So they finally turned off the life-support systems for King Fahd. But not until the man formerly known as Crown Prince (now “King”) Abdullah had gotten a few of his ducks into a row by putting his own person (Prince Turki bin Faisal) into the ambassadorial post in DC, etc.
Abdullah is 81. The new “Crown Prince”, as expected, is Sultan bin Abdel-Aziz, 77. There’s a bunch more sons of Abdel-Aziz who could stake their own claims to the throne in turn… But the “rising stars” of the next generation are already in their mid-to-late 60s; and I would imagine they’re probably getting even more impatient than Britain’s Prince Charles.
The succession system is so complex for two reasons: (1) Abdel-Aziz and many other Saudi “princes” have always had a truly dynastic/political view of marriage and childbearing. Abdel-Aziz married scores of times, taking wives from different tribes and different parts of the kingdom in an attempt to lock all those families and regions into his political system. (Also, to indulge himself.)
And (2), the Saudis don’t have a system of primogeniture; plus, the ruling “kings” haven’t done a very good job of having all their younger brothers and half-brothers murdered to ensure that power sticks in their own immediate line. (Please note that I am not actually advocating interpersonal violence here. This is simply a reference to a famous episode in British royal history.)
I’ve learned a bunch of stuff about Abdullah over the years, but I don’t really know what to conclude about the “political prospects” raised by his succession at this point. In a very real sense, the Saudis’ bizarre system of rule by massive oil-rent payola allied to Wahhabism is in deep, deep trouble right now anyway, regardless of which extremely aged “prince” takes over.
I was, however, disturbed to learn from this AP story that, “Abdullah has married more than 30 times and usually keeps four wives at a time, as allowed by Muslim law.”
My God, it’s pathetic. In this day and age??? That there’s someone coming into power there who still thinks of women only as chattels, sexual playthings, and vessels for his projects of dynastic reproduction?
It occurs to me that the Saudi “princes”, as a whole, have ways too much disposable income. (Like all their good friends in the US oil industry.) All very depressing…
38 thoughts on “King Fahd RIP”
Comments are closed.
Well, if Abdullah’s 81, he will not be there all that long.
By the way, Abd al-Aziz Al Sa’ud (Ibn Saud) did not have “scores of wives”. He had 378. Over the 44 years of his reign (1908 to 1952), he must have married 8 times a year, though I suppose some of the wives must have dated from before his rise to power. He even built a kilometre square city at Riyadh to accommodate them all, called al-Murabba’ (though only the palace where he died still survives). Naturally four at a time.
It’s another world, nothing to do with today, though I am sad to hear that Abdullah is perpetuating the old tradition.
On the system of succession, what tends to happen in Arab history is that after the reign of a successful ruler, as Ibn Saud undoubtedly was, all the sons succeed one another until there are no more left, before passing to the next generation. You can see this happening in the history of the medieval caliphs.
I would think there are quite a few sons of Abd al-Aziz still to go, and I suppose the youngest must be around 55 (he died in 1952). I see the new crown prince is another son of Abd al-Aziz.
Saudi Arabia is a very traditional place, at least in the halls of power.
This is such non-news. The crisis in Sudan over John Garang’s death, the outrageous appointment of John Bolton. Those news stories are so much more important. Fahd? He’s been a non-entity in his government for 10 years now, with Abdullah being the real ruler. Fahd’s actual passing then seems totally meaningless.
that there’s someone coming into power there who still thinks of women only as chattels, sexual playthings, and vessels for his projects of dynastic reproduction
Yah, this is what we talk all about all the time this stupid regimes in the entire gulf.
Not just the men in this family think as you put it, it
That’s pretty funny, Salah.
Alastair,
“Abd al-Aziz Al Sa’ud (Ibn Saud) did not have “scores of wives”. He had 378. Over the 44 years of his reign (1908 to 1952), he must have married 8 times a year
Can you tell me how many Girlfriends you got?
