A Few Questions for S.O.L. Adherents

[lordfox]

Why should I seek guidance from pagan sources, mysticism and non-Quranic philosophies?

Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed? Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. (6:114)

Acts was written by Paul's disciple Luke to Athenian polytheists to convert them to another form of polytheism in the form of serving and worshipping Jesus. (See 17:3,18) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 + 6:19 Paul is referring to the polytheistic belief of the Holy Spirit indwelling and again preaching Jesus based polytheism. (See 3:23 and 6:11,15) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

Galations 2:20 I will quote so others can see what you recommended "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself up for me."  (See 2:16,17 as well) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

2 Corinthians 13:5 I will quote so others can see what you recommended; "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you - unless indeed you fail the test?" Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

Romans 12:5 I will quote so others can see what you recommended; "so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."  Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

What is the point of all this from you?? This is your answer to what I originally posted? This is your recommended reading to me? Paul was not a messenger and did not receive revelations. He was a polytheist and an idolater, as were his followers. The Epistles are nothing but the Christian equivalent of Hadiths so why recommend them?

This Quran guides to that which is more upright, and it gives glad tidings to the believers who do good work that they will have a bountiful reward. (17:9)

I will simply take your unwillingness to use the Quran to justify SOL theologies as your inability to do so.

And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion. (17:46)

These are God's revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which narration after God and His revelations do they believe? (45:6)

And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution. (31:6)

Did they not look at the dominion of heavens and earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so in which narrations after this one will they believe? (7:185)

I truly try to be kind and polite, but you really make it hard for me with your posts. The only reason I cited those sources that you judge to be polytheistic and pagan, is to refute what you have said earlier about the previous scriptures human kind has received. By quoting verses and books of the old that describe a panentheistic philosophy, I was hoping to get through your thick skull that there are scriptures (though they were altered) that present ideas similar to those on SoL, for example, the concept of the creator being the only sovereign, the concept of serving instead of worshiping, the concept that there is no God and that there is only Allah (or whatever you want to call it).

Again I will explain to you, in the simplest of terms this time, why I presently choose not use verses from the Qu'ran: I am still studying the Arabic language and the grammar rules, and thus, I do not allow myself to translate verses, due to the mistakes that I will surely make. Secondly, my study of the Qu'ran is ongoing, I am far from being a scholar.

I surely agree that the Qu'ran is the only reliable source from the divine on earth, and agree that it should be followed and the ''rules'' in it abode; thus, I do not see why you are quoting (17:46) as I am not of that kind. You seem like an angry and nervous man, there is a great lack of wisdom I feel for someone your age. Lastly, as you are a fervent defendant of democracy, are against very fundamental and clear rules of the Qu'ran, are a materialist (4:27 is a good verse for you), mock everything spiritual (meditation, lucid dreaming etc - bashing it as mere unproven mysticism), we have to ask ourselves who between me and you is the hypocrite.

In sum there is little difference between your speech, and that of the hadithists. Stubborn, thoughtless, nervous, and precipitous. Know that I do not feel offended by your little game of the 'evil-men' verse quoting, for I have a clear conscious, and am a honest and truth-seeking individual; so do not play that with me and consider calming down, and growing up intellectually.

I have spent enough time with you, if it is what you want (as obviously you see discussing as an arm wrestle), consider that you have won, you are officially a jihadist, pursue your quest of exposing the untruthful and heretics on the internet.

Mr.Q the fearless warrior doing his jihad on free-minds.org

[morninglight]

I looked at some of the SOL site that was pointed to by a member on a recent thread here to offer explanations of claims that member was asked to clarify.

There was the claim that humans can have no property, that everything in creation belongs to Allah.  That is just another way of stating the obvious fact that when we leave this earthly life, we do not take anything (worldly) with us. 

SOL's system is for people to act as owners of land, watermelons, whatever -- occupying, controlling, using, conveying, etc. -- in short, having all of what are called the incidents of ownership.  Of course any person's ownership of anything is necessarily limited in time.  The rights we call incidents of ownership are what makes what is called ownership.  Did you see on that site so much argument for indefeasible title to land?  Ownership is ownership.

As for the watermelon being exchanged for money or else of value -- SOL indicates that the watermelon is Allah's and is transferred for free, that only the farmer's time and labor are sold.  Yes, the farmer is compensated for time and labor, but if time and labor were the subject of the transaction, the farmer would be hired out to work for another.  Who properly has possession of the watermelon before and who after the transaction?  Who has the right to eat it, give it away, dispose of it, exercise whatever incidents of ownership over the watermelon before and who after the transaction in which it is transferred?  The sale of a watermelon is the sale of a watermelon.  The sale of a watermelon transfers ownership of the watermelon.

There was the claim that there should be no government, that we should live as ancient Britons without government, and we were pointed to the SOL site indicating regulation by government there back to ancient times.  Government is government.

