Worldwide Social Media Outrage After Muslim Students Killed In North Carolina

First topic message reminder :

The fatal shooting of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Tuesday afternoon has prompted uproar around the world, particularly from Muslims in the Middle East who say U.S. media coverage of stories involving Muslims is often biased.

Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, surrendered to police after allegedly killing 23-year-old Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19, in their home.

It's not fully clear what prompted the shooting. Some reports point to a possible parking dispute as the catalyst, although Hicks also appeared to harbor vehemently anti-religious views, not only toward Islam but toward all faiths. His Facebook page includes a post denouncing both Christianity and Islam. In January, Hicks posted a photo of what he claimed was his .38-caliber revolver.

Only a few media outlets, most of them local news organizations, reported on the killings late into the night on Tuesday. Some critics on social media suggested that because the victims were Muslims, national media was not quicker to cover the story. Meanwhile, critics say, U.S. media is rife with coverage of the Islamic State and other Muslim extremist groups, as well as commentary about how Islam is supposedly the most dangerous of all the major religions.

Many Muslims on social media predicted that Hicks, as a white man, is likely to be labeled as mentally ill, while a Muslim shooter would automatically be considered a terrorist.

"I would like to see world leaders condemning their murder," Seema Huneidi, a 22-year-old Jordanian communications and media specialist, told The WorldPost. "I would like to see public uproar. But most importantly I would like to see these innocent victims get the same treatment and coverage that the Sydney Lindt Café hostage situation and the Charlie Hebdo attacks got."

The evidence of social media suggests that the young, recently married couple killed Tuesday were dedicated humanitarians. Yusor Abu-Salha, who was reportedly studying human biology at North Carolina State University, had posted photos on her Facebook of a recent trip to Turkey, where she said she volunteered at a makeshift dental clinic helping Syrian refugees. Barakat, a dental student at UNC-Chapel Hill, was planning to travel to Turkey this summer. He'd set up a fundraising campaign called "Syria Smiles" to provide dental care to Syrians in need. So far, $39,666 has been raised.

Zaher Sahloul, president of the Syrian American Medical Society, called Bakarat a "model dentist who helped the Syrian people against the world's apathy." He compared Bakarat's death to that of Kayla Mueller, the young American hostage who, it was confirmed this week, recently died as a captive of the Islamic State militant group.

Some people, furious with the media coverage of the killings, took to Twitter to mourn the loss of the young Chapel Hill family, with many using the hashtags #MuslimLivesMatter and #ChapelHillShooting.

(Followed by a long list of tweets)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-shooting-social-media_n_6660220.html?ir=Religion&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000055

darknessss wrote:

risingsun wrote:Twitter is for people who want the widest information possible and you only get that by following people, not by being followed.

yup...thats the "LEFT" for you .....


follow the herd.......baaaaaa




sorry sass...you walked into that

I'd say that the extreme right are just as much a herd.....

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:

yup...thats the "LEFT" for you .....


follow the herd.......baaaaaa




sorry sass...you walked into that

I'd say that the extreme right are just as much a herd.....

The difference is that the Left 'reason' their issues and platforms, while the Right are just knee-jerks. Conservatism, after all, means not having to think.

PART of the classical definition of a "conservative" is a person who is more inclined towards Reactionary behaviour ~ i.e. having a propensity towards reacting to situations after the event, with little rational thinking or logic being applied...

BY COMPARISON, more of those who tend towards the left of centre, with either more humanitarian feelings and/or inclining towards the green, are much more likely to "think things through" ~ applying much more rationale (left brain thinking) and logical processes to the 'problem at hand..    

Lone Wolf wrote:

PART of the classical definition of a "conservative" is a person who is more inclined towards Reactionary behaviour ~ i.e. having a propensity towards reacting to situations after the event, with little rational thinking or logic being applied...

BY COMPARISON, more of those who tend towards the left of centre, with either more humanitarian feelings and/or inclining towards the green, are much more likely to "think things through" ~ applying much more rationale (left brain thinking) and logical processes to the 'problem at hand..    

Precisely:  

Liberal or left = new = per force, must be thought about.
Conservative = old = arrived at out of habit, not necessarily thought through.

Those conservatives that do think it through, are generally acting out of self-interest; those that don't think it through, are generally the ones acting out of habit.  This is the distinction mentioned by John Stuart Mill: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."  To be a conservative does not require thinking, and thus most of what you hear from conservatives is irrational.

