Arab East Trilogy i: The Saudi State I was fervently discussing the Middle East with my father a week past and I was telling him of my suggestion that the Hijaz should be partitioned from Saudi Arabia. Now my father told me that an article propounding this very idea was published in the National Review. As such at the moment I am rather furious for not devoting enough time to my weblog! A propos when I am referring to the Arabic-speaking nations of the Middle East, I shall use the generic term “the Arab East*” for simplicity and clarity. Saudi Arabia is a nation that can be balkanised and partitioned successfully (check out table 6.4) without any negative fallout. The nations in the Arabian Peninsula are oft thought of as homogeneous polities, bounded by language & religion, however this perception could not be further from the truth. One must understand the dynamics of the Saudi regions in order to formulate a coherent solution to this pressing dilemma. Saudi Arabia is an artificial state cohered by oil and the imperial family however the imposed Wahabism is contributing to the dissolution of the nation. Western commentators maintain that since Saudi Arabia is suffering from widespread dissension the dynasty’s future is ephemeral. This analysis is flawed since the unrest is localised in the regions of Al Hasa, Asir and Hijaz. Nevertheless the pivotal Nejd region maintains an enduring loyalty to the Royal family. The historical dynastic seat of the Al-Saud Dynasty is and always has been Riyadh, which is in the Nejd region. This allegiance is reciprocated by the consistent partiality displayed by the Saud dynasty for the Nejdis. The Nejd is significant primarily because of three reasons, each compelling in its own right. It is at the geographic heart of the nation and through it Saudi Arabia is a contiguous state. Since the founder of the modern Saudi state, Ibn Saud, was of Nejdi origin this historic dynastic association will ensure the political significance of the Nejd. Finally Wahabism, perennially associated with Saudi Arabia & the Al-Saud dynasty, derives its roots from and predominates in the Nejd region. The Wahabi Ulema, which is in a position of favour with the Royal family and is the officially sponsored religious body in Saudi Arabia, is primarily comprised of Nejdis. Thus the monarchy in Saudi Arabia will never be thrown in a theocratic revolution al a Iran. As long as the Nejd heartland is loyal, the future of the Saudi state and Royal family is secure. America could only topple the Saud dynasty, if it wishes to do so, by a full-scale invasion since the Royal Family’s reaction to any successful revolution, in the periphery, will be to retreat to their impregnable ideological & historic heartland in the Nejd. Were the Al-Saud family to fall foul of America it can, as the keepers of the Holy Places of Mecca & Medina, bank on overwhelming pan-Islamic support to hinder any American efforts in the Middle East. The “Arab street” is a non-entity however Muslims consider Saudi Arabia to be the home of Islam and a sacred nation. Saudi Arabia’s sway over the Muslims of the world is significant and any hostile act towards it would unleash a frenzied reaction amongst Muslims, which would make their visceral hatred towards Israel seem almost benign. Thus Saudi Arabia’s threat is the “Mecca leverage” ! After all to rule the Hijaz is to control the heart of Islam. The Ottoman Empire itself derived its legitimacy as an Islamic Caliphate because of its possession of the Hijaz. The Hijaz contains the holy cities of Mecca & Medina and in its existence, as an ancient regional entity, has been the focal point of early Islamic history. It figures prominently in the minds of every Muslim for the footsteps of the Holy Prophet {PBUH} are scattered throughout the region. Hijaz is an independent entity from Saudi Arabia and is renowned for its cosmopolitanism. Jeddah & Taif (this city has a reputation for leisure & luxury that dates back to the days of the Holy Prophet {PBUH}) are two cities, which are liberal and host to a significant Levantine Arab (i.e. Lebanon, Palestine & Syria) diaspora. The incorporation of the Hijaz into Saudi Arabia is relatively recently dating back to 1924 when it was conquered by Ibn Saud. The formal union of the Hijaz and Nejd into Saudi Arabia followed in 1932 and as such the ties, between the two, are tenuous at best. The Hijazis are viewed with suspicion by the Saud Dynasty and are second-class citizens (with the Shi’ites forming the third tier) in Saudi Arabia. They belong to the liberal Hanafite School**, which is not fanatically inclined, as opposed to Wahabism where fundamentalism is de rigueur. The Hijazis are an annexed population and are restive under the Al-Saud dynasty. Indeed the Saud Dynasty has committed a blasphemous act unparalleled in Islam by not only conquering the heartland of Islam but even worse applying their own dynastic name over it. Nevertheless in the perception of the ordinary Muslim, Saudi Arabia and the home of Islam are indelibly linked into one seamless identity. The solution to this quandary is for America to subtly effect the secession of the Hijaz and install a member of Hashemite dynasty to reign over it. Anyone who suggests a Hashemite restoration in Iraq lacks a fundamental knowledge of the Arab East. The Hashemites were installed by the British in Iraq and Jordan*** and have no historical ties to the region. King Hussein had to evade countless coups & assassination attempts during his illustrious reign over Jordan whilst Baathist officers deposed his Iraqi cousin, King Faisal, in a brutal insurgency. However the Hashemites originally hail from the Hijaz and were the historic rulers of that region. If a direct descendant of Husayn Ibn Ali’s first son****, Ali, were to be found then the Hijazis would rally around him. A Hashemite monarch would ensure relative compliance to American interests and indeed one could foresee a putative Hijazi state as mirroring the foreign policy, social & economic development of