Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Good morning, Abd ur-Rahman My apologies on the name spelling. I guess I was going on the literal spelling rather than the common pronunciation (al vs. AbdU) Of course, ar- (rather than al) is pronunciation also. And then we come to the (western) hyphen and capitalization! I'll follow your practice smile. Some years ago it was particularly important for the US government to list Arabic names alphabetically. Chaos! To say nothing of the optional and periodic assumptions of ibns and abusor national origin tags. Anyway, this is what I posted back on December 24, 2012 regarding Islam (and contemporary Jewish, Christian and pantheistic) and pre- and post-Islamic marriage practices and rules. Your corrections are welcome. Allahu alim. Greetings, everyone, It would seem that Jojo is finding comfort in repeating assertions on the historical marital mores of the Arabian peninsula that are flat-out incorrect. I am worried that other readers on this list may take repetition for reality, and so will summarize things here. There are several themes to be comprehended: 1. Marital patterns of contemporary Arabia 2. The difference between betrothal, marriage, and consummation 3. The several differing roles of marriage in tribal and other society 4. Muhammad and A'isha. I'll take these one by one. 1) The man who eventually came to be recognized as a prophet and the institutional founder of Islam, Muhammad, lived in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, C.E. Like everyone else, he and his family abided by the marital customs of the time and place. These identical customs were practiced by the Jewish, Christian, and pantheistic communities that inhabited the peninsula at that time. Islam had yet to emerge. At that time, there were no limits to the number of wives a husband could take, other than his ability to provide for each of them and to protect them. (Solomon is reputed to have had 99 wives.) Again, this was true for all Christians, Jews and pantheists. And there were no limits to the age at which a girl could become betrothed, that is, entered by her family into an agreement for eventual marriage. 2) This brings us to the second theme -- betrothal, marriage and consummation. The way marriages took place was first with a betrothal -- an agreement for eventual marriage when and only when the girl became a woman, that is, had her first period -- and then with the marriage itself. This consisted of a formal contract providing, typically for a dowery payment to the bride and other conditions as were desired, the explicit consent of both the bride and the husband-to-be, and typically the bride's move along with her possessions (which remained her property) into the husband's household. Typically, the marriage was then consummated. Besides the evident pleasures of the moment, this was also important in demonstrating the virginity of the bride. A long amount of time might elapse between the betrothal and the marriage. Pre-pubsecent betrothal was not uncommon, but marriage itself and consummation could only occur after the bride had her first period. If a girl was betrothed by her family she retained the right to eventually reject the pending marriage. In other words, regardless of the betrothal the woman retained the right of consent or refusal. To reiterate, these practices were common to all the communities of the Arabian peninsula-- whether Jewish, Christian, pantheistic, or, with the emergence of Islam, Muslim. Child molestation did not enter into these practices of any of these communities. For purposes of comparison, please note that in New Hampshire in the USA, girls can with parental consent be married as young as thirteen years old. Until recently repealed by statute, girls in Colorado could by common law be married as young as 12 years old. 3) In the West, today, the common motive for marriage is love. But this is atypical of the human experience. Marriages are routinely also made for reasons including: a) extending protection to widows and orphans b) cementing commercial alliances c) consolidating land holdings d) creating political alliances 4) A'isha and Muhammad were betrothed when she was young and pre-pubescent. It is not clear when their marriage and consummation became official, but all accounts, including hers, specify that she was eligible for marriage, that is, that she had 'become a woman' with her first period. A'isha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad's companions. A'isha was nineteen when Muhammad died, and lived to the age of sixty-three. She was highly respected among the emerging Muslim community, becoming both a Muslim scholar and a rich source of information about Muhammad and his household. Before he died, Muhammad instructed his followers to Take your religion for A'isha. When Muhammad asked Abu Bakr for his daughter in marriage, she was already betrothed to
