Razib, it will be a great accomplishment if I ever become as well read as you are. I tried to read Heidegger once, and after finding it totally incomprehensible, gave up. Heck, I find almost all philosophy to be nearly incomprehensible, just about useless, and, as a result, read very little anymore. I'm doing horribly in my philosophy class, mainly because I couldn't care less about the classical theory of knowledge. My teacher, a brilliant TA from Romania with a Shakespearean-like command of the English language, has great difficulty understanding why I have difficulty with the subject. I think in this respect the commenter is sort of similar to my philosophy teacher, rambling on in very good English about concepts that one's listeners find incomprehensible.

But I do think that a differentiation between the major Islamic sects, primarily Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Sufis is important and not done regularly enough. I generally feel much better about Shi'a than I do about Sunnis, and the Shi'a that I have spoken with seem to have a much better grasp on reality and tend to be more moderate in their political positions. This is not to say that they are without their terrorists, like the Pasdaran and Hizbollah, but a quick comparison between Iranian society and the various Sunni state societies does tend to confirm my observations about Shi'ites being more "progressive." This may be due to the fact that the country was so heavily Westernized when the nuts took over that it was impossible to completely purge it, or that an attempt to purge it might lead to a backlash that would theaten the regime.

Some Sunni societies are fairly progressive, too... just look at the Kurds and the various Turkic states in Central Asia. But on the whole I think Shi'ites are more progressive thinkers.

Which is, btw, why I think our Iran policy is fundamentally misguided, along with a few other factors.

re: definitions, yes, we need better ones, more precise ones. one problem though is in my opinion islam within the ummah is a bit more fluid and continuous than christianity is. i think this might be because christianity emphasizes creedal formulae to a greater extent than islam, which is distinguished a great deal by practice, and practice can shade a great deal.

re: shia, i think part of it is that shiism is more intellectually diverse. the "gates of itjihad" never closed for them, so they are more open to using rational criteria in judging what is permissible or not. you might know that that this was one of the main reasons that khomenei could justify his clerical regime, as the ulema do not normally take such a role in temporal affairs, but the innate flexibility within shiism allowed this to play out. the reason that shiism is more flexible is that for most of history it has been a persecuted "underground" faith. without powerful mainstream forces buffeting the religious consensus shiism has preserved a lot of diversity that sunnis excised (the rational mode of analysis is one of those, it was dominant via the mu'tazilites among the sunni for a short period in the 9th century). the variance i think allows greater sampling, just like variation allows selection response to be stronger.

just a hypothesis.

and after finding it totally incomprehensible

it is totally incomprehensible. much of philosophy is important to know because incomprehension is the mother of much evil, and you must know the incomprehensions of your enemies....

Razib,

I just read Amir's response and I agree with you that for people uninitiated with Salafism and Nasir al-Albani it does come out as you called it 'theo-babble'

I would however caution the readers on treating the Salafists as a monolith.

Salafism is as big a school of thought as any in traditional Sunni Islam.
Salafis have different views on almost everything just like members of any other sect.

There is a very interesting dynamic to Salafism though.
For example, Amir alludes to the fatwas by Ibn Baz on Bin Laden (which I am sure were completely political and not based on some Salafi exclusionary aversion to terror)
What Amir did not say was that a lot of Salafis do not support for example the Palestinian suicide bombings because for them fighting for land is a form of shirk, because you are putting land/nationalism ahead of your life given to you by God.
Maybe this aversion to nationalist struggles has led to a section of the Salafis looking for global conflicts which transcend national boundaries.

Amr is also right about most Salafis not indentifying themselves as 'Salafis' at the same level as other Muslims describe themselves as Sunnis/Shias or which madhabs they follow in the Sunni school of thought.
I would agree with you that the global jihad movement is controlled by people heavily influenced by Salafi ideals.
But the big question is whether global jihad is itself rooted/result of Salafist ideology or whether the global jihadis just happen to be Salafists, because Global Jihadists have a mindset which makes Salafism the most appealing school of thought in Islam to these people.
Some have made a very persuasive case that this Salafist ideology of extreme monotheism and absolutism makes it difficult for Salafists to co-exist with Christians or Shias in the modern world which is getting extremely interconnected and globalized. Hence they lash out against modernity, globalization and pluralism.
I am of the opinion that Salafism without global conflicts in Palestine, Chechnya or Iraq will be restricted to scholarly work by modern Qutbs of this world. Violent Salafism is sustained by local conflicts and most of the foot soldiers are to a large part motivated by these local conflicts and a have a 'Islam under siege' mentality.
'Islam under siege mentality' of course is more appealing to Salafists because they are globalists to begin with.

Within the Levant, the Hizballah is easily scarier than any Sunni terrorist outfit.
How this reflects on the 'progressiveness' of individual Sunnis and Shi'ites in the region is open to interpretation ( ie, to the extent that a Lebanese Shia is more open-minded than a Jordanian Sunni, it might be because he is Lebanese rather than Shia..etc, etc ).
In any case, perhaps Arcane's opinion is best applied to Persians specifically...

Even Hizbullah is more progressive in the sense that they are willing to challenge/innovate religious customs and duties.
For example in Lebanon, Hizbullah now has a blood drive for young men, where young men donate blood instead of the usual practice of self flagellation.
The test of being progressive is not who has more per capita suicide bombings and random attacks on Westerners.
The test would be on the ability of the adherents and especially the establishment figures of the respective sects to challenge conventional wisdom, interpretation and application of religious text and customs.
The Shias are way ahead by the above definition while orthodoxy/aversion to change/back to the 7th century is a gift which Sunnism never fails to deliver be it Deobandism or Salafism.

I would however caution the readers on treating the Salafists as a monolith.

yes, they aren't. no group is a monolith, the thing though is we need to make first order approximations. as westerners our interest in islam is derived primarily from the fact that a subset of muslims are hostile and violent toward the west. and this subset tends to have salafist assocations. hizbollah is very violent, but its aims are localized, and clearly understandable in the context of local power politics. the al aqsa martyrs brigade is a front for fatah organizations, so the individuals are probably muslim, but nationalist preoccupations are rather important. the level of detail amir engaged in is probably appropriate if he thought jason was a prospective convert to islam, but he isn't.

AM,
For example in Lebanon, Hizbullah now has a blood drive for young men, where young men donate blood instead of the usual practice of self flagellation.

Yes, this is true, but please remember that this isn't being done because they are being "progressive." You have to remember two things:

1. Hizbollah controls a lot of territory, and as a result must act something like a government.

2. Hizbollah, like Hamas, has three wings... a military, political, and charitable wing. The charitable wing is sort of like the soup kitchens set up by the American mafia... designed to make them look better than they really are.

Melnorme,

Within the Levant, the Hizballah is easily scarier than any Sunni terrorist outfit.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with removing Hizbollah from the face of the planet.

Salafism is sustained by local conflicts and most of the foot soldiers are to a large part motivated by these local conflicts and a have a 'Islam under siege' mentality.

This may have some validity in Chechnya, but London? Bali?

In Indonesia, the IJ operated in a largely Muslim context where the local officials were all to willing to look the other way. Since the elections last year this is not as true as it once was, but with an 'Islam under siege' theory we would predict an increase in IJ attacks when instead they have been falling.