Does Islam Require A Literal Reading Of The Qu'ran

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='11 December 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1260563567' post='2018589']
What book are you sourcing from? This is not really a creed, but a description of things found near/on the Day of Judgment. [/quote]
I only quoted a portion of the creed of Hanbal.

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=uSjYAAAAMAAJ&q=islamic+creeds&dq=islamic+creeds&num=100&cd=1"]Islamic Creeds: A Selection[/url]

[quote name='extempers' date='11 December 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1260563567' post='2018589']
And I'm pretty sure every single Muslim believes in them literally.
[/quote]
Yes, I know that, and I thought I made that clear in the post following the one you quoted: "Most of the creeds I have read affirm the literal reality of the things affirmed of allah in the Quran, but add that one must simply accept these things as real without trying to determine the manner (or mode) of their existence."

[Winchester]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1260536541' post='2018310']

The one-eyed Dajjal[/quote]
Sounds like something from Harry Potter.
Ron: It's a one-eyed Dajjal. Knickers.
Harry: Tea and crumpets.
Snape: I kill Dumbeldore lol.

[extempers]

The question on the "correct interpretation" can go really deep and cover a HUGE amount of material as well as several Islamic sciences such.

But to basically answer, the hadith/sayings are used to further bring out the message of the verses.
The seerah/history is used to give background story to revelation.
The consensus of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (s)takes it a step further.
The scholars of the companions go one more.
The tafsir/commentary brings all of this together. The most famous is by Ibn Kathir, but probably the most difficult to read.

I.e. there's a LOT to be read. A famous scholar wrote several volumes of books just based on one verse of the Qur'an and it was not some fluff or tangential read.


For the vast majority of the Qur'an as well as major tenets of Islam, there is only one interpretation and that is repeatedly supported in all those steps mentioned (and then some).

But since arabic is such a rich language, one can translate one word in so many different ways. One can also prioritize the steps different (although qur'an and hadith always go 1st and 2nd).

And so begins the science of "fiqh" or jurisprudence.
Within this science there are 5 major schools, 4 sunni and 1 shia, which were led by one imam and codified into a "madhab"/school by major scholars later.

For your purposes, these schools are not that significant because the differences are so minor.
I.e. when praying there is a certain position where you raise your finger. How this finger is raised differs school to school.


Because there has been so much written in so much in detail on so many levels, there is no possible way for someone to claim with validity a new "interpretation".

Hopefully this answers your question

[Apotheoun]

Also the principle I mentioned - [i]bila kayf[/i], i.e., the principle of not trying to determine the mode or manner of existence of anthropomorphic references in connection with allah - is accepted, as far as I know, by all the schools of thought in Islam.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Pomak]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1260564944' post='2018610']
Also the principle I mentioned - [i]bila kayf[/i], i.e., the principle of not trying to determine the mode or manner of existence of anthropomorphic references in connection with allah - is accepted, as far as I know, by all the schools of thought in Islam.
[/quote]

Isn't this the athari position?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1260595181' post='2018878']
Isn't this the athari position?
[/quote]
It is the position of al-Ashari, al-Ghazali, ibn Kullab, and the other scholars who are normally called "Attributists," which should include the Athari school.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Pomak]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1260595880' post='2018889']
It is the position of al-Ashari, al-Ghazali, ibn Kullab, and the other scholars who are normally called "Attributists," which should include the Athari school.
[/quote]
Use Islamic terminology please because these Arabic terms translated into English get confusing. Are you talking about how God talks about "and when they gave bayat under the tree my hand was above theirs" and those that understand that as "we accept it but do not ask how or why"? Or am I talking about something else?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1260596716' post='2018902']
Use Islamic terminology please because these Arabic terms translated into English get confusing. Are you talking about how God talks about "and when they gave bayat under the tree my hand was above theirs" and those that understand that as "we accept it but do not ask how or why"? Or am I talking about something else?
[/quote]
No, you are not talking about something else. The principle I am talking about, and which I believe you are as well, concerns accepting the reality of an attribute (sifat) or an anthropomorphism (e.g., when the Quran speaks about allah's hand), but without trying to determine its mode of existence. Al-Ghazali touches upon this in his treatise [i]On Divine Predicates[/i], in which he speaks of the attributes or names of allah as real, but not as identified with the divine essence, and then goes on to say that one should not see these things in a creaturely way, but nor should they be allegorized.

