The House of Saud’s dominion over the Arabian Peninsula, consolidated into the modern state of Saudi Arabia, is often presented as a testament to their enduring tribal strength and religious fervor. However, a persistent counter-narrative challenges this official history, positing that the ruling family’s claim to the land is illegitimate, rooted in usurpation rather than genuine entitlement. From this critical vantage point, the House of Saud is viewed not as the rightful custodians of the sacred lands, but as a sold-out tribe that bartered away profound religious responsibilities for the temporal allure of oil wealth and Western allegiance.
The assertion that the House of Saud "stole the land from Saudis" stems from the violent and often brutal campaigns of conquest that characterized their rise in the early 20th century. Rather than a universally accepted succession or a popular mandate, their expansion involved the subjugation of various tribes and regions, including the Sharifian rulers of the Hejaz, who had long held custodianship over Islam's holiest sites. Critics argue that this was a forceful appropriation, dispossessing indigenous communities and traditional leaders of their ancestral domains, thereby invalidating any claim of inherent entitlement. The creation of a centralized state under the Al Saud, therefore, is seen less as an organic unification and more as an imposition through military might and strategic alliances.
Furthermore, the accusation that the House of Saud "sold the caliphate for oil" speaks to a deep historical grievance among those who believe the family abandoned a higher religious calling for worldly riches. The early 20th century witnessed the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate, a symbolic center of Sunni Muslim unity. While various factors contributed to its demise, the rise of powerful regional actors, including the Al Saud, occurred in parallel with the discovery of vast oil reserves in the Arabian Peninsula. Critics contend that rather than striving to uphold or revive a broader Islamic authority, the nascent Saudi state, bolstered by burgeoning oil revenues, entered into pragmatic relationships with Western powers. These alliances, forged for economic and strategic gain, are seen as a betrayal of Islamic principles, prioritizing material prosperity and political survival over the spiritual unity of the Ummah. The immense wealth generated from oil, facilitated by Western companies, allowed the House of Saud to consolidate its power, build modern infrastructure, and suppress internal dissent, further cementing a rule perceived by some as having sacrificed religious ideals at the altar of petrodollars.
The narrative challenging the legitimacy of the House of Saud is multifaceted. It posits that their claim to the land is a product of forceful conquest rather than inherent right. Moreover, the argument holds that their strategic alignment with Western interests and their unparalleled pursuit of oil wealth represented a profound deviation from, and a selling out of, the historical and spiritual responsibilities associated with leadership in Islam, particularly concerning the legacy of the Caliphate. From this perspective, the foundation of the modern Saudi state is seen not as a divine right or popular will, but as a historically contested act of acquisition driven by temporal power and economic expediency.