Islam: beneficial or harmful to the world?

[tomndebb]

You’ll notice that the areligious among us (me and Tamerlane, for example) have no problem with mulling over what the consequences would be in a world without a particular religion (even if we don’t agree) but you don’t want it to even be discussed (because it frightens you maybe?).

I don’t think you’re paying too much attention to what is actually being said, here. I have no problem discussing the ramifications of any religion (or all religions) disappearing. I reject, as absurd, your contention that we can say, If we remove all the things that we don’t like about Islam, all the good things in history would still occur.

For example, I mentioned that without the string of events that occurred in relation to the crusades, the democratic process might never have developed in Europe. I used the Magna Carta as a single example of a single event that would have changed if the ruler of England had not wandered off to play crusader. The best you can do is come back and claim that the barons were really mad, anyway. (Do you think that the various minor rulers within the Holy Roman Empire never had objections to and grievances against the various emperors? Have you ever read enough French history to see how often the nobility was at odds with the monarchy?) You have ignored all the possible scenarios that could have changed that event (such as the suppression of the rebellious nobility by a much harsher and stronger Richard or a simple coup to select a different monarch who would bend to the wishes of the nobility without the nobility actually drawing up a document to distribute the powers of the king).
Build upon that single event with all the different events that occurred throughout European history (which currently includes both the crusades and the Protestant Reformation–itself a result, in some ways, of the European reaction to Islam) and you are left with a scenario in which democracy may not even arise. So your initial claim that India and the Middle East would be more democratic if Islam had not arisen fails on the simple fact that we might have no democracies without Islam. (Yes, I know that it is speculation, but you have provided no scenario to get to your purported history: you simply remove Islam and pretend that nothing that Islam affected was actually affected by Islam.)

I think you’re getting me confused with a different poster.

True. I typed “you” when I should have kept the names of each poster to whom I was replying.

I have no problem discussing alternative histories. However, if you are going to speculate, it would be a benefit to actually show the events that you believe would lead from one point to another. Claiming that the removal of Islam would lead to more democracy demands that you demonstrate how democracy would have occurred in Europe without the political forces that Islam created to act on Europe. In other words. Islam may be bad or good, but removing Islam requires a new string of historical events.

[Jojo]

Tomndebb:

Claiming that the removal of Islam would lead to more democracy demands that you demonstrate how democracy would have occurred in Europe without the political forces that Islam created to act on Europe.

So, your contention is that, without islam, democracy may not have arisen? That democracy was in some way a reaction to islam?

An interesting theory but you appear to be ignoring a lot of factors that gave rise to democracy which have absolutely squat to do with islam. For one thing, democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks long before Mohammed and islam. So the theory of democracy was already in the public domain and the practice of it had already been tried. The acropolis in Athens is a monument to democracy, I believe.

Then you seem to overlook more recent factors such as the industrial revolution, the sufragette movement, the US constitution and the civil rights movement in America none of which had anything to do with islam.

Then you are ignoring the rise of political philosophy in the 19th century with writers such as Rousseau, Hobbes etc. Secularism arose in opposition to the power of the christian church not in opposition to the islamic church.

I reject, as absurd, your contention that we can say, If we remove all the things that we don’t like about Islam, all the good things in history would still occur.

I didn’t say that all the good things in history would have occurred. Obviously the absence of islam would have had a knock on effect on lots of things, in particular the history of the christian church. I was just talking about democracy.

I reject as absurd your notion that without islam there would be no democracy. Maybe islam was a factor in the development of democracy but I’m not so sure that it was the prime factor or even a particularly important one.

[tomndebb]

So, your contention is that, without islam, democracy may not have arisen? That democracy was in some way a reaction to islam?

I am not claiming that democracy is a reaction to Islam. I am saying that the conditions that arose in Europe to foster democratic governments were the results of a lot of interactions, many of which were directly connected to the ways that Europeans responded to the presence of Islam. Given that the experiment of Athens with a voting plutocracy collapsed and was not resurrected for well over 1500 years, you need to demonstrate how democratic (or representative) governments would have arisen in the absence of those factors and events. Simply declaring that without Islam there would be more democracy in the world when you appear to have no idea how it would arise does not carry forward your claim.