Conservatives will often resort to lying.  Because they haven't thought things through, they cover the inevitable lapses by fabricating.  Alternatively, they will lie to help them preserve their elitism (see, full explanation of the theory: Why Elephants Lie).  When they are caught lying they will come up with another lie: bilateralism.  They say: "All parties or politicians--Left and Right--lie."  In fact, that is another lie to cover the ones at which they have been caught.  The Left does not have to fabricate, because they have thought it through and don't have lapses they have to cover.  Bilateralism of lying is a falsehood.  Liberals have no need to lie.

Original Quill wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

PART of the classical definition of a "conservative" is a person who is more inclined towards Reactionary behaviour ~ i.e. having a propensity towards reacting to situations after the event, with little rational thinking or logic being applied...

BY COMPARISON, more of those who tend towards the left of centre, with either more humanitarian feelings and/or inclining towards the green, are much more likely to "think things through" ~ applying much more rationale (left brain thinking) and logical processes to the 'problem at hand..    

Precisely:  

Liberal or left = new = per force, must be thought about.
Conservative = old = arrived at out of habit, not necessarily thought through.

Those conservatives that do think it through, are generally acting out of self-interest; those that don't think it through, are generally the ones acting out of habit.  This is the distinction mentioned by John Stuart Mill: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."  To be a conservative does not require thinking, and thus most of what you hear from conservatives is irrational.

Conservatives will often resort to lying.  Because they haven't thought things through, they cover the inevitable lapses by fabricating.  Alternatively, they will lie to help them preserve their elitism (see, full explanation of the theory: Why Elephants Lie).  When they are caught lying they will come up with another lie: bilateralism.  They say: "All parties or politicians--Left and Right--lie."  In fact, that is another lie to cover the ones at which they have been caught.  The Left does not have to fabricate, because they have thought it through and don't have lapses they have to cover.  Bilateralism of lying is a falsehood.  Liberals have no need to lie.

pffffft

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:the only problem with THAT idea is that THE ONLY people who post about such things on twitter are those who can be bothered, and lets face it THEY are the ones with either an axe to grind or an agenda to persue......That does NOT make them "guru's ...who's every word should be clung to.....

Twitter is very very bad for that.
Facebook is for bored mums, Twitter is for people who need followers.

100% right!
Only true thing David Cameron ever said was about Twitter "too many tweets make a twat!"

Nems wrote:

eddie wrote:

Twitter is very very bad for that.
Facebook is for bored mums, Twitter is for people who need followers.

100% right!
Only true thing David Cameron ever said was about Twitter "too many tweets make a twat!"

I LIKE that. All that is now required is to define that quantity of tweets that is "too many"

darknessss wrote:

Nems wrote:

100% right!
Only true thing David Cameron ever said was about Twitter "too many tweets make a twat!"

I LIKE that. All that is now required is to define that quantity of tweets that is "too many"

Im thinking a very small number

Cameron must be a twat then:

https://twitter.com/David_Cameron

risingsun wrote:Cameron must be a twat then:

https://twitter.com/David_Cameron

was THAT idea ever in doubt???

risingsun wrote:Cameron must be a twat then:

https://twitter.com/David_Cameron

I don't think he is alone in that do you?!

In fact it is so much better to follow than to worry about followers, you get so much more information.  Of course to have to be able to collate information very quickly and hear from all sides and the information comes in at a great speed.

Thrice times three and none back on me.

risingsun wrote:Cameron must be a twat then:

https://twitter.com/David_Cameron

Goodness me! A politician who contradicts himself, whatever next?!

https://youtu.be/SgIxmRnLGRg

Don't always agree with him, and he can be very simplistic, but he's dead right on this.

risingsun wrote:Don't always agree with him, and he can be very simplistic, but he's dead right on this.

Exactly. It would be foolish to reject wisdom just because it was spoken by an idiot.

Well put!

hey saws did you see the monster has been indicted?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/16/chapel-hill-killings-Muslims-parking/23514293/

I do hope the FBI get it charged as hate crimes too!

^ honestly stoopid kindle

that's hey sass


yo yo Fuzz.....what's up bro? x

Cass wrote:^ honestly stoopid kindle

that's hey sass


yo yo Fuzz.....what's up bro? x

Got a week off and chilling in Mumbai.

I never get manage to adjust to time zones, so I'm still awake at 5:24 am.

Trying to sleep.

How you doin' sis? xoxo

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cass wrote:^ honestly stoopid kindle

that's hey sass


yo yo Fuzz.....what's up bro? x

Got a week off and chilling in Mumbai.

