The Second Saudi State (1823–1887)

The leader of the Saudi restoration was Turkī ibn ʿAbdallāh Āl Suʿūd (r. 1238–49/1823–34), a grandson of Muḥammad ibn Suʿūd’s. He is regarded as the founder of what came to be known as the second Saudi state (1238–1305/1823–87). Turkī was able to rally support among the various Najdī towns, entering Riyadh, which he made his capital, with his forces in 1240/1824. Within a year, according to Ibn Bishr, all of Najd had submitted to his rule, and by 1245/1830 he had gained control of al-Aḥsāʾ as well.2 The Ḥijāz, however, never came under the sway of the second Saudi state.

The Second Egyptian Occupation

In 1252/1836, Egypt’s ruler, Muḥammad ʿAlī, decided to reestablish Egyptian authority in central Arabia, fearing the growing power of Riyadh. In that year he dispatched an army led by Ismāʿīl Bey, the former head of the Cairo police, to Najd for the purpose of removing Fayṣal from power. Unlike before, Cairo would seek to rule Najd indirectly through a member of the Āl Suʿūd, Khālid ibn Suʿūd, who had been exiled to Egypt upon the fall of al-Dirʿiyya. Khālid and Ismāʿīl Bey marched on Riyadh in 1253/1837, whereupon Fayṣal, who was unable to put up an effective resistance, fell back to al-Aḥsāʾ. A year later, in 1254/1838, he was captured in southern Najd and forced back into exile in Cairo. During this period Khālid was the ruler in Riyadh, though the real power in Najd was a man named Khūrshīd Bāshā, Muḥammad ʿAlī’s former governor in the Ḥijāz, who oversaw Egyptian military operations in Najd from his base in al-Qaṣīm. During this second Egyptian occupation of Najd (1253–59/1837–43), the leading Wahhābī scholars sought refuge south of Riyadh, particularly in the towns of al-Ḥawṭa and al-Ḥarīq in the district of al-Furaʿ.9 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan Āl al-Shaykh and his allies portrayed their flight from Egyptianruled territory as hijra away from a land ruled by polytheists, and they encouraged their coreligionists either to emigrate with them or to resist the foreign invaders by means of jihād. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s chief scholarly ally in this regard was Ḥamad ibn ʿAtīq (d. 1301/1884), a young and fiery scholar who had been his student in Riyadh.10 Born in 1227/1812f in al-Zilfī, a town in Sudayr, Ibn ʿAtīq was one of the most influential scholars of his generation, known for his hostility to the enemies of Wahhābism and his uncompromising approach to the Wahhābī doctrine. Much of his life was spent in southern Najd, where he served as the qāḍī of al-Kharj, al-Ḥawṭa, and al-Aflāj, successively, and taught many students.

1. The period following his reign, however, was one of unending turmoil. After Fayṣal’s death in Rajab 1282/December 1865, Najd was beset by a protracted civil war that would eventually bring the second Saudi state to ruin. The war began as a contest between Fayṣal’s sons ʿAbdallāh (r. 1282–88/1865–71, 1292– 1305/1875–87) and Suʿūd (r. 1288–91/1871–75). ʿAbdallāh, the heir apparent, assumed power upon his father’s death. For some five years he ruled in Riyadh, while his brother plotted a coup; in 1288/1871 ʿAbdallāh was forced to flee when Suʿūd launched a campaign to take the Saudi capital with the support of several towns and tribes. The previous year, in 1287/1870f, ʿAbdallāh had appealed to the Ottoman authorities in Iraq for military assistance against Suʿūd. While ʿAbdallāh was generally seen as the more committed to the Wahhābī creed of the two brothers, this did not prevent him from appealing for help to those regarded as polytheists by the Wahhābī scholars. The appeal led the Ottomans to occupy al-Aḥsāʾ in late 1287/early 1871, but it did not yield sufficient assistance to forestall Suʿūd’s advance. Suʿūd would rule in Riyadh for several years, dying of illness in Dhū ʾl-ḥijja 1291/January 1875. Thereafter, Riyadh was briefly ruled by a third son of Fayṣal’s, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, before ʿAbdallāh regained power in a tenuous alliance with his surviving brothers and the sons of Suʿūd. The arrangement lasted until 1305/1887, when Suʿūd’s sons ousted ʿAbdallāh, prompting the intervention of the Āl Rashīd in Ḥāʾil and effectively bringing the second Saudi state to an end.
2. This was ʿAbdallāh ibn Fayṣal’s appeal to the Ottomans for help against his brother Suʿūd, a request understood by the scholars as seeking help from polytheists (al-istiʿāna biʾl-mushrikīn).