I do not claim that Islam had any direct role in the rise of the philosophical notion of democracy. I am pointing out that that philosophical construct arose in a Europe that had been shaped, to a great extent, by both contact with and conflict with Islam. The idea of votes for women (or votes for men), civil rights, and other phenomena of the 19th and 20th century never arose among the Christian nations of the East. So why should we expect them to have arisen in the West if the basic history of that region changes?
Without Islam, we might see less science, no Moorish culture entering through Spain, no externally funded wealth of petty nobles from riches stolen from the East end of the Mediterranean, possibly no gunpowder.

Industrial Revolution? Whre is the development of science and engineering in Europe if there is no stable Muslim society to bring Indian mathematics westward (and then to expand on the mathematics with the Muslim enhancements)?

I do not claim that they could not happen, but you continue to pretend that we would simply have all the same basic history (just minus the presence of Islam) when, in fact, Islam played an enormous role in creating those events and that history.

You may posit whatever alternative history you wish. However, if you make a significant change to the history we know, you need to come up with plausible ways in which many of the same events would have happened.

Thus, your claim–that there would be more democracy–fails, not on its impossibility, but on your failure to make a case for it.

[Jojo]

Hmm…your theory gets more fascinating the more you expound upon it.

Given that the experiment of Athens with a voting plutocracy collapsed and was not resurrected for well over 1500 years, you need to demonstrate how democratic (or representative) governments would have arisen in the absence of those factors and events. Simply declaring that without Islam there would be more democracy in the world when you appear to have no idea how it would arise does not carry forward your claim.

You’ve got things back to front. Democracy arose anyway in spite of the presence of islam. We know that because democracy is here. What is to stop me reaching the conclusion that democracy would be even more widespread if it wasn’t for islam - that islam (far from causing democracy) has actually acted as a brake on democracy.

You admit that the theory of democracy would be around anyway. Now you have to show why we would all have forgotten that theory if it wasn’t for islam.

Without Islam, we might see less science, no Moorish culture entering through Spain, no externally funded wealth of petty nobles from riches stolen from the East end of the Mediterranean, possibly no gunpowder…Industrial Revolution? Whre is the development of science and engineering in Europe if there is no stable Muslim society to bring Indian mathematics westward (and then to expand on the mathematics with the Muslim enhancements)?

You’re getting confused (and also you are swallowing muslim propaganda). If there were no islam then those countries in the middle east would not be empty. They would not be large wildernesses with no people in them. They would still be full of people - exactly the same people. Many cultural factors would still be the same.

There is no reason to suppose that science would be any less developed just because the people in those countries were not muslim. They may still have acted as a storehouse of knowledge. Any enhancements that were made to mathematics were not “muslim” enhancements - there is nothing in islam itself that means it is more likely to enhance mathematics. You could say they were “middle eastern” enhancements maybe, not muslim enhancements.

The reason I say you are swallowing muslim propaganda is because it is a common muslim argument that islam helped foster scientific advancements eg the first guy to invent a flying machine was a muslim (some spanish dude) therefore (say muslims) islam invented flying. This is a fallacy - islam didn’t invent flying. Some dude (who happened to be muslim) invented flying.

If the people in the middle east had been christian then that area would probably have been more stable not less - no crusades, no inter-muslim wars. Thus you claim that “islam” was responsible for this and responsible for that when you should be claiming that “middle-eastern people” were responsible for this and responsible for that.

Those middle eastern people would still be there whether they were muslim, christian, Falun Gong, moonies or whatever. The middle east would not have been empty.

Hoisted by your own petard, methinks.

[tomndebb]

Those middle eastern people would still be there whether they were muslim, christian, Falun Gong, moonies or whatever. The middle east would not have been empty.

Of course it would not have been empty. However, the people who developed math and science did it in a particular milieu in which they had a sufficiently stable society to engage in those “liesure” activities rather than struggling to survive. It was the presence of a moderating Muslim influence, spread across the entire Middle East, that provided that stability. This is analogous to the Pax Romana that permitted the dissemination of laws, carried on Roman roads, throughout Southern and Western Europe (along with much of North Africa and the Western Middle East) several hundred years earlier. It is not enough to claim that the same humans would have lived (they may not have), you need to be able to show that they would have had the same environment.

