'TR / George,

Mainstream Islam have nothing to do with Shiaa, Sunnis or sufism.'

This statement is simply not true Fellow-Human.

Orthopraxis is central to the Islamic religion and therefore in Islam it really matters how Muslims conduct their day by day rituals. According to each of those three sects their version of orthopraxis is the 'true' orthopraxis. This is why Sunnis treat Shia with disdane and vice versa. Both Sunnis and Shia view Sufism with contempt.

I'm sorry but your casual observations don't hold up in the cold hard light of reality. In Saudi Arabia I worked with two Shia colleagues. Both were actively discriminated in the work place by the Sunni dominated administration because of their faith. I can assure you that there was a suspicious "US" and "THEM" mentality.

What's more, my anecdotal story is reinforced by the scrutiny of Islamic geo-politics. The clash between Hamas and Fatah springs to mind, as does the clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the list goes on.

You may think that Imam Hussein's murder doesn't matter and its ritualised commemorations have no impact but millions of other Muslims disagree with you.

You may think that the sensual and mystical practices of Sufi's doesn't matter but millions of other Muslims disagree with you.

What's more they are willing to kill and persecute because of the differences even though 'officially' the differences between the three Islamic sects are all sweetness and light.

Orthopraxis DOES matter in Islam and you are throwing up a misleading smokescreen to say that it doesn't. In the tricotomy of Islam we see yet again the devisive 'tribalism' that is inate to monotheism.

George,

I am not aware of the term neo-sufism but I know of Fethullah Gullen, he is a great Islamic reformist. Have a look at his official website (his name.org)

TR,

“I'm sorry but your casual observations don't hold up in the cold hard light of reality. In Saudi Arabia I worked with two Shia colleagues. Both were actively discriminated in the work place by the Sunni dominated administration because of their faith"

we are talking about 2 different things:
Issue 1: Is there a conflict between Muslim Sunni and Shiaa? The answer is yes.
Issue 2: is there a theological difference between Sunni and Shiaa: ther answer is not really or trivial.
The causes underlying issue one is pure tribalism. Saudi example is a proof of that. The only difference between Shiaa and Sunnis is the system of governance which is political and not religious.

Shiaa Muslims believe in the Quran, the prophets, fasting, praying, pay the alms, etc..
The difference that they believe that the caliphates have used the prophets’ death to distort his sunna. For example, they believe that the caliphates banned rituals that the prophet allowed such as the Mutah marriage and other rituals. The difference is philosophical where Shiaa believe that these rituals were allowed as a ‘privilege’ while sunnis believe its only a ‘permit’.

“The clash between Hamas and Fatah springs to mind, as does the clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia”

Again these are manufactured political conflicts. Iran/ Saudi conflict is about the system of governance. Hamas was voted to power not because of religion but because the Palestinians had a gutful of the rich and corrupt fatah organisation.

“you are throwing up a misleading smokescreen to say that it doesn't””
No need to feel so hot under the collar you seem to know little about Islam and expect me to agree with your microwavable view.
The above statement is clear and I challenge you to bring me any theological difference (except for the political differences I mentioned above).

Peace,

Fellow_Human, thank you for your reply. What you described as “mainstream Muslim” are simply properties of a good Muslim – good in the eyes of not only other Muslims, but also Christians or secular humanists - and I agree that it does not matter whether such a good person is a Shiaa, Sunni or what. There are good people in any religion (or “non-religion”), and I also hope they are a vast majority, though they are usually not called “mainstream”.

Thank you for the info on Fethullah Gulen. Neo-Sufism seems to an outsider a promising development, and since Fethullah Gulen apparently counts as one of its representatives, I am glad, you agree. For instance, what one can find on http://www.fethullahgulenconference.org/ or http://en.m-fgulen.net/content/view/2090/1/ seems to me very promising.

