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

[stevecanuck]

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?

Iran condemned those two women to death for "corruption on earth".
The qur'an (5:33) says those guilty of "corruption on earth" should be killed.

Why don't you put your ad homs and strawmen aside and actually address the topic? If you don't, then I will post a final goodbye.

 

[danieldemol]

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

It is the claim of the OP that the Quran and traditional interpretation are reliably originated with Muhammad, not mine.

To me it is of value to expose the Quran and its traditional interpretation because it would present a real danger to folks in Australia if Australians were to open the immigration floodgates to people who believe in it.

So I have no need to demonstrate that the hadith go back to Muhammad, they form a part of the traditional belief of a significant portion of Muslims to be enough of a threat. That is all im concerned with.

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

I am simply evaluating the way it was traditionally interpreted. As such you are calling into question a claim that originates with other Muslims, I dont own the claim.

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?

The quran does not give a criterion of corruption on earth, it gives examples and does not even say that corruption on earth is limited to those examples.

So of course we need to look at how those examples were traditionally interpreted to assess the threat level they pose to us.

In my opinion.

 

[BrightShadow]

Iran condemned those two women to death for "corruption on earth".

What are their names and what is the official report?

Why don't you put your ad homs and strawmen aside and actually address the topic? If you don't, then I will post a final goodbye.

You don't respond to anything but you want a response regarding your improper connection between Iran's action with a verse from Quran! That's funny!

I asked you - if you pee on their leader's statue - then they might put you to death for insult and for corruption on earth. In that case will you blame Quran for it?

Your brain should tell you that the verse (5:33) is not about every scenario. It is obviously about a very serious crime. Of course it is open to interpretation BUT when verse 5:32 tells you - killing is bad and saving one soul is like saving the entire humanity and verse 5:34 says forgiveness is better - then after reading these 3 verses together in context - any Tom, Dick or Harry should realize that verse 5:33 must be about something very serious where human race is in danger or at least entire society is in danger of annihilation due to the act of a criminal. But you are not Tom, you are not Dick and you are not Harry! You are Stevecanuck - so you could not comprehend that! It went over your head. Could it be because you have a personal agenda and you are looking for dirt!

After 9/11 when President Bush gave a speech and mentioned to those folks responsible for 9/11 - he will seek them out from their caves and he will smoke them out. He also said - they can't hide anywhere - he will find them and kill them - did you not feel the same sentiments at the time? If you did then you should be able to relate to the verse 5:33. It is about such a crime (where innocent people are killed by some criminal) and it is to protect the innocent civilian from death and destruction! It is clearly not about LGBTQ or a person who pees on a statue!

Even the verse you cherry picked (5:33) - if you read it carefully you may realize -the punishments mentioned are varying from a high to low based on the severity of the crime. But you decided to ignore all that and decided to take a verse out of its textual context as well as its historical context and decided on your own at it must be about LGBTQ. If Iranian court system did what you are claiming then what is the difference between you and them? You are obviously coming to similar conclusion as well after reading the verse. If Iranians did by basing on teaching from Quran then - both of you are ignoring verse 5:32 and 5:34 and that is simply wrong!

 

[danieldemol]

The day you stop looking for the dirt - you may find diamond!

True diamonds should not be composed of dirt, it is by looking for the flaws in the diamond that we distinguish the true diamond from the fake, so unless you are trying to sell us a fake you should be encouraging us to look for the non-diamond like faults in the Quran - if it is a true diamond it shouldn't have any.

In my opinion.

 

[stevecanuck]

What are their names and what is the official report?

I have provided no fewer than 8 links to the story. Is that really not enough for you?

I asked you - if you pee on their leader's statue - then they might put you to death for insult and for corruption on earth. In that case will you blame Quran for it?

Sorry, but that's just too ridiculous to comment on.

Your brain should tell you that the verse (5:33) is not about every scenario. It is obviously about a very serious crime. Of course it is open to interpretation BUT when verse 5:32 tells you - killing is bad and saving one soul is like saving the entire humanity

Are you a paid shill? You certainly come across as one. Verse 5:32 has the deal-breaker phrase in the middle of it that you left out. Hint: it's got something to do with corruption.

and verse 5:34 says forgiveness is better - then after reading these 3 verses together in context - any Tom, Dick or Harry should realize that verse 5:33 must be about something very serious where human race is in danger or at least entire society is in danger of annihilation due to the act of a criminal. But you are not Tom, you are not Dick and you are not Harry! You are Stevecanuck - so you could not comprehend that! It went over your head. Could it be because you have a personal agenda and you are looking for dirt!