I never get manage to adjust to time zones, so I'm still awake at 5:24 am.

Trying to sleep.

How you doin' sis? xoxo

you lucky lucky bar steward. Eat LOTS for me.

ive tried all the tricks in the book with jet lag and none of them have ever worked....I usually get right just as I'm ready to go home. I will say Melatonin did help when I flew back from UK last year - not a huge help but some. usually I pass out from sheer exhaustion.

were doing good....25th anniversary here tonight - going out for a steak and margharitas - big fat frozen strawberry ones. luckily no work tomorrow.

be safe and have fun......and eat LOTS xx

Cass wrote:^ honestly stoopid kindle

that's hey sass


yo yo Fuzz.....what's up bro? x

Hi Cass, belated Happy Birthday BTW.
Kindle isn't good for posting lol

Very Happy Silver Wedding Anniversary as well!

Cass wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Got a week off and chilling in Mumbai.

I never get manage to adjust to time zones, so I'm still awake at 5:24 am.

Trying to sleep.

How you doin' sis? xoxo

you lucky lucky bar steward. Eat LOTS for me.

ive tried all the tricks in the book with jet lag and none of them have ever worked....I usually get right just as I'm ready to go home. I will say Melatonin did help when I flew back from UK last year - not a huge help but some. usually I pass out from sheer exhaustion.

were doing good....25th anniversary here tonight - going out for a steak and margharitas - big fat frozen strawberry ones. luckily no work tomorrow.

be safe and have fun......and eat LOTS xx

Congratulations, my lovely. Will definitely eat lots, just for you. ;-)

FYI: best Chinese food in the world: Mumbai (China Garden).

Better than NYC and yes, even China.

Oh shurrup Zack, you're making my mouth water!

cheers m'lovelies..

have a terrific evening, or day for Fuzz and Lez

MWAH xxx

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

https://youtu.be/SgIxmRnLGRg

Actually it shows how he is equating two different crimes and trying to place them on the same level, which is utterly absurd.
The crime in France was about religion, there is no denying this because in this faith it is ruled that people should be punished for insulting a deity and basically meaning a religion should be free from basically piss take.
People were murdered on the bases of this. Religion is the motivating factor in this. You can claim interpretations all you like  but the fact of the matter is so can they claim their interpretation is right.
The crime in Canada, for all we know so far is a crime that is one of dispute and is being wrongly claimed to be terrorism. So where is the goal of the killer here? His motivations?
The killers in France had clear motivations and goals all based around their faith.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

https://youtu.be/SgIxmRnLGRg

So far there has been no evidence that the Hicks murder (Chapel Hill) was a hate crime, correct?  If I am wrong, can someone please tell me what that evidence is?  For example, it might be a note:

"Dear world, I killed these chaps because 1) they are Muslim; and 2) I hate all Muslims."

I haven't seen that note in the American media.

It might be an email or something put up on the Internet:

"Hey world, I killed these chaps because 1) they are Muslim; and 2) I hate all Muslims."

I haven't see that email or post discussed in the American media.

It might simply be a confession or something simply overheard somewhere:

"Yo ma, I killed these Muslim chaps because 1) they are Muslim; and 2) I hate all Muslims.  Can I go out and play now?"

But I haven't seen this in the news yet.  Can someone describe the evidence (per the above) to me, as apparently they are not discussing it in the US? They are so damn fastidious over here...they expect you to have real evidence, can you imagine??

Exactly Quill.

What gets me about this crime is how it has been portrayed and if there has been a media blackout is utter nonsense when it has been allover the news and what is even worse about this, I read that people in Gaza stopped American aid over this false claim of a media blackout. This is inherently wrong where people are spreading such false information which is inciting as seen poor actions by people to now even denied aid needed for people. That is wrong on any level and this is all being pushed by people with some of the most stupid agenda's I have ever seen. Whether this crime is a hate crime or not it was never a crime about the freedom of speech and religious extremism, of which the Charlie Habdo murder most certainly. This claims of media parity to two different crimes is in essence absurd beyond belief which in affect is trying to claim the threat of Islamic extremism is now on a par with hate crimes to Muslims in the west. That is again nothing short of absurd which seeks to diminish wrongly to deflect problems away from within the Muslim world itself. If this crime as nothing more than a dispute over parking it certainly received far more media attention than any similar crime and if it was a hate crime received as much if not more than many hate crime murders you find in the US. It seems if the victims are Muslims murdered here, it should be given the same media attention as terrorism, is just plainly absurd.