Jordan. The Hijaz is not a source of great wealth and were it to become independent it would be entirely dependent on American aid in the initial years. The Islamic threat posed by Saudi Arabia would be nullified whilst the Hijaz would be restored to a sovereign independence that it has enjoyed from the earliest of times. The next region of critical importance is Al Hasa or the “Eastern provinces”. It is the oil-producing region of Saudi Arabia and Nejdi immigrants are swamping its Shi’ite population. Saudi Arabia is critically dependent on Al Hasa for its oil supplies and as such it is the jugular vein of the Saudi dynasty. My particular recommendation for this region will wait for now as there are many courses of action for this region. Al Hasa and its considerable Shi’ite population in-depth***** will be discussed in depth in the second and third posts of my trilogy. Asir, the third region, is a part of Yemen and was annexed by Ibn Saud. It is not prosperous and I believe that an overwhelming majority of the September 11 hijackers hailed from Asir. Fundamentally it would be better for all concerned if Asir were to be remerged in Yemen since they are in a similar phase of development. Asir only contributes to the instability of Saudi Arabia since dissatisfaction & fanaticism is most marked in this province. Ultimately any political solution of Saudi Arabia depends on the fate of the Hijaz since were it to secede than Asir would depart as well. The recourse for America could be to accept the status quo of Saudi Arabia and allow the monarchy to fight its own battle of survival. However were relations between America & Saudi Arabia to drift dangerously towards latent hostility then there would significant repercussions for the former as the latter successfully rouses the sentiments of the Islamic world. Borders are not sacrosanct and nations states function better if maladjusted regions were to secede. Saudi Arabia’s threat could be swiftly dealt with by a coercive and coherent American grand strategy vis a vis the Islamic Crescent that is formulated with an inherent familiarity of the Islamic world. *The Middle East is composite of distinct peoples and languages hence it is an artificial label. Were it not for the non-Arab nations of Iran, Israel, Kurdistan & Turkey (as well isolates such as Aramaic-speakers in Iraq & Syria or the Berbers in Egypt’s western border) ** Hanafism predominates in Pakistan, Central Asia, South Asia, Turkestan, and the former Ottoman territories. Founded by Abu Hanifa, a Persian Scholar in 8th century Abbasid Baghdad, it is the dominant School of Law with the largest following amongst Muslims. His tolerance is evinced by the following quote attributed to him and sometimes to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself, Difference of opinion within my community is Gods mercy. *** The Hashemites would have reigned over Syria were it not for the fact that the French was given the mandate over that region. The French summarily partitioned it into the present states of Lebanon and Syria, primarily to provide an independent & secure state for the Maronite Catholics, culminating in 1926 when these nations were bestowed with a republican constitution. **** Husayn Ibn Ali, founder of the Hashemite dynasty, had four sons who were Ali, Abdullah, Faysal, and Zayd. Ali, being the oldest, succeeded his father to become King of Hijaz in 1924 only to abdicate the following year because of Ibn Saud’s conquest of the region. Abdullah, the second son, became the King of Jordan (his grandson was Hussein, who was the much revered Jordanian monarch who passed away a few years ago) whilst Faysal spawned the Iraqi branch. ***** The Karmathian heresy has contributed to the Shi’ism of southern Lebanon, lower Mesopotamia, eastern Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf, excluding Iran. Shi’ism was a heterodox sect, primarily reserved for the disaffected (despite the proliferation of Iranian Shi’ite dynasties during the decline of the Abbasids and the Ismaili Fatimids), until the 16th century when the Safavids reinvigorated Shi’ism by making it the official dogma of Iran (indeed they had to import religious scholars from southern Lebanon for a theological defence of Shi’ism against the critiques of the traditional Iranian clergy). Nevertheless despite the Iranian Revolution Shi’ism has been a quiescent and relatively passive faith surprising given its prominence in Islamic history and future importance. I will also try in my following posts to reveal the myriad geopolitical trends underlying the resurgence of the Shi’ites as one of the dominant peoples in Islam. Notes: When I refer to Kurdistan I am implying a cultural\ethnic entity (which also includes the Zaza Kurds, the Lurs and their offshoot the Bakhtiari) that is a subset within a greater Iranian sphere, Iranica. The Karmathian heresy was primarily an uprising of the economically marginalized segments in Islamic society. Intriguingly is that it is considered to be an Islamicised version of a Mazdikite sect, an Iranian religiophilosophical proto-communist movement which propounded egalitarianism and communalism, which is indicative of the subtle primordial Near Eastern influences on Islamic theology. The Islamic Crescent denotes the great swathe of nations ranging from Morocco to Indonesia (with some notable exceptions such as India, Israel & South East Asia) which are Islamic in character. Fundamentally the vagaries of geography have ensured that such a formation is a close approximation of a Crescent (visualise the Sahel coursing northward through to North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan and then sloping southward to South Asia & South East Asia), which is a sacred symbol in Islam. My father sardonically suggested just now that the region should rather be called the “Crescent of Instability”. Posted 26th August 2002 by Zachary Latif
Posted on: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:28:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015