Lomax accuses me of cherry picking what I read, but he does that even better
than I. Quite honestly, I have never met anyone with such an innate skill
at spinnng the truth. Excellent work Lomax.
The point is, Lomax conveniently ignores that the 2 muslim works I quoted
are some of the most respected and venerated works of any muslim. Yet, he
finds it convenient to ignore what it says in favor of his spin. To any
sane man, these works are clear. They tell of a story of a sex perverted
child molesting prophet..
Lomax criticizes me for using "diapers" to describe A'isha. Of course, I
know there were no diapers. I used that term to describe the situation in a
more descriptive fashion. Just imagine your daugther just barely out of
diapers still preoccupied with dolls being fondled by a 50 year old fart.
Just imagine if you would consider that acceptable? Lomax justifies the
holey prophet's actions by saying that it is acceptable because the little
girl has reached menstrual cycle. That, my friends is exactly the point I
am trying to make. Islam is the only religion that would justify and
condone and celebrate this kind of child molestation just because the little
girl is already menstruating. Neither Judaism, nor Christianity does this.
Even Hinduism who used to have this retrograde practice, renounced it
thousands of years ago. Long long long time before muhammed came to the
scene.
A little girl of nine, is by all accounts still a little immature little
girl whether or not she is menstruating. She is physcally immature with
undeveloped mammary glands to feed a child of her own. Though menstruating,
she still has underdeveloped reproductive organs. A little girl impregnated
at such a yound age would surely not be able to bring her child to term.
We've seen that time and time again. She's just not mature enough. She
would have been too small physically for the 50 year old.
She is also emotionally immature. For creeps sake, in whatever culture, we
know that a little girl still playing with dolls is emotionally immature.
The little girl is not even a teen yet. It was true then and is still true
today. But yet, Lomax thinks she is mature enough to have sex and start a
family.
A 9 year old would also have been mentally immature, not realizing the
implications of her actions. She wouldn't have understood what it means to
be married, have sex or start a family.
This is the point I am making. Islam's practices are "creepy", repulsive,
loathsome, nauseating, revolting, contemptible and retrograde. These are
the acts of a man they celebrate as a great leader. Someone once said,
Islam is not a religion, it is a "malady" - a madness. If you truly
understand what I am saying here, you would understand why he would say
something like that.
Once again, I challenge anyone to point out any lie I have said here.
Whether you like what I've said here or not, I challenge you to point out
any untruths I have said about islam.
If Lomax so desires, I will continue on and provide proof about allah being
the moon god of muhammed's beduin tribe. That after everyone has finished
assimilating the implication of muhammed's sexual perversions.
Jojo
BTW, taking preemptive action against a gang of mad men who have openly said
they will destroy you is not "satanic". In fact, that is the classic
definition of self-defense. I wonder if Lomax would not take pre-emptive
action if somebody had a loaded gun pointed at his children. Would he not
shoot first if given the chance?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 12:51 AM 12/23/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friends, you will notice who it is that wanted to keep this topic alive.
The facts make it clear in case the Vortex system does not. Lomax started
this thread for which I responded with the truth. Orgasm Wikipedia
responded by agreeing and everything he said is the truth. As documented
in
the news.
I started this thread, yes, with my post of Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:09:16 -0800
However, it was a response to Jojo's post, which
I identified by the time of the post.
