How to prostrate....On CHIN or on FOREHEAD?

[Wakas]

peace ths,

Firstly, didn't you contact Mustansir Mir a few years ago and he confirmed to you that he thinks they are physically prostrating here and that only "chins" is idiomatic? I don't want to have to dig up that argument from 3 years ago.

Yes, and I mentioned that on the forum. However, that does not mean I agree with his interpretation.

Secondly, you are fond of repeating the argument that the whole phrase has to be an idiom if a part of it is an idiom. This is not the case, as we've discussed before, and as I've said, the addition of "chins" is just to add intensity

Bro Ayman was the first to mention this argument and you and him discussed this a fair bit and he did not agree with you (if I recall correctly). I also do not agree. I do not think you (and others, such as Lane) are being consistent or comparing like with like in your examples. It would be good to have others knowledgeable of Arabic analyse the examples to test this.

In my view
yakhorruun lil'adhqaan sujjudan ~ they fall to the chin sujjudan
"sujjudan" describes the manner in which they "fall to the chin" <--- to my knowledge, this is the same as bro Ayman's view
The idiom is "fall to the chin" not simply the word "chin"
"fall to the chin" means extremely humbled / extreme humility

Thus, my understanding of its use in Quran is that they submit/pay respect/honour (i.e. SJD) with extreme humility, or, with extreme humility they submit/honour/pay respect

Makes sense to me. And even you must admit, this is a theoretical possibility?

[ths]

Ok questions

1. When someone is "armed to the teeth", are they still armed? Is not the addition of the word "teeth" here the only actual idiom in the phrase? Why does this example not apply to "they fall to the chins" ? It is an identical analogy, except in the first people are actually armed and in the second no one falls because 'the whole phrase has to be an idiom'.

2. In 1958, the blessed people "kharruu sujjadan wa bakiyyan". Both SJD and BKY are in accusative. Does this mean that they were neither falling nor weeping?

3. Have you re-translated the word rukoo3 as well? In your article you've translated it as inclining/humbling. Has the physical aspect of this word been eliminated as well?

Bro Ayman was the first to mention this argument and you and him discussed this a fair bit and he did not agree with you (if I recall correctly). I also do not agree. I do not think you (and others, such as Lane) are being consistent or comparing like with like in your examples.

And neither of you have provided any evidence of your linguistic rule. Both of you are simply claiming that the whole phrase has to be an idiom, and continue to do so when faced with multiple everyday examples (like 'armed to the teeth&#039 that break your linguistic rule. As well as Lane's Lexicon that specifically gives examples of this phrase when applied to trees.

Either way, I'll try to dig up some Arabic phrases until I find one like 'armed to the teeth'.

Thus, my understanding of its use in Quran is that they submit/pay respect/honour (i.e. SJD) with extreme humility, or, with extreme humility they submit/honour/pay respect

Yes, no one, even the most ardent sunnis deny this. You can go and pose this to any corner-mosque sunni sheikh and he will agree with you. The point is, as Lane's Lexicon so clearly explains, that sujood is physical prostration with humility, and not khudoo3 and khushoo3 which mean submissive humility but have no physical connotation. The Quran is filled with the term khushoo3 KHSH3 to describe the true believers, and it also uses khudoo3 KHD3 in 264, so why use this particular word and why pair it with falling and bowing? Because that's what it means.

[Taro_Hiroshi]

Peace everyone,

I think that Wakas's understanding of the word Sujud is correct. Also, the word Sujud seems to be related to obedience. Because in verse 2278, the word Sujud (wa-usjudu) comes right before the word Ibada (wa-abudu), which means service. Hence it seems that the word Sujud (wa-usjudu) is connected to the word Ibadah (wa-abudu), in verse 2278. Is it possible to serve the creator before obeying the creator's laws/commandments? If we do not obey the creator's laws/commandments, then how can we serve the creator? These questions are worth pondering upon, in my opinion.

It seems that there is a possibility that the word Sujud means physical prostration. But in verse 2218, the Quran suggests that the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees and the beasts Sujud themselves before God.

