Wassim Al-AdelBlogger and commentator |
09/11/2010
Hence it comes about that all armed Prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed Prophets have been destroyed.” – Niccolo Machiavelli It is perhaps unfortunate that Death, that greatest of mysteries, keeps her lips tightly sealed regarding her secret. Man, in his infinite arrogance, seeks to escape the terror of the unknown that lies behind that one veil that remains impenetrable. He does so by building glorious monuments to his legacy, by writing his mighty sciences and great achievements down, by passing on his seed so that his name may live on, and by achieving the greatest of heroics that he may be remembered valiantly. Yet amidst all this greatness, with palms faced upwards in futility, an exhausted Achilles or Hector breathes a heavy sigh of despair, for each step away from death leads only back to it. Mecca itself was once sacked, by Muslims no less; Constantinople too, by the very crusaders that had been sent to return Jerusalem to Christendom. There is nothing sacred that we all, each and every one of us, do not have the capacity to pollute. Nor is there a horror that we are all not capable of visiting upon one another. The savagery of the recent attack on a Syriac Catholic church in Baghdad is no exception. For if we are to point the finger at the crazed men who went and perpetrated this tragedy, are we really any better than them? The answer, for those honest enough to look at history, is no. These men, for they are only men, were not monsters, but a product of our world and the mad passions it produces. It is for this reason, and for the infuriating silence from the hereafter, that Machiavelli judges Prophets not on their promises of eternal salvation, but on the strength of their arms and the paradise that such strength brings with it. Islam brought its own peculiar version of paradise as it swept across the collapsing world of the 7th century. Within one hundred years of this conquest any respectable Arab merchant could, relatively safely, travel and trade across the known world, from Andalucia to India, and on to the great markets of China, without so much as a travel document. But it was not only Arabs but Jews, Venetians, Greeks, Persians and countless other races of man who took advantage of this extensive trade network. Muslim society then, as it is today, was never homogenous or united singularly, but it was forged by men of titanic energies who, at various times of crisis, were able to reinvent and reshape Islamic society. In the periods when history had not yet called them forth for their parts, minorities suffered. In other words, the status of minorities in Islamic societies has, as it has ever been in all human societies, been dependent on the rising and falling fortunes of destiny and the struggle between nations. It is easy for one to be a virtuous man when life is good and her bounties plentiful, quite another when fortune has turned her face from him in even the simplest of things. Today, we are being asked to consider whether there is something inherently within Islam or Islamic societies that makes the toleration of minorities and difference impossible. This is a fallacy and one which this author believes is politically inspired. There is far too much excellent research that can demonstrate this fact, although one need only point to Syria, where Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, is still in use as a living language. Were Islam somehow incapable of tolerating minorities, why should such a community have continued to exist till the present day? In fact, the reality is that it is not Muslim-majority states that have been the greatest threats to the minorities that exist within them, but Western European and North American political and military interventions. The sectarian strife that afflicts Lebanon today is a direct result of a conscious effort by French mandate forces to create a Christian dominated future ally in the region. Iraq itself never had al Qaeda prior to the American invasion and occupation, and in fact al Qaeda itself would never have existed were it not for covert American funding in Afghanistan against the Russians. Furthermore, the strife of that war gave birth to the Taliban, who are today poised to wrest control of Afghanistan yet again. Also, the Ahmadi’s in Pakistan were actively encouraged and nurtured by the British, and today they and the Bahai’i community remain a pet favourite of the West, especially as a stick to beat Iran with. The centre of the Bahai’i faith was formed in what is today occupied by the state of Israel, its continued existence there allegedly incidental to that fact. The Israeli state itself, a product of European Jewish nationalism, was a catastrophe for ancient Jewish communities from Morocco to Baghdad; however, aaliyah to the newly formed Jewish state was actively encouraged regardless of the destruction of those communities. Again, Western European diplomatic manoeuvring offered the backdrop for this historical travesty. All this, yet somehow, articles are expected by editors in journals and online media throughout the world to appear where they discuss the inherent inability and backwardness of Islam and Muslims at tolerating people of other faiths or backgrounds. Like the Hydra of ancient Greek myth, new categories of minorities, based on sexuality or gender, can be constantly created and therefore new benchmarks, which Muslim societies also fail to achieve, are set. Yet where minorities are subject to harsh treatment or scrutiny, there can always be found, although certainly not an excuse, a source of danger and apprehension that causes the state to react in a paranoid manner. So we find that in Islamic-majority