What Mustansir Mir really says about kharruu liladhqaan

ths

When you play with fire, you get burned

What's that supposed to be? Some kind of pre-school comeback?

Also, I was replying to everyone seriously in the beginning. Feel free to double-check that.

What about your own utterly pointless sarcastic remarks?

I came on here to propose that the mainstream accepted view on here wasn't correct. I was then promptly mocked, as if what I was proposing was ludicrous and a joke.

But no you're right, I suppose all serious academic debates are rife with youtube videos, and all academics mock each other with extremely clever haikus, all academics surely tell each other to check the definitions of humility and humiliation in the dictionary, and other generally ON-TOPIC remarks.

So for a bunch of people claiming to have "free minds", everyone's minds turned out to be surprisingly stolid.

So please excuse me for having a bitter taste in my mouth.

Jack

Thanks for proving my point.

ths

Thanks for proving my point.

No problem D All your points on this thread have been extremely valuable

Wakas

peace ths,

Can you explain how you see 17107-109?

Also, your take on "fall SJD" in other places in AQ.

Thanks.

ths

Salaam Wakas,

I take 17107 and 17109 to follow the expression that Lane explains.
I can fully understand why you have a problem with it, translating from English it feels like it should work like "fall on your face", which is fully figurative - ie. can be used to describe something where no physical movement happens.

The best way to explain this in English is when someone falls over, and you say "he fell on his ass!"
He doesn't literally fall on his ass, he just falls over. It's just a saying to highlight how embarrassing the situation was for him.

So I interpret it as an expression used when something mighty, or proud, falls over. Like the stone in Lane's example. You add the "adhqaan" simply to add poetic weight.
So instead of saying "the tree fell over", you would say "the tree fell to its chin!"
The chin, as a symbol of pride, is used figuratively to describe the increased humiliation.

The traditional view, is that the chin is a metonym that represents the face. But I'm increasingly dissatisfied with that explanation. I think that if you take 'sujood' to mean traditional prostration, then there is no need to make this mean face - it simply means to fall to the ground.

So in both 17107 and 17109, they fall over. This is either related to 2573 or not.

So 17107

yukhirruuna liladqhaani - they fall to the ground in utter humility/submission

sujjadan - in sujood

17109

yukhirruuna liladhqaani - they fall to the ground in utter humility/submission

yabkuuna - crying

As for sujood, I interpet it as one of the most complex concepts in the Quran, indicating a physical movement of prostration to represent the humility/submission/obeisance of that person.

I realize I haven't gone and written a thorough analysis of sujood from the Quran as you have, perhaps I'll do so the next time I get a vacation, but your definition of sujood as non-physical could fit this verse.

The only reason it's important is that it relates physical movement with sujood, and that sujood can be done from the ground.

I think that the reason a physical movement is required is to make it into a conscious act, so that the person can say to himself at that moment "I am making sujood". Otherwise, sujood becomes such an abstract concept that it is difficult to know when one has done sujood and when one hasn't.

But, obviously the mental/emotional aspects of humility and submission are most important, and this raises the problem of people not feeling humble whilst performing the physical act.
That is why the God has reminded us not to do so, in verses such as these

Woe to those who pray but hearts are not in the prayers. Those who want only to be seen 1074-6

And those who, when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat. 2573

The problem with your definition of salah is that it is always meaningful, always a conscious decision to humble oneself and show obeisance. But how can one be "heedless" and "unmindful" of his salah according to your definition?

If we understand salah to have physical aspects, then it is easy to understand how some people may be doing the movements blindly whilst thinking of something completely different.

But this is ok, because the salah holds 2 major functions, in my opinion, the macroscopic and the microscopic function.

The microscopic function is the inner function. The one that helps you attain peace and to become closer to your God.
The macroscopic function is the outer function. The one that binds the community, gives it a single identity, and joins it in common worship.

So a person may be praying in the mosque for a congregational prayer and have his heart somewhere else. He is still serving the macroscopic function of prayer and benefitting his community, there is immense power in racial and social classes standing shoulder to shoulder, but he ultimately needs to put his heart into his prayer to succeed.

Having said all this, I think that reading from the Quran during salah is of the utmost importance, and that there is a known tradition of this even in hadiths (for example Aisha having her slave lead the prayer whilst reading from the Quran). I think that people out of sheer stupidity and lack of caring have lost this tradition.

