Regarding Article "Meaning of SuJuD" part 1
-
Salam,
I will be going through these articles one by one as I have time. I appreciate the effort done, but it seems this first article (http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html) runs into a problem with its conclusion
"It simply means that no credible argument for SJD=prostration and therefore prostration during upholding/establishing the salat can be made using The Quran."
This is not a justified conclusion. The evidence presented does highlight the multi-dimensional aspect of "SuJuD" but we need to be aware the physical prostration is also part of the range of meanings allowed and it can fit perfectly fine in 4102. Further, the last argument regarding verse 4102 is invalid, and this verse is a clear example of the physical aspect.
it implies that one must take AND hold their weapons/goods with them (by use of 'tadaAAoo / lay down', later in the verse), but if it is understood as traditional Muslim prayer then physically bowing, kneeling and prostrating like this would be impractical and somewhat dangerous, e.g. prostrating with swords!
It is quite possible to prostrate with weapons at your side. A sword can be sheathed and hang by your side. A modern rifle has a sling and can also accommodate physical prostration.
it would imply that salat ends upon SJD, but if salat=prayer and SJD=prostration here, then we know traditional Muslim prayer has at least two prostrations per unit of prayer, not one, thus the verse by itself is not clear or does not make sense. The only way for it to make some sense would be to say traditional Muslim prayer normally consists of two prostrations, and since it is during wartime this can be reduced to one prostration. There is no such thing as a unit of prayer according to The Quran, nor do traditional Muslims do it in this manner (i.e. prayer does not end with prostration), but this explanation is just to show what sense could be made of this verse according to the traditional understanding.
I see no problem with ending the prayer with a physical prostration. This does not prove the conclusion. It may prove that the traditional limitations and rules on the form of prayer are not needed, but that is it.
it says if impeded by rain or illness then one can lay down weapons but does not say anything about being excluded from prostrating. So the obvious question becomes what kind of rain/illness would prevent one from carrying weapons yet allow one to physically prostrate? It would seem there is no easy answer to this problem.
All this section of the verse is saying is that you can lay down your arms if it is inconvenient due to conditions, or you are ill/tired/weak. It does not follow that physical prostration is not being referred to here.
So, if SJD does not mean prostration here, then how is the leader or group meant to signal the end of salat? Well, it could theoretically mean some other meanings of SJD that are less problematic, e.g. make obeisance (i.e. any physical or verbal display of respect/obedience/reverence), lower the head, to salute/honour, to pay respect, to stand up etc but if it is left to the individual then imagining a coherent group salat seems somewhat difficult. In addition, this meaning would have to be cross referenced in AQ but as we have seen in our review of verses perhaps none of these other choices would fit well, or we would have to make 4102 an exception.
It does not seem difficult at all to imagine a "coherent group salat". Only when you get stuck on asking God for unimportant details do you run into trouble. Such as, for how to signal the end/beginning etc. These are details that the Quran has clearly left open for us to decide. In a Quranic system Muslims would be free to come up with a standard form of prayer followed by all. It's details (e.g. number or rakats) are irrelevant, arbitrary and besides the point. The unit commander in times of battle, for example, should be able to modify such details on the spot.
Group salat is more than a ritual, it is communal gathering for administrative and organizational purposes. This is also part of the deeper meanings of "masjid" and "qiblah". I should point out that such definitions were presented by Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, though whose lectures I came to know such insights. From the other articles I scanned a bit, it seems there is some agreement on this front by the authors of these articles as well. However, GAP does not discount the physical act of salah as invalid and I don't think there is any reason for the authors of this article to subtract it either.
Salam
-
w/salaam Mohsin7,
I am the author of that article.
Before I reply in full, and before you move onto the next article in the series, you may wish to first review this summarised list I made for that article
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg328785#msg328785
It makes it much simpler to respond to the points raised in the article. You can reply to it there or here. -
@ths and Wakas,
@ ths,
While most of the lectures (audio and video) of G.A.P are in Urdu, the Toule-e-Islam website has articles and books in English http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/BA_Parwez.htm The book "Islam A Challenge to Religion" it's in English (not sure why the website says "Danish" would provide a good comprehensive overview.
