Yuku free message boards

3. (Cont.) What Constitutes Corruption on Earth?

'Corruption on earth' has been a very loosely-defined category. ('War against God' is also vague, but appears to be used in much the same way as 'corruption on earth'). Given the flexibility of this category, I suspect Mohammad exploited it in such a way to use it for whatever his current objectives happened to be, such as assassinations, raids, expansionist aggressive wars, etc. Each time, he could say he is defending Allah from the disbelievers' evil intentions. I have googled "corruption on earth" and "death penalty" and obtained quite a large number of hits. But the consistent theme is that it is anything that seems to threaten or challenge Islam, whether the alleged infraction be violent or of a non-violent nature.

Consistent with this broad interpretation, in Iran in current times, corruption on earth has been exemplified by "Insulting Islam and clergy," "opposing the Islamic Revolution," etc., each punishable by death. Source:www.iran-e-sabz.org/news/torture4.htm

In a high-profile case, a progressively-minded Iranian cleric named Eshkevari was charged with war against god and corruption on earth, and was facing the death penalty. His crime/sin was saying things like Iran had to be more tolerant of pluralism, wearing of (women's) head scarf is not a mandatory tradition, etc. Source: www.faithfreedom.org/oped/StephenGill51020.htm

Also in Iran, a 35-year-old woman, accused of corruption on earth for participating in a porographic movie, spent 8 years in prison and then was put to death by stoning. Source: rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=&ID=7621

Here is one example of how the term has been applied in Saudi Arabia, still, in the modern era:

"The death penalty has always applied to anyone proved guilty of "corruption on earth," a phrase that can include "magic, charlatanism and sorcery." Much is left to the discretion of the judge, who can invoke the death penalty on the grounds of the severity of the act or the character of the offender, even if no fatalities resulted. Capital punishment still applies for what the west regards as minor sins, such as adultery, and although Saudi law requires there to have been at least four reliable first-hand witnesses to the act, long-time western residents claim that on many occasions the death penalty has been passed without the required witnesses.
More than 100 people were executed last year, bringing the total since 1991, according to Amnesty International, to almost 1,000; in a country with a total population of about 20m. Up to last week, according to official figures, 81 people have this year been beheaded or otherwise executed for crimes ranging from theft to murder and adultery."
source: www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_News_04.htm

For an additional Amnesty International link, see Source: www.amnesty.ca/SaudiArabia/4.php

Sexual relations between a non-Muslim man and Muslim woman is also considered corruption on earth, punishable by death. Source: www.ecoi.net/doc/en/IR/content/5/2034-2168 (at that page, scroll down to "11.2001").

Here's another example of the death penalty for corruption on earth: Source: www.farsinet.com/news/nov2000wk2.html

I suppose this could go on and on. However, given that these categories of "war against God" and "corruption on earth" are so loose, it is clear that almost anything that goes against strict Koran-based Islam in some way can be treated as a crime punishable by death. So much that disbelievers say and do, simply in the course of living their lives, is contrary to Islam. Therefore, Mohammad, or any of his successors and followers can put a person to death if they deem, according to their interpretation of the Koran and other core texts, that a significant attack on Islam has taken place.

Apparently, this judgement need not take place in a sharia court, or any court. In countries such as Pakistan and Egypt, we hear reports of large groups (as in, thousands of people) of Islamists being provoked, due to some perceived slight against Islam. For example, just recently, an Egyptian Coptic nun was stabbed in a church, an incident that apparently occurred because Islamists were offended by an alleged play that had taken place 2 years earlier in which a young person leaves Islam. Source: www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008639.php

If you look at some other articles on that site, you'll see that there were thousands of Islamists protesting the freedom of artistic expression of the Copts. If you look at Spencer's pages and links, you'll see all kinds of examples of people being killed by Islamists due to some perceived slight against Islam. Another site I recommend is www.faithfreedom.org/ They have quite a lot more evidence than I have presented here, even though the phrase "corruption on earth," "war against God" are not very often used.

I think we can conclude, from this brief sample, that there is plenty of empirical evidence for the interpretation that a wide variety of behaviours that non-Muslims (disbelievers) would consider normal or unoffensive are taken as corruption in the earth, war against God, etc., by hard-core Islamists.

4. Oppression of the Weak, and Treaties.

Mohammad's statements about oppression are as vague as his statements about corruption, mischief, and war against God. Anything that could be perceived as a threat to Islam is fair game. However, a good test of your hypothesis about sparing the oppressed would involve Mohammad's (Allah's) own conduct/recommendation when he was in a position of power, when he had the upper hand. Clearly, the Koran says do not call for peace when you have the upper hand (47:35).