[extempers]

The descriptions one uses for each creed vary from source to source.
I personally disagree with some points of the Athari creed,but this difference in creed is very insignificant.

But I'm confused on what this has to do with the OP?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1260610009' post='2019002']
But I'm confused on what this has to do with the OP?
[/quote]
What I am trying to determine is whether or not a Muslim must - to use your example - believe that allah really has a throne. Are the texts that speak of allah's throne to be taken literally or can a Muslim say that those texts are merely to be understood metaphorically, and thus deny that there is a real or literal throne.

In one of your posts you said:

[quote name='extempers' date='11 December 2009 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1260564654' post='2018604']
For your purposes, [b]these schools are not that significant because the differences are so minor.[/b]
I.e. when praying there is a certain position where you raise your finger. How this finger is raised differs school to school.

Because there has been so much written in so much in detail on so many levels, [b]there is no possible way for someone to claim with validity a new "interpretation".[/b][/quote]

And in an earlier post you said:

[quote name='extempers' date='10 December 2009 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1260503630' post='2018118']
These differences are [b]minor[/b] though, because the [b]concept is still understood but with different parameters.[/b] [/quote]

So, if there can be no new interpretations in connection with the meaning of the texts in the Quran on allah's throne, what exactly is the offficial meaning? Is allah's throne real (i.e., literal) or is it merely a metaphor? In other words, I am asking you to define what you meant when you said: "These differences are minor though, because the concept is still understood but with different parameters."

What are the "minor differences"? And what are the different parameters you mentioned?

Now, I am sure that this topic is complex, but if you cannot explain what you mean in saying the things you have posted how can anyone come to understand whether or not - going back to your example - allah has a real (i.e., literal) throne or whether the texts referring to his throne are to taken as mere metaphor?

Edited December 12, 2009 by Apotheoun

[extempers]

Yes, a Muslim must believe in the Throne. The most powerful verse "ayatul kursi" of the Qur'an speaks directly about the Throne.

The difference is whether God literally rises above the Throne or not. Some say that's not how we should see it, this is metaphorical, God is beyond having any direction. Others say, yes God literally rises above the Throne but we do not ask how, we only affirm what is said in the Qur'an.
In either case, the verse and the action are affirmed, but HOW the action is done is what is in question.
And this is a question that will only be answered on the Day of Judgment and rather insignificant for us.

Majority of Muslims do not know about this discussion nor should they as it has no major relevance and it is a scholarly discussion that requires major erudition.


The first post you quote is about fiqh/jurisprudence, which is entirely different than the subject we are speaking about which is aqeedah/creed/theology.

Jurisprudence is the rulings derived from the Qur'an and Hadith/sunnah.
The companions of the Prophet (s) had no disagreement on creed, but they did disagree on jurisprudence and this is ok, some say a blessing.

Prophet Muhammad (s) commanded the companions to go to the entrance of a tribe who committed war treason without stopping.
He said, "Do not pray until you get to Bani Qurayzah". On route to Bani Qurayzah the time for 'Asr (3rd prayer of the day) was drawing to a close. One group understood the prophet's command metaphorically, thinking that the Prophet (SAW) meant hurry up. A party of the believers prayed there whilst the others prayed after 'Asr time when they arrived at Bani Qurayzah.

When they next met the Prophet (SAW) they asked him who was right and who was wrong. It is important to note the response. Only one of them could have been right, but the Prophet (SAW) did not point out who that was, rather he said, "Whoever performs ijtihad (scholarly deriving of opinion based on Qur'an and sunnah) and errs will receive one reward. Whoever performs ijtihad and arrives at the correct answer gets double the reward."

Had it been unlawful to differ, the Prophet (SAW) would have rebuked those differing from the correct opinion and praised those who were right. This shows differences of opinion on jurisprudence are valid and allowable.

