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

[Sedim Haba]

Sorry to hear you have bad experience with religious groups.
That in it self does not make a religion wrong or evil. It migh be that humans are the one doing wrong no matter if they are religious or not.

Personally I have friends in many different religions and non of us critique the others for believing differently.

I think otherwise.

Same temple. There was a wall full of pamphlets, of what I guess was translations of
Baha'i teachings. I was amazed, I never knew there was so many written languages.
Really. Way WAY more than a dozen. You know what was conspicuous by it's absence?
Hebrew. Nope. (No empty rack slot that they ran out either) Ya, made it plain to me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think otherwise.

Same temple. There was a wall full of pamphlets, of what I guess was translations of
Baha'i teachings. I was amazed, I never knew there was so many written languages.
Really. Way WAY more than a dozen. You know what was conspicuous by it's absence?
Hebrew. Nope. (No empty rack slot that they ran out either) Ya, made it plain to me.

The most easy way to solve it, would be to go to one of the Baha'i followers and make them aware of the missing Hebrew translation. So they could get it translated.

No need to think it was intentional or racistic motivated

 

[Sedim Haba]

The most easy way to solve it, would be to go to one of the Baha'i followers and make them aware of the missing Hebrew translation. So they could get it translated.

No need to think it was intentional or racistic motivated

I think it was a intentional omission. Do I have to spell it out? Baha'i is a form of Islam.
Moslems hate Jews. It just follows.

I'm done with them all, all abrahamics, and their hate. NO messiah for them, ever.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think it was a intentional omission. Do I have to spell it out? Baha'i is a form of Islam.
Moslems hate Jews. It just follows.

I'm done with them all, and their hate. NO messiah for them, ever.

That is your personal view of every Muslim/Baha'i/other branches of Islam.

Not every Muslim or Baha'i has any form of ill intention toward Jews,
Do they exist yes probably. But you will find haters in all walk of life. Also in Jewish communies.

 

[Sedim Haba]

.... Also in Jewish communies.

Is that not what I pointed out in this thread? I show this in the youtube link.
ALL abrahamics have haters, and their brothers will never rebuke them.

 

[danieldemol]

I suppose you could argue that, but realistically, Muslims aren't going to just scrap their central holy book. So a more practical approach is to support reasonable interpretations of scripture, in my opinion.

I appreciate your informative attempts at educating us about more benign interpretations and sects of Islam.

However I wish to point out that you dont know the future. A century ago in the US it would have seemed unlikely that the people would turn away from the Bible but you can see it happening today.

So it is possible that people will eventually turn away from the Quran in Muslim lands, and considering that the Quran opposes such humane means as rehabilitative punishment and contains other backwards thought it is even desirable that this occurs.

Whilst I accept it is wise for people living in Muslim lands to support more benign interpretations for their safety we in the west largely don't have those requirements since Muslims are a minority here.

So we can and should critique outdated thought contained in the Quran and other so called holy books.

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

It's hardly different than the Bible in this regard. The violence of both should be criticized and condemned.

But you're only supposed to be looking at THEIR lust for violence. Not ours. It's all about keeping the focus away from ourselves.

 

[KWED]

This is certainly a crappy situation. And think it's ok to liken it to religious "freedom" in states like TX banning life saving medical drugs and procedures to people on "religious" grounds. (We're headed towards a Christian Sharia).

But where is all this Islamic hate coming from for you? (It's all I have ever seen you post: come in **** on the Quran, run away). I mean come on... Look at your thread history.

Do you actually think it's productive, or that you're proving anything?


View attachment 66294 View attachment 66295

This is a religious debate forum, so I fail to see what is confusing about people wanting to start religious debates here.
Islam is a religion. Its scripture contains some highly problematic elements. People will therefore raise theses issues on religious debate forums when debating religion.

 

[KWED]

Yes, Texas has executed so many gay pe ...... oh, wait a minute ...... no they haven't.

If this stupid whataboutism is all you're going to contribute, please leave.

I do think that parts of the US are approaching the point of "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing". The judiciary has been loaded with the religious right, and enforcement has always had that bias. Gilead beckons.

 

[KWED]

But that wasn't my point. My point is that the sins of other nations are their sins, not ours. While we commit plenty of our own.

Oppression and injustice is wrong, wherever it happens. We should always be ready to condemn it. Why wouldn't you?

 

[KWED]

Iran follows a hard-line Shi'a interpretation of Islam. As with any other religion's scriptures and texts, the Qur'an and hadith are also interpreted differently by various sects. I see little use in condemning the Qur'an rather than the more violent interpretations thereof.

But those "violent interpretations" are more often than not merely taking Allah and Muhammad at their word, rather than assuming they meant something else.
I applaud those who try to modernise Islam, but pretending the stuff that needs modernising isn't there is folly.

 

[KWED]

What constitutes "corruption on earth" is indeed a matter of interpretation, as is whether the verse even applies to our current times versus only the time in which it was written (or revealed, from the perspective of a Muslim).

