There is evidence there is sorcery upon the Quran (Link vs PoetPhilosopher)

[Link]

Peace Upon you @PoetPhilosopher ,


Per the paradigm of Quran the Satanic sorcery effects hard hearts, and soft hearts that remember God will incline to the truth regardless. If the scholars of the sects were of the soft heart category and majority were guided, I would not be able to prove there is sorcery upon the Quran. But because the commentaries of Quran do not show the proper interpretation that is obvious by context, and not only do not show, but are not even aware of the possibility, I argue the locks the Quran talks about that prevent people from seeing the proper reflection and easy recitation is there.

Since one of the claims is that none of the tafsirs show the easy recitation as a possibility even, this hard to prove to my opponent, unless they check the commentaries which are almost all here: موقع التفير الكبير of all sects. Now the English translations are limited, so they can do two things, one trust me that omission is true or can google translate and check themselves. It's up to them.


There a lot of these locks but I will settle for some examples.

(1) The reward concerning Prophet (s) is an accusation from disbelievers, and it is rhetoric is in the form that he is false from perspective of disbelievers and the reward is an accusation in that sense, and the response is that would be "---" different responses. This is so obvious by context when you reflect about it, and Shias would want to know this and have a bias to know it's true, but don't perceive it. While it can be argued Sunnis have a motive to hide the truth about this, the Shias have a motive to show the truth as it proves a major creed to their religion that is disputed. Yet this possibility does not even occur to their minds, even though it's the obvious by context recitation. There is even hadiths to support it, but those hadiths fell on deaf ears.



There are a lot of reward verses, so maybe you should key on two of them such as 25:57, 42:23 and see the context of these two. But you will see no matter which ones they are all on in terms of accusations and the one response that there is no reward is from the perspective of a believer in Surah Yaseen.


(2) The chosen ones who inherited the book, the verse about this - majority of people see the "of them" refer to the chosen ones. Some (Shia) tafsirs argue it's not so, but something that they all missed, is again, the context which makes it clear. The preceding verse emphasizes on "and God with respect to his servants is aware seeing". The emphasis of the verse before is on servants, and so if you keep that in mind, it would become easily seen that "of them who is unjust to himself" is regarding servants and not the chosen. Again, Shias have motivation to see this to prove their sect correct, but they do not perceive it.


وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِعِبَادِهِ لَخَبِيرٌ بَصِيرٌ | That which We have revealed to you of the Book is the truth, confirming what was [revealed] before it. Indeed Allah with respect to his servants is aware seeing. | Faatir : 31

[35:32] ثُمَّ أَوْرَثْنَا الْكِتَابَ الَّذِينَ اصْطَفَيْنَا مِنْ عِبَادِنَا فَمِنْهُمْ ظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ وَمِنْهُم مُّقْتَصِدٌ وَمِنْهُمْ سَابِقٌ بِالْخَيْرَاتِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَضْلُ الْكَبِيرُ

Then we inherited the book to those whom we elected/chosen of our servants, so of them is whom is unjust to himself, and of them is whom is in the middle, and of them is whom is races ahead of all in good deeds by permission of his Lord, that is the great superiority.

There are also many verses using the word "astafa" in various forms, and all of them meaning choosing the best, purest, greatest. It's not a random selection nor a selection for reasons other than the chosen is the best type. So you even have the linguistic meaning yet majority can't even see it.

(3)Malakat Aymanihim is not about slavery, yet no one was able to recite the verse about Muta properly. The Shiites have motivation to prove Muta in Quran, but yet opted to go with the Sunni view that it's about slavery. The main verse we want to see the two ways of it being recited is 42:24. With the absurd recitation, it would mean you can have sex with a married slave you own. It gets that crazy.