Horus, I agree that my understanding of religion (that I do not remember having spelled out here) differs substantially from that adhered to by fundamentalists of both versions, religious and anti-religious. Also, I do not remember having referred to any holy book, except when I said that “I do not know how to understand many things written in the Koran.” There are many ancient texts, that I cannot read (do not understand) directly, and have to rely on interpretations of those who do, or claim to.

I think I can see (and understand) your frustration with people, including many professional scientists, who do not see any conflict between scientific facts/theories and their religious experience/beliefs related to ancient holy books. Perhaps you are forgetting that BOTH (not only science) have to be taken at a CONTEMPORARY, and not some medieval, levels of insights. This is often not easy: you cannot critically judge what physics tells you about the universe without having a good understanding of the symbolic language of mathematics. Perhaps something similar is true bout understanding the symbolic language of religions. My only advise would be that if you are upset with, say, (high school) algebra, because it contradicts the “fact” that one can add only numbers and not letters, ignore algebra but do not blame those who have no problems with it

Hi FH

Sorry slow reply, been a little busy with uni exams.

Thanks for your reply, although I can't say it bears much relation to the questions I posed to you. I utterly disagree with your definition of intolerance, appearing as it does to have been plucked from midair in order to suit your case.

Here is a better one, straight from an online dictionary:
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc." cf, demonstrations against Rushdie and against the Danish cartoons.

If you are to be fair-dunkum about free speech then you need to let authors and artists express themselves without fear of some lunatic issuing a death-warrant or your living in hiding until the storm blows over (which for Rushdie, it seems it still has not).

My issue with Islam is not that all Muslims agree with such disgraceful behaviour (do you?) but that Islam seems to give more comfort to those who would give violent expression to their opinions, than other religions.

Where is the chorus of "mainstream" Islamic opinion, sweeping aside this stone-age, Islamofascist ranting that erupts every time a Rushdie is knighted, a derogatory cartoon published (try being a Catholic - Catholicism has grown a thick skin from constantly being pilloried in the media for past and current transgressions) or van Gogh film made?

Seems to me that the problem is what passes for "mainstream" for most Muslims is decasdes, if not centuries behind the secular, democratised West.

TR - OK you point out the blindingly obvious, that nuclear weapons would not exist without knowledge of physics. My point is that while faith is a powerful tool of manipulation for "religious leaders," I would like for someone to point out to me its virtues? Or to phrase it slightly differently, as an atheist, what am I missing out on by having no "faith" in anything? In medicine these days, the buzz-phrase is "evidence-based". I like to think that we secular humanists indulge in "evidence-based living."

George and FH. The only type of "Muslim" we need concern ourselves with are those who say:

" He said "missionary activity" will not be tolerated and those suspected of trying to convert local Muslims will be "harshly punished."

TRUE COLORS UNVEILED. The above is absolutely what could be expected when:

a) Muslims as a political force gain sufficient power/influence to shape government policy (which could happen by controlling even 1 or 2 marginal seats)
b) Muslims control a country.

The time to act is NOW and BEFORE they are ever able to exert such influence.

To do this we need to understand:

-Truth about "Islam" (not the truth 'they want us' to believe)

ACTION:
-Raising public awareness about where Islamic influence will lead.

This can involve public actions, which may include a counter protest/at such events as any Palestine Solidarity Network activity, or.. at the Islamic prayer halls at RMIT or.. at Melbourne Uni, or, at Latrobe.

-The efficient and creative use of the Media to get the points across.

And for any bright spark who mumbles about 'stirring up hatred', I simply refer them to the reality of my opening sentence, which I long ago predicted would occur. That...is where the real hatred resides.
We call Muslims, Atheists, Humanists to repentance and to saving faith Christ.... but ALSO to social and political responsibility.....while you still have the chance.

Quote BOAZ_DAVID

"We call Muslims, Atheists, Humanists to repentance and to saving faith Christ.... but ALSO to social and political responsibility.....while you still have the chance. "

Why should I repent BOAZ? What did I do wrong?