EDIT

I forgot to mention. This interpretation of sujood and khrr also works with the other instances of khrr sujjadan

These are they whom God has blessed among the Prophets of the seed of Adam, and of those We bore with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and of those We guided and chose. When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping. 1958

Again, they are falling to the ground. Notice that there is no use of the poetic device "dhaqn" - why?

Because the people mentioned in 17107 are proud people who were humbled by the signs of God.

The people in 1958 are all great people, Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, Idris. They were not humbled dramatically, therefore they readily fell to the ground. The people in 17107 were regular people who had to be humbled. Thus, no "chin" appears.

Again in 3215, physically falling is related to sujood

Only those believe in Our signs who, when they are reminded of them, fall down prostrate and proclaim the praise of their Lord, not waxing proud.

Not waxing proud. They are already believers - thus no chin.

Finally, in 3824

And David thought that We had only tried him; therefore he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down, bowing, and he repented.

Again, we see a term used in salah juxtaposed with falling/physical movement.

Lastly, Youssef's parents prostrating to him in 12100 is a problem, as no one should be doing sujood to anyone but God. But whether we interpret sujood as physical or non-physical, that conundrum still stands, and is another discussion entirely.

Mazhar

I think that the reason a physical movement is required is to make it into a conscious act, so that the person can say to himself at that moment "I am making sujood". Otherwise, sujood becomes such an abstract concept that it is difficult to know when one has done sujood and when one hasn't.

Suhood is preceded by a physical act .

is "haal"-i.e. depicts the state one gets into by the preceding act-

is imperfect verb, in Indicative Mood, leaving no room for such like conjectures "figuratively", "idiomatically".

The basic perception infolded in the root is of that light sound which is produced and heard from the flowing water or air; in Urdu we call it , equivalent perhaps would be froufrou, and also refers to the sound produced by the wings of eagle while flying. And then it was used for that falling/moving downward from above that also produces the above type of sound.

The downward mnovement that is "Fall" of anything or person can be caused by external factors where the style of falling, forward, backwards, on the left wing or right wing etc, will be dependant upon the external factor and will not represent the choice of the fallen/falling object or person.

The Indicative Mood of the above verb indicates that this downward movement is the conscious and persistent practice of the doer/subject of verb. Preposition Li explains/clarifies how the downward movement takes place; forward bending in which first the chins go down-fall from their earlier position enabling the forehead to go down on earth touching- resultant state.

Wakas

peace ths,

So do you see, for example, 3215 as believers "fall down prostrate" whenever AQ is relayed to them?

Also, I see "salat" as "bond", and it easy to see how someone can be neglectful of their "bond", yet superficially participate in its various acts or say things they do not know the meaning of, we see Traditional Muslims doing it all the time. See my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm

The conundrum of 12100 does not stand if SJD=prostration is taken away. See the conclusion of my article, in which it can mean to honour, pay respect, submissive, or to give acknowledgement/recognition. The problem is the inconsistency if one takes "fall SJD" here as X, then the obvious question is why take it as Y elsewhere? The only answer to this that I can see is that it causes problems for the traditional understanding, so that is why it cant mean X. This is not sound criteria with which to understand AQ.

This is not the only problem of course, there are many highlighted in my analysis http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Mazhar

Also, I see "salat" as "bond", and it easy to see how someone can be neglectful of their "bond",

Bond---adhesion-link between people-restraint

And for different connotations of the word "bond" appropriate and relevant words in Arabic are ---- etc and not "salat".

ths

So do you see, for example, 3215 as believers "fall down prostrate" whenever AQ is relayed to them?

Well not at all. If we did then we'd have to reinterpret this verse too

1958 When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping.

We would have to believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all fell to the ground prostrating and weeping every time they heard the Quran.

Even if we didn't interpret sujood as physical prostration, we'd still have the problem of weeping. Should we weep every time according to 17109? Did Ismail and Idris and Moses weep every time as in 1958?

Also in 2853, talking about those "who were given the scripture" -

And when it is recited unto them, they say We believe in it. Lo! it is the Truth from our Lord. Lo! even before it we were of those who surrender

Did they say this exact statement each time the scripture was recited to them?

Also, I see "salat" as "bond", and it easy to see how someone can be neglectful of their "bond"

This is true, but I find these verses to fit this interpretation perfectly.

Woe to those who pray but hearts are not in the prayers. Those who want only to be seen, and refuse charity. 107 4-7

It indicates that they want to be seen, and I'm not sure how this is possible with your interpretation, unless you believe that in congregational prayer people should gather together to read the Quran.