(4)The Quran has clear verses that apostates during Mohammad (s) time who offer peace and say they would not go back to the fighting Muslims, to not be killed. Yet these clear verses are ignored when it comes to the issue of killing apostates, as almost all scholars of the past (and majority do today), that apostates are to be killed. The verses to check is 4:89-91


(5) An easy recitation for the "beat" in the famous beat me verse is to make it similar to expressions "enter them" "touch them" and mean "beat (them with your dick)", of course, God is not going to get vulgar and write the things in brackets. In the context, it means do not impose your fears and suspicions on them and do not even mention it and leave them alone about it and continue to have intercourse. Instead we get a headache of explanations of parable type striking to other things like it's with a small brush and meant to be symbolic or humor, but the easier recitation is not seen. The verse is 4:34.

(6) The meaning of Ayat Tatheer is not seen properly by Shiites, even though it's sacred to them. There are two components, the first is what God desires to keep away from Ahlulbayt (A) to be nothing but uncleanness and that implied by the word "yuthhab" is that he will not remove a single blessing from them either, and the second portion is that there a utmost purification they alone are purified and hence are the best of creation. I would argue Shiites want to see Ahlulbayt (a) as the best, and so again, bias does not explain why this verse is not recited properly, but it's as if the "inama" goes invisible and not taking into account. The verse is 33:33.

(7) The clearest example to me of dark magic is verse 33:6. I have an explanation here is a video of it:

. This is something that numerous hadiths have explained properly, yet the Shiites who believe and transmitted these hadiths, they don't even translate nor recite nor explain the verse in the easy way it should be.

(8) The two Ahlul-Thikr verses, while Shiites do see it as Ahlulbayt (a), you will see no one ever translates the first part as "family" (of the reminder) to Ahlul-Thikr, which to me is evidence of sorcery keeping the clear recitations unclear.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A lot to digest. Thanks for inviting me to this debate.

Who or what do you think is behind this sorcery exactly?

And what makes you think you have the correct interpretation, that is light amongst the sorcery?

 

[Link]

Who or what do you think is behind this sorcery exactly?

Satan is on top and he has forces from the Jinn, and there are also humans who are in league with these demons and do their biding. It's things that are meant to prevent you from pathways towards the recitation. That is why thinking over Quran is a spiritual battle often.

And what makes you think you have the correct interpretation, that is light amongst the sorcery?

The Quran says he will make clear his signs after Satan cast it. I've lived most of my life oblivious to these easy recitations. When I see how easy the recitations always were, I knew it was something supernatural blocking it. It was not thinking outside box, type thinking, but really the clear context easy by language recitation. I also have done a lot of prayers and white magic against dark magic. That is I've done a lot of things aimed at defeating dark magic. A lot or almost all people including scholars, they don't take it the issue of dark magic seriously enough to defeat it.

But at the end I don't know why I've be shown the truth while most have not. When I finish my degree, I plan on a publishing a book about this that has more details and goes through entire chapters to contextualize and show how clear it is by rules of flow of language. I've written most of this book I just got to complete the hadiths verification part.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Satan is on top and he has forces from the Jinn, and there are also humans who are in league with these demons and do their biding. It's things that are meant to prevent you from pathways towards the recitation. That is why thinking over Quran is a spiritual battle often.



The Quran says he will make clear his signs after Satan cast it. I've lived most of my life oblivious to these easy recitations. When I see how easy the recitations always were, I knew it was something supernatural blocking it. It was not thinking outside box, type thinking, but really the clear context easy by language recitation. I also have done a lot of prayers and white magic against dark magic. That is I've done a lot of things aimed at defeat dark magic. A lot or almost all people including scholars, they don't take it the issue of dark magic seriously enough to defeat it.

But at the end I don't know why I've be shown the truth while most have not. When I finish my degree, I plan on a publishing a book about this that has more details and goes through entire chapters to contextualize and show how clear it is by rules of flow of language. I've written most of this book I just got to complete the hadiths verification part.

I see.

I may still express some objections later, but this may be a bit of a different debate, in that I can see a certain angle of it. Personally, I believe there is some, or a lot of, good to the Quran, however I also see the Quran as possibly being much misinterpreted, too.

My main objection right now, is just that I question whether Satan exists. To say that he does, I feel is a large claim, and large claims often bear greater burdens of proof.

