its power to secure its own interests.42 Instead he sees the Saudi Kingdom as dedicated to a version of politics geared at helping end injustices and wrongs. This approach resonates with recent conceptualizations of the political provided by authors like Critchley and Crick.43 Instead of blaming the Saudi and Wahhabi establishments for inspiring the radical interpretation of Wahhabism that is responsible for some recent Islamic terrorism, Al-Atawneh puts the blame on rogue elements. He writes that most “of the post-9/11 criticism appears to be lodged against extremist groups, described by Saudi officials as those who have ‘gone astray’ (firqa dalla).”44
On first appearances, one could easily understand Al-Atawneh as an apologist for the Saudi state. Indeed, though we need to approach such claims with a certain ironic detachment, Al-Atawneh is exactly the kind of intellectual that authors like Chomsky are extremely critical of. According to Chomskian logic, Al-Atawneh should instead be “seek[ing] the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us.”45 If we were to imagine the representations of Wahhabism as existing on a spectrum, Al-Atawneh and Gold’s representations would certainly feature at opposite ends. Unfortunately for Al-Atawneh and supporters of the Saudi state, Al-Atawneh’s article appears in an online scholarly journal, while Gold’s book appeared on the New York Times bestseller list.
The question of truth claims is again on display in work by Natana DeLong-Bas.46 Her work is the closest thing we can see as a defense of Wahhabism sitting on bookshelves at libraries, bookstores, and places of higher education throughout the Western world. She offers a spirited defense of the faith, claiming Wahhabism actually promotes peace, encourages tolerance, and advocates women’s rights. Wahhabism is not, according to DeLong-Bas, in any way responsible for inspiring modern Islamic terrorism. She writes:
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s emphasis on the importance of Islamic values and the intent behind words and actions, as opposed to concern for ritual perfection, has opened the door for reforms in Islamic law, the status of women and minorities, and the peaceful spread of Islam and the Islamic mission in the contemporary era.47
Her account is one of the most prominent—and widely criticized—representations of Wahhabism in the post-9/11 period.48 Her critics have among other things accused her of being an apologist for extremist Islam. Well-known Saudi and Wahhabism critic Stephen Schwartz, whose articles appear in a variety of right-wing and neoconservative publications, has claimed that DeLong-Bas has “reached a depth of mendacity about radical Islam it is hard to imagine her exceeding.”49 She has also drawn the ire of pro-Israeli writers like Caroline Glick who wrote:
DeLong-Bas told the newspaper [London pan-Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat] that she does “not find any evidence that would make me agree that Osama bin Laden was behind the attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. All we heard from him was praise and acclaim for those who carried out the operation.”
This was not the first time the Brandeis faculty member acted as an apologist for jihadists. Indeed she seems to be making a career out of it. According to a FrontPageMag.com expose of her career, in 2004 she published Wahhabi Islam: From Revival to Global Jihad, a work partially funded by Saudi Arabia that defends the extremist Wahabi strain of Islam that has formed the basis of the belief system of men like Osama Bin Laden and the September 11 hijackers.50
DeLong-Bas is not a Muslim, suggesting she is not likely to be motivated or inspired by Islamic religious beliefs in the same way authors like Haneef James Oliver are.51 DeLong-Bas’s representation of Wahhabism is not first and foremost a defense of Saudi interests as authors like Glick and Schwartz would have you believe. Instead, it rests on a certain claim to truth. DeLong-Bas believes she offers a truthful interpretation of Wahhabi doctrine primarily based on the writings of its founder Abd al-Wahhab. Her claims to truth rest on what she believes to be an objective interpretation of sacred Wahhabi Islamic texts, involving comparing and contrasting these Wahhabi Islamic texts and the beliefs and doctrines of modern Islamic terrorists. This is not the only major issue with her representation. Her case also depends on an appeal to the legitimacy of her translation and interpretation of Wahhabi texts from the eighteenth century and on her capacity to compare these to what she understands to be the beliefs of the modern Wahhabi movement.
There is of course a major problem here: much of this exercise depends on an assumption that we are doing something meaningful when we compare and interpret the original texts of a new belief system with much later or contemporary expressions of that belief system. It is highly doubtful that the modern nature of what we understand to be Wahhabism can be established in this way, and we use the term ‘genetic fallacy’ to describe authors who make this kind of error in reasoning. To commit a genetic fallacy is to make conclusions about a movement based on its origins as opposed to considering the contemporary expression of ideas and beliefs and doing so on their own merits and in their current context. DeLong-Bas’s interpretation fails to fully appreciate the constantly evolving nature of the Wahhabi movement. She fails to understand that Wahhabism in the twenty-first century is not an exact replica of how it appeared during eighteenth-century Arabia. We live in a different time and in a vastly different political context.
Next I want to consider the contribution made by Haneef James Oliver in his book The Wahhabi Myth: Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden.52 I have included Oliver’s book because of its unique approach. Oliver seeks to defend his faith by providing what he believes is an objective understanding of sacred Islamic texts. Oliver is a self-proclaimed Salafi (he rejects the use of the term Wahhabism, labeling it a misnomer) inspired by what he believes to be God’s word and a desire to convince people that terrorists like Bin Laden are not Salafists or true Muslims. He makes his intentions very clear from the outset:
My objective in doing so is not to deceitfully defend anyone or anything unworthy of a defence, as Islaam commands that a Muslim speak a word of truth, even if it be against him or herself, or followers of the same faith. Rather, it is my objective to deal only with those issues which have been unjustly brought against Islaam and Salaiyyah (Salafism) in particular, as opposed to defending the actions of the contemporary “Islaamic” groups and movements, which have only aided those who wish to harm the Islaamic Nation.
. . . [I]t is my objective to give the reader another perspective on some of these issues which they might never have been exposed to before. I have made every effort to avoid producing another book which is filled with opinion while lacking in textual proofs. Instead I have tried to produce a book in which Muslims and non-Muslims alike will be able to reflect upon the directives of the Qur’aan and the narrations (ahaadeetha) of the Prophet Muhammad for themselves.53 [emphasis added]
As we can see, Oliver believes his role is to “speak a word of truth” which he believes can be supported by “textual proofs.” There are a number of issues with these claims. One is that the legitimacy of his claims rests on our accepting that his interpretation of Salafism/Wahhabism provides the one big story about human history. Two, like some of the other scholarship I have dealt with earlier, Oliver’s representation of Wahhabism relies on his interpretation of Qur’anic texts originally written in Arabic and translated into English.54 To briefly reiterate the important point I made earlier, it is impossible for an author to achieve equivalence and we can understand the translator’s role as a subjective act influenced by their prejudices. Oliver’s book is self-published and it is very easy to see why, as it lacks the intellectual rigor typically demanded by reputable publishing organizations.
Oliver’s work is indicative of an author who lacks nuance when seeking to understand the Wahhabi movement. I have, however, come across one study in which the author does treat the phenomenon of Wahhabism with the kind of scholarly regard we should expect of those working in higher
