Regarding Article "Meaning of SuJuD" part 1

[ths]

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 12:100.

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








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.

21:33 ...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

[Man of Faith]

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

[Wakas]

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 [insert Quranic word here] cannot mean [insert Classical Arabic dictionary meaning here] 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 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.

*17:107-109 is being discussed. We will see what comes of it.

[Wakas]

w/salaam ths,

Quran could have clarified if sjd meant physical prostration in 4:102 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 17:107-109 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 (34:14) where it means death.

Wrong. See 25:73, 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 17:107, 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 word

Ideally 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.

[Mohsin7]

@ 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.

[SarahY]

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.

17:107 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

[Wakas]

@Mohsin,

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 4:102 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 4:102 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 4:102 "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 given


What 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.

[Mohsin7]

@Mohsin,

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 4:102 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).

[Mazhar]

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.

17:107 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:
1. Meanings and perception infolded in the Root of word;
2. Morphology of the word;
3. 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: س ج د

Affectionate surrender of one's will and freedom/liberty-Forehead on the ground.



1) 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.

2) 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.

3) Sublime and sincere Prostration of human beings-Bowing and curving to lay the forehead on the Earth denoting absolute surrender and sublime adoration.

4) 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.

5) The Laying of Forehead on ground yields bridging the distance to get nearer to the Sustainer Lord.

Root: س ج د

[Wakas]

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.