Hi Pam,
Let me begin by saying that as someone who is neither an orthodox (nor, for that matter, Orthodox) Christian or a Muslim, I find much more to recommend itself in the New Testament than the Quran. I think my religious opinions would fall fairly close to Thomas Jefferson's - I think Jesus was an extraordinary teacher of morality and there is little better one can do than to follow his example in the Gospels. But I have also found much to be of value in the traditions from Buddhism through Zoroastrianism.
I'm currently on my fourth read through of the Quran, so I know it fairly well. As literature, at least in English translation, I find it boring, repetitive, and at times confounding. The part I personally find most confounding is the repeated assertions that if someone has erred, God will continue to make him err, by "putting a seal on his heart" or by not guiding the nonbelievers. Similarly, the Quran states that "God gives to whom he will," and "God guides whom he will," quite a bit. I've always found that manifestly unfair. I don't claim to know or understand the mind of God, but I cannot imagine how a creator at all concerned with his creation would intentionally confound, confuse, or otherwise obstruct part of it.
Islam, in my opinion, also places too much on God's will - if you die in a car accident, it's God's will, not the result of drunk or careless driving, or unsafe road conditions, etc. To me, this serves to undermine the idea that human beings are responsible for their actions. However, while the Bible isn't nearly as heavy on suggesting that God's intervention can be seen in all events and that everything is foreordained, I know plenty of Christians who believe "everything happens for a reason," or "everything is part of God's plan." Personally, I don't think the Holocaust was part of God's plan. I'd like to think that a benevolent deity wouldn't come up with a plan involving the starving, torturing, and gassing of 12 million people to death. I do believe the Holocaust happened for a reason and that reason was that the Nazi Party was formed, led, and supported by some really screwed up, awful human beings. To believe anything else, in my opinion, diminishes the capacity of those horrible, wretched individuals who actively *chose* to do evil.
Now, where was I? Oh yes, explaining the "beating" verse in the Quran. This one is actually one of the most difficult verses to interpret for one simple reason. Arabic is a remarkably difficult and confusing language. Without getting too deep into the unbelievably complex grammar of the language, suffice it to say that all related words in Arabic will share a root made out of three consonants. That means the words for "writer," "to write," and "book," all have the same root. The words for "teacher," "to teach," "to learn," and "school" all have the same root as well. Because doubled consonants and vowels aren't written in Arabic, different but related words can be written the same way. As a result, what looks like one word may be any number of things, depending on context.
Students of the language like to joke that every word in Arabic means itself, its opposite, and camel. That is largely true. For example, the root "H" "r" "m" occurs in the words Haram and Harram, which alternately mean 'prohibited as evil' and 'sacred.' In Arabic, they are spelled the same way. It is very confusing, but generally the context tells you the right meaning.
The word translated as "to beat" in that verse is the verb formed from the root "D" "r" "b" This verb, depending on its usage can mean: to hit, to defeat, to ignore, to insult, to leave alone, or to avoid (and a bunch of other things that couldn't possibly apply in that context, such as give a military salute, travel, loiter, or impose a tax). It is a very bizarre word, even for Arabic. I personally have no idea what it means in the quoted context, but it could well mean either "beat your wife," or "leave her alone."
In terms of who is the one demanding submission from women to men, I personally don't think it makes that much of a difference. Whether St. Paul is telling a woman, "submit to and obey your husband," (oh, and don't talk in church, or hold a position of authority over men) or whether God is telling men that they have a right to demand submission from their wives, in both cases, the religions are saying women should submit to men. Personally, I don't buy it and am very happy to have a marriage of equals. I don't tell my husband what to do. I don't expect him to obey me, and he treats me with the same respect. We make big decisions together and that doesn't mean that when we agree, we say we came to a joint conclusion and when we disagree, one of us gets to put his or her foot down.
On an entertaining side note, has anyone noticed the marble frieze that Lex Luthor has in his office? It's a winged guardian angel and the symbol of Zoroastrianism, the world's first monotheistic religion. As Zoroastrianism is all about mindfulness and striving toward having good thoughts, good speech, and good actions, I'm going to assume Lex wasn't actually a Zoroastrian and just had the piece of art because it was worth a lot of money.
Rac
