How Tidy is Your Home?

No, this is not the home in my tale. 

Recently, I visited someone's home and I was struck by how empty it was. You could barely tell anyone lived there. There was furniture - study and practical. Not shabby, but definitely used. Not fancy, but not strictly utilitarian either. The couches were comfy. The only real evidence I saw that people lived in this home was the fully stocked fridge and part of an apple that didn't quite make it into the garbage disposal. Everything was very clean and tidy. No personal affects, not photos, and no knickknacks, accept for the icons of Christ and Mary on the wall in one corner. A huge, brand new, flat screen took residence in another corner.

I was given a tour of the rest of the home, and the sparseness continued to shock my senses. Even the children's  rooms were mostly bare. The beds were neatly made, and a few stuffed bears decorated the walls. Where was the mess? Where were the family pictures? I know the temperature was set low, but I felt chilled more from the emptiness I continued to see. Why did it shock me so? Because I had seen the downstairs first. That was an entirely different and opposite scene.

I was being given an extra microwave that the family had, as mine had died a week before. (Don't run a microwave for 10 minutes with nothing in it - my son accidentally found this out when he attempted to use the microwave for a timer). The downstairs of this house looked almost like a scene out of "Hoarders". Things were piled (fairly organized) to the ceiling in most corners and along most walls. I knew that the family had rental properties, and since many of the items appeared to be spare parts and housewares, I assumed that the downstairs is where they stored their supplies for their rentals. So, compared to the downstairs, yes, the bare upstairs was jolting.

My brain rarely rests. I got to thinking of my own home. My "mess", as I call it. It is really difficult for me to keep my place tidy as a single, working mom of two young children. I think it was even worse when I was a full time student. I believe in letting kids play and not barking at them to pick up their toys every five minutes. That was something my ex-husband was always fond of doing and always drove me crazy. I remember what it is like to be a kid. You want to get your toys out and play, play, play! If you put one thing away before getting out another, then how can you suddenly invent new games and imaginary worlds because you suddenly realize that you can place with these mismatched toys together? Granted, I do wish they would pick up better at the end of the night.

Nope, not my home either, although it is a fairly accurate representation much of the time. 

Still, even if my kids picked up their things better every night and I didn't have toys strewn from the front door to their bedroom (and for some reason, in the bathroom), my place would still feel and look VERY lived in. I have knickknacks... everywhere. Pictures of family and friends line the window sills, breakfast bar, and entertainment system. Paintings and beautiful framed art/photos are hung on every wall. The bulkheads of my kitchen are each filled with pots, pans, antiques, and the like. My cupboard tops are coated with fake plants or more antiques or knickknacks - most of which are family heirlooms. I have too much furniture - I blame my mom for breeding that trait into me. My books overflow from my giant bookshelves. They are found in every corner, in stacks, on end tables, and ever free shelf I can find. Some even line the floor in front of the book cases. Those are typically the kids books (why do they never find their place back on the shelf?).

I wouldn't mind having this...

My eclectic tastes are displayed for all to see, a bit like my personality. My life is an open book. Ask, and I answer. I rarely try to hide what I think or feel. It suddenly occurred to me that my friend's home that I visited reflected his personality as well. It reminded me of a glacier. You don't see the whole thing until you go below the surface. He's like that. He is extremely private and doesn't have a lot of "stuff". But once you get past the empty facade on the surface, there is a lot of "stuff" inside. That's where his "mess" hides - out of sight. It then reminded me of all those perfect homes that I sometimes envy. They have character, are decorated, and have family affects - but everything is nice and tidy. They don't have to worry about someone stopping over unexpectedly. They don't have to rush to clean up the mess, or shrug when there is no time. But, those home often have secrets tucked nicely away too, just like the people that live in them.

This whole thought process gives me pause. You can read someone's writing or view someone's art and know their deepest thoughts and fears. Why wouldn't our homes reflect our souls in the same way? It seems to me that it makes perfect sense that our homes would reflect something about who we are. I haven't done any research yet to see if I am on to something (therapists and psychologists are probably rolling their eyes, saying, "duh" at me right now, if reading this). I intend to do the research. Why? I like to understand people. I need to be able to understand people better to be effective in interfaith relations.

Until I get that research done, I am curious to ask you, my reader, to lend your voice to this theory of mine. Do you see what I see? Does your home truly reflect you? What about family or friends (its usually to see these things in others, rather than ourselves)? How tidy is your home?

