Challenge: Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?

[stvdv]

Koran: 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

1: Muslims believe the Koran is the word of God, so it's the "Ultimate Truth"
2: Muslims believe that when reading the Koran that God is talking to them
3: Koran 5:51 suggests Muslims are taught that Jews and Christians are NOT their friends
4: Koran 5:51 suggests the Koran is generalizing "All Christians and Jews are the same"
5: Koran 5:51 suggests the Koran is not allowing free will to a Muslim [And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them]

I as a Lover of Christ have I a friend who is a Muslim.
So the Koran is wrong to generalize and suggest that "Alle Christians and Jews are the same"
a): Hereby I have proven that the Koran should not be taken literally.
b): I and my Muslim friend are "friends and protector" of each other. For us verse 5:51 is "False"
c): I and my Muslim friend have friendship but keep our own religions. "False" again

Knowing this:
Should one still regard the Koran as the book of God?
Should one still regard the Koran as the word of God?
Should one still regard the Koran as "God talking to us"?

[If the Koran claims to be the "Ultimate Truth" should then not all verses be "True"]
[+verse 5:48 seems to complement verse 5:51 quite well]

IMHO

Note: @Sakeenah: Would have been nice if you asked Muslims to elaborate on verse 5:51

Note: @Sakeenah: Challenge in title not the best: My thought was it's a challenging idea. Not to challenge others, so seems oke [RF Rule1 "Don't quoting a member's post to challenge them"].

Note: @Lvcifer Invictvs: pointed out correctly "should be in Quranic Debates". But as this post is about 1 verse I highlighted about how Koran sees "Christians/Jews" I think it is correct here afterall. But probable the title is not so clear. Can't change that anymore. Hope this note clears the confusion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This should be here: Quranic Debates

 

[stvdv]

This should be here: Quranic Debates

I never thought of that. Thanks. Gave it a thought. I think it's also oke here.

Because it's also about "Christians and Jews", and it's about their friendship

I got this idea from "Why are Christians readily accepting of Judaic theology and not Islamic theology?"
So taking the above into account I think that by accident this post did end up in the right place afterall

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To be fair, the NT tells Christians not to be friends with non-Christians, too:

14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”[c]

17 Therefore,

“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”[d]
- 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

Lots of Christians interpret that as meaning they shouldn't have non-Christian friends, spouses or business partners. Just wanted to throw that out there before I see Christians be hypocrites in this thread. Carry on.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never thought of that. Thanks. Gave it a thought. I think it's also oke here.

Because it's also about "Christians and Jews", and it's about their friendship

I got this idea from "Why are Christians readily accepting of Judaic theology and not Islamic theology?"
So taking the above into account I think that by accident this post did end up in the right place afterall

Fair enough. It's your thread, after all.

 

[Augustus]

Hereby I have proven that the Koran should not be taken literally

The Orthodox Islamic perspective is to take some things literally, and other things figuratively.

Verses would also be interpreted within a broader context, for example, some would argue that the verse you quoted related to a specific time of conflict during Muhammad's lifetime, and is not a general injunction (others would disagree).

The text also contains numerous rhetorical features, for example 'Verily, they are the worst of creatures...' would be hyperbole, and thus not to be interpreted literally.

The sun setting into a swamp would be another passage that is generally not interpreted in a literal sense.

The degree to which things should be taken literally is obviously an area with a diversity of opinions though.

 

[stvdv]

To be fair, the NT tells Christians not to be friends with non-Christians, too

Thanks for bringing that one up. I thought "Christians didn't know Muslims when Bible was written, so Muslims can't say that Christians started this first"
But this verse speaks not explicitly about other religions, does it? So it's about interpretation, while the Koran is explicit "against" Jews and Christians"
Good point though. Might be like you said that those Christians in these days were quite judgemental and therefore even Koran correctly gave this verse

 

[YmirGF]

@Augustus has this one aced. There are passages that the "scholars" agree are literal and there are passages that many agree are meant figuratively or metaphorically.

Regarding point 3 it should be noted that Islam is a decidedly proselytizing religion and you cannot spread the message to people you refuse to talk to, so the idea that they cannot be friends cannot be literal. My guess is that it is intended to mean to not be friendly with those who are hostile. Basic marketing, really.

 

[stvdv]

Verses would also be interpreted within a broader context, for example, some would argue that the verse you quoted related to a specific time of conflict during Muhammad's lifetime, and is not a general injunction (others would disagree).

But the suggested generalization "All Christians/Jews are bad" is "wrong".
Arguments cannot change that. Those are still "False" arguments.

