King ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz and the Rise of Saudi Arabia:

A Dutch Consul’s View

Dr. Jacques Waardenburg

I shall first present the main historical events leading up to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s regaining of Riyadh, his extension of his rule to the whole of Nejd and its Dependencies, including the holy places, and the foundation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932 (1351). These facts are well known and I shall simply report them. Second, I shall address the views of D. van der Meulen (1894–1989; 1311/12–1409/10), the Dutch Consul and later Minister Plenipotentiary of the Netherlands in Jeddah (1926–31 (1344–50) and 1941–5 (1360–4)) on these events and on the rise of Saudi Arabia in general. I shall also compare some of his views with those held by H. St John B. Philby (1885–1960 (1302/3–79/80)). Third, I shall report on some of Van der Meulen’s publications and private notes relating to King ‘Abd al-‘Aziz; Van der Meulen was able to meet the king on several occasions and developed an evident admiration for him. In conclusion, I shall show that the writings of relatively competent, critical and sympathetic observers like Van der Meulen can constitute an important source for the understanding of history when taken in conjunction with the official documents. This is especially so if these writings throw a new light on the personalities who made or were involved in the making of history.

Some historical facts:

As is well known, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Saud was born in Riyadh in 1876 (1293)[i] as the eldest son of ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Faisal al-Saud (d. 1927 (1346)) and Sarah bint Sudairi. In January 1891 (Jumada II, 1308) the family left Riyadh to escape the domination of the al-Rashid of Ha’il, who had captured it in 1885 (1302/3), occupying the whole of Nejd in 1891 (1308/9). ‘Abd al- Aziz was then a boy, and seems to have been suffering from rheumatic fever.[ii] He spent some time with his mother and other relatives in Bahrain, then virtually a British protectorate. He then joined ‘Abd al-Rahman to live with the Banu Murra, where he gained experience of Bedouin life. Next he accompanied his father to Kuwait, on the invitation of Muhammad al-Sabah and at the instigation of the Ottoman government, with a small pension paid by the Ottoman Empire; apparently they lived there in very modest circumstances. Mubarak al-Sabah, a half-brother of Muhammad, came to power after he had murdered his half-brother in May 1896 (11/1313). He took an interest in ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and initiated him into international politics, to the influence and implications of which the maritime city of Kuwait could not be insensitive. The Turks were allied with the Germans, while Russia and especially Britain resisted German and Ottoman influence in the area. Whereas the Turks supported the al-Rashid, the British backed the al-Sabah. After an attack by Mubarak al-Sabah and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz on Rashidid territory in 1901 had ultimately failed as a result of Mubarak’s defeat in the battle of Sarif, there was a serious threat posed to Kuwait of an attack mounted by the Rashidids in revenge. Kuwait was only saved by the presence of a British cruiser from the potentially devastating consequences of a further Rashidid attack.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz then distinguished himself by regaining Riyadh from the Banu Rashid by a surprise attack made with a small group of followers on 15 January 1902 (5 Shawwal 1319). By 1904 (1321/2) he had made himself master of the territory that his grandfather Faisal Ibn Turki (d. 1865) had ruled in Nejd half a century earlier. In that same year his great enemy Muhammad Ibn Rashid was killed. After continuous fighting with Bedouin tribes, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz succeeded in conquering al-Hasa’ in 1913, and established his authority all the way to the Gulf. These achievements were made possible through the creation of the Ikhwan, the Saudi ‘Brethren’, who devoted their lives to the cause of Islam and were completely loyal to the state. As soldiers the Ikhwan seem to have been almost invincible, ensuring the military successes of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, to whom their obedience was unquestioning.

The organization of the Ikhwan after 1912 (1330) was part of a broader scheme of disciplining the Bedouin, whose continuous conflicts made any central authority and state formation difficult. Since 1909 (1327) great numbers of Bedouin had been settled in hijar (sing. hijra, ‘agricultural settlement’), moving from the desert to cultivated land. At the same time they had to give up their old ways of life – now stigmatized as jahiliyya, kufr and shirk – and received fresh training in the true Wahhabi doctrine and way of life.

