Islamic State?

irishdude11

What's is the deal with what IS have done in the Middle East...they say they have created an 'Islamic State'. Is this term an apt description of the region they now control? In my opinion it is an absolute disgrace, it's right up there with Nazi era Germany, particularly for women. What is the consensus among the wider Islamic community?

confusedquark

They are a complete and utter disgrace and don't in the slightest deserve the title of "Islamic State" - but unfortunately that title A) helps them recruit misguided angry young men and helps much of the western media continue spreading the fundamentalist/extremist image of Islam they've been pushing over the past decade, so nobody's going to stop using that title anytime soon. They are abhorred by the wider Islamic community, and have received widespread condemnation for their brutal and heinous crimes.

List of some prominent Muslim organisations condemnations here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

fortjames

So called IS is a terrorist group who became known through media and internet. They prowl on angry young rebellious people and recruit them by messing up more with their heads. All majority renowned muslims clerics have already disowned these monkeys. These monkeys are killing even muslims, sad to see really.

indy_man

confusedquark wrote: »

They are a complete and utter disgrace and don't in the slightest deserve the title of "Islamic State" - but unfortunately that title A) helps them recruit misguided angry young men and helps much of the western media continue spreading the fundamentalist/extremist image of Islam they've been pushing over the past decade, so nobody's going to stop using that title anytime soon. They are abhorred by the wider Islamic community, and have received widespread condemnation for their brutal and heinous crimes.

List of some prominent Muslim organisations condemnations here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

So you say ISIS are angry young men, but was Mohammad justified in the be-heading's and killings he ordered.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

Defender OF Faith

I have spoken about ISIS and their deviant ideology many times in this forum. The prophet of Islam described the extremist as "the Dogs of hell fire", according to the Scholars of today ISIS & its like belong to the sect of Khawarij in Islam.

They have existed since the very early period of Islam and they will continue to cause strife in the Muslim nation as we can see today through the actions of ISIS whom most of their victims were Muslims. Such people and those who follow them are ignorant,ignoramuses ,young in age and foolish minded whom the prophet warned against. As Quark said they fool the emotionally driven young men who are uneducated about their own religion by empty rhetoric by their misleading name, it's nothing more then another terror group that has now established fractions even in Libya.

The Kharijite sect was the first to declare Muslims to be unbelievers because of their sins. They charged as unbelievers whoever disagreed with their innovations and they made lawful the spilling of blood and the taking of wealth. This is the condition of the people of innovation, that they invent some religious innovation and then they excommunicate whoever disagrees with them concerning it. Rather, the people of the Sunnah and the community follow the Book and the Sunnah and they obey Allah and His Messenger and follow the truth. They have mercy upon the creation.*

*Ibn Taymiyah[muslim scholar] Majmu’ Al-Fatawa 1/278

"The Kharijite ideology is based upon declaring Muslims to be unbelievers. Rejecting lawful obedience to the rulers & Justifying violence against Muslims and innocent people. The Kharijite earned their name (from the root kh-ra-ja meaning “to go out”) because they left Islam on account of their heretical innovations. They will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, meaning it will not be rooted in their hearts."

These people are as described by the founder of Islam: young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey.

They cowardly assassinated the 3rd and 4th Caliph of Islam, who fought and defeated them. The path of Islam that the mainstream Muslim follow is one of moderation and balance as described by the tradition: The religion (of Islam) is easy. No one ever made it difficult without it becoming too much for him. So avoid extremes and strike a balance (take the moderate road), do the best you can and be cheerful, and seek God's help (through prayer) in the morning, and evening, and part of the night.'


