Topic: Is ISIS Proof that Islam has Failed at Peace? - page 3. (Read 4654 times)

I don't think that ISIS represents the entirety of Muslims. If anything it serves as proof that there can be extremists in any religions. Now, to what extent they can justify their actions based on holy scriptures may vary from religion to religion.

Islam was never a very peaceful religion but that´s an exageration to identify all the muslims with ISIS. And we can link the brutality of modern muslim terrorists with poverty of the regions the live in.

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?
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?

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?

3.  Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
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?

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?)
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?

Thoughts/answers to the above?

If muslims, some fair part of them, support the evil which is known as ISIS, they share totally in it's evil.

I am amused of numbers of muslim people in this 'rogue sect' you mentioned this is not sect anymore it is nation. It seems that for me that muslims are either part of this or are silently supporting ISIS.
There is no way that terrorist organisation of this caliber without help from people would be that huge and dangerous. Muslims want ISIS to success and then it will be one sharia law for everyone.

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?

Both might be, that's debatable. But that's also not the issue. This issue is the inappropriateness of carpet bombing heavily residential areas and other areas of little military or industrial significance, or the fire bombing Dresden at the end of the war which was so reviled by the Allied public that it caused senior British military commanders to write:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.

Especially because of the "wanton destruction" the Allies inflicted in WWII during their campaign of total war, we no longer believe in the concept because we recognize that the actions of the guilty do not condemn the innocent merely by group association, an underpinning of today's civilized society which you're apparently loathe to accept. Your selective employment of the concept of group guilt is evidence of your true motivation.

So the German factory employing housewives to make artillery shells is not a valid target?

Or the Muslim community center with kindegardens and 1000 rockets in the basement?

Yes, Muslim sects are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior now of any religious group (that I am currently aware of). I agree with that. The difference for me is I don't associate the crimes of the violent sects as being crimes of the non-violent ones. Re Germany, I also don't hold civilian Germans as being "violent" during WWII because they were born in Germany. I differentiate inside of a group between those who commit and condone violent actions, and those who don't. If all Germans were guilty of violence by association of the outwardly-defined group, they bombing of civilian centers by the Allies would have been justifiable. I don't consider them to be. The violent Germans were the violent ones, just like the My Lai massacre is attributable to those who committed the atrocity, and not all American soldiers who served in Vietnam. See the association error? Relate it to your own arguments.

A fundamental characteristic of many religions is "to spread outwards,to grow."  Thus in ancient times they existed in a sort of zero sum game of who gets the most land and how.  There is no way to ignore the fact that Muslim sects have and are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior overall.

Remember that even in wartime Germany WWII, ten percent of the population may have been in the armed forces.  Of those, no more than ten percent was on the front lines actually fighting.  So one percent of the population - a tiny percentage - was "violent."    See the logical errors?  Relate this to your own arguments.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Yours is a fair point, I'm actually inclined to believe in it. That is to say, I do believe that people who operate under a particular label don't speak for other groups that are not affiliated with them. It is striking though that we continue to have people this day and age that are savagely murdering in the name of religion. I suppose being from the West, where we have seemingly having advanced beyond the period of holy wars, the Middle East seems particularly anachronistic. I do wonder though how violence and religion continues to mesh. Is it violent people who seek out a religion to justify their violence, or a violent religion that seeks out violent individuals to advance its political agenda?

Interesting explanation on Daesh. I knew that they hated to be referred as it, but didn't know why.

Yeah, I would rank ISIS a million times worse. As uncouth as they are, the W.B.C. congregation is just expressing an opinion peacefully.  
I use DAESH for a few reasons. Most of my experience with them has been in the middle east and they are always called DEASH there. But the main reason is that calling them ISIS is showing support for them. In the Islamic state it is forbidden to refer to them as DAESH. The punishment for this is that "your tongue will be cut from your mouth." They hate being called DAESH because it is a play on words in Arabic. It is the acronym for ISIS, but also sound like you are saying the word meaning to trample or crush under foot. Arab culture is weird about feet and this term is considered very disrespectful. As this war plays out over the next 10-20 years I think you will see this term replacing ISIS or IS or ISIL. All of which acknowledge the existence of the Caliphate.  For me they are not a caliphate and are better described as the ones who trample everything.

I was being sarcastic. As pointed out above, I was referencing the logical fallacy of making a rule from one example.

RE the DAESH explanation, quite interesting.  I refer though to the fact that literally, you refer to DAESH and likely most readers are simply clueless as to what you refer to.  Maybe something like DAESH(aka ISIS) is called for, lol....