WILL PRMITIVIST RELIGIONISM DESTROY THE WORLD?

Many scholars-- or at least pop versions of scholars-- claim that the Clash of Civilizations between Muslims and the rest of the world (primarily Christians and the Israel they nurtured in the midst of the Muslim heartland) can be traced to primarily one event, or, rather, one non-event. Unlike Christianity, the Muslim faith never went through a Reformation. They've had schisms, of course-- the Shi'a split from the mainstream Sunni being the biggest and most dynamic-- but the Islamic world never underwent the kind of fundamental examination and realignment of their faith the way Christianity did, starting with Martin Luther in 1517.

The concept of an Islamic Reformation has taken a giant step backwards after being championed by thoroughly discredited Neocon schemers like Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pipes, who proclaimed its virtues while plotting the invasion of Iraq. But if you divorce the concept from Bush's War of Terrorism, the Neocon movement, and the blatant Islamophobia raging in the U.S., you still have an idea whose time... may be coming.

About 10 years ago I read Why I Am Not A Muslim by "Ibn Warraq" (a pseudonym for an Indian-born, Pakistani-raised, American-residing author). His work promotes secular humanist values among Muslims-- something Bushites just love for Muslims but absolutely abhor for Christians-- and is generally viewed as a frontal assault on the legitimacy of the faith. You can imagine why he uses a pseudonym, lives in the U.S. and keeps the lowest of profiles.

Ibn Warraq, an elegant and engaging writer, has also been arguing for the reformation cause, although few if any Muslims are willing to take him seriously. Today's Washington Post carries a story by Saudi-based Post writer Faiza Saleh Ambah, in the religion section. It never actually mentions a "reformation" but its subject, a Saudi scholar named Khalid al-Dakhil, may make an actual impact in the Muslim world. Dakhil seeks to re-write Saudi history in a way to include not just the authoritarian monarchy and fundamentalist Wahhabi sect that controls religious life-- widely defined-- but also the Saudi people.

After decades of research and a doctoral thesis on the history of the Wahhabi movement, Dakhil came up with an answer [to the question of how the Wahhabi clerics had come to wield so much power]. The clerics had inherited their power from Wahhab. The fiery, puritanical preacher had been instrumental in catapulting the House of Saud ahead of others vying for power at the time and became an influential and trusted partner in the first Saudi state. That alliance between the ruling family and the clergy continued down the generations, with the Wahhabis eliminating all other doctrines, taking charge of education and enforcing their strict brand of Islam in mosques and schools.

The religious connection also gave the Saud family legitimacy to oversee Islam's holiest places.

Dakhil's findings offer a new reading of the Wahhabi movement that contradicts the official narrative and could lead to a reduction of the clergy's power. Wahhab was inspired by politics as much as religion, Dakhil said, and he used religious discourse to further his political aim of creating a state in central Arabia, then composed of dozens of city-statelets under the Ottoman sphere of influence.

A more accurate historical reading, which would decrease the role of religion and highlight the political context, should reduce the clout of the clergy and give ordinary Saudis more of a say in how the country is run, Dakhil said.

"Rewriting the history would be a trigger to widening the political system's basis of legitimacy to include not only the religious institute and the ruling class," said Dakhil, 54, an assistant professor of political sociology. "The political formula should involve the people as well."

Dakhil's work, laid out in a series of articles published in November and December, was the first attempt by a Saudi-based scholar to revise the prevailing religious account of the birth of Saudi Arabia.

By mainstream Muslim standards of his time, Wahhab used an extremist interpretation of Islam-- and particularly jihad, or holy war-- to rally people around the first Saudi state. He castigated those who did not believe in his interpretation, declaring local emirs and the Ottoman Empire infidels. The concepts were later used by the Saud family to conquer new territory. But that Wahhabi doctrine came back to haunt the royal family when it inspired armed militant groups, such as al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, to label them infidels and wage war against them.

Dakhil has been censored, fired, banned but his writing gets out via the Internet and has been widely discussed in Saudi intellectual circles. The very act of discussing forbidden topics like the royal succession and the role and legitimacy of Wahhabist doctrine, are earthshaking in Saudi Arabia. But the professor still had his head attached to his neck, a promising sign that something might happen some day-- despite the Wolfowitzes and Pipeses.