After 9/11 when President Bush gave a speech and mentioned to those folks responsible for 9/11 - he will seek them out from their caves and he will smoke them out. He also said - they can't hide anywhere - he will find them and kill them - did you not feel the same sentiments at the time? If you did then you should be able to relate to the verse 5:33. It is about such a crime (where innocent people are killed by some criminal) and it is to protect the innocent civilian from death and destruction! It is clearly not about LGBTQ or a person who pees on a statue!

Even the verse you cherry picked (5:33) - if you read it carefully you may realize -the punishments mentioned are varying from a high to low based on the severity of the crime. But you decided to ignore all that and decided to take a verse out of its textual context as well as its historical context and decided on your own at it must be about LGBTQ. If Iranian court system did what you are claiming then what is the difference between you and them? You are obviously coming to similar conclusion as well after reading the verse. If Iranians did by basing on teaching from Quran then - both of you are ignoring verse 5:32 and 5:34 and that is simply wrong!

I've answered all of this crap way too many times to rehash it with someone who clearly won't respond in kind. You just respond with all the tired old buzzwords like "cherrypick" without actually engaging. Flame away. I'm done with you.

 

[firedragon]

It is the claim of the OP that the Quran and traditional interpretation are reliably originated with Muhammad, not mine.

To me it is of value to expose the Quran and its traditional interpretation because it would present a real danger to folks in Australia if Australians were to open the immigration floodgates to people who believe in it.

So I have no need to demonstrate that the hadith go back to Muhammad, they form a part of the traditional belief of a significant portion of Muslims to be enough of a threat. That is all im concerned with.

So you are supporting the OP with no evidence.

I am simply evaluating the way it was traditionally interpreted. As such you are calling into question a claim that originates with other Muslims, I dont own the claim.

Are you saying you did not make a claim?

The quran does not give a criterion of corruption on earth,

It does. Please read again.

 

[stevecanuck]

Al Fasadhin Fil Ardha.


As you can see, this verse clearly tells you that death sentence is delivered only to a murderer, but hey, there is a phrase that says - Or who has not committed “corruption in the land” (Aw fasadhin fil ardhi). Thus we think that we can assign that to a person who does a prayer differently, or prays to another deity. Nope, this actually means yourself. What in the world can this “CORRUPTION IN THE LAND” mean? It’s very simple, the Quran itself defines it.

Reread 5:32. "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land".

Do you see the "or"? Do you realize it destroys your argument? It clearly differentiates murder from fasad.

The Quran gives an explicit example for us to reflect upon. Us, the readers.

And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing “corruption in the land” (Yufsidhoona fil ardhi), and they were not reforming. They said: “Swear by God” to one another that we will attack him and his family at night, and we will then say to his supporters: “We did not witness who murdered his family, and we are being truthful” – Quran 27:48-49

This verse does not define their murderous intentions as fasad. It says they have spread fasad. Then it says they're planning a murder. Those are two separate charges.

Read that verse again and focus on the few words within quotations. These two verses have the phrase “Al Fasadhin Fil Ardha”, both "corruption in the land"

How many errors can you make at once? Only 27:48 has that phrase. Verse 27:49 does not. You're either lying or being sloppy.

of which the example is "murdering in the name of God". They say to one another that they “Swear by God” about attacking and killing a family at night.

It is not given as an example. It's stated as a separate case.

This is taken as committing corruption in the land

Says you. Nothing in those verses can be cited to support that claim.

There’s More

Check the beginning of the Quran, Chapter 2:11. “Do not cause corruption in the land” (La thufsidhu fil ardha”. If you read the surrounding verses it goes like this

• There are people who claim to believe in God (Allah = Al-Ilah or The God)
• They seek to deceive God and those who believe
• They have a disease in their hearts
• When they are told not to cause “corruption in the land” they say “Nope, we have come as REFORMERS”
• But actually they are the corruptors.
• When they meet a believer they say we believe, but inside their hearts they do not.
• Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return.

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

Then why don't you ask "most" about it?

 

[firedragon]

Reread 5:32. "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land".

Do you see the "or"? Do you realize it destroys your argument? It clearly differentiates murder from fasad.

Nope.

