Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? - Eid Al Adha

jkhan

1869 said, "YOU WILL FIND ME (Sa-tajidu-nī), if Allah wills, patient (Sabir), and I will not disobey you in order."

Dear Iyyaka.. Peace...

Participate as much as you want in every important thread, that’s why I requested personally everyone to participate… and use quran to explain… it’s not my forum and my topic and debate… When more and more comments positive and negative raised we come to know our opinion and our own understanding where it stands… I have learnt a lot arguing with people in any level in my life… arguing peacefully is huge weapon for augment knowledge…

But, I don’t agree with you in this point long term or short term… future is future…take the above example… for me with thorough exploration Mosa had only a short visit with how journey started and ended with a partaking.. Here also sabir (patient) is used..
Dear, these words Patient or Righteous are not merely applied for verses but it is their qualities as a believer that they apply in action …When Mose’s father-in-law said you will find me Righteous, it doesn’t mean he will be righteous in the future, he is righteous and he will, only thing mosa has to recognize it on the first day or the last day of his stay..

Dear Waqas… I have nothing more to say about your 10 questions which I intended to reply by the weekend But I am totally free today since I am attending a New International airport inauguration in northern Srilanka on 17th… So for some work I have shifted from Colombo to Jafna but hardly any work… lol…lol…
No more comments in this topic from my side… If what I wrote are meaningful for anyone, make sure to verify with quran, and those who are negative, pls comment at your convenient time, for me to understand…
Thank you Brother Waqas being patient with me and giving me this opportunity to debate with you… let people decide with their own understanding of this topic and if possible have some support with what we discussed..
Thank you…
.

Wakas

peace jkhan, all,
Thanks for replying. I have discussed with many people and it is common for people to simply avoid the questions so it's good to see some actual response. I did find your replies verbose so I have summarised your replies below

what relevance, if any, is there for Quran to mention his son reached the age of striving/working with him?
Reason in my Abraham leaving scenario, it makes perfect sense because it is telling us the son had reached a somewhat independent age, i.e. able to fend for himself.
No relevance cited.
when Abraham asks "...look what you see?" his son seems to automatically assume it is a command when he says "...do what you are commanded...". Do you agree? If not, please say why.
You explained they (Abraham and son) took it as a command but it was not a command (or test) from God, even though you admit the dream was from God. This raises further issues such as God sending a disturbing dream to Abraham for no apparent reason.
The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
Let me clarify, here is structure of the Arabic ABC <future particle sa> XYZ
My view is XYZ occurs in the future, i.e. after ABC.Your view is XYZ occurs prior to ABC or XYZ occurs until ABC takes place.
Cites 2827, which possibly works depending on how one interprets it
2827 means Moses would marry one of his daughters and go on to fulfill the condition set ---> does not work as a qualifying comparable example
2827 means Moses would fulfill the request then after that marry a daughter ---> does work
I haven't studied it in detail to see if we can glean from Quran which is meant but the flow suggests (1) is more likely.
can you provide a Classical Arabic dictionary reference which states the meaning of the verb TaLLa can mean what you take it to mean and can be done in a gentle/soft/willing manner? i.e. without force.
Reason the primary meaning of this definition is to throw down / make one prostrate / hold down / wrestle them down etc but Quran states both submitted so the action was willingly, i.e. no force needed.
No reference provided. Until proven otherwise, your meaning of "TaLLa" inherently implies with force and this contradicts Quran when it says they both submitted willingly.
can you provide an example elsewhere in Quran in which God rewards us/someone for what they were about to do but did not do.
Reason stating "like thus We reward..." implies an exemplar, if so, where are the other examples, or where such a principle is mentioned.
You were able to show this phrase may refer to general aspects and may not need a specific good deed to be mentioned in context, which is a fair point. Even so, it would have been nice to cement your understanding with a specific example from Quran, if such an example exists.
can you provide another example in Quran wherein it states someone did X (e.g. perfect verb) but what is meant is they intended to do X.
Reason you take "...when they both had submitted..." in 37103 as submitted in intention only (i.e. not actually done the slaughter). Similar case with "...Surely you have believed/confirmed..." in 37105, i.e. technically he hasn't confirmed it yet, i.e. it is intention only.
Note perfect verbs are used thousands of times in Quran.
Claims I have misunderstood intention. No example from Quran given.
preposition "li" occurs over 2000 times in Quran. Please provide clear examples of it meaning "upon" as you take it to mean in 37103 (i.e. upon his forehead).
No example from Quran given.

