Regarding Article "Meaning of SuJuD" part 1
-
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. -
Salaam Timur,
The confusion stems from the fact that SJD means to physically prostrate. No one can deny this simple fact.
God didnt bother to explain how to do sujood for the same reason he did not explain how to run or sit - because everyone already knew what it meant
This is really a non-issue and there is no mystery here. The pre-Islamic arabs knew precisely what sujood meant. It is the physical act of obeisance and humility. It exists the world over as an act of servility and has been performed in all cultures from the beginnings of civilization. That is why the people of Egypt prostrate to Joseph in 12100.
Everyone acts like it's a mystery why Joseph would allow the people to bow down for him like that. Well, the simple fact is that Egyptians used to do this at the time to their rulers. That's all
http//wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1788/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1788-1584.jpg
http//www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/cairo%20museum/cm,%20akhenaten/images/foreigners%20paying%20respect%20at%20akhenaten.jpg
What the non-physical crowd are arguing for is to completely ignore the meaning of a word because God didn't explain precisely how it should be done.
2133 ...and the sun and the moon, each swimming in an orbit
Should we change the word for swimming too? According to God in the Quran the word yusabbihu doesn't actually mean to physically swim in the sea, but to hover/glide/float in space. That's the only reference we have of the Quran therefore that's how we need to understand that word from now on
-
Peace,
It is true that prostration was very common in ancient times and you did it to show much respect to someone just as people in some cultures bow down their heads today. By far nothing is wrong in doing a prostration to God physically as of today because it is a recognized movement with your body used as showing humility to somebody in this case God. I do still prostrate physically to my unseen but yet present Lord because it is the best greeting I can do in humility and it does not cost me anything (and good exercise to, joke apart). I am sure people like Abraham actually prostrated physically to God because it was such that people did towards people of authority during this time and God is although no people but an entity and could roughly be treated as an individual however lacking mass and is unseen.
But it could be misinterpreted in the context of The Book as prostration because there are many ways of expressing humility. Nevertheless it is such as that ancient forefathers expressed their adoration and faithfulness to God by prostration and I see nothing strange in myself doing it either.
God bless you
-
w/salaam Mohsin,
Thank you for showing you were unable to cite any contradiction of mine. Now let me respond to the rest of your post
Side note, my use of the oblique was just a time-saver, I was not equating logic and evidence.
You said
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.
According to your criteria above if someone is unable to conclusively prove a certain word in Quran means X, this renders their approach "not capable of providing a solid and consistent method of analyzing the Quran."
I will let readers ponder over the impossibility of fulfilling such criteria.I did not put words in your mouth. Unlike you, I was very clear to readers I was not referring to what you said.
You tried to clarify by saying
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.
But your clarification, again gives it away, note the underlined part (my emphasis). In other words, as long as it doesn't cause a contradiction, then according to you, it's perfectly fine. Thus, it is as I insightfully said
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.
Brother Timur also picked up on this above. In my view, such a method opens up a can of worms.
You said
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.
Anyone who has read my work Quran434.com will know that is not my method.
To sum up, it boils down to exactly as I said in my article, quote
It simply means that no credible argument for SJD=prostration and therefore prostration during upholding/establishing the salat can be made using The Quran.
"credible" is somewhat subjective, thus readers can make up their own minds. As I said, your view has the following issues
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.
*17107-109 is being discussed. We will see what comes of it.
-
w/salaam ths,
Quran could have clarified if sjd meant physical prostration in 4102 by saying something similar to "...and there is no blame upon you if was with you any trouble from rain or sickness that you lay down your arms and not sjd but stand or sit instead"
Or perhaps in 17107-109 could have mentioned being on the ground in some way.
Or perhaps, somewhere in Quran providing a clear exemption from prostration for those ill/unable/etc.You said
Secondly - you have vastly inconsistent approaches. You relied completely on root meanings and the dictionary when trying to disprove that DRB means beating.
Anyone who has read Quran434.com will know otherwise. I relied significantly on Quranic usage, its internal logic etc.
You said
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.
Wrong. See 2573, which is even quoted in my sjd article.
You said
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.
To be fair, you did say earlier "my argument was that kharruu lil-adhqaani is a phrase meaning "fall to their faces"..."
But I think you have realised the point I am trying to highlight, and I do want to get to the bottom of this.
In the exampels you gave, can you clarify if they have the same structure as the example we are discussing in 17107, quote from article
Grammatically, the accusative word "sujjudan" in "yakhorruun lil'adhqaan sujjudan" names the action or manner of the verb preceding. In other words, it describes how "they fell to their chins".
i.e.
idiom + accusative wordIdeally example from Quran, but classical arabic dictionary is ok also.
And lastly with regard to Ibn Kathir I quoted from qtafsir.com feel free to check it. I had no reason to suspect the English translation of the Arabic was wrong, hence quoted the relevant part. I'm not surprised he contradicts himself.
-
@ Wakas,
Thank you for showing you were unable to cite any contradiction of mine.
I did provide an example of your approach yielding a clear contradiction, which you have simply refused to respond to directly. But you've done one better by admitting the following
"credible" is somewhat subjective, thus readers can make up their own minds.
Thank you. By admitting your approach (or the approach that you have adopted) has subjectivity built into it, you have basically admitted that its "credibility" isn't based on logically (i.e. deductively) proving anything. Therefore your approach is incapable of yielding objective statements and definitive answers.
Since we know that the Quran's directives are supposed to be "clear and simple" without "crookedness" we can conclude that you inductive approach is incapable of living up to the Quranic standard (since subjectivity is never "clear and simple" and is always crooked).
According to your criteria above if someone is unable to conclusively prove a certain word in Quran means X, this renders their approach "not capable of providing a solid and consistent method of analyzing the Quran."
Of course, such a criteria is a simple test of logical consistency. A test which your approach clearly fails.
In other words, as long as it doesn't cause a contradiction, then according to you, it's perfectly fine.
No, according to the rules of logic (objectively), that will be perfectly fine. There is no subjectivity in my approach, don't confuse my approach with yours.
In my view, such a method opens up a can of worms.
All you did was repeat points that I already countered, without actually dealing with the counter argument I presented. So you haven't proved any "can of worms".
As I said, your view has the following issues
Again, all you did here was repeat rebutted objections, confirming them as refutation.
To sum up...
What has been "summed up" here is the complete and utter failure of the inductive approach Wakas.
If all you are seeking is the last word, you may have it. I'm done here.
-
Salam all,
Thought I?d join in this discussion.
SJD does mean physical prostration, however not always. Just looking at lanes lexicon and he gives other examples e.g. lowering head, submissiveness, humility.
I can?t see how SJD can mean physical prostration always. I can see how people may use it in certain verses.
17107 for example, I don?t see it as a complete prostration, but rather lowering their head in humility. Though apparently that is an idiom.
So I?m curious to those who argue sjd = physical prostration, are you arguing that sjd must be physical in all cases/verses in the Quran, are you arguing it cannot be non physical? Or are you just saying it is physical in only certain verses?
Peace Mohsin.
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.
I agree with you here
Salam
-
You supply no contradiction.
Thank you. By admitting your approach (or the approach that you have adopted) has subjectivity built into it, you have basically admitted that its "credibility" isn't based on logically (i.e. deductively) proving anything. Therefore your approach is incapable of yielding objective statements and definitive answers.
Since we know that the Quran's directives are supposed to be "clear and simple" without "crookedness" we can conclude that you inductive approach is incapable of living up to the Quranic standard (since subjectivity is never "clear and simple" and is always crooked).
Unfortunately, it seems you misread. I said the word "credible" is somewhat subjective.
Of course, such a criteria is a simple test of logical consistency. A test which your approach clearly fails.
Where is the failure? If I failed to prove a certain word in Quran means X (which I never even claimed to do) then I failed, and if I did fail, your failure at this was even more miserable, as in your theory sjd in 4102 can mean any of the classical arabic meanings, e.g. salute, adore, lower the head etc.
No, according to the rules of logic (objectively), that will be perfectly fine. There is no subjectivity in my approach, don't confuse my approach with yours.
My point is that your method will do very little to help in the real world, i.e. practical application, due to the variance. In other words sjd in 4102 can mean any classical arabic dictionary meaning, so when believers uphold a group salat, either everyone does their own sjd, or they discuss and agree on what sjd they are going to do beforehand. Not only that, they will first have to discuss and agree upon what they take salat to mean as according to your method it could mean any of these in 4102 "prayer, supplication, petition, oration, eulogy, benediction, commendation, blessing, honour, magnify".
