The issue, I think, is the difference between what some call “Wahhabism” and what’s actually preached and practiced. As I’ve noted earlier, many simply use the term “Wahhabi” to name a form of Islam that is different from what they practice at home, whether or not it’s actually Wahhabism. The New Yorker, for example, reported back in 1992:

In 1992, the Uzbek government had begun to use the term “Wahhabi” for anyone who was perceived to be an adherent of radical Islam or who held anti-government sentiments as part of his Islamic beliefs. Five years later, the government was labelling as Wahhabis even ordinary Muslims who practiced Islam in unofficial mosques or who engaged in private prayer or study. Any Muslim who associated with prayer leaders or taught children how to read the Koran was called a Wahhabi.
(link)

Wahhabism, in my opinion, does have problems when it comes to dealing with a modernizing world. But those problems are those of any sect of any religion that seeks to avoid “contamination” by outside influences. Most Saudi Wahhabis are no more offensive in their daily practices and beliefs than Mennonites or the Amish.

But because this interpretation can be coupled with a very narrow world view, together with a xenophobia derived from an exceptionally harsh existence in pre-oil Arabia, there is an enhanced possibility of misinterpretation that leads to radicalism and violence.

You might be interested in reading Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, by Natana Delong-Bas, of Georgetown University. The book is pretty stiff going as it’s really written for academic audiences, but it’s pretty clear in noting that many practices that are termed “Wahhabi” not only don’t have anything to do with what Abdul Wahhab was preaching, but are actually opposite of what he considered desirable in a Muslim state.

I strongly recommend you tak…