As a professor of religious studies one might think I would instinctively argue that knowledge about religion is especially crucial for understanding the world. While I am in fact a big advocate of religious literacy I also recognize that religion alone seldom helps us to understand political events. That is especially true when it comes to understanding political events in "the Middle East." For example, it should be obvious that the Arab-Israeli crisis is not at its core a religious struggle between Muslims and Jews but rather a competition over land, national identity and self-determination. And despite the insistence of conservative American presidential candidates, the current spasms of political violence in the Muslim world cannot simply be reduced to "radical extremist Islam." They are the result of complex historical forces related to issues like class, political competition between elites and the legacy of colonialism. Similarly the current tensions in the region that have arisen in the wake of the recent mass execution of 47 people in Saudi Arabia are not at their core the result of an age-old sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shi'i Islam. They are much more complex. Granted there are religious and, more accurately communal aspects, to all of these events but religion in no way totally explains any of them. Some have applauded the recent mass execution in Saudi Arabia as part of the Kingdom's commitment to stopping "Islamic extremism." It should be remembered however that the official religion of the Saudi state, the Wahabi interpretation of Islam, is itself characterized by an intense religious exclusivism and puritanical legalism. In that respect it shares much in common with the religious worldviews of violent groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL. And crucially, among those condemned and executed by the Saudi regime as a "terrorist" was the Shi'i scholar Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Sheikh al-Nimr was a passionate critic of the Saudi government which has for decades oppressed the minority Shi'i population. An advocate of non-violent resistance his political catch-phrase was "Words not Bullets." His execution, which has been universally condemned by human rights advocates including Amnesty International, provoked an attack on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran which has subsequently led to a breaking of relations between Saudi Arabia, along with some its close allies, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This has resulted in what many are calling a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The situation is indeed quite serious. Many in the media have argued that this complex situation can be explained by referring to an ancient "Sunni-Shi'a sectarian conflict." They argue that that the current conflict has its roots in a 1400 year old dispute over succession following the death in the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century. This social drama has never been resolved and is still being played out in the modern world. It is an inevitable religious conflict rooted in Islam. Of course there are all kinds of problems with this argument. First of all over the course of history Sunni and Shi'i Muslims have lived together in peace more often than they have fought each other violently. Such conflict is not the norm, nor is it inevitable. In terms of the current situation it should be remembered the Saudis are far from the religious leaders of the Sunni world. The exclusivist nature of Wahabism which has destroyed the tombs of beloved companions and family members of the Prophet Muhammad, banned Sufi music and ritual, condemned visits to popular religious shrines and even attacked expressions of love and devotion for the Prophet Muhammad as violations of Islam is anathema to most Sunni Muslims. At the level of popular piety both Sunni and Shi'I Muslims love and venerate the Prophet and his family, especially his son-in-law Ali b. Abu Talib whom the Shi'a consider their first Imam. Thus at the level of popular piety Sunni and Shi'i Muslims share much more in common with each other than they do with the Wahabi puritans of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have little legitimacy to act as the leaders of a Sunni-Shi'a sectarian war. In fact, the Saudi regime is pretty much despised by a significant segment of the Muslim world which considers the ruling Saudi elites corrupt and hypocritical. While religion does play a role in the current conflict that role is much more complex than a simplistic reduction to Sunni and Shi'a conflict. Most importantly by focusing on religion as the source of the conflict we run the risk of seeing the participants in this current social drama as irrational prisoners of a timeless religious paradigm rather than conscious political actors. Rather than understand the behavior of Saudi Arabia as what it actually is--the actions of a modern authoritarian state sending a message to its citizens that any political dissent that questions the legitimacy of the current regime, whether that dissent comes from rival Sunni exclusivist groups or the oppressed Shi'i minority, will not be tolerated --we risk seeing it as the endless replaying of a mythical and inescapable religious drama of Sunni-Shi'a conflict. Overly focusing on religion blinds us to issues of politics and economics, such as the defensiveness and anxiety of a Saudi state weakened by a drastic decrease in the price of oil and newly threatened by an Iran that is likely to become increasingly economically powerful following the nuclear deal that that has lifted crippling sanctions. While religion and religious identity surely plays a role in all of this if we emphasize it too much we risk not seeing the larger picture. Islam simply does not explain everything that happens in the complex world of the modern "Middle East."