1. Some say the answer is to love and unite with Muslims
1.1. Why do they say this?
1.1.1. The logic is this: Greater unity and display of love will reduce hate, increase trust, and reduce terrorist aggression.
1.1.1.1. "Love your enemies..." Matthew 5:43-48
1.1.1.2. "Bless those who persecute you..." "If your enemy is hungry, feed him.... (to) heap burning coals on his head" Romans 12:14-21
1.1.2. Some hate the West because of the West's perceived values of decadence, sexual immorality, and other moral concerns, so sacrificial love towards Muslims will challenge their hate
1.2. Why might it not be an adequate answer?
1.2.1. Many Muslims are aggressive towards the West not because of how we've acted towards them, but because of their own religion
1.2.1.1. Some believe their religion promises them Paradise if they do murderous acts for Allah - this is not so much based on the Wests aggression as it is their religion
1.2.2. The issue is more than our personal response. Our government has a duty to protect its innocent citizens, and so they can't only rely on changing the face of the West through cultural change (to a more loviing society)
1.2.3. It is not right to basically ignore those with criminal intent. People who kill others should take responsibility for their actions. As much as "we" might generate hate by our actions, it is always unacceptable to harm (excepting the military, police, self defence)
1.2.4. We might be able to love local Muslims, but we can't reach the majority of Muslims
1.3. Why it could work when with other answers
1.3.1. Because loving the Muslims around us is only one part - we need to be mindful of those terrorists might attack, and love them enough too by protecting and securing them.
1.3.2. Because love and unity is good, but it will not work for all. A firm hand is needed against those for whom love will not affect.
2. Some say the answer is to increase security, close our borders, and protect our citizens
2.1. Why do they say this?
2.1.1. Increasing security and closing borders is about valuing our own people - not devaluing the people trying to come in to our country
2.1.1.1. Love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40)
2.2. Why might it not be adequate?
2.2.1. We still need to love our neighbour, care for the foreigner, and protect other innocent people
2.2.1.1. "For I was hungry and you gave me food..." Matthew 25; "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers ..." Hebrews 13; "Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9
2.3. Why could it work when combined with other answers?
2.3.1. If part of the answer is to value our own citizens, the other part is valuing foreigners. Together, we might find a much better solution
3. Some say the answer is to evangelise Muslims
3.1. Why?
3.1.1. Once converted, they won't be willing supporters of terrorism
3.1.1.1. The Great Commission - make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28)
3.2. Why might this be inadequate?
3.2.1. There will always be some (many) Muslims who will not get converted that still need to be dealt with
3.3. Why this might when work with other answers
3.3.1. It could deal with a major reason why non-Muslims are becoming Muslims: because they are discontent with human-centred secularism or a watered-down Christianity. If Christians can believe in Christ and Christ's ways more, and be stronger evangelists, it could lead to (1) less people converting to Islam, and (2) Muslim converting to Christianity
3.3.1.1. But this still won't deal with the many Muslims we can't reach in Muslim countries, and the many Muslims who believe strongly in their faith and reject Christianity
4. Some say we should just kill them all
4.1. Why?
4.1.1. Murderer's and terrorists deserve justice
4.1.1.1. Authorities like the police, government and judicial system are designed by God to curb criminal behaviour (Romans 13:1-5); "When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." Proverbs 21:15
4.2. Why might this response be inadequate?
4.2.1. Groups like ISIS want to start a global war, so retaliation feeds into their goals
4.2.2. Hate breeds hate, but love, forgiveness and grace overcome hate.
4.2.2.1. Counter: killing Muslim terrorists need not be done from hate, and can in fact be done from love. A soldier can fight an enemy for hatred of the enemy, or, for love of what he is defending (the people of his nation, for example).
4.2.3. More killing will only increase the massive humanitarian crisis of millions of civilians displaced, fleeing, often with little food, clothing, shelter, etc.
4.2.3.1. Counter: that's what terrorists are doing though, in countless examples throughout Africa and the Middle East. Stronger military support for them will seek to reduce terrorist activity and reduce humanitarian crises.
4.3. Why this response might work when with other answers
4.3.1. Justice needs to be carried out, but not on "all of them", which might overreach the justice to those who are innocent
4.3.2. The underlying issues need to be addressed to stem those resorting to terrorism (such as love and unity and religion), but killing should never be tolerated
5. Some say the answer is to reduce radicalism
5.1. Why?
5.1.1. Reducing radical or extremist Muslims by making them moderate would deal with the issue
5.1.1.1. Counter: some argue that 'radical' or 'extreme' Muslims are actually the ones taking their faith seriously. So there is no real way of de-radicalising 'extremist' Muslims
5.1.1.1.1. Counter-to-counter: Perhaps we're really talking about the need to evangelise radical Muslims?
5.2. Why is this inadequate?
5.2.1. It does not deal with the situation at hand, which is that we have many who are already radicalised
5.2.2. It probably does not come from a position of understanding the nature of Islam or religion. (How does one de-Pentecostalise someone? De-Anglicanise someone?)
5.3. Why it might be part of a wider answer
5.3.1. Clearly any reduction in radicalism is a good thing, even though by itself it may not be adequate