Does Islam Require A Literal Reading Of The Qu'ran

[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."

[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