What is the meaning of SuJuD according to The Quran? - new article
-
peace all,
Since bro Mazhar has seemingly declined from answering my request, it is open for others
If you think masjid as 'mosque' OR 'institution of obedience' then please explain your view on 1821 and 2187.
(see article for analysis)This will help myself, and readers, better understand this position. Thanks.
-
peace all,
Since bro Mazhar has seemingly declined from answering my request, it is open for others
If you think masjid as 'mosque' OR 'institution of obedience' then please explain your view on 1821 and 2187.
(see article for analysis)This will help myself, and readers, better understand this position. Thanks.
Sorry brother Wakas,
It is otherway round. You seem to be afraid reading the article that contains all the occurrences, that it might shatter all what you built erroneously on preconcieved thoughs about prayer and prostration etc. That containes references of all the authentic and reliable classical lexicons.
Noun of location is derived from a Verb {perhaps derivation phenomenon you think not worth understanding]. And a verb denotes only an action-activity-something relation to kinetic energy not potential energy. Location is for the performance of that action.
-
1821 And like that We made known about them that they might know that God's promise is true and that the Hour there is no doubt in it. When they disputed amongst themselves about their issue, so said "Build over/upon them a building". Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed on their issue said "Surely we will take* (to ourselves) over/upon them a maSJD."
*verb form 8, reflexive.Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse
Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence). Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view. The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.
Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side? It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding. As a side note, Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", which seems plausible.
Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense, as it implies a pre-existing thing. To check this, out of 128 occurrences of this specific verb form there are five occurrences that may refer to "taking for/to oneself a structure/building" and they are2941 (implies pre-existing thing)
9108 (unclear)774 - "take FROM (partitive) its plains palaces" (plains are pre-existing) or from context may refer to existing Thamud structures
26129 (implies pre-existing thing)
1668 (implies pre-existing thing)
Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of a pre-existing thing. To use a reflexive verb such as this, to refer to building/creating something anew seems odd. To refute this, evidence to the contrary would have to be brought. Interestingly, this simple observation helped illuminate the parable of the spider click to read.
Lastly, since it implies the ones who prevailed had it right, we must ask ourselves what is the message of this verse? Well, clearly for the people in question God gave them a sign in this story. After this lesson, they disputed, some said "build a building over them" and in-between the other side's argument it says 'Their Lord knows best about them' (also mentioned in subsequent verses), implying their number or who they were is not the point, thus no need for a building, as their Lord knows best about them, and it is the outcome/lesson of the story or God's will prevailing that is important. Also, in 1822 it says "do not dispute about them except with an argument obvious/apparent", and since AQ does not clarify their number which seems to be the main dispute, the primary obvious/apparent argument is the lesson of their story, and this is what people should be reminded of and take to themselves.
Background reading for some traditional perspectivesPlease first form your opinion as to what is that thing in your mind and what exactly is derived by this debate, whereupon someone could say something. You are at your own thinking as if you have made some conclusion while there is none in the above para and are yet asking to refute it. Refute what?
-
2187 Lawful for you nights (of) the abstinence is sexual approach* to your women, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray/deceive yourselves so He turned towards you and He forgave you; so now approach** them and seek what God has decreed/written for you. And eat and drink until becomes distinct the white thread from the black thread, of dawn. Then you shall complete the abstinence until the night, and do not approach** them while you are devoting/cleaving in the maSaJiD. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous/God-concious.
*Arabic RaFaTh (root Ra-Fa-Tha)
**Arabic BaShiR (root Ba-Shin-Ra)IF one takes masajid=mosques then if women were not allowed in them, it would make this statement illogical, thus clearly implying women could be present in the mosques. It also implies men and women are unlikely to be segregated, as they could approach one another, i.e. interact.
Who in their right mind would approach their wife in a sexual manner in a public Mosque? Was this such a temptation or common practice that AQ had to tell them not to do it? According to history/tradition mosques in those early days were very basic or simply courtyards thus unlikely to have multiple rooms so it seems even more odd to suggest such a thing taking place in a Mosque. This traditional understanding verges on the nonsensical.
IF masajids=mosques, why even mention mosques, when there is much greater chance of sexual temptation in the homes during abstinence? The traditional commentators attempt an explanation for this, e.g Jalalayn/Ibn Kathir say this is referring to 'itikaf' (spiritual retreat in the mosque) when believers would leave the mosque for sex then return, when they are meant to reside at the mosque for a certain number of days. This is a complete insertion of course, and hardly "clear" as it implies at the end of the verse, and the obvious error as it says "...WHILE YOU are devoting/cleaving IN the masajid" not when one leaves them. So, it would seem they interpret it as "...while you are staying in the masajid (for itikaf)...".
If it did mean 'itikaf' then this is not explained elsewhere in AQ, e.g. how many days, what does it involve, why, is it obligatory, examples of anyone actually doing it etc. If we are relying upon AQ only for our understanding of this verse, then 'itikaf' must be rejected outright. The consequence of this however, is that it renders the understanding of masajid=mosques illogical, or at least very unusual.Is there any conclusion drawn, an opinion rendered; or even something sensical in analysis that needs refutation?
-
peace Mazhar,
Once again, you do not provide your understanding of 1821 and 2187, or attempt to rebut any of the contentions I raise.
As you did when I posted part 1 - you provided no rebuttal of any of my points, just cloaked comments that no-one understood let alone agreed with. People can read this thread if they wish to see this.
As I said, it is open for others to actually respond to what I wrote with reason/evidence to the contrary.
-
peace Mazhar,
Once again, you do not provide your understanding of 1821 and 2187, or attempt to rebut any of the contentions I raise.
As you did when I posted part 1 - you provided no rebuttal of any of my points, just cloaked comments that no-one understood let alone agreed with. People can read this thread if they wish to see this.
As I said, it is open for others to actually respond to what I wrote with reason/evidence to the contrary.
Prace Wakas,
Actually you said noting about 1821, except exposing a confused state of mind by reading different oinions. Trabslating it you say
"1821 And like that We made known about them that they might know that God's promise is true and that the Hour there is no doubt in it. When they disputed amongst themselves about their issue, so said "Build over/upon them a building". Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed on their issue said "Surely we will take* (to ourselves) over/upon them a maSJD."
*verb form 8, reflexive".The Verb is trasitive and its object is mentioned as Masjid. An absolutely reflexive verb does not have an object, since the action turns back upon the Subject and not the Object. The Verb is emphatic and is apodosis for elided Qasam reflected by La prefixed . It renders it a decisive conclusion agreed upon by the debating people on the issue under discussion.
And this is how We had caused the mystery of missing youth resolved upon people of the area so that they might convincingly understand that the Promise of Allah the Exalted is an absolute fact;
and that regards the Final Moment there is absolutely nothing uncertain and perplexing therein.
When they were mutually debating regarding the disposal of matter pertaining to the Young men of Cave, thereat a group proposed, "You Construct upon them-above cave a new structure-Memorial".
Their Sustainer Lord knows better about them.
Those who dominantly prevailed the debate regarding the matter pertaining to the Young men of Cave, decidedly said, "Surely we will in future acquire a mosque upon-them-above cave". -
peace Mazhar,
Thanks for the reply.
"Surely we will in future acquire a mosque upon-them-above cave".
Personally, I find the above illogical or at least highly unlikely, for the reasons I give in the article. But thank you for at least admitting that it refers to a future action, which is one of the things I noticed, i.e. implies a pre-existing thing thus the only way to get out of this is to interpret like you have and insert "...in future...".
I am more than happy for readers to read, weigh and consider each side, and conclude for themselves.
Now please provide your understanding of 2187, thanks.
-
peace Mazhar,
Thanks for the reply.
Personally, I find the above illogical or at least highly unlikely, for the reasons I give in the article. But thank you for at least admitting that it refers to a future action, which is one of the things I noticed, i.e. implies a pre-existing thing thus the only way to get out of this is to interpret like you have and insert "...in future...".
I am more than happy for readers to read, weigh and consider each side, and conclude for themselves.Now please provide your understanding of 2187, thanks.
Peace Wakas,
I have not inserted anything----perhaps it was missed that an emphatic verb-evident from heavy Noon has only future aspect in it--no present. Moreover, what Lam is doing there prefixed to the Verb was also missed.
The word "will" itself is a model verb used to indicate a future time-but majority merely floats on text--for such people I added "in future"----"henceforth" may perhaps still better translation for emphatic Noon and apodosis for elided Qasam/oath in the Verb.What is existing is cave wherein were the Yound men. Upon them does not mean in the cave-but over the cave. The conversation has indicated that the upper part of the cave is flat where one group proposed for raising a monument-any structure as memorial. The other group winning the debate had said that in future they will adopt the place over them as a mosque. Let me tell you one need not build a new building over the cave-they have used the word to adopt-acquire that place for their selves as mosque.