 

[Link]

I see.

I may still express some objections later, but this may be a bit of a different debate, in that I can see a certain angle of it. Personally, I believe there is some, or a lot of, good to the Quran, however I also see the Quran as possibly being much misinterpreted, too.

My main objection right now, is just that I question whether Satan exists. To say that he does, I feel is a large claim, and large claims often bear greater burdens of proof.

This thread is aimed at proving there is sorcery upon the Quran. Whether it's Satan or not, or who and what are doing this sorcery is justified or not, are different questions.

When I realized 4:59 and it's link to 4:54 majority of Muslims can't see it, when I was non-Muslim, I began to think, why is this the case? When I was Muslim in the morning and disbeliever by night, disbeliever in the morning, believer by night, phase, I use to think about this.

I use to think it might be a control mechanism. I theorized that potentially it's sort of like the Matrix and that the Oracle was a control mechanism too.

So the sorcery of Illuminati works like this from suspicion:

(1)Create a book meant to be recited one way with many false potential ways

(2) Prevent majority of mankind from reciting it properly

(3) Few people reciting it properly feel like they found truth and funnel effort to change majority (which they can't).

So it would be a control mechanism, that the most rebellious towards controllers would put too much effort in doing the impossible.

I have arguments as to why this is not the case, as it would mean Mohammad (s) and Ali (a) were in on it, and knew Imam Hussain (a) and others would suffer including their own followers, but did it anyways.

Also, I would argue to break the sorcery, you need Angelic help. And so you come to know the truth through a purification process. And I don't suspect the Angels (a) and their energy as they helped me a lot.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This thread is aimed at proving there is sorcery upon the Quran. Whether it's Satan or not, or who and what are doing this sorcery is justified or not, are different questions.

When I realized 4:59 and it's link to 4:54 majority of Muslims can't see it, when I was non-Muslim, I began to think, why is this the case? When I was Muslim in the morning and disbeliever by night, disbeliever in the morning, believer by night, phase, I use to think about this.

I use to think it might be a control mechanism. I theorized that potentially it's sort of like the Matrix and that the Oracle was a control mechanism too.

So the sorcery of Illuminati works like this from suspicion:

(1)Create a book meant to be recited one way with many false potential ways

(2) Prevent majority of mankind from reciting it properly

(3) Few people reciting it properly feel like they found truth and funnel effort to change majority (which they can't).

So it would be a control mechanism, that the most rebellious towards controllers would put too much effort in doing the impossible.

I have arguments as to why this is not the case, as it would mean Mohammad (s) and Ali (a) were in on it, and knew Imam Hussain (a) and others would suffer including their own followers, but did it anyways.

Also, I would argue to break the sorcery, you need Angelic help. And so you come to know the truth through a purification process. And I don't suspect the Angels (a) and their energy as they helped me a lot.

To break the norm a bit of debates, I'd say I agree a lot with what you're saying, however while you apply a supernatural aspect to it all (Satan, Angels, etc), I currently don't. For me, things just kind of happen, including in the case of people acting strange or getting things wrong, paradoxes, etc.

Since you indicated that this wasn't really what the debate was about, I won't delve too far into it, though.

But otherwise, I'd actually have to agree with you.

 

[Link]

For me, things just kind of happen, including in the case of people acting strange or getting things wrong, paradoxes, etc.

I would say Sunnis for a lot of these verses you can put they have sectarian motivation to not see it. Although I would argue without magic, they would see it, as they are not that sectarian wise biased.

However, why Shias don't see interpretations that are clear as even possibilities, when they prove their sect in a clear way, I don't believe bias can account for it.

It's also not the case that scholars all copy old scholars (so if one made a mistake, they all copy it). Scholars usually try to establish what they can uniquely provide and bring forth that other scholars did not. It's not copy and paste all the way. And they would want to know these things if they even saw them as possibilities, I would argue, they would believe in it and would have promoted it and argued by it.

 

[Link]

however while you apply a supernatural aspect to it all (Satan, Angels, etc), I currently don't.