I also just found two articles on "salah" on the website as well. They are not written by GAP, but do provide a good idea of his views.
http//www.tolueislam.org/Bazm/Mansoor/MA_Salaat_1.htm
http//www.tolueislam.org/Bazm/Manzoor/MH_Salaat_aspects.htmThe following quote is of importance
"The Qur?an uses the term Aqeemus Salaat quite often which is usually translated as "Establish Prayer." This translation does not fully convey the meaning of the original concept. The root of Aqeemu comes from ?qaa-ma,? which means to stand, to be balanced, to have a just, fair and long-term strategy for dealing with problems, and to be steadfast. Therefore, Aqeemus Salaat means "to establish Salaat" as a permanent and balanced system in which human beings can follow the Divine Code in all aspects of their lives individually, as well as collectively. This obviously requires an independent and sovereign land in which the Divine Code can be enforced as a living constitution. This is the essence of prayer and, in fact, an essential requirement for the establishment of Salaat. The Qur?an is very specific on this point when it says "These are the people who, when they will have power in the land (2455), then they will establish Salaat?" (2421)"
@ Wakas,
I did go through the summary you provided. I agree with most of your analysis. I just disagree with the conclusion that a physical bowing is not included in the range of meanings, and used 4102 to show how it also fits as well (in certain verses.) The point is that the physical act of prayer is a component of "salah", but it has to to be connected to the "system" of salah for it to mean anything. That "salah", as you yourself pointed out, and G.A.P. said long ago, is a meeting for administrative and organizational purposes, within a Quranic system. Today, the problem is that we have disconnected salah from that system, and turned it into a ritualistic act of "worship", which has completely corrupted definition of the original concepts. Thankfully, since the Quran is still present in its original form, the true meanings of these concepts are still preserved and can be re-derived.
-
Thanks for clarifying.
With regard to 4102 I actually listed 4 issues, one of which you did not answer. Allow me to quote from the summary, and I have added numbering to make it easier to follow
Re 4102 ...and thou uphold/establish the salat/bond for/to them, then let a group from among them stand/uphold//establish with thee and let them bring their weapons; then when they have SaJaD then let them be behind you (plural)...
Issues-
---it would imply that salat ends upon SJD, but if salat=prayer and SJD=prostration here, then we know traditional Muslim prayer has at least two prostrations per unit of prayer, not one, thus the verse by itself is not clear or does not make sense. The only way for it to make some sense would be to say traditional Muslim prayer normally consists of two prostrations, and since it is during wartime this can be reduced to one prostration. There is no such thing as a unit of prayer according to The Quran, nor do traditional Muslims do it in this manner (i.e. prayer does not end with prostration), but this explanation is just to show what sense could be made of this verse according to the traditional understanding.
-
---it implies that one must take AND hold their weapons/goods with them (by use of 'tadaAAoo / lay down', later in the verse), but if it is understood as traditional Muslim prayer then physically bowing, kneeling and prostrating like this would be impractical and somewhat dangerous, e.g. prostrating with swords!
-
---it says if impeded by rain or illness then one can lay down weapons but does not say anything about being excluded from prostrating. So the obvious question becomes what kind of rain/illness would prevent one from carrying weapons yet allow one to physically prostrate? It would seem there is no easy answer to this problem.
-
---We are also left with another problem, because if we accept that the regular/timed salat involves recitation of AQ which is strongly evidenced by AQ itself, and agreed upon by almost all , then we know we are commanded to SJD when it is relayed to us , but if we were to do this in the regular/timed salat and we know salat ends with SJD according to 4102 then it would last less than 20 seconds!
Views on these 4 issues?
