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.
I don't believe you've substantiated that claim yet. The prime example of a contemporary to the late medieval muslims I named - Aquinas - actually defies your allegation. Whereas the muslims I cited espoused jihadi warfare as a fundamental duty, Aquinas' theory of "Just War" seeks to impose strict limitations on the use of warfare.
Rather, my point was that they are held as "great thinkers and intellectual anchors" despite their faults and not because of them.
I don't believe that point has been substantiated either. 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) You seem to be holding medieval Muslim thinkers to a higher standard,
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.
To suggest that "moderate Islam" is rotten at the core because ibn Khaldun held views that are today unpalatable
But that would be a misstatement of my argument. 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!
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.
But once again you are incorrect. Take Aquinas and Ghazali as two rough contemporaries of comparable theological influence. In fact Ghazali is sometimes called the "Aquinas of Islam" in assessing his influence. 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.
A slightly fuller context shows that the topic was being discussed in terms of historical development of Islam vis-a-vis other faiths.
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.
So then, why is it important that certain philosophies claim a 600+ year lineage?
Because people who claim 600+ year lineages also draw beliefs from historical figures in those lineages who wrote 600+ years ago. When those figures espoused pernicious and violent doctrines, as is the case with many muslim thinkers of history, it is often the case that their intellectual descendants do as well.
I'd say OKC was an "enduring impact" wouldn't you?
Actually I'd call it a one time event by a fringe wacko who no longer exists and no longer influences any comparable followup attacks. The participants in OKC were arrested and convicted shortly after the attack, and virtually all of their already miniscule fringe of tangential associates have since dissipated.
The same cannot be said of any jihadi organization in the 1990's or today. OKC was a single event with no related subsequent attacks and today there is very little chance that there will be another related attack in the near future. The WTC was bombed in the 90's too, but its perpetrators kept coming back and trying again until it was finally destroyed. And they also kept blowing up other things. And the risk is extremely high that they will continue to try and blow up other things for the forseeable future.