societies allied to the West, such as Bahrain, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia there is the blatant discrimination and marginalisation of Shia Muslims, although this receives far less news than the whiff of an al Qaeda cell that might be a threat to the West. Even where no trouble to a minority exists, such as with the case of Egyptian Copts who think they are oppressed, we find that this is only a concern to Western media in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet in the case of countries like Iran, Iraq or Lebanon, the slightest scent of controversy is enough to send Western media into a frenzy of activity; films are made, documentaries are aired and pop-stars wear rubber bracelets or wave green flags in solidarity. The question has never been about how minorities can be protected, but about the political capital to be gained from their oppression, this is a fact that many naïve Muslim or Arab political commentators have been far too unimaginative to grasp. To concede a foreign enemies’ criticisms concerning minorities is a defeat; to ignore it, a political bombshell that could snowball. In other words, the entire discourse surrounding minorities and their treatment is heavily politicised. Whether or not minorities should be a strategic resource to be harnessed or a fifth-column to be feared, is ultimately a matter for political theory, but, we must conclude by pointing out that it is not Islam as a faith which inherently promotes or reduces the tolerance of minorities. Like the common cold, the intolerance of minorities on the scale we have just seen in Iraq is a symptom of weakened and debilitated Muslim societies. The politicised discourse surrounding minorities in Islamic-majority countries wishes that the symptoms and not the cause of the illness are treated. They wish, whether intentionally or not, to place the donkey behind the cart, thus perpetuating tragedies such as we saw at the church of Our Lady of Deliverance in Baghdad. |
Member since
August 2010
An impressive post Wassim, as usual. I enjoyed reading it.
I have to ask you about the Bahai’s and the Ahmadis … do you see them as nothing more than (or mostly) a tool of the west? Do you feel that they would have been less discriminated against if the west (and Israel) did not support them publicly?
Here is how Taufiq Rahim sees it:
Beyond the external religions, many Muslim societies are failing in their tolerance of religious minorities within or emanating from Islam. The Bahais are persecuted systematically in Iran. Ahmadis are prohibited from saying salaam alaikum (the traditional Muslim greeting) in Pakistan, as they are viewed as heretics. Worse, they have been specifically targeted by incitement campaigns by both political and religious leaders, which in turn has led to horrific violence against their community. The list of violent attacks, legal impositions, and cases of incitement throughout the Muslim umma towards minorities would be endless to document here.
Camille,
Thank you for the kind words. I’m not making a value judgement of those groups themselves. I simply concerned myself with their position in the grand scheme of things. It is highly convenient to have dissident minorities and in fact, going back to Machiavelli, this is one of the things he teaches his Prince. Always ally yourself with the weaker party in any conflict, they will increase your strength, but will always need your help. The same is true here. I do know there are horrible things happening to people in those communities, but I see this as symptomatic to the generally manic atmosphere of societies under siege, and Muslim communities in general being led by political dwarves dressed as generals. That’s a serious problem.
Then again, you look at a country such as Syria and these kinds of things do not happen to any kind of minority. There is a need for similarly wise leadership in other countries like Pakistan, but then again, Syria does not have the challenges and threats that face a country such as Iran. With Iran, the situation is far more critical as its enemies are actively promoting an agenda of unrest aimed at toppling the Islamic republic. I think there is far more to what is happening there than meets the eye so I will not be quick to jump to conclusions about the increased scrutiny of the Bahai’s.
I think if the United States and Israel did not support these minorities, period, then they would not have the same kinds of problems that they face today. However, it is important to note that Iran is an Islamic republic, aimed at providing for not just the material needs of its people, but for their needs as Muslims, hence it is an Islamic republic populated by a huge Muslim majority.
[…] My latest article on Islam Comment, regarding the treatment of minorities in Muslim-majority countries. […]
I am distressed by the fact that despite your willingness to seem open, you still display the arrogance of the majority population: “such as with the case of Egyptian Copts, who think they are oppressed.”
Who are you to say that they are not oppressed? If the Copts feel that there is social prejudice against them, then that is something to investigate, not scoff at. Of course, the situation of the Copts in Egypt is in no way directly analagous to that of the Shia in, say, Bahrain or SA, but for you to write off their complaints as irrelevant is exactly the kind of behavior that people talk about when referring to “intolerance of minorities.” Of course you wouldn’t perceive their complaints to be valid, because you aren’t experiencing them, coming from the majority. It is the duty of a majority population to perceive when it is making minorities uncomfortable. That is true religious freedom.
