What Mustansir Mir really says about kharruu liladhqaan

SarahY

Salam

Thought I?d comment. With the issue of salat obviously there are differing views and it?s natural (I think) that people get emotionally attached to what they believe so they can get offended easily.

Nothing wrong with difference of opinion with justifications, at the end of the day God knows absolute truth.

So Lanes uses other examples, are they the only ones sighted? Gotta link I could check out?

Quran uses idioms, and we know that from the verse 37

In regards to your reference 17107 hypothetically it is a possible clear refers to physical prostration... when you read the verse is that what you visualise? That the knowledge came to them and based on that they believed and they fell down in prostration? Maybe that?s what you visualise.

Something that might not seem significant but probably is 17109 doesn?t mention sujjud. So wouldn?t it be wrong to associate sujjud to ?youkharuna llathakini? in all references? Considering one interpretation of sujud is known as physical prostration on the ground etc, doesn?t this challenge the idea ?

BTW is Mir contactable?

Peace

san

@ths

So, the phrase "wee hours (of the night)" seems to be taken by many as 'idiom'. OK. FYI, this is the way it's understood literally

BIG hours
in 12-hour format 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, (12)
in 24-hour format 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Small/wee hours (0), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

here's a haiku to help memorize

Nami's a wee wee
She falls in the wee hours
One, two, three, four, five!

Feel free to take it as 'idiomatic' still, though.

regrammar
Actually i treat grammar the same way i treat the lexicon (consistency throughout AQ) . My non-commenting on the grammar discussion is purely subjective.

Mazhar

Regarding Mazhar's 'grammar'

This sort of anatomizing the quranic language is conjectural at best. I ask you, which came first The quran or the grammarians?

Secondly, Mazhar's post (no offense to him, because i think its a language issue) are often incomprehensible.

Please note I never said to ignore grammar. Jack

Salam Jack,

It can be seen and examined from another angle too. In appearance, i.e. coming to human knowledge, is the Qur'aan first or the Arabic language? If Arabic language is pre-dated then its grammer was also there though it had not been scripted. Every language has built in rules, and their organized description is what the grammer is all about.

Wakas

peace Mazhar,

Of course some grammar is in place pre-Quran, but post-Quran it was more fixed/rigid and written about. That is why grammar has a role to play, but other things, such as logic, cross-reference etc also have roles. They must be used together, intelligently.

Mazhar

peace Mazhar,

Of course some grammar is in place pre-Quran, but post-Quran it was more fixed/rigid and written about. That is why grammar has a role to play, but other things, such as logic, cross-reference etc also have roles. They must be used together, intelligently.

Peace Wakas,

Grammar-syntax and morphology is the translation of above statement. Logic is broadly the relationship between specific events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction. And this can be achieved only by knowing the relationship of words describing events, situations and objects in any book. Principles are principles, if they do not permit wild wandering and to draw conclusions of choice, it does not mean that they are rigid.

Wakas

peace Mazhar,

I agree, something must be theoretically possible with regard to grammar for it to be possible. Quranic grammar that is.

ths

Salaam Sarah,

So Lanes uses other examples, are they the only ones sighted? Gotta link I could check out?

He mentions the Quranic verse and a few of the examples here under the entry kh-r-r.

He mentions the rest here, in the first column, about half way down.

These are pdf scans from Project Quran List. First one is linked to in the entry for kh-r-r, and the other at dhal-qaf-nun

In regards to your reference 17107 hypothetically it is a possible clear refers to physical prostration... when you read the verse is that what you visualise? That the knowledge came to them and based on that they believed and they fell down in prostration? Maybe that?s what you visualise.

The way I visualize it is that they fall to the ground in humility and overwhelming emotion, and then perform a prostration.

Something that might not seem significant but probably is 17109 doesn?t mention sujjud. So wouldn?t it be wrong to associate sujjud to ?youkharuna llathakini? in all references? Considering one interpretation of sujud is known as physical prostration on the ground etc, doesn?t this challenge the idea ?

I read this verse just as I read the above one, that yukhirruuna liladhqaani simply means to fall down to the ground in submission/defeat.

This verse differs from the other in that once they are on the ground they don't prostrate, they begin to cry.