The hijar were large agricultural colonies around natural springs or wells, which made oases possible. In these colonies the old tribal bonds were replaced by religious fraternity, and no particularisms were allowed. Each hijra had its mutawwi‘un (lit. ‘those who subdue’), the religious personnel employed in teaching the people; they might be called ‘missionaries’ of the Wahhabi cause and, if necessary, they could carry out punishments. The thus ‘converted’ Bedouin became Ikhwan, aroused by the mutawwi‘un to religious zeal and unconditional obedience to the Imam, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. The way in which they were disciplined and religion was inculcated in them left them no other choice. As a result of this indoctrination, the Ikhwan are reported to have been extremely distrustful of anything coming from abroad. They considered the world beyond Nejd simply as balad al-kuffar (‘the Land of the Infidels’), the ‘infidels’ being less non-Muslims than non-Wahhabi Muslims. Consequently, the Ikhwan tended to see life simply in terms of Holy War in the literal sense of the expression.

In the towns, as distinct from the desert and the sparse agricultural land, the Saudi institutions and way of life had a longer history, and here the new state had more immediate control than in the desert regions. Tribal sheikhs, for instance, were brought to Riyadh for further training, but also so that they could be held responsible for possible disturbances in their tribes. All tribes were treated equally, and the old distinction between the ‘leading’ tribes and the ‘dependent’ or ‘client’ tribes that had to pay them tribute was abandoned; they all had the same duty to pay zakat. All the state’s authorities were based in religion, the Imam himself (‘Abd al-Rahman, the father of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz), the ‘ulama (in particular the Al al-shaikh), and the mutawwi‘un (‘missionaries’, but also ‘religious police’). This situation endowed ‘Abd al-‘Aziz with immense power as an absolute leader. ‘State’ decisions were in fact the decisions of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, who was in personal contact not only with the leaders but also with broad groups of the population whom he received at his public audiences. Paying zakat was a sign of obedience.

With the outbreak of the First World War, the Arabian peninsula achieved a considerable strategic importance. The Ottoman Turks were the official rulers of the larger part of it, but their effective authority was largely restricted to the Hejaz and the border areas; behind the Turks German interests were involved, and a plan to have the Sultan-Caliph of Istanbul proclaim a jihad of all Muslims against their non-Muslim rulers had been worked out in Germany. From the other side, it was in the British interest to subvert the Ottoman Empire by stirring up the Arabs against the Turks.

It was in this sense that the British government’s Arab Bureau in Cairo incited Husain Ibn Ali, the Sharif of Makkah, to proclaim an ‘Arab Revolt’ against Ottoman Turkish rule. He did so in Makkah in June 1916 (Sha‘ban 1334), upon which the British sent him arms and money along with T. E. Lawrence as their representative and an expert on Arab affairs. On the other hand, the India Office in London, which was responsible for waging the war in Iraq, had already dispatched Captain Shakespear from Kuwait with a military and political mission to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in October 1914 (Dhu’l Hijja 1332), with the object of persuading him to join the British cause against the Turks who, for their part, were also busy soliciting the active support of the Arab tribes. Britain in return was willing to recognize ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s independent rule in Nejd and Al Hasa’, guarantee his independence, and protect him against possible Turkish attacks. These terms were agreed on after a fresh meeting between Captain Shakespear and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in January 1915 (Rabi‘ I, 1333), and all of this was ratified in a treaty with Sir Percy Cox at Qatif in December 1915 (Safar 1334). Britain was to supply ‘Abd al-‘Aziz with arms and money for the duration of hostilities in return for his joining the war on the British side. The two principals met again at Ujair in November 1916 (Muharram 1335), when ‘Abd al-‘Aziz made enquiries about the promises made by the British to Husain Ibn Ali of Makkah, who had now become king.[iii] ‘Abd al-‘Aziz spent the years 1916 and 1917 (1334–5) largely in warfare against Arab tribes supporting the Turks, especially the Banu Rashid, and by the end of 1917 (1335) he had Central Arabia under his control.[iv] By that time, on 30 November 1917 (15 Safar 1336), St John Philby, coming from the Gulf, had arrived at Riyadh, negotiated with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz on behalf of the British, and continued his journey to the Hejaz, where he met Husain Ibn Ali in January 1918 (Rabi‘ I, 1336). The latter refused to let him go back to Nejd over land, so Philby returned to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz via Egypt, Bombay and Basra. He then stayed in Riyadh as head of the British Political Mission to Central Arabia. Just as the Arab Bureau put Lawrence at Husain Ibn Ali’s disposal, the India Office put Philby at ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s disposal; apparently there was no co-ordination between the two Offices.