Using the ordering above, I will discuss your replies
Re 1)
Thanks for acknowledging that the traditional format would likely need changed to fit this verse, or not needed, i.e. a freeform prayerRe 2)
I agree that it is possible to bow/prostrate with a sword, however it is somewhat impractical and dangerous. Even if sheathed and hung (which I did consider) the only way that I could foresee working is if it was a short-ish sword and/or held during salat and/or hung but adjusted by hand and/or the people next to you were not so close - or a combination of these.Re 3)
I disagree with you when you say "It does not follow that physical prostration is not being referred to here.". The verse is clear, salat ends upon SJD, but you are implying salat can end without SJD. Your explanation is a forced consequence of your view and an assumption that The Quran is somehow implying SJD is included.Re 4)
You never commented on this issue, please clarify your view.And lastly...
That "salah", as you yourself pointed out, and G.A.P. said long ago, is a meeting for administrative and organizational purposes, within a Quranic system.
I have never said that. This is twice you have implied I said something which was not true (for first example, see your riba thread). Do not put words in my mouth, quote me directly in future.
-
-
@ Wakas
Re 1)
Thanks for acknowledging that the traditional format would likely need changed to fit this verse, or not needed, i.e. a freeform prayerWell I believed that already, before I read your article. I'm just glad more people are realizing that prayer is not a simple brainless ritual we have to perform. But I still think the physical act of prayer as well in group format is valid. As I said, this verse we are discussing is ample proof that this is not a newly invented practice but was there in the time of the prophet as well.
Re 2)
I agree that it is possible to bow/prostrate with a sword, however it is somewhat impractical and dangerous.I own swords and firearms, it is not at all "impractical" nor "dangerous". Weapons of war have to function safely in battle conditions which are far more complex than a simple prostration e.g. running/jumping/climbing (as well as the prone position). It's the user which has to know how to safely handle them in all situations, prostration being one of the least problematic of such.
I disagree with you when you say "It does not follow that physical prostration is not being referred to here.". The verse is clear, salat ends upon SJD, but you are implying salat can end without SJD. Your explanation is a forced consequence of your view and an assumption that The Quran is somehow implying SJD is included.
You are contradicting yourself. I have already quoted you in my first post where you said "it would imply that salat ends upon SJD,". Now you are saying the verse is "clear" and making an absolute statement such as "salat ends upon SJD" period. Suddenly you went from suggesting an implication to stating a clear fact? Well, that "implication" that you saw originally in the verse was your own "forced assumption", not mine. Just as this sudden clarity that you are now claiming has appeared, is also your own forced one.
I also don't see how this point will help you prove your case, as even if you were right, it wouldn't prove that physical prostration is not being referred to here.
Lastly, in case you are misunderstanding what I said about traditional limitations, I'll clarify. I was saying that if we assume your argument as valid and salat ends with SJD, all that would prove is that the current restrictions on the form are invalid. I wasn't myself implying anything about ending the prayer with or without SJD etc.
Re 4)
You never commented on this issue, please clarify your view.I didn't comment because this point is circular and is automatically answered by the rest of our discussion, i.e. it is based on the assumption that the range of "SJD" is limited (less than what the root actually allows) and it only has non-physical meanings. I just used the verse we are discussing to show that this is not the case and the meanings have to be applied in proper context. If the entire range of the root is analyzed then this "problem" which you claim exists, doesn't.
I have never said that. This is twice you have implied I said something which was not true (for first example, see your riba thread). Do not put words in my mouth, quote me directly in future.
I apologize for not directly quoting you but I'm sure I read in one of the articles that in the past such meetings took place for administrative purposes (i'm paraphrasing from memory). If you disagree that you ever said anything to this effect, then it's my mistake. If I come upon what I read again I'll bring it up or PM you for clarification. p.s. as I also explained, I was not trying to distort what you said in the ribba thread either, as I explained there.
-
Re 3)
To say "it would imply..." is the same as saying "it does imply...". Also I was discussing from the perspective of one whose view is 'salat=Traditional Prayer', i.e. not my view, so I am discussing what would theoretically occur in such a view. Thus, I think my use of "it would imply" is apt. I could have used "it clearly implies" also. Makes little difference to me.If in doubt, look at the Arabic of 4102 "...so/then when they have SJD so/then let them be from behind you(Plural) and let come forward other group...".
It clearly implies the salat ends after SJD.
I also don't see how this point will help you prove your case, as even if you were right, it wouldn't prove that physical prostration is not being referred to here.