8.) please explain why Quran describes the sacrifice/dhibhin in 37107 as great/mighty/azeem?
Jkhan quotes "disastrous/great(great in the bad aspect) sacrifice", "something of unpleasant, evil oriented Azeem…Same way God absolutely delivered Abraham’s Son form a Azeem (Great) grievous Sacrifice.", "He was ransomed of a Horrible Sacrifice "

Your interpretation fails according to the Arabic "exchange/ransom" means to swap A with/for B, i.e. swap son for/with something else, NOT save him from something. Simply ask yourself what was the son replaced with? Then let us know.

If you consider killing of an innocent child an evil act and you consider God was simply testing Abraham but was always going to stop him before he actually did it, is there any other example similar to this in Quran (i.e. God commanding or condoning an evil act)?
No example cited.
Jkhan quotes "So, we can naturally deduce that Allah WOULDN’T COMMAND Evil, Immoral, Hateful act "
"Dreams are from God according to Quran… don’t they… But are the dreams(words used Mana/Ru’ya) literal in any of those occasion? NO"
"Problem with Ibrahim is coz he took it as COMMAND and LITERAL without any command from God while no dream is literal"
"Ibrahim forgot that killing is Evil and blinded and believed the dream in its literal aspect"

You admit "Yousuf (Specialist of Interpreting dreams)" but claim Abraham (and his son) were confused/wrong, despite no indication of this in Quran and bear in mind 126

how do you reconcile Moses objecting to the killing of an innocent boy whereas Abraham and his son did not?
Jkhan quotes "entirely different scenario", "Do you see the difference…coz Ibrahim was confused", "Just coz Ibrahim got one thing wrong", "but Ibrahim didn’t verify and failed"

It seems a core difference between our understandings is that you consider Abraham (and his son) to be wrong/mistaken in this story, whereas I do not. I consider my view befitting their status in Quran. An interesting question to ponder will be does Quran always highlight when a prophet/messenger errs, because if so your view is in more trouble.

You say dream is from God AND dream is not literal, which are two of my core points so you agree with that at least.

Mazhar

//You say dream is from God AND dream is not literal, which are two of my core points so you agree with that at least.//

Dreams are always ''literal'' in the meanings of actual scenes. The basis of dream interpretation is to identify important dream symbols and look for the concept. Since what object he was seeing during sleeping was that he will slaughter his son. Slaughter of a young boy is obviously not for other purposes; thereby, they interpreted it in the concept of command to sacrifice for Allah the Exalted.

Allah swt confirmed it as trial; and whatever he had done laying the son down in the manner which is the process immediately before slaughter was all that had seen in dream. He never saw having slaughtered the son. That is why Allah called upon him that you have already accomplished what you saw in the dream.

jkhan

//You say dream is from God AND dream is not literal, which are two of my core points so you agree with that at least.//

Dreams are always ''literal'' in the meanings of actual scenes. The basis of dream interpretation is to identify important dream symbols and look for the concept. Since what object he was seeing during sleeping was that he will slaughter his son. Slaughter of a young boy is obviously not for other purposes; thereby, they interpreted it in the concept of command to sacrifice for Allah the Exalted.

Allah swt confirmed it as trial; and whatever he had done laying the son down in the manner which is the process immediately before slaughter was all that had seen in dream. He never saw having slaughtered the son. That is why Allah called upon him that you have already accomplished what you saw in the dream.

Peace Big brother...

Good point "Ibrahim never saw having slaughtered his son" ...

