From my understanding, the Wahabi view of Shi’a, which is also the official position of the Saudi government, is that Shi’ites are not Muslims, but rather polytheistic kafir (infidels) not deserving of the even same meagre protections as the Christian and Jewish dhimmi. In this case, why does the Saudi government allow not only its native minority Shi’a population, but also foreign Shi’ites, access to Mecca and Medina for hajj and other pilgrimages? Hajj visas and access to Mecca and Medina are supposed to be unavailable to non-Muslims. I can understand that there are certain diplomatic and economic advantages to doing so, but I’m wondering how the government officially reconciles this practice with its open anti-Shi’a rhetoric.
Cognitive dissonance and realpolitik.
They’re already actively oppressed in SA. If they denied them the hajj, the regime wouldn’t last 5 minutes thereafter. Shi’ites may be a minority in worldwide Islam, but they are still very numerous, and Iran, for one, wouldn’t stand for a blanket ban, I’m sure.
And no one questions this in real life? I mean, if children there are brought up believing that Shi’ites are infidels, what do they think once they make their first pilgrimage to Mecca and find the place swarming with them?
But Saudi Arabia has in the past instituted a blanket ban on Iranian Hajj visas. They seem to have stood for it then (though not without considerable grumbling).
How would they check?
All you have to do to visit the Kaaba is to say you’re a Muslim. (“La ila ha illallah Muhammed ur Rasulullah” according to a quick Google search.)
Where do you get this idea? Saudi Arabia won’t even let you into the country without a visa, whether or not you are Muslim. Foreigners (and maybe even locals) can’t visit Mecca or Medina without a Hajj visa, the application for which requires you to show proof of being Muslim (such as a statement of support by your local imam). If you’re applying from a Shi’a-majority area and get your Shi’a imam to vouch for you then it’s going to be pretty damn obvious to the immigration officers that you’re Shi’ite.
The Iran ban was unpopular and lifted quite quickly. It was for political and not religious reasons (the seige of the Kaaba). Its not just Iranians and Iraqis. You have large Shia minorities in Pakistan (numerically only slightly less than Irans population) and in India. It would quickly isolate Saudi if they did so.
It’s not necessarily that hard. Everyone must be ihram during Hajj, but Shi’a men typically wear ihram clothing that covers the shoulders and Sunni men typically wear it wrapped over only one shoulder.
Women traveling alone are Shi’a, as Sunni tradition does not allow women to make the Hajj alone.
ETA: Hajj visa applications only require Islamic certificates for converts.
Wrong on both accounts. I know many Pakistani (and Indian) Sunni women who have done the Hajj alone* and the ihram clothing is a matter of personal decision, I covered both shoulders thank you very much.
*Admittedly as its a once in a lifetime thing, few women or indeed men do it alone.
I stand corrected on the ihram thing, but Saudi law is pretty explicit on the prohibition of unaccompanied women (at least those who are under 45:
I suppose the OP’s understanding of Saudi Arabia is not correct. The Saudis choose to allow Muslims of all stripes to make the Hajj in order to let them fulfill their sacred obligation. Being the protectors of the holy mosques is a big responsibility, one the government here takes very, very seriously.
There must be a lot of money in all the tourism?
Unlike you I’ve never lived there; I’m just going on what I’ve read in various books and articles over the last fifteen years. The current Wikipedia articles on Shi’a–Sunni relations in Saudia Arabia, Persecution of Shi’a Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and Shi’a Islam in Saudi Arabia contain a number of sourced claims which I have often heard over the years:
These claims seem to support my understanding that the position of Wahhabism in general, and of various institutions of the Saudi Arabian government in particular, is that Shi’ites are heretics, apostates, and/or polytheists, and therefore not Muslims, and that these views are disseminated through state-sponsored schools and universities and through religious rulings. Are these claims false, or are the teachings perhaps deviations from the official government position?
Wahhabism might be the official position and it’s undoubtably useful as a tool to the ruling royal family, but they seem pretty damn pragmatic when it comes to keeping the peace and staying in power.
It makes perfect sense to me that they would allow the clerics to spout anti-Shia rhetoric while also welcoming the dollars that the Shia Hajj pilgrims bring in. Not to mention the unrest it would cause with their Shia minority.
The Royal family of Saud didn’t get to power or stay in power by being impractical fanatics, but instead by being the most willing to cut deals, first with the British, then with the US, as I understand it.
Indeed—I acknowledged this in my OP. I’m just curious as to whether anyone points out the rather obvious dissonance between what the government says and what it does, and whether there is any official position reconciling them. If children are brought up in Saudi Arabia believing that (1) Shi’ites are not Muslims, and (2) Mecca and Medina are holy cities that can be visited only by Muslims, then what do these people think when they end up actually visiting Mecca and Medina (as they are all supposed to do at least once in their lives), getting past the border controls which they rightly assume are there to keep out non-Muslims, and finding that it’s full of these heretical, polytheistic, non-Muslim pilgrims? Do none of them think invoke their widely-trumpeted right to petition the king to ask what the hell is going on?
have you seen a quote from the Saudi Royal family or from the “Saudi ministry of religious affairs” stating that Shia are not Muslims?
From what I can tell, Shia in Saudi are heavily discriminated against and forced to keep a low profile but are officially recognised as being an islamic religion. What the clerics and schools say is another matter.
Absolutely. See the quote from Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz in my previous post. He was, among other things, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and the government-appointed president of the Permanent Committee, which is responsible for issuing rulings on legal and religious matters.
The OP’s biggest problem is that he thinks that the Saudi citizens have the intellectual ability of a five year old. He cannot seem to grasp that most people would think of Shias as misguided co-religionists who err in their practices but are still muslim.
I rather thought my question was predicated on the assumption that Saudi citizens don’t merely have the intellectual ability of a five-year-old and that they would immediately see the contradiction between what the government teaches them about Shi’ites and what the government allows the Shi’ites to do in practice. I want to know what explanation the government offers when its citizens point out this contradiction.
I recently read The Siege of Mecca by Yaroslav Trofimov, which is an excellent book I highly recommend and which discusses this subject. Essentially what happens if the Saudi regime publically states its support for a very strict and narrow Wahabi position on religious issues. And then it follows a more pragmatic position in actual practice.
Um, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, it’s a theocratic absolute monarchy. Ordinary citizens don’t express opinions about politics (in public, of course they do in private). And for the elites, keeping the current system is in their interest.