Quran Read-Along: The Opening Verses of Al-Nesaa’

I’m very intrigued by the opening line to this sura, which says that mankind was created out of one living entity. The reason is that the latter part of the sentence makes sense: out of two (a man and woman or Adam and Eve), mankind came. Makes sense. However, the earlier part of the sentence only makes sense if I apply Genesis 2-3, the story in which God creates Eve out of Adam (his rib). That isn’t being said here, but is there an alternative Quranic version of creation in which the first woman comes from the first man? Or am I missing this entirely? Also, by way of biblical reference, there are two humanity creation stories, the aforementioned, and the one in Genesis 1, in which God creates man and woman at the same time.

I also like that it is God who provides the order for civilization, which is to say that from God we claim human rights. As philosophically relevant as that is, I feel like it had particular relevance in the early umma when people were still accustomed to tribal rule and loyalty, and order amongst more than internal tribal entities was only possible by ascribing to something higher – namely, God.
2: A familiar Quranic trope: respect and protect the orphan. God’s going to know if you engage in any funny business related to the orphans’ accounting.

There’s always a great deal of concern in “modern” Western society that polygamy is all about male domination and pleasure and that nothing governs the institution, but here’s one of those lines that tells us that it’s being meditated on. That is, take more than one wife if you want, but treat them all equally – and if you don’t think you can, keep it to one.

Now, if Big Love has taught us anything, it’s the difficulty of truly treating multiple women equally, and personally, I think one’s enough of a handfull – I couldn’t imagine a second. However, some people, I think, like this way of life, and though it’s not for me (or most), I think that if all parties agreed, it’s something that’s worth trying.

That said, I was watching (I know, horror of horrors), True Life on MTV (not my choice – I was staying with friends and apparently it was tevoed quite thoroughly), and the episode we watched was about polyamorous relationships. Now, if you are willing to put your polyamorous relationship on MTV for the rest of us to watch, then I contend that you are not mature enough to have one, but at the same time, at least these unmarried polyamorous relationships can happen, and if equality proves impossible (or even too difficult, which it often does), the participants can split up and no harm no foul. That, however, is most unlike the conventionally religious take on polygamy. I can hardly pass judgment on something I have difficulty imagining, but I just feel like it’s so fraught with difficulty and that a lot of people end up stuck in a situation which perhaps is far from ideal for them. Thoughts?

The placement of these ideas makes sense, as this is a sura on women and addressing these issues as they are for women is important. But the addressee is definitely men, it seems. In what ways to women conventionally listen to the Quran, if at all? Is the Quran addressed in specific places at women and not men?

Am I reading verse 7 right? Are both women and men and allowed to inherit? If so, that’s awesome, and quite unusual at this time.

Please share your thoughts on these verses and comment and critique what I’ve said. And accept my apologies for my negligence in replying to comments on past posts. I wrote them down in a doc while I was flying and I’m not sure if they made it back or if I posted them or what. I’ll be more conscientious from here forward.

Al-Nesaa’ 1-10


1. O MANKIND! Be conscious of your Sustainer, who has created you out of one living entity, and out of it created its mate, and out of the two spread abroad a multitude of men and women. And remain conscious of God, in whose name you demand [your rights] from one another, and of these ties of kinship. Verily, God is ever watchful over you! 2. Hence, render unto the orphans their possessions, and do not substitute bad things [of your own] for the good things [that belong to them], and do not consume their possessions together with your own: this, verily, is a great crime. 3. And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you – [even] two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one – or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course. 4. And give unto women their marriage portions in the spirit of a gift; but if they, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then enjoy it with pleasure and good cheer. 5. And do not entrust to those who are weak of judgment the possessions which God has placed in your charge for [their] support; but let them have their sustenance therefrom, and clothe them, and speak unto them in a kindly way. 6. And test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriage able age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind, hand over to them their possessions; and do not consume them by wasteful spending, and in haste, ere they grow up. And let him who is rich abstain entirely [from his ward’s property]; and let him who is poor partake thereof in a fair manner. And when you hand over to them their possessions, let there be witnesses on their behalf – although none can take count as God does. 7. MEN SHALL have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind, and women shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind, whether it be little or much – a share ordained [by God]. 8. And when [other] near of kin and orphans and needy persons are present at the distribution [of inheritance], give them something thereof for their sustenance, and speak unto them in a kindly way. 9. And let them stand in awe [of God], those [legal heirs] – who, if they [themselves] had to leave behind weak offspring, would feel fear on their account – and let them remain conscious of God, and let them speak [to the poor] in a just manner. 10. Behold, those who sinfully devour the possessions of orphans but fill their bellies with fire: for [in the life to come] they will have to endure a blazing flame!

