Saudi Arabia on the verge of Revolution?

Jomo Mojo, as I understand your assertion, the Wahhabist sect that might be the ones to successfully overthrow the Saudi monarchy are far more extremist than the Wahhabist sect that currently supports the Saudi monarchy. Am I correct?

Perhaps. I have the Concise Oxford English-Arabic Dictionary, which lists ‘family’ as 'usrah, :a’ylah, ‘awlaad, :abnaa’, nasl, anjaal, and khalagh?? (I’m not familiar with the ligature written there). To be fair, I also looked up “clan” and got :ashiirah.Would you be so kind as to provide the cite for your lexical assertion?

QUOTE=Olentzero][I have the Concise Oxford English-Arabic Dictionary, which lists ‘family’ as *'usrah, :a’ylah, ‘awlaad, :abnaa’, nasl, anjaal,* and *khalagh??* (I’m not familiar with the ligature written there). To be fair, I also looked up “clan” and got *:ashiirah*.Would you be so kind as to provide the cite for your lexical assertion? [/QUOTE]

The best Arabic/English dictionary still is the Cowan translation of The Hans Wehr Dictionary of written Standard Arabic (Original = Arabic/German. If you understand German the original is better still because its references to dialectal variations)

The word you are looking for is not al but ahl from the root alif- ha -lam
(verb ahala which means in its first form “to take a wife, get married”…).

Ahl is used to describe (a whole of) relatives, family,kinfolk etc…

As for the OP question:

SA is a time bomb that is ticking already far too long but it is not the only one in the region. Many places are like living on a floor floating on quicksand with a vulcano beneath it.

The Bush Maffia really did a good job promote utterly destabilizing developments in a part of the world that is already bound to explode one time or the other.

And then you have even no idea of the arrogance this completely lunatical blindfolded US administration still shows in their approach of all matters US"foreign policy" regarding ME issues (read: ecnonomical interests and their view on “how things should be done” here to “please the masters”.)
They still have no clue about the aversion they caused and cause and that is building up and growing faster and faster. And this includes also the people who were pro-US or mildly pro-US or even Big Fan of the US in the past.
That means: including who really didn’t care the US to invade Iraq and not only because wanting to get rid of Hussein.

Yes, I am not particularly with them on this one but I pend in and between two completely different worlds and two completely different views on this matter. And many others, in fact.

I can’t find ways to express my gratitude and admiration for the arrogant blind Bush Maffia Idiots. Really.
Sorry that I don’t go further on/into this thread because I am while typing this already close to vomitting.
Salaam. A

Sorry for the coding… You obviously can’t type while feeling nausea :slight_smile:

Sorry for the coding… You obviously can’t type while feeling nausea…
Aldebaran gone for recovery…

Salaam.A
This can take some weeks…

Same sect, but yes, a more extreme…hmmm…strain?..outlook? Wahabi Sunnism starts from a rather intolerant, puritannical base to begin with. Those that wish to see an end to the house of Saud for religious reasons might be called the “militant ultra-orthodox” - reactionary purists that see the royal family and their establishment ulema as too morally compromised by the events of the last decade+ to continue to rule. A country ruled by that lot would a) probably be chaotic as hell and b) would most likely button-up the country in xenophobic Taliban-style. An attempt at an Ibn Saud style religious conquest would probably get squashed mighty quickly - I suspect an inward turn is much more likely than an overt outward turn, at least in the short run. But obviously if the victors in any power struggle were individuals like ObL ( hardly assured ), all bets would be off, at least as a sponsor of terrorism. Even those meager elements of modernity that exist in SA ( many semi-clandestine, i.e. in the privacy of the home ) would be threatened. Like I said, it would a matter of degree when it comes to personal rights, which are all too scarce already. But it would be worse.

  • Tamerlane

I’m curious, ralph124c, where would this group go? Where in the world would they be welcome?