-
peace Mazhar,
Let me clarify as I dont think I was clear.
Yes, I know it is an imperfect verb meaning an incomplete action, ongoing, future etc. What I am saying is the other occurrences of the exact same form with reference to buildings refer to pre-existing things, whilst 1821 does not (using your view of it). So you are forced to insert "in future" as a clarification (possibly implying an exception) and later adding maybe the place is already there - which is theoretically possible but unlikely. And I'm sure you are aware no other translator/interpreter claims that, most likely because the verse does not warrant it, and/or they also think it is unlikely.
But its no matter, it's all about weighing the evidence, and you have provided your view of 1821. Thanks.
Now please provide your view of 2187.
-
peace Mazhar,
If you wish to proceed with 2187 then do so, if not, then do not.
This is what you have stated in the article about 2187
2187 Lawful for you nights (of) the abstinence is sexual approach* to your women, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray/deceive yourselves so He turned towards you and He forgave you; so now approach** them and seek what God has decreed/written for you. And eat and drink until becomes distinct the white thread from the black thread, of dawn. Then you shall complete the abstinence until the night, and do not approach** them while you are devoting/cleaving in the maSaJiD. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous/God-concious.
*Arabic RaFaTh (root Ra-Fa-Tha)
**Arabic BaShiR (root Ba-Shin-Ra)IF one takes masajid=mosques then if women were not allowed in them, it would make this statement illogical, thus clearly implying women could be present in the mosques. It also implies men and women are unlikely to be segregated, as they could approach one another, i.e. interact.
Who in their right mind would approach their wife in a sexual manner in a public Mosque? Was this such a temptation or common practice that AQ had to tell them not to do it? According to history/tradition mosques in those early days were very basic or simply courtyards thus unlikely to have multiple rooms so it seems even more odd to suggest such a thing taking place in a Mosque. This traditional understanding verges on the nonsensical.
IF masajids=mosques, why even mention mosques, when there is much greater chance of sexual temptation in the homes during abstinence? The traditional commentators attempt an explanation for this, e.g Jalalayn/Ibn Kathir say this is referring to 'itikaf' (spiritual retreat in the mosque) when believers would leave the mosque for sex then return, when they are meant to reside at the mosque for a certain number of days. This is a complete insertion of course, and hardly "clear" as it implies at the end of the verse, and the obvious error as it says "...WHILE YOU are devoting/cleaving IN the masajid" not when one leaves them. So, it would seem they interpret it as "...while you are staying in the masajid (for itikaf)...".
If it did mean 'itikaf' then this is not explained elsewhere in AQ, e.g. how many days, what does it involve, why, is it obligatory, examples of anyone actually doing it etc. If we are relying upon AQ only for our understanding of this verse, then 'itikaf' must be rejected outright. The consequence of this however, is that it renders the understanding of masajid=mosques illogical, or at least very unusual.
Another explanation put forth for this verse is that sexual approach to your women is permitted in the nights of the abstinence but not when one is staying in the mosques, e.g. The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca). Not for "itikaf" per se but simply a spiritual/devotional retreat there, e.g. travellers to The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) may have come from afar and thus set up tents there, and this verse is referring to them (a verse cited to support this notion of "residency/staying" is 2225). Not that I necessarily agree with this explanation, but it is at least more plausible than the Traditional explanation, which advocates a specific practice of "itikaf" rather than an undefined one. It is debatable whether the word "akif" means "reside/stay" according to Quran usage, but in any case people staying-over in the mosque seems odd/impractical if one takes "tawaf" as "circumambulation" for example. It could make this practice rather awkward, and if many residents, perhaps impossible.Please can you state pointwise what you derive or intend to say?
-
I am pointing out some issues for readers to consider.
The first question a reader should ask is whether they believe in "itikaf" or not. If they do, then they would have to explain why this practice is unmentioned in Quran, and why Quran feels it necessary to point out do not have sexual relations with your women in the Mosque, as if this is some sort of issue.