Some links to share (I haven't actually read these yet, but I intend to!):

• What Our Stuff Says about Us
• Your home is your castle - so, what if it's a dump?
• WHAT OUR HOUSES SAY ABOUT US

I look forward to all of your comments!!

The Science of Religion

In The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge by Abdul-Karim Soroush, an idea that I can identify with is given about what people call religious knowledge. First, is that it is not knowledge, per se. I agree with Soroush that divine scripture is indeed divine, but the meaning we humans derive from the words given to us is completely human, which means that it too (like humans) can be full of error.

Because I have a Bachelors of Science in Biology, I am quite familiar with scientific inquiry, methodology, and theories. I am aware that in science, nothing can be proved; only disproved. Everything else is a theory until it is generally accepted and holds up against criticism and experiments to disprove. If a theory holds up, it is considered a law (as in a law of nature), but even laws can be disproved. It is no different with the study of religion. Proof may exist, but we will have to die to find it (perhaps repeatedly if reincarnation is true).

Soroush also explains how every interpretation of religion begins with preconceived notions and assumptions. From personal experiences to the societal whole, our perceptions are biased. As he explains, just asking the question biases the answer. Again, it is the same for science and, I would add, statistics. Asking the question is great, but often not all the variables are considered. So what gets missed? Perhaps we will never know. Perhaps someone else will consider those variables and come up with their own interpretation.

When I consider what I have learned in my religious studies, about the vast array of ideas and beliefs, I can’t help but see Soroush’s points about religious “knowledge”. That to me does not create a problem with faith, as his critics may see it. I think that acknowledging our human shortcomings can only help move us forward, because how else can we grow without knowing where we fail? You can’t fix what you don’t believe is broken. If anyone thinks we humans are perfect, then why would we need God? Perfection is the goal, but we haven’t met it yet. If we had, our world would be a much better place: a garden with lush rivers flowing underneath.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge by Abdul-Karim Soroush for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

Reincarnation & Islam

It’s amazing how much one word can drive debate. Reincarnation seems to be one of those concepts that either a person believes or they don’t. There is no middle ground. So, the fact that it has been a debate in Islam is of no surprise to me. I've been debating the possibility of reincarnation since I was young. In fact, it was this very word, heard out of my mouth, which caused the first religious debate in my life – with my conservative Christian grandmother. I will never forget that day nor the first question she asked and my first reply.

I find it extremely interesting that this debate takes place in Islam as well, because up until I read this article, I had no idea it did, although I still held my belief in the possibility. However, because I do love to debate, I also like to play “devil’s advocate”. In doing so, I would point out that “dead” and “die” in the verse, "And you were dead, and He brought you back to life. And He shall cause you to die, and shall bring you back to life, and in the end shall gather you unto Himself" (2:28) could be figurative as well as literal. Death could be death to ignorance and rebirth into truth. In Christian theology, baptism is a type of death and rebirth, where the death is to the sinner and rebirth to the saved. The same could be said of Islam.

As for the critics against the concept of reincarnation, I can see how they also are reading the verses of the Qur’an. This, like so many debates in Islam and in religion in general, is a matter of interpretation. Beginning and leading out from there, you have perception. Until each and every human has exactly the same experiences in life, perception will remain, which means so will differing interpretations.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Reincarnation in Islam by Sultan Shahin, Asia Times Online, Dec 25, 2003, for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for inter-religious dialogue is becoming very important in the efforts for creating peace. It is for this reason that I returned to school to pursue a BA in Religious Studies and a career in interfaith relations. I intend to work closely with Muslim – Christian relations, and as such, knowing the contemporary arguments for religious ecumenism is as important as knowing the history for and against pluralism and salvation of the “other” in Islam.

In Mohammad Hassan Khalil’s “Salvation and the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (in English)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions - a main reason for the diversity in arguments for pluralistic salvation. Categorizing the arguments starts by categorizing the types of pluralists. It is of some importance to note that most of these pluralists write in English and reside in predominantly non-Muslim countries.

The esoteric perennialist school of thought began with Rene Guenon. Its core belief is that each of the major religions has truth and lead to God. Later, John Hick argued a congruous form of pluralism akin to the story of the elephant and the blind men – the seeming differences in religion are actually only because of perspective and frame of reference. Building on the perennialist thought and distancing from Hick’s view, Reza Shah-Kazemi uses the term universalism and suggests that in order for a religion to be a valid path to salvation, it need to be divinely inspired, not a human construct.