As for Mohammad's treaties, you've got to be joking. Mohammad did not honour any treaty that got in the way of his larger objective, which was to make Islam conquer all other religions. The first part of Sura 9 involves Mohammad (uh, Allah) absolving himself of any obligation to a treaty with the idolaters. His treaties weren't worth anything. For more on this issue, see Source:www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm For Mohammad, treaties were just a temporary measure, and could easily be unilaterally overruled by him.

Note: Correction on page 5. idolaters "unclean" should be (9:2


6. Will Only Very Strict "Slaves of Allah" be Spared?

I think the weight of the statements made about believers suggests that all believers are not equal. Allah certainly favours those who are more devoted to the cause of Islam. These notes show that (presumably able-bodied) believers who turn back from a fight, for example, are certainly in trouble with Allah, at the very least.

Allah grades (or ranks) the honour among believers (4:95, 4:96, 8:4). He favours those who are active in promoting Islam rather than mere sedentary believers (4:95). Only single-minded slaves of Allah will escape eternal doom (37:127-12 .

Prophets, martyrs, saints, etc., are best company and favoured by Allah (4:69).

Allah tests believers by compelling them to kill unbelievers (8:17); true believers will kill or be killed for Allah. Allah could punish the disbelievers directly, but instead he tests some people (believers) by using other people (disbelievers); those who are slain in battle will be rewarded (47:4).

Allah uses the prospect of battle to find out what is in mens hearts, disbelievers stay away from the fight, but believers go into the fight. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded (3:154-159; 3:167-172).

Must not turn away from fighting the unbelievers, otherwise go to hell (8:15-16). Must fight, or receive a painful doom from Allah (9:39). Believers must wage war for Allah, whether they like it or not (2:216). Fight the unbelievers using your weapons (heavy or light) or your wealth (9:41), your wealth and your lives (61:11). Fight for Allah against the unbelievers (4:76)

FireGarden,

One more thing: You said people are not to be killed simply for the crime of disbelief. As I noted, disbelief is the worst sin according to the Koran. As Steve's Intolernace list shows, disbelievers will receive the maximum penalty, hell-fire. Finally, if disbelief was okay with Allah/Mohammad, why is the penalty for Muslim apostacy death*?

*Apostates, those who reject their belief in Allah, will receive an awful doom because they have chosen the life of the world rather than the Hereafter (16:106-107). Apostates condemned, doomed (47:25, 47:32, 47:34). Apostates to be put to death by believers (9:11-12). As everyone knows, many Islamists still seem hell-bent on enforcing this law, which is why many apostates who are critical of Islam remain anonymous. Another point concerns females. I believe the penalty for a female apostate is essentially a life sentence of house arrest. (I could be mistaken on that one). Children are not to be put to death, but may face the penalty when they get older. Also, men must be of sound mind.

FireGarden,

A few more things:

1. You dramatized the fact that I did not happen to include 4:90 in my list of verses where Allah/Mohammad orders the killing of disbelievers. I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole. I maintained 4:89 and 4:91 because, when I read the whole passage originally, 4:90 did not provide a categorical condemnation or prohibition of the killing ordered. What 4:90 provides is an alleged protection against disbelievers who don't defend themselves or fight back, or who are involved in some kind of treaty in connection to the Muslims. I've already pointed out that Mohammad's treaties were merely temporary tactical moves within the context of the overall strategy of making all religion for Allah. He could overrule them at any time if it served his larger goals. In 4:90, those disbelievers who are indifferent, or who surrender, or offer peace, when faced with an attacking group of Mohammad's believers, are "protected." Given that this occurs in the context of being attacked (or under threat of attack), these non-fighting disbelievers are in fact subdued. This is not peaceful co-existence between believers and disbelievers. Again, this so-called protection fits well within the Islamic war policy of kill, convert, and/or subdue. Let's look at the three verses together (from the SAB/Q):

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
4:90 Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.
4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

So by your reckoning, this so-called protection to disbelievers somehow obviates my citations of 4:89 and 4:91? Like I said in the original posting, disbelievers were kept alive if there was some advantage for Islam in keeping them alive. For one thing, it would be counterproductive for an attacking army to waste time and energy in fighting people who weren't fighting back. For another, the conquered people could be subdued and forced to pay a "protection tax", or they could be used and bought and sold as slaves. Some of the subdued people might even decide to declare a conversion to Islam, reasoning that that it is the most safe and feasible solution under the circumstances. This is all part of the strategy, where killing, the threat of being killed, or pressuring/forcing disbelievers to live in a subdued state, all work as tools in the service of Mohammad's goal of conquering all religions. Any protection or treaty would be unilaterally overturned by Mohammad if it served his larger objective. The overall goal trumps any treaty. Therefore, 4:90 is not strong enough to be worth mentioning.