From what ʿAbd al-Laṭīf relates, Ibn ʿAjlān’s argument appears to have been twofold: first, that all Muslims have a duty to obey the imām (in this case ʿAbdallāh ibn Fayṣal) and to strive for unity and, second, that seeking the help of polytheists (al-istiʿāna biʾl-mushrikīn) is a legal issue admitting of legitimate disagreement (masʾala khilāfiyya), meaning that the evidence is ambiguous enough to allow for more than one view.65 Yet, despite the characterization of the issue as a masʾala khilāfiyya, it is clear that Ibn ʿAjlān favored the view that al-istiʿāna biʾl-mushrikīn is permissible. According to ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, in making his argument, Ibn ʿAjlān cited a ḥadīth in which the Prophet and Abū Bakr employed a polytheist from Quraysh during the hijra to Medina.66 As further evidence for his view, Ibn ʿAjlān claimed that Ibn Taymiyya, in the wars against the Mongols, sought the help of the people of Egypt and al-Shām despite the fact that they were unbelievers (wa-hum ḥīnaʾidhin kuffār).67 Ibn ʿAjlān was thus still writing from a Wahhābī perspective; he was not arguing that the Ottomans were Muslims. His claim, rather, was that it may be permissible for Muslims to seek the help of polytheists. Even so, he indicated a certain degree of sympathy for the Ottoman military elite, noting that the leaders of the invading Ottoman forces (akābir al-ʿaskar) in al-Aḥsāʾ were pious people (ahl taʿabbud), even if the soldiery were not.

1. The Ottoman Occupation of al-Aḥsāʾ
2. After its seizure by Ottoman forces in 1287/1871, the eastern region of al-Aḥsāʾ never again came under the control of the second Saudi state. Beset by civil war, Riyadh was too weak ever to mount a serious challenge to the Ottomans in the east. This did not stop ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Āl al-Shaykh, however, from advocating jihād against the Ottoman rulers there, as he did repeatedly during this period. Most of his work in this regard took place during the reign of Suʿūd (1288–91/1871–75).

1. Anti-Wahhābī Activism in Najd
2. In addition to the second Egyptian occupation, the Saudi civil war, and the Ottoman occupation of al-Aḥsāʾ, the Wahhābī scholars of the second Saudi state were also concerned about the adverse influence of two anti-Wahhābī scholars in Najd. These were Dāwūd ibn Jirjīs and ʿUthmān ibn Manṣūr.

