I agree with this blogger that religion is primarily about individual experiences (who was ever took up a faith tradition thanks to reading a tome on scholastic theology?), but how do you form an entire society based on these experiences? Do you just summarily exclude or marginalise people who do not achieve the same experiences?
I also agree that for someone who believes, prays, fasts, etc ‘academic theorising’ might be of limited interest (in terms of practice*), but the appeal to ‘experiences’ (the feeling of being at ease with a set of practices) to settle all problems is (hopelessly) idealistic, somewhat theoretical, and seems to encourage marginalisation of those who do not (for whatever reasons, and not always nefarious ones) or cannot find themselves at ease with said practices, however we characterise them. (The blogger, Saha, gives the example of slavery in the comments; but slavery existed in traditional Muslim societies for centuries until various internal and external pressures brought it to an end on a widescale — not all of these pressures were purely the function of the pursuit of spiritual contentment.)
*Although no observant Muslim is going to dismiss the ‘academic’ nature of the rigorous learning required to become an expert in fiqh, hadith, etc.