If what you claim is within the possible frame, Then Ibrahim should have told his son "I saw in dream that I was about to slaughter" And if it is about to slaughter then there is no point of command and no need of patience and worries and surrender.. .. Ibrahim should have stopped even before God called out... He shouldn't continue beyond what he saw...
In case your argument is to say Ibrahim didn't perceive what he saw and got carried away though he saw only the sword came up to his son's neck(for argument sake) .. If God didn't stop .... He would have executed beyond what he saw...
Look.. Ibrahim didn't perceive the dream was not a command of God is fair call out of his sheer belief in God..
But claiming Ibrahim didn't know what he actually saw in dream is below average call... God directly put in Quran what Ibrahim said to his son.. He said slaughtering and not "About to slaughter" or "l saw like slaughtering you"
Then your claim has meaning...
'Slaughtering' has no other meaning other than take the life of another being... That's what Ibrahim saw...

Iyyaka

'Slaughtering' has no other meaning other than take the life of another being... That's what Ibrahim saw...

Salam,

Incorrect if you mean "The triliteral root dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) = slaughtering"

First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being.

Second, let's look at what the Qur'an says about this word in (2721) " - "
2720 And he inspected the birds, then said "Why do not we see the hoopoe, is there anyone missing?"
2721 "I will punish him severely, or I will laādh'baḥannahu /kill? Him, or he should have a clear excuse."

Point 1
=> Does Sulaiman, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?

Point 2
=> In this short passage we have 3 choices dictated by Sulaiman
(1) punish
(2) laādh'baḥannahu/Kill?
(3) excuse
Logic would be Allah to start with the strongest punishment Kill. However, it is not the case.

The only answer that remains after analyzing these 2 points is that laādh'baḥannahu does not mean to kill/slit troat BUT "to SEPARATE from him / NO longer to SERVE ..". To make a modern analogy it's like an employee who dismiss an employee for serious misconduct ..

jkhan

Salam,

Incorrect if you mean "The triliteral root dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) = slaughtering"

First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being.

Second, let's look at what the Qur'an says about this word in (2721) " - "
2720 And he inspected the birds, then said "Why do not we see the hoopoe, is there anyone missing?"
2721 "I will punish him severely, or I will laādh'baḥannahu /kill? Him, or he should have a clear excuse."

Point 1
=> Does Sulaiman, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?

Point 2
=> In this short passage we have 3 choices dictated by Sulaiman
(1) punish
(2) laādh'baḥannahu/Kill?
(3) excuse
Logic would be Allah to start with the strongest punishment Kill. However, it is not the case.

The only answer that remains after analyzing these 2 points is that laādh'baḥannahu does not mean to kill/slit troat BUT "to SEPARATE from him / NO longer to SERVE ..". To make a modern analogy it's like an employee who dismiss an employee for serious misconduct ..

Peace..
You rushed to answer…First of all, I responded to Mazhar based on his point which he was referring SLAUGHTER merely…. Not SEPARATION he was refering… So.. what is slaughter if not taking the life of another… You get me Dear Iyyaka..
And your point… Honestly very impressive…
Below your comment…

=> Does Solomon, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?

And note the above for this verse 2721 “I will surely PUNISH him with a SEVERE punishment or SLAUGHTER him unless he brings me clear authorization."

Now, you yourself pose the your question which is “Does Solomon, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?”

Just coz HudHuda (Hoopoe) was JUST LATE, why Sulaiman should PUNISH him that also crystal clearly with (extra word-Shadeed) such a SEVERE punishment… severe punishment for an employee is firing him and not hurting him but not in sulaiman’s statement..…inside this severe punishment can be anything of HudHuda couldn’t bear (for instance… cut one wing, or sever a leg or sever wing and a leg of opposite sides or remove one eye..etc. etc.. that’s severe)…but later Sulaiman said SLAUHTER which is severe than severe punishment..(as per you SEPARATION)… Is separation SEVERE or the SEVERE PUNISHMENT? It was just a bird, Being separated from Sulaiman wont’ make any difference to it..and it was a talented one based on story… Any how the separated bird only Sulaiman was looking for with anger… shows No need permission from sulaiman to get separated…Only thing sulaiman was using his God gifted power to control them….It’s God’s wish that they serve sulaiman..

