Merged What the quran really says.

[Craig B]

While I agree with your assessment of Smith, I think some of your harsher treatment of him is due to simply you seeing him so much clearer and in greater detail, as he is so much closer in time and culture.

Both made up more "revelations" on the go to fix problems with their immediate political situation. That's the main thing. Both indeed relocated their flock in response to outside pressure.

Differences abound, naturally.

People do sometimes imagine, when they find a solution to a current problem, that it has been vouchsafed unto them by God. That doesn't necessarily prove honesty or deceit. The difference I was pointing to was this. By good fortune Muhammad received an invitation from some inhabitants of Medina to resolve disputes among them. He accepted it, and instructed his followers to join him there, in an established, indeed venerable, city. Smith, on the other hand, fled with his followers into the wilderness, away from existing settlement, where his and their activities would be remote from scrutiny. He perpetrated an obvious swindle with his golden plates, and a proven one with his pretended translation of an Egyptian scroll, exhibited locally as a curio.

[ETA. Smith's phoney translation is exceedingly amusing. He says the scroll was penned by no less than Abraham and (as you say) it "fixes problems with his immediate political situation"

In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence”​

Quite so.]

As I have pointed out, hieroglyphs had been deciphered by then, but Smith didn't know that, and was still spouting gibberish about them. Whether Muhammad's ideas were sincere, we can't say. But what I do say is that they were not obvious scams, and were within the bounds of what might have been uttered by a monotheist preacher of that time and place.

Another difference, Smith concocted an obvious scam book using a rigmarole of fantastic procedures, at least one of which was shown at the time to be phoney. The wife of Smith's amanuensis hid some pages of the magic "translation" and challenged him to reproduce them word for word, using his gold plates and oracle stones, which he could have done if he was receiving supernatural assistance to translate his alleged message from an ancient inscription. Of course, he failed this test.

Muhammad never produced any book. The Quran was compiled after his death. If he simply made it all up deceitfully, he has taken proof of that to the grave. But it is not excluded by internal evidence of the content of his utterances, that he sincerely believed he was channeling an angel. That is not impossible.

Needless to say, the angel was telling Muhammad that his own ideas and predispositions were right, but that's what angels do. If they don't, they get sacked, and another angel takes their place.

 

[JJM 777]

I think you're taking a very extreme view of religious ideologies in general. I don't think it's as simple as to say. "It's all baloney so all these guys must be liars."

Religious communities are as political as anything. Or should I say, social. They are networks of older members believing a bit older-fashioned dogmas very literally and fanatically, and younger members either not believing at all (simply hanging around because they had the bad luck of being born into a religious family) or believing very superficially into the main theological doctrines only, but refusing their lives to be restricted by most of the old-fashioned moral doctrines.

The job of a religious leader is not so simple as reading the Bible or Koran, and then telling everyone what God seems to want, according to these works. Rather, it is 90% balancing between the opinions of the older more hardcore members and the younger more liberal members. If you get too close to the strictest members, the liberal members personally attack you and/or try to oust you from your position and/or leave the community. If you get too close to the liberal members, the same happens with the strictest members. And morality is not the only problem, also theology can cause similar problems. This is why I believe that practically all religious leaders know that they are bending their doctrines according to the will of humans rather than God, because that is a fact, and it dominates everything what they can do or say. It seems very improbable that a person who has climbed to the top of religion, and knows what moral compromises it took to get there, would believe in the divine purity of the doctrine that he ends up preaching.

Another thing is all those prayer services for healing, and whatever. If you work in that, you cannot avoid noticing that the prayers never get answered. That must take its toll on your faith in what you are doing. But the tradition or social pressure or lucrative income keeps the system going on and on. The religious practicants become actors who pretend to believe in the show that they perform night after night.

 

[Craig B]

Another thing is all those prayer services for healing, and whatever. If you work in that, you cannot avoid noticing that the prayers never get answered. That must take its toll on your faith in what you are doing.

I'm not sure that's true. Diseases, even deadly ones, do from time to time disappear, or are cured by some process that is then proclaimed to be a miracle by persons who have prayed for it.

Other misfortunes might be resolved by chance. I might desperately need money for some important purpose on which my wellbeing depends - then I win the lottery. This is an unusual occurrence, but it must happen somewhere every day; and if I had been praying for God to solve my problems, then I would no doubt believe He had done so, and so would other members of my prayer service congregation, if I was a member of one. They take such random or unexplained things as evidence supporting their beliefs.

