At 12:51 AM 12/21/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am not going to respond to your spin anymore.
Once upon a time, I'd be hopeful reading this. But again and again,
my hopes were dashed. Jojo lies, it's that simple.
The reader only needs to research this to confirm I am speaking the truth.
Again he lies.
It's funny how after knowing the history of wikipedia and its
authorships, you still cling to it as an authoritative
source. Something must be wrong when you have to depend on
wikipedia and claim it as an authoritative source. LOL ....
This isn't necessarily a lie, it's merely stupid. Wikipedia is
*never* an authoritative source. But it's a very convenient source,
and a stable Wikipedia article usually isn't far off from neutral.
Spin in Wikipedia articles can be detected, usually. There are some
editors who misprepresent sources, and sometimes these editors are
detected and tossed, but generally a claim in a Wikipedia article as
to what is in sources is roughly true.
The cold fusion article is a good example of where Wikipedia process
can result in a point of view incorporating itself into the article,
contrary to policy. The cold fusion article is not to be trusted as
to overall impressions being conveyed, but if you go to Wikipedia
knowing how Wikipedia works, and you read sources, you can get quite
a good beginning. It's where the sources are *interpreted* that
Wikipedia can go astray.
Jojo does not tell us anything that was specifically wrong with what
I wrote. He does not show any particular bias in the Wikipedia
article. If there are authoritative sources that point to what he
claims, he doesn't cite them.
The fact is that *basis* for the "Moon god" claim can be found in the
Wikipedia article. Sources are given. However, *other* facts are also
pointed to, other sources. This is what a fanatic like Jojo does, and
I've written this before about him -- and many others over the years.
It doesn't matter what their religion is. It's a personality type,
and I knew, personally, a very famous Muslim afflicted with the same
disorder. The person comes to some opinion, the process can vary.
Essentially, things looked like that to him. He then believes his own
opinion, and from then on, he accepts, and considers as proof, all
evidence that appears to support the opinion, and either doesn't even
see or discards as biased, or even lies, any contrary evidence.
He believes that the evidence *clearly* proves he's right. Yet others
without the preset conclusion examine the evidence and don't see it
that way, unless they start with the same preconceptions as this person.
It's easy to see how someone, especially an Evangelical Christian,
might find reason to think that "Allah is a Moon god." That's because
such a person might only be reading Evangelical Christian sources,
and those sources might even point to one of the very few scholars
who speculated on Hubal, for example, as being a Moon god. But it is
a far cry from a speculation that Hubal was a Moon god, by isolated
scholars, and that al-ilah might have been used as a name for that
god (I've shown, and it turns out that many others have pointed out,
that "al-ilah" could be used for *any* god, it's simply "god" with
the definite article, "the god"), to a claim that Allah -- the
probable contraction that came to be used, pre-Islam, for a kind of
overarching or supreme god -- *is* a Moon god. That implies a
continued usage, and that would be a usage *explicitly denied* by the
Qur'an and all Muslims. It might be like saying that Christians
support torturing heretics on crosses. Or that "their tribe"
supported it, and that Christianity is therefore about torturing
heretics on crosses. And then applying this to *today's Christians"
and claiming that *this is what they actually believe.*
That would be highly offensive. I could make a claim closer to home,
I could claim that Christians believe in Three Gods, not one. Again
this would be highly offensive, even if I could claim that *some*
Christian theology is like this. (And even there it would be unfair;
I had a friend once who was an Orthodox Christian (i.e., Eastern
Orthodox). And he also accepted Islam. He did not deny his
Christianity. I asked him how he reconciled the Trinity thing. He
said that the orthodox view (and I think Catholics officially agree)
is that the Trinity is a mystery, and that *any explanation of it is
heretical,* and that therefore it could not be used to deny supposed
alternative views, such as the Unity of God. His argument was
actually airtight. The Qur'an requests (commands?) believers to not
say, "Three." Obviously, that doesn't create a forbidden count. I
read this as heuristic, as indicating a more effective approach,
that's all. All roads lead to the One. If you follow them, of course,
and keep your eyes wide.
Everyone knows that wikipedia is a "politically correct" "agenda driven" site.
