[Ford Prefect]

I don't know if these challenges were at all directed at me, but if you have access to Academic Search Complete, there's a great article by Susan Pratt Walton entitled "Aesthetic and Spiritual Correlations in Javanese Gamelan Music," which highlights the convergence of the mystical aspects of Islam, Sanskrit traditions, and Sumarah in the context of (surprise!) gamelan.

Primarily, however, I would recommend reading Clifford Geertz-- particularly Islam Observed, in which he contrasts the development of Islam in Morocco and Indonesia. (This might be especially relevant because he deals with the problem of ideologization.)

[Ace]

The gamelan aka that creepy Cylon instrument....

[Kosh]

My high school class on Islam is the first thing that comes to mind. Second thing is a big screed somewhere on feminism in Islam and how things really changed for women once Persian traditions became assimilated into the spread of Islam.

Cambridge University vs. high school, such a hard choice.

[General Battuta]

I cited historical fact. The means of transmission is irrelevant so long as it's reliable.

The claim that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded is wrong.

[Ford Prefect]

The gamelan aka that creepy Cylon instrument....

Technically a gamelan is an ensemble, but yeah, Bear McCreary did a kickass job with instrumentation.

[Kosh]

I cited historical fact. The means of transmission is irrelevant so long as it's reliable.

The claim that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded is wrong.

The problem with history is that it is too easily spun around to fit whatever political agenda a certain group may have, which is why the reputation of the source matters. Most people would be inclined to go with what one of the top 5 universities in the world might say about, well, anything.

[karajorma]

And where is your source for what they say? I must have missed it.

[General Battuta]

I cited historical fact. The means of transmission is irrelevant so long as it's reliable.

The claim that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded is wrong.

The problem with history is that it is too easily spun around to fit whatever political agenda a certain group may have, which is why the reputation of the source matters. Most people would be inclined to go with what one of the top 5 universities in the world might say about, well, anything.

None of the top 5 universities in the world say that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded. At least nobody who studies history does.

[Kosh]

NGTM-1R said:

I've got the Cambridge University Encyclopedia of Islam

[General Battuta]

And it does not say that Islam remained static as it expanded.

Like Christianity, Islam assimilated local traditions.

[NGTM-1R]

I do hearby in shame recant my reading of it, having checked again.

...though it does bear out my point somewhat in that Christianity homogenized, and Islam...hasn't.

[Ford Prefect]

I think the homogeneity of Christianity would be an equally difficult point to argue. A theological discussion between an Ethiopian Orthodox priest and a Pentecostal minister would probably give the impression of being a dispute between two entirely different religions.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, if anything Islam seems slightly more homogeneous. The big divide is Sunni/Shia and the main rites and such are pretty similar.

[Ford Prefect]

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, but I suppose it's difficult to quantify. Basically anywhere that Sufism has been exported has seen some notable degree of religious syncretism. One of the most fascinating aspects of religion, I think, is how much it can blend with its regional or local context and still be called the same thing.

[NGTM-1R]

I think the homogeneity of Christianity would be an equally difficult point to argue. A theological discussion between an Ethiopian Orthodox priest and a Pentecostal minister would probably give the impression of being a dispute between two entirely different religions.

Yes.

But on the other hand, when we discuss Christianity, what are the main divisions? Protestant and Catholic. As a practical accounting runs, it's more or less split 60-50% Catholic and then everybody else. The division is further cut down by the fact a number of prominent Protestant sects like the Lutherans no longer have significant distinctions in doctrine from Catholicism. In practical terms, one could present mass to 70% of Christianity at once and not upset somebody.

Islam can be divided into at least three major sects at the moment, of which two are directly inimical to each other, and their split is rather more even. So yes, I think it's safe to say Christianity has homogenized better.

[Turambar]

i always got the impression that sunni was barebones islam and shiia was the catholicism of islam, where they started with the same thing and then piled on a bunch of unrelated cultural bull**** over the years.

i might be biased though, since i was raised sunni muslim :-P

[Ford Prefect]

Yes.

But on the other hand, when we discuss Christianity, what are the main divisions? Protestant and Catholic. As a practical accounting runs, it's more or less split 60-50% Catholic and then everybody else. The division is further cut down by the fact a number of prominent Protestant sects like the Lutherans no longer have significant distinctions in doctrine from Catholicism. In practical terms, one could present mass to 70% of Christianity at once and not upset somebody.

Islam can be divided into at least three major sects at the moment, of which two are directly inimical to each other, and their split is rather more even. So yes, I think it's safe to say Christianity has homogenized better.

I'd add Eastern Orthodox to that, so there are three biggies in Christianity. But even before we consider the ones that don't fall under any of those, these three are staggeringly fractured. Protestants range from Congregationalists, who are arguably one step away from Unitarian Universalists, to Lutheranism, which, as you mentioned, is as tightassed as Catholicism, and everything in between. Catholicism splits into the Eastern and Western rites, and additionally is subject to widely varying interpretation from region to region. (Catholicism in Latin America, for instance, makes its U.S. counterparts look downright progressive.)

And Eastern Orthodoxy, I mean... holy ****. First, you have the schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church "proper" versus the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, plus within each of these groups you have autocephalous churches, autonomous churches, and churches not recognized by their respective communions.

Then, outside these three vague semblances of unified groups, you have the Anglicans, who also range from progressive to conservative, and the various Non-Trinitarian sects like Oneness Pentecostals, Jehova's Witnesses, "free" non-denominational Christians, etc., and the so-called Assyrian Church, which itself spawned an offshoot.

So yeah, it's a mess. My point is that although we can divide both these religions into broad categories, quite often those categories don't actually tell us very much.

[Mika]

It's hard to know the general reason behind the whole episode. I cannot find actual interviews of Swiss in the article, but several explanations are hinted. Racism and intolerance are first mentioned. I thought about it in different way:

Well, first of all I note they banned constructing minarets and not mosques. I'm not sure how Islam is spreading around Europe elsewhere, and if they are using loudspeakers in the same way as they do in Middle East. General population would never accept building minarets around here if that is the case and prayers would be blasted out around 8 o'clock every morning. I confess I would vote against that too!

For some reason I consider Lutheran church bells lot less annoying. At least churches don't play them for a long time and sometimes they are used to mark hours with a single sounding Bong.

[zookeeper]

if they are using loudspeakers in the same way as they do in Middle East.

Nope, that was already banned in Switzerland.

[NGTM-1R]

I'd add Eastern Orthodox to that, so there are three biggies in Christianity. But even before we consider the ones that don't fall under any of those, these three are staggeringly fractured.

Eastern Orthodox Catholic. It's an important distinction. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism regard each other as interchangeable and have for a long time. You can recieve communion at either, go to confession at either, and the other will regard it as perfectly valid. That's why they were lumped together as simply "Catholicism". Anglicanism has also been retroactively lumped into the same category by the Pope's olive branch to the Anglican community; they're being allowed to keep their own practices if they choose to change their allegiance which amounts to tacit approval of their practice, and the Patriarch or anyone else has not issued any modification of the approval of Roman Catholics to exclude the Anglicans who change allegiance but not practice so that is tacitly approved as well. The Lutherans fall into a somewhat grey area in that Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic will allow communion but not confession. That pretty much accounts for 70%+ of Christianity right there.

So as a practical matter, the majority of Christianity sees it in a much less complex light then you do. Two of what you would term "major factions" literally consider themselves brothers.