i disagree with the Nietzcheand white quote furthermore that was to follower and we were talking about how we distinquish from methophorical and literal interpreatations - he gave his "view" that anything that is worldly should be taken metaphorically - so i brought up the head covering. Nothing to do with refuatation whats so ever.
OK, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. In fact the famous Islamic scholar Ibn Rushd some 800 years ago gave a kind of rule for deciding if someting should be taken literally or not. Put simple it was: "If the plain meaning of the words are clear but don’t make sense then the writer must have meant something else"
For example, Jesus once said "if you eye causes you to sin pluck it out and throw it away". No no one can rationally take this as a literal law and it must be taken to mean that sins is such a pernicious thing that we must fight and fight against it.
The other aspect here and this is what might have been meant earlier is that if say we read that Moses ordered his follows to burn down a town (which he did) then we cannot take that now as meaning we can do the same so we must interpret it for today in a spiritual sense.
Of course you can disagree with the Nietzche quote but why and one might add or ask here what you think a fact is?