Heavenly Donkey,
We have an extended discussion with a professor Lammi
here that deals with literalism (the link goes to part 1. Note that there are five parts to the debate, which you can access from the main page). This "non-literalism" claim is a very common defence of Islam and other objectionable religions, and we have addressed it many, many times.
"Again, the fundamental problem with this interpretation is that it
takes the Quran literally. Islam would be a fine religion if not taken
literally."
Are you sure? Have you tried to read the Koran in this "non-literal" fashion? Or rather, are you merely relaying upon us the usual cliches?
To understand the meaning of the words of the Koran, you must first actually understand something about Islam. Islam was and is, for the most part, a political and militaristic ideology. Thus, verses about killing and warfare were actually about killing and warfare. Nearly all Muslims, be they moderate or otherwise, accept that these verses refer to actual warfare. They may claim it is "defensive warfare" or that critics need to understand the context of the verses (and they are right about context being important), but no one is seriously claiming that the verses of warfare, martyrdom, etc., are about anything other than killing and being killed. Now, you may interpret "kill" however you wish, and project whatever of your own preconceptions that you wish onto Islam, but we are not interested in that. We are interested in what Mohammad and his followers meant; we are interested in what Muslims actually believe; and we are interested in the actual Islam that Mohammad and his followers implemented, and which has existed throughout history and throughout the world today. (Before you come back with comments about Sufis, etc., keep in mind that the Sufis have traditionally accepted the basic tenets of jihad warfare and sharia law).
One must also at least stick to some extent to the meaning of the words. You seem to be adopting a very extreme view, whereby the verses of the Koran are like random inkblots, to be interpreted however you wish with no regard for content, context, facts. As we have said before, "kill" would never
honestly get transformed into "kiss" through non-literal interpretation (unless the goal was to change the meaning, rather than understand the intended meaning in context).
The problems with this "non-literal" defence are at least these:
1. The Koran itself cautions against non-literal or metaphorical interpretation (3:7); or at least restricts the interpretation of the more allegorical verses to interpretation in light of the plain, clear verses. This is also the view of expert Koranic scholars such as Ibn Kathir. Regarding actual fighting and killing for religious reasons, as opposed to some pacifist religious worship, take a look at what the Koran itself has to say:
4:77 "Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold
your hands, establish worship and pay the poordue, but when fighting was
prescribed for them behold! a party of them fear mankind even as their fear of
Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordained fighting
for us? If only Thou wouldst give us respite yet a while! Say (unto them, O
Muhammad): The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for
him who wardeth off (evil); and ye will not be wronged the down upon a
date-stone."
This verse, in context, is clear: Peaceful worship is not enough (also see 9:38-39). There must be a willingness to put one's life on the line (4:66). The only metaphorical part of this verse is "ye will not be wronged the down upon a date-stone" (meaning, you will not be wronged at all, not even a little bit, by Allah).
2. Non-literalism conflicts with contextual interpretation. For example, "strike terror into their hearts" (8:60) and "strike off their heads" (8:12) mean exactly what they say, in context. That is, the Hadith and Sira show clearly that Mohammad and his men were using terrorism as a tactic, and that in battles, raids, and assassinations, they decaptitated and otherwise viciously mutilated their opponents. Verse 4:24 and others refer to the approval of Muslim men owning sex slaves. Is there a poetic version in which the practice of sex slavery is morally acceptable? Verse 65:4 refers to divorce rules, including in regards to divorce of females who are too young to menstruate. What metaphorical interpretation makes this all better? Verse 4:34 orders men to beat their wives from whom they "fear rebellion". What's the magic non-literal formula whereby we can turn the word "beat" (or hit, or scourge) into something else.
3. By taking this extreme non-literal view, you may be expressing your own personal view, or your own wishes about what Islam should be. That's not reality. Imagine whatever you like, but that has nothing to do with canonical Islam, the Islam that most Muslims believe, the Islam of history, the Islam of today, the Islam of 1400 years of Islamic law.
4. You trivialize the slaughter of tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of Hindus that was carried out in direct accordance with verse 9:5 and others. Apparently, you dismiss all of that as a misunderstanding of the Koran, and therefore actively attempt to absolve Islam and its followers of such atrocities.
5. Non-literalism, taken to the extreme which you seem to suggest, does not necessarily lead to a "better" or more benevolent interpretation. You seem to be suggesting that the Koran can be interpreted in a way that is benevolent, consistent with other religions such as Buddhism, etc. But, given this free interpretive licence, what is to prevent someone from coming up with an even more horrific, bloody, intolerant, immoral text than the one that's already there? In other words, where's the constraints? In fact, you've jettisoned the constraints in your proposal, thereby opening the door to highly malevolent interpretations. In doing so, by the way, you have also given up your grounds for suggesting that bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Qaradawi, and others who advocate suicidal attacks against non-Muslims, are somehow incorrect in their interpretation.
6. Verses 98:6-7 say in plain language that disbelievers are the worst beasts in all creation, but that believers are the best creatures. How does non-literalism help that? Does the intolerance lessen if we think of this hate in poetic, metaphorical terms? (Or, again, is it made, actually, worse, depending on the poetic interpretation people come up with?)
To sum up: The literalism/non-literalism issue is largely a red herring viz understanding what the Koran says and what Muslims believe and implement.
The problem is that the Koran contains immoral and nonsensical propositions. Imagining that those propositions seem to say something other than what they most likely and plausibly appear to say does not help matters. In fact, it is counterproductive and will only lead to continued human rights violations, as "non-literalists" pretend that canonical Islam--the Islam that most Muslims believe non-Muslims should be punished for criticizing--is a veritable wonderland of mystical wisdom.
-Arch