Around the World Pic: Disturbing Parthenon Statues at the British Museum in London

centaur-in-bm

Most of what could be taken off of the Parthenon in Greece was taken off of the Parthenon in Greece by the British. Now it can be seen in the British Museum. This is one such piece, if I recall approximately a meter squared. It depicts a centaur carrying off a captured woman who he obviously intends on raping.

The depiction itself is far less grotesque than the reality it recalls, in which women were carried off as spoils of war – the stronger the man the more women he has and the more progeny he begets.

Apparently 1/6th of men in the Asian steppes and the surrounding areas are descended from Genghis Khan, who sired a crapload of children as he conquered and raped and pillaged.

Get a FREE Bonus Chapter from The Zen of South Park.

Read about and see more Around the World Pic posts.

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin about Her Fundamentalist Christian Beliefs

Before you is a letter from someone I know and respect whose work is all about helping fundamentalist Christians who have chosen to leave their abusive and delusional religions do so in a safe and psychologically sound way. As the author of this letter has written, “Marlene Winell is a Bay Area psychologist who specializes in recovery from fundamentalist religion. She is author of Leaving the Fold:  A guide for former fundamentalists and others leaving their religion. She is the daughter of Assemblies of God missionaries. A longer article about Sarah Palin’s religion is on Dr. Winell’s website:  http://www.marlenewinell.net.”

Please feel free to leave any comments at the bottom of this letter and reproduce the letter in its entirety elsewhere on the internet (so long as you provide Dr. Winell as the author). If you would like to read an interview that I once conducted with Dr. Winell, please click HERE.

An open letter to Sarah Palin, from Marlene Winell, Ph.D.

Dear Sarah,

As a former fundamentalist, I’d like to call you on what you are doing.

This is not about disrespecting your private beliefs.  But you have a huge conflict of interest here by running for office and you can’t have it both ways (see Jesus’ words in John 2:15).

You have not been honest about the most important thing about you:  the fact that you are a born-again, literal Bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian.   Voters need to know you are not merely a “Christian” – a follower of Christ’s teachings.

Most people who have never been entrenched in the subculture of fundamentalist Christianity may not understand what this really means, but I do. Like you, I was raised in the Assemblies of God and I was a zealous part of the Jesus Movement.  Like you, my life was consumed with seeking God’s will for my life and awaiting the imminent return of Jesus.  It’s clear to me that you want to do the Lord’s will; you’ve said and done things like a true believer would. You are on a mission from God. If that is not true, then I challenge you to deny it.

Former fundamentalists like me know that your worldview is so encompassing, authoritarian, and powerful that it defines who you think you are, the way you view the world, history, other people, the future, and your place in the world.  It defines you far more than hockey mom, wife, woman, hunter, governor, or VP candidate.

You believe that every bit of the Bible is God’s perfect word.  You have a supernatural view of reality where Satan is a real entity and where good and evil beings are engaged in “spiritual warfare” (Ephesians 6:12).   Like Queen Esther, you believe that God has “called” and “anointed” you to lead America.  This is why you have accepted blessing for office through the “laying on of hands” and prayer to protect you from witchcraft.

So what does this mean for governing?  What could Americans expect with you at the helm?