It doesn't prove my case, it simply forces someone who holds the view you do (i.e. sjd=prostration in 4102) to make an unwarranted assumption, so that their view still works.
Re4)
If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that sjd=prostration in 4102 on one hand, and seemingly suggesting on the other that when Quran says we should sjd when it is relayed to us it doesn't mean prostration. Is this correct?You as well as I know, there is no qualification in the verses in question (8420-22, 1958, 3215), thus once again, you are forced into making an unwarranted assumption, in order to make your view still work.
Now, let's get back to the quote of mine you opened this thread with. I said
"It simply means that no credible argument for SJD=prostration and therefore prostration during upholding/establishing the salat can be made using The Quran."
Your argument is not credible, because of your unwarranted assumptions. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but not credible. There is a difference.
To clarify, by "credible" I mean an option wherein the majority of evidence is weighted in its favour.
-
To clarify, by "credible" I mean an option wherein the majority of evidence is weighted in its favour.
Let me start with this because we need to get this sorted out immediately.
Your basing your argument on inductive reasoning and that is a horrible idea. Don't get me wrong, I am no Karl Popper and I fully appreciate inductive reasoning in its proper place. But when building an argument, you need to use deductive reasoning. Don't think of an argument as collecting scientific evidence, but think of it as a mathematical proof. Your conclusion has to be derived. You can't simply count verses statistically (inductively) because that will yield logical contradictions.
For example, God only has to say once that dead people don't come back to life until J-Day. Now, with that said, all the times when Jesus' supposed "miracles" are mentioned, we need to make sure to remember that restriction and apply deduction, and only then will we get a logically consistent result. It doesn't matter how many times (statistically) God mentions those alleged "miracles", only one "clear and simple" restriction on coming back to life is enough to make matters clear. This is why you need to use deduction and not induction. Otherwise you will end up with a whole host of contradictions.
Re 3)
To say "it would imply..." is the same as saying "it does imply..."But saying it "implies" is not the same as saying it is "clear". That's the difference. Your first statement admitted that you were seeing an implication (i.e. you had to make a jump to your conclusion), but then you changed your stance to one which stated the verse was "clear".
It clearly implies the salat ends after SJD.
It doesn't matter what you think is "implied", can you prove it deductively? More importantly, as I already stated, even if I grant you this point, it still wouldn't prove that the physical meaning of SJD is not in application here.
It doesn't prove my case, it simply forces someone who holds the view you do (i.e. sjd=prostration in 4102) to make an unwarranted assumption, so that their view still works.
I'm simply pointing out holes in your argument. As you know, your case isn't proven.
Re4)
If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that sjd=prostration in 4102 on one hand, and seemingly suggesting on the other that when Quran says we should sjd when it is relayed to us it doesn't mean prostration. Is this correct?You as well as I know, there is no qualification in the verses in question (8420-22, 1958, 3215), thus once again, you are forced into making an unwarranted assumption, in order to make your view still work.
Hasn't Layth has made the same argument with regards to "DaRaBa"? I emailed him and I'm pretty sure that's what he said. If the root allows for multiple meanings then the application is dependent on the context and whichever meaning fits best and is logically consistent. This makes perfect sense even in non Semitic languages. If I said to you "I like vipers" while standing by a city street, would you resort to statistics to prove that I meant "viper" the car, and not "viper" the family of snakes?
-
Peace Mohsin.
If the root allows for multiple meanings then the application is dependent on the context and whichever meaning fits best and is logically consistent. This makes perfect sense even in non Semitic languages.
Alright, so in which verses "SJD" clearly refers to a physical prostration? I only know verses in which it clearly does not refer to a physical prostration. Hence I also choose the non-physical understanding for verses in which both understandings would be possible if regarded on their own. Isn't this a logical approach?
-
Peace Mohsin.
Alright, so in which verses "SJD" clearly refers to a physical prostration? I only know verses in which it clearly does not refer to a physical prostration. Hence I also choose the non-physical understanding for verses in which both understandings would be possible if regarded on their own. Isn't this a logical approach?
