Magic??
-
Peace Fuhrer,
You'll see that every translator agrees to interpret "but they cannot harm anyone except by God's permission" from within the ayah. Thus, one cannot break-up a marriage with sorcery or magic.
You stated
It's frustrating, really -I thought I had actual proof of the Truth.
I don't know that such a thing is possible. But even if the code was on the money, 100% fool-proof and absolutely confirmed to be divine in nature - and everything that seemed illogical and /or mystical was stripped away by the "right" interpretation, what then?
Peace,
Tay -
Peace,
Well good luck Fuhrer. I'd like to know what is so illlogical about magic?
Godbless,
AnwarI'm sorry, my message to afridi was actually for you...got a bit hasty lol.
"Magic" isn't plausible (at least not in our universe). In this day and age, we have enough information to conclude that everything has a cause, or an explanation - even things that seem impossible or too amazing to be true can be broken down to the last atom. And the notion that humans can learn this "magic" and be condemned for it is illogical. The fact that the Qur'an states that two angels taught this "magic", told their students that it's a huge test and not to be used, and people who use it (or "purchase" it) are condemned doesn't leave room for more speculation on this "magic". It can't be anything scientific, considering the era where it was taught, and because it's stated that people used it to break up marriages. At least that's how I've intepreted it...I could be wrong though. -\ -
Uh...I gave you the link to the translation and my understanding of it. At the top...the "2102" is a link to 10-12 translations, including a literal one.
As for magic being a word to generally describe deception...it would make perfect sense if used anywhere else the word "magic" was mentioned in the Qur'an. However, as far as 2102 is concered, it wouldn't fit. Harut and Marut were teaching people to "what was false to appear in the form of the true" and warning them that this is but a test? The people used this knowledge to break up marriages? They were warned that these teachings of deception are tests? It doesn't make sense to me.I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this...
And the website you gave was absolutely rubbish. One doesn't refer to translations. If you can refer to the arabic definitions and meanings, then that's a whole something another.
Common knowledge of what evil magicians do, is that they use the help of jinn.
Seriously, what doesn't make sense? Magic is as assihra.
What is illogical, that you fail to understand how magic (existing in books and what not) works.
Please, one doesn't refer to the English, as modern English is full of orwellian concepts. Not only that but when most of these people were translating into English, they were using a not so modern English. And yes, English changes a lot over a short amount of time.
One example can be found in the meaning of "reading" compare that to the earlier part of 20th century to what it is now... totally different and not appropriate the translation of the arabic word "qul".
Please, refer to the arabic, especially as the book is in arabic. And note that translators, translate for ease of reading, not for deap study.
-
Sadhus? more potent than Pak exorcists BJP
NEW DELHI The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday dismissed claims by a Pakistani astrologer about his supernatural powers, which will destroy the Indian missile system.
Party spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad told a press briefing that India was a land of ?sadhus? and ?tantriks?, whose supernatural powers were more potent and convincing than Pakistani exorcists.
As the war talk had reached a feverish pitch in the media, astrologers, tricksters and ?tantriks? also seemed to be adding to the tensions. Pakistani newspapers on Saturday reported that an internationally famed astrologer and palmist Fazal Karim had assured the Pakistan Army not to fear the Indian military as he had powers to jam India?s missile system.
The papers quoted Karim as saying India was consulting pundits and exorcists to decide an appropriate time for launching a war against Pakistan, adding Indian magicians had invoked blessings of Kali Devi by doing a penance at the Kali temple for the past 21 days to influence politicians and military generals through black magic. Karim said he had made all arrangements to protect Pakistan from the magic. Commenting on Karim?s claim, Prasad said, ?We have a history of producing ?tantriks? and their powers will surpass this Pakistani tantrik.?
rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl -
And the website you gave was absolutely rubbish. One doesn't refer to translations. If you can refer to the arabic definitions and meanings, then that's a whole something another.
Well, exuse me for not knowing Arabic. I hope you know even most Muslims don't know a word of Arabic, let alone the history of the language. The translations on that site are as close as I can get to the original Arabic (by comparing all of them, including the literal translation).
Common knowledge of what evil magicians do, is that they use the help of jinn.
Is it now? You realize the existance of jinns has not been proven - some religious/spiritual people may believe in jinns, but that doesn't mean they exist. There are dozens of religions that don't acknowledge the existence of such beings.
