Saudi Counter Revolution?

I was reading the comments at Captain's Quarters and came across this little gem by Stephen Schwartz about Saudi Royal Family Politics. The only politics that counts in Saudi Arabia at this time.

"Funding for the Sunni insurgency (sic) comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia." This was the first time anybody connected to the U.S. government acknowledged something known throughout the Muslim world. That is, Sunni terrorism in Iraq is not an insurgency, but an invasion; the "foreign fighters" are mainly Saudi, as revealed when their deaths are covered in Saudi media, replete with photographs of the "martyrs."

But this obscure comment was overlooked by most of the MSM, which is also befuddled by the recent sudden departure of Ambassador Turki al-Faisal from his post in the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington. The MSM and a large part of the American government scratch their heads, barely capable of imagining that the revelation of the Saudi financing of Sunni terrorists in Iraq and the resignation of the kingdom's man in the U.S. would have anything in common.

Actually I don't blame the MSM at all on this one. I was familiar with the two facts and didn't make a connection. However, my understanding of Saudi politics and the various factions does not go very deep. Which is why I depend on guys like Schwartz to connect the dots for me. Which he does.

Yet they are linked. Liberal reformers in the milieu of Saudi King Abdullah point out that Abdullah has called for an end to sectarian fighting in Iraq and has demanded that Shia Muslims no longer be called unbelievers by the Wahhabi clerics that still function, unfortunately, as the official interpreters of Islam in the Saudi kingdom. Abdullah has promised to spend $450 million on an ultra-modern security fence along the Saudi-Iraqi border. Ambassador Turki, it is said, supports Abdullah in these worthy goals.

But King Abdullah and the overwhelming Saudi majority, who want to live in a normal country, are opposed by the Wahhabi-line faction in the royal family. The pro-Wahhabi clique is led by three individuals: Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz, minister of defense; Prince Bandar, predecessor of Turki as ambassador to Washington; and Sultan's brother, Prince Nayef. Nayef is notorious for having been the first prominent figure in the Muslim world to try to blame the atrocities of September 11, 2001 on Israel. He is deeply feared both inside and outside Saudi Arabia for his extremism.

Saudi sources indicate that King Abdullah is assembling his forces for a decisive confrontation with the reactionaries. Part of the Wahhabi-line strategy is to depict a U.S. leadership in conflict with King Abdullah, to undermine the monarch's credibility. That is why different versions of a meeting between U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and King Abdullah, late last month, circulate in the MSM and the blogosphere.

According to credible reports, Cheney urged Abdullah to stiffen action against Saudi-Wahhabi involvement in the Iraqi bloodletting. According to unreliable gadflies, King Abdullah commanded Cheney's presence, to demand that the U.S. immediately attack Iran. But the claim that King Abdullah summoned and berated Cheney does not ring true. King Abdullah is too polite, and Cheney does not take such orders, according to those who know both men.

Many leading clerics and intellectuals among Sunni Muslims indicate that King Abdullah has effectively told the Wahhabis that they will no longer receive official subsidies, and must end their violent jihad around the world. The greatest impact of this development may be seen in Iraq, but Wahhabis everywhere have begun to worry about their future. In a totalitarian system like Wahhabism, the weakest links snap first. And the beginning of the end for them may now be visible in the Muslim Balkans.

This is truly amazing news if true. A lot of folks in the first year after 9/11 learned a lot about the Wahhabi version of Islam. We thought something must be done.

The the lack of howling condemnation of Israel in the past summer's Lebanon escapade (until well into the conflict and not very howling) was a big surprise. At the time I thought it was just a Sunni vs. Shia bit. However, it may have been a signal to and a sign of alliance (covert) with Israel of the anti-Wahhabists.

This could be the biggest coup of the war if it comes about.

I'd say that there are realists in Saudi Arabia who know that the oil will not last forever and that a real economy will be required for the people of the kingdom to survive in the future on anything but alms. Which is to say they do not wish their people to wind up like the Palestinians.

Schwartz has more. He discusses how the Balkan muslims may make that area a Wahhabi free zone.

In October 2006, imam Dzemo Redzematovic, leader of the Slavic Muslim minority in newly-independent Montenegro denounced the Wahhabis for "introducing a new approach to Islamic rules [that] is unnecessary and negative because it creates a rift among the believers" and "claims some exclusive right to interpret Islamic rules."

This sounds almost like the Protestants vs. the Catholics. Except that Islam has been fragmented and adapted to local customs since the death of Mohammed. What the Wahhabis haver attempted with Saudi oil money is similar to the Pope trying to assert control over all Christianity.

Professor Resid Hafizovic of the Faculty of Islamic Studies of the University of Sarajevo is not happy with the Wahhabis, not happy at all.

Hafizovic identified the Wahhabi trail of blood traced through the past decade "Recognizing it as a continuation of the inferno in Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Palestine, the most powerful civil and religious authorities... should immediately take responsibility for preventing the hell Wahhabis are constructing in this country."

The Palestinian Civil War may be the loudest advertisement against jihad the west could make. You will wind up on welfare, fighting for scraps.