Is the Qur'an Supposed to Be Read Literally? | Dr. Javad Hashmi
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
5 022 Рет қаралды
This is a clip from my discussion with Javad Hashmi concerning his recent work on Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah and the narrative approach to reading the Qur'an. This approach seeks to read the Qur'an symbolically as a work of narrative rather than accurate history or science.
You can find the full interview here: • Javad Hashmi: The Qur'...
I hope you enjoy this video and please remember to like the video and subscribe to the channel to keep seeing more content like this!
If you truly want clarity then just check out Marvelous Quran with an empty cup and just let the evidence based-knowledge take over.
The understanding methodology of the text of the Qur'an belong only to Allah, that is why the Qur'an is a miracle. If you try to rely on any human being to understanding the Qur'an, Allah will not allow it, because that is called Shirk, and you will gain nothing from the Qur'an except for confusions. I learn from Marvelousquran channel that Allah provide the organic methodology from within the Qur'an,to learn the text of the Qur'an by activating miracle from the text of the Qur'an, because Al Qur'an is a miracle, of course you need a miracle phenomenon to learn the text of the Qur'an.
Very interesting conversation! I see a lot of Marvelous Qur'an viewers in the comments. This is because a lot of similar questions are asked and tackled on that channel. A game changing paradigm shift occurs when we realize that the Qur'an is unique, with its own methodology for engaging it found within the Qur'an itself. Dr. Hany Atchan of the Marvelous Qur'an channel does a great job of unearthing and documenting this methodology, in a sequential and academic way, while tackling many profound questions (some of which were mentioned in this video) along the way. It will be interesting to listen to the views of scholars like yourselves on the Organic Qur'anic Methodology!
Salaamun alaykum,the quran itself answers these questions.and there is a channel that details how to understand these ayats.marvelous quran.
Your argument is the same as christianity and Jewish people when they defend themselves 😂😂 this way of speaking don't work at all to defend a GOD
Salaamun Alaykum, I would like to recommend the Marvelous Quran channel to you. It features insightful discussions by Dr. Hani on a variety of topics that I believe you will find quite enlightening.
100% agree that we need a paradigm shift.
Salaamun Alaykum, I would like to invite you and your viewers to investigate Dr. Hanys Marvellous Quran yt 93 regarding Organic Quranic Methodology, which I hope will help in answering some of the questions you've raised here
Dear Dr Reynolds and Dr Hashmi. According to objective literary analysis, why would the "author(s)" of the Quran repeat the supposedly same story with slightly different variations? Are these stories really telling us about one same event? Those questions are what being researched at Marvelous Quran channel and we have been finding groundbreaking answers! Therefore I invite you to learn the proper methodology to understand the Quran derived from the Quran itself and to get in touch with Dr Atchan. I hope collaboration of experts will yield beautiful results and help the spread of Quranic knowledge to the general public. Please refer to these segments YT157 kzhead.info/sun/pb2bdKWIeYiFenk/bejne.htmlsi=5cTfuAprzJ9b8obi YT93 kzhead.info/sun/ptCmmMuDoaOQaZE/bejne.htmlsi=xplKdnj_O7XMwbLl MS63-2 kzhead.info/sun/e9ijfMqDcIWkY5s/bejne.htmlsi=94bcLK5NYYWQO3z0
I truly appreciate Dr. Hashmi's intellectual honesty, and obvious deep interest in this field.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *📚 Quran should be read as literary art, not literal history, to avoid misinterpretations.* 01:20 *🤔 Traditionalist Muslims often interpret Quranic stories as literal history, leading to tensions with external historical and scientific data.* 02:44 *🔄 Reading parallel passages in the Quran reveals variations and challenges the notion of literal interpretation.* 04:04 *🌍 Different models of Quranic revelation exist, with classical Islamic philosophers advocating for symbolic language conveying deeper truths.* 07:30 *📜 Harmonization of Quranic narratives by Muslim scholars overlooks the different purposes and contexts of the stories.* 10:28 *🔄 Variants in Quranic quotes attributed to different figures challenge the notion of a single, verbatim revelation.* 15:30 *📚 Quranic stories often serve typological purposes, reflecting Prophet Muhammad's contemporary circumstances.* 19:02 *🤔 Superimposing theological beliefs onto the Quranic text can lead to misinterpretations, especially regarding issues like predestination.* Made with HARPA AI
Perhaps the gravest mistake a student of the Qur’an can make is to place the different episodes of the same story side by side and look at them in isolation from the surah context in which they appear. The result of this approach is utter confusion, for each episode is designed and linguistically framed to suit its surah context. The phrase قال الملأ for instance occurs ten times in the Qur’an, but in Q 7 alone it occurs seven times, indicating that the focus of the surah is on the role of the elite in rejecting the Prophets and thus justifying why قال الملأ is also used in the case of Moses. While in Q 20, it is قال للملأ, the Qur’an intentionally changes its style to emphasize this particular point. We know that l, of all the Prophets in the Qur’an, Moses is the only Prophet who was sent to an autocratic tyrant, whereas other prophets were sent to their people and the real opposition they faced was from the elite. In the case of Moses, the role of the elite is secondary. But their role in Q 7 was made more dominant because that was the main theme of the surah. Only when we study each episode within its own context and within the diction of the surah, can we understand the reason behind the different wording of each version. This applies to all repeated episodes in the Qur’an.
