Summary of 3 Sources

I will be writing on the relationship between secular and religious disaster conceptions, with a focus on natural disasters, and how secular and religious groups justify the catastrophic occurrence.

The 2010 study, “Religions, natural hazards, and disasters: An introduction,” by J.C. Galliard and P. Texier elaborates on how the media is “keen” on covering natural disasters as acts of god, since the idea of punishment by way of natural disaster is so common in many western religions. Galliard and Texier posit that the ubiquity of disasters intended to punish and teach humans in western religions may be why certain societies are willing to accept such rationalizations. Ultimately, they argue that religion acts as an effective contributor to disaster-risk reduction, as they are generally trusted groups within the greater community that are able to arrive at the aftermath of disaster much faster than other groups can.

In the 1999 study, “Value-conflict arising from a disaster,” A.J.W. Taylor argues that religion can sometimes stand in the way of effective disaster treatment. Taylor uses the aftermath of a cyclone in the Cook Islands to illustrate how clergy were more focused on victims accounting for their sins, and less so on providing the actual aid the victims required. A secular trauma therapist criticized the clergy, accusing them of focusing too much on “…the Book of Revelation rather than on the Gospels of the New Testament. Taylor effectively argues that aid-groups need to pay attention to the value systems of disaster victims in order to more accurately address their needs.

In her 2010 study, “Anthropology of religion: Disaster and the representations of tradition and modernity,” J. Schlehe speculates that religion provides a way for people to express specific political interests after a disaster: by claiming the reason for the disaster is divine, certain groups of people can achieve various economic, social, or political gains that would have been hard to attain without the influence of religion. Schlehe claims that this methodology can be used to manipulate groups of people into acting in ways different from how they would have acted if the disaster had not been justified as a punishment from god.

Ragnarok

"The thin child thought that these stories-- the sweet, cotton-wool meek and mild one, the barbaric sacrificial gloating one, were both human make-ups, like the life of the giants in the Riesengebirge. Neither aspect made her want to write, or fed her imagination. They numbed it. She tried to think she might be wicked for thinking these things. She might be like Ignorance, in Pilgrim's Progress, who fell into the pit at the gate of heaven. She tried to feel wicked. But her mind veered away, to where it was alive."  pg. 12

This passage shows an aspect of religion, and the teaching of it, that has never sat well with me. In Sunday school, one of the first places that small children are exposed to religion in a way that they can comprehend it, there is clearly a lot of emphasis on the good that comes from accepting the teachings. But there is also an ulterior agenda of grooming behaviors that reinforce this commitment to religion until they are old enough to be making the conscious decision to be followers, and make the necessary sacrifices and lifestyle choices. This means that questions about religion are often avoided, redirected, or simply left unanswered-- in hopes that the urge to critically analyze is dropped for good. This creates a sort of taboo of discourse about religion between everyone, and between adults and children especially. It feels wrong to ask questions, and it creates the illusion that there is something wrong with questioning your beliefs; as if there is weakness in not blindly and boldly accepting what is fed to you your whole life. Children feel alone in their doubt, like there is something wrong with them, and this spawns feelings of shame and a misunderstanding of what one's relationship with religion should be. I believe that if people are truly so concerned with forming lasting faith in children, they should allow them to explore and ask questions and analyze, and to see the value in the way critical thought can reinforce your own beliefs. Instead of creating a hostile, tight-lipped environment for curious young minds, why not use this as an opportunity to let them form their own informed opinions? This discourse could be exactly what is missing from religion, exactly what is needed to make minds 'come alive.'

Ragnarok

"She read the introduction about the retrieval of the old Germanic world, with its secrets and wonders...  She was puzzled of the idea of the Germans. She had dreams that they were Germans underneath her bed, who, having cast her parent into a green pit in dark woods were sawing down the legs of her bed to reach her and destroy her. Who were these old Germans as opposed to the ones overhead, now dealing death out of the skies."

