What Mustansir Mir really says about kharruu liladhqaan

ths

I asked you once, you never replied. Where does it say in AQ that SJD is only to God?

Sorry, was making another point and forgot to address this.

I'm not sure whether it was a hadith or not that stated this....I sometimes mix up the two. That's what happens when you've been reading the Quran alongside the hadiths your whole life.

But as Mazhar pointed out, 4137 is a strong indicator that it should not be done to anyone but God.

So while the statement is not 100% concrete, I'd still prefer to err on its side.

When the revelations were recited TO THEM (who is reciting revelations to the prophets?), thus likely refers to when receiving revelation

This is conjecture. I believe that if God was talking about receiving revelation it would have been stated thus. I don't think that receiving revelation is ever called "tutlaa 3alayhim" (recited to them), but I may be wrong.

So my question is simple, how do you see 3215 is it a physical prostration or not?

Yes I see all occurrences of kharra sujjadan to mean physical prostration.
Whether or not one is supposed to do so every time is another question, the same question that we all face regarding weeping in 1958. Do they weep every time or not?

I don't interpret it this way. I think that the Quran is simply juxtaposing this action with people who have never wept, and never prostrated.

Quote
The point is that sujood is obliged of us during salah

Where does it say that? SJD marks the end of salah

Yes that's what I meant. Sujood marks the end of salah, and thus it is obliged of us during salah as I stated.

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

I really don't see the difference.

The problem is not our definition of sujood. Let us say that sujood = singing.

God states that singing is a part of salah
God states that we should not sing to the sun or the moon, but to God
God states that Youssef's parents sang to him
Youssef was an honorable God-fearing man

The same logical conundrum is still there. It is not physically prostrating to the ground that causes this problem, it's the fact that the Quran uses the word sujood for all cases.

So I really don't think that just because we've removed physical prostration from the definition of sujood that this problem has disappeared.

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.

This is exactly what I'm stating. And so what?? There are many words in the Quran that change meaning depending on context.

Therefore

I take "kharra sujjadan" to mean "fall in prostration" every time it is used.
I take "sujood" to be a complex word that can vary in definition depending on context.

I shall give an example below.

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

What are you on about???

1.There are plenty of words in the Quran that change depending on context.
2.You are arguing that kharruu liladhqaani sujjadan does not mean to physically fall -- therefore you are arguing that it is an idiom -- therefore you are not being consistent in your interpretation of the Quran.

So the irony may have slipped you, but I'm the one arguing that kharra means to literally fall in these verses.

Now, the example of words changing meaning depending on context that pops most readily to mind is khrr

It occurs 12 times in the Quran, and in all it means to fall, except in one. I'll leave out the 'kharruu liladhqaan' and 'kharra sujjadan' verses

7143 ...and Moses fell down swooning. (kharra muusaa sa3iqan)

1626 ...and the roof fell down on them from over them

1990 ...and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin

2231 ...as if he had fallen from heaven

2573 ...fall not deaf and blind thereat. --- this is a verse where you (Wakas) argue for a different interpretation of khrr. I'm sure Imraan is more than ready to jump on that bandwagon

3824 ...he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down, bowing, and he repented. (kharra raaki3an wa2anaaba)

Now, the verse where kharra changes is this one

3414 Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff so when he fell/died, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task)

So there is 1 example of many, where words can change depending on context.

Now let me summarize the points

In 1958, it is unlikely that this is God who is revealing revelation to them for 2 reasons

a) The term "tutlaa 3alayhim" does not mean to reveal a revelation, and as far as I can tell, is not used that way in AQ.

b) More importantly, many of these people never received revelation of their own. Haaroon for one, definitely did not.

So do you believe that Abraham, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Moses, Haaroon, Ismail, and Idris all wept every time they heard the Quran recited to them?
You are both arguing for consistency in interpretation. Then how do you both interpret 3824.
Are you arguing that kharra means to fall in all places of the Quran?
Are you arguing that kharra means to fall, except when used with SJD?
Are you arguing that kharra means to fall, except when used with SJD AND with rukoo3?
If you don't believe that kharra sujjadan is literal, then to be consistent you must also interpret kharra raaki3an as idiomatic also

8 ) There are other examples of the formula "idha tutlaa 3alayhim" (when our signs are rehearsed to them)

831 "When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say..." -- Do they say the same thing every time?
1015 "But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who ...say..." -- Do they always say the same thing?

I could ask the same question about 1973, 3443, 4525, 467

9)Finally, prostrating in front of superiors was simply ancient Egyptian custom.

This page says that prostration AND bowing were both done to superiors

And a quick googling gives us these images
http//www.bible-history.com/admin1/image/thumbs/egyptian_prostration.gif

http//www.corbisimages.com/images/67/4069C610-3B7C-441C-9BA5-29EE76481A1F/IH019944.jpg

http//wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1788/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1788-1584.jpg

1CELOSTNOWFOUND

Peace ths,

What are you on about???