Then we will pick the one for what we want to achieve in a particular moment.
Does that mean that the repeated episodes should not be taken as literal fact, but instead be examined based on the significance they add to the surah they’re found in? If the same episode is mentioned in two different Surahs, and explained in conflicting ways, doesn’t that mean these episodes cannot be taken as literal fact?
I grew up in an educated environment and knew quite a few Muslims in my younger life none of them were particularly devout and my upbringing taught me not to pry into their beliefs. Recently I encountered Dawahists who belive in a litelral view of the Quran mistakes and contradictions be damned. It's like being in a time machine. These people hold a moral view of how to treat others that comes out of the bronze age. I cannot reconcile that these people share the same faith as the people i knew in college.
The Quran seems to portray Allah as a real entity, but perhaps it is more a symbolic entity ,that seems real to us.
@exploringthequranandthebible I know this is off-topic but I don’t hear much scholarship on the Tang Dynasty accounts of visiting Arab envoys. Are you aware of academics who might share insights on those accounts? I would be very interested indeed! Thanks so much for your unique and informative channel and for the hard work you invest into it.
Mel at Islamic Origins have touched upon this. He is in contact with a Chinese scholar that has found things in their archives, if I'm correctly informed.
@@bonnarlundawhat are we talking about? What does the Chinese have to do with it, and the author from the Islamic origins channel against Islam
@@user-zi5hd3rt4m it’s an independent source not influenced by Umayyad/Abbasid transition. It’s extremely valuable in this regard.
@@user-zi5hd3rt4m I see your point regarding Mel’s bias, but I think his overall emphases is to discover and assimilate new information regarding the origins of Islam. I see Islam entering a time of scrutiny similar to what Christianity faced at the turn of the 19th century.
@@user-zi5hd3rt4m The Tang Dynasty was Chinese. The one asking wondered why there isn't much discussion about Chinese sources and if there is any academic who knows anything. I happen to know that Mel has such a contact, which proves there are Chinese academics who know of islamic sources in their own archives. It's about research, not opinion.
Statements could be said in different settings....lets analyze each example
Bringing tourch or warmth is common sense. The sequence of words may be different to keep the Rythm, Tempo, Cadence and Symmetry of the Surah.
Like he said, each of these can be accommodated. 😊 The point of concern was, "What exactly was spoken", if the audio was recorded, which sequence of words came out? It's illogical that multiple versions can both be correct. Therefore, we're already forced to accept some level of subjectivity to the words spoken. Of course, the words couldn't have been Arabic either - this is another reason the Quran cannot be taken hyper-literal.
The Quran itself is proof of its own non-literalism. People pick and choose the parts they want to be literal, insert words and distort the meaning of words, to ensure they can hold on to pre-existing mostly indentitarian/Islamist ideologies. And that's why we Muslims keep on scoring own goals. We want our bread buttered on both sides.
Give example of where you have "difficulty" in reading Quran
No one is saying Quran is pre-created as its part of Lohil-Mehfooz which was created after the Arsh, Kursi, Pen etc
Hallo greet and bless
EXAMPLES bro???