This passage comes quite early on in the book and refers to when the thin child comes across the book Asgard and the Gods and starts to read it. It refers to the child realizing  how this book is filled with many mysteries, apparitions, and illusions. The thin child also comments how this book was written by Germans and how it reminds her of the shrouded Germanic culture and its secrets. I also found it very interesting as to how she comes to the conclusion that she is afraid of Germans. She doesn't explicitly say this but says that she thinks they're Germans underneath her bed, who are trying to claw their way to her and destroy her. As a young child I would also be afraid of whats under my bed or in my closet, and I found it intriguing how the thin child made Germans to be her bed monsters. This probably has a lot to do with the time and setting of the story because parts of it refers to World War II and the bombings over England and how German's are doing this by "dealing death out of the skies."

Ragnarok

"When the bond round the earth was loosed, other bonds broke. The hell-hound, Garm, snapped his chain and leaped out to join his wolf kindred. The sun in her chariot, and the moon in his, whipped up their horses in their everlasting rush round the sky. But the tireless pursuing wolves, joined by Garm, with crimson eyes and gullet, knew that their time had come, galloped faster, and fastened their teeth in the haunches of the silver horse and the swarthy. The horses screamed and swerved, and light in the world went mad, black, blazing white, dark as hell, lurid red."-A. S. Byatt, Ragnarok, pg. 136

Passages like this one exemplify the fragility of the system which keeps the earth in balance and keeps entropy at bay. The "bond around the earth" which sends the earth into chaos in Ragnarok is the giant serpent and her destructive forces. This phrase can also be seen in light of human unity as the great global link of a common cause. once this common cause is lost, whether it be environmental struggles, global economy, or peace treaties, can lead to the rapid descent of humanity and the earth into complete chaos in which everything is wiped out by opposing forces and there is nothing left, represented by the two battling armies that wipe each other out and take out all of the world with them. This chain-reaction apocalypse that Byatt describes in Ragnarok is not entirely impossible to replicate with the world powers today, and was especially possible during the time of World War II, when this was written. It seemed almost certain that the world powers would take each other out.

Ragnarok

"The gods decided to tie up the wolf.  The words men used to describe the gods were the words they used for fetters or bonds, things which held the world together, within bounds, preventing the breakout of chaos and disorder." (52)

I chose this passage because the word choice stood out to me.  The denotation of "fetters" is a chain used to restrain a prisoner.  Its connotation is heavily on the negative end.  This is part of the reason that this passage was so intriguing to me.  While my perception of gods is a far more enlightening, awe-inspring one, it appears as though men in this time thought differently.  I had always believed that in ancient Greek times, men and women both heavily revered the gods, relied upon them, and worshipped them.  The repetition of the image of tying or restricting mortals in this passage implies that the God's powers serve to limit, protect, and inhibit the people.  "Fetters" elicits the image of chains, an overbearing, uncomfortable, heavy object that entraps criminals.  I had never imagined the Gods as the glue that holds the world together, and I found that comparison very interesting in this passage.  Are humans wild beasts that need to be tamed?  In Ragnarok, I repeatedly noticed the notion of the elements holding far more power than humans do.  For instance, the skinny child merely watches, observes, and glimpses at the ever-changing, fascinating things surrounding her.  What does this say about human agency?  If the Gods have so much power, like this passage implies, how do they control us?  To what extent do we have free will?  Are we just pawns in their game as they manipulate and strategize?

Ragnarok

'I know that I hung on a windy tree

nine long nights

Wounded with a spear dedicated to

Odin

Myself to myself, on that tree of which 

no man knows

From where its roots run.

No bread did they give me nor drink 

from a horn,

Downwards I peered;

I too up the runes, screaming I took

them

Then I feel back from there.

Nine mighty spells I learned. . . 

