Division of society in terms of religion is sadistic. The purpose of Islam was not to divide the society in different communities, but to unite the scattered tribes and nations under the shade of one defined motivation. A Muslim can be defined as a person who has his total belief in the oneness of God, authenticity of His last prophet (PBUH), the Holly Qur'an, and the angels. Any further inclusion will lead us to blasphemy. If we turn ourselves back to have a look at the history of Islam, we come to know that initially there were no disputes or differences on the basis of religion. They are the productivity of complications, created afterward by theocracy.
A large community of people consider mullahs, to be the best torchbearers of religious knowledge. They are followed blindly. And, they seem to take the best advantage of this blindness. Being preachers of the religion, they ought to be the most responsible people. Any misinterpretation by them can form the wrong opinion of the whole community, following them. But, a great deal of politics is involved, even in such sacred ambition as preaching. They are mostly busy criticizing the other religious-sects and their beliefs, instead of playing any constructive role. Majority of illiterate people are never ready to challenge any of their assertions. As a result of which, division seems to be inevitable.
But, theocracy alone is not responsible for all this. Danger is completed when theocracy is combined with the people's instinct to follow the theocratic ideas. Slave-mindedness of people has increased to such an extent that they are not even ready to ask mullahs about the references to the books when they quote something. Even, when they doubt the authenticity of any of their interpretations, they don't have courage to ask them anything about it, as they consider it an act of infidelity.
No doubt, division is unavoidable, and sometimes likeable too. Seamus Heaney also remarked "I love hushed air, I trust contrariness." But, contrariness for the sole purpose of contrariness is never a healthy practice. Our mullahs should play some constructive role by focusing more on basics than on details. For, at least, basics are same among all the religious-sects. Differences come when we go into the details of those basics, as every sect has interpreted them in its own way. Mullahs need to be sincere, and their followers need be wise in order to tackle the present puzzling situation.