But that was intended, right? In theory (neocon theory), the establishment of democracy in Iraq is supposed to inspire democracy in Iran, Syria and SA. and, of course – although its a point the neocons don’t much dwell on publicly – in these cases “inspiring democracy” means fomenting revolution, because it’s hard to envision any other way these regimes could be democratized. But, given the circumstances on the ground, its hard to envision how SA or Syria could be democratized through revolution, either. Iran might be democratized, I supposed, because it’s got something approaching an honest electoral system now, if only they could get the mullahs out of the system; but the religious regime does have a broad base of public support, and if revolution broke out, it’s far from clear who would win it. Am I right?

These people will have Swiss Bank Accounts & flight bags stuff with bullion.

Money has a million friends, eveywhere it goes.

I’m curious, Tamerlane.

A ‘taliban-style’ turning inward worked for Afghanistan because no one outside of Arghanistan gave a damn about it.

But do you really think that would work in SA? Suppose such an isolationist regime did come to power secure enough to bring about an inward-turning…would they cut off the oil flow? If so what then would be the over-under on how long such an inward turning would last until economic forces forced a counter-revolution.

Call me cynical, but it’s always struck me that 50% of the reason for soi-disant ‘terrorist’ groups like al Qaeda in DA was about control of the oil. The other half might well be religious purity and such but true power in the region comes from economic might and that means oil-control. With control of the oil fields comes control of the population.

Nope :). Didn’t say it would work - I would anticipate Saudi Arabia disintegrating a bit, actually. But I see it as a more likely short term possibility, if the most xenophobic and reactionary elements of the Wahabi establishment were to take power ( i.e. internationalist al-Qaeda elements may help bring about a revolution, but they aren’t necessarily going to be the ones who wind up on top in the end ).

Not necessarily, but it depends on whether it could actually keep any reasonable flow going after losing a sizeable chunk of their technical expertise ( both discredited native modernizers and foreign support, who to a significant extent would likely be dead or fled ).

Dunno about 50%. Surely the idea of accessing the oil wealth must be a consideration. However how much is access to wealth and how much ( at least for ObL, who may no longer even be a controlling force in aQ ) it is that SA with its near-complete social dominance by an uncommonly puritannical version of Islam and its guardianship of Mecca and Medina just seems like both a ripe plum and the ideal base from which to launch their concept of jihad, seems uncertain. Oil might just be the capper on an already very attractive looking project ;).

  • Tamerlane

No, ahl is one word for ‘family’ (it basically means ‘people’ and can also mean ‘family’), but it’s a completely different word from the one we were discussing.

The word âl used in Arabian family names is from a different root. When you look it up in an Arabic dictionary, you have to look under the root letters, not the actual spelling of the individual word. The root that âl comes from is ’-w-l.

It can be found in A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic by Hans Wehr, 3rd printing, on page 34:

âl family, relatives, kinsfolk, clan; companions, partisans, people; mirage, fata morgana.

This word comes from the verbal root ’-w-l meaning ‘to return, revert to; to go back, be attributed, be attributable to, spring, derive from; to lead, conduce, tend to, result eventually in, to come or go eventually, pass into the hands of’. Other words from this root include âlah ‘instrument, utensil, tool, apparatus, device, machine’. âlî ‘mechanical’, and awwal ‘first’. The word âlah (tool) is also used to mean ‘penis’, even though it’s grammatically feminine.

Tamerlane has already explained quite well the social/political situation in Saudi Arabia. One more thing to add: The Âl Sa’ûd hasn’t helped matters any by running an abysmally corrupt system. The corruption reaches from the top down throughout the whole system. This disgusts people with any shred of decency and makes it easier for the fundamentalists to persuade people to join them. If the ruling cliques had cleaned up their act years before, there wouldn’t be so many attacks on them now, recruiting for al-Qâ‘idah wouldn’t be so easy. But if anyone had been listening for many years to people in the Arab world, you would have heard constant grumbling and hatred of the Saudi regime, not from fundies or extremists, but from just ordinary people.

