The Quran is often regarded as a powerful and divine text in the Islamic faith. It is believed to contain the words of Allah (God) as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. While the Quran is primarily used as a religious and spiritual guide, some individuals may attempt to utilize its power in different contexts, such as in witchcraft. Witchcraft, which is often associated with the practice of magic, the casting of spells, and the manipulation of supernatural forces, may involve the use of various tools, rituals, and incantations. Some individuals may believe that by incorporating verses from the Quran into their witchcraft practices, they can enhance their abilities or achieve their desired outcomes more effectively. However, it is important to note that the use of the Quran in witchcraft goes against the teachings of Islam.
Mainlining Christmas
We recently watched two versions of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I know, I know, gluttons for punishment.
One was the movie from 2005, one was a BBC version from 1988. I freely admit that I am partial to the BBC version as it is the one that I grew up with and the music just makes me happy. The BBC version is also slightly longer and uses its extra time for character and world development and not just for people throwing things at each other.
The main problem with adopting The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is that you are bound by the source material. Things that kinda work in the book if you don't think too hard about them are brought into stark relief on film. Things like that the kids spend all of 48 hours there before the climactic battle. Logic flaws and poetic license are less forgivable once you make a half hearted attempt to make the story feel realistic. This source material does however include some Christmas which is why we're here today.
Let's take a quick look at the differences between the versions.
First up, obviously, are the kids.
| 1988 |
| 2005 |
Peter, Edmund and Susan are all better served by the BBC, in my opinion. The miniseries has more time than the movie, so it's not surprising that they all have more character. Peter is more than just a prick, Edmund more than just a whiny brat, and Susan actually has some motivation and character to speak of. None of that is true in the 2005 movie, which probably suffered more than a bit from the fact that most talented young British actors were already very busy that decade.
Lucy’s situation is more complicated. The actress in the BBC is clearly trying to play much younger than she actually is. This means while she is a more accomplished actress, it's obvious that her motivation and reactions would make much more sense with a younger girl, so her performance is awkward overall. The actress in the 2005 movie looks the part more, but is less consistent.
Overall, I'd give this round to the BBC.
Next let's talk about villains.
| 1988 |
| 2005 |
Both versions of the White Witch are over the top, make extremely odd costume choices and chew plenty of scenery. Her army in the movie has more extras which makes for a more credible threat, although I still don't find her convincing.
| 1988 |
| 2005 |
In 2005, Mr. Tumnus is played by James McAvoy, and I kept being distracted by that. The actor in the BBC has what I consider to be a superior costume, despite lacking CG legs.
The other animals.
| 1988 |
| 2005 |
Okay, yeah, CG is better at this part, and the movie wins this round.
The Lion.
| 1988 |
| 2005 |
The BBC clearly put their entire budget into this big animatronic puppet. The movie version has better lip sync, however I do not think that the interactions with the other actors are as clean. Practical effects are great, especially when working with child actors.
However, enough about small, meaningless matters, we're here today to talk about Christmas!
The spell of the White Witch, as I'm sure you recall, makes it always winter and never Christmas.
Putting aside for the moment that this reflects Lewis's particular worldview and immunity to anachronism - the idea the citizens of a non-Earth place would give a shit about Christmas when not all the citizens of Earth do - let's assume that this is shorthand for eternal winter. If you never reach the solstice, you'll never reach the spring.
However, remember what I said about being hampered by the source material. Fools adapting this book can't just cut Christmas, even if they wanted to. After all, the kids have to get their magic weapons from someplace.
If Narnia deserves nothing else, here at Mainlining Christmas we believe that it deserves credit for being a story in which Santa gives deadly weapons to young children and sends them to war.
Sure, there's some piffle about the girls only getting weapons for self defense, but the fact remains. Weapons. Children. War.
| 1988 |
| 2005 |
The dialogue in the BBC is closer to the book which unfortunately means that the whole girls aren't allowed to fight thing is still kind of there. However, Santa in the movie looks like he ran away from a Ren Faire which is kind of odd.
Also the BBC gets extra points for including the scene in which a bunch of animals are turned to stone by the White Witch because they were having a Christmas party. I do love that scene.
I don’t feel like I can give a recommendation overall. You already know if you want to see a Narnia movie. But if you don’t mind cheesiness in the effects, I recommend you check out the BBC version.
If you want to know whether you watched it as a child, go ahead and listen to the beginning, see if you get chills.