 

[stvdv]

There are passages that the "scholar" agree are literal and there are passages that many agree are meant figuratively or metaphorically

But the suggested generalization "All Christians/Jews are bad" is "wrong".
Arguments about it being metaphorically cannot change that. Those are still "False" arguments.

 

[Sunstone]

Most holly scriptures, including the Qur'an, were probably never meant to be entirely taken literally.

 

[Augustus]

But the suggested generalization "All Christians/Jews are bad" is "wrong".
Arguments about it being metaphorically cannot change that. Those are still "False" arguments.

Well with any exclusivist faith, all unbelievers are wrong. Also rhetorical language is not always to be taken at face value.

But in context, it could be (and often is) interpreted as 'don't form alliances with these groups in opposition to other Muslims'.

We know that there were Christians and Jews among the armies of the Arab conquerers, and that Christian groups formed alliances and were exempt from taxation.

So the earliest (proto)Muslims didn't take it literally either.

 

[stvdv]

Regarding point 3

The interesting point is point 4:
The given suggestion that "All Christians and Jews are the same" is "False" and "inflammatory" esp. when not true
If 1 verse is "False" in the book of "God" can that still be considered the book of "God"? [if God stands for "Truth"]

 

[YmirGF]

The interesting point is point 4:
The given suggestion that "All Christians and Jews are the same" is "False" and "inflammatory" esp. when not true
If 1 verse is "False" in the book of "God" can that still be considered the book of "God"? [if God stands for "Truth"]

Try convincing Muslims of that.

 

[wizanda]

Any comments?

Your poll is silly, not everything in the Quran is literal...

as a Lover of Christ have a friend who is a Muslim.
So the Koran is wrong to generalize and suggest that "All Christians and Jews are the same"

As a lover of Yeshua; we should resent Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity... Christianity is the false texts made up by Pharisaic Judaism (John, Paul, and Simon) that are anti-Christ's teachings.

Yet we shouldn't categorize them all the same, as there are loads of qualitative differences why Rabbinic Judaism is Anti-Messiah, and why Christianity is anti-Christ's teachings.

Should one still regard the Koran as the book of God?
Should one still regard the Koran as the word of God?
Should one still regard the Koran as "God talking to us"?

The Quran is a recitation from an Angel to man, it never was the word of God...

Yet it clearly has knowledge about global eschatology, so shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

No book should be deemed the Word of God; as the whole of reality is the Words of God.

In my opinion.

 

[stvdv]

So the earliest (proto)Muslims didn't take it literally either

I agree to that. Don't take the Koran literally.
So that being out of the way we can go on.

If the Koran need not be taken literally, then it means you can take it in any other way. Figuratively for example. Because it is not written which verses are literal and which not, then all the verses are "fair game". When that is the case, then the whole Koran is up for personal interpretation.

So I would not claim such a book as being a book of "The Truth". I would more say it's kind of: "Travelguide for humans"

 

[stvdv]

Your poll is silly, not everything in the Quran is literal

Good point.

There are many Muslims who don't read Koran, but blindly believe Imaam and his interpretation. Forgetting that, if Koran is not meant to be taken literal, it is also not meant to be taken literal by scholars in Koran. The Koran seems more to me like a guidebook to find out your own "Truth". Keeping you sharp by giving some literal verses and others not literal. Also I would not call the Koran "The Truth", because when verses are figuratively meant it means they are "fair game" for individual personal interpretation.

So the Koran can be seen as a "Personal Truth", not a "Universal Truth".

IMHO

 

[stvdv]

Try convincing Muslims of that.

When I saw you replied my first thought was "Oke, there we go, he will give me a big challenge"
Didn't see that one coming. Good I didn't put it in "their corner" this time. I need better arguments, and even then

 

[stvdv]

Your poll is silly, not everything in the Quran is literal

You know that, I know. But I dare Muslims to chose the poll "As a Muslim I No"....the Koran must NOT be taken literal"

Because what I see around me, there are some who seem to take verses quite literal. That's why I was curious. Non-Muslims I didn't expect to take Koran verses literal. But Muslims I'm not sure, there might be one

But if there is 1 I think he might use "Takiyya". So I would not be surprised if the poll get zero Muslim voters. And even if that happens that would say a lot.

 

[stvdv]

Try convincing Muslims of that

Might be easier than you think, don't you think?

I dare them answer the poll:
"don't take verses literal" makes verses "fair game", so verses become "Personal Truth" and "Not Universal Truth", not "God's Truth"
"Take verses literal" can be easily proven "False"
"leave poll empty" means accept defeat

To admit one should take verses "not literal" is relatively easy for a Muslim
To admit verse is not "Universal Truth", not "God's Truth" might be more difficult for a Muslim