> I guess I am not alone in wondering how different the Middle East might have been had it not been for the seismic influence of Al-Ghazali, that revered scholar of Sunni thought, who in the 12th century argued that science is not a liberator but a threat to the word of God and a danger to the clerics, who had every incentive to thwart the thirst for knowledge to maintain their power and privileges. “Innovator” was not regarded as a term of praise but, as the scholar Toby Huff has put it, “a term for a heretic and non-believer, subject to death”.
And on the status of innovator. The author is equivocating, the negative term innovator is applied to people who innovate in religious matter, ie: altering the religion. Not referring to people who advance knowledge of the "worldly sciences".
This quote has two parts, both of which are wrong and sensationalized. About al Ghazali being anti science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjSXJSt7KI
And on the status of innovator. The author is equivocating, the negative term innovator is applied to people who innovate in religious matter, ie: altering the religion. Not referring to people who advance knowledge of the "worldly sciences".