There is a perspective, pretty popular in both mid-East and Western worlds, which says that the majority of Muslims do not share the radical views
Provided this is true, why don't we see calls for peace from Muslim priests and other leaders of the public opinion?
Many other religions have also suffered from radicalism, but authorities and the Churches have effectively eliminated it. I would specifically stress on positive role of priests.
What prevents Muslim society, officials, and priests to restrain the Radical Islamists?
A rather long rationale
Only a small amount of Radical Islamists (probably 10-15%) seem to be responsible for a majority of terrorist acts. This makes the public opinion into thinking that Islam by itself is an aggressive religion.
The Moderate Islamists argue that Terrorism has NO religion.
Christian society has suffered from Christian radicalism and Christian terrorism as well, check Ku Klux Klan for example.
Not all Christians shared the ideas of the KKK or supported its terrorist activity. Finally, the Moderate Christians took control over their radical counterparts: any terrorist activity was prosecuted, while moderate factions of KKK even received legal support in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches.
There same applied to Buddhism.
Now, to the question.
Why don't Moderate Muslims, who allegedly make the 85-90% majority, who have all necessary instruments and influence, take control over their radical counterparts?
Can we find any Imam (a Muslim Priest) or another public opinion leader who would come up and say: "hey, there will be no 72 virgins for anyone who commit terrorist acts"?
Can we see cases when e.g. Iranian authorities accuse and imprison someone of their own faction for terrorist activity?
If this happens, why don't we see this on top news in the media associated with Muslim countries, like Al Jazeera?
If this didn't happen, how could a thoughtful person tell Radical Islamism from Any Islamism?
P.S. I think this question does not differentiate denominations of Islam, but if I would completely accept answers that may suggest different approaches regarding different denominations.
Only a small amount of Radical Islamists (probably 10-15%) seem to be responsible for a majority of terrorist acts.- the number is significantly lower than 10-15%. It's more in the order of 0.01%
secularSyria and even the modern Tunisa with it's new constitution (from 2013/14!) requires it's president to be muslim (just have a look at article 1(!) and 74(!) and Tunisa has a Jewish minority since antiquity). Could you imagine a western nation (with a constitution that was ratified after 2000 -- the uk codified constitution that dates back to the magna carta doesn't count) to have similar requiments? I guess I don't have to mention saudia ar;)