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.
And my point not that we should overlook their faults and biases because non-Muslim scholars of the same era also had faults and biases. Rather, my point was that they are held as "great thinkers and intellectual anchors" despite their faults and not because of them. The tectonics of history sublimate some aspects and emphasize others. It is important to recognize that. You seem to be holding medieval Muslim thinkers to a higher standard, which is fine, but cultural memory does not work in the same way. Ask random Americans if George Washington was a champion of American freedom and the overwhelming majority will say yes. Ask random Americans if slaveholders were champions of American freedom and the overwhelming majority will say no. Obviously, that aspect of Washington's life has been sublimated in popular memory by Washington's efforts to secure and preserve American independence, which rightly earned him the "Father of the Country" sobriquet. To suggest that "moderate Islam" is rotten at the core because ibn Khaldun held views that are today unpalatable is akin to suggesting that America is an amoral nation because Washington owned slaves. I merely meant to illustrate that Khaldun and Ghazali's views on scriptural literalism and the comparative validity of world religions were by and large consistent with political and religious thought in the wider world of Europe, North Africa, and western Asia. They may have been ahead of their time in other fields and other issues, but not these. You implore us to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
. You claimed wrongly that Khaldun tolerated non-Islamic governments. I quoted him directly showing otherwise.
I'll have to find and then dust of my copy of the Muqqadimah but for now let me note that the quote you gave was lifted from Khaldun's descriptive writings and given a prescriptive edge. A slightly fuller context shows that the topic was being discussed in terms of historical development of Islam vis-a-vis other faiths.
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense."
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.
So then, why is it important that certain philosophies claim a 600+ year lineage?
Debatable at best, and more likely dubious as they dissipated into the fringes of society with no enduring impact or following.
I'd say OKC was an "enduring impact" wouldn't you?
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.
In retrospect, yes.