Salam Timur,
This particular verse we are discussing allows for the physical meaning to be applied without any problems. All the points which were brought up against this verse applying the physical aspect of SJD have been shown to be lacking. Hence, the physical aspect of Salat with a physical prostration can not be invalidated using the Quran since nowhere does the Quran explicitly say that Salat/SJD are never to be performed physically. That fact taken together with this verse is enough to validate a physical salat incorporating SJD.
In short, while all the other deeper meanings of Salat/SJD/Masjid are valid as well, the physical aspect of salat and SJD can not be subtracted from this set using the Quran.
-
When I consider an argument I like to have all the evidence on the table, then weigh up each option and go with the one that is most evidenced/logical.
So, let's sum up
The Quran has multiple verses wherein humans are doing SJD in which it cannot mean physical prostration. It has no verse wherein humans doing SJD clearly meaning physical prostration.
The Quran clearly says believers are to SJD when Quran is relayed to them. You take this as a non-prostration SJD.
However, when this would occur in salat in 4102 you take SJD to mean a physical prostration.Your view on 4102 requires an unwarranted assumption wherein allegedly God didn't mention SJD in the rain/illness exceptions but it is allegedly included.
A somewhat modified salat performance due to carrying of weapons. For sake of argument, let's say a minor modification.
As I said, theoretically possible, not credible. Readers can make up their own minds however.
Perhaps a larger question, is the can of worms it opens up if one adopts your approach to Quran
Hence, the physical aspect of Salat with a physical prostration can not be invalidated using the Quran since nowhere does the Quran explicitly say that Salat/SJD are never to be performed physically.
Your reasoning above essentially is "...since nowhere does the Quran say that sjd cannot mean physical prostration".
Well, Quran doesn't say a lot of things, e.g.
The Quran doesn't say that cannot mean thus, according to you, it can mean that in a Quran occurrence.
Good luck with that approach. That is not my approach.
-
The Quran has multiple verses wherein humans are doing SJD in which it cannot mean physical prostration. It has no verse wherein humans doing SJD clearly meaning physical prostration.
Well it does Wakas... the infamous kharruu sujjadan verses which we argued about perhaps 3 years ago. 17107
I don't want to have this argument all over again but my argument was that kharruu lil-adhqaani is a phrase meaning "fall to their faces", and your argument, if I recall correctly was that it is completely non-physical. A sort of spiritual/mental collapse
But no one I believe has ever interpreted it this way in the past. Not even Mustansir Mir. And if this doesn't mean physical prostration then how could God have made physical prostration more clear? I mean they are literally falling on their faces here..
And this is aside from the fact that all the related semitic languages have sujood as meaning physical prostration as well as the non-physical meanings. Hebrew and I believe Aramaic also use SJD for when they physically prostrate. And the dictionaries define it as such. If we can't rely on the dictionaries or the accepted usages of the word in the language then what can we rely on? You use dictionaries extensively when forming arguments against DRB as wife beating. So we must accept that the general understanding of sujood has always had a physical element.
-
@ wakas & ths
When I consider an argument I like to have all the evidence on the table, then weigh up each option and go with the one that is most evidenced/logical.
First of all, it seems like you're not understanding the difference between logic and evidence, because you just used both words interchangeably. Logic has nothing to do with evidence. There is no empirical "evidence" that a perfect right triangle exists anywhere in the universe, and yet we have the Pythagorean Theorem, don't we? Logic is based on a set of consistent statements which flow deductively from a set of axioms. The primary aim of this is to avoid contradiction. Thus, understanding the Quran must be a deductive process. Because one of the axioms of a Muslim is that the Quran can not contain logical contradictions, which is why your approach is flawed, because your approach will yield contradictions in the Quran.
Secondly, (if the above isn't already enough, and it is) you yourself have already admitted that your case is inconclusive i.e. not proven (I already quoted you in my last post), so what this basically shows is that your approach is not capable of providing a solid and consistent method of analyzing the Quran.
As I said, theoretically possible, not credible. Readers can make up their own minds however.