As to your reference to Greek democracy: it is nonsense. When Western Europe began toying with democratic and represntative forms of government, they created their own models, then looked back to Athens to justify the changes they wished to make to government. They did not first look at Athenian democracy and say “Let’s try that!” Instead, they came up with their own plans, (which were quite different than the model of Athens) and then invoked the (false) memory of Athens to rationalize their own efforts. Democracy was considered a stupid and evil form of government for over a thousand years–beginning wth the generation that watched Athenian democracy fail. Aristotle and Plato (from between whom nearly all Western European philosophy descended) both condemned democracy. Why did it arise again, except as nurtured by people wrestling with the particular forms of government that had arisen in Europe–which were, in turn, formed as a result of Europe’s interaction with Islam?

[tomndebb]

By the way, this is completely a straw man:

The reason I say you are swallowing muslim propaganda is because it is a common muslim argument that islam helped foster scientific advancements eg the first guy to invent a flying machine was a muslim (some spanish dude) therefore (say muslims) islam invented flying. This is a fallacy - islam didn’t invent flying. Some dude (who happened to be muslim) invented flying.

I do not pay any attention to people who make up stuff just to elevate their own culture, whether it is the Muslims that you claim have made these claims (I have never heard any of them) or Afro-Centrists or white “Aryans” or anyone else.

The records of the actual advances in mathematics and science made by Muslims are well documented. (We had a thread that addressed them a month or so ago). Among the sites you can look through, the University of St. Andrews provides this overview with extended links

[tomndebb]

On re-reading your comment, I see that you were making a different point–and you are still wrong.

There is nothing about the advances made within Islamic society that require a Muslim to carry them out. However, you need the society and the stability of the culture to provide an environment in which they can be performed. Eliminating Islam (with the lingua franca of Arabic and the relative social and governmental stability to the entire Middle East for several hundred years) is required for the history we have today. If you drop Islam out of the mix, you need to show that there would still have been the same environment in its absence. This you fail to do.

[Jojo]

I suspected that you had misunderstood the entire topic under discussion and you have now confirmed it. I am aware of the advances in mathematics that were made by muslims but the fact that these advances were made by muslims is entirely irrelevant. The point is they were made by people who happened to be muslims.

The previous thread you refer to was asking a different question to the one I am talking about. The previous thread was asking what contributions muslims have made to the world. I am asking “what would the world be like if islam had never existed?”. A different question entirely.

The fact that the people who made these contributions were muslim is only relevant if you can show that their muslimness was somehow integral to the contributions they made. That their contributions could only have been made because they were muslim. That there is something specific in islam’s doctrines that is responsible for advances in mathematics. So that, if these people were not muslim, then the advances would not have been made.

I don’t particularly define people by what ideology they think they believe in. People are people. A clever mathematician is a clever mathematician whatever religion he thinks he believes.

You say this:

Of course it would not have been empty. However, the people who developed math and science did it in a particular milieu in which they had a sufficiently stable society to engage in those “liesure” activities rather than struggling to survive. It was the presence of a moderating Muslim influence, spread across the entire Middle East, that provided that stability.

I don’t disagree with any of this. All you are doing is reciting history as it actually happened. That’s easy - anyone can do that. What I am doing is contemplating history as it didn’t happen. Are you saying that without this “moderating muslim influence” then the middle east would have been awash with war, anarchy, chaos and barbarity? Are you saying that no advances in science or maths would have been made?

You need to stop talking about history as it actually happened and start thinking about history as it didn’t happen (for the purposes of this discussion). Assume there was no islam - make that your a priori assumption and then proceed from there.

It is not enough to claim that the same humans would have lived (they may not have), you need to be able to show that they would have had the same environment.

You’re a glass half empty kind of guy. Your view is excessively pessimistic. You assume that if islam had not existed then the environment that would have existed would have been worse. I don’t particularly see why.

Democracy was considered a stupid and evil form of government for over a thousand years–beginning wth the generation that watched Athenian democracy fail.

Exactly. The rise and fall of democracy had nothing whatsoever to do with islam. The susequent rise (again) of democracy likewise had nothing to with islam.

Why did it arise again, except as nurtured by people wrestling with the particular forms of government that had arisen in Europe–which were, in turn, formed as a result of Europe’s interaction with Islam?

This is a statement I don’t understand. I don’t understand why you think that the rise of democracy in 20th century Europe had anything particularly to do with Europe’s interaction with islam. I don’t understand why you think that, if it were not for Europe’s interaction with islam, then democracy would not have arisen.