Also, what on earth is an "evil magician"? Last time I checked, there's no such thing as "magic" in this universe that's governed by laws. I understand that you may believe in it because you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, but you have to see it through my, and other inquisitive people's, eyes.Seriously, what doesn't make sense? Magic is as assihra.
What is illogical, that you fail to understand how magic (existing in books and what not) works.
I don't know what "assihra" means. If what you wrote in your first post was the definition of "assihira", I've already explained why I have a problem with that explanation for this verse. And how does "magic" work? What books? The books outlining countless superstitious rituals and practices? You can't seriously believe superstitions...
"Magic", to my understanding, is something that cannot be explained...no matter how many tools you have, how many colleagues you have, or how many resources. If something can be explained, it doesn't qualify as "magic".Please, one doesn't refer to the English, as modern English is full of orwellian concepts. Not only that but when most of these people were translating into English, they were using a not so modern English. And yes, English changes a lot over a short amount of time.
One example can be found in the meaning of "reading" compare that to the earlier part of 20th century to what it is now... totally different and not appropriate the translation of the arabic word "qul".
Please, refer to the arabic, especially as the book is in arabic. And note that translators, translate for ease of reading, not for deap study.
That's why I posted the question on this forum. I don't know Arabic, so I thought I might've been missing something. Perhaps you can explain this verse to me in a no-nonsense way - keeping in mind my understanding of it.
NEW DELHI The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday dismissed claims by a Pakistani astrologer about his supernatural powers, which will destroy the Indian missile system.
Party spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad told a press briefing that India was a land of ?sadhus? and ?tantriks?, whose supernatural powers were more potent and convincing than Pakistani exorcists.
As the war talk had reached a feverish pitch in the media, astrologers, tricksters and ?tantriks? also seemed to be adding to the tensions. Pakistani newspapers on Saturday reported that an internationally famed astrologer and palmist Fazal Karim had assured the Pakistan Army not to fear the Indian military as he had powers to jam India?s missile system.
The papers quoted Karim as saying India was consulting pundits and exorcists to decide an appropriate time for launching a war against Pakistan, adding Indian magicians had invoked blessings of Kali Devi by doing a penance at the Kali temple for the past 21 days to influence politicians and military generals through black magic. Karim said he had made all arrangements to protect Pakistan from the magic. Commenting on Karim?s claim, Prasad said, ?We have a history of producing ?tantriks? and their powers will surpass this Pakistani tantrik.?
I'll look into it, but only to make sure. I don't claim to know everything, but I wouldn't trust any lunatic that claims to have advanced religious guidance that comes out of India (or anywhere, really - but India seems to be the breeding ground for foolish religious people who ignore science and logic or extreme charlatans). There are so many people who claim to be divine, or mystical, or magical in India, and literally MILLIONS who choose to follow them and worship their pictures. People like Sai Baba, Amma, etc. And those are just the most famous ones - there are hundreds of lesser guys out there too.
I'm Indian with a Hindu mother, who bows her head to a picture of that boy-lover Sai Baba once a day. These people are nothing but frauds and mobsters with political connections. Thanks for your input though, I'll look into it.Thanks for the replies guys, I appreciate it.
-
Magic it would seem according to Classical Arabic and the Quran is the knowledge of how to delude, beguile and hoodwink. Which can be a useful skill that can produce good. The two angels taught this, but those people who learned it only wanted to learn things that did harm and no good. Among those things was how to break up marriages (maybe to take the women for themselves). The bad thing was not learning the knowledge of how to delude, it was only learning what did them harm instead of good. And whoever invests in what does them harm instead of what does them good will be punished for that. That is how I have seen that passage.
Godbless,
Anwar -
The two angels taught this
That's the part that really gets me though. Angels taught how to delude? And not only that, people have known how to be deceptive from even before Babylon came around - even in some of the stories of the prophets of old (from before the supposed time of Harut and Marut) they'd have "magicians" (however you want to define it) trying to divert attention away from the miracles of God.
-/ -
Well, exuse me for not knowing Arabic. I hope you know even most Muslims don't know a word of Arabic, let alone the history of the language. The translations on that site are as close as I can get to the original Arabic (by comparing all of them, including the literal translation). Is it now? You realize the existance of jinns has not been proven - some religious/spiritual people may believe in jinns, but that doesn't mean they exist. There are dozens of religions that don't acknowledge the existence of such beings.
