At 10:30 PM 12/23/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
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.
That's sort-of true. I did not deny the works. Rather, I simply
pointed out that there exists controversy on the age. And then I
mostly responded assuming the age.
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..
If Jojo is sane, give me insanity. Please.
There is nothing in the stories to indicate "sex perversion." That's
a conclusion, not "truth." How would Jojo know? And is a sexually
mature woman, capable of becoming a mother, a "child"?
Do "child molesters" openly marry the child, with the parent's
permission, the knowledge of the whole society?
Lomax criticizes me for using "diapers" to describe A'isha. Of
course, I know there were no diapers.
My point, actually.
I used that term to describe the situation in a more descriptive fashion.
Right. It's called "spin," i.e., what he accuses me of.
Just imagine your daugther just barely out of diapers still
preoccupied with dolls being fondled by a 50 year old fart.
Again, "fart"? And why should I imagine such an image? How is a
*six-year-old" "just out of diapers? Even modern kids, with delayed
toilet training that seems to be common, most are out by two.
SPIN. That's really what the whole set of claims is about.
Just imagine if you would consider that acceptable?
Of course I wouldn't. "Just barely out of diapers," i.e., maybe
three? In this case, it's quite clear, Ayesha wanted to be married;
and the marriage would not have been consummated later if she'd
changed her mind. That's what the Muslim sources show, and *there are
only Muslim sources on this.* So what people like Jojo do is to spin
those sources, to try to create something that is definitely not in
them. A child-molester.
Lomax justifies the holey prophet's actions
I have not justified anything. I've described what we can know about
the situation, and about Jojo's claims.
by saying that it is acceptable because the little girl has
reached menstrual cycle.
Sexually mature, it's called. Puberty. The dividing line between an
immature human female and a mature one.
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.
I cited a Christian source for medieval Christian practice. The
dividing line is puberty. Ages are *arbitrary*, and tribal societies
don't even know ages with any rigor. That's why there is doubt about
Ayesha's age, we don't know that she even knew how old she was.
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.
I cited plenty of evidence to the contrary. The age of consent begins
with puberty. Modern societies have added additional conditions.
Tribal societies likewise typically required parental consent.
(Muslim tradition is no different on that; indeed, it's mostly
considered that marriage without the consent of a wali (guardian)
isn't lawful. That is totally true, without exception, for the very
young. So what we are talking about is alleged "child molestation"
with the full consent of the father, no opposition from *anyone*,
open, public, the young woman in question openly talks about it,
there is no shame, she is proud of it, and yet this Jaro-head wants
us to think of her as a victim.
He can take his non-Christian hatred elsewhere.
A little girl of nine, is by all accounts still a little immature
little girl whether or not she is menstruating.
According to what source?
She is physcally immature with undeveloped mammary glands to feed
a child of her own.
Nope. Did you see the 5-year-old mother, I posted a link to her
Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
Developed "mammary glands." Yeah, truly "precocious puberty."
Apparently, she raised the child without a problem. She had a
C-section, definitely pelvic size would be an issue. But that's not
necessarily true for a nine-year old.
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.
Jojo, I was also a midwife. You are just making stuff up. Yeah, there
*might* be a problem, but ... who is "we" who has seen "this" time
and time again. Menstruation is a clear sign that the reproductive
organs are developed. They did a section on Lisa Medina probably
because they *feared* she would have a problem. She had, "By age
five, her figure displayed pelvic widening and advanced
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_maturation>bone maturation. When
doctors performed the caesarean to deliver her baby, they found she
already had fully mature sexual organs from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty>precocious puberty.
The real "boner" here is the comment about her being too small
physically for the 50 year old. How would he know that? We don't know
how big she was, in any sense, but she certainly wasn't complaining.
A sexually mature woman has a wider pelvis -- see the Lina Medina
article. Jojo has no clue what he's talking about.
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.
Depends on the culture she was raised in. She took her dolls with her
at nine. We don't know what that means, as to maturity. My ex-wife,
she's 51, the adoptive mother of my small girls, still has the
stuffie she had when she was little. Immature?
Jojo simply doesn't have a clue about the varieties of human
experience and culture. Medieval Christianity attacked the Prophet as
a "libertine," but they did not raise the issue of his "child bride,"
only the number of wives, because they'd have been accusing him of
what was common practice in their own culture. Very young marriages
continued to be recognized in the U.S. There is no absolute youngest
age for a marriage in many states of the U.S.; rather laws have been
passed requiring not only parental consent, but also judicial
consent, below a certain age.
What I know is that presumptions about maturity from age are
artificial boundaries, and can be way off as to individuals.
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.
She didn't understand that by marrying the Prophet, she was going to
become a leader of her community, lead an army, etc.?
Probably right. But I see people get married all the time, much
older, and they are clueless about what it really means.
This was a very earthy culture. She knew what sex was. And she waited
perhaps three years for it. We don't have details about the
consummation. What we do know is that she was very happy with her
husband, mostly. They had disagreements.
This is the point I am making. Islam's practices are "creepy",
repulsive, loathsome, nauseating, revolting, contemptible and retrograde.
Anything else?
These are the acts of a man they celebrate as a great leader.
First of all, why was this brought here? Was I "celebrating" Muhammad? Where?
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.
"Someone once said." Some evidence.
Once again, I challenge anyone to point out any lie I have said here.
Many have been pointed out. Above, Jojo actually admits to saying
something he knew to be false, the "diaper" thing. That's just the easy start!
Whether you like what I've said here or not, I challenge you to
point out any untruths I have said about islam.
Liar, liar, pants on fire: "Diapers."
Actually, maybe he's right. None of this is about "Islam." "Madness,"
he says about Islam, but that's not a discriminable claim. It could
not be shown to be either true or false. It's just "story," i.e.,
what he called spin above.
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.
I would never request such a waste of people's time.
The very idea of "proof" about something as preposterous as that is
insane. Basically, I've seen the claims, references to the sources,
and what they claim falls far short of "proof," the best construction
that could be put on any of it would be pointing to some possibility
of a similar name. The source cited by one of the evangelical sites
simply doesn't show what they say about the topic. It's like most of
what Jojo writes: it's in his mind.
So, best case: some pre-Islamic Arabs used the name Allah to refer to
a Moon God. Almost all sources claim that Allah was used in many
ways, but always with an implication of some sort of supreme God.
*None of that* would mean that *today,* Muslims are "worshipping a Moon God."
It's a confusion of name with reality. It's idiotic.
That comic book was rich, though. What a delusional writer!
