There is a great dark sorcery upon the Quran.

[Link]

On almost all humans that recite Quran, there is a great sorcery that keeps them from the easy recitation and the easy reminder.

What do I mean by easy? I mean that by which if you were to apply language rules you apply to all people, it would be clear and easy to understand. A very simple philosophy and very clear way of speaking to humans by God.

What has happened, is there are locks from what by normal rules of language, would be the first impression. Instead you have this weird recitation that seems super hard to understand and verses are often taken way out of their place.

The way most commentaries and almost all Muslims believe the Quran means, goes against convention of language rules we apply to language universally.

There are many factors to it but without sorcery mind-screwing us up - it would not be possible for this to be the state of how Quran appears to the masses.

This thread, I will be trying to prove this.

 

[Sirona]

Granted, I'm not a Muslim, but I think keeping religious texts in languages people can't understand may be a way of clergy to concentrate power in their hands.

 

[robocop (actually)]

On almost all humans that recite Quran, there is a great sorcery that keeps them from the easy recitation and the easy reminder.

What do I mean by easy? I mean that by which if you were to apply language rules you apply to all people, it would be clear and easy to understand. A very simple philosophy and very clear way of speaking to humans by God.

What has happened, is there are locks from what by normal rules of language, would be the first impression. Instead you have this weird recitation that seems super hard to understand and verses are often taken way out of their place.

The way most commentaries and almost all Muslims believe the Quran means, goes against convention of language rules we apply to language universally.

There are many factors to it but without sorcery mind-screwing us up - it would not be possible for this to be the state of how Quran appears to the masses.

This thread, I will be trying to prove this.

Be it that when I tried to read the Koran a skull was animated on my ceiling for a long time, I can see fairly clearly when I read it.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Granted, I'm not a Muslim, but I think keeping religious texts in languages people can't understand may be a way of clergy to concentrate power in their hands.

Or it's an indication that the religious text was only meant for those people who can understand it clearly [i.e. Arab people]. It's not for those who are unable to understand it. This is why I think Islam and Qur'an aren't applicable anymore. They were only meant for those people of that specific era

 

[Link]

Lock (1)

The word astafa and it's various forms is used regarding God's best elite servants or his religion in Quran, and it means choose based on superiority and being better. This is somewhat different then others words for choosing which may have selection for alternative reasons. For example, children of Israel are selected but may not necessarily be the best people out of all people on earth. They may have been selected due to their faith and circumstances they were in so God decided to put Prophethood and knowledge among them.

There is a verse for example "Peace be upon those who God has chosen..." here the term is astafa.

Now going to Suratal Fatir. There is a verse that says "Then we inherited the book to those who we have chosen from our servants....", the next phrase is what is controversial and where the locks are, "so of them is who is unjust to themselves", the them is seen by almost all people to mean the chosen ones, but really if you look at the verse before it emphasized "....and God with respect to his servants is aware seeing. Then we inherited the book to those who chosen from our servants so of them...", the them should be referring then to the emphasized servants, it refers to of God's servants are unjust, not the chosen among them. In fact, the ones who race ahead of all are God's chosen, and refers to God's chosen pure souls who he specifically exalts for the religion and manifests their purity.

Another point that put's a seal to it, is that before that, it was emphasized on the people who hold on to the book. Here it's indicating there is a chosen group of people that God has chosen to inherit the book and this refers to Ahlulbayt obviously by how the word astafa is used specifically for God's elite servants through out the Quran.

The lock is that people don't even consider the possibility of it referring back to servants rather than the chosen ones. It's like it doesn't even cross their minds at all despite the context of the verse before emphasizes God is aware of his servants, seeing of them.

 

[Link]

Or it's an indication that the religious text was only meant for those people who can understand it clearly [i.e. Arab people]. It's not for those who are unable to understand it. This is why I think Islam and Qur'an aren't applicable anymore. They were only meant for those people of that specific era

There are many verses that show this is not the case.

 

[Link]

Lock (2)

Prophets are obviously in a defensive position when they come. People see them as liars by default. It's also the case that there are fake Prophets as well. So the reward fake Prophets seek in claiming Prophethood is seen as the reward upon why the true Prophets do it too.

The Quran understood the doubts of humans, and as such, didn't just say "he doesn't seek a reward" nor did it say he sought one, but rather, the way the reward verses ought to interpreted and the natural easy reading which this is the first year I'm able to see it as such, is that the reward disbeliever accuse Mohammad (s) of seeking from power, to moral landscaping, to leadership and kingship in his offspring, to favoring his kin, to seeking fame and enjoying control over people, to be revered and be the center of attention, it's saying all that has to come automatically and be sought since leadership is to be in God's chosen and they are to be central reminder by which people remember God.