Crown Prince ‘Abdallah is a personally honest and intelligent man; he has the intention to clean up the corruption, but has been waiting until he fully accedes to the throne instead of just acting as a caretaker. It will probably be too late by then. The Sudayri clique, which has been in charge for years and has perpetrated the worst corruption, would love to eliminate their half-brother ‘Abdallah, but know they can’t be seen to oppose him publically. It’s a dangerous chess game. They try to undermine his efforts behind closed doors.

OK, in my dictionary the word a:l is listed under ‘kin’, the : being that peculiar glottal stop non-Arabic speakers have a hard time with. It’s close enough for me.

Thanks, Tamerlane and Aldebaran, for clearing up the issue as to the nature of a ‘revolutionary’ Wahhabist sect. It still looks to me like a palace coup at the best, if it does ever happen, simply because the main point of contention is the as-sa:uud dynasty’s cooperation with the West rather than any far-reaching critique of the reactionary nature of Saudi society. Such ‘revolutionaries’ may try to fan the flames of popular discontent to aid their purpose but they’ll do their best to keep a tight rein on things at the same time. It’ll be more of the same - intensified - for the working class and the minorities living there if the ultra-fundamentalists (for lack of a better term) make a successful bid for power. What that means for oil prices globally I couldn’t predict, but if their goal is less cooperation with the West, it gives me a good idea.

From reading all the preceding I get the impression that if Saudi regime will give, the XXI century analogy to Russian revolution will ensue. But while the methods will be at least just as brutal, the declared goals will be completely anachronistic.

O., you’re missing the most important thing about the possible Saudi revolution, which would be rabid anti-Americanism and a hell of a lot more trouble for Americans in the Middle East than we have even now. That’s what we can expect. They would not only cancel all the oil deals with Americans, they would probably become a place for mounting attacks against Americans. It could mean another damn war. The world oil market would be quickly shot to hell.

Palace coup my ass. It would be Iran all over again, only worse. Khomeini was an extremist, but at least he came from a tradition of intellectual scholarship many centuries old. The ultra-Wahhabis are nothing but ignorant, bloodthirsty bastards and they would make Khomeini look like George Washington by comparison.

As for Arabic, the glottal stop is hamzah, and though it occurs at the beginning of the word âl (as it does in any word beginning with a vowel), it does not occur in the middle as you mistook. The colon symbol does not stand for that sound anyway. The colon indicates a long vowel. Also, don’t confuse the hamzah with ‘ayn, which is a completely different sound. I don’t recommend the Oxford Arabic dictionary as the best guide to the language. Oxford dictionaries are usually very good, but somehow they failed to produce an Arabic dictionary in the top rank. The professional Arabic translators in this country all prefer the Hans Wehr dictionary.

Are the armed forces reliable? I would assume that the officers are largely loyal to the House of Saud…but what about the enlisted men? Or does SA have a mercenary army (like the Ghurkas)? As I said in my previous post, SA is a mess of contradictions…it is immensely wealthy, but has a LOT ofpoverty. And, just about all of the intellectual work is done by foreign workers…whos loyalty begins and ends with their last paycheck!
So suppose there is a religiously-led revolution in SA-the foreign workers leave, and the army deserts, and the elite fly to their villas in Switzerland…who is left to run the country? I suspect that there would be considerable chaos there for many years. In the meantime, without the flowof money from oil exports, the country would starve (SA is highly dependent upon food imports).
God, I wish we could convert to a hydrogen/nuclear energy economy. The futre is going to be SO messy!

I’m not sure that’s true. If the example from the Iranian revolution holds true, at least.

I was a little young but didn’t the Iranian oil keep flowing to the US during the hostage crisis?

Really, cutting off the oil flow really would only lead to counter revolution. OK, there are other buyers. But the others aren’t as rich as the United States. Cutting off sales to the US would hurt the new government of SA as much or more than it hurts the USA.

Well yeah, that’s hardly surprising. Most Arabs perceive the US as an imperialist country, and rightly so IMO. Uprisings against governments that are friendly to US interests and who clearly benefit from those friendly relations, are going to have anti-US sentiment at their base, no matter where the revolt comes from - the right or the left. If the trouble you anticipate results in the withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East entirely, so much the better.