You cannot affirm basic human decency or capability, because according to your dogma, we are sinful, weak, and dependant on God. And so, your decisions would not be based on expert advice or even your own reasoning, but on your gut-level, intuitive interpretation of God’s will.

This would allow you to do anything and claim you were led by God.

Your thinking necessarily is black or white.  People and policies are either good or bad.  After all, Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me” (Matt. 12:30).  Under your leadership, diplomacy and cultural nuance would be less important than not blinking.  In a spiritual war, you don’t negotiate with the devil.

Regarding social policy, as a believer in individual salvation, you would emphasize individual morality and responsibility, not a community approach with structural solutions.  You would be judgmental and controlling of personal choices regarding sex, reproduction, and library books instead of addressing global warming, torture, poverty, and war.  Your belief in eternal hell-fire, your deference to a literal Bible despite its cruelties and vengeful god, and your indoctrination to disbelieve your own compassionate instincts, are likely to leave you numb at your moral core.  You might recall the verse, “If a man will not work he shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).  However, faith-based initiatives would be okay because they would use caring to evangelize.

How about science?  As it has in your governorship, your interpretation of the Bible would trump scientific scholarship and findings.  You would deny the human role in global warming because God is in control.  More importantly, you would not make the environment a priority because you do not expect the earth to last.

International affairs?  Since your subculture has identified the establishment of Israel in 1948 as the beginning of the end, you would see war, epidemics, climate change, and natural disasters, all as hopeful signs of Jesus’ return.  You would be a staunch supporter of Israel and deeply suspicious of countries like Russia identified with the antichrist in the end times literature.  (You have publicly said that you expect Jesus to return in your lifetime and that it guides you every day.)

The Christian fundamentalism that has shaped your thinking teaches that working for peace is unbiblical and wrong because peace is not humanly possible without the return of Jesus (1 Thess. 5:2,3).  Conflict, even outright war is inevitable, for Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword (Matt: 10:34-37).  Like millions of fundamentalist Christians, you may actually find joy in global crises because these things portend His return (Luke 21:28).

But all of this certainty and fantasy in today’s complex world is dangerous, Sarah.  There was a time when all of humanity thought the world was flat.  Today, the stakes for such massive error are much higher.

So we want to know, Sarah, Warrior Princess for God —  How dare you presume to take responsibility for our country and our planet when you, in your own mind, do not consider this home?   I mean home for the long haul, not just until your rescue arrives from space.  How dare you look forward to Christ’s return, leaving your public office empty like a scene from the movie, Left Behind?

What if you are completely wrong and you wreak havoc instead with your policies?  If you deny global warming, brand people and countries “evil,” support war, and neglect global issues, you can create the apocalypse you are expecting.  And as it gets worse and worse, and you look up for redemption, you just may not see it.  What then?  In that moment, you and all who have shared your delusion may have the most horrifying realization imaginable.   And it will be too late.  Too late to avoid destruction and too late to apologize to all the people who tried to turn the tide and needed you on board.

And you, John McCain, how dare you endanger all of us for the sake of your politics?  How dare you choose a partner who is all symbol and no substance, preying on the fears of millions of Americans?   Shame on both of you.

Leave this beautiful, fragile earth to us, the unbelievers in your fantasy.  It’s the only heaven we have and you have no right to make it a hell.

Sincerely,
Marlene

Marlene Winell, Ph.D.
October 21, 2008

Press Release – October 21, 2008
Contact:  mwinell@gmail.com

If you would like to read an interview that I once conducted with Dr. Winell, please click HERE.

Get a FREE Bonus Chapter from The Zen of South Park.

Enjoy some Fun with the Bible posts.

Fun with the Bible: Was the Author of the Gospel of Luke Really a Woman?

Who Really Wrote the Gospels

It is a common scholarly contention that the author of the Gospel of Luke was actually a woman. Now, it is definitely accepted that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the authors of the respectively named gospels. Indeed, there’s no claim of authorship in the gospels, but similar to the Five Books of Moses, people wanted to attribute authorship to credible sources.