When I asked a sheikh about this verse last summer, I was told that these verses should be read with 2573, where it is said "when they are reminded of the verses/signs of their lord, they do not fall deaf and blind thereat."

He was saying that the true believers are overwhelmed with emotion and khushoo3, whilst the disbelievers perform their tasks without emotion, simply because they have to.

These verses relate to 1074-5 ?Woe to those who pray but hearts are not in the prayers."

It is simply about khushoo3. Check Kh-Shiin-Ayn here at Project Quran List.

BTW is Mir contactable?

I would imagine that as a professor he would be very contactable. Perhaps this is what we need to do.

The reason I started this thread was to expose the ungenuine statement by wakas in his article

Professor Mustansir Mir is very clear in "Verbal Idioms of The Quran", in which he cites "fall to the chin" as a verbal idiom meaning extreme humility, for the chin represents pride...
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.

This is ungenuine because that is not what Mustansir Mir is saying. He is saying, as do all traditional Sunni or Shia scholars, that it means extreme humility - but Wakas is neglecting to add that Mustansir Mir is "very clear" about the fact that it is "body-physical"

"to fall down on one's face in humility.

Kharra 1i dh-dhaqani implies extreme humility"

So Mir is saying EXACTLY what all traditional Muslim clerics say

Which is why I cannot understand why Wakas uses this as evidence for his argument that sujood is not physical in this verse, since Mustansir Mir most certainly does not say that, and even your neighborhood mullah would say that it is an idiom. There is no one in Islamic theology that I am aware of who states that that verse is NOT an idiom, just as there is no one who states that it is NOT body-physical.

Wakas

peace Sarah,

Please bear in mind ths does not read properly. He quotes my article and joins two separate paragraphs together (which are themselves separated by a line of space) then makes parts bold and implies I am saying this is what Mustansir Mir (MM) says. Deceptive.

IF I was trying to mislead anyone about what MM says, I would not have provided a link to the book for people to read themselves. Anyone can read what I said about this over a year ago here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598162.msg206637#msg206637 and compare with what MM actually says http//img98.imageshack.us/img98/2650/97400887.jpg

It is not my fault ths does not understand what an idiom is "an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up"

According to ths they fall to their chins prostrating, means they fall upon their faces, prostrating

Woah, what word play, what an idiom! ;D

According to wakas they fall to their chins SJD, means they humble themselves utterly, acknowledging (or any other meanings of SJD, i.e. honouring/paying respect/submitting)

Lets look at the facts

His book is called verbal idioms of The Quran, in which he lists idioms. He lists this idiom under Kha, implying the kh-r-r part is the idiom or at least part of the idiomatic expression. This is how his book works.
Both Lane and MM cite examples of objects with no chin or face, that use the idiom, but in these, ths seemingly implies its not about a chin or face, its about humility BUT when it comes to humans it is about a physical fall to the chin/face. How convenient, but unfortunately for him, that is not how idioms work.
MM when first listing the idiomatic phrase often gives the literal translation, and then discusses/explains it either in brackets and/or underneath. Unfortunately, in this case, MM is not 100% clear, however, by using logic when reading his explanation, we can clearly see he states in these verses it means to humble oneself before God.
MM lists another idiom with kh-r-r in his book, in fact, the one before the one we are discussing, and explains it as not a physical fall.
The Quran and Classical Arabic dictionaries state the meaning of th-q-n as "chin", not "face".
If we take it as a physical fall, then whenever The Quran is relayed to us, we should physically fall (or at least some of the time), according to ths. No mullah/sheikh, who ths seems to like referring to, says we should do this. Nor from the people of the book.
Traditional exegetes show variance in 'fall SJD' verses, as I point out in my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

And lastly, note how in this thread http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641 ths cited this verse as the strongest proof of SJD=prostrate, yet this verse clearly contains problems! Readers of the forum can easily see how weak the evidence of SJD=prostration is.

ths

Please bear in mind ths does not read properly. He quotes my article...

According to ths they fall to their chins prostrating, means they fall upon their faces, prostrating

Woah, what word play, what an idiom!

It seems I'm not the only one who can't read properly, because I've never said anything about the face - this is your own hallucination.

