'Enlightenment' and 'Religion' should not be used in the same century, let alone sentence.It is for this reason that I object to the use of the term 'Radical Islam' in the context of terrorism, What we really should be saying is 'Fundamentalism', because, as you pointed out, that's what these acts are - they are adhering to that fundamental, 'fire and brimstone' side that all the Abrahamic religions have.
In fact, the reason that most Muslims do not identify with AQ, IS and the like is that they adhere to a version or versions of Islam that have, to some extent at least, gone through an enlightenment process (I'm deliberately using the lower-case 'e' as each religion and culture has had its own Enlightenment period and movement). It could be argued, even if just semantically, that the Muslims, Christians and Jews who identify more with liberal values and eschew the violent instructions of their holy books are the radicals, having departed from the fundamental doctrines. That's certainly how they would have been viewed in the past.
In answer to your general question: I think religion is the main motivator, without question. Two reasons: 1) It contributes to their belief that they will be rewarded in an afterlife, thus making it easier for them to justify and carry out these acts; and 2) It is what helps create that divide between themselves and everyone else - a divide which makes it much easier to cause harm to other fellow human beings.
Someone said in the bombing thread earlier that Norther Ireland was not about religion. Whilst it is true that the 'narcissism of difference' means that people will always find some way to divide between 'them and us', I think the the role of religion in religious terrorism is so plainly obvious (and not just by definition) that I struggle to understand how anyone can deny it. Would we have the problems in Northern Ireland/Israel-Palestine/Sri Lanka if each of the populations in those countries were entirely Catholic/Muslim/Buddhist? Most probably not.
I am not saying Iran is some perfect model of how societies should be run, however to answer your points specifically: on elections one word - Trump, on the fatwah, post-Khomeini Iran is a very different place to the one of 30 years ago. I don't know about the dance thing but female education, employment and life expectancy have all improved markedly in the last 20-30 years. Yes they have a different attitude to women but that does not make them second class citizens.
The point I was really making is that Iran is an Islamic state and has been since 1979. The revolution, like all such upheavals, was brutal, as I said I am not trying to make them out to be perfect. They have been heavily involved in supporting Islamic causes in the region but they have not invoked or provoked anything like ISIS or ISIL, indeed they have been involved in fighting them in Iraq and Syria.
There are parts of the Middle East that are a mess but that is not because the Islamic religion want to take over the world as was posited in the OP.
Religion is just an excuse. If there was no religion there would be some other excuse or reason to be a dicky. Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years it's never gonna stop, religion or no religion
That's what I was saying 99% are just people trying to get by like us all.
True, but scant consolation when it takes fewer than 1% to blow your bollox away.
and what do people believe that wealth and power will bring them?Religion is the tool, the promise of things to come if you behave in this way or that, but no more so than the prevailing ideology of the west - Capitalism.
People behave pretty despicably in the pursuit of wealth and power.
Sexand what do people believe that wealth and power will bring them?
This is on the right lines. If you read a book called "The Looming tower: Al Qaeda's Road to 9/11" it tells the history of the development of Islamic fundamentalism & paints a picture of radical Muslim political thinkers who objected to their countries (mainly Egypt at the time) going down the route of Westernisation. They espoused that Muslim majority countries should be run on a religious basis, not as what we consider to be social democracies. Throw the doctrine of Salafism (which is a Sunni ideology) into the mix and their aim is to see countries run on a much more conservative (i.e. strictly interpreted) basis than it would be under Shia or other forms of Islam.I think that blaming religion per se is too simplistic and misses what is really going on.
ISIS (or whatever term they are currently using) has emerged in areas that have leaders who are trying to model their countries along western lines. They see the massive potential benefits (for them) of western global capitalism and seek to exploit their own people with the help of western (and eastern in some cases - the difference is not that great ideologically) government and business intervention.
If Islam, the religion, was so hell bent on world domination through a global caliphate how do you explain the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the most progressive and inclusive countries in the region?
This is about power, politics and wealth which is exactly what all war and conflict is about. Religion (or pretty much any ideology) is a tool wielded by those in power to control everyone else.