What Mustansir Mir really says about kharruu liladhqaan
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Salaam Wakas,
I take 17107 and 17109 to follow the expression that Lane explains.
I can fully understand why you have a problem with it, translating from English it feels like it should work like "fall on your face", which is fully figurative - ie. can be used to describe something where no physical movement happens.The best way to explain this in English is when someone falls over, and you say "he fell on his ass!"
He doesn't literally fall on his ass, he just falls over. It's just a saying to highlight how embarrassing the situation was for him.So I interpret it as an expression used when something mighty, or proud, falls over. Like the stone in Lane's example. You add the "adhqaan" simply to add poetic weight.
So instead of saying "the tree fell over", you would say "the tree fell to its chin!"
The chin, as a symbol of pride, is used figuratively to describe the increased humiliation.The traditional view, is that the chin is a metonym that represents the face. But I'm increasingly dissatisfied with that explanation. I think that if you take 'sujood' to mean traditional prostration, then there is no need to make this mean face - it simply means to fall to the ground.
So in both 17107 and 17109, they fall over. This is either related to 2573 or not.
So 17107
yukhirruuna liladqhaani - they fall to the ground in utter humility/submission
sujjadan - in sujood
17109
yukhirruuna liladhqaani - they fall to the ground in utter humility/submission
yabkuuna - crying
As for sujood, I interpet it as one of the most complex concepts in the Quran, indicating a physical movement of prostration to represent the humility/submission/obeisance of that person.
I realize I haven't gone and written a thorough analysis of sujood from the Quran as you have, perhaps I'll do so the next time I get a vacation, but your definition of sujood as non-physical could fit this verse.
The only reason it's important is that it relates physical movement with sujood, and that sujood can be done from the ground.
I think that the reason a physical movement is required is to make it into a conscious act, so that the person can say to himself at that moment "I am making sujood". Otherwise, sujood becomes such an abstract concept that it is difficult to know when one has done sujood and when one hasn't.
But, obviously the mental/emotional aspects of humility and submission are most important, and this raises the problem of people not feeling humble whilst performing the physical act.
That is why the God has reminded us not to do so, in verses such as theseWoe to those who pray but hearts are not in the prayers. Those who want only to be seen 1074-6
And those who, when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat. 2573
The problem with your definition of salah is that it is always meaningful, always a conscious decision to humble oneself and show obeisance. But how can one be "heedless" and "unmindful" of his salah according to your definition?
If we understand salah to have physical aspects, then it is easy to understand how some people may be doing the movements blindly whilst thinking of something completely different.
But this is ok, because the salah holds 2 major functions, in my opinion, the macroscopic and the microscopic function.
The microscopic function is the inner function. The one that helps you attain peace and to become closer to your God.
The macroscopic function is the outer function. The one that binds the community, gives it a single identity, and joins it in common worship.So a person may be praying in the mosque for a congregational prayer and have his heart somewhere else. He is still serving the macroscopic function of prayer and benefitting his community, there is immense power in racial and social classes standing shoulder to shoulder, but he ultimately needs to put his heart into his prayer to succeed.
Having said all this, I think that reading from the Quran during salah is of the utmost importance, and that there is a known tradition of this even in hadiths (for example Aisha having her slave lead the prayer whilst reading from the Quran). I think that people out of sheer stupidity and lack of caring have lost this tradition.
EDIT
I forgot to mention. This interpretation of sujood and khrr also works with the other instances of khrr sujjadan
These are they whom God has blessed among the Prophets of the seed of Adam, and of those We bore with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and of those We guided and chose. When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping. 1958
Again, they are falling to the ground. Notice that there is no use of the poetic device "dhaqn" - why?
Because the people mentioned in 17107 are proud people who were humbled by the signs of God.
The people in 1958 are all great people, Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, Idris. They were not humbled dramatically, therefore they readily fell to the ground. The people in 17107 were regular people who had to be humbled. Thus, no "chin" appears.
Again in 3215, physically falling is related to sujood
Only those believe in Our signs who, when they are reminded of them, fall down prostrate and proclaim the praise of their Lord, not waxing proud.
Not waxing proud. They are already believers - thus no chin.
Finally, in 3824
And David thought that We had only tried him; therefore he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down, bowing, and he repented.
Again, we see a term used in salah juxtaposed with falling/physical movement.
Lastly, Youssef's parents prostrating to him in 12100 is a problem, as no one should be doing sujood to anyone but God. But whether we interpret sujood as physical or non-physical, that conundrum still stands, and is another discussion entirely.
-
I think that the reason a physical movement is required is to make it into a conscious act, so that the person can say to himself at that moment "I am making sujood". Otherwise, sujood becomes such an abstract concept that it is difficult to know when one has done sujood and when one hasn't.