I think that the rise of democracy had more to do with social factors, the industrial revolution, the rise of political philosophy etc than islam. My initial point (way back) was that in the absence of islam, democracy would be more widespread. I still don’t see why this would not be the case since one of the factors that holds back the progress of (full) democracy in muslim countries is islam.

[Tamerlane]

@Jojo

The fact that the people who made these contributions were muslim is only relevant if you can show that their muslimness was somehow integral to the contributions they made. That their contributions could only have been made because they were muslim. That there is something specific in islam’s doctrines that is responsible for advances in mathematics. So that, if these people were not muslim, then the advances would not have been made.

I don’t particularly define people by what ideology they think they believe in. People are people. A clever mathematician is a clever mathematician whatever religion he thinks he believes.

There are in fact arguments that particular facets of early Islamic theology, for one very broad example the emphasis on literacy, helped facilitate a number of intellectual investigations during the so-called “Golden Age”. Similarly there are arguments that Islam also tended to influence investigations away from certain topics.I can perhaps give more detail on this later this evening when I have access to my library again.

But in addition, you may have missed tom’s most recent post, but another facilitator was the expansion of Arabic ( even in areas like Persia where it didn’t become the steet-level lingua franca ) as a universal scholarly language, something which was dependant on the success of Islam. The counter of Latin in a Christian-dominated MENA is possible, but Latin may never have extended as far east as Arabic ultimately did.

Are you saying that without this “moderating muslim influence” then the middle east would have been awash with war, anarchy, chaos and barbarity? Are you saying that no advances in science or maths would have been made?

I don’t think he is saying this so much what would have happened, as he is saying there is no way of knowing. The Caliphate was one of the world’s great empires, straddling an enormous territory - no Islam and you may have had a perpetually divided ME, with a Byzantine and Persian state constantly in conflict and periodically weakening themselves so badly they were routinely left open to devastating incursions from the steppes ( Transoxanian for Persia, Trans-Caucasian and Pontic for the Byzantines ). This indeed was the sort of scenario that opened the door for the Arab conquests to begin with.

You need to stop talking about history as it actually happened and start thinking about history as it didn’t happen (for the purposes of this discussion). Assume there was no islam - make that your a priori assumption and then proceed from there.

I think you are sometimes falling into the same intellectual trap :).

You’re a glass half empty kind of guy. Your view is excessively pessimistic. You assume that if islam had not existed then the environment that would have existed would have been worse. I don’t particularly see why.

No, he is saying it might be worse. You are claiming it would be better ( in one respect ), tom is countering with scenarios where it might not be.

Exactly. The rise and fall of democracy had nothing whatsoever to do with islam. The susequent rise (again) of democracy likewise had nothing to with islam.

Undeterminable. Remember the “butterfly effect” ;). Reaction to the opposition of Islam may have compelled Christian Europe to move in different directions at different rates or times than it did.

Would Portugal and Spain have been quite so interested in finding an alternate away around a non-Islamic MENA? Would Spain and Portugal even exist in the same state if not for the impact of Islam? Maybe Iberia would be a divided possesion, split into ten little states, some possessions of other distant powers uninterested in using them for anything but as backward tax farms. Would a failure to pre-empt non-European resource bases have slowed the impetus towards industrialization? Who knows? Not me. Which is the point.

I don’t understand why you think that, if it were not for Europe’s interaction with islam, then democracy would not have arisen.

Might have arisen differently, at a different time, in different places, with different levels of success. Trying to trace out all of the indirect influences of a Christian world with a major oppositional force removed ( and oppositon often equals impetus to innovation ) is a probably fruitless task. There are too many possibilities.

I think that the rise of democracy had more to do with social factors, the industrial revolution, the rise of political philosophy etc than islam

Which all may have been impacted, maybe positive, maybe negative, by the absense of Islam.

My initial point (way back) was that in the absence of islam, democracy would be more widespread.

And it might not. Maybe the Byzantine Emperor would be calling the shots :).

I still don’t see why this would not be the case since one of the factors that holds back the progress of (full) democracy in muslim countries is islam.

Unproven, at least.

• Tamerlane

[tomndebb]

The fact that the people who made these contributions were muslim is only relevant if you can show that their muslimness was somehow integral to the contributions they made. That their contributions could only have been made because they were muslim. That there is something specific in islam’s doctrines that is responsible for advances in mathematics. So that, if these people were not muslim, then the advances would not have been made.