Thus, the third gospel was attributed to Luke, “the beloved physician” of Col. 4:14. As scholars and religious people alike agree, the author of Luke is also the author of Acts, hence Luke-Acts, though neither mentions Luke’s name or the “acts of the apostles.” But no matter – I said we were here to talk about Luke’s gender.

Ways that Luke Could be a Woman

So why might Luke be a woman. A few brief reasons that I’m going to mention and then I’ll leave the rest to you to read yourself.

1. There are more female characters in Luke (and when I say this I include Acts because of the similarities) than any other gospel. And it’s disproportionate – not just a couple. (e.g. the extended scenes with Mary and Elizabeth in chapter 1).

2. Luke speaks on multiple occassions of things that only concern women (menstration, pregnancy, etc.) and seems to understand and compare events to the pain and beauty of childbirth.

3. Woman have active and important roles for main events throughout the story, being the first to see Jesus, care for him, talk to him, etc. after key happenings. Women also believe in Jesus more often than men. (e.g. the poor widow in 21:1-4 whose offering is more important than anyone else’s; 24:10 when the women believe in and share the ressurection and the apostles don’t believe at first).

Reasonable Skepticism

If you doubt what I’ve written I understand. My examples are minimal and my case not made particularly well. However, there are many more examples of these things and more reasons that the author of Luke-Acts could have been a woman. The best way to start to see these reasons (aside from scholarly literature) is to read Luke-Acts with this in mind and start to recognize the huge and important role of women and the imagery related to women that exists.

It is possible, of course, that a male author could have a view of women that made them necessary characters in his telling, but his understanding of female experiences would be quite impressive. In either case, just read for yourself and see what you think about the role of women. Even if you disagree, what do you think about the place of women in Luke-Acts? Did you notice anything that you didn’t before?

Summary

Remember, Fun with the Bible is not about destroying people’s understanding of the Bible but about enhancing it by questioning our established beliefs and making us rethink how much there is to read about beyond what we’ve been told. Feel free to ask any questions and leave any comments about these and other issues.

Get a FREE Bonus Chapter from The Zen of South Park.

Enjoy more Fun with the Bible posts.

Zen Talk: A Buddhist Story about Learning to Let Things Go

Two Buddhist monks were walking along a path when they came to a shallow, muddy river. A woman in a beautiful dress waited there, not wishing to cross for fear of ruining her beautiful dress. One of the monks lifted her onto his shoulders – something that he was absolutely not supposed to do – and carried her to the other side, where he set her down (dress intact) and proceeded along the path with his fellow monk. After a few hours, the second monk, unable to continue keeping quiet about what he understood as a violation of the code by which they lived, asked his companion, “Why did you pick that woman up and carry her across the river?” The first monk replied, “Are you still carrying her? I put her down hours ago.”

I love this story. It illustrates an absolutely wonderful life lesson that we should all take to heart. This is about letting things go: breathing in deeply and exhaling, letting out the negative thoughts, feelings and emotions and not thinking about them anymore.

I’m not going to drone on about the power of positive thinking or the importance of a Buddhist technique known as mindfulness or the psychological practice known as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). I am going to state simply that our thoughts, whether positive or negative, greatly affect the way we feel and think, and when we dwell on the negative and that which makes us upset or tense or angry, we are only harming ourselves.

When a moment has passed, it is in the past and that is where it should stay. Sometimes wrongs must be righted (when you insult someone, that’s in the past but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t apologize for it later), but for the most part, dwelling on things that can’t be changed only clouds our minds and thoughts, preventing us from living in and enjoying the present and moving forward to a better future.

Let it go. Move on.

This story is a wonderful illustration of this important life lesson and I think about it all the time whenever I find myself dwelling on the unchangeable.

What sorts of things do you dwell on unnecessarily? What do you think of this story? Do you have a technique for learning to let things go?

Get a FREE Bonus Chapter from The Zen of South Park.

Enjoy more Zen Talk.