Random Pieces of Information = RPI

So I have wanted to start a blog for a while now and I only recently thought of something that I could regularly or at least semi-regularly write about. The nature of studying Political Science and Middle-Eastern History is that I am bound to come across random pieces of information that I (and hopefully others) find especially interesting. From all my lectures, I think that I can provide about one "rpi" per day. Once again these will random pieces of information that I found particularly interesting and ones that I would want to remember so that I can use them in future conversations etc.

I would like to start off with something from a lecture called "Islamic Jurisprudence." The class delves into the different school of Islamic thought and legislature, their basic tenets, the differences between them etc. This past Wednesday we were dealing with the strictest of the four schools of thought, the "chanbalim." One of the more famous students of Ahmed Ibn Chanbal (the founder) is a scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiah. He is know for his strict adherence to the sacred Islamic texts and his dramatic rulings regarding Jihad. He was the first to categorize non-observant Muslims as heretics, therefore opening the door for the permission to fight against them. He was essentially the first to officially sanction the killing of Muslims by other Muslims. Ibn Taymiah is known as the philosophic father of all modern fundamentalists. This is most interesting when considering his opinions and rulings regarding the status of Jerusalem. Despite popular Islamic belief that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam, there are many scholars that disagree and give little sanctity to Jerusalem. Ibn Taymiah is one who harshly opposes the giving of any sanctity to Jerusalem on the account that he considers it one of the best examples for "bid'ah" which in Arabic means innovation and is something that strictly forbidden. This all just goes to prove that the Jerusalem issue is only political and has nothing to do with religion. The fact that there are opinions that sanctify the Holy City and others that don't, just goes to prove that the Muslims that do claim sovereignty over Jerusalem do so for political reasons only. Furthermore, the issue of Jerusalem reappeared in Islamic scholarship only after the start of Zionism.
As a side point, Muslims do not have the same conception of consistency when it comes to following one scholar or one opinion. They are known for legitimately picking and choosing, something which is generally looked down upon from a strictly Orthodox perspective. So for them there is no real contradiction between adopting the policies of Ibn Taymiah in one area and completely ignoring them in another. Either way, I thought this was a particularly fascinating random piece of information.
I would appreciate any and all feedback.
Shabbat Shalom