It also sounds, from your writing, that religious/ethnic minorities are only validated by their connections to outside groups, ie Western countries. These communities – Christian, Shia, Kurdish, whatever – exist in their own right, regardless of whether Arab Muslims (because that’s really who we’re talking about here) or Europeans choose to validate them. And when Arab Muslim majorities do not validate them appropriately, well it should come as no surprise that these groups will seek help elsewhere. This notion that, if not for the West, relationships with minorities would be perfect is simply not true. They would be more stable, certainly, but that would be because everyone knows where the cards lie, which is how it has been for centuries in the Islamic world. Minorities have known that they don’t have it as bad as they could elsewhere, and that rebelling is pointless anyway. But in the modern world, when Christians living in Iraq or Egypt can see the freedom with which someone can build a church or ring bells on TV, or when the Shia of the Gulf look to an independent Shia Iran, it is only natural that they should wonder why they do not have the same freedoms at home. In your own country, beloved Syria, Christians cannot become president.
Some Muslim countries are certainly more relaxed about these things, but it certainly shows that the idea of “tolerance” is taken somewhat literally in Arab Muslim countries. “Tolerance” does not actually mean being willing to put up with another community or “tolerate” it. Tolerance is about accepting their concerns and practices as valid. So no wonder these groups look outside – their Muslims “brothers” are treating them more like ugly, demented step-siblings who should be kept away. In complete contrast, Muslims look at the mistreatment of their kind in Europe and the US and call foul, without seeing any sort of hypocrisy. As you said, all humans are messed up.
I am not suggesting Westerners are perfect. But for Arab Muslims to put all the blame on Westerners for giving minority populations a desire for equal rights is very typical. On the one hand, it is common for Arab Muslims to put all the blame on the outside, without assuming responsibility for what goes on inside. On the other, for the West to be giving these people a thirst for equality is hardly something to apologize for.
So, you are Wassim the Just. Nice to have a name, although after reading this, I am not finding justice.
Like Ali, I am distressed and saddened by some of what you have said, especially this: “Even where no trouble to a minority exists, such as with the case of Egyptian Copts who think they are oppressed, we find that this is only a concern to Western media in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
This is what I know to be fact from Egyptian friends, not from Western media: Christians and churches are attacked, women have been kidnapped and forced to claim conversion, churches cannot be renovated, and they are treated with contempt regularly. I suppose if this is no trouble to minority Christians, then yes, it is all goodness and light in Egypt for Christians. Syria is not an appropriate window from which to view this topic.
This erroneous statement, and much of what you have written, leaves me speechless in it’s callousness. It is words like these, dismissing swaths of humans as pawns in a political chess game, that leads to genocide. And I am not sure you would care. May God soften your heart.
Wassim – I enjoyed reading your material even though I take issue with your discourse.
The tragedy that you refer to in Iraq can only be described as a massacre and it is totally inexcusable. The blame rests totally with the individuals who perpetuated it and with those who educated them. We cannot rationalize away when individuals go out and indiscriminately shoot at unarmed people just because they have different religious beliefs. This is not a West vs. East issue. It is at the core of our humanity.
Ali,
I don’t know if you noticed, but concerns about tolerance and other common cliche terms aren’t really what I was interested in exploring within my essay. There is a political reality, there are those who recognise and adapt to this, and then there are those who don’t. Political realism is an uncomfortable and unforgiving perspective on what is happening in the world, but time and again it has been shown to be the most accurate narrative of what we see happening between nations and peoples. So don’t shoot the messenger.
Kinzi,
Next time I’ll recommend to Camille that he invite Oprah to write on this subject instead of me. Perhaps after we read her piece we can then all cry a little and give each other a hug.
Nabil,
What is humanity but a capacity to do not only great good but also to visit horrific evils upon one another. I’m not rationalising a massacre and I’m sorry you feel that I was doing that somehow, but amidst all the anguish somebody has to sit down and make sense of what is happening. You can’t do that in an essay on the subject using only emotivist arguments and holier-than-thou condemnations.
Wassim – I think that your article has sparked a fruitful discussion. The main objection I have with the tenor of your article is that there is a responsibility for minorities to prove themselves to earn their rights. Rights are not earned but the providence of all in a just society, regardless of faith. Syria is a great example, in a difficult neighborhood, of coexistence (although of course with its sporadic issues, not to mention a lack of democratization). Beyond this, whether or not Western nations exploit the situations of minorities (i.e. the same could be said for Al Qaeda and the Palestinian issue) does not negate the necessity to remedy them. The Baha’i are under duress regardless of whatever motive the State Department has for pointing it out. And let me add further, I have theological disagreements with the Baha’i faith. Yet, I am sure that billions have theological disagreements with me. I would hate for that to mean I have a lesser right to full citizenship in the society in which I live.