 

[Oystein]

The individal efficacy of prayer is less often communicated by those who die of the desease.

 

[Craig B]

The individal efficacy of prayer is less often communicated by those who die of the desease.

They're no longer here to tell us that prayer doesn't work; but those who survive are around to tell us it does.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They're no longer here to tell us that prayer doesn't work; but those who survive are around to tell us it does.

In the same way that prayer saves that one person in the air crash but not the hundred others aboard.

 

[Craig B]

In the same way that prayer saves that one person in the air crash but not the hundred others aboard.

Exactly so. Another problem with prayer is raised by Mark Twain. On a transatlantic voyage Twain undertook on a sailing ship, the chaplain prayed for favourable winds. Twain's objection was that winds which were favourable for West to East travelling vessels were ipso facto unfavourable for those proceeding in the opposite direction. So the reverend was praying for unfavourable winds ... for someone else.

 

[JJM 777]

the reverend was praying for unfavourable winds ... for someone else.

In South America, Africa and Middle East it is common to see people publicly praying for success for the national football team. There are Youtube videos of an African player performing a spell ritual on the goal of the opponent, despite the defenders trying to chase him and his spells away, and then the team scores into that goal moments later. Youtube videos of the recent game Egypt - Congo, which confirmed Egypt's qualification into World Cup 2018, have Arabic commentators in the background, and it feels a bit odd that the commentators break into ecstatic Allahu Akbar chants whenever Egypt scores a goal. What if the opponent were another Islamic country, would the commentator still use the same punchline? And isn't it embarrassing that a Christian country always wins the World Cup, without exception?

Diseases, even deadly ones, do from time to time disappear, or are cured by some process that is then proclaimed to be a miracle by persons who have prayed for it. Other misfortunes might be resolved by chance.

Isolated cases of good luck do exist, and they are the stories with which people are attracted into miracle service meetings. But if you work at the podium as a minister of prayer servant, you cannot possibly avoid realizing that most of the people in desperate need of a medical or other miracle never get one. Day after day, you personally face the other 99.9% of cases, which are not mentioned in the sensational headlines.

 

[Craig B]

In South America, Africa and Middle East it is common to see people publicly praying for success for the national football team.

Worse than that is when two countries go to war, particularly if they have the same official religion, and the religious leaders of both pray for victory.

That happened a lot in WW1. THere were Protestant and Catholic states on both sides, and the Central Powers contained a Muslim state in addition. Poor old God. Whose prayers does he attend to? Nobody's at all, you say, and I can understand why!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Worse than that is when two countries go to war, particularly if they have the same official religion, and the religious leaders of both pray for victory.

That happened a lot in WW1. THere were Protestant and Catholic states on both sides, and the Central Powers contained a Muslim state in addition. Poor old God. Whose prayers does he attend to? Nobody's at all, you say, and I can understand why!

Well, if he did exist he would have listened to the British prayers of course.

 

[metacristi]

I have not seen much criticism of the Quran over past centuries. There is one book entitled ' the original sources of the Qur'an ' by William Tisdall.
I actually just got a copy of it in paperback, but I have read some of it before because it is available, free to read on the internet.

I am fully aware there is a direct correlation between the Quran and the bible.

It is my argument that Muhammad stole most of his material from the bible because it occurred to him he could scare people into following him by pretending to get a message from God.

The bible is obviously full of trash, but I am not bothered about that and I do not intend to study the bible to find flaws in it because it has been done by experts.

Islam lacks even today the counterpart of the Radical Enlightenment, not a surprise the almost total absence of critical evaluation of the Quran (even after centuries now of exposure to Modernity). Some may claim now that Islam has undergone anyways an Islamic Enlightenment (albeit different from that witnessed in Europe) but this is to confound some shallow reforms done under the pressure of the 'infidels' (easily reversible as we have seen in the last 40 years) with the profound, irreversible, changes which took place in Europe (done entirely via efforts from inside by the way). In reality the reform in Islam has been far even from that involved by the more moderate versions of Enlightenment in Europe (keeping religion in a higher status). This is not an accident, it has many in common with the basic nature of islam, including the fact that the Quran is seen as the exact word of God (unlike Christianity and even Judaism*).

