iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Interfaith Understanding Remains Elusive 10 Years After 9/11

First Posted: 08/22/2011 3:00 pm EDT Updated: 10/22/2011 5:12 am EDT

By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

(RNS) In a post-9/11 bid to better relations with local Muslims, pastor Bob Roberts invited Muslims to his NorthWood Church in Keller, Texas, for Q-and-A sessions, a cooking club and to help on a few home remodeling projects.

The result: Roberts lost "a bunch of church members," he said.

In Denver, pastor Max Frost asked volunteers from his Roots Vineyard church to help paint a local mosque. Friends and family told him it was a bad idea.

And at Hillsboro Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tenn., the Rev. Nancy McCurley started an interfaith Scripture study with local Muslims, only to be told by a critic that "in a year's time, this church will be a mosque."

In the 10 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks exposed the deep divide between America's Judeo-Christian majority and American Muslims, a host of projects have tried to foster interfaith understanding.

To be sure, there have been signs of hope for the future of interfaith relations. But along with progress has come polarization: threats of Quran burnings, protests of proposed mosques, and fears of Islamic law in the U.S. legal system.

A month after the 9/11 attacks, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 47 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Islam. By 2010, that figure had only gotten worse, dropping to 37 percent.

Which begs the question: has the flurry of activities aimed at interfaith understanding actually accomplished anything?

Eboo Patel, founder of the Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, said the furor over the proposed Park51 Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero highlighted the need to gauge the quality, not just quantity, of interfaith efforts.

"Tens of thousands of people in the country who were participating in interfaith projects basically were watching this on TV, ... saying what difference does our work make on a national level?" said Patel, who is Muslim.

As activists like Patel push to foster meaningful relationships between Islam and other faiths, there has been pushback from groups who have no interest in such relations, or who question aspects of Islam.

Gustav Niebuhr, author of "Beyond Tolerance," said the divide reflects three types of Americans -- the pro-interfaith crowd, the anti-Muslim segment and "the-don't-know-too-much middle" that can be swayed by either side.

Recently, the two poles have debated the possible influence of Shariah, or Islamic law, even though there has been no concerted effort by American Muslims to introduce it into American courtrooms.

"The problem is when people think of Shariah, the only image that comes to mind is the Taliban stoning some poor woman to death in Afghanistan," said Niebuhr, a professor at Syracuse University. "That's the outer limit."

In a growing circle of evangelical churches, there has been a sort of reverse pushback by leaders who are turned off by fellow Christians trying to block mosque construction and blaming Islam for 9/11.

The Rev. Joseph Cumming, an evangelical who directs the Yale Center for Faith and Culture Reconciliation Program, said more evangelicals are asking what Jesus would do when it comes to relating to Muslims.

"There's a hunger in churches to ask that question," he said. "That wasn't being asked before 9/11."

Mahan Mirza, vice president of academic affairs at Zaytuna College, a new Muslim school in Berkeley, Calif., said Christian-Muslim relations are generally better on the local level, where he has seen an increase among evangelicals who think the Bible requires such outreach.

"Sometimes that's couched in the language of love your enemy so ... it's not done in spite of Christian teachings; it's done because of Christian teachings," said Mirza, a former professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Last year, Rick Love started Peace Catalyst International in Chandler, Ariz., which sponsored dinners with members of a local mosque and his Vineyard church to foster what he calls "Jesus-centered peacemaking communities."

He cautions fellow evangelicals to be humble before criticizing the harsh punishments demanded by others' scriptures: "I praise God that we don't live under the Old Testament," he said.

Yet some evangelical leaders, including Southern Baptist executive Richard Land, have been condemned for supporting Muslims.

"Southern Baptists were comfortable with me advocating that Muslims have the right to have mosques," said Land, who supported a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. "What they were not comfortable with was me being part of a coalition that was filing a suit in order for them to have these mosques."

Suhail Khan, a Muslim member of the advisory council of the interfaith Buxton Initiative, said he is alarmed Americans' declining favorable views of Muslims.

He blames a "cottage industry of hate" for the shift and finds himself answering more questions about Shariah than the basics of what Muslims believe when he visits evangelical churches.

"I'm having to undo all kinds of misinformation and very hateful misinformation," said Khan.

Undeterred, Patel puts much of his hope in the 200 colleges and seminaries -- including nine evangelical schools -- that participated in a recent White House event kicking off yearlong interfaith service projects. He expects many of the students will eventually launch similar projects at companies and in cities where they move after graduation.

"I think that college campuses are going to be models of interfaith cooperation and I think they're going to graduate a generation of interfaith leaders," he predicted.