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Jojo again is entirely incorrect in these assertions. On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax and Bivort, why is it that you consider the work of scholars who lived 1600 years later better than the testimony of the person herself as recorded by your own muslim scholars. I find this attempt at deception instructive but puzzling. A'isha herself said, in 2 respected hadiths, that she was 9 years old when muhammed had his first intercourse with her. Now, here comes all these westernized scholars and experts, that claim otherwise and you take their work as more authoritative than Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. I really don't understand this. Islam is indeed a malady. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. At 07:29 PM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Thanks, Abd ar-Rahman. Some time ago I wrote a long post on Muslims, marriage, and pre-and post Quranic practices. Jojo said he would respond later, but never did. FYI, I subsequently read that post to a well-regarded Muslim scholar and he confirmed the accuracy of the post, so I'll let my post stand. Do you have a link to it? Or the date and time? I do notice that you mispell my name correctly as a common variation. I think memetics is the way to understand the birther/Muhammed/aliens/illuminati alternative reality. For reasons I think you and others here will appreciate, I'd prefer not to discuss this field further, here or in any other public venue. You can write me privately. Anyone who subscribes to this list can, if you read the list as a subscriber. I admire your patience, and wish I had as much of it! Patience or foolishness, I can't tell. Thanks. On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75072.html On the subject of Ayesha's age at marriage i.e. when she began to live with the Prophet, I found some sources I'll share. I am *not* claiming to know the age of Ayesha, and my own opinion is that it's impossible to know for sure. But I'd still pay attention to authoritative analysis. Too much of what I've seen may have been contaminated by bias. http://dawn.com/2012/02/17/of-aishas-age-at-marriage/ This is a newspaper source and might be a cut above the average. The author is called a scholar of the Qur'an, which could make him outside his expertise. Some of the arguments I've seen elsewhere. The argument about the kunnat, the name Ayesha adopted, Umm Abdullah, is interesting. He concludes that she was 21 when she moved into the Prophet's House (I'll call that marriage). And God knows best. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html This is a reputable media site. The author has clearly done a lot of research. He's also not necessarily a muslim scholar, but has probaby collected materials and analysis from some. The above site and this one, I just found today, and I find, here, many of the facts and arguments I came up with myself. He comes up with a possible age of 20 at marriage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth Article in the Guardian by a Muslim woman, studying for a DPhil at Oxford University, focusing on Islamic movements in Morocco. She comes up with my opinion, roughly, saying it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was, but estimates of her age range from nine to 19. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7ID=4604CATE=1 This is a reputable web site apparently affiliated with Nuh Keller, whom I know. The page is written by G.F. Haddad, whom I also know. Keller is definitely a Muslim scholar, and recognized as such. Haddad, as I recall, was studying, and that was more than ten years ago. The page is poorly formatted and the questions that he is answering are not set off from his answers, but he concludes that Ayesha could not have been less than 14. I looked for some time for some page that appeared to me to be authoritative. I did not select pages for skepticism on the age. But I didn't find one that actually argued for nine years old. Trying to find some other opinion, I cast a bit wider net. I found a page titled Authentic Tauheed, and mentioning the Salaff The could be a highly conservative site, but I didn't read widely enough to be sure. http://authentictauheed.blogspot.com/2011/07/age-of-hazrat-aisha-ra-when-she-married.html He comes up with age 9-18, and says that regardless, she had reached puberty and was very happy. (The site seems amateurish in ways, so I'm not confident in the authority of this site as to scholarship.) Okay, I found something. http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/local_links.php?action
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:41 AM 1/3/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: [...] Anyway, this is what I posted back on December 24, 2012 regarding Islam (and contemporary Jewish, Christian and pantheistic) and pre- and post-Islamic marriage practices and rules. Your corrections are welcome. His post was basically correct. I'd dot an i and cross a t, but it's *not important here.* I'll write to him off-list. Thanks, Lawrence.
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:57 AM 1/3/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo again is entirely incorrect in these assertions. Not quite so. If a person says 1+1=2, and therefore X, is he entirely incorrect? No. In fact, this kind of error can be the most pernicious, because it contains *elements* of truth. We have a very human tendency, if someone says A and B and C, and especially if A and B are unexpected in some way, and we check and find that A and B are true -- or at least seem true at first glance -- to assume that C is also true. Maybe. Maybe not. What Jojo has done here is to say A and B and therefore C, and when I point out that C does not follow from A and B, he then says Liar. You are denying A and B. Even if I've explicitly acknowledged A and B, and incorporated them in my response. Jojo's factual assertions are commonly flawed, he presents A and B in ways that emphasize particular interpretations. He does not stick to what the sources actually say (normally). It's particularly and peculiarly obvious. However, lots of readers will discount this and pay no attention to it. They are really interested in C, and they are being led by the nose to conclude C. Only a few will fall for the line of thinking, but they can be quite damaged as a result. There is a birther who went to miltary prison because of the corrupt arguments, as a matter of conscience, he thought.
