Can Sufism help fight back Wahhabism?

So. You’re talking about fighting an extreme version of a religion by spreading a more peaceful version?

I can answer the last part of your q. No, the west can’t do anything without appearing manipulative. Because this would be manipulation.

The west would be wise to stay out if any or all issues facing Africa, and /or the Middle East. There is a profound difference between our way of thinking and there’s. Not necessarily in a bad way, just VERY different.

If a country in one of the regions asked for western help, that’s one thing. We could discuss giving them aid or not. But simply acting has been a mixed bag for the west ,and has caused immeasurable harm to not just those people living in the regions, but to the world.

Weather it’s the CIA behind the scenes, or a politician waving to crowds and using diplomacy, the west has fumbled more often than not. Even when we are nice to some countries, we piss other countries off by doing so.

I’d like to see a hands off approach. There are plenty of resources in both regions. Let the people there figure out how to harness them for economic gain, and let them decide who to fight, and where.

In the south in America there are waterways that became clogged with underwater foliage. So, the powers that be stocked the water with Asian Carp.

The idea was simple. The carp will eat the foliage, and then we’ll have nice clean water again.

Unfortunately the plan half worked. The water is improved. But the carp multiplied beyond expectations. They jump (high) when nervous. Now you have to wear a helmet to go down some rivers because you might get knocked out by a fish jumping into the boat.

Sometimes well intended plans have unintended, negative ramifications.

Sufism is a peaceful way of life which is very close to in concepts of Hinduism. Wahhabi sect is on another side of the spectrum. Both have been followed for a long time by many. It isn’t something that can be manipulated though since there are very less chances of changing mindset of those people which are very rigid. Only thing west can do is stay out of their internal matters.

@MrGrimm888 So. You’re talking about fighting an extreme version of a religion by spreading a more peaceful version?

Yes.

You are right though: the implied western manipulation of Sufism is itself fatal to the whole idea of Sufism fighting Wahhabism FROM WITHIN. Politically, it could easily backfire or be rendered inneffective by the very fact that the West supported it. Spiritually it is in fact contrary to the very lessons of this great man Tierno Bokar was.

The life of Tierno Bokar in itslef is a tragic example of what political manipulation of religion can lead to. He chose to follow a certain young Cheikh Hammal with lots of “wirdu”, newly nominated by the head-office of the Tijani tariqa (brotherhood). He followed him specifically on whether a certain prayer must be recited 11 or 12 times. He chose 11, thus returning to the original tradition, different from than the one prevallent at the time among his fellow Tall of the toucouleur tribe: the tradition of reciting it 12 times.

It transpires that 11 and 12 mean something in Sufism. All numbers do. It’s called numerology, and it’s similar to the Jewish gematria. Very new age. 11 means the unity of God (1) and his creature (1). It stresses the individual relation between man and his God, God and His creature. It de-emphasizes the religious engagement in social and political life. It says: separation of mosque and state, work on your own personal relation to God, and let others live their own relation to God. It speaks of internal jiahd (religious struggle against oneself). 12 on the other hand symbolizes the action in the world. The physical presence of religion in this world. It speaks of external jihad. You would think that for the French, 11 was better than 12.

Unfortunatelly, nobody among the French colonials involved could understand nor cared much for numerology… Bokar’s fellow Talls soon ostracized him and started badmouthing the “11 grains” through their sons working for the French as clerck, translators or house employees. All The French saw was that there was some sort of trouble among the natives… and that it seemed to do with the traditional way of praying being questioned by some dangerous “Hammalists”... so they persecuted all Hammalists thus unwittingly supressing their spiritual friends. The manipulator was easily manipulated… As a result, Bokar ended up repudiated and punished not only by the French colonial establishment but also and primarily by his own extended family. He died as a recluse in his deserted school in Bandiagara, unallowed to teach to anyone and even forbidden to pray at the mosque…

(I found an English source for the second part of the book)

You might as well ask how Muslims could support a cure for Christian fundamentalism while trying to wipe them out with drones.

Twirling dervishes? The suggestion that the more “enlightened” gentle superstition is the answer to reining in its belligerent relative seems futile to me. I’m just SO tired of the stupid nonsense around ALL the hair brained nonsense. The very idea that pissed off notoriously violent Wahabists might submit to the lulling embrace of deluded mysticists is ludicrous on its face. Isn’t it sufficient to suffer the stupidities of the flag worshipers and snake handlers here at home?