The conundrum of 12100 does not stand if SJD=prostration is taken away. See the conclusion of my article, in which it can mean to honour, pay respect, submissive, or to give acknowledgement/recognition.

Why? 12100 says sujood, and sujood is not to be done for anyone other than God. So it doesn't matter what our definition of sujood is.
We can believe 1 of 2 things

That this is an internal error in the Quran. It says there is no sujood for anyone but God, and yet it says people made sujood to Youssef - clear error.
That God specifically chose to use the word sujood for this instance, when He could have used 'honour', 'submit', or any number of words.

I really don't see why the conundrum would be gone just because we interpret sujood to be honoring and paying respect without physically prostrating.

Wakas

The reason I chose 3215 was that it is the most clear example of the addressees being general. The other examples could arguably be referring to those specific people, hence my question.

I dont believe in "falling down prostrating" so I'm not sure why you say "We would have to believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all fell to the ground prostrating and weeping every time they heard...." Perhaps the weeping part, but not the rest.

It indicates that they want to be seen, and I'm not sure how this is possible with your interpretation, unless you believe that in congregational prayer people should gather together to read the Quran.

I discuss this in the link I gave http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm

Why?

I discuss this in my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Since Joseph was one of the guided ones, in authority and in a position to issue commands to be followed, similar to the examples for God and His commands, "fall SJD" can mean the exact same thing in 12100

sujood is not to be done for anyone other than God

How concrete is that statement?

ths

I dont believe in "falling down prostrating" so I'm not sure why you say "We would have to believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all fell to the ground prostrating and weeping every time they heard...." Perhaps the weeping part, but not the rest.

Yes it's the same logic. If we believe that we are supposed to fall down prostrating then to be consistent we would have to believe all those people wept every time they heard the Quran being recited. It doesn't matter what our definition of "kharra sujjadan" is. If you think that people are supposed to kharra sujjadan every time they hear the Quran, then you have to believe that these people wept each time as well.

Also, I don't understand your argument. We both agree that sujood means "to honour", or "to pay respect". What we disagree on is whether there is an inherent physical act involved. So what I don't understand is why it becomes ok for the parents to do sujood to Youssef if there is no prostrating to the ground. How is that any different?

The point is that sujood is obliged of us during salah, and God has written in the Quran that Youssef's parents performed sujood to him. We can change the meaning of sujood as much as we want, but it still poses a logical problem - something that is to be done to God was also done to Youssef. So taking away the physical prostration from the definition doesn't change the problem at all in my opinion.

Wakas

AQ = al quran

Let's examine and analyse carefully

8420-22 So what is the matter with them that they do not believe? And when the quran/reading is being recited to them, they do not SJuD. No, those who rejected/concealed are denying.

---> those who have kfr/rejected/denied should SJD when AQ is recited to them

(Are we meant to believe, it is hard enough to get those who kfr to accept AQ, let alone accept by prostrating on the ground?!)

1958 Those are the ones whom God has blessed from amongst the prophets from the progeny of Adam, and those We carried with Noah, and from the progeny of Abraham and Israel, and from whom We have guided and chosen. When the revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fell SuJaD and weeping.

When the revelations were recited TO THEM (who is reciting revelations to the prophets?), thus likely refers to when receiving revelation, and sure, why not weep in this moment, but also physically prostrate? Maybe.

3215 Only they believe in Our signs whom when they are reminded by them, they fall SuJaD*, and glorify with praise of their Lord, and they are not arrogant.
*Tafsir ibn Abbas explains this expression as "they come in all humility", Ibn Kathir says it means "they listen to them and obey them in word and deed." Even though both do not interpret 1958 the same way.

----> 3215 is the most clear example of the addressees being general, thus are we meant to believe believers physically prostrated every time upon hearing God's ayatin? I highly doubt it, hence tafsirs trying to explain it another way.

In fact, I just realised this is impossible, because AQ is full of believers being addressed by God's ayatin, yet not one example of anyone prostrating as a response. Thus, it becomes extremely unlikely to impossible, this is what it means here.

So my question is simple, how do you see 3215 is it a physical prostration or not?

The point is that sujood is obliged of us during salah

Where does it say that? SJD marks the end of salah, according to 4102. As I point out in my study, which no-one attempted to rebut, SJD=prostration in 4102 is highly problematic, and in my view, impossible.

something that is to be done to God was also done to Youssef.

I asked you once, you never replied. Where does it say in AQ that SJD is only to God?

So taking away the physical prostration from the definition doesn't change the problem at all in my opinion.

There is a big difference to giving someone acknowledgement/recognition, paying respect, honouring someone, and physically prostrating on the ground to someone. If you dont see the difference, that is fair enough, every tafsir I have read sees the problem, hence they try to explain it another way, as I discussed in my article.

As I said, the problem is the inconsistency and the logic of the traditional position. I have no problem if someone says "I think that SJD can mean prostration sometimes in AQ, and sometimes not, it depends on context, and I dont have fixed criteria to determine what it means when other than SJD=prostration does not fit in that occurrence so it must mean something else".

I want them to admit that because it will bring out their true colours. It is ironic to think that traditionists imply "Quran only" go on their whims, when it is the other way around. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

At the end of the day, I dont mind what a person believes, but if they attempt to ascribe something to AQ then I have the right, and duty, to examine and request evidence.

Mazhar

Quote
something that is to be done to God was also done to Youssef.

I asked you once, you never replied. Where does it say in AQ that SJD is only to God?
Wakas

All three on the elevated stage went into prostration to Allah, these three included Yusuf alahissalam and his mother and father who were taken to the stage by him.

1CELOSTNOWFOUND

Peace,

I am in agreement with Wakas, mainly because I see it as a matter of consistency. Once we throw consistency out the window, understanding the Quran becomes too subjective and it becomes very difficult to have a rational debate as anyone can point toward "proof" due to picking and choosing which meaning of a term to take when. There is no concrete measuring stick for discussion.

Imraan

Wakas

peace Mazhar,
Your interpretation does fit the facts, as discussed in my article.

peace Imraan,
That is a good point. As a side note, personally, I see 482 not only as a challenge to non-believers in AQ but also implying a methodological way to understand AQ.

Each to their own.

Mazhar

Let's examine and analyse carefully

8420-22 So what is the matter with them that they do not believe? And when the quran/reading is being recited to them, they do not SJuD. No, those who rejected/concealed are denying.

---> those who have kfr/rejected/denied should SJD when AQ is recited to them

(Are we meant to believe, it is hard enough to get those who kfr to accept AQ, let alone accept by prostrating on the ground?!) Wakas

This is because little attention is being paid to the Retraction particle; Particle denoting turning away from or dismissing what precedes it and retrieving or confirming what follows. It is used for negating or rejecting what precedes and confirming what follows "not that but this".

Thereby what is the reason for them that they do not incline themselves to believe?
And when the Grand Qur'aan is read to them they persistently do not surrender/come anear it.
Nay, on the contrary those, who have deliberately refused to accept/believe, in fact keep publicly contradicting it.
And Allah knows the best about that which they people keep to themselves.

ths

I asked you once, you never replied. Where does it say in AQ that SJD is only to God?

Sorry, was making another point and forgot to address this.

I'm not sure whether it was a hadith or not that stated this....I sometimes mix up the two. That's what happens when you've been reading the Quran alongside the hadiths your whole life.

But as Mazhar pointed out, 4137 is a strong indicator that it should not be done to anyone but God.

So while the statement is not 100% concrete, I'd still prefer to err on its side.

When the revelations were recited TO THEM (who is reciting revelations to the prophets?), thus likely refers to when receiving revelation

This is conjecture. I believe that if God was talking about receiving revelation it would have been stated thus. I don't think that receiving revelation is ever called "tutlaa 3alayhim" (recited to them), but I may be wrong.

So my question is simple, how do you see 3215 is it a physical prostration or not?

Yes I see all occurrences of kharra sujjadan to mean physical prostration.
Whether or not one is supposed to do so every time is another question, the same question that we all face regarding weeping in 1958. Do they weep every time or not?

I don't interpret it this way. I think that the Quran is simply juxtaposing this action with people who have never wept, and never prostrated.

Quote
The point is that sujood is obliged of us during salah

Where does it say that? SJD marks the end of salah

Yes that's what I meant. Sujood marks the end of salah, and thus it is obliged of us during salah as I stated.

So taking away the physical prostration from the definition doesn't change the problem at all in my opinion.

There is a big difference to giving someone acknowledgement/recognition, paying respect, honouring someone, and physically prostrating on the ground to someone. If you dont see the difference, that is fair enough

I really don't see the difference.

