Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- abbuke
- Member
- offline
Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument
OP - November 14, 2014, 12:08 AM

Hello,

I don't know if any muslim apologist hijacked this verse but I asked myself if this verse could be used as a justification for the allegedly abundance of metaphors in Quran.

Do you think it is possible?

"It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding."

I tried to understand how this could be rationalised by them and a pattern to the "metaphorical argument" could be claimed. And I'm thinking how can we refute it.

The verse says "mutashabihat" which I think means "one which resembles". The verse is understood to be referring to unclear passages throughout the exegesis literature, such as to "word of god" or "spirit of god" utilised in Quran to describe Jesus. But saying that it also refers to allegedly allegoric verses like formation of the universe, the tonality of Quran when it expects one to be surprised at how the sky doesn't fall, or how the moon and sun doesn't overlap... is another thing.

Is this verse ever understood by some apologists to mean that way?

If yes, could we found a fallibility at this claim?

I think they can't claim such a thing because the verse requires "man of understanding" to say "we believe in it, those are from God"; it seems that this verse is told in a context of doubt about the divinity of other verses. Never in the history we found a claim of doubt about the divinity of verses concerning scientific mistakes of Quran - except that them being taken at face value and even interpreted. From which may come my second objection which is because the verse tells only Allah knows its meaning and men of understanding will be "reminded of it".

If eventually, apologists would say about the scientifically mistaken verses "we believe in it, those are from god"; this would maybe make them a man of understanding but, almost all the muslims before the time when those mistakes are demonstrated, including Muhammad and the "rightly guided" caliphs disqualified - as they seem not to understand that those are mutashabih verses and there is a hidden truth behind them. Moreover, they even seem to speculate over their meaning - which sounds far from the attitude that this verse excepts one to behave - as Ali for example thinks that rain water comes from the Milky Way, and Muhammad counts the days of the week for the creation of the universe and others. They just don't seem to accept it as "mutashabih". I'd like to hear your comments about it - if my reasoning is sound.

Lastly, this puts Allah in a pathetic position as; that claim would imply that Allah had some verses which are not clear, which he expects to be accepted as they are; we didn't know which verses was those verses until some verses proved to be false according to new scientific discoveries and they dropped in the category of "mutashabihat". What's more, it seems that the one of the two criteria for a verse to be mutashabihat, could be according to those apologists its seeming contradiction with science (the other being "unclear"ness of the verse). This leaves the question "why a hidden truth would be concealed behind a scientifically mistaken verse - what are those verses' knowledge, etc.)

Anyways, I never saw there is such an apologist. I don't even know why I made this brain 'training'. It seems I was so much familiar with the apologist thinking that I started to make arguments and refute them.

I'm so eager on hearing your comments!
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument
Reply #1 - November 14, 2014, 01:43 AM

I'm not going to be a lot of help with this argument, but I'm glad to see that you posted on ex-christian net! They will be able to give you a unique perspective which should help you a lot in getting over your fears.

The Quran says its written in clear Arabic, except when it says it's not. I mean you can never get one single answer out of the damn thing because as Zaotar and other contributors have been showing it simply isn't a monolithic text meticulously composed from the sayings of one guy in 7th century Arabia. It is a haphazard mishmash of monotheistic preaching which is poorly smoothed over leading to the inconsistency of the text.

If passages that read like literal fact in the Quran are, in fact, metaphorical, then maybe even the heaven and hell verses are metaphorical! What if heaven is just a happy inner state knowing you are living a righteous life, while hell is just internal turmoil due to being someone who spends their time being selfish and deceitful?

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument
Reply #2 - November 14, 2014, 02:26 AM

I always think one of the funniest things about 3:7 is that it says the Book has parts which are 'clear' and parts which are not 'clear.' But it can't even manage to be clear about whether it is clear or not! Some Muslims claim that 3:7 should be interpreted, in harmony with dogmas about 'clear Arabic,' as saying all Qur'anic verses are 'clear' or 'specific' if you read them with the 'right heart.' Other Muslims say it is talking about how some parts of the Qur'an are inherently ambiguous/unclear, while others are clear (a perfect example of what is demonstrably unclear lies a few lines above ... 3:1, "Alif Lam Meen.").

To this traditional unclarity about its clarity, I would add my observation that it's not clear either which Book is being referred to in 3:7. Read by itself, one might think it refers to how the Believers believe in ALL of the Scripture that was delivered to prior Messengers (unlike the Jews), and although the Scripture is unclear, they are following the RIGHT interpretation of it due to their pure hearts (unlike Orthodox Christians, who also believe in all the Book, but get its meaning wrong due to their depravity). This is actually similar to the "it's entirely clear" Muslim reading, that the book is ambiguous but its meaning becomes clear when read with righteous understanding.

Why is it being called the "Book" anyways in 3:7? I thought we were talking about oral recitations? Any answers, o ye of clarity? My own answer is that the original text was giving the view stated above, about the Holy Scriptures (Bible, Psalms, Injil), which collectively are the Book being referred to, and only secondarily was this text later Islamicized with references to the Qur'an in following ayas (which, by traditional Muslim accounts, could not have existed as a Book at this point).

Also unclear why Surah 3 is one of the three "Medinan" Surahs which is prefaced by 'mysterious letters,' which ordinarily appear only in Meccan Surahs (my answer -- the beginning of Surah 3 is plainly archaic, and has been secondarily Islamicized).

There is no other book like the Qur'an, I will grant that it is inimitable in many respects! A book that claims to be clear, but also unclear, except that these claims of clarity/unclarity ... are themselves radically unclear. This is something special.
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument
Reply #3 - November 14, 2014, 02:58 AM

No part of religious which is seen as good or not particularly harmful ever gets metaphorised.
It's amusing how it's the the parts of religious scriptures which are barbaric for today's values or Scientifically disproved that are required to be "metaphorised".
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument
Reply #4 - November 14, 2014, 11:13 AM

This CEMBadmins video talks about the "metaphorical" claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJrD2V7nZWw
- abbuke
- Member
- offline
Quran 3:7 - and "it's all metaphorical" argument
Reply #5 - November 28, 2014, 01:47 PM

I agree that the verse is unclear about how unclear the quran is on its "unclear" verses.

In tafsir of Ibn Kathir this verse is "probably" said after the battle of badr. And the whole surah is named after the family of Mary, where it talks later on with verses that are said after Muhammad's encounter with the christians of Najran. That verse is also traditionally interpreted as referring to the attributes of God, or the attributes of Jesus as the Word of God or Spirit of God. In that verse, it is also said that the allegorical/metaphorical (don't know what muteshabih means truly) are to be "followed". So I guess they are some verses to be acted upon or to build one's faith upon.

When I think about the cosmology described in Quran, about which this verse is hijacked, Muhammad himself believes what he says literally, as from what we can understand in his hadith. It also sounds like there is a concern for persuasion behind the verses such that; some of them are said in response to questions ("they ask you about ..."). All in all, these verses seem to try to get some "message" through; rather than hiding a meaning which only god knows. Besides, the very word of "sign" seems to refer to something which would lead the unbeliever to believe.
"Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord."
Muhammad thinks that, by these cosmological statements, he actually "explains the signs in detail", one cannot explain the signs in detail and at the same time hide their meaning in god's knowledge, this is against the very purpose of explaining. I think these are not those verses that Muhammad thinks are misinterpreted in his time, these are so clear in his mind, they have evidence-value.

So I conclude that in these verses Muhammad's understanding of mutashabihat, was that of Tafsir of Ibn Kathir.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »