Literal or parable

DinoBot

Hi,

I was speaking with a friend yesterday , and we got to talking about the quran (as you do) and in particular stories like Noah and Yunas.

I was under the impression that Islam treats these stories as literal, in that the flood really happened and flooded all the earth and only saved a few and that Yunas was indeed swollowed by a big fish and he remained inside until spat out.

But My friend said that all such stories are simple parables.

Which is the more excepted, are they Literal or parable ?

Thanks

metrovelvet

Generally, it is a characteristic of fundamentalism, whether in Christianity or in Islam to read things literally.

It is the more reasonable proportions of these religions who will debate and interpret text.

DinoBot

metrovelvet wrote:

Generally, it is a characteristic of fundamentalism, whether in Christianity or in Islam to read things literally.

It is the more reasonable proportions of these religions who will debate and interpret text.

I dont understand your comment really. The quran is the direct word of god, so is he speaking in a parable or not is a simple question. I cant see how it can be fundamentalism.

metrovelvet

If you take anything literally, you are taking a fundamentalist reading of it.

the_new_mr

Once again, let us not use the incorrect use of fundamentalist as if to describe someone with backward thinking.

As far as I know, everything in the Quran is literal except when God explicitly says that something is a parable. For example:

Al-Baqara:265
"And the parable of those who spend their possessions out of a longing to please God, and out of their own inner certainty, is that of a garden on high, fertile ground: a rainstorm smites it, and thereupon it brings forth its fruit twofold; and if no rainstorm smites it, soft rain [falls upon it]. And God sees all that you do."

metrovelvet

But if you take those allegorical thigs literally then you are applying a fundamentalist reading of it.

A Christian comparison would be of thinking that God made the world in seven days. Or that Eve was made out of a rib.Or that a bush was on fire and started talking to a man who then composed ten laws out of what the bush said.

And God doesnt say something is parable, the scribes who recorded it say so.

That you think God literally wrote it is a fundamentalist reading. You think he sat down with a fountain pen and some ink and wrote this stuff?

the_new_mr

metrovelvet wrote:

That you think God literally wrote it is a fundamentalist reading. You think he sat down with a fountain pen and some ink and wrote this stuff?

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious here or joking. Best leave that one alone I think

metrovelvet wrote:

And God doesnt say something is parable, the scribes who recorded it say so.

Well, if you're a Muslim and you believe the Quran is the literal word of God and God says "God sets forth a parable..." then you believe that God says parables.

metrovelvet wrote:

But if you take those allegorical thigs literally then you are applying a fundamentalist reading of it.

Once again, to clarify, fundamentalist isn't necessarily a bad thing. It only means someone who holds fast to the fundamentals of their religion/beliefs.

As I said before:

the_new_mr wrote:

As far as I know, everything in the Quran is literal except when God explicitly says that something is a parable.

DinoBot

Thanks the_new_mr.

metrovelvet, I think it shows the big difference between the Quran and the bible. Althought most dont take the bible literal most muslims do take the quran to be literal

metrovelvet

^ Then that would make most muslims fundamentalist.

Schuhart

metrovelvet wrote:

Then that would make most muslims fundamentalist.

Bear in mind the structure of Islam is different to Christianity. To an extent, the Quran is the equivalent of both Jesus and Bible. Christians can and generally do admit that the Bible isn’t literal, because once they claim divinity for Jesus it doesn’t matter if the Gospel is a bit hit and miss in places.

However, if the Quran is regarded as just an imperfect record of what a man thought God wanted him to say, many would fear that this would undermine the basis of Islam. Hence, strictly, Muslims would tend to be more ‘fundamentalist’ in the sense of taking the religious text to be the exact word that God intended. But, of course, that doesn’t necessary mean that they take those literal words in isolation from the historical context in which they were originally spoken.

For the sake of argument, I doubt if many Muslims feel they are obliged to seek out and slaughter idolators even if those words appear in the Quran. Very frequently passages like that are explained as being relevant chiefly in the context of the early years of Islam, in the context of open warfare. Hence, ‘fundamentalist’ in the sense of reading texts literally as the word of God does not necessarily mean ‘extremist’ in the sense of saying those words justify aggression.

