Is Rukooh and Sajood part of Salaat ?

guest

Peace Wakas,

?Already easily shown to be incorrect by savage_carrot. Showing that your deductive/reasoning ability is indeed poor."

Let me show you my step-by-step analysis of your statement. Hopefully, this will lead to a common understanding.

?Then you make a mistake when you say "this is from Lane" and what you quote is from Project Root List which uses multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries as blatantly stated on its homepage, so unless you have went through Lane yourself and seen that is exactly and only what it says, then you are mistaken. Of course, PRL uses a lot of Lane's Lexicon, but that does not mean they are equivalent.?

Fact 1 Lane does not use multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries (pure)
Fact 2 PRL use multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries (impure)
Fact 3 You are mad because he is citing from impure source and calling it pure
Fact 4 Warning ? Don?t say/do that unless it is the same in both sources in this specific case (admonishment)

Deduction Use Lane (pure/trusted) and do not use PRL (impure/untrusted)

Contradiction Another place you say to use PRL (impure/untrusted).

?I never prohibited anything. I asked for evidence.?

Fact 1 You say sjd is not physical prostration
Fact 2 Quran calls for sjd
Fact 3 Many people prostrate per Quranic sjd

Deduction You are telling (implied) those people not to do physical prostration

?Secondly, I referenced a thread, not a post or an article. It seems you cannot even get this basic point right, even though I used the word "thread"!?

Since you were magnifying mh in your post and give that mh is the owner/initiator of the sjd thread, I used post to refer to mh sjd position.

?It means to give recognition/acknowledgement. Let us know where you find the contradiction if you speak the truth.?

I need further clarification to execute my plan. Please verify the following assertion. Thanks.

Sjd= recognition or acknowledgement (multiple-meaning)
Acknowledgement = mental or physical; or both simultaneously
Recognition = mental or physical; or both simultaneously
Meaning of mental I can mentally slap x and x can mentally slap me back.

Wakas

peace guest,

Your reasoning is hilarious, and borderline unintelligible. So you did prove me wrong, because I said your posts were intelligible previously, I would like to retract that statement.

Fact 1 Lane does not use multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries (pure)

Your fact 1 is incorrect, as Lane uses multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries/sources, as stated in its preface/intro. It is clear you do not understand my statement that you referenced.

Deduction Use Lane (pure/trusted) and do not use PRL (impure/untrusted)

The fact that you deduced this shows the monumental irrationality of your reasoning, so much so, that I'm slightly impressed by how bad it is. Either that or you are too arrogant/stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way, its not good.

Fact 3 Many people prostrate per Quranic sjd

Do they prostrate to the chin do they?

Deduction You are telling (implied) those people not to do physical prostration

Ahh, so now its "implied" in brackets now is it? Before it was I "prohibited". You are a clear twister of words when cornered.

Since you were magnifying mh in your post and give that mh is the owner/initiator of the sjd thread, I used post to refer to mh sjd position.

Ahh, so referencing what someone said is magnifying them is it? Let me know which dictionary you are using so I can note not to buy it.

I used "thread", you incorrectly used "post". You cant even admit you made a mistake on this simple point. What does your dictionary say about the word "credibility"?

I need further clarification to execute my plan. Please verify the following assertion. Thanks.

Sjd= recognition or acknowledgement (multiple-meaning)
Acknowledgement = mental or physical; or both simultaneously
Recognition = mental or physical; or both simultaneously

I will play your game and clarify

I will opt for sjd = acknowledgement.

The English definition of "acknowledgement" is not restricted to physical or mental, or both simultaneously. In any case, I will use Edip Yuksel's tactic, and opt for "physical" knowing that every act including the chemicals in our brain responsible for making decisions etc can be classed as physical. ;D

Let us know when you find a contradiciton in my sjd view according to your "plan". Don't keep us waiting now.

guest

Peace to all,

Here is my solution to the hoopoe issue related to sjd discussed in this thread and other thread on this forum.