This is the funny things when you talking, many westerns they just using this to blame Islam allowed 4 wives as a bad thing!
In fact its not, look to yourself and your society, How many Girlfriends the men had in their lifetime even they married. Also how many Boyfriends the women had in their lifetime?
Before talking without knowledge please go and read the conditions set by Islamic Law how you marry more than 4 women and why?
I agree these kings and Princes they are just sex machines like your president Bill Clinton, but its more customs and habits things the use it to do it in name of Islam.
“after the reign of a successful ruler, as Ibn Saud undoubtedly was, all the sons succeed one another until there are no more left, before passing to the next generation. You can see this happening in the history of the medieval caliphs.”
Yah brought to the power by British colonial and secured by US, that what we got not like what you said. They are good ruler because they give you oil either free or less than market prices, I can not confirm this.Their are now in US $800 Billion dollars from Saudi money, they good and are cool !!!!.
Mr Salah,
Equating the four wives that Islam either allows or recommends with having multiple girlfriends over a lifetime is a weak analogy. Did you really mean it? There is no need to defend the indefensible. The main objection is about women equality, an American woman can also have multiple boyfriends. Can a moslem woman marry four husbands?
My idea of the American model comes, paraphrazing Woody Allen, when he is told that the secret is to marry two blondes. Allen replies “Myself I prefer three blondes, but it is hard enough to find one…”
Q
Mr Salah,
Equating the four wives that Islam either allows or recommends with having multiple girlfriends over a lifetime is a weak analogy. Did you really mean it? There is no need to defend the indefensible. The main objection is about women equality, an American woman can also have multiple boyfriends. Can a moslem woman marry four husbands?
My idea of the American model comes, paraphrazing Woody Allen, when he is told that the secret is to marry two blondes. Allen replies “Myself I prefer three blondes, but it is hard enough to find one…”
Q
”The main objection is about women equality”
We saw the US human right and freedom in Abu Grab , also the Quality for men and Women their in Abu Grab in Iraq you should ashamed to say all these Democracy, freedom and Women equality. We got sick of these meaningless talks.
Please could you go and read about women rights in Islamic law, you will find more respect for women from what you believe.
Yah brought to the power by British colonial and secured by US
salah, the UK didn’t bring Ibn Saud to power. the UK had far stronger ties and gave far more money and arms to his rival hussein ibn ali the hashemite ruler of the hejaz. and abdulaziz’ rule was thoroughly consolidated before oil was ever discovered there in 1938.
1. Islam does not “recommend” four wives. On the contrary, the recommendation is to have just one.
2. There is nothing in Islam that prevents a woman from remarrying if she is widowed or divorced.
They are good ruler because they give you oil either free or less than market prices
Salah, are you unaware that the Saudis instigated the crippling oil embargo of 1973 (which sparked a US recession) and have been among OPEC’s worst price hawks?? Do you realise that oil is a global commodity with prices set on the open market?
And ARAMCO has been completely nationalised since 1980 (oil’s historical peak.)
“Salah, are you unaware that the Saudis instigated the crippling oil embargo of 1973 (which sparked a US recession)”
So, did you read Al- Bush war book? Did you read what the Saudis did at that time?
Tell me US and Europe put embargo of technology food export and other thing against countries not follow their Ideology , we are owning the oil and you embarrassed and fell Unger if we us it?
Where is the Justas? Tell me what the double standard you holding to treat people around the world?
Look what U S did in Iraq? Do you a shamed that the biggest power attacked a small country, it like you holding kid and punish him to show the others your power?
UK didn’t bring Ibn Saud to power. the UK had far stronger ties and gave far more money and arms to his rival hussein ibn ali the hashemite ruler of the hejaz.
You are not quite right, Britt
Salah, I can’t understand much of your reply. My remarks have not concerned Iraq, but Saudi Arabia.
