Chief, it is not so much that Islam has no problem or Islam is the problem. It is that those who are associated with terrorism and beheadings in this day and age and who espouse civilization end and the clash of civilizations are from Muslim homes. That is the problem. I hear you about Islam not having a problem and indeed I quoted that writer for the NY Times who says that to subscribe to Islam is a problem is to deny the Quran.
We also know that without the Iraq upheaval in 2003 there would be no ISIS. Without the US troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990 to force Iraq out of Kuwait there would have been no Al Qaeda. Iraq is central to Al Qaeda's formation - Osama was a US ally against the Russians in Afghanistan; and to ISIS - the ISIS army and Administrators are the Baathists who used to rule Iraq under Saddam. The Alawites in Syria were fighting Islamists since Assad's father Hafiz Al Assad, and now the Baathists there have joined up with Saddam's Baathists.
Why are Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and other Muslim sects fighting their deadly war and bombings of mosques and other historic atefacts? Iis it religion or some tribal war?
Understanding and acknowledging the above would not necessarily answer the question as to whether Islam is an anti-peace religion, but it would go a long way towards making us not ask this question. That has been my arguments here against caribny, baseman and Itaname. It's a silly, semantic question. Of course we know Muslims have to banish these heretics from Islam. But there is no papacy in Islam. Declaring a Fatwah against ISIS does not work. I keep asking caribny et al - what should we Muslims do? Commit suicide? Go fight ISIS? I say nuke Raqqa and elsewhere and use the same reasoning as we did in Hiroshima - to save lives by killing some lives. That will stop people asking whether Islam is a bogus religion or a violent ideology.