Great idea. Will we be willing to listen???
Did Allah come down and teach the notary to write? Of course not
"The basic point is" you are glancing over it and need to delve in
I agree with Dr. Hashmi on not taking the Quran (and related texts) literally, however I think he, himself, is falling into the trap of taking some parts of it literally. For example, Dr. Hashmi says that he disagrees with Ahmad ibn Hanbal's position that the Quran is uncreated & eternal. However in doing so, he is assuming that Ahmad ibn Hanbal was referring to the book that we today call "the Quran". He is also assuming that when this book says "Quran" that it is referring to itself. These are bold assumptions that I don't think he is even aware he is making. When one comes to the realisation that literalism is a fool's errand, then one has to throw out everything they think they know about the text. All of that past baggage would have come by way of literalism. Furthermore, one should not make the assumption that these early Muslim scholars were literalists. Even though their books may, with today's understanding of them, be seen as endorsing literalism -- we should keep an open mind. For all we know even the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah may have been a non-literalist, and there may be a non-literal way to interpret his writings.
Yes so true ! I remember the first time I stared reading the Quran - and the Quran would mention “the Quran” - i kept thinking “so where is this Quran that the Quran is talking about?” Also - some of the mentions of this “Quran” are in very early Meccan suras. Of course the response of a religious Muslim would be something like “the Quran was revealed in portions over long period of time and it is normal for the Quran to speak of itself even from the beginning”. Personally I think it is a lousy explanation- but religious people often forget reason.
@@MBiernat0711 when do you think the Quran started to become the Quran according to you? Is it when it became 114 surrahs, or when it was 40 or 60 or 70% complete
@@MBiernat0711 I think your understanding of what a book is, what I consider lousy
@@willsimp1273 according to me - solely based on a hunch - parts of the “Quran” date to around 150-100 years before Hijra as Christian stories (story of the 7sleepers) and also Arab apocalyptic poetry. Eventually- I think - the final version of the Quran was put together by Abd Al Malik and al Hajjaj who finalized the edition of the Quran, removing most of the references to Jesus AS Muhammad and inserting phrases like “Allah and his messengers” instead of “Allah and his Messenger” - one messenger- that is Jesus.
@@willsimp1273 you are cordially entitled to your opinions:)
The “news in the fire” would be allusion to the presence of Allah or Muhammad as appearing to Moses. Again - another reference to the “primordial Christ” or the “angel of God” who appeared to both Abraham and Moses. That “presence” is called Muhammad - Mesih The “News” or the “good news” is a reference to the Gospel
The angel of God is Gabriel . Not christ idk why people insist putting Christ in the beginning(primordial). But yet don’t follow the laws from it which he followed and taught . All these scriptures are related to each other with the final version correcting anything of the past that was omitted. But now the last version following the same steps as their past scriptures by adding secondary books to supposedly explain something that has been explain and precise from start of the last version
@@deerugz2152 it is how people understood “angels” or messengers. So the “angels” who appeared to Abraham are emanation of God and are different from angels like Gabriel or Michael - and the “Spirit of God” is all together different from angels instead that only the Quran seems to mist them up sometime … In the Quran rasul can be a person or an angelic being, just like Jesus could be understood by Christians as a man but also the Word/Logos of God that is eternal. People use religious imagination to create their own versions of the perceived “Unseen” -
@@MBiernat0711 well that’s your Christian point of view . I was one for 30 something years the more I read the more I understood why it became a book of adding and subtracting . Everyone contradicts Jesus teaching which were up to par with the old teaching . But I respect your opinion peace be upon you
@@deerugz2152 yes it is true that Jesus’s teachings are somewhat contradictory in the Gospel- that is because Christians wanted to maintain the worship of the Jewish god - who is rather a cruel, vengeful bastard- with the God of Jesus - who is as a loving Father. But those two ideas on God can not be reconciled. Jesus can not be both the “prince of peace” and come from the clouds with swords to kill off his enemies. These are completely different ideas. Now within Islam - they inherited the duality of God and Jesus from the previous religions - but gradually the idea was developed amongst Muslims that only the Quran is the “uncorrupted” word of Allah - and that it was a waste of time or even forbidden to read the Gospel. Also - the Muslim folk were attracted to the “sword carrying Jesus” because they liked the Jewish idea of a warrior Messiah. Again - Jesus is no warrior. So now we have this situation where virtually no Muslim person is familiar with the teachings of Jesus- and they assume that Jesus is just repeating the Mosaic laws and that the God he loves is like Yehova or Allah. Of course noting could be farther from truth :)
Muslim are aware and knowledgeable of Jesus . The part you haven’t mentioned is the authors of the gospel used today. Are based on anonymous authors and then named under a pen name which Christians theologians and historians have proof since the cannon used was written in Greek Even writing from Paul you can see some were plagiarized from Greek philosophers. At the end I read all myself and determined which one makes more sense you can follow the 1st commandment and label jesus the same as the creator it just don’t make sense to any critical thinker
The honest approach is to stop claiming that the Quran is the direct word of Allah because it seems like Allah is a worse communicator than men.
LMAO 😂 *Qur’an 3:7* - *_He is the One who has revealed to you the Book (the Qur’an). Out of it, some verses are Muhkamat (of established meaning), which are the principal verses of the Book, and some verses are Mutashabihat (whose definite meanings are unknown). Now those who have perversity in their hearts go after such part of it as is Mutashabih, seeking (to create) discord, and searching for its interpretation (that meets their desires), while no one knows its interpretation except Allah; and those well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe therein; all is from our Lord.” Only the men of understanding observe the advice._*
@@MuhammadAbdullah-kx3kn That verse is proof that the Quran was written by men. A true God does not fear man questioning his authority. It is only a human tyrant pretending to be a messenger who prefers the sycophant who is led by his heart and not by his mind. On the other hand, Yahweh the true God of this universe does not fear man's questioning mind and urges him in the bible to question everything. Belief grounded in ignorance is what a false God would prefer.
@@fedesetrtatio1 *Christianity: **_The belief that God sacrificed God for God to save God's children from God. I SAY THAT WITH CROSSED EYES! 😵 This is where logic drew its gun and shot itself in the head!_* 😂
@@MuhammadAbdullah-kx3kn You not only say that with crossed eyes but with a crooked mind too. The “core” message of Christianity is a message of love and redemption, salvation and hope. It is the message of the person of Jesus Christ, who walked this earth 2000 years ago. To know and understand the Christian faith one must know Jesus, in his person, words, and deeds.
@@fedesetrtatio1 The Europeans knew and understood Christianity very correctly. That's why the vast majority of the EU population now is either Agnostic or Atheist. Remember the French Revolution in which Christianity was removed from European society because it was full of nonsense and oppression. A new idea was concocted known as Liberal Secularism. This new Creed REPLACED CHRISTIANITY in the West. Present-day Christianity has been completely Liberalized, and Secularized, and Christians can't even understand this fact. Everything that is forbidden in the Bible has been legalized in Modern WOKE WESTERN society 🤭🧠
not too sure why Gabriel finds what language the Quranic Prophets were speaking in to be some interesting theological question ( 17:05) It’s pretty simple. Basic, even: “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” Surah Ibrahim ayah 4
But it was also sent in seven copies to seven cities. And the followers who recited the texts noticed that they didn't have the exact same versions. Upon asking, mhmd said it was ok, didn't he. Not to mention that there were no diacritics in those times.
@@bonnarlunda i think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m talking about the language that Prophets before Muhammad SAW spoke, according to the Quran (Adam AS, Nuh AS, Ibrahim AS etc.) i’m saying that Gabriel is making a mountain out of a molehill by claiming it’s an interesting theological question as to what language these prophets are presented as speaking in the Quran, when the Quran clearly says that the prophets spoke in the language of their own people. P.S the latest research according to Hythem Sidky says it was 4 garrison towns, not 7. I think you’re mistaking the number of copies sent to the towns with the 7 ahruf Hadith. On top of this, all of this took place after Muhammad SAW had passed away so this canonization project took place under the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan(RA). As for your comments about the diacritics, I will once again cite Hythem Sidky; his latest publication argues for an oral tradition that dates back to the canonization project done by Uthman RA
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 When is the Uthmanic recension first recorded?
