For example, I am disturbed when I read something like Willis Elliott's comments, which claim that there is only way to read the text because of an English translation that the author finds sympathetic. The author is representative of a particular style of thinking and discourse. What makes the piece intellectually suspect is the firm conviction that nothing like this exists in Christianity. Perhaps the author does not believe the Hebrew Bible has any relation to Christian life, as it is rife with misogynistic and violent stories and commandments. Of course, if that is the case, than he must also believe that homosexuality is not a sin according to Christian doctrine, and I think he should spend more time correcting his misguided co-religionists than speaking of the mote in his brother's eye. I wonder if he also rejects the Pauline letters, which contain phrases like "for they [women] are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says" (1 Corinthians 14:34), or "let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Timothy 2:11-14), or "for the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does" (1 Corinthians 7:4). In which case, his belief system is based on the Gospels and the Gospels alone, which I am not sure is an official Baptist stand. Of course, the Gospels are said to be the root of a deep anti-Semitism in Christianity, because of the supposed deicide of the Jews. Perhaps the author believes the Holocaust to be inconsequential in terms of religious thought? There is also the passage in Luke 19:27, which says all of Jesus' enemies are to be slain before him.
Dr. Bakhtiar's translation was so well-covered in the news, and Neil MacFarquhar did the yeoman's work of going through the various translations, that it seems impossible that anyone who wishes to speak intelligently about religion in general, or Islam specifically, would be unaware of it. Therefore, those who make the argument that there is only one way to read the Qur'an are either intellectually vacuous or intellectually dishonest. They are morally and spiritually bankrupt for sowing discord and dissension. There is no spiritual reward in giving into hatred and ignorance.
Almost 50% of the world's Muslims live in five countries: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey. All five of them have elected at least one female head of state. As a community, we are dealing with the patriarchal readings of the text, and have had some successes, unless one argues that the vast majority of Muslims are not really Muslims, which strikes me as an odd assertion to come from a non-Muslim.
All religious texts are open to interpretation and new readings. The Word of God cannot be contained by human consciousness. Although many Islamophobes are sympathetic to Bin Laden in arguing that only he knows the Truth, the vast majority of Muslims reject this thinking as they reject Bin Laden and his associates. Our understanding of the text is not bound to a moment, nor is it fixed. It is dynamic and not in English. I end with another verse from the Qur'an (3:42): "The angels said: ‘O Mary! Behold, God has elected thee and made thee pure, and raised thee above all the women of the world.'"
This article was first published at Altmuslimah, a Patheos Partner, and is reprinted with permission.
Hussein Rashid, a Ph.D. candidate in Harvard University's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, blogs at Islamicate and Religion Dispatches.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In