Sufism And Jihad
As soon as I am finished drumming myself into a state of transcendant Love, I'm going to go kill me some Infidels.
Ok, I stand corrected.
The other day, I asserted here that Sufism was a living, breathing example of peaceful, moderate Islam. Dag and J-Mac disagreed with me in the extensive comments section, and, while Jason Pappas agreed that Sufism is relatively peaceful, he disagreed that it was true pure Islam. Jason argued that while Sufism did have a founding theologian, Al-Ghazali, it's theology is more likely a mixture of Islam and other religions, such as Buddhism, and folk practices.
I countered that it is just such a hybrid that I believe will eventually lead to a reformation of Islam.
It seems no one is buying my argument.
To top it off, J-Mac provided this link on the history of Jihadism in the Sufi branch of Islam (article by Andrew Bostom):
Let us begin with a towering figure in Muslim intellectual history, Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), who was born at Tus in Khurasan, near modern Meshed, Iran, and became a renowned theologian, jurist, and mystic. Al-Ghazali’s early training was as a jurist, and he continued to have an interest in jurisprudence throughout his career, writing a work the Wadjiz, dated 1101, i.e., in the last decade of his life. The eminent Islamic scholar W.M. Watt stresses Al-Ghazali’s Muslim orthodoxy. Watt maintains that Al-Ghazali was 
…acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity…He brought orthodoxy and mysticism into closer contact…the theologians became more ready to accept the mystics as respectable, while the mystics were more careful to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: 
[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books.
Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need…
[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue….
More of the same, huh? This article is pretty alarming.
For God's sake, I want to believe that I can turn somewhere and find a branch of Islam that is not going to turn on me. Still looking.
Read the rest.