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 I think the theological point may be that the Quran represents a translation from the original language and perhaps cannot contain every nuance and meaning. Similar to an Arabic speaker claiming that I cannot understand the Quran because I don’t speak Arabic. What do you think?
@@tjbergren i think that the Quran is paraphrasing what they’re saying but also using it’s own wording in a way that most effectively communicates whatever message is being conveyed. thus, any loss of historical nuance isn’t a problem.
like what ? give an example to any historical event that was mentioned in Quran and is not matching the reality ?
Humanity beginning with Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, men becoming apes rather than vice versa.
More than 1300 years have passed since the alleged compilation of the quran, and its nature and function is still open to debate. 😐 Keep in mind that the quran is supposed to correct and inform the Bible...
only these modernest non muslims who debating
and about that long since the bible was invented and still christians can't agree on what it means.
Not really.. Nothing to debate.. Only book left unchanged.. But hard for many to grasp.. Lol.. Hence "debates"
@@shehzadmahroof8386 that copies of lies remain stable doesn't mean your lies are true.
It is not open to debate, just some idiots and clowns like these in the video yapping now and then. Mainstream Islamic theology and eschatology has remain fixed since the past 1400 years. Do some research and reading!
If one entertains the idea that the Quran was revealed by Allah/God then you end up with these endless theological debates and discussions about the reason for this and that, for example why the same story appears as different in the Quran. If you drop the assumption regarding the intervention of Allah in the revelation of the Quran (för which there is no historical evidence or logical explanation) then it all becomes much easier to explain. Trying to square theology with history is a non-starter in my opinion.
Like Jewish and christianity 😂😂😂
There is no need to make it hard. The Quran related parts of the stories and didn't tell some parts. That's not contradiction or a reason not to take the stories literally.
Mutazilah recycling ♻️ 🥱😴
If Prophet Luth is giving dawah repeatedly to his people sometimes he will ask one question sometimes another and sometimes no questions. So Allah is giving us glimpses from these past people's lives to draw a moral lesson from. Of course Luth didn't speak Hijazi Quraishi Arabic these statements are those people's translations. It would be ridiculous to quote people in different languages unless those phrases were common or adopted by this language such as "bona petite" or "Allahu-Akbar" etc
Truth still needs to be based on a historical foundation. If nothing in the Quran can be affirmed, then it is not a reliable texts about truth. Certainly figurative language is permissible, but if nothing grounds it, it is not worth being called truth.
History doesn’t really deal with “truth “. It’s about levels of confidence and being methodical.
@@iiddrrii6051 The Quran fails that.
@@chrisazure1624 Every book and account fails. Perhaps only digitally-signed video can be fully reliable. However, some consider the Quran to be a-historical. It rarely references actual events and even then, never in detail.
It makes truth claims we can test. The wall of Dhul Qarnayn, the hordes of Yajuge and Majuge, the stones that pelted the people of the elephant outside Mecca and that Mecca is as old as Abraham. No one has found a giant wall between two mountains made of iron and copper. The people like hordes have not been found either. The hardened clay stones should exist since they are basically pottery and we have pottery much older. And no archaeology supports the age of Mecca even though has been dug up for development. None have been found. No connection to the land. In contrast, the Odyssey is considered fiction, but we found Troy indicating it has at least a hint of truth about it.
@@chrisazure1624 People have deep personal faith in the Quran. Of course many take it literally, which is, like you pointed out, quite problematic. However, Dr. Hashimi advances the position that these can be allegorical and stories which confer wisdom. Greek mythology also has fantastic stories, we don't take them literally, even though the stories have their own value. Personally, I believe the Quran was actually intended to be taken literally; and I cannot reconcile it's content with my rational thinking. However, I still find the Quran to have it's own beauty.
You can spot a Deviant as soon as he violates verse 3:7 (delving into Mutashabihats without knowledge)
You BOZOS....the story of a particular event needs to be read togather to get the 3D imagry of what happened. For example the story of Adam and Iblees is mentioned 7 times but if you dont read them all together you may miss that Iblees was a Jinn which is only mentioned in 1 of the 7. This was i the earliest verdion revealed in 18:50 while all others were revealed subsequently. The Sahaba would know this already but if you read from Baqarah onward you may be confused for 1/2 the Book till you get to 18:50. Also remember the revelatory sequence and context of revelation is important to know why additional details were given.
