A Few Questions for S.O.L. Adherents
-
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
-
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.
-
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. (6114)
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 173,1 Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?
1 Corinthians 316-17 + 619 Paul is referring to the polytheistic belief of the Holy Spirit indwelling and again preaching Jesus based polytheism. (See 323 and 611,15) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?
Galations 220 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 216,17 as well) Why would you recommend that instead of the Quran, like I asked?
2 Corinthians 135 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 125 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. (179)
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. (1746)
These are God's revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which narration after God and His revelations do they believe? (456)
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. (316)
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? (7185)
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#
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate! -
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate!There's no such thing as right in religious matters.
If you want to be right, stop being religious.
In front of Allah all religions are worthless -
There's no such thing as right in religious matters.
If you want to be right, stop being religious.
In front of Allah all religions are worthlessI disagree. I believe Allah values me and others actively turning towards Him, surrendering to Him and obeying Him.
All sufficiently false religions are worthless (or worse!), but I still think that the deen described in the Quran could well be translated as "the religion" or perhaps "Religion" with the capital R to distinguish it from all other religions, which are necessarily false as per 385 as well as common sense - if there is only one Truth there must be only one correct Religion - i.e. the correct way to relate to and act upon this Truth as a human being. -
Where do you see that Abdun Nur implies you need to pay taxes ( and you even said compulsory lol ) in his ideal community?
I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.
Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.
Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Can't tell if trolling or retarded
-
I disagree. I believe Allah values me and others actively turning towards Him, surrendering to Him and obeying Him.
All sufficiently false religions are worthless (or worse!), but I still think that the deen described in the Quran could well be translated as "the religion" or perhaps "Religion" with the capital R to distinguish it from all other religions, which are necessarily false as per 385 as well as common sense - if there is only one Truth there must be only one correct Religion - i.e. the correct way to relate to and act upon this Truth as a human being.All religions are false.
Islam is a deen not a religion. No where in the Quran is it said for Islam to be a religion. Nor does Islam has any religion practices. Religion is totally worthless. Islam is a perfect deen for the mankind.There is only one truth, but it doesn't mean it's a religion.
-
All religions are false.
Islam is a deen not a religion. No where in the Quran is it said for Islam to be a religion. Nor does Islam has any religion practices. Religion is totally worthless. Islam is a perfect deen for the mankind.There is only one truth, but it doesn't mean it's a religion.
Fine, call it what you will. Are we in agreement that the Quran contains instructions for how we are to think and behave, and that these instructions should be followed?
-
Fine, call it what you will. Are we in agreement that the Quran contains instructions for how we are to think and behave, and that these instructions should be followed?
Yes of course.
Quran is a guide for everything needed to be righteous and for a good world. Political, Economical, Social etc...
-
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.
Me too!
AGREE ) -
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.
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
He told you to study Wicca so you could convert to it. You love that kind of bullshit after all
-
Peace Mr. Q. As much as I dislike Paul, here goes
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God
Show me where he said that? He referred to him as the son of God, but he reserved "theos" with the definite article "ho" for God, and not Jesus.
with all the fullness of Deity residing in him.
He did not say that the fullness of Deity (as in the PERSONHOOD of God) resided in him. He said that the fullness of divinity resided in him, i.e. the moral and ethical goodness of God. He used the greek word "theioites" or "godliness".
He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God
You have to understand the Jewish view of salvation. It was as much political and existential as it was anything else. Recognizing that the salvation of the Jewish nation in accepting Jesus' death as the means of returning the Jewish people to their original identity is what he was talking about. This is a complicated concept that requires an understanding of the entire salvation history of the Jewish people. Moses interceded for the Jewish people (I believe there is a parallel in both Torah and Quran for this) and no one would deny that Moses was fully human.
and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life.
Paul did not refer to Jesus as Lord in any deified sense. The first creed of Christianity is found in Romans. It is "Iesous kurios", or "Jesus is Lord." It is the counter to the political creed of Rome "Kaesar kurios" or "Caesar is Lord". Jesus was the political figurehead of the church, which was a spiritual/political institution directly in opposition to Rome.
His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
Again, while I do not like Paul, I think he was dishonest about certain things, I do not believe that he taught polytheism or paganism.
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.It is unfortunate to see ''muslims'' who, to come to the conclusion that Islam needs nothing more than the Qu'ran, studied, cogitated and had to go to the core, judge a philosophy by what users wrote on Wikipedia. Why did you not do the same for Islam? Hypocrisy and sloppiness are certainly traits ''muslims'' should try to sweep. Again, if you think 'studying' something is reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia, then...
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate!From politics (allodial right of use, taxation) to islam being monotheistic (instead of mono-panentheistic) and islam being a 'religion', I am curious what kind of arguments you have to support your present beliefs. Unfortunately, this thread is a joke, perhaps we can open a new one or converse through the message system.
-
From politics (allodial right of use, taxation) to islam being monotheistic (instead of mono-panentheistic) and islam being a 'religion', I am curious what kind of arguments you have to support your present beliefs. Unfortunately, this thread is a joke, perhaps we can open a new one or converse through the message system.
I have revisited some SOL writings, and find that I may have been rash in my previous judgment (not the first time this happens, unfortunately). While I'm not sure about the validity of all of SOL's teachings quite yet, the "God and Allah" article at least isn't far from my own beliefs. It's all an argument of semantics, really. I've been using capitalization to distinguish between God, who is not a god, and Religion, which isn't a religion. SOL seems to do the same with Allah (who is not God) and deen, which isn't religion. The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
-
I have revisited some SOL writings, and find that I may have been rash in my previous judgment (not the first time this happens, unfortunately). While I'm not sure about the validity of all of SOL's teachings quite yet, the "God and Allah" article at least isn't far from my own beliefs. It's all an argument of semantics, really. I've been using capitalization to distinguish between God, who is not a god, and Religion, which isn't a religion. SOL seems to do the same with Allah (who is not God) and deen, which isn't religion. The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name. - Tao Te ChingThis is why I suggest to the religious, such as Mr.Q, to study Taoism.
Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship. While Allah, or decomposed, allathee la illah (instead of the traditionalist comprehension and decomposition of the word - al ilah) literally who is not God, is an ever-living creative force who seeks nor asks worship, but servitude - not to it, as it is self-sustaining - but from one (human) being to the other (human, animal or/and nature).
Gods and religions grant an everlasting forest-like paradise to who ever worships them, and/or repents verbally (if one sinned) . While the creator requires truthful action and continuous fight against the base desires.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
Please see your inbox.