From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
References: <50bd5ac6.4010...@verizon.net>
<0ab17a878dbc26a13ff0f213372b0...@webmail.mckay.com>
<blu0-smtp432176ed035e8c4e93dd20a86...@phx.gbl>
<capuzwc0rrprb2elzy2ag6txdfgqymyb3gn2r+6x7npejfxa...@mail.gmail.com>
<201212050149.qb51ndcl013...@ultra6.eskimo.com>
<capuzwc2eaq0vruhpsuzxemmbjnzdrtutwnomvxeaptbkzso...@mail.gmail.com>
<capuzwc27objiyku28l6j7vyf88t4fwio_-aiw615bttz+s7...@mail.gmail.com>
<blu0-smtp10774a37943c267c751e4cf86...@phx.gbl>
<201212051636.qb5ga8fz010...@ultra6.eskimo.com>
<blu0-smtp213fae935bf0bbaa885793f86...@phx.gbl>
<201212061945.qb6jjp9n027...@ultra6.eskimo.com>
<00b501cdd40b$8bb1da70$a3158f50$@net> <50c22f18.9010...@aim.com>
<8CFA2C110495FDE-16C! 0-2...@webmail-d186.sysops.aol.com>
<00cd01cdd511$579c6500$06d52f! 00$@net>
<blu0-smtp574ae01a841b74c47db37e86...@phx.gbl>
<201212081821.qb8ilefe006...@ultra5.eskimo.com> <BLU0-SMTP158B2874!
512605a90bde08586...@phx.gbl>
<edf6d59c-b647-4dae-ac92-77a704d46...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -> about Jaro Jaro
trolling
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:51:39 +0800
I created a new thread rather than simply
responding there, because there had been comments
about off-topic posts without the [OT] tag. So
this thread is a continuation of that one. And
that thread subject had been changed previously,
it gets complex to follow what happened when. But
there is no doubt that the discussion about Islam
was created by him and maintained by him. I
ignored it for a long time.... and I might easily return to that.
Now Lomax, panicking that people will see the truth about islam is spinning
again and insulting people for telling the truth.
No panic here, and the only thing I'm concerned
about is responding to Jojo at all.
Okay, what truth?
He claims that Ahmadinejad
is expressing a personal opinion.
Yes. Ahmadinejad expressed a personal
"experience." It had little or nothing to do
with, say, Iranian policy. It was harmless. To
state it simply, he noticed that people paid
close attention to him, were present with him,
during his speech to the U.N. He had an
interpretation of that. The story was reported by
Orgasm Wikipedia, whom I now suspect has been trolling *Jojo*.
Lomax must really have such a low opinion
of Vorticians that he would even attempt such a low and obviously moronic
spin. Does anyone really buy this spin that Ahmy is not expressing
official
policy.
Okay, what was reported about Ahmadinejad by OW?
Lomax reminds me of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's religious beliefs in the
imminent
return of the "occulted" Shi'a Imam Muhammad
al-Mahdi have alarmed some Western commentators.
In particular, remarks reportedly made after his
speech before the United Nations General Assembly
have created concern (translated):
(www.ahmadinejad.ir)
On the last day when I was speaking before the
assembly, one of a country's group told me that
when I started to say "In the name of God the
almighty and merciful," he saw a light around
me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt
it myself.
I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for
those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world
did not blink. When I say they didn't bat an
eyelid, I'm not exaggerating because I was
looking at them. And they were rapt.
It seemed as if a hand was holding them there
and had opened their eyes to receive the message
from the Islamic republic.
Former CIA officer Robert Baer said, in the context
of evaluating a nuclear strike on Iran, that
Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian government
are "apocalyptic Shiites." He continues, "If youâ?Tre
sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe theyâ?Tve got
nukes and missiles - youâ?Tve got to take them out. These guys are nuts and
there's no reason to back
off.
Ahmadinejad did not talk, in this quote, about
"official policy." He reported a personal
experience, which he gave meaning to, and I have
no reason to doubt that this was his experience.
Yes, there are *implications* that can be made,
and that he might be making, but they are not
actually in what was quoted, and *I described what was quoted.*
Oh, that's right, he is standing in front of the United Nations,
speaking on behalf of his country and he is simply expressing "personal"
opinion? I wonder which drug Lomax is on cause that sure is a very potent
hallucinogen. I might need some after reading all this verbal diarrhea
from
Lomax.
Might improve things. I did not claim what Jojo
says. I did not comment *at all* about what
Ahmadinejad had spoken to the U.N. What I did
comment on, of his words, does imply that he was
speaking for the Islamic Republic. He said that.
But he wasn't talking about that. He was talking
about the *atmosphere* of his speech, how it
appeared to be received, which is necessarily his
personal experience, with any interpretation of
that being his personal opinion, even though
others might -- elsewhere -- support that. There
was nothing worrisome, in itself, about what he'd said.
It basically means that people listened to him
with attention. Not surprising. It was the United
Nations and he was a head of state. What would we
expect from such? That they would sit around
grimacing and talking and making sarcastic
remarks? These are *diplomats*, generally.
Ahmadinejad did say how he felt. That's all.
Lomax would like us to believe that islam is not a threat to our freedom
and
way of life.
There are threats to our freedom and way of life,
and they are more likely to come from people with
views somewhat closer to Jojo Jaro, from inside.
Islam is not going to "conquer" the U.S. by
force, if at all. It would utterly fail, and no
sane Muslim would even attempt it, nor would any
sane Muslim want to do it. Even the rabid
al-Qai'da was not attempting to "conquer"
America, their message was "Don't mess with us!"
(Al-Qa'ida wants U.S. troops to leave Saudi
Arabia, where they have been invited by the
Kingdom. They believe that the King, etc., are
corrupt. That part is political, but al-Qa'ida
attempts to arouse religious sentiment.
What they have done, not only on on 9/11, but
many times, is absolutely forbidden by Islam, and
I wrote extensively about it in 2001, those
terrorists flew themselves straight into a
burning fire, because of what they were doing,
which required ignoring all the innocent people
that *they knew would die* if they continued.
That's not forgivable, except that God might
choose to forgive anything, but it's apparently
too late for them. (We don't really know. Did one
of the terrorists try to stop the thing? The rest
of them would have killed him immediately, but
he, having turned from this evil, might not be in
Hell. -- I'm simply writing a Muslim point of view here.)
(Al-Qa'ida would make the "collateral damage"
argument, but the terrorists deliberately
inflicted harm, very personally and directly, on
innocents. Collateral damage is *not* allowed as
anything deliberate or willful. Islamic law is
quite in line with modern international law. That
is, the real Islamic law, particularly for the
Sunnis, which, supposedly, al-Qa'ida are. (They
hate the Shi'a.) War is the province of the
khalif, not of individuals, and the "khalif"
means the sovereign power, not a bunch of
terrorists who claim to be the "real Islam." That
was the position of the Khawaarij, and those
terrorists killed the third and fourth khalifs,
on the argument that they were not "righteous
enough." Al-Qa'ida are modern khawaarij, who "go
out" from the Muslim community. They don't
represent Islam *at all*. But they are popular
with certain elements in Muslim society, the
angry, those who believe themselves oppressed,
etc. The Qur'an *talks about all this.* The excuses will not be accepted.
al-Qa'ida is responsible not only for 9/11, and
the death of thousands of innocent people then,
and the real heroes, the police, fire, and, yes,
clergy who died there, but for the loss of life
in how America responded. People, when attacked,
do not always respond evenly. And America was
attacked. The Muslim world generally understood
why the U.S. would go into Afghanistan, for the
Taliban (essentially a Saudi-inspired movement)
had harbored Bin Laden. But ... Iraq? Irag was
ruled by a bloody dictator, hardly anyone misses
him except a few Iraqi nationalists, but ... we
knew that Iraq would be a bloody mess, we knew
that the "threat to America" from Iraq was
practically non-existent, and still we went in. Why?
I have my suspicions, of course, but so what? I
do know that high officials lied to Congress,
that much is clear, but what I don't know is why
Congress believed them. The lies were cover? It's
not like the real situation was unclear. On the
other hand, the administration had an advantage.