“For 13 years (I can say more) the oil prises were $10-$15 a barrel, ”
This is incorrect -oil has been over $25 many times since 90- and Im not sure what it’s meant to prove. the current high price of oil has nothing at all to do with Iraq (which wasnt producing very much before the war and isnt producing much now.) It is due to China’s vast oil consumption and diminished production capacity worldwide. Current prices if anything reveal how powerless the Saudis and OPEC are nowadays to control prices; they are pumping all they can pump, selling every drop and it isnt making any difference.
(http://www.energybulletin.net/4746.html ‘OPEC SAYS ITS LOST CONTROL OF OIL PRICES’)
And ARAMCO is completely nationalised. The reason so many Americans (and Asians) work there is because Saudi Arabia lacks the broad expert technical base of these regions; engineers, geologists, petroleum economists. oil price policy is set by OPEC, and Saudi Arabia has for decades been hostile to the US in this context. Note the career and policies of Ahmed Yamani, oil minister during the 60s and 70s. Saudi Arabia has earned (and misspent) billions from ARAMCO, and shares its profits with no other country.
re ibn saud I’m sure you know already how little the US had to do with anything Saudi pre-1938. The UK for its part was viewed with great suspicion by the al saud which is exactly why US companies obtained its concessions (until they were taken away in the 70s). the only UK intelligence officer to have any close contact with abdulaziz (shakespear) was KIA years before statehood.
More importantly, the criticism that the US meddles with Mideast nations is not helped by the criticism that it has not done ENOUGH to control the use of Saudi oil revenue, enough to shape internal Saudi policy or the shape of its government. These criticisms (“and we will ask no questions about what you do with the cash.”) are incoherent.
“It is due to China’s vast oil consumption and diminished production capacity worldwide.”
vadim, you forgot the Iraqi war consumptions for the oil all the military and logistics movement of the military ships and airplane all other thing to support the war.
The World oil production per day 80Million Barrel/Day, 60Millions of it from ME.
Adding the problem in Nigeria crated fear and panic for oil companies this problem in Nigeria it quiet understandable the government corrupted and the nation suffered from environmental polluted by oil companies hunger jobless and more just please read more about Niger which almost same in all oil countries there is interest in oil but the peoples of that country suffers.
In regard to the revenue that Saudi made it from Oil you don
Mrs Shirin,
The idea of equality is that if Islam allows a man to be simultaneously married to four wives, then a woman should be allowed to be simultaneously married to four husbands. No more no less.
Is that possible in Sharia ruled countries, or does it result in the stoning of the woman?
Quest
Quest ,
In Christianity drinking Alcohol I believe not allowed, adultery not allowed , you not questioning these think with religions I don
The World oil production per day 80Million Barrel/Day, 60Millions of it from ME.?
under 20 million barrels are from the mideast, only 8 from saudi arabia.
regarding arms sales: the saudis did not have advanced weapons systems in their conflict with Israel. their purchases throughout the 80’s and 90’s were a response to unfriendly relations with Iraq and Iran. The UK sold more weapons to Saudi Arabia from 1985-89. But US arms sales have contracted significantly since 2001, as France (MBDA, eg) , China even russia vie for Saudi business (the Chinese and French have each sold advanced missile systems to SA.) also Russia see:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/10/043.html .
Ultimately Saudi Arabia runs a substantial trade surplus with regard to the United States, including all weapons (and civilian aircraft) sales. They export 3 times as much to the US as they import. These oil revenues continue to subsidise SA’s lavish social welfare programs, desalinization projects and other public works. Unfortunately they also subsidise a lot of wastefulness and corruption.