This verse does not define their murderous intentions as fasad. It says they have spread fasad. Then it says they're planning a murder. Those are two separate charges.

Nope.

Reread 5:32. "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land".

Do you see the "or"? Do you realize it destroys your argument? It clearly differentiates murder from fasad.




This verse does not define their murderous intentions as fasad. It says they have spread fasad. Then it says they're planning a murder. Those are two separate charges.



How many errors can you make at once? Only 27:48 has that phrase. Verse 27:49 does not. You're either lying or being sloppy.



It is not given as an example. It's stated as a separate case.



Says you. Nothing in those verses can be cited to support that claim.



Then why don't you ask "most" about it?

Nope.

 

[stevecanuck]

Nope.



Nope.



Nope.

Well, it certainly looks like my work is done here.

Buh bye.

 

[danieldemol]

So you are supporting the OP with no evidence.

The OP makes more than one claim, I didnt support all the claims of the OP.

Are you saying you did not make a claim?

I merely related a claim made by Muslims, dont shoot the messenger.

It does. Please read again.

Hitches razor applies to claims made without evidence.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I merely related a claim made by Muslims, dont shoot the messenger.

Okay. So you are not making an assertion.

 

[firedragon]

Well, it certainly looks like my work is done here.

Buh bye.

Maybe. Ciao.

 

[BrightShadow]

Sorry, but that's just too ridiculous to comment on.

Why is it ridiculous? I showed you that in certain regimes - you could be killed for something as minor as peeing on a statue. But the reporters for western media prefers news that appeals or bothers a larger crowd. Lots of bad things happen in any given authoritarian government (Muslim or non-Muslim) on a daily basis. Many crazy sentences take place! People are unjustifiably put on trial and killed just to stop them or their cause or their influence on others or just to set an example and discourage others from doing the same thing. However these rulings usually have nothing to do with Quran. It is happening in Russia too! Russian civilians can't even protest about the invasion of Ukraine. They can't even call it a "war" or even an "invasion". Go to Russia and protest on the street about the Ukraine/ Russia conflict and see what happens to you. So, to point out these sort of rulings carried out at such authoritarian country and try to link it to Quran is ridiculous in my opinion (regardless of their leader's claim that it is based on teaching of Quran or not!). If you believe them and accept their reasoning then you are two peas of the same pod!

Look at a totalitarian country like N. Korea! What is the condition of human rights there? Are you blaming them for teachings of Quran as well? Controlling and taming the subjects (repression) is how some authoritarian/ totalitarian regimes survive and stay in power. They are NOT good examples of any religion! If Quran wasn't there Iran would still carry out such acts. Who would you blame then? So, stop looking at the bad examples!
If you are looking for dirt - you will never find the truth!

Are you a paid shill? You certainly come across as one. Verse 5:32 has the deal-breaker phrase in the middle of it that you left out. Hint: it's got something to do with corruption.

@The Hammer provided screen shots of all the thread you posted. Check out the post # 6 on the 1st page of this thread. Those screen shots of your threads should show who is the paid shill here!
In any book - written by any author - If you are told -- killing is bad and saving one soul is like saving the entire humanity (5:32) and if you are told - forgiveness is better (5:34) and in between you are told about the "punishment of death" and also pointed out "exile" as an option - then it should be obvious that "killing as a punishment" is to be carried out for extreme cases and as a last resort only. If you fail to see that then blame yourself! You shouldn't be blaming the book - you could blame the wrong or false practitioners who are misguided or trying to misguide others. You shouldn't join those misguided souls and have the same voice! If you do - then you are two peas of the same pod!

 

[stevecanuck]

Why is it ridiculous? I showed you that in certain regimes - you could be killed for something as minor as peeing on a statue. But the reporters for western media prefers news that appeals or bothers a larger crowd. Lots of bad things happen in any given authoritarian government (Muslim or non-Muslim) on a daily basis. Many crazy sentences take place! People are unjustifiably put on trial and killed just to stop them or their cause or their influence on others or just to set an example and discourage others from doing the same thing. However these rulings usually have nothing to do with Quran.

I showed the direct link between the wording of Iran's ruling and the wording in verse 5:33. Is that so or not?

It is happening in Russia too! Russian civilians can't even protest about the invasion of Ukraine. They can't even call it a "war" or even an "invasion". Go to Russia and protest on the street about the Ukraine/ Russia conflict and see what happens to you. So, to point out these sort of rulings carried out at such authoritarian country and try to link it to Quran is ridiculous in my opinion (regardless of their leader's claim that it is based on teaching of Quran or not!). If you believe them and accept their reasoning then you are two peas of the same pod!