It is certainly a problem that the Quran is often vague and ambiguous. It's just a shame that it wasn't as vague about the barbaric punishments.
But to address the meaning of "fasad" one really needs to consult authoritative Islam scholars. The one whose tafsir (explanation of the meaning of the Quran) is most widely used today is Ibn Kathir. He states that it includes disbelief and disobeying Allah.

From an Islamic perspective, the Quran is infallible and immutable. It is Allah's final and complete guide for all mankind - so yes, it still applies today, in its entirety. To reject even one word of the Quran is considered an act of kufr, taking the person out of Islam.

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for bringing that up, because it exposes one of the Islamopropagandists' favorite lies. You're referring to the quote in the previous verse (5:32 - which is told in the context of the Cane and Abel story):

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

"For other than", being the deal-breaker. Have you noticed how many times this verse is quoted WITHOUT the qualifier? Verse 5:33 then completes the thought by saying that such people should be killed. Whenever an apologist tries to tell you that Islam is all unicorns and rainbows, they are lying.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with either "manslaughter" or "corruption of the earth"

Those he try to debate that just expose their discrimination of other humans (their feelings),and discrimination should be another issue those Muslims better study a bit more

My Master has been very clear on this (something for Muslims to learn and unlearn their "wanting to kill humans who feel differently")

He said "nobody has the (Dharmic) right to criticise beliefs of others (meaning thoughts like beliefs and feelings; actions like harming/killing others can be criticised of course)".

So the Muslims (eager to) killing those who feel/belief differently are always wrong, however they mischievously try to spin it.

 

[KWED]

I haven't read the Koran or hadiths. But I see what
happens every time Islam melds with government.
It's a hideous result for liberty. So there's something
fundamentally troubling there, no matter what flavor
one believes.

The constitution of Saudi Arabia is the Quran and sunnah. Every law is developed under and in accordance with that influence.

 

[stvdv]

Great post!

Thank you brother, glad someone could appreciate it, as this is a major flaw of the Muslims who participate in killing people who believe, feel or think differently

 

[stvdv]

It's so hypocritical, too, since they've loved male homosexuality in the Middle East since ancient times! They love it just as much as the ancient Greeks and Romans! Just in Afghanistan, pederasty is still a very common practice and the soldiers are banging each other all the time, too. This scandalized Western military when they saw it (as well as being openly hit on by the Afghan men), but they didn't dare stop the boy banging lest their warlord allies turn against them.

The Saudis are known to get up to this sort of stuff, too. It's widespread in that part of the world.

Thank you for bringing that up. That also is a very, very good point

So these Muslims point fingers AND other bodyparts, while criticizing others who do the same, how sick they are with their killing of humans

Hypocrisy should be higher on the "NOT to Do" list of those Muslims. That alone proves how terribly, miserably, disgustingly wrong these Muslims are who kill, or even participate, or not reject this killing

 

[KWED]

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, Iranian clerics have taken "corruption on earth" to include being LGBT, which is a hard-line view. How is this supposed to be an inherent issue with the Qur'an itself?

The Quran (like the Bible and Torah that it was based on) prohibits homosexuality (more explicitly in the sunnah). Pretty much every scholar in history has included homosexuality under "spreading corruption" as it is explicitly disobeying Allah's law.

I suppose you could argue that, but realistically, Muslims aren't going to just scrap their central holy book. So a more practical approach is to support reasonable interpretations of scripture, in my opinion.

One of the problems is Islam's lack of supreme authority. Any suitably qualified person can call themselves a "scholar" and issue fatwa (legal rulings). What often happens is that the more moderate, revisionist elements are targeted by the fundamentalists. As we saw with ISIS, they considered anyone who strayed from a strict retentionist interpretation as not merely disbelievers, but "munafiq", or hypocrites, worse even that apostates. The Quran repeatedly condemns and attacks the munafiq, so it hardly surprising that ISIS followed its cue.

Look at the 6 Jan insurrection. Trump is rightly blamed for inciting it and may even be held legally responsible, even though he didn't explicitly order it.

 

[KWED]

Now let him try to do it and see him get the death penalty. Sorry, the shoe doesn't fit.

But in a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, homosexuals might well be executed. Even supposedly "enlightened" nations did it. The last execution for homosexuality in Britain was in 1835. It was a capital offence in the US until 1873.

 

[KWED]

Fasad means corruption. Not "corruption on earth".

The whole thesis in the OP is false.

Ha, nice try, but your usual attempt at deflection fails, as usual.
The addition of "on earth" makes no difference. Or are you claiming that the Quran is only referring to "corruption in space"?

 

[stvdv]

I would like to see where in there OP it is said that Fasad means corruption (only)

Well for starters it was placed exactly after the words corruption
Also you mixed around some words of @stevecanuck which is not smart to do when trying to prove someone is wrong

Maybe you were interpreting the @stevecanuck his use of underline

I interpreted that @stevecanuck used underline to focus on these two parts and NOT to define nor focus on Fasad

But maybe @stevecanuck can tell me whether I got this wrong or not (I use this kind of underlining myself frequently)

IF @stevecanuck meant Fasad to mean the previous underline part THEN he had to underline the word Fasad also, which he didn't