Used to have a copy of it, but lost it in a move. After the bombing, I
looked for it in the local library. They had a few copies of the entire
work, but I didn't have the time to go though all of it so I ended up
reading a smaller book from it, kind of like a "best of" the Koran, that had
passages from it organized by topic. Of course I'm not an expert on it, but
the sections of it that I read in that book (and I know that that also is
subject to the editor's choice of selections) seemed to show a harsh
philosophy (how you should treat non-believers, what's the role of women in
society, etc). Maybe I should just shut up, since I don't seem to be
contributing anything of value, only making people angry. Sorry about that.
From: Arwin van Arum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: modern religion (was: Dutch politician)
Well, do you have the Koran? One good example is that women have the right
to inherit goods and do not lose these rights when they get married, nor do
they lose their goods to their husbands when they do so. This was very
modern, maybe even revolutionary at the time. Don't forget that Judaic,
Christian and Muslim religion all build from the old testament.
And do you know anything about Mohammed and his wife? His wife was allowed
to live such an equal life to Mohammed that it frequently brought the two of
them in trouble. Plenty is written on this though it may be hard to find.
I'm certain you would find it very interesting.
Of course, Christianity has been modernised, adapted to or tolerant of,
modern Western society, but so are the majority of Muslims living in modern
Western society, usually as soon as they become a solid part of that
society. This is only normal, the big problem is bridging the big cultural
gap between life in a poor village in a poor, underdeveloped country with
little educational tradition and facility, to an urban Western society where
parents start training their children before they have even left the womb.
That does not change, however, that fundamentally, the Koran lays down laws
and principles that are more modern, especially regarding women's rights,
than the Bible did, however confusing the Bible may be as it is an amalgalm
of law, history and literature. The Koran is more consistent in this
Even the laws that seem so confining for women, that which command them to
cover their bodies, was intended for the good of the women, namely to
protect them from the lust of the barbaric men who cannot control
themselves. It is explained so in the Koran. I think even today we can see
something in that, but imagine life 800 years ago (before the pill c.s.,
abortion, decent medicine to cure venereal diseases etc.), and you can see
how this could actually be meant to protect women rather than restrict them.
> Arwin, you are using the word "modern" (with different meanings:
> chronological, the other progressive) interchangeably. Of course the Koran
> is centuries newer than the New Testament, but that doesn't mean it's more
> progressive in it's attitudes towards women's equality. 'Christian'
> fundamentalists have to purposely ignore people like Priscilla
> (in Acts) and
> Deborah (in Judges) to justify any male dominance. The texts themselves
> (bold Old & New Testaments) paint a much different picture.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arwin van Arum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: OT: Dutch politician killed
> Both, I presume. I won't speculate on that before I know more ... could be
> anything. He was strict on admitting refugees, but in a very
> untypical way -
> he wanted to legalize all illegal aliens, and only put a stop on admitting
> more refugees because the capacity for handling them wasn't there (it's
> true, it's a bit of a mess). But he also called the Islam a backward
> religion, which is understandable because he was a homosexual, and he
> thought their position on women was too oldfashioned for modern society.
> Nothing I inherently disagree with, though at the same time the Koran is a
> much more modern religion than the Christian religion, of which there are
> equally fundamental practitionars in the Netherlands, so I don't know ...
> I secretly hope there is a criminal connection, I always feel more
> comfortable when criminals kill themselves rather than that someone is
> killed for his political beliefs ...
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Verzonden: maandag 6 mei 2002 20:23
> > Aan: [log in to unmask]
> > Onderwerp: Re: OT: Dutch politician killed
> > What were his policies? Was the killing politcally motivated or
> > the owrk of
> > a madman?
> > "Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>@po.missouri.edu on 05/06/2002
> > 02:12:35 PM
> > Please respond to [log in to unmask]
> > Sent by: [log in to unmask]
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > cc:
> > Subject: OT: Dutch politician killed
> > Just wanted to let you know that the Dutch politician Pim
> Fortuyn has been
> > shot and killed at 18:00 GMT+1 today. He was the leader of a
> > party carrying
> > his own name (Lijst Pim Fortuyn), and through his debating skills and
> > controversial positions on political subjects had upset the regular
> > political landscape by doing very well in the polls and in the communal
> > elections. Although he was controversial, he was an extremely
> > civilised and
> > mild politician compared to to the likes of the French Le Pen. I mostly
> > disagreed with his positions but he made a lot more sense than most and
> > many
> > loved him for at least making political debate more accessible and
> > interesting, and a lot of people previously uninterested in
> > politics became
> > involved (though not necessarily voting for him) because of him.
> > We all are
> > in shok, this has never happened here before ...
> > Yours,
> > Arwin