Although this is a relatively short passage, I found much relevance in it. From my understanding it is describing the torture that the God Odin went through which in turn strengthened him. While reading about Asgard, I saw a connection between Odin and what the Christian faith would call a demon. There was no surprise that later on in the text he was described as the God of Death and Battle, which I find ironic in itself. In the text it is mentioned that Odin accepts human sacrifices in a pretty gruesome way, and that is obviously where he got some of the ideas from. 

Ragnarok

"There were pictures and songs of gentle Jesus meek and mild. In one of them he preached in a clearing to a congregation of attentive curly animals, rabbits, a fawn, a squirrel, a magpie. The animals were more real than the divine-human figure. The thin child tried to respond to the picture, and failed.
They were taught to say praters. The thin child had an intuition of wickedness as she felt what she spoke wicked into a cotton-wool cloud of nothingness.
She was logical child, as children go. She did not understand how such a nice, kind, good God as the one they prayed to, could condemn the whole earth for sinfulness and flood it, or condemn his only Son to a disgusting death on behalf of everyone. This death did not seem to have done much good...
The thin child thought that these stories... were both human make-ups... Neither aspect made her want to write, or fed her imagination. They numbed it."

I picked this passage because I thought it gave a lot of insight into the girl's young mind. She's so young, yet she's already got the wisdom and logic to see that maybe the things she's being taught aren't true. I see her as being very smart for being skeptical, and in my opinion, people should learn to be more skeptical of what teachers teach us, because there are things to be gained from questioning what's presented as "true;" it's important to discover what is true for you personally.
The thin girl finds the stories from her mother's books to be more interesting than the stories taught to her in her scripture lessons, and another reason I picked this passage was because it resonated with me personally. I've tried a handful of times to devote myself to christianity, but it simply didn't click or make sense to me for many reasons, one of which is similar to the thin girl's perspective. This is highlighted in the last paragraph, and says that the stories of the religion simply do not spark the thin girl's imagination in any way.

The humanization of the gods

     “Hermodur bowed to the queen of Hel, and said that he had come to beg for Baldur’s return to Asgard. Gods and men, an all creatures, were helpless with grief, and needed the young god to bring back their liveliness, their power to hope. Most of all, said Hermodur, the goddess Frigg had asked him to be Hel for Baldur’s return, for she could not live without him. To this, Hel replied that mothers throughout time had learned to live without their sons. Every day young men died and came quietly over her golden bridge. Only in Asgard could they die in battle every day, as a game, and live again to feast in the evening. In the hard world, and in the world of shadows, death was not a game.

     But this death, said Hermodur, had diminished the light of the world.

     So, said Hel. It is diminished, then. (105-106).

     I chose this passage because it exemplifies an important distinction between gods and humans. Just a few pages earlier, we are told that Baldur’s death is worrisome to Odin because “gods don’t fall dead”. I would suggest that the greatest catalysts for Ragnarok are the death of Baldur and the subsequent refusal of Loki to weep (although this probably wasn’t necessary; the original poem states that Hel’s reasoning for offering this compromise was that if someone killed him in the first place, they wouldn’t weep).
     What is most important to draw from this thought is the first major instance of the gods experiencing a tragedy that occurs only for humans: the loss of a friend/relative. Another important aspect to draw from this is the fact that even the most cunning cannot escape the end. Certainly, had Loki known that by killing Baldur he would seal his own fate, he would not have done so.
     I think that the final humanization of the gods is what was missing for the coming of Ragnarok. I assume that this is due to the fact that in stories written by men, there must be some connection to our species.

Ragnarok

"What was there in the beginning in the Asgard stories?

