Wow, this was interesting to read, especially about your own experiences. But I am astonished about the inaccuracies of the religion section. It is almost like the author misunderstands fundamental concepts and distorts them through what I can only term as a "western" lens.
For example, you characterized the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence as "liberal" and the Hanbali school as "conservative". This is a completely inappropriate characterization of these schools and it makes a major mistake in equating them on spectrum of liberal to conservative (politically). They are orthogonal concepts.
As a brief explanation, in Islamic law (Shari'a), within the Sunni tradition of Islam there are 4 major schools of thought with regards to deriving rulings (these are called schools of fiqh, jurisprudence). All of these schools of thought accept each other as valid Islamically. They are named after the founders of the schools of thoughts, who all use the scripture (the Holy Quran), and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم peace be upon him and his companions. These schools differ in their application of methods to derive the sources of shari'a. For example, the Hanafi school is known to more heavily use Qiyas, or a type of legal reasoning by analogy, to derive rulings. Other sources of Shari'a come from what is known as 'urf, or custom of a particular locality.
To show why characterizing Hanafi as liberal and Hanbali as conservative is laughably incorrect. For example, many Hanafi faqeehs (experts in Hanafi fiqh) will consider the only seafood allowed to eat is fish. On the other hand, the Hanbali school considers fish, shrimp, crab, other seafood, etc. to be permissible to eat.
So to characterize one as liberal and the other as conservative, in general, is incomprehensible.
Next, you did not give the context of the rise of what you term Wahhabism [itself a term considered offensive to use as a pejorative by those on whom this term is applied: because al-Wahhab "the supreme bestower" is one of the names (attributes) used to describe God (Allah). Thus, to use a name of God as an epithet is considered offensive.] The rise of the movement of Abd al-Wahhab stems from the context of Arabia and Muslim practices at the time. At that time, Sufiism was the more officially influential "strain" of Islam, having been embraced by the Ottomans to an extent, and many people in this movement went to the extremes of grave worshiping, visiting shrines, and even praying to the dead for intercession. These are all practices that are outside the mainstream of Islam, but are described as having become more widespread in even Arabia and the Levant (Bilad ash-Shaam). It is in this context that Abd al-Wahhab's movement arises as a reaction. And it is a mistake to talk about Abd al-Wahhab's movement without mentioning the eminent Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who lived in the time of the Mongol invasions. But I digress for brevity.
Next, to talk about Saudi Arabia's modern history without mentioning the movements among the religious scholars is not giving proper context. For example, you did not mention the Sahwa (awakening) [1] movement among scholars, nor did you give the context of the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwaan Al-Muslimoon) and the Arab Spring, which is important to current Saudi religious clerics' attitudes towards dissent, democratization, etc. And it shapes how the Saudi government responds to these movements and those who went beyond the lines they set for them (for example the imprisonment of Salman Al-Awdah).
Next, you mentioned the claim by a cleric of geocentricity. But you are also misunderstanding the position of clerics with regards to fields they are qualified to speak about and the realm of their opinions. In their opinions they are not expert in, they can be incorrect just as an expert in history may not have authority to speak on physics. Actually you can find clips of the clerics deferring judgement of scientific facts to scientists; the authority the cleric speaks with is the evidence he brings from scripture and tradition. If a cleric says the Sun orbits the Earth, but new information comes to him, he can accept that as the realm of scientists while also upholding his own understanding from the evidences.
---
Also, I was hoping you would have a bigger section on foreign workers, because it is not simply "wage-slave" and "Saudi prince" in terms of the class structure of society. There is a rich parallel network of foreign nationals that operates under, around, and throughout the Saudi Arabian society. Anyone who has begun speaking to one of the foreign laborers in their native tongue will understand the concept of favors and advice given to one's own people.
For example, you characterized the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence as "liberal" and the Hanbali school as "conservative". This is a completely inappropriate characterization of these schools and it makes a major mistake in equating them on spectrum of liberal to conservative (politically). They are orthogonal concepts.
As a brief explanation, in Islamic law (Shari'a), within the Sunni tradition of Islam there are 4 major schools of thought with regards to deriving rulings (these are called schools of fiqh, jurisprudence). All of these schools of thought accept each other as valid Islamically. They are named after the founders of the schools of thoughts, who all use the scripture (the Holy Quran), and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم peace be upon him and his companions. These schools differ in their application of methods to derive the sources of shari'a. For example, the Hanafi school is known to more heavily use Qiyas, or a type of legal reasoning by analogy, to derive rulings. Other sources of Shari'a come from what is known as 'urf, or custom of a particular locality.
To show why characterizing Hanafi as liberal and Hanbali as conservative is laughably incorrect. For example, many Hanafi faqeehs (experts in Hanafi fiqh) will consider the only seafood allowed to eat is fish. On the other hand, the Hanbali school considers fish, shrimp, crab, other seafood, etc. to be permissible to eat.
So to characterize one as liberal and the other as conservative, in general, is incomprehensible.
Next, you did not give the context of the rise of what you term Wahhabism [itself a term considered offensive to use as a pejorative by those on whom this term is applied: because al-Wahhab "the supreme bestower" is one of the names (attributes) used to describe God (Allah). Thus, to use a name of God as an epithet is considered offensive.] The rise of the movement of Abd al-Wahhab stems from the context of Arabia and Muslim practices at the time. At that time, Sufiism was the more officially influential "strain" of Islam, having been embraced by the Ottomans to an extent, and many people in this movement went to the extremes of grave worshiping, visiting shrines, and even praying to the dead for intercession. These are all practices that are outside the mainstream of Islam, but are described as having become more widespread in even Arabia and the Levant (Bilad ash-Shaam). It is in this context that Abd al-Wahhab's movement arises as a reaction. And it is a mistake to talk about Abd al-Wahhab's movement without mentioning the eminent Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who lived in the time of the Mongol invasions. But I digress for brevity.
Next, to talk about Saudi Arabia's modern history without mentioning the movements among the religious scholars is not giving proper context. For example, you did not mention the Sahwa (awakening) [1] movement among scholars, nor did you give the context of the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwaan Al-Muslimoon) and the Arab Spring, which is important to current Saudi religious clerics' attitudes towards dissent, democratization, etc. And it shapes how the Saudi government responds to these movements and those who went beyond the lines they set for them (for example the imprisonment of Salman Al-Awdah).
Next, you mentioned the claim by a cleric of geocentricity. But you are also misunderstanding the position of clerics with regards to fields they are qualified to speak about and the realm of their opinions. In their opinions they are not expert in, they can be incorrect just as an expert in history may not have authority to speak on physics. Actually you can find clips of the clerics deferring judgement of scientific facts to scientists; the authority the cleric speaks with is the evidence he brings from scripture and tradition. If a cleric says the Sun orbits the Earth, but new information comes to him, he can accept that as the realm of scientists while also upholding his own understanding from the evidences.
---
Also, I was hoping you would have a bigger section on foreign workers, because it is not simply "wage-slave" and "Saudi prince" in terms of the class structure of society. There is a rich parallel network of foreign nationals that operates under, around, and throughout the Saudi Arabian society. Anyone who has begun speaking to one of the foreign laborers in their native tongue will understand the concept of favors and advice given to one's own people.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahwa_movement
For a medium-length but interesting introduction to Islamic scholarship: http://www.chriscaras.com/usul-fiqh/ijtihad/knowledge-schola...