After the First World War ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s son Faisal was invited to visit Britain; accompanied by Philby, he arrived in London at the end of October 1919 (Safar 1338). In the meantime ‘Abd al-‘Aziz annexed Asir in 1919 (1338), a step that became definite when he ended the power of his archenemies the al-Rashid by taking Ha’il, the capital of the Banu Rashid, on 2 November 1921 (1 Rabi‘ I, 1340). The dependent territories of Nejd, which already included al-Hasa’, were now extended considerably. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was now the absolute ruler of Central Arabia, which was henceforth subjected to Wahhabi doctrine and practice.

The relations between ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and Husain Ibn Ali had never been friendly, and they finally led to war in the so-called al-Khurma-Turaba dispute of 1918 (1337), with a battle in which Husain was the aggressor. The British were still supportive of Husain, who was now King of the Hejaz; this was the policy line of Lawrence, who favoured Husain and, more particularly, his son Faisal. Faisal, after his misadventure in Syria, became the King of Iraq, bordering Nejd, in August 1921 (Dhu’l-hijja 1340). The policy of Philby, who favoured ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, was not followed by the British government; the latter was well aware of the fact that he could not act so long as the British did not allow him to do so. They succeeded in containing the Saudi state, whose Ikhwan were repulsed from Iraq and Transjordan, or simply annihilated there. In the autumn of 1922 (1341) ‘Abd al-‘Aziz signed a treaty, again with Percy Cox in Ujair, concerning the borders between his territories and Iraq. In the same year he conquered al-Jawf, and a confrontation between Nejd and the Hejaz was thus threatened.

King Husain Ibn Ali’s misrule, his extortion of money even from hajjis, and the general state of corruption in the Hejaz made the British reconsider their support for him. He became ever more pretentious, taking the title of Caliph on 7 March 1924, shortly after, on 3 March 1924 (26 Rajab 1342), the Turkish Grand Assembly in Ankara had abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. This move of Husain’s evoked considerable opposition in the Muslim world, and the anger of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. A conference aimed at a reconciliation held under British auspices in Kuwait failed and was dissolved on 12 April 1924 (7 Ramadan 1342). Confrontation between the Wahhabi Saudi Sultanate of Nejd and the Hashimi Kingdom of the Hejaz was now unavoidable.

The Ikhwan now spontaneously took Ta’if of their own accord in 1924 (1343). King Husain abdicated in favour of his son Ali, and sought refuge in Aqaba. The whole of the world Muslim community was in great agitation about what might happen to the holy places. Not only the Muslim world but the West too stood aghast at the impact that an independent Islamic state founded within the twentieth century, and moreover one of an extreme, and some might say a sectarian, orientation, could have. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, however, called the dreaded Ikhwan to order. On 16 October 1924 (17 Rabi‘ I, 1343) they entered Makkah in the state of ihram and performed the ‘umra, avoiding any bloodshed; ‘Abd al-‘Aziz followed later, equally in the state of ihram. Madinah fell after a siege on 5 December 1925 (19 Jumada I, 1344) and Jeddah was taken after a siege of one year on 23 December 1925 (7 Jumada II, 1344), after Ali Ibn Husain had abdicated and left for Iraq.

