Government-employed and directed clergy???!! No!! Been there, done that, for over 1300 years, 1000 of which were Dark Ages.

Let's reboot this line of thought before the USA first amendment explodes.

Historically, ME governments took control over religious endowments and revenue (e.g. through Ministries) to marginalize the ulema and reduce/control its influence. In the UAE, this mitigates the "fringe" message, but I'd also venture that the reverse scenario is possible (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

What I like about this idea is that there is a regulating body for Islamic clergy. Unfortunately, the optics of a Western government doing it are bad. Imagine the kind of spin Islamist extremists could put on Western government efforts to regulate Islam. Particularly if it did not "regulate" any other religion in a similar way.

I have an idea for this, but need to go to breakfast.

The Saudi government would surely like to do the same, but unfortunately it sounds like the imams are more powerful there, and the threat of revolt much higher. No doubt influenced by the lack of education.

Back from breakfast.

Re: Western governments regulating religion, I think it would be very hard to pass any kind of legislation or enact formal policy to that end, especially if it focused on Islam alone. It's possible that some countries could pass or strengthen "hate speech" laws vs. incitement in mosques, but I expect that this would not happen in the US because such laws would likely violate First Amendment principles.

While it would be valid for Muslims to criticize direct (e.g. messaging control) regulation by the government, it's much harder to do so if the government simply provides a funding, or a framework for Muslim communities to govern and regulate imams themselves. I'm thinking of a "professional association" entity, where the government delegates the authority to accredit a profession to an organization made up of those professionals (e.g. doctors, lawyers). The problem here is having an umbrella organization that includes all the various schools, and having them reach consensus on accreditation. Another problem is making sure that the association is "arm's length" from the government, to avoid suggestions of bias.

The other way to indirectly regulate is by having stipulations around how mosques/prayer halls are organized (e.g. requiring board members to be familiar with the country's language/culture). Again, this would have to apply to all religious spaces to be reasonable.

I'm skimming this article right now: Institutionalization and Integration of Islam in The Netherlands. Very detailed, just came across an interesting passage here:

The professional imams working in The Netherlands have usually been trained in their countries of origin only. So far only the Hindustani Muslim community from Surinam has succeeded in establishing a training course for future imams in Holland itself. The first four students graduated from this course in 1988. Various non-Muslim and Muslim groups have, for various reasons, advocated the establishment of some kind of educational institute for the training of imams in Holland itself. According to the Waardenburg Committee (1983) and to several Dutch researchers the "traditional" imam who has obtained his training in the Muslim world is far from able to fulfil his tasks adequately, because of his lack of proficiency in the Dutch language and his deficient understanding of the history and culture of Dutch society. His understanding of the day-to-day problems of the members of his community, and especially of those of the younger generation, is thought to be quite insufficient.

Interesting idea. I think in UAE the government can get away with doing this because its legitimation is founded on charismatic leadership and, at least in Dubai, on the perception of a shared development endeavour: because people trust the government, they allow the government's interests to trump the clerics interests.

In KSA, the government inveigled everyone into thinking that it was a vehicle for the renaissance of traditional Islam; charismatic leadership has been somewhat lacking since Ibn Saud (though I suppose Faisal had his moments). The government can't trump the clerics in discourse because the government has portrayed itself as a vehicle for Islam (rather than just being Muslim). Hence the government is dependent on clerics for legitimation, and so uses a variety of persuasive and coercive techniques against them to secure that support.

In the West, our secular system is essentially a compromise that emerged out of the long wars between Catholicism and Protestantism. After about a century of hacking each other to bits we got a little tired, it seems, and decided to call it a day. Cue Treaty of Westphalia (paving the way for the nation-state) and the gradual entrenchment of the idea of a separation between church and state.

The problem, of course, is that such separation makes it very difficult for the government to interfere in religious matters without looking at best nationalist, at worst, racist. It is a nationalist policy, using the concept purely technically, but nationalism is a dirty word for most people these days (we got a little tired of that, too, after the world wars). The only real thing we can do with it is to try to ensure that it is applied equally, as that's the only way we can maintain the discourse underpinning secularism (formal rationalism, equality before the law etc).

As an aside: one Saudi Prince has described Wahhab as a Muslim Luther or Calvin. The idea has some purchase, I think, but it begs a question. Are we witnessing a period of sectarian struggle in the Muslim world similar to the one which wracked Christendom post-Reformation?