And what happens if a person's worldview goes against the dominant ideology of that time period? "Cancellation" in that proposed world means that a person could potentially lose everything the moment they step out of line.

Perhaps not immediately concerning because one would imagine that they won't be going against the grain, but leaving so much power in the hands of a vague unknown is extremely dangerous.

A potential argument against this could be that if you're kicked out of this system, you can just buy the physical items that you'd need to continue to live. But would that be feasible? Would companies continue to produce consumer-grade equipment if a great majority of people are happy to own nothing? And even if consumer-grade equipment existed, it would be far too expensive to suddenly have to buy everything.

After enough generations pass, it won't even matter if they can purchase this equipment because they'll be far too thoroughly dependent on this system.

Some points to consider at the very least.

About what in particular? The different schools of thought? Or wahhabism?

Check out 'the Siege of Mecca' by Yaroslav Trofimov

I also stepped back from Islam for a while and returned basically as a convert of sorts. It's fascinating to see how the Saudis have built this narrative of Wahhabism being ""the official Islam"" --- to the point that even non-Muslims will now tell Muslims that they're not real Muslims because they're presenting an argument that goes against what the Wahhabis have been pushing for decades.

For a while, they were one of the only Islamic countries that had enough money to translate books, and they did so selectively. Things are slowly beginning to change now, but the chokehold they had on the Muslim world was insane.

Especially considering that they were doing this as allies of the Americans and the British, who supported them through overt and covert campaigns to secure their oil. After establishing themselves, they begun exporting their ridiculous ideology around the world, while the (relatively) ""secular"" (for lack of a better term) governments in the region were being destabilized and eventually destroyed.

(Not that these governments were the beacon of morality, but it's just an interesting coincidence that this was happening at the same time)

Simultaneously the Saudis would push missionaries to these destroyed countries, build big massive mosques, and exploit the situation as a whole. Many extremists were recruited in this manner.

Another fascinating point is coming to the realization that there is in fact no such thing as an official, monolithic Islam. There are the core fundamental principles laid out in the Quran --- everything else is a matter of statistics and probability. (And amongst the countless different schools of thought, movements, and sects, the infallibility and sanctity of the Sunni hadith books have been disputed, just as an example for how deep the disputes have been, even though today this would be unthinkable to many Muslims, unfortunately.)

The classical Muslims actually viewed Islam's multitudes of interpretation as a source of Mercy from Allah, and accepted that two contradictory statements could both be true depending on the methodology one used to arrive at those conclusions.

It paints a completely different picture from what the Wahhabis have been shoving down our throats, and even many Sunni scholars have disregarded them as heretical fanatics.

(See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_international_conference_on_Sunni_Islam_in_Grozny)