Is ISIS Proof that Islam has Failed at Peace?

[Spendulus]

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

Parsing this, I assume you took the OP, noticed it contained a logical error, "the exception proves the rule",

applied the identical rule to Christianity...

[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!

Parsing this, I assume you took the OP, noticed it contained a logical error, "the exception proves the rule",

applied the identical rule to Christianity...

  I would guess that the guys in the Westboro church claim to be the only people who really represent Christianity, just like DAESH claims to be the only true representatives of Allah. In reality they are both fringe element groups that embarrass the majority of good people who just want to pray in peace and raise their children. 

[Spendulus]

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

Parsing this, I assume you took the OP, noticed it contained a logical error, "the exception proves the rule",

applied the identical rule to Christianity...

  I would guess that the guys in the Westboro church claim to be the only people who really represent Christianity, just like DAESH claims to be the only true representatives of Allah. In reality they are both fringe element groups that embarrass the majority of good people who just want to pray in peace and raise their children. 

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

[jaysabi]

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

[RodeoX]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

[Falconer]

Seems most muslims don't admit ISIS is Islam, then I think there is no relationship with ISIS is Islam. Its same situation with native American slaughtering by European in 17th century imo.

[Spendulus]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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....

[RodeoX]

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....

I should start doing that. I'm sure your right about the confusion. Another note about the term daesh (isis) is that when you search for news from the region you get much better results than with isis. I find many more interesting first hand accounts from English language Arab news sources.

[jaysabi]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

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.

[Spendulus]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

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.

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

[jaysabi]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

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.

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

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.

[Spendulus]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

[jaysabi]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

[Spendulus]

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

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.

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

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Oh, I'm not so sure.  You're pretty darn selective.  I notice you have not mentioned the Rape of Nanking, the slaughter by the Russians as they marched West in the last year of WWII, or the massacres by the Germans.

Also, you miss the point of your own quote on carpet bombing.  See my bolded section.  It does not condemn indiscriminate bombing of the enemy cities, but is a statement of preferred military objectives.

Don't look at history through warm friendly fuzzy peacenik glasses of today.

[BADecker]

Islam has not failed at peace... not yet, anyway.

Peace in Islam means that True Islam rules the world. Then there will be no reason for war or fighting, because all peoples, as Islamites, will be in agreement. Why? Because Islam itself doesn't fight anything that is True Islam.

The so-called nations and religions that call themselves Islamic, and yet attempt to hold out peace to other nations and religions, are not True Islam.

Perhaps ISIS is not true Islam, either. But it is far closer than its supposedly peaceful, moronic counterparts. At least ISIS practices the Islamic religion.

If the world were completely Islamic in all parts would there be peace? That's hard to tell, because it hasn't happened yet, and probably will never happened. Thus, we will probably never know if Islam has failed at peace. Maybe they will have simply failed at conquering the world.

[RappelzReborn]

I just want to know people who are answering on this thread , how do they decide if Islam is religion of peace or not exactly ? you most likely never read the Quran (real arabic version) and don't know a shit about it and you come here blaming islam .
Those extremists groups are made and funded by intelligence agencies and this is a known fact , think logically won't you be dead if 1 billion or more muslims were not peaceful ?

[BADecker]

... Except for one thing. No matter how you translate the Quran and Hadiths, whatever the excuses might be, there are sections that are violent. And if you want to be faithful to them, you need to be violent at times as well as peaceful at other times. There aren't any two ways about it, no matter how hard you want to twist the meanings of the words.

The result is that True Peace will only abound once Islam takes over the whole world, both as religion and as government. Up until that time, there will only be war to get to that time.

[maku]

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?

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.

[Spendulus]

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?

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.

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

[BADecker]

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?

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.

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

If Muslims DON'T support some fair part of ISIS, they ain't really Muslim.