Quran 2218 ART THOU NOT aware that before God Sujud themselves all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the beasts, whereas many will inevitably have to suffer ; and he whom God shall scorn will have none who could bestow honour on him for, verily, God does what He wills.

If Sujud means physical prostration in verse 2218, does that mean that the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees and the beasts physically prostrate before God, like a praying man? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Or does the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 2218? If the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 2218, is there a possibility that the word sujud means something else than physical prostration in regards to Salat as well? These questions are worth pondering upon, in my opinion.

Quran 8420-21 What, then, is amiss with them that they will not believe ? and , when the Qur'an is read unto them, they do not fall down in Sujud?

In verses 8420-21, the Quran suggests that those who do not believe, do not fall down in Sujud when the Quran is read to them. If Sujud means physical prostration in verses 8420-21, does that mean that people should physically prostrate before God, like a praying man, when the Quran is read to them? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Or does the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verses 8420-21? If the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verses 8420-21, is there a possibility that the word sujud means something else than physical prostration in regards to Salat as well? I think that these questions are worth pondering upon.

Quran 1648 Did they not see that what God has created, its shadow inclines to the right and the left Sujud to God, willingly?

In verse 1648, the Quran suggests that the shadow of what God has created, Sujud to God. If Sujud means physical prostration in verse 1648, does that mean that the shadow of what God has created, physically prostates to God, like a praying man? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Or does the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 1648? If the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 1648, is there a possibility that the word sujud means something else than physical prostration in regards to Salat as well? In my view, these questions are also worth pondering upon.

There seems to be two logical explanations

1. The evidence we have seen in several Quranic verses, seem to suggest that the notion that the word Sujud means physical prostration, can be problematic. Because the above-mentioned quranic verses seem to suggest that the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration. And if that is the case, it seems to be possible that word Sujud does not mean physical prostration in regards to Salat as well.

2. The word Sujud can mean physical prostration in regards to quranic verses about Salat, but have other meanings in regards to those quranic verses that do not speak about Salat. It seems possible that the word Sujud has different meanings depending on the context of a quranic verse.

It seems that the above-mentioned explanations are the only explanations that make sense. In my view, there are no other logical explanations.

[runninglikezebras]

We can see that since the time of Abraham (alehisalam), even before Christianity and Judaism, Allah has been worshipped and prostrated.

Genesis 2017 Wa salee Abraham qadam Allaha .The second pillar of Islam is ?? (Salaah) which is the same word used in the Aramaic vers (salee). Here, the word means ?(he) prayed?. Worshipping God has always been the most basic and fundamental teaching of all the prophets. It was strictly forbidden to worship any other being, object entity, etc., except for Allah. This was made very clear in many places throughout the Bible as well as the Qur?an. Jesus for example states in Matthew 410 Kateeb geir dal? Marya Allahak tasjood, wa leh balhoodawhee tifloohIn John 424, he continues to express the attributes of Allah in terms of worshipping Him. In other words, images of any kind representing God were forbidden. This teaching is found in first of the Ten Commandments. This fundamental teaching is in complete harmony with Islam. Rooha haw geir Allaha, wwaylein d? sajdeen l eh, brooha wa bashrara wa le d? nesjedoon In these verses, Jesus cannot be anymore clear than this. He not only talks about the high importance of worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth, but also talks about prostrating to Him. In Matthew 410 he uses (tasjood), and in John 424 he uses (sajdeen) and (nesjedoon). All of these are derived from the Aramaic root s-j-d . The meaning is = (Sejed) To prostrate oneself; bow down; adore; worship. The Arabic equivalent is = (Sajada) Prostrated himself; to be submissive; obeisance; to adore. Prostrating was the common practice of worship for these prophets and those who followed them. Prostration is in fact the highest form of submission to Allah and is known to be the most favorable position to Allah; this is confirmed in the following references. Genesis 173 ?And Abram fell on his face and God talked with him, saying?? Joshua 514 ??And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship?? 1 Samuel 2041 ??(David) fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times?? Numbers 145 ??Moses and Aaron fell on their faces?? 1 Kings 1839 ??.they fell on their faces and they said, The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God.? Matthew 2639 ?And he (Jesus) went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed??

I am very critical of those trying to remove the physical meaning of S-J-D. It's fully contradicting the etymology of the aramaic root.

[truthseeker11]

Peace Taro Hiroshi,

I think that Wakas's understanding of the word Sujud is correct. Also, the word Sujud seems to be related to obedience. Because in verse 2278, the word Sujud (wa-usjudu) comes right before the word Ibada (wa-abudu), which means service. Hence it seems that the word Sujud (wa-usjudu) is connected to the word Ibadah (wa-abudu), in verse 2278. Is it possible to serve the creator before obeying the creator's laws/commandments? If we do not obey the creator's laws/commandments, then how can we serve the creator? These questions are worth pondering upon, in my opinion.

It seems that there is a possibility that the word Sujud means physical prostration. But in verse 2218, the Quran suggests that the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees and the beasts Sujud themselves before God.

Quran 2218 ART THOU NOT aware that before God Sujud themselves all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the beasts, whereas many will inevitably have to suffer ; and he whom God shall scorn will have none who could bestow honour on him for, verily, God does what He wills.

If Sujud means physical prostration in verse 2218, does that mean that the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees and the beasts physically prostrate before God, like a praying man? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Or does the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 2218? If the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 2218, is there a possibility that the word sujud means something else than physical prostration in regards to Salat as well? These questions are worth pondering upon, in my opinion.

Quran 8420-21 What, then, is amiss with them that they will not believe ? and , when the Qur'an is read unto them, they do not fall down in Sujud?

In verses 8420-21, the Quran suggests that those who do not believe, do not fall down in Sujud when the Quran is read to them. If Sujud means physical prostration in verses 8420-21, does that mean that people should physically prostrate before God, like a praying man, when the Quran is read to them? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Or does the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verses 8420-21? If the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verses 8420-21, is there a possibility that the word sujud means something else than physical prostration in regards to Salat as well? I think that these questions are worth pondering upon.

Quran 1648 Did they not see that what God has created, its shadow inclines to the right and the left Sujud to God, willingly?

In verse 1648, the Quran suggests that the shadow of what God has created, Sujud to God. If Sujud means physical prostration in verse 1648, does that mean that the shadow of what God has created, physically prostates to God, like a praying man? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Or does the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 1648? If the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration in verse 1648, is there a possibility that the word sujud means something else than physical prostration in regards to Salat as well? In my view, these questions are also worth pondering upon.

There seems to be two logical explanations

1. The evidence we have seen in several Quranic verses, seem to suggest that the notion that the word Sujud means physical prostration, can be problematic. Because the above-mentioned quranic verses seem to suggest that the word Sujud means something else than physical prostration. And if that is the case, it seems to be possible that word Sujud does not mean physical prostration in regards to Salat as well.

2. The word Sujud can mean physical prostration in regards to quranic verses about Salat, but have other meanings in regards to those quranic verses that do not speak about Salat. It seems possible that the word Sujud has different meanings depending on the context of a quranic verse.

It seems that the above-mentioned explanations are the only explanations that make sense. In my view, there are no other logical explanations.

bravo bravo bravo

As per 8420-21, 17107 and 17109, if you are walking on the street and AS SOON AS you hear Quran recited over a loud speaker for example, you are supposed to fall in a physical prostration right in the middle of the street! Those who believe in a physical prostration are in DIRECT VIOLATION of these verses if they don't physically prostrate in such a scenario.

Additionally, as soon as you hear a few verses of al-quran during salat you are supposed to fall in physical prostration during salat which will END salat as soon as you physically prostrate as per 4102 within a few seconds. Those believing in a physical prostration during salat, if they continue their salat rather than ending it as soon as they prostrate the first time, are in DIRECT VIOLATION of 4102.

Also please notice that the same phrase "fall to the chin" that is used before SUJUD in 17107 is used before "crying" in 17109. HOW DO YOU FALL TO THE CHIN WHEN YOU ARE CRYING? This clearly indicates that the phrase "fall to the chin" is used metaphorically indicating extreme humility rather than a physical prostration to the chin.