Also, what on earth is an "evil magician"? Last time I checked, there's no such thing as "magic" in this universe that's governed by laws. I understand that you may believe in it because you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, but you have to see it through my, and other inquisitive people's, eyes. I don't know what "assihra" means. If what you wrote in your first post was the definition of "assihira", I've already explained why I have a problem with that explanation for this verse. And how does "magic" work? What books? The books outlining countless superstitious rituals and practices? You can't seriously believe superstitions...
"Magic", to my understanding, is something that cannot be explained...no matter how many tools you have, how many colleagues you have, or how many resources. If something can be explained, it doesn't qualify as "magic". That's why I posted the question on this forum. I don't know Arabic, so I thought I might've been missing something. Perhaps you can explain this verse to me in a no-nonsense way - keeping in mind my understanding of it. IAye you are missing something
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/20_SIIN.htm
I came to the forum through that site above.
And sir, I cannot excuse even myself from not knowing arabic.
And no the closest you can get is to study arabic.An evil magician is someone who uses magic (illusions) for evil purposes.
In the quran, magic is only spoken about pharohs magicians, who themselves ended up claiming they weren't the real deal.
The only special case is where humans were given test/trial by the god in that of sending two angels (that's what the quran says, others challenge the original words used). Those who failed the trial, learnt what they learnt.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA
-
Peace,
First of all, the Qur'an uses the term "alsihra", which literally means the magic or the sorcery. There's nothing specifically "illogical" about magic or sorcery. To an extent, I agree with Anwar's interpretation of this; people regard "magic" as something to be avoided simply because it can't be explained... Secondly, the scriptures don't say this was taught to any two ANGELS in Babylon; this is another mistranslation. The passage says
Yu alimoon al-naasa al-sihra wa ma'onzila alaa al-MALIKAYN BIBAABILA harut wa marut...
This translates to "They teach the people the magic/sorcery and what was sent down to the TWO KINGS OF BABYLON, Harut and Marut..."The people who received this information and spread it throughout the kingdom were the kings, not angels. How would two angels ("malaikayn" spread magic and sorcery throughout a kingdom? ) Plus, we learn from history that the teachings of sorcery have been passed around since the days of the ancient Khemites/Egyptians. So, these "shayaateen"/devils/satans who were spreading these teachings were actual humans, not mystical flying spirits; they were humans who were misleading people from the right path. These humans, who were probably magicians and sorcerers, taught the kings of Babylon concepts of mysticism, which eventually spread throughout the land of Babylon; and people used these concepts to reject God and His signs. This is possibly one of the reasons why Moses, according to the Qur'an and the Hebrew scriptures, was initially blatantly rejected by the Egyptian magicians; because, through magic and sorcery, they were able to partially mimick some of his works (i.e. turning his staff into a serpent). However, after seeing the greatness of God's signs, they became submitters... So, is this concept of sorcery being taught throughout a land really so "illogical"? Sorcery is still practiced in many countries today. Plus, people often consider anything they don't understand and can't explain to be magic and sorcery. What these people actually practiced and believed may have been a form of mysticism (i.e. dualism), in which they placed partners alongside God and committed shirk. Either way, it promoted widespread blasphemy and overall rejection of God.
What's "illogical" about this?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
The verse is 2102
Ahmad, you said
al-MALIKAYN
This is wrong. This is not in the passage The word is Al-MALAKAYN, not AL-MALIKAYN. Please everyone review the passage carefully so as to not miss that vowel marking which is a fathah and not a kasrah. Malak and Malaak = Angel, NOT King. They are close spellings and close pronunciations but not the same.
Godbless,
Anwar -
The verse is 2102
This is wrong. This is not in the passage The word is Al-MALAKAYN, not AL-MALIKAYN. Please everyone review the passage carefully so as to not miss that vowel marking which is a fathah and not a kasrah. Malak and Malaak = Angel, NOT King. They are close spellings and close pronunciations but not the same.