If a reader does not believe in "itikaf", then this gives one more leeway in interpreting this verse, e.g. see the last paragraph of your quote. They should explain this position.But it is no matter what I wrote, simply provide your translation of the verse and explain any points you wish to explain. Readers can then weigh and consider the information.
-
I am pointing out some issues for readers to consider.
The first question a reader should ask is whether they believe in "itikaf" or not. If they do, then they would have to explain why this practice is unmentioned in Quran, and why Quran feels it necessary to point out do not have sexual relations with your women in the Mosque, as if this is some sort of issue.
If a reader does not believe in "itikaf", then this gives one more leeway in interpreting this verse, e.g. see the last paragraph of your quote. They should explain this position.But it is no matter what I wrote, simply provide your translation of the verse and explain any points you wish to explain. Readers can then weigh and consider the information.
- The first question is perhaps for reason of not knowing what "belief" denotes. It is not an issue or segment of "belief".
(a) The people visiting "The House of Allah the Exalted" from other coutries may like to use most of their time for in Masjid around Ka'aba. It is an act done by individuals concentrating for longer period in individual prayers by secluding in Mosques and spending most of the time therein for couple of days.
- The first question is perhaps for reason of not knowing what "belief" denotes. It is not an issue or segment of "belief".
-
- The first question is perhaps for reason of not knowing what "belief" denotes. It is not an issue or segment of "belief".
(a) The people visiting "The House of Allah the Exalted" from other coutries may like to use most of their time for in Masjid around Ka'aba. It is an act done by individuals concentrating for longer period in individual prayers by secluding in Mosques and spending most of the time therein for couple of days.
Then what is your understanding of "tawaf", because if it is "circumambulation" then it seems difficult to do logistically/practically if people are staying around "Ka'aba".
And of course, these days there are millions of Muslims who visit there, so staying there for such a thing would be impractical, perhaps impossible - please give your view. - The first question is perhaps for reason of not knowing what "belief" denotes. It is not an issue or segment of "belief".
-
Then what is your understanding of "tawaf", because if it is "circumambulation" then it seems difficult to do logistically/practically if people are staying around "Ka'aba".
And of course, these days there are millions of Muslims who visit there, so staying there for such a thing would be impractical, perhaps impossible - please give your view.Staying in the Mosque around Ka'aaba does not mean staying by the four walls of Ka'aba. "Tawaf" keeps going on when other than prescribed "prayer" is also taking place participated by millions of people, you might have seen it in live telecast these days in what is called "Traweih". Masjid has vast place around Ka'aba which can accomodate millions of people.
-
I am pointing out some issues for readers to consider.
The first question a reader should ask is whether they believe in "itikaf" or not. If they do, then they would have to explain why this practice is unmentioned in Quran, and why Quran feels it necessary to point out do not have sexual relations with your women in the Mosque, as if this is some sort of issue.
If a reader does not believe in "itikaf", then this gives one more leeway in interpreting this verse, e.g. see the last paragraph of your quote. They should explain this position.But it is no matter what I wrote, simply provide your translation of the verse and explain any points you wish to explain. Readers can then weigh and consider the information.
Salaam brother,
What is "itikaf"?
-
Staying in the Mosque around Ka'aaba does not mean staying by the four walls of Ka'aba. "Tawaf" keeps going on when other than prescribed "prayer" is also taking place participated by millions of people, you might have seen it in live telecast these days in what is called "Traweih". Masjid has vast place around Ka'aba which can accomodate millions of people.
Firstly, you are forced to make-up where one can stay, as this is not discussed in Quran. But for sake of argument, let's say it is not immediately next to the four walls of Ka'aba.
According to Traditional Islamic sources, most state there was no specific building called Al Masjid Al Haram, so most say it is referring to the area/site around Ka'aba. So let's assume it is a site/area, I do not know how large such a site/area was but certainly it was not millions. If you look at the earliest pictures of Al Masjid Al Haram, it could perhaps accommodate several thousand, and likely less if they had tents/animals etc. Thus "tawaf" if taken as "circumambulation" presents a problem. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as to say impossible, but certainly impractical.Also, I just thought according to Quran, the lawful/permitted place (mahilla) of the hadiy (gifts/offerings) are to al bayt al haram, which I'm sure you, and others, would regard as the Ka'aba and/or Al Masjid Al Haram, which means even less space to do "tawaf". As I said, it seems impractical to me.
But in any case, thanks for clarifying your view.