Taufiq,
You bring an interesting aspect to the essay regarding my position on rights. I have not entirely made my mind up about the usefulness or wisdom of a “rights-based” discourse, if we can call it that. What I have tried to do is add a Realist (International Relations) perspective to the discussion. What this does is reduce everything to a zero-sum game, and I appreciate some people have found that very uncomfortable if not unusual.
Still, the vital issue is not what we would like this reality to be, but what it actually is, and zero-sum is, time and again, the only solid object that appears when the waters recede in what is a very murky subject.
Love the fear mongering and incitement against Baha’is and Ahmadis. Kind of answers the question itself, albeit unwittingly (and please note this is the best Islamists could offer).
I guess useful idiots are just useful.
Wassim,
Regardless of whether you chose to explore the abstract idea of “tolerance,” it is difficult to not observe your tone, your focus and your language. Of course there is a reality that political concerns are at play – Lebanon, as you pointed out, is a vibrant example of that. But that is also at work on all ends of the spectrum – Lebanon is similarly an example of this phenomenon too. But the idea of “tolerance” is exactly what you wanted to talk about in your early paragraph:
“Today, we are being asked to consider whether there is something inherently within Islam or Islamic societies that makes the toleration of minorities and difference impossible. This is a fallacy and one which this author believes is politically inspired.”
You are asking whether there is something present in Islam or Islamic communities that makes them intolerant. You answer that the question itself is ridiculous, and that the issue is simply politicized by the West to cast the Muslim community in a negative light. That’s a pretty common argument – that the issue is politicized by the West to make Muslims look bad. It doesn’t matter what the issue is – minorities, women, sexuality – it just matters that its being used to make the ummah look bad. It’s an unfortunately unproductive mentality, because it shelters negative social action from true criticism. It is easy to blame everything on disproportionate political power exercised by the West, difficult to see flaws in ourself when we are already stressed out by our declining political capital. But it’s a downward spiral. As you mention, it is easy to be charitable when times are good, harder when they get bad. Now that things are bad, it’s too much of a cop-out to blame everything on Westerners causing trouble. Sometimes you need to just take a look in the mirror, admit that there is a problem, and do what you need to solve it. No amount of basking in the glorious past of Islam will replace real, positive change in the present.
Ali,
Yes, you sum up my points precisely, although I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think Islamic societies are perfect or deserve no criticism. I’m also intrigued to know why you think that my arguments are a cop-out or the easy way out when it seems that people who espouse your perspective seem to be paid a lot of money to say what you say whether in newspapers, blogs or satellite channels. In fact, those with a similarly ‘unproductive mentality’ to mine face substantial criticisms and opposition when they point out this very obvious fact! They are far from common, I assure you.
What I would like to know is why should I be more concerned with the criticisms that Western countries make of our societies, than I should be of the fact that right on our very doorstep there is a nuclear armed, hostile, colonial state called Israel. Or that the United States has invaded and occupied Iraq, or that the Arab world is the biggest purchaser of Western arms – not in order to free occupied Arab lands, but in fact to fight other Muslims. I’m quite simply amazed that these things do not alarm you as highly as my tone does.
Wassim Said, (( What I would like to know is why should I be more concerned with the criticisms that Western countries make of our societies, than I should be of the fact that right on our very doorstep there is a nuclear armed, hostile, colonial state called Israel. Or that the United States has invaded and occupied Iraq, or that the Arab world is the biggest purchaser of Western arms – not in order to free occupied Arab lands, but in fact to fight other Muslims. I’m quite simply amazed that these things do not alarm you as highly as my tone does ))
You should not and to have a solid front you and we need our internal front to be solid , invaders and outsiders can only interfere where there is a crack , like in Egypt , Bahrain and Iraq , what the majority need to do is to make it clear even if they have to bend backward that their fellow minority citizens belong and have equal rights and obligation , In Syria it is obvious that the West could not interfere because Syria’s Christians are treated better than any Arab or Muslim country , though that can be better if the Islamic societies of Syria will call for equality even in seeking the presidency for Christian , with Syria’s religious mix that is even more difficult Thea having a Jew as president ,
Member since
August 2010
I have another question for my friend Wassim
The United States and Europe love Sufi and Aga Khan Ismaeli flavored Islam. Why didn’t that lead to harassment and discrimination similar to the discrimination faced by the Bahaii’s and Ahmadis?
