Does Islam Require A Literal Reading Of The Qu'ran

[Apotheoun]

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

[i]The difference is whether God literally rises above the Throne or not[/i]. 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 [i]but we do not ask how, we only affirm what is said in the Qur'an[/i].

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]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1260658225' post='2019338']
Finally, [i][b]one can still be a Muslim and claim the verse about the Throne is metaphorical.[/b][/i] [/quote]
So which is it, does a Muslim have to believe in the Throne as something real, or can a Muslim deny the reality of the Throne reducing it to a mere metaphor?

Edited December 12, 2009 by Apotheoun

[extempers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1260661180' post='2019384']
So which is it, does a Muslim have to believe in the Throne as something real, or can a Muslim deny the reality of the Throne reducing it to a mere metaphor?
[/quote]

The Throne is not what is for discussion, I don't know of a thought or creed that denies the the Throne.

It is the Rising or istiwa and it's actual nature that is questioned.

To call the difference metaphorical misrepresents the entire Ashari creed, but I can't think of a word that will help you understand.

The basic premise of the Ashari creed is to avoid anthropomorphism.
The conjecture made upon this premise is VERY DEEP and one that I will not even attempt to comment on.

But yes, one can say istiwa is not 100% literal and be a Muslim.
There's really no comparison to be made with Christian doctrine.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1260663345' post='2019417']
The Throne is not what is for discussion, I don't know of a thought or creed that denies the the Throne.

It is the Rising or istiwa and it's actual nature that is questioned.

To call the difference metaphorical misrepresents the entire Ashari creed, but I can't think of a word that will help you understand.[/quote]
Your two posts, which I quoted appeared to be contradictory, because in one you said, "Yes, a Muslim must believe in the Throne," while in the other you said, ". . . one can still be a Muslim and claim the verse about the Throne is metaphorical," and that is why I asked my additional question. But if you notice, I did italicize the comments you made in reference to the difference about "whether God literally rises above the Throne or not," and I asked for further clarification on that point.

That said, Resurrexi was correct in his earlier post when he pointed out the similar approach of Muslims in regard to allah's attributes and whether or not allah literally rises above his throne and the way in which Christians approach the Trinity. In other words, a Christian does not claim to know [i][b]how[/b][/i], nor does he try to know [i][b]how[/b][/i], the one God is a Trinity of persons; instead, he accepts [b][i]that[/i][/b] God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because it is dogma contained in the deposit of faith given by Christ the Lord to His Holy Apostles.

In fact one of the Cappadocian Fathers - St. Gregory of Nazianzen to be precise - in a treatise written to refute a group of heretics said that a man would go crazy if he tried to delve into the Mystery of God. Here is the portion of the text in question:

"For, tell me, what position will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, the Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the Father; Who, inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested Himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and [i]we shall both of us be [b]frenzy-stricken[/b] for prying into the mystery of God.[/i] [b][i]And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?[/i][/b]" (St. Gregory of Nazianzen, [u]Fifth Theological Oration[/u], no. 8)

Thus, Christians - like Muslims in connection with allah's attributes - do not ask [b][i]how[/i][/b] God is a Trinity of persons; instead, we accept [b][i]that[/i][/b] God is a Trinity of persons because that is the teaching of the incarnate Word.

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1260663345' post='2019417']
The basic premise of the Ashari creed is to avoid anthropomorphism.
The conjecture made upon this premise is VERY DEEP and one that I will not even attempt to comment on.[/quote]
Yes, Christians also avoid anthropomorphic views (except as it concerns the Incarnate Word).

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1260663345' post='2019417']
But yes, one can say istiwa is not 100% literal and be a Muslim.
There's really no comparison to be made with Christian doctrine.[/quote]
I disagree. The two views are very similar, and both are motivated by the desire to be faithful to what we each consider to be scripture.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Hussain]

The two views are:

We do not know [i]how [/i]God is one in three Persons.

We do not know [i]how [/i]God rose over the Throne.

One has to do with the very Oneness of God, the second has to do with how God does what He does. The two are completely based on different incomparable aspects.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hussain' date='12 December 2009 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1260666276' post='2019429']
The two views are:

We do not know [i]how [/i]God is one in three Persons.

