Following the 1991 Gulf War, the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia constrained the religious establishment by remapping the hierarchy of authority in the kingdom legally, conceptually, and historically. Ṣaddām Ḥusayn’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 constituted an unprecedented crisis in Saudi politics which contributed to the religious establishment questioning the political legitimacy of the ruling royal family, Al Saud. The elite religious establishment, or ulamā, publicly challenged the legitimacy of Al Saud’s unchecked authority when they composed the 1991 Letter of Demands. After the war, I suggest that ruling elites set out to change the basis of their political legitimacy by redefining the religiopolitical orthodoxy which governs their relationship with the religious establishment. I propose that the 1992 Basic Law of Governance—the first positive legal charter for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—expands the authority of the King while offering the appearance of constraining the exercise of political authority. In this thesis, I analyze the ways in which the text of the Letter of Demands and the Basic Law of Governance offer disparate visions of orthodox Islamic governance according to the Saudi tradition. I hypothesize that the text of the Letter of Demands, as well as the circumstances surrounding its production, involved a reassertion of authority by the elite religious establishment in religious spaces. I suggest that, in response, the Basic Law of Governance expanded the authority of the King and delivered an alternative vision of Saudi orthoprax governance. I contemplate some of the ways that expanding their authority was part of a larger project undertaken by the royal family after the 1991 Gulf War to redefine Saudi religiopolitical orthodoxy. Finally, I offer a meditation on the idea that the project undertaken by Al Saud to redefine Saudi religiopolitical orthodoxy necessitated reformulating the historical narrative of the kingdom’s origin and policy in the twentieth century. In this thesis, I set out to contemplate the epistemic relationship between sociopolitical inflection and diachronic changes to Islamic concepts. In other words, how do Islamic concepts, and the practices they underlie, change over time and in response to moments of social and political crisis? This is where I imagine my work broadly contributing to Religious Studies as a field. I am interested in historical instances where political authorities instrumentalize cultural forms, including historical narratives and religious discourses, to legitimize their own interests, consolidate power, and maintain hegemony. The instrumentalization of religiocultural discourses in order to articulate new modes of state and subject formation is a vital topic of inquiry. I aspire that my work can contribute to this tertiary dialogue by showcasing one historical instance where religious concepts and historical narratives were instrumentalized to legitimize elite interests, consolidate monopolistic political power, and maintain social, political, and cultural forms of hegemony. My aim is to use these narratives about epistemic violence to trouble the power dynamics that get reproduced in Euro-North American knowledge produced about the Global South.