That is a very good question and one worthy of some research. I will answer what I can, firstly with regards to Sufism. This is an area of Islam that is popularly conceived to be very fluffy and devoid of any political clout, but that is a misguided notion. I myself used to dismiss Sufism as a tool of the West only very recently, yet even in the past year, I have read things about it which make me almost count myself amongst it’s adherents. The subtleties and experiential based learning of Sufism are far beyond a comment on this essay, but let me just point out that Sufism is far fom a docile branch of Islam. Abdul Qadir al Jazairi, the Ottoman Empire, Saladin were all sufis but they were far from pacifists. Even today, the Naqshabandi Brigades in Iraq continue to carry out operations against the army of the Americans in Iraq. In Caucasus, the Circassians were themselves animated by sufi warrior ethics when fighting the czar, though this has been heavily warped by a Wahhabi austerity in recent years. Sufism is not what the United States thinks it is.
As for Aga Khan Ismailis, I know very little, apart from that the Aga Khan is fabulously wealthy (and generous to his community) and their history during the Middle Ages, about their contemporary political positions. I do know the Aga Khan visited Syria a number of years ago and was received quite well. I don’t know what measure you are using to compare the support of the United States and Europe to Ismailism rather than the Bahai’s or Ahmadis; I do know that Western newspapers carry very little news on anything happening within the Ismaili community, and this appears to me to be a lack of interest rather than any favouritism.
Member since
August 2010
Sufism can mean different things to different people… I know of o many examples of westerners adopting Sufism
For example, former (2005-2008) American Ambassador to Egypt (also was senior officer in army and intelligence) Francis Joseph Ricciardone is in love with Sufism.
I was at a Depeche mode concert last year and I realized that the background of their song “precious” was a projection of the lyrics of Iranian Sufi poet Hafez’s “I Have Learned So Much“
I have learned so much from God
That I can no longer call myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew.
The truth has shared so much of itself with me
That I can no longer call myself
A man, a woman, an angel, or even a pure soul.
Love has befriended Hafez so completely, it has turned to ash and freed me…
Of every concept and image, my mind has ever known.
The “chosen” Imam of Park51 is a Sufi Muslim …
Similarly, The Aga Khan foundation and the Aga Khan himself are highly respected in Europe and the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W52K0pK_f8w
And this illustrates the difficulty of trying to explain minority relations exclusively as the result of political adoption of minorities by the west.
Camille,
I think your argument is a valid one, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises. I can make a statement to you that “If it is raining in New York, then a blue car will drive past my house. It is raining in New York therefore a blue car has driven past my house”. In essence, you’ve made the same argument, and it is valid, but your premises don’t lead to your conclusion.
Notwithstanding your formidable erudition in recognising a poem by Hafiz in a Depeche Mode concert, and your fantastic taste in rock music, what can we deduce from what you have just proposed? So a US ambassador, a music band, and some people appreciate sufism in the West. Firstly, these people do not dictate American foreign policy. Secondly, there are plenty of Muslims fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq FOR the United States, and they are convinced that there is no contradiction between their beliefs and their actions. So, should we say Islam is all things to all people and hence there is no objective narrative to which it belongs? We do this at the risk of sinking into absurdity. There is a universal and a specific attribute to all things. The universal part shares with other objects, the particular differentiates it from others in its class. So Camille is a Syrian, but he is also, say, Armenian. Should we therefore say that all Syrians are Armenians, or all Armenians are Syrian and vice versa? Or should we differentiate Camille from the class he belongs to, from his genus and sub-genus based on the context we are referring to him in?
The context becomes something very important, and is often lost in the jumble of social and political science discourse. We are discussing minority relations in this topic in relation to a context that is taking place in the world today, that does not mean we are applying this as a universal rule. But we must make sense of what is occurring and for that end, we create rules from the recognisable norms, and then create exceptions to the rule. We simply cannot acquire any rational understanding of what is happening if, as many bloggers and clueless activists do, we attempt to construct an understanding based on exceptions as if they are rules. We end up, as is the case with the people I’ve mentioned, sounding incoherent.
