InshaAllaah i will read in future. The issue i take with sucuud primarily and MIAW a bit less is that they had made this revival with an agenda in mind to take control of arabia, they took advantage of the fervor that spawned from MIAW's works whilst collaborating in varying degrees with the british, you can see when the fervor they built with ikhwaan eventually came to face their nuance approach they took the betrayal route that would get them power. Of course you can take the view that no movement is without some sort of concession so it just becomes how willing are you to overlook those concessions for the greater good
Ibn Saud's relationship with the British is complex. On the one hand he was very much tempered by a harsh lesson his family learned from the First Saudi State. They rose up against the Ottomans when that empire still had some teeth. It ended horrifically for them. The ruler was taken to Istanbul and executed alongside his MIAW collaborators. The Ottomans even forced the poor guy to listen to a lute before they killed him then crushed his skull like a walnut to "crush the bad ideas within". Their whole line was nearly wiped out.
After that Ibn Saud's family learned to never again rear their heads against
Great Powers like the Ottomans, the Brits or anyone else. Know your strength; you're not in these people's lane. He also spent a good chunk of his formative years in Kuwait as a refugee from the
Rashid Family having taken Riyadh from his fam. There he met
Mubarak who took Ibn Saud under his wing and he noticed how Mubarak very cleverly played Great Powers against each other to his benefit. Cutting deals with the Ottomans one minute then the Russians another then the Brits or Germans at yet another and always making sure never to offend any of them or come down too strongly for any particular side. Mubarak had mastered the art of being a small-state in a multi-polar world.
Contrary to popular belief, right up until the final uprising led by the Hashemites, Ibn Saud very frequently capitulated before the Ottomans. Even when he engaged occasionally against them he'd find some excuses and send them letters where he spoke in length regarding his loyalty to the Sultan/Caliph, lol. He did the exact same thing to the British, Germans and other groups. He just had this general policy of pragmatism in regards to the Great Powers of the region.
But, with Britain, I think he was slightly biased overtime with the fact that he formed close friendships with some British Arabists like Philby. These were honestly at times pretty "nice" and sincere guys who took the time to learn Arabic and Arabian history and even frequently sided with Ibn Saud's plights against the British government and lobbied on his behalf to the higher-ups who snobbishly hardly ever listened and snubbed Ibn Saud for years on and off. His relationship with those types and the fact that occasionally he could get concessions from Britain made him pretty partial toward Great Britain.
In a way, he felt like they were the only Great Power that really did anything for him as even the Ottomans, toward the end, got pretty snooty and entitled and dismissive and even aided his enemies at times like the Rashids. But even when the Ottomans were good for him, it was becoming apparent that they were soon to be out the door.
Nevertheless, in the end he snubbed Britain too when he realized they were snubbing and mistreating him quite often when those higher-ups didn't take the advice of his friends. He pretty much showed them the door in favor of the USA when they discovered the oil reserves, to their dismay. Guy was ultimately practical. Just sided with whatever power seemed to really help him and his people but made sure, most of the time, never to intentionally offend any power, even when he snubbed them for another. He legit avoided invading Yemen at times just to avoid pissing off the Italians, for example, from what I recall.
As for his treatment of the Ikhwan. I get the sense Ibn Saud was never as conservative as his as-Sheikh allies. Before winding up in Kuwait he spent a good chunk of his youngest years living among the
al-Murrah of the Rub al-Khali. Bedouins of Bedouins, those sxbs. There he noticed how they kept a lot of pre-Islamic customs going like revering the Djin and just being lax in their practice overall. Definitely, I and some authors like to think, opened his mind to the fact that one doesn't need to be so rigid all the time. But of course I won't attack the guy's piety. He was always reported to pray 5 times a day and was until his death a devout Muslim.
But even so, he was definitely more "pragmatic" and "lax" than his Ikhwan allies and would, for example, let western guests he had consume alcohol and tobacco in their private tents. Hell, he'd sometimes send some to them himself. The guy was, honestly, in a lot of ways pretty weirdly liberal and some of the more serious of his Ikhwan followers just weren't having it and felt he was too loose and too pragmatic about allying with what they saw as "Christian powers". Shit was looking pretty bad for him until the Ulema dropped the old "LOYALTY TO THE LEADER!" proclamation and he was basically given free-reign to deal with the Ikhwan rebels and dismantle them.
Nevertheless, he still spent much of his reign still playing to the more conservative wing of his followers. He never tried to go too far with more liberal policies and reforms. Always reading the room and seeing what was a step too far of policies. He'd even take the time to frequently reason with them. For example, when some of his followers felt radios were sinful and from the devil he had someone play the Qur'an to them via radio and said, "How can this be the work of the Shaytan if it plays and can spread the word of God?". A pragmatist at his core. Judge that how you will, personally.
they weren't a caliphate and darawish doesn't prove shi akhi