They could present "secret evidence" to Congress,
and who could refute it? Very dangerous, and the
result was a lot of unnecessary loss of life,
mostly Iraqi, but also that of many, many
American soliders. Nobody who knew the situation
believed it would be a cakewalk.
But history and recent events tell a different story. Islam
will conquer the world and rule it thru deception or thru force if
necessary. That my friends is the truth.
"The truth" is Jojo's fantasy. It won't happen.
He can claim "deception" about anything he
believes. This is the real joke here: Jojo does
not know what "Islam" actually means. He's using
the word to apply to a "religion," one of many.
To a group of people who have less than perfect
behavior. That is *not* what Islam means in
Qur'anic usage. It's not actually about Muhammad,
for example. It's about the natural relationship
of the individual to God, that's behind the
common idea that children are born "Muslim" and
parents make them this or that. What does
"Muslim" mean there? It simply means that the relationship with God is
"islam."
The Christian apologists I've referred to became
sophisticated enough about Islam to recognise
this. They would say, privately, "Of course I'm
muslim, or at least I want to be." Muslim
eschatology is not as developed as Christian,
there are traditions about the end of times, but
they are relatively weak, and there isn't much in
the Qur'an about this. The predictions that
everyone will see God, or the Truth, are
*Christian,* generally (what is in the Qur'an is
on that level, very general). So, yes, "Islam"
will conquer the world. I get that from Christian eschatology.
"Islam" is not about speaking Arabic or the
particular practice of Muhammad. It is about our
relationship with Reality. And that is the
direction we are headed, and I see it. And I
don't care what "religion" this is expressed
through. Jojo is, however, actually denying his
own religion. He certainly is not behaving,
actually acting, as a follower of Jesus would
act. He's been very clear: he's retaliating.
He knows there is something off, that's obvious.
But he thinks it's everyone else.
Note that he calls Israel the aggressor for preparing against a first
strike.
No, I didn't say that at all. I responded to what
OW had posted, which was not about Israel, but
about the comment of an ex-CIA officer who was
saying that Israel should attack. First. Here is what he'd written:
Former CIA officer Robert Baer said, in the context
of evaluating a nuclear strike on Iran, that
Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian government
are "apocalyptic Shiites." He continues, "If youâ?Tre
sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe theyâ?Tve got
nukes and missiles - youâ?Tve got to take them out. These guys are nuts and
there's no reason to back
off.
Notice: if the other side believes the same (and
Israel *does* have "nukes and missiles," then
both sides would be getting advice like this:
strike first. Don't "back off." And those
"apocalyptic Shiites" believe that America is
controlled by "apocalyptic Christians." I did not
comment on Isreal and it's right to defend itself
(Israel has that right, but so does Iran.)
I didn't call Isreal the "aggressor." Jojo simply
lies about what I've written. The only possible
excuse is that he's blind. He is literally seeing
what he believes I'd say, not what I said. And he
does this with Islam in general, and in many
other topics. He creates what he rejects, and
imagines that anyone who does't believe him is
deluded. The truth is right here, in front of
him, about the interchange here, and it's a clear
sign for him of his own condition, but will he see it?
Here is what I *actually wrote*, which Jojo described as he did, quoted
above.
Notice where the threat is coming from. It's explicit. "You've got to take
them out." That is "former CIA officer" Baer saying that it is *necessary*
to attack these evil Shiites before they kill us or our friends.
Nothing there about Israel!
The threat is coming from a very ancient place: a
belief that the "enemy" is crazy, so one must
attack first. It's very strange to hear this
Satanic argument -- that's what it is,
religiously -- supported by someone who claims to be Christian.
OK, Let's see, if a gang of criminals is pointing a loaded gun at
you and is telling you openly that he is going to shoot you, do you wait
until he does before taking action.
No. However, that is rather obviously not the
situation. However, decisions on matters like
this are hopefully made by people who are fully
informed, and they don't just believe what is
written in apocalyptic Christian -- or Shi'a --
web sites. If not, a lot of people could die,
thousands or even millions of innocent people.
