Oh thought we were talking about ottomans.
No, the point was; the Ottomans waged war against the Safavid for their kufr, namely for the following reasons:
1. The Qizbilash worshipped Is’mail I as a god or the living representation of Allah upon earth.
2. The Safavid ruling system revolves around constant cursing of the companions, which they placed upon their coins, announced in all documents and at all sermons.
3. Their assaults upon the Muslim were intolerable.
Hence, the Ottomans did their duty as the caliph to destroy such transgressors as Is’mail, a taghoot and his radical twelver-ghulat supporters. The Nejdi warriors likewise were waging their own wars against varied Shi’a near them, who fled into Ottoman Iraq. The Ottomans chose to protect these groups against the Nejdi and hence the Nejd went to war against the Ottomans. In other words, this action was permitted for the Ottomans, but not for the Nejd?
Mind you, jihad is permissible for an emir below the caliph. This is an accepted practice, from the time of the prophet (SAW), the caliph may arbitrate and coordinate, but jihad is required when it is possible, even if the caliph is not commanding such, as commands from Allah transcend commands from the caliph. The point was this, the ottomans held their empire as a Turkish empire more important than their role as caliph and thus sought to accommodate those who otherwise they were not permitted to accommodate.