The problem is not our definition of sujood. Let us say that sujood = singing.

God states that singing is a part of salah
God states that we should not sing to the sun or the moon, but to God
God states that Youssef's parents sang to him
Youssef was an honorable God-fearing man

The same logical conundrum is still there. It is not physically prostrating to the ground that causes this problem, it's the fact that the Quran uses the word sujood for all cases.

So I really don't think that just because we've removed physical prostration from the definition of sujood that this problem has disappeared.

As I said, the problem is the inconsistency and the logic of the traditional position. I have no problem if someone says "I think that SJD can mean prostration sometimes in AQ, and sometimes not, it depends on context, and I dont have fixed criteria to determine what it means when other than SJD=prostration does not fit in that occurrence so it must mean something else".

I want them to admit that because it will bring out their true colours.

This is exactly what I'm stating. And so what?? There are many words in the Quran that change meaning depending on context.

Therefore

I take "kharra sujjadan" to mean "fall in prostration" every time it is used.
I take "sujood" to be a complex word that can vary in definition depending on context.

I shall give an example below.

I am in agreement with Wakas, mainly because I see it as a matter of consistency. Once we throw consistency out the window, understanding the Quran becomes too subjective and it becomes very difficult to have a rational debate

What are you on about???

1.There are plenty of words in the Quran that change depending on context.
2.You are arguing that kharruu liladhqaani sujjadan does not mean to physically fall -- therefore you are arguing that it is an idiom -- therefore you are not being consistent in your interpretation of the Quran.

So the irony may have slipped you, but I'm the one arguing that kharra means to literally fall in these verses.

Now, the example of words changing meaning depending on context that pops most readily to mind is khrr

It occurs 12 times in the Quran, and in all it means to fall, except in one. I'll leave out the 'kharruu liladhqaan' and 'kharra sujjadan' verses

7143 ...and Moses fell down swooning. (kharra muusaa sa3iqan)

1626 ...and the roof fell down on them from over them

1990 ...and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin

2231 ...as if he had fallen from heaven

2573 ...fall not deaf and blind thereat. --- this is a verse where you (Wakas) argue for a different interpretation of khrr. I'm sure Imraan is more than ready to jump on that bandwagon

3824 ...he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down, bowing, and he repented. (kharra raaki3an wa2anaaba)

Now, the verse where kharra changes is this one

3414 Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff so when he fell/died, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task)

So there is 1 example of many, where words can change depending on context.

Now let me summarize the points

In 1958, it is unlikely that this is God who is revealing revelation to them for 2 reasons

a) The term "tutlaa 3alayhim" does not mean to reveal a revelation, and as far as I can tell, is not used that way in AQ.

b) More importantly, many of these people never received revelation of their own. Haaroon for one, definitely did not.

So do you believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all wept every time they heard the Quran recited to them?
You are both arguing for consistency in interpretation. Then how do you both interpret 3824.
Are you arguing that kharra means to fall in all places of the Quran?
Are you arguing that kharra means to fall, except when used with SJD?
Are you arguing that kharra means to fall, except when used with SJD AND with rukoo3?
If you don't believe that kharra sujjadan is literal, then to be consistent you must also interpret kharra raaki3an as idiomatic also

8 ) There are other examples of the formula "idha tutlaa 3alayhim" (when our signs are rehearsed to them)

831 "When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say..." -- Do they say the same thing every time?
1015 "But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who ...say..." -- Do they always say the same thing?

I could ask the same question about 1973, 3443, 4525, 467

9)Finally, prostrating in front of superiors was simply ancient Egyptian custom.

This page says that prostration AND bowing were both done to superiors

And a quick googling gives us these images
http//www.bible-history.com/admin1/image/thumbs/egyptian_prostration.gif

http//www.corbisimages.com/images/67/4069C610-3B7C-441C-9BA5-29EE76481A1F/IH019944.jpg

http//wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1788/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1788-1584.jpg

1CELOSTNOWFOUND

Peace ths,

What are you on about???

1.There are plenty of words in the Quran that change depending on context.

Firstly, I think your tone could do with some adjustment if we are to have a civilized conversation about this.

As for point 1, if the context dictates a meaning divorced from the core meaning of the root, I always view it critically. Just because certain established meanings have become the common understanding of various terminology, it doesn't necessarily mean such an understanding is correct. I do not believe that there are inconsistencies in the Quran. Therefore when words are understood in a way that creates an inconsistency, I endeavour to find an understanding that is free of such inconsistencies.

