:: Sajda is not prostration ::

Bigmo

Salaam Bigmo,

It is OK if you disagree bro. But you have given your view without any aayat quoted.

4829

This aayat does not talk about physical prostration marks. Please take a look at the meanings of highlighted words from the aayat 4829.

Please click here to see its detail.
Translation you quoted above means it as "marks". Please let me know how how will you translate 2273 with the same word used.
Why do you think the word "faces" is used instead of "forelock" which is already used in 9615. And I don't see any marks of prostration on faces.

Other references that you have quoted are not important for me, as they have not been sent to me by Allah and I don't have any authenticity for them.

May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan

Yeah but the verse says that is their example in the Torah and Gospel. That is the meaning they have in both the scriptures.

Bigmo

Salaam Bigmo,

It is OK if you disagree bro. But you have given your view without any aayat quoted.

4829

This aayat does not talk about physical prostration marks. Please take a look at the meanings of highlighted words from the aayat 4829.

Please click here to see its detail.
Translation you quoted above means it as "marks". Please let me know how how will you translate 2273 with the same word used.
Why do you think the word "faces" is used instead of "forelock" which is already used in 9615. And I don't see any marks of prostration on faces.

Other references that you have quoted are not important for me, as they have not been sent to me by Allah and I don't have any authenticity for them.

May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan

I am talking about the context it appears like when it says in the Quran to Mary to kneel or bow. This is how mankind prays. All religions have that. Bowing, prostrating, kneeling. I am not saying it has to be that way but this is the human norm.

Why is it only the Quran that should have it different.

Scribbler

Peace be with you, mmkhan. )

Let's assume that we are unable to give you a clear, lucid proof from the Qur'an that we have to do prostration in our salat, and that you are most probably right on what you are said about prostration on your very first post of this topic.

But brother, do you have any proof that if we physically bow down and prostrate to Allah in our salat, then Allah will not accept our salat/our salat will become nullified?

If your answer is a "no", then my advice to you and to all the Qur'an-aloners would be to stay on the safer side, i.e. we all should bow down and prostrate to Allah in our salat.

peace

Wakas

peace all,

One of the things I find interesting about this issue is that the following article has been public for several years yet those who apparently believe "sujud" means physical prostration have avoided answering most of the objections brought up therein

http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Here is the discussion thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg266985#msg266985

Count how many of the objections in the article were addressed.

Bigmo

peace all,

One of the things I find interesting about this issue is that the following article has been public for several years yet those who apparently believe "sujud" means physical prostration have avoided answering most of the objections brought up therein

http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html

Here is the discussion thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg266985#msg266985

Count how many of the objections in the article were addressed.

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?"

"So let us assume it means a traditional prostration, how can one identify whom the prostration is done to? It is difficult considering God is everywhere and it is a fact that sometimes in many countries people will be prostrating in the direction of the cuboid called Kaabah in Mecca but the sun/moon will also be in this direction. Thus in such cases how can one differentiate? Quite simply they cannot, unless by observing and considering other acts, hence the likely use of "works/deeds" in 2724.
If we actually imagine what the verse implies, i.e. they should have been prostrating to God not to the sun, so this would imply any other direction apart from to the sun, but even if this was the case, it is impossible to conclude what is being prostrated to. It could have been a star, planet, building in that direction, another deity that requires a specific direction. The point is, by seeing a prostration it is impossible to deduce the object of prostration. It could be argued the hoopoe somehow worked it out, but if we go by what AQ actually says, it strongly implies it was their deeds/works that gave them away.
It is interesting that this verse is commonly cited as evidence of physical prostration when in fact it is not. At best, it is neutral.
Some have suggested "hearing and obeying" or "obedience" as the meaning of SJD but this is ruled out in 2724, as it is impossible to do this with the sun, i.e. an object that gives no commands.
"

I don't find the argument convincing. Why should we have to know what a person is doing sujood for? The author seems to see theology as an act and not a belief. This is the same problem with how many Quranist understand shirk. They see it as an act. Shirk is a theology and not an act. You don't commit shirk as the salafis claim. You either believe in shirk or you don't. There is no difference between a pagan ritual and a monotheist ritual. The difference is in the belief and not the act. A person doing sujood to the sun is a person whose theology sees the sun as divine. Its the theology that determines the behavior and not vice versa. The author sees it as an act.

So how do we know who or what a person is doing sujood for? Well you look at his aqeedah. Thats how you know. The author probably sees shirk as an act and not a theology. Thats what seperates a monotheist doing sujood and a pagan doing sujood. The act is the same but their belief is radically different.

"4137 ...do not SJuD to/for the sun/moon, but SJuD to/for God who created them, if you serve Him alone.
SJD is likely to mean the same thing here for all sun/moon/God.
If you serve God, SJD to/for Him. Simple. Hence in the story of Joseph, SJD to him seems problematic, as noted by some commentators. This will be discussed later"

Once again the author sees shirk as an act. The act of doing sujood to Jospeh he sees problematic. It does not occur to the author that sujood is simply sujood. Whats problematic is the belief. The brothers of Jospeh did not bow to what they considered divine. The author does not seem to see the difference. This is all salafi influence. He does not know what shirk is cause he probably did not study or research their aqeedah. If he did that he ill know what the Quran means when it says do not bow or prostrate to the sun or moon. But bow and prostrate to the creator of the sun and moon. Its a aqeedah issue.

Thats why some Quranist see ka'ba as an idol. Its only an idol if the aqeedah of those who do sujood there see it as divine.

Wakas

peace,

I don't find the argument convincing.

I assume you mean the part you quoted only and not the article in full, as you only addressed a minority of the issues raised in it.