Lomax would like us to believe that
taking action against an official policy of a mad man in a mad country
ruled
by mad religious clerics is inappropriate.
I wrote nothing of the kind. My comments were not
about what might or might not be appropriate for
Israel, my hope is that decision-makers who have
access to nuclear triggers use them only if it is
*absolutely necessary*. The reality of Iran is
complex, there are many forces active in that
government; essentially they are not *completely
crazy*. But, yes, there are dangers.
Good thing, there are still some
of our leaders who do not live in the same twilight zone as Lomax.
It's a strange planet, sometimes. I certainly
hope that "our leaders" know more than I, and I
certainly hope that they are sober. However, this
is really weird? Who has his hands on the nuclear
trigger for the U.S.? Jojo thinks it's a "good
thing"? That doesn't match what he's said about Obama.
No, Jojo is a troll, what he says doesn't
necessarily reflect what he actually believes.
He'll simply say whatever he thinks will have
maximum effect. Another word for this is "lying."
Jojo
But that wasn't enough (and, remember, he earlier
today claimed that he'd finished responding):
PS. BTW, Here are some references from muslims scholars and books that
document the marriage of muhammed to a 6 year-old little girl barely out of
diapers and still playing with dolls.
Yes. Nobody denied that. "Marriage" means
"betrothal." "Diapers" is nonsense. They wouldn't
have used diapers, first of all, and children in
tribal cultures would be using toilets
(essentially holes in the ground) by one year
old, easily. So we can see how every word is
crafted to create maximum offensive connotations.
It isn't just "6-year old girl," it's "6 year old
*little* girl, *barely out of diapers.* The
diapers comment is a lie, no way around that. He
writes what he does not know. It's polemic, not truth.
"Playing with dolls" is supported by tradition.
My 11-year old "plays with dolls," i.e, she has her stuffies, which she
loves.
However, "Muslim scholars and books" are not in
full agreement about the age at betrothal, Tabari, for one, reports "ten."
Muhammend consumated the marriage when she was 9 years old as I have been
saying all along.
How we would know this is not clear. It's not
impossible, and I pointed out precisely how this
could have happened -- plus, if the age is in
error, which is *quite* possible, -- and how that
was still irrelevant, because the unanimous
position taken in the sources is that it would
not have happened had she not reached advanced
puberty, and I reported, and I showed how this
cultural norm ("marriages" -- i.e., consummation
-- not being allowed until menarche) was
*common*, including among Christians. So Ayesha,
her name, was not a "little girl," she was a
*woman* when the marriage was consumated, by any
usage that has meaning cross-culturally. The
Arabs cared little about "age," it was not a
literate culture, and the "age" of a young woman
would not be determined by birth records, but by
the woman herself, her behavior and her
appearance and biological function. I.e., puberty, with menarche completing
it.
Remember this well and get this thru your thick heads, this truth is
taken from muslim sources, not "evangelical" sources as Lomax would like
you to believe.
The "muslim sources" are ambiguous on this, but
I've reported what is clear from them, and I
confirmed that the majority opinion (i.e.,
*Sunni* opinion, "Sunni" is short for ahl
us-sunnah wa l-jamaa', which means "the people of
the practice [of the Prophet] and consensus,
which essentially means "majority") was 6 at
betrothal and 9 at consummation. But what does that mean?
First of all, Jojo presents this as if it were a
*fact*, he does not add the necessary
qualifications. This particular story I did *not*
ascribe to Christian evangelical sources. I did
cite such a source, as a source for the claim of
24 wives, explaining how it depended on weak
sources, but that's not the issue here. Jojo is
incoherent, he doesn't read what is said to him,
he only scans it to extract whatever he can
imagine is wrong, and most of that isn't actually being said.