There is still this pernicious myth that all religions are basically equally 'evil' and that we can anyways create a much better world without promoting robust critical thinking applied to the religions of the 'poor' and so on. I'm afraid the reality shows clearly that we may never reach that with the 'tails' such as Islam attached (which proved consistently of being unable to adapt to novelty). The way ahead is that shown by humanist ex-muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see her book 'Heretic') and ibn Warraq, we ignore them at our own peril:

Finally, it is not as the journalistic cliché has it, a simple matter of “a few bad apples.” There is something immanent in Islam that engenders radicals willing to kill and be killed in the name of Allah. Appeasing or attempting to negotiate with the “bad apples” will not work. Nor will piecemeal tinkering: while the Shari‘a, to paraphrase Martin Kramer, maybe open to some reinterpretation, it is not infinitely elastic. Islam will produce Islamic terrorists until Muslims take a critical look at the Koran, and no longer treat it as the word of God.** - ibn Warraq

*Bernard Lewis presents this problem well, I posted this before of course but it deserves to present it again, it makes easier to understand for those not familiarised with the subject (Islam is not more or less like Christianity and Judaism I'm afraid):

Arthur Jeffery’s book was entitled Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an: The Old Codices, 1937. To his horror, his study was immediately denounced and publicly burnt by order of the leading Muslim religious authorities at Al-Azhar Mosque and University. Professor Jeffery...had excellent relations with the people at Al-Azhar, and was the more startled and horrified by their reaction to his book. He pointed out that what he was doing was no different from what the most pious Christians and Jews do to the texts of the Old and New Testaments. To which they replied, “But that is different. The Koran is not like the Bible. The Koran is the word of God.” By this they were not merely casting doubt on the authenticity or accuracy of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. They were pointing to the profound difference between Muslim perceptions and Judeo-Christian perceptions of the very nature of scripture. For Christians and Jews, the Bible consists of a number of books, written at different times and in different places, divinely inspired, but mostly committed to writing by human beings. For Muslims, the Koran is one book, divine, eternal and uncreated. It is not simply divinely inspired; it is literally divine and to question it in any way is blasphemy.

**my note: the muslims should 'no longer treat it [the Quran] as the word of God' at least in the minimal sense that they accept that the Quran has a History, like the Bible, being not 'uncreated' and that unaided Human Reason can have precedence sometimes over what is clearly written in the Quran; only when there will be no problem to present in Academia, even in Islamic countries, for example the conjecture 'Muhammad. The Desert Warlord' could one conclude rationally that there is finally hope with Islam

 

[Craig B]

There is still this pernicious myth that basically all religions are equally 'evil' (and that we can anyways create a much better world without promoting robust critical thinking applied to the religions of the 'poor' and so on). I'm afraid the reality shows clearly that we may never reach that with the 'tails' such as Islam attached (which proved consistently of being unable to adapt to novelty). The way ahead is that shown by humanist ex-muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see her book 'Heretic') and ibn Warraq, we ignore them at our own peril:

It is true that all religions are not equally good or bad. Some are worse than others, most certainly. But we are now seeing oppression of a Muslim Population in a Buddhist country, which is perhaps in contradiction to the reputations which these respective religions enjoy.

The problem appears to arise when a religion coalesces with the state, or assumes some of the functions of the state. Islam is especially prone to this, because its originator became a secular ruler, albeit on a modest scale, during his lifetime; which Jesus and the Buddha did not. And the explosive expansion of Islam was directed by people who had been in Muhammad's entourage, while the expansion of Christianity and Buddhism was less closely linked to the personality of their founders. Muhammad was not only his own Jesus, but his own Paul, and his own Constantine.

The idea that Muslims in general will ever reduce Muhammad to the status of a "desert warlord" is most implausible. But your hope that it will become possible to utter such ideas academic contexts in an Islamic state is not preposterous, as long as we secularise such states. Here the real or alleged differences between Islam and other religions disappear. In the days when Christianity was politically influential, to reduce Jesus to the status of a "desert rabbi" was to invite a visit from the Inquisition.

What is required is to secularise Muslim (and for that matter other religious) states. Is the best way of doing that to invade these states and marginalise or disparage Muslims residing in the West? I don't think that it is.

 

[metacristi]

Well we have Turkey as a model of what can happen if we do not weaken the impact of Islam in the population, on the medium run Islam is back in the public area. In my view the solution is not to avoid criticism of islam (because muslims may be offended or because this is 'colonialism') but exactly to go where Reason indicates, unfortunately History shows that it's not enough to merely push Islam out of public areas. It is true now that a criticism of Islam on a par with the existing Biblical criticism could have a much more damaging effect on this religion (exactly because it is not more or less like the other Abrahamic religions) but this is not our fault. Unaided Human Reason must finally find its right place even in the islamic world, that's the right solution (comments of some prominent muslims in the West, like 'some want all of us to behave immorally' via advocating modern values, are moot when islam leads even today not to universal human rights but to Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, we cannot just stay passive because 'it's their culture').