There was the claim that there is to be no taxation.  SOL calls for compulsory contributions to (assessments for) a community "pot" for community purposes.  That would be taxation.  That would be taxation by a governmental entity.

It is truly amazing to me that anyone can eat up such incoherence as SOL writes.   

[Kaiokenred]

Cut and pasted 1:5 from your SOL site. Dont shoot the messenger.

http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/94/127/

1:5 Be aware, we do not want you to be servants and worshippers; therefore you shall keep yourself clear of this pain in future.

What part of "do not want" and "you shall keep yourself clear" don't you understand?   

Where does it say to not be servants to ALLAH? Nowhere

[Kaiokenred]

I looked at some of the SOL site that was pointed to by a member on a recent thread here to offer explanations of claims that member was asked to clarify.

There was the claim that humans can have no property, that everything in creation belongs to Allah.  That is just another way of stating the obvious fact that when we leave this earthly life, we do not take anything (worldly) with us. 

SOL's system is for people to act as owners of land, watermelons, whatever -- occupying, controlling, using, conveying, etc. -- in short, having all of what are called the incidents of ownership.  Of course any person's ownership of anything is necessarily limited in time.  The rights we call incidents of ownership are what makes what is called ownership.  Did you see on that site so much argument for indefeasible title to land?  Ownership is ownership.

As for the watermelon being exchanged for money or else of value -- SOL indicates that the watermelon is Allah's and is transferred for free, that only the farmer's time and labor are sold.  Yes, the farmer is compensated for time and labor, but if time and labor were the subject of the transaction, the farmer would be hired out to work for another.  Who properly has possession of the watermelon before and who after the transaction?  Who has the right to eat it, give it away, dispose of it, exercise whatever incidents of ownership over the watermelon before and who after the transaction in which it is transferred?  The sale of a watermelon is the sale of a watermelon.  The sale of a watermelon transfers ownership of the watermelon.

There was the claim that there should be no government, that we should live as ancient Britons without government, and we were pointed to the SOL site indicating regulation by government there back to ancient times.  Government is government.

There was the claim that there is to be no taxation.  SOL calls for compulsory contributions to (assessments for) a community "pot" for community purposes.  That would be taxation.  That would be taxation by a governmental entity.

It is truly amazing to me that anyone can eat up such incoherence as SOL writes.

Wut? Where did you get that from?

[Magnus]

I am grateful for this thread.

I have tried and failed to read stuff SOL has written more than once, as I seem to lack the patience or mental fortitude necessary to parse out what he is actually trying to convey. Having read this thread thus far I feel more secure in my initial decision to dismiss his writings as rambling nonsense.

[Zulf]

But one thing that I like with SOL, is that Abdunur et al are challenging the "current" understanding of what the arabic words can mean... how they can possibly be translated. From what I have seen, it is based on what meanings can be found in Lane.

I like that Abdunur is offering other possible translations of the words. I'm not judging his ideas or conclusions or lack of... but it is healthy to at least show people that some words might be understood differently. This is after all exactly what people are doing on this forum... like beat woman-->separate from woman, cut off hand-->seize the means. I like the exploration. Added to this must of course be reason, consistency and quranic self-reference and self-verification.

See for example:

http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/193/229/

This seems to be purely a linguistic exploration, and has nothing to do with all other things being discussed about SOL right now. References to Lane are given. So from the perspective of linguistic exploration... I like the spirit.
On all other things, I have no comment.

Peace

[lordfox]

I am grateful for this thread.

I have tried and failed to read stuff SOL has written more than once, as I seem to lack the patience or mental fortitude necessary to parse out what he is actually trying to convey. Having read this thread thus far I feel more secure in my initial decision to dismiss his writings as rambling nonsense.

Ah yes, the comfort being part of a majority brings. Though, you do bring some interesting and debatable points, which I'd like to discuss if possible.

[Bigmo]

Why should I seek guidance from pagan sources, mysticism and non-Quranic philosophies?

Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed? Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. (6:114)

Acts was written by Paul's disciple Luke to Athenian polytheists to convert them to another form of polytheism in the form of serving and worshipping Jesus. (See 17:3,18) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 + 6:19 Paul is referring to the polytheistic belief of the Holy Spirit indwelling and again preaching Jesus based polytheism. (See 3:23 and 6:11,15) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

Galations 2:20 I will quote so others can see what you recommended "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself up for me."  (See 2:16,17 as well) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

2 Corinthians 13:5 I will quote so others can see what you recommended; "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you - unless indeed you fail the test?" Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

Romans 12:5 I will quote so others can see what you recommended; "so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."  Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?

What is the point of all this from you?? This is your answer to what I originally posted? This is your recommended reading to me? Paul was not a messenger and did not receive revelations. He was a polytheist and an idolater, as were his followers. The Epistles are nothing but the Christian equivalent of Hadiths so why recommend them?

