Contradiction in 22:18?

Mazhar

Question What "linking clause" is elided? Maybe that will become clear to me if you can point out which phrase you mean by "the following prepositional phrase"

It is not professor level grammar. It is basic grammar. In English and Arabic also all relative pronouns need linkage clause. Because of prepositonal phrase with "Fe" it is understood whoever is living-exists within------

Mazhar

Quote
With conjunct the other sentence shows specific definite entities who are the subject of the same verb.

By this, you mean "If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb"?

Yes, we can take it as subject of the verb subject to the condition that its specification is elided. It is also basic grammar that the subject of a verb is a definite or specified noun.

Mazhar

Here please note the word is in nominative case but is indefinite. If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb, we will need its specification by an adjectival clause which is elided.

Can you please clarify? As conjunct, wouldn't the meaning be ? As another subject of the verb, I object to this, because I find it conflicts with the subject which I understand to be all inclusive; in other words, I understand to be a subset of . By "conflicts", I mean that since was already listed as one of the subjects of the verb, that to, in addition, list a subset, i.e. , seems redundant and odd and in demand of an explanation for the redundancy.

? This is the meanings of individual words assembled as a sentence in English. But semantics is not all this. "Many for ", which in English is adjective and pronoun-a grammatical word referring to a considerable number of people or things, cannot alone be taken as the subject of verb.

Mazhar

Quote
If we take it as a seprate recomencing sentence, we will have to estimate its elided predicate.

The "conflict" I find leads me to believe this to be the case. It then would make sense to me that the first sentence is describing sujud as something that all (which includes everyone) are subject to.

And now the second sentence requires, as you put it, an estimation of the elided predicate.

As you pointed out, "Man surrenders either affectionately and/or by compulsion of circumstances."

Wakas' reference re consciously vs. unconsciously seems to make sense to me (which is also Muhammad Asad's interpretation in his note 33 for 221.

Two "estimations of the elided predicate" come to my mind for the second sentence

, or

The first one makes more sense to me because of the following

Third sentence

2219
Since 2219 is referencing two opponents, I suspect this is referring to

opponent 1)

opponent 2) (because he is one of
the who sujud unconsciously -- i.e. he is not God conscious / not a believer / etc...)

I'm mostly in agreement with Wakas

Red part describes the manner or circumstance in which the action takes place. An imperfect verb in Indicative mood does not denote "unconscious" element in it. Imperfect covers the present moment as well coming moments in timeline. Mohammad Asad overlooked the mood of verb. They even naively overlooked that action is always conscious.

Mazhar

My only objection is that I have difficulty agreeing that "it can work as one sentence" because of

the redundancy/oddness of vs. , and
if the point being made is to differentiate two different aspects of sujud (all are subject to it vs. many are consciously aware that all are subject to it), then I see TWO predicates (underlined below) which to me require two sentences to differentiate between
Whoever + sun + ... sujud (whether they know it or not)
Many sujud (knowingly)
I think it needs to be a separate sentence so that 2219 works (unless someone can suggest an alternate understanding of which two opponents are being referenced)

Which gets back to one of my sticking points
Mazhar, you seem to be confirming that an interpretation as a separate and distinct sentence with an elided predicate is not in breach of grammar or some other rule?

God, how can I spend so many hours on one seemingly little thing...

Red Because you seemingly ignored what I had stated in my post about the manner of study by a critical reader. { Critical and logical thinking an enquiry based process and pursuit linking background information given before to determine cohesion and coherence is not only the advised mode of reading and comprehending Grand Qur'aan, but is also an evaluation criterion to assess the accuracy of translations and exegeses. Presence of contradictions and conflicting statements in the target language text will render that work as faulty and inaccurate.
(iv) Critical thinking Follow an enquiry based process use prior and background information Inbuilt criteria for evaluation of translations]

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/013.%20Ar%20Raad/13.15.gif

The circumstantial clause is not repeated next time because here the "Man" can also be considered as general relative pronoun including all inanimate objects also. Moving from general to specifics is not called redudancy. Similarly reiterating a point with added information or additional angle-insight is not called repetition.

hawk99

Peace SAbboushi,

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth
(all of the creation submits to Allah willingly or unwillingly)

and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people?
(willingly)

But upon many the punishment has been justified.
(they submit unwillingly)

And he whom Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor.
(therefore, because of their involuntary submission, humiliation is their lot)

Indeed, Allah does what He wills.
(his creation, his rules!)

God bless you

peace

SAbboushi

Mazhar - thanks for all your posts. It will take me a while to try to understand them; I stand corrected I should have said that my knowledge of grammar is like that of a second grader, hence my difficulty ; )

And peace to you hawk99--

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth
(all of the creation submits to Allah willingly or unwillingly)
...

And he whom Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor.
(therefore, because of their involuntary submission, humiliation is their lot)

This thread seems to demonstrate that there are two camps regarding the meaning of
a) does this mean "whoever", which as I have suggested, I believe to be indicative of living and intelligent beings (i.e. this does not include non-living, non-intelligent things like stars and mountains), or
b) does it, as you advocate, mean "whatever" or some other word to encompass "all of creation", whether living, intelligent, or otherwise?

My thoughts

• I am not aware of a verse that tells us that non-living, non-intelligent things like stars and mountains are candidates for God's punishment.

