At 09:41 PM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
What has he rebuted? Has he rebuted that A'isha was 9 years old
when muhammed had intercourse with her?
I've shown that the age is uncertain. What Muslim and Bukarhai show
that there was a rumor that she was nine. Other sources indicate that
the age may have been different, nine is the *youngest* of the
possible ages. We don't actually know, from Muslim and Bukhari, that
they had intercourse at this time but that's the usual assumtion.
What it actually says is that she went to live with him.
What is universally accepted, however, in all sources, is that she
was sexually mature when the marriage was completed.
I presented source like Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari saying that
this was true.
No, they quote two stories, that slightly contradict each other, that
say that she was nine. They actually don't say that it is true that
she was nine. They don't even address the issue. Hadith are not
assertions of truth, generally, they are reports of testimony,
usually at least third-hand. Jojo assigns an authority to hadith that
he imagines Muslims must assign, because he thinks that way about the
Bible. Some Muslims do think that way, in fact, but the position I'm
stating is that of Muslim scholars, not the multitides, who sometimes
know less about the Qur'an and the sources for Islam than the
ordinary "Christian" knows about the Bible.
Lomax presented wikipedia and blogs and he rebuted what I said?
Yes. I presented far more than that. But Jojo has acknowedged that he
doesn't read what I've written.
I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you for cheap. Very
close to the beach? LOL....
And we expect that it would be like everything else Jojo offers. A lie.
Trust, not me or him, but the balance of the evidence, and know that
our judgement is easily flawed.
What has he rebuted?
Like nearly everything expect certain obvious facts that were never
in question. That Muslim and Bukhari report 9 at marriage is fact.
That was never in question. How old Ayesha actually was is
controversial, we do not actually know. So what was refuted was the
idea that the actual age is known, as if this were a certainty merely
because it's found in certain hadith. Muslims disagree about the age,
but it's also true that many Muslims, from far back, have accepted
nine as the age. And that's not impossible, nor, personally, do I
consider it outside of the bounds of possiblity. But this does *not*
establish nine as some clearly permitted age, because, in fact, the
law was not about age, though later sources do mention ages.(I have
another 13th century treatise on marriage that shows the "modern"
tendency to use age rather than specific condition). The traditions
cited were not *interpreted*. They are just reports of what people
said that people said had happened.
He said that pre-islam tribes practiced child marriage and
therefore muhammed's practice of it was acceptable?
No, I said that all tribal cultures use the actual condition of the
girl to judge marriageability rather than chronological age.
Nor did I say that "Muhammad's practice" was acceptable. That's a
moral and religious judgment, and "acceptable" must have a context.
Tribal practices may be acceptable under tribal conditions and
unacceptable under other conditions.
This is absolutely clear, and Jojo refuses to see it: Muhammad's
practice, whatever it was, was *clearly acceptable* at the time, and
for a long time after. There was no shame about it. And, by the way,
a single incident doesn't necessarily establish a "practice." He
married a controversial number of women, but it seems to have been a
dozen, accumulated. (Not all at the same time.) One of them was
betrothed (engaged) when she was young and probably sexually
immature. That marriage wasn't consumamated for, probably, about
three years. It's clear that she was sexually mature at consummation
and probaly not at betrothal. She was the only young wife. The others
were generally widows, some quite old. So what was his "practice"?
Jojo has argued that the "practice" was "abhorrent," but he's really
judging the entire human tribal tradition as such, based on? All that
I can see is that he's applying a certain modern American cultural
bias to conditions fourteen hundred years ago. Nobody is arguing for
allowing the marriage of young girls here, where American cultural
norms apply. Jojo is purely casting a stone of blame, purely to
attempt to impeach the honor of the Prophet and, by the way, of his
wife, who told the intimate stories that have come to us. She was
unashamed, and a very strong woman, who lived long and well. Even if
she didn't make a successful general.
OK, whatever. Progressive religions need to correct abhorent
retrograde practices, not embrace it with gusto. LOL...
What's retrograde? There is a gusto, here, though, it's a gusto for
life, for self-expression and freedom from oppression. Jojo's view of
life and the world, we can be grateful, is definitely retrograde,
that's "fundamentalist." (Fundamentalism is a religious term that
does *not* mean going back to fundamentals. Fundamentalists are often
ignorant of the *original religion,* but are insisting on what they
imagine was the religion of their grandparents, say. They will claim
quite like what Jojo claims, that the "truth" is really obvious in
the Scriptures, and the scholars have been lying for centuries.
The paradox is that, indeed, the truth is obvious in the scriptures,
but only if people drop the blinders, and the worst blinder is a
belief in one's own rightness. Those who can drop that, who will just
look at what is *actually in the scriptures*, and what evidence there
is, from all the sources and in life itself, can find an
understanding of the scriptures that is tantamount to certainty,
without becoming arrogant. Basically, it becomes clear, and let those
who have ears, hear.