@oliveir5 . That is a sad tale ,or ending anyway. But it seems common. His ostracism was in part at least due to small (well , to me small) differences.

These small differences are a big deal to many religious people. It makes little sense to me.to agree on so much bit be mad about so little. Again, my ignorance of this way of life, and the ignorance of my government to these minute details is precisely why we shouldn’t mettle with their affairs.

I like your idea. Most simply go on and on about the problem with little realistic solutions mentioned. Trying to fight fire with fire isn’t a unique concept, but in the end I’m afraid it would be nothing more than another reason for people to dislike the west . The consequences of say, changing a few million people over to ‘this’ type of religion are unknown. The result could be worse than the current situation.

@MrGrimm A Mauritanian friend told me his government is already expelling the Wahhabist mullahs from Mauritania, and rooting for some Sufi brotherhood or another at the risk of appearing manipulative. My country, France, already monitors Mullah’s and routinely expell the post rabid. So we’re not very far from the sort of things i was considering, such as sponsoring a sufi tv channel.

I am not necessarily speaking of supporting sufi groups abroad. The western world is home to a great number of muslims and would benefit from a form of Islam compatible with secularism, in Paris, Chicago or Berlin.

And obviously, it cannot deradicalize the already rabid. The idea would be to invest in the next generation, to try and avoid radicalization before it happens.

@stanleybmanly Yes, twirling dervishes are part of sufism. Music in general tends to be valued and practiced by sufi orders, but prohibited by wahhabists.

Are you saying that you have no preference between 1) guys who kill other people for listening to music, and 2) guys who try to get closer to God by listening to music?

To me. Religion IS THE PROBLEM.

Remove religion some how, and peace would be much more achievable.

But removing religion is not realistic. Unfortunately.

Religions and their followers are ,and will be THE biggest source of problems going forward in a world that will be helplessly overpopulated for the foreseeable future.

Everyone is just going to have to learn to COEXIST. This is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

I’m sorry to be SO mad. But this is what drives me CRAZY about religion.

The people described have far less UNCOMMON than they do common . They need to settle their differences. I just can’t understand why these subtle differences in an unproven belief are SO important. Worth killing and dying over? Worth killing millions, worth killing women and children? Worth destroying the global economy? Worth sacrificing OUR citizens in terrorist attacks ? Worth what for what?...

The US has done quite enough. If I were either an African or Middle Eastern nation, I would hope that the US would just stop interference with the region. The world won’t help. As far as sanctions or any other deterent for the US to act different. (Not blaming the world, but yall could have stood up to us….) (Hate saying ‘us’ these days….)

Coming together and using diplomacy is the only way to lasting peace. But those in the world have to admit to equal footing before any agreements can be made.

As I’ve stated before , Civil rights in these countries in Africa and The Middle East have a long way to go. And the 1st step is admitting equal trights.

Without a basic understanding of equality, nothing other than dictatorship, tyrany, or other suppressive government can ‘work.’

Democracy cannot function without the majority of the Democratic nation seeing ALL other people as equals.

Without that acknowledgement, the people will forever suffer in Africa and the Middle East.

Civil rights are a steppingstone to democracy (a realistic, sustainable democracy anyway. )

I don’t think religion per se is the problem. Historically, in Europe the largest and most murderous wars and massacres all happened during the 20th century, and were motivated by secular ideologies such as nationalism, nazism or communism. The only exceptions I can think of would be 1) the Thirty Years’ War, which started as a religious conflict but soon became a general political war, and 2) the Armenian genocide, which could be seen as at least in part motivated by religion, but even there one could also see the result of the rise in nationalism in Europe as the main trigger.

Similarly, Islamism is a modern ideology meant as a response to Western world domination during the late 19th century. Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Mahdist movement in Sudan all happened at the same time more or less, and were responses to English imperialism. It’s all relatively recent and it has little to do with traditional, historical Islam.

I respectfully disagree that religion is not to blame.

What do you blame it for, specifically?

Uh. Religion. I’m sorry. But to me it’s the worst problem facing humanity, by far.
People’s interpretations of their faiths are what lead to most wars and conflicts.
You mentioned that the biggest, more recent wars were not because of religion. You left out the previous 2000 years. Christianity and Islam have the highest body count, but people are frequently killed all over the world in much smaller scenarios because of religion. When a girl in Afghanistan is stoned to death because she was rapped, that’s religion for you. When they burned those ‘witches’ in Salem, religion. When parents let a child die when medical treatment is available, but conflicts with their religion,that’s another. When a new person in a village in the jungle is blamed for no fish that day, they kill him because of their religious beliefs. Obviously ISIS. The Sunni’s and Shiite’s kill each other over it. The Kurds suffer because of it. Most or all terrorists are theists.

Billions upon billions of lives have been or are effected by religion in a negative way. I’m not even going to get into how much religion has held science back.

Religion is a disease.

Hell. If I even said ‘religion is a disease’ in many places in this world, I could be jailed or killed.
Just for having an opinion. If that doesn’t make religion dangerous , what does?

@olivier5 No indeed I will take the dervish over a Wahabist any day of the week. My point is that when religion is not the immediate cause of massed conflict in the world, it is certainly an effective tool in its promotion. It is the ONE consistent excuse for inflicting a whole slew of evils on mankind, and amounts to organized superstition masking the primitive aggressions common to us all.

@stanleybmanly , @MrGrimm888 , Yes to all this but 1) are you anywhere close to certain that the same killings and premature death would NOT have happened WITHOUT religion? I mean sometimes people want to fight for other reasons (access to resources for instance) and might use religion as a convenient excuse.

And 2) we should also assess the positive, not just the negative. Would Nelson Mandela or MLK have done what they did without the solace and motivation provided by their faith? Would human rights exist without the judeo-christian tradition of man being made in the image of God, and therefore inherently sacred? Note that all the early humanists were inspired by their faith. Would art have reached the same levels without religion, etc.

We just don’t know what the world would look like if no one ever thought of the concept of god or if that concept never had the success it did have in our world. So we cannot answer these questions, really. They are almost metaphysical. Religion exists and is deeply rooted in our world. The only important question is how we deal with it.

BRAVO. Well and beautifully stated! There is no resolution to the fight over the benefits vs. evils involved with religion. My guess is that there is a great need in us for explanations on things we don’t understand, since there is yet to be a society that doesn’t find its way to the “voodo” explanation for the way things work. But rather than looking to the positive aspects of religion, I would prefer to revel in the “miracle” that we somehow progress in spite of it. Because as your example above verifies, religion will ALWAYS be thrown up as motivation for political purposes good or evil. It may be ironic that the most devastating and terrible wars were fought utilizing the advances realized despite the grinding drag of religion. Even so, I would prefer a march forward minus the superstition, even at risk of the impending doom assured us by followers of the cults self declared indispensable to our salvation. I accept your pragmatic premise that any obstacle to malevolent Wahhabism is worthy of pursuit, but the prospects for mystical Sufism pitted against violently aggressive Wahhabists with Saudi money would appear particularly grim. Thank you for the link on the Schools of the Hostages. It’s one of those intriguing subjects of which I was aware, but never looked into. There are so many fascinating things to learn about. How did you happen to arrive at this particular book on Bokar ?

@olivier .
1.A. Yes. I am certain that billions of bad things including hundreds of millions of deaths would not have happened without religion.
1.B. Agree that religion is sometimes an excuse. Sometimes you are exactly right , like China’s claims overy the South China Sea.
I never intended to infer that the world would be peaceful without it.

2. Religion, without a doubt, has had positive influence over positive people and events throughout history. Perhaps though you give religion too much credit here. Great men don’t have to have a religion to accomplish great things.

My opinion is that religion is a natural evolutionary step. Necessary even, for a species to get civilization started. However, that’s it. After a while it becomes more harm than good.

Science is the way forward. After man established agriculture and governments, religion became a negative concept. If only science could’ve stepped in and said ‘thanks religion, we got it from here.’

Religion is a disease. In terms of science and progress, it is a massive anchor. Science has had to drag religion like a plow, kicking and screaming into the future.

And again, keep in mind, if you were to simply draw an image of Muhammad, you would be wanted dead by millions. That makes the world a better place?

@MrGrimm888 I am certain that billions of bad things including hundreds of millions of deaths would not have happened without religion.
Hundreds of millions? That sound waaay overboard to me. More in the ballpark of Communism’s death toll.

Can a sect that espouses peace, harmony and tolerance overcome an intolerant one that demands total adherence to its version of scripture and promotes violence towards individuals and other groups as a means of enforcing these beliefs?

