No. Not all Muslims. Only the Islamists and Arabists who are responsible for directing the slaughter.
The problem with that being we have every indication that left to their own devices the rebels will slaughter everyone else (including those not involved in Assad's regime).
The Syrian civil turmoil IS our business, it is our responsibility even, however there is a finite number of ways that we can
legitimately influence the situation.
War is not one of them as under the current circumstances it appears that such a move would be illegitimate under international laws to which we are supposedly subject and are supposedly looking to enforce upon Syria. There are however numerous other ways we could look to influence the situation including diplomacy, contractual agreements, aid, sanctions, public relations, appeals to a trusted third party (such as Russia, China and to a lesser extent (given Syria's recent history with them) the Arab League or MENA) and more.
The question is what do we do if every legitimate course of action open to us is unable to bring about the change we desire; would we then have the right to pursue illegitimate courses of action? I would argue no as that sort of action would directly undermine the system of norms that we are attempting to enforce of Syria, instead perhaps we might look to legitimize one of those courses of action currently deemed illegitimate, but therein lies a far from black-and-white dilemma, in that pursuing such an approach underscores the transience of those norms, the fragility and subjectivity with which they have been framed and adopted - not to mention being a slippery slope.