This Quran guides to that which is more upright, and it gives glad tidings to the believers who do good work that they will have a bountiful reward. (17:9)

I will simply take your unwillingness to use the Quran to justify SOL theologies as your inability to do so.

And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion. (17:46)

These are God's revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which narration after God and His revelations do they believe? (45:6)

And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution. (31:6)

Did they not look at the dominion of heavens and earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so in which narrations after this one will they believe? (7:185)

What does Paul and Luke and the Gospel has to do with paganism? And if I asked you what is paganism would you know?

What surprises the most about some people in this forum that as Koranist you would think that they would be the last people on Earth to throw that accusation at anyone given in the Koran paganism and polytheism is the unforgiveable sin. And to see that thrown on characters like Paul and Luke is truly amazing.

I think it has to do with the legacy of Ibn Thaymiya's theological reasoning that Ibn Abdul Wahhab took from. Ibn Thaymiya equated Tawassul with shirk. Rashad Khalifah seemed to have adopted this view. What Ibn Thaymiya did was placed shirk in the fiqh category rather than aqeedah category. So shirk is no longer what you believe but what you practice. Ibn Thaymiya did this so as to isse a fatwa against the Tatars who took over Baghdad and converted to Sufism Islam. Ibn Thaymiya was working for the Mamluk dynasty who wanted some fatwa to fight the Tatars.

Ibn Abdul wahhab meanhwile issued fatwas to attack the Sunni establishemnt in Meccan and Medina and claimed he was doing to so to eleminate shirk there as many shrines were there and people used to visit those shrines.

Many Koranist seemed to have adopted this view and so the Ka'ba has now become an idol, visiting the tomb of Muhammad is shirk and some even believe that placing Muhammad is the messneger in the shahada of faith is also shirk. Kissing the black stone is idol worshiping and so on.

However there never seems to be any real study about shirk and paganism. There seems to be an assumption that shirk is simply excessive veneration or seeking intermediataries between God and man. If this was the case than God would not have elevated shirk to such disdain. Shirk is a whole lot more than this. We must first research and study what paganism and what shirk is before we throw that label around. Its truly astounding that this accusation of shirk is thrown at characters like Paul and Luke. But it also shows that many influences from the past still linger and we simply continue with the same assumptions.

Its not that some of the practices and beliefs Christians or Muslims have and do is not wrong, its that by equating this with shirk so we downgrade what shirk is and we fail to understand God's justice. When God says in the Koran  whoever takes partners with Me in worship and whoever believes in other gods besides Me will have no defense for himself and no argument to back himself, He is saying that for a very good reason. Because shirk is not about elevating anybody else as much as its about downgrading and demoting and ridiculing God. But some here do not understand that.

I think we should educate ourselves a little more and should do more research.

This is a lecture I always post regarding shirk. It explains the difference between the God of the Bible and the gods of the pagans. Its a huge difference. Now tell me if Luke or Paul have anything even near to do with paganism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7359195828637989025#

[morninglight]

Wut? Where did you get that from?

I do not understand your question(s). 

If you mean those incoherent claims that ownership is not ownership, a sale is not a sale, government is not government, taxation is not taxation -- all those are from SOL's website.

Did you see the one about how renting out residential real estate or acquiring property to enter the residential property landlord occupation so violates his nebulous notion of "Natural Law" that SOL says it warrants forfeiture of land title (which SOL also says should be indefeasible by any means, while SOL also says that there is to be no private ownership of anything), unless the landlord acquires the rental property by inheritance and needs rental income, in which case the intolerable landlord occupation is acceptable? 

That one is on the same page where SOL condemns copyrights and copyright rights as violative of "Natural Law" -- and what was that "Natural Law" supposed to be about -- not encroaching and not interfering with others having the "fruits" or benefits of their efforts, right -- so when you think that this stuff could not get any more incoherent, wait, it gets even more so.  There is SOL's copyright indication on the website pages.

[Kaiokenred]

I do not understand your question(s). 

If you mean those incoherent claims that ownership is not ownership, a sale is not a sale, government is not government, taxation is not taxation -- all those are from SOL's website.

Did you see the one about how renting out residential real estate or acquiring property to enter the residential property landlord occupation so violates his nebulous notion of "Natural Law" that SOL says it warrants forfeiture of land title (which SOL also says should be indefeasible by any means, while SOL also says that there is to be no private ownership of anything), unless the landlord acquires the rental property by inheritance and needs rental income, in which case the intolerable landlord occupation is acceptable? 

That one is on the same page where SOL condemns copyrights and copyright rights as violative of "Natural Law" -- and what was that "Natural Law" supposed to be about -- not encroaching and not interfering with others having the "fruits" or benefits of their efforts, right -- so when you think that this stuff could not get any more incoherent, wait, it gets even more so.  There is SOL's copyright indication on the website pages.

Where do you see that Abdun Nur implies you need to pay taxes ( and you even said compulsory lol ) in his ideal community?