Saudi Crown Prince Sultan has died

[Precious Star]

We should be clear about a few issues. Waleed Ibn Talal, a member of the Saud Family, has admitted Saudi Arabia was a British creation. Documentary evidence from British archives show the first king in the current Saudi State, King AbdulAziz (also known in the West wrongly as Ibn Saud) received a regular stipendiary from the British treasury from 1914 until the 1920s. British arms were supplied from the 1920s and even the RAF was used in the same decade against rebels.

Regular meetings between British intelligence members, political negotiators and memoirs of Gertrude Bell, William Shakespeare [not the seventeenth century famous playwright], Harry St John Philby and Thomas Edward Lawrence provide dates, describe resolutions adopted by both parties, orders given by London for assault on garrisons and cities held by the opponents of King AbdulAziz and demands made on the Saudi monarch in return for additional weapons, further political recognition and support.

Declassified documents from British archives also show King AbdulAziz was given advanced notice of London's desire for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. King AbdulAziz was made aware that the timing of his attacks on his adversaries reflected strengthening British positions in the First World War against the Turkish Caliphate's forces in Palestine. While British forces would engage with the Turkish army away from the Arabian Peninsula, King AbdulAziz was instructed to begin his siege of strategic cities. The documents show he only launched his invasions of territories held by the allies of the Turks or the Caliphate itself only when given the orders to do so.

The documents also show King AbdulAziz was informed Palestine would be divided and some of it would be allocated to the Jews.

Yes but this discussion goes nowhere. Many, many muslim countries were once "British states" in the manner you have described (I don't know if you cut and pasted from another text or if you wrote this yourself). We are obsessed with origins. I think the more relevant question is - what type of state is Saudi Arabia currently? I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[Abu Juwairiya]

Yes but this discussion goes nowhere. Many, many muslim countries were once "British states" in the manner you have described (I don't know if you cut and pasted from another text or if you wrote this yourself). We are obsessed with origins. I think the more relevant question is - what type of state is Saudi Arabia currently? I think we all know the answer to that question.

True, many Muslim countries were once 'British states', but ask yourself this question, how many claim to have to had Shariah at the outset and originated through their own efforts because of Taqwa and the struggle to implement and Islamic State. Only one other comes to mind; Pakistan and that has never had Shariah but at least they are honest in that aspect of history.

In reply to your other questions, I summarised information from the following sources- 'The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud', 'The Creation of Saudi Arabia' and 'The Birth of Saudi Arabia'. The words were my own. Second, I am afraid I disagree with one of your points,

'What type of state is Saudi Arabia currently'.

The origin says a lot about the current and future ideological perspective and State aspirations. If it was founded on something other than Islamic Shariah, what is the likelihood, the same administration will change to an Islamic one. If there was hostility to start with in both legislation in print and implementation in deed to Shariah then what are the prospects the same State will embrace it later. I am afraid the only manner change will come is from a State that espouses and actually enshrines it both constitutionally and in reality for all to see.

You say we are obsessed with origins. I can agree in part. If Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia specifically were created by European empires, it goes without saying they will be supported against those who want to replace it with something better and less pro-European. Would you not agree? If countries emerged through their own efforts (i.e. independence wars) there is a greater chance they will be less attached to the 'mother country' so to speak and may take a different course to the direction of the former colonial empire.

As to what countries like Saudi Arabia are like today, let me ask you this, what it is like today has it ever been different to the present day and if so how and finally do you think if it has never changed, it is ever likely to do so in the future?

My reason for speaking about origins earlier, is specifically based on this point. Governments based on one extreme of the spectrum do not suddenly change to the other side. In this case, opposition to Khilafa, opposition to Shariah law in its entirety (and not in part) and opposition to a united Ummah based on Divine Sovereignty alone (and not on Saudi sovereignty) was not what the Saudi State desired in 1932, in 1952, in 2012 and will not want in 2022. It will not change even in a hundred years and you can use the past to judge the future if the government is the same, especially a dynasty like Saudi Arabia.