He’s 28, a Prince and Representing a Kingdom: Meet Washington’s Newest Ambassador

[Saif al-Arab]

A prince is becoming your country's ambassador in the twenty first century. And you don't even feel a little bit of shame?

What is the problem exactly? Almost all monarchies in the world (whether in Europe, Asia or Africa) use their princes as representatives or occasionally as ambassadors as in this case. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. The prince in question is a highly capable person with profound ties to the US. The country that he will serve as an ambassador in.

Most of our ambassadors are civilians BTW but it does not matter the slightest as they are usually chosen based on their capabilities and networks in country x or y.

What has this to do with "shame" exactly?

its a proper monarchy, what do you expect... plus ksa has thousands of prince..

House of Saud has around 15.000 members but only a handful have real influence and power. Moreover only the descendants of Ibn Saud (the ruling branch) are entitled to succeed the throne. Most of the House of Saud members (without political power and without much wealth) are only honorifically styled "highness" as a sign of respect. As are other dynastic families.

BTW there are several dozen former dynastic families in KSA and 100's upon 100's of noble families and hugely influential tribal/clan families. Let alone the tribal element where every tribe and clan has a Sheikh that is entitled to honorific titles and given respect as well as influence (de facto).

The House of Saud only gained power and only retain it due to the backing of all those influential families (dynastic, noble, tribal). Oaths were given initially and are renowned whenever a new ruler (monarch) or crown prince is named.

You can see that when Ibn Saud unified modern-day KSA he choose to marry with almost 60 women from influential families (including former ruling families) in order to consolidate his power in a vast country like KSA with many different historical regions.

I must tell you that there are clan and tribes in KSA that yield more power than the House of Saud does in theory and in everyday life events and their local communities.

Arabia has always been a hierarchal and traditional society where kinship and ancestry have played and continue to play an important role. That is why Arabs are the people (in particular Arabians) who on average can trace their family trees the most extensively and the furthest back. This was already known in the ancient world and Middle Ages (Arabs putting great emphasis on genealogy that is).

Even if KSA stopped being an monarchy and suddenly turned into a republic, what I told above will still play a role. Just like it does in most Arab countries, including non-monarchies. A good example is neighboring Iraq and Yemen. Once, not that long ago, monarchies (like throughout all of recorded history).

In fact I even believe that many people would prefer an elective monarchy where an capable monarch from an influential family would be elected for life or for a certain amount of time. Having a presidency would just not fit into our psyche let alone history, I feel. It's boring as well and does not have the same aura/respect as a monarchy.

 

[livingdead]

What is the problem exactly? Almost all monarchies in the world (whether in Europe, Asia or Africa) use their princes as representatives or occasionally as ambassadors as in this case. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. The prince in question is a highly capable person with profound ties to the US. The country that he will serve as an ambassador in.

Most of our ambassadors are civilians BTW but it does not matter the slightest as they are usually chosen based on their capabilities and networks in country x or y.

What has this to do with "shame" exactly?



House of Saud has around 15.000 members but only a handful have real influence and power. Moreover only the descendants of Ibn Saud (the ruling branch) are entitled to succeed the throne. Most of the House of Saud members (without political power and without much wealth) are only honorifically styled "highness" as a sign of respect. As are other dynastic families.

BTW there are several dozen former dynastic families in KSA and 100's upon 100's of noble families and families. Let alone the tribal element where every tribe and clan has a Sheikh that is entitled to honorific titles and given respect as well as influence (de facto).

The House of Saud only gained power and only retain it due to the backing of all those influential families (dynastic, noble, tribal). Oaths were given initially and are renowned whenever a new ruler (monarch) or crown prince is named.

I must tell you that there are clan and tribes in KSA that yield more power than the House of Saud does in theory and in everyday life events and their local communities.

Arabia has always been a hierarchal and traditional society where kinship and ancestry have played and continue to play an important role. That is why Arabs are the people (in particular Arabians) who on average can trace their family trees the most extensively and the furthest back. This was already known in the ancient world and Middle Ages (Arabs putting great emphasis on genealogy that is).

Even if KSA stopped being an monarchy and suddenly turned into a republic, what I told above will still play a role. Just like it does in most Arab countries, including non-monarchies. A good example is neighboring Iraq and Yemen. Once, not that long ago, monarchies (like throughout all of recorded history).

In fact I even believe that many people would prefer an elective monarchy where an capable monarch from an influential family would be elected for life or for a certain amount of time. Having a presidency would just not fit into our psyche let alone history, I feel. It's boring as well and does not have the same aura/respect as a monarchy.

any chance of a tl;dr? there is no chance am reading this wall of text even if you threaten to bomb my village..

 

[Saif al-Arab]

any chance of a tl;dr? there is no chance am reading this wall of text even if you threaten to bomb my village..

Well, if you do not want to learn something new, this is your own choice. I cannot force you but it is worth a read if you want to know something about the topics that I have raised.

Here is an example of an older tribal sheikh giving bay'ah in person to MbS when he was officially appointed as the Crown Prince.

Another thing there are Majalis in every single place where humans live (large cities, medium-sized cities, small cities, villages, mountain villages, desert villages, sleepy coastal villages) which serve as small local parliaments where representatives from all layers of the society are kept updated and have a voice in all the most important matters that are to be taken in their communities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis

In this sense KSA is very much an "tribal" (not the meaning that you think it has or associations to African or Amazonian tribes - no disrespect to them BTW) country and many outsiders are ignorant of what that entails. They thing that the House of Saud can do whatever they please. This is not the case. There are some clearly defined societal borders that they cannot cross and if they do they risk losing their power.

 

[livingdead]

Well, if you do not want to learn something new, this is your own choice. I cannot force you but it is worth a read if you want to know something about the topics that I have raised.

Here is an example of an older tribal sheikh giving bay'ah in person to MbS when he was officially appointed as the Crown Prince.

Another thing there are Majlis in every single place where humans live (large cities, medium-sized cities, small cities, villages, mountain villages, desert villages, sleepy coastal villages) which serve as small local parliaments where representatives from all layers of the society are kept updated and have a voice in all the most important matters that are to be taken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis

there is little chance of learning when I dont trust your take on political affairs of ksa... you are an insider not neutral observer, no offense. I have no such issues when learning cultural aspect of arab civ.

 

[bsruzm]

How old was Alexander the Great when he conquered the world? or Ali ibn Abu Talib (RA) when he fought the fiercest enemies of Islam? ...etc, the examples throughout history are in the thousands if not more ..

 

[Saif al-Arab]

there is little chance of learning when I dont trust your take on political affairs of ksa... you are an insider not neutral observer, no offense. I have no such issues when learning cultural aspect of arab civ.

Everything that I wrote can be verified by sources (I provided a few already and even a video) and every knowledgeable native as well as knowledgable non-native. There is no sugar coating as I merely described the historical and current ground realities. If you reread my two posts you will notice that.

In fact I am quite sure that Westerners have written about those topics in English. So you can make your own research if you don't believe me.

Besides I struggle to see what I have to gain by "lying" about the influence of hierarchy in KSA (Arabia as a whole and also the Arab world) and the influence of former dynastic and noble families as well as influential clans and tribes and their representatives. Let alone the function of majlis in KSA or that KSA in many ways is a "tribal" society and thus its people have a much more direct interaction with the power circles and decision makings than for instance a person in Iran or North Korea or in many cases even in Western countries.

This is not exclusive to KSA but as I told is a common topic in the Arab world. In Iraq for instance, tribes and clans yield a tremendous political, social and economic influence and it is common for tribes to even do justice on their own whenever they commit a crime (say a murder against a rival clan) in order not to start a conflict. Or their monopoly of land, businesses in many areas.

Influential tribes/clans in the Arab world are basically like the aristocracy in the UK who still retain a lot of land, vast estates, have influence in the society (high-circles) and have (whether the average people like it or not) some political influence even to this day. Let alone much economic power.

Nothing shocking or surprising about that, really.

In Russia pre-1917 this class was composed of the Russian aristocracy. Today this is composed of oligarchs and families that have close ties to Putin (since 2000 before it was Yeltsin). During USSR it was people (communists) and their families in power. This story will repeat itself forever. No different in India, so you should know, where there were even more dynasties that once ruled or at least as many as in the Arab world. They still retain much influence. As do landlords in Pakistan for instance. This is even the case in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families

In the West (Western US in particular all those states that have Spanish names originally and to this very day) some of the largest ranch owners are descendants of pre-American (pre-US foundation) Spanish settlers who to this very day speak in an old-fashioned Spanish that even Spanish linguists have been studying. Anthony Bourdain once visited them and he made a program about them.

 

[Javad]

You can see that when Ibn Saud unified modern-day KSA he choose to marry with almost 60 women from influential families (including former ruling families) in order to consolidate his power in a vast country like KSA with many different historical regions.

60? Did Ibn Saud have more than 4 wives at any given time?

 

[Saif al-Arab]

60? Did Ibn Saud have more than 4 wives at any given time?

At the same time, no. In theory you can divorce your 4 wives and remarry another 4 and so forth. If you got the money that is which was not lacking in the case of Ibn Saud. Besides, have in mind, that this was 100 years ago where the times were different. Moreover, as I said, most of those marriages were political in the sense that the goal of the House of Saud (in this case Ibn Saud) was to marry with daughters of influential families (including former ruling families) in order to consolidate his power in a vast country like KSA with many different historical regions. This way the families of once previous ruling dynasties, were assured of having some sort of influence, despite losing militarily.

This was done by most dynasts of that time and previously. In fact in Europe too an dynastic royal marriage was often with a foreign princess in order to enhance ties with other countries ruled by royal dynasties.

The Shah of Iran from the Qajar dynasty (proven to be of a Semitic and not Turkic ancestry by a recent DNA test) also married (5-6 times the women that Ibn Saud did) numerous women in order to do the same - consolidate the power of his dynasty.

