Funny thing happened on the way to truth...
Lomax first accuses me of lying because I refuse to cite sources. He said I
did not have sources. At that time, I wanted people to research this on
their own so that they would find their conclusions conclusive. I expressed
a concern that whatever source I cite would be considered biased.
My friends, that is exactly what happened. Even when I posted a muslim
source, the 2 most venerated and respected muslim works recognized by
muslims everywhere, Lomax still finds it justified to question it, deny it
and spin it away. That is exactly why I wanted people to research this on
their own.
There seems to be a question as to what constitutes child molestation.
Lomax seems to think that if the little girl is sexually mature - this in
his definition means a menstrual cycle; a sexual act by a 50 year old with
this little girl is not child molestation. My friends, if you are
swallowing this argument, you deserve to be deceived by Lomax. For goodness
sake, Everyone knows a 9 year old is still immature in every way. Yet Lomax
thinks that since she had parental permission, that she enjoyed it, that she
had a menstrual cycle, that this does not constitute an abhorrent act. My
friends, this is the corruption of islam for all to see.
Lomax argues that there is dispute as to her actual age. My friends, even
if A'isha was 5 years older at 14, she would still be too young. Only islam
thinks this is acceptable. This my friends is the corruption of islam.
Lomax argues that since A'isha has had a menstrual cycle, that she is
physically big enough for a 50 year old man. What a load of bullcrap. My
friends, find me a 9 year old that's physically big enough. Goodness, 9
year olds are tiny, especially middle eastern girls. This my friends is the
corruption of islam.
Lomax argues that since he found a 5 year old that bore a child, that all
little girls would be like that. This of course is argument by
generalization. I say a 9 year old is too small. Lomax says its ok. This
my friends is the corruption of islam.
My friends, this is how Child Molestation is defined in our legal system:
"Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecent or sexual
activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 14. In
psychiatric terms, these acts are sometimes known as pedophilia. It is
important, however, to keep in mind that child molestation and child Sexual
Abuse refer to specific, legally defined actions. They do not necessarily
imply that the perpetrator bears a particular psychological makeup or
motive. For example, not all incidents of child molestation are perpetrated
by pedophiles; sometimes the perpetrator has other motives for his or her
actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to
children. Thus, not all child molestation is perpetrated by pedophiles, and
not all pedophiles actually commit child molestation.
Regardless of the terminology, it is illegal for an adult to touch any
portion of a child's body with a "lewd and lascivious" intent. Usually,
consent is not a matter of consideration, and is not available as a defense
to a charge of child molestation. Even in cases where it can be proven that
the minor victim was a willing participant, a sex act or improper touching
is still a crime because children cannot legally consent to anything.
Criminal penalties are severe for those convicted of child molestation."
My friends, in fact, muhammed is guilty of Child Molestation. Sexual
maturity, menstrual cycle, parental permission, self permission, size, etc
do not negate the fact that an adult performing indecent sexual activities
with a child less than 14 is considered Child Molestation. Lomax would like
us to believe that muhammed committed no child molestation; but in fact he
did, by every aspect of the definition.
Lomax appeals to the custom back in the days of muhammed's tribe that says
such acts are not child molestation. My friends, that is exactly my point.
Lomax appeals to a retrograde and abhorrent subculture to justify the
actions of his holey prophet. My friends, a wrong act is always wrong
irregardless of the time period. Murder is always wrong since time
immemorial. So is Homosexuality, so is bestiality. And my friends, child
molestation is always wrong. No one who is in his right mind would say
otherwise. These acts are abhorrent and eminently retrograde that no modern
society would find this acceptable. But Lomax finds it acceptable. My
friends, this is the corruption of islam for all to see.
Lomax also lies that Christians do the same thing. Bullcrap. Where in the
Bible does it condone the sexual intercourse of a minor little girl? Lomax
cites some dubious source supposedly of some group that he calls Christain.
Typical. Set up a strawman to break it down. This is the act of desperate
man. LOL...
Jojo
PS, you accuse me of lying for not providing proof that allah is the mood
god of muhammed beduin tribe. Are you prepared to eat your words and
apologize for that? Are you prepared to see proof that allah was the moon
god of muhammed's beduin tribe that is the same moon god who got promoted to
the universal god of islam. One look at the islamic moon crescent would
have tipped people off to this history, yet Lomax finds the audacity to
accuse me of lying.
So, shall I present proof from muslim sources? Of course not, why waste
people's time, eh? LOL .... At least I give you credit for recognizing
that I was about to give you a cargoship full of whupass. ROTFL.....
But, enough of this. I'm bowing out of this insanity correctling your lies
and spin. Let the readers decide whether they find it acceptable for
muhammed to have fondled a 9 year old little girl, and yes, barely out of
diapers. I'm bowing out at least until after Christmas. You have a few
days to really set up a good spin of the truth. I hope you make the most
out of your time? Quickly, off to the library to do some real research.
LOL....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
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!
