Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:
1. Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
Islam doesn't fail at peace. Peace is not really a part of Islam. Any religion that requires punishment for non-harm of others, is a religion of violence.
What is interesting is, in America, traffic laws and income taxes and many other things impose a penalty if they are not followed. The penalty is imposed even though nobody expresses that they have been harmed by not following these laws, and even though there is no evidence of harm. The American government has become a religion of punishment for no harm done, simply because government people have made some laws.
1.A. Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?
Violence without harm being done first is never justifiable. Certain punishment is justifiable if there is a teacher student relationship, and the student has agreed to the punishment when he fails. Violence without cause is wrong. A claim is merely a claim. A claim to a monopoly on salvation may be wrong, but it may also be non-violent.
2. If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?
Islam does not preach peace. Islam preaches no peace to people of other religions if they will not become Muslims. Islam may preach a semblance of peace between Muslims, but anywhere there is taxation rather than donation, peace is ultimately non-existent.
3. Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
Everyone is responsible for his own idiocy. However, because points of law can be difficult to determine, the Islamic cleric who teaches Muslims incorrectly is doubly wrong.
3.A. In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?
Yes, absolutely. The fact that Islam exists is just such a happening.
Islam started as a method for its followers to get more than a lion's share of the goods of this life, by taking it from others. The infusion of ideals that appear peaceful into Islam was to help Islam gain a foothold on the minds of people who would normally be peaceful.
4. If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
Anybody can call anything, anything that they want. Calling Islam peaceful doesn't make it so.
4.A. How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?
By rewriting the Islamic religious writings to eliminate the violence, or by writing some new, peaceful, religious writings, and then calling them "Islam."