We do not know [i]how [/i]God rose over the Throne.

One has to do with the very Oneness of God, the second has to do with how God does what He does. The two are completely based on different incomparable aspects.
[/quote]
Thank you, that proves my point, since Christians believe that there is only one God. Three persons, one God.

[Apotheoun]

I remember reading al-Ghazali's text [i]On Divine Predicates[/i], and thinking how the affirmation of the reality of allah's attributes (e.g., allah's knowledge, power, life, will, hearing, seeing, and speaking) is very much like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (except that Christians are limited to three persons while al-Ghazali mentions many attributes). Christians of course affirm that God really is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but without any division or separation within the Godhead by this affirmation.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Hussain]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1260666733' post='2019433']
Thank you, that proves my point, since Christians believe that there is only one God. Three persons, one God.
[/quote]

I think you're missing the point. How can claiming three persons to God, and attributes to God be likened?

[extempers]

The perceived contradiction was my usage of the "metaphor of Throne verse" statement which I've used typically in Islamic discussions as an understanding to mean istiwa and not that the actual Throne is metaphorical.

I apologize.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1260664940' post='2019419']
Your two posts, which I quoted appeared to be contradictory, because in one you said, "Yes, a Muslim must believe in the Throne," while in the other you said, ". . . one can still be a Muslim and claim the verse about the Throne is metaphorical," and that is why I asked my additional question. But if you notice, I did italicize the comments you made in reference to the difference about "whether God literally rises above the Throne or not," and I asked for further clarification on that point.

That said, Resurrexi was correct in his earlier post when he pointed out the similar approach of Muslims in regard to allah's attributes and whether or not allah literally rises above his throne and the way in which Christians approach the Trinity. In other words, a Christian does not claim to know [i][b]how[/b][/i], nor does he try to know [i][b]how[/b][/i], the one God is a Trinity of persons; instead, he accepts [b][i]that[/i][/b] God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because it is dogma contained in the deposit of faith given by Christ the Lord to His Holy Apostles.

In fact one of the Cappadocian Fathers - St. Gregory of Nazianzen to be precise - in a treatise written to refute a group of heretics said that a man would go crazy if he tried to delve into the Mystery of God. Here is the portion of the text in question:

"For, tell me, what position will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, the Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the Father; Who, inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested Himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and [i]we shall both of us be [b]frenzy-stricken[/b] for prying into the mystery of God.[/i] [b][i]And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?[/i][/b]" (St. Gregory of Nazianzen, [u]Fifth Theological Oration[/u], no. 8)

Thus, Christians - like Muslims in connection with allah's attributes - do not ask [b][i]how[/i][/b] God is a Trinity of persons; instead, we accept [b][i]that[/i][/b] God is a Trinity of persons because that is the teaching of the incarnate Word.


Yes, Christians also avoid anthropomorphic views (except as it concerns the Incarnate Word).


I disagree. The two views are very similar, and both are motivated by the desire to be faithful to what we each consider to be scripture.
[/quote]


This is a classic and easily refuted Christian argument that concludes x and y are similar, or have a similar basis of existence, when they are not even on the same plane.
My first course on aqeedah addressed this claim; remind me, I'll send you the notes.


I guess some things are worth repetition.

1. One cannot compare a single attribute, istiwa, to the entire basis of Christianity and say they are the same. We are not even speaking of Names of God, but a single Attribute.

2. Nothing significant (at least in the context of this discussion) is derived from this Attribute to allow for it to be considered a major point of theology while the trinity is the basis of understanding Christianity.

3. One can be Muslim without knowing what istiwa is. One cannot be a Christian without knowing and believing in God-man.

4. It is categorically accepted that one can take the Ashari opinion on istiwa, which is similar to being a metaphor and still be Muslim.

5. The concept of the "unknown nature of God" cannot be applied equally to both Islam and Christianity.
Islam states nothing is like God, while Christianity states man was created in the image of God.
Islam states God has no partners/parts/beings while Christianity claims one part of the trinity was a literal man whose nature is well known and whose image is used for worship.