BBC’s “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” (1988) Review
In 1988 the BBC did a TV miniseries based on the first three books (in publication order, not reading order) of C.S. Lewis’ famous and beloved series “The Chronicles of Narnia.” The first of the three is “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” and it is truly my favorite film rendition of the book (even over the more recent version…I’ve always had a fondness for puppetry, animatronics, and costumes over CGI). I was lucky enough to find a DVD boxed set and brought it home to watch. Tonight is the first night, so I started with the first installment (I have actually never seen the other two, so this will be fun!). The books always made me feel a bit more magical and even now the movies inspire feelings of witchiness.
Being as it was 1988, the animation and special effects are not great at all, very elementary and easily seen to be “fake”, but for a TV miniseries in the 80’s I’m sure it was considered fantastic (and I thought so as well when I first watched it in the early 90’s). The acting is theatrical and so funny, but in a very happy, nostalgic way. The comic relief with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver is welcome as, even now, the more intense scenes still make me feel a little scared. I remember Aslan seeming more lifelike when I was a child whereas now…well, the animatronics are very obvious. I also used to have the BIGGEST crush on the actor who played Peter. It follows the book very well (or at least what I remember of it) and is 168 minutes in length. The music is well done and has a perfect eeriness to it for the White Witch and has a pure fantasy sound through the whole thing. I will say the battle scenes are just terribly cheesy and silly; so many of it involves animated creatures which takes more away from it than adds. However, even with that, the rest of the movie is quite brilliant, but that is a biased one since I’ve loved this movie for 20 some odd years!
They just don’t make fantasy movies like they used to. Overall, I’d give this movie high marks and a strong recommendation for everyone to see at least once. It’s possible it may be a bit scary for really young children (I first saw it when I was in 2nd grade, so about 7 or 8 years old, I think, but I did find certain parts scary) so best to watch it either before them to gauge how you think they’d respond or watch it with them.
Have a very goodnight and blessed be!
Bbc lion witch wardrobe
Last Christmas I wrote about the 1984 BBC adaptation of The Box of Delights, in a popular episode-by-episode series of articles. The obvious follow up to that is another series that captivated me as a child, the spiritual successor to The Box of Delights in many ways, the 1988 BBC adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Many of The Box of Delights team returned to bring The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to our screens, including the same producer, many of the same technical crew including the special effects team, and most importantly Alan Seymour returned to provide the adaptation.
In this first episode, it’s fairly obvious to see how the success of Box was trying to be repeated. There is some use of beautiful animation again, this time for the opening title sequence (accompanied by a lovely theme from Geoffrey Burgon. If, like many of our readers, you are a Doctor Who fan, you may be familiar with his work on Terror of the Zygons and The Seeds of Doom). The team making this presumably also remembered how the gift of real snow made Box such a magical series to watch (and perhaps also remembered the shortcomings of the fake snow laden final episode), so they headed off to the Cairngorm mountains, in the Highlands of Scotland. The actors had to suffer for their art in the bitter cold, but the genuine snowy landscape adds so much to the magic of Narnia, and the striking contrast between the summer weather at the Professor’s house, and the “endless winter” of Narnia. Elsewhere the British weather was perversely not in their favour. You would think you could count on a bit of rain, usually so unwelcome, when filming in Britain, but instead the sun is streaming through the windows and a feeble rain machine on what appears to be a hot summer’s day provides an unconvincing excuse for the children to be stuck in the house.
The four child actors immediately make a strong impression. In particular, Jonathan R. Scott is amusingly grumpy and chauvinistic as Edmund (“Just like a girl, sulking.”), while Sophie Wilcox is an enthusiastic and likeable Lucy, coping well with the emotional scenes when the other children won’t believe her about the wardrobe. I’ll tread very carefully here as I don’t wish to comment on a child’s appearance, so I will use the words of Sophie Wilcox herself in a reunion interview: “I was this short little dumpling.” As the cast discuss in the same interview, they were an unusual choice, and were up against another group of child actors who fitted the character descriptions much more closely, but it’s delightful that the people making this were brave enough to go with likeability and talent as their main criteria.
As this is the opening episode there is not a large cast. Apart from the children, the only characters of note are the Professor (played by Michael Aldridge, who I remember fondly from Last of the Summer Wine. He also looks and sounds here hauntingly similar to my favourite English teacher at school, but that’s beside the point), and Jeffrey Perry as the charmingly gentle faun, Mr Tumnus. He sends Lucy to sleep with a strange sort of double flute. I didn’t quite buy its soporific qualities, as one side of it just plays the same note all the time, while the other side plays the tune. If you were ever wondering why bagpipes sound so rubbish (unless you’re in denial about that), it’s precisely this problem; the background hum of an unchanging note (created by pipes on the left shoulder appropriately named “drones”) clashes discordantly with many of the notes of any tune being played.