So my point is, whilst it is of course critical to not have any contradictions (like my view does not have any), if this becomes your sole criteria then you will be left with an impractical result for many things, i.e. a can of worms.
Again, all you did here was repeat rebutted objections, confirming them as refutation.
Unfortunately again, you misread. I never said "refutation". I even accepted the theoretical possibility. I simply highlighted the issues so readers would be aware of them.
You seem to be obsessed with deductive approach Vs inductive approach. I use deductive as well as inductive. Your seemingly deductive approach only gets you so far, whereas my approach gets me further in my view.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence givenWhat is perhaps most interesting is you yourself used inductive reasoning to conclude about my method.
http//examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-of-inductive-reasoning.html
The term "inductive reasoning" refers to reasoning that takes specific information (i.e. my article) and makes a broader generalization (about my method) that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate.;D
-
You supply no contradiction.
Check Reply #7, perhaps you missed it (and I'll excuse you if you did). When you respond to the example of the root translated as "death" and the Jesus' miracle interpretation using your approach I will respond further.
p.s. Looks like you just googled "inductive" and "deductive". But you haven't yet demonstrated an understanding. If you had, you would've picked up the fact that Im also using induction in favoring the physical meaning for 4102 based on the evidence of the physical salat that exists today. I already told you in the beginning, there is nothing wrong with using induction in its proper place. But you are not using induction properly. All you're doing is collecting the evidence and then summing the instances where the metaphorical meaning is present and then assuming that it must be the sole meaning of the root in application everywhere (without any justification).
-
Thought I?d join in this discussion.
SJD does mean physical prostration, however not always. Just looking at lanes lexicon and he gives other examples e.g. lowering head, submissiveness, humility.
I can?t see how SJD can mean physical prostration always. I can see how people may use it in certain verses.
17107 for example, I don?t see it as a complete prostration, but rather lowering their head in humility. Though apparently that is an idiom.
So I?m curious to those who argue sjd = physical prostration, are you arguing that sjd must be physical in all cases/verses in the Quran, are you arguing it cannot be non physical? Or are you just saying it is physical in only certain verses?
Salamun alaiki,
The meanings, perception and imagery/illustration by an Arabic word is determined by composite study
- Meanings and perception infolded in the Root of word;
- Morphology of the word;
- Context, relational words in the semantic field it is used.
Relational words that are actions like "drop in front" will not permit to think it is reverence in the heart.
Root
Affectionate surrender of one's will and freedom/liberty-Forehead on the ground.
-
Basic initial meanings Feel of reverence and its expression through physical gesture-body language-lowering of head in state chin moving towards chest and gaze going down. It is a relational word-a relationship between the Reverent and the Revered. Reverent and the Revered could be any object or person.
-
Advanced meanings in the changed relational field when the Revered is the Only One-The Absolute-The Only Independent-The Self Subsisting-The Creator-The Supreme Exalted-Sovereign Sustainer Lord of the Universes, and the Reverent are all objects and living-all that exists in the created realm. Here the meanings, while retaining the basic perception, advance into its extreme limits-Prostration.
-
Sublime and sincere Prostration of human beings-Bowing and curving to lay the forehead on the Earth denoting absolute surrender and sublime adoration.
-
Laying of Forehead on ground relays non verbal signal of surrender of granted Freedom and Will of decision and self governing to the Sustainer Lord.
-
The Laying of Forehead on ground yields bridging the distance to get nearer to the Sustainer Lord.
Root
-
Check Reply #7, perhaps you missed it (and I'll excuse you if you did). When you respond to the example of the root translated as "death" and the Jesus' miracle interpretation using your approach I will respond further.
Thank you for clarifying you are referring to something I have never studied and never written about and it is a hypothetical contradiction, currently existing in your own head only.
Good to know you couldn't cite any actual contradiction in what I've actually written about. )
-
Thank you for clarifying you are referring to something I have never studied and never written about and it is a hypothetical contradiction, currently existing in your own head only.