In strict terms, as I understand it (bearing in mind I’m atheist in outlook), the belief is that God sent an angel to Mohammed who recited the text of the Quran into the Prophet’s ear. Hence, the words Mohammed spoke are taken as being exactly what God wanted to be said. It is also insisted that these words were recorded perfectly accurately, and that nothing was added or lost in this process. (This contention is assisted by the action of an early Caliph, who ordered that all ‘deviant’ versions of the Quran be destroyed).

Bear in mind also that this special literal status is only accorded to the Arabic text of the Quran. It is accepted that translations may contain discrepancies.

donaghs

Schuhart wrote:

For the sake of argument, I doubt if many Muslims feel they are obliged to seek out and slaughter idolators even if those words appear in the Quran. Very frequently passages like that are explained as being relevant chiefly in the context of the early years of Islam, in the context of open warfare. Hence, ‘fundamentalist’ in the sense of reading texts literally as the word of God does not necessarily mean ‘extremist’ in the sense of saying those words justify aggression.

.

Surely taking a "literal interpretation of the text" means exactly that? Explaining a difficult passage as "relevant chiefly in the context of the early years of Islam", is common-sense, but hardly acceptable to one who believes the text to be God's literal truth. Why not apply that logic to the rest of the Koran and writings of the time? (in the 600s AD ?)

A interesting comaprison with that sort of reasoning is how most of mainstream of Christianity gradually moved from taking a view that the Bible was the truth, the word of God, and no arguement. To a view about parables and metaphors and understanding it within the context of the time it as written, etc, etc.

the_new_mr

Well, actually Donaghs, it's not quite like that. Some verses are looked at in context to understand the situation that they were applicable to. I wouldn't necessarily say that there are verses that will never be applicable and were only applicable during the early years of Islam (although I could be wrong) but, like any book, context is important (both historical and textual). The Quran is a book of guidance and every Muslim should look towards it for their guidance so understanding context is important to know exactly when peace is commanded and when defending yourselves is commanded etc.

And, just a word of warning to everyone, most attacks on Islam are done by quoting verses out of historical or textual context and even mistranslating text.

philologos

metrovelvet wrote:

If you take anything literally, you are taking a fundamentalist reading of it.

There are parts of the Bible that are supposed to be taken literally. If I said by taking that adultery is a sin literally, means that you are a fundementalist, would recieve laughs from fellow Christians. Some parts of the Bible are intended to be parables, parts of the Gospels and Isaiah come to mind. But there are large sections which are supposed to be taken literally.

the_new_mr wrote:

And, just a word of warning to everyone, most attacks on Islam are done my quoting verses out of historical or textual context and even mistranslating text.

I understand, the same is done with Christianity.

metrovelvet

There are many interpretations of what sin is, so that cant even be take literally.

As for what is "supposed" to be taken literally or not, who do you supposes decides this?

philologos

Personally I find it purely rediculous that you suggest that as the moral code of a faith, that the rulings cannot be taken literally.... It's written there for a reason, surely?

metrovelvet

Why do you find it so ridiculous?

Even if you look at the Torah there are Rabbis comments and criticisms written around the scripture. It is debate enshrined.

Even if you look at our own Ten Commandments [I know this is the Islam forum, but I feel more comfortable referencing a text I am familiar with] there are various ways of interpreting those laws. For example, THOU SHALL NOT KILL. It is actually THOU SHALL NOT MURDER, which is to kill without reason and is also a legal term.

Or what about "THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S WIFE" - to take that literally exempts women from coveting their neighbor's husbands since there is no mention of coveting husbands at all in the ten commandments.

THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY - what constitutes adultery?

My point is that you cant take anything too literally from any kind of text, especially those in translation and those which come entirely from different times and contexts. There are too many ways of looking at a word to do so.

Schuhart

Jakkass wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

And, just a word of warning to everyone, most attacks on Islam are done my quoting verses out of historical or textual context and even mistranslating text.

I understand, the same is done with Christianity.

In fairness, many sincere believers come out with extreme interpretations of texts. Are non-believers to blame for those extreme interpretations? It seems to me that a perfectly reasonable point to direct at a believer is ‘you may well put a positive reading on those words, but this religious authority figure in your faith thinks otherwise and seems to have attracted a fair following for his view.’

metrovelvet wrote:

- to take that literally exempts women from coveting their neighbor's husbands since there is no mention of coveting husbands at all in the ten commandments.