Member since
August 2010
Wassim,
I am not sure I see the inappropriate cause and effect assumption I made that you feel belongs more naturally into the correlation, or even coincidence, realm .. assuming this is what you implied with your rain and blue car passing example.
Let me also clarify that I did not recognize, on the spot, the lyrics as a part of a poem by Hafez. I had my iPhone in the concert and I googled a few words and THEN recognized the source of those lyrics… can’t accept any “formidable erudition” credits : )
But I was sure they sounded Sufi … and many other songs from Depeche Mode are influenced by Sufi thinking and other similar spiritual schools or religions. Check the lyrics for “my little soul” from their most recent album.
The Depeche Mode example I gave you and that of the former US ambassador to Egypt who used to be an intelligence and army adviser were to illustrate the attractiveness of a version of Islam (adopted by a small minority of Muslims) that is quite appealing to many westerners without being considered particularly objectionable or immoral by a majority of Muslims… Sufis are not considered Western tools. Many influential westerners are fans of Sufi Islam…
Since you mentioned the difference between universal and specific attributes, I will explain that part as well through this two-birds-with-one-stone article:
http://www.calodges.org/ncrl/sufifree.html
Here is a relevant segment:
“For the individual who knows how and when to advance beyond the appearances which at times seem discordant and contradictory and reaches the central nucleus of a proposed concept and/or theory, it must not be difficult to encounter profound parallelisms among Traditions which emanate from the same fountain. Thus, it is with minimum or no effort that we can realize how Free-Masonry shares so many essential tenets, attributes and characteristics with other socio-cultural movements which have emerged all throughout the history of mankind; Movements which in the form of academies, cults, private associations, clubs, congregations, guilds and corporations united and still unite “men and women of good repute and customs” who labor incessantly in the construction of their Inner Temples.
The acceptance of this proven fact, however, must not lead us to the extreme assumption that “everything is identical”, thus reducing Traditions to its minimum common denominator and therefore losing its intrinsically characteristic richness. The fact that “within their nucleuses” Traditions seem analogous does not make their manifestations appear so before the eyes of the common folk, for in order to really appreciate it, it is necessary to make an active and persevering effort.
One of the traditions which outside the occidental frame distinguishes itself among those most proximate to Free-Masonry, is Sufism. The similarity and compatibility of Sufism with the Craft is such that, quite frequently, learned men and women refer to Free-Masonry as: “Western Sufism”, and, in like manner, they refer to Sufism as: “Free-Masonry of Islam”.”
Well Camille,
I simply didn’t think that the premises you gave led to that conclusion. They were interesting but we weren’t saying that certain aspects of Islam would not be interesting to different people. All I’m saying is that there is an arena for interaction between “Western” states and majority-Muslim states where one of the tools at policy-makers’ disposal is that of ethnic minorities.
As for the intricacies of Sufism, and of those lodges, that is an interest of mine that has been growing recently, and in another article or perhaps another discussion we have, we can exchange ideas. Many wahhabis would probably hang me by the testicles, but I’m coming to the opinion that core aspects of Sufism are far truer to the original source than they would have us believe, but also far more profound and far-reaching than Western policy-makers have in mind.
Anyhow we can agree to disagree 🙂
Member since
August 2010
Oh, I see. … my point is that Sufi Islam is “backed” by many influential westerners, yet its followers do not face the same discrimination that Bahaiis or Ahmadis face.
Then I was trying to illustrate how Sufi Islam and Ismaeli Islam are respected and admired in the west because I got the impression that you felt that they are admired for the wrong reasons when you wrote “This is an area of Islam that is popularly conceived to be very fluffy and devoid of any political clout”
They do regard Sufi Islam as a peaceful and wise religion and philosophy, but fluffy is not the right word.
And, yes, we will have a nice future discussion topic that is targeted somewhere near this field.
Arn’t most Syrians Sufi ?
Norman,
No they are not.
Wassim,
What are they ?
Naim,
Look it up on Google.
((( Islam in Syria comprises 87% of the total population.[1] Sunnis make up 74%[1] of the total, mostly of Arab, Kurdish and Turkish ethnicities. Shia’s make up the remaining 13%[1]: Alawites, Ismailis, and Twelvers. Alawites are the pre-dominant Shia group, followed by Twelvers and Ismailis. Sunnis are mainly of the Shafi’i madhhab with pockets of Hanafi and Hanbali. Several large Sufi orders are active in the country, including the Naqshbandi tariqa, and Qadiriyya. Although not traditionally considered as Muslims, the Druze make up 3% of the total population.[1] )))