And yet no US-Saudi commercial relations are coerced; all (even the most corrupt) are vulnerable to international competition. The US has no monopoly on greedy arms salesmen. And it remains a stretch to claim Saudi Arabia is a puppet or colony or other figment of US imperialism. The political structure -and problems- of Saudi Arabia are home grown. Were the US to embargo Saudi Arabia altogether the saudis would still be stuck with the same royal family they had since the 1920’s, and the US would go right on buying all their oil through intermediaries (just as it did during the embargo!). The Saudis then would continue to squander much of their oil wealth on Russian and French and Chinese arms systems, and allowances and perks for 5,000 princes. much of this revenue would continue to flow to religious extremists. there is no obvious solution to this issue that I can see; what is yours? how do you see ‘regime change’ taking place in Saudi Arabia?
Quest,
I daresay the overwhelming majority of women find one husband at a time quite more than enough, and have no desire for the “equality” you find so important. By the same token so do most Muslim men find one wife at a time quite sufficient, and feel no need to add to their troubles by taking on additional ones.
However, I would recommend that instead of making fatuous arguments based on 21st century concepts, you consider the Islamic allowance of up to four wives in the historical and social context in which it originated. I also would recommend that you learn about and try to understand the requirements, and limitations placed on this allowance.
How do you see ‘regime change’ taking place in Saudi Arabia?
Leave to us otherwise if you like do it will be like Iraq Saga.
There are many attempted to overthrown studies and all smashed using massive military machinery which never seen in Arab Wars with Israel, by the way they had F4E, F16 fighters, I don
“In short the money from the oil in these countries, it
Mrs Shirin,
I am with you when you hint that more than one husband may be more a punishment than a benefit :). Imagine four mother in laws!!! Four TV remotes!!!
Quest
Dear John C,
Thanks
This in fact translation from some Iraqi saying it might not accurate but I am glad that you got it.
But my apology for my BAD English.
I don
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/world.html
salah here is a comprehensive database detailing US arms transfers to Saudi Arabia. You’ll see that by far the most expensive arms sales are associated with aerial defense systems like the f-15, whose only conceivable use would be defending an invasion from Iraq. You’ll note as well that US arms sales to Saudi Arabia have contracted sharply over the past 10 years. And its the Saudis spending their own money; you can’t say “hands off the Mideast” and simultaneously complain about US’ responsibility for Saudi profligacy!!!
re; “paranoia” – there is nothing paranoid about concern for terror inspired by religious fundamentalists and funded by Saudi Arabia. If there were an international terrorist movement operating under the banner of christianity I would denounce it as loudly. The threat posed by Korea may be larger than that posed by al qaeda, but I don’t personally know anyone killed by any North Korean agency recently. it is far more likely that my city should be attacked {again} by radical islamic fundamentalists than bombed by north korea. The threat posed by terrorists is most severe for Muslims and Arabs, for as long as there are bombings in London, New York, Bali, Spain, Africa and elsewhere there will be broad US support for military intervention in the Mideast, arms to Israel etc etc.
aerial defense systems like the f-15, whose only conceivable use [to the Saudis] would be defending an invasion from Iraq…
Vadim, as a Quaker I’m opposed to all arms production, all arms sales, all arms profits and profiteering, and especially all use of arms. But as a professional strategic analyst I have to tell you that what you wrote there is plain nonsense. Iraq hasn’t had an air force (to be defended against) for the past 14 years. Iran and Israel– to name just two– most certainly have. Try thinking a bit before you write, maybe?
Helena as a strategic analyst you’re well aware that fighter aircraft are used for far more than merely defense against other fighter aircraft. But you are right that I was sloppy in my expression: Iran and Israel might certainly be included, though i doubt an Israeli charge on riyadh is now or was ever in the offing (whereas such an Iraqi offensive was well within imagination.) Iran’s Chinese-manufactured air force is indeed formidable and I should have mentioned them alongside Iraq and Israel. Certainly Saudi Arabia has not been the only country in the region to arm itself to the teeth, nor has the US been the sole vendor.
Correction:
Iran’s Chinese-manufactured air force
should read:
Iran’s Chinese-, French- and Russian-manufactured air force
since we seem to be sticklers for comprehensiveness.