In the first age

There was nothing 

Nor sand nor sea

Nor cold waves;

There was no earth,

No sky on high

The gulf gaped

And grass grew nowhere"

This passage is on page 23, and is the second part of the explanation of how the world was created. The "thin child" was wondering how the world came to be and how everything inside it was created. Two stories were promoted: the religious story regarding a "grandfatherly figure who had spent six delectable days making things" (along with the idea of the snake and the concept of temptation with the apple) and the one in the Asgard stories. I think this passage has a lot of relevance with society today because the concept and question "how did the Earth come to be?" is asked by scientists and religious scholars alike and it has been the center of cause of much debate between two conflicting spectrums. Based of what the passage before this one said, the thin child found the second story much more interesting. I thought this passage was important because it revealed a lot about the main character - the thin child. It showed the thin child's curiosity and desire to learn. I was debating choosing this passage and another one discussing how the child would use a hidden light or the light underneath the bedroom door in order to read different stories. Both of these passages demonstrate the child's thirst for knowledge and allow the reader to develop a strong understanding of the child's character. This passage demonstrates how the child uses the book of Asgard and the Gods to make sense of the new world that she has been thrown into. This passage regarding the creation of life and the world is almost like a guide for her as she too has been put into an environment that is completely different from the one that she was used to. Another reason I really liked this passage is because it is almost like the "calm before the storm" as it says that in the first age there was nothing. It is almost foreshadowing the idea that something big is going to be created and it is going to explode out of nowhere. 

10/29/2014 Ian Crowley

"She was a logical child, as children go. She did not understand how such a nice, kind, good God as the one they prayed to, could condemn the whole earth for sinfulness and flood it, or condemn his only Son to a disgusting death on behalf of everyone. This death did not seem to have done much good. There was a war on. Possibly there would always be a war on. The fighters on the other side were bad and not saved, or possibly were human and hurt" (Byatt 11).

I picked this passage because it brings up an argument that we have recently been discussing in class. The little girl asks the same question that has been asked so many times in our discussions: if there is a god, why would he allow so many bad things to happen in the world? To me this is a very interesting question because it can never truly be answered. People can only speculate why God would let war, natural disasters, and so much unwarranted death to occur. Why would God not step in and prevent terrible events like these from happening? Is he trying to teach the human race a lesson so they can learn from their mistakes? As for me, I have to side with  the little girl. Although her innocence and naivety are apparent in other selections, she makes a valid point about God. I don't understand how someone who is supposed to support and love all could allow such horrible things to happen.

Ragnarok: Creation Story

"The gods made the world from the dead giant. The thin child was disturbed at having to imagine this; there was no scale by which she could measure it, although she could grasp the shadowy semblances that linked the bits of dead Human to the creatures and structures in the world."

Byatt, A.S. (2012-02-07). Ragnarok: The End of the Gods (p. 26). Canongate U.S.. Kindle Edition.

After reading this relatively short passage from Ragnarok, I immediately became enveloped in the character of the thin child. It was remarkable to see how she, at such a young age, began to question some of the hardest ideas to grasp in life. To think in such a methodical, intelligent way illustrates the uniqueness of the thin child. But what grabbed my attention the most was the parallelism to the idea of religion. In this creation story, the thin child questions the authenticity of the story, which parallels to the many thinkers today that argue against the idea of the creation stories involving a God. At such an early stage of the book, the author, through the thin child's actions, has the reader already making connections to the questioning of religion and its authenticity. Like the thin child wondering how the world could be created from a dead giant, many people wonder how a God could create the world in 7 days and 7 nights. This parallelism sparked an extreme amount of interest in me and made me want to continue reading the novel.

Ragnarok

"The grief of the gods was appalling. They broke down. They could not speak for weeping. Most affected of all was Odin: gods did not fall dead, and when the loveliest and gentlest god could be killed in a game, worse was still on the way. For a long time the assembled gods stood stupidly, unable to touch the body, or to move it. The bright hair ruffled in the light wind. Dark Hödur stood alone, listening to the sobbing. The thing child closed her eyes and tried to imagine the inside of his head and failed." (96).

This passage perfectly illustrates the point that A.S. Byatt is trying to make about gods, war, and destruction on earth (or in this case, in the mythical world). It is a beautiful passage because it illuminates so clearly how the gods feel about the death of the gentle, beautiful Baldur. The way it is written makes the grief and sheer shock palpable. It emphasizes that which is impossible can become possible. It is a paragon of incredulity. This is further emphasized with the fact that thin girl herself cannot even begin to imagine what is going on. 

