Iran sentences LGBTQ woman to death for spreading corruption on earth.

[stevecanuck]

Why?



Please quote the direct source Iran has used and lets see if what you say is true. It could be.

Wow, you're actually pretending to not know that the verse we've been talking about all this time is what she's referring to. You are a wonder to behold.

 

[firedragon]

Whoa! You could put someone's eye out when you move the goalposts like that without warning. You spent 13 pages denying that the phrase in 5:33 meant that "corruption in the land" was used to justify the death penalty, and now you're saying it's only meant for murderers. You can always tell a person who's making up excuses on the fly.

Read it fully.

 

[danieldemol]

Who is God talking about? It cannot be someone who claims to be a non-believer as said by most.

Perhaps not in those examples, but do you believe that Gog and Magog were Muhammadan?

If not how do you interpret Surah 18:94?

In my opinion.

 

[Goldemar]

Why?



Please quote the direct source Iran has used and lets see if what you say is true. It could be.

You know I can't do that but when the phrases look the same, I'm inclined to think they are the same. If it looks like a spade..

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps not in those examples, but do you believe that Gog and Magog were Muhammadan?

If not how do you interpret Surah 18:94?

In my opinion.

Please open a new thread if you wish to discuss something different.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

You know I can't do that but when the phrases look the same, I'm inclined to think they are the same. If it looks like a spade..

Could be. The phrase is in English, in third party websites. Iran uses Persian in their official communication so I would like to see how they used it and were it comes from.

And to me it does not look like a spade or a spoon because it is absolutely used in a completely opposite connotation. So if they are claiming its from the Qur'an, they won't be able to prove it. Unless just like you they are just saying the sentence is there, it looks like a spade which is not how islamic scholar has ever worked.

 

[Goldemar]

Could be. The phrase is in English, in third party websites. Iran uses Persian in their official communication so I would like to see how they used it and were it comes from.

And to me it does not look like a spade or a spoon because it is absolutely used in a completely opposite connotation. So if they are claiming its from the Qur'an, they won't be able to prove it. Unless just like you they are just saying the sentence is there, it looks like a spade which is not how islamic scholar has ever worked.

It would indeed be good to know the specifics of how the Iranian regime are using the phrase. Do you know if we have any Persian speakers on RF who might be able to peruse the Mizan News agency website for the story? That might help us to move forward in our analysis of this whole affair.

 

[firedragon]

It would indeed be good to know the specifics of how the Iranian regime are using the phrase. Do you know if we have any Persian speakers on RF who might be able to peruse the Mizan News agency website for the story? That might help us to move forward in our analysis of this whole affair.

@Link

 

[Goldemar]

@Link

Thanks. @Link when you are next on here and have some time to go through this thread, would be good to get your perspective on the story.

 

[danieldemol]

Please open a new thread if you wish to discuss something different.

Thanks.

I don't know why you see it as something different.

Yusuf Ali translates Surah 5:33 as;

'The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.'

He translates Surah 18:94 as,

'They said: "O Zul-qarnain! the Gog and Magog (people) do great mischief on earth: shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightest erect a barrier between us and them?"'

Corpus Quran translates as "corruption" where Yusuf Ali translates as "mischief".

But my point here is that we see non-believers "Gog and Magog" spreading corruption/mischief in the land/on earth, and one of the penalties of spreading corruption (ie banishment via a wall) being applied to them.

The two phrases "corruption on earth"/"corruption through the land" are clearly closely related Quranic phrases.

Hence my question, how do you say it doesn't apply to non-Muslims in all verses when there is an example which indicates that it does?

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

It would indeed be good to know the specifics of how the Iranian regime are using the phrase. Do you know if we have any Persian speakers on RF who might be able to peruse the Mizan News agency website for the story? That might help us to move forward in our analysis of this whole affair.

They probably don't provide justification of a law every time they apply it. The justification is more likely to have been given when the Iranian Islamic regime adopted the law.

From wikipedia;

'According to at least one source, Mofsed-e-filarz was first introduced as a crime in Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini.[10]'

and

'The Criminal Codes of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) that include Mofsed-e-filarz were adopted in 1996 by the Islamic Consultative Assembly; some changes were made in 2012.[13]'

Source: Mofsed-e-filarz - Wikipedia

So if justification was provided it was either provided by Ayatollah Khomeini and/or during the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

Either way it seems unlikely that the changes were made against the wishes of their important religious scholars.

ETA Mofsed e filarz means "Corrupt on Earth".

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know why you see it as something different.

Yusuf Ali translates Surah 5:33 as;

'The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.'

He translates Surah 18:94 as,

'They said: "O Zul-qarnain! the Gog and Magog (people) do great mischief on earth: shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightest erect a barrier between us and them?"'

Corpus Quran translates as "corruption" where Yusuf Ali translates as "mischief".

But my point here is that we see non-believers "Gog and Magog" spreading corruption/mischief in the land/on earth, and one of the penalties of spreading corruption (ie banishment via a wall) being applied to them.

The two phrases "corruption on earth"/"corruption through the land" are clearly closely related Quranic phrases.

