the Rashidis and threatened Hail which finally succumbed to Saudis in 1921 (Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 46). Ibnu Saud was antagonised by British positive attitude on the kingship of sons of Husayn (King of Hijz), Abdullah in Mesopotamia and Faysal in Syria (ibid., p. 44-5). Between 1918 and 1919 the relation between Hijz and Najd were hostile being Ibnu Saud exerting military pressure on Hijz. The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt The fight were on Khurma where Sharif Husayns troops were defeated and conflict of territories moved to Turaba and again the Hijzi led by Husayns son, Abdullah was destroyed in slaughter of Turaba (more details later) and Abdullah managed to escape. Following this, an armistice was signed between them with British acting as arbitrator. This kept both parties out of hostilities for four years (up to 1923) when the fight for Asir came to the picture.The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt The Saudi source documented that Ibnu Saud had not risked invading the Hijz prior to 1923, because Husayn bin Ali, King of the Hijz, was supported by Britain. However, Troeler (1976) gave two other reasons: British stopped its subsidy to Ibnu Saud in 1924 and left him on quest of other fund and Husayn assumed the controversial caliphate (5 March 1924) which had been terminated by the Ottoman two days earlier (as cited by Al-Rasheed, 2002, p. 45).The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt Thus, Ibnu Saud had no hesitation to begin their victorious Hijaz campaign by firstly plundering Taif (Taif Massacre) for three days in September 1924. During the course Husayn abdicated the throne to his son Ali and he later sailed to Aqaba (assisted by British) and moved to Cyprus. This gave more reasons for Ibnu Saud to continue his mission. The official Saudi history writes that Ikhwan dare to attack the Hijz because the British withdrew their support to Husayn.The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt Ibnu Saud backed with military forces of Ikhwan al-Najd since 1916 sieged Jeddah for almost a year. Finally, with British interference, Sharif Ali left the city on December 1925 while Hijaz and Madinah had surrendered earlier (1925). The Saudi source reported that Makkah fell to the Saud in1924. However, Al-Rasheed (2002) gave more details on event in Asir and Treaty of Mecca (October 1926) with Hassan ibn Ali al-Idrisi who accepted suzerainty of Ibnu Saud as King of HijzThe Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt By the Treaty of Jeddah, signed on May 1927, the United Kingdom recognized the independence of Saudi Arabia (then known as the Kingdom of Hijz and Najd). Al-Rasheed wrote that it was unique because the validity of the treaty lies on its ambiguity and the Saudi individual rather than the state as what happened to Egypt or Iraq (p. 48)The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt One of the most important signed agreement following the conquest was Hadda (Trans-Jordan) and Bahra (Iraq) that happened in November, 1925. It concluded restriction on the movements of tribes without prior approval between Ibnu Saud and the Hashemites (sons of Husayn). Actually it was a British way to maintain integrity of Trans-Jordan and Iraq which fell under its mandate. As a result, Ikhwan tribal force that used to be loyal began to disagree and challenged Ibnu Saud on this matter. Not only that dira (tribal territories) were also abolished by Ibnu Saud in which he wanted the Arabs to be established as state land (Al-Rasheed, 2002, p.47)The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt The Ikhwan leaders wanted to continue the expansion of the Wahhabist realm into the British protectorates of Trans-Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. Ibnu Saud, however, refused to agree to this, recognizing the danger of a direct conflict with the British. The Ikhwan therefore revolted (1927-30) but were defeated in the Battle of Sabilla (Sibila) in 1930 and their leaders were massacred (History of Arabia.).The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt Other version came from Leatherdale (1983) who recorded the Ikhwan leaders surrendered to the British in Iraq, then being returned to Ibnu Saud where Faysal al-Duwaysh (most prominent) leader died in prison (as cited by Al-Rasheed, p. 69).On September 23, 1932, the country was named the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, what todays world known as Modern Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaThe Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932) versus the Absolute Revolt

Saudi Arabia. accessed November 23, 2013 http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/sa.htmThe Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902-1932)INTERPRETATION OF THE HISTORY: important figures, groups, schools events.FIGURESecond Saudi State(The Second Saudi State , http://www.the-Saudi.net/al-Saud/second_state.htm)Imam Turki Ibn Abdullah first time (1819 - 1820) Imam Abdul Rahman Al Faisal 1889 - 1891 Modern Saudi State(The History of Saudi Arabia http://www.Saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/history.aspx)King Abd al- Aziz bin Abdul Rahman (Ibnu Saud )(1932-1953) King Saud bin Saud (1953-1964) King Faisal bin Abd al- Aziz (1964-1975) King Khalid bin Abd al- Aziz (1975-1982) King Fahd bin Abd al- Aziz (1982-2005) King Abdullah bin Abd al- Aziz (2005 - )