1. Ibn Jirjīs’s waraqa may have been an early draft of a longer work that he completed in 1273/1856, titled Ṣulḥ al-ikhwān min ahl al-īmān wa-bayān al-dīn al-qayyim fī tabriʾat Ibn Taymiyya waʾbn al-Qayyim (Conciliating the Brothers of Faith and Explaining the Right Religion in Vindication of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim).99 This book was devoted to defending Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim against the charge that they pronounced takfīr on those participating in the cult of saints. It is mainly a collection of quotations from their books and fatwās. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Āl al-Shaykh would write a line-by-line refutation of it.
2. It was during his time in Iraq that Ibn Manṣūr seems to have developed his anti-Wahhābī views. At first, he evinced no hostility to Wahhābism whatsoever. At the beginning of his stay in Iraq, in 1232/1816f or just afterward, he wrote a verse refutation of ʿUthmān ibn Sanad (d. 1242/1827), a Najdī scholar in Basra who had written a poem critical of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn ʿAbd alWahhāb. While mainly a defense of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Manṣūr’s poem also mentions Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb favorably, as in the line “Explain to me the error of the shaykh so that I may respond to you / was it in his destroying of idols? For the truth he did follow.”112 Over the course of the next decade, however, Ibn Manṣūr’s outlook on Wahhābism changed, as he came to see Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and the devotees of his doctrine as modern-day Khārijites. This is apparent from his book-length treatment of Khārijism, titled Manhaj almaʿārij li-akhbār al-khawārij biʾl-ishrāf ʿalā ʾl-isrāf min dīnihim al-mārij (The Lofty Path to the Reports About the Khārijites Gazing Down upon the Extremism of Their Disordered Religion), which brings together the many traditions concerning the historical Khārijites.113 While the book is mostly what it purports to be, at times Ibn Manṣūr uses the term Khārijites as code for the Wahhābīs, as when he complains that the Khārijites excommunicate and fight Muslims on the grounds that the latter have not satisfied the confession of faith. The historical Khārijites were known for practicing takfīr on the basis of major sins (kabāʾir), the Wahhābīs being the ones who excommunicated and fought professed Muslims on the grounds of not satisfying the confession of faith. Elsewhere in the book, in an oblique reference to Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Ibn Manṣūr states that a true Muslim renewer (mujaddid) would not pronounce takfīr on the umma (yaḥkumu ʿalayhā biʾl-kufr). Such a comment makes no sense in the context of the historical Khārijites.

1. Conclusion
2. During the second Saudi state, the leaders of the Wahhābī scholarly establishment were keen to reassert the spirit of manifest enmity that had defined Wahhābism during the previous era. The leading Wahhābī scholars of the period, beginning with ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan Āl al-Shaykh and Ḥamad ibn ʿAtīq, contended with a series of challenges to the Wahhābī doctrine. The common theme of these challenges was the argument that Wahhābī Muslims were not obligated to leave a territory occupied by unbelievers and that Wahhābīs were not necessarily obligated to show them hatred and enmity. The Wahhābī scholars were determined to prevent such a view from gaining hold, emphasizing the importance of iẓhār al-dīn and its meaning as the ability to show hatred and enmity to unbelievers. In their view, there was no excuse, apart from ikrāh, for one who failed to perform hijra away from Egyptian-dominated Najd during the second Egyptian occupation. The same went for those who failed to leave Ottoman-dominated al-Aḥsāʾ decades later. Appealing to the polytheist Ottomans for help in the Saudi civil war was likewise anathema to the scholars, indicating a lack of commitment to the Wahhābī creed. Meanwhile, the scholars took aim at the opponents of Wahhābism in and around Najd in refutation after refutation, concerned that criticism of Wahhābism was becoming acceptable in certain parts of Najd.
3. It should be noted that the political leaders of the second Saudi state, the Āl Suʿūd, do not appear to have been the Wahhābī stalwarts that their forebears had been during the first Saudi state. Turkī ibn ʿAbdallāh Āl Suʿūd and his descendants were more disposed to realpolitik and less motivated by religious fervor than their predecessors. There were no menacing letters to the governors of Syria and Iraq in this period and no bids to conquer the Ḥijāz, let alone expand beyond the Arabian Peninsula. On the contrary, there is some evidence that the Saudi rulers paid tribute to the Ottomans and the Egyptians, a fact that might have been kept hidden from the scholars.135 Fayṣal ibn Turkī, as R. Bayly Winder put it, was “[f]arsighted enough to realise that he could not convert the whole world to Wahhabism, and that if he tried he would again bring ruin on his people and himself. . . . He was a devout Wahhabi, but, instead of attacking Karbala, he received a British diplomat in his capital.”136 The Āl Suʿūd of the second Saudi state may not have been religious zealots, but they were still a more dependable ally for the Wahhābī scholars than the next dynasty that would rule in central Arabia—the Āl Rashīd.