A critical issue with all of these arguments is that they frequently refer to the Qur’an almost exclusively, whereas the majority of Muslims view hadith to be authoritative. In order for many of these Muslims to be open to the pluralist arguments, there may need to be some reconciliation with their views based on hadith. Simply writing hadith off as fabricated or corrupt does a disservice to the debate, as it is akin to telling someone that what they believe in is lies.

The best way to move forward in the debate is to determine how best to help create a paradigmatic revolution. These paradigm shifts are possible, as history has shown us – in both the USA with the civil rights movement and in recent times, in the Middle East with the Arab Spring.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Salvation and the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (in English) by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Paradise for the Perfect

While reading Sayyid Qutb's Qur'anic Commentary on sura 98, I found myself frequently commenting off to the side, “oh, really”. He makes several statements throughout his analysis about which he gives no support. As I stated in my last response paper, entitled “Sharing Jannah”, one of the first steps in analysis of the Qur’an is to pick your translation. Qut’b clearly picked one for surah 98. He then decided to interpret it to mean that only the believers will find Paradise and exist there forever and the rest will burn in the Hell fire.

One problem I have with his analysis is that he makes several statements about Jesus having been the last messenger of Israel and Mohammed as the last prophet period. I found myself asking as I stated above, “oh really?”. Where is his proof? Qut’b offers none. He makes the statement and fails to back it up. Is that because he believes that this is a universally accepted norm? Obviously it is his stance on the subject, but we don’t know why. For me, the rest of his argument based on these assumptions is worthless.

A second problem I had with his analysis is that he offers 109:1-6, “Say: ‘Disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship; neither will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine’” as part of his proof against the polytheists. However, this same verse can be and has been interpreted to allow for pluralism and religious freedom. Perhaps what he means is that religious freedom and pluralism will exist and is allowed, but they (the others – the non-Muslims) will perish in the Hell-fire for eternity.

Finally, the third problem I have with his analysis is that it only allows for the perfect to find salivation and it does not give any credence to God’s mercy, compassion, and to be the final judge in the decision of Paradise or Hell. Once again, we find a human limiting God’s power.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Commentary for Quran - In the Shade of the Qur'an - by Syed Qutb for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Sharing Jannah

As a mother would say to her child, “if you want dessert, you have to finish your dinner” or, “if you keep fighting with your sister, you will go to bed early”, scripture, or God’s word tells us how to behave to receive reward or how not to behave to avoid punishment. Every family and every religion has rules. But what do these rules, in Islam, say about the “other”? It seems that it depends on who you ask. Since the scholarly opinions range from inclusion to exclusion, this is question does not seem to have a definite answer.

To demonstrate the pluralistic answer to the question of salvation of Muslims and non-Muslims, Mohammad Hassan Khalil shared opinions of five well-known Muslim scholars: Abu Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Arabī, Taqiyaddīn Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, and Muhammad Rashīd Ridā. The arguments these scholars make include an analysis of even more questions. Before an answer of who is saved can be determined, one has to decide first how to translate the verses, as many words have multiple meanings, from general to exact. Then, once a translation is made, one has to decide how to interpret them (ijtihad). Interpretation includes even more questions.  Should it matter if the verses are Medinan or Meccan? Does the historical context matter or is it a general statement… or rather, a specific statement for a specific time and place only? Have the verses been abrogated and thus null in meaning to today? So many questions! Oh, but we must back up even further.

What is Islam? Is it possible that non-Mohammed following others, such as the Christians, Jews, and Sabians (people of the book) are in their own way submitting to God in the way that God called them to? Are they “Muslims” of a sort? What about God’s compassion and Mercy? Can’t God decide to save anyone if so desired? So do the rules even matter? The mother might choose to punish the child for his or her naughty behavior, but then will still enfold him or her into her arms, giving forth her love to the child. Will God not be as forgiving, if not more?

As for me, I believe in inclusive love and that only humans limit God’s power and mercy, at a fault.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to MUSLIM SCHOLARLY DISCUSSIONS ON SALVATION AND THE FATE OF ‘OTHERS’ by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

The Golden Rule & Islam

If you asked the average, non-Muslim American if human rights were a consideration in shari’a law, they’d likely tell you “no”. If you asked Abdullahi Ahmed Al-Na’im, he might agree, but that would depend on if you meant God’s actual shari’a, or shari’a as it exists in the Middle East today. Some of the main problems he cites are the failure of the UN to define the terms “human rights” and “fundamental freedoms” in Article 1.3 and the differing frames of reference across cultural and religious boundaries. His solution is to take a new enlightened look at religion and the major traditions in order to find their common normative principal – essentially, the “Golden Rule” – to treat others as you would yourself want to be treated.