I have no problem with anyone accepting these inconsistencies as part of the language of the Quran. I choose not to because I believe that the language of the Quran is precise. Without precision it would serve to confuse rather than clarify. I therefore always look to the understanding that clarifies.

2.You are arguing that kharruu liladhqaani sujjadan does not mean to physically fall -- therefore you are arguing that it is an idiom -- therefore you are not being consistent in your interpretation of the Quran.

As for your second point, I am not arguing anything. I agree with Wakas because his approach seeks to find a consistent meaning, whereas yours simply waves away the inconsistency as different meanings in different contexts. You are comfortable with such inconsistencies. I am not.

I will respond to the rest of your post later as it requires a more lengthy response for which I don't have the time right now.

Imraan

ths

As for your second point, I am not arguing anything. I agree with Wakas because his approach seeks to find a consistent meaning, whereas yours simply waves away the inconsistency as different meanings in different contexts. You are comfortable with such inconsistencies. I am not.

It seems that you do not know what you're arguing, and you don't seem to know what I'm arguing either.

This discussion is mainly about kharruu sujjadan, and kharruu liladhqaan

Wakas was arguing that they are idioms, and that there is no physical movement.

I am arguing that they are not, and that there is physical movement in all cases.

This means that in Wakas' position, and thereby yours since you never outlined your position other than to state that you follow Wakas - there is inconsistency in the interpretation of the word kharra it varies in meaning.

So I find it highly amusing that you are now preaching to me about how comfortable I am with inconsistency and how uncomfortable you are.

Wakas also argues that 2573 is also an idiom and there is no literal falling - are you going to agree to that too? Because that would mean that you interpret kharra differently in about 4 cases - a bit of a blow to someone preaching about logic and consistency.

That is my first point.

My second, is that arguing that there is 100% consistency in all interpretation throughout the Quran is nothing but lip-service and rhetoric. The Quran is a highly poetic book and uses idioms and metaphors frequently. So if you're going to argue that, I suggest you have a look at Mustansir Mir's "Verbal Idioms of the Quran"

I'm arguing in favour of consistency in this case, but I'm not foolish enough to think that all words have the same meaning every time in the Quran, and any verse picked out at random can negate that theory

46 Whoever is rich, then let him not claim anything, and if he is poor then let him take eat (from the property of the orphan) that which is reasonable.

566 And if they had upheld the Torah and the Injeel, and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have been rewarded eaten from above their heads and below their feet.

44 Give the women their property willingly, and if they remit any of it to you of their own will, then you may use it eat it with good feelings.

2275 Those who receive eat usury...

Oh my god! It seems that the definition for akala that has been passed down for centuries is completely wrong and highly inconsistent!

I guess this means we need to re-interpret it.....so that it means the exact same thing in every verse. Otherwise the Quran just wouldn't be logical...

My suggestions for new meaning based on the passages mentioning 'akala' imbibe/draw/osmose

There, now it fits everything perfectly

Wakas

peace ths,

Please take your time in responding.

4137 is a strong indicator that it should not be done to anyone but God.

No it is not.

I don't think that receiving revelation is ever called "tutlaa 3alayhim" (recited to them), but I may be wrong.

These are God's revelations, We recite them to you with truth, and you are of the messengers.

We may also be able to reinforce the above another way, i.e. does AQ mention elsewhere God's ayatin/signs being recited TO prophets by others? I cant recall any, but there may be. If not, we will see another example of the precision par excellence of AQ.

Whether or not one is supposed to do so every time is another question, the same question that we all face regarding weeping in 1958. Do they weep every time or not?

See above.

Sujood marks the end of salah, and thus it is obliged of us during salah as I stated.

No. During is not the same as marking the end of something.

The same logical conundrum is still there.

The logical conundrum exists because of your absolute interpretation of 4137. It does not exist in AQ.

So I really don't think that just because we've removed physical prostration from the definition of sujood that this problem has disappeared.

A prophet allowing others to prostrate to him sounds more dodgy to me, than allowing others to pay respect, give recognition/etc to him. If you dont think so, that's ok, each to their own.

Re khrr
It is meant idiomatically when it is obviously idiomatic, i.e. its literal meaning does not fit. This is different to saying it means other than prostration because prostration does not fit. Have you established its meaning as prostration in the first place? No.

I recommend re-reading my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html