But then, the longer you post, the more vague your answer is. And you never
answer directly. You love to beat around the bush and answer obliquely to
avoid being painted into a corner. A corner that you are embarassed to be
in.
For instance. You said you do not believe the accounts in Sahih Muslim and
Sahih Bukhari that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed had intercourse with
her. But yet, you do not provide an answer as to what age you believe she
was. This is the kind of beating around the bush that confuses people. You
may think that that makes you look erudite, but in fact, people simply do
not read your post and you lose the opportunity to convince them.
Got to hand it to you, your debating skills are excellent, you slip and
slime away from your answer as expertly as a snake slimes away from a grip.
But debating skills won't help you. When you have to defend a retrograde
and abhorernt act, no amount of debating skill will make it look acceptable.
What muhammed did in having sexual relations with a 9 year old is abhorrent.
I did not expect you to defend it, but for some inexplicable reason, you
decided to defend it. Do you consider muhammed to be an infallible person?
Is muhammed considered perfect and sinless by muslims like how Jesus Christ
is consider perfect and sinless by Christians? If muhammed is not
considered sinless, you should have just disavowed that act and be done with
it. Take a cue from Christians, we disavow the retrograde acts of Solomon's
polygamy. We do not insist and try to justify it.
Keep to the point my friend. Maybe you'll even convince me.
Jojo
PS. How can you call yourself an electronics "engineer" when you haven't
graduated from engineering school? So, you have no college degree at all?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
In his post, at the end, Jojo complains about the length of my response.
It's long because Jojo raises, in a single post, many issues. If he raised
one only, the response would be much briefer. A very brief response may
necessarily, to be honest, uncivil. I call an argument, below, "pigshit."
That was brief. I could respond to the entire post with that word, but ...
how useful would this be?
Jojo raises some real issues, exposing the foundations, to some extent, of
his misunderstanding. If he actually wants to understand, he will probably
have to do some work, to read what bores him. When I write polemic, it's
designed to punch through noise and disinterest. These discussions have
not been, for me, polemic. They are explorations of evidence and argument,
and often I don't take a strong position, at least not at first.
Jojo, below, attributes this to a debate tactic, to an unwillingness to be
clear about what I believe.
But, actually, I don't "believe" anything except in a pragmatic way. I
have my memory, my own experience. I don't believe that it is "truth." It
is just my memory. Yes, I might even insist on aspects of it, but that's
not "belief," it is just actual practice. In any case, what Jojo is
talking about is how I explore a topic; I attempt to begin with an open
mind, as empty as possible. I may then disclose assumptions, but I may
avoid applying those assumptions until I've reviewed evidence.
To do this in writing takes a lot of words. Later, when someone asks me a
question, though, I may be able to answer briefly, *because I went through
this process.* Depends on context.
I am disclosing here how I learn. I learned about cold fusion this way, as
an example, but many other subjects as well. I developed my own career in
a similar way, by exposing myself to material, and setting aside the
normal reactions of "I don't understand this." I just kept reading, and,
when possible, working and testing and trying things out, and that's how I
became an electronics engineer. No formal training.
At 03:23 AM 1/2/2013, 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.
The term is "unreliable." Further, to be clear, what is accurate about my
consideration is that they are not *completely reliable* and they are
*sometimes* corrupt -- in a technical sensee, as a message or fact can be
distorted when transmitted through a chain of informants, as in the
"telephone game." As anyone who actually studies Islamic scholarship will
realize, scholars debate the authenticity of hadith, including those in
Buhkari and Muslim.
There are Muslims who seem to "venerate" certain sources, but that,
itself, could be regarded as a corruption. Only the Qur'an has that
central place in Islam. Acceptance of the Qur'an is central to the *legal*
identification of a person as Muslim. However, the Arabic word "muslim"
has wider application.
Some Muslims totally reject hadith, and they do not thereby "leave Islam."
And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than these
venerated sources.
That comment deserves no other reply than "pigshit," if that. Wikipedia
and blogs are far more corrupt, in the sense I used the term.
My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying
wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible.
You said it, I didn't. Reliable *for what*? Everything in Wikipedia, in
theory, is sourced. (If you see a questionable fact on Wikipedia that is
not sourced, it's highly questionable, suspect a defect in Wikipedia
process. Every edit on Wikipedia can be tracked to a specific editor -- or
IP address. (Wikipedia's anonymity policy makes this far less useful than
it might otherwise be, but one can still look for signs of bias.) If a
Wikipedia article is sourced to a blog, usually that would also be a
violation of Wikipedia policy. *However*, sometimes blogs or other sources
can be External Links, or can be a source for notable opinion.
If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source
of muslim history.
Good point. *History* is "suspect and corrupted,* period. However, this is
*relative.* Just remember this: Early Muslim history was written by the
winners. You will find little in it from the losers' perspective, so to
understand what *actually happened* can be difficult.