 

[Craig B]

Well we have Turkey as a model of what can happen if we do not weaken the impact of Islam in the population, on the medium run Islam is back in the public area. In my view the solution is not to avoid criticism of islam (because muslims may be offended or because this is 'colonialism') but exactly to go where Reason indicates, unfortunately History shows that it's not enough to merely push Islam out of public areas. It is true now that a criticism of Islam on a par with the existing Biblical criticism could have a much more damaging effect on this religion (exactly because it is not more or less like the other Abrahamic religions) but this is not our fault. Unaided Human Reason must finally find its right place even in the islamic world, that's the right solution (comments of some prominent muslims in the West, like 'some want all of us to behave immorally' via advocating modern values, are moot when islam leads even today not to universal human rights but to Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, we cannot just stay passive because 'it's their culture').

Depends what you mean by this. All religions are offences against Reason. They all invoke faith instead. Reason is one field in which they are all the same.

As to staying passive: are you suggesting that we should actively insist that Muslims must abandon their religion so far as to reduce their prophet to the level of a desert warrior? There is no need for us to require such abjuration of their beliefs, as long as these beliefs are not made the excuse for violent action by believers, or repressive action by states, such as you describe.

Such violent action comes when religion is politicised, and that is what should be targeted where Islam is concerned, because it has a tendency to become a state religion for reasons I have indicated. But it is capable of coexistence with other faiths, and that is what must be encouraged. Invasions of Muslim countries and "active" marginalisation of Muslims in the West are the very opposite of what we ought to be doing.

Meantime I don't care if Muslims believe the purest nonsense, because other religions are based on nonsense too.

 

[metacristi]

Obviously I cannot be such optimistic as you are. The truth is much more complex than you suggest, suffice here to say that there is actually a big difference between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions in what the value given to the unaided Human Reason is concerned (Robert Reilly does a good job in showing the clear theological difference between them by the way*).

In short Islam severely downplays Reason (especially in theological matters) whilst Christianity and Judaism gives it more importance (thus one is not limited to blindly follow the Revelation and tradition). Contrary to what you suggest the Church was not against Reason, it is simplistic to see the advent of modernity as a continuous retreat of religion under the blow of the forces of progress (how could have developed such forces in an era when very religious people where huge majorities?, Reformation is not enough to explain this).

Truth is that at least after Thomas Aquinas (and the return of Aristotelianism) Reason began to be considered again as important in western Christendom. Sure the initial belief was that it can only confirm the Revelation but when discrepancies were spotted the reaction was not to reject it altogether and return to faith. In short the established Church was guilty of not choosing the most rational path (putting brakes to progress in some instances along history) but this did not amount to a strong minimisation of Reason**. In Islam unfortunately it is very different, Reason was severely downplayed during Middle Ages and this is still largely so to this day (that's why we hear invariably 'no one is allowed to change...' instead of just opening 'the gates of 'ijtihad' in non trivial ways in order to finally bring islam in the 21st century).

In other order of ideas what I suggest is to open Islam to criticism, to put Islamic studies on the same foot with the existing biblical criticism. Muslims have never been capable to do that so far (for obvious reasons) but this does not mean that we have to just sit passively and accept their points of view in the hope that time solves everything. In academic biblical criticism we have since the 18th century the conjecture 'Jesus the proto-zealot / Christianity intrinsically violent' (even if very shaky, implausible) so why should we refrain to put forward a much more plausible hypothesis 'Muhammad. The Desert Warrior' / islam intrinsically violent'? Only when we will be able to criticize Islam safely as we do with Christianity and Judaism will there be a significant progress, history showed plenty that biblical criticism had a major impact in the making of Modernity.

So no I do not advocate to make muslims abandon their religion***, the idea is to bring Reason to the forefront (not the case today) in order to create a 'critical mass' of muslims determined to finally align Islam with modernity in spite of weakening some important tenets held today. I'm afraid no healthy, durable, secularisation of the Islamic world is possible without strong criticism of islam, if we continue with the same degenerative conjecture (largely disproved by history) that modern values can be easily implemented with minimal change at the theological / institutional /educational levels of islam we risk the erosion of the basic values of Enlightenment in the West itself. We do not want that of course.


