ACH WI Wahabist fanatics do not get Saudi oil money

In otl the Saudi state gives a lot of money to promote a particular rather extreme interpretation of Islam.

How could that have been avoided?

Would it have weakened the more extreme tendencies of otl?
 
The problem is that the Saudi royals had made deals with the Wahhabi clergy that enabled them to unify what is now Saudi Arabia, and had continued the subsidies to provide a religious backing to their government. The problem was, and is, that they have created a monster that if they stop feeding it will turn on them. Possibly if shortly after the House of Saud more or less unifying the country they then turn on the Wahhabi and manage to get British support (some troops and money) they might be able to do this. I am not well enough informed to say whether or not had the House of Saud had not made this devil's bargain would they have been able to achieve political primacy.
 
In otl the Saudi state gives a lot of money to promote a particular rather extreme interpretation of Islam.

How could that have been avoided?

Would it have weakened the more extreme tendencies of otl?
Stop the rise of the Saudis. The Rashidis defeat them in the early 1900s effectively ending their rise to power. Without Saudi backing, the Wahabbis are crushed as heretical which many wanted to do.
 

Deleted member 94680

Have a second Ikhwan Revolt (maybe the suppression of the First isn't as effective) which expands to directly involve Wahhabi Ulama. When Saud suppresses the second revolt, he uses it as an excuse to break the link with the Wahhabis. Have it occur in 1940-something so the Saudis have the oil money behind them by the point the break occurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan_Revolt?wprov=sfsi1
 
If the Wahabists had tried to seize power in the 1950s and failed miserably, they wouldn't be to popular with the wealthy Saudis.
 
Could an Ottoman Empire that survived past World War I stop the Saudis?

Of course. The Saudis were a minuscule armed tribe in the 1920s. They managed to beat Hussein in the Hejaz, when he had no Great Power backing, but Ottoman Turkey is a Great Power.[/QUOTE]

Is this another poisoned fruit of the Entente victory in World War I?

Not necessarily. The high-handed Allied disposition of the Middle East offended Hussein, causing him to break with Britain and making him vulnerable to ibn Saud. If Britain managed better, and Hussein had been less touchy, Hussein would have defeated ibn Saud. However, ibn Saud would probably still get control of what is now the northern coast of Saudi Arabia, which is the oil patch.
 
Have a second Ikhwan Revolt (maybe the suppression of the First isn't as effective) which expands to directly involve Wahhabi Ulama. When Saud suppresses the second revolt, he uses it as an excuse to break the link with the Wahhabis. Have it occur in 1940-something so the Saudis have the oil money behind them by the point the break occurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan_Revolt?wprov=sfsi1

Maybe a different aftermath for the original revolt.

Either
1) Some of the original leaders evade capture.

and/or

2) Abdul-Aziz is more heavy handed in dealing with the defeated rebels,
theirby alienating their sympathisers.

Case two could be especially dangerous if it triggers a second revolt during WWII.
 
Although, how long could they last, looking at what's happened to the other secular Arabian nations over time?
The fate of secularism in other nations is tied to the growing strength of "Islamism" across the Islamic world, am I right? So it stands to reason the removal of the largest financial backer of said movement would curb this movement the world over; now Saudi Arabia's newfound secularism might be less stable than other muslim nations the world over, but it does mean we can't just look at the fate of Nasserist or Baathist countries OTL, since their fates would be seriously affected as well.
 

Deleted member 94680

The fate of secularism in other nations is tied to the growing strength of "Islamism" across the Islamic world, am I right? So it stands to reason the removal of the largest financial backer of said movement would curb this movement the world over; now Saudi Arabia's newfound secularism might be less stable than other muslim nations the world over, but it does mean we can't just look at the fate of Nasserist or Baathist countries OTL, since their fates would be seriously affected as well.

Fair point. I tend to agree that the removal of the Islamist's largest financial backer may well reduce the influence of the movement.
 
Top