You have to realize that, in the original, the entire message was based on sound and pronounciation. There were no vowels. This could've easily been misinterpreted and mistranslated over time... The Arabic translation for "two kings" is malikayn, which sound nearly identical to malakayn (two angels). The question you have to ask is Did Babylon have two angels, or did it have two kings? hmm Basing this concept of TWO ANGELS (malakayn) is illogical. Why would two angels come down from God and teach the people magic and sorcery? -\ It is possible, though, that two men taught magic and sorcery to the people, and they were in turn raised in status, viewed as kings among the people or even becoming actual kings, and they spread these teachings throughout the land. Either way, the concept of actual angels teaching this to the people is illogical and unlikely... Also, the passage clearly says "almalikayn" (or "almalakayn", depending on your interpretation), which implies the duality of the figures. So, is this an implication that Babylon specifically had two angels assigned to overlook it? Do all nations have two angels? Why would two angels be assigned to overlook a pagan nation, which based it's religion on sorcery and magic? Again, this is illogical and extremely unlikely. The most correct ideology would be two kings ("malikayn", not two angels...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
Arabic has always had vowels. Always. The writing did not write out vowels typically. But in the Quranic script you will find vowels (fathah, dammah and kasrah) that are not typically written, written with ya, waw, and alif. So unless there is a version of the Quran that has that vowelling we cannot change the Quran. Despite whether you think that change is more logical. I have no problem with angels in that verse.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Arabic has always had vowels. Always. The writing did not write out vowels typically. But in the Quranic script you will find vowels (fathah, dammah and kasrah) that are not typically written, written with ya, waw, and alif. So unless there is a version of the Quran that has that vowelling we cannot change the Quran. Despite whether you think that change is more logical. I have no problem with angels in that verse.
I'd have no problem with the word angel/"malayka" if it was in the verse either. But it's not there, and this is confirmed through logic... The Qur'an was mostly preserved through memorization and oral recitation, even without being written down. So, to someone (i.e. a translator) who's not particularly knowledgeable in Arabic language, the word "malikayn" can easily be mistaken to be "malakayn". It's no different than how people often confuse "Elaziz" (the title for an Egyptian ruler, king, or governor) with "al-azeez" (a title for God meaning "the powerful", which they often mix up in the story of Joseph. The words sound similar, but by reading them in context, it's not hard to realize that they are very different... By reading 2102 in context with the story revealed, it's evident that this verse isn't speaking about two angels. Why would the Qur'an mention the concepts of magic and sorcery being spread by "the two angels of Babylon"? -\ Any speculative person would ask What's Babylon doing with two angels? And why would two angels, beings sent by God to carry His message and to accomplish His tasks, spread the teachings of magic and sorcery to people? Is this logical? Is this a characteristic of angelic beings?
Here's how it was written in the original script "ALMLKYN" (http//www.textinmotion.com/chapters.jsp?chap=2&verse=102)
Now, based on this transliteration of the original classical Arabic script, how do you know this was referring to "almalakayn" instead of "almalikayn"? The answer is YOU DON'T. None of us do. The only way we can find out is by examining the context of the statement, and deciding which statement is most logical and accurate. And based on the context, the most appropriate translation would be "almalikayn"/two kings.Peace,
Ahmad
-
Hello,
"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," Arthur C Clarke...
maybe an individual/people with advanced technology have a clear advantage over those who don't possess such knowledge. Modern day magicArtificial colorings and flavouring have made "swiss choclate" cheaper and accessible to "not rich"-that's magic!! Not to mention usury..creation of money outa nothing!!same also may go for the power of suggestion. People of earlier years (when moving pix first were introduced) found the comdey pix of those days risible but we, this generation don't find it all too funny. The peception is always changing..BUT SOMEHOW....the thought of black magic/supersition has prevailed for many.. even highly educated folks (with degrees, masters even)...wonder why...Ingrained
Turning a staff into a serpent could have been "mechanical technology" and when God showed the magicians the real deal, they acknowledged the greater power. I am just thinking out loud.
I have always been confronted by people who say they know magicians who can turn a healthy person to a dead one overnight by just uttering some words into an egg.....And I alway ask them "gimme the winning numbers of the next three lottery tickets"---no takers...And I would also ask them why is the guy talking to an egg living in shambles/a ghetto and why not in a mansion by using his magic..Again there will be silence...or maybe a wierd answer...
Hopefully the magic mentioned in Quran is not what a lot of us hope it would be....(that is - turning a granite stone into gold by merely wishing so..with all kinds of dramatisation of course)
peace.... -
The most widely accepted interpretation of this verse is that Harut and Marut did not deceive the people. It is true that they taught the people occult sciences, but they did warn their students about the temptation that comes with such knowledge. They told their apprentices we are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the Guidance of God)", that the practice of sorcery amounts to disbelief in God, and that they should therefore not learn sorcery and Magic.
So when someone came forth of his own choice and decided not to heed the warning, it meant that he willingly chose disbelief. Later their teachings were used by subsequent generations of humans to practice black magic and sorcery.
An analogy is that of a teacher teaching his student a common mistake made by other students in hopes that he will not fall in a similar error.
There are a number of opinions regarding the origin of Harut or Marut i.e. Angels or Humans where some believe they were Angels and some believe they were Humans. However, the strongest and most widely-accepted interpretation of this verse, which scholars have agreed on some aspects yet differed on the minor details. The scholars have agreed that Harut and Marut were two angels sent by Allah to test the people of Babylon with magic, and these angels were only acting upon the order of Allah and commited no sin, nor even the slightest error. However, they differ as to the nature of the test.
Lengthy debates and opinions demonstrate several points. First of all, it explains the idea of angels teaching magic for the purpose of educating the public about this evil so that they would avoid it. It also mentions that the angels were sent as a test for the people to distinguish those who would succumb to the temptation of using magic from those who restrained themselves from such evils. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the angels may have been sent for all the purposes mentioned by scholars, including as a temptation to catch those who practiced sorcery, as a test for the people, and for educational purposes to distinguish good from evil.
From the above it becomes clear that the angels were acting as servants of Allah and were only carrying out their mission as commanded by Allah. The question of disobedience doesn't even arise, and consequently there is no contradiction between this verse and the verse which states that all angels are obedient.
Finally, neither magic nor women who blow on knots have any power or efficacy, for only God, Lord of the Worlds, has true power. All believers rely on God and trust only in Him, hope for assistance from Him, tell Him all of their needs and anxieties, and take Him as their friend and guardian.
It really is not a difficult ayat to understand.
-
Peace,
Ahmad, what you said was completely unintelligenet. ElAziz as opposed to Al-Aziz? They ARE the same thing. It's that you don't understand Arabic and so invent your own version, which is wrong. As it concerns Malak, it says MALAK, angel plain and simple. You cannot ignore the Quran. That includes it's vowels and it's consonants. You need to think on the issue a little more. I don't see anythign ilogical anymore. But you are unfortunately trying to change the Quran and justify it. The Quran was mainly preserved orally. Not as the hadeeth but by schools of reciters. And God preserved it in this way. What you are implying is that the Quran was corrupted.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Ahmad, what you said was completely unintelligenet. ElAziz as opposed to Al-Aziz? They ARE the same thing. It's that you don't understand Arabic and so invent your own version, which is wrong.
Brother, it's obviously you who lacks a sure understanding of Arabic language. You're saying that the Egyptian title "elaziz" is the same thing as God's title "al azeez" in the Qur'an? -\ You can't be serious with that one, man, honestly. I think you need to look at the Qur'anic story of Joseph, where both he and the king are called "elaziz", the title for an Egyptian ruler; many people have misinterpreted the scriptures to refer to these people as "al azeez" (the powerful). Look at the story, because right now, you don't have any idea what you're talking about... Look at 1230, 51, 78, and 88...
As it concerns Malak, it says MALAK, angel plain and simple. You cannot ignore the Quran. That includes it's vowels and it's consonants. You need to think on the issue a little more.
No, YOU need to think on this issue a little more. The Qur'an in it's original script didn't say "almalakayn"; it said "ALMLKYN". If you had any knowledge of classical Arabic structure, you'd know that this could be referring to either two angels OR two kings; you'd differentiate them based on the context of the remaining passages.
STOP RELYING ON YOUR MANMADE TRANSLATIONS, AND FACE THE FACTS.
Why would Babylon have two ANGELS? Is this even logical? Why are ANGELS teaching sorcery? ) Qur'anic translators placed the vowels ("alifs" in their respective places. In the original texts, THEY WEREN'T THERE. If you based your conclusion on the original scripts, which were preserved in Arabic through memorization and recitation, then you'd know that this passage can be talking about kings or angels; and after examining the context, it's clear that the verse is talking about two Babylonian kings, not two Babylonian angels...
Peace,
Ahmad