To the relief of Muslims all over the world, it was announced that the holy places, now under Saudi protection, would remain open to Muslims of any school and conviction. All places of religious significance were purified of non-Islamic accretions according to Wahhabi prescriptions, but without violence; only the dome above Muhammad’s grave in the mosque of Madinah was allowed to remain in place; but praying there was forbidden.

On 8 January 1926 (23 Jumada II, 1344), ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was proclaimed King of the Hejaz. The new state was immediately recognized by Britain, France and the Netherlands, and a British cruiser called at the port of Jeddah on 1 March 1926 (16 Sha‘ban 1344) on a friendly visit. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had come to Jeddah for the occasion, and a few days later he received the newly accredited Dutch consul, Daniel van der Meulen, together with his predecessor, Ch. O. van der Plas, at the house of Muhammad Nasif Effendi.

Developments in Arabia had been closely followed by those colonizing countries with large Muslim colonial populations, and the Netherlands was no exception. The mastermind here was Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, who as a young man had spent several months in Makkah in 1884/5 (1301/2) and had been kept informed of developments there during the following forty years. The Dutch Consulate in Jeddah was in charge of the hajjis coming from Indonesia, who were more numerous than those of other countries. Jeddah was an important source of information about what was going on among Indonesian Muslims. When Snouck chose Daniel van der Meulen as the new consul, he undoubtedly hoped that his former student would carry out the policies that he had himself defended during his active diplomatic life. After the First World War more conservative forces had begun to dominate Dutch colonial policy, whatever the promises made to the Indonesians during the war. All these developments took place much to the dismay of Snouck Hurgronje. Van der Meulen succeeded Ch. O. van der Plas, a brilliant linguist who was fluent in Arabic, as Van der Meulen was to become. But before going into this subject we must first proceed with presenting some more historical facts.

One of the first measures ‘Abd al-‘Aziz took after conquering Makkah and Madinah was to provide better conditions for the hajjis. Sanitary provisions were improved, security was guaranteed, the customary extortion of money from pilgrims – even by the public authorities – was ended, and corruption was combated.[v] On the other hand, the hajj taxes were raised to recompense the better services rendered to the pilgrims. Until the 1940s these taxes were still the main source of income of the state. With regard to the international character of the hajj and the worries existing for instance among Indian Muslims, two international Muslim Congresses were organized in Makkah in the summers of 1926 and 1927 (1344 and 1346). ‘Abd al-‘Aziz there affirmed his full personal responsibility for the holy places, the hajj itself and the hajjis. He rejected any form of international Muslim jurisdiction or even supervision over them, as well as any form of pan-Islamic or pan-Arab policy.

In his policies and ideology, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz kept aloof from the surrounding Arab countries, restricting himself to Arabia proper and the territories under his rule. This self-imposed restriction is in reciprocal accord with the containment policy that had in practice been applied by Britain to the Wahhabi state since the First World War, if not earlier. As a result, the role of the Ikhwan as a military force shifted from conquest to policing. The Ikhwan, disciplined and drilled in the spirit of jihad, saw this abandonment of forceful action to convert the Muslim community to Wahhabi doctrine and practice as a softening, if not a betrayal, of the old ideals. By implication, the Wahhabi element in the character of the state was diminished. And indeed shortly before this, in 1927 (12/12/1346), ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s father ‘Abd al-Rahman, who was an ‘alim and bore the title of the Imam of the Wahhabi state, had died.

As a first step to unification, on 29 January 1927 (25 Rajab 1345) ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was proclaimed King of Hejaz, Nejd and its Dependencies. A revolt led by Hamad Ibn Rifadah broke out in the Hejaz against this policy in 1932 (1350/1), but was quickly put down. The political process was crowned with the unification of the whole territory as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, consisting of Nejd, al-Hasa, Hejaz and Asir. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was proclaimed King of Saudi Arabia on 26 September 1932 (21 Jumada I, 1351).

