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?
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?
1. You have to understand that literacy rates are low in some places in the middle east,combined with the fact that we have given a lot of these people a reason to fight.
Isis will continue to eat its own until a better option at life shows up. A bastardized version of Islam is what we are dealing with here anyways,so the question is a little off.
2. Isis could be gaining ground for many reasons. You could say that every drone attack or misfired missle creates tomorrows Isis warriors. Could be religious sects flying under Isis for their own personal gains. Also could be disruption from other Countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran or even Israel. Again it also could be that times are hard and people are given a new voice to rally behind. Change comes and it is not always what the people wanted for the sake of change.
3. You could change Muslim to any other religion and most people would dismiss it but the fact Muslims are the hot topic people will eat it up.
4. Any faction that is seeking power will take all advantages they can get. If you take away these labels we kill a good chunk of the problem. Instead of lone wolf Isis attacks in Europe or America we would have mass killings by unhealthy people. Its like we have given these people a flag to fly under and it provides them with a validation to proceed.
4a. Easy. Look at how many off shoots of Christianity there are today!
End of the day we have to stop lumping groups and thinking they are running on the same thinking. Its nice for debate but it damages more than it heals.
Well, for number 2, how do drone attacks affect ISIS warring against other Muslims? While drone attacks may give them reason to hate America, I don't see how that translates into butchering, raping, enslaving other Muslims, which constitutes a lot of their crimes currently.
Your notion on point 4 is interesting to me, that we are providing a flag for them to fly under by identifying them as a group. However, I would counter that we identify them as a group because they identify themselves as a group. I think absent our characterization of them, they would still be out there acting exactly as they currently are.
In regards to 4A, there are very many offshoots of Christianity, but so far as I know, none of them are preaching death to nonbelievers or currently murdering Christians of a sect they consider to be heretical. While that may be a part of their history, is ISIS then just several hundred years behind in their evolution as a society, or is a unique instance unrelated to how Christian sects warred against nonbelievers previously?
