Most westerners know comparatively little is about Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud which rules it. Yet western powers - first Britain, then the United States - have been instrumental in elevating the House of Saud to the position it currently occupies and in maintaining its rule against all odds. In return, the House of Saud has acted in support of western policy objectives in the region and, crucially, helped to ensure an almost constant flow of cheap oil. However, they are hardly ideal partners in a ‘war on terrorism’ that, ideologically, has been wrapped in ‘democratic’ packaging. It is a cruel despotism and worse it provides ideological and logistical succor to the most extremist forms of Islam.
Humble Origins
All this belies the family's rather humble origins as one tribe amongst the many vying for power and influence on the Arabian peninsula; in 1744 Muhammad ibn Saud was a tribal chief and ruler of Dir’aiyah (a village now on the outskirts of the current Saudi capital, Riyadh). He allied himself with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a conservative religious thinker; Wahhab gave his name to Wahhabism. Wahhabism was and is a particularly puritanical version of Islam that put a stress on the purity of religious practice, conservative social standards and the unity of one god.
From their base in Dir’aiyah the Saudis (here meaning members of the Al-Saud tribe, not Saudi Arabians) expanded their influence steadily through the region. A clutch of cities fell under their domination. However, the area was under the sway of the Ottoman Empire. Muhammad Ali, a governor of Cairo and Ottoman satrap, was instructed by his masters to put down the irksome Saudi insurgency. Eventually his son, Ibrahim Pasha, drove the Saudis back to Dir’aiyah, which in 1819 was razed to the ground. Though the Al-Sauds surfaced again in 1845 - ruling Riyadh until 1891, when it fell to the Al-Rashid family - they were eventually driven into exile in Kuwait.
However, by the end of the 19th century the star of the Ottomans had waned. All of its borders were threatened. The Balkan countries rose in open revolt and, encouraged by the big European powers, started to create a whole patchwork of rival nation states. To the east, tsarist Russia was encroaching on its territory, defeating the Ottomans in 1877. Britain and France looked to extend their empires in the near-east. Britain successfully invaded Egypt in 1881 and France invaded Tunisia during the same year. Internally, the Caliphate was wracked by dissent and bureaucratic intrigue.
Article comments
1 - MBD
Yeah, we should tell Saudi Arabia to take their oil and shove it up their ass.
An oil boycott will teach them a lesson.
2 - methuselah
IMO the turning point was in 1973 when OPEC manipulated oil prices. We, the USA, had a choice between pursuing the new technoogies, alternate energy, altered tax subsidies and national conservation policies toward energy independence, or we could depend on future political and warfare policies to control foreign oil. We chose the latter, and that was a big mistake that continued our dependence on SA scoundrels and led to 9/11 and the iraq invasion. In 1973 (and following) we tied our fortunes to the fortunes of the Saudi family, to our disadvantage.
3 - Sooli
This article has quite a few fallacies, even though for the most part it is accurate (70% imho).
But I only have time to make one observation only, and I believe it is the most important:
The writer fails to mention the modern-day influences of al Qa'ida, such as Israels subjugation of the Palestinians, Israel's invasions of Lebanon, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Saudi's (and others) "hosting" of US & UK forces, the 1990's sanctions on Iraq, and "Western" blind support of all despotic, brutal, and corrupt regimes in the region (including Israel), among other modern-day popular greivances.
This is what motivates people who join al Qa'ida, this is where it draws its popular base from, and this is what all radical groups in the region -Wahabi and non-Wahabi- focus on to draw support and justify their acts.
Claiming that al Qai'da has commited violent acts of terrorism simply because it is "Wahabi" (which it is not) is far from the truth, and is a clear attempt to divert us from the true issues at hand.
The reasons why all extremists are violently angry at "the West" are the exact same reasons why moderates in the region and abroad are moderatly angry at "the West".
It is modern day political events that have driven some people to extremism and violence. If it was simply ideoligy, then millions of non-Muslims in the region would have been killed first, especially those in modern-day Saudi Arabia.