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.
Quote from: WakasWhen 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteDo 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:
Quote from: AymanYou 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.