Fath Ali Shah is reported to have had more than 1,000 spouses.[17] He was survived by fifty-seven sons and forty-six daughters, along with 296 grandsons and 292 granddaughters.[2]

A book published in England in 1874 provided different numbers:

"It is believed that Fetteh Ali had the largest number of children ever born to a man. Like a pious Mohammedan, he had only four wives, but his harem generally contained from 800 to 1000 ladies. By these he had 130 sons and 150 daughters, and it is believed that at the time of his death his descendants numbered five thousand souls. The three grandsons who merit notice were the sons of Hussein Ali, the governor of Fars, who aspired to the throne. The princes, Riza Kuli Mirza, Nejeff Kuli Mirza, and Timour Mirza, were at Shiraz when their father attempted to seize the throne. They were able to make their escape from the city."[18]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fath-Ali_Shah_Qajar#Marriage_and_children

Sorry, I was wrong. The number of wives of Ibn Saud was 22. Not 60.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descendants_of_Ibn_Saud

Anyway MbS (the crown prince) only has one wife. Polygamy is not very common in KSA any longer beside it being expensive and complicated for the most part. BTW even if he had say 4 wives, that would not make him a worse person or a better one for that matter. However I would be impressed if a person with so many obligations could handle 4 wives at once! In particular Arab ones. That's another topic.

 

[war&peace]

Wow...how lucky to be born in Arab royal familly man...

Well, when you have thousands than the value of each individual decreases and people can't even remember their faces and names and only one of them would become the king and...
Personally I would never wish to be one of the princes or I will just initiate my business and move away from petty politics.

60? Did Ibn Saud have more than 4 wives at any given time?

Shariah rules are for common people. Saudi kings are absolutely exempted rather they can bend shariah to suit their needs (though nothing such is allowed in the religion) and Muhammad ibne Abdul al-Wahab Najdi provided them the religious cover.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Well, when you have thousands than the value of each individual decreases and people can't even remember their faces and names and only one of them would become the king and...
Personally I would never wish to be one of the princes or I will just initiate my business and move away from petty politics.



Shariah rules are for common people. Saudi kings are absolutely exempted rather they can bend shariah to suit their needs (though nothing such is allowed in the religion) and Abdul al-Wahab Najdi provided them the religious cover.

98% of all princes and princesses in KSA have no political influence whatsoever nor great wealth.

As for you last part of your post, this is with all due respect complete and utter nonsense.

Read post 16, 18, 21 and in particular post 23.

There is nobody named "Abdul al-Wahab Najdi".

The respected Sunni Hanbali Sheikh went by the name Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rashid al-Tamimi.

 

[war&peace]

At the same time, no. In theory you can divorce your 4 wives and remarry another 4 and so forth.

yeah let's abuse the institution of marriage ... marry-divorce-marry again... what a joke!!! We can fool everyone but not our Creator.

Besides, have in mind, that this was 100 years ago where the times were different.

I guess the shariah was same 100 or even more years ago.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

yeah let's abuse the institution of marriage ... marry-divorce-marry again... what a joke!!! We can fool everyone but not our Creator.


I guess the shariah was same 100 or even more years ago.

Why is it a joke? Who are you to judge that? You can legally be married to 4 women at a time. Divorce is also legal. Besides you obviously did not read my posts, in particular post 23. Common practice for dynasts and in particular ones cementing their power/influence.

Besides you can marry as many women (as long as the number does not exceed 4 at the same time) and divorce as many as you like (in theory). However the same conditions apply as if you only had 1 wife and surely Ibn Saud was able to fulfill those conditions seeing that all children from all his marriages were taken care of as well as the wives.

You are confusing this with harems. Or mistresses. There was no such thing. It would be suicidal for both parties involved (Ibn Saud and the mistress/es) as well as their families and reputation.

Prophet Muhammad (saws) married 13 women throughout his lifetime in case you do not know.

 

[war&peace]

Why is it a joke? Who are you to judge that? You can legally be married to 4 women at a time. Divorce is also legal. Besides you obviously did not read my posts, in particular post 23. Common practice for dynasts and in particular ones cementing their power/influence.

As I said we cannot fool our Creator. We very well know that divorce is allowed but in the worst conditions when husband and wife cannot live together anymore and there is a whole procedure. Not for you to exploit and use it as a legal cover for temporary marriages (adultery). You can't make divorce as a regular feature occurring at regular interval. That's debauchery.

 

[Khafee]

98% of all princes and princesses in KSA have no political influence whatsoever nor great wealth.

As for you last part of your post, this is with all due respect complete and utter nonsense.

Read post 16, 18, 21 and in particular post 23.

There is nobody named "Abdul al-Wahab Najdi".

The respected Sunni Hanbali Sheikh went by the name Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rashid al-Tamimi.

Shiekh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was also a student of Shiekh Muhammad Hayat Sindhi, and we all know where Sindh is.

Regards

 

[war&peace]

Moreover, as I said, most of those marriages were political in the sense that the goal of the House of Saud (in this case Ibn Saud) was to marry with daughters of influential families (including former ruling families) in order to consolidate his power in a vast country like KSA with many different historical regions.

I see so those were political marriages...okay and how did the families felt when their daughters got divorced after a regular interval with a baby inside their wombs? Did it still strengthen their bond with him?