Even if you take it as a physical prostration to the chin, an overwhelming majority of those believing in a physical prostration during salat prostrate on their foreheads rather than to the chin in DIRECT VIOLATION of the verse. Isn't that hypocrisy and a blatant rejection of the Quran?

Peace

[ths]

Salaam Taro Hiroshi,

If Sujud means physical prostration in verse 2218, does that mean that the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees and the beasts physically prostrate before God, like a praying man? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible?

In 4429 it says And the heaven and the earth wept not for them, nor were they reprieved

But the heavens and skies cannot weep anyway! So should we change the meaning of the word "bakaa" in the Quran so that it fits every single verse? No, because sometimes words are used allegorically and metaphorically.

2133 ...and the sun and the moon, each swimming in an orbit

Should we change the meaning of SBH since planets cannot swim?

In my opinion, just like with salah and tasbeeh (2441), each thing on earth probably has its own sujood. I don't find any contradiction here.

Peace truthseeker11,

As per 8420-21, 17107 and 17109, if you are walking on the street and AS SOON AS you hear Quran recited over a loud speaker for example, you are supposed to fall in a physical prostration right in the middle of the street! Those who believe in a physical prostration are in DIRECT VIOLATION of these verses if they don't physically prostrate in such a scenario.

Well as you pointed out, 17109 also says that the people weep. So by this logic, every time AS SOON as you hear the Quran recited you should crash in humility and begin crying! Obviously we are not meant to do prostrate or cry each time we hear the Quran.

Peace runninglikezebras,

I agree with your view. Every dictionary will tell you that the word sujood means prostration, humility, obedience. If we're going to change its meaning in the Quran then we need to correct the Aramaic as well!

My issue is simply with the people who claim that sujood is some sort of ancient conspiracy against Islam and actually has no physical connotation whatsoever. Also, in 343 God tells Mariam to prostrate, just like in the Bible verse you've quoted!

[truthseeker11]

Peace ths,

Well as you pointed out, 17109 also says that the people weep. So by this logic, every time AS SOON as you hear the Quran recited you should crash in humility and begin crying! Obviously we are not meant to do prostrate or cry each time we hear the Quran.

This is why SUJUD and BAKAA also are idiomatic in 17107 and 17109 and are stages of extreme humility, and not physical prostrations or physical crying, because the preceding "fall to chin" is idiomatic. Obviously you cannot physically fall to chin physically weeping, so "fall to chin" has to be idiomatic and therefore "weeping" has to be idiomatic also. The believers ARE supposed to SUJUD and BAKAA as soon as they hear Quran's verses recited, otherwise it will be a DIRECT VIOLATION of 17107 and 17109.

Peace

[runninglikezebras]

My issue is simply with the people who claim that sujood is some sort of ancient conspiracy against Islam and actually has no physical connotation whatsoever. Also, in 343 God tells Mariam to prostrate, just like in the Bible verse you've quoted!

This shouldn't be a surprise knowing the Quran uses the same "Mother Book" as the Bible for quite a lot of verses. (UMM-UL-KITAB)

[ths]

Peace truthseeker,

This is why SUJUD and BAKAA also are idiomatic in 17107 and 17109 and are stages of extreme humility, and not physical prostrations or physical crying, because the preceding "fall to chin" is idiomatic. Obviously you cannot physically fall to chin physically weeping, so "fall to chin" has to be idiomatic and therefore "weeping" has to be idiomatic also. The believers ARE supposed to SUJUD and BAKAA as soon as they hear Quran's verses recited, otherwise it will be a DIRECT VIOLATION of 17107 and 17109.

Peace

This doesn't mean they are idiomatic. How do you idiomatically cry? It's just an example of extreme humility. You are also not expected to say "Glory be to our Lord! Our Lord's promise is performed." as in 17108 each and every single time you hear the Quran.

Or is that verse also idiomatic?

[truthseeker11]

Peace ths,

Yes the believers are supposed to say that as soon as they hear Quran recited as per the verse, and it is crystal clear that saying those words is not idiomatic. There is no "fall to chin saying" in that verse. This is another example of how "believers" blatantly violate and reject Quran by not saying those words upon hearing Quran recited during salat.