ATHEISTS SUE OVER WTC MEMORIAL CROSS

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

Filed by Jahnabi Barooah  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 662
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
05:08 PM on 08/27/2011
"How neighborhood barbecues, Thanksgiving dinner, and Little League will save Islam's image in America"

There's a better way to improve Islam's image than interfaith dialogue. Personal connections and visible investment in American culture.

Check out The Crescent Directive: An essay on improving Islam's image in America
www.thecrescentdirective.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
rachydee
If logic prevailed, men would ride side-saddle
12:56 AM on 08/27/2011
This is bull. Interfaith understanding is not about these public events, but individuals in their communities. And on that level we've seen lots of progress.
Way to fan the flames Huff Po.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jahnabi Barooah
Assistant Editor, Religion
01:10 AM on 08/27/2011
In order for interfaith understanding to really exist, don't you think it should appear on a national scale rather than just in small communities (in which case, yes, there has been progress)? I mean, large scale events are a reflection of society as a whole, whereas smaller-scale communities reflect just those communities which might be more (or less) progressive than the national average.
02:17 PM on 08/26/2011
go ahead and build a mosque in nyc. only time will show you how stupid, liberal, or left you are. but you will be sorry in the end. there will be no new mosque in murfreesboro. the people here simply will not allow it to happen. no matter what has to be done will be done to stop the construction. many people may go to jail but in the end, there will be no mosque. you may call us racist, bigoted, redneck, etc. but we are not IGNORANT to what islam is all about. islam is about intolerance for other beliefs. it is more a form of government like fascism than it is a religion. we will not be conquered because we are willing to fight.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jahnabi Barooah
Assistant Editor, Religion
12:51 AM on 08/27/2011
Why do you say that Islam is fundamentally about intolerance for other beliefs, and that it is more a form of government than a religion?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:00 PM on 08/27/2011
" o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslim­s, and it is etymologic­ally derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad..."

[...]

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);"

[...]

I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god by Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possession­s from me, except for the rights of Islam over them." [...]

http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:01 PM on 08/27/2011
Or, as bin Laden put it:

“[O]ur talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?

Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission [i.e., conversion]; or payment of the jizya [poll-tax paid by non-Muslims], thereby bodily, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.

The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die…. Such, then, is the basis of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion.”

(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42.)
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
09:57 AM on 08/26/2011
To Jan Allen:

Are you going to respond to some of my posts from yesterday?

If not, I will stop monitoring comments on this article, which are not really comments now as they have become discussions on many aspects of Islam.

Please advise,

Thanks,
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
02:22 PM on 08/26/2011
No response.

Very well, I am done with the comment section of this article.

If you are reading this post of mine and you and I have engaged in a discussion, many thanks to you and know that there are no hard feelings if we have disagreed, for we all have unique perspectives to the reality.

Take care,
maxfax
Taa - dah!
10:07 PM on 08/25/2011
We've had nearly ten years of fearmongering in politics, and by Fox, how could it be different?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guttersnipe76
Queerly Complex, Utterly Simple
08:37 PM on 08/25/2011
I have a hard time with the title of this post "Interfaith Understanding Remains Elusive...". When I came here, I was hoping to find an article about pluralistic interfaith understanding. What I found was understanding between Christians and Muslims with an after thought about atheists tacked on as a video at the end. That is not interfaith.

This is the same issue I have with most interfaith conversations/dialogues/posts: they tend not to explore the breadth of what interfaith actually means. Rather it is relegated in large part to the diversity within the the Judeo/Christian/Islam communities and opening dialogue among and between these mono-theistic religions that all stem historically from similar scriptures (yes, I do understand that each has their own sacred text. There is also a lot of overlap within those texts.) Rarely, you will also get a Buddhist and *maybe* a Hindu sitting at the table. But that is a rare occasion. And those are the interfaith tables here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

(more below)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guttersnipe76
Queerly Complex, Utterly Simple
08:39 PM on 08/25/2011
(cont from above)

I have yet to find a space that reaches across and brings folks of faith and non-faith together to have dialogue between the pluralism of views. As part of a queer theater company called OutLook Theater Project, I helped start opening dialogues between folks of different perspectives. We are currently exploring the intersections of faith, religion and spirituality and gender and sexuality. As part of this exploration, we put a survey online that asked people four belief statements (one on rules, one on god, one on sexuality and one on gender) and then asked people to share their story (link here: http://bit.ly/o33Zd9).

