And medieval anti-Semites and racists are held up today as paragons of Western thought. What's your point?
Incorrect. Khaldun recognized the ability of muslims to temporarily endure non-Islamic governments. He described the eventual overthrow of the Dar al Harb as a "religious duty" though, and wrote of the "universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah) He by no means saw non-Islamic government as something tolerable or on equal footing with Islamic government, and openly advocated the establishment of the latter where it did not already exist.
Can you produce a prominent Christian thinker of the same era who didn't see the same duty to spread the Word, by war if necessary?
Very good. You've proven that you know how to google names!
You seem to rely heavily on Google. Not all of us do.
But what you've also inadvertently admitted is that the intellectual strain of islamic radicalism runs very deep through Islamic history - in fact it follows a succession over 600 years in the making.
In that Wahabbism sees itself as a Salafist movement, then yes, of course its adherents consider their philosophy rooted in the deep past.
May I take it by your scare quotes that you question whether Khaldun's advocacy of forceful conversion to Islam is indeed an extreme premise?
I was quoting your terms.
Your analogy is false. Pierce was a fringe writer with no significant or credible following in the western world. Taymiyya, Qutb, Sadr, Mawdudi, Wahhab, and other jihadi radicals all have significant followings among Islamic theologians, political figures, and, of course, terrorists.
Pierce's followers were the foremost terrorists in America in the 1990s.
The Robertson analogy is similarly false, as Robertson and his followers don't blow up busses, ambush conveys, or take and execute hostages. Sadr does. So did the terror cells spawned by Qutb and Mawduddi.
You're not familiar with Robertson's links to (and defense of, on religious grounds) Charles Taylor.
Et tu quoque. It's an invalid form of argumentation to cite the alleged flaws of an alleged equivalent as justification or excuse for the original condemned act. And that's my point.
Can you produce a prominent Christian thinker of the same era who didn't see the same duty to spread the Word, by war if necessary?
As I said, et tu quoque. Besides, you seem to have lost your point in the previous discussion. You claimed wrongly that Khaldun tolerated non-Islamic governments. I quoted him directly showing otherwise. So either admit your error or move on.
In that Wahabbism sees itself as a Salafist movement, then yes, of course its adherents consider their philosophy rooted in the deep past.
Sure they do. But so do the Shi'a mahdists, the Hezbollah crowd, and just about every other single Islamic sect. Despite their often vast differences with each other, virtually all of them claim an intellectual and political succession going back to Mahomet himself.
Pierce's followers were the foremost terrorists in America in the 1990s.
Debatable at best, and more likely dubious as they dissipated into the fringes of society with no enduring impact or following. The most consequential of the 1990's terror groups within the U.S. itself are the very same ones that produced 9/11 a few years later.