The Qur'an makes a point about the crucifixion. "Those who argue about it
don't know." And what the Qur'an actually says about the crucifixion is
... interesting. It does not confict with "Christian history," or any
history, for that matter, as to what we have of *any history.* We have, at
best, the testimony of witnesses. Often we don't have even that, we have
unattributed "fact," unverifiable.
Who knows what *actually happened*? The Qur'an says that what (some) Jews
said about the crucifixion ("We killed Jesus, the son of Mary") was "how
it appeared to them" And that is all a witness can ever testify to. And
then it says that "No, we raised him to ourself." And then it says that
those who argue about it don't know.
So who *actually knows* what happened? When Muslim scholars write about
history, in particular, they will add, and have added for much more than a
millenium, "And God knows best." They are not claiming ownership of truth.
Truth belongs to God, it is the domain of God, his realm of sovereignty.
Challenge that, you are in trouble.
Does every muslim then just take their own understanding and run with it.
That's anarchy.
Yes. We are responsible to God, not to some "religion." We return to God,
not to some plastic or brittle concept. We return to Reality, "for him who
thinks death's honesty will not come upon him naturally, life sometimes
must get lonely." -- Bob Dylan.
You could call it anarchy, but you will have missed something. The Qur'an.
The Qur'an is central to Islam as a distinct religion. Now, there are
people who accept the Qur'an as a message from God, who do not thereby
take on the "shari'a," or the practice of Islam as exemplified by the
Prophet's life. There was even a book written on this by a Catholic
scholar, in which he clearly took the position that the Qur'an was,
indeed, a message from God to the Arabs, and, remarkably, that book had
the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the Catholic church. Now, *that's*
catholic.
What is the status of these people with God? *God knows best,* and this is
between them and God. The Qur'an says that God will not leave a people
without guidance. As with some sayings from Jesus, this indicates to me
that God leaves his servants among *all peoples,* and, yes, that would
mean that there are some Evangelical Christians in this category.
How could that be? Simple. Maybe "theology" isn't all that it's cracked up
to be. Maybe it's what is in the heart that counts. I have heard
Evangelical Christians on the radio, and *every word* was a reflection of
truth to me, and I have heard others, and, OMG, how does this guy get away
with this? Same apparent faith, but one was expressed with heart and
practical wisdom, the other was pure dogma that makes other wrong, that is
highly judgmental.
No wonder muslims find it justified to do just about anything.
Human beings do this. However, the Qur'an is quite clear about certain
things. Jojo has focused on peripheral texts and has ignored the central
one.
Cause by the same standard Lomax is using, they just do what their own
"research" says is OK.
Yes. However, if they don't "research" the Qur'an, but claim to be Muslim,
all bets are off.
But it's more than that, much more than that. God does not leave a people
without guidance. But people don't follow their guidance, often. Some say
that most don't, only a few are "saved." (Others say that almost everyone
returns to the favor of God, that this is God's ultimate plan.) What the
Qur'an says about those who believe themselves to be saved, because they
are the "saved people," is, "Do you have a promise *from God*? If so, you
can trust it." And, otherwise, "beware of a fire whose fuel is men and
stones."
If I have a promise, how would I know it's from God? To me, the answer is
obvious. God has given us the capacity to recognize him, it is
*instinctive.* The analogy used is "as a child recognizes his parent." And
we recognize by marks, at least initially: peace, wisdom, justice,
transcendence, compassion and mercy, and, yes, power, a power that
succeeds *without effort,* because it only "says to a thing, be!, and it
is."
So, Jojo, you know. You are responsible for what you know. I am not your
judge, God is, and God will judge you through *you* and how you judge
others. This judgement is real, and it cannot be manipulated by magic,
i.e., with magical incantations, like, "in the name of ..." There is a
story from Rumi about this, about the dogs that guard the castle of the
master, who will ignore "in the name of the master," and tear the intruder
to shreds, *unless he is actually clinging to the cloak of the master.*
This is about reality, Jojo, not fantasies -- or fairy tales, all of
which, *at best* can remind us of our actual relationship with reality.
I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent
religion; now, I know that I was wrong.
Yes, but I see little sign that you get the full dimensions of your error.
It is a non-unified violent religion.
And how would that happen? Jojo is here manifesting a particularly
Christian pathology. That is, it's common among Christians, it is not
exclusive to them, and we find it among some fundamentalists in all
religions, and among some atheists. That is that Man is inherently Evil.
Only if a severe and strong discipline is applied can this be ameliorated
and harm prevented. Anarchy? It must be *eliminated*. Freedom?
*Dangerous.* Mercy? *Not for them, only for us!* Justice? "For them! We,
however, deserve forgiveness because we have said the Magic Words.*
A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with
multiple heads is even more dangerous.
Indeed. Therefore? *Man* is dangerous.
