What are you suggesting lomax? That age is uncertain whether she was 9 or
10. Either way, what muhammed practiced was abhorrent and retrograde.
If A'isha has had her first menstrual cycle, does that mean she is a
sexually mature woman. Lomax seems to believe this and asking vorticians to
swallow this. OK, show of hands, which of us with daughters 9 or 10 years
old, that have had their first mentrual cycle that we would consider to be
sexually mature. For pete's sake. These little girls do not have fully
developed mammary glands yet, and Lomax thinks they are sexually mature.
This is the corruption of islam for all to see.
OK, show of hands, which of the following sources does one consider more
reliable. Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari vs. wikipedia and Internet blogs.
One of us cited Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari indicating a testimony from
A'isha herself that intercourse occured when she was 9 or thereabouts.
Lomax cited Internet Blogs to say that A'isha was a different age. Which of
us is more credible with better evidence? Lomax seems to think that his
evidence is stronger because he writes lengthy tiresome essays to confuse
the issue. If you are buying it, you have the right to be stupid enough to
be deceive by lies.
OK, show of hands, which of us would follow our neighbors to commit an
abhorrent act. Heck, if all our neighbors practiced beastiality, does that
make our practice of it OK? Lomax and a few others seems to think that
because all the tribes surrounding muhammed practice child molestation of 9
year old little girls, that muhammed's practice of it was OK. If you are
buying it, you have the right to be stupid enough to be deceive by lies.
'Nuff said. I can never convince a retrograde moon god worshipper about his
abhorrent acts.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
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]
