At 07:34 PM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Once again, Lomax diverts the issue and attempts to spin it away.
The issue is not A'isha actual age, it is irrelevant what her actual
age was. She could have been 5 years older and what muhammed did
would still be an abhorrent sex perverted act.
That's fascinating. Presumably he's referring to the commonly stated
age of 9. So she'd be 14. That's commonly been a legal age of
marriage in the U.S. It's still legal in many states. What's the
"abhorrent sex perverted act"? I went over the hadith, it looks like
Jojo may be imagining something that is not there. There is nothing
there remotely "perverted," except in Jojo's mind.
The issue is not A'isha mentrual cycle, it is irrelevant that she
has had a menstrual cycle. A girl of 9 is clearly an immature child
not prepared for the rigors of being subjected to sex, being a wife
and starting a family.
We don't actually know her age. We know some stories about it. What
we *know*, relatively speaking, is that she was sexually mature.
That, by the way, is completely sufficient to kill the "pedophile"
argument. Actual pedophiles lose interest in the objects of their
attention when they sexually mature.
The issue is not whether muhammed's tribe considered this as wrong
or not. People can clearly see that it is wrong.
"is." What "is" wrong. This all happened 1400 years ago. It happened
under radically different circumstances.
The issue is not that pre-islam tribes do it. The issue is that
islam does it.
"Does it?" First of all, only a few Muslim countries allow early
marriage. The trend in Muslim countries is pretty much the same as
everywhere, toward an emphasis on extending childhood, for extended
education, basically.
The great prophet should have corrected this practice. He should
have disavowed this retrograde practice, not assimilate it and
embrace it with gusto.
He repeats phrases that he's used before, that have been shown to be
inapplicable. It's actually a characteristic of trolling.
What someone "should" have done depends on context. Above, Jojo says
that it all would have been the same if she'd been 14. Perverted,
allegedly. Now, some sources say she was 18. Still perverted? He said
14, but didn't really mean it.
Just compare the behavior of the real true God Jesus Christ compared
with a sex perverted HOLEY prophet like muhammed.
Uh, if Jesus was God what are you doing comparing him to a man? Hey,
if you are going to call the Prophet "holy," how about spelling it
correctly? If you are going to call him "sex perverted," how about an
example of a "sex perverted act," because the diagnostic standards of
modern psychiatry -- or older psychiatry -- do not recognise "sex
perversion" simply for an attraction by a man to a sexually mature
woman -- of any age -- as "perverted." It's *normal*. That is *not*
pedophilia if she's sexually mature.
For *other reasons,* we now limit marriage to a higher age, but U.S.
law still, in many places, readily contemplates marriage at 14. And
marriage laws do not have any upper limit. Consider the marriage of
Woody Allen to the adopted daughter of his wife. That certainly
raised eyebrows, and Islamic law would generally consider that a
prohibited relationship, that would be my judgment. (I won't go into
the reasons, but it makes sense, if you think about what's behind the
"prohibited degrees.") But Woody Allen isn't a "pervert." He's a
normal man to be attracted to his wife.
When Jesus came on the scene, the practice of multiple wives to one
man was still prevalent and Jews practiced it contrary to the
original intent of God. But it was a retrograde and abhorrent
practice and what did Jesus do? He put a stop to it. Hence,
Christians now do not have multiple wives, even when their
"predecessors" the Jews had.
Jesus did not establish that law. He didn't bring law, remember? He
didn't change law, remember? He said precisely that. "I come not to
change the law, but to fulfill it."
Now, were the Jews practicing something "abhorrent"? Be careful,
Jojo, for Abraham had two wives, right? And it appears God approved
of that, didn't he?
This is what the real God Jesus Christ or real progressive prophets
do. They correct abhorrent practices. No, but not muhammed, he
enjoyed it too much.
Ayesha accused him of that! Feisty one, she was.
Having dozens of wives and concubines and a 9 year old little girl
BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS.
He now puts it in capital letters, it's pure trolling, because he
*likes* that I point it out as a lie.
(He could claim that if she was nine, but when was she "out of
diapers." "Barely" would surely mean that it was close to nine. Like
8, 7, what? But -- Arabs almost certainly didn't use diapers then,
and even if they did, she'd have been "out" of them by two or three
if the parents were really unfortunate.)
No, this is my point, and Jojo has acknowledged it. He's writing what
he's writing, not because it is the "truth," but because he's
attempting to offend. That's called "trolling." I don't use that word
to insult, but simply to describe what he does.
My friends, God created Adam and one wife - Eve. Not Adam and Eve,
Ethel, Ally, Mary, Courtney, Elizabeth, Martha etc. and certainly
not Adam and Steve and most certainly not Adam and little A'isha.
He did create Adam and Steve. He created all of us, equally. I do
wonder, though, speaking of Adam and Eve, if their children married
each other. Wouldn't that be incest? Ah, never mind. Some questions
just are not meant to be asked or answered.
I wonder if it's ever occurred to Jojo that the Bible is a collection
of "stories." That the literal meaning may not be the point at all?
The Qur'an is actually explicit about this. It's the Truth, all
right, but the same way that Jesus is the Truth. The Word of God.
But God speaks to us with images. That's Qur'an. And so did Jesus.
His stories were called "parables." Stories with a message. Not
literal truth, necessarily. The *message* is truth. Stories told to
"edify," to use the Christian term.
Fundamentalists toss out the real message, in favor of something that
they make up, or their ancestors made it up.
Progressive religions correct retrograde acts; and islam is
certainly not a progressive religion. In fact, it is the retrograde
religion itself.
Back to basics. Okay, I'll buy that. Enough of this "modern" crap. If
it was good enough for Abraham, it's good enough for me.
[copy of prior message included by Jojo has been deleted.]