Revelatory Question is not as historic, as you think
@@ekadria-bo4962 how so
I hope to God Javid doesn’t believe most of the Quran is allegorical and “supposed” to be not read literally 🤦🏾♂️. If he believes that then he’s a progressive secular liberal which fine but don’t impose that on the Quran
Javid left the fold of Islam a long time ago brother. He is trying to secularize Islam just like the West completely secularized Christianity. Allah says in the Qur’an (3:7) - *_He is the One who has revealed to you the Book (the Qur’an). Out of it, some verses are Muhkamat (of established meaning), which are the principal verses of the Book, and some verses are Mutashabihat (whose definite meanings are unknown). Now those who have perversity in their hearts go after such part of it as is Mutashabih, seeking (to create) discord, and searching for its interpretation (that meets their desires), while no one knows its interpretation except Allah; and those well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe therein; all is from our Lord.” Only the men of understanding observe the advice._*
@@MuhammadAbdullah-kx3knmeh. Tons of Muslims don’t accept other Muslims; plenty of Sunni don’t accept Shi’a and so on. There will never be unanimous agreement on what the “true” Muslim is.
Ring Structure of Quran gldefeats your narrative..
And also, make "literal history" defeated.
@@ekadria-bo4962 how so
I could listen to Prof Gabriel all day about the Quran and islamic theology, he is a scholar. I cannot do the same with Javad Hashmi. He is more known for being a political activist and an ideologue than he is known for being a quranic or a muslim scholar. Sorry, no one can take his opinions seriously.
Yes - the “Kitab Allah” or “Al bayyina” are symbols of Christ . That is how they are eternal.
Yep and Chris will come back and follow Imam Mahdi as A Saint
@@shehzadmahroof8386 the reciters of the Quran fully expected the Last Hour to happen in their lifetime. So yes - they expected the return of Muhammad in the physical body. I’m not familiar with Shia Islam so much - one would need to look at how Islam broken into fractions- as far as I know that happened later … possibly AFTER it was obvious to people that Jesus is not coming back anytime soon - so the new tradition had to be invented where “prophet Muhammad” appeared as a persona separate from the Muhammad Mesih
@MBiernat0711 No they didn't expect the Last Hour to happen in their lifetime, and there was no "Muhammad Mesih". That's Christian apologist revisionism.
@@issamedin306 “warning” and a description of the Last Hour, condemning of those who reject the messengers of Allah and those who deny the Last Judgment is one of the most important themes of the Quran. Of course the expectation of the Last Judgment is high even though the prediction is not made. This is because the Quran sides with the Gospel claim that “no one knows the hour”. So the expectation is high - like in the times of Jesus - but the prediction is not made.
@@MBiernat0711 Warning and description is because the Quran is the last revelation, not because the Last Hour was going to happen in their lifetime.
like all cultists, these ones can't agree which parts should be read as literal, metaphor, etc. both christains and muslims pick and choose what they want, often trying to make their ignorant books sound less ridiculous.
*Qur’an 3:7* - _He is the One who has revealed to you the Book (the Qur’an). Out of it, some verses are Muhkamat (of established meaning), which are the principal verses of the Book, and some verses are Mutashabihat (whose definite meanings are unknown). Now those who have perversity in their hearts go after such part of it as is Mutashabih, seeking (to create) discord, and searching for its interpretation (that meets their desires), while no one knows its interpretation except Allah; and those well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe therein; all is from our Lord.” Only the men of understanding observe the advice._
@@MuhammadAbdullah-kx3kn yep, the bible has something similar, and it's full of ignorance and lies too. It's great how these moron gods can't make themselves understood. every cult claims that those outside the cult are evil. Happily, the sadistic little fantasies of these cults will never come true.
Deviants delve into Mutashabihats (verse 3:7)
"most Muslim scholars" is a phrase that should be removed from english unless a cross-generational voting took place
What a DEVIANT! You cannot tell people how to read Quran.