1.There are plenty of words in the Quran that change depending on context.

Firstly, I think your tone could do with some adjustment if we are to have a civilized conversation about this.

As for point 1, if the context dictates a meaning divorced from the core meaning of the root, I always view it critically. Just because certain established meanings have become the common understanding of various terminology, it doesn't necessarily mean such an understanding is correct. I do not believe that there are inconsistencies in the Quran. Therefore when words are understood in a way that creates an inconsistency, I endeavour to find an understanding that is free of such inconsistencies.

I have no problem with anyone accepting these inconsistencies as part of the language of the Quran. I choose not to because I believe that the language of the Quran is precise. Without precision it would serve to confuse rather than clarify. I therefore always look to the understanding that clarifies.

2.You are arguing that kharruu liladhqaani sujjadan does not mean to physically fall -- therefore you are arguing that it is an idiom -- therefore you are not being consistent in your interpretation of the Quran.

As for your second point, I am not arguing anything. I agree with Wakas because his approach seeks to find a consistent meaning, whereas yours simply waves away the inconsistency as different meanings in different contexts. You are comfortable with such inconsistencies. I am not.

I will respond to the rest of your post later as it requires a more lengthy response for which I don't have the time right now.

Imraan

ths

As for your second point, I am not arguing anything. I agree with Wakas because his approach seeks to find a consistent meaning, whereas yours simply waves away the inconsistency as different meanings in different contexts. You are comfortable with such inconsistencies. I am not.

It seems that you do not know what you're arguing, and you don't seem to know what I'm arguing either.

This discussion is mainly about kharruu sujjadan, and kharruu liladhqaan

Wakas was arguing that they are idioms, and that there is no physical movement.

I am arguing that they are not, and that there is physical movement in all cases.

This means that in Wakas' position, and thereby yours since you never outlined your position other than to state that you follow Wakas - there is inconsistency in the interpretation of the word kharra it varies in meaning.

So I find it highly amusing that you are now preaching to me about how comfortable I am with inconsistency and how uncomfortable you are.

Wakas also argues that 2573 is also an idiom and there is no literal falling - are you going to agree to that too? Because that would mean that you interpret kharra differently in about 4 cases - a bit of a blow to someone preaching about logic and consistency.

That is my first point.

My second, is that arguing that there is 100% consistency in all interpretation throughout the Quran is nothing but lip-service and rhetoric. The Quran is a highly poetic book and uses idioms and metaphors frequently. So if you're going to argue that, I suggest you have a look at Mustansir Mir's "Verbal Idioms of the Quran"

I'm arguing in favour of consistency in this case, but I'm not foolish enough to think that all words have the same meaning every time in the Quran, and any verse picked out at random can negate that theory

46 Whoever is rich, then let him not claim anything, and if he is poor then let him take eat (from the property of the orphan) that which is reasonable.

566 And if they had upheld the Torah and the Injeel, and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have been rewarded eaten from above their heads and below their feet.

44 Give the women their property willingly, and if they remit any of it to you of their own will, then you may use it eat it with good feelings.

2275 Those who receive eat usury...

Oh my god! It seems that the definition for akala that has been passed down for centuries is completely wrong and highly inconsistent!

I guess this means we need to re-interpret it.....so that it means the exact same thing in every verse. Otherwise the Quran just wouldn't be logical...

My suggestions for new meaning based on the passages mentioning 'akala' imbibe/draw/osmose

There, now it fits everything perfectly

Wakas

peace ths,

Please take your time in responding.

4137 is a strong indicator that it should not be done to anyone but God.

No it is not.

I don't think that receiving revelation is ever called "tutlaa 3alayhim" (recited to them), but I may be wrong.

These are God's revelations, We recite them to you with truth, and you are of the messengers.

We may also be able to reinforce the above another way, i.e. does AQ mention elsewhere God's ayatin/signs being recited TO prophets by others? I cant recall any, but there may be. If not, we will see another example of the precision par excellence of AQ.

Whether or not one is supposed to do so every time is another question, the same question that we all face regarding weeping in 1958. Do they weep every time or not?

See above.

Sujood marks the end of salah, and thus it is obliged of us during salah as I stated.

No. During is not the same as marking the end of something.

The same logical conundrum is still there.

The logical conundrum exists because of your absolute interpretation of 4137. It does not exist in AQ.

So I really don't think that just because we've removed physical prostration from the definition of sujood that this problem has disappeared.

A prophet allowing others to prostrate to him sounds more dodgy to me, than allowing others to pay respect, give recognition/etc to him. If you dont think so, that's ok, each to their own.

Re khrr
It is meant idiomatically when it is obviously idiomatic, i.e. its literal meaning does not fit. This is different to saying it means other than prostration because prostration does not fit. Have you established its meaning as prostration in the first place? No.

I recommend re-reading my article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

ths

Salaam Wakas,

Please take your time in responding.

I'm travelling tomorrow morning, so my next response may be in a few days.

4137 is a strong indicator that it should not be done to anyone but God.