This all ties in to the themes of the book. It makes a statement about the carelessness of the gods and those with power. The gods act reckless and thus pay for it. Furthermore this passage sheds light on the futility and fleeting nature of life. With these themes in mind, as well as the craftily composed syntax and imagery, this is one of the strongest passages I found in reading this book.

Ragnarok

“The thin child, despite the war that was raging, was more afraid of eternal boredom, of doing nothing that mattered, of day after day going nowhere, than she was of death or the end of things . When she thought of death she thought of the little boy across the road who had died of diabetes.”

I picked this passage because this selection explains why the “thin child” would rather read fantasy, mythological stories, as opposed to a religious book, like the Bible. To the thin child, religion and the idea of an eternal life after death bored her. So to counteract with what she was continuously taught in school and in religion, she would read or make up stories with multiple gods; they involved more action and relatable events. Instead of an all-powerful God, her characters were much more than just powerful; they had flaws and personalities such as being a bully or too cunning. She had created them to escape the daily life apocalypses she was experiencing. She wanted her life to have more meaning. These stories gave her life more meaning when she reread them; she was reviving and ending life through her characters.

In addition, most people use religion to give there lives more meaning because of the “story” aspect in religious texts to imagine something much greater. Similar to the thin child, instead of using religion literature-since she found the idea of God and religion to be boring-she would supplement her own stories she found fascinating to cope with the time.  Everyone has their own way with handling situations; she chose stories that broadened her imagination. Also, I wanted to mention the significance of the last line I quoted. She had a very limited personal experience with death. When she thought of death, she thought of the “little boy across the road who had died of diabetes.” This highlights how as a child, she may not have completely had a grasp or a developed idea of death. She was a child who was much more stimulated by the stories she read. They were much larger than life to her. Throughout this book, this premature developed mind helped her completely transform the idea of “death” with the gods.

Ragnarok: The End of the Gods

"The thin child knew, and did not know that she knew, that her elders lived in provisional fear of imminent destruction.  They faced the end of the world they knew.  The English country world did not end, as many others did, was not overrun, nor battered into mud by armies.  But fear was steady, even if no one talked to the thin child about it.  In her soul she knew her bright father would not come back.  At the end of every year the family sipped cider and toasted his safe return.  The thin child felt a despair she did not know she felt."

This excerpt from Ragnarok really stood out to me because of how fear can impact people.  In literature, children are considered symbols of purity.  They are oblivious to judgment and the evil of the world.  However, in this selection from Ragnarok, even the thin child was exposed to feeling fear.  think this speaks volumes because it shows that no matter how much much a person wants to ignore their true feelings they can't runaway from it.  Like in the text, the thin child and the family pretended the father would come back, but fear was still present in the back of their minds.  People can hope and pray for the outcome they want, but deep down, they already know what the expected outcome is.

Ragnarok

"In the thin child's mind, there must have been a time when the sun and the moon, created by the gods, moved at their own sweet will, meandering maybe, pausing maybe, extending a lovely day, or a lovely summer, maybe, or a dark dreamless night." (58)

What I have enjoyed most about this book is simply the beauty of the prose. The word choice and imagery is a treat to read. This quote exemplifies that opinion. The imagery created here of a time where the seasons and the days occurred in an almost leisurely fashion really speaks to me. This quote is also very important because it points out a stark contrast between the modern setting of the book, and a potentially more idyllic time. The thin child imagines a time when the sun and moon moved with leisure sometimes stretching out a day that they wanted to experience more of. In the modern age, it is almost as if the war and the fear that comes with it are the personification of those mythological wolves within the story. The moon and the sun symbolize human freedom and free will that to some extent is lost in war and violence. The troubles we experience in the world serve to chase us out of free will and leisure, pushing us towards a more serious and troubled existence. It is for this reason that the thin child escapes to her mythological world. She maintains a sense of wonder and imagination even in the face of adversity.