That's actually not true. It's a community that has community process
which is susceptible to what I and others called MPOV, majority point
of view. The *theory* was that MPOV would not be over-represented,
because supposedly the community would develop a sensitivity to POV
expression, but the enforcement mechanisms essentially fell easily
into certain traps. People with minority POV were readily tagged as
"POV-pushers," even if they rigorously followed community guidelines,
and they, way too often, ended up banned. Pcarbonn is a great
example. The *only* charge against him with his ultimate topic ban
from cold fusion was that he was "pushing" his cold fusion POV. But
how? Well, he cited sources on the Talk page. He behaved *properly*
as if he had a COI, conflict of interest. People with a COI are
*expected* to have some POV bias, but supposedly, if they follow COI
rules, they would not be sanctioned. Pcarbonn was, and that was
blatant. (I was blocked at one point for simply pointing that out.)
The problem is that there are subcommunities within Wikipedia,
factions, that are highly experienced, some of them were major
volunteers, so they have clout. And they *do* push agendas. The
faction that ultimately went after me, I initially challenged,
ironically, over global warming. I actually agreed with them, that
AGW is a serious problem (or, more accurately, as to a deeper
expression, there is some evidence for it, and the problem *could* be
very serious), but I saw that what they were doing was gross
violation of Wikipedia policy. And I was told, by a very prominent
and very popular administrator, that if I kept it up, I'd be banned.
Well, I did keep it up. It took years, that administrator ended up
losing his privileges over his actions with respect to me, but, yes,
this was a faction of about two dozen editors, including quite a few
administrators, and Wikipedia process can be thoroughly dominated by
such a faction. It really can't distinguish between two dozen
editors, ready to pop in with factional opinion, and the whole
community, unless some conflict manages to attract serious
consideration from a wider community.
I was able to confront the faction many times and my positions were
confirmed, *but* I was then easily tagged as "contentious." And, of
course, there was a body of about two dozen dedicated editors ready
to pop in with, "Yeah, ban him." Against that might be one dozen
editors who were mostly not involved at all, who would deal with the
actual question at hand. You can see where that would ultimately go.
What was amazing was that I lasted as long as I did, that I was able
to accomplish as much as I did. I was actually topic banned on cold
fusion because of a *successful* effort on the meta wiki to get
lenr-canr.org removed from the "spam blacklist." That was presented
on Wikipedia itself as an example of my "wall of text" style. The
original request was tight, about a paragraph. However, the essential
core of the anti-cold fusion faction, the editor also responsible for
both bans of Pcarbonn, came and essentially lied. To counter lies,
from a "reputable editor," takes presenting evidence, so I did that.
This, then, to someone not familiar with the issues, looked like
"wall of text." The matter was decided by a neutral administrator,
who, if anything, detested my lengthy arguments. But had I not
presented them, it's very clear how the decision would have gone.
When I was topic banned, I clarified the ban with the banning admin,
the one who closed the ban discussion, and I followed what appeared
to satisfy it. However, I ultimately took this cmmunity ban to the
Arbitration Committee, due process. I was then blocked, by an admin,
who, from history, never should have touched me (involved), for
allegedy violating the ban. And when I saw that the Arbitration
Committee was going to refuse to look at the matter, I saw that due
process had been exhausted, and I, from that point, felt myself no
longer obligated to respect community decisions. I was free of that.
Interestingly, I was able to get quite a bit more done as an
"outlaw." When this was discovered -- as I expected, I had not taken
measures to avoid detection, and part of what I was seeking to
accomplish required that I eventually be detected, I was fully
banned, then, purely for "block evasion." (Because what I was
actually doing was accepted by the community, it was not, in itself,
controversial -- except that the particular admin who *always* got
involved in these issues, Jed Rothwell certainly knows him, JzG, did
revert some of my edits based on policy: the edits of a sock of a
banned editor may be reverted on sight. His wrist was slapped, the
most important edit I'd made, removing libel of Brian Josephson, was
restored by an arbitrator, no less.
I could edit Wikipedia any time I choose, but I don't. It's simply
too much trouble. I became a paid editorial consultant, and I don't
want to complicate my IP history, should I need to actually edit the
project. As it happens, I haven't needed to do that. Advice is power.
You should know that by now and yet you appeal to its authority.
Nope. I point to it as a fairly decent collection of sources, with
*some* sober analysis of them.
My goodness, do some real research man. Go to a real
library. Look at the history books written by muslims.