Hoopoe sees Solomon performing contact prayer (salat) in accordance with 17110 ? ??.You shall not utter your contact prayer too loudly, nor secretly; use a moderate tone? i.e. hoopoe hears Solomon say ?praise be to God, lord of the worlds??? and sees him prostrate physically on his face
Then hoopoe sees the women ruler (Sheba) performing contact prayer (salat) something like this saying loudly ? thank you for money and children, oh sun god please give us more wealth, let us know who and what should be sacrificed next, and how about the goat we sacrifice last week for you, did you like it, ??..? and physically prostrating on her face
The conclusion is very easy, since the Quran is easy to understand. So, the hoopoe concludes that the women ruler is worshiping the sun
The angles records what hoopoe witnessed and as such the approach is compliant with 5017 - Two recording (angels), at right and at left, are constantly recording
We are given the ability to determine if the human contact prayer id dedicated to the God or someone else, we have the ability to see sun, trees, moon but we do not have the ability to see their physical prostration, as for the Jinn we can neither see them nor their physical prostration

truthseeker11

Peace everyone,

Those pagans could have said "o god" or "o lord" and meant the sun because for them the sun was their god. They didn't have to say "o sungod". If you consider the sun as your god you will be most likely saying "o god" or "o lord" to the sun instead of "o sungod" because for you the sun is your god. Therefore, there would be no way for the hoopoe to distinguish unless the hoopoe could have read their hearts and minds. If someone says "yaa rabbi" and the hoopoe hears it, how can the hoopoe distinguish if it is meant for the god or if it is meant for the sun?

Any understanding of a sign has to account for ALL POSSIBILITIES. Conversely, any rebuttal of a certain understanding has to take into consideration ALL POSSIBILITIES. The above possibility/scenario stated by me nevertheless is a very likely possibility/scenario. Actually I think it is the most likely possibility/scenario and I will prove that from the qur'aan itself

676 When the night covered him, he saw a planet, and he said ?This is my lord.? But when it disappeared he said ?I do not like those that disappear.?

Please note that Abraham did not say "this is my planet lord"

677 So when he saw the moon rising, he said ?This is my lord.? But when it disappeared he said ?If my Lord will not guide me, then I will be amongst the wicked people!?

Please note that he did not say "this is my moon lord"

678 So when he saw the sun rising, he said ?This is my lord, this is bigger.? But when it disappeared he said ?My people, I am innocent of that which you have set up.?

Please note that he did not say "this is my sun lord". Please note that he even called it "akbar".

7138 And We let the Children of Israel cross the sea, then they came upon a people who were devoted to idols made for them; they said ?O Moses, make for us a god like they have gods?? He said ?You are an ignorant people!?

Please note that the pagans were saying "god" when referring to their pagan god, and did not say "a pagan god".

Because the true lord is present everywhere, the only way we can turn our faces to our true lord is mentally and the way prescribed by the qur'aan to sujud to our true lord on hearing his signs is by saying "we hear and obey".

Q.E.D. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

guest

The consequences of giving hoopoe the ability to read hearts and minds are quite severe. For example would he be able to read God?s mind. Like you said the concept has to work for all possibilities. We (human) are created in the best design and we don?t even have the ability to read minds, how could we allow hoopoe to have such capability. Also, we do not find any evidence in the Quran about special power being given to hoopoe. Therefore, I negate the idea.

From non-religious perspective the ability to read humans mind be blatant violation privacy law and human dignity.

Besides, reading minds contradict many Quranic verses. Some of them are listed below

6713 - Whether you keep your utterances secret, or declare them, He is fully aware of the innermost thoughts.

644 - He knows everything in the heavens and the earth, and He knows everything you conceal and everything you declare. GOD is fully aware of the innermost thoughts.

3538 - GOD is the Knower of the future of the heavens and the earth. He is the Knower of all innermost thoughts.