The fact that other regimes are authoritarian in no way changes the facts of this case.

Look at a totalitarian country like N. Korea! What is the condition of human rights there? Are you blaming them for teachings of Quran as well?

There you go. If you can't see how ridiculous that question is, then there's little I can do for you.

Controlling and taming the subjects (repression) is how some authoritarian/ totalitarian regimes survive and stay in power. They are NOT good examples of any religion! If Quran wasn't there Iran would still carry out such acts.

That statement is 100% gratuitous. There is nothing to indicate it's true.

 

[stevecanuck]

In any book - written by any author - If you are told -- killing is bad and saving one soul is like saving the entire humanity (5:32)

That's the second time you've posted that lie. I told you about the conditional phrase regarding being guilty of "corruption", and that the next verse says to kill those people, yet you trot it put again. So, who sounds like a paid shill? Certainly not me.

 

[stevecanuck]

It is the claim of the OP that the Quran and traditional interpretation are reliably originated with Muhammad

Mostly. In fact it's my claim that the Qur'an is believed by Muslims to originate with Mohamed (via Gabriel, via Allah), and that it represents verbatim language therefrom. Not sure if that's hair-splitting.

(Btw, I'll be in Avalon Beach for 6 months starting Oct 11. I'll buy you a beer next time your up that way).

 

[BrightShadow]

I showed the direct link between the wording of Iran's ruling and the wording in verse 5:33. Is that so or not?

Who hired you to show the link? Even if the regime officially announces that their ruling is in direct compliance with the teachings of the Quran - still an intelligent person should not buy it. You are not just buying it - you are endorsing it and trying to validate it by linking it to a verse you cherry picked out of countless verses that totally contradicts your line of thinking and the worse part is - you are not even realizing that you are actually trying to validate the act of this regime because by trying to link it to the Quran - you are trying to show their religion directed them to put these two LGBTQ individuals to such a predicament.

The fact that other regimes are authoritarian in no way changes the facts of this case.

It does!
I do not know which country you are from and I do not know if you ever lived under an authoritarian regime or not. If you haven't then it would be difficult for you to realize what the civilians go through just to stay out of trouble. They can live a good enough life as long as they don't go against the government! If such a regime goes after you then little can save you! According to the post - even these two individuals were trying to escape and were caught at the border.
So, it does change everything when you are considering examples of regime like that and not realizing that they are not the honorable examples! Such a regime will stop at nothing if it feels threatened about something and wants to eliminate the threat! So, linking their ruling with Quran - is disingenuous. You know better!

That's the second time you've posted that lie. I told you about the conditional phrase regarding being guilty of "corruption", and that the next verse says to kill those people, yet you trot it put again. So, who sounds like a paid shill? Certainly not me.

Your interpretation is flawed! You are reading with a corrupted mindset IMO. Like I said earlier - any Tom, Dick or Harry would come to different conclusion than you. I can repeat it a 3rd time or a 100th time - you still won't get it!
Let me try a 3rd time anyways - when a writer mentions killing is bad and mentions saving one soul is like saving the entire humanity then with the same note mentions "forgiveness" is better then it should be obvious that killing is discouraged as a punishment unless as a last resort and only for extreme cases! This is not rocket science!
Verses are subject to interpretation and people like you are obviously interpreting it in the darkest possible way! Remember - this religion won't spread the way it did - if everyone was interpreting its doctrine in the corrupted and flawed way as you are doing. There are many verses in this book that are obviously good but you choose to linger on a couple of verses that you wrongly feel means something that it doesn't!
"Paid chill" is exposed! It wasn't that hard to spot in the first place. You were exposed even on the first page of this thread! I understand you have to continue. So, carry on! But occasionally I will expose you!

 

[stevecanuck]

Who hired you to show the link?

I stopped reading right there. We're done.

 

[BrightShadow]

I stopped reading right there. We're done.

Who brought it up first?
Your post #305 here in this thread on page 16 - who brought up "paid shill"?
here is your quote...

Are you a paid shill?

A taste of your own medicine!

 

[Revoltingest]

Iranian woman dies ‘after being beaten by morality police’ over hijab law
And this hussy still didn't wear a veil while
she was lying in the hospital in her coma.