The more sceptical might suggest that what that wording is really telling us is that women traditionally have had low status in religious circles. Hence, the ‘coveting your wife’ phrase is telling us that men do the coveting and women are just objects to be coveted. Whether the women want to be coveted or not is simply irrelevant. Also, whether the woman covets is as irrelevant as whether your camel covets.

Hence, what subsequent generations do is try to retrofit the status that women now have into religious texts written by people who simply did not envisage women being worthy of any regard. It’s not ‘literal’ or ‘fundamentalist’ to see this language is telling us something significant about the people who founded this religion.

I find one of the puzzles about religion is explaining why women tend to be less prone to atheism and more prone to following the practice of a faith despite those faiths displaying little respect for them. It’s a thought that particularly came to mind while reading The Handmaid’s Tale, and the depiction in that novel of women both passively and actively participating in their subjugation. I’ve no answer to this point – only the question.

metrovelvet

Schuhart wrote:

s.


I find one of the puzzles about religion is explaining why women tend to be less prone to atheism and more prone to following the practice of a faith despite those faiths displaying little respect for them. It’s a thought that particularly came to mind while reading The Handmaid’s Tale, and the depiction in that novel of women both passively and actively participating in their subjugation. I’ve no answer to this point – only the question.

My own theory is that the less power you have or feel you have in your own life the more likely you will turn to superstition and these belief systems.

Arguably people like to be dominated. The adoration and need to keep monarchy in place, stockholm syndrome, are a couple of examples of this. [Internalised Oppression]

The other factor is morality. Women are placed and scrutinised under and within a different moral framework and are expected to pass this on to the kids, example take them to Church on Sunday.

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

As far as I know, everything in the Quran is literal except when God explicitly says that something is a parable.

What do you base that assumption on?
Does it mean that you for instance believe the detailed descriptions of heaven and hell in the Qur'an to be actually literally true?

Here are some verses about allegories and parables:

3:7:
SHAKIR: He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

14:24:
SHAKIR: Have you not considered how Allah sets forth a parable of a good word (being) like a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are in heaven, ...
25:
Allah sets forth parables for men that they may be mindful.

PDN

donaghs wrote:

A interesting comaprison with that sort of reasoning is how most of mainstream of Christianity gradually moved from taking a view that the Bible was the truth, the word of God, and no arguement. To a view about parables and metaphors and understanding it within the context of the time it as written, etc, etc.

Actually the earliest Christians understood very well how to interpret parables and metaphors etc. in Scripture. It was later generations (for example, in medieval times) that lost sight of this due to cultural distance. Modern biblical studies, for the most part, are simply helping us to appreciate how Scripture would have been understood by its first readers/hearers.

I don't know enough about Islam to know if a similar process has occurred there. If the original readers of the Bible (or Quran) would have understood something literally then it would seem strange to try to put a different spin on it centuries later.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

If the original readers of the Bible (or Quran) would have understood something literally then it would seem strange to try to put a different spin on it centuries later.

Even leaving aside the kind of topics atheists relish, is there not always a problem that the texts were written for a very different audience?

The cultural scene would be very different at the time either of those books were compiled. A person living in a society where servants are common would surely hear a scriptural story involving servants as something quite immediate – whether it was intended to be literal or a parable. Tell a story now that involves servants and it sounds kind of quaint.

If those revelations were given today, the pages would presumably be studded with stories about commission-only telephone sales agents or people working at the sandwich counter in Centra. That immediate sense is presumably lost for all time, however scholars try to recreate it.

the_new_mr

Are you a lawyer metrovelvet? It almost seems like the kind thing a lawyer would do in attempting to find loopholes in the religious texts

As far as I'm concerned, adultery is very clear, murder is murder (killing someone else unless in war or for punishment of a crime) and, although not all religious texts mention the situation for women as well, it's implied that it's the same the other way around unless explicitly stated.

Schuhart wrote:

It seems to me that a perfectly reasonable point to direct at a believer is ‘you may well put a positive reading on those words, but this religious authority figure in your faith thinks otherwise and seems to have attracted a fair following for his view.’

It seems that no matter how many times we cover this in this forum, you bring this point up again and again. So, can this be the last time... please?

Just because someone comes up with a crazy interpretation doesn't mean it's part of that faith. Just as someone comes up with a crazy one so does someone else (and usually in a larger number) come up with a saner one. You can't blame a religion for the actions of individuals.

