What is the meaning of SuJuD according to The Quran? - new article

Mazhar

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".

Wakas

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.

Mazhar

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.

Wakas

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.

Mazhar

Yes, I know it is an imperfect verb meaning an incomplete action, ongoing, future etc.

No, it is neither incomplete action nor ongoing one. It is intended to be done only in future. Emphatic Noon is there to indicate this.

Mazhar

Peace Wakas,

I hope the point is now clear for you regards 1821. Should we proceed for 2187?

Wakas

peace Mazhar,

If you wish to proceed with 2187 then do so, if not, then do not.

Mazhar

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?

Wakas

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.

Mazhar

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.

Wakas

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.

Mazhar

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.

Bender

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"?

Wakas

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.

Wakas

Salaam brother,

What is "itikaf"?

Google is your friend D
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%CA%BFtik%C4%81f

Mazhar

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.

Masjid is a location-site noun. Not necessarily a building having four walls, a roof and entrance door.

Wakas

peace all,

Important Update

It has been over 2 years since I posted the article on "sujud" (here and other places)
The meaning of SuJuD acknowledges The Quran
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

And in that time no-one attempted to tackle all the issues brought up. In fact, in this thread only a minority of the issues raised were discussed. Yet we frequently see people claim "sujud" means "physical prostration".... and sometimes even after this article is pointed out to them they continue with this view. I dont mind that per se, but one would think they would prefer to discuss the seemingly problematic issues. If there is silence, which there frequently is, then the only options are

they have no or problematic answers
they have answers but prefer not to discuss them
they consider the issues raised as non-issues (i.e. weak points) hence no need to respond
they didn't bother reading it

So, let's find out which option it is. I would like all those who think "sujud" means "physical prostration" to answer the following, taken from the article. Some will be minor points, some more significant

Re SJD to/for adam/mankind - 234, 711-12, 1529-32, 1761, 1850, 20116, 3872-76
Issue if taken as a commonly understood physical prostration, it seems odd that angels/controllers or iblees (made of 'smokeless fire&#039 could do this in a defined physical visible form, but it is possible - what is your view?
Re 2218, 556 - SJD to/for God who is in the heavens/earth, and the sun/moon/stars/mountains/trees/creatures and many of the people
1315 ...to/for God SJD who is in the heavens and the earth, willingly and unwillingly, and their shadows in the mornings and late-afternoons.
Issue Contextually implying that the same SJD is done by the shadows as well as who is in the heavens/earth, meaning it is unlikely for it to mean prostrate here - what is the "sujud" of inanimate objects?
If we accept that someone may prostrate physically (nose and forehead on ground) willingly, how can we understand this unwillingly? Does God push people on their faces forcefully so that they fall down on their noses and foreheads unwillingly?
Re 1648-50 Can they not look to a thing God created? Its shadow turns to the right and the left, SuJaD to/for God and/while they are humble.
Issues If we take the above as prostrations/prostrating (as some translations do), then this would clearly imply that no matter which direction the shadow faces it is STILL prostrating to/for God, i.e. God is everywhere, which links with "to God belongs the east and west so wherever you turn there is God's face/regard", see 2115. This strongly and clearly implies direction is irrelevant here - what is your view on this?
Since SJD is in the Arabic plural (more than two) we can infer that each and every point in the shadow's movement is a SJD. How is it showing this SJD?
Re 2724 "And I found her and her people SJuD to/for the sun instead of God! And the devil had made their works/deeds appear good to them, so averting/hindering them from the path, so they are not guided."
2725 "Will they not SJuD to/for God who brings out what is hidden in the heavens and the Earth, and He knows what you hide and what you declare?"
Issues Note it says the hoopoe "found" (wajad) them, not "saw" (raayt) them as in Joseph's dream in which he saw the moon/sun/planets SJD to/for him. Of course, moon/sun/planets do not physically prostrate as humans do, so what Joseph saw was something else - how were the sun/moon/planets giving sujud to Joseph?
So let us assume it means a traditional prostration in 2724, how can one identify whom the prostration is done to?
Re 8421-22 And when the Quran/reading is recited to them, they do not SJuD. No, those who have rejected/concealed are denying.
Issue Interestingly, if sujud=prostration here then this implies God wishes the audience to not only accept what is said but ALSO get down on their hands and knees and prostrate physically (to whom/what?). This seems unusual. What is your understanding of this?

