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 another man. Her father sought and received the man's agreement to
end their betrothal, as his interest had moved elsewhere.
Muhammad had a total of twelve wives during his life-time (not the "dozens"
that some mistakenly allege), and at one point in time had nine at the same
time, prior to the revelation that a Muslim could have no more than four.
Muhammad was not required to divorce five of them. This is the source of some
understandable confusion as to whether Muhammad himself abided by the (new)
limit of four among Muslims. Those Christian, Jewish and pantheistic
communities that chose not to convert to Islam of course could stay with the
practice of unlimited wives.
Muhammad's marriages were motivated often by the need to extend protection and
sustenance to widows and orphans, as well cement relations with other families.
However, it seems that with many of them and with A'isha a genuine love and
deep respect united them. For example, Muhammad first married Khadija, who was
about twice his age. He took no other wives until after her death.
I hope these notes are of help in resolving the confusion caused by the
persistent reiteration of disinformation on this topic.
Cheers,
Lawrence
On Dec 24, 2012, at 1:27 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> 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!
>