Our survey collected over 200 responses from people of all walks of life from around the world. One stated "I believe that there is only one sexuality: heterosexuality" and followed it with "I believe there is one God and the Bible is rules I live by and I am created to serve God and Jesus Christ die for me so I can have eternal life. I judge no one God is the ultimate judge of all and my job is to share what God has done to me and to love all. I am not perfect and I don't claim to be because I am a sinner saved by grace I live each day like it's my last and I walk daily with GOD I am not hooked to the Worldly system full of greed, selfishness, hate & Materialism."

(more below)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guttersnipe76
Queerly Complex, Utterly Simple
08:42 PM on 08/25/2011
(continued from above)

One shared a story of how he was born Jewish, went to Ghana to study indigenous religions and ended up as a pluralistic humanist. More shared stories of being disconnected from the faith of their families and questing for something better, but are not able to find it in religion. And even more shared stories of the complexities of their religious beliefs that defy the boxes that the leaders of said religions place on them.

In regards to this understanding of faith, I think a lot has happened and even more is happening. Things don't fit neatly into boxes. Even in the comments section here, I see folks trying to put all of Islam into one giant box. It just doesn't work that way. I see others trying to defend their own box by pulling out even more religious text to support their claims. Again, this isn't really all that helpful in the context of building understanding between people.

What matters, at least to me, is our personal stories about WHY we have/don't have "faith". I have noticed that in the responses of hardcore atheists, they have faith in themselves to discern right from wrong. While this might not be a "faith" in the stricter definition of the word, it is a belief system. I holds weight and guides decision making. For me, that is what a "faith" (or just plain faith) is: it is a way to hold yourself to standards of behavior.

(more below)
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
07:34 PM on 08/25/2011
There is a humorous side to some people's concerns about American Muslims.

See this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/post-911-islam-converts_n_935572.html

When one demonizes a religion, any religion, people would get curious about it, and many might even like what they find.

But I don't say it with a sense of pride that so many Americans are converting to Islam, for I see The Truth in all sacred traditions.

But it is perhaps important for some people to convert; it's their personal choice.
photo
FDRinhell
Keep the Change
05:29 PM on 08/25/2011
So much dhimmi dhawa on this thread. The fact is that Muslims have a one-way view on interfaith understanding and that consists of tolerance for their customs and mores while ignoring the desires of their fellow citizens. The Ground Zero Mosque is prime example of this. Just look at how Christians and Hindus are treated in Pakistan or how Coptic Christians are treated in Egypt.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
06:17 PM on 08/25/2011
"So much dhimmi dhawa on this thread."

---------

There is no dhawa.

If certain posters did not relenlessly spread misconceptions about Islam and Muslims there would be no need to correct them.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
07:06 PM on 08/25/2011
Additional Thoughts:

a) Besides, one would have to be totally delusional to think that these forums are suitable for dawa.

b) When one adhers to the doctrine of Transcendent Unity of Religions, as I do, one would KNOW that The Truth resides at the heart of ALL sacred traditions. Consequently, one would feel no need for dawa for one would not be an exclusivist; one would simply join members of other faiths in siging the same song of Love.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
05:22 PM on 08/25/2011
A tolerant Muslim would repudiate the (many) passages in the Quran condemning disbelievers to hellfire.

Any takers? You'd be the first.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
06:47 PM on 08/25/2011
Do you think that evil people like Hitler and good people like Mother Theresa should all end up in Heaven in the Hereafter?

If so, then where is the justice and fairness and accountability?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
03:58 AM on 08/26/2011
As you may have gathered from my other posts, I can only answer this question hypothetically, since I do not believe that heaven or an afterlife exist.

Additionally, in the context of the fact that I do not accept the supposed revelations in the Quran, I am clearly also defined by the Quran as a disbeliever.

I see it as bigotry when someone defends or refuses to reject the passages of the Quran that condemn me and people like me to hellfire.

Regarding accountability, from my perspective, if you condemn a person, even a person who has committed crimes against humanity, you have failed to sufficiently understand that person's background.

I agree that there are actions that can be deemed wrong. At the same time, I believe that each individual is a product of a genetic makeup and set of circumstances that sometimes lead to wrong actions. As a consequence, I do not believe that anyone is ultimately accountable for his actions or that an eternal reward or punishment could be justified.

Obviously, however, society must be protected, and individuals who cause harm or attempt to cause harm must be prevented from doing so, if possible. This should be done as humanely as possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Sandlin
We See The World Not As It Is But As We Are
09:46 PM on 08/25/2011
I'm not religious, and I see most religions' scriptures as saying some similar things, in this regard.

In context, a "disbeliever" is not one who believes differently, but one who does not believe in the offered truth of the religion, *within its own context*, not in comparison to, or with, any other religion.

