At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote:
First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this
despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to
leave unresolved.
It's always "too important" to keep the promise. The whole farrago of
topics are "too important" not to dwell on.
Jojo has called himself a "turd," i.e, worthless and despicable.
That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many
of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if
you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from "where we do not
recognize him" (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we
don't lie to ourselves, do we?
Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not
stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to
*believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in
reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality
*in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an
action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories
that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.*
Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually
believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd?
There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for
survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only
through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal
activity that we experience are "true." They are just patterns, and
patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe
they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are.
Now, to the point here.
On further googling the terms "bestiality" and "islam", I found this
page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document
islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls.
Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of
outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll
Google "Christian bestiality." Wonder what I'll find? This research
stuff is tough work but someone has to do it.
Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else
can waste their time.
Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The
references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax
can not say they are biased.
I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet,
but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a
shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as
Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments,
there are "strong arguments" made that are *made up* by some Muslims.
A "scholar" wants to prove something, so he searches through the body
of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in reliability, and
finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares not at
all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a
bulldog, out to prove *one thing.*
And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it.
A couple of points to highlight.
1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among
muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was
9 years old.
That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the "not
in dispute" claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims
that differ on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case
if the reports are true. The reports do not actually prove
"consummation." I consider it likely, however, that they are about
consummation, but the reports do not establish how the persons --
including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was.
This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried.
*Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems
incredible in today's world, but this wasn't today's world. This was
a mostly non-literate society, with no birth records. Age was not a
standard for *anything,* the present physical and mental condition of
a boy or girl were *everything.* The consent of the wali (a girl's
father, in this case), was *essential*. The wali determines readiness
for all aspects except one, actual sexual maturity. It has been so in
*every culture* when it was pre-literate, and age-based standards
only arose in rule-of-law societies.
So when Ayesha is *reported* as having said (recorded many years
later, after she was dead, by someone else) that she was "nine" when
she went to the house of the Prophet, that is a *report*. Later, the
age became important, as people created "Islamic law." But what is
clear from *all the sources* is that she was sexually mature, in a
basic sense. They do not actually tell us that, but it is so obvious
from context that it's essentially indisputable, and an example was
given in what was uncovered in the discussions, of the adjudicated
*rape* of a ten-year-old girl, by her "husband," purely on account of
her not having reached menarche.
That's the "age of consent" in very conservative Islam, and the
*additional consent* of the parents would be necessary.
Because marriage requires the *woman*'s consent, and a woman is not
considered, under normal circumtances, to be *able* to give consent
until menarche, the parent's consent is *not enough*. Presumably the
parents did consent, but *they consented to betrothal, not
consummation.* So for the "husband" to have intercourse with her --
whether it was forcible or not -- was what we call in the U.S.
"statutory rape." She did not have the legal power to consent. Nor
would her parents, if she is not past menarche.
2. There is evidence A'isha was prepubescent when muhammed had
intercourse with her.
Jojo has found such an assertion, on an evangelist Christian web
site. I've just glanced at it, so far, and have not yet researched
the sources. However, it's already obvious that they are taking an
argument out of context, and using it to "prove" something that the
actual witness would be horrified by. It's done by putting together
evidence about various pieces of what must be understood as something
between myth and history, a body of hearsay evidence, and then
drawing conclusions, but not in an unbiased manner, as to
preponderance of evidence, but to prove some pre-determined point.
That is, there is evidence, all right, that, interpreted out of
context and with a set of assumptions about many things, can be used
to *argue* that she was prepubescent. But not when there was
intercourse, rather when she went to the house of the Prophet. That
actually tells us *nothing* about her sexual maturity or emotinal
maturity at the time of consummation, and I've seen no story that
actually bears on this, directly.
3. This practice remains a significant practice in muslim countries
to this day. Read about the muslim cleric in Indonesia.
There are all kinds of practices that happen in the world that are
horrific to this Muslim and to many others, and if there is evidence
that intercourse with prepubescent females is sanctioned by Muslim
authorities, this would be a clear impeachment of those authorities
as corrupt. We'll see what the source actually shows.
It should be understood that there are, on the internet, active
"Muslim clerics" who are promoting highly sectarian ... the technical
term is "bullshit."
4. A little girl's body is in fact not ready for sexual intercourse
and pregnancy at the age of 9.
Humans vary. Jojo has already accepted that there is variation within
the species, and there is also variation due to environmental
conditions. No such statement about readiness can be made, generally.
The youngest recorded mother was apparently five years old, this was
modern. She gave birth by Caesarian section, but it appears that was
precautionary, that was no proof that she could not bear children
normally. There are *many* recorded instances of mothers at 10, which
is be adequate to show that sexual maturity at 9 (ability to conceive
and bear) is within human possibility.
Jojo consistently argues the norm as if it proves that a specific
case is outside the possible range. He continually betrays bias, that
his conclusion is set, and here we can see it in his language, which
is not that of medical report, which would never use the imprecise
and inaccurate term "little." I've seen eight-year-olds who are
full-sized. Are they fully mature? I haven't seen one. Maturity,
which is equivalent to the "natural age of consent," is a combination
of sexual maturity, the state of the body with regard to reproduction
and desire for sexual relationship, and emotional and social
maturity, which is a matter of judgment. In ancient societies, the
judgment was exercised by the guardian, not by rule-of-law with respect to age.
And it's still the same, in fact, what rule-of-law has done is to set
certain limits that require judicial discretion.
Regular ovulation does not start until a significant amount of time
after menses (regularly up to 2 years from the first
menses.) Mammary gland start of development does not start until
the first menses.
I pointed to a photo of that five-year old. Developed, pendulous breasts.
Check out the medical references.
I have checked medical references. The body is designed to handle
these situations. Very, very important point: *consent.* This is not
the place for a full exploration of the law of consent, but it's
totally neglected by Jojo et al.
So suppose this is the situation.
1. Age of girl is *unknown*. She's thought to be young, though, let's
say she's thought to be nine. But it's uncertain.
2. Girl has passed menarche.
3. She appears physically mature, not a "little girl."
4. She has her dolls, they are important to her, but her relationship
with them is as is normal for an older girl who still has her
childhood dolls. (I know women who are *past menopause* who still
have their dolls. They pass them on to their children.
5. Her parents consent to marriage.
6. She is emotionally and socially mature.
7. She consents to the marriage and to completion.
Is this girl "marriageable"? If not, when, and how is the society to
judge? Remember, they have no birth records.
Let me add an additional condition. Normal men look at her and see
her as attractive. Remember, they do not know how old she is. We are
talking about possibilities here. If the girl were seen by her
society as a "little girl, immature," the society would have
considered the marriage and consummation as unconscionable, and it is
totally apparent that they did not consider this.
This is what I said with my pig breeding posts that many found to
be too offensive. Now, decide for yourself which of us both is lying.
Pig sexual maturity is no guide as to human sexual maturity, any more
than the sexual maturity of a mouse would be. As to mice, breeding is
a complex process that is triggered by the presence of a male mouse;
it's likely that the human process is somewhat similar. The whole
process of normal sexual attraction is not something that takes place
in isolation, it's an interaction between male and female. A normal
male may be attracted, in some sense, to a prepubescent female, but
the complex process that leads to actual and consensual intercourse
does not normally happen. (In modern American society, some girls are
trained to appear sexy, made-up to appear more mature than they are,
trained to move in sexually-attractive ways, dressed for sexual
attractiveness, etc. That says nothing about how they would appear
without all these trappings. We are talking, in the traditions, about
*neighbors.*)
<http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4>http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4
Please read the link before you call for my banning and decide for
yourself if this practice is acceptable to you. Decide if you will
allow this practice to your 9 year old daughter. Decide which of us
both is lying.
I've now concluded that Jojo should be banned, but what is on that
site is irrelevant to it.
My conclusion is based on his obvious and demonstrated inability to
voluntarily refrain from continuing his highly contentious and
off-topic debates on the list.
Had he merely said something like, "I found this and I think it's
relevant to the question of Ayesha's condition at her marriage, so I
want to post the link, but I will not continue discussion of this
here," it could have technically violated the promise, but would have
been far less objectionable.
"What practice?" Again, I have not done more than scan the
anti-Muslim source. If Jojo is claiming that Muslims condone sex with
prepubescent girls, *under any circumstances*, he's telling not only
an untruth, but it is certainly false about this Muslim. No, I do not
condone that *at all.* So who is lying?
And why is all this on the Vortex list? I'm responding here *because
it's here.*
I am not claiming the site is unbiased, I am claiming that the
references in the site is unbiased. Muslim sources should be
acceptable to muslims.
Why? There is no "central authority" that decides what is acceptable
to all Muslims. Jojo is making a radically incorrect assumption, and
he's making it because he wants to tar all of us with the same brush.
I'll look at the source separately.
Instead of saying Lomax has "excellent" research skills, why not
just research the links and references of this site.
I have never recommended that anyone depend solely on my claims, if a
matter is important to them. I provide sources and discuss them. It
takes a lot of work.
Decide for yourself which of us both is lying.
That's the argument of a troll.
Research for yourself before you are "enthralled" by Lomax's
lengthy essays and assume that it is a "well-researched" response.
Most users here are *irritated* by my long essays. A few have read
them and have appreciated them, and they are starting to burn out,
themselves. Enough, already.
Generally, my research is not truly deep. It's what I consider enough
for a decent first impression. Where I have knowledge of a field, my
overall comments might be well-informed. But I also make mistakes.
PS. Note that I have not insulted Lomax in this posts at all. But
if he finds the truth offensive, there is nothing I can do about that.
Jojo thinks all this is about trading insults.
Jojo mentioned me five times in his post.
What do I have to do with the history of this "little girl"? He's
implied that I -- and all Muslims -- would condone child rape. If
that is not an insult, what is?
