I am not going to respond to your spin anymore. The reader only needs to
research this to confirm I am speaking the truth.
It's funny how after knowing the history of wikipedia and its authorships,
you still cling to it as an authoritative source. Something must be wrong
when you have to depend on wikipedia and claim it as an authoritative
source. LOL ....
Everyone knows that wikipedia is a "politically correct" "agenda driven"
site. You should know that by now and yet you appeal to its authority. My
goodness, do some real research man. Go to a real library. Look at the
history books written by muslims. Study real books, not blogs on the
Internet. No wonder you can't graduate with a degree. You don't know how
to research and do your own thinking. Wikipeida ... here we come ....
LOL....
Spins and lies will not help your case. A simple and quick research effort
will definitely reveal allah to be the moon god of muhammed's tribe. And
muhammed did have dozens of wives and concubines including a 9 year old
little girl.
Spin it all you want. I just hope people are wise enough to see thru your
lies.
To my other friends reading this,
One other thing is true; islam only spreads by 2 means: By force and by
deception.
By Force: Anyone who reads the koran will see that it is commanded for a
muslim man to kill someone who will not convert to islam; and show that his
conversion is real by paying alms. Yes, by force, by crashing 2 airliners
into the "heart of the Great Satan". Yes, by force, by issuing fatwah to
kill all the enemies of muhammed.
My friends, if you are reading this, let me tell you a true story that you
can research also. There was a flight full of muslim men on board getting
ready to fly to mecca for the ramadan. You know that annual thing muslims
do where they walk around that big black meteorite stone. Before taking
off, the plane suffered engine trouble and had to be delayed. The muslim
men on board were so incensed by the delay, that they would be late for this
"walking around the meteorite" thing, that they rose up in a mob and killed
the pilot and his co-pilot for conspiracy to prevent them from reaching
mecca. Needless to say that the delay would not have made them late; and
furthermore, if I remembered correctly, the pilot and co-pilot were also
muslims. This my friends is the violence of islam. This my friends, is
one way islam spreads, by force of terror.
No other religion go about their recruiting will so much violent gusto.
Heck they even go after each other to prove which of their prophets is
right. No 2 groups go after each other's throats like sunnis and shiites.
Yes, this is the trademark of islam. Conversion and expansion thru
violence.
(BTW, this walking around the meteorite stone Kaaba, is a tradition dating
back to their worship of the moon god allah on the kaaba.)
And by deception: exactly Lomax is doing right now. He spins the facts and
say "it's more complicated than that." What's complicated about molesting a
9 year-old little girl barely out of diapers. As far as I know, islam is
the only religion that condones and promotes this. This is so repulsive to
the sensibilities of man, that we shriek back in horror of the thought of
molesting a 9 year-old girl. Even in prison, child molesters are the second
class outcasts that have to be separated from the general prison population
for fear that other inmates would kill them. Yes, even prison criminals
shriek back at the crime of child molestation. But not islam. They
celebrate it, justify it or lie about it.
Our children are the most precious things in our lives and we do everything
to protect them. But not in islam. Women, especially little girls, are
just objects to satisfy the lusts of powerful men. History is replete with
these examples. And people like Lomax have to lie about it because he is so
embarrassed by this retrograde heritage. Either that, or he condones and
practices this himself and has to spin it away and justify it. I can show
you proof of many statements by islamic leaders about this, but people need
to do their own research to prove me wrong. A simple research effort will
reveal the truth.
JUST DO IT. Don't relay on Lomax's spin and lies, unless of course you want
to convert to islam by deception.
And one more thing. Do not rely on what I say also. Find out for yourself.
That is the only way to convince you of these truths. Not any posts or
blogs or lies from self-proclaimed experts who did not graduate.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:11 PM
Subject: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 05:51 PM 12/20/2012, a certain author wrote:
Which part of what I said do you think is untrue?
Note, I am willing to discuss it as long as you do not throw insults. If
you are so convinced that I am wrong and find it necessary to insult me to
prove a point, then it is best that we stop the discussion.
The comment above was written in response to a comment from another
Vortician noting that the posts of this author were nonsense and beyond
boundaries. Other than that, there was no "insult," except for a claim
that the writing showed ignorance. Which, of course, it does.
When someone consistently brings up and repeats claims, without necessity
or evidence, that are obviously intended to be as offensive as possible,
we call that "trolling." That's not a personal insult, it's a description
of behavior. Whether this list wants to prohibit extensive trolling is up
to the list owner. The stated policy generally prohibits it, but if a
policy is not enforced, it doesn't exist.