You were asking about the particle ‘SA’… … are you okay with my second example..

ibn_a

Salaam,

...
8.) please explain why Quran describes the sacrifice/dhibhin in 37107 as great/mighty/azeem?
Jkhan quotes "disastrous/great(great in the bad aspect) sacrifice", "something of unpleasant, evil oriented Azeem…Same way God absolutely delivered Abraham’s Son form a Azeem (Great) grievous Sacrifice.", "He was ransomed of a Horrible Sacrifice "

Your interpretation fails according to the Arabic "exchange/ransom" means to swap A with/for B, i.e. swap son for/with something else, NOT save him from something. Simply ask yourself what was the son replaced with? Then let us know.
...

...
The conventional understanding claims that "the great/mighty sacrifice" refers to a sacrificial animal that was exchanged/ransomed for Abraham's son, which seems odd to me, because one may ask why the sacrificial animal is described as "great/mighty", especially in comparison to the slaughter of a son. In the Abraham leaving scenario the "great/mighty sacrifice" would refer to the great sacrifice made by leaving his beloved son, making it a self-contained explanation.
...
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.html

Peace Wakas
Could you explain what you mean by "a self-contained explanation" and what is A and B in the "Abraham leaving scenario"?

Salam,

Incorrect if you mean "The triliteral root dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) = slaughtering"

First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being.

Peace Iyyaka,
Could you share those sources please.

Sorry for this off- topic.
Other possible explanations about Solomon, jinn, shayateen, Naml, Al-Tayr, Hudhud

Salaam,

Possible explanations

-------1----------

https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607818.msg376044#msg376044

part The jinns of Solomon.

-------2---------

from page

https//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1093&region=E3

to page

https//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1105&region=E3...

-------3 ---------

https//quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/sulaiman-and-the-queen-part-i/
https//quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/sulaiman-and-the-queen-part-ii/

https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609105.0

jinn workers 3412-13

https//www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=1240&region=E3&CR=

https//www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=1241&region=E3

shayateen builders and divers 3837

shayateen held in chains 3838

https//www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=1318&region=E3

والله اعلم
Allah knows best.

Iyyaka

Dear Jkhan,

I do not know if you're ironic with me or not (I quote you "Honestly very impressive ..." or it's my english which is too limited) but your speech would be more clear if you removed the "..." or make it a very moderate use.

Regardless, I just wanted to point out to you that the word does not always mean slaughtering and that the proof is in the Qur'an itself in 2721. I think you would take my arguments more seriously if you correctly translated the word "aw" in 2721 "I would surely PUNISH him with a SEVERE punishment OR SLAUGHTER him OR (not unless) he brings me clear authorization."

A remark with the word "la-uʿadhibannahu/I will surely punish him" in 2721. the root of this word refers first to the notion of PRIVATION. Punishment or torment is the consequence of this privation. So in my example with our business world in case of serious misconduct of an employee
(1) disciplinary layoff or demotion
(2) dismissal
(3) valid excuse

As for the use of "sa" I just wanted to say that he was expressing a near and not far future. Yes you are right "future is future"..
The root S-B-R expresses a duration, a prolonged action in time as in your last example with the journey of Moussa.
To translate by "patient" in English is incorrect because this word refers to a notion of "passivity" whereas SABR it refers to a connotation of activity, a commitment to remain firm in an action.

Peace

Wakas

peace ibn_a,

Could you explain what you mean by "a self-contained explanation" and what is A and B in the "Abraham leaving scenario"?

As I mentioned previously HERE the pronoun "hu" could refer to either Abraham or his son. In my understanding it doesn't seem to make a difference.

Thus, it would be either

exchanged him (the son) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced the son with a mighty sacrifice Abraham made (by separating from his son)
exchanged him (Abraham) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced Abraham with a mighty sacrifice the son made (by separating from his father)
Interestingly, such an event would have effected both, so each one will have experienced the above. This mighty deed was taken into account by God and he/they were rewarded as a result.

I take it as a play on words as mentioned in my article, quote

My view is that this is a play on words to emphasise the significance/severity of this event, i.e. Abraham was giving up his son, never to see him again, thus it is as if his son was sacrificed, lost to him forever. It is interesting to note the core meaning of the root seems to be "to split something".

It is a self-contained explanation because there is absolutely nothing else in the context to explain it. I'm personally not a fan of inserting things into the text to explain Quran when there is no warrant, and especially if there is a fitting explanation that does not require an insertion.