The idea that religions somehow compare to each other is a big part of the problem and misunderstanding (Is French the true language? Or is it Spanish? English speakers, and others around the world continue to watch the debate with mild curiosity .....).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
03:34 AM on 08/26/2011
My criticism applies not directly to texts (which may be religious or otherwise) that unjustly criticize, condemn or advocate the hatred of any person or group of people; rather, it applies to those individuals who are unwilling to recognize and acknowledge the injustice of what is being advocated. So it's not just about Islam, it's about acknowledging and rejecting injustice.

Uncritically defending a book which advocates injustice is advocating the same injustice.

Since I have encountered many Muslims who in many senses seem to be at least tolerant of other world views and the secular system, I was actually very surprised that I have so far been unable to find a single Muslim who is willing to acknowledge the obvious wrongness of the passages in the Quran condemning disbelievers (defined in the Quran as those who refuse to accept the revelations therein) to eternal hellfire.

I have never encountered even one Muslim who is prepared to reject a single word of the Quran.

Since the Pew Research Center mentions that only 50% of American Muslims are fundamentalists (defined as believing that the Quran is the literal word of God), I assume that there must be Muslims out there who do not condemn disbelievers.

But where are they?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:19 PM on 08/25/2011
@ Doug Sandlin:

How is that problemati­c? How are such Muslims "colonists­"?
===========

I have a problem with one of the five pillars--zakat. It is permitted to use zakat to fund jihad.

I have a problem with Islamic family law as regards women's rights in general and the striking of women in particular. Sharia law is unfit--on human rights grounds--to be sanctioned in any way in America.

I believe it is impossible to accept a tiny part of unreformed Sharia law and reject the rest, as it is a coherent whole, each part dependent on another. Just as American law is.

They are both comprehensive and mutually exclusive ways of structuring society. Only one per society can work. The same is true of Jewish and Catholic “law”, on a much smaller scale.

The history of Islamic expansionist immigration and jihad should sound a warning bell. This has happened over and over in the history of the Islamic empire. You are not hearing it and I am.

Lastly: What is to keep American Muslims from adopting more and more of the Sharia law beyond family and personal law, over time, until we are as divided as India?
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
12:48 PM on 08/25/2011
[SIGH]

This post of Jan Allen is full of lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam and all of its components.

I have dealt with them extensively in my comments to him, but he continues to display his lack of familiarity and stereotyping and over-generalizations.

I have now lost complete hope in him that he will take the time to improve and update his knowledge of Islam, its history, its beliefs, and most importantly its diversity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:58 PM on 08/25/2011
Sigh.

Ad Hominem attack, totally bereft of evidence or rebuttal.

Again.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
02:59 PM on 08/25/2011
PROBLEMS WITH THIS POST OF JAN ALLEN

1. He does not specify that the term "Jihad" has a very spiritual significance to the Muslims in general and the Sufi Muslims, like me, in particular.

2. He over-generalizes that the money from zakat (mandatory charity) is permitted to be used for "Jihad" even though the term "Jihad" has a spiritual significance to the Muslims as stated above, and does not necessarily refer to a violent act.

3. Despite what he has claimed in another post, he does not make a distinction between Islam and Islamism; nor does he define what Islamism is.

4. He does not use the term "Islamism" at all. He says "Islamic family law" and not "Islamismistic family law".

5. He presents Shari'ah as monolithic and unchangeable.

6. He presents Shari'ah as a "coherent whole", which is incorrect.

7. He does not acknowledge that not only Shari'ah but Islam itself is very diverse and multiple interpretations exist.

8. He erroneously state that "I believe it is impossible to accept a tiny part of unreformed Sharia law and reject the rest". This is totally incorrect as many, many Muslims reject many injunctions of the Shari'ah.

9. His understanding of the Shari'ah is extremely flawed, but he has not shown any interest in expanding and deepening his knowledge of it.

10. He is spreading fear of American Muslims and stereotyping them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:31 PM on 08/24/2011
To Doug Sandlin

By Doug Sandlin:
"Your seeing of condescens­ion where none exists is an excellent example of the obscuring nature of closed-min­dedness, and thus, highly-ill­ustrative.Thank you for your contributi­on.”

By dbm To Tolerant
"Can you see condescens­ion in your post to me?"

By Tolerant:
"Yes! And I apologize for it!"

To Doug Sandlin:
Your put downs and condescension is different than Tolerant's. Yours are specifically intended to be hostile with NO good intentions, suggested or implied.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Sandlin
We See The World Not As It Is But As We Are
11:37 PM on 08/24/2011
No hostility meant, in any way.