This is what I said

The way I visualize it is that they fall to the ground in humility and overwhelming emotion, and then perform a prostration.

You are the one translating "chin" for "face"

Both Lane and MM cite examples of objects with no chin or face, that use the idiom, but in these, ths seemingly implies its not about a chin or face, its about humility BUT when it comes to humans it is about a physical fall to the chin/face. How convenient, but unfortunately for him, that is not how idioms work

Again, I never said anything about the face. You are reading this sentence and trying to translate every word in the sentence into something else. So it's no wonder you keep coming up with chin=face.

According to wakas they fall to their chins SJD, means they humble themselves utterly

Now,

Tell us then Wakas, how does a tree "humble itself" during a storm, as per Lane's example.
How has the stone humbled itself, as per Lane's example.

This is a direct quote from Lane

-- A wind blew violently, so that the trees fell, or bent themselves down to the ground
-- The wind blew,and overturned, or threw down, or bent down, the trees
(of a stone) -- The torrent overturned it

So it seems you cannot read properly, because Lane says the tree FALLS DOWN, the stone IS OVERTURNED, and Mir says the verse means the people FALL DOWN.

I do not have a problem with you peddling your half-baked views around the forum - I have a problem with you claiming that an Islamic scholar supports your view - which I've proven he ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT.

Now please tell me how my opinion differs from Mustansir Mir and Lane.

Unfortunately, in this case, MM is not 100% clear, however, by using logic when reading...

Oh?! He's not clear??

Because in your article you say he was "very clear" - hahahahah classy.

Secondly, this is direct quote from his book

"to fall down on one's face in humility."

That is "very clear", as you stated - only with the opposite meaning to what you've been peddling around on this forum.

EDIT
yet this verse clearly contains problems!

No, Wakas, there is not a single academic nor Arabic scholar in this world who believes that sujood does not mean physical prostration, nor a single scholar who supports your view that this verse has no physical falling in it.

Therefore the entire academic community disagrees with your view - there is no problem with this verse - you are the only one with a problem.

Wakas

It seems I'm not the only one who can't read properly, because I've never said anything about the face - this is your own hallucination.

From http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599857.msg243797#msg243797

The argument goes that it is a poetic device where the part (chin) describes the whole (face)

Who is hallucinating now ths?

For those interested, see Brother Ayman's analysis of his post above, where he critiques it.

Further, you seem to promote what MM says is literal, and he mentions "upon the face", so do you agree with this or not? Yes or No.

Now,

Tell us then Wakas, how does a tree "humble itself" during a storm, as per Lane's example.
How has the stone humbled itself, as per Lane's example.

This is a direct quote from Lane

-- A wind blew violently, so that the trees fell, or bent themselves down to the ground
-- The wind blew,and overturned, or threw down, or bent down, the trees
(of a stone) -- The torrent overturned it

So it seems you cannot read properly, because Lane says the tree FALLS DOWN, the stone IS OVERTURNED

It is unfortunate I have to teach you the basics of language, but..... in none of these examples it is about being humbled themselves, in these examples it mentions what was the cause, i.e. the wind, and torrent, thus would be translated as

a wind blew violently, so that the trees fell to the chin -----------> meaning a wind blew violently, so that the trees became/were utterly humbled
the torrent overturned it (the stone) to the chin --------------> meaning the torrent utterly humbled it (the stone)
etc.

It's all very simple ths.

Oh?! He's not clear??

Because in your article you say he was "very clear" - hahahahah classy.

Do you understand the difference between "very clear" and "100% clear"? Perhaps I can phrase it in a way you might understand

ths misreads very much of the time
ths misreads 100% of the time

See the difference?

Therefore the entire academic community disagrees with your view

Apart from MM of course.

###############

Interestingly you never commented on my points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Do you have no answer?

##########

But let's put this all aside, why dont you tell us what your view actually is

what does the phrase in 17107/109 literally mean
what is its idiomatic meaning
what part of it is idiomatic

Quite simple questions..... ;D

ths

Again misquoting me and not reading properly Wakas

That wasn't my argument - that was an argument from a sunni website that I'd found

That's why I wrote "The argument goes"

Why would I write that if I was making the argument??

Again you misquote someone, just like you did with Mir. You really need to learn to read Wakas

Who is hallucinating now ths?