Therefore 25:57 is saying "Say: What reward do I seek upon it except for who wishes, to take towards their Lord a path?" and 42:23 is saying all that is in fact nothing but recognition of Ahlulbayt for who they are, the kin chosen by God is to be loved and that is all love they are due, and this is the way of goodness and to be good.

Other verses saying, it's upon God to establish this reward they accuse the Prophets of seeking since obeying them is obeying God and they are the means to God and God must guide towards himself through appropriate means.

Other verses saying what is this reward they accuse them but really is a reminder to the worlds and has always been the reminder and means to God in all ages. There is always an Ahlulbayt.

The easy way neither Shiites who would love to see it this way see it nor Sunnis who make 42:23 about Qurayshi kinship.

Another thing to mention is 42:23 the type of love there is the type that includes affection and is used only for human to human love and affection. The word for example is not even used for your favorite animal.

Therefore grammar wise it cannot refer to "closeness" or "kinship (of Quraysh)". It definitely refers aside from the proofs of the other verses to Ahlulbayt.

 

[Link]

Some comments on overall blindness to Ahlulbayt of Mohammad (s) in Quran.

To follow Abraham (a), one had to hold to the family of Abraham (a). To follow Moses (a) , one had to hold on to Aaron (a) and his family (a). To follow Jesus (s) you couldn't abandon his predecessors and had to prepare for the one to come who hold the position of the holy spirit next which secretly was Elijah (a) till Mohammad (s) appeared as promised.

The reason why Jesus (a) mentioned John (Yahya) (a), was to say, there is always one to hold the position of the light and spirit of God and be the way and means to God, and so as Jesus (a) would ascend and come back, this indicated Elijah (a) had or would soon come back and be ready to guide believers although not in the open.

In fact, the two places Elyas (a) is mentioned and exactly where makes sense when you keep this in mind.

Children of Israel took their religion and issue as a pastime and it was just an easy thing for them, and they thought no trial would come to them, and so became blind as a result. Muslims do the same, they think there is no enemies trying to misguide us and so take the issue without vigilance and become misguided.

They don't take it's warnings that there is a sorcery always upon every wish of a Prophet or Messenger, and that God annuls what Satan casts, except to those who have hard hearts.

When our hearts harden, the book is no longer guiding, but becomes a curse "and it doesn't increase the oppressors/unjust except in perdition".

The people who see Ahlulbayt in Quran are obviously frustrated with the blind nation that just gives lip service to God and his Messenger, but then mix with their authority the worse people. Quran has a light, it's not meant to be argued with respect to it's light to the extent that verses are taken away from their place and position and instead desires of the evil ones and sorcery is followed!

 

[Link]

Lock(3)

The next lock is that 4:59 is decontextualized and the flow not seen. The talk before contrasts some humans to clergy of the people of the book and compares those envied to the household of Abraham which were stated to have been given the book, and wisdom, and given a great authority. In flow of that, so that we don't envy these people, it's said "O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger and those who possess the Authority from you....".

The verse is usually isolated and everything previous and after as if not there, and instead, it's argued that due to the referral to God and the Messenger and Ulil-Amr not mentioned, it is argued, that the Ulil-Amr (Possessors of the Authority) are not chosen by God.

However, this comes from ignorance, for there can be many reasons as to why they aren't mentioned:

(1) To emphasize referring to them is referring to the Messenger is a possible reason.
(2) Another reason can be that the last of them (the Mahdi) would be for a long period hidden from public and so referral to him impossible. God not wanting to go the details of this conditional prophecy, he left it out.
(3) In conjugation with (2), it is the case that Imams were Messengers of their time and place, and that there is yet a Messenger to come. This be saying, the Messenger of the time must be adhered to, and if there is no Messenger, then it's problematic.

And in this regard, we are in a problem, because all disputes are about Quran and Sunnah. The Quran and Sunnah don't solve our disputes because we don't have a Messenger among us to be referred to.

Revelation and receiving it for humanity (Nubuwa) came to an end, but Resalah (message) continued and the Mahdi is the Messenger we await to solve our disputes.

That said, why didn't it say "your Messengers". It maybe the leaders and Ulil-Amr would only become Messengers if it was needed to revive the message and convey the clear truth.

However, this would depend on the situation, if people followed Mohammad (s) and didn't divide after his death, the Ulil-Amr (a) would lead and command, but there would be no need of them becoming Messengers.

Message is when the wisdom needs to be revived. However another verse 4:83 confirms that all matters of safety and fear should be referred back to the Messenger as well the Ulil-Amr if referred to would result in the same, the people who can understand it would understand it as a result.

The more reasonable way of seeing it is never seen by people and the contextual flow of comparison to the family of Abraham and their authority is ignored by humans as if all those words don't connect nor flow.

This is again only possible due to sorcery on the hearts.