6. We don't have a concept of "just believe" or "blind faith" at least with major tenets of faith and theology.
The Qur'an calls us time and again to think and reflect and ponder and see His Signs.
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/articles/item.php?itemid=199


God knows best.
I hope this made sense.

Edited December 13, 2009 by extempers

[extempers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1260667043' post='2019434']
I remember reading al-Ghazali's text [i]On Divine Predicates[/i], and thinking how the affirmation of the reality of allah's attributes (e.g., allah's knowledge, power, life, will, hearing, seeing, and speaking) is very much like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (except that Christians are limited to three persons while al-Ghazali mentions many attributes). Christians of course affirm that God really is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but without any division or separation within the Godhead by this affirmation.
[/quote]

Read Al Ghazali's final book. I think you will change your opinion.

To say As-Sameer, or any of the Names listed, is similar in structure and nature to the Spirit or Jesus (as) is taking one step too far.

Never was a Name of Allah (swt) separated physically from Allah (swt) nor "seen" physically by man on this earth.
The entire basis of the Ashari creed is that these Attributes are above breaking into parts or being associated with mortals.
Every Name is Absolute and every Name is unconditional.

Finally, the issues in aqeedah are completely meaningless compared to issues of Tawheed or "Oneness of God".

For the Muslim, the Tawheed is clear and simple. For the Christian, one has to jump over many mine fields of illogical fallacies which can only be overcome by blind faith in perceived divine revelation in order to come to a label of monotheism.

Again, I repeat, there is no comparison.

God knows best
I apologize if anything I said was seen as offensive.

[mortify]

Seems like Ex acknowledges that he believes in things that are beyond his understanding, but that this is ok because they are "small pieces" of theology, so to speak. The point is God is ultimately incomprehensible, and if He were to reveal something about His inner being, it would necessarily remain beyond human grasp.

I think what might be worth discussing is that Sunnis believe the Quran is the literal speech of Allah, and that therefore the Quran is *uncreated* and *eternal.* Now this really isn't all that different from what we believe about Jesus, except that Jesus is a living Person and not a kitab.

Edited December 13, 2009 by mortify

[extempers]

[quote name='mortify' date='12 December 2009 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1260676076' post='2019499']
Seems like Ex acknowledges that he believes in things that are beyond his understanding, but that this is ok because they are "small pieces" of theology, so to speak. The point is God is ultimately incomprehensible, and if He were to reveal something about His inner being, it would necessarily remain beyond human grasp.

I think what might be worth discussing is that Sunnis believe the Quran is the literal speech of Allah, and that therefore the Quran is *uncreated* and *eternal.* Now this really isn't all that different from what we believe about Jesus, except that Jesus is a living Person and not a kitab.
[/quote]

Yes "small things" in quotes works for me. What we need in order to believe in God and understand Islam and its theology was revealed, given to the masses from the beginning, and not needed to be codified by a council 300 years later, and easily understood. The same cannot be said for Christianity at the most basic level.

As for the Qur'an, that's not really a significant argument.
When you pick a book/kitab this is not the "Qur'an" it is a mushaf. The Qur'an is the kalam/speech of God and it is eternal and uncreated like you said.
It's revelation cannot be compared to the birth, the state of nature of man of Jesus, what you believe as mortal death of Jesus and all the other fun theological points you can list.

I'm confused though, what's with this recent trend of "see, it's like Islam" arguments.
Just follow the real thing

God knows best.

Edited December 13, 2009 by extempers

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1260514482' post='2018260']
Some verses were revealed for specific reasons. For example there are verse talking about how you should fight. Some are general, while other are responses to particular aggression by Pagans/Jews.

Some verses were written during the Meccan period, while others were done during the Medina period.

This is what we mean by context of revelation.
[/quote]


This is a great thread. Informative. Thank you to our Muslims for taking the time to respond to our questions.

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1260676559' post='2019505']
Yes "small things" in quotes works for me. What we need in order to believe in God and understand Islam and its theology was revealed, given to the masses from the beginning, and not needed to be codified by a council 300 years later, and easily understood. The same cannot be said for Christianity at the most basic level.[/quote]

First of all are there small things in theology? If you reject the aya that reveals istiwa, are you still Muslim? Anything God reveals is important. Secondly, if you attack something Christians believe because it's mysterious, you're theology can be attacked for the same reason.

