In a recent Threats Watch article entitled Saudi Arabia: No Small Challenge, No Great Ally, Steve Schippert makes a succinct and relevant case for the dichotomy the US faces in relations with the House of Saud. What he could have underscored a bit more is the reason for the dichotomy.
But that the Saudi legislature voted down legislation (77-33) calling for the same respect is a fair and clear barometer that the problem does not simply lie with a few dozen clerics. It’s systemic. If a respected religious authority calls for the execution of someone who simply suggests that people holding other faiths deserve respect, doesn’t that tell Saudis that the lives of Christians, Jews, Hindu and Buddhists are of lesser value?
Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a 75-year-old sheikh, issued the fatwa calling for the journalists’ death. In Saudi Arabia, he is a leading authority on Wahhabism, the country’s fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam.
“It’s disgraceful that articles containing this kind of apostasy should be published in some papers in Saudi Arabia,” he wrote last month. If the reporters do not repent, they “should be killed,” he wrote.
Barrak is not just some cranky old miscreant. He is a member of the Saudi legislature, appointed by the king. Barrak spent a long career in senior positions at a respected government-funded university.
Soon after, 20 other senior Saudi clerics stood up to enthusiastically endorse Barrak’s fatwa. Later, about 100 human-rights advocates from across the region condemned the edict, calling it intellectual terrorism. That had little visible impact in Riyadh.
There are a couple of aspects we should remind ourselves of in trying to understand our relationship with Saudi Arabia because the relationship is enigmatic at best.
The contemporary Al Saud royal family came to power because Muhammad ibn Saud was able to convince the British government of 1920’s-1930’s that he maintained control over the people of what is now the Saudi kingdom. His control was exerted by his Wahhabi fighters - who had pledge allegiance to the Al Saud dynasty in the mid 1700’s. Saudi Arabia is a nation founded on Wahhabism - where the Quran and the Sunna (the exact path and literal teachings of Mohammad) is everything.
This instance of working with the British government was not the first instance of Muslims relying on the infidel to help gain power and it certainly was not the last. It is occurring even today with the US realpolitik relationship with Al Saud.
The United States government has long been the only reason a Saud family member is still ruling Arabia. They depend on the very infidel they despise in order to remain in power. There are some 30,000 members of the Saudi family - so to even say that “the family” is our ally would be a misrepresentation of the situation. One should look at the Al Saud family as a slice of bread. There is a crust and then the inner part of the bread.
The upper crust of the House of Saud is our “ally” - they ignore Wahabbist doctine to suit them, when it suits them - in order to stay in power. There should never be a statement, and Steve Schrippert did not make one, that gives one the belief that the bread of Saudi Arabia is an ally. He characterizes the problem with Saudi Arabia as systemic and could not be more right about it.
The imperialist gene which drove ibn Saud to seek power from the British in the 1920’s has served the reign of Al Saud well through the decades. The royal family keeps its enemies very close because it benefits them to do so.