Suhood is preceded by a physical act .
is "haal"-i.e. depicts the state one gets into by the preceding act-
is imperfect verb, in Indicative Mood, leaving no room for such like conjectures "figuratively", "idiomatically".
The basic perception infolded in the root is of that light sound which is produced and heard from the flowing water or air; in Urdu we call it , equivalent perhaps would be froufrou, and also refers to the sound produced by the wings of eagle while flying. And then it was used for that falling/moving downward from above that also produces the above type of sound.
The downward mnovement that is "Fall" of anything or person can be caused by external factors where the style of falling, forward, backwards, on the left wing or right wing etc, will be dependant upon the external factor and will not represent the choice of the fallen/falling object or person.
The Indicative Mood of the above verb indicates that this downward movement is the conscious and persistent practice of the doer/subject of verb. Preposition Li explains/clarifies how the downward movement takes place; forward bending in which first the chins go down-fall from their earlier position enabling the forehead to go down on earth touching- resultant state.
-
peace ths,
So do you see, for example, 3215 as believers "fall down prostrate" whenever AQ is relayed to them?
Also, I see "salat" as "bond", and it easy to see how someone can be neglectful of their "bond", yet superficially participate in its various acts or say things they do not know the meaning of, we see Traditional Muslims doing it all the time. See my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm
The conundrum of 12100 does not stand if SJD=prostration is taken away. See the conclusion of my article, in which it can mean to honour, pay respect, submissive, or to give acknowledgement/recognition. The problem is the inconsistency if one takes "fall SJD" here as X, then the obvious question is why take it as Y elsewhere? The only answer to this that I can see is that it causes problems for the traditional understanding, so that is why it cant mean X. This is not sound criteria with which to understand AQ.
This is not the only problem of course, there are many highlighted in my analysis http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html
-
Also, I see "salat" as "bond", and it easy to see how someone can be neglectful of their "bond",
Bond---adhesion-link between people-restraint
And for different connotations of the word "bond" appropriate and relevant words in Arabic are ---- etc and not "salat".
-
So do you see, for example, 3215 as believers "fall down prostrate" whenever AQ is relayed to them?
Well not at all. If we did then we'd have to reinterpret this verse too
1958 When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping.
We would have to believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all fell to the ground prostrating and weeping every time they heard the Quran.
Even if we didn't interpret sujood as physical prostration, we'd still have the problem of weeping. Should we weep every time according to 17109? Did Ismail and Idris and Moses weep every time as in 1958?
Also in 2853, talking about those "who were given the scripture" -
And when it is recited unto them, they say We believe in it. Lo! it is the Truth from our Lord. Lo! even before it we were of those who surrender
Did they say this exact statement each time the scripture was recited to them?
Also, I see "salat" as "bond", and it easy to see how someone can be neglectful of their "bond"
This is true, but I find these verses to fit this interpretation perfectly.
Woe to those who pray but hearts are not in the prayers. Those who want only to be seen, and refuse charity. 107 4-7
It indicates that they want to be seen, and I'm not sure how this is possible with your interpretation, unless you believe that in congregational prayer people should gather together to read the Quran.
The conundrum of 12100 does not stand if SJD=prostration is taken away. See the conclusion of my article, in which it can mean to honour, pay respect, submissive, or to give acknowledgement/recognition.
Why? 12100 says sujood, and sujood is not to be done for anyone other than God. So it doesn't matter what our definition of sujood is.
We can believe 1 of 2 things-
That this is an internal error in the Quran. It says there is no sujood for anyone but God, and yet it says people made sujood to Youssef - clear error.
-
That God specifically chose to use the word sujood for this instance, when He could have used 'honour', 'submit', or any number of words.
I really don't see why the conundrum would be gone just because we interpret sujood to be honoring and paying respect without physically prostrating.
-
-
The reason I chose 3215 was that it is the most clear example of the addressees being general. The other examples could arguably be referring to those specific people, hence my question.
I dont believe in "falling down prostrating" so I'm not sure why you say "We would have to believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all fell to the ground prostrating and weeping every time they heard...." Perhaps the weeping part, but not the rest.
It indicates that they want to be seen, and I'm not sure how this is possible with your interpretation, unless you believe that in congregational prayer people should gather together to read the Quran.
I discuss this in the link I gave http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm
Why?
I discuss this in my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html
Since Joseph was one of the guided ones, in authority and in a position to issue commands to be followed, similar to the examples for God and His commands, "fall SJD" can mean the exact same thing in 12100
sujood is not to be done for anyone other than God
How concrete is that statement?