232 - They said, "Be You glorified, we have no knowledge, except that which You have taught us. You are the Omniscient, Most Wise."

My opinion is that only the God knows our innermost thoughts.

Praying in a particular direction is not an issue because you believe ?the true lord is present everywhere?. Therefore, I find the Lord in the direction I pray. No big deal.

Your point on "o god" or "o lord" is valid. Thank you for bringing it up in the discussion. Thanks for you service. I need to ponder on it for a while. I hope our Lord will guide us to the proper resolution of the problem at hand. Our Lord please help us. Thank you.

guest

Peace Wakas,

?I would like to retract that statement.?

Admitting mistake is a righteous act and an exceptional moral quality. May the God increase your wisdom and bless you for your good deed.

I have a suspicion that we may not be on the page with respect to the definition of deductive method. I use the concept of pure logic programming. A high level description of such concept is

Truth These are facts extracted from a given set e.g. your statement

New Truth Deduce facts from the Truth (above truth)

I extracted all possible facts from your statement (truth) and then deduced new truth per the method described above. Deduced facts cannot contradict the Truth. We cannot use any facts other the ones extracted form your statement.

I think you are using facts that are not in the original statement to draw your conclusion. This is not allowed.

Introducing new facts equates to changing the original quoted statement in the previous post. If you change statement, I will have re-deduce my conclusion based on the new Truth.

??as Lane uses multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries/sources, as stated in its preface/intro?.?

This may be a true statement but such facts cannot be extracted from the original statement and therefore not applicable.

?Either that or you are too arrogant/stubborn to admit you are wrong.?

This is far from the truth. First you have to prove me wrong before I can admit to it.

Since you brought the ?arrogant? subject, I would like to discuss one of your comments from this thread. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

?This will be my last response to you on this forum. If you persist in posting error-ridden and nonsensical replies to my posts/threads, then they may be deleted without notice.?

This is arrogance at it worst. Let other decide for themselves who is earring. You shouldn?t decide for them. Just make your point. You are in violation of these verses

436 - You shall worship GOD alone - do not associate anything with Him. You shall regard the parents, the relatives, the orphans, the poor, the related neighbor, the unrelated neighbor, the close associate, the traveling alien, and your servants. GOD does not like the arrogant show-offs.

1127 - The leaders who disbelieved among his people said, "We see that you are no more than a human being like us, and we see that the first people to follow you are the worst among us. We see that you do not possess any advantage over us. Indeed, we think you are liars."

26111 - They said, "How can we believe with you, when the worst among us have followed you?"

Please reflect on these verses and take heed. Particularly reflect on ?worst among us?.

I can understand your frustration but that doesn?t justify what you said. It would have been more righteous to say this

2715 - We endowed David and Solomon with knowledge, and they said, "Praise GOD for blessing us more than many of His believing servants."

?Do they prostrate to the chin do they??

Yes. I do it and so do many other people. For example, when I am travelling in a car or plane I pray via prostration on my chin, when I am home I prostrate on my face. I have seen people praying this way sitting on a chair or laying down due to physical limitations.

Quran defines sjd as prostrating on chin as well as not on the chin i.e. one verse says on the chin and other verse don't (face prostration); both are valid.

?Ahh, so now its ?implied? in brackets now is it? Before it was I ?prohibited?. You are a clear twister of words when cornered.?

This is a deduced fact. I thought we were on the same page on the understanding of deductive method. I guessed it wrong. Please reevaluate your position based on the deductive method described earlier in this post.

?Ahh, so referencing what someone said is magnifying them is it? Let me know which dictionary you are using so I can note not to buy it.?

I take back ?magnifying?. I should have used ?highlighted?. I hope you will overlook this shortcoming of mine. Sorry.

?I will opt for sjd = acknowledgement. The English definition of ?acknowledgement? is not restricted to physical or mental, or both simultaneously.?

