4 ms·

Well if there's nothing preventing them, why do you believe it doesn't have happened? I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's precisely that they are ofte

Well if there's nothing preventing them, why do you believe it doesn't have happened? I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's precisely that they are often foreign run/influenced. If interpretations cause conflicts, these conflicts usually run along state lines (ie. Iran/Turkey). This plus language barriers (arabic vs. turkish vs. farsi etc.) create incentives to not be inclusive.

pluma 10y ago
I believe your understanding is correct. That would explain why they don't work together in ways that would allow them to comply with the legal requirements for recognition (though there are large Muslim organisations that are often treated as a substitute). But I only said there wasn't anything from a legal perspective stopping them. If the various sects fail to cooperate with each other in ways that prevent them from fulfilling the requirements, that's on them, not on the government. It's not xenophobia, just old-school sectarian disputes. For example the Evangelical church (EKD) is a federation of mostly Lutheran and reformed/Calvinist churches and they managed to agree on enough points to organize beyond their sectarian boundaries. But there are of course a lot of Evangelical or "free" churches that are not part of the EKD (nor affiliated with the Catholic church) and they of course don't get the same status. The problem with understanding Muslim sectarianism in the West seems to be that we're so ignorant that we chalk about anything outrageous to religious differences with Christianity that we don't recognize basic distinctions like Islam vs Islamism, thinking any criticism of the latter would be a form of hostility to the former. We lump all "Muslims" together in one group (which some Muslim groups certainly know to use to their advantage) and then get confused when we find out they hate each other's guts (much like Protestants and Catholics have for a long time).

pluma 10y ago

I believe your understanding is correct. That would explain why they don't work together in ways that would allow them to comply with the legal requirements for recognition (though there are large Muslim organisations that are often treated as a substitute). But I only said there wasn't anything from a legal perspective stopping them. If the various sects fail to cooperate with each other in ways that prevent them from fulfilling the requirements, that's on them, not on the government. It's not xenophobia, just old-school sectarian disputes. For example the Evangelical church (EKD) is a federation of mostly Lutheran and reformed/Calvinist churches and they managed to agree on enough points to organize beyond their sectarian boundaries. But there are of course a lot of Evangelical or "free" churches that are not part of the EKD (nor affiliated with the Catholic church) and they of course don't get the same status. The problem with understanding Muslim sectarianism in the West seems to be that we're so ignorant that we chalk about anything outrageous to religious differences with Christianity that we don't recognize basic distinctions like Islam vs Islamism, thinking any criticism of the latter would be a form of hostility to the former. We lump all "Muslims" together in one group (which some Muslim groups certainly know to use to their advantage) and then get confused when we find out they hate each other's guts (much like Protestants and Catholics have for a long time).