Talk:Dehellenization of Christianity

Possible issues with article

I am a little bit concerned about this article, in that it is hard to tell what it is about in some senses, and whether it is actually a notable general concept and not just an original analysis. What I mean is that though the article at first appears well referenced, as the article stands now it seems that the concept of "dehellenization" has only ever been mentioned on two occasions: once by Pope Benedict in a speech about Christian intellectual currents, and once completely independently by Robert R. Reilly in a polemic about why he thinks that Islam as it currently tends to be practiced is bad. That is at least the impression that I get from this article. There may be at least two issues with this. First, it is unclear if this is a term that is actually notable. The only sources cited that use it appear to be from the people who coined the term. Are there any secondary sources? How did people react to the idea? has it been accepted into the appropriate spheres of dialog that make the term relevant to know about? It also appears that the term "dehellenisation" refers to a somewhat different thing in reference to Christianity than when used in reference to Islam; though both involve a (putative) rejection of philosophy and reason in the interpretation in faith, there does not seem to be any indication that the two usages are in any way related either in origin or in the study of the phenomena. Putting them together seems at least borderline original research, unless someone can find a source that actually says that the Muslim and Christian versions are related, or at least discusses them together in the same work. The "Manifestations of dehellenization in Islam" section's presentation of quotes from Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones as evidence of the phenomena also probably violates the Original analysis is original research concept. —anamedperson (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased and lacking a critique of the work mentioned - Needs a very long critique since there is so much that needs to be mentioned

There is no mention of the plethora of Islamic philosophies and their current forms, nor does it mention any of the major institutions that still use philosophy and reason. This book clearly focuses on the rising Islamist perspectives that focus on obedience and loyalty within their stringently hierarchical organization, his focus on these communities would clearly affect his statistics. Examples of rising Islamist groups: the Wahabis, Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Islamic State, the list goes on. None of the long standing institutions are mentioned and what they teach, such Al-Azhar and their still essential reference of Al-Ghazali, Averroes and many others. The critique section needs to exist and give balance out this article.

"Reilly suspects that the Middle East’s lack of scientific and technologic innovation stems directly from this prospect" > Ignoring the decline of world powers during European colonialism and how that drawing on this particular history causes incredibly racist and orientalist conclusions to be drawn as though they were fact. This page needs to reference works that critique this book and not just leave it as though there is nothing else to say. 8227 02:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)