Are the stories in the Quran meant to be literal history?

There we go. We're back. Uh my interest in the topic is from an Islamic academic theological perspective. So I Islamic academic which Islamic academic theology is the idea that we take the insights the critical scholarly insights of the western academy and we apply those to our theology our Islamic religion and c does it change our views at all so what I'm trying to do is uh anyways that's something else but uh we're through this book and what this author is arguing I think he has hit the nail on its head Okay.

He has said that the Quran should not be read as a book of history or science rather it should be read as a book of literature and it's a sacred literature but it's literature and prophets and the Quran the Quran is a manifestation of this divine art this uh literary art. So these stories, we should not understand them as literal historical events.

Like I'll give you an example and I and I actually taught this in my class. I thought I thought I would get banned but surprisingly I got away with it. [laughter] But that's that's thanks to the Gambi Center for their openness. But um let's take the story of the people of the cave. Okay, if you actually YouTube, you can find a quote unquote documentary on the supposed site of the cave and then you go inside and they're actually they show the the objects that these uh uh people of the cave supposedly had the sleepers, the seven sleepers as they say.

Yeah. And so they take it very literally. They say what city did it happen in? Where was the cave? What were the names? But the Quran itself actually says don't worry about how many people were in the cave. Don't worry about and the Quran also and so these are the arguments that the author is raising that I agree with. Uh sure the book that I'm going through um he says the Quran specifically obscures much information because its intent is not its intent is rhetorical in nature.

It's to make a religious argument. So what the Quran is engaged in is religious and theological discourse. So it's not important to know how many men were in this cave, how long they stayed in. And furthermore, we have indications that these are legendary stories. Now legendary story does not mean that it didn't happen at all necessarily. That's a possibility that we leave open.

But usually what a legend is is a it's a dram a dramatized there could be a historical figure. There may or may not be a historical figure or events and then it's dramatized in a certain way in order to universalize that event and to uh get certain religious uh teachings out of that. And so this is what the Quran is engaging in. So when we look at it as historical tr literal historical and scientific um stories we are actually misreading the Quran.

God says in the Quran that he strikes parables. These are these are parabolic stories. These are so the and this is where I go back to my uh thing about Islamic intellectual history. The [clears throat] is I do think that the Islamic philosophers were correct that re Yep. Carry on. Sorry. It should pick you up as you speak.

Religion and revelation use the language of symbols, metaphors, parables, simileies, poetic language. This is the language that religion uses. I mean, so we should not understand it in a literal, scientific, and historical manner that unfortunately our traditionalists today understand it. And they look quite silly. So, I'm I'm going to end on I'm sorry I'm going on a rant, but No, no, no, no.

I mean, I'm in the Western Academy now, and we have certain Muslim colleagues of mine who are very intelligent and everything, but I mean, if you believe in the literal occurrence of many of these stories and and you take the stories so literally, I mean, what can I say? you look kind of silly when you do that to to believe in after we have all this evidence now that these stories first of all where they come from how the Quran rearticulates them and how they couldn't have happened that way for example the flood the flood could not have happened and the way it's now somebody now what has been happening recently is that uh we have moved in this scientistic

direction where we say okay well the flood was not universal and actually A very respected scholar who I like said, "Who told you that the flood was universal? It was localized." And I [clears throat] agree this is the overwhelming argument that many reasonable people are making nowadays. But I would push back and I would say I would take Iban Rush's view. Iben Rush was actually a literalist when it came to this the metaphors and symbols and parables and stories of of of revelation.

He said to be uh yeah no car carry on you should pick you up. I'm sorry. So so they are not meant to be taken as metaphors rather they are meant to be understood in this way but that doesn't mean that that's because that's the vehicle that religion uses. So it's a it's a story that so for I'll give you an example. So if you read the Quran, you cannot but fail to come to the idea that it does seem to be depicting Quran in sorry depicting Allah God in a somewhat anthropomorphic way, right?

Okay. You you have to use all these mechanisms. So even though I'm a rationalist believer, yeah, I actually would say maybe what these usher and even these mutazalies are doing by reinter like saying no no this is a symbol for this. But actually somebody like Iban Rush would say he would actually say no no no the Quran intended for this anthropomorphic image so that the masses could relate to this unknowable god that's now Ib would say that's not the reality we we know that so actually Ibena Avisa he says that the Quran likens the the revelation likens

God to a king why because it's not that God is literally a king but it does want the average person to think of God as a king because that's something that they aam the masses can understand the vulner especially in that day and age. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And yeah, of course, I would say even today to some extent. But what I'm saying is um how that's just a a symbolic language that speaks to a higher truth which is the idea that God is transcendent and different than uh and then what what IB Rush would add is that the Quran itself in includes the hint the Dala in it of this higher

truth. So for example the Quranic verse that says there is nothing like unto him. So I think this is a more sophisticated way and it's a more systematic way of understanding Quranic stories, the ideas of miracles and all of these things that we now know in our scientific day and age we can no longer believe in. This will allow us to make what I call a Boltmanian leap. Rudolph Baltman was a Christian theologian who had to argue that we have to dethize the Bible in order to understand it for our today day and age.