style="font-size:15px;"> Within Islam, the rules of engagement and conduct of war have been established by over one thousand years of scholarly interpretation and precedent. According to the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, warfare is the domain of the state and can only be authorized by the executive of an established government [37: 124]. . . . Mainstream scholars are unequivocal, “The rules of Islam are clear. Individuals cannot declare war. A group or organization cannot declare war. War is declared by the state. War cannot be declared without a president or an army. . . . Otherwise, it is an act of terror” [22: 2].14
Gonzalez-Perez’s representation raises many of the key issues pertinent to this book, particularly whether there can ever be an objective interpretation of religious texts and social phenomena like Wahhabism, and the key role political prejudices plays in the sense-making process. The issues regarding the objective interpretation of texts is something I want to explore more in the next section when I examine the work of scholars making sense of Saudi school textbooks.
Saudi School Textbooks and the Problem of Translation
There is a group of Western scholars that includes Eleanor Abdella Doumato and Michaela Prokop whose representations of Wahhabism are based on their translations of Saudi Arabian school texts written in Arabic.15 They see these as having been influenced by Wahhabi religious ideology. Doumato and Prokop have studied these texts, searching for evidence of anti-Western sentiments and extremist ideas with the aim of establishing whether or not there is a relation between the kingdom’s school curriculum and modern Islamic terrorism. Saudi school texts have been the focus of much criticism. For example, in his witness testimony to the US Senate’s enquiry into terrorism financing (the same hearing in which Dore Gold testified), executive director of the Investigative Project, Steven Emerson, criticized passages he found in Saudi school texts that were distributed in the United States with “the full imprimatur of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”16 He stated:
I refer to the curricular used in grades 4 through 11, but let me just cite a quote from the 7th grade class Book 5. The book says, “‘What is learned from the Hadith?’ and teaches, ‘The curse of Allah be upon the Jews and the Christians.’” Grades 8 through 11 continue to emphasize the notion and piousness of the jihad, and in grade 11 it warns against taking the Jews and Christians as friends or protectors of Muslims.
I think this, unfortunately, helps develop a whole generational mind-set that leads to terrorism, noting that terrorism is really the culmination of indoctrination and recruitment. Much of that indoctrination is entirely legal, with terrorism being the violent, illegal expression ultimately and representing the culmination of the indoctrination and recruitment.17
Those at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have long made it their mission to ‘reveal’ to the world the hate and violence promoted in Saudi textbooks. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, MEMRI has consistently published “special dispatches” claiming that Saudi textbooks are portraying Jews as animals and eternal enemies of Muslims.18 MEMRI claims Saudi textbooks are inciting violence towards Jews and are encouraging its readers to understand the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a microcosm of an overarching war between Muslims and Jews.19 MEMRI TV has also documented the global spreading of these Wahhabi-infused textbooks, showing for example teachers using Saudi Education Ministry textbooks in remote villages in Africa.20
Since 9/11 MEMRI has gained public prominence for its news and analysis of events in the Muslim world. It distributes its reports and translations to members of the US Congress, policymakers, journalists, and academics and its articles have been routinely cited in the US mainstream media, including the New York Times and Washington Post. MEMRI claims to be independent, nonpartisan, and not-for-profit. Critics have accused it of having a pro-Israeli bias, deliberately misleading readers, especially with regards to translations of Arabic texts, and highlighted its links to the neoconservative movement.21
Neither Doumato nor Prokop, whose representations of Wahhabism rely on translating Saudi textbooks, are Marxist intellectuals. However, their studies certainly parallel arguments made by prominent Marxist scholars like Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci that education is a key ideological apparatus able to be used to impose particular beliefs and values on a society.22 Doumato’s understanding of Wahhabism is primarily based on her interpretation and analysis of religious texts produced by the Saudi state and prescribed for Saudi students in grades 9 through 12. She finds that these texts have the ability to promote hostility against non-Muslims, encourage exclusivity among Muslims, and inspire violent jihad. Doumato writes:
Hostile messages there are, but the mood of these texts is less hostile than overwhelmingly defensive. . . . They claw with self-doubt, conjuring up enemies, real and perceived, who are not only at the gates but inside themselves. Looking at the texts alone, the message in the religion curriculum is that “we Muslims are under siege, and it is the duty of every single one of us to man the barricades.”23 [emphasis added]
Like Doumato, Prokop’s representation of Wahhabism in part relies on her English translation of Arabic religious texts used in the Saudi education system, which she claims are “heavily influenced by the Wahhabi ideology.”24 Prokop’s analysis is focused on school textbooks for secondary school grades 1 through 3. She posits that there could be a link between Wahhabism and violence. She also claims these texts occasionally promote intolerance and sometimes incite hatred. However, they are often coupled with contradictory messages about peace and tolerance between people of different faiths. Prokop writes:
The content of the official textbooks is heavily influenced by the Wahhabi ideology. Teaching about the ‘others’—other cultures, ideologies and religions, or adherents of other Muslim schools of jurisprudence or sects—reflects the Wahhabi view of a world divided into the believers and preservers of the true faith and the kuffar, the unbelievers. The teachings about other religions, particularly those pertaining to the ‘People of the Book’, Christians and Jews, are contradictory. While some passages denounce Christians and Jews clearly as unbelievers, people whom one should not greet with salutations of peace or take as friends, or against whom jihad should be waged, other passages stress the peaceful nature of Islam.25
Both Doumato and Prokop rely on translations from Arabic texts. Before accepting their representations of Wahhabism on face value, it is important to note that the translation process is far from an exact science and that both authors are unable to achieve equivalence in their translations. Martin Müller points out that translation is too often treated as a process in which a translator assumes a neutral relay role producing an objective outcome.26 This is an issue affecting many social science researchers subscribing to Enlightenment and religious ideas of truth when making sense of phenomena in the social world. As John Caputo points out, we no longer live in an age where one story can explain everything that happens in the social world.27
Müller has these ideas about truth and objectivity in mind when he writes that “if we are to take seriously the problems of representation and speaking for/with others,” then “we are called on to problematize translation as a political act.”28 Recognizing translation as a political act is integral to recognizing the antagonisms and struggles for meaning taking place in a foreign language. We must remember the observer-dependent roles intellectuals play when representing social phenomena like Wahhabism when we consider Müller’s claim that “increased attention to the political implications of translation also spells out the case for broaching the translating geographer as an active agent who molds the production of meaning.”29
These concerns about translation have preoccupied many scholars, including Müller, H.P. Phillips, Pamela Shurmer-Smith, Gustavo Esteva, Madhu Suri Prakash, Bogusia Temple, and