* although I disagree with his main conclusion that a mere return of the Mutazilite view on Reason is enough to solve the problems with Islam today; for example the Shiite world retained something from the Mu'tazilites and yet there was no important improvement (as I said above only an Enlightenment view on Reason can do that, with Human Reason more important sometimes than what is clearly stated in the Revelation)

** some clarifications, all those familiarized with some philosophy know that there are different levels of Rationality (Reason and Rationality are synonymous) there is no contradiction to say that the Church valued Reason whilst not choosing the most rational path available at certain moments in time (thus putting some brakes to progress)


***although the rational ones will be forced to find weaker variants of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Quran, not based on inerrancy

 

[Craig B]

@metacristi

I didn't realise until that latest post to what extent you were an intellectual apologist for the Catholic Church. There is much of interest in what you write, but I will stick to my prime point for the moment. You say that we "ignore Ibn Warraq at our peril", then you quote this, from his work: "Islam will produce Islamic terrorists until Muslims take a critical look at the Koran, and no longer treat it as the word of God. - ibn Warraq".

Now that is to require Muslims, on pain of being regarded as potential terrorists, to abjure the essence of their faith. This is ironic, for that is exactly how Catholics were abused before emancipation.

The beliefs that underlie the at one time prevalent Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom^WP were summarized by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects..— Bl. Comm. IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54​

Current Islamophobia replicates pre--1829 anticatholicism with near-perfect fidelity. Similar political expedients engender similar ideological strategies.

 

[acbytesla]

Obviously I cannot be such optimistic as you are. The truth is much more complex than you suggest, suffice here to say that there is actually a big difference between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions in what the value given to the unaided Human Reason is concerned (Robert Reilly does a good job in showing the clear theological difference between them by the way*).

In short Islam severely downplays Reason (especially in theological matters) whilst Christianity and Judaism gives it more importance (thus one is not limited to blindly follow the Revelation and tradition). Contrary to what you suggest the Church was not against Reason, it is simplistic to see the advent of modernity as a continuous retreat of religion under the blow of the forces of progress (how could have developed such forces in an era when very religious people where huge majorities?, Reformation is not enough to explain this).

Truth is that at least after Thomas Aquinas (and the return of Aristotelianism) Reason began to be considered again as important in western Christendom. Sure the initial belief was that it can only confirm the Revelation but when discrepancies were spotted the reaction was not to reject it altogether and return to faith. In short the established Church was guilty of not choosing the most rational path (putting brakes to progress in some instances along history) but this did not amount to a strong minimisation of Reason**. In Islam unfortunately it is very different, Reason was severely downplayed during Middle Ages and this is still largely so to this day (that's why we hear invariably 'no one is allowed to change...' instead of just opening 'the gates of 'ijtihad' in non trivial ways in order to finally bring islam in the 21st century).

In other order of ideas what I suggest is to open Islam to criticism, to put Islamic studies on the same foot with the existing biblical criticism. Muslims have never been capable to do that so far (for obvious reasons) but this does not mean that we have to just sit passively and accept their points of view in the hope that time solves everything. In academic biblical criticism we have since the 18th century the conjecture 'Jesus the proto-zealot / Christianity intrinsically violent' (even if very shaky, implausible) so why should we refrain to put forward a much more plausible hypothesis 'Muhammad. The Desert Warrior' / islam intrinsically violent'? Only when we will be able to criticize Islam safely as we do with Christianity and Judaism will there be a significant progress, history showed plenty that biblical criticism had a major impact in the making of Modernity.

So no I do not advocate to make muslims abandon their religion***, the idea is to bring Reason to the forefront (not the case today) in order to create a 'critical mass' of muslims determined to finally align Islam with modernity in spite of weakening some important tenets held today. I'm afraid no healthy, durable, secularisation of the Islamic world is possible without strong criticism of islam, if we continue with the same degenerative conjecture (largely disproved by history) that modern values can be easily implemented with minimal change at the theological / institutional /educational levels of islam we risk the erosion of the basic values of Enlightenment in the West itself. We do not want that of course.


* although I disagree with his main conclusion that a mere return of the Mutazilite view on Reason is enough to solve the problems with Islam today; for example the Shiite world retained something from the Mu'tazilites and yet there was no important improvement (as I said above only an Enlightenment view on Reason can do that, with Human Reason more important sometimes than what is clearly stated in the Revelation)

** some clarifications, all those familiarized with some philosophy know that there are different levels of Rationality (Reason and Rationality are synonymous) there is no contradiction to say that the Church valued Reason whilst not choosing the most rational path available at certain moments in time (thus putting some brakes to progress)


***although the rational ones will be forced to find weaker variants of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Quran, not based on inerrancy

Even this isn't correct or at least requires some clarification.

