OK, so you don’t think that the West asked Saudi Arabia to manage their religious extremists after 9-11. I guess that everybody missed that 19 out 20 hijackers were Saudis, led by Saudi bin Laden, preaching the Saudi strain of islam. Also, the Holy Land Terrorism Trial results never registered with any Western government, and the whole US judicial system (up to and including the Supreme Court) has been completely misled in allowing the victims of the 9-11 attack in suing the Government of the KSA for damages.
On the Sunni side of islam, there are four main schools of jurisprudence (figh), used to make the legal judgements which define sharia - Hanafi (like the Ottomans), Maliki (like North Africa), Shafi (like Indonesia), and the smallest of them, the Hanbali (centered in the Government of Saudi Arabia).
The extreme Hanbali interpretation of the Wahabbis, also happens to be the exact religious doctrine of ISIS, al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
To hear the Saudis tell it, the islam that they so generously promote, is the the pure authentic version, back to its roots, as founded.
The Hanbali fiqh is not based on that at all - it is entirely based on literal reading of a small select set of writings from long after the death of muhammad, guided by rigid application of arbitrary rules of interpretation, explicitly disallowing any logical analysis or moral judgement.
Significant among the rules of Hanbali “interpretation” is their assumption that any later verse, statement or action supersedes any conflicting earlier verse, statement or action - and that after their scriptures cut off, things can never change again for the rest of history, in any other circumstances. (although they deny any interpretation, insisting that they only read the texts as literally written).
So muhammad’s earlier concilliatory statements when he lacked power and was trying to recruit voluntarily (like “there shall be no compulsion in religion”) are replaced with his later statements while commanding an army of conquest (like “I have been commanded to fight against all people until everyone accepts allah”).
The Saudi royal family, under the extremist wahabbi interpretation, have the religious obligation to continue the fight until all accept allah as god.
...And so they have. See this detailed thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924323/posts
OBL declared war on the Saudi Royal family in his fatwa. He wanted to kill them because they worked with the US and allowed them in the Kingdom.
The extreme Hanbali interpretation of the Wahabbis, also happens to be the exact religious doctrine of ISIS, al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.
There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).
It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.