If you say so...
I can't really see anything honorable about declaring jihad against the 'caliphate' and sack the cities owned by them just because they don't fit in your eyes as good muslims or radical sufis as you would call them.
Okay maybe what I said was wrong and the early Sauds wanted to 'defend' the the holy cities and did not sack or pillage the Hedjaz, why the hell did they massacre the Shia's in Najaf and Kerbela multiple times? How in Gods name is that honorable or allowed by Sharia law?
What was the reason Muhammed Ali pasha had to march to the middle of the desert if the Sauds posed no danger?
The Shi'i Rawafidh had attacked those of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah first. Al-Saud went forth and waged jihad upon them, the inaction of the Ottomans in defence of the Sunni in Iraq is their nullification. War against taghoot who allowed the murder of Sunni and later actively murdered those who were dhimmi (Armenians and other Christians) is not the ones to defend. Simply calling one khilafah does not make it khilafah, especially when it is failing in its authority.
I do not consider the Ottoman hegemony to be radical Sufi, however they became taghoot in their regime. Once they had transgressed in Iraq, jihad from al-Saud was permissible.
You likely know nothing of Shari' law, if you did, then you would not make that statement.
Muhammad Ali Pasha was a taghoot, I cannot answer for the munafiq.