What has he rebuted? That FGM is not required in Sharia Law.
No. Shari'a law does not refer to FGM. It actually does not permit
"FGM," but there are some misinterpretations that are common enough
that the relatively authoritative source cited takes pains to currect
them, and so did Lane, the 19th century author of the most detailed
dictionary of Arabic available in English. What is permitted (not
"required" in the ordinary meaning) is not genital mutilation at all.
It is precisely the same for males and females. It is the removal of
the prepuce, which is not a sexual organ. This, with both males and
females, is sometimes called "mutilation," but, then, if so, we have
the position that Abraham "mutilated" his sons.
I presented the actual arabic text of what it says in Sharia.
No, what was presented was not "shari'a." It was a tertiary source, a
manual of practice, from the 14th century, but recently translated
and with notes by an American Muslim scholar. No book is "shari'a,"
but some books attempt to describe it. Muslims disagree about the
details of shari'a, and there is no single authoritative text that is
"shari'a." The only single text accepted by all Muslims is Qur'an,
and that's a tautology.
And Jojo did not present the "actual arabic text." He pointed to a
Christian anti-Muslim web site, that presented the arabic text of
that manual, with the commentary by modern scholars, together with
two translations, one by Muslims, known scholars and one by the
non-Muslim page author, anonymous.
The female's clitoris needs to be cut off.
That's not how Muslim scholars translate it. That's based on the
translation of baZr as "clitoris." The scholars claimed that this is
incorrect, that this is a misinterpretation, that, in the context --
and given when it was written -- the word means "prepuce." The
clitoral hood, anatomically equivalent to the male foreskin. The page
author claimed this was deceptive, that baZr *obviously* means clitoris.
Now, whom do we believe? An anonymous author or scholars who have
actually studied those early texts, all of them, not just one, and
who would know how words were used *then*. The page author is a
Christian, probably evangelical. Evangelicals frequently believe that
the meanings of words in text are fixed, they certainly believe that
about the Bible. They think that God has insured that the language is
protected, and, you can easily find, they will tell you that the King
James translation of the Bible is infallible. And that all other
translations are corruptions from people trying to destroy the religion.
But all that is a very indirect argument. The Christian author cites
a source. What is it? It's an on-line dictionary of modern Arabic.
It's as if he doesn't even realize the issue! Nor does Jojo. Jojo has
acknowledged that he never heard of this issue until a few days ago.
Yet, suddenly, he's pronouncing what is true and false. It's typical, really.
But my own obligation is not to any sort of winning here. It's to
truth. I checked the meaning of baZr in modern dictionaries, I have
several. They all said "clitoris." So the Christian is not *lying* --
unless he realizes the problem and conceals it.
The problem is that the modern meaning does not control here. I've
seen this problem many times when Muslims try to interpret old texts,
having a knowledge of modern Arabic. They can go way, way off. (This
is usually on the level of a fundamentalist claiming that everyone
else is wrong, see, here is what it says in the Qur'an or in this or
that hadith.)
Were it not for the fact that I have Lane, I'd be limited to the
general principle that experts, who build a reputation on honesty,
and who do study all the sources they can find, are unlikely to be
lying. However, I have Lane, and he covered the issue. In the middle
of the 19th century, when there was no political firestorm raging.
BaZr means "prepuce," the clitoral hood, and Lane compiled a
dictionary of the classical language. He notes the controversy, but
comes down with certainty on that side.
Our modern Christian author is attempting to interpret Islamic law
for Muslims, while being completely unqualified. And Jojo presented
that page as a proof. Another writer here has it exactly. Jojo is
ignorant of shari'a, he doesn't even know what it means. To him, it
is that body of barbaric practice that Muslims supposedly want to
impose on everyone. Nope. Shari'a is a *road* that may be travelled.
The text that was cited is the "Reliance of the Traveller," and
that's a reference to the road. Islamic *philosophy* clearly knows
that there is more than one road leading to God. Jesus clearly
indicated that, as well. All the roads have certain traits in common, for sure.
I presented actual Sharia Text and Lomax presented internet
blogs. LOL ....
He's lying. Both about what he presented (where he is simply
ignorant, but believes he knows) and about what I presented (which
wasn't blogs, generally. I'd present a blog to show opinion, that's
all. I don't recall any of the pages I pointed to on this topic as
being a blog, but I've cited a lot of sources. I presented news
reports, showing the actual nature of the controversy in Egypt. I
presented a report on an American physician who got in trouble over a
paper he'd written as a student, but the key thing there was what was
cited on that page, a report by the ethics committee of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, recommending a very moderate compromise on
female circumcision. And that's not a matter of proof, because the
core issue that Jojo is asserting is that removal of the clitoris is
obligatory in Islam, and *that's preposterous*. It's not what Muslim
authorities say. Al-Azhar, the ancient Muslim University in Cairo,
issued a report specifically denying what Jojo claims is "Shari'a."
They don't do that! They are extremely conservative and careful.
What has he rebuted? That Birthers are crazy.
I didn't rebut that, I agree with it.
He can't even answer a simple challenge. Tell me who has actually
seen the originally issued BC of Obama.
I answered that, openly and honestly.
We don't know all the names, for sure. However, we have testimony
from the person who legally counts. The Hawaiian official who
certified the copy as being a true copy. She saw the original, or
she's lying. Take your pick. That's not, however, an "issued" birth
certificate. What she actually certified, by writing on it with a
seal, was "issued," in two copies, to Obama. He showed at least one
of these at his press conference. I haven't bothered, so far, to
examine accounts of the conference in detail, but if Obama's campaign
is claiming that he showed the sealed and certified copy, and he
didn't, it would be amazing if at least one of that phalanx of
reporters didn't blow the whistle.
Because I've addressed all of this before, Jojo is again lying,
saying I can't do what I did.
However, it seems he has something else in mind. He wrote that
"snopes" claimed to have seen it -- and he basically said they were
poltical hacks, lying. I attempted to verify his claim (as I have
with most of his claims). Snopes has a page on the "vault" copies,
covering the issue, but doesn't claim to have seen it, and I've
searched. However, there is a much older story where FactCheck.com
reports they they saw an original, sealed birth certificate. But they
had gone to Chicago, and this was before the vault copy had been
obtained and released.
Lomax presented links to internet blogs and he has rebuted me? LOL ...
Bottom line: he is either wilfully lying, or he is so confused by his
bizarre beliefs that he literally can't see what is in front of him.
He does this *routinely*. He states as fact what is contradicted by
our very interchange. He ignores fact that would create a reverse
impression to what he says. For that reason, *he's lying* and he is
utterly unwilling to examine the evidence that is often right in front of him.
Many people think that the Qur'an condemns "unbelievers" to Hell.
That's a very poor translation. A more accurate rendition would be
The people of denial are in Hell.
The people of denial are not merely those who don't "believe," though
even the word "believe" is problematic used for Qur'anic translation.
In a way, the people of denial are "believers," but what they believe
is contradicted by the evidence that is right in front of them. The
Qur'an often asks about these people, "Have they no sense?"
Note: I did not say, "contradicted by what is in the Qur'an." The
Qur'an describes itself as a "reminder." We already know. But we deny
what we know, we suppress and repress what we know, because ... we
fear it and we are afraid of it. We don't like it. We would rather
"believe" something that assures us we are "saved," and, preferably,
with no work.
While this trap can be seen as Christian, real Christians know it,
and will understand what I'm saying. There is no substitute for
developing an intimate relationship with Reality, which requires
being willing to set aside all that we have "believed," to find out
what is Real.
Not because someone told us, but because Reality is recognizable. If
not, it would be hopeless.
And there are signs of the recognition. Really, any real Christian
could fill out the rest of this.
Love, hope, generosity, trust, serenity, compassion that is effective
in the world, and peace of mind.
Get a cranial enema my friend.
He's now speaking to Daniel. If Daniel ever wants his brain washed --
it's actually not a bad idea -- I can help, I know where the services
can be obtained. Nothing is removed, and this isn't sectarian or
religous in nature, though there are certainly impacts on how we
understand religion. I.e., fuzzy thinking, fuzzy religion. Clear
thinking, clear religion.
You have been mesmerized by Lomax's excessive verbal diarrhea.
I've been trained in hypnosis, but I'm not using the techniques here.
It's not easy in writing.
All the crap is getting into your head and Lomax is laughing at
you for swallowing his spin and lies lock, stock and barrel. LOL.....
That's got to be Jojo's belief, that I'm a troll like him. It is
*possible* that he doesn't believe anything he writes, and that he is
enjoying *any* response, and he does write LOL a lot. Some of what he
writes is so preposterous that I occasionally laugh, but not out loud.
Jojo is in hell. I'm not *ever* going to laugh about that. It's
tragic. There's a door for him, ready at any time. I don't know what
Christians he hangs out with, but that door is available to him
always, and Jesus is waiting. Just speaking to him through someone he
doesn't expect.
He could "get it" right now. Really.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[email protected]>Daniel Rocha
To: <mailto:[email protected]>John Milstone
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
He actually rebuted evertything. It's just that you are crazy
religious fundamentalist and cannot see beyond your prejudices.
2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
I provided sources from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. Two of the
most respected and venerated muslim scholarly works ever. I even
provided the actual arabic in Sharia that shows that FGM mutilation
of the clitoris is required in Sharia.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