Oh people of the scripture, do not go to extremes in your religion and do notspeak except the truth.
[4:171]

Sources:
http://video.dusunnah.com/innovation...h-as-suhaymee/ >> this source may interest you as it's the answer of Sheikh Saalih as-Suhaymee, a well known and respected scholar of the Islamic world on a questioner who is in support of ISIS and the Scholar answer regarding the group
http://www.faithinallah.org/dangers-...y-of-violence/
The Forbiddance and Danger of Extremism:http://www.answering-extremism.com/ae/reader.aspx?file=ae_aah_2.pdf

indy_man wrote: »

So you say ISIS are angry young men, but was Mohammad justified in the be-heading's and killings he ordered.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

WikiIslam presents those killings without telling the whole story. Instead, they give them their own commentaries. If you read the whole story, you will see that all of those killings are justified. The burning of a Muslim pilot hostage, and killing of 332 members of the Albu Nimr Sunni Muslim tribe in Iraq declaring them as apostate for fighting them , beheading of 21 Coptic Christians, and the Be-heading of 7 journalist and aid workers that include a Muslim, and just recently the 45 people in the western Iraq can NEVER be justified nor does it even compare to those killing ordered by Muhammed, who acted as a ruler of a legitimate state against those who actively and continuously provoked without instigation from Muhammed or the Muslims; causing a threat and a danger to the integrity and security of Medina,Muslims and its inhabitants, I don't understand how are you comparing the killings ordered by Muhammed the underlying cases of which are no different then the killing ordered by the US government on the likes of Usama Bin Laden and Anwar Al Awlaki.

WikiIslam also has no regard for the authenticity of the incidents and stories it presents and depend on people ignorance to accept them, they show very few facts and conceal all the other relevant facts, therefore changing the whole meaning

I will provide a link below as a rebuttal to those killings that have been authenticated, so you can look at both sides of the coin if your willing to learn and engage. If you find a missing character chances are the story is false and fabricated ie. rejected by Islamic Scholars due to having a weak,fabricated or no chain or narrators, nevertheless point him out and we can discuss it.

I also kindly suggest that you also expand your research and when visiting such site to also read the Islamic site counter part to have a fuller picture by looking at both sides of the coin then from which you can build your decision upon.

Source: http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/enemies-killed-prophet-muhammad-5676

~ Peace

indy_man

OK, let me put it a different way, how come Mohammad had many people executed and Jesus didn't kill anyone, who is the prophet of peace?

Palmach

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

A very good summary laying out how ISIS are in fact very very Islamic. A minority view but routed in the Koran and the life of Mohammed.

Tom Dunne

Palmach wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

A very good summary laying out how ISIS are in fact very very Islamic. A minority view but routed in the Koran and the life of Mohammed.

Yes, but that is one viewpoint.

They are a bunch of thugs and psychopaths, hiding behind the curtain of Islam, attracting the disaffected and disenfranchised.

Palmach

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Yes, but that is one viewpoint.

They are a bunch of thugs and psychopaths, hiding behind the curtain of Islam, attracting the disaffected and disenfranchised.

Maybe so but the Islamic State can make a plausible case that their state is a strict adherence to the letter of the law in Islam. While it is a minority view the article debunks the oft repeated myth that the Islamic State is un-Islamic.

Ole Rodrigo

Excellent article in the Atlantic explaining who they are and what they want.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

looksee

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Yes, but that is one viewpoint.

They are a bunch of thugs and psychopaths, hiding behind the curtain of Islam, attracting the disaffected and disenfranchised.

Well of course it is one viewpoint, it is written by one person, it has to be one viewpoint. Other than dismissing them as a bunch of thugs and psychopaths (which I do not dispute) what other viewpoint can you give to enlighten us further as to what they are doing and why?

The article is very convincing to me. IS is the ultimate fantasy but instead of being played out on a computer the disaffected and disenfranchised (whatever that means, bored and out of touch with reality would seem to be more accurate) head off to fulfill their romantic notions fighting for ... something.

old_aussie

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

They have existed since the very early period of Islam and they will continue to cause strife in the Muslim nation as we can see today through the actions of ISIS whom most of their victims were Muslims.

So it appears that islam and muslims have done nothing about this known problem from the start.

Bit late to try and shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

Defender OF Faith

indy_man wrote: »

OK, let me put it a different way, how come Mohammad had many people executed and Jesus didn't kill anyone, who is the prophet of peace?

God destroyed entire nations due to their evil (as acknowledged by both Qur'an and Bible). Surely you don't think punishment of criminals is contradictory to peace. Executing criminals actually keeps peace in society. Otherwise you have chaos. Do Christian not believe just like that Muslims that Jesus will be the one to fight and kill The anti-Christ or the False Messiah?

The Prophet Muhammad decisions,established justice and peace, neither of which Jesus is against.The men of Banu Qurazah were executed for treason. POWs were treated very well and many converted to Islam. Only two people(recorded in authentic narrations) during his time people were executed for adultery. Muhammad's answer to those who confessed to adultery and demanded to be punished was similar to Jesus' which was to send them away and try to avoid giving them the punishment but they insisted upon it and kept coming back.

old_aussie wrote: »

So it appears that islam and muslims have done nothing about this known problem from the start.

Bit late to try and shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

I think you missed the part were I said they killed the 3rd and 4th Caliph of Islam as a revenge for fighting and defeating them, one of their early sects was known as Harūrī. They had a major Kharijite uprising against the Abbasid Caliphate but were then subsequently defeated and subdued.


ISIS are nothing but an incarnation of this ideology with a different name made to appeal to the wider Muslim population to help them recruit, these people are Muslims in term of their worship, the prophet said “They are the worst of those who are killed under the sky” And he said that they are the “Dogs of the hell fire“. And that “They read the Qur’an but it does not go beyond their throats“. And he mentioned that “They will appear in every century,” And he said: “You will belittle your prayer in comparison to their prayer, and your worship in comparison to their worship”, which mean that these people are inherently to the point were we look at our prayer and worship as nothing when compared to them fooling some Muslims that they are indeed on the path of Islam.

There were many reasons that caused this horse to bolt, I direct to this excellent article by The guardian that goes through the history of ISIS how they managed to become what they are today.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

AsianIrish

jihad.ie

read somewhere setup to tackle the issues caused by so called ISIS

wes

Ole Rodrigo wrote: »

Excellent article in the Atlantic explaining who they are and what they want.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Criticism of the article here:

The Atlantic Ignores Muslim Intellectuals, Defines “True Islam” As ISIS

The Atlantic article does exactly what it accuses others of doing imho, and ignores various Muslims who condemn ISIS on theology.

looksee

Surely The Atlantic was explaining what it is that the Islamic state believes? If it is true that this is what they believe then it is their justification for what they do. What other Muslims believe is relevant to the broader picture, but is a subject for another article.

silverharp

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

God destroyed entire nations due to their evil (as acknowledged by both Qur'an and Bible). Surely you don't think punishment of criminals is contradictory to peace. Executing criminals actually keeps peace in society. Otherwise you have chaos. Do Christian not believe just like that Muslims that Jesus will be the one to fight and kill The anti-Christ or the False Messiah?

If a God destroys a whole nation , this would be the actions of a war criminal. Imagine if all Germans had been killed as a punishment after WW2 , that would have been the worst war crime of all. There are plenty of examples in the Jewish books of God killing innocent children ie crimes of the parents , its a barbaric idea. If the Qur'an is not any more discerning, then firstly, its not the product of an all knowing god and secondly the book should be dumped as being simply the product of backward society and of little relavence to people today

indy_man

Good point, I agree Christ will defeat the antichrist and throw him in a lake of fire, but many believe the AC will be Muslim. Then again there are many different theories on who or what the AC is so lets not even go there, lot of it is metaphorical anyway.

But I have one question for you, do you believe there should be sharia law in places or even throughout the world?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

God destroyed entire nations due to their evil (as acknowledged by both Qur'an and Bible). Surely you don't think punishment of criminals is contradictory to peace. Executing criminals actually keeps peace in society. Otherwise you have chaos. Do Christian not believe just like that Muslims that Jesus will be the one to fight and kill The anti-Christ or the False Messiah?