I stand 1000% behind what I said about allah and muhammed. Allah is the
moon god of the tribe of muhammed;
The writer claims that anyone who researches the matter will conclude
this. I did research it. There is no reliable confirmation of this
statement, and I previously pointed to a stable Wikipedia article on this
very claim. The claim is extremist fringe, and apparently based on some
"evangelical" intention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god
There is no independent scholarship that claims this about "Allah," and
the statement is highly misleading, as "Allah" is a personal name,
equivalent to our "God," probably derived from "Al-ilah," which simply
means "the god," which is a term which could be used for *any* god where
the reference is definite. So someone, somewhere, may have called any one
of the pre-Islamic gods, "the god." Like, a Moon worshipper might say,
"Look at the god up in the sky, there." But evidence for ALLH, as Allah is
written, referring to some moon God, I could not find. (Al-ilah would be
written ALALAH.) The writer at one point referred to "al-ilyah" as the
supposed name of the Moon god, I could find no academic reference to this,
when I searched for it, I found this author's post and some fictional
usages. That last name would be spelled differently again, ALALYH. ALALH
could easily be contracted to ALLH, and there is evidence for this, but
ALALYH would not, the Ya in it would not disappear so easily. It would
become ALLYH. Pronounced quite differently.
Jojo is far from knowledgeable on this topic, yet he writes with "1000%"
certainty. That's a sign of one of three conditions: insanity, fanatic
(1000%) faith in some other source, or trolling. What Jojo has
acknowledged, again and again, is being deliberately offensive. He thinks
of it as "retaliation." which is bizarre for someone who claims to be
Christian. Even the old law, lex talonis, was *limited* to nothing more
than the original offense, returned.
and muhammed did indeed have dozens of wives and concubines.
No support for "dozens" has been found, but it's a complex issue. The
writer's original claim was "dozens of wives."
The normal figures given by historians are twelve, i.e., his first wife,
Khadijah, who was his only wife until she died, then multiple wives after
than, a common cultural pattern for the Arabs; a young man would marry an
older woman, then when she died, many younger women, if he could afford
it. The sources list 11 later wives. However, there are various hints or
what amount to rumors -- isolated traditions -- of other marriages,
transient and in some cases explicitly unconsummated. By tossing in these,
one may create a longer list, it seems that the extremity of this is 24.
Very unlikely that all of these stories are true, and some can't count
legally as marriages, i.e., an unconsummated marriage may be more of a
betrothal, an unfinished agreement.
And then "concubines" are tossed in. The word that would be used in Arabic
would simply mean a female servant. Servants are *not* wives. The Qur'an
requires marrying a servant before "going in" to her. What people like
this author have done is to simply assume that if he could, he did. Honi
soit qui mal y pense.
And he did indeed have a 9 year-old little girl that also served as his
concubine.
I'm not sure what he's talking about here. Did he have a 9-year-old
servant girl? And what if he did?
The writer, again, simply assumes that "servant girl" would be there for
sex, which is what "concubine" tends to connote in English. It's
complicated. Traditions about household servants, and Muhammad apparently
did have some, of both sexes, are fairly thin.
(Islamic "traditions" about the Prophet are of varying degrees of
reliability, a whole science developed attempting to categorize traditions
by reliability. The Qur'an itself is considered to be --
and reasonably was -- accurately preserved, being memorized by many
through the whole community, but traditions are just, on the order of,
"According to X, Y said the Prophet said," not written down until maybe a
century later. Some are "mutawaatir," i.e., heavily multiply confirmed,
i.e., there are apparently multiple lines of testimony. Those are
considered the most solid. Even though the marriages of the Prophet would
be common knowledge (secret marriage being considered a contradiction),
intimate details might not be. The marriage information is thus weak, in
general, these "extra wives" are not mutawaatir traditions. Yes, Muhammad
obviously had more than a couple of wives, and the Qur'an makes mention of
it. The Qur'an implies a general limit of four, under the best
circumstances, but does not actually limit it to four. (I read it in the
Arabic. Lots of interpretive stuff, commonly stated as fact, is not based
on what is actually in the Qur'an, but on other materials used to
interpret the law, such as the judgments of scholars from twelve or
thirteen centuries ago....)
Heck, modern islamic countries today condone the marriage of even 3
year-old girls as long as sex is postponned until puberty.