Jojo has no clue. At one time, I was far more widely known as a
writer on Islam that I'm now known re cold fusion, or my other major
interest, social structure, the problem of government. (My Wikipedia
activity was motivated by the latter, not by POV pushing.)
I am not about to spend real money and time to "go to a library." I
*have* a library, but the sources needed to substantiate Jojo's claim
*at all* will not be in most libraries. They are obscure or fringe, isolated.
Wikipedia can establish a rebuttable presumption as to the state of a
field. Someone who wishes to *seriously* challenge Wikipedia
articles, would be required to show reliable sources, on Wikipedia.
Some of the sources that might be used to indicate a "Moon god"
meaning would be considered reliable sources, but the problem is that
RS isn't quite enough. If there is controversy, the sources should be
"reliable *secondary* sources*, not merely reliable in themselves,
because reliable sources (like peer-reviewed publications in academic
journals) can represent "original research." That research is
*notable* by reason of independent academic publication, but not
reliable in the sense that conclusions can be presented without
attribution. Some of the material in the "Allah as Moon god" article
is weak. That article might disappear, it could be vulnerable to
challenge at "Articles for deletion", but I'm not sure, because I
have not researched the sources to an adequate extent. For my
purposes, at this point, it simply is not necessary.
Here, Jojo can say, over and over, what he just wrote, and he has
said this over and over. There is no evidence that he, himself, has
read adequate sources to establish the claim. He doesn't show
familiarity with the sources. He doesn't name them, for sure, and I
can speculate that either he doesn't know them, or that he does know,
and doesn't want to tell us because it would be obvious what is going on.
This is what the Wikipedia article claims:
Allah as Moon-God is a claim put forth by some Evangelical Christian
groups that the Islamic name for God,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah>Allah, derives from a
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism>pagan
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_deity>Moon god in local
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_mythology>Arabic mythology. The
implication is that "Allah" is a different God from the
Judeo-Christian deity and that Muslims are worshipping a "false
god". The claim is most associated with the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologist>Christian
apologist author
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morey_%28pastor%29>Robert
Morey, whose book The moon-god Allah in the archeology of the Middle
East is the most cited source of the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme>meme that Allah is a moon-god.
Well, there are asserted facts here, and there is also judgment and
possibly "original research." But, my guess, that original research
is accurate. This is in the lede of the article. The lede is supposed
to be *rigorously neutral.* Anything stated in the lede should be
supported by cited sources in the body of the article. There are no
sources cited in this first part of the lede (which is how it's
supposed to be, but a sign that an article is a battleground will be
citations in the lede, as editors make claims in the lede and want to
prove that the claims are not their own original research, so they
add citations. In a mature article, if the material in the lede is
not covered in the article (or related, cited articles), it should be
removed from the lede.
What are the claims here? I'll use AMG to refer to the "claim."
1. AMG is put forth by some Evangelical Christian groups.
2. AMG is a claim that "Allah" *derives* from a pagan Moon god in
local Arabic mythology.
3. AMG attempts to imply that Allah is a different God from the
Judeo-Christain deity.
4. AMG implies that Muslims are worshipping a false God.
5. The claim is "most" associated with Robert Morey.
6. Robert Morey is a Christian apologist.
7. Morey's book on this is the "most-cited source" for AMG.
Are these alleged facts verifiable? Does Jojo actually contest any of them?
The lede goes on to state:
It has also been promoted in the cartoon tracts of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick>Jack
Chick.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god#cite_note-lori-1>[1]
The use of a <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar>lunar
calendar and the prevalence of crescent moon imagery in Islam is
said to be the result of this
origination.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god#cite_note-2>[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god#cite_note-3>[3]
In 2009 anthropologist Gregory Starrett wrote, "a recent survey by
the Council for American Islamic Relations reports that as many as
10% of Americans believe Muslims are pagans who worship a moon god
or goddess, a belief energetically disseminated by some Christian
activists."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god#cite_note-4>[4]
Again, is anything here false? Notice: the Gregory Starrett allegedly
wrote something. Did he write it?
I can easily fault the article. However, so far, is any of it
*false*? One might argue that it's imbalanced, but that is entirely a
different claim. Wikipedia worries about imbalance, in theory, but to
truly have balanced articles would take a lot more care as to how
community process runs than the Wikpidia community has been willing
to invