Literal or parable

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.

Yeah, I just mentioned it for the sake of it

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 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.