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

[stevecanuck]

That might have carried more weight had you not just indicated that you don't know what a god is, or else use language cavalierly. Perhaps you meant that atheists critique Reuters or any of the other news sources you just called gods.

The comment is incorrect whatever "gods" mean to you unless it is fallacious thought. Critiquing that is the skeptics chief occupation in these threads.

I just read the following words on another thread in reference to the war in Ukraine: "I do know that God knows how useless this war has been." Although I declined to comment, had I, it would have been something to indicate how useless this god is. That wouldn't have been a criticism of this god, which I don't believe exists, although it probably would be understood as that by its author and most other theists including you. Nevertheless, it would be a criticism of the incoherence of at once calling a god loving and all-powerful, then noting that it is described as sitting idly by. That's incoherent. The alert apologist recognizes this, and so, if asked about it, devises some explanation as to why this is somehow the behavior of a loving god.

References to Quranic scripture by skeptics disagreeing with you in this thread are not references to Allah, who is not believed to exist, or his ways, but rather, references to what Muslims believe and have used to justify their atrocities.

If that appears to be a critique of a god to you, you might want to try to assimilate what atheism means. Atheists don't believe in gods, just like presumably, you don't believe in leprechauns and vampires. Do you critique their decisions to bite people in necks or hide pots of gold? Hopefully not. And if you did have a comment about either of these, it wouldn't be a criticism of creatures you don't believe exist, but in the thoughts of others regarding these imaginary creatures.

Bonus question: What are the characteristics of the existent? What do all things that exist have in common that is untrue about all nonexistent imaginations? Contrast wolves, which do exist, with werewolves, which we assume don't. Then ask yourself why gods have the same manifestation in nature as werewolves - nowhere to be found in time or space, and unable to affect or be affected by reality. None of those things are true of wolves, because they exist, and that's the point.

And how do we know that wolves exist but (probably) not werewolves? By these criteria, which manifest as evidence to the senses for the real, but not the nonexistent. This is the basis for an empirical epistemology, and why we shouldn't believe anything exists which cannot generate sensible evidence of that existence. That's why I'm an atheist. I can't distinguish gods from werewolves. And when I refer to either, I am only referring to their descriptions, which do exist - not the entities themselves. And if either gods or werewolves ever do manifest in nature, we recategorize them as real.

What an excellent post! Too bad it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[stevecanuck]

Nope. It's not just untrue, it's mindbogglingly absurd. Could you please coach me how a seen and alif can be read as a sadh and ye? Thanks in advance for your future coaching.

Just to put a pin in this discussion, Quran surah Al Maidah 33 (QS 5: 33) in arabic and english translation - Alquran english gives the following transliteration of the phrase in question - "fee alardi fasadan".

In Arabic it's - فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا

To break it down:

fee = in
alardi = the earth
fasadan = corruption/mischief.

 

[Goldemar]

Not 100% but it could be true absolutely. Not that I blindly believe it, but Reuters is probably the oldest news source I have ever known in my life so I am inclined to have some trust. Can't help it.

So it is reasonable to suppose that the Iranian regime did indeed make reference to 'corruption on earth' as their basis for sentencing those women to death. That seems a clear reference to the Quran. Whether or not that is how the relevant verse has been used in other cases takes nothing away from how the Iranian regime appear to have used it in this case.

 

[firedragon]

Just to put a pin in this discussion, Quran surah Al Maidah 33 (QS 5: 33) in arabic and english translation - Alquran english gives the following transliteration of the phrase in question - "fee alardi fasadan".

In Arabic it's - فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا

To break it down:

fee = in
alardi = the earth
fasadan = corruption/mischief.

Nice arabic lesson.

It's still not the same al fasadhin fil ardh. Cutting and pasting things does not change anything. You know in your heart that you don't know what you are talking about. Some ignorant people will like your comment because they are also Muslim haters and hate mongers just like you living off it. Doesnt change anything.

Could you tell me what is majroor and jar in this sentence? This is the third time I am asking though yo8u ignored it several times. Simple & basic.