Perhaps a larger question, is the can of worms it opens up if one adopts your approach to Quran
Your reasoning above essentially is "...since nowhere does the Quran say that sjd cannot mean physical prostration".
Well, Quran doesn't say a lot of things, e.g.
The Quran doesn't say that cannot mean thus, according to you, it can mean that in a Quran occurrence.
Now you are guilty of the same thing you accused me of, "putting words in my mouth". What I'm actually saying is that the application of the root's domain is dependent on context and logical consistency (i.e. so that it does not cause contradictions with other verses of the Quran). Not that you can arbitrarily swap one definition for another.
So, let's sum up
If you wish... I will refrain from engaging you on your other articles after this. It doesn't seem like you're open to sincerely discuss these matters.
The Quran has multiple verses wherein humans are doing SJD in which it cannot mean physical prostration. It has no verse wherein humans doing SJD clearly meaning physical prostration.
Even if that were true (and ths' has provided an example above which seems to clearly refute your statement) it still wouldn't mean anything because you have not deductively shown that the physical meaning of SJD is incompatible with the verse we have been discussing.
The Quran clearly says believers are to SJD when Quran is relayed to them. You take this as a non-prostration SJD.
However, when this would occur in salat in 4102 you take SJD to mean a physical prostration.Yes because no rule prevents me from doing exactly that. While you are ignoring the concept of "context" completely and forcing only one meaning of the root across the entire Quran, an approach for which you have no justification whatsoever. Such an approach simply fails to work consistently without contradictions (example already provided).
Your view on 4102 requires an unwarranted assumption wherein allegedly God didn't mention SJD in the rain/illness exceptions but it is allegedly included.
A somewhat modified salat performance due to carrying of weapons. For sake of argument, let's say a minor modification.
You keep calling my points "assumptions" and keep ignoring the fact that your entire argument is based on completely false premises. You can't simply subtract the range of a root based on how many times a certain application occurs in the Quran. I have shown very clearly that the physical application fits fine in this verse and you have not been able to show otherwise.
@ ths
how could God have made physical prostration more clear? I mean they are literally falling on their faces here..
Now that's my kind of humor haha
Very insightful find sir, and dare I say "conclusive".
-
peace ths,
Yes, we did discuss 17107-109, and there was disagreement, and I was not the only one who did not take it as a physical prostration.
You said "But no one I believe has ever interpreted it this way in the past."
Have you heard of someone called Ibn Kathir? In his tafsir he considers it a physical prostration the 1st time, i.e. 17107, and a non-prostration the 2nd time, i.e. 17109, quote
"(And they fall down) is a description rather than an action (i.e., this is a further description of their humility as referred to in Ayah 107; it does not imply that they prostrate twice)."
You may wish to ask yourself why does Ibn Kathir take 17107 as prostration and 17109 not? Well, the simple, and perhaps most likely answer is that in 17107 SJD occurs which he views as prostration, and SJD does not occur in 17109. Ergo, he does not take the "fall to their chins" component as physical. In other words he takes this part as a non-physical idiom.
Note he does not mention switching "face" for "chin" in 17109.When we go back to Mustansir Mir's work, I agree with him when he says this part is an idiom meaning "extreme humility".
I disagree with you/him/others when you switch "chin" for "face" and make the idiom physical, so you can make SJD physical-prostration. Note the inconsistency.
This problem was highlighted in my article, taken from br. Ayman's observation, see here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601459.msg266626#msg266626
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601459.msg267561#msg267561Do you have a response to this point?
-
peace Mohsin,
It seems to me that there is some confusion, so let's take it one step at a time. Perhaps you can clarify for us
Because one of the axioms of a Muslim is that the Quran can not contain logical contradictions, which is why your approach is flawed, because your approach will yield contradictions in the Quran.
.
.
.
Such an approach simply fails to work consistently without contradictions (example already provided).Can you tell us what contradiction my approach led to in this case, please quote me directly.
Thanks.
-
Salam Wakas,
It seems to me that there is some confusion, so let's take it one step at a time. Perhaps you can clarify for us
This isn't a video game, you can't simply hit the reset button.