I just take issue with impugning someone else's communication style when their intent is clearly good, overall.

However, I agree fully that it's up to Tolerant to decide if he was being condescending or not ... and he said he was .... and so, fair enough, case-closed, etc. etc.

I think most of us will defend someone else we see as being criticized unfairly more quickly than we'll defend ourselves.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
07:42 PM on 08/24/2011
Jan Allen stated:

"I have repeatedly quoted Sharia law to numerous Muslims on this site and none of them have denied that it is what I say."

------------------------------------------------

Your ability to oversimplify what is otherwise extremely complex is simply amazing!

You produce quotes from some sources and give the impression that Muslims have no brains and they just read these things and act.

The reality is much more complex than that.

There are gazillion of pages that have been written over the past 1400 years, and only 4% of them have ever been published. The rest are in manuscripts form residing in public and private library.

There is a whole tradition of oral transmission within the universe of Islam.

People learn about how to live as a Muslim as it's been transmitted orally and through live actions.

Many learn about Islam at the feet of their masters.

In order to examine what you present, one must examine it within many contexts, for example, the Qur`an, the circumstances and human situation a particular thing addresses, and so on.

It is extremely difficult for me to provide a lengthy and exhaustive analysis on these forums as they are not designed for that.

Which is why I refer people to some very authentic sources.

I am very disappointed that you have shown no interest in consulting them, for if you did spend time diving into them -- and it would take you months -- you'd develop a better understanding.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
07:08 PM on 08/24/2011
Jan Allen asked me: "What doctrinal difference­, visible to a non Muslim who does not know the two of you personally­, divides you from Qaradawi?"

-------------------------

I don't know where to begin!

But if Jan Allen really wants to know, I expect him to refer to the references I have provided often.

He should spend as much time on reading/listening/watching the list of books, audios and videos I have provided as he has done understanding that character, Qaradawi.

I don't need to reproduce that list here. He is very resourceful and I am sure he knows where to get it.

P.S. It's become hard for me to go through all the threads -- I have run out of energy and time. So I will only monitor this, and a few top threads, for the next hour, and after that, I will call it a day. Jan Allen can have the last word after that. Many thanks for the wonderful discussions I have had with Jan Allen and a few of you. Take care,
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
06:14 PM on 08/24/2011
Jan Allen stated:

"I am asking Muslims to rewrite Sharia law so that killing for Allah would not be a good thing."

------------------------------------

Again, you are treating the Muslims as monolithic and making a false assumption and interpretation.

Let me educate you on what it really means by "for the sake of God [alone]":

An action that is done for the sake of God [alone] is an action that is NOT DONE for the sake of other-than-God.

Human self-ego is not God.

Therefore, if an action is done for self-ego it is not for the sake of God.

The same goes for actions that are done on the basis of the lower self, that is, selfishness, feeling of revenge, arrogance, anger, hatred, resources, injustice, etc.

If they are done for the above, they are not for the sake of God [alone].

Moreover, Islam has provided guidelines for warfare.

No harming of the innocent civilians, women, the elderly, the priests, farmers, non-combatants.

No putting poison in the water supply or damage crops.

No usage of fire. So using fire, ramming planes into buildings and nuclear weapons are un-Islamic.

No offensive warfare. Warfare is allowed only in self-defense.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
05:50 PM on 08/24/2011
Jan Allen stated: "I quoted several sources that all define Sharia law as I do. Do you have any source--ot­her than Imam Rauf's personal opinion--t­hat verifies your view?"

------------------

Have I not pointed you to Dr. Abou El Fadl, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri?

I would add Amin Ahsan Islahi, Farahi, Thanwi and many others.

Have I not pointed you to the existence of "Traditional Islam", which is universalist?

You suppose that Muslims are just sitting on their hands not critically examinig the souces of Shari'ah.

In all the debates I have seen in the West, there are non-Muslim scholars who neglect to even acknowledge the existence of Traditional Islam, as defined by the school of Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

Yet, the Traditional Islam has a very significant and critical role to play within the universe of Islam.

Having said all of this, I would inform Jan Allen that ALL sources of Islam other than the Qur`an are secondary, that ALL non-Quranic sources must pass the test of being critically examined under the light of the Qur`an.

I would add that there are currents within Islam that have unquestionably come from the Prophet in an unbroken chain of initiation, transformation and transmission, through his two companions: Abu Bakr and Ali.

These currents later came to be known as Sufi Orders.

They also follow their understanding of the Shari'ah.

Many people do not realize that.