In 1934 (1352) there was a short war with Yemen, which turned to Saudi Arabia’s advantage. An attempt on ‘Abd al-‘Aziz by Yemenis in the Great Mosque at Makkah failed. The only other independent state in the peninsula was Oman, which, interestingly enough, also has a puritan community, that of the Kharijis, in the interior of the country. Aden was a British colony, and Hadramaut and the smaller emirates along the Gulf were British protectorates. Saudi Arabia was to be an Islamic state where Hanbalism was to remain the official madhhab, though other Muslims could follow their own madhahib. The person of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz would stand as a model for the Saudi lifestyle. Yet even already in the course of his own reign, Wahhabi Hanbalism did not stand in the way of modernization processes in the country, which were indeed often initiated by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz himself. Under his son Faisal this model would form the basis of an active policy of modernizing the country while simultaneously founding international Islamic organizations in which Saudi Arabia was to play a pivotal role.

Several initiatives taken by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in subsequent years are deserving of mention. First of all, in the 1930s oil was discovered in Arabia, and the king, who had been plagued by financial problems during the recession of 1929 (1348) and the following years, during which revenues from the hajj diminished, gladly welcomed American oil companies, in particular Aramco, who offered favourable contracts. The extraction of oil was seen at the time as a purely economic matter; the oil companies were not to interfere in the internal affairs of the country, and this led to the creation of two separate worlds.[vi]

Secondly, with regard to the Palestine problem, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz took initiatives to co-operate with various other Arab countries during the 1930s. He had serious discussions on the question with Roosevelt and Churchill in Egypt in February 1945 (Rabi‘ I, 1365).[vii] Together with King Farouk of Egypt he issued a public warning on the consequences of continued Zionist immigration into Palestine.

Thirdly, it is a remarkable fact that during the Second World War ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, who was one of the few rulers of an Arab country that had not known European colonialism, opted from the beginning for the Allied side. This contrasted with the behaviour of a number of Arab politicians, including some prominent officials in his immediate circle, who either wavered or sided with the Axis.

Following the increase in international interest in ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, and in particular after his taking of the Hejaz in 1924/5 (1342–4), several books about him saw the light in the West. First and foremost are two books by St John Philby, The Heart of Arabia (1922) and Arabia of the Wahhabis (1928); he was also the author of a number of other books on Arabia, including a scholarly biography of the King, under the title Arabian Jubilee (1952). The Arab American Amin al-Rihani first published a book on several Arab kings in Arabic, and then brought out the section on ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in English translation, with the title Ibn Saud of Arabia. His People and His Land (1928). In 1933 appeared Kenneth Williams’s Ibn Saud, followed a year later by H. C. Armstrong’s Lord of Arabia.[viii] A certain segment of the Western public has always felt a certain fascination with the personality of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, and it is against this background that we should give our attention to the views expressed by Daniel van der Meulen about the rise of Saudi Arabia and the figure of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz.

D. van der Meulen on Islam and the rise of Saudi Arabia:

Since the life and work of D. van der Meulen (1894–1989 (1311/12–1409/10)) may not be widely known, some data may be given here to serve as background information when considering his views on the rise of Saudi Arabia and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz.[ix]