I've already clearly explained how your inductive approach will yield contradictions if applied across the board in understanding the Quran. I have also nullified your objections to applying the physical application of the root in the verse 4102. If you don't have a counter to what has already been presented, then I'll tip my hat and say good day.
-
Salaam Wakas,
I honestly don't feel like going back and digging up our argument from 3 years ago as I thought it was resolved when you found out that Mustansir Mir interpreted the phrase in 17107 as physical falling.
But you have not answered my question - which was how can God make physical prostration any clearer than by saying they fell? If sujood is a complex word with a variety of meanings of submission, then do you not think that God would be oversimplifying it by saying that sujood is done by placing one's forehead to the ground? It was necessary for God to show us that SJD has both emotional and physical meanings by including both uses in the Quran. Sometimes SJD is obviously non-physical, and sometimes it is obviously physical, as in the repeated cases where people fall down to perform SJD.
Secondly - you have vastly inconsistent approaches. You relied completely on root meanings and the dictionary when trying to disprove that DRB means beating. But when it comes to SJD you not only ignore that physical prostration is one of the meanings of the root, you also ignore the poem given in Lane's Lexicon which clearly explains that in pre-Islamic Arabia the phrase "fall to the chin" means to be completely blown over.
Thirdly - the word KHARRA (to fall) is used 12 times in the Quran. If we ignore these verses that talk about falling to the chins, it means physical falling in every single case except one (3414) where it means death.
According to your own process that you've used with DRB and others, the fact that kharra means physical falling in the overwhelming majority of cases should indicate that physical falling is the preferred meaning here as well.
Fourthly - Lane's Lexicon gives us the by now infamous example of how to use this phrase -
-- 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.It is 100% clear that ancient Arabs used kharra lil-adhqaani (fell to its chin) to mean complete physical collapse to the ground thanks to Imru l-Qays' poem. The wind blew so violently that the trees fell to their chins - ie they were totally uprooted and fell to the ground.
Trees do not have chins, obviously, so they do not literally fall to their chins. As Mustansir Mir explains, chins are considered to be a sign of pride, so falling on your chin is a form of abasement and humility.
When we go back to Mustansir Mir's work, I agree with him when he says this part is an idiom meaning "extreme humility".
Obviously it means "extreme humility". This is implied by everything in the verse and the phrase. Mustansir Mir also holds that it means physical falling as well as extreme humility. And I agree with him in both regards.
I disagree with you/him/others when you switch "chin" for "face" and make the idiom physical, so you can make SJD physical-prostration. Note the inconsistency.
I think it was Muhammad Asad who argued that "chin" is a metonym for face, but no matter, I don't take it like that.
I don't think it means chin or face, although it could mean that. I think "fell to their chins" is simply an Arabic expression meaning falling flat to the ground. The trees fell flat on the ground from the violent winds, and the people in 17107 fell flat on the ground in humility and abasement.
Do you have a response to this point?
To which point, specifically? I'd appreciate if you just used the arguments yourself rather than link to the responses of other people who were in the middle of their own debate. It just makes things easier.
Also, I don't see anything remarkable about Ayman's response at all since it was the exact same thing you used to argue with me.It shows a deep misunderstanding of idioms. Let's look at his argument
You are missing the point. Either the whole expression expression is idiomatic or not. The word by itself is not an idiom. So you can't say the word "" by itself is idiomatic but the rest of the expression is not just so that you can avoid the issue of inconsistently interpreting "sujud". By the same tokes, had the poem said "...mighty trees were humbled by a strong downpour of rain, and they fell to the chin sujjadan" then no one in his right mind would consider the idiom to be just "the chin" as you underlined. You don't seem to know the basic simple fact that this is not how idioms work.
So Ayman seems to be arguing that "chin" is not the idiom here because you can't have one word as an idiom, so the whole expression is an idiom. Therefore the whole expression is non-literal.
He's completely wrong, and also very rude about it.
The expression "fall to their chins" is an idiom. But that doesn't mean they didn't fall to the ground. The addition of "chins" is a way to add intensity.
Consider the following examples
.