That is, then, not marriage, but betrothal. Some cultures do that. Our
normal term is "engagement." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage
covers customs of child marriage around the world. But betrothal is not
marriage. Islamic law is not particularly unusual in its requirements,
except compared with fairly recent increases of the age of marriage. Many
cultures allow marriage down to the biological transition, menarche.
Menarche generally means a physical ability to conceive children, the sign
being menstruation. That varies. Normal menarche around the world is
apparently something like 13. However, that would be a median figure,
actual menarche varies from individual to individual, and in tribal
cultures, especially non-literate ones, physical age is not necessarily
reliable. The actual condition of the girl is what would be considered. If
she's menstruating, she is, in these cultures, marriageable, and, if she
was betrothed, the marriage could be consummated. So how young could that
be?
Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty discusses abnormally
early puberty. "A common definition for medical purposes is onset before 8
years in girls." I.e., this is not a sign of some disease process unless
the girl is less than 8 years old.
That means 10-12 years-old.
It could mean that. When I've seen this discussed by Muslims, it is not an
age, but a condition: menstruation. But then some will give a minimum age.
That is not a normal age, it's a minimum. There is a case, I cite below,
of a Yemeni girl who was betrothed -- or married, sometimes the customs
don't distinguish -- under conditions where it was expected that the
marriage would not be consummated till she was "ready," which would mean
puberty. She was 10 and was granted a divorce because she was "raped."
Presumaby by her husband. It was illegal, what he did. There is now major
political activity in the Yemen, as a result of this case, to raise the
"marriageable age" to something specified in years, and one proposal that
actually became law was 17. That was lost in parliamentary moves,
according to the Wikipedia article, but it shows the nature of the issue.
Nobody is condoning sex with girls who are not sexually mature.
We have other plans for our children in modern society, we want them to
attend college, etc., so we normally want marriage to be postponed until
much later. But we have no right to impose this on all societies across
the planet, and to reach back and judge customs from 14 centuries ago, and
apparently totally acceptable at the time, with our modern prejudices.
So, in modern islamic countries, you can marry a 3 year-old little girl
and postpone sex until she is 10.
No. With the permission of her parents, you can betroth a girl of *any*
age. However, it's not necessarily encouraged, and laws vary on this. I
could betroth my daughters here, in the U.S., at *any age*. But I could
not permit them to *marry* without judicial permission, and they are too
young for that to be a real possibility.
It's also clear in Islamic law that the girl herself must consent, and
I've seen that intrepreted that she must consent to the marriage, which
comes later. (I.e., she can have the betrothal cancelled.) So you can
betroth a girl when she is very young, and you can marry her -- with
parental consent, and in many countries, including Islamic ones, before a
certain specific age it requires judicial permission -- when she begins to
menstruate. That might actually be younger than 10. As I recall, marriage
during menstruation is actually illegal, the period must stop, but an
exception is made for abnormal bleeding. The girl would presumably also be
exhibiting the other signs of puberty, a judge would presumably consider
that.
United States law on this varies from state to state. Typically, there is
a minimum age, fairly high, for ordinary marriage -- the parties can just
do it -- but marriage at younger ages requires judicial consent. There is
no specific lower limit in some places.
According to Wikipedia, "Muslim marriages in the Philippines is based on
the Shari'a: 15 years for males and as for females, the onset of puberty
to age 15, whichever comes first." This is a common theme found across
many cultures: the minimum age for "marriage" is puberty. The "onset" of
puberty, however, is as much as a few years earlier than menarche, but
this may merely be confused reporting. The tradition I always heard was
menstruation as a standard.
By the way, one of the sources I read on this made the point that sexual
attraction to sexually mature females -- those at or beyond advanced
puberty, with developed breasts and menstruating, -- is not "pedophilia."
The author has used the marriage of the Prophet to Ayesha, who may have
been as young as six when betrothed, and some sources say nine when the
marriage was consummated -- others imply later -- as evidence allowing the
use of the term "pedophile" about the Prophet, but there is zero sign of
pedophilia. The man had twelve marriages. *One* was a betrothal quite
young, her father was very pleased (and he actually became the first
effective successor to the Prophet), with consummation earlier than we
might expect, but within what happens with reasonable frequency, say at
nine. (8 is not seriously uncommon.) There is nothing here that looks like
some abnormal attraction to pre-pubescent females.
Further, none of this was hidden, none was considered shameful at the
time, and this claim of "pedophilia" is very, very modern. The claim is
scurrilous, intended to insult and enrage.
That my friend is also true. Many people find it offensive and
insulting and many muslims are quite embarrassed by it but it is a true
part of their heritage. I believe, islam is the only religion that has
this practice. Somebody may correct me on this.