The Prophet Muhammad decisions,established justice and peace, neither of which Jesus is against.The men of Banu Qurazah were executed for treason. POWs were treated very well and many converted to Islam. Only two people(recorded in authentic narrations) during his time people were executed for adultery. Muhammad's answer to those who confessed to adultery and demanded to be punished was similar to Jesus' which was to send them away and try to avoid giving them the punishment but they insisted upon it and kept coming back.

Tom Dunne

indy_man wrote: »

But I have one question for you, do you believe there should be sharia law in places or even throughout the world?

This has been addressed a number of times on this forum. Have a look at the "Ask about Islam" thread.

Turtwig

wes wrote: »

Criticism of the article here:

The Atlantic Ignores Muslim Intellectuals, Defines “True Islam” As ISIS

The Atlantic article does exactly what it accuses others of doing imho, and ignores various Muslims who condemn ISIS on theology.

That very article's premise is a strawman.
The Atlantic does not claim ISIS is true Islam. Its claim is that we must consider ISIS a valid theology if we wish to combat it. ISIS see themselves as a valid theology. That's what matters. The people who choose to follow ISIS largely are attracted to that ideology. So, what if the article points out that root of the ideology is Islam? Who cares? Ideas and their roots are often very different.That doesn't mean anything negative or positive for Islam. It just means ISIS see themselves as Muslim. The world sees them quite differently. Denying ISIS is a theology means you handle them inefficiently. That's the core concept of the article: what ISIS regard themselves as. NOT what they actually are

Shambolic stuff as there was absolutely no need to invent the strawman in the first place. By creating a version of the article which didn't exist, it only lends validity to notion that the ordinary Muslim has a lot in common with ISIS. Which they don't.

Mark Hamill

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

God destroyed entire nations due to their evil (as acknowledged by both Qur'an and Bible).

Why doesn't he do that anymore? Seems there are plenty of nations that should be considered evil, from those which twist Islam into something it's not to oppress people, to those which just ignore or reject it outright.

Defender OF Faith

looksee wrote: »

Surely The Atlantic was explaining what it is that the Islamic state believes? If it is true that this is what they believe then it is their justification for what they do. What other Muslims believe is relevant to the broader picture, but is a subject for another article.

Here is another response of the article, written by Dr. Yasir Qadhi a well known Islamic theologian and scholar in the west and Daniel Haqiqatjou.

http://muslimmatters.org/2015/02/23/what-is-islamic-a-muslim-response-to-isis-and-the-atlantic/

An extract:

Popular as it is, Wood's essay is deeply flawed and alarmingly tone-deaf – dangerously so. What is so objectionable about Wood's essay is encapsulated in his statement: “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” While Wood acknowledges that “nearly all” Muslims of the world reject ISIS, ultimately his thesis is that the atrocities committed by the group have a theological basis in Islam. In support of his thesis, Wood cites Princeton academic, Bernard Haykel, who not only agrees that ISIS is “very Islamic,” but even goes so far as to say that those Muslims who denounce ISIS as un-Islamic are either ignorant about Islam or are simply being politically expedient by deliberately whitewashing the legal and historical dimensions of their religion.....


19. The Methodology
Finally, then, how is ISIS decidedly not Islamic? Well, what characterizes ISIS's approach to Islamic Law is a glaring lack of methodology beyond textual cherry-picking. They cite broadly, scanning classical Muslim texts for whatever expediently fits their agenda. But this post hoc scrapbooking is the exact reverse of legitimate juristic methodology. The proper derivation of Islamic legal opinions, as practiced for centuries by Muslim jurists, begins from general methodological principles (usul al-fiqh), takes into account the relevant scriptural and extra-scriptural indicants, and then arrives at specific rulings. ISIS, of course, has no usul al-fiqh, no consistent methodology, and, hence, no connection to Islamic Law. And this is precisely what Muslim scholars around the world have been saying in denouncing and debunking ISIS's “McSharia.” A casual observer, like Wood, may be impressed with all the citations ISIS propagandists have up their sleeves, but anyone with a basic understanding of the way Islamic Law works will know better.

Palmach

Turtwig wrote: »

Shambolic stuff as there was absolutely no need to invent the strawman in the first place. By creating a version of the article which didn't exist, it only lends validity to notion that the ordinary Muslim has a lot in common with ISIS. Which they don't.

Worse still it reinforces the perception that Muslims are so ultra defensive about any criticisms that even valid point like in the Atlantic are shot down.

confusedquark

Palmach wrote: »

Worse still it reinforces the perception that Muslims are so ultra defensive about any criticisms that even valid point like in the Atlantic are shot down.

Ever since 9/11, I've heard the same loop of comments/questions over and over again...

"Why don't I hear Muslims condemning these acts?"
"Why don't Muslims apologise for these acts?"
"This group (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS etc. etc.) is obviously practising real Islam and here's an out-of-context Koranic quote that justifies their actions"
"What are Muslims doing to stop other Muslims from committing these acts?"
"Why do Muslims have a victim mentality and get ultra defensive about criticisms"

The old saying that you cannot please everyone is never truer. If we saying nothing, we're automatically assumed to be implicit. If we saying something, we're told we're not doing enough. If we clarify that we completely dissociate with the actions of a group, we're getting ultra defensive.

confusedquark

Turtwig wrote: »

That very article's premise is a strawman.
The Atlantic does not claim ISIS is true Islam...

Shambolic stuff as there was absolutely no need to invent the strawman in the first place. By creating a version of the article which didn't exist, it only lends validity to notion that the ordinary Muslim has a lot in common with ISIS. Which they don't.

Pardon my grasp of the English language, but the following line from The Atlantic article does appear to claim that ISIS is true Islam:

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic."

It's completely necessary for Muslims to state that they aren't "very Islamic" and why they aren't. That's what the article in response delves into. Whilst I take on board the rest of what you say regarding seeing ISIS as a theology onto themselves and that's how they should be dealt with, the immediate Muslim response to an article which contains the above quote will be to challenge that rather unambiguous assertion.

the_syco

looksee wrote: »

The article is very convincing to me. IS is the ultimate fantasy but instead of being played out on a computer the disaffected and disenfranchised (whatever that means, bored and out of touch with reality would seem to be more accurate) head off to fulfill their romantic notions fighting for ... something.

And from reading the stories of those who left; only the dead leave, and those who leave fear being killed horrifically.

indy_man wrote: »

Good point, I agree Christ will defeat the antichrist and throw him in a lake of fire, but many believe the AC will be Muslim.

"God" is a different word in many languages; those who have so much hatred in their soul may be surprised that they themselves are the AC.

confusedquark wrote: »

Ever since 9/11, I've heard the same loop of comments/questions over and over again...

"Why don't I hear Muslims condemning these acts?"
"Why don't Muslims apologise for these acts?"
"This group (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS etc. etc.) is obviously practising real Islam and here's an out-of-context Koranic quote that justifies their actions"
"What are Muslims doing to stop other Muslims from committing these acts?"
"Why do Muslims have a victim mentality and get ultra defensive about criticisms"

Agreed. To put the the above into another context;

Ever since Omagh, I've heard the same loop of comments/questions over and over again...

"Why don't I hear Catholics condemning these acts?"
"Why don't Catholics apologise for these acts?"
"This group (IRA, RIRA, CIRA, etc. etc.) is obviously practising real Catholicism and here's an out-of-context Bible quote that justifies their actions"
"What are Catholics doing to stop other Catholics from committing these acts?"
"Why do Catholics have a victim mentality and get ultra defensive about criticisms"

confusedquark wrote: »

It's completely necessary for Muslims to state that they aren't "very Islamic" and why they aren't.

Catholicism and Jews are both christian. But do catholics feel it's necessary to say they Israelis are not very christian when they blow sh|t up?

Palmach

confusedquark wrote: »

Ever since 9/11, I've heard the same loop of comments/questions over and over again...