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than these venerated sources. My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible. If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source of muslim history. Does every muslim then just take their own understanding and run with it. That's anarchy. No wonder muslims find it justified to do just about anything. Cause by the same standard Lomax is using, they just do what their own research says is OK. I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. If you are indeed this divided in your history and teachings (last count; there are 4 or 5 major islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence); and you belong to one which claim that it is not justified to kill infidels (as you claimed); what gives you the authority to represent other islamic schools of teaching (wahhabi). How can you say that islam is a religion of peace (ala CAIR propaganda), when in fact you can not agree with other islamic schools of thought. How can you say that islam is a religion of peace when you can't even get along with each other? Jojo PS. You are correct in that I do not generally read all your posts. I do not have the patience to read it all. It's tiresome and boring.However, I do scan most of it and generally responds to the first impressions I get. So, if you are using nuance and subtlety to bring home your point, it would be missed in my scanning. So, I suggest you learn how to write in a more direct and succinct way to be more effective in your debate. I'm not sure how much of the misunderstanding is due to your long winded essays. Keep is short, my friend, if you want people to not be confused; but then again, this confusion is probably what you're after to begin with. You do not want people to fully understand what it is exactly you're saying so that you can squirm out of a difficult position later on. A tactic I've seen you attempt to do. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 06:23 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax, have you actually read the link? Yes. The post that I made proves that, by quoting from it in detail. Has Jojo actually read my mail? It appears not, but then he responds to it. Obviously, if he has not read it, he has *made up* what I supposedly said. It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. The seeming is to one ignorant of the issues. I have *included* in my comments what is in Muslim and Bukhari. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. I generally consider *all hadith* except the best hadith, the Qur'an, as being suspect as to accuracy. And that is obvious to anyone who takes up the study of hadith. They very. Even with the strongest, we find variations. Then there are *translation* problems. The Christian critics seem to ascribe authority to translations, sometimes made by other than scholars, and sometimes made by scholars whose English is poor. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You can't. You are utterly out of your element. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. No, that's only true about *some* of what you say. Consistently, you interpret comments as extremes. It's part of how you think. Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? I accepted that they say what they say. It's not controversial that Bukhari and Mulsim say what they say, on the points relevant here. But the exact meanng of some of the words is in possible question. Without doing *much more research* -- that could take a long time -- I can't be certain about these things, but Christians who have certainly *not* done the necessary research are *quite* certain about what they
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
My sources are Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. If you do not want to accept these, then say so. Do not pretend that I have not provided muslim sources. At least Lomax has confessed that he thinks Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are corrupt. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than these venerated sources. My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible. If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source of muslim history. Does every muslim then just take their own understanding and run with it. That's anarchy. No wonder muslims find it justified to do just about anything. Cause by the same standard Lomax is using, they just do what their own research says is OK. I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. If you are indeed this divided in your history and teachings (last count; there are 4 or 5 major islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence); and you belong to one which claim that it is not justified to kill infidels (as you claimed); what gives you the authority to represent other islamic schools of teaching (wahhabi). How can you say that islam is a religion of peace (ala CAIR propaganda), when in fact you can not agree with other islamic schools of thought. How can you say that islam is a religion of peace when you can't even get along with each other? Jojo PS. You are correct in that I do not generally read all your posts. I do not have the patience to read it all. It's tiresome and boring.However, I do scan most of it and generally responds to the first impressions I get. So, if you are using nuance and subtlety to bring home your point, it would be missed in my scanning. So, I suggest you learn how to write in a more direct and succinct way to be more effective in your debate. I'm not sure how much of the misunderstanding is due to your long winded essays. Keep is short, my friend, if you want people to not be confused; but then again, this confusion is probably what you're after to begin with. You do not want people to fully understand what it is exactly you're saying so that you can squirm out of a difficult position later on. A tactic I've seen you attempt to do. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 06:23 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax, have you actually read the link? Yes. The post that I made proves that, by quoting from it in detail. Has Jojo actually read my mail? It appears not, but then he responds to it. Obviously, if he has not read it, he has *made up* what I supposedly said. It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. The seeming is to one ignorant of the issues. I have *included* in my comments what is in Muslim and Bukhari. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. I generally consider *all hadith* except the best hadith, the Qur'an, as being suspect as to accuracy. And that is obvious to anyone who takes up the study of hadith. They very. Even with the strongest, we find variations. Then there are *translation* problems. The Christian critics seem to ascribe authority to translations, sometimes made by other than scholars, and sometimes made by scholars whose English is poor. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You can't. You are utterly out of your element. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. No, that's only true about *some* of what you say. Consistently, you interpret comments as extremes. It's part of how you think. Now, it is clear that 2 respected