 

[firedragon]

So it is reasonable to suppose that the Iranian regime did indeed make reference to 'corruption on earth'

Anything is a possibility. You see, in logic, one could say that there is an alligator playing a violin behind the moon. It's a logical possibility.

That seems a clear reference to the Quran.

I would like to see the real evidence and the context. But what you are saying is possible.

Whether or not that is how the relevant verse has been used in other cases takes nothing away from how the Iranian regime appear to have used it in this case.

Your whole position is based on a wish. It seems like you wish its all true.

This person in this thread spreading his hatred is saying that spreading corruption as a word is enough to kill them. Quite simple right? But did you investigate it at all or are you worshiping him like God? Think about it.

 

[Goldemar]

Anything is a possibility. You see, in logic, one could say that there is an alligator playing a violin behind the moon. It's a logical possibility.



I would like to see the real evidence and the context. But what you are saying is possible.



Your whole position is based on a wish. It seems like you wish its all true.

This person in this thread spreading his hatred is saying that spreading corruption as a word is enough to kill them. Quite simple right? But did you investigate it at all or are you worshiping him like God? Think about it.

I am solely going off the Reuters report which I place a certain amount of trust in. That report is clear enough in its references. On the basis of that report, I have reasonable grounds for believing that the Iranian regime have used 'corruption on earth' to justify sentencing those women to death. If you also place a certain amount of trust in the Reuters report, I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion.

Of course, the Reuters report could have got it all wrong. That is possible. But I can only go on what Reuters have reported and as you yourself have said they are generally a pretty trustworthy news source.

My concerns revolve around the Iranian regime's sentencing of those women to death for what appears to have been their LGBTQ activism. Since I identify as queer myself, that is a big concern. That they appear to have used the Quran to justify their actions is in turn a big concern. No wishes on my part. If Moslems who know the Quran are using it to justify these horrendous actions, then that is cause for concern.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's still not the same al fasadhin fil ardh.

And just when I thought you couldn't get more desperate, you do that. Nobody (other than you) has ever said the phrase was 'al fasadhin fil ardh'. You have just imposed English syntax on an Arabic phrase in a pathetic attempt to further imply that black is white. For example, 'al kura al buni' translates to 'the brown ball' when adjusted for English syntax, but word for word it means 'the ball the brown'. Again, you are fooling nobody who doesn't want to be fooled.

(And yes, I realize I've just handed you your next deflection. You will now use the example I gave and pretend it proves I know nothing about Arabic. Please don't disappoint me).

Cutting and pasting things does not change anything.

You know that simply trotting out a phrase like 'cutting and pasting' doesn't actually mean anything.

You know in your heart that you don't know what you are talking about. Some ignorant people will like your comment because they are also Muslim haters and hate mongers just like you living off it. Doesnt change anything.

You're following the script perfectly. After the above strawman, you launch into your ad hom, and gratuitous denial act.

Could you tell me what is majroor and jar in this sentence? This is the third time I am asking though yo8u ignored it several times. Simple & basic.

I see we've reached the final act. Ladies and gentlemen - behold the Great Hoops of Deflection. In this scene, I must either jump through said hoops by answering a question that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, or it PROOOOVES I know nothing.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[KWED]

That might have carried more weight had you not just indicated that you don't know what a god is, or else use language cavalierly. Perhaps you meant that atheists critique Reuters or any of the other news sources you just called gods.

The comment is incorrect whatever "gods" mean to you unless it is fallacious thought. Critiquing that is the skeptics chief occupation in these threads.

I just read the following words on another thread in reference to the war in Ukraine: "I do know that God knows how useless this war has been." Although I declined to comment, had I, it would have been something to indicate how useless this god is. That wouldn't have been a criticism of this god, which I don't believe exists, although it probably would be understood as that by its author and most other theists including you. Nevertheless, it would be a criticism of the incoherence of at once calling a god loving and all-powerful, then noting that it is described as sitting idly by. That's incoherent. The alert apologist recognizes this, and so, if asked about it, devises some explanation as to why this is somehow the behavior of a loving god.

References to Quranic scripture by skeptics disagreeing with you in this thread are not references to Allah, who is not believed to exist, or his ways, but rather, references to what Muslims believe and have used to justify their atrocities.

If that appears to be a critique of a god to you, you might want to try to assimilate what atheism means. Atheists don't believe in gods, just like presumably, you don't believe in leprechauns and vampires. Do you critique their decisions to bite people in necks or hide pots of gold? Hopefully not. And if you did have a comment about either of these, it wouldn't be a criticism of creatures you don't believe exist, but in the thoughts of others regarding these imaginary creatures.

Bonus question: What are the characteristics of the existent? What do all things that exist have in common that is untrue about all nonexistent imaginations? Contrast wolves, which do exist, with werewolves, which we assume don't. Then ask yourself why gods have the same manifestation in nature as werewolves - nowhere to be found in time or space, and unable to affect or be affected by reality. None of those things are true of wolves, because they exist, and that's the point.

And how do we know that wolves exist but (probably) not werewolves? By these criteria, which manifest as evidence to the senses for the real, but not the nonexistent. This is the basis for an empirical epistemology, and why we shouldn't believe anything exists which cannot generate sensible evidence of that existence. That's why I'm an atheist. I can't distinguish gods from werewolves. And when I refer to either, I am only referring to their descriptions, which do exist - not the entities themselves. And if either gods or werewolves ever do manifest in nature, we recategorize them as real.

It's a shame that such a reasonable and accurate explanation will just be dismissed with some glib non sequitur.

 

[KWED]

But ignorant hatred spreading and hypocrisy could be shown.

Sorry, not been following this closely. I assume you are still speaking about the Quran?

 

[KWED]

Anything is a possibility. You see, in logic, one could say that there is an alligator playing a violin behind the moon. It's a logical possibility.

No it isn't. They don't have opposable thumbs for starters.

Your whole position is based on a wish. It seems like you wish its all true.

Still talking about the Quran, yes?

This person in this thread spreading his hatred is saying that spreading corruption as a word is enough to kill them. Quite simple right? But did you investigate it at all or are you worshiping him like God? Think about it.

With all due respect, you really need to read the Quran if you want to engage in debates about it.
It specifically says that execution (by torture) is prescribed as the punishment for "spreading corruption". Allah's "perfect and unchangeable word" apparently. However, I do agree that such hate speech is something we should all try to eliminate form public discourse.

 

[firedragon]

I am solely going off the Reuters report which I place a certain amount of trust in. That report is clear enough in its references. On the basis of that report, I have reasonable grounds for believing that the Iranian regime have used 'corruption on earth' to justify sentencing those women to death. If you also place a certain amount of trust in the Reuters report, I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion.

Yes. That's reasonable. To me, it's not personally good enough. I do have trust in Reuters, but not all the time. Especially when it comes to Iran or any other countries with political conflict and sanctions. But, it could be 100% true.

I just don't place my trust on could be's. Hope you understand.

My concerns revolve around the Iranian regime's sentencing of those women to death for what appears to have been their LGBTQ activism.

It's a most brutal thing to do. And unscholarly. It's a cheap thing to do that. I agree completely.

 

[firedragon]

Nobody (other than you) has ever said the phrase was 'al fasadhin fil ardh'.

Err. You are wrong mate. If you want, read Imam Mujahid. Or read Ibn Hajars Thahzeebuth thahzeeb. And, it's there in the Qur'an. Plenty of times. Read a little.

You are talking about a topic you don't have any knowledge of.

You have just imposed English syntax on an Arabic phrase

Nope. I even gave you Arabic grammar. Just that you don't have the humility to accept you don't understand it. Its so simple.

 

[Goldemar]

Yes. That's reasonable. To me, it's not personally good enough. I do have trust in Reuters, but not all the time. Especially when it comes to Iran or any other countries with political conflict and sanctions. But, it could be 100% true.

I just don't place my trust on could be's. Hope you understand.



It's a most brutal thing to do. And unscholarly. It's a cheap thing to do that. I agree completely.

