hmmmm! So you THINK, AS IS YOUR HABIT, that ala hazrat rahimahullah erred, and he was a man just LIKE YOU, because you can also THINK. I would say that probably you are one step ahead of him, because you hear and obey, but ala hazrat did not ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT.
I do understand different forms of submission, acts etc Are we to be desiring/looking for prostrations of some kind?
The believers are closer to the Prophet Sallallaahu Alaihi wa alihi wa sallam then themselves there is total submission in the above, that is true brother but the Sunnah is to deny sajda tazimi hence does the ashique continue to desire it or does he join with the desire of his beloved?
nowhere in the Tafseer does it say that the heart cannot be totally submissive to the Prophet; and KNOW that we consider this as a part of faith. seems it will take a LOT of time for you to understand the difference between prostration of worship, prostration of reverence (both done by head), and prostration done by the heart. your heart is not ready yet.
Does our tradition accept this tafsir for this ayat? It seems this explanation is against the desires in the poetry (namely of wanting to prostrate to the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) in the other thread Yes the sahaba desired it (tafsir:..some Muslims asked that they should be permitted to prostrate themselves..) But as we know the act was disapproved Can it also be said the desire is disapproved as well? I think with this tafsir the desire is disapproved as well. Yet making kufr from sajda tazimi(/qibla) is kufr(?)...So I conclude that we neither desire it nor not desire it. We Hear and Obey
nobody for certain somebody asked and said I added to the discussion for the Question as for explicit, Allaah knows best
It could qualify as explicit, but then again it might not I didn't say you would be wrong either way. Just that you might accept it as explicit.
obviously Layman has been sitting in bad company that shouts haraam, bid'at or shirk - for anything that even remotely goes against their aqeedah or for which they cannot find DIRECT references (due to their absolute ignorance). "the explicit prohibition" that you referred to is the red-herring; it is the standard wahhabi deceptive clause. Layman: sincere advice to you, as brother Noori said - sit in the company of Sunni scholars, and learn aqeedah; if, (and only after that), you find something wrong, discuss it.
why don't you take this assumption for other matters that you don't understand and yet consider them haram, na jaiz, reprehensible innovation etc., as well as try to force them on others as a valid position without evidences. Are your vague assumptions your creed? brother, you seriously need to consult ulama, or at least you need to read many basic books on aqidah, i repeat MANY.
there might be a prize for vagueness for you somewhere by someone, i assume. and that prize is probably something which is nearly valuable or more. who said it was not Haram? as i pointed out you don't understand simple sentences. the argument was never about ruling it haraam. yes, whatever. so according to you: "there is explicit prohibition of sajdah tazimi for RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in the qur'an". since 'implied' means 'explicit' in your lexicon, you have explicitly said the above (in red).
I don't know, I can't speak for them. I am assuming they have sufficient evidence to rule it haraam hence it could qualify as explicit, but then again we go deeper into vagueness because it might not satisfy your possible definition of explicit.
this is a split from another thread: where is the EXPLICIT prohibition? in case your head is in a tizzy, here is what he said: to which you replied with precision: and quoted the above verse and its tafsir [probably as proof to the above]. in summary, you didn't understand what he is talking about. nor do you seem to understand the issue per se. but that does not prevent you from sharing gyaan.