Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud. Co-existing wasn't a big platfor for Muhammad.
Katy Perry, another person whose views I don't know why we would credit, has reportedly posted this solution:
Whatever we say behind people’s backs, the Internet can be a little bit ruthless as far as fan bases go but I think that the greatest thing we can do is just unite and love on each other. . . No barriers, no borders, we all just need to co-exist.”
"Co-exist" is the vapid sentiment that's expressed commonly on bumper stickers featuring the twin aspects of the white flag of surrender and moral bankruptcy.
Say what you will about ISIL, but it stands for something. And to a large degree it attacks the West as the West has come to stand for nothing. At the end of the day certain things are true and certain things are false. Truth doesn't co-exist with falsity, it defeats it. There are not multiple realities. There's only reality, and a person can accept it or live in ignorance as an ignoramus.
The question then is whether ISIL's Islamic vision is true or false. But as we think that the question is something else, we aren't even prepared to fight it. That is, in large measure, because moral relevance, a poisonous moronic philosophic position that boils down to "we can all have our individual truths" is blisteringly stupid and expresses our societies gross separation fro reality. We can argue about ultimate truths, but not all visions of truth are equal or even close to equal.
Much earlier in this series of threads on the war with ISIL I've posed the question on whether we can win the battle or not. Militarily we are, it seems, right now. But philosophically we aren't even fighting. ISIL stands for something as Islam stands for something. The West's position in this argument is. . . . non existent right now.
Wars, ultimately, are about ideas.