The Arabian War

Matt Quinn said:
"Iran wouldn't just sit around for this either."

Aye. The Shi'a and Wahabis HATE each other; Iran's got some of bin Laden's associates (incl. one of his sons) and they're putting them on trial for various things. Iran would probably not think highly of a bin Laden Caliphate.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, but the Wahabi sect has so much power there that, for all intents and purposes, it's a theocracy. That's why you hear horror stories about girls being stuffed back into burning buildings for not being properly covered.

No, it's still secular. The government is run by a dynasty that has no religious position.

That Wahhabism is the dominant sect does not make it a theocracy. Most US states ban sodomy for religous reasons, that doesn't make the US a theocracy either. Likewise, the Queen is head of state and head of the Chruch of England, the official religion, but Britain is not a theocracy. Girls being stuffed into burning buildings is an extreme case that is a very rare occurrence; I might cite the bombing of an abortion clinic as a riposite - once again, a theocracy that doesn't make. To be one, there has to be a religious hierarchy in place and running things. The Vatican is a theocracy, and Iran is a (partial) theocracy; Saudi Arabia is not, it's merely an unpleasant place.
 
" might cite the bombing of an abortion clinic as a riposite"

Thing is, the bombing of abortion clinics are typically done by people who are OPPOSED to the government. The people stuffing the girls back into the burning buildings were the muttaween religious police--they were government employees who had the full coercive power of the state at their command.

"No, it's still secular. The government is run by a dynasty that has no religious position."

The al-Sauds and the Wahabi religious leaders have been operating in synergy since the 1700s. They depend on each other, plus members of the two familes (the Wahabis are a dynasty in their own right--the founder was a man named al-Wahab) intermarry. The dynasty views itself as the "strong arm" of the Wahabi sect.

"Most US states ban sodomy for religous reasons, that doesn't make the US a theocracy either"

There's a difference of scale here. Firstly, the sodomy laws are rarely enforced, or else there'd be probably millions in jail for it, plus religious-based US laws (unless you count prohibitions against killing, stealing, etc) are relatively few in number. The Saudis' unbelievably nasty and numerous "Islamic" laws (gender segregation, abuse of women who go out in public w/out tents or male relatives, abuse of Jews and Christians, beheading missionaries, holding American women hostage, etc) are enforced by a police-state apparatus that rivals, if not the KGB, possibly the old SAVAK.

The fact that the US State Department colludes in this (an American woman and her daughters being abused by Saudi husband were turned out of the US Embassy by Marines, who didn't especially like doing it) makes me almost physically ill.
 
Matt Quinn said:
" might cite the bombing of an abortion clinic as a riposite"

Thing is, the bombing of abortion clinics are typically done by people who are OPPOSED to the government. The people stuffing the girls back into the burning buildings were the muttaween religious police--they were government employees who had the full coercive power of the state at their command.

"No, it's still secular. The government is run by a dynasty that has no religious position."

The al-Sauds and the Wahabi religious leaders have been operating in synergy since the 1700s. They depend on each other, plus members of the two familes (the Wahabis are a dynasty in their own right--the founder was a man named al-Wahab) intermarry. The dynasty views itself as the "strong arm" of the Wahabi sect.

"Most US states ban sodomy for religous reasons, that doesn't make the US a theocracy either"

There's a difference of scale here. Firstly, the sodomy laws are rarely enforced, or else there'd be probably millions in jail for it, plus religious-based US laws (unless you count prohibitions against killing, stealing, etc) are relatively few in number. The Saudis' unbelievably nasty and numerous "Islamic" laws (gender segregation, abuse of women who go out in public w/out tents or male relatives, abuse of Jews and Christians, beheading missionaries, holding American women hostage, etc) are enforced by a police-state apparatus that rivals, if not the KGB, possibly the old SAVAK.

The fact that the US State Department colludes in this (an American woman and her daughters being abused by Saudi husband were turned out of the US Embassy by Marines, who didn't especially like doing it) makes me almost physically ill.