There's also a story on the BBC News website entitled 'I want to see the rainbow flag raised in Iran' which references the Mizan News agency, apparently linked to Iran's judiciary, as having said that these two women had been found guilty of human trafficking and 'corruption on earth'. According to the BBC news article, the Mizan News agency denied that these women were prosecuted because of their activism but Iranian human rights groups have said they were accused of 'spreading homosexuality', 'promoting Christianity', and communicating with media hostile to the Islamic Republic. You can find the BBC news story on the BBC News website, Middle East section.

 

[firedragon]

There's also a story on the BBC News website entitled 'I want to see the rainbow flag raised in Iran' which references the Mizan News agency, apparently linked to Iran's judiciary, as having said that these two women had been found guilty of human trafficking and 'corruption on earth'. According to the BBC news article, the Mizan News agency denied that these women were prosecuted because of their activism but Iranian human rights groups have said they were accused of 'spreading homosexuality', 'promoting Christianity', and communicating with media hostile to the Islamic Republic. You can find the BBC news story on the BBC News website, Middle East section.

Hmm. Could be true. So this means they are falsely making up accusations to give them a sentence? Is that correct?

Anyway, I did read an article on another news website. Cant remember exactly. They say that Iran uses the phrase "corruption on the land" to address anyone tries to "undermine" the Iranian government. This is just nonsense. This is the problem with this thread. The problem is it's very uneducated and pseudo scholarly. That's bottomline.

If Iran is doing something wrong, it's arbitrary in this matter. Because I know the subject, and there is Islamic scholarship around it for over a thousand years. Even the most fanatical exegesis of "corruption on the land" is not what this thread is trying to paint. That's the point.

Corruption on the land is a specific phrase used repeatedly in the Qur'an. I can name them all, and give the context over the counter. Because even someone as extreme or as fanatical as Ibn thaimeeyah will not exegete this way.

One of the oldest exegetes of the Qur'an called Mujahid al Jabr says using the methodology of Qur'an bi Qur'an that this phrase is referring to a set of people its assigned to in the Quran giving the example of a mosquito. They suck blood, and are the most dangerous creatures in the world. They kill innocent people "in the name of God". Qur'an says "Kaaloo thakaa sama biullah". that means they kill innocent people "mentioning the name of Allah". Do you understand? The phrase "corruption in the land" refers to these murderers who kill in the name of God. They are pretenders. They claim to be reformers but are lying. This is the definition. It's all over the Qur'an. And for these murderers, the sentence is "death".

Not some LGBTQ or anything of the sort. The whole thread is absolutely wrong.

That's the point. I honoured your question because you asked, but that's to me irrelevant to the false exegesis of this thread.

 

[Goldemar]

Hmm. Could be true. So this means they are falsely making up accusations to give them a sentence? Is that correct?

Anyway, I did read an article on another news website. Cant remember exactly. They say that Iran uses the phrase "corruption on the land" to address anyone tries to "undermine" the Iranian government. This is just nonsense. This is the problem with this thread. The problem is it's very uneducated and pseudo scholarly. That's bottomline.

If Iran is doing something wrong, it's arbitrary in this matter. Because I know the subject, and there is Islamic scholarship around it for over a thousand years. Even the most fanatical exegesis of "corruption on the land" is not what this thread is trying to paint. That's the point.

Corruption on the land is a specific phrase used repeatedly in the Qur'an. I can name them all, and give the context over the counter. Because even someone as extreme or as fanatical as Ibn thaimeeyah will not exegete this way.

One of the oldest exegetes of the Qur'an called Mujahid al Jabr says using the methodology of Qur'an bi Qur'an that this phrase is referring to a set of people its assigned to in the Quran giving the example of a mosquito. They suck blood, and are the most dangerous creatures in the world. They kill innocent people "in the name of God". Qur'an says "Kaaloo thakaa sama biullah". that means they kill innocent people "mentioning the name of Allah". Do you understand? The phrase "corruption in the land" refers to these murderers who kill in the name of God. They are pretenders. They claim to be reformers but are lying. This is the definition. It's all over the Qur'an. And for these murderers, the sentence is "death".

