Dear Wakas,
As-salamu alaykum
You assert:
Re: "us"
Ijaz asked you if rkE means bow or kneel and provided a sample of Quran occurrences.
You responded by citing a Classical Arabic dictionary.
Thus, I thought it may help us (i.e. readers of a Quran's message forum) to enquire about the Quranic evidence.I strongly disagree. You have assumed that brother Ijaz may not have been satisfied with the response I gave him. As he was still yet to reply, with respect, you unnecessary shoe-horned your unwarranted request (as the Quran is
not a dictionary) seemingly attempting to bolster the credibility of your question by speaking in terms of 'plurality'. There was absolutely no evidence in this thread that other readers would have been interested in your line of thinking. In future, may I kindly request that you refrain from this kind of questioning and ask the questions you want to without seeking support in numbers or plurality.
You further assert:
"Re: 1)
You cited no Quranic evidence."Yet, I have
repeatedly stated that the Quran is
NOT a dictionary or lexicon.
Thus your request has absolutely no basis and remains wholly meaningless. In my humble view, it remains the achilles heel of your approach to the Quran. The true ambit of the Arabic words remain elucidated via classical sources and an understanding of the meaning of those words that have reached us. I have further provided you
clear evidence as to the meaning of the word 'ruku' from classical sources which do not contravene verses of the Quran.
The classical sources
themselves claim what the primary signification of the term is, yet you have consistently appeared to ignore this. Thus I highlight the sentence below again in bold which I posted in reply #1.
1 رَكَعَ , (Th, S, &c.,) aor. رَكَعَ , (Th, TA,) inf. n. رُكُوعٌ (Th, S, Mgh, Msb, K) and رَكْعٌ, (Th, TA,) He bowed, or bent, himself; or became bowed or bent: (Th, S, Mgh, Msb:) so says Er-Rághib, adding that it is sometimes used to denote a particular manner of doing so in prayer, and sometimes to denote humility and self-abasement either in worship or in other cases: (TA:) he lowered his head: (Th:) and he (an old man) bowed himself, or bent himself, or became bowed or bent, by reason of age: (S, Msb, K:) this is [said to be] the primary signification: (TA:) [1]With regards your
second contention:"How do you deduce Z is not part of Y?"Ruku is mentioned in other parts of the Quran
along with prostration which makes it clear that it is part of an act of worship or reverence. One example is below:
003.043
"O Mary! Be obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow down (Arabic: wa-ir'ka'i) with those who bow down (Arabic: raki'een)"Similarly, 'ruku' is also mentioned in other verses
along with prostration (48:29), again in the
ambit of worship. It is clear that prostrations are part of 'salaat’ which can also be seen in the following verse structure.
004:102 (part)
"And when you are among them and you lead them for salaat, then let a group of them stand with you and let them take their arms. Then when they have prostrated, let them go to your rear and let another group come (forward) which has not prayed (yusallu)…"You simply cannot get away from the fact that salaat is an act of worship in which prostrations and bowing are a part. Hence, my deduction is not isolated, but I assert under the criteria of the following verses, a very obvious deduction.
039:018
"Those who listen to the Word (the Quran) and follow the best meaning in it / best of it (Arabic: fayattabi'una ahsanahu) those are the ones whom God has guided and those are the one's endowed with understanding (Arabic: Albabi) 039.055
"And follow the best of what is revealed to you from your Lord, before the penalty comes to you suddenly while you do not perceive!”Hence, it would be meaningless to suggest that 'ruku' is part of giving Zakat (or in your words
"How do you deduce Z is not part of Y?") when no other verses in the Quran corroborate this. However, many verses, if studied collectively, support the view that bowing and prostrations are part of salaat.
Thus in summary:- I have made it clear to you that the Quran is not a dictionary or a lexicon. It was revealed in the cradle of an existing language which the primary audience spoke. The Quran did not invent a new language, thus asking evidence for a meaning of an Arabic word in the Quran implicitly or explicitly is not only futile, but wholly unwarranted theologically and linguistically.
- I have provided you clear evidence from classical sources and the Arabic language as it has been transmitted to us today for the meaning of the verb 'raka'a' to mean to 'bow down'.
- The primary meaning of the word finds no contention with its usage in the Quran.
- I have cited clear evidence of how the word is paired with the word ‘sujud’ (prostrate) which is also used in conjunction with salaat.
- There is also support in en masse practice including support from the earliest classical sources that the word 'ruku' means to bow down in salaat.
You on the other hand:
- Provide absolutely no warrant as to why you consistently challenge point 1 above implicitly by demanding 'Quranic evidence' for the meaning of an Arabic word used in the Quran when the Quran is not a dictionary or lexicon.
- Provide absolutely no warrant as to why you challenge point 2 above.
- You provide absolutely no evidence as to why the meaning of 'bow down' clearly conflicts with any of its usage in the Quran if understood as 'bow down'.
- You provide no proof as to why the well understood Arabic meaning of the word needs to be challenged.
- You provide absolutely no unequivocal, explicit proof as to what your meaning of the term (whatever that may be) is more suitable in all the Quranic contexts as opposed to its well-understood meaning to 'bow down'.
I respectfully suggest to the readership that you have the weakest, most unwarranted position.
With respect, I have made my perspective clear as I have my opinion regarding your approach. I find your argumentation unnecessarily contentious and I respectfully remind you to kindly remain mindful of forum policies 2(c-e).
With respect, I have discussed the reasons why I find your approach lacking, without warrant and faulty in certain areas in numerous posts with evidence, which can be sourced by the readership from the many discussions on this site:
Wakashttp://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1272Therefore, please kindly accept my response to you
my last on this matter.
Regards,
Joseph
REFERENCE: [1] LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 3, Page 1147