Exegesis and hermeneutics, folks. You always have to read - what ever text we're talking about - in it's historical setting and ask what it's purpose is. So you say women should be silent and submissive to their husbands? Yeah, it's in the bible all right, but if you compare the bible to the rest of the Roman society at the time you'll see that the bible is more of a progressive text rather than conservative.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5:21-28
To say that husbands are NOT the head of the wife would be too much of a radical move in the first centuary, since this wasn't some norm brought by the early church but rather the roman/hellenistic society. It would have been to controversial for the Church to say anything else. But they
still say some controversial thoughts: the man should love his wife as his own body, and he should treat her as she was himself. For us this often goes us by, because we see it as not that controversial at all - off course you should love eachother as they were our own body! But in the Roman culture this was revolutionary! The women was worth nothing! The man had it all! And now the relation between the man and the women gets compared with the sacrifice of Christ - no one has shown any greater love, and now the man should show his wife that love!
The first to witness the resurection of Christ were women. To give the women this right was revolutionary! At the time womens witness in court was worth nothing. The New Testament is full with women. But still, it's written in a patriarchal society. To expect any text not to be influenced by it's time is naive.
Let us see at what direction of progress the bible points out rather than sticking with the culture and history is was written in. I don't know how to put it in better words... I wish I could!
Oh, one last thing: yes, it has been said that women should be silent in church. But, again, what's the historical setting? Women didn't get to go to school, wich wold lead them to ask questions about the most basic things during the sermons/readings, and so disturb it. That is why they say "silence!", not because they are women, but because they couldn't answer all the basic questions. Instead they were told to ask their husbands instead. They had gone to school, so they knew the answers. Women were pastors and leaders just as men (a somewhat controversial thought for some even today, but read the scripture - they have womens name). They were profets, healers, etc. etc. Men and women are equal.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
The Old testament is still a though one even for me, but I know you have to understand the cultural setting even here. I would only assume the same goes for the Koran.