I suppose if there’s a theme to this episode, it must be the cruelty of jumping to the wrong conclusions about somebody. Lucy is disbelieved, despite being a child who never lies about anything. Edmund makes fun of her, while the others dismiss her claims. Like the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, maybe we should all make more effort to believe six impossible things before breakfast, especially at this magical time of year.
We end with the arrival of the White Witch, wearing a very impressive crown. Join us next Sunday in the Junkyard for her first encounter with the devious Edmund. RP
However, it is important to note that the use of the Quran in witchcraft goes against the teachings of Islam. Islam strictly prohibits any form of sorcery, witchcraft, or magic, considering it to be an act of disbelief and a violation of the fundamental principles of the faith. Muslims are commanded to seek protection from the evil influence of witchcraft and to rely solely on Allah for guidance and assistance.
The Quran itself contains verses that explicitly denounce witchcraft and magic. In Surah Al-Baqarah (2:102), it states, "And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, 'We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic].' And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew." This verse highlights the negative consequences of engaging in magic and witchcraft, emphasizing that it is a deviation from the true path of faith. The Quran aims to guide individuals towards righteousness and submission to Allah's will, discouraging them from seeking supernatural or magical means to achieve their desires. In conclusion, the power of the Quran is not meant to be harnessed for witchcraft or any other form of magic. The Quran serves as a source of guidance, wisdom, and spiritual nourishment for Muslims, and its true power lies in its ability to transform hearts, provide solace, and offer a divine connection to Allah. It is important for individuals to approach the Quran with reverence and respect, understanding its purpose and using it as a means of strengthening their faith, rather than attempting to use it for purposes that contradict the principles of Islam..
Reviews for "Enhancing Psychic Abilities with the Quran in Witchcraft Practices"
1. John Doe - 1/5 stars - I was highly disappointed with "Power of the Quran in Witchcraft." In my opinion, it was a nonsensical and misleading book. The title suggests a connection between the Quran and witchcraft, which is not only disrespectful but also false. As a Muslim, I found it offensive that someone would try to associate our holy book with an ungodly practice. The book's content was filled with baseless theories and unfounded claims, providing no substantial evidence or references to support its claims. I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for authentic and respectful information about the Quran or witchcraft.
2. Sarah Smith - 2/5 stars - "Power of the Quran in Witchcraft" left me with mixed feelings. While I appreciate the author's attempt to explore different perspectives, I found the book lacking in credibility and depth. The content seemed more focused on sensationalism rather than providing valuable information. Moreover, the author seemed to cherry-pick verses from the Quran to fit their narrative, disregarding the broader context and teachings of Islam. As someone who values accuracy and integrity when discussing religious topics, I was disappointed with the book's lack of scholarly research. If you are genuinely interested in understanding the Quran or witchcraft, I would recommend seeking information from more reliable and well-established sources.
3. Emily Johnson - 1/5 stars - "Power of the Quran in Witchcraft" was a complete waste of time. The book lacked coherent structure and failed to provide any meaningful insights into either the Quran or witchcraft. It felt like a hodgepodge of random ideas and unsupported claims. The author seemed more interested in attracting attention through controversy rather than delivering a well-researched and informative piece of literature. I would strongly advise against wasting your money on this book if you are seeking genuine knowledge and understanding about the topics it claims to cover.
4. Mark Thompson - 1/5 stars - I regret purchasing "Power of the Quran in Witchcraft." The content was shallow and poorly written, making it difficult to follow or take seriously. The author appeared to have a limited understanding of both the Quran and witchcraft, resulting in a confusing and misleading book. It lacked substance, reliable references, and logical explanations. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone genuinely interested in learning about either subject. Save your time and money for well-researched and reputable sources that provide accurate information.
5. Amanda Rodriguez - 2/5 stars - While "Power of the Quran in Witchcraft" had an intriguing concept, its execution was disappointing. The book failed to delve deep into either topic, leaving the reader with more questions than answers. The author's attempt to bridge the gap between the Quran and witchcraft felt forced and lacking in substantial evidence. It would have been beneficial to have more in-depth analysis and reliable sources supporting the claims made in the book. If you are looking for a comprehensive exploration of either topic, I would recommend seeking other resources.