"We came here today to close the US institutions for two hours. This event aims to denounce the policy of media blackout that occurred and the US media silence and the US official silence," said activist Jamal Yaghi

http://news.yahoo.com/gazans-protest-over-us-killings-150255974.html


This is why idiots like Russel Brand who thinks he is doing good actually is making the problem a hundred times more worse with the crap he comes out with at times. We see here aid being denied based off a lie, claiming there was a media blackout. This is why people pedaling this nonsense fail to see they create a bigger divide in the world between people

I'm willing to admit it could be a hate crime...I just haven't seen the evidence, yet.  I've seen the evidence in the French shooting.  I've seen the evidence in the Danish killing.  I just haven't seen the evidence of a hate crime in the Chapel Hill murders.

If actual evidence is too high a bar for Europeans, I feel sorry for them.  Cause one of them will have a nephew up on charges some day, and they'll scream like stuck pigs if there's no evidence required to convict.

Original Quill wrote:I'm willing to admit it could be a hate crime...I just haven't seen the evidence, yet.  I've seen the evidence in the French shooting.  I've seen the evidence in the Danish killing.  I just haven't seen the evidence of a hate crime in the Chapel Hill murders.

If actual evidence is too high a bar for Europeans, I feel sorry for them.  Cause one of them will have a nephew up on charges some day, and they'll scream like stuck pigs if there's no evidence.

It could well be a hate crime of which many hate crimes that end in murder have not seen as much media attention as this. The problem here is that there are some people wishing to deflect problems in the Muslim world by using the murder of these 3 innocent Muslims to make some absurd political agenda by comparing them to terrorism and the daily concerns which we face with the growing extremism found within Islam.
My view is those making this view are making problems far worse in the world creating a greater divide between Muslims and Non-Muslims, with how they have made the most absurd comparisons to terrorism.
They fail to even understand what terrorism is for a start.
It is like I said, what was his goals, his aims, his motivations, was it premeditated?

Sam Harris responds to the charge that “militant” atheism is responsible for the murder of three Muslim students in North Carolina.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism

Maybe it was "militant atheism." Some people get militant no matter what idea you set in front of them.

Doesn't mean that most people who agree with the idea are ready to kill thinking they're doing so in the name of their cause. That's the idea we all need to get over, that ideas are worth killing for.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe it was "militant atheism." Some people get militant no matter what idea you set in front of them.

Doesn't mean that most people who agree with the idea are ready to kill thinking they're doing so in the name of their cause. That's the idea we all need to get over, that ideas are worth killing for.

Totally agree, why we have to be more open and critical of such ideas and where they stem from like with religion, politics racism etc.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe it was "militant atheism." Some people get militant no matter what idea you set in front of them.

Doesn't mean that most people who agree with the idea are ready to kill thinking they're doing so in the name of their cause. That's the idea we all need to get over, that ideas are worth killing for.

Totally agree, why we have to be more open and critical of such ideas and where they stem from like with religion, politics racism etc.

Have you ever had the impression that a lot of people grasp part of an idea, while totally whiffing on the complete idea?

I just have to conclude that as a species, we're really not as smart as we pretend to be.

Sorry if that's an unfamiliar term -- to "whiff" in American English is to make an attempt (like a baseball player swinging a bat to hit a baseball) and to completely miss

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Totally agree, why we have to be more open and critical of such ideas and where they stem from like with religion, politics racism etc.

Have you ever had the impression that a lot of people grasp part of an idea, while totally whiffing on the complete idea?

I just have to conclude that as a species, we're really not as smart as we pretend to be.

I agree on your first point Ben
Second, disdagree and it is because people choose to not be smart.
I think that where we certainly do have the knowledge and the capability to understand but like for example our rational thinking is thrown out of the equation by mythical beliefs. Take Zack for example here is very intelligent but some of his views are swayed not by rational thinking but his beliefs. His beliefs sway what would otherwise be a rational and critical view to take on homosexualty, blasphemy,  etc but the power of his beliefs will overide any critical thinking on the matter, because he then will find his views conflict with his faith. As soon as that happens his is on the slope to losing his faith, why many will never take the critical look at their own faith as they do to other faiths and non-belief.
Sadly religion has allowed for irrational thinking.

