AHC: Saudi Arabia is even more extreme

So, this might or might not be impossible to do, but create a scenario where Saudi Arabia is even more religiously extreme than in our timeline. If you can, elaborate on the differences between Saudi Arabia's OTL extremism and your scenario.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The POD could be before then.

Yes it could of but following WWI the control of Mecca and Red Sea Coast was being discussed with the king Hussein attempting to make it part of his kingdom. The British supported the Saudi royal family and the modern Saudi Arabia was born. Where Hussein received Transjordan as concialatory kingdom.

I was associating the Saudi Arabia with that formed after WWI when Ottoman Empire was defeated and withdrew out of Arabian Peninsula.
 
Yes it could of but following WWI the control of Mecca and Red Sea Coast was being discussed with the king Hussein attempting to make it part of his kingdom. The British supported the Saudi royal family and the modern Saudi Arabia was born. Where Hussein received Transjordan as concialatory kingdom.

I was associating the Saudi Arabia with that formed after WWI when Ottoman Empire was defeated and withdrew out of Arabian Peninsula.

As someone else pointed out, the current Saudi Arabia is the third state to bear that title and character.

You're getting caught in a common trap, of considering only the wishes of colonial powers and ignoring that the natives had will and intent and power.

The fact of the matter is that Britain supported both the Hashemites and the Saudis (less perfidious than this sounds; the former were supported by the Foreign Office and the latter by the India Office, which often acted autonomously) - but the general tendency among the British government was to support the Hashemites. The problem was, ibn Saud ended up conquering Nejd and Hedjaz, and so the British ended up acknowledging his legitimacy after his conquest of Arabia was already done. Could the British have overthrown him, forced him out, and installed Ali bin Hussein, and gone their ways? Probably. But their recognition of Saudi Arabia, and their "support" afterwards, was simply following facts on the ground, not them trying to arrange things.

Plus, of course, ibn Saud was himself born in 1875 and any number of events in his like before 1900 could have had an effect on him - to say nothing of this ancestors.
 

Lusitania

Donor
As someone else pointed out, the current Saudi Arabia is the third state to bear that title and character.

You're getting caught in a common trap, of considering only the wishes of colonial powers and ignoring that the natives had will and intent and power.

The fact of the matter is that Britain supported both the Hashemites and the Saudis (less perfidious than this sounds; the former were supported by the Foreign Office and the latter by the India Office, which often acted autonomously) - but the general tendency among the British government was to support the Hashemites. The problem was, ibn Saud ended up conquering Nejd and Hedjaz, and so the British ended up acknowledging his legitimacy after his conquest of Arabia was already done. Could the British have overthrown him, forced him out, and installed Ali bin Hussein, and gone their ways? Probably. But their recognition of Saudi Arabia, and their "support" afterwards, was simply following facts on the ground, not them trying to arrange things.

Plus, of course, ibn Saud was himself born in 1875 and any number of events in his like before 1900 could have had an effect on him - to say nothing of this ancestors.

Yes I know it was the third and one I thought had most potential to become more extreme. Why I said that for the 3rd one it should be posted in post. A new thread was added there and several good ideas out forward to make Saudi Arabia make ISIS envious.
 
Top