Daniel van der Meulen was born in Laren (Gld.) in the Netherlands in 1894 (1311/2). His father was a schoolteacher and belonged to the Reformed Church (Gereformeerde Kerk), one of the Dutch branches of Calvinism. Daniel himself was a convinced and practising Protestant Christian throughout his lifetime. After primary and secondary school he enrolled in 1912 (1330) at the University of Leiden in the department in which future members of the Civil Service in the former Dutch Indies received their training. This was a three-year course at the time, so that he entered the civil service in Sumatra during the First World War (in which Holland was neutral) in the autumn of 1915 (1333), and stayed there for eight years, returning to Holland in 1923 (1341). Here he was chosen to become the future Dutch Consul in Jeddah, which meant that he had to undertake an intensive study of Arabic and Islam, again at the University of Leiden, under the direct guidance of Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, over the period 1923–5 (1342–4). He left Holland on 2 January 1926 (17 Jumada II, 1344), arriving by ship in Jeddah a month later, on 6 February 1926 (23 Rajab 1344), after a short stay in Egypt. He arrived, then, a month and a half after Jeddah had been captured by ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz on 23 December 1925 (7 Jumada II, 1344).

His posting to the Jeddah Consulate was for six years, up to 1931.[x] He did not stay in the post all the year round, but only for that part of the year when Indonesian hajjis (djawa) arrived for the hajj, performed it, and left again to return to Indonesia. They had Dutch pilgrim passports; the Dutch government had to supervise their arrival, stay in and departure from the Hejaz, and to intervene in case of difficulties. Van der Meulen was also an enthusiastic traveller, both privately and on duty. He went to Yemen from 25 February until 22 April 1931 (7 Shawwal – 4 Dhu ’l-Hijja 1349), and when he had to be on duty in the Hadramaut, he took the opportunity to explore an unknown part of the country in the summer of 1931 (the beginning of 1350), together with the German geographer Hermann von Wissmann. They published the results together in Hadhramaut. Some of its Mysteries Unveiled (Leiden, 1932). This book gave him an international reputation. From 1931 until 1939 (1350–8) Van der Meulen returned to a civil service posting in Sumatra. In March 1939 (Muharram/Safar 1358) he was in Aden again, where he and Von Wissmann planned to continue the exploration that they had begun in 1931 (1349). This happened in the spring of 1939 (1358). After the war they again published their results together in a book, Aden to the Hadhramaut. A Journey in South Arabia (London, 1947).

Van der Meulen then took up a civil service post in Makassar, South Celebes, where he arrived in mid-1939 (Jumada I or II, 1358), just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Over a year later he was requested to take up the post in Jeddah again; in the mean time it had been upgraded to a legation. Van der Meulen arrived there by sea on 2 April 1941 (5 Rabi‘ II, 1360) and was to stay until the summer of 1945 (1364).[xi] He had immediately to repatriate a number of Indonesian pilgrims; but during the war hardly any further Indonesian hajjis arrived. He had, however, to send a number of Indonesians to India, and also carried out other duties. He had to accomplish missions to the Yemen and to the famine-stricken Hadramaut, to Egypt and Transjordan and to Palestine, where he worked on a report for the Dutch government, at the time in exile in London, on the situation of the Arabs, Jews and British, and made proposals for a possible solution.[xii] All of these were diplomatic tasks of a certain importance. At the end of 1944 (Muharram 1364) he had an audience with ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz in Marat under unexpected conditions, while the latter was on his way to Egypt to meet Roosevelt and Churchill, precisely over the issue of Palestine.

From the end of November 1945 (Dhul’l-Hijja 1364) Van der Meulen was again in the civil service in the Dutch Indies, shortly before sovereignty was transferred to Indonesia, a development that he had for a long time already regarded as necessary. He worked for nearly three years for the Information Agency. In July 1948 (Ramadan 1367) he returned to Holland, where he was to spend the rest of his life. From 1949 until 1951 (1368–70) he was organizer and Director of Netherlands Broadcasting in Arabic, and he retired in 1951 (1370) at the age of 57. In 1952 he made a last journey to the Hadramaut, and also paid a last visit to ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz. During the last 28 years of his life he wrote books and articles, and gave addresses and lectured about Saudi, Near Eastern and Indonesian developments. And of course he continued his travels, to Saudi Arabia among other places. Van der Meulen passed away in 1989 (1409/10) at the venerable age of 95.

