Regarding Article "Meaning of SuJuD" part 1

[Wakas]

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 4:102 you take SJD to mean a physical prostration.

Your view on 4:102 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 [insert Quranic word here] cannot mean [insert Classical Arabic dictionary meaning here] thus, according to you, it can mean that in a Quran occurrence.

Good luck with that approach. That is not my approach.

[ths]

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. 17:107

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.

[Mohsin7]

@ 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 [insert Quranic word here] cannot mean [insert Classical Arabic dictionary meaning here] 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 4:102 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 4:102 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".

[Wakas]

peace ths,

Yes, we did discuss 17:107-109, 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. 17:107, and a non-prostration the 2nd time, i.e. 17:109, 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 17:107 as prostration and 17:109 not? Well, the simple, and perhaps most likely answer is that in 17:107 SJD occurs which he views as prostration, and SJD does not occur in 17:109. 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 17:109.

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#msg267561

Do you have a response to this point?

[Wakas]

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.

#####

[Mohsin7]

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 4:102. If you don't have a counter to what has already been presented, then I'll tip my hat and say good day.

[ths]

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 17:107 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 (34:14) 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 -

‎عصفت ريح فخرت الأشجار للأذقان   -- A wind blew violently, so that the trees fell, or bent themselves down to the ground
‎هبّت الريح فكبّت الشجر على أذقانها   -- The wind blew,and overturned, or threw down, or bent down, the trees
(of a stone) كبّه السّيل لذقنه      -- 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 17:107 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 يَخِرُّونَ لِلأَذْقَانِ سُجَّدًا  is idiomatic or not. The word لِلأَذْقَانِ by itself is not an idiom. So you can't say the word "لِلأَذْقَانِ" 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:


‫اشتريتها برخص التراب.‬


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:

‎ضربه ضربآ


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 17:109:

ويقع هؤلاء ساجدين على وجوههم، يبكون تأثرًا بمواعظ القرآن، ويزيدهم سماع القرآن ومواعظه ويقع هؤلاء ساجدين على وجوههم، يبكون تأثرًا بمواعظ القرآن، ويزيدهم سماع القرآن ومواعظه خضوعًا لأمر الله وعظيم قدرته.ا لأمر الله وعظيم قدرته.


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 17:107 and 17:109, 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 17:109. 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.

[Timur]

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?

[Mazhar]

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

يَخِرُّونَ: 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 لِلْأَذْقَانِ the Prepositional Phrase;   لِ 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. سُجَّدًا: 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.

[Mohsin7]

Peace Mohsin.

I don't understand what contradictions would come up if we take SJD as non-physical at all occurences?

Salam Timur,

You are free to revisit what has already been explained. The issue is more than what you are seeing.