I would say the odds were not in their favor.

@stanleybmanly
How did you happen to arrive at this particular book on Bokar ?
I was in Mali for work last 14th of July, when an alcohol drinking, sexually active Muslim guy, after he went through a period of growing political and religious agitation, decided to plow through a crowd of people with a truck, in Nice, on a place called la Promenade des Anglais… “The English’s promenade”.*

After sickening myself with TV news, i went in the hotel’s library and asked for a book that would reconcile me with Mali, a country 100% Muslim. I needed to keep working in this town and I might just as well enjoy it, was my thinking. Not how can I escape religion or dream of a world without it, but how can I live and work and continue to have fun among millions of Muslims. After Nice.

By chance, somewhere between a treatise on “How to convince other people” and another on “How to make love to your man”, I found an anthology of Malian authors, with brief bios. Amadou Hampâté Bâ looked interesting for his history of a local kingdom, the Macina. The librarian, when asked, gathered half a dozen books by Bâ, with a smile. The Macina history weighted a ton, so I chose the book on Sufism to spare my suitcase. I did not regret it.

*The Englishmen and women in the name are those who invented modern tourism, back in the late 19th, more or less when Gordon was fighting the Mad Mullah in Sudan. They famously invented the Côte d’Azur, and would stroll by the see front like no Niceois ever did. Some may have talked as we do, commenting the newspapers articles about that prophet of doom calling himself the Mahdi (a sort of Muslim messiah), who killed the great General Gordon… For you see, modern Islamism is millenarist in its foundation. It’s about the just being justified again at the end of times, after having been humiliated by history. The same process was at work in the rise of messianic movements in Judea when under the Roman empire. After there were butchered twice by the Romans, the surviving Jews opted for an agiornamento of their religion, dehemphazising nationalist and messianic fervor.

Maybe something like that is in store for Islam. I just wished we could skip the millions of deaths thing… But i guess you’re right: it’s too late for that already. The tit for tat is just irresistable at this poiny. Too much grief accumulated over a century since the Mahdi. Too many humiliations, too much anger.

@olivier5. Please make sure to find a way to get that book scanned onto the Internet.

Again, I like your idea. Your intentions are clearly intended to try and bring peace to spiraling region. I ,with my beliefs, though don’t see it as realistic. I’m afraid those who would try to spread the more peaceful religion would find themselves getting their heads chopped off or worse.

As far as my guesstimated number of people negatively effected by religion, I don’t see it as outlandish at all. For 4,000 years at least, people have been hurting or killing others because of their beliefs or the beliefs of others. That’s a long time with many born and dead . Many generations have come and gone in that time. No doubt each and every person had a negative experience with religion in their lifetime.

Communism is a Fart in the wind to how long religion has been oppressing people or keeping them at odds with one another.

@MrGrimm888 Please make sure to find a way to get that book scanned onto the Internet.

Why, i’m glad you asked!

Interestingly, the first part about Tierno (“Cerno”) Bokar’s life is already posted on the Interwebs on a Fula cultural site (which has lots of other books by Bâ) in French and the second part of the book (“His Words”) is posted in English on a site called World Wisdom.

For 4,000 years at least, people have been hurting or killing others because of their beliefs or the beliefs of others. That’s a long time with many born and dead
For a great deal of this time, there wasn’t that many people around. The total death toll of all the wars and tribulations of the Hebrews described in the “OT”, even if we were to take them all as historical, cannot exceed 1 million.

It’s only when the Romans get involved that serious mass killing occurs. Millions are killed under Hadrian circa 133. In general the roman empire’s creation and consolidation killed a humoungus number of folks. Was that due to religion? Hmmm…

Then what? The crusades? 1 to 3 ml deaths according to wiki. That’s impressive but way less than the Hundred Years’ War which was not religious…

Again sir. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the toll religion has taken on humanity. I didn’t just mean death, I meant including persecution, and other suffering.

However, I will take a look at the works you suggested. I’m glad they won’t be lost or burnt by ISIS. The Internet is good for something.