Peace

[ths]

Well first of all, those verses are not talking about believers, they are talking about the people who were given knowledge before the Quran.

And secondly, are you saying that you literally say those words each and every time you hear the Quran?

26226 Have you not seen how they say that which they do not do?

[truthseeker11]

Peace ths,

Of course the ones given knowledge before Quran are supposed to literally say AND do and not say that which they don't do. Those words are just glorifying the lord and not some thing they have to do other than say those words and glorify the lord. With the revelation of Quran, the believers have been given the knowledge so they would now be "those given the knowledge", and now after being given the knowledge, how can they blatantly violate and reject Quranic advice?

Peace

[hawk99]

Peace,

Actually this argument can be resolved quite simply by asking

Has Allah forbidden believers from physical prostration? hmm

If Allah has forbidden such a practice please provide proof.

If Allah has not forbidden such a practice how can you?

Of course prostating on your "chin" is idiomatic, I recommend
not doing so since that could be painful. yes

God bless

[ths]

Peace truthseeker,

I think you are reading this far too literally.

2227 and proclaim among men the Pilgrimage, and they shall come unto thee on foot and upon every lean beast, they shall come from every deep ravine

Did they really come on every beast and from every ravine? Or is it just making a point?

[good_logic]

Peace All.

I am sorry to disappoint some of you.

Is it optional?. Those who prostrate to the Lord of the universe out of respect,hope and service/worship,do so for their own good . It clearly says so in Qoran according to us who choose this option.( hear and obey the Lord).

The repetitive words/guidelines that we are reminded with are about righteousness and the righteous, being reverent, believing and obeying God and His messenger, observing God's rites, striving in God's cause, upholding God's laws and ethics, uttering the correct words, being truthful and charitable, inviting to good, and forbidding evil, repenting for our sins, belonging to God's party and allies, being steadfast, and never waver or compromise.
There are also many attracting signs for the servers/worshippers, such as God's forgiveness, mercy, support, love and redemption, earning His pleasure and approval, the allegories of all the eternal rewards.
The necessary elements to achieve each of the above are deeply, and fully detailed in Qoran

As emphasized in the following verses, we should be aware of the conditional or partial obedience of God's laws. This is indeed a negative force that only pulls us backward on the race track

We passed the scripture from generation to generation, and we allowed whomever we chose from among our servants to receive it. Subsequently, some of them wronged their souls, others upheld it only part of the time, while others were eager to work righteousness in accordance with God's will; this is the greatest triumph.

... Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part?...

Throughout Qoran, it is clear that upholding ALL the laws decreed for us is challenging. God tells us it requires a constant practice, effort, and jihad/struggle.
A little trace of an ego is more than enough to take our belief for granted , lose our focus, block our ears and get distracted by countless personal opinions and guesswork and selfish interpretations... only to regress. Then, what's next ?

Most of those who are giving their personal opinions,are in parts saying they are not sure about other verses or they have not studied such and such...etc Yet they are certain there is no physical prostration?

GOD bless .
Peace.

[Wakas]

peace ths,

1. When someone is "armed to the teeth", are they still armed? Is not the addition of the word "teeth" here the only actual idiom in the phrase? Why does this example not apply to "they fall to the chins" ? It is an identical analogy, except in the first people are actually armed and in the second no one falls because 'the whole phrase has to be an idiom'.

In "armed to the teeth", "to the teeth" is the idiom not just the word "teeth". By definition of "idiom", one word idioms do not exist.

I think "armed to the teeth" is a good comparison in English however.

2. In 1958, the blessed people "kharruu sujjadan wa bakiyyan". Both SJD and BKY are in accusative. Does this mean that they were neither falling nor weeping?

Before I reply, are you implying this is a "like for like" comparison with "yakhorruun lil'adhqaan sujjudan", i.e. "bakiyyan" names the action/manner in which the people "fall SJD"?
If so, I do not see how it would support either view.

3. Have you re-translated the word rukoo3 as well? In your article you've translated it as inclining/humbling. Has the physical aspect of this word been eliminated as well?

rk3 ~ bow/incline/humble. It could be translated as a physical bow, but I am not aware of narrowing the meaning more than bow/incline/humble with regard to Quranic usage.

