On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > That is due to selective literalism, that you can do with any piece of > literature or code of law, and conveniently blame it on the author. > That's the problem with literalism though. It's always selective, when language is often less clear. Literalism implies one correct way of interpreting the scripture, when even the companions disagreed on how to interpret the Prophet stating "No one should pray the afternoon prayer until after they reach Banū Qurayzah." This example can be interpreted in two ways: 1) Wait for everybody, even if time of offering passes or 2) Everybody should hurry up and be punctual, no waiting. Or when Al-Haq is taken to have such a wide range of meanings you describe, how do we select the proper literal meaning and who could say? If everybody can select their own meaning in whatever way, then we could never distinguish abuse of the text from the opposite. The second Caliph of Islam, `Umar b. al-Khattāb often took a less literal approach for example, and decided at times that benevolent meaning and rationales behind the text is more important than the immediate literal level: He allowed Jews into Jerusalem to worship, he exempted thieves from common capital punishment in years of famine, and negated punishment of exile when people were found guilty of fornication. Taking a non-literal stance allows you to resolve contradictions, because it gives access to possible larger meanings of the text beyond its immediate wording. This way, overarching principles of scripture that are general enough to bear on larger social, political, economic issues can be brought into discussion. Also, when new and complex situations arise that have no precedent in scripture, literalism just remains stuck in the past, mired in contradictions and ambiguity of interpretation (not due to "blaming it on the author", that is your faith; mine is that language is often this ambiguous, especially concerning theological subjects because most people are aware of blasphemy problem, and don't wish to pretend being the voice of god) while critical distance and doubt allow possibly new and creative responses to a problem, while not betraying the purpose of the text. This freedom is immediately lost, when such larger meaning is made literal. That's why I can relate to the position that literalists have perhaps less faith. They seem to not trust their God's truth, and have to look for little sentences in scripture to make their point. A critical theologian, that allows doubt and goes against scripture when the time is proper, has more faith here, as he learns and studies the will of god beyond the letters and admits the possibility that their God is greater than anything produced by letters; this attitude is open to expanding her/his understanding of reality and does not get stuck in literal interpretations that limit his conception of god. This theologian stays true to more scientific attitude of ignorance in face of the unknown. Alhazen described his theology: "I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge." I doubt that Alhazen could have shared with us his scientific contributions, revealing reality to us the way he did, if he had decided to just read, recite, and take literally scripture all day, every day. He sought truth, because he had faith in it; instead of abandoning truth for scripture, as this would imply less faith perhaps. He was to some degree schooled in methods and art of doubt, as can be seen in his position on Ptolemy. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