UN Golden Rule Poster

Why hasn't this concept brought peace? It is because people tend to apply the concept to members of their own groups, excluding the “others”. Islam has been no exception, although some believe it wasn't intended to be that way. The main issue is that too much emphasis is given to the Medinan verse without consideration given to the historical context. The Meccan verses are much more agreeable to human rights and freedoms and abrogate the earlier verses where Islam was under threat of being wiped out. It’s easy to take verses out of context scripturally and historically to twist words for any reason, but when you look from the perspective of context, a much different story emerges.

Self-determination is one of the rights and fundamental freedoms that every human should be able to enjoy. Part of self-determination is the ability to believe and follow the religion the heart, mind, and soul chooses. Some think that shari’a doesn't allow for religious freedom. They cannot be more wrong.

It is true that there is a tradition that calls for death for apostasy; however, Mohamed Talbi argues that this involves a misreading of the Qur’an. He cites 2:256 as proof that compulsion “is clearly incompatible religion” and 10:99 as proof that God willed that there be diversity and freedom in religious beliefs.

The Golden Rule requires that everyone treat each other as if they were our twin, which means that as humans, we are equal and deserving of the same rights and freedoms as each other. Respecting religious freedom is not mere tolerance; it’s a basic human right.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Chapters 18, 19, and 24 of Liberal Islam: A Source Book for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Democracy, not Theocracy

Many Muslims believe that both their personal and public lives should be governed by Islam. That is, that they believe that a theocratic system, by which laws are governed by shari’a, is the only government that is allowed or worthy. However, even secular democratic government may not only be allowed, but in line with shari’a.

The Prophet Muhammad’s message was for spiritual purposes and because of whom he was, he was a leader of the people, much as Moses was in his time. He may have seemed like a king, but there was no kingdom established. He left neither a successor nor instructions for future governance.  This not only allowed for the people to create their own form of government, but necessitated it. Thus, the door was left open to the possibility of even a secular and/or democratic government. What was required is that the system be just, as that concept was certainly Islamic.

In addition to justice, other concepts that were of great importance to include in whatever government was to be set up were: social cooperation and mutual assistance; establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions. Democracy offers a great opportunity for promoting these ideals, as they naturally are co-aligned. A constitutional democracy further promotes and protects these ideals by setting to law some basic moral standards that hold both the rulers and the citizens equally accountable.

It is necessary for Muslims to be aware that although shari’a (as it literally means) is infallible, as Allah is infallible, humans are not. As such, the human interpretation of the Qur’an is subject to human experience and error. Any law written with Islamic intentions would still not reach the level of shari’a; rather, it would be fiqh, having the potential the potential to be in error. It is for this reason that consensus, or shura is such an important aspect to Islamic law, as what is best for the people is usually best determined by the people.

If we lived in a perfect world and if we were able to understand God’s word perfectly, then we would not need laws. In such an imperfect existence, laws provide some level of protections to human rights – some justice. Laws given in a constitutional democracy might be perhaps, a best-case scenario for upholding Islamic ideals.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to pages 3-46 of Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

Shura and Democracy are One

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Chapters 1-4 and 9-10 of Liberal Islam: A Source Book for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

Ali Abd al-Raziq contended that the Prophet’s duty was to spread a message, not to form a state. He believed that the leadership of the message was so different from that of kings that they could be opposites. He also points out that the Prophet’s leadership was wider than that of a king. He offers many verses from the Qur’an where the Prophet’s mission was contrasted with that as a warden, guardian, or king. He was a reminder, not an oppressor or dominator, “sent to warn alone” (11:12). Thus, he believed that Islam was religious, not political, thus democracy as a possibility.

Muhammad Khalaf-Allah furthered the idea of Islamic democracy, believing it was not only compatible, but required his argument to support this belief rests on surah 3:159, “And seek their counsel in all affairs. And when you have come to a decision, place your trust in God alone.” It is this verse that he believes makes shura obligatory. He compares what the Europeans say about representation, majority ruling, and removal of a corrupt ruler is the same as follows in Islamic law.