And neither of you have provided any evidence of your linguistic rule. Both of you are simply claiming that the whole phrase has to be an idiom, and continue to do so when faced with multiple everyday examples (like 'armed to the teeth&#039 that break your linguistic rule. As well as Lane's Lexicon that specifically gives examples of this phrase when applied to trees.

Either way, I'll try to dig up some Arabic phrases until I find one like 'armed to the teeth'.

Bro Ayman will be more knowledgeable than I on this issue, BUT having said all that, I would be willing to modify my understanding a little and state that it is theoretically possible for it to mean with extreme humility they prostrate, i.e. that understanding is one option. For sake of argument, even if this is accepted, it still does not change the fact that there is not one unequivocal example in Quran in which humans sujud and it definitely means physical prostration, but there are several examples where it definitely does not. This can be seen in the excellent summary
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html

Even in the salat verse 4102 "sujud" meaning physical prostration is at best problematic. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

[hawk99]

Peace All.

I am sorry to disappoint some of you.

Is it optional?. Those who prostrate to the Lord of the universe out of respect,hope and service/worship,do so for their own good . It clearly says so in Qoran according to us who choose this option.( hear and obey the Lord).

The repetitive words/guidelines that we are reminded with are about righteousness and the righteous, being reverent, believing and obeying God and His messenger, observing God's rites, striving in God's cause, upholding God's laws and ethics, uttering the correct words, being truthful and charitable, inviting to good, and forbidding evil, repenting for our sins, belonging to God's party and allies, being steadfast, and never waver or compromise.
There are also many attracting signs for the servers/worshippers, such as God's forgiveness, mercy, support, love and redemption, earning His pleasure and approval, the allegories of all the eternal rewards.
The necessary elements to achieve each of the above are deeply, and fully detailed in Qoran

As emphasized in the following verses, we should be aware of the conditional or partial obedience of God's laws. This is indeed a negative force that only pulls us backward on the race track

We passed the scripture from generation to generation, and we allowed whomever we chose from among our servants to receive it. Subsequently, some of them wronged their souls, others upheld it only part of the time, while others were eager to work righteousness in accordance with God's will; this is the greatest triumph.

... Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part?...

Throughout Qoran, it is clear that upholding ALL the laws decreed for us is challenging. God tells us it requires a constant practice, effort, and jihad/struggle.
A little trace of an ego is more than enough to take our belief for granted , lose our focus, block our ears and get distracted by countless personal opinions and guesswork and selfish interpretations... only to regress. Then, what's next ?

Most of those who are giving their personal opinions,are in parts saying they are not sure about other verses or they have not studied such and such...etc Yet they are certain there is no physical prostration?

GOD bless .
Peace.

Well said.

I repeat my challenge

Peace,

Actually this argument can be resolved quite simply by asking

Has Allah forbidden believers from physical prostration? hmm

If Allah has forbidden such a practice please provide proof.

If Allah has not forbidden such a practice how can you?

Of course prostating on your "chin" is idiomatic, I recommend
not doing so since that could be painful. yes

God bless

The practice of prostration precedes the Quran revealed to Muhammad,
If it was pagan or forbidden or even frowned upon by Allah, wouldn't
the Quran say something in this regard? hmm

God bless

peace

[ths]

In "armed to the teeth", "to the teeth" is the idiom not just the word "teeth". By definition of "idiom", one word idioms do not exist.

I know, I was saying that the phrase becomes an idiom only by the addition of a single word, 'teeth'. And equally, it is only the addition of a single word, 'chins', that makes 'fall to the chins' an idiom.

Before I reply, are you implying this is a "like for like" comparison with "yakhorruun lil'adhqaan sujjudan", i.e. "bakiyyan" names the action/manner in which the people "fall SJD"?
If so, I do not see how it would support either view.

Yes, I am saying that they are for all intents and purposes grammatically identical. Both sujjadan in 17107 and sujjadan and bakkyan in 1958 are accusative and explain the manner in which the falling 'kharra' is being done.
So if you take the whole phrase in 17107 as an idiom, which you and Ayman are claiming is a rule of idioms, then you should be doing the same in 1958 and interpreting 'crying' as non-literal as well.