It absolutely has, but it's hard to accuse people when they've been raised to believe that thinking certain thoughts are going to make them more likely to be tortured for ... forever? Jesus ( ) what kind of psycho comes up with eternal torture as a punishment for *anything?*

I tried to believe for three decades, raised by my beloved parents to think that if I didn't accept Christianity, I would be burned for eternity. I honestly can't blame anyone frightened by that idea when it came from the same people who fed them, taught them and cared for them in the most vulnerable time of their lives. That's how deeply insidious religious thought and culture truly is. You couldn't come up with a more evil-genius idea if you tried, none of us could, because it's one of the many human ideas that's been built upon by succeeding generations.

Have you seen "The Interview"? One of the characters asks how you could get millions of people to turn on a person they see as God. And the answer is, you just can't.

Ben_Reilly wrote:It absolutely has, but it's hard to accuse people when they've been raised to believe that thinking certain thoughts are going to make them more likely to be tortured for ... forever? Jesus ( ) what kind of psycho comes up with eternal torture as a punishment for *anything?*

I tried to believe for three decades, raised by my beloved parents to think that if I didn't accept Christianity, I would be burned for eternity. I honestly can't blame anyone frightened by that idea when it came from the same people who fed them, taught them and cared for them in the most vulnerable time of their lives. That's how deeply insidious religious thought and culture truly is. You couldn't come up with a more evil-genius idea if you tried, none of us could, because it's one of the many human ideas that's been built upon by succeeding generations.

I disagree on the word accused being used, this is being open enough to be critical of a persons views when they are not based on rational thinking but religious belief. This is where people actually fail badly because they are afraid to be critical in case they may offend. Sorry if they are offended because I find some of their religious views backwards and so out of touch with the well being and equality of people, then they should look further at themselves. I hope it makes them question what they believe and  why they cannot see why some views they hold are at odds with the well being and equality of others. We should never shy away from speaking out as to where religious beliefs are very wrong and affect the well being of others. This is where some on the left fail badly and where I also have done in the past.

This is not about blame but being upfront to say how such a view is wrong that people would suffer for eternity based on the most absurd reasoning. I have spoken my views  clearly to my strict religious parents and because my mother is so religious she has become upset. Does that mean I should not be critical?
Does it mean I wish to hurt my Mother? No, as we still love each other very much, but we are naive to just sit back and be silent to views that are at odds with the well being and equality of others. Religious beliefs deny the ability of free thinking because they are constarined to follow what to them has been devinely commanded.

I was raised a catholic and went to Church everyday and had religion rammed into me from the earliest of ages, to the point it actually annoys me I was so lied to and taken in by such beliefs that had no evidence or rational thinking to them. I am glad I could see past this Ben, but the fact of the matter is religion does deny rational thinking.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Have you ever had the impression that a lot of people grasp part of an idea, while totally whiffing on the complete idea?

I just have to conclude that as a species, we're really not as smart as we pretend to be.

I agree on your first point Ben
Second, disdagree and it is because people choose to not be smart.
I think that where we certainly do have the knowledge and the capability to understand but like for example our rational thinking is thrown out of the equation by mythical beliefs. Take Zack for example here is very intelligent but some of his views are swayed not by rational thinking but his beliefs. His beliefs sway what would otherwise be a rational and critical view to take on homosexualty, blasphemy,  etc but the power of his beliefs will overide any critical thinking on the matter, because he then will find his views conflict with his faith. As soon as that happens his is on the slope to losing his faith, why many will never take the critical look at their own faith as they do to other faiths and non-belief.
Sadly religion has allowed for irrational thinking.

My views on homosexuality are very rational, thank you very much.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I'm not rational.

The fact that you cannot see this, is your problem. Not mine.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I agree on your first point Ben
Second, disdagree and it is because people choose to not be smart.
I think that where we certainly do have the knowledge and the capability to understand but like for example our rational thinking is thrown out of the equation by mythical beliefs. Take Zack for example here is very intelligent but some of his views are swayed not by rational thinking but his beliefs. His beliefs sway what would otherwise be a rational and critical view to take on homosexualty, blasphemy,  etc but the power of his beliefs will overide any critical thinking on the matter, because he then will find his views conflict with his faith. As soon as that happens his is on the slope to losing his faith, why many will never take the critical look at their own faith as they do to other faiths and non-belief.
Sadly religion has allowed for irrational thinking.

My views on homosexuality are very rational, thank you very much.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I'm not rational.

The fact that you cannot see this, is your problem. Not mine.

