Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation?
Not a good idea. The Middle East has had a succession of "enlightened" despots who attempted to rid their countries of Islam. Islam is not just a faith for these people, it's a way of life, so well entrenched in the social fabric that all these rulers managed to do was to inflict even worse human rights violations and galvanize the population against the demon West.
You have to let them find their own way. It may take them a few hundred years, but eventually their society will slowly pry open. The external threats to their way of life will have to cease, as long as they feel like they're under attack by the West, they'll just cocoon off and just not allow any influences in.
Probably the best thing that could happen in this regard is a permanent collapse in oil prices, though that would likely cause a lot of people to starve. Things would get a lot worse for them before they get better. I read an article recently about how the Saud family is trying their hardest to prepare for a post-oil world.
> Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation?
Because colonialism. Europe brought industry to the rest of the world at the point of a gun. An excellent book to read on this topic is Fields of Blood by Karen Armstrong.
http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence...
[1] https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/Was-Mustafa-Kemal-Atatu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
the Middle East is the way it is because we (NATO et al) dicked about repeatedly.
Iran is like it is, because we overthrew a democratically elected government to install the Shah. (operation AJAX)
Iraq is bollocksed because we gave arms to them to fight Iran in a war that turned religious.
Saudi Arabia is the way it is because there is an alliance between the US promising full military protection in return for oil.
Libia is fucked because we helped overthrow a dictator, pumped in arms and then left a power vacuum.
Syria is in shit because its a proxy war with russia, iran, SA, Qatar and "the west". We've all been pumping arms into there and wonder why its turned into a shitshow (yes, ISIS are driving around in armoured cars that we, the UK bought for them, they were the rebels yearning for democracy)
There are more, but its too depressing to right.
The main take away is that our interventionism is nothing to do with freedom, religious or otherwise. its to do with influence. We want a government that we can control.
That's a good question, to which I don't know the answer, but I would guess that it is @ least partially due to do w/ an authoritarian monarchy that came to power by aligning itself w/ religious fundamentalism:
> The emergence of what was to become the Saudi royal family, known as the Al Saud, began in Nejd in central Arabia in 1744, when Muhammad bin Saud, founder of the dynasty, joined forces with the religious leader Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi movement, a strict puritanical form of Sunni Islam. This alliance formed in the 18th century provided the ideological impetus to Saudi expansion and remains the basis of Saudi Arabian dynastic rule today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Before_the_founda...
Why won't they?
At least in many parts of the Middle East, family and religious values are held in high esteem (they're part of the religion and culture).
Electric cars and alternative fuels?
The ruling class is held afloat by oil. The people that would otherwise be itching for "freedom" are either held in check by state oppression or the direct proceeds of oil. All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS) are a direct result of both oil, and the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, promising that the US won't invade, and SA will continue to pump oil.
The Saudis ruling are literally the family that give everyone else a bad name. (although Qatar and Kuwait are very close)
Turkey is a democracy and is liberal, However they are not Christian, so they have different values. They also have three active wars on 40% of its borders.
The solution is stopping giving them money, arms and other interventions.
Ah. People (particularly NY Times readers) see the words "muslim" and "extermist" and they automatically assume it must be Saudi funded, even if the conclusion makes no sense in the given context.
ISIS is the biggest challenge to the Saudi's rule of the peninsula in years. If anyone is going to support them it would be anti-saudi religious extremists looking to overthrow them. There are many groups operating in Syria which could be clients of the Saudis. ISIS is not one of them. It makes no sense for them to do so.
edit: rephrasing
Saudi Arabia spent a long time getting the US to attack syria. Also Al-quaeda is/was a bigger threat, because it came from within, it started out as a jolly adventure for a low ranking Saudi Noble.
ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9
The main difference is that ISIS show a flair for video editing of their medieval punishments. Something the Saudi state does behind closed doors.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-su...
They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/p...
When they gave up on getting us to attack them they tried a different tact:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-th...
In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.
That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots)
>>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.
Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them.
>ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9
For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...
The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense.
The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.
Time, mostly. Rolling in with tanks in the hope that locals will take up freedom and Coca-Cola hasn't met with resounding success in the area.
But there are some tentative moves by the ruling despots to grant a little bit more autonomy to women. And I expect that many in the younger urban generation start chafing under the current system. Eventually, the liberals may manage to get some influence.
And for non-citizens, it's their choice.
You should better strive to fix USA, UK and Japan, because they actually serve as beacons for the rest of the world.