Symbolic words in Quran

Introduction

Many interpreters used the words of “symbol” and “token” for Quran interpretation. It should be considered that by the said terms they did not all mean the same, accordingly they shouldn’t be regarded as seeing Quran concepts as mythical and unreal, as symbol has different meanings which some of them are acceptable and in line with Quran concepts and aims.
No. 3: The Symbolic Language
Previously it was discussed that symbol’s Persian equivalent is “رمز” and its Arabic version is “سمبل”. Symbolism of Quran was described in three below ways:
a) General Symbolism (symbolic reference in the whole Quran)
It can be concluded from some Muslim works that they see Quran language generally symbolic, and they use “symbol) as code and reference. Among the said writers, Dr. Shariati says: “the language of religions, especially Sami religions, is symbolic”. He regards the symbolic language as a tongue that expresses meanings through codes.
By the verse “وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلائِكَةِ إِنِّي خَالِقٌ بَشَراً مِّن صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ * فَإِذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِي فَقَعُوا لَهُ سَاجِدِينَ” talking of man’s composition of heavenly spirit and malodourous mud, Dr. Shariati concludes the verse is symbolically expressing man’s absolute baseness and his capability to reach to the point of ultimate perfection, then he adds: “the man neither is composed of mud nor of heavenly spirit.
Mr. Shabistari about two above issues wrote:
The dialogue between the prophet and people during his 23 years terms of prophecy and in different social setting of that era; formed an oral culture, a culture that through no way we have access to. What we inherited from the said oral culture is a collection of meaningful symbols (Quran Text), a collection that talks of that culture. Indeed Quran verses were descended through an oral culture and we are not well-aware of what was the relation between the prophet and his audience through that culture, since the oral culture converted into a written one.

In another work, he wrote:

What is in the scripture, Sunnah and traditions, are historical elements that symbolically talk of facts. New theology is studying and knowing religion’s cryptic structures and symbols. In the new theology, religions language is mystic. Knowing the religion is composed of studying the collection of linguistic codes….in fact, Islam provides a cryptic/symbolic description as religious texts reading.
Mr. Soroosh about the above issue wrote: “religion is an amazing mystic factor and it is in opposition to one-layeredness, and the clarity, precision and one-layeredness is called on an ideology, is absent in religion (and it is an advantage of religion .
Dr. Soroosh wrote in another place:
“The language of religion is a referring language. The common language is formed to describe common experiences and issues, but it is unable of understanding the mystic boundary between the natural and supernatural world (religion), therefore religion need an super-language, and if a common language is used for religion, it changes into vagueness and absurdity, accordingly those being able of mysticism and symbolic language are required to resort to symbols and references and want their audience to abstain from a simplistic consideration of the sole form, and concern themselves with the inner/hidden facts as the form is the pointing finger, and the audience should consider what is pointed to”.

