![Does ta’wīl mean interpretation or fulfilment? A Quranic reassessment [+video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Tawil-Kaskas-360x180.webp)
By PROFESSOR JUNAID S AHMAD
Saudi Arabia’s claim that it intercepted an Ansarallah drone near Makkah raises a question beyond the disputed facts: where does protection of Islam’s holy places end and the political interests of the Saudi state begin?
There are few political tricks more effective than wrapping the interests of a state in the sanctity of God.
Saudi Arabia now says that its air defences intercepted an Ansarallah drone south of Makkah before it entered the Holy City’s restricted airspace. Ansarallah denies targeting Makkah or any Islamic holy site. The factual dispute matters enormously. But so does the political reflex the accusation immediately activates: once Makkah enters the sentence, Saudi national security is invited to disappear into Islamic sacred geography, as though the kingdom, the monarchy and the Haram were three names for the same thing.
They are not.
The Ka’bah is sacred. The House of Saud is a ruling family. Confusing the two is not reverence; it is political theology with excellent public relations.
This distinction becomes particularly important because Riyadh’s present predicament is no longer confined to Yemen. Ansarallah has demonstrated an ability to impose serious costs on Saudi territory and infrastructure, while the kingdom faces pressure on energy routes connecting the Gulf, the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandab. Saudi Arabia possesses infinitely greater wealth, vastly more expensive weapons and decades of Western military support. Yet the uncomfortable lesson of Yemen has survived every procurement cycle: power is not synonymous with inventory.
A fighter jet can be purchased. Political purpose cannot.
That is the contradiction haunting much of the Arab political order. The region possesses enormous arsenals, American bases, European aircraft, missile batteries and intelligence services sophisticated enough to follow a dissident’s telephone halfway around the planet. Yet when Palestine became the central moral catastrophe of contemporary Arab consciousness, the gap between accumulated military capacity and political willingness became impossible to ignore.
The resulting crisis is not simply about military effectiveness. It is about credibility.
States survive partly through coercion, but durable political authority requires a story about why coercion is legitimate. Ansarallah’s regional significance therefore cannot be understood merely by counting missiles or measuring territory. Its importance lies in the comparison its actions have generated: between wealthy governments that speak endlessly of Palestine and an impoverished Yemeni movement willing to absorb extraordinary punishment while presenting its military activity as part of a wider confrontation over Gaza and regional power.
Photo: Khaled Abdullah
One may disagree with that strategy. But the comparison exists, and monarchies cannot bomb comparisons.
Saudi Arabia confronts an especially severe version of this problem because it claims something more elevated than ordinary sovereignty. Its monarch does not merely govern a country. He bears the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
That title is not decorative Arabic calligraphy. It is a moral claim.
And moral claims generate moral liabilities.
Custodianship, in the Islamic vocabulary, is an amanah: a trust. A trustee does not become owner of what he guards. He becomes more accountable because he guards it. The holy places therefore cannot logically function as diplomatic body armour for the political authority administering them.
The Ka’bah preceded the Saudi state by more than 13 centuries. It survived caliphates, sultanates, dynasties, Sharifs and empires. The permanence belongs to the sanctuary. The governments come and go.
This is why the instinctive fusion of “Saudi Arabia is under attack” with “Islam’s holy places are under attack” deserves intense scrutiny whenever the evidence itself is disputed.
Not because an attack on Makkah would be trivial. Precisely the opposite. Its enormity requires that the allegation never become a rhetorical shortcut through which ordinary geopolitical conflict is instantaneously transfigured into a civilisational emergency.
The stakes are heightened by the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement signed in August by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye. Its collective-defence clause declares an armed attack on one state to be an attack on all three. Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has said attacks on Saudi Arabia could engage the pact, although Islamabad subsequently clarified that no military response had been discussed.
Here the language surrounding Makkah becomes politically consequential.
“Pakistan may become involved in another Saudi-Yemeni war” is one proposition. “Pakistan must defend the Ka’bah” is another. The first invites questions about strategy, legality, national interest and the catastrophic history of Yemen. The second arrives wearing sacred vestments and dares the audience to interrogate it.
That does not establish that Saudi Arabia fabricated anything. Evidence, not suspicion, decides factual questions.
But sophisticated political analysis does not require proving conspiracy before examining incentive.
Governments frame wars. They select vocabulary. They elevate some facts and suppress others. They convert interests into principles and contingencies into moral absolutes. This is politics before it is Saudi politics.
What makes the present case unusually combustible is that the symbolic resource being invoked is not nationalism but the sanctuary towards which nearly two billion Muslims pray.
And that brings the argument back to Yemen.
You may also want to read
The Saudi-led intervention beginning in 2015 became inseparable from years of civilian death, displacement, hunger, damaged infrastructure and humanitarian collapse. Whatever strategic explanations accompanied the intervention, its human consequences belong permanently to the record.
That record sits uneasily beside the grandeur of custodianship.
There is something almost obscene in reducing Islamic piety to an efficiently administered pilgrimage while treating the ethical universe surrounding the pilgrimage as optional. Hajj is not a Muslim spa weekend. The point is not merely to complete the rites, enjoy excellent air conditioning and return spiritually refreshed while history burns conveniently beyond the hotel window.
The most radical visual argument in Hajj is precisely its equality.
King and labourer enter ihram dressed alike. Wealth disappears beneath two pieces of cloth. Rank becomes ridiculous before God. The entire ritual architecture humiliates the conceit that money and political power confer superior human worth.
Which makes the modern political paradox difficult to miss.
A monarchy may administer the ritual expression of radical human equality while presiding over an intensely hierarchical political order. A state may call itself guardian of Islam’s universal sanctuary while measuring security through dynastic survival. And a government may present threats to its strategic infrastructure as though every missile launched towards the kingdom somehow carries coordinates for the Ka’bah.
But Aramco is not the Ka’bah.
An oil pipeline is not Masjid al-Haram.
A royal court is not a sacred precinct.
And no dynasty becomes eternal merely because history temporarily entrusted it with the keys.
That may be the most important distinction revealed by the present crisis. The question is not which political faction deserves sanctification. None does.
The question is whether custodianship means ownership or accountability.
Islam’s answer to that question is considerably older than Saudi Arabia.
And considerably more dangerous to kings.
Prof Junaid S Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan. He is a member of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Movement for Liberation from Nakba (MLN), and Saving Humanity and Planet Earth (SHAPE).
