w/salaam saba,
Athar also means physical mark, trace, 40:21, 40:82, 20:84. So what clear 'evidence' do you have that the mark here CANNOT be due to a physical prostration? Thanks Saba
Firstly, I am not disputing it can mean physical mark/trace, as is clear from what I wrote:
"The word "athar" (root: Alif-Tha-Ra) basically means "that which is left behind from something" hence its meanings such as trace/mark/impression/teaching/influence and is not necessarily a physical thing, see 5:46, 18:6, 20:96, 30:50."And with regards to what "clear evidence" I have. Other than what I already posted, none.
You seem to neglect the other things I mentioned however. So, allow me to ask you:
1) Can "athar" mean a non-physical/literal mark in Quran? Yes/No.
2) Do all people who perform the traditional prayer multiple times per day have a physical mark on their forehead? Yes/No.
3) If you answer "no" to Q2 above, can you estimate a % who do, in your opinion. I personally think <5% but let me know what you think.
4) 48:29 says "fee their wajh" - what is the most common translation of "fee" in Quran? Is it "in" or "on"?
5) Does "wajh" always mean the physical "face" in Quran?
6) Does the word "sima" always mean physical mark / identifying feature?
7) 48:25 clearly states fellow believers were unknown/unrecognisable - how do you reconcile this with believers having a mark upon their forehead, if that is your view?
Thanks.