The way I see it, is that the tribal lands of Arabia were up for grabs, the oil fields meant power and growth for the West. The Saudis came out on top, after much intrique. Here in the US we historically had low gas prices. In the 70’s the embargo sure affected our consumption. People were conscious of their consumption. But, gluttony won out, Pres. J Carter told us that oil was a finite resource. He encouraged solar, wind i.e. alternate sources of power. We know that he was not taken seriously.
Even today, in US no one of authority is explaining or telling US population that the oil glut is over. There are serious contenders for consumption now. I feel bad for all Oil rich countries that squandered their riches on the ruling classes or corporations. Our world has had many chances of addressing the real issues of humanity, but war and political intrigue always wins out. Maybe people think global equality equals a boring world, but it would be just the opposite!
The way I see it, is that the tribal lands of Arabia were up for grabs, the oil fields meant power and growth for the West. The Saudis came out on top, after much intrique. Here in the US we historically had low gas prices. In the 70’s the embargo sure affected our consumption. People were conscious of their consumption. But, gluttony won out, Pres. J Carter told us that oil was a finite resource. He encouraged solar, wind i.e. alternate sources of power. We know that he was not taken seriously.
Even today, in US no one of authority is explaining or telling US population that the oil glut is over. There are serious contenders for consumption now. I feel bad for all Oil rich countries that squandered their riches on the ruling classes or corporations. Our world has had many chances of addressing the real issues of humanity, but war and political intrigue always wins out. Maybe people think global equality equals a boring world, but it would be just the opposite!
vadim, “Why did you post this comment, since you seem to disagree with its implications?”
You misunderstand my post (link) I posted to show you US playing games in ME with regimes. It
“Abdullah is 81. The new “Crown Prince”, as expected, is Sultan bin Abdel-Aziz, 77.”
— according to Simon Henderson, senior fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “both men are lying about their ages” and that they are in fact older (Sultan, he claims, was born in 1924 making him 81)…the point is that neither reign figures to be lengthy and he compares the immediate future in Riyadh to the Brezhne/Andropov/Chernenko geriatricy period in Moscow.
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL15608891
Hammurabi,
I read the article you referenced with interest. Yet, I didn’t find it very convincing. Apart of the age of the protagonist, there was no other element offered to compare the situation in Saudi Arabia with that in Soviet Union. Given the bad opinion that the neocons and right wingers had of the USSR, the question is whether they are just trying to link the Saudi regime with a bad image or not.
The article also point to the gape between generations, foreseeing potential problems and a near crisis younger people. Well, it’s nothing is impossible, but it would be more convincing if the author had also taken in account the deep respect people of other cultures have for aged persons ? If he had shown why that would not work anymore. Isn’t all that somewhat ethnocentered on Western cultures where it becomes shameful to be aged ? where any fifty something is supposed to look and act as if he was 15 years younger ?
“The al-Qaida phenomenon arose out of the first war on Iraq; arose out of the occupation of Jerusalem and the killing of the Palestinians”
Galloway says
Friday August 5, 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1543291,00.html
Salah 9/11 was conceived in 1998 during an unrivaled period of Israeli-Palestinian detente. Al Qaeda’s ambitions include the re-appropriation of East Timor as well as many other retrograde social and political goals. None of the 9/11 bombers are Palestinian. Why on earth would you want to associate your own political objectives with theirs, especially the most creditable ones? Why would you draw favorable attention to ANY portion of their program?
Try thinking a bit before you write, maybe? The more you struggle to find decent motives for them, the more questionable your own valid and just concerns seem.
Christiane,
CC: Hammurabi
FYI, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a “think tank” that was founded and is funded and staffed by and for the benefit of AIPAC, whose sole purpose is to promote Israeli interests and spread Israeli propaganda. Anything resembling accuracy or balance in their reports is purely coincidental.
I’m sure Shirin is about to explain how AIPAC and/or Israel stands to benefit from the revelation that Saudi royals lie about their age.