Ragnarok

“Baldur went, but he did not come back. The thin child sorted in her new mind things that went and came back, and things that went and would not come back. Her father with his flaming hair was flying under the hot sun in Africa, and she knew in her soul that he would not come back. She knew it partly because of the things tangibly unsaid when the family at Christmas raised small glasses of cider, and drank to him, and the hope that next Christmas he would come back. There were stories that ended, instead of going in circles and circles, and the story of the beautiful god was one of those, and she found it grimly satisfactory. Though her readings and rereadigs at all times of the year gave it a kind of eternal recurrence. The story ended, but she began it again.” (77).

This quote is important because it tells a deeper truth about the importance of religion and mythology in our society. The fact that the “thin child” rereads the myth of Ragnarok to cope with her world in the apocalyptic state of war was very interesting. It shows that apocalyptic literature offers an escape from the daily apocalypses and tragedies we experience. The child truly thought that her father would not come back, and in the story of Ragnarok, Baldur died and did not come back. The child couldn’t do anything about the state of her father, but she could reread Ragnarok and control whether or not Baldur came back. Although such stories of apocalypse are not uplifting, and sometimes make us dwell more on our own tragedies than distract from them, they can function almost as a support system.  This is true for modern religion as well. In the same sense that Baldur “went, but he did not come back”, so too do Christian religions believe that Jesus died on the cross, never to come back until the final judgment day. Although biblical stories such as the life of Jesus end, throughout the course of the year, the same story is repeated, and has been repeated for hundreds of years. This recurrence offers stability that humans need.

Ragnarok

"...There were stories that ended and instead of going in circles and cycles, and the story of the beautiful god was one of those, and she found it grimly satisfactory. Though her readings and rereadings at all times of the year gave it a kind of eternal reoccurance. The story ended, but she began it again.
     These gods, she understood, were apprehensive gods, fearful gods, right from the beginning. Asgard had defensive walls and sentinels on watch. There was an expectation of doom..."

I thought the first part of this passage was interesting because of the way that she kept the stories alive by simply rereading them. I've heard people say things like this when talking about Harry Potter books, like if you read them again all your favorite characters are alive again because JK Rowling decided to kill them all off one by one. I thought it was a good description of that feeling when you reread a book.

The second part of this passage was interesting to me because of the way it described the "gods" in the story. I mean to me these creatures don't really seem god-like, they're more like greek mythological "gods" in that they have flaws and they have fears. To me that would also just make it seem like they aren't really similar to God at all. They may have powers beyond human capacity, but I don't think that means that much if they have fear.

10/30/14 Cristal Kim

     "He was amused and dangerous, neither good nor evil. Thor was the classroom bully raised to the scale of growling thunder and whipping rain. Odin was Power, was in power. Ungraspable Loki flamed amazement and pleased himself.
     The gods needed him because he was clever, because he solved problems. When they needed to break bargains they had rashly made, mostly with giants, Loki showed them the way out. He was the god of endings. He provided resolutions for stories - if the chose to. The endings he made often led to more problems (page 40)."
   
     This passage illustrates the balance that Loki provides in the universe; he is uninterested in the inner workings and details of the world, instead distancing himself. He focuses on his own needs before others but still is a part of the others' decisions thus leading him to being this so-called "god of endings." This is the perfect title for Loki: it illustrates how the others view Loki and are able to acknowledge his cleverness but are not always left satisfied with his solutions. Furthermore, this depiction of Loki reveals that he, himself, is well-aware of his own wit and is able to use it to his advantage. As mentioned before, he lives to amuse and please himself, and thus the "endings" lead to more problems. This foreshadows how the rest of the tales will end; his wit will end others and he can easily outsmart everyone else for his own entertainment. Loki is simply the ends to a means.

