Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term "venerated" is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all "venerated."
What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and > Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still > consider them unrealizable and corrupted. And yet, you take wikipedia and > Internet Blogs as more reliable than these venerated sources. My friend, > something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying wikipedia is more > authoritative than the Bible. > > If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source of > muslim history. Does every muslim then just take their own understanding and > run with it. That's anarchy. No wonder muslims find it justified to do just > about anything. Cause by the same standard Lomax is using, they just do what > their own "research" says is OK. > > I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; > now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A > rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple > heads is even more dangerous. > > If you are indeed this divided in your history and teachings (last count; > there are 4 or 5 major islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence); and you > belong to one which claim that it is not justified to kill infidels (as you > claimed); what gives you the authority to represent other islamic schools of > teaching (wahhabi). How can you say that islam is a religion of peace (ala > CAIR propaganda), when in fact you can not agree with other islamic schools > of thought. How can you say that islam is a religion of peace when you can't > even get along with each other? > > > > > > Jojo > > > PS. You are correct in that I do not generally read all your posts. I do > not have the patience to read it all. It's tiresome and boring. However, > I do scan most of it and generally responds to the first impressions I get. > So, if you are using nuance and subtlety to bring home your point, it would > be missed in my scanning. So, I suggest you learn how to write in a more > direct and succinct way to be more effective in your debate. I'm not sure > how much of the misunderstanding is due to your long winded essays. Keep is > short, my friend, if you want people to not be confused; but then again, this > confusion is probably what you're after to begin with. You do not want > people to fully understand what it is exactly you're saying so that you can > squirm out of a difficult position later on. A tactic I've seen you attempt > to do. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. > > >> At 06:23 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>> Lomax, have you actually read the link? >> >> Yes. The post that I made proves that, by quoting from it in detail. Has >> Jojo actually read my mail? It appears not, but then he responds to it. >> Obviously, if he has not read it, he has *made up* what I supposedly said. >> >>> It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to >>> Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. >> >> The seeming is to one ignorant of the issues. I have *included* in my >> comments what is in Muslim and Bukhari. >> >>> Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 >>> works. >> >> I generally consider *all hadith* except the "best hadith," the Qur'an, as >> being suspect as to accuracy. And that is obvious to anyone who takes up the >> study of hadith. They very. Even with the strongest, we find variations. >> Then there are *translation* problems. The Christian critics seem to ascribe >> authority to translations, sometimes made by other than scholars, and >> sometimes made by scholars whose English is poor. >> >>> If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. >> >> You can't. You are utterly out of your element. >> >>> You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. >> >> No, that's only true about *some* of what you say. Consistently, you >> interpret comments as extremes. It's part of how you think. >> >>> Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources >>> support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? >> >> I accepted that they say what they say. It's not controversial that Bukhari >> and Mulsim say what they say, on the points relevant here. But the exact >> meanng of some of the words is in possible question. Without doing *much >> more research* -- that could take a long time -- I can't be certain about >> these things, but Christians who have certainly *not* done the necessary >> research are *quite* certain about what they say and what it means. >> >>> The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari are corrupt in your opinion? >> >> "Corrupt" as a technical term, yes. That means that it is a certainty that >> they contain errors. >> >> Jojo, you are trying to establish what the sources of Islam *mean*. Yet >> those sources don't really mean *anything* to you except as a means of >> trying to impeach the honor of the religion and those who accept it. You are >> not willing and possibly not capable of understanding what has happened >> right here, on this list, in these emails, in a language you supposedly >> understand, how in the world could you expect to understand what happened >> 1400 years ago, with no immediate authoritative texts except the Qur'an, and >> hadith only collected a century later? You seem to think that Islam is like >> Christianity, that we have some canon of books that are accepted by Muslims, >> like the Christian canon. No, there is only the Qur'an in that position. One >> book. >> >> Bukhari and Muslim have respect, but I'm actually a Maliki, as to school of >> preference, for whatever that means, and what was important to Imam Malik >> was not the stories of the Prophet, so much as how people in Madina, the >> city of the prophet, *actually practiced.