If that is the case (ack=mental & physical) then you are accepting what I am advocating i.e. sjd = physical prostration (on face or on chin) as directed by our brain (mentally). My job is done.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

?This will be my last response to you on this forum. If you persist in posting error-ridden and nonsensical replies to my posts/threads, then they may be deleted without notice.?

This is arrogance at it worst. Let other decide for themselves who is earring. You shouldn?t decide for them. Just make your point. You are in violation of these verses

That's Wakas. I said something that wasnt the same as his opinion and so he deleted some of my posts. That's how it works with Wakas. Watch out.

guest

Peace truthseeker11,

Please forgive me for not greeting you with peace in my previous post to you. I meant to do it but forgot.

Now, here is my solution to the issue "o god" or "o lord"

In my view, three different cases arise when dealing with the issue.

Prostration on face directed by human brain
Prostration on chin directed by human brain
Prostration in mind only

Hoopoe cannot read mind. See my previous post for rationale as to why. Therefore, the third case is off limit. Now, I have to show how my approach works for the first two cases.

The problem may be solved by using the praying structure such as number of bowing and sjd. This is unique to monotheistic worshipper established by our forefather Abraham. As far as I know nobody else perform contact prayer this way. Therefore, hoopoe can make distinction in the following way

If he hears other deity (sun) or if he sees different praying structure, he calls it idol worship (sun in this case). Note that he does not have ability to distinguish hypocrite from the believer as he does not have mind reading ability
Hoopoe can use similar distinction for the second case but I think the Quran is talking about the first case since it is the most prevalent case

Any comment is welcomed. Thanks.

Wakas

peace guest,

?I would like to retract that statement.?

Admitting mistake is a righteous act and an exceptional moral quality. May the God increase your wisdom and bless you for your good deed.

If it was a mistake, then you agree your posts became unintelligible. ;D

??as Lane uses multiple Classical Arabic dictionaries/sources, as stated in its preface/intro?.?

This may be a true statement but such facts cannot be extracted from the original statement and therefore not applicable.

Who said I extracted them from the original statement? I was correcting your erroneous deduction from the original statement. No surprise you seemingly do not understand this simple point.

?Do they prostrate to the chin do they??

Yes. I do it and so do many other people. For example, when I am travelling in a car or plane I pray via prostration on my chin, when I am home I prostrate on my face. I have seen people praying this way sitting on a chair or laying down due to physical limitations.

Quran defines sjd as prostrating on chin as well as not on the chin i.e. one verse says on the chin and other verse don't (face prostration); both are valid.

I am well aware of the flip-flop position of idiomatic expression sometimes, not idiomatic other times, i.e. when it suits. I have already discussed this point in this thread, funny how you fail to respond to it and persist with your view.

?I will opt for sjd = acknowledgement. The English definition of ?acknowledgement? is not restricted to physical or mental, or both simultaneously.?

If that is the case (ack=mental & physical) then you are accepting what I am advocating i.e. sjd = physical prostration (on face or on chin) as directed by our brain (mentally). My job is done.

Your job is only done if you do not understand simple logic. You say I am accepting the position you are advocating but your position is to opt for a subset of what my understanding can encompass, i.e. taking the general and making it very specific. It proves nothing. If someone's understanding was sjd can mean "salute", then according to you, I am also accepting this. Ironically, you stating the above implies you are accepting of my position.

You originally said you were going to disprove my view via contradiction. Looks like you failed.

guest

Peace Wakas,

Anything quoted in red is your saying if the post is addressed to you.

Following are two quotes from two different posts of yours

"I think a problem also arises when someone makes an unevidenced/baseless post, e.g. says "sajood" means XYZ and brings no Quranic evidence."

"......your position is to opt for a subset of what my understanding can encompass, i.e. taking the general and making it very specific."

First you say my position is unquranic (no Quranic evidence) and then you say it is a subset of your position.

If your position is Quranic (which you knew all along) then you have contradicted yourself.

Looks like your reasoning skill should be questioned and not mine.