[quote]As for the Qur'an, that's not really a significant argument.
When you pick a book/kitab this is not the "Qur'an" it is a mushaf. The Qur'an is the kalam/speech of God and it is eternal and uncreated like you said.[/quote]

It is a significant argument because Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an *is* the speech of Allah, and not merely some sort of manifestation of that speech. How this Divine speech exists with and is united to the created element, whether it be human speech or as a mushaf, is rather similar to how the Divinity exists in and is united to Christ's humanity.

[quote]It's revelation cannot be compared to the birth, the state of nature of man of Jesus, what you believe as mortal death of Jesus and all the other fun theological points you can list.[/quote]

It can be compared since the two parallel. For you the uncreated and eternal word became kitab, for us it became a human being.

[quote]I'm confused though, what's with this recent trend of "see, it's like Islam" arguments.
Just follow the real thing [/quote]

I think the point is Muslim polemic is a double edged sword.


Wa salaam

[extempers]

[quote]
First of all are there small things in theology? If you reject the aya that reveals istiwa, are you still Muslim? Anything God reveals is important. Secondly, if you attack something Christians believe because it's mysterious, you're theology can be attacked for the same reason.[/quote]

If you reject one letter from the Qur'an then you are in trouble, but does that mean every letter is at the same level of significance for aqeedah, fiqh, maqasid shari'ah or any major science? No. Aqeedah is a science and istiwa is not a major component.
The unseen is mysterious, the nature of God alone is hard for us to grasp, but the basic understanding of God is not.
Tawheed (Oneness of God) by it's nature is simple and always has been. Every Prophetic message of the past affirms this.
From the illiterate slave to the high class intellectual, the basic understanding of tawheed is the same.
To make additions to tawheed and then say it's the same does not work. It is not in the nature of God to make the foundation of faith impossible to understand.
Either God is One or God is three persons and also One.
I mean, let's be honest, I've talked to many Christians of various knowledge levels before and they've all had problems telling me about trinity. (Some sects have even made the case that trinity is not significant but a belief in a "triune God" is.)
And yet such a foundational basis of belief in Christianity is the trinity.
I can be completely ignorant of istiwa and still be a Muslim.
A grain of sand and the Himalaya mountain range, that's as much of a similarity as I can give.



[quote]It is a significant argument because Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an *is* the speech of Allah, and not merely some sort of manifestation of that speech. How this Divine speech exists with and is united to the created element, whether it be human speech or as a mushaf, is rather similar to how the Divinity exists in and is united to Christ's humanity. [/quote]

An interesting point. So are you saying that the kalaam of Allah (swt) in its perfection which was given to us to repeat and recite and learn from is similar to "part" of God that was in need and that involved itself in activities such as digestion, urination and defecation?
And that it changed states from fetus, birth, baby, puberty, adulthood and death and then processes that required that "part" going back into being with God is also similar to our recitation of the Qur'an?
No, the mushaf is not a unified creational element of the Qur'an. I think I'll post Imam Ahmed's defense of the uncreated nature of the Qur'an, maybe it will give us a better understanding?


[quote]It can be compared since the two parallel. For you the uncreated and eternal word became kitab, for us it became a human being. [/quote]

The eternal word never became the kitab so there is no parallel. That is the distinction that will insha'Allah be more clear with Imam Ahmed's arguments.

Edited December 13, 2009 by extempers

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1260682516' post='2019547']
If you reject one letter from the Qur'an then you are in trouble, but does that mean every letter is at the same level of significance for aqeedah, fiqh, maqasid shari'ah or any major science? No. Aqeedah is a science and istiwa is not a major component.
The unseen is mysterious, the nature of God alone is hard for us to grasp, but the basic understanding of God is not.
Tawheed by it's nature is simple and always has been. Every Prophetic message of the past affirms this.
From the illiterate slave to the high class intellectual, the basic understanding of tawheed is the same.
To make additions to tawheed and then say it's the same does not work. It is not in the nature of God to make the foundation of faith impossible to understand.[/quote]

The point is God has revealed something to you that you don't necessarily understand, i.e. that He has a thrown and that He has ascended it. You accept this despite not knowing the "how." Whether you want to call this "small" is insignificant because I can attack you for accepting something that is mysterious, just as you attack the Trinity.

