Do all Muslims bear responsibility?

[Duck]

If you believe in thought crime, then yes. Otherwise no.

If you do believe in thought crime, then open up your thoughts so I can rummage through them to find reasons to hold you responsible what you've not actually done.

From this I assume you are opposed to laws governing the incitement to racial hatred and similar? You don't think the acceptance and vocal/written communicative encouragement of violence doesn't make someone in some way vicariously liable for the actions of another?

If it was just an internal thought that was in no way communicated, implicitly or explicitly, and had no impact whatsoever on anything outwith the person thinking then that is fine. Else, there is some responsibility.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, when a Christian loony shoots an abortion provider, all Christians bear the responsibility? More to the point, do you personally, as an atheist, feel that you bear the responsibility for Stalin's crimes?

Have you completely taken leave of your senses? A-theists. A lack of belief in god. Atheists have no shared doctrine, dogma or ideology. They don't share positive beliefs as a group.

Should we hold everyone who doesn't believe in Santa culpable for the actions of on a-Santa-ist?

Have a word with yourself

This is precisely the point: No, you DON'T hold everyone responsible for the actions of a few. But that is EXACTLY what was advocated in the OP.

Boru

---

Ermm, yeah OK. How much of this frivolous nonsense should I actually respond to?

I'd like to see you respond to all of it, but I don't hold out much hope. The out-of-hand dismissal of a counter to your loony idea of the en masse deportation of innocent people from the UK speaks volumes.

The first point I guess, as I doubt you are the type of person to concede even the slightest to any other opinion. Lets see;

On the contrary; I've conceded more points than you've had hot dinners. But (again) the fact that you opt not to respond tells me that you really don't have a cogent reply, so I'll ask again: How do you justify punishing 3 million people because of the actions of a tiny minority?

"Christian loony's shooting up abortion providers"
and, ok I don't even have to respond having read the rest of your first point.

But it isn't my point - it's yours. If a Muslim plants a bomb in a tube, or blows up a building, or shoots someone, then that Muslim should be punished. But YOU seem to want to punish ALL Muslims for the actions of a few. Fine, but you need to be consistent. If all Muslims share culpability for the actions of Muslim terrorists, why shouldn't all Christians share culpability for the actions of Christian ones?

"atheist, feel that you bear the responsibility for Stalin's crimes?"

Again, that is YOUR argument, not mine. Stalin was an absolute horror of a human being. He was also an atheist. For the rest of this point, see the para immediately preceding.

Holy disco biscuits............ have fun being you.

Easier than answering questions, innit?

Boru

[JohnCrichton72]

When some one third of their believers have misinterpreted the religion to advocate violence and are going to "HELL", whilst other believe that murdering women and children along with themselves will get them eternal life it should be banned.

What makes you think the ones who interpret the quran as advocating violence are wrong?

I entertained both possibilities in the initial post to paraphrase; it is either a provocation for violence or is far to easily misinterpreted to do so, giving anyone with a grudge an extensive pool of potential suicide bombers from this demographic. In either case it has to change and Muslims themselves have to change it.

---

I have a belief that makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable, that all Muslims bear a responsibility for those that would (insert crime with Islam given as provocation here). I was hoping to have it shot down if I am to be honest, as it has somewhat festered into a dislike of any that call themselves Muslim and a wish for Islam "alone" to be banned from the UK.

I am all for freedom of religion, but I also believe it comes a burden of social responsibility;

I'll even put a plug in, what sickens me the most, the making women into chattel/marrying of little girls to dirty old men/polygamy/FGM/supremacist attitude that coupled with these has turned Sweden into the rape capital of Europe/paedophile rings.
One thing at a time and all.

It appears, and this is where I believe the flaw in my understanding might lay, that there are one of two options available. Islam is a provocation for violence for Muslims, or, is far too easily misinterpreted as such. To give it some context;

If memory serves, a PEW survey from 2012 gathered data on some 38,000+ Muslims and 28% thought violence in the defence of Islam is justifiable.

Which ever, if either, are right. The solution seems the same;

Muslims should change their religious doctrine (or be forcefully deported to the Islamic country of their choice), Islam as it stands is a catalyst for violence and a danger to everyone including Muslims. When some one third of their believers have misinterpreted the religion to advocate violence and are going to "HELL", whilst other believe that murdering women and children along with themselves will get them eternal life it should be banned.

If you believe in thought crime, then yes. Otherwise no.

If you do believe in thought crime, then open up your thoughts so I can rummage through them to find reasons to hold you responsible what you've not actually done.

I understand what you mean, religion to us is just an idea. Mankind's first attempt at explaining what they seen happening around them. I believe in freedom of religion and, like you I hope, believe this freedom comes with social responsibilities.

When the religion starts to infringe on the rights of others by advocating violence or easily being misinterpreted so, that, anyone with the want to cause death and destruction has a pool of potential suicide bombers those propagating it have failed in adhering to the social responsibilities.

They null and void their own right to religious freedom, I know every other religion also infringes (or tries to) on the rights of others; by saying teach religion in biology class and the like

However, until Christians start burning people at the stake again we should make criticizing Islam our highest priority.

[Mr Greene]

Are all muslims guilty? No, in the same way as not all Germans are guilty of the crimes of the Waffen ShutzStaffel.
Guilt by association is wrong and probably immoral in itself.

Guilt of non-condemnation of terrorism etc. isn't as clear cut as it would at first seem, (one man's freedom fighter etc.)
It does become more serious when people speak in a partisan fashion, eg. the Archbishop of Canterbury condemning Salman Rushdie after the Fatwa by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
I do disagree strongly with the idea of deporting groups based on ethnicity, Heck I'd likely be grabbing my passport and heading out of the country myself if that ever became a reality.

Religious beliefs themselves are not above criticism by any means, indeed the notion that they deserve respect themselves is disrespectful and deserves to disrespected at that point.

[paulpablo]

I entertained both possibilities in the initial post to paraphrase; it is either a provocation for violence or is far to easily misinterpreted to do so, giving anyone with a grudge an extensive pool of potential suicide bombers from this demographic. In either case it has to change and Muslims themselves have to change it.

This would mean Muslims having to change the quran from something vague to something they all agree upon and then all agreeing upon exactly which hadiths (if any) are true.
This would then mean having to stop killing each other and uniting, then if you're lucky the new translation of the quran will be something politically correct and nice.
If you're unlucky this will mean a world of united Muslims determined to terrorize anyone who opposes them while beating women and having sex with 9 year olds.
It could go either way really.