* >> >> That's frustrating to you because you imagine I should have some >> authoritative text that you could then scour for offensive material. The >> only truly authoritative text in Islam is the Qur'an. What we see in the >> hadith is largely the world-view (including politics) of the early Muslims, >> about a hundred years after the Prophet. How much this affected what was >> transmitted is debatable, and Muslims certainly debate it. >> >>> because they clearly say that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed >>> consumated the marriage. >> >> As I've mentioned, translations differ and I don't have the Arabic on this. >> I could go to the trouble of getting it, but why? >> >> Muhammad Ali wrote about this that the age of Ayesha was what we would now >> call "historical trivia." The collectors of hadith were very concerned abou >> the practice of Islam, not about historical trivia. *Later* scholars used >> these stories to develop "law" about age, but I consider that activity to be >> basically corrupt. The standard in the Qur'an and in the actual sunna of the >> people and the Prophet was about, not age, but maturity. That, in fact, >> matches what used to be the law in much of the U.S., not so long ago. It is >> about a judgment of the condition of the girl, not about her physical age, >> for maturity between girls can vary *greatly*. >> >> If there is a girl who is actually sexually mature, and she is *not* >> married, there is a risk of sex outside of marriage, a constant risk. Is she >> to be imprisoned, watched constantly? Look what has come from delay of >> marriage in the U.S.! While cause and effect are debatable, there is little >> doubt but that extramarital sex has increased, and it is also obvious that >> *all these women are sexually mature.* -- except for those who are actually >> abused, rather than merely technically abused. (And "statutory rape" does >> not cover the situation of girls and boys of the same age.) >> >> The goal in many cultures, not just Islamic culture, has been to marry girls >> when they are ready for it, not before, and not later. So what is "ready"? >> And who decides? Jojo Jaro? >> >>> There is even evidence he did that prior to A'isha's first menses contrary >>> to your assertions. >> >> Ridiculous evidence, I covered that. There is *abundant evidence* to the >> contrary. Many times, I've pointed to the Yemeni case, a society that would, >> indeed, accept the age of 9 for Ayesha at consummation, where a girl was >> *10* and the marriage was consummated when the girl had not begun to >> menstruate. It was adjudicated as rape. Which it was, statutory rape. >> >>> Are you actually saying that we take your word over that of Sahih Muslim >>> and Sahih Bukhari? >> >> Notice: Jojo wants us to accept *his word* -- when he is plainly ignorant -- >> and *the word* of anti-Muslim sources, as to how hadith should be >> interpreted. There is a basic law of the interpretation of sacred texts: >> *never* interpret them to mean something patently offensive. If your heart >> says it's wrong, it's probably wrong, but you can reserve judgment. Maybe >> you misunderstood something! Fundamentalists, though, imagine that meaning >> is a trait of text alone. Muslim *and* Christian fundamentalists, it's the >> same disease. >> >> My word as to what? Muslim and Bukhari reported *stories.* That's what >> "hadith" means. They say what they say. What is in opposition here? >> >> If you actually look at the Arabic text of these books, you will see that >> each story begins with "isnad." "On the authority of X, who heard from Y, >> who heard from [Ayesha] that ..." >> >> Bukhari is respected. There is no indication that he lied. His judgment of >> the transmitters may have been good. But ... that does not translate to >> "accurate." Error is not only very possible, it's certain, and Bukhari >> himself reports variant hadith. Same incident, variant story. >> >> Jojo is misrepresenting what is being said, trying to fit it all into his >> own nightmare. >> >>> By what authority or scholarship can you make such audacious claims? >> >> Because I say so? There is no Pope in Islam. There is no central authority. >> There are scholars who are respected, and there are institutions, like >> al-Azhar. Jojo has shown *zero* respect for these. What his sources do -- he >> didn't do this, he is blindly following others -- is to take a Muslim >> source, misinterpret it, and then claim that this with authority of the >> source. *Even if the source explicitly contradicts the claim.