Is ISIS Proof that Islam has Failed at Peace?

[jaysabi]

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?

[1714762034]

1714762034

[1714762034]

1714762034

[Rmcdermott927]

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?

No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace.  As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace.   Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing.

[jaysabi]

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?

No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace.  As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace.   Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing.

So do you think the root cause of violence is "us vs. them" (i.e. tribalism, which isn't unique to religion) or something inherent to religion specifically?

[Wilikon]

Excellent questions. I look forward for the answers...

[Sourgummies]

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?

No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace.  As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace.   Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing.

Would argue the them vs. us predates religion and is a natural state for mankind. We have always found ways to divide ourselves into groups. There are good people in all camps and we need to look outside ourselves to find those branches that connect us all together or we could keep rolling with the monkey brain.

[Spendulus]

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?

No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace.  As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace.   Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing.

So do you think the root cause of violence is "us vs. them" (i.e. tribalism, which isn't unique to religion) or something inherent to religion specifically?

Yes, tribalism is the root of religion.  It's made far worse when the religion's tenets tie it to a certain geographical area - eg "The Holy Lands," Mecca, whatever.  Then you've got brainwashed idiots drooling over a piece of fucking dirt.  Then you've got problems.  Leaving that aside, Islam has for 50 years exported terror.  It's not new, it's just that the public has a short memory and really only looks at the last 2 years at any moment in time.

Islamic terror seems to have started with Sayyid Qutb, who did diverge from mainstream Sunni with his thirty some pamplets preaching violent Jihad.  One example would be the killing of the Jewish athletes at the (IIRC) 1982 Olympics.   And a long series of bombings and hijacking of aircraft back them.  As just one example, the 1985 movie Back to the Future has a subplot with Arab terrorists who are virtually the same as their stereotype today - indicating this profile predates 1985, of course.

Don't believe the propagandists posting here about peace and love, that's just paid shills - possibly with sincere, honest intentions.  But you see, the nature of propaganda is "to propagate," which means it is belief systems propagated by naive and gullible believers.  They don't really understand what they are doing.

[Sourgummies]

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. 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.

[jaysabi]

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. 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?

[Spendulus]

.....
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.....

Like the girl wearing a mini skirt being responsible for the rape that she gets?

[Sourgummies]

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?

2. To be honest I reread the original question for 2 and misread it. So the drone attacks answer does not make any sense,my bad.

4. Mass killers tend to want the attention,the media always wracks up a total to compare other shootings against like its a challenge. You get into most of these sickos heads they are looking to out do the last guy. Suddenly a disturbed teen can be coaxed online into joining a cause and lashing out with a purpose,instead of not getting the keys to the car on Friday type killing spree. The draw is one of the most interesting dynamics to me and what makes these people go over that have no connection to the Muslim faith.
Really blame the media for sending up a beacon for these people to unite under.

4a. Well we could go back a couple hundred years to find that but we are talking about a newer religion than Christianity so the bloodletting is still new. Christians just went about business in a different way. I could stretch and say Ireland(Catholics vs. Protestants) but I think thats a stretch to make a point.

[Sourgummies]

.....
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.....

Like the girl wearing a mini skirt being responsible for the rape that she gets?

Think you are misunderstanding something I wrote as I do not follow the point of your question. If you explain,I will answer.

[Spendulus]

.....
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.....

Like the girl wearing a mini skirt being responsible for the rape that she gets?

Think you are misunderstanding something I wrote as I do not follow the point of your question. If you explain,I will answer.

The purpose of the mini skirt is for a woman to attract attention.

Mass media focuses on the most dramatic, violent of current events to attract attention.

Thus (according to you) it is the "fault" of "us" because "our media gives attention to the killers" that they do it.

Similarly, it is the fault of the woman with a miniskirt that she gets raped.

Both are the same logical fallacy and mistake cause and effect.

Both incorrectly reverse victim and criminal.

[Sourgummies]

.....
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.....

Like the girl wearing a mini skirt being responsible for the rape that she gets?

Think you are misunderstanding something I wrote as I do not follow the point of your question. If you explain,I will answer.

The purpose of the mini skirt is for a woman to attract attention.

Mass media focuses on the most dramatic, violent of current events to attract attention.

Thus (according to you) it is the "fault" of "us" because "our media gives attention to the killers" that they do it.

Similarly, it is the fault of the woman with a miniskirt that she gets raped.

Both are the same logical fallacy and mistake cause and effect.

Both incorrectly reverse victim and criminal.

I think you are jumping a little off the map with this one. You did not quote anything about media and you are comparing my post to being sympathetic to rapists.
Not sure how to take that.

Will write a response in the morning as I have been up for 19 hours and need to sleep. Promise to respond.

[bryant.coleman]

Both Islam and Christianity has brought only misery and war to this world. Islam has always used genocide and warfare to gain new followers (especially in South Asia, Middle-East, Balkans and North Africa). Similarly, Christianity has also used genocide (Australia, Americas, South-east Asia.etc), ethnicide and warfare to increase its number of adherents.

[Spendulus]

Both Islam and Christianity has brought only misery and war to this world. Islam has always used genocide and warfare to gain new followers (especially in South Asia, Middle-East, Balkans and North Africa). Similarly, Christianity has also used genocide (Australia, Americas, South-east Asia.etc), ethnicide and warfare to increase its number of adherents.

That's a totally ridiculous statement.

Something like "one unfortunate side effect..." qualified by "may have increased" ...

but you didn't do that.

"always used genocide..."

What a crock of shit.

[Sourgummies]

@Spendulus 

Below is my response,this really is to help me remember what I wrote as I respond.



4. Mass killers tend to want the attention,the media always wracks up a total to compare other shootings against like its a challenge. You get into most of these sickos heads they are looking to out do the last guy. Suddenly a disturbed teen can be coaxed online into joining a cause and lashing out with a purpose,instead of not getting the keys to the car on Friday type killing spree. The draw is one of the most interesting dynamics to me and what makes these people go over that have no connection to the Muslim faith.
Really blame the media for sending up a beacon for these people to unite under.


To be honest I am still having a hard time connecting what I said to how you responded with,but that could be just a bias at play on my part.
You seem to take issue with the part I underlined,so I will focus on that.

Without the media how would so many people know about Isis to begin with? Media is controlled by a very small and elite group of individuals that are swayed by the government when needed. Its like they are allowed to push agendas on the public as long as they buy into the government machine when needed. Do not see how media can not be blamed. The problem is human beings tend to be moved in flocks and its old programming that is manipulated against us. How often do we have a craving for something and no idea why or how it got in our heads! Can go through history and see how the message is controlled or abused to get us on side.
The rape analogy is different because there is not a direct connection from miniskirt to rape. Isis has a direct connection to killing.

Hey I could be wrong and appreciate you making me think about my view.

[Spendulus]

@Spendulus 

Below is my response,this really is to help me remember what I wrote as I respond.



4. Mass killers tend to want the attention,the media always wracks up a total to compare other shootings against like its a challenge. You get into most of these sickos heads they are looking to out do the last guy. Suddenly a disturbed teen can be coaxed online into joining a cause and lashing out with a purpose,instead of not getting the keys to the car on Friday type killing spree. The draw is one of the most interesting dynamics to me and what makes these people go over that have no connection to the Muslim faith.
Really blame the media for sending up a beacon for these people to unite under.


To be honest I am still having a hard time connecting what I said to how you responded with,but that could be just a bias at play on my part.
You seem to take issue with the part I underlined,so I will focus on that.

Without the media how would so many people know about Isis to begin with? Media is controlled by a very small and elite group of individuals that are swayed by the government when needed. Its like they are allowed to push agendas on the public as long as they buy into the government machine when needed. Do not see how media can not be blamed. The problem is human beings tend to be moved in flocks and its old programming that is manipulated against us. How often do we have a craving for something and no idea why or how it got in our heads! Can go through history and see how the message is controlled or abused to get us on side.
The rape analogy is different because there is not a direct connection from miniskirt to rape. Isis has a direct connection to killing.

Hey I could be wrong and appreciate you making me think about my view.

Feature / aspect of reality  AS RELATES TO criminal action

Miniskirt  /  Girl      Rape

Media Exposure  /  Innocent victims         ISIS terror actions

Because there actually have been trials in which the lewd provocative appearance of women was claimed to be responsible for their being attacked and raped (this still occurs in backwards Middle Eastern countries).

Logical fallacy - "Blame the girl"  /  "Blame the media"

Excuse "rape" / "terror"

[jaysabi]

There haven't been any input by the Islam defenders of the other threads here, which is disappointing. The question I find most interesting is: from their perspective, why do so many people who self-identify as Muslim find the violent message of ISIS so appealing, when those teaching are so obviously not Islamic? Do subscribing to those beliefs make them non-Muslim?

[saddampbuh]

isis is proof that moderate muslim countries fail at defending themselves from jewmerican backed jihadis with a limitless supply of weapons and money from billionaire puppet arab monarchies

socialist afghanistan overthrown by cia controlled mujahideen terrorists
arab nationalist iraq overthrown by jewmerican armies
african nationalist libya overthrown by jewmerican bombs and isis benghazi allies
syria, the best place in middle east for christians to live and the last arab country to not surrender to israel, currently in the process of being overthrown by the same dark forces

you bastards turned these secular peaceful countries into mad max world and now scratching your empty goyim heads wondering why a group of thugs you gave weapons and money to has taken control

[RodeoX]

Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!