Apart from his publications the legacy of Daniel van der Meulen contains a great number of photographs taken in Arabia, the Indies and elsewhere; various kinds of documents; and, perhaps most important of all, a number of diaries, which he carefully kept up during his years in Arabia and the Dutch East Indies. They contain the material from which he wrote his memoirs, published in English under the title of Don't You Hear the Thunder. A Dutchman's Life Story (Leiden, 1981).[xiii] Even more important for our subject is his book The Wells of Ibn Saud (London, 1957).[xiv] It reads like an epic history, and sometimes even like a boy’s adventure story; the Dutch text in particular is extremely well written. It is full of personal observations and experiences, and evokes a number of more or less well-known people and a human world intensely lived and experienced, but now belonging to the past. From these pages it becomes clear how much ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s life and work had meant to this attentive observer from the Netherlands, and how attached he felt to the Arabs and Arabia.

Beyond these published memoirs, however, there are a number of diaries, parts of which have been typed out. They open a door on to the past and give a glimpse of how Daniel van der Meulen witnessed and judged two major events of his time, the rise of Saudi Arabia and the end of the Dutch East Indies. It is to be hoped that one day all these archival materials will be brought together and made accessible to the interested public.[xv]

Before going into Van der Meulen’s experiences of Saudi Arabia and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, a few words are in order about his views of Islam. As a pupil of Snouck Hurgronje, Van der Meulen saw Islam in the first instance as a legal and doctrinal system that had been constructed during its early centuries and handed on to the present time. But whereas Snouck Hurgronje considered that a future would be afforded to Muslims only if they were to take the leap into the modern world and out of the traditional system – possibly holding on to the Islamic religion as a matter of personal faith – Van der Meulen looked for a future within the possibilities offered by a reform of the system itself.

According to Van der Meulen, Islam, in the traditional forms of its system, finds itself in a crisis in the modern world, since the traditional forms do not respond to the needs and problems of the contemporary world. So, like many Protestant missionaries at the time, he used to speak of the ‘crisis’ of Islam.[xvi] He was searching for forces and orientations in the contemporary Muslim world that could establish a connection between the Islamic faith and the problems of the modern world. This would require effective reforms to the system and a renewal of traditional rules of life.

Van der Meulen had the greatest respect for the religious faith of Islam, a still point in the transient modern world. Standing as he did in the Calvinist tradition, with its experience of similar problems that had led to intense internal discussions in Protestant Holland in the last decades of the nineteenth century, Van der Meulen was sensitive to the situation of contemporary Islam. His hope was apparently that by returning to the sources of their religions, Islam as well as Christianity would be able to respond to the problems of the modern world. There is reason to assume that he saw ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s radical reforms in Arabia as a potential answer to the challenge of modernity, very much akin to the way in which an open-minded orientation in his own Reformed Church assumed the full responsibility of believers for the well-being of the world. We must leave aside here the question of the common ground between Van der Meulen’s own faith and the faith of the Muslims he met, a faith that he respected profoundly. But because of his positive attitude to Islam as a faith he entered into communication with the Muslims he met in a quite natural way, and his own outstanding communicative capacities were a great help in this.

Snouck Hurgronje too was profoundly interested in the historical movement initiated by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. He published articles on the subject in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in 1924, 1927, 1928 and 1932 (1342–51), and received regular first-hand reports from Van der Meulen in Jeddah. Since Van der Meulen arrived only some six weeks after Jeddah had fallen into ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s hands, he not only heard about the scandals of the preceding regime but also experienced the beginning of a new era in which puritan religion and public morality and justice were to govern. It was the beginning of a new history, and his expectations of the new ruler, known for his high religious and moral standards and for his demands for an Islamic society without compromise, were high. In several places Van der Meulen expresses the hope that ‘Abd al-‘Aziz will bring about a true reformation, a spiritual rebirth not only in Arabia but also in the Muslim world in general, thanks to a reinterpretation of the sources of Islam. In the following years, however, he had to admit that ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s reforms remained limited to the Saudi state and that he had no specific message for the Muslim world at large. Van der Meulen then concluded that the reforms carried out by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz were of such a nature that they could only be applied within Arabia and not outside it.[xvii]