You still are.

It is unfortunate I have to teach you the basics of language, but..... in none of these examples it is about being humbled themselves, in these examples it mentions what was the cause, i.e. the wind, and torrent, thus would be translated as

a wind blew violently, so that the trees fell to the chin -----------> meaning a wind blew violently, so that the trees became/were utterly humbled
the torrent overturned it (the stone) to the chin --------------> meaning the torrent utterly humbled it (the stone)
etc.

It's all very simple ths.

Not only do you speak with the attitude of a 7 year old - but again you misunderstand. I know very well what you think the translation is here, but you fail to understand my point

How is the tree humbled?

How is the stone humbled?

If it is so simple - then describe how a stone gets humbled by a torrent

Wakas

Ahh, so you quoted an argument you did not agree with. Unusual, but it seems bro Ayman and I misunderstood then. Perhaps if you had been 100% clear, it would have been better.

It seems you like me answering your questions, but run away from mine.

If it is so simple - then describe how a stone gets humbled by a torrent

Definitions of torrent on the Web
downpour a heavy rain
a violently fast stream of water (or other liquid); "the houses were swept away in the torrent"
flood an overwhelming number or amount; "a flood of requests"; "a torrent of abuse"

Easy. The stone could be swept away, dislodged from a place, completely submerged, swept away and broken etc.

Now please answer my questions, if you can.

ths

a violently fast stream of water (or other liquid); "the houses were swept away in the torrent"
flood an overwhelming number or amount; "a flood of requests"; "a torrent of abuse"

Easy. The stone could be swept away, dislodged from a place, completely submerged, swept away and broken etc.

Yes thank you - physical movements are implied in each case. Now we can finally agree what Lane meant in his examples, and what Mir meant in his example of Imru 'l-Qays' poetry. There should be no more confusion on the matter.

Wakas

Nope. I said fully submerged was one option, stone dont have to move.

Now, answer my questions..... if you can ;D

Mazhar

In reply 3 I had drawn ths attention towards which is the most relevant preposition to understand the phrase.

What is indicated by the preposition "li"?

"li" is either for;

(1) for specification, to indicate exclusivity;

(2) for explanation; or it is

(3) Extraneous, meaning that even if it is removed, there will be no effect on the meanings.

(4) In the meaning of and

(5) And in the meaning of in an oath due to surprise.

Does in the prepositional phrase under discussion, it convey any signification other than for explanation?

Wakas

Update

I spoke to Mustansir Mir recently about this entry in his book. We had a long conversation (nice man) and here is the summary

The expression "khrr to the chin" seems to be taken from natural phenomenon, .e.g. trees are bent or fall over due to heavy wind/rain, or when stones get tossed over, so AQ borrows from these expressions found in poetry and/or were probably known to the Arabs of the time, to give a dramatic effect or imagery, and this is what AQ is aiming at, and it implies utter/extreme humility. He said AQ is aiming to express the internal feeling by using an idiom for a physical/external manifestation. He said it alludes to the practice of physically prostrating at certain points during AQ's recitation (for those unfamiliar with this Tradition, symbols in the Quran Arabic script are used to denote these points, even though there is no explicit Quranic justification and seems to be a later insertion, and bearing in mind this is addressed to the people of the book in 17107). So he said it does refer to a literal/physical prostration but not a violent/intense fall, just a normal prostration. That is the idiom, apparently. Hence listed under khrr.
When asked why use dhaqn/chin and not face if that's what was meant, he says this type of literary device is sometimes used where one small part is used to represent the whole, or the whole is represented by one part. He mentioned an example using 'everything perishes except God's wajh (literally face)' implying His being/presence, i.e. face represents His whole presence. (It would be interesting to document how often AQ does this. I have not studied it). To me it is a little odd for a chin to represent a face but I guess it is plausible.
When asked about why do examples use "chin" for things such as trees/stones when they dont have chins or faces, he implied this was the expression, as he mentions in his book the chin represents pride something to be held high etc so when this is lowered it reflects humility, and when lowered to the utmost it reflects extreme humility. I'm not sure how chins were applied to trees/stones etc or what came first, the chin reference to humans or other objects, but it is possible this is just how the phrase came about.