This thread would prove there a supernatural aspect if my argument is correct. If you can show natural explanations, then you would win the argument.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This thread would prove there a supernatural aspect if my argument is correct. If you can show natural explanations, then you would win the argument.

I'd say that everything has natural explanations by default. For example, in the case of someone who commits a crime, it can often be attributed to either poor mental health, or a lack of morals.

However, to explain things supernaturally, to me it seems it takes taking that natural explanation, and saying "Some supernatural entity is actually behind it."

 

[Link]

I'd say that everything has natural explanations by default.

Usually that is the case. I would say usually, we can think of a natural explanation. I'm saying we can't think of one because there are none.

We have basically these options:

(1) The text is unclear and the interpretations I provide are as unclear as all others or it is clearer then all interpretations and the obvious one by language rules.

If this the case is it unclear, that's a natural explanation. If it's clear, we move on:

(1) The text is clear and the clear interpretation I provide has not been seen even as a possibility for reasons either natural or supernatural.

If natural, there needs to be an explanation and by natural world, we know the natural potential reasons:

(1) Bias
(2) Historical copy paste methodology of scholars
(3) Political motivations

I've explained how none of these can be an explanation.

So then eliminating all these:

Supernatural.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Usually that is the case. I would say usually, we can think of a natural explanation. I'm saying we can't think of one because there are none.

We have basically these options:

(1) The text is unclear and the interpretations I provide are as unclear as all others or it is clearer then all interpretations and the obvious one by language rules.

If this the case is it unclear, that's a natural explanation. If it's clear, we move on:

(1) The text is clear and the clear interpretation I provide has not been seen even as a possibility for reasons either natural or supernatural.

If natural, there needs to be an explanation and by natural world, we know the natural potential reasons:

(1) Bias
(2) Historical copy paste methodology of scholars
(3) Political motivations

I've explained how none of these can be an explanation.

So then eliminating all these:

Supernatural.

I'd propose a fourth answer. That life and the universe is like a difficult riddle, in which 100 proposed answers are wrong, and one is right.

This is due to the both precise and obscure nature of the universe.

The same can be applied to most things (though not everything), and I feel it can also apply in the case described here.

 

[Link]

I'd propose a fourth answer. That life and the universe is like a difficult riddle, in which 100 proposed answers are wrong, and one is right.

This is due to the both precise and obscure nature of the universe.

The same can be applied to most things (though not everything), and I feel it can also apply in the case described here.

You are right about this in a general case. It maybe there are many explanations we can't think of.

But this is something we are familiar with. It's language. Language is communication we do all the time. If something makes it that no one understands simple communication that is understood by humans when we talk to humans or read books in general, in a particular case, there has to be an explanation as to why. There is nothing natural that can do this to me.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You are right about this in a general case. It maybe there are many explanations we can't think of.

But this is something we are familiar with. It's language. Language is communication we do all the time. If something makes it that no one understands simple communication that is understood by humans when we talk to humans or read books in general, in a particular case, there has to be an explanation as to why. There is nothing natural that can do this to me.

It actually depends on what's being said. Let's use this forum for example.

I say "I ate chocolate."

There may exist a few possible thoughts about this, but overall, the consensus is pretty clear, I think.

However, suppose I wrote a 300-400 page book, and the post-box somehow let me post it all on the forum. Provided that I talk a few abstract thoughts in those 300-400 pages, and the book doesn't just say all simple things like "See spot run", there's going to exist multiple interpretations from others.

Though, I agree, the extent of those multiple interpretations is still debatable.

 

[Link]

It actually depends on what's being said. Let's use this forum for example.

I say "I ate chocolate."

There may exist a few possible thoughts about this, but overall, the consensus is pretty clear, I think.

However, suppose I wrote a 300-400 page book, and the post-box somehow let me post it all on the forum. Provided that I talk a few abstract thoughts in those 300-400 pages, and the book doesn't just say all simple things like "See spot run", there's going to exist multiple interpretations from others.

Though, I agree, the extent of those multiple interpretations is still debatable.