You are really exaggerating. You make it sound like there are people wandering around doing these things as a matter of course. You are describing exceedingly rare occurrances committed by extremists. Saudis are not particularly free from disobedience to Islamic law; there is a reason why Osama bin-Laden hates the Saudi regime - it's because Saudi Arabia has become a decadent and materialistic culture that ignores the Sheriat. And there is no state apparatus that even remotely resembles the ubiquity and power of the KGB or SAVAK. Where are you getting all this?
 
The SAVAK was ubiqituous? I chose them b/c they were second-rate compared to the KGB and the Gestapo.

Here're some links...

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/saudi.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...6534562/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-3178411-7442529

http://www.amnesty.ca/SaudiArabia/6.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books

http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/saudi.html

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/5.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books&st=*

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books&st=*

http://www.house.gov/lantos/caucus/TestimonyGreenwood060402.htm

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010310/2001031043.html

The "Princess" books are a collaboration between a Western woman and a member of the royal family (luckily for her, she's married a reasonably progressive/nice member of the dynasty). I imagine she knows what she's talking about.

The story about the woman and her children being turned out of the US Embassy by reluctant Marines comes from the Wall Street Journal. I don't have an online account @ www.wsj.com, so I can't supply a link for that one. One of the reviewers of Patricia Roush's book describes similar situations.

"are describing exceedingly rare occurrances committed by extremists"

I never said most Muslims in Saudi Arabia were extremists and, in a way, you're correct that these offenses are committed by extremists. Thing is, these extremists control the government and oppress everyone else. There's trouble brewing...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=485405

To be fair, though, the government HAS been making some reforms lately (democratic local councils, some of the people involved in the girls' school fire have been reprimanded, etc). However, they are still an unpleasant regime and although they may not technically be a theocracy (point conceded), there is a degree of religious influence in the gov't several orders of magnitude higher than in the US.

"there is a reason why Osama bin-Laden hates the Saudi regime - it's because Saudi Arabia has become a decadent and materialistic culture that ignores the Sheriat"

bin Laden's problem is with the al-Saud dynasty itself, which enforces a hyper-strict interpretation of Islam (more so than al-Qada itself...AQ has female operatives) and at the same time lives one of the most mind-blowingly decadent (prostitutes, drugs, etc) lifestyles a ruling caste has ever lived. They're the decadent, materialistic ones.
 
Now, an 1848-style uprising against all the various royal dynasties and military dictators orchestrated by bin Laden would probably involve lots of young folks...rioting in the streets and the like. The Middle East is experiencing a "youth bulge" (a large % of the popualace is below the age of 15 or so); in similar situations in the past, governments (Louis XVI and the Shah of Iran) fell.

Whether this actually succeeds in toppling the governments (at least for a little bit) depends on the military's committment. I think the uprising will fail in Syria; its military is experienced in that sort of thing (the 1982 Hama rising comes to mind). The Assad rulers are Alawite (the Alawite sect is a rather unorthodox branch of Islam widely denounced as heretical); they know that their people will be exterminated if they lose, so they'll fight to the death.

Jordan is tricky; it's close to Israel, so it would be easily for Israel to intervene a la 1970 to help prop up the Hashemites. However, 67% of Jordan is Palestinian and if al-Qaeda harnesses them, it'd be a LOONG, nasty affair.

What about the smaller Gulf emirates? The UAE, Qatar, and the like. Qatar is liberalizing...will they avoid the storm that hits their more repressive neighbors or will their more liberal laws allow terrorists more room to operate? I'm inclined to go with the first option, but I could be wrong. Oman likewise. I don't know much about the UAE; any experts there?
 
This might help

According to DK atlas of world history:

The following countries are "formally designated Islamic republics":
Iran
Pakistan
Afganistan
Pakistan
Mauritania
Comoros

The following countries are where the "established religion is Islam":
Morrocco
Algeria
Tunisia
Libya
Egypt
Sudan
Entitrea
Djibouti
Somalia
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Oman
Bahrain
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Maldives
Kuwait
Iraq
Lebanon
Bangladesh
Malaysia
Brunei
Indonesia

The following are "secular state where greater than 50% of the population is Muslim":
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Niger
Syria
Turkey
Albania
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikstan

The following are not on the above lists but are "members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)":
Guinea-Bissau
Sierra Leone
Burkina
Chad
Cameroon
Kazakstan

I think that's all.
 
Top