Again, you are missing the point.

I make no claim that Islamic faith led to one action or another.
(Christian theology was entirely opposed to democratic or representative government until it was reshaped in the context of the rise of democratic and republican states, so Islam’s supposed opposition to democracy very likely has as much to do with Muslim nations being prohibited from developing democracy by European colonial powers (and the Ottoman Empire) as it does with religion.)
I am only pointing out that the society that Islam shaped had a serious effect on the history of Europe–and the removal of that force casts doubt on the rise of democracy in Europe. If you are going to claim that removing Islam (the society, not the faith) provides for more democracy in the world, you need to demonstrate how the absence of Islam allowed a Europe to develop that was sufficiently similar to the one we knew that democracy would continue to be part of history.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Tamerlane

The counter of Latin in a Christian-dominated MENA is possible, but Latin may never have extended as far east as Arabic ultimately did.

It probably would have been Greek, not Latin. You probably would have seen a stronger Byzantine empire. You still would be seeing barbarian incursions, but Persia couldn’t have been as strong an enemy as the Caliphate was.

[far_born]

RexDart

I think that like any religion that relies on a prophet long since dead, Islam, has become less relevant than it once was. But really, what’s the point of your question? Why single Islam out? IOW there must be something unique about Islam to make this a real issue.

To me it is like asking “Why have red jellybeans? Jelly beans are bad for you. Don’t tell that the other flavors are just as bad. Justify the red jelly beans”

I feel you should make a case as to why this religion, which is really an offshoot of and intricately related to many other religions, warrants being analyzed in a vacuum.

I do resent your portrayal of it as lies. Lies involve the deliberate telling of a known falsehood. People really believe in Islam. As far as they are concerned, it is not false. It may be a fine point to you, but I find it an important distinction to remember.

[dal_timgar]

Look at the history of the last 500 years. How many people and how much land has been stolen by people who claim to be CHRISTIANS?

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not steal.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Is hypoChristianity the religion from hell?

HELL is not in the BIBLE. It actually says SHEOL, HADES and GEHENNA.

The underground fire and brimstone HELL comes from Roman paganism. People who lived near volcanos. No volcanos in the middle-east.

Dal Timgar

@RexDart

To set the stage:

Generally, I think little good can ever come of lies, even well-meaning deceptions, and thus I’m pretty critical of religion. I believe people should be allowed to practice their religions so long as they aren’t coercive. However, people should also be educated away from their superstitions. People’s beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum, they don’t discard them when they walk out of their door. At a certain point, a person believing a lie may be induced by his false perception of reality into doing something which will directly affect other individuals and the world around them.

On the balance, does Islam have a positive or negative effect on individuals and on the world?

I would have to conclude that it is a harmful set of beliefs. It has led to the recent formation of oppressive theocracies with no respect for individual liberty. It has provided a convenient excuse to whip up frenzy in the masses, for the purpose of carrying out various acts of violence. While these things certainly have an economic component, the religious component is not dispensible. The religious component allows those who would do evil to polarize the population, to cast all the others as wicked heathens who merit no better than second-class status. Islam sets up a framework that is readily exploited by those who wish to do harm. This alone makes it a dangerous force in the world.

Any positive consequences the religion might create, including support for those charities that aren’t just Al Queda front groups, could easily be mirrored by a non-religious population. Charitable giving is not the exclusive province of religion, after all. Thus I would conclude from a quick survey of the impact of Islam on the world that it is more harmful than beneficial.

I am interested in hearing arguments that Islam has had either harmful or beneficial consequences, and why and how? (I’m not particularly interested in comparing it to other world religions, rather to give Islam an isolated and critical look, as I and other secular humanists have already been giving to other prominent religions. Saying “Christianity caused X” is not a counterargument to “Islam caused Y”.)

[tomndebb]

The underground fire and brimstone HELL comes from Roman paganism. People who lived near volcanos. No volcanos in the middle-east.

In the interest of promting the Straight Dope, it should be pointed out that the first sentence of this paragraph is in error. A fiery place of punishment after death was firmly established in some Jewish literature (as opposed to Jewish Scripture) before the Romans had established a presence in Judea and was accepted and built upon by early Christianity before that had become a “Roman” religion.