Analysis

Some authors attribute the view of Quran symbolism to “Thinina Makino”, and then criticize the view for:
1. Dr. Soroosh, Shabistari and Makino view Quran statements non-instructively. Considering Quran language as symbolic or amazing, the above said characters generalize this faulty approach into heavenly revelation additionally they offer a non-instructive view. To the aforesaid persons, revealed statements, even though understandable, are of no real foundation, thus they will be worthless and of no use.
2. In accordance with the view of Quran symbolic language, not only the equivalent effect of Quran verses was not taken (aimed), but also the aimed meaning is not understandably reliable. Therefore it means that the aimed meaning is nothing but a guessed meaning. The requirement for such a view is that Quran won’t be able to guide the people and show the straight path, a requirement that is in opposition to the original aim of Quran descent.
3. Viewing the above said characters’ symbolism approach, some other writers critically wrote:
To consider the language of religion a mystic language is based no criteria, and through such a view, conflicting characteristics/interpretations will be attributed to religious texts. Whether can a Muslim scholar accept the above said approach?
Quran attribute many different characteristics and acts to God, it teaches them news about God’s identity, his life past and future, living custom, worshiping and social order, the principles of an ideal life and warns about deviations and obstacles of the true path. Considering a symbolic language for Quran, does remain any space for the above beliefs, orders and prohibitions, accordingly it can be definitely claimed that Quran is a guide for man’s prosperity or is it possible to easily deny Quran’s guiding directions?
4. The Holy prophet’s dialogues with people forks into some categories:
1. Heavenly revealed materials descended to the prophet as Quran and written down by those writers of the heavenly revealed messages. In accordance with the wise consensus, Quran’s form is regarded as authentic.
2. The materials uttered by the holy prophet explaining verses and introducing religious orders/rules and issues composing “oral tradition”, the majority of its traditions collected after the holy prophet pass-away. The form of the said traditions is authentic based on the wise consensus. The said traditions symbolism/mysticism so as to convert them into unauthentic requires a rational reason.
3. Prophet’s scientific activities forming his excellence’s “practical tradition”, such as how he did Ruku and Sajdah? Or how did he made pilgrimage to Kaabah? The said acts of the holy prophet are authentic to all.
4. As it was quoted from the holy prophet as saying “صلّوا کما رأيتموني اُصلّي” say prayers as I do. Therefore Shabistari’s words as the prophets dialogues with people all were an oral culture made through symbolic codes, is no true.
5. Some of what is quoted from the holy prophet through Quran and tradition is related by successive witnesses and some are full of valid evidences and news (however there are news which are invalid), and the descent/ascension of these verses and traditions are of the same rank as historical descents and traditions.
6. What quoted in Quran and the holy prophet’s traditions, are sometimes form, which are not cryptic and ambiguous, and some are similar verses and traditions, the latter are understandable and the similarity between them will be removed through reference to those firm evidences as introduced by Quran (Ale Imran0Verse number 7).
Thereby it is wrong to consider all Quran verses and traditions as mystic, non-understandable and ambiguous. And to regard Quran as said above, will be in opposition to Quran which introduces itself as “transparent” (understandable, clear and explanatory).
Conclusion: due to the above said problems, the view that all the Quran verses are symbolic/mystic is a true one, and they are of inner dimension and references as discussed in the connotation section, some traditions have referred to Quran symbolic references; however, the words those aforesaid writers used to introduce Quran symbolism, were not properly chosen.
B: Specific Symbolism (the symbol of God’s characteristics according to Paul Tillich)
As previously referred to, “Tillich” introduces a specific meaning of “symbol”, he believes: God is not a being, but he is the Ground Being. Therefore, some words are possible to be used about/for God. Though symbols help to experience facing God, they don’t refer to any God’s characteristic. This conclusion is rooted in the approach that symbolic components have no common logical relation such as inconsistency, negation and implication; therefore it is impossible to rationalize their factual trueness or falseness. According to this view, even absolutely conflicting components, can be symbolically useful or true till they can confront the man with a heavenly element or any open a new path to experience. Besides other thinkers such as Carl Bart, John Mockery, Emil Bruner, Rudolf Otto believed as Tillich.
In the religion’s language, the symbolic language should be used, therefore what is said about God in religious works, should not be regarded formally. Language terms have been created for limited evidences, and using the words for an unlimited being requires to use them symbolically”.
According to Tillich, symbolic term has the below features:
a) The symbolic term, has non-comparative effect.
b) The non-comparative effect has a complex nature, because it refers to immaterial issues and abstract level of beings. The symbolic language is used for describing perplex issues that are impossible to be described through common language.
c) Non-comparative symbol, is God or a thing that substitutes for God; thus the function of symbol is a kind of knowledge of God that requires a heart relation with him. Here a relation, heart link, and present knowledge of God are meant, not a subjective impression or an acquired knowledge.
d) According to Tillich, the religion equals to knowing God and heart relation with him and nothing more. What is considered to be religious that its main function is of such a relation.
Each religion which has all the above mentioned features, its language is symbolic and to understand it, the symbolic language should be regarded.
Analysis: Contemporary ideologists has seen some problems with Tillich view on Quran symbolism:
First, Tillich and his followers’ reason for symbolic approach to religion’s language, only is enough for God’s words and heavenly characteristics, and the offered bases proves nothing more.
Second, this theory is based on a description of religion that is inconsistent with Islam. In this approach, religion is equal to knowledge of God and heart relation with him, yet in Islam, it is not the final goal. Islam; is collection of teachings a rule for different aspect of man’s life that ends in knowledge of God. There are few sections in Quran solely describing God. Therefore, the majority of Quran parts are not symbolic as introduced by Tillich.
Based on what discussed above, Quran compositional parts expressing jurisprudential rules can impossibly be regarded symbolic, as they don’t have the third feature.
Quran parts which don’t describe God and his characteristic, including Surah/verses on beliefs, appropriate and inappropriate man characteristics, personal and social treatments, post-death happenings to the universe, worship rules, transactions, Haj and etc. can’t be seen symbolic as introduced by Tillich, as their symbolism requires having aforesaid four feature, however none these verses have the required features.

Conclusion

Regarding the non-adaptability of Tillich theory to Quran language, it should be mentioned that Tillich’s symbolic language is inconsistent with the majority of Quran parts and in the section of God’s characteristics using non-human uncommon words, we can use those words through spiritual sharing and via abstraction of material meaning we can utilize those words. For instance, the Arabic terms “سمیع” (the one who hears) and “بصیر” (the one who sees) are used without reference to God’s ear and eye. As the term “نور” (light) is used about God in Quran “اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّماوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ” meaning “ God is the light in heavens and on earth”, however here, the light does not refer to any material features of light.
Rejecting that all Quran parts are not mystic, Shahid Mutahari in another place writes:
Different from other religious books, Quran does not solely offer some mystic materials about God and creation along with some moral advices and recommendations so that the believers have to take orders and thoughts from other resources. Regarding man as a believing being, Quran introduces principles and thoughts required for him; additionally it offers moral treatment principles, foundations of social and family systems, issues which are benchmarks that other resources are compared to.
It can be concluded from Ayatollah Misbah and Legenhausen that they have approved of some Quran parts’ symbolism, and it seems they mean the same as others mentioned above.