Ayatolla Mahmud Taleqani speaks about the freedoms and mercies that should be the basis of Islamic order and the atrocities that have been foolishly committed in the name of God. This line of thinking is in line, again with the idea of democracy and perhaps suggests the idea of the separation of “church” and state.

Muhammed Sa’id al-Ashmawi explains how the politicization of shari’a and casting ancient jurisprudence as if of equal importance to the Qur’an and sunnah and covering it in concrete (made definitive and stagnant) corrupted the original intentions in the Prophet’s message, thus corrupted our idea of shari’a. He maintains the importance of itjihad and the importance given to the changes of time and customs.

Rachid Ghannouchi promoted the idea that it is better to have a secular democracy than no democracy at all, although an Islamic democracy is preferred. He explains that it is in Muslims’ best interest to be involved in secular democracy when an Islamic one is not possible to make sure the government is just and protects civil liberties.

Sadek Jawad Sulaiman explained how shura is no different, in fact, one in the same as democracy and that the more democratic, and more civil rights are protected, the more Islamic the system.

Originally written for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University - Sept. 2012

The House that Christ Built

A comparative look at the Gospels of Mark and Thomas

Originally written on 4/19/12 for my Birth of Christianity class

 

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Mark

After reading both the gospels of Mark and Thomas with fresh eyes, I am struck with the idea that one is like timber available for building and the other is like a finished structure, ready for tenants.  The gospel of Thomas (hereafter: Thomas) is simply a list of sayings attributed to the person in history named Jesus. It is referred to as his secret teachings, although the secrets are not given away freely, as many of the sayings can be difficult to understand (ex: Thom 10, 17, 19, and especially 42). The gospel of Mark (hereafter: Mark), on the other hand, is a narrative – a story. It has a beginning, middle and, as most stories do, builds to a crescendo before coming to an end. There are no real secrets here, as what Jesus says is often explained to his disciples (Mk 4:14-20). 

When walking through the lumber yard of Thomas, the reader is not given a map, as no map would make sense. There is no seeming order to Jesus’ sayings and sometimes certain sayings even seem to be repeated, although with small variations (ex: Thom 2 and 94; 55 and 101). Although there is no apparent order to the list, one could sort the sayings into themes, the names by which might depend on the reader and his or her interpretations of the sayings.

It is the roughness of Thomas, the crude way it is written as only a list, that I think would have appealed to the first followers of Jesus. It allowed for variations of opinions, for interpretations by the self. Each person would have the same opportunity to find in it those things which resonated within.

Several themes that I noted within the gospel of Thomas may have found resonance with the early Christians. These include the search for knowledge or wisdom, the oneness of all life, the necessity to be like a child to experience the kingdom of God, what God’s imperial rule is like and simple rules to live within humanity’s communities. These themes may have been easily acceptable to any of the followers of Jesus that were familiar with the likes of Socrates, who also was a proponent seeking wisdom and of the concept of “Know thyself” (Thom 2, 3, 67, 92, 94).

Thomas may have also appealed as seeming more authentic, as if the author was writing the sayings down best as he could remember, without tarnishing anything with embellishments. At the same time, it could have put off those that found the list too confusing and difficult to understand, especially with the implication of these being secret teachings; when the reader didn’t understand, it would be too easy for him to disregard it as make-believe. For these people, Mark would be much easier to understand, thus easier to accept as authentic.

Tract Housing

As mentioned before, Mark is much more than a list of sayings, although when walking through the halls of the structure, pieces of Thomas seem to be peeking out through the paint here and there (ex: Mk  2:20, 2:21-22, 6:4-5, 12:17, 12:31,  and Thom 104, 47, 31, 100, 25 respectively). Although the reader can tell that the authors of Mark and Thomas visited the same lumberyard, it is just as evident that Mark’s author either missed much of the materials available, or only sought certain pieces for his structure. Perhaps Mark’s author had an agenda: to tell a story about Jesus from the perspective that he understood. If that was the case, then he would have selected those pieces that made sense to him and then added to them some structure so that other readers would see what he saw. Another possibility could be that Mark’s author knew more details than the author of Thomas. Finally, it is just as likely that the structure was not unique to Mark’s author, but instead was one of several tract homes. 