Good to know you couldn't cite any actual contradiction in what I've actually written about. )
And thank you Wakas, for showing that you never analyzed the consequences of applying your "approach" generally, which is a basic method for discovering inherent flaws and weaknesses.
If you are serious about analyzing the Quran and publishing your views, then swallow your pride and get into a post-grad program in Pure or Applied Logic (links to some options below)
http//logic.cmu.edu/
http//math.mit.edu/academics/grad/You're not good with logic and need proper training. Don't take this as an insult, but as sincere advise from someone who wishes you well.
-
Peace Mohsin7,
I don't think there is anything wrong with Wakas' logic.
Actually I am confused about your approach. Can you please elobarate? For me it seems that you insert meanings completely arbitrarily as I have already stated a few days ago
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?
You did not give a direct answer to my posting... Please tell me why you do not prostrate physically by placing your forehead on the ground whenever the reading/ "quran" is recited? I hope your answer can clarify your method.
-
Logic scholars may kindly address this question
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.092.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/021.%20A3.gif
In these two sentences four words are the same. Would the meanings and perception of the word "Mubarakun" are the same in both the sentences?
-
Salaam Mazhar,
This is a great point, and why I keep repeating the verse about the planets "swimming" in space. This obsession with forcing one sole meaning onto words in the Quran is futile and ignores the poetic nature of the Book where words are frequently given metaphorical non-literal uses.
Salaam Wakas,
Quran could have clarified if sjd meant physical prostration in 4102 by saying something similar...
The Quran could have clarified lots of things, and yet it didn't. It didn't clarify what it meant by swimming, running, fighting, nor did it clarify many verses on punishments. Why should the Quran 'clarify' the meaning of a word that everyone already knows? The answer is the opposite - the Quran clarified the non-physical uses of the word which everyone already knew and accepted as being physical. The same way the Quran clarified that "swimming" SBH does not literally mean swimming in water, despite everyone knowing perfectly well that that's what it means.
By your standards and treatment of sujood we should now have to reinterpret yasbahu because God never clarifies that it also means swimming in water.
Or perhaps in 17107-109 could have mentioned being on the ground in some way.
It does clarify that. You've just ignored it because you are forcing your own interpretation onto the verses. The meaning of being on the ground is absolutely clear in these verses, and even your idol Mustansir Mir takes this position. I don't know how God could've made it clearer without writing out specifically "get onto the ground people". Sujood is paired with KHRR throughout the Quran.
Anyone who has read Quran434.com will know otherwise. I relied significantly on Quranic usage, its internal logic etc.
You analyzed every occurrence of the word DRB to argue that DRB can mean something other than 'strike'.
Now you have overwhelming evidence that KHRR means to physically fall, and you ignore it.
Wrong. See 2573, which is even quoted in my sjd article.
This can easily be interpreted as a physical action. It goes both ways, but I think the physical action here is a better interpretation.
I interpret it as criticizing the people who go to pray whilst thinking about what they had for lunch that day, or what they want to do. You see these people in the mosques, they do some lightning prayer and leave. The context of the verse is an extended description of the characteristics of the righteous people. Then this verse says
Those who when they are reminded of their Lord's signs, they do not fall deaf and blind thereat.
Literal they do not fall on the reminder/verses deaf and blind
I interpret this as a continuation of the description of the righteous people. We are told that the righteous are the ones who stay late into the night in sujood and qiyaam, they pass by trivial talk with dignity, and they do not prostrate when they are reminded to without heart and khushoo3 in a mechanical fashion.
I don't know how else to interpret this verse in a non-physical manner. You argue that KHRR means to be humbled elsewhere in the Quran. How is one humbled deaf and blind? Or the other interpretation is to "fall" on the verses (ayat) as if to attack them. Again, not in line with the context at all. In your article you state that it means to fall on the verses - ie read them without care, as if deaf and blind. This is ok, it fits, but I don't consider it the correct interpretation.
Clearly the intention here is to warn against mechanical prostration and prayer done without heart. That is why the non-righteous simply "fall" at hearing God's verses, whereas the righteous fall in sujood - because it is not sujood without the emotional component, otherwise it simply becomes falling to the ground deaf and blind.But let's assume that it does not mean physical falling for the sake of avoiding an argument about this particular verse - we are still left with 6 out of 7 incidences where KHRR definitely means falling.
