To beat or not to beat?

An interesting project is under way over at Eteraz.org. The aim of the project is to distribute copies of the Quran with less atavistic interpretations of the verses, such as verses which instruct when it is appropriate to beat one's wife if she has extramarital relations. I suspect this verse only applies to husbands as there is no mention of same sex relationships, although arguably a wife could beat herself.

Depressingly, Ali notes that even in the wife-friendlier version of the Quran, the prescription for adultery is a beating. Still, the commentary in this version of the Quran invalidates such beatings. This may not sound like much of a difference, but it is, in a manner of speaking. The interpretations of respected scholars plays a pivotal role in a Muslim's understanding of the Quran. The best parallel I can think of is to the way a barrister might use Halisbury's Laws of England to understand the Criminal Code. The naked text alone cannot quench our thirst for answers. It is for this reason I endorse the project and strongly suggest those who also agree to consider giving a donation. Details are in the link above.

On a personal note, such things dredge up deep feelings inside me. Like the cool, low flames of an old but still-existent love relationship, my Muslim heritage is still very dear to me. Yet as an atheist who categorically rejects Islamic theology, if only because I'm not convinced by its factual or spiritual accuracy, I can't help but feel that yet again Muslims are avoiding some simple truths. These would include:

• maybe the Quran was sung and later written by inspired human beings subject to the norms and aspirations of the eras in which they lived? If so, perhaps it does not provide the answer to most of our 21st century questions?
  
• perhaps this means that we can't just rely on the Quran for moral guidance? Afterall, there's nothing in the Quran on sustainable development or stem cell research.
  
• do I need to be believe in the authenticity of the Quran, by which I really just refer to its primacy as the word of god as anunciated to Prophet Muhammed, to be a Muslim?

Actually those are more like questions. But you get the idea. I should point out that I'm not against being Muslim theologically. Such things are intensely personal, and it is beyond my rights to tell people what to believe. I only wish to point out that I cannot in good conscience pretend that I think such theology, like any theology, has a licence to avoid simple common sense logic. Nor am I convinced that such theology necessary 'has all the answers'. And if it doesn't have all the answers, why not look for answers outside what we've been taught to believe. Or, to put it another way, why not be moral without the theology?

This is a topic I've been meaning to write more on but I'm not sure if now is the right time (mainly because I'm busy with other commitments). What I will say for now though, and this is probably a good place to stop, is that I don't feel like my concern stems from some kind of identity crisis. I long ago reached a peace with myself and the 'apparent' contradictions in being an atheist Muslim. In fact, the irony is that while I continue to live my life the way I see fit, I see many of my Muslim friends struggling, either with a double life of Western 'hedonism' and Muslim sobriety, or a singularly rigid life of unnecessary abstinence from everything worth indulging in. This latter category is particularly true for Muslim women.

Perhaps a most stark example of the type of double life some Muslims lead occurred on the night I was at a rave and someone asked me if I'd like to buy some pills. I declined the generous offer, but in so doing, I realised the guy asking me was the son of a family friend who could not be much older than 15. We shared a short but pregnant pause before both realising we knew each other. But, before I could introduce myself , he turned around and left.