If I was going to get technical about it, atheists in this world have done more damage and caused more death than any crazy religious figures. That is human nature. Don't try to blame religion for it.

Schuhart wrote:

The more sceptical might suggest that what that wording is really telling us is that women traditionally have had low status in religious circles. Hence, the ‘coveting your wife’ phrase is telling us that men do the coveting and women are just objects to be coveted. Whether the women want to be coveted or not is simply irrelevant. Also, whether the woman covets is as irrelevant as whether your camel covets.

Hence, what subsequent generations do is try to retrofit the status that women now have into religious texts written by people who simply did not envisage women being worthy of any regard. It’s not ‘literal’ or ‘fundamentalist’ to see this language is telling us something significant about the people who founded this religion.

This is nothing more than conjecture. As you said, the opinion of "the more skeptical". As mentioned above, religious laws apply to women as well if they are not mentioned unless explicitly mentioned otherwise.

maitri wrote:

What do you base that assumption on?
Does it mean that you for instance believe the detailed descriptions of heaven and hell in the Qur'an to be actually literally true?

Well, I certainly don't believe it's a lie or untrue. At the very least, if it's not a literal description then I believe it's a description provided by an All-Wise God so that we can have some understanding of what heaven is like.

Schuhart wrote:

Even leaving aside the kind of topics atheists relish, is there not always a problem that the texts were written for a very different audience?

Well, as it happens, Muslims believe that the Bible and Torah were written for the people of that time and place only. But I know you are making the same argument for the Quran. But we've already discussed this, haven't we?

Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed for all time. Christians believe the same about the Bible and Jews believe the same about the Torah. I know you don't like it Schuhart. Nothing I can do for you.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

It seems that no matter how many times we cover this in this forum, you bring this point up again and again. So, can this be the last time... please?

I’d stop making the point if the need for it to be made had gone. What provokes the need are statements that try to brush past this point as if it didn’t exist. For example, I’d query how the phenomenon I’m talking about can be dismissed as ‘crazy interpretations’. If I was judging all of theism by the standard of Jim Jones, you would be right to use the term ‘crazy interpretations’. But when I can point to views outlined by authority figures held in respect by their faiths and who seem to have a considerable following, I don’t see how that can be sidelined as ‘crazy interpretations’ or actions of individuals. The problem is a little deeper than that. Its fair enough, for the sake of argument, for theists to say only a minority hold to creationism. But I don't see how they can pretend this is a 'crazy' interpretation, when so many otherwise quite normal individuals argue this to be a correct reading of texts.

the_new_mr wrote:

If I was going to get technical about it, atheists in this world have done more damage and caused more death than any crazy religious figures. That is human nature. Don't try to blame religion for it.

I’ll leave aside the body count, as those discussions are inevitably pointless, and cut to the chase. Stalin was less than a stunning success, and atheism has failed to bring out any coherent vision possibly because of fear of just repeating the same process. For what it’s worth, I think this is partly why people who should know better are throwing themselves into a more devout practice of their faith than their parents. In the face of a vacuum, any ideology is good enough.

the_new_mr wrote:

Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed for all time. Christians believe the same about the Bible and Jews believe the same about the Torah. I know you don't like it Schuhart. Nothing I can do for you.

In fairness, I’m not expecting you to do anything about it. I was just noting in the context of PDN’s comment that the text we read today simply cannot sound the same as it did to the original audience as we’ve lost the cultural context. That’s not (necessarily) saying it’s a message delivered for one time only. Its simply stating the reasonable point that ‘interpretation’ becomes an inevitable thing once time passes – in the context of someone saying that if a particular passage was literal once, it would be hard to see why it would cease to be literal later.

metrovelvet

the_new_mr wrote:

Are you a lawyer metrovelvet? It almost seems like the kind thing a lawyer would do in attempting to find loopholes in the religious texts

No, but I dont think language is fixed.

the_new_mr wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, adultery is very clear, murder is murder (killing someone else unless in war or for punishment of a crime) and, although not all religious texts mention the situation for women as well, it's implied that it's the same the other way around unless explicitly stated.

That's you new mr - for YOU it's clear, but it wouldnt be for everyone. Catholics for example are famous for excusing themselves from being guilty of adultery if they only practise oral sex, because "it doesnt really count." Much like Lent, if you give up sweets, but you eat a bounty bar it doesnt really count because it's more like fruit.

How do you know that its implied for women also? Maybe you just inferred it because in your mind that's what makes more sense. But if your talking about literalism, then no, you do not put women in there too.

the_new_mr wrote:

If I was going to get technical about it, atheists in this world have done more damage and caused more death than any crazy religious figures. That is human nature. it.

Explain this please?

wes

metrovelvet wrote:

Explain this please?

Probably talking about Mao's killing 77 million and the deaths under Stalin (several million more), but that only applies to the 20th Century and was done in the name of Communism. The people responsible just so happened to be Atheist. Atheism wasn't responsible, being Human was.

the_new_mr

Exactly my point Wes. Thanks for clarifying it.

Schuhart wrote:

’d stop making the point...

This is a combination of two main factors. First of all, the groups that follow these individuals are always a relative minority. That's very important. Anyway, one important factor is that often the people that follow those that make this strange interpretations agree with them because they are making the same crazy interpretations or agree with them. Another factor is people blindly following certain individuals without using their own brain.

I would prefer if any discussion of the Muslim population was about the majority population in the future. You're always getting to get nutters in Islam, Christianity, Communism, etc.

Schuhart wrote:

For what it’s worth, I think this is partly why people who should know better are throwing themselves into a more devout practice of their faith than their parents. In the face of a vacuum, any ideology is good enough.

If you want to believe so.

metrovelvet wrote:

That's you new mr - for YOU it's clear, but it wouldnt be for everyone. Catholics for example are famous for excusing themselves from being guilty of adultery if they only practise oral sex, because "it doesnt really count." Much like Lent, if you give up sweets, but you eat a bounty bar it doesnt really count because it's more like fruit.

Honestly, and without wanting to offend anyone here, I think this is a little ridiculous. I think the people that do that are lying to themselves to try and make themselves feel better. We've all heard the classic sit-com line of "it doesn't count". Of course it does.

And about literalism, I remembered something there earlier today (well, actually I remembered it yesterday but forgot to write about it here).

One scholar said that everything in the Quran must be taken completely literally. Another scholar said that not everything in the Quran should be completely literally. He used a verse as an example.

The verse in question.

Al-An'am:50
" "Say [O Prophet]: "I do not say unto you, 'God's treasures are with me,'; nor [do I say], 'I know the things that are beyond the reach of human perception'; nor do I say unto you, 'Behold, I am an angel': I but follow what is revealed to me." Say: "Can the blind and the seeing be deemed equal? Will you not, then, take thought?" "

Obviously, God is making a metaphorical comparison when it comes to the blind (the who doesn't see the truth) and the seeing (the one who does).

That doesn't mean I don't think stories of the Prophets actually happened. As long as we use our brains and see things where it's obvious (as above) then I think we should be fine.

metrovelvet

So if God is "obviously making a metaphorical comparison" then how do you account for Islamic scholars saying it should be taken LITERALLY?

hivizman

metrovelvet wrote:

So if God is "obviously making a metaphorical comparison" then how do you account for Islamic scholars saying it should be taken LITERALLY?

In Sura Al A'raf 7:34, the Qur'an states (Yusuf Ali translation): "Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days . . .". The translator says in a note "The Creation in six days is of course metaphorical", and goes on to give references that suggest that "Day" may not always mean a period of 24 hours. However, just as there are Christian creationists who believe in the literal truth of the creation story in Genesis Chapter 1 (including creation in six days), so there are Muslims who also believe in the literal creation in six days.


Does a simple literal reading of any scriptural text exhaust its meaning, or is it possible to assess texts such as the Bible and Qur'an on different levels? Given that God is so far above us in terms of His understanding, it would be surprising if a holy text that comes from God reveals all its meanings at face value. We are in the position of being able to build on centuries of interpretation and commentary, and even if scholars agree on basics, they still differ on interpretations.

Many people who believe in the inerrancy of their holy text have difficulties with particular passages that, if read literally, seem to contradict their fundamental beliefs. They can either try to be consistent and give up the beliefs that do not fit with the holy text, or they can try to interpret the words of the holy text so that the apparent contradiction is explained away.

philologos

I have the same Qu'ran translation and 7:34 is the following

To every people is a term appointed: when their term is reached, not an hour can cause delay, nor (an hour) can they advance (in anticipation)

hivizman

Jakkass wrote:

I have the same Qu'ran translation and 7:34 is the following

Sorry: meant 7:54.

philologos

I've looked at it and you're correct now. But I can't see any notes saying that it shouldn't be taken literally? Could you give me a page number. Assuming we have the same copy of it (Abdullah Yusuf Ali - Wordsworth Classics of World Literature?)