"Why don't I hear Muslims condemning these acts?"
"Why don't Muslims apologise for these acts?"
"This group (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS etc. etc.) is obviously practising real Islam and here's an out-of-context Koranic quote that justifies their actions"
"What are Muslims doing to stop other Muslims from committing these acts?"
"Why do Muslims have a victim mentality and get ultra defensive about criticisms"

The old saying that you cannot please everyone is never truer. If we saying nothing, we're automatically assumed to be implicit. If we saying something, we're told we're not doing enough. If we clarify that we completely dissociate with the actions of a group, we're getting ultra defensive.

That's why I used the word perception.

looksee

Catholicism and Jews are both christian. But do catholics feel it's necessary to say they Israelis are not very christian when they blow sh|t up?

??

BeerWolf

looksee wrote: »

??

Think he meant they're based on the 'same' religion, i.e. - Abrahamic religions [Christianity, Islam and Judaism]

the_syco

BeerWolf wrote: »

Think he meant they're based on the 'same' religion, i.e. - Abrahamic religions [Christianity, Islam and Judaism]

This. Muslims apologising for IS cos they're also Islamic would be like Catholics apologising for something Jews in Israel did, cos they're also Christian; pointless.

looksee

the_syco wrote: »

This. Muslims apologising for IS cos they're also Islamic would be like Catholics apologising for something Jews in Israel did, cos they're also Christian; pointless.

Right. But Jews are still not Christians...

the_syco

looksee wrote: »

Right. But Jews are still not Christians...

Seems the page I read was referring to Jewish Christains. Hrm.

I'll rephrase it to;

Muslims apologising for IS cos they're also Islamic would be like catholics apologising for something protestants in the KKK did, cos they're also christian; pointless, as there are many different denominations under christianity.

alwald

Just read more than half of this article http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange, quite long I have to say.

I would like to know whether the facts that are mentioned about Islam and the prophet are accurate or not, thanks.

looksee

alwald wrote: »

Just read more than half of this article http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange, quite long I have to say.

I would like to know whether the facts that are mentioned about Islam and the prophet are accurate or not, thanks.

I found that article very interesting, but keep in mind that it is Islam as IS sees it, not as all Muslims see it. If Wood is correct in what he says there is no point in anyone giving the more general Muslim beliefs in response, this is what they believe, and they believe they are accurate. No doubt they are wrong but that is another article.

ilkhanid

confusedquark wrote: »

Pardon my grasp of the English language, but the following line from The Atlantic article does appear to claim that ISIS is true Islam:

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic."

It's completely necessary for Muslims to state that they aren't "very Islamic" and why they aren't. That's what the article in response delves into. Whilst I take on board the rest of what you say regarding seeing ISIS as a theology onto themselves and that's how they should be dealt with, the immediate Muslim response to an article which contains the above quote will be to challenge that rather unambiguous assertion.

Late to an old thread, but I saw this and think it deserves a reply. The problem here is semantic.

The article does not say that IS is the true Islam, but that it is Islamic. Catholicism and Presbyterianism are poles apart, yet both are Christian. Even if other Muslims decry it as Unislamic,that really proves little. Look at the history of Christianity. All new movements were initially claimed to be un-Christian, heretical and so forth, based on parsing of the Bible or Catholic dogma. In any case, it's notions are just as Islamic as the garbage spouted by the Wa'habi Imams of Saudi Arabia which is only marginally less vile, yet nobody in the Islamic world disputes the Islamic credentials of the KSA.

MrPudding

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Surely you don't think punishment of criminals is contradictory to peace. Executing criminals actually keeps peace in society. Otherwise you have chaos.

Many people would not agree with you assertion that executing criminals keeps peace in society. I don't suppose there would be any point in asking you for evidence of that, would there? While you are at it, perhaps you could define "peace" in this context... When you say "keeps peace in society" what exactly do you mean? I ask because I can point to many countries that have advanced to the point where they no longer believe it is right to execute criminals, and those countries are countries I would consider to be peaceful. Perfect? No, but then no country is perfect.

To be perfectly frank, I would consider any country that put criminals to death to be, by the very fact that it executes people, incapable of being described a peaceful.

MrP