Great. Stand corrected. Modern standards have advanced the age, but
marriages at what we now consider very young were permitted by other
religions.
Because Islamic law paid special attention to marriage customs, and
because of a strong belief by many that what Islam does not forbid should
be allowed (that's questionable, but that's another issue, I'm talking
about political forces), it may be true that Muslim communities today
still allow puberty as the dividing line, whereas most other religious
communities have allowed the age to advance, and have come to highly
disapprove of what was common -- in their own traditions -- long ago.
Quoting from the Wikipedia article on "Marriageable age,"
Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was
a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this
coincided with signs of puberty,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation>menstruation for a woman and
pubic hair for a
man.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#cite_note-Encyclopedia_of_Children_and_Childhood_in_History_and_Society.2C_A-Ar.2C_Age_of_Consent-1>[1]
In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children
shortly after the onset of puberty.
In the 12th century
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratian_%28jurist%29>Gratian, the
influential founder of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law>Canon law
in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval>medieval Europe, accepted age of
puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to
be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities
that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be
valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement
before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage.
It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent
at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are
recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year
olds.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#cite_note-Encyclopedia_of_Children_and_Childhood_in_History_and_Society.2C_A-Ar.2C_Age_of_Consent-1>[1]
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more
of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when
she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th
century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal,
and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from
her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years
old."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#cite_note-Encyclopedia_of_Children_and_Childhood_in_History_and_Society.2C_A-Ar.2C_Age_of_Consent-1>[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriages gives quite a bit of
information on child marriage practices around the world. The trend is to
increase the age at which marriage is permitted, and that's happening in
Muslim countries as well. There is a publicized case of a Yemeni girl:
In 1999 the minimum marriage age of fifteen for women was abolished; the
onset of puberty, interpreted by conservatives to be at the age of nine,
was set as a requirement for consummation of marriage.[21] In practice
"Yemeni law allows girls of any age to wed, but it forbids sex with them
until the indefinite time they're 'suitable for sexual intercourse.'"[20]
That would be puberty, possibly menarche.
In April 2008 Nujood Ali, a 10-year-old girl, successfully obtained a
divorce after being raped under these conditions. Her case prompted calls
to raise the legal age for marriage to 18.[22] Later in 2008, the Supreme
Council for Motherhood and Childhood proposed to define the minimum age
for marriage at 18 years. The law was passed in April 2009, with the age
voted for as 17. But the law was dropped the following day following
maneuvers by opposing parliamentarians. Negotiations to pass the
legislation continue.
What I predict for the Muslim world is legislation that raises the
presumptive age of marriage, but that still allows marriage before that
with judicial approval. In some places, below a certain minimum age, a
specific ministry approval is needed, that might be because judicial
approval could mean any Qadi, or religious judge, and some of these are
not properly protective of women's rights.
Here, there is a balance betwen the rights of very young women to marry,
presumably when appropriate -- i.e., they are sexually mature -- and the
prerogative of society to protect children from abuse. Parental consent,
by the way, is *always* required for the marriage of legal minors.
Judicial consent may be required *in addition to* parental consent, and I
think laws in some places (in the U.S.?) allow a minor girl to request
judicial permission to marry in spite of lack of parental consent.
But, you don't have to believe me. Research it for yourself.
That's a common claim from this writer. He presents stuff with *no*
evidence, claims it's so obvious that anyone who believes otherwise is
stupid or lying, and, when he's asked for sources, he says "research it
yourself." And when we do, and present results, he claims we are lying.
But he doesn't show evidence. I can't think of him *ever* doing it. So if
I go ahead and do the research anyway, he can always claim that I'm
incompetent, since I didn't find his definitive sources. But it appears
that they don't exist.
I went round and round about this with him on the Obama birth certificate
issue. I even found some very convincing evidence for forgery, at first
sight. Then I looked deeper. It was an appearance, not a reality, and that
actually was obvious once the idea occured. Like, head-slapping "why
didn't I think of that!" But it sure looked good for a ccuple of hours.
Damn! I thought, there really is a problem here! But there wasn't, and the
whole birther thing has been killed, dead, the major proponents
essentially shut up and apparently wish the history would disappear, or
they blame Obama for not standing on his head a year before. But he
eventually did what they demanded -- which was way beyond legal necessity,
for any reasonable standard of proof of U.S. citizenship by right of
birth.
But he'll go on and on about "truth" and how he's being persecuted for
"telling the truth." Persecuted by whom?
