It strikes me that there is a 7th-8th Century cast to the contest between Sunni-Shia and fringe elements that simmers in the background. Also, a contest about who who dominate the Iraq-Syria-Palestine area that even precedes the early Arab conquests. While most of us have reasonably short memories, dictators and religious zealots reach back into ancient time for echoes of glory and right. When speaking out is a threat to both regimes, and the aspirations conflict-- it is not hard to find some reason to either persecute or raise the flag of bloody conflict.
I think you are incorrect about Christianity and Slavery. I don't think that the dominant politics in Spain and Portugal saw any inconsistency. Certainly, the 16-17th Century religious Statism , was no abandonment of Catholicism in the countries that first made the African Slave Trade what it was. That doesn't mean the Protestants didn't see profit, just that your thesis doesn't stand.
I take your point. However, the idea is that the political structure in Muslim dominated states-- especially those that profess their politics should be "Islamic", need reform in the acceptance of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Now it is certain that in the face of the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century there were modernist movements. However, we seem to have way too much backsliding. I attribute this to the failure of both economics and politics in primarily those Middle Eastern countries that identify a medieval religious -political sense with both an opposition to the "West" and some sense of hope when all else is dismal. I doubt that a prosperous middle class that might comprise a Muslim dominated nation will long be this way. And of course, it is not unheard of for extremes in Christianity, Judaism, or even Eastern religions to to make some headway-- especially under like conditions.
It strikes me that there is a 7th-8th Century cast to the contest between Sunni-Shia and fringe elements that simmers in the background. Also, a contest about who who dominate the Iraq-Syria-Palestine area that even precedes the early Arab conquests. While most of us have reasonably short memories, dictators and religious zealots reach back into ancient time for echoes of glory and right. When speaking out is a threat to both regimes, and the aspirations conflict-- it is not hard to find some reason to either persecute or raise the flag of bloody conflict.
I think you are incorrect about Christianity and Slavery. I don't think that the dominant politics in Spain and Portugal saw any inconsistency. Certainly, the 16-17th Century religious Statism , was no abandonment of Catholicism in the countries that first made the African Slave Trade what it was. That doesn't mean the Protestants didn't see profit, just that your thesis doesn't stand.
I take your point. However, the idea is that the political structure in Muslim dominated states-- especially those that profess their politics should be "Islamic", need reform in the acceptance of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Now it is certain that in the face of the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century there were modernist movements. However, we seem to have way too much backsliding. I attribute this to the failure of both economics and politics in primarily those Middle Eastern countries that identify a medieval religious -political sense with both an opposition to the "West" and some sense of hope when all else is dismal. I doubt that a prosperous middle class that might comprise a Muslim dominated nation will long be this way. And of course, it is not unheard of for extremes in Christianity, Judaism, or even Eastern religions to to make some headway-- especially under like conditions.