* >> >> We don't fall for it. These buffoons fool only themselves and ignorant >> followers. >> >>> Are you still contending that a 9 year old girl who may or who may not have >>> had her first menses is a "sexually mature" young woman. >> >> What woman? Notice the present tense. How do we judge the maturity of a >> woman? By one fact? One fact *may* establish a presumption, but is not the >> whoe story. What is "sexual maturity"? >> >>> You realize that if you are contending this, you are arguing against many >>> medical sources which says sexual maturity occurs about 2 years after the >>> first menses, as I have been contending all along. >> >> That would be full maturity. So, how old was Ayesha when she had her first >> menses? Have you seen an authority on that? So far, reviewing everything >> I've seen, I've seen nothing on this except a strong presumption that it was >> before the marriage was consummated. Given that this can sometimes happen >> quite early, we have an unknown situation. >> >> Jojo is essentially asserting that the norm is *required*, that it is >> *always true,* Sexual maturity is, in fact, judged by a complex of phenomena >> that are not only about menstruation, and, I mentioned, a woman might even >> be sexually mature without having menstruated. Essentially, by preponderance >> of the evidence. >> >>> The evidence is in from reliable sources. A'isha was 9 years old when >>> muhammed first had intercourse with her. >> >> From most sources, yes, though she also could have been older. A 9-year-old >> is older than nine except on her birthday. So she might have been almost >> ten, and given that nobody gave a hoot about her age in years, the point >> that Muhammad Ali made was that they weren't particularly careful about >> these stories. >> >>> She may or may not have had her first menses. >> >> That interpretation is totally isolated. Maududi makes a general claim, but >> doesn't assert this about Ayesha. He actually derives if from the law on >> divorce, by a preposterous line of reasoning. Maududi is an idiot. People >> like him afflicted Islam for decades, and it's still going on. >> >>> Either way, she was still not sexually mature according to the medical >>> sources. >> >> You are obviously not reading all the sources. Sources give a median age. If >> you read about the range, you would find that puberty can begin -- and >> compete, both earlier and later than the median. >> >>> And clearly, A'isha was not mature enough to have given consent to the >>> marriage proposal. >> >> You understand that aspect of Islamic law. The woman must be mature enough >> to give consent. That varies not only with the girl herself, but with >> culture and circumstances. It is not an absolute attribute of age alone. >> Education and upbringing have an impact. Do you have any children, Jojo? >> >>> For creeps sake, she was still playing with dolls, which according to islam >>> law, she is allowed to do because she was not considered an adult yet. She >>> was still considered a child. >> >> Basically, you encountered this argument about one day ago, and you now >> repeat it as if it were proven fact. You are transparent, Jojo. Hopefully >> one day you will realize this. You cannot hide, you are visible. >> >> The narrators were emphasizing that Ayesha was undergoing the transition to >> maturity. Playing with dolls was a symbol of that. There is no story of her >> playing with dolls after consummation. And the argument about dolls and >> puberty was advanced by a fundamentalist trying to excuse playing with >> dolls! (images, you know!). (I can imagine the poor kids of these idiots. >> The girl gets her period and the father grabs the dolls and stomps on them. >> To prove that they are not respected, those little gods. The girl gets her >> period and the father forces her to marry immediately, to "avoid sin." Even >> most fundamentalists have more sense, but, my guess, it has happened.) >> >>> The evidence is clear and reliable and yet we find Lomax still clinging to >>> his beloved prophet instead of denouncing his actions, he still tries to >>> justify it, and continues the same lies. I'm not surprised. He can lie to >>> protect the "honor" of muhammed. >> >> And, here, Jojo has definitely gone directly into insult, in spite of his >> promise to avoid it, firmly and clearly. He could not manage it for even a >> few minutes, he began immediately after his promise, to break it. >> >> He started this topic, which is itself an insult to every Muslim. I covered >> that argument previously, and I see no sign that Jojo would hear anything of >> use here. >> >> Enough? Jojo claimed to want to stop this. >> >> Were you lying, Jojo? >> >> The post I replied to was not about you, and explicitly said so. I >> considered only the page you had cited. And, in response, you directly >> attacked and insulted me. I don't care about insult, but I do care about >> holding you responsible for the damage you do to this mailing list. >> >> To tell me that I "can lie" is an insult to me and to Islam and all Muslims. >> It is specifically bigotry. >> >> the post of mine to which Jojo was responding, which was *not about him,* >> and mentioned him only in the first paragraph, to say that. No insults in it. >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg74957.html >> >