-
I dont believe in "falling down prostrating" so I'm not sure why you say "We would have to believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all fell to the ground prostrating and weeping every time they heard...." Perhaps the weeping part, but not the rest.
Yes it's the same logic. If we believe that we are supposed to fall down prostrating then to be consistent we would have to believe all those people wept every time they heard the Quran being recited. It doesn't matter what our definition of "kharra sujjadan" is. If you think that people are supposed to kharra sujjadan every time they hear the Quran, then you have to believe that these people wept each time as well.
Also, I don't understand your argument. We both agree that sujood means "to honour", or "to pay respect". What we disagree on is whether there is an inherent physical act involved. So what I don't understand is why it becomes ok for the parents to do sujood to Youssef if there is no prostrating to the ground. How is that any different?
The point is that sujood is obliged of us during salah, and God has written in the Quran that Youssef's parents performed sujood to him. We can change the meaning of sujood as much as we want, but it still poses a logical problem - something that is to be done to God was also done to Youssef. So taking away the physical prostration from the definition doesn't change the problem at all in my opinion.
-
AQ = al quran
Let's examine and analyse carefully
8420-22 So what is the matter with them that they do not believe? And when the quran/reading is being recited to them, they do not SJuD. No, those who rejected/concealed are denying.
---> those who have kfr/rejected/denied should SJD when AQ is recited to them
(Are we meant to believe, it is hard enough to get those who kfr to accept AQ, let alone accept by prostrating on the ground?!)
1958 Those are the ones whom God has blessed from amongst the prophets from the progeny of Adam, and those We carried with Noah, and from the progeny of Abraham and Israel, and from whom We have guided and chosen. When the revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fell SuJaD and weeping.
When the revelations were recited TO THEM (who is reciting revelations to the prophets?), thus likely refers to when receiving revelation, and sure, why not weep in this moment, but also physically prostrate? Maybe.
3215 Only they believe in Our signs whom when they are reminded by them, they fall SuJaD*, and glorify with praise of their Lord, and they are not arrogant.
*Tafsir ibn Abbas explains this expression as "they come in all humility", Ibn Kathir says it means "they listen to them and obey them in word and deed." Even though both do not interpret 1958 the same way.----> 3215 is the most clear example of the addressees being general, thus are we meant to believe believers physically prostrated every time upon hearing God's ayatin? I highly doubt it, hence tafsirs trying to explain it another way.
In fact, I just realised this is impossible, because AQ is full of believers being addressed by God's ayatin, yet not one example of anyone prostrating as a response. Thus, it becomes extremely unlikely to impossible, this is what it means here.
So my question is simple, how do you see 3215 is it a physical prostration or not?
The point is that sujood is obliged of us during salah
Where does it say that? SJD marks the end of salah, according to 4102. As I point out in my study, which no-one attempted to rebut, SJD=prostration in 4102 is highly problematic, and in my view, impossible.
something that is to be done to God was also done to Youssef.
I asked you once, you never replied. Where does it say in AQ that SJD is only to God?
So taking away the physical prostration from the definition doesn't change the problem at all in my opinion.
There is a big difference to giving someone acknowledgement/recognition, paying respect, honouring someone, and physically prostrating on the ground to someone. If you dont see the difference, that is fair enough, every tafsir I have read sees the problem, hence they try to explain it another way, as I discussed in my article.
As I said, the problem is the inconsistency and the logic of the traditional position. I have no problem if someone says "I think that SJD can mean prostration sometimes in AQ, and sometimes not, it depends on context, and I dont have fixed criteria to determine what it means when other than SJD=prostration does not fit in that occurrence so it must mean something else".
I want them to admit that because it will bring out their true colours. It is ironic to think that traditionists imply "Quran only" go on their whims, when it is the other way around. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
At the end of the day, I dont mind what a person believes, but if they attempt to ascribe something to AQ then I have the right, and duty, to examine and request evidence.
-
Quote
something that is to be done to God was also done to Youssef.I asked you once, you never replied. Where does it say in AQ that SJD is only to God?
WakasAll three on the elevated stage went into prostration to Allah, these three included Yusuf alahissalam and his mother and father who were taken to the stage by him.
-
Peace,
I am in agreement with Wakas, mainly because I see it as a matter of consistency. Once we throw consistency out the window, understanding the Quran becomes too subjective and it becomes very difficult to have a rational debate as anyone can point toward "proof" due to picking and choosing which meaning of a term to take when. There is no concrete measuring stick for discussion.
Imraan
-
peace Mazhar,
Your interpretation does fit the facts, as discussed in my article.peace Imraan,
That is a good point. As a side note, personally, I see 482 not only as a challenge to non-believers in AQ but also implying a methodological way to understand AQ.Each to their own.