Your views are swayed by your religion and then based on trying to back up a view to be at odds with homosexuality.
So my point is very valid, unless you do not believe in the well being and equality of others?
Like I say rationality is thrown out of the equation for religious people, when they fail to look at their own beliefs with a critical view.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

My views on homosexuality are very rational, thank you very much.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I'm not rational.

The fact that you cannot see this, is your problem. Not mine.

Your views are swayed by your religion and then based on trying to back up a view to be at odds with homosexuality.
So my point is very valid, unless you do not believe in the well being and equality of others?
Like I say rationality is thrown out of the equation for religious people, when they fail to look at their own beliefs with a critical view.

No that's your assumption that religious people follow scripture without rational thinking.

Perhaps that's why you don't understand our point of view.

And when it comes to actions, we are not all equal.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Your views are swayed by your religion and then based on trying to back up a view to be at odds with homosexuality.
So my point is very valid, unless you do not believe in the well being and equality of others?
Like I say rationality is thrown out of the equation for religious people, when they fail to look at their own beliefs with a critical view.

No that's your assumption that religious people follow scripture without rational thinking.

Perhaps that's why you don't understand our point of view.  

And when it comes to actions, we are not all equal.

So you can happily disagree with commands in the Quran then?
Nobody said you are equal in your actions but you either are a literal believer or you are just a believer in name only.
I understand very well the problem with religious belief espcially literal belief, which does restrict rational thinking espcially in the regards to the well being and equality of others.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No that's your assumption that religious people follow scripture without rational thinking.

Perhaps that's why you don't understand our point of view.  

And when it comes to actions, we are not all equal.

So you can happily disagree with commands in the Quran then?
Nobody said you are equal in your actions but you either are a literal believer or you are just a believer in name only.
I understand very well the problem with religious belief espcially literal belief, which does restrict rational thinking espcially in the regards to the well being and equality of others.

With the commands, sure? It's quite relative, subject to the people and the times. But I agree with the jurisprudence. Do you see the difference?

I don't know what a literal believe is. I'm certainly not a virtual believer.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So you can happily disagree with commands in the Quran then?
Nobody said you are equal in your actions but you either are a literal believer or you are just a believer in name only.
I understand very well the problem with religious belief espcially literal belief, which does restrict rational thinking espcially in the regards to the well being and equality of others.

With the commands, sure? It's quite relative, subject to the people and the times. But I agree with the jurisprudence. Do you see the difference?

I don't know what a literal believe is. I'm certainly not a virtual believer.

So you have no reason to be against two consenting homosexual adults if religion plays no part in your critical thinking here?
So you are are saying there is no need to follow anything from the Quran and that it is not binding for you?
So everything in the Quran is just a theory and not to be taken literally?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

With the commands, sure? It's quite relative, subject to the people and the times. But I agree with the jurisprudence. Do you see the difference?

I don't know what a literal believe is. I'm certainly not a virtual believer.

So you have no reason to be against two consenting homosexual adults if religion plays no part in your critical thinking here?
So you are are saying there is no need to follow anything from the Quran and that it is not binding for you?
So everything in the Quran is just a theory and not to be taken literally?

If you understood jurisprudence, you would not have asked these questions. I suggest you look that up.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So you have no reason to be against two consenting homosexual adults if religion plays no part in your critical thinking here?
So you are are saying there is no need to follow anything from the Quran and that it is not binding for you?
So everything in the Quran is just a theory and not to be taken literally?

If you understood jurisprudence, you would not have asked these questions. I suggest you look that up.

Yes I understand the mumbo jumbo claimed with jurisprudence in religion, which just shows you like many Muslims avoiding answering some very straight forward questions.
If you have no answer just say so.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

If you understood jurisprudence, you would not have asked these questions. I suggest you look that up.

Yes I understand the mumbo jumbo claimed with jurisprudence in religion, which just shows you like many Muslims avoiding answering some very straight forward questions.
If you have no answer just say so.

Then you should know why such questions are pointless. I will repeat very slowly: I agree with the jurisprudence of the Quran. Entirely.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes I understand the mumbo jumbo claimed with jurisprudence in religion, which just shows you like many Muslims avoiding answering some very straight forward questions.
If you have no answer just say so.

Then you should know why such questions are pointless. I will repeat very slowly: I agree with the jurisprudence of the Quran.  Entirely.

No it is just a copout on your part as you must follow one of the many Islamic school of thoughts do you not?
As surely you follow the man made writings of islamic works by some of the scholars.
Who and what have you formed your views from or is it just the Quran?
So it is very relevant, all you are doing is claiming you follow your own views, without expressing what influenced your beliefs.