Mark’s appeal to the Jesus followers would have been the narrative he gave of the man that they followed, worshiped, and glorified. The author begins with Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit and flows through the geographical travels of his subsequent teachings and healings until the author concludes with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Themes found in Mark are the power of belief, the lack of belief in man, the coming of the kingdom of God, a sense of urgency, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is also defined in Mark as Christ, son of God, Holy, son of David, last of the prophets, and Lord (Mk 1:1, 1:24, 10:48, 12:6, and 16:19 respectively).  This stands in contrast to Thomas, where Jesus is defined as an angel, philosopher, and teacher, although Jesus rebukes the last saying, “I am not your teacher” (Thom 13).

The definition of Jesus in Thomas is not the only difference we find from Mark. There is no death and resurrection theme in Thomas; rather, the kingdom of God is already present for those that understand (Thom 113). It is not faith that brings salvation in Thomas (Mk 9:2, 22, 29). Instead, looking within and bringing what is inside out is what saves (Thom 70). Also lacking in Thomas are the references to the old testament that point to the idea of Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy in Mark (Mk 1:2, 10:48, 12:10, 14:49, 15:27). These differences may have separated audiences that paid heed to one gospel or the other (or both).

As mentioned previously, Thomas may have resounded more with Jews that were familiar with philosophers like Socrates. They may have been drawn to some parallel ideas and may even have been interested in the idea of having secret knowledge. I imagine the more philosophical type may have already been less interested in ancient readings such as those found in the Hebrew Bible (except for where wisdom could be gleaned) and would have already been along a path of introspection when Thomas was written. Thus, these people may have been less likely to be looking for the Messiah foretold in the ancient scriptures. Thomas would have also been easier for the gentiles to relate to as well. The Jews that were more scripturally bound may have been more drawn to the finished housing of Mark’s gospel.

Jews that knew their scripture and who were suffering would have taken much solace in learning the tradition of Jesus’ teachings and healings and salvation offered to them through faith in him and in God’s possibilities (Mk 10:27). The gospel as a historical type story would have also been familiar to them, as many of their ancient scriptures that they held dear were written as historical stories. The followers of Mark’s gospel likely saw overlap in Thomas, but may have turned away from it because of the lack of support of Jesus as the Messiah, come to save mankind.

The choice of which gospel one might follow still would have been individual, but I can see the draw to that which is more complete, explained, and feels like guidance. Thomas is given to the reader as a list of secret teachings (or sayings) of the person named Jesus. The sayings are not explained, but left bare, without embellishment. By contrast, Mark is a complete story with explanations given along the way. The house has been built, the walls painted, furniture moved in and waits for the tenant to move in and make it his or her home.

Gender Equality and Islam

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11). The question is: what does this quote form the Qur’an mean when it comes to women and their standing in society as compared to men? Too many mullas (religious scholars), it means that women are worth only half of what man is worth. It seems to make sense, right? Why else would men get twice as much as women? It seems logical until you consider the context. What is the context? The way in which society operated at the time this surah was received by Mohammed, PBUH.

 As Benazir Bhutto shares, in sixth century Arabia, men were the providers, women were the provided. Women did not have to work, and what their husband’s earned was theirs. The husbands were in charge of taking care of their wives and children. Thus, when considering inheritance, men needed twice as much, so that he could provide for his wife, and women needed less, since her husband (and his inheritance) was going to provide for her. When considering the quote mentioned above in this context, you can see how it has nothing to do at all with equality, except to makes sure that men and women were equally provided for, considering their social obligations.  

 Today’s gender inequality found in some Islamic areas are not just from the interpretation of mullas, but also from hadith that have been considered “authentic” but may not be, even by the standards that were originally set by the leaders of three of the prominent schools of thought: Malik, Shafi’i, and Hanifa. Several examples that are less than favorable toward women come from hadith reported by Abu Bakra, recorded by Al-Bukhari, whose work “has been the most highly respected references for twelve centuries” (Fatima Mernissi).

Unfortunately, some of these hadith are written without the context, and as mentioned earlier, context is important. Also, Abu Bakra’s hadith are suspect, as he was not honest, having been flogged for slander, and Aisha, the Prophet’s wife counters many of his hadith and even chastised him for collecting hadith he never heard.

Gender inequality in Islam does not come from scripture; rather it comes from a string of male oriented, patriarchal mulla interpretation and the coupling of suspect hadith being considered authentic. I feel one must always consult the Qur’an, pray for guidance, and find harmony between heart, Qur’an, and interpretation – for oneself.

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class in March 2012