PS, Note that I have not insulted you in any way. If you think that I am
insulting because I am speaking the truth; then tell me how I can say
these truths without being insulting. There is just no way. The truth is
offensive to muslims; but it is the truth.
The last sentence is truly offensive. It's blatant religious prejudice.
There are statements that this writer makes that are somewhat true, and
what is true isn't offensive. But the truth *can* be offensive. That is, I
think some Christian theology is baloney. But I'm not going to say what I
know -- or think I know -- about that here. Please don't ask me! Because
this is not a place for that kind of "information." It would be needlessly
offensive. And I don't actually think "theology" is very important.
The problem here is not "truth." What is offensive here is not "speaking
the truth." Most of the time, this troll is not speaking the truth at all,
he's, at best, recklessly incautious, and claims as indisputable fact what
has little or no support, but *even if it were true*, it would have no
place here. It would be *gratuitously offensive*. It's disruptive. Nobody
was making claims about Allah, or about the righteousness of the Prophet,
or anything where it would be reasonable for the writer to imagine that he
needed to make "corrections."
No, the material about Islam, as far as I can tell, was introduced merely
because I'm Muslim, and I had confronted this writer about his nonsense
about Obama's birth certificate. It was *then* that he came up with the
Moon god stuff, and other comments about Muslims being liars. I had not
insulted his religion -- if I did, someone point it out and I'll
apologize.
Actually, this writer *cannot stand* the truth, i.e., the truth that
actually makes a difference, how he is living his life, as exemplified by
what he's been doing here.
"Moon god" makes no difference to anyone, except he thinks that it would
infuriate some. What's his reason for bringing it up? The idea was
promoted by evangelists hoping to convince Muslims that they are
worshipping a false god. Yeah, if we were worshipping the Moon, that would
be a problem. But we aren't. Even if the Moon were once called Allah --
for which there is no evidence -- it wouldn't matter. We are worshipping
God, period, the One, the Reality, and the names are a detail. We don't
look at the Moon and say, now, there's God. Quite simply, *we* are not
worshipping a Moon god, whether or not the name we commonly use for God
may have been used for something else before.
So that particular evangelist claim is *stupid*. It would only convince an
idiot.
Yeah, there are other kinds of idiots who will kill people who "insult"
their religion. It's not just "Muslims" who do that. This writer seems to
imagine that I would "go to my imam" and "ask for a fatwa against him."
"Fatwa" means a religious judgment, and the term came to be associated
with a famous fatwa by the Imam Khomeini against Salman Rushdie. I've
written extensively about that fatwa. The best that I can say about it is
that Khomeini must have become senile. It was *stupid*. It was internally
contradictory, and it judged fact about Rushdie that simply didn't match
what Rushdie had actually written. His book was not "against Islam." And,
yes, some people died as a result, because the fatwa targeted publishers
as well as Rushdie, so two publisher's agents died.
I don't have an "imam" to go to, except for friends who are Islamic
scholars, and none of these would even dream of getting involved with
something so stupid as the ravings on this list, and I wouldn't dream of
pointing them to this. Why should I waste their time?
(Khomeini was Shi'a, and the Shi'a almost worship their scholars, and
that's what Khomeini had been, a very famous one. But he was getting quite
old at the time, and I suspect he'd been fed very inaccurate information
about the book, and God knows what else. Legally, that fatwa *sucked*. The
fatwa was "against Islam.")
None of this is typical of Islam.
The world of Islam, however, is afflicted by "fundamentalists" just as is
the world of Christianity, and they make a lot of news. Islamic scholars,
the world's foremost, from Egypt, told the Taliban in Afghanistan to leave
that famous statue of the Buddha alone, but the Taliban blew it up.
Imagining that this was some kind of religious requirement. (It was
actually prohibited, for the knowledgeable.) That's the influence of the
Saudis, the Kingdom was founded in a bloody persecution of any Muslims who
disagreed with their very extreme beliefs. Thinking of the fundamentalists
as typical of Islam is like thinking of the Spanish Inquisition as typical
of Christianity.
----- Original Message ----- From: "de Bivort Lawrence"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -> about [this
writer] trolling
Without addressing anything else in this s message, I'll merely stay that
all reference to Islam and Muhammad is no sensual and reflects a degree of
ignorance that exceeds expectations.
Lawrence meant "nonsense" and by "exceeds expectations" he meant "went
beyond the boundaries of expected behavior," and he was responding to a
post of the writer whose claims in response were discussed above.
