Gabriella,
It works for various Muslims, even if it doesn't work for you. Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted. It doesn't mean that the meaning can be anything - there is usually broadly agreed consensus on the meaning but you can have dissenting opinions. And it is always possible that individuals can apply a verse to a situation where they would need to make all kinds of assumptions and provisos to make it fit - you can't stop someone from having a punt. The Quran is an inspiring (to Muslims) message but like legal statutes there are no guarantees that the person interpreting the message has understood correctly and often the people who drafted the law are long dead so cannot be consulted on what they meant. The Quran is much less specific or detailed than statutes and like anything made up of sentences in verse for, it requires interpretation . The Quran might not work for you as a source of inspiration and guidance - fair enough.
If you are interested this article may shed some light ( extract quoted below):
https://muslimmatters.org/2011/06/28/saying-“i-don’t-know”-is-half-of-knowledge/
Imam Malik ibn Anas was one of the most respected scholars of fiqh who ever lived. Once a man came to Imam Malik from a very far distance and he asked him 40 questions. Imam Malik only answered four of them and for the rest of the 36 questions he replied, “I don’t know.”
The man was surprised and asked Imam Malik “what should I tell people about these 36 questions for which you said (I don’t know)?” Imam Malik replied that the man should tell the people that Malik says: “I don’t know,” “I don’t know,” “I don’t know.”
Imam Malik said this 3 times....
....I really feel apprehensive when people issue such fatawa without having adequate knowledge about Arabic grammar, the principles of fiqh, usool ul hadeeth, etc. Before issuing any fatwa, or any judgment for that matter, one must know the related principles and modalities. Issues that appear very simple are often times surprisingly grave, especially when we consider the implications of changing them. Let me give an example with the following ayah of the Quran in which Allah (SWT) says:
“ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَٱرۡكَعُواْ مَعَ ٱلرَّٲكِعِينَ وَأَقِيمُواْ ”
“And establish prayer, and give the zakaah, and bow down with those who bow down”
Surah Al-Baqarah: vs. 43
Anyone who has even a basic understanding of Arabic grammar would know that the verb أَقِيمُواْ in the above verse is a fi’l amr, which is used for a command, and whenever such a verb is used it is an obligation to act upon it. From this ayah, the scholars interpret that salaah is obligatory, as the ayah clearly says:
وَأَقِيمُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ
And establish the prayer…
And according to the same ayah, zakaat is also obligatory as the ayah says:
تُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَوَءَا
And give the zakaah…
Furthermore, we learn that salaah with jama’ah is also obligatory as the ayah says:
وَٱرۡكَعُواْ مَعَ ٱلرَّٲكِعِينَ
And bow down with those who bow down
Now a question arises here. Do we interpret from this ayah that it is obligatory to offer sunnah, nawaafil and witr in jama’ah also? Since the ayah itself does not seem to indicate any exception. I doubt that any of us would think that it is mandatory to offer sunnah in jama’ah. So why is there a difference?
First, the comparison of religious texts with legal instruments is a false one. For the former, no-one doubts that the legislators existed at all and (depending on the jurisdiction involved) that their laws should be be enacted and enforced. None of that though applies to religious texts, at least until and unless someone can demonstrate the lawmaker to be a fact rather than a faith belief.
Second, lots of beliefs in lots of things “work” for lots of people. We were discussing though the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. If you want to treat the “holy” text that inspires you as others treat the works of, say, Plato or Sophocles that’s fine. Perhaps they’re interesting, perhaps they help you think, perhaps they provide ideas and guidance you find to have practical use. You are though entirely unencumbered by the notion that you can’t disagree with them, reject them entirely, move on to other texts that seem more coherent or logical to you. You have in other words no concerns about the supposedly divine status of the author.
Now compare that with your relationship with the Quran. Do you see the difference?