"Ragnarok" Passage

This is an excerpt from pg. 113 of "Ragnarok," by A.S. Byatt:

"Loki was interested in things because he was interested in them, and in the way they were in the world, and worked in the world. He was neither kind nor gentle, not anyway when he inhabited the world of myth. In the world of folktales he was a fire demon, mostly benign, providing warmth for hearths and ovens. In the world of Asgard he was smiling and reckless, a forest fire devouring what stood in its path."

This passage explains the conditional perceptions of Loki's nature among humans and gods, respectively. On the one hand, humans view Loki as a fire-god who has power over the fires in their hearths and ovens that provide them with warmth and food, yet on the other hand he is seen a tormentor among the gods. This effectively plays into Loki's "trickster" nature: humans can view him in a positive light while those who know him better can be more wary of his devious ways. This passage also touches upon Loki's inherent curiosity, which may be the fuel for his clever fire. By studying things simply to know how they work, Loki can figure out how to use those particular things to his advantage later on. He is a manipulative god with a knack for harmful pranks, acting almost as a child in certain scenarios. In Asgard, Loki is renowned for his ability to mess things up for other gods who are deeply invested in a certain outcome, thus making him more of an agitator than an altruist. It is certainly interesting how Loki is associated with fire and mischief simultaneously, because fire is mentioned in the word, firebrand--meaning, "a person who kindles strife or encourages unrest; an agitator." I wonder if this word is somehow derived from Loki, since he is both the god of fire and of mischief. All in all, I think this passage is interesting because it analyzes two perspectives of one god, therefore providing a more well-rounded view of what that particular god is supposed to represent.

Qur'an Excerpts

Although it would be much more accurate to read the selections in standard Arabic, I thought the combination of the three different translations gave a good general depiction of the tone and style of the text. The Pickthal translation sounded the most biblical, in its sort of old English diction. There is a definite emphasis on reward for the righteous, and punishment for the evildoers and nonbelievers, almost as if they feel like the draw of heaven is not enough and they must frighten people into keeping their faith. One thing that is unclear is the narrator-- they often identify a collective we/us; separate from Allah, but also from the 'you' that is the reader. Who is speaking? Are we to assume that a group of people are writing this together?

Qu'ran Readings

This was my first time reading excerpts from the Qu'ran and it was very interesting to get to read it from the viewpoints of three translators. It helped provide me with a more solid basis for understanding. At first I wasn't following along the stories too well but as I got used to the syntax I was able to get the grasp of my most things. I favored Yu Safali's translation over the other two because it was written in English that I better understood and was generally more comprehensive. However it was still very enriching to be presented with all three translations at the same time because it provided for an interesting dynamic. For example in the Az Zukhruf readings, there was a line(043.068 ) which all three scholars interpreted the prophet's followers through different names. Yu Safali mentioned them as Devotees, Pickthal mentioned them as Slaves, and Shakir mentioned them as Servants. Upon reading these texts I also realized how the Qu'ran makes many references to Jesus, Christianity, and Judaism. It just shows how connected the world's regions truly are, unfortunately that doesn't stop people from spilling blood over petty differences in these interrelated religions.

Cristal Kim 10/28/14

I found it really helpful that the readings were translated into three different versions; it illustrated how each viewed and read the text. Even the smallest changes in the translations conveyed different tones about the readings. They illustrated different details and affected how I viewed the Qur'an, and consequently how I viewed other religious texts; I have no formal education on the Bible or Qur'an, but I the limited texts I have read from both, seem to be similar. The translations of all religious texts reflect the writer's own perspective and what they deemed to be vital to the religion. Comparing the texts was helpful to further understand how the Qur'an is viewed and interpreted by others.