The scholars in the past recognised this; "The most learned amongst the people is also one who is most knowledgeable of the difference amongst the people" (Ghazali, Shawkani, Abu Zahrah)

(jannah.org)

Because we have such a long and rich history of scholarship and written material, there is no basis for new interpretation on old subjects. The consensus of the companions, the scholars of the companions, the generation after the companion, the generation after them and then the major scholars after them have all been left to us.
These subjects have already been flushed out again and again and again. One can gladly try to come up with a new interpretation, but he/she would have to read all that is out there on the subject as well as understanding the base (Qur'an and hadith)before even attempting ijtihad. And of course one must be a knowledgeable scholar with many ijazas (certificates of knowledge verified by chains of teachers going back to Prophet Muhammad (s)) before trying this.
If you only knew how much has just been written on how the finger should be moved in prayer...


On new subjects like cloning stem cell research and so on, there is a need for the major scholars to derive a ruling for the people and they have.


I hope you understand?
We are covering massive areas of study and I don't know much to begin with.
Someone with knowledge could answer these questions more succinctly and correctly than me.
I suggest visiting an imam or a scholar for more information.

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/128658/difference%20of%20opinion
-That might overload you, but hey you asked

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1260651692' post='2019274']
Others say, yes God literally rises above the Throne but we do not ask how, we only affirm what is said in the Qur'an.
[/quote]

Christians believe that are three Persons in the one God on the authority divine revelation, and Muslims say that it is illogical. Yet you believe a literal interpretation of that verse and do not think it's illogical.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1260651692' post='2019274']
Yes, a Muslim must believe in the Throne. The most powerful verse "ayatul kursi" of the Qur'an speaks directly about the Throne.

The difference is whether God literally rises above the Throne or not. Some say that's not how we should see it, this is metaphorical, God is beyond having any direction. Others say, yes God literally rises above the Throne [b][i]but we do not ask how[/i][/b], we only affirm what is said in the Qur'an.

In either case, the verse and the action are affirmed, but HOW the action is done is what is in question.

And this is a question that will only be answered on the Day of Judgment and rather insignificant for us.

. . .
[/quote]
Thanks! The boldface and italicized text is what I have been waiting for you to say for some time.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Apotheoun

[extempers]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1260652025' post='2019277']
Christians believe that are three Persons in the one God on the authority divine revelation, and Muslims say that it is illogical. Yet you believe a literal interpretation of that verse and do not think it's illogical.
[/quote]

A faulty comparison

The issue of rising above the Throne was never questioned until the works of Aristotle began to spread hundreds of years after the Prophet's (s) death. It was never a significant theological point.

It is also a minor concept regarding the nature of God, Who we have not seen and therefore all discussion is based human-made premises.


In the case of Christianity, the entire basis of theology is on a "God-man", trinity/triuneGod, sacrifice/resurrection and the need and the Forgiving nature of God.
Also Jesus (as) has been seen and his nature was well established.

It is also a categorical misunderstanding of the Islamic perspective if you think we reject the trinity solely based on logical consequences 3=1, which is still a big point.
Rather the entire idea, it's reason for being and the Nature of God in general that is objected to.

If you read the Qur'an, time and again we are told His Names and Attributes. Time and again we are minded of His Power, His unlikeness to creation. The scholars have taught, the best way to come closer to God is to recite and reflect His Names and Attributes.
This is so the human has SOME understanding of God.

You are telling us we cannot have any understanding of God because God is 3 into 1, Jesus is/was in a state of hypostatic union (fully human/fully God) and the entire understanding of God's forgiveness and sacrifice is based on this point which requires "not asking how".

Also, Christianity claims humans were made in the image of God, so there is a basis of derivation in "Being" while in Islam we say there is nothing like or equivalent in nature or being to God.

Finally, one can still be a Muslim and claim the verse about the Throne is metaphorical.
In fact some of the greatest scholars of all time had this claim.

Can one still be a Christian if they say the trinity, the resurrection, the God-man and all related concepts are metaphorical?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1260658225' post='2019338']
. . .

Can one still be a Christian if they say the trinity, the resurrection, the God-man and all related concepts are metaphorical?
[/quote]
No, a Christian must accept the Trinity, the resurrection, etc., as literal, but - quoting what you said in your earlier post - "we do not ask how."

God is beyond being, and in fact - as St. Maximos the Confessor said - "God is infinitely beyond the infinite."