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Thanks, Abd ar-Rahman. Some time ago I wrote a long post on Muslims, marriage, and pre-and post Quranic practices. Jojo said he would respond later, but never did. FYI, I subsequently read that post to a well-regarded Muslim scholar and he confirmed the accuracy of the post, so I'll let my post stand. I think memetics is the way to understand the birther/Muhammed/aliens/illuminati alternative reality. For reasons I think you and others here will appreciate, I'd prefer not to discuss this field further, here or in any other public venue. I admire your patience, and wish I had as much of it! On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Lomax and Bivort, why is it that you consider the work of scholars who lived 1600 years later better than the testimony of the person herself as recorded by your own muslim scholars. I find this attempt at deception instructive but puzzling. A'isha herself said, in 2 respected hadiths, that she was 9 years old when muhammed had his first intercourse with her. Now, here comes all these westernized scholars and experts, that claim otherwise and you take their work as more authoritative than Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. I really don't understand this. Islam is indeed a malady. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. At 07:29 PM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Thanks, Abd ar-Rahman. Some time ago I wrote a long post on Muslims, marriage, and pre-and post Quranic practices. Jojo said he would respond later, but never did. FYI, I subsequently read that post to a well-regarded Muslim scholar and he confirmed the accuracy of the post, so I'll let my post stand. Do you have a link to it? Or the date and time? I do notice that you mispell my name correctly as a common variation. I think memetics is the way to understand the birther/Muhammed/aliens/illuminati alternative reality. For reasons I think you and others here will appreciate, I'd prefer not to discuss this field further, here or in any other public venue. You can write me privately. Anyone who subscribes to this list can, if you read the list as a subscriber. I admire your patience, and wish I had as much of it! Patience or foolishness, I can't tell. Thanks. On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75072.html On the subject of Ayesha's age at marriage i.e. when she began to live with the Prophet, I found some sources I'll share. I am *not* claiming to know the age of Ayesha, and my own opinion is that it's impossible to know for sure. But I'd still pay attention to authoritative analysis. Too much of what I've seen may have been contaminated by bias. http://dawn.com/2012/02/17/of-aishas-age-at-marriage/ This is a newspaper source and might be a cut above the average. The author is called a scholar of the Qur'an, which could make him outside his expertise. Some of the arguments I've seen elsewhere. The argument about the kunnat, the name Ayesha adopted, Umm Abdullah, is interesting. He concludes that she was 21 when she moved into the Prophet's House (I'll call that marriage). And God knows best. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html This is a reputable media site. The author has clearly done a lot of research. He's also not necessarily a muslim scholar, but has probaby collected materials and analysis from some. The above site and this one, I just found today, and I find, here, many of the facts and arguments I came up with myself. He comes up with a possible age of 20 at marriage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth Article in the Guardian by a Muslim woman, studying for a DPhil at Oxford University, focusing on Islamic movements in Morocco. She comes up with my opinion, roughly, saying it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was, but estimates of her age range from nine to 19. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7ID=4604CATE=1 This is a reputable web site apparently affiliated with Nuh Keller, whom I know. The page is written by G.F. Haddad, whom I also know. Keller is definitely a Muslim scholar, and recognized as such. Haddad, as I recall, was studying, and that was more than ten years ago. The page is poorly formatted and the questions that he is answering are not set off from his answers, but he concludes that Ayesha could not have been less than 14. I looked for some time for some page that appeared to me to be authoritative. I did not select pages for skepticism on the age. But I didn't find one that actually argued for nine years old. Trying to find some other opinion, I cast a bit wider net. I found a page titled Authentic Tauheed, and mentioning the Salaff The could be a highly conservative site, but I didn't read widely enough to be sure. http://authentictauheed.blogspot.com/2011/07/age-of-hazrat-aisha-ra-when-she-married.html He comes up with age 9-18, and says that regardless, she had reached puberty and was very happy. (The site seems amateurish in ways, so I'm not confident in the authority of this site as to scholarship.) Okay, I found something. http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/local_links.php?action=jumpcatid=3id=879 has a PDF download, of a paper prepared that argues for an age of 9. The controversy is portrayed as between history and hadith. Basically, a fundamentalist
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Alright. If you believe that your research is more authoritative than Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, so be it. People will see how desperate you are at tying to spin this away. I can understand what you are trying to do. The revelation that your beloved prophet was actually a child sex pervert molester is quite embarassing. But I wouldn't have engaged in my own set of lies just to protect him. Just say he was just a man and disavow it and be done with it. That would have been an effective answer to me and I wouldn't have been able to counter that effectively. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