Hence my question, how do you say it doesn't apply to non-Muslims in all verses when there is an example which indicates that it does?

In my opinion.

Ill tell you why it's a different topic. Because we are discussing Iran, murder of two women, and the supposed usage of corruption on earth which is a phrase that appeared in the article, and the generalisation in the OP.

Nevertheless, how do you translate yajuj and mahjuj as non-muslims? You maybe right but could you explain the hermeneutics in this matter?

Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

Nevertheless, how do you translate yajuj and mahjuj as non-muslims? You maybe right but could you explain the hermeneutics in this matter?

Thanks.

Well I understand them to be non-Muhammadan because according to tradition it is said that Muhammad was relating a story of a past peoples from before his time.

If you are alleging that in spite of being from a past peoples they were followers of earlier Prophets then how do you say that this phrase does not apply to other followers of earlier Prophets such as followers of Moses or Jesus? Logically it would seem you can't have your cake and eat it.

But keeping it simple the story does not say that they are Muslims, so you are essentially creating your own Quran to add that they were Muslims were the Quranic story doesn't do so.

In my opinion.

 

[BrightShadow]

Islamic regimes don't just make up laws.

Why do you have so much trust and respect for Iranian regime? Why do you feel they don't just make up laws to suit their need?
Do you seriously believe Muslim regimes are absolutely sincere when they make some law or carry out some rulings?
Every law is subject to interpretation!

 

[BrightShadow]

Islamic regimes don't just make up laws. They follow that which either the Qur'an commands or Mohamed did and said. Verse 5:33 is the culprit in this case:

Saddam Hussain denied from one end and bluffed from the other end that he had WMD because he didn't want to look weak to Iran. Despite the reliable suggestions from all available intelligence that Saddam Hussain did not have any WMD - a couple of Idiots in power at the time (Bush and Blair) wrongly went into a sovereign (independent) nation and as a result caused death and destruction to that nation. Over 250,000 people simply perished as a result of this invasion and most of them were innocent civilian casualties!

Did you not learn anything from history?
What should we call a person who believes an Islamic regime (such as Iran) does not make up laws that might misrepresent the teachings of their religion just to support their personal agenda?
Of course - we have to call him a gullible idiot!
A person who has an agenda of his own!
No regime (especially an oppressive authoritarian one) is immune to corruption or misrepresentation of the truth. Their own people don't trust them but apparently the OP trusts them. The original poster believes - if they claimed their law is based on Quran then it must be true.
However the article does not elaborate whether or not the ruling was based on Quran!
So, I think you (@stevecanuck) are trying to connect some dots that does not exist! I didn't see the article mentioning any quotes from the Quran at all!

 

[stevecanuck]

Why do you have so much trust and respect for Iranian regime? Why do you feel they don't just make up laws to suit their need?
Do you seriously believe Muslim regimes are absolutely sincere when they make some law or carry out some rulings?
Every law is subject to interpretation!

I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[stevecanuck]

However the article does not elaborate whether or not the ruling was based on Quran!
So, I think you (@stevecanuck) are trying to connect some dots that does not exist! I didn't see the article mentioning any quotes from the Quran at all!

If this is how you 'communicate', then this will probably be a short-lived relationship. I never said or hinted that the news story makes the connection between the ruling and the Qur'an. I did that. I showed how the wording in the ruling was taken directly from verse 5:33. Yes or no?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you have so much trust and respect for Iranian regime? Why do you feel they don't just make up laws to suit their need?
Do you seriously believe Muslim regimes are absolutely sincere when they make some law or carry out some rulings?
Every law is subject to interpretation!

That count for non Muslim countries too.

 

[firedragon]

Well I understand them to be non-Muhammadan because according to tradition it is said that Muhammad was relating a story of a past peoples from before his time.

Okay. So you are not going into linguistics. No problem. Can you quote which hadith this is and what are your criteria historical verification?

If you are alleging that in spite of being from a past peoples they were followers of earlier Prophets then how do you say that this phrase does not apply to other followers of earlier Prophets such as followers of Moses or Jesus? Logically it would seem you can't have your cake and eat it.

I didn't allege anything. I am asking for your evidence to your own claim.

But keeping it simple the story does not say that they are Muslims

So what you are saying is that every single instance has to give every criterion I have given in the whole post right? So every single mention of that sentence, it needs to have a whole page of the same criteria repeated. Correct?

 

[BrightShadow]

I never said or hinted that the news story makes the connection between the ruling and the Qur'an. I did that.

The day you stop looking for the dirt - you may find diamond!
Why are you connecting the dots by yourself? What do you have against Quran?
If you pee on the leader's statue in any such regime then they might put you to death too. Does it mean they based their decision on Quran?
Why are you trying to connect all bad decisions of a said regime to Quran?
Even if they claim that their ruling is based on Quran - it doesn't necessarily make it so! Even Supreme court judges can't come to the same conclusion when they try to interpret the constitution! So, what makes you think you can interpret Quran properly? What makes you think all Muslims leaders will come to same conclusion regarding state rules without being biased?