How do followers read the texts — literally, symbolically, or in context?

In context, as its first hearers and the Prophet ﷺ understood it. Verses about war belong to their wars; descriptions of nature speak as the eye sees; doctrine means what it plainly says.

As arguments, not scripture: critically, in historical context, and with no duty of loyalty. Admiring Hume or Darwin obliges no atheist to agree with everything either wrote.

As arguments to be weighed — the only reading the texts themselves permit. There is no literal-versus-symbolic debate because nothing is read as revelation; an agnostic who finds Huxley wrong simply says so, and some do.

By genre, in the main: history read as history, parables as stories with a point, Revelation's visions as symbol. The historic churches read Scripture in context and through the church's teaching; some conservative Protestants read it strictly literally, while liberal Christians take much of it symbolically.

Through the interpretive tradition rather than raw literalism: the rabbis read on several levels — plain sense, hint, homily, and secret — and the Oral Torah often reshapes the letter ('an eye for an eye' becomes monetary compensation). Orthodox readers stay within halakhic interpretation; liberal movements add historical context.

As practical instruction more than history or law: the Buddha compared his teaching to a raft — used for crossing, not for clinging. Theravada readers stay close to the discourses' plain sense; the Mahayana distinguishes provisional teachings from definitive ones and reads many texts symbolically.

In every register at once: Vedic mantras are used ritually — their sound counts as much as their sense — while the epics and Puranas are read by some as history and by others as symbol, with no central authority to rule between them. The commentarial schools read the Upanishads with rigorous technical exegesis.

Devotionally more than doctrinally: the scripture is sung (kirtan) and recited daily and honored as a living Guru. Its poetry — bride and beloved, court and judge — is read as metaphor for the soul and God, not as literal description.

As law and argument, not as sacred text. Courts read the legal texts through precedent and context; scholars read Locke or Mill critically and are free to reject them — no doctrine of literal versus symbolic reading exists, because no text is above revision.

As arguments, not scripture: read plainly, weighed critically, and dissented from freely. Signing a manifesto binds no one — later humanists disagree in print with earlier ones as a matter of course.

As arguments to be tested, not authorities to be obeyed — a liberal who thinks Mill wrong simply says so. The exception is constitutions, where real interpretive schools clash: originalists read the text as first understood, living-constitutionalists read it as principles applied to new times.

As arguments in their historical context, not as sacred words: the texts are assigned, debated, and openly corrected — hooks and others faulted earlier classics for speaking mainly of white, middle-class women.

As political argument, not scripture — there is no literal-or-symbolic divide. Historians read the texts in their contexts; movements have read them selectively, quoting Fichte both for liberation and for chauvinism.