Then I don't believe you've substantiated your claims, as I'm still waiting on those citations.
In the case of the "great thinkers" of islam such as Ghazali, the points I have cited as their faults are also their central doctrines (i.e. Tahafut al-Falasafa and the Book of Counsel for Kings)
Believe it or not, I just cannot recall the details of Tahafut al-Falasafa. I suppose producing that is your burden. Happy hunting.
Considering the vast aforementioned differences between medieval western thinkers such as Aquinas and medieval mahometans such as Ghazali and Taymiyya, I don't believe that assessment applies either.
Considering the concept of "Just War" (and the noted lack of it in Europe 33 A.D. - Present), you're either overstating Aquinas and Augustine's importance, or you're holding the Mahometans to a higher standard.
My point is that the medieval views of ibn Khaldun, ibn Taymiyya, al-Ghazali that I consider objectionable (i.e. jihad, literalist Koranic legal constructs) are *not* considered unpalatable by either the "mainstream" or radical Islamic theologians that are alive today. They are regularly embraced and celebrated, and in the occasional instances where they are rejected it is almost always because they were not extreme enough!
Well then, producing moderate Muslims who approvingly cite al-Ghazali's most bellicose views is your burden. I'm sure Wafa Sultan or Saliou Mbacké won't make those passages the keystones of their writings.
But if you compare their respective theological doctrines the two are almost completely incompatable! Ghazali espoused an ultraliteralist reading of the Koran that vehemently rejected aristotelian logic as a tool of theological discovery, and espoused complete literal submission to islamic revelation in its place. Aquinas by contrast embraced aristotelian logic and used it as his basic tool for understanding scripture and its role in human society. This distinction, of course, is manifested in their vastly different theological doctrines.
So that's your point? That the theological doctrines of religious thinkers of two faiths are "vastly different"? Hardly groundbreaking and nothing I care to argue against.
And yet its acceptance of jihad as a good thing remains, which is my point. Even the "mainstream" Khaldun took coercion as an acceptable given of the mahometan faith.
Khaldun's Muqqadimah was descriptive -- and Aristotelean. My earlier point was that Khaldun was not ahead of his time. In fact Khaldus was writing as Christian Spaniards were engaged in a bloody Reconquista that they felt was a completely Just War by Augustinian standards.
Not at all. Even when Europe has failed to live up to Just War, the fact remains that it exists in the mainstream of its theological doctrines. No comparable doctrine exists in the mainstream or radical circles of mahometan theology - in fact the opposite exists in the form of a doctrine that encourages and celebrates jihad as a duty.
And it is an easy one to meet. Ghazali's most bellicose viewpoint is also his most important text, the Tahafut al-Falasifa. Nary a muslim theologian exists who follows Ghazali but not the Tahafut, because the Tahafut is the core of Ghazali's thought.
Actually that's a task that can be fulfilled by your local library. I already have my own copy, and i've given you the title. As I am not obliged to purchase you a copy as well, my burden of citation has been met. So the hunt is all yours.
And it was. The Moors they were fighting forcefully invaded their territory, stole their lands, and waged war upon their existing sovereigns. Spain's response meets the characteristics of a just war as (1) Its sovereigns - the various kingdoms of Spain - were the preexisting government authorities, (2) its cause was the expulsion of a foreign invader, and (3) its intention was the restoration of lands that had been stolen from it by that invader.