You are correct. But this in fact another reason I believe there is sorcery. Given how many verses are about past succession, chosen families, the current station of the Messenger which is what is succeeded to - the degree its emphasized on through out, but people don't see it, the over all picture and emphasis, and then decontextualize verses when it comes to it's overall context, and it's mini-context, and it's chapter context. It's too much. At this point, it's got to be Satan.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You are correct. But this in fact another reason I believe there is sorcery. Given how many verses are about past succession, chosen families, the current station of the Messenger which is what is succeeded to - the degree its emphasized on through out, but people don't see it, the over all picture and emphasis, and then decontextualize verses when it comes to it's overall context, and it's mini-context, and it's chapter context. It's too much. At this point, it's got to be Satan.

Now I'm curious - if I were to say that primal nature was the reason, how close would I be to your definition of Satan?

Primal Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

PRIMAL meaning: very basic and powerful used especially to describe feelings that are like the feelings of animals and that seem to come from a part of human nature that has existed since ancient times

www.britannica.com

 

[Link]

Now I'm curious - if I were to say that primal nature was the reason, how close would I be to your definition of Satan?

Primal Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

PRIMAL meaning: very basic and powerful used especially to describe feelings that are like the feelings of animals and that seem to come from a part of human nature that has existed since ancient times

www.britannica.com

I would say Satan and his forces use what might be seen as primal nature to push us towards some sins, but they aren't that.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I would say Satan and his forces use what might be seen as primal nature to push us towards some sins, but they aren't that.

Okay, so today's a new day, and that brings a new question....

Do you think if you achieve your goals of proving Satan is behind things (and also possibly proving Satan is real in the process?), that the revelation will apply universally, or will be limited to those who grasp your mode of thinking?

And if it applies universally - then how does it do that?

 

[Link]

Okay, so today's a new day, and that brings a new question....

Do you think if you achieve your goals of proving Satan is behind things (and also possibly proving Satan is real in the process?), that the revelation will apply universally, or will be limited to those who grasp your mode of thinking?

And if it applies universally - then how does it do that?

I believe if people keep in mind what Quran says about sorcery and then are shown the clear recitations and are aware of the classical and majority interpretations, it can become revolutionary universal.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I believe if people keep in mind what Quran says about sorcery and then are shown the clear recitations and are aware of the classical and majority interpretations, it can become revolutionary universal.

It'd hard for me to object to something I might see the relevance of in the context of the Quran.

However, I'd say that seeing things in the light of the Quran is just one mode of thinking. There are literally well over 100 modes of thinking. Depending on how things are classified, there could be thousands.

This is where it gets tricky. Because something you might consider Satan - in another mode of thinking, could be seen as decay, a philosophical fallen nature (of sorts), or a primal, animalistic nature.

So, this brings me to a new topic unfortunately, and that topic is The nature of the universe.

The nature of the universe may sound unimportant, or even unnecessary for such a discussion, but I think it's still a relevant question when weighing the practicality of almost everyone seeing the light of the Quran.

So, in this regard, I actually don't see the Quran as the full truth. But I see it as truth, and a pretty great book at that. A glimpse into light. I simply think the universe is too complex for the matter of a single book, however.

So in the light of the Quran, I might agree that Satan is behind things. However, spanning outside of that, I'm not sure that's the true, universal nature of things - only in the context of the Quran and viewing things through that lens.

So what I'm saying is, X is Y in a universal sense, but to read and understand the Quran, you may have to redefine X as Z, in which Z is more simplified.

By that account, it's even debatable whether most all should even follow the Quran, although, I think more people should definitely read it, and I think it contains wisdom.

On the other hand, maybe Z truly is the right way of understanding X. The problem is, there are many definitions of X, so it's hard to say that Z is right.

 

[Link]

Because something you might consider Satan - in another mode of thinking, could be seen as decay, a philosophical fallen nature (of sorts), or a primal, animalistic nature.

How so? I don't think blockage of clear context is possible for example with these factors alone. There should be nothing to obstruct language from being clear in this regard.