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

I would prefer if any discussion of the Muslim population was about the majority population in the future. You're always getting to get nutters in Islam, Christianity, Communism, etc.

I'm not particularly talking about the population of theists and more about the doctrine as interpreted by the religious establishment that those theists seem to deem worthy of respect.

I'd also query the jump from 'minority opinion' to 'crazy interpretations'. Leaving aside for a moment how we would establish if a particular religious opinion was held by a majority of scholars (e.g. in that recent thread on apostasy I've quoted a scholar, apparently respected, who claims he's stating the majority view but I know you dispute that.) Presumably we can allow that 'minority' does not mean 'crazy'. I take it Shia Muslims are in a minority, but presumably you don't see them as crazy.

In general, without dragging up old threads as samples, I think the point I'm trying to get across is that these 'crazy interpretations' are actually supported on occassion by respected scholars who may or may not be in a minority on the question in hand. I see this as significant, because its then utterly legitimate to point out how these interpretations by respected scholars seem to command enough authority to acutally impact on people's lives - such as the laws blocking conversions in Malaysia. The justification for those laws (just to take an example in hand) doesn't come from some dodgy mistranslation of something misquoted by Richard Dawkins. It comes from Islamic scholars - within the faith.

the_new_mr

metrovelvet wrote:

So if God is "obviously making a metaphorical comparison" then how do you account for Islamic scholars saying it should be taken LITERALLY?

Maybe you should ask them.

With respect to verse 54 in Surat Al-'Araf, there are a couple of ideas relating to it.

One is that the "day" mentioned here may be a day as far as God is concerned but more time for us (theory of relativity). Some verses showing how a day be more time than a day of ours.

As-Sajda:5
"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon."

Al-Ma'arig:4
"(Whereby) the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years."

The first verse says that, in this instance, this "day" is like a thousand years of ours. The second verse says that this "day" is like fifty-thousand years but, crucially, does not say "of what ye reckon" essentially meaning it is an unknown amount of time as far as we are concerned.

The translation of verse 54 in of Surat Al-'Araf by Mohamed Asad is as follows:

Al-'Araf (Mohamed Asad translation)
"Verily, your Sustainer is God, who has created the heavens and the earth in six aeons, and is established on the throne of His almightiness. [43] He covers the day with the night in swift pursuit, with the sun and the moon and the stars subservient to His command: oh, verily, His is all creation and all command. Hallowed is God, the Sustainer of all the worlds!"

Here, he used the word "aeons" and note 43 states the following:

The conjunctive particle thumma which precedes this clause does not always denote order in time ("then" or "thereupon"). In cases where it is used to link parallel statements it has often the function of the simple conjunction wa ("and") - as, for instance, in 2:29 ("and has applied His design. . .", etc.) As regards the term `arsh (lit., "throne" or "seat of power"), all Muslim commentators, classical and modern, are unanimously of the opinion that its metaphorical use in the Qur’an is meant to express God's absolute sway over all His creation. It is noteworthy that in all the seven instances where God is spoken of in the Qur’an as "established on the throne of His almightiness" (, 10:3, 13:2, 20:5, 25:59, 32:4 and 57:4), this expression is connected with a declaration of His having created the universe.-The word yawm, commonly translated as "day" - but rendered above as "aeon" - is used in Arabic to denote any period, whether extremely long ("aeon") or extremely short ("moment"): its application to an earthly "day" of twenty-four hours is only one of its many connotations. (Cf. in this respect note 26 above, where the meaning of sa'ah - lit., "hour" - is explained.)(Quran Ref: 7:54 )

The second idea (mentioned by a Christian on this forum) and one that had never occurred to me before is that perhaps God did actually make the earth in 6 days as we know them but made it look like it wasn't.

Anyway, I think it's very relevant to keep in mind that God is not bound by the fourth dimension of time as we are.

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I certainly don't believe it's a lie or untrue. At the very least, if it's not a literal description then I believe it's a description provided by an All-Wise God so that we can have some understanding of what heaven is like.