Another issue that has to be addressed, with respect to this passage, is Why is there the context of a fight or a battle in the first place? In other words, why did Mohammad and his warriors launch all of those attacks? If Mohammad was such a great prophet, why did he have to use force, such as assassinations and aggressive wars, in his attempt to establish Islam? Apparently, he failed as a prophet. For example, Mohammad tells us that critics mocked him as a "mad poet" (37:36). (Allah, of course, would doom them, 37:34-37:40). With only a small party of followers, Mohammad eventually turned to the use of force. He would probably not have succeeded without the use of force. His religion would have been just another of the many practiced in the region at the time.

2. You also question my citation of 8:73, asking what is the point of citing it. It's clearly relevant to my point that the Koran indictates that the mere presence of disbelievers living together in the land causes confusion and corruption in the land. Why should believers be so intolerant of other people's life-ways, that they consider many aspects of those life-ways corruption on earth? In my earlier replies, I've noted that there are statements in the Koran claiming that disbelievers are on the side of Satan, fighting against Allah. The disbelievers are characterized as defiant in their disbelief. This shows the paranoid, imperialist mentality of Mohammad. It also shows that Mohammad wants the believers to unite in order to stop or counteract the corruption and confusion in the land (i.e., stop or counteract the disbelievers from acting freely as disbelievers). This is necesary when one understands that the larger mission is to make all religion for Allah.

3. Allah's fairness in judgement.

Another consideration that puts these verses in context is the issue of Allah's fairness. Clearly, from any disbeliever's perspective, Allah is hardly fair. Here are some examples (Source SAB/Q):

17:16 And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.
17:17 How many generations have We destroyed since Noah! And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins of His slaves

Allah destroys whole townships, whole generations. This category includes innocent people. All the men, women, children, and infants cannot be guilty of abominations! What could they possibly be doing to deserve the genocide carried out on them by Allah?

3:177 Those who purchase disbelief at the price of faith harm Allah not at all, but theirs will be a painful doom.
3:178 And let not those who disbelieve imagine that the rein We give them bodeth good unto their souls. We only give them rein that they may grow in sinfulness. And theirs will be a shameful doom.

Not only are people doomed because they choose disbelief over faith, but it says that Allah gives them free rein so that they can sin even more!

On the Last Day, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and nursing mothers will abandon/forget their infants (22:2). But how can infants have sinned? What did the women do to deserve that?

Here's the Mohammad/Allah policy toward critics:

37:34 Lo! thus deal We with the guilty.
37:35 For when it was said unto them, There is no God save Allah, they were scornful
37:36 And said: Shall we forsake our gods for a mad poet?
37:37 Nay, but he brought the Truth, and he confirmed those sent (before him).
37:38 Lo! (now) verily ye taste the painful doom -
37:39 Ye are requited naught save what ye did -
37:40 Save single-minded slaves of Allah;

Here is the general policy toward disbelievers versus believers:

48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.

This verse, and the above verses, should demonstrate to most people that Allah is not fair. He has no sense of justice, as we in the West would use the term justice. He is the ultimate autocrat. He kills critics for exercising freedom of expression. His interpretation of what constitutes corruption, war against God, oppression, persecution, mischief, etc., all pertains to how it affects Islam and Islamists, not for how it affects humanity more generally (see my previous replies). In light of all of these considerations, and in light of my earlier responses and original post, I think it is clear that verse 5:32 was not intended to be a universal prohibition against murder.

4. Verse 5:32 permits murder.

In the West, the word murder refers to a certain category of behaviours, and in Islam, it refers to another category of behaviours. These categories at many points do not overlap. Apologists who cite only the well-known snippet of 5:32, without mentioning "corruption in the earth," are knowingly holding back information that would allow a disbeliever to ask, "What constitutes corruption on earth?" For a disbeliever to decide if 5:32 forbids murder, she/he needs to know what corruption on earth means. What I've shown in these replies is that corruption on earth could refer to almost anything perceived as un-Islamic (e.g., openly criticizing Islam). This renders the famous 5:32 snippet null and void, as far as disbelievers are concerned. The whole verse 5:32 contains a huge loop-hole. It refers to a huge flexible category of exceptions that permit killing that would be defined as murder (according to modern Western society definition of murder). These murders began with Mohammad's assassinations of the critical poets, and continue today in many parts of the world.