FIGURESOther main ruling chieftains that challenge the Sauds royal families are the Hashemite Sharif:King Husayn of Hijaz, and Al-Rashidi (Ibn Rashid) of Hail

British Political and Intelligent Officers such as Captain Shakespear, Colonel T. E. Lawrence, Harry St. John B. Philby, Sir Percy Fox

GROUPThey were the reminiscences of the Wahhabi scholars of Hanbalite school of Jurist whom majority of them had been crushed by the Ottoman in 1818. Ibnu Saud wanted a larger circle of religious specialists then invested them with prestige and paid them salaries. In return, they became loyal and dependant on him by doing full time flogging (punishing) and disciplining the procrastinate Muslims and went further as al-Rasheed (2002) wrote to ensure political submission to Ibnu Saud under the guise of submission to God (p. 57).

The religious specialist (mutawwaa) of al-Najd

GROUPThey played a crucial role in the creation of the Ikhwan fighting force as well as Saudi state through their efforts of Islamizing both tribal and Bedouin (Najd, Hasa, Hijaz and Asir) regarded as antithesis of Islamic moral order (ibid., p. 58). Moreover, their teachings and instruction among the both the sedentary people of oases and the tribal confederations to obey the leader of the Muslim community, to respond to the Holy war and to pay him the Islamic tax creates favourable condition for the hegemony of Ibn Saud. The religious specialist (mutawwaa) of al-Najd

GROUP Ikhwan Al-Najd Ibnu Sauds tribal military force whom he began organizing in 1912 (Brittanica) which consists of tribe of Ajman, Al-Dawasir, Al-Murrah, Amarat, Anaizah, Awazim, Bani Malik, Bani Yam, Dahamsha, Dhufir, Harb, Huwaytat, Muntafiq, Mutair, Qahtan, Ruwalla, Shammar and Utaibah (King Abdul Aziz (Ibnu Saud) information resource).

GROUP Ikhwan Al-Najd Habib (1978)are those bedouin who accepted the fundamentals of orthodox Islam of the Hanbali school as preached by Abd-al-Wahhab which their fathers and forefathers had forgotten or had perverted, and who, through the persuasion of the religious missionaries and with the material assistance of Ibnu Saud abandoned their nomadic life to live in the hujar which were built by him for them (p.16-7)

GROUP Ikhwan Al-Najd Habib (1978) further detailed the attitude of Ikhwan as those who will never return salutations (Assalamu alai kum) of those `infidel Muslims apart from being fundamentalists, taciturn and introvert. Above all is the very attribute that every one of them shared: their readiness to die in battle on behalf of God and Islam (p. 24)LEADERS :Sultan Bin Bajad Al Otaibi Fayal al-Dwaysh Ibn Hithlayn.

SCHOOL 1It is the result of combined double forces of sword (including military of Ikhwan al-Najd) and book (Wahhabist interpretation of the holy Quran).This idea was brought by Haifa Alangari (1998) and Harold Armstrong. Ibnu Saud was portrayed as someone deeply religious and clear vision to end the one thousand years of Hashimite rule