That something is an allegory or a parable doesn't mean that it's a lie.
Those passages (about heaven and hell) could for instance be read as a pictorial way of saying "Good actions are heavenly and have good consequences and bad actions are hellish and have bad consequences. Please do good and avoid evil - it's for your own good!" That would certainly not be a lie, IMO.

BTW, I am not saying it's the only possible way to read this.
But for me, this is one possible way of understanding those verses that makes sense.

the_new_mr wrote:

The second idea (mentioned by a Christian on this forum) and one that had never occurred to me before is that perhaps God did actually make the earth in 6 days as we know them but made it look like it wasn't.

Oh, I think you're on very dangerous grounds now, sir. This seems to be very close to the definition of an ad hoc hypothesis.

the_new_mr

Yeah, I just mentioned it for the sake of it

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

Yeah, I just mentioned it for the sake of it

Good!

hivizman

maitri wrote:

That something is an allegory or a parable doesn't mean that it's a lie.
Those passages (about heaven and hell) could for instance be read as a pictorial way of saying "Good actions are heavenly and have good consequences and bad actions are hellish and have bad consequences. Please do good and avoid evil - it's for your own good!" That would certainly not be a lie, IMO.

BTW, I am not saying it's the only possible way to read this.
But for me, this is one possible way of understanding those verses that makes sense.

I agree that allegories and parables are not necessarily false, but there are different senses of truth. If heaven and hell are outside our dimensions of space and time, then descriptions in terms of our space and time are unlikely to be true in a factual sense, but they can be true in the allegorical sense that is suggested here. I would be reluctant to claim that any holy text contains 'lies'. In his book Truth and Truthfulness, the philosopher Bernard Williams argued that truth involves not just factual accuracy but also sincerity on the part of the speaker. If I say something that is factually true but intend you to be deceived, am I really a 'truthful' person? Williams defines a 'lie' as 'an assertion, the content of which the speaker believes to be false, which is made with the intention to deceive the hearer with regard to that content.' God knows that we, as creatures within space and time, can scarcely begin to understand the dimensions within which he exists, so describes heaven and hell in terms that we can understand. He is not lying, because he has no intention to deceive. By the way, although polytheistic religions can and do have gods who lie, I cannot conceive of God lying. That doesn't mean that we fully understand His truth!

So the descriptions of heaven and hell may well be literally accurate, but they could also be allegorical in the sense that they promise the best consequences for good acts but the worst consequences for bad acts. For some people, the fire is literally terrifying, for others, eternal separation from God (an allegorical interpretation of hell) is just as terrifying.

This has got a bit heavy, and of course the point of this thread is, I think, the way in which different individuals and groups draw conclusions from reading texts literally that differ from the conclusions drawn by those reading the texts in some less literal way (not just as allegories, but also by trying to understand the texts in the context in which they were uttered/written). I don't have an easy answer to the underlying problem, only a wishy-washy liberal view that we should try to respectfully understand different positions, and try to be consistent rather than insisting on literal interpretations of the passages we happen to like and figurative interpretations of the passages that we don't.

the_new_mr

All very interesting. Glad you joined us here hivizman.

Personally, I think when it comes to descriptions of heaven and hell and things like it, I'd rather not speculate too much on whether it's literal or metaphorical or whatever. Especially since, realistically, we can't answer the question.

donaghs

the_new_mr wrote:

Personally, I think when it comes to descriptions of heaven and hell and things like it, I'd rather not speculate too much on whether it's literal or metaphorical or whatever. Especially since, realistically, we can't answer the question.

An interesting point there. But you're moving into agnostic territory. Realistically, we can't prove or disprove a lot about religions. But we still like to speculate because its interesting, and religion has such a grip on most people around the world. This is a religious forum after all!

Addressing the specific point about heaven and hell being literal or metaphorical, centuries ago (when the major reasons evolved) people took such things literally, and unlike us, had no firm scientific basis to disprove this.

the_new_mr

I'm definitely not agnostic Think there must have been a misunderstanding of some sort.

All I meant was that all we can go on (as far as a Muslim is concerned) are the descriptions of heaven and hell from then Quran and authentic hadith. Trying to decipher whether or not they're metaphorical or literal is something that is, as far as I can see, impossible to do.

And something tells me that we probably will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of heaven and hell using science. I could be wrong but I just find it doubtful.