Or it may be that you are not thinking properly when you are responding to someone else?s post.

truthseeker11

Peace guest, everyone,

In my view, three different cases arise when dealing with the issue.

None of those three cases are evidenced in the qur'aan. The other cases that are evidenced in the qur'aan were not mentioned by you.

Argument from fallacy if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must be false.
Bare assertion fallacy premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
False dilemma (false dichotomy) where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several or more.
False attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people&quot where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
Appeal to tradition where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it
Fallacy of incomplete evidence
Fallacy of suppressed evidence

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http//www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

Prostration on face directed by human brain

No evidence in the qur'aan. I am sorry but no matter what you say, it is unacceptable if it is unevidenced from the qur'aan.

Prostration on chin directed by human brain

No evidence in the qur'aan. The wording of the qur'aan in 17107 translates to "fall TO/WITH the chins in sujud (LI al-athqaan)". It does not say Fall ON chin which would be "3ALA al-athqaan".

Prostration in mind only

No evidence in the qur'aan of sujud in mind only during salaat.

Also no evidence in the qur'aan of a physical ruku during salaat.

Following are the evidences from the qur'aan

The evidence from the qur'aan suggests that sujud during salaat is mental + physical as evidenced by 4102 where it says "fa-ithaa sajadoo"/"then/so when they have performed sujud". The only way others can tell when the first group has performed sujud is if it is mental + physical rather than mental alone.
When we scan the entire qur'aan for physical sujud during salaat we find only two possibilities, none of which were mentioned by you

a. Saying "we hear and obey" on hearing the god's signs (references given in one of my earlier posts)
b. Falling to/with the chins in sujud on hearing the god's signs (17107)

The second possibility above is most likely an idiomatic expression because it is not practical and/or dangerous to physically fall to the chins in sujud whenever we hear the god's signs (for example while driving a car or walking across a busy road etc.). The sign clearly implies whenever the signs are heard, and not only during salaat. Therefore, "fall to/with the chins in sujud" on hearing the god's signs would idiomatically imply "performing sujud with utmost humiliation".

From the above the only logical deduction would be that the preferred sujud to the god during salaat according to the qur'aan is saying "we hear and obey" with utmost humiliation on hearing the god's signs.

Therefore, this sujud must have been the one that was most likely performed by Solomon to the god. When the hoopoe saw the pagans' sujud it must have been physically different from this sujud (saying "we hear and obey" with utmost humiliation on hearing the god's signs) which led the hoopoe to believe that they were performing sujud to the sun instead of the god.

No more comments from me on this issue because otherwise it would become logical fallacy of repetition (argumentum ad nauseum).

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Wakas

peace guest,

You said you were going to disprove my view by way of contradiction. You never. Instead, you accepted my view, in order to justify your own.

We are still waiting for Quranic evidence for this specific.

Until then, each to their own. Peace.

(ideally, our exchange should be split off from this thread as it is off-topic, which may be done in the future)

guest

Peace Wakas,

In my view your approach sjd = acknowledgement does not work for all applicable cases in the Quran. I will show you some of those instances but first here is my understanding of the word acknowledgement.

Acknowledgement is when you pick up a phone and call someone and you hear a hello from the other party i.e. he responds to your inquiry. (input/output relationship)

In terms of reliable Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), when your computer send a packet to another computer in the network and your computer gets an acknowledgement packet back from other computer. That?s acknowledgement.

Same is also true with email and web communication (the way we are communicating)

If there is no acknowledgement then the communication is unreliable which would imply no accountability. This is contradictory to Quranic concept where the God orders us to do things and the righteous people do it i.e. not just acknowledging the order but implementing the orders. This is lacking in your concept according to my opinion.

Now, let?s try few examples with your definition of sjd

556 - The stars and the trees acknowledges.

What are they acknowledging? The translated verse by itself does not make good sense. Also, the input/output relationship is violated. Whereas this translation ?556 - The stars and the trees prostrate.? makes good sense, realizing that we (human) do not have the privy to witness physical prostration of trees.