No it is not.

a) Are you going to justify that statement with any arguments?
b) If you're arguing that sujood doesn't have to be done only to God, then why are we even debating this?? There is thus no logical conundrum with Youssef's family prostrating to him.

These are God's revelations, We recite them to you with truth, and you are of the messengers.

We may also be able to reinforce the above another way, i.e. does AQ mention elsewhere God's ayatin/signs being recited TO prophets by others? I cant recall any, but there may be. If not, we will see another example of the precision par excellence of AQ.

Good point, but you ignored my 2nd point

Many of these people never received revelation of their own. Haaroon for one, definitely did not.

The verses preceding 1958 talk about many people who did not receive any scriptures of their own, which would negate the argument that this is God revealing scripture to Prophets

Pre 1950 - Abraham is beseeching his father to turn to God

1948-58 -

I shall withdraw from you and that unto which ye pray beside Allah, and I shall pray unto my Lord. It may be that, in prayer unto my Lord, I shall not be unblest.
So, when he had withdrawn from them and that which they were worshipping beside Allah, We gave him Isaac and Jacob. Each of them We made a prophet.
And we gave them of Our mercy, and assigned to them a high and true renown.

And make mention in the Scripture of Moses. Lo! he was chosen, and he was a messenger (of Allah), a prophet. We called him from the right slope of the Mount, and brought him nigh in communion. And We bestowed upon him of Our mercy his brother Aaron, a prophet (likewise)

And make mention in the Scripture of Ishmael. Lo! he was a keeper of his promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet. He enjoined upon his people worship and almsgiving, and was acceptable in the sight of his Lord.

And make mention in the Scripture of Idris. Lo! he was a truthful man, a prophet; And We raised him to high station.

These are they unto whom Allah showed favour from among the prophets, of the seed of Adam and of those whom We carried (in the ship) with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and from among those whom We guided and chose. When the revelations of the Beneficent were recited unto them, they fell down, adoring and weeping.

So again, Aaron definitely did not receive a scripture, and nor did "from among those whom We guided and chose" at the end.

Therefore 1958 cannot be talking about God revealing scripture to these men.

Sujood marks the end of salah, and thus it is obliged of us during salah as I stated.

No. During is not the same as marking the end of something.

I don't know why you're arguing about such a small semantic issue.
But SJD marks the end of salah. You cannot end salah without doing SJD, therefore SJD is a part of salah, and done during it.

If you don't agree, then so be it....this is unimportant anyway.

But let me ask you some questions

124 When Joseph said to his father, 'Father, I saw eleven stars, and the sun and the moon; I saw them SJD for me.'
12100 And he lifted his father and mother upon the throne; and they KHRR SJD for him.

So my questions are these

I understand your interpretation of SJD (to honour, to pay respect, etc). But what about KHRR SJD? What is the difference between them?
How do you interpret "kharra raaki3an wa 2anaaba" in 3824?
If you don't believe that sujood is only to be done to God, then why does 12100 bother you?
How do you perform SJD when you end your salah? I don't mean to be nosy, I just want to know how your interpretation of SJD carries out in real practice

Mazhar

Now, the verse where kharra changes is this one

3414 Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff so when he fell/died, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task)

This is incorrect perception and seems to have been drawn by ignoring structure of the sentence. He is already dead. His body physically fell down when the staff on which it was resting was damaged/weakened from beneath the earth. Here too it means physically going down.

Mazhar

So again, Aaron definitely did not receive a scripture, and nor did "from among those whom We guided and chose" at the end.

What is the point in making such like authoritative statements?

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/21.48.gif
And indeed in the past We had given to Musa and Haroon
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/21.48a.gif
the Criterion the source for discriminating right from wrong/fact and conjecture, i.e. a source of visible light for activity and remembrance/lesson for those who are heedful and live a guarded life;

2148

ths

I am talking about scripture Mazhar

253

Al-Kitab is the scripture
Al-Furqan is the difference between right and wrong, so to speak

Still, al-Furqan could be interpreted as a "sign" from God in 1958, although there are still other people in that verse that are too general to be considered Prophets.

Wakas

peace ths,

God's ayatin/signs does not necessarily equal scripture etc.

But let me ask you some questions

I had assumed you had read my article on SJD. It seems I was mistaken. Thus I will refer you to it for your answers
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Mazhar

So again, Aaron definitely did not receive a scripture, and nor did "from among those whom We guided and chose" at the end.

Therefore 1958 cannot be talking about God revealing scripture to these men.

You say is the scripture. He got it

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.213b.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.213.gif
and along with all of them He sent the Book as Statement of Fact,

along with+ Personal pronoun for all of them. It is the categorical news given by Allah. No one is excluded from having been given the Book. They all are the Elevated and Chosen Servants of Allah whom Book was given-689. And we are asked to publicly pronounce this fact that we believe in all those Books, See-2136;384, and it is reiterated that the Book was sent with ALL the Messengers-5725]