Regarding Article "Meaning of SuJuD" part 1

[Mohsin7]

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 4:102. Further, the last argument regarding verse 4:102 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 4:102 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

[ths]

Great read Mohsin7. Thanks for your analysis, I've been arguing the same here for years.

Could you link me to these lectures by Ghulam Ahmad Parvez?

I look forward to your responses on the other articles.

Salaam

[Wakas]

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.

[Mohsin7]

@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.htm

The 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 (24:55), then they will establish Salaat?" (24:21)"

@ 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 4:102 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.

[Wakas]

@Mohsin7,

Thanks for clarifying.

With regard to 4:102 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: 4:102 ...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:

1) ---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.

2) ---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!

3) ---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.

4) ---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 [see 2:43-45, 4:103, 5:12-13, 7:169-170, 8:2-3, 19:58-59, 29:45, 31:2-7, 33:33-34, 17:78], then we know we are commanded to SJD when it is relayed to us [84:20-22, 19:58, 32:15], but if we were to do this in the regular/timed salat and we know salat ends with SJD according to 4:102 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 prayer

Re: 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.

[Mohsin7]

@ 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 prayer

Well 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.

[Wakas]

@Mohsin7

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 4:102 "...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 4:102) to make an unwarranted assumption, so that their view still works.



Re:4)
If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that sjd=prostration in 4:102 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 (84:20-22, 19:58, 32:15), 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.

[Mohsin7]

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 4:102) 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.

Re:4)
If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that sjd=prostration in 4:102 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 (84:20-22, 19:58, 32:15), 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?

[Timur]

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?

[Mohsin7]

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.