That, the rediscovery of Classical culture (held safe, ironically, by the Muslim world of the time) and the development of science as an alternative to theology to cope with the physical world.

Religious warfare makes people sick of religious violence.

Classical culture demonstrated that there had been an alternate way of looking at the world.

Science demonstrated a vehicle that substituted experiment and discovery for prayer as a way to combat physical ills, dangers and puzzles, and allowed for doubt, which faith does not.

Although we in America are used to the secular state, it's worth remembering that most nations, even those with democratic institutions in Western Europe, have had established religions until the 19th century. Religious freedom is a very new thing.

I'm not sure we have several centuries for Islam to play out this kind of moderation mechanism. For one thing, cavalry and artillary are much more destructive these days. The trouble is, it takes people a while to have these discussions among themselves. When outsiders talk about the group as if it's all defined by the reactionaries or the radicals within it, then the group gets defensive and turns not on those within their midst making hash of their beliefs, but on those from the outside who are characterizing them so.

In other words, in my considered opinion, it's not helpful to condemn Islam, because you need only look at the Muslims who don't live violently to see its potential as a peaceful religion. It's helpful to praise those who live in peace and engage in generous activities, and to condemn those who kill and maim in the name of a faith that guides peaceful Muslims. The Muslims have to moderate their own religion. All we can do is to fight a holding action, and not give up or become radical like their radicals, while they do so.

Thank you for finding that article!