• If is referring to "all of creation", then the rest of the entries strike me as redundant.

• The phrase you translate as "And he whom Allah humiliates" I suspect we are in agreement that this is referring to those who "submit unwillingly"; and I note the same relative pronoun is used to refer to as is used in the beginning of the verse where you advocate it is referring to "all of the creation". This to me stands out as a mismatch in the use of the same relative pronoun in the same verse. Now that observation may have no relevance (I don't speak Arabic), but my inclination is to view God as a consistent God. And so doing a little searching, I find e.g. 229 that uses the relative pronoun . I think I need to examine the usage of and in the Quran to see if my thinking has an merit.

• I note that I might be in agreement with your understanding (i.e. is referring to "all of the creation&quot if only the conjunction "and" was not prepended to () because then I would see everything listed afterwards as examples of "all of creation" which would include and end with ; I say I "might" because then such an interpretation to me would be predicated upon the belief that the list of subjects are all submitting willingly... that the sun, the moon ... and many of the people are all submitting willingly. So I would need to find other verses that tell us that "inanimate objects" willingly submit to God.

Any comments on my thoughts are appreciated, especially the merit of my argument "if only the conjunction "and" was not prepended to ..."

Mazhar

?I note that I might be in agreement with your understanding (i.e. is referring to "all of the creation&quot if only the conjunction "and" was not prepended to (&#1615 because then I would see everything listed afterwards as examples of "all of creation" which would include and end with ; I say I "might" because then such an interpretation to me would be predicated upon the belief that the list of subjects are all submitting willingly... that the sun, the moon ... and many of the people are all submitting willingly. So I would need to find other verses that tell us that "inanimate objects" willingly submit to God.

The only problem you are facing, as I could perceive from your posts, is about redundancy aspect; mention of specific entities after "whoever exists in the skies and whoever exists in the Earth".

May I suggest that you revisit the English grammar about redudancy and general-to-specific order organization of a discourse/speech; general and specific terms. It will certainly help you to resolve the problem because you will then not see any redundancy in this Ayah and perceive the par excellence structuring of the Ayah. The image of the whole universe is made clearer that makes easier to form an attitude towards the point being conveyed.

So I would need to find other verses that tell us that "inanimate objects" willingly submit to God.

Root Affectionate surrender of one's will and freedom/liberty-Forehead on the ground.

mmkhan

Peace brother,

There are patterns, structures and styles to understand alQuraan clearly for a layman. AlQuraan is not dependent on so called human made grammar rules. There is no book of grammar send down by Allah, so grammar cannot take over the way alQuraan speaks.

2218

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people? But upon many the punishment has been justified. And to whoever Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills.

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is in the earth why? Because they are mentioned in line later. Repeating does not make sense.

The sun, the moon, the stars , the mountains , the trees , the moving creatures and the humans accepts the authority of Allah .

Even though the majority of humans do sajda to Allah, upon majority of humans the punishment is justified .

Mann this word is repeated again in the same aayat "and to whoever Allah humiliates..." this repeatation of the word may help you understand, inshaAllah.

Hope this is of some help to you inshaAllah.

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

hawk99

And peace to you hawk99--

This thread seems to demonstrate that there are two camps regarding the meaning of
a) does this mean "whoever", which as I have suggested, I believe to be indicative of living and intelligent beings (i.e. this does not include non-living, non-intelligent things like stars and mountains), or
b) does it, as you advocate, mean "whatever" or some other word to encompass "all of creation", whether living, intelligent, or otherwise?

My thoughts

• I am not aware of a verse that tells us that non-living, non-intelligent things like stars and mountains are candidates for God's punishment.

• If is referring to "all of creation", then the rest of the entries strike me as redundant.

• The phrase you translate as "And he whom Allah humiliates" I suspect we are in agreement that this is referring to those who "submit unwillingly"; and I note the same relative pronoun is used to refer to as is used in the beginning of the verse where you advocate it is referring to "all of the creation". This to me stands out as a mismatch in the use of the same relative pronoun in the same verse. Now that observation may have no relevance (I don't speak Arabic), but my inclination is to view God as a consistent God. And so doing a little searching, I find e.g. 229 that uses the relative pronoun . I think I need to examine the usage of and in the Quran to see if my thinking has an merit.

• I note that I might be in agreement with your understanding (i.e. is referring to "all of the creation&quot if only the conjunction "and" was not prepended to () because then I would see everything listed afterwards as examples of "all of creation" which would include and end with ; I say I "might" because then such an interpretation to me would be predicated upon the belief that the list of subjects are all submitting willingly... that the sun, the moon ... and many of the people are all submitting willingly. So I would need to find other verses that tell us that "inanimate objects" willingly submit to God.

Any comments on my thoughts are appreciated, especially the merit of my argument "if only the conjunction "and" was not prepended to ..."

Peace SAbboushi,

I apologize for being general in my reply. I assumed you were aware of verses about inanimate objects submitting.

16/48, 16/49, 16/50, 24/41, Also 17/44, 2/74, 41/11

The word AND defined along with synonyms

conjunction

1.used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly

synonyms together with ? along with ? with ? as well as ? in addition to ? also ? besides ? furthermore ? plus

God bless you

peace