If we remove all the verses that have KHRR Sujjadan and 17109, we are left with 7 occurrences.
Of those occurrences KHRR means to physically fall each and every time except for this one that you don't want to interpret as falling. 3824 is not 100% clear, so let's exclude that. And 3414 means both falling down and death. (The worm gnaws at his staff so he falls (dies)).
So - we have 6 out of 7 occurrences that clearly mean physical falling, with only 1 verse that is unclear and can be both.
So by your standards, this is a pretty clear indication of what KHRR means.
In the exampels you gave, can you clarify if they have the same structure as the example we are discussing in 17107, quote from article
i.e.
idiom + accusative wordWhen I find an idiom followed by an accusative adjective I'll let you know. Off the top of my head I can't think of any.
But let's summarize what we know -
- Like swimming, running, and other Arabic words, the accepted definition of Sujood to pre-Islamic Arabs is prostration. We have examples of pre-Islamic poetry that clearly shows us they thought Sujood = prostration. From the Encyclopaedia of the Quran, Vol. 4 Page 219
Sujud was known among the peoples of the Middle East in pre-Islamic times as a gesture of respect at royal courts and as an act of adoration in Christian worship. Pre-Islamic poetry cites a few examples of prostration (sujud) before a tribal chief in recognition of his superiority and as an expression of one?s submission (cf. Tottoli, Muslim attitudes, 5-34).
The act of prostration hurt the pride (q.v.) of the Arabs (Q 2560; 7206; cf. 1649; 3215; 6842-3) because it appeared to them as a humiliating gesture and an alien practice (cf. Kister, Some reports, 3-6).-
KHRR is used as physically falling in every single other case (or all except one if we accept your contention regarding 2573)
-
Idioms where the action happens and a non-literal word is added for intensity are common. (I'm so hungry I can eat a horse, it is raining cats and dogs, etc.)
-
The phrase is falling to the chins. lil-adhqaani. Not 3alaa al-adhqaani, which would be the normal way to say it in arabic.
-
We have an actual recorded example of this phrase as a popular Arab saying. It was common enough and well known enough to end up in Lane's Lexicon as an idiom! Lane specifically recorded for us examples of trees and stones falling to their chins!
-
You've challenged me to explain how the idiom could work and I have explained it. In turn, please explain verses such as 1958
You are arguing that sujjadan is a metaphor, or a non-literal meaning of the accepted word, whereas bakiyyan (crying) is literally physical crying. God never clarifies how to cry, just as he never clarifies how to perform sujood, and relies on our knowledge of the language. So either we must assume that one is literal and one isn't, or that SJD did not originally mean prostration and there has been a massive conspiracy to get people to perform physical prostration when the original word had no such meaning.
-
The Quran pairs SJD with KHRR repeatedly. 12100 (kharruu lahu sujjadan), 17107 (yukhirruuna lilidhqaani sujjadan), 1958 (kharruu sujjadan wa bakiyyaa), 3215 (kharruu sujjadan) - why is God using the word "fall" throughout the Quran with SJD to a bunch of people who think SJD means prostration??
-
If the point of KHRR is to express humility in 17107 and 17109 and elsewhere, then why not use the many words used in the Quran already for humility?? Why repeat KHRR with sujood so many times instead of saying "humble yourselves sujjadan" ? There are many choices, for example DR3, KHBT, KHSH3, 3NW,
Peace
-
Peace be upon you
The Quran could have clarified lots of things, and yet it didn't. It didn't clarify what it meant by swimming, running, fighting, nor did it clarify many verses on punishments.
I also think like this for a long time.
The word like qamaa (stand, rise up), raki' (bow) and sujud (prostate) appeared in many verses, and some of us assume if it's the movements of Assalat, despite it still unclear.
Quran didn't gave proper protocols for how to or what we must do during stand/rose up, bow and prostrate.In this forum, some members see sujud as an idiom cause some verses like 711, but I don't see clear evidences from them.
I still examine the actual meaning of this verse (especially the green sentence)
1648
Til now, I still believe if usage of SJD is for physical movement.
-
Salaam Ths
Those who when they are reminded of their Lord's signs, they do not fall deaf and blind thereat.