A search of the SDMB GQ Forum will turn up several discussions of the origins of the Christian hell–none of which require Romans or volvcanoes to be understood.

[ /Straight Dope moment ]

[Captain_Amazing]

@dal_timgar

No volcanos in the middle-east.

Mt. Arafat in Turkey is an extict volcano. So are Mt. Damavand and Mt. Sahand in Iran.

[RexDart]

@dal_timgar

Look at the history of the last 500 years. How many people and how much land has been stolen by people who claim to be CHRISTIANS?

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not steal.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Is hypoChristianity the religion from hell?

HELL is not in the BIBLE. It actually says SHEOL, HADES and GEHENNA.

The underground fire and brimstone HELL comes from Roman paganism. People who lived near volcanos. No volcanos in the middle-east.

Dal Timgar

What?

We weren’t talking about any of that, and it’s another thread entirely.

Which was precisely my point in trying to limit this thread to Islam. We have already had plenty of threads where we talked about the possible negative effects of Christianity on the world. If you want to discuss those, search for the old threads or start a new one.

originally posted by far_born
I feel you should make a case as to why this religion, which is really an offshoot of and intricately related to many other religions, warrants being analyzed in a vacuum.

We have no trouble talking about Christianity “in a vacuum”, and will routinely discuss it without bringing up other religions. In part, I believe this is due to our Western viewpoint, we see Christianity as the big boy on the block, the default religious belief for most religious people here and in the UK, and a pretty constant part of our cultural fabric. So when we in America and the UK talk about the harmful or beneficial effects of religion, we probably have Christianity largely in mind because we’re more familiar with it.

far_born, in your analogy all the jellybeans are the same except for their color, a rather superficial quality. World religions vary widely in the theology they embrace, and the cultural elements they have created, and have occupied different places in history. Thus, even if it is true that all world religions are harmful or beneficial to an equal magnitude (and whether that’s the case would be a subject for a different thread), they would nevertheless be harmful/beneficial in different specific ways. Thus I think it’s valuable to isolate one religion and look at the specific role it plays in the world.

[kniz]

@UDS

In other words, the alteration in the history of the world posited here is so fundamental that I doubt if any meaningful answer is possible. Instead the thread will provide an entertaining opportunity for posters to air their prejudices and preconceptions about Islam.

That is exactly my impression when I first read the OP.

[far_born]

@RexDart

We have no trouble talking about Christianity “in a vacuum”, and will routinely discuss it without bringing up other religions. In part, I believe this is due to our Western viewpoint, we see Christianity as the big boy on the block, the default religious belief for most religious people here and in the UK, and a pretty constant part of our cultural fabric. So when we in America and the UK talk about the harmful or beneficial effects of religion, we probably have Christianity largely in mind because we’re more familiar with it.

And that kind of annoys me honestly, because there’s so much more to religion.

@RexDart

far_born, in your analogy all the jellybeans are the same except for their color, a rather superficial quality. World religions vary widely in the theology they embrace, and the cultural elements they have created, and have occupied different places in history.

Hmm…or is it the culture that creates the religion? Are we really talking about Islam or cultures that practiced Islam?

I don’t see how you can answer the question is Islam beneficial or harmful without considering the alternatives. Given the dispositions of the world and the areas where Islam has flourished, that alternative is another religion.

I have to ask because it is not immediately obvious to me why Islam has distinguished itself in any way in terms of a “cost/benefit” ratio. AFAIK there’s only one prophet that seperates Judaism from Islam. Most other variances seem to spring largely from historical, geological accidents rather than theology and don’t seem to merit a discussion IMO. But if you can explain, please do.

@RexDart

Thus, even if it is true that all world religions are harmful or beneficial to an equal magnitude (and whether that’s the case would be a subject for a different thread), they would nevertheless be harmful/beneficial in different specific ways.

That is your contention, and I’m afraid I haven’t seen it supported so far. What’s so special about Islam that makes it any different?

Now if you wanted to discuss religions based on montheistic sky gods with a strict dualistic good vs. evil dichotomy and their effect on humanity, then I would naturally find something worthy of discussion.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

I think it’s worth mentioning that Islam is in in its fourteenth or fifteenth century, based on its calendar (but I forget when that started, exactly). Christian rulers in the 14th - 16th centuries CE were not always models of tolerance and forbearance, either.