Another example

4829 - Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and acknowledging, as they seek GOD's blessings and approval. Their marks are on their faces, because of acknowledging. This is the same example as in the Torah. Their example in the Gospel is like plants that grow taller and stronger, and please the farmers. He thus enrages the disbelievers. GOD promises those among them who believe, and lead a righteous life, forgiveness and a great recompense.

Again I fail to see the input/output relationship and further how can one get marks on their faces by just acknowledgement without a physical prostration.

Similar cases can also be made with the following verses. Please substitute prostrating = acknowledgement and see if it makes sense.

2724 - "I found her and her people prostrating before the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."

2277 - O you who believe, you shall bow, prostrate, worship your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.

1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be with the prostrators.

guest

Peace truthseeker11,

?The evidence from the qur'aan suggests that sujud during salaat is mental + physical as evidenced by 4102 ?..?

What you cite is not the most general description for the sujud. You have taken a specific case and generalized it. This is not acceptable. Here is why

In this scenarios the believers are standing up to begin the salat, and then they perform the sujud. All able bodies are performing the salat.

You cannot force this situation on to person who is performing salat lying down to start with due to physical limitation. I will give you an extreme but valid example.

I saw a TV show that showed a guy (British person?) who got bitten by a Mamba snake in Africa. Typically Mamba bite is almost 100% fatal. In this case the guy survived and he was telling how he survived.

He knew he was bitten by Mamba snake. Therefore, he walked very slowly until he got help. Eventually, he was taken to a hospital. But there was no antidote available. He was not able to talk, unable to move any parts of his body. His eyes were open, however. The doctors and nurses were saying that this is a lost case and that he was going to die soon. But the God saved him.

After he got well, he said he was able see and hear everything the doctor and nurses were saying but could provide them with any sign. He could not even move a single muscle, but fully conscious.

Now, please tell me how is this person supposed to perform sujud?

The solution is mental only. Please try to understand the situation.

Aren?t you the person who is advocating that solution must be applicable to all possible scenarios?

?Quote

Prostration on face directed by human brain

No evidence in the qur'aan. I am sorry but no matter what you say, it is unacceptable if it is unevidenced from the qur'aan.?

There is lots of evidence in the Quran for prostration on face but you cannot see them because you are seeing the Quran through a flaw dictionary or may not be utilizing your understanding faculties properly.

?Quote
2. Prostration on chin directed by human brain

No evidence in the qur'aan. The wording of the qur'aan in 17107 translates to "fall TO/WITH the chins in sujud (LI al-athqaan)". It does not say Fall ON chin which would be "3ALA al-athqaan".?

True but the concept I laid out is still valid.

?Saying "we hear and obey" on hearing the god's signs (references given in one of my earlier posts)?

With your approach how do you account for a deaf believer?

Also, don't forget hoopoe is a lier as evident from below verse

2727 - (Solomon) said, "We will see if you told the truth, or if you are a liar.

Why would Solomon questioned his honesty? Why would he not trust him?

Wakas

peace guest,

Re 556

You ask what are they acknowledging? Same question to you what are they prostrating for/to? The answer is the same in both. Implicit in context.

Re 4829
This verse is commonly cited by those who promote physical prostration. However, it does no such thing
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9031.0

2724 - "I found her and her people giving acknowledgment to the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."

2277 - O you who believe, you shall incline (or "be humble&quot, acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.

1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be of those who acknowledge.

As you can see, no contradicitons. Makes sense to me.

Let us know once you have finished trying to find contradiction, then feel free to address the points raised against your view in this thread.

Wakas

peace all,

I was reading Mustansir Mir's unique work "Verbal Idioms of The Quran" and in it he cites "fall to the chin" as a verbal idiom meaning extreme humility, for the chin represents pride, it is something to be held high, and to fall down on one's chin is to abase oneself, and when used in AQ means to humble oneself before God, and cites a poem by Imru al-Qays* about how mighty trees were humbled by a strong downpour of rain, and they "fell to the chin".