Now if you understand what we mean by Trinity you know it's not contrary to Tawheed.

[quote]Either God is One or God is three persons and also One. [/quote]

If I say 1 coin has 2 faces I'm not saying 1=2 because *what* I'm numbering as 1 is distinct from *what* I'm numbering as 2. Now continue this thought to the Trinity. The trinity is not 1=3, the Trinity is 1 Divine *Nature* is fully possessed by 3 *Persons*, there is a distinction here. If you understand this much you already know a lot more than the average Muslim when it comes to Christianity.

[quote]I mean, let's be honest, I've talked to many Christians of various knowledge levels before and they've all had problems telling me about trinity. (Some sects have even made the case that trinity is not significant but a belief in a "triune God" is.)
And yet such a foundational basis of belief in Christianity is the trinity.[/quote]

It depends on what you talked about. The Trinity is very straightforward: Three Divine Persons fully possess the same Divine Nature. That's it! Now if you say, wait a minute! In the created order one nature is possessed by one person, how is it that three persons possess the same Divine nature? That's delving into the "how" which is ultimately beyond us.

[quote]I can be completely ignorant of istiwa and still be a Muslim.
A grain of sand and the Himalaya mountain range, that's as much of a similarity as I can give.
[/quote]

Istiwa is a piece of a larger picture, and let's not diminish it too far since we know such issues played a big part in early Islamic theological debates. I believe it was Imam Hanbal who was whipped for refusing to reject that Allah had a "hand" even though he didn't know what it exactly meant. Even the statement on Ashari aqeedah makes it a point to mention Allah's "footstool" and attributes.

[quote]An interesting point. So are you saying that the kalaam of Allah (swt) in its perfection which was given to us to repeat and recite and learn from is similar to "part" of God that was in need and that involved itself in activities such as digestion, urination and defecation?[/quote]

I'm saying what you attribute to the Qur'an is similar to what we attribute to Jesus.

Now I have to stress that there are not parts in God since God is immaterial and simple (i.e. without parts.) Person does not equal "parts." The Father is not 33.3% God, and the Son another third, and the Spirit the last third. All three Persons *fully* possess the *same* Divine Nature.

Lastly, God is not in need of anything but because God really did become man and was like us in all ways save sin, the *flesh* He adopted did require what any human flesh would require, and this includes sustenance.

[quote]And that it changed states from fetus, birth, baby, puberty, adulthood and death and then processes that required that "part" going back into being with God is also similar to our recitation of the Qur'an?
[/quote]

When you say "it changed states" what do you mean by "it"? If by "it" you mean God that's impossible since God can't change, but human flesh can on the other hand.

Again, we're not dealing with "parts," can't stress this enough. Just because the Son incarnated doesn't mean He separated from the Trinity, all Three Persons remained and continue to remain One in Being.
[quote]
No, the mushaf is not a unified creational element of the Qur'an. I think I'll post Imam Ahmed's defense of the uncreated nature of the Qur'an, maybe it will give us a better understanding?
[/quote]
The point is you believe the text from the beginning to the end of the Mushaf is the word of Allah but the word of Allah is uncreated and eternal. Now obviously you don't believe that the ink and paper or speech produced by the human mouth is uncreated and eternal. So there is this mysterious relationship between the two, and although it's not exactly what we call the hypostatic union (the union between Christ's humanity and divinity) it is none the less similar.

[quote]The eternal word never became the kitab so there is no parallel. That is the distinction that will insha'Allah be more clear with Imam Ahmed's arguments.
[/quote]

The Quran calls itself a book (kitab) in surah baqarah aya 2 (and in many other places.) When I say it became a kitab I mean in the sense that it was made manifest by human speech, i.e. Allah revealing it to Muhammad.

I think you realize there is a similarity but this disturbs you a great deal.

Edited December 13, 2009 by mortify