Literal they do not fall on the reminder/verses deaf and blind
I interpret this as a continuation of the description of the righteous people. We are told that the righteous are the ones who stay late into the night in sujood and qiyaam, they pass by trivial talk with dignity, and they do not prostrate when they are reminded to without heart and khushoo3 in a mechanical fashion.
I don't know how else to interpret this verse in a non-physical manner.
There's much more to this verse than just the physical meaning. After all, what benefit would spending a night in physical prayer bring to anyone? Islam is not a 'religion' of pagan mystical "spirituality" where spending hours in meditation brings one closer to God. That's all propaganda. There is no passive "spiritualism" in Islam, it is an active socio-political revolution by its very nature. All the prophets were revolutionaries. If anyone thinks that Muhammad and his companions used to spend hours at night simply prostrating physically and meditating like monks, they need to look again at the situation that these people were facing. This small nucleus was surrounded and besieged in Medinah on all fronts by the hostile Makkans, Jewish tribes, hypocrites/spies, and even the two superpowers of Persia and Byzantium on their borders came into play... This verse is highlighting the situation paralleled by meetings of the war-room that you would find in the sub-basement level of the General Head Quarters of an Army. The struggle to sustain a Divine mission is what was taking place. This is what always happens when Islam is actually followed. The whole world around you turns against you and you have to plan day and night to withstand its combined forces.
But more than this, the "deaf and blind" statement signals something critically deep. It is an all-out frontal attack on "blind faith", which is prevalent in every ideology which divides man into sects and competing groups. Whether one is a capitalist, communist, republican, democrat, Christian, Jew or even atheist, he/she is following that defacto religion because of "blind faith". This is the difference between "religion" and "deen". And Islam is anti-religion by it's very nature. Because all other ideological systems are inherently flawed and only survive by subduing the intellect of their followers. The Quran makes the boldest statements in 1736 "And do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - all of these shall be questioned." This verse alone makes me proud to be a Muslim, because no other system which proposes to lead humanity challenges its own followers to question it's own premises. Do we Muslims think that we can simply bow our heads to the local bearded mullah and this is enough, in spite of such a verse? This verse commands that we can not even blindly follow Islam! Which is why the Quran is replete with proofs which Muslims are required to understand. Every true Mumin should be able to debate a Nobel prize winning physicist like Steven Weinberg and win that debate on the existence of God! Otherwise they are not fit for the title of a "Mumin", and that is the only title that really matters. The verses on the beginning of the universe, the perfection of the Quran etc. These are not casual statements, these are pointing to scientific and logical proofs and outright challenges. They are in the Quran to erase this "Blind faith", which is a disease. "Faith" is for fanatics who always harbor a secret doubt in their hearts. That is why they need "faith", it is a retreat into the dark recesses of the mind at the core of every man-made ideology. God does not ask anyone to have "blindness" in their beliefs, God wants His followers to have certainty i.e. "iman" (root AMN). And the peace that comes with certainty is incompatible with secret fear inherent in "faith".
This is how God prepares His followers, because the mission which they are entrusted with is an epic struggle. Their objective is to liberate the world from oppression and corruption, where man is enslaved by man, mentally and physically. And this is the purpose of staying up at nights, meeting in the "masjids" while submitting and prostrating to Divine Laws. It is to carry out the system of Islam, not to waste time spending hours in pagan mystic meditation like a yogi, separated from the world, contributing nothing, fixing nothing.
Here's the commentary on this verse by G.A.P, and it is the most sound view of this verse I have yet encountered
"73. These people are not swayed by emotions and they take every step after a lot of deliberation (3476), so much so that even when the Divine Laws are presented to them, they do not submit to these by ignoring their intellect, wisdom, rationale and reason. Also, they do not respond to them as if they were deaf and blind. They adopt the Divine Laws only after careful consideration (for it is clear that when they do not even act upon the Divine Laws without pondering over them, then how would they do so in other spheres of life)."
-
peace all,
Looking forward to a response to these
When I find an idiom followed by an accusative adjective I'll let you know. Off the top of my head I can't think of any.
peace Mohsin7,
..,
,,,You did not give a direct answer to my posting... Please tell me why you do not prostrate physically by placing your forehead on the ground whenever the reading/ "quran" is recited? I hope your answer can clarify your method.