*alleged Classical Arabic poet.

For those unfamiliar with Mustansir Mir's work, you can read some of his articles online.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

peace guest,

Re 556

You ask what are they acknowledging? Same question to you what are they prostrating for/to? The answer is the same in both. Implicit in context.

Re 4829
This verse is commonly cited by those who promote physical prostration. However, it does no such thing
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9031.0

2724 - "I found her and her people giving acknowledgment to the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."

2277 - O you who believe, you shall incline (or "be humble&quot, acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.

1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be of those who acknowledge.

As you can see, no contradicitons. Makes sense to me.

Let us know once you have finished trying to find contradiction, then feel free to address the points raised against your view in this thread.

"Ya ayyuha" is already "o you who acknowledge".

guest

Peace Wakas,

?You ask what are they acknowledging? Same question to you what are they prostrating for/to??

This is about disproving your concept. You should defend your position and not ask me question. You are showing weakness. You are crumbling.

Because you chose sjd=acknowledgement, you must show the input/output relation in the verse which you failed to do. Therefore, you have a contradictory concept.

And your answer ?Implicit in context? is an admission of such contradiction. Simply put, you are violating your own definition of acknowledgement.

My position does not require an input/output relation and therefore no contradiction. I simply accept this ?556 - The stars and the trees prostrate? as a fact. Yes, they are prostrating to the God. But the key is no explicit acknowledgement is necessary in my case.

?Re 4829
This verse is commonly cited by those who promote physical prostration. However, it does no such thing
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9031.0?

I read all the posts in the referenced thread. My general comment is the question is good but answers are misleading.

Here are some specific comments to your post in that thread.

Your biggest mistake is the reliance on the PRL. You are seeing Quran through PRL instead of your innermost instinct built-in by the God.

?My translation
"... their distinction is in/on their will/faces/purpose from trace of the prostration/submission/responding positively...??

This is a very poor translation indeed. You throw multiple words at it and say this is my translation. This is very confusing and misleading. A guided person (people with knowledge) will give one and only one translation and stand by their translation. You need to do the same.

Then you say this ?If I did a translation I would prefer to keep it open.?

This is a contradictory position since you have already given your translation of the verse. Further, your position to keep the translation open is very flimsy. If you do not have the understandings do not provide one. Everybody is not cutout for this job.

?2724 - "I found her and her people giving acknowledgment to the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."?

You failed to understand my point i.e. where is the input. Did they get an order from the sun to which they are acknowledging?

?2277 - O you who believe, you shall incline (or "be humble&quot, acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.?

2277 - O you who believe, you shall acknowledge, acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.

This certainly does not make sense.

"1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be of those who acknowledge."

Again where is the input i.e. those who acknowledge what?

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

"Ya ayyuha" is already "o you who acknowledge".

EDIT "Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo" is "o you who acknowledge".

Wakas

peace guest,

Your reasoning is so bad, it's impressive.

Violating my own definition of "acknowledgement"? I think you'll find it is YOU who made up the definition.

Relying on PRL? If you had bothered to read the links on PRL's homepage, specifically "which root meaning is being used?" you would see the methodology is more than what you make it to be.

A guided person will give only one translation? Perhaps, but a humble and logical person will give a translation that does not rule out other possibilities unless 100% certain. Funny how you remained silent on the rest of it, such as how the marks on their face reference in The Quran is not literal.

Re verses
I am not working to your made up definition of acknowledgement. Ironically, if you had bothered to read The Quran, you would know what input God has on the world and the beings in it, the ayaatin/signs He send us etc.

But the icing on the cake is your explaining away of "implicit in context"...

Quran "O you who believe..."
Faulty reasoning Believe what? It doesn't say believe in what. Contradiction. Disproven.

;D

Thanks for the entertainment. I am innocent of what you serve, and you are innocent of what I serve.