As regard to the role and motive of Ibnu Saud in the formation of the monarchial kingdom, three categories are observed by Al-Enazy (2010). SCHOOL 2It is the outcome of pragmatic desire towards political power and Wahhabism is just ideological instrument that suffice as basis of Ibnu Sauds temporal power. It also effectively and enduringly control the new regime by giving them strength over societal weaknesses. This observation was made by Harry St. John B. Philby, former British political and intelligence officer who worked with Ibnu Saud. As regard to the role and motive of Ibnu Saud in the formation of the monarchial kingdom, three categories are observed by Al-Enazy (2010). SCHOOL 3It is the motivational act of primarily defensive and preservationist in line with the non-aggressive principles of Wahhabim. Preservation of Najd and its Hanbalist-Wahabist polity is core business that prompted him to seek out British support against his true enemies, the Ottomans and rivalry neighbouring rulers which to his advantage happened to be the British rivals too.As regard to the role and motive of Ibnu Saud in the formation of the monarchial kingdom, three categories are observed by Al-Enazy (2010). TIFHabib (1978) recorded that: what is not disputed is the bloody massacre of the towns male population, child and adult, and some casualities among the women. That houses were loote, offices and businesses plundered, and other buildings deliberately destroyed is also not disputed. News of the slaughter was brought down by terrified escapees who recounted the tale of horror at the hands of the Ikhwan and the Bedouin that joined in the melee. ( p. 114)The nature of Saudi Arabia expansionTURABAAn eyewitness to the slaughter of Turaba, a youth of fifteen described the scene to Al-Rihani (1960) in Jeddah five years later: I saw the blood in Turaba running like a river between the palms, and for the next two years everytime when I saw running water I thought it was red, by God I saw the dead piled up in the citadel before I jumped out the window. But the strangest thing I saw Sir was the sight of the Ikhwan during the battle stopping long enough to enter mosque to pray then returning to fray!(as cited by Habib, 1978, pp. 93-4)The nature of Saudi Arabia expansionIN THE LIGHT OF SELECTED ELEMENTS OF CIVILIZATION BY IBNU KHALDUN (1332 C.E.1406 C.E.) The reasoning capacity (as different from animals which are more physically strong) urges man to cooperate among themselves in society mainly to ensure his survival. A society cannot exist without key concept of cooperation known as social organization and this marks the beginning of umran. Rosenthal translated it from the root means to build up , to cultivate meaning civilization. analysis of this study, the necessary survivalist cooperation already existed among people of Al-Najd under the chieftain of Muhammad ibn Saud. A bigger cooperation began when a pledge took place between him and Muhammnad ibn Abd al-Wahhab which in the long run dictated and sustained the course for wider social organization that led to crystallization of a dawlah (state). In Ibn Khaldun's vocabulary, the word for both "dynasty" and "state" isdawlah, The idea of society in the realm of environment, aaabiyyah, wazi and cyclical theory.

differences with regard to abundance and scarcity of food in various inhabited regions (umran) and how they affect the human and body charactersociety and environmentOnly tribes held together by group feeling can live in the desert(p. 261)Group feeling results only from blood relationship or something corresponding to it(p. 264) and Religious propagandagives adynasty atitsbeginninganother power inadditionto thatof the group feeling it possessed as the result of the number of its supporters (p..320). society and aabiyyahThe goal to which group feeling leads is royal authority (p. 284)

Royalauthorityandlarge dynastic (power) are attained only through a group andgroup feeling(p. 313)

society and wazi The ruler seeks the help of clients and followers against the men of his own people and group feeling (p. 372)As long as a nation retains its group feeling, royal authority that disappears in one branch will, of necessity, pass to some other branch of the same nation (p. 296)

society and cyclical theoryCrone (2004) writes:The Kharijite were originally concentrated in Kufa, where they survive into the Abbasid period but their main home soon came to be Basrah, in the second civil war the Basrah Kharijite produced two sub-sects, the Azariqa and the Najdiyyah (Najadt), both of whom left Basra under their commander of the believers to fight the infidels of the Holy War, Muslims who refused to join them. The Azariqa rampaged in Iran and disappeared after their suppression in 699 C.E.; the Najdiyya were mainly active in Arabia; they were suppressed in 693 C.E.; but survive for several centuries thereafter (p. 55)

OTHER REFLECTIONS56Recorded by Al-Rihani, (1964) that the oral message that Abdullah , the son of Sharif Husayn gave the following exhortation to the messenger whom he sent to Ibnu Saud: Tell the Khawarij and those around them what has happened here. Tell them that we did not come to Turaba for the sake of Turaba and Khurma only we shall fast in Khurma, God Willing, and shall pass the Feast of the Sacrifie in Al-Ihsa.(as cited by Habib, 1978, pp. 94-3)

OTHER REFLECTIONS57The route to unification of the the Arab State was a combination of ideological and pragmatic formula. It somehow interprets the idea of social organization that enables them to co-operate towards that end (formation of state) and to start with the simple necessities of life (philosophy of Bedouin life), before they get conveniences and luxuries (monarchial Saudi Kingdom lifestyles) (IbnuKhaldun p. 249). The inner drive of conquering and dominating spirit was justified by the obligation to uphoist the flag of pure tawhidic mission, intensified by intense vigour of nation feeling (aabiyyah) and submits to social organization viewed by Ibnu Khaldun.

CONCLUSION58THE ENDTHANK YOU FOR LENDING YOUR EARS