In one of the first verses of the Qur'an, the angels ask God, who has said
he will create a governor on the earth, "What! Will you place one there
who will make mischief and shed blood?" They knew, but they did not know
everything. God responds by "teaching Adam the names, all of them" and
telling Adam to say them to the angels. Language, folks. It's very clear.
Word.
And God says, "I know what you do not know," and commands the angels to
bow to Adam, and they do, *except Iblis,* who is also called Satan. Was
Iblis a rebellious angel? That's an interpretation, but not the only one.
Satan was, it's clear, a "jinn," another order of creation, and that's
outside our purpose here. Satan was *proud*, and vowed revenge. And God
permitted that, as well, for a purpose. You'll find this story in the
Bible, as well, though the perspective may be different.
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);
Yes.
and you belong to one which claim that it is not justified to kill
infidels (as you claimed);
That is the majority position, practically unanimous, though all the
schools. It is not allowed to kill people because they are "infidels," and
the practice of the Prophet was clear on this. The area of dispute would
be over "justice," and it *is* allowed to kill in self-defense.
The fundamentalists (and that's not one of the major schools) argue that
"insult to religion" is a capital offense, harming people by lying to
them, and they adduce stories that might show that, but the majority view
is that killing is, first of all, the province of the sovereign, and, no,
in spite of Jojo's "anarchy" idea, the majority -- the word for majority
is "sunni" -- personal killing for "justice" of the kind considered here
is unlawful, and to be punished. And, secondly, establishing peace in the
world is much stronger than abstract ideas of justice.
what gives you the authority to represent other islamic schools of
teaching (wahhabi).
I definitely don't represent the Wahhabiyya, and some would kill me,
immediately, if they got the chance. They murdered many, many Muslims in
their historical struggle for power. However, on many of the issues that
have been raised, the Wahhabiyya would agree with me. They are corrupt,
generally, as fundamentalists and believers in their own absolute
rightness are corrupt everywhere. The Wahhabiyya are generally Hanbali,
but have their own scholars with idiosyncratic opinions, generally harsh
and highly judgmental of others.
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.
It is quite possible to disagree peaceably. You ought to try it, Jojo. The
word "islam" does imply peace. It would be more accurate to say that it
means "acceptance." Acceptance of what? Reality, at root, and this meaning
for islam is ancient. It's not about the shari'a of Muhammad, that's a
*detail*.
How can you say that islam is a religion of peace when you can't even get
along with each other?
Interesting question. Ask yourself about Christianity. Beware of the "no
true Scotsman" argument, okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
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.
Or challenging. When my kids are challenged, they will often reject the
situation as "boring."
However, I do scan most of it and generally responds to the first
impressions I get.
Bingo. And your first impressions are, first and foremost, knee-jerk
responses based, not on a consideration of what I've said, and often
radically divorced from what I've said, on your own pre-existing mindset.
It is very easy to identify disagreement, or more, accurately to *make it
up.*
What you have done, however, then, is to *completely ignore* evidence,
because in those posts was reference to source texts, and even, in one
particularly brilliant sequence, to *your own evidence*. Which you did not
reread and check, because it was "boring.* "After all, don't I know my own
evidence"?
Actually, Jojo, you don't.
So, if you are using nuance and subtlety to bring home your point, it
would be missed in my scanning.
How about if I'm using direct and clear evidence? Cited and linked in the
post? And thorough in consideration?
So, I suggest you learn how to write in a more direct and succinct way
to be more effective in your debate.
Great idea. I'm being trained to do just that. However, I'm not engaged in
debate here. That's a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm learning, and I
learn by exploring arguments and evidence. Others are welcome to follow
with me, or to participate, or not.
I do have a subsidiary motive here, applying to *this* set of
conversations, which is not to leave the web record radically imbalanced.
People will search for, say, "Allah Moon God" and find the threads, and
what turn out to be deceptive arguments should not be left unanswered, in
situ, if possible. It would be enough if the moderator shut down a thread
as disruptive, but Bill has not done that. So I have *some level of
obligation* to respond, where I have relevant evidence or argument to
present. Especially the evidence part.
I"ve been engaged in this process since the mid-1980s on the W.E.L.L.,
where I was a conference moderator and participant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL
I saw, then, a potential for on-line conversations that remains, still,
only partly realized. Long story.
I'm not sure how much of the misunderstanding is due to your long winded
essays.
Some, perhaps.
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.
No, that would be trolling. However, is your confusion my responsibility?
That's a question, not an assertion.
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.
The view implies that I'm engaged in debate, and that I want to win, or at
least to avoid looking bad. That doesn't run me, though aspects of that
are part of the human condition that I must beware.
The view also implies that "full understanding" is possible. Maybe. I
rather doubt it, though, if the reader isn't willing to do some work. It
takes me hours to write some of these posts, it might be fair to expect a
few minutes to read them, or a bit longer if sources are checked. However,
I've always welcomed requests for clarification.
My original post to which Jojo was responding can be found at
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74987.html
