• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Muslims must be held responsible for France terror attacks"

Do Muslims have a responsibility to weed out extremist views?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 60.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 30.0%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • Total voters
    30

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
A Middle Eastern Muslim from Saudi Arabia here *waves hand* :)

Do Muslims have a responsibility to weed out extremist views? I voted "yes". But please keep in mind that the question of the poll is different than the title. Should Muslims be held responsible for it? I'd say no. It makes no sense if someone comes to me because I'm a Muslim and punches me in the face for it. That would hurt. We reap what we saw, and we don't carry the burden of others. Children do not carry the sins of the fathers. It would not be fair.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Responsibility is not proportionate to culpability, is it?
Not entirely. I think that culpability implies responsibility, but I don't think that "society as a whole" is culpable here even though it has a measure of responsibility to combat acts like this.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Responsibility" is perhaps too strong a word. But there's an opportunity that the peaceful Muslim majority has in being more able than non-Muslims to watch out for would-be terrorists in their midst. Ordinary folk, Muslim or otherwise, could do what they can, perhaps notifying useful authorities.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The word "responsibility" has several different meanings. I would suggest you might be conflating at least two of those meanings.
I mean "responsibility" as in an obligation to do or refrain from doing something. If someone is culpable, then they have knowingly done (or failed to do) something they were obligated to do that has a direct causal link to the guilty act in question.

Semantics aside, the point I was trying to get at is that anti-secularists of all stripes - even the anti-Muslim ones - contribute to an atmosphere where religious extremists feel justified in imposing their views on non-believers, sometimes violently.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Do Christians have responsibility to "weed out" those akin to the WBC?
Interestingly, I think the WBC's approach is less extreme than many other groups. While they're quite happy to tell people they think are Hell-bound what their sins are, they're adamantly against forcing people to follow their brand of Christianity. They say that people should be free to choose their fate, and that punishment for sin is the sole responsibility of God.

In that regard, the WBC is less extreme than many "moderate" religious groups, such as the many who support same-sex marriage bans, for instance.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Interestingly, I think the WBC's approach is less extreme than many other groups. While they're quite happy to tell people they think are Hell-bound what their sins are, they're adamantly against forcing people to follow their brand of Christianity. They say that people should be free to choose their fate, and that punishment for sin is the sole responsibility of God.

In that regard, the WBC is less extreme than many "moderate" religious groups, such as the many who support same-sex marriage bans, for instance.

Fair point. My question remains, however; I'm just picking on WBC because they're an easy target, but substitute them for any given extremist group.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Fair point. My question remains, however; I'm just picking on WBC because they're an easy target, but substitute them for any given extremist group.
But it's not "extremist" - or at least it's very common - for one religion to impose itself on non-adherents. In this regard, the very mainstream, liberal denominations that push for Christian prayers at municipal council meetings are closer to the Charlie Hebdo attackers than the WBC is. If anything, the WBC is extremist for their *refusal* to impose their beliefs on others.
 
Do Muslims have a responsibility to weed out extremists?
Dalil Boubakuer seems to think so:
"what needs to happen is that Muslim elites who are representatives of the broader Muslim population must speak out"
"We cannot have an opposition between the Islamized part of the population and mainstream society"
Not able to post the source directly with my
Device but it was from a Ny times article on Jan. 10 2015 though this is nothing new as similar sentiments have been expressed by other Muslims years prior to this.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Rupert Murdoch. If only I had a real, working Death Note.
As for Muslims being evil, violent, and wicked, does anyone else have trouble trying to imagine Smart_Guy even trying to just be mean to someone, let alone kill them?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Exactly. Extremists are responsible for such actions. All of Islam isn't accountable.
The portions of Islam who would force their religious rules on other ARE accountable for this. I've heard a disturbing number of responses to this attack from representatives of prominent Muslim groups who "denounced" the act by lamenting that a death sentence for blasphemy should only be handed down by a properly convened Islamic court. IOW, their issue isn't with the killings; it's with how they were done.
 
Top