Iyyaka

Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son?
New article - click HERE

Feedback welcome, especially corrections. Thanks.

Salam Wakas,

In your article you translate "So when they both submitted and he (Abraham) brought** him (son) to*** his (Abraham's) forehead (or side of head)."
Fine to put in brackets what does not appear literally in the text.

Question why not put in brackets the pronoun "his" (in red below)?
Indeed, It does not appear in the Quranic text.

Peace

Mazhar

Peace Big brother...

Good point "Ibrahim never saw having slaughtered his son" ...

If what you claim is within the possible frame, Then Ibrahim should have told his son "I saw in dream that I was about to slaughter" And if it is about to slaughter then there is no point of command and no need of patience and worries and surrender.. .. Ibrahim should have stopped even before God called out... He shouldn't continue beyond what he saw...
In case your argument is to say Ibrahim didn't perceive what he saw and got carried away though he saw only the sword came up to his son's neck(for argument sake) .. If God didn't stop .... He would have executed beyond what he saw...
Look.. Ibrahim didn't perceive the dream was not a command of God is fair call out of his sheer belief in God..
But claiming Ibrahim didn't know what he actually saw in dream is below average call... God directly put in Quran what Ibrahim said to his son.. He said slaughtering and not "About to slaughter" or "l saw like slaughtering you"
Then your claim has meaning...
'Slaughtering' has no other meaning other than take the life of another being... That's what Ibrahim saw...

There are two things called tense and aspect. If it were "about to" then verb is not used, instead active participle would have been used to make it current affair.

Both the verbs are imperfect indicative mood. It is not just ONE dream seen once. It is continuing happening. If that was not the case there was no need of prepositional phrase. It is future. that I will......

Dream conveys a concept. He sees laying down his son in the manner mammals are slaughtered. Both interpret it as sacrifice and move ahead. The moment he did that to slaughter, he gets the loud call that the dream already stands executed.

The son also uses passive verb in indicative mood. "Do that which your are being commanded" - telling slaughter your son as sacrifice, and assures him that in doing so he will find him coolly perseverant.

Wakas

peace,

Question why not put in brackets the pronoun "his" (in red below)?
Indeed, It does not appear in the Quranic text.

I wasn't sure what the implication was of the word usage, i.e. "...his forehead" and/or "...the forehead" and it didn't affect the article which option was chosen, hence the translation.

Upon reviewing it just now, it seems the latter is more accurate. I have amended the article. Thanks.

ibn_a

Salaam,

peace ibn_a,

As I mentioned previously HERE the pronoun "hu" could refer to either Abraham or his son. In my understanding it doesn't seem to make a difference.

Thus, it would be either

exchanged him (the son) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced the son with a mighty sacrifice Abraham made (by separating from his son)
exchanged him (Abraham) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced Abraham with a mighty sacrifice the son made (by separating from his father)
Interestingly, such an event would have effected both, so each one will have experienced the above. This mighty deed was taken into account by God and he/they were rewarded as a result.

I take it as a play on words as mentioned in my article, quote

It is a self-contained explanation because there is absolutely nothing else in the context to explain it. I'm personally not a fan of inserting things into the text to explain Quran when there is no warrant, and especially if there is a fitting explanation that does not require an insertion.

Peace Wakas,

Thanks for your explanations.

I am sorry but I don't see the difference between A and B in "your scenario".
It seems more that in "your scenario" that B is a result of A .

"your scenario"

A = his son leaving to spread the message and never see his father again.

fadaynahu / exchanged / replaced with / for a mighty / great sacrifice.

B = mighty / great sacrifice = Abraham will live for the rest of his life without his son.

I think there would be no need to use the word fadaynahu / exchanged / replaced.
Wouldn't it suffice to say it is / was a great/ mighty sacrifice in "your scenario" ?

والله اعلم
Allah knows best.

Wakas

peace ibn_a,

There definitely is a difference between A and B in my scenario. I would correct your example with the following

exchange A with B...

A = him (whom the him refers to is unclear, but for sake of argument let's say it's the son which is the most common understanding)
B = mighty/great sacrifice (i.e. the mighty/great deed Abraham did, by separating from his son), this is what was left in place of his son

I think there would be no need to use the word fadaynahu / exchanged / replaced.
Wouldn't it suffice to say it is / was a great/ mighty sacrifice in "your scenario" ?