For sake of argument, even if this is accepted, it still does not change the fact that there is not one unequivocal example in Quran in which humans sujud and it definitely means physical prostration

This is precisely my problem with the 'every word must be explicitly explained in the Quran' school of thought that you are espousing.

Tell me this, can you explicitly find out whether BKY in the Quran means to weep? Nowhere in the Quran does it explicitly state that one must shed tears when BKY is mentioned, therefore it may instead mean 'a state of remorse'. How do we know it means weeping/crying? By looking at a dictionary and referencing how this word has been used by Arabs historically.

And how do we know that naasya means 'forelock'? Never does the Quran state explicitly that it means a forelock, and if we look only at the context it could mean absolutely anything. In 1156 it says that every moving creature's forelock naasya is with God.
Therefore, as you stated, "there is not one unequivocal example in Quran in which humans sujud nasya is defined and it definitely means physical prostration forelock, but there are several examples where it definitely does not."

And my point here is that you are setting an inconsistent standard. You will only accept that sujud means prostration if it is explicitly stated, but you will accept the commonly accepted meanings of thousands of words in the Quran simply by referring to a dictionary. And what's worse, any dictionary of the Arabic language will tell you that sujood means non-physical as well as physical things.

[Wakas]

Yes, I am saying that they are for all intents and purposes grammatically identical. Both sujjadan in 17107 and sujjadan and bakkyan in 1958 are accusative and explain the manner in which the falling 'kharra' is being done.
So if you take the whole phrase in 17107 as an idiom, which you and Ayman are claiming is a rule of idioms, then you should be doing the same in 1958 and interpreting 'crying' as non-literal as well.

You and I are saying similar except the underlined part below it seems
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Grammatically, the accusative word "sujjudan" in "yakhorruun lil'adhqaan sujjudan" names the action or manner of the verb preceding. In other words, it describes how "they fell to their chins". So if "they fell to their chins" is an idiom then "sujjadan" is also idiomatic and is not body-physical.

To confirm/deny this, ideally, I'd like several of those knowledgeable of Arabic to check this.

In any case, in the example 1958, I assume therefore you are saying its possible to take the first part as physical and the latter as non-physical, e.g.

the manner in which they fall (physical) is prostrating (physical) and weeping (physical)
or
the manner in which they fall (physical) is prostrating (physical) and weeping (i.e. with feeling of great remorse, not actually weeping)

IF the 2nd example above is perfectly fine according to the Arabic then that is ok with me, hence my mentioning of adjusting my view in earlier post, to allow for this possibility. I am all about putting the evidence on the table for the various options, then deciding upon which is most sound. I dont have any attachment to any particular view.

This is precisely my problem with the 'every word must be explicitly explained in the Quran' school of thought that you are espousing.

Wrong.
Dont worry, you are not the only one to make this mistake about my methodology.

I know for example there are some words in Quran only used once, e.g. "duluk" in 1778, thus obviously I cannot say they are defined in Quran, in the sense that there is only one possibility. All I can do is gather evidence, taking all avenues into account, e.g. Quran usage, logic, grammar, practicality, classical arabic dictionaries, Quran cross-reference etc............. to arrive at various options, then once I do that, I opt for the one that is most sound.

My methodology
Quranic evidence takes priority

With regard to this particular case, what I'm saying is simple. But unfortunately those who advocate "sujud=prostration", or, "sujud means prostration when it comes to humans" simply cannot stomach the Quranic evidence. So here it is for all to see in bold and enlarged

There are several examples of human SJD in Quran, not one shows an unequivocal example of it meaning prostration but some examples of human SJD in Quran show it definitely cannot mean prostration.

So what does that mean? Well it's simple to those of rational mind, and it is as exactly as I concluded in the article
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

It simply means that no credible argument for SJD=prostration and therefore prostration during upholding/establishing the salat can be made using The Quran.

Sure you can say sujud=prostration COULD be one POSSIBLE meaning in SOME occurrences, but that's about it.