Beware of modern secular myths. The myth that religion was keeping us in the “dark ages” for instance, and that science freed us from it. That’s just a self-serving foundational myth for modern science but It’s not historically true. The truth is that in Europe at least, science was historically a product of religion, more often than not. All the major universities were founded by the Church, which named a saint patron for scientists and encouraged clergy members to study science. Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton and Descartes were all believers, and either clergy members or linked to religion in one way or another. The list of clergymen who contributed to science is pretty long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists

One could make similar arguments on the Jewish and Muslim sides. Science has historically been springboarded by religion, to a greater degree than it’s been supressed.

The 20th century saw the triumph of modern science and secular politics over religion. God was famously proclaimed dead. What I wonder is: How many people died with Him? Because as is often the case, other gods were born with the death of the old one, new idols called Nation, Race or Class, all stressing the rule of some made-up collective or another, supposedly endowned with a great manifest destiny of world domination… Also because a thoroughly materialist leader has no reason to value human life any more than animal life. We all live in Animal Farm now.

It’s not “ironic” that the most murderous wars happened in the 20th century under secular regimes. It’s only logical when you think of it. Teenagers thrust into adulthood at 18 typically do a lot of excesses. Relieved of their parents’ rule, eg at university, they experiment with a lot of s..t. Then they grow some rules for themselves. They learn out of their own mistakes.

That’s were we are, as a species: free from our “father” (mother) god at last, and learning to be better “fathers / mothers”, ie responsible adults. We’re learning still, and not very fast, how to behave without gods.

Those idols didn’t replace religion, they paralleled the superstitions which were always utilized to reinforce such idols as well as a whole cesspool of other evils. Religion has always been a brake on science and anything else having to do with progress simply because such superstitions cannot tolerate anything altering the status quo surrounding the rigid and arcane dogma which is the bedrock of every one of them. Copernicus, Gallileo and Descartes may have been believers, but each of them caught unmitigated hell for disproving the stupidities proclaimed by their Church on the way things work. All in all, whatever benefits religion has bestowed on mankind, the sum total has been more than mitigated by the regressive need of such scams to dwell in the past and thus suppress the advancement of science and ideas. Religions are by necessity ALWAYS the eternal enemy of change, and their pimary function is the suppression of originality and retardation of us all.

^^What he said.

Agree with what @Stanleybmanly said, with some minor differences.
IMO there is very little evidence that the ‘believer’ scientists mentioned could have actually spoken there mind, untethered from the persecution of their religion. Scientists in the era mentioned had to toe a thin line between sharing their discoveries, and not getting tortured or killed for going too far. We’re they able to speak their minds, and truely, freely experiment the way they wanted, science would have progressed much quicker. Medical science especially was held back by religion.

Anything and everything we know had to get religion’s approval before it could advance humanity.

I find it completely unrealistic that anyone could think of religion differently in regards to science.

When was medical science held back by religion? That’s new to me.

“Unmitigated hell”, huh? Hyperboles and incantations.

Sorry @olivier5. I didn’t want to turn your thread into religion bashing. I respectfully withdraw any further comments on it’s history.

Like I said I liked your idea. It’s one of the only potentially non violent solutions I’ve even heard.

I liked the guitarist you showed me on that other thread too.

Peace n love.

@olivier5 I’m willing to substitute harassed and censored for unmitigated hell. Hyperboly and incantations aside, the truth of the consequences for these “believers” at the hands of their church are beyond dispute. And as for religion hindering the advancement of medical science, one need look no further than the current vigorous effort on the part Christian knuckleheads to oppose and derail stem cell research, obliterate birth control, etc.

@MrGrimm888 I see the critique of religion as a valid part of this thread, not as an aside. My premise was that not everything was bad in Islam, and that we could perhaps use the good part to fight the bad part. Evidently if you think that everything religious is inherently wrong, then you cannot agree with my take.

So I am not concerned about “religion bashing”, really. What I am bothered by, is that you seem to shy away from historical facts and content yourself with vague, general incantations about how religion is fundamentally evil… As a result, you and Stan come across as preachers of your own anti-religious doctrine, not as rational people who can argue based on facts.

@olivier5. That’s why I stopped. I didn’t want to take turns with Stan beating a dead horse.

It seems to me that @stanleybmanly and I both have an unwavering view of religion as a negative. Nothing anyone could say would change that.

And you yourself are a believer. Nothing stanleybmanly or I could say would change that. I hope.