I am the author of the article, and I do not see "shirk" as an act only. In any case, you proved my point when you said

The difference is in the belief and not the act. A person doing sujood to the sun is a person whose theology sees the sun as divine. Its the theology that determines the behavior and not vice versa.

So how do we know who or what a person is doing sujood for? Well you look at his aqeedah. Thats how you know.

In other words, even you admit we cannot tell what beliefs one holds via this act. That is what is said in the article. For these verses is "IF sujud is a physical prostration then it is difficult/impossible to tell whom/what it is being done to/for only by observing a physical prostration".

It is a bit worrying you do not seem to understand the point I am making here in the article. You actually end up confirming my point.

Once again the author sees shirk as an act. The act of doing sujood to Jospeh he sees problematic.

Wrong. I said traditional commentators find it problematic, hence their varying interpretations.

Again, it is worrying you do not seem to understand what the article is saying. I recommend re-reading the article.

Bigmo

peace,

I assume you mean the part you quoted only and not the article in full, as you only addressed a minority of the issues raised in it.

I am the author of the article, and I do not see "shirk" as an act only. In any case, you proved my point when you said

In other words, even you admit we cannot tell what beliefs one holds via this act. That is what is said in the article. For these verses is "IF sujud is a physical prostration then it is difficult/impossible to tell whom/what it is being done to/for only by observing a physical prostration".

It is a bit worrying you do not seem to understand the point I am making here in the article. You actually end up confirming my point.

Wrong. I said traditional commentators find it problematic, hence their varying interpretations.

Again, it is worrying you do not seem to understand what the article is saying. I recommend re-reading the article.

Then that means you are not able to make your point easy to understand. I still can not follow what you are saying.

"IF sujud is a physical prostration then it is difficult/impossible to tell whom/what it is being done to/for only by observing a physical prostration"

I don't understand this point. You said that not many people have commented on that article. Maybe they don't understand your points.

"258, 4154, 7161 ...enter the gate SuJuD
Clearly they cannot enter the gate prostrating. Since entering a gate is a physical act, it is possible SJD can be demonstrated in a physical act but not in a prostration manner. It more likely refers to attitude/mindset/disposition. If taken metaphorically, as in embracing/entering a new system, to do so with SJD.

2125 ...and we made a covenant to Abraham that "You shall purify My house/shelter for those who go among/about, and stay/devote, and incline and SuJuD."
Could indicate a possible progression mingle/visit --> stay/devote --> incline --> SJD.

2226 ...and purify My house/abode/shelter for those who go among/about, and the standing/maintaining, and the inclining/humble, and the SuJuD."
The difference in sequence is between "stay/devote" and "standing/maintaining/observing". Interestingly, both these words have a connotation of being in one place.

2564 And those who spend the night to/for their Lord, SuJaD and standing.
At first glance "prostration" seems to fit well in this verse due to "standing" (qiyaaman), however other occurrences of this exact same form are in 45 and 597, in which it means establishment/maintenance or standing in the figurative sense. Technically, if one spent the night standing and prostrating one would be abiding by this verse and there would be no need to bow, as is traditionally done, but this may be being too pedantic.
"

What it will seem to the reader is that you feel the need to deny sujood being something physical as you seem to be searching for an alternative meaning.

What exactly is the reason you don't want it to mean something physical?

"Now onto the consequences of this comparison IF one takes 124 and 12100 together to imply SJD means "prostration" (or even a physical bow), they MUST also take, using the same logic, the SJD in 8421 and 1958/3215 (i.e. the exact same comparison) to also mean "prostration/bow". Or if you take a physical prostration in either of 8421, 1958 or 3215 then you should do the same for all, unless there is a solid reason not to, otherwise it will be logically inconsistant and/or a contradiction in one's views. Thus, the implication would be, whenever one hears AQ, they must physically prostrate! Of course, no Traditional Muslim as far as I'm aware does this, or ever has, as it would be impractical and sometimes dangerous. It would seem that this finding is significant, and not only does it present a problem for SJD=prostration, but also for any body-physical representation of this term, e.g. salute. Of course there is a way around this problem simply pick and choose the meaning to suit your views or just ignore what AQ says. It would seem this is commonly done.
It should be noted that other key words are not exclusively for God, as is commonly thought, e.g. come as muslim (i.e. ones who surrender/make peace) TO Solomon .
"

I am sorry but I don't find your arguments convincing. It sounds desperate and often you use reasoning that will lead to what you want. You then accuse others who see sujood as physical as trying to pick and chose the meaning. However the verses you quote all seem to be talking about a physical sujood.

IF one takes 124 and 12100 together to imply SJD means "prostration" (or even a physical bow), they MUST also take, using the same logic, the SJD in 8421 and 1958/3215 (i.e. the exact same comparison) to also mean "prostration/bow". Or if you take a physical prostration in either of 8421, 1958 or 3215 then you should do the same for all, unless there is a solid reason not to, otherwise it will be logically inconsistant and/or a contradiction in one's views. Thus, the implication would be, whenever one hears AQ, they must physically prostrate!

Why should they phyisically prostrate everytime they hear the Quran? That is putting words in the Quran's mouth. There is a sense that you made up your mind about the subject and use reasoning that will lead to that conclusion.

Of course others might see that article differently. But when i read sujood in the Quran its pretty straight forward to me.

"The above list MUST be considered with ALL the possible CAD meanings given at the start"

Why must it be that way? Its the must part that strikes me. The reasoning is done to reach a conclusion rather than simply look at the verses and try to see what it means.

It should be clear to all that SJD=prostration is a highly unlikely choice overall, and in many verses is simply impossible. In fact, there was not one occurrence in the entire Quran in which "prostration" was definitely the meaning.

This is a long shot. In fact in nearly all the verses you quoted i find sujood meaning physical prostration. Of course others might see it differently.

Bigmo