This view does seem plausible IF given some leeway. Bearing the above in mind, if I were to make sense of the idiom in the commonly understood manner, I'd say "fall to the chin" is a reference to the extent and manner of the change in state, i.e. utterly/significantly humbled, and since trees, stones and humans can "fall" but in different manners, thus for humans it would be in Traditional Muslim prostration manner. So there is no chin involvement in either trees/stone/human, this is just the reference point because chin is something to be held high, pride etc, and when lowered it reflects humility, and this is where the saying comes from.

To me, it still does not explain the following
There is no SJD in 17109 where they fall to their chins weeping. So if taken in the traditional manner, without the SJD this allows any manner of falling in this case, e.g. to one's knees, I would presume.
It may be interesting to note SJD was in the accusative case in 17107, weeping was not in 17109 (AFAIK). It should also be noted that there is no "weeping points" in The Quran, i.e. no points in the Arabic script where it is marked we should fall to the knees weeping etc, so I think this part of his explanation is suspect.
There is variance amongst translators about the meaning of "fall SJD". It seems odd to suggest fall to their chins SJD means a normal prostration but fall SJD does not. See Ibn Kathir or Al Jalalayn for example. Personally, I have no idea why there is variance amongst them when it comes to this issue. I can only guess they were either basing their translation of these phrases on traditions or earlier exegesis, or they found them difficult to reconcile with logic hence opted for variation, or they couldn't make up their minds on what it meant.

The problem is the inconsistency, and the logic of the mainstream view. To me it does not fit, hence my attempt to pin down what is the idiom exactly. Similar to bro Ayman's analysis.

Interestingly, from my findings on SuJuD, the way I took its meaning fits perfectly. Perhaps this is just a coincidence. I do not think it is, but each to their own.

ths

Thank you.

I've been trying to say this from the start. Mustansir Mir's view does not differ at all from the standard sunni view.
They both agree that the chin is a metonym that refers to the face. (The metonym argument is poor in my opinion. I think the expression is by itself enough to explain this verse).
And they both agree that the mention of the chin is simply a poetic device to express the state of humility and extreme emotional state of the people in this particular case.
The traditional manner of prostrating at various points in the text is called sajdat al-telawa.

This shouldn't change your point of view though. Whether I say it or Mir says it or your neighborhood sheikh says it, it's the argument that counts, not the person.

I would have just wished that we could have all discussed this without the drama and snide remarks. I could have done without the sarcasm, nor san's and savage_carrot's utterly pointless sarcastic remarks...

san

I could have done without the sarcasm, nor san's and savage_carrot's utterly pointless sarcastic remarks...

Thank you. We see the equality in your comment.

And they both agree that the mention of the chin is simply a poetic device to express the state of humility and extreme emotional state of the people in this particular case.

Now you can start to view my (utterly pointless) meteor reference as "pride". Didn't i say to help illustrate your point? Shouldn't that be extreme enough? But of course it can be taken as something else, depending on your mood. After that part, then sorry if you feel like being attacked personally by me (don't know what i've done so wrong, but as you picked my name first...).

That said, i'm still taking the sujud part differently than you do (or Mr Mir does, now that we know for sure), just to be clear.

Jack

I would have just wished that we could have all discussed this without the drama and snide remarks. I could have done without the sarcasm, nor san's and savage_carrot's utterly pointless sarcastic remarks...

What about your own utterly pointless sarcastic remarks?

When you play with fire, you get burned

ths

When you play with fire, you get burned

What's that supposed to be? Some kind of pre-school comeback?

Also, I was replying to everyone seriously in the beginning. Feel free to double-check that.

What about your own utterly pointless sarcastic remarks?

I came on here to propose that the mainstream accepted view on here wasn't correct. I was then promptly mocked, as if what I was proposing was ludicrous and a joke.

But no you're right, I suppose all serious academic debates are rife with youtube videos, and all academics mock each other with extremely clever haikus, all academics surely tell each other to check the definitions of humility and humiliation in the dictionary, and other generally ON-TOPIC remarks.

So for a bunch of people claiming to have "free minds", everyone's minds turned out to be surprisingly stolid.

So please excuse me for having a bitter taste in my mouth.