In my scenario, yes I suppose that could have been used, however I would say that since this word is associated with slaughter to say "exchanged A with B" clarifies no son-slaughter took place, i.e. worded in a way so it cannot be taken to mean a son-slaughter took place. Also use of "exchanged", it could be argued, further cements the leaving scenario interpretation.

Iyyaka

peace,

I wasn't sure what the implication was of the word usage, i.e. "...his forehead" and/or "...the forehead" and it didn't affect the article which option was chosen, hence the translation.

Upon reviewing it just now, it seems the latter is more accurate. I have amended the article. Thanks.

Salam Wakas

You're welcome.
it depends In fact on whether you want to stick to the text or not and it seems to me that you have choosen a literal translation (for me it is a mandatory step, by using eventually parentheses, specially for debate).

Another question Where do you find in classic dictionaries "to draw something to one's self" as possible translation of Arabic word "TaLLa" (root Ta-Lam-Lam)?

Your understanding depends on it.
Thanks.

huruf

Where in the text of the Qur'an is it showed that Isma'il left Ibrahim for good?

Salaam

Wakas

peace Iyyaka,

Another question Where do you find in classic dictionaries "to draw something to one's self" as possible translation of Arabic word "TaLLa" (root Ta-Lam-Lam)?

Fellow moderator uq provided the meanings, see here https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609687.msg408319#msg408319
I have never known uq to be unreliable. Also the following meaning is given in DofQ "to lay one down upon one's kin" which was also discussed in the above thread. It would be nice however to know exactly which lexicon these meanings were taken from.

You previously mentioned "dhib'bin" has been used non-literally in Classical Arabic sources. Can you clarify which with quotes ideally.

peace huruf,

Where in the text of the Qur'an is it showed that Isma'il left Ibrahim for good?

Nowhere AFAIK but it seems you are assuming these verses refer to Ishmael, and that it was Ishmael who left Abraham. The evidence for a family separation is found in the article and it is fairly clear
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.html

Quote from article
Many are not aware that at some point in the story of Abraham in Quran there was a family separation
"...I have settled SOME of my progeny in an uncultivated valley..." " i.e. they are not all in one place.
This is reinforced by the fact that Abraham and his sons Ishmael/Isaac and Jacob (grandson?) are never mentioned being together in one place. For example 2125-128 mentions Abraham and Ishmael only when working on 'al bayt' (the shelter) and in 2128 the dual form is used when Abraham asks "...make us both (i.e. Abraham and Ishmael) submissive...".

Iyyaka

peace Iyyaka,

Fellow moderator uq provided the meanings, see here https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609687.msg408319#msg408319
I have never known uq to be unreliable. Also the following meaning is given in DofQ "to lay one down upon one's kin" which was also discussed in the above thread. It would be nice however to know exactly which lexicon these meanings were taken from.

You previously mentioned "dhib'bin" has been used non-literally in Classical Arabic sources. Can you clarify which with quotes ideally.

Salam,

Sorry i didn't find my speech ! can you send me back to the link?

Wakas

https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609687.msg408319#msg408319

Bro uq got back to me with the following

Quote

T-L-L carries the meanings
a) to throw someone down on their face or to wrestle them to the ground,
b) to draw something to one's self.
DH-B-Ḥ carries the meanings
a) to split something,
b) to slit someone's/something's throat,
c) to strangle someone/something.

I couldn't find the specific meaning for T-L-L that you mentioned (i.e. lay one down upon one's kin). I also couldn't find a non-literal meaning for DH-B-Ḥ apart from the meanings I have listed above. There could be some rhetorical function that allows the words above to be used non-literally but that would have to be justified through context and through the determination of the intended meaning of the author.

Iyyaka

Thank you for the link.

So as i understand no real evidence for "to draw something to one's self." for T-L-L meaning. And i found nothing about the brother uq or something escapes me.

You said "You previously mentioned "dhib'bin" has been used non-literally in Classical Arabic sources. Can you clarify which with quotes ideally." => Can you give me the link of my own reference ? I didn't find it..