To repeat, I did not ascribe this information
about Ayesha to "Christian evangelical sources,"
but that's likely where Jojo got it, because of
how he interprets the information, he's repeating
arguments that I've seen for a very long time.
They come from Christian "evangelists" who think
that if they tell people that the person they
most respect was a "pedophile," those people will be impressed.
But *none* of this information points to
"pedophilia." Now, this time, Jojo did not
mention "Pedophilia," but that's obviously the
conclusion he wants you to draw. Everything he's
written is pointed toward that idea. "Little girl." "Just out of diapers."
How do we know when the marriage was consummated?
Think about it! We know most of what we know
about the marriage from Ayesha herself. Does she
report being "molested"? Did she behave like a
sexually-abused girl? No, there is nothing that
resembles that. And is there anything that
indicates a *preference* for sexually immature
girls? No. Zero. The story must be read in
context, that consummating a marriage with a
sexually immature girl is *prohibited,* as I
showed by the story of the 10-year old who was
*raped* by her *husband.* The only way her story
would have gotten traction -- given the common
regressive view that rape by a husband is
impossible -- would have been if she was indeed
sexually immature. Do we really imagine that
Muslim judges would think that sex between a
betrothed husband and a sexually immature wife
was rape, if the Prophet had done it? No, they'd
be saying that there wasn't anything wrong with it!
(And modern Muslims would be pointing out that
the traditions on which the age of 9 at
consummation are based are weak, that Ayesha
might have been much older -- and we do point
that out). The point here is that *conservative*
Muslims only accept the age of nine story because
they know the law about sexual maturity. So what
the Christian evangelists are doing is simply
deciding to believe part of what the sources say,
and they are either ignorant of or reject the
rest. It's like a prosecutor who wants the jury
to believe the testimony of a witness while simultaneously impeaching it.)
Just look up these muslim books to confirm what is written here. Just Do
IT. You have no right to call me a liar or say I am deluded and misinformed
until you look this up.
I've looked them up, and I've acknowledged the
sources and what they say, and I've pointed to
places where the primary sources are cited. Jojo
has done *none* of this. He just keeps lying
about this very conversation, which can easily be
verified, it's all in the list.
Now, I wonder who is telling the truth.
I don't. Jojo is lying.
But, I'm pretty sure Lomax will spin this again and say that A'isha was
just a servant or something moronic like that.
No. It was Jojo who, apparently, called her a
"concubine," but he was not clear. Ayesha was the
Prophet's *wife.* They were betrothed when she
was young, possibly as young as six, and possibly
at the suggestion of her father, Abu Bakr, who
became, later, the first so-called "righteous
khalif," acknowledged by consensus, apparently,
as the leader of the Muslim community when the
Prophet died. Certainly her father consented to
the betrothal. The marriage was consummated, by
all accounts, and the majority report is that she
was nine. But all sources would agree that Ayesha
was sexually mature when the marriage was
consummated. That's the part that Jojo ignores,
he has not even responded to it.
OK, your turn Lomax.
But he still didn't stop. I have the books, by
the way, but I'm not bothering to look up the
sources, some of which I have in Arabic, which
would be more authoritative, but ... it's work!
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was
taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with
her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
Seven or six? The point is that the sources
really didn't care. *This wasn't shocking to
them.* The term "married here" clearly means
"betrothed." And that was a common custom. This
story says that "her dolls were with her" when
she "was taken to his house." That does not
indicate consummation, necessarily. It means that she began to live with
him.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed
there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of
six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years
old.
This would imply that Ayesha was his second wife,
but that doesn't appear to be the case. These are
the hadith, "stories" about the Prophet, and
Sahih Bukhari is considered to be a collection of
the strongest, but that's quite controversial,
itself. Stories contradict each other, as we'd
expect if Bukhari actually reported what he
found. This was long after the Prophet had died,
and there are accounts that he actually forbade
people to write down stories about him, wanting
them to cleave to the Qur'an. Which wasn't about him, except occasionally.