Quran Readings

Throughout the entire text I felt like I could have been reading the Old Testament in a King James Version of the bible. Being unfamiliar with the Quran and not having read a bible, besides the readings for class, in so long made them seem very related. I found them related as in content and in language. For example, in the readings assigned, one of the interpretations of the Quran brought up Jesus as being the son of Mary and also a prophet. Although the old testament does not mention Jesus, the new testament is all about Jesus and his story. As for the different translations of the text, I did not find them very different at all. Most of the time they interpreted the text pretty similarly but used  different selection of words.

Qur'an Selections

It was difficult to understand each of the different translations at first, but after some rereading I was able to catch on and grasp what was being said. What I found most interesting about these readings was how it talks about the stories of the other religions that are similar to the ones in the Qur'an. It says that the fact that these stories are similar to past religion's stories proves that the Qur'an is more reliable and in fact more true, because these stories have been refined throughout the years. In my opinion, and in the opinion of Bill Maher in Religulous, the fact that these stories have been repeated leads me to believe that maybe they aren't as reliable as some people may think... but that's just my opinion.

10/28/2014 Ian Crowley

I have never read anything from the Qur'an before, and I was very surprised by the how similar it was to the Old Testament. It is told in the Qur'an that the gods punished earlier generations for sinning, by removing them from existence. They did this in order to give future generations the opportunity to have a clean slate and to change their ways. This seems to be a reoccurring theme in the various religious texts that we have read. This reoccurring theme of being punished for sins should make us stop and think more about our actions and how they affect ourselves and others. It was also very interesting to me to be able to see the different translations of the Qur'an. I found that by reading multiple translations of the text, I was able to understand the message much easier.

Also...

Something to think about:
If all of these texts are so similar, based on the same basic principles, all monotheistic, and all coming from the same part of the world, why is there so much conflict between the faiths? I understand it is more than just the interpretation of religion, but it seems like, logically speaking (something we are often not), everyone should just get along and sing kumbaya..

Quran Response

I have had no previous experience with the Qur'an so I was very unsure of what to expect. As a person who went through semi-formal Jewish education, it really surprised me how many similarities there were between the Old Testament/Torah and the Qur'an. I definitely identified with the part about how if people were so aloof that they refused to change their sinful ways (like in the story of Sodom and Gemorrah), God had the right to punish them. 
It was sort of hard to get into the cadence of the Qur'an translation and from what I've heard, it is completely different than it reads in its original, intended language. Obviously this is unrealistic, but I want to know how to speak it so I can hear it in its original cadence. 
Like Alex said, I was a bit off-put by how male heavy this reading was. Everything seemed to be about males or regarding males and, while I understand the patriarchal nature of these religious texts, it is definitely somehing to make note of.  

Quran Response

      I thought it was very interesting to see each of the stories translated by different scholars. As a Muslim, when I read the Quran I always read the translation by someone that has studied Arabic for years. However, the text may still be slightly different from a different person even if they have studied for a long time as well. This is why we have tafseer, which is added explanation from a scholar that has studied the Quran in the context of Islam and the words and practices of the prophet as well. This gives a bigger picture and more context than just reading the translation of the Quran by itself. For example in the translation of surah Naml there is the "ta mim" which is actually referring to two Arabic letters which are meant to be said phonetically. Just this one verse, along with other verses that only have letters have been debated amongst Islamic scholars, but the letters are meant to have a hidden meaning that only God knows.

Qur'an Selections

These three readings were my first experience with the Qur’an. It surprised me how many similarities I found between the Qur’an readings and the Old Testament readings I have been exposed too previously. It also surprised me how logical the arguments in the Qur’an were. The explanations for why God punishes sinners were easy to understand, and the attitude seemed to be that if people do not care enough to change their sinful ways, they deserve punishment from God. I also noted the repeated theme of ungratefulness in the Qur’an selections. It was stated that oftentimes, people pray for help and guidance in times of trouble, and upon receiving this help, go back to their old sinful ways and do not thank God in the way that they should. This created a bold statement about human nature and was very thought provoking to me. Overall, I enjoyed reading the Qur’an and gaining exposure to this holy book.