Wahhabism is at least two centuries old now, and it has intellectual roots stretching back further than that. Just because it’s old doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.

Well, yeah. I don’t think I’ve asserted otherwise here. I don’t support the ultra-Wahhabists any more than I support the House of Saud. I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at by stating all this again.

I am aware of the difference between hamzah and 'ayn, which in the grammar book I’m using is transliterated as a colon. The word I found is spelled alif - ‘ayn - laa’, which in the system I’m familiar with (and I’ve seen no less than three different systems for transliterating Arabic) is spelled 'a:l (I’m pretty certain there has to be a hamzah at the beginning). I shouldn’t have called 'ayn a glottal stop, but it’s glottal nonetheless.

Well, when I find a copy of the Wehr, and I have the money to purchase it, I’ll go with it. For now, I gotta stick with my dinky Oxford Concise.

Nowhere near close. This won’t be a revolution made by the Saudi working class as a whole, this will be made by a tiny but powerful section of the Arab clergy up at the top. Now it’s possible there may be some elements of workers’ power that emerge (like the shoras, or workers’ councils, in Iran in 1979 before Khomeini stepped in) but given that there’s a total ban on political parties in Saudi Arabia there won’t be much of an opportunity for what seriously radical elements may already exist to politically cohere.

You are certainly right about the contradictions! As far as the military goes, I don’t think the enlisted personnel would be loyal for any length of time. The upper-echelon officers mostly have ties of marriage or business with the royals but the average enlisted guy has no particular loyalty and would likely either vanish or actively support the insurgents. Think “cannon-fodder” for the National-Guard types. The Air-Force and Air-Defense Forces are a different matter but would likely be ineffective without secure bases.
Enlisting in the military is not well thought of in the SA.

Tamarlane A slight nit to pick with the cite you posted. (Thanks for that) The Shia generally do not gain high positions in ARAMCO as was mentioned in the article. The Shia I know in Dhahran consider that a serious grievance while the Sunnis do not like the idea of Shia hands on what is effectively the economic throat of the Kingdom.
Regards

Testy

JM,

Yes, “al” can be used to refer to family, yet for the sake of clarity it is preferred to use “ahl” in a literary context where one refers to “descent” in its whole.

By the way (just some curiosity): Do you use the English (Cowan) Wehr edition or the German edition?

To Olentzero a bit of additional clarification : The madda above the alif indicates a long “a” = the first alif-hamza-fatha lays over a second alif. The madda above it functions as indicator of this. Thus the hamza is not written yet it still must be pronounced.
A bit encouragement can’t do no harm :slight_smile: so here it comes: Modern Standard Arabic is really not as difficult as many people picture it.

Yes, they were quite lunatical blindly optimistic that they could provoke a “domino effect”, no? One can hardly believe this terminology is invented by adults to describe the effect on the rest of the whole region of a US invasion in Iraq and pushing onto Iraq the US-style so called “democracy”.
I always wonder when finally the day will come that people can see the ME - or the whole MENA for that matter - as not one single entitiy, but as seprate nations each with a set of people and ethnicies and habits and culture and languages etc…
They still think the word “Muslim” and picture some sort of Mc Donalds type of culture: “Muslim” Is One Big Soup served everywhere the same resulting in the same products(people).

As things stand today I do not like to envision “any” revolution.

To begin with it is also a very wrong idea to put Iran in line with Arab nations.
Iran is in many aspects the opposite of Arab nations.

As for the support of the religious leaders in Iran: They do not have such a broad public support as an outsider could be led to think.

In Arab nations the regimes are pro-US/West while the general mindset of the population is anti-US. In Iran the regime is anti US/West while the general mindset of the population is pro.
An speaking in more general terms: In comparison with general Iranian mindset the Arab mindset is what I should describe as backwards. (Yes mods, I am Arab myself so that is no “hate talk” at all. It simply is reality talk).

In my opinion Iran has already now a great potential towards developping democracy. It just needs time. And some luck would help (I vision here a mass emigration towards meeting the Creator by the Mullah Mafia).

Salaam. A