Actually tackling and discussing the issues will help increase our understanding.

To be continued...

Mazhar

Thus, the most appropriate meanings are submissive, to honour, to pay respect.

These are the basic meanings but with connotation of act. But we must keep in mind that the basic meanings of a Root and word do not exhaust when they are used in a different semantic field, relational area, while necessarily retaining the base meanings. This phenomenon is particular to the words which are other than those coined to denote and identify a specific tangible object, or person, i.e. substantive nouns. Actions and gestures, bodily actions or body language has various levels of intensity, depth, magnitude proportionally reflecting the feel and state of heart and mind.

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/017.%20Al%20Israa/17.107a.gif

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/05.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Sura%20007/35.%20Kheru%20Khe%20Ra%20Ra/4.gif Is this voluntary act needed to honour, to pay respect.

How will we reconcile?

Root

Wakas

Continued...

Re 4829 Muhammad is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are stern against the concealers/rejecters/ingrates, but merciful between themselves. You see them inclining/humbling and SuJaD, seeking bounty from God and pleasure/approval. Their distinction is in their faces/attentions/considerations/wills/purposes, from the trace/teaching/influence of the SuJuD.
Issues Perhaps the majority of people would not have a trace of prostration on their face from physically prostrating in prayer for example, even if it was done many times per day, so this understanding, whilst superficially plausible, actually falls short - what is your view?
It should be noted that in the prior context, 4825, it clearly implies some believers were unknown/unrecognisable, which makes it even more unlikely it is referring to a physical mark on one's face - response?
Re 258, 4154, 7161 ...enter the gate SuJuD
Issue Clearly they cannot enter the gate prostrating - response?

8 ) Re Re 7120, 2070, 2646
2070 Then the magicians were cast* SuJaD. They said "We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses."
*Arabic uL'QiYa is in the passive perfect form, meaning the object (i.e. magicians) received the action expressed in the verb, an action done/completed upon them. Using cross-reference the most likely meaning of this word is "cast" and is a likely play on words due to the casting done in the previous context.
Issues IF it is translated as physically thrown/cast down (as done in most translations), since it is passive, then one must ask who/what physically threw them down? The answer is of course nothing/no-one, they did it themselves, thus a physical throwing/casting interpretation becomes illogical. To negate this point, an example similar to this in AQ using another passive verb would have to be cited.
Further, looking at the following verses, is it likely they made a statement whilst physically prostrating on the ground? - yes/no/unsure

Re 6842-43 The day the shin shall be exposed/uncovered/removed, and they will be called to the SuJuD but they will not be able. Their looks/eyes humbled/lowered, humiliation will cover them. And indeed they were called to the SuJuD while they were sound/well.
Issue It should be noted that having one's shin removed is unlikely to prevent one from doing a physical prostration, hence some translators claiming they will be unable to prostrate simply due to their shame, but if this is the case, the obvious question becomes why mention a shin at all? - response?
Re 17107-109 Say "Believe in it or do not believe in it. Those who have been given the knowledge before it, when it is recited to them, they fall to their chins SuJaD."
Issue do you take it as a physical prostration to the chin or not, or something else?

To be continued...

Mazhar

8 ) Re Re 7120, 2070, 2646
2070 Then the magicians were cast* SuJaD. They said "We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses."
*Arabic uL'QiYa is in the passive perfect form, meaning the object (i.e. magicians) received the action expressed in the verb, an action done/completed upon them. Using cross-reference the most likely meaning of this word is "cast" and is a likely play on words due to the casting done in the previous context.
Issues IF it is translated as physically thrown/cast down (as done in most translations), since it is passive, then one must ask who/what physically threw them down? The answer is of course nothing/no-one, they did it themselves, thus a physical throwing/casting interpretation becomes illogical. To negate this point, an example similar to this in AQ using another passive verb would have to be cited.
Further, looking at the following verses, is it likely they made a statement whilst physically prostrating on the ground? - yes/no/unsure

Salamun alaika,

The Proxy Subject of the Passive Verb are the Illusionists. Thus it is made unimbiguously evident that their act was voluntary not forced upon them. And at all three places it is immediatley followed by circumstantial clause. It is plural active participle having built in pronoun referring to the performers of the act which is signified by the verb from which it is derived.