Not some LGBTQ or anything of the sort. The whole thread is absolutely wrong.

That's the point. I honoured your question because you asked, but that's to me irrelevant to the false exegesis of this thread.

I understand what you are saying. And I can't comment on the OP's intentions in creating this thread. But it does seem as if the Iranian regime are using this phrase from the Quran in this much looser way and that is a problem. Whether it is in keeping with historical exegesis or not may well be relevant to your ongoing debate with the OP but the bigger problem is how these Moslems at least seem to be interpreting/mobilising this phrase for their own ends. My concern lies with how Moslems today - or some Moslems at any rate - interpret the Quran rather than with historical exegetes. Because that is what impacts my world.

 

[stevecanuck]

Err. You are wrong mate. If you want, read Imam Mujahid. Or read Ibn Hajars Thahzeebuth thahzeeb. And, it's there in the Qur'an. Plenty of times. Read a little.

You get full marks for originality. Nobody can string out a deflection like you can.

There are indeed verses such as 2:11 that use the root 'fsd' as a verb in a conjugation - "Do not cause corruption on the earth" (2nd person masculine plural (form IV) imperfect verb, jussive mood - according to corpus.quran.com) In that case the 'fsd' comes before the "f'il ardi". In 5:33 - you know, the verse that prescribes death for those guilty of causing corruption - it's a noun and comes after the 'f'il ardi'. Okay, so what? You can release all the squirrels and hold up all the hoops you want to, but nothing changes the meaning of 5:33. And nobody has to believe either one of us. They can just look it up for themselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You get full marks for originality. Nobody can string out a deflection like you can.

There are indeed verses such as 2:11 that use the root 'fsd' as a verb in a conjugation - "Do not cause corruption on the earth" (2nd person masculine plural (form IV) imperfect verb, jussive mood - according to corpus.quran.com) In that case the 'fsd' comes before the "f'il ardi". In 5:33 - you know, the verse that prescribes death for those guilty of causing corruption - it's a noun and comes after the 'f'il ardi'. Okay, so what? You can release all the squirrels and hold up all the hoops you want to, but nothing changes the meaning of 5:33. And nobody has to believe either one of us. They can just look it up for themselves.

I don't get it. What is that you want? To turn all believers in Islam into what?

 

[stevecanuck]

Yes. That's reasonable. To me, it's not personally good enough. I do have trust in Reuters, but not all the time. Especially when it comes to Iran or any other countries with political conflict and sanctions. But, it could be 100% true.

You accidentally on purpose forgot about these sources:

From the BBC: Iran sentences two LGBT activists to death
From NBC: Iran sentences LGBTQ activists to death for 'human trafficking'
From CBS: Iran sentences 2 LGBTQ rights activists to death for "spreading corruption on earth," rights groups say - CBS News
From Fox: Iran sentences two women to death over LGBTQ activism and Christianity, human rights organization says
From CNN: Two Iranians sentenced to death, including LGBTQ activist | CNN
From VOA: Iran Sentences 2 Women to Death for 'Human Trafficking'
From RFERL: Two Iranian Women Sentenced To Death For LGBT Activism

 

[stevecanuck]

The phrase "corruption in the land" refers to these murderers who kill in the name of God.

Proof? Example from the qur'an with full context (both kinds of context - textual and historical)?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You accidentally on purpose forgot about these sources:

From the BBC: Iran sentences two LGBT activists to death
From NBC: Iran sentences LGBTQ activists to death for 'human trafficking'
From CBS: Iran sentences 2 LGBTQ rights activists to death for "spreading corruption on earth," rights groups say - CBS News
From Fox: Iran sentences two women to death over LGBTQ activism and Christianity, human rights organization says
From CNN: Two Iranians sentenced to death, including LGBTQ activist | CNN
From VOA: Iran Sentences 2 Women to Death for 'Human Trafficking'
From RFERL: Two Iranian Women Sentenced To Death For LGBT Activism

Okay, it is true. Now what?