[ths]

Wrong.
Dont worry, you are not the only one to make this mistake about my methodology.

I know for example there are some words in Quran only used once, e.g. "duluk" in 1778, thus obviously I cannot say they are defined in Quran, in the sense that there is only one possibility. All I can do is gather evidence, taking all avenues into account, e.g. Quran usage, logic, grammar, practicality, classical arabic dictionaries, Quran cross-reference etc............. to arrive at various options, then once I do that, I opt for the one that is most sound.

My methodology
Quranic evidence takes priority

With regard to this particular case, what I'm saying is simple. But unfortunately those who advocate "sujud=prostration", or, "sujud means prostration when it comes to humans" simply cannot stomach the Quranic evidence. So here it is for all to see in bold and enlarged

There are several examples of human SJD in Quran, not one shows an unequivocal example of it meaning prostration but some examples of human SJD in Quran show it definitely cannot mean prostration.

So what does that mean? Well it's simple to those of rational mind, and it is as exactly as I concluded in the article
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Sure you can say sujud=prostration COULD be one POSSIBLE meaning in SOME occurrences, but that's about it.

Again, you are not applying this methodology consistently. Are you going to re-examine the meaning of 'forelock' in the Quran? We know that in at least one verse, it cannot literally mean forelock. And there are other words like this as well.

Secondly, regarding "the Quranic evience takes priority", you have not shown that the Quranic evidence contradicts with what I can find in any Arabic dictionary whatsoever. Every Arabic dictionary will tell you that sujud means prostration, and also 'follwing closely, humility, obeisance, paying respects, etc'.

In fact, can you cite a single example where a word used in the Quran means something manifestly different from what an Arabic dictionary states that it means?

In any case, in the example 1958, I assume therefore you are saying its possible to take the first part as physical and the latter as non-physical, e.g.

the manner in which they fall (physical) is prostrating (physical) and weeping (physical)
or
the manner in which they fall (physical) is prostrating (physical) and weeping (i.e. with feeling of great remorse, not actually weeping)

IF the 2nd example above is perfectly fine according to the Arabic then that is ok with me, hence my mentioning of adjusting my view in earlier post,

I don't think you're following what I'm saying here. You and Ayman have both stated that the entire sentence must be an idiom, and that if traditional Muslims believe 'chins' is non-literal, then they have to accept that 'sujud' here is non-literal as well. You stated

So if "they fell to their chins" is an idiom then "sujjadan" is also idiomatic and is not body-physical.

My response was that you are both reading 'kharra' as non-literal physical falling.
Therefore, applying your own logic, 1958 where it says "they fell, prostrating and weeping", we must interpret that whole sentence non-literally to be consistent.

Therefore, applying your argument about idioms, 1958 has to be entirely non-physical

1958. kharruu (non-physical) sujjadan (non-physical) wa bakiyyan (non-physical)

If we interpret them as literally weeping with tears, then this breaks the rule of idioms that you and Ayman are espousing.

That was my only point in comparing 1958 with 17107.

My own interpretation is that these are all physical, and the only idiom is "they fell to the chins", wherein they still fall to the ground. The idiom works like "armed to the teeth", where the person is still armed, and 'to the teeth' adds emphasis to emphasize that they are very thoroughly armed. In the same way, in 'fall to the chins', the person still falls down to the ground, and 'to the chins' only emphasizes a total and complete crash.

So

17107 yakhirruuna lil-adhqaani sujjadan
1958 kharruu (physical) sujjadan (physical) wa bakiyyan (physical)

The emotional aspects of humility, obeisance, worship are all embedded already in the standard meanings of these words. Ie no one cries unless they are feeling bad.

To confirm/deny this, ideally, I'd like several of those knowledgeable of Arabic to check this.

I've given this some thought but haven't found any idioms in Arabic yet that match this exact type of idiom.. the problem is where to look for idioms in classical Arabic. I've so far only been able to find lists of colloquial idioms.

Nevertheless, i'll keep an eye out for an idiom that matches 'armed to the teeth', where the action still literally takes place, and one word has been added non-literally to add emphasis.