2 Corinthians 10:5 says Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;Proverbs 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.Neither Christianity or Judaism want people to think too much but yes it is more open to reason than Islam.

 

[JJM 777]

New Testament in several places appraises faith over rational thinking, which it says to lead people astray, at least what comes to spiritual and theological matters. Apostle Paul calls the gospel "foolishness" for wise people, as if designed by God to make sense only through blind and unquestioning faith, after all rational thinking is abandoned.

 

[metacristi]

@Craig

Well I did not know that I am an apologist for the Church just for pointing out that the development of Science for example (and not only) was not a never ending conflict between progressives and the Church (anyways this view is not tabu in the philosophy of Science for example). The Church did block progress at some points in history to be sure but the antagonism is not that sharp as some suggest.

There are actually good reasons to credit the Church (after the era of Thomas Aquinas, when Western Christianity elevated Reason on another level) with some positive effects in the making of modernity (Reason was valued, the idea of an omnipotent lawgiver who is primary Reason catalysed the belief in regularities in Nature, laws of Nature etc), see for example Rodney Stark's books 'The victory of Reason' and 'How the West Won' (his overall theses are too strong but it still remains valid that some religious ideas at least catalysed the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, this coupled of course with the incapacity of Christianity to block efficiently the forces of progress, unlike islam by the way, and the good effects of the Reformation) or Toby Huff's books (to a certain extent relevant here, for example in showing how islam strongly blocked the development of science via its intrinsic occasionalist philosophy; God being primarily Will-Power not Reason in islam).

As for the other points you made I don't think they are relevant, Christianity and Judaism have their Liberal wings (unrecognisable for Middle Age Christians) for centuries now whilst Islam is still in the remote past. This says everything about how elastic to interpretations are these religions and especially how Reason is valued. Finally with the fundamentalists in Christianity you can have at most never ending debates whilst the Muslim counterparts are more expedite: they censor and kill you of course. You'll have a point if Islam already had the counterpart of Reform Judaism and Liberal Christianity (which we should strive to develop, this is my main point). It hasn't. That should at least make us think again, there is an intrinsic problem with Islam which makes it different thus the required solutions are different.

I don't think it is a case of 'apology' of any sort from my part, all those rational (who read also extensively on the subject) will easily agree with me (albeit maybe disagreeing on some points).

 

[acbytesla]

Well I did not know that I am an apologist for the Church just for pointing out that the development of Science for example (and not only) was not a never ending conflict between progressives and the Church (anyways this view is not tabu in the philosophy of Science for example). The Church did block progress at some points in history to be sure but the antagonism is not that sharp as some suggest.

There are actually good reasons to credit the Church (after the era of Thomas Aquinas, when Western Christianity elevated Reason on another level) with some positive effects in the making of modernity (Reason was valued, the idea of an omnipotent lawgiver who is primary Reason catalysed the belief in regularities in Nature, laws of Nature etc), see for example Rodney Stark's books 'The victory of Reason' and 'How the West Won' (his overall theses are too strong but it still remains valid that some religious ideas at least catalysed the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, this coupled of course with the incapacity of Christianity to block efficiently the forces of progress, unlike islam by the way, and the good effects of the Reformation) or Toby Huff's books (to a certain extent relevant here, for example in showing how islam strongly blocked the development of science via its intrinsic occasionalist philosophy; God being primarily Will-Power not Reason in islam).

As for the other points you made I don't think they are relevant, Christianity and Judaism have their Liberal wings (unrecognisable for Middle Age Christians) for centuries now whilst Islam is still in the remote past. This says everything about how elastic to interpretations are these religions and especially how Reason is valued. Finally with the fundamentalists in Christianity you can have at most never ending debates whilst the Muslim counterparts are more expedite: they censor and kill you of course. You'll have a point if Islam already had the counterpart of Reform Judaism and Liberal Christianity (which we should strive to develop, this is my main point). It hasn't. That should at least make us think again, there is an intrinsic problem with Islam which makes it different thus the required solutions are different.

I don't think it is a case of 'apology' of any sort from my part, all those rational (who read also extensively on the subject) will easily agree with me (albeit maybe disagreeing on some points).

I think you give the church too much credit. The church was and is fine with learning until it threatens the dogma of the church. That's where it ends. Think of Galileo and the Bible itself being written in languages other than Latin. Hell, for 200 years in the US Catholic congregations didn't understand their priests as mass was conducted in Latin. There are other examples.