One of the things I don’t like to do, is try and talk someone out of their religion. I felt that to continue on course would breach that ground. The truth is I am very anti religion, and can become passionate about it and potentially offensive to a theist. I don’t wish to offend you. I feel that you were one who is denying facts. It doesn’t take a historian to know what a burden religion has been on science and technology. Because of religious beliefs, those in the past who would study anatomy had to essentially resort to grave robbing to learn more about anatomy and physiology. Most of the first to study real medical science,or anatomy for artistic purposes, did so in secret, for fear of religious backlash. When I took anatomy and physiology in college my lab teacher spoke several times of how impossible it would have been for us to learn ‘hands on’ with actual cadaver bones and body parts in the past. There are some who allow their own children to die when medical treatment exists, but conflicts with the parent’s religious beliefs. Some die because they refuse transfusions.Diseases like Ebola spread rapidly because of religious beliefs in regards to death of others. As far as handling corpses and burial rituals. Others seek treatment from what would be called ‘witch doctors ’ instead of scientifically proven methods.

If you don’t think religion is harmful, and you have working eyes and ears, then it is you sir, that are being irrational and shying away from historical fact.

You are correct, at least in regards to my opinion, that all religions are inherently harmful (not evil.) But as I stated, I understand your question, and the idea.

Just for the record, I’m not a “believer”. I’m such a thorough, uncompromising unbeliever that I will even doubt the myths and fairy tales spread by my fellow atheists… ;-) such as the fairy tale that religion has killed “hundreds of millions of people”.

To me, atheism is not about hating a new demon (Religion instead of Satan) or worshiping a new idol (Science instead of God). That’s just materialism, and it’s just a particularly illogical form of religion, that’s all.

Atheism to me is being able to break ANY idol I want to break, and to love ANY demon I want to love. It’s to realize that pretty much anything can be good or bad depending on the use we make of it, including science and including religion. To realize that the science of a nuclear bomb is not morally “good”, nor is the spirituality of a Tierno Bokar or Martin Luther King necessarily “bad”. That’s true, ultimate atheism for me.

Well said @olivier5. I think you made some great points there about atheism being a kind of religion. For the record. I consider myself atheist because I don’t know of a better word.

Science can be abused too, as you point out. But science is based in fact at least.Science is not ‘good, or evil.’ Science is supposed to be just plain fact. 1+1=2. That’s mathematical science. Not open to interpretation. Religion itself isn’t the problem, but it’s mere existence can be used to excuse what seem to be the worst traits of humanity. It is most similar to a disease or a fire. Once it starts, it quickly can get out of hand and hurt lots of people.

I could dispute the idea that science is not open to intepretation, but i’d rather agree with your metaphor of religion as disease or a fire.

To me, religion is like a mental virus that would be constantly mutating. Some strains of the virus are deadly and change you into a murdering zombie; others are harmless; others may even be beneficial in some circumstances… I’m just saying: one strategy is to try and eradicate the deadly strains; another strategy is to try and spread the most benign forms instead, hoping they will provide some immunity to the deadly strains.

By the way, the book has been made into a play by Peter Brooks, and a documentary by Louis Decque.

Thanks @olivier5. The play may be more palatable for me.

I have problems with thick books, that I don’t agree with. I tried to read the Bible, the Quran, and a big old book about Islam and Muhammed’s life. But I just couldn’t get through them.

It’s not a lack of interest. Maybe a translation thing…

You could try the life of Mohammad in cartoons, by Charlie Hebdo authors Charb and Zineb… :-)

Indeed. I’m low brow. But I’ll try and start with the English version you linked.

The chapter in English posted upthread (His Words) takes two or three hours to read/ponder. You will certainly find much to disagree about. But if you agree to disagree, and patiently move on, there’s also much in there an atheist can meditate upon. Starting with the metaphor of the “porous man” who listens to all the traditions and become wiser as a result. This says something about the value of cultural diversity, about the difficult but rewarding effort it takes to pay attention to a different tradition than the one we belong to.

Peter Brooks also adapted to stage the Conference of the Birds, another Sufi text, a well known poem about, well, birds who gather in a conference and go on a quest for Simorgh, a sort of mythical bird-god they want as their king… written in Persian some 800 years ago by no other than Attar of Nishapur himself…

Esoteric is the word you’re looking for. At this stage it should be clear to all that the Sufis do not stand much of a chance against ISIS…

Yeah. ISIS seems to thrive off of their ruthless brutality. In fact, I would say their intimidating style of war is their best weapon.