I'm sure there have been threads about this, and I might be preaching to the choir, but I wanted to start a dialogue. I've seen time and time again in U.S. media, even by our own president, that "ISIS is not Islamic." The politically correct left continually tries to drive it into people's heads that Islam is completely peaceful and in no way condones terrorist groups. But none of that is true. It obviously is related to, and inspired by, Islam, and according to the Pew Research Center, many many more Muslims support the more radical tenants of Islam than people think.

Why is any criticism of Islam met with allegations of racism? Why is it not okay to acknowledge that the religion itself is linked to groups like ISIS?

Yeah, they are.

7th century lovin' religious shits.

That's not what they say.

They are using it in the name for fucks sake. It's not the Basket of Puppies State of Iraq and Syria!

I think people also need to recognise that your Muslim neighbours supporting radical tenets of Islam, even if they're not violent people, is still connected to the same movement ISIS are part of.

With Islamism as a political movement, it's more than just people getting shot and blown up. As I've said before, this "offense taking" culture is also Islamism, trying to get anti-blasphemy laws under the guise of "hate crime laws". Any attempt to censor and Islamicise societies goes hand-in-hand with the violent terrorists, they're not distinct and exclusive from eachother. It's not enough just to oppose the terrorist wing of Islamism, you also have stop the relatively softer manifestations from creeping in too. Every inch you give this religion, it takes a mile.

Who is the "politically correct left"?  Criticism isn't always met with allegations of bigotry, by the way. So I don't know where you got that from (that all critique of the religion called "racist"). If you're polite then you shouldn't be called a bigot - except by people who would rather not have the beliefs challenged. Those people hiding behind the term "Islamophobia" are rather like people who pretend that they were raped (when they actually weren't), and they should be ashamed of themselves. It makes real victims less likely to come forward because they fear that they won't be taken seriously.

al-Saud's henchmen in Iraq and Syira are big hypocrites. And I've recently been convinced that they aren't real Muhammadans (not to say that all terrorists are not). They are a monster the United States and al-Saud created after they had sex because they want to control Syria.

EDIT: You know that al-Saud's henchmen in Iraq and Syria are deemed too crazy by even al-Qaeda and the Taliban right? Sure, there can be differences of interpretation, but if they are too crazy even for Bin Laden's fanboys (who take Allah pretty seriously) then that's a pretty good indication that they are not really Muhammadans, I would say, and that's in top of 'regular' Muhammadans actively denouncing them, on Twitter and elsewhere. So let's not give Fascists funded by al-Ssud the ammo needed to perpetuate the victimhood narrative.

Equally, you could say I'm commiting the 'Bandwagon Fallacy', and that's a reasonable assumption, but remember, these are former Iraqi generals, that NATO thought they had adequately disposed of, who control al-Saud's henchmen in Iraq and Syria. They are in it for the profit. They don't really care about having a caliphate.

How very bigoted of you.  I assure you they are quite capable of doing this on their own, no need to give the US the credit.  

Sounds like a strawman, OP.

Yes, they are.

I'm sure there are people who would claim ISIS isn't Islamic, just as there are people who migth claim the KKK aren't christian. That's the problem with religion. It splits off into different groups, all claiming to be the one true path. They use certain verses from their holy book, while ignoring others.