The literal expression is "i bought it for the cheapness of dirt".
The actual meaning is "i bought it for really cheap"So the purchase was very cheap, and adding "turab" (dirt) into the phrase just adds intensity
Another one
The literal meaning is "he hit him a hit"
The actual meaning is "he hit him really hard"Together they make an idiomatic phrase, because "he hit him a hit" is nonsense if taken literally, but the addition of the 2nd word adds intensity to the hit that actually happened.
Another one in English
"It rained cats and dogs"
"cats and dogs" is not an idiomatic phrase alone. I can't say "I feel cats and dogs", or "she screamed cats and dogs".
Cats and dogs is only an idiom when paired with "rain". The accepted form of the expression is "it is raining cats and dogs"
Does it still rain? Yes it does!
Another one
"I am feeling blue"
Blue here means 'sad'.
But it only means 'sad' when added to 'feeling'.I can't say "that event was really blue" or "the way she said that was really blue"
I can only use "blue" for "sad" when talking about feelings.
Some more
• A little bird told me
• I am so hungry I could eat a horse
• I caught her red-handed
• I slept like a log
• I slept like a baby
• Dressed to the nines
So in conclusion, you and Ayman have misinterpreted how idioms work and built up an argument on this false assumption.
It is completely possible to have an idiomatic phrase where the action still occurs, and the dependent words only add intensity to the action. Unless you want to claim that it doesn't rain when it's raining cats and dogs, or that you didn't sleep when you slept like a log, etc. etc..
Salaam
EDIT
I just checked Ibn Kathir's tafsir and I'm not sure where you got your quote from, because the Arabic clearly indicates a physical prostration
Tafsir Ibn Kathir 17109
. .
My translation
"And these people fall in sujood on their faces, crying from the effect of the Quran's exhortation, and hearing the Quran and its exhortations increases their servility/obedience to the orders of God and his amazing powers."
So not only does it say they fell to the ground in both 17107 and 17109, but it also replaces chin with face in both cases. I double-checked it online and although this site has not translated the full arabic, it still says the exact same thing in english. Your quote is taken right after it. See the english here. I don't know why you didn't include the full translation of Ibn Kathir for 17109. That's quite disingenuous of you. Either way - he contradicts himself. He says both times they fall and do sujood on their faces. Then he says they only do sujood once and not a 2nd time. What he means is that the verse is talking about the same time and not 2 separate occasions.
-
Peace Mohsin.
Thus, understanding the Quran must be a deductive process. Because one of the axioms of a Muslim is that the Quran can not contain logical contradictions, which is why your approach is flawed, because your approach will yield contradictions in the Quran.
I don't understand what contradictions would come up if we take SJD as non-physical at all occurences? On the contrary you can't take SJD as physical prostration at all occurences without running into blatant logical problems. Your approach is to take it as non-physical or phyical arbitrarily according to your wishes... Why don't you take the command to do SJD whenever the reading/quran is recited as physical? Would this be to uncomfortable for you? What is you reasoning?
-
Salam, ths.
A little correction; SJD is always physical since it is a gesture and not merely verbal/sub-vocal praise. It denotes expression of feel of reverence through physical gesture-body language
In this verbal sentence the action denoted by intransitive verb can happen for various reasons; external factors as well as internal factors not necessarily relating to reverence. It can also happen for reason of sudden fear and shock, nervous collapse.
On the contrary, dropping down as Reverent is voluntary. What is the difference between sudden collapse-falling and voluntary falling? It is explained and imaged by the Prepositional Phrase; Inseparable preposition is used to explain and its object noun denotes Chins. Voluntary curving to drop in front begins with lowered chins while sudden collapse and falling on the earth under influence of external forces has no relation with the chin of a falling person. Flexion of the neck is when the top of the head tilts forward. This causes the eyes to look down. It also lowers the chin to the chest. This explanatory prepositional phrase further depicts that they voluntarily fall on their front side. Plural masculine active participle is the circumstantial clause for the subject of the Verb that describes the state in which this front falling with flexion of neck is voluntarily done to lay their forehead on the ground.