Van der Meulen saw ‘Abd al-‘Aziz as a realist and a statesman, but an honest one who kept his word. Becoming King rather than Imam of Saudi Arabia gave him political, but hardly religious, leadership, and his approach to the modern world was pragmatic rather than moved by a vision of universal claims. This pragmatic attitude would also explain his openness to American rather than British or Dutch propositions to overcome the financial difficulties of the years after 1928 (1346/7), when the income from the hajj tax decreased with the increase in the numbers of potential pilgrims who found they could no longer afford the hajj. His trust in American offers as to gold mining and oil exploration and exploitation provided the solution to the immediate financial problems. But Van der Meulen was quick to observe that the spiritual problems involved were not recognized by the Americans and not adequately met by the Saudis. In Van der Meulen’s view, it was the arrival of the dollars that swept away the religious inspiration of the Wahhabi puritan reform. He was not, however, enough of a scholar to inquire into the dynamics of the Wahhabi doctrine and way of life in a society that was extending itself from a Bedouin into a partly agricultural and urban structure, and in a state that was moving away from personal and religious loyalties to the more impersonal structures of modernity.

Van der Meulen was keen to observe and describe those moments in which ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz consciously intellectually moved and practically acted beyond the borders of his own kingdom. I have mentioned already the king’s immediate adherence to the Allied cause in the Second World War, nicely expressed in a telegram that he apparently sent to Churchill after the retreat from Dunkirk, when the chances of Allied victory looked bleak.

I also mentioned ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s initiative for co-operation between Arab states in the mid-thirties in view of the Palestine problem. Notwithstanding his tense relations with the Hashemites ruling in Iraq and Transjordan, and his criticisms of Egyptian politics, the common danger in his view required co-operation between all Arabs. The Arab League, however, then proceeded to take matters well beyond the reach of the king’s own plans.[xviii]

The third moment of his reaching out beyond the Saudi borders was when he defended the case of the Palestinians at his meetings with Roosevelt and Churchill in February 1945 (Rabi‘ I, 1364). In fact, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was a profound anti-Zionist, and we need further study of his attitude, especially in the 1948 (1367) war. On this subject Van der Meulen took a position that was more internationally oriented; but nonetheless he defended the Arab and, in particular, the Palestinian cause until the end.[xix]

As far as Wahhabi influence in other Muslim countries is concerned, Van der Meulen does not give any information except a reference to Muhammad Rashid Rida’s visit in search of co-operation to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in 1926, which seems to have remained without much result.[xx] From the perspective of Wahhabi Nejd, other countries, in order to be Islamic, had simply to follow the example of the Wahhabi state; but there was no call for an ‘Islamic revolution’.

It is interesting to compare Van der Meulen’s views with those of Philby, as both men had an unconditional attachment to the person of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and an admiration for the man and his achievements. Philby was a man of the Empire who then switched to becoming a man of the Saudi state; in the end he may be called a rebel against the system from which he came. Van der Meulen, on the other hand, was a man who continued to work within the framework of a small country’s colonial and diplomatic apparatus, and remained rooted in a Dutch way of life. Van der Meulen was a critical realist within the system; at most he may be called a dissident with regard to colonial policies and to the customary ways of considering Islam. Van der Meulen had the greatest respect for Philby as a scholar, celebrating his important geographical explorations throughout Arabia and especially in the south, and drawing attention to the mass of materials that he wrote, designed and collected, and that still awaits publication and further elaboration.[xxi] He considered Philby’s Arabian Jubilee of 1952 (1371), giving a biography of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz on the occasion of the fiftieth year of his rule, a historical masterpiece. But he found Philby’s suggestion that they should both convert to Islam strange;