Here is how the Prophet used to have fun and sex with his child bride.
Notice the "child bride" claim. The story doesn't
support that. When was she talking about? And the
stories don't talk about "Having fun and sex."
They talk about *after sex*, in some cases, or
non-sexual situations, in another, such as the
story about washing his head. That is very much
non-sexual, it was in itikaf, or seclusion, which
is a voluntary period of abstinence from sex.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were
Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn
below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring
his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods
(menses).
We know about the intimate life of the Prophet
from these stories transmitted through Ayesha.
Notice this: Ayesha didn't testify to Bukhari,
she was long dead. The full isnad, chain of
transmission, has been omitted in the translation.
Junub means "having had sex and not having washed
yet." It's a Qur'anic term, and it's an
obligation to wash, when junub, before praying.
Sex during the menses -- notice that she's
describing having menses, she is obviously
sexually mature, not a "little girl" -- is
prohibited (according to the practice of the
Prophet). The question then arises about other
kinds of contact. This tradition is used to
established that, no, what is prohibited is
interourse, not other kinds of touching, and what
has been translated here as "fondling" probably
was the word for "touching." I'd have to look up
the hadith, and a word like "touch" might be used
in Arabic, as in English, with a sexual
connotation, or not. As I recall, the Jewish
practice was literally not to touch a
menstruating woman, but I haven't looked that up.
Because of the "dress", I read "fondle me" or
"touch me" as probably referring to affectionate
touch, above the waist, possibly including the
breasts. There is no way to for me to tell
without more research. And this was his wife, a
sexually mature woman. Yes, she was a young
woman, but marriageable according to local
culture, and that kind of marriage would commonly
have been permitted around the world at the time.
Is there something wrong with that? Honi soit qui mal y pense.
And the next sentense is about itikaf, which is a
kind of seclusion, wherein abstinence from
intercourse is maintained, so the question again
is whether or not it was okay to be touched by
one's wife when in itikaf, and again Ayesha is
telling us, yes. And washing his head was about ... washing his head!
Sahih Muslim Book 3, Number 0629:
'A'isha reported: I and the Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a bath
from the same vessel and our hands alternated into it in the state that we
had had sexual intercourse.
Again, this is about sharing water with a woman
in cleansing after intercourse. That's why the
tradition is reported. Woman are not unclean, as
such. And the bath water can be shared.
The purity involved is *ritual purity*. It
actually is a psychological state, in my
experience. There is a practice called tayammum,
which is washing with dust, and in practice,
there is very little, if any, dust involved. The
result of the practice is a sense of cleanliness,
it works. Ritual is about intention and
consciousness. Fundamentalists tend to take it all very literally.
Can we ever imagine how an over fifty years old man could fondle his
pre-teen wife during her menstrual cycle! By the way, the meaning of Junub
is sexual defilement, that is, the state after having sex.
How old was she? There is nothing in these
stories about that, except for one thing is
obvious, and Jojo even acknowledges it, though he
doesn't seem to get the implications: Ayesha was
sexually mature. Yes, "junub" describes the state
afer sex or equivalent (such as seminal
discharge), and before a purifying bath, or there
is an alternative if there is no water. There is
a fairly poor Wikipedia article on "Junub." It
looks like it was written by a Muslim. There are
"rules' stated, but those rules actually vary
according to the school of law. Whoever wrote
this was, like many, naive, perhaps thinking that
his own school is "Islam." Or this was written by
a non-Muslim reading a Muslim source, and
assuming that what it stated would be "Islam."
Maybe. Maybe not. The really knowledgeable
sources will explain how interpretations vary between schools.
The stories are from Bukhari and Muslim, which
are generally considered *relatively*
authoritative. But the interpretations are false.
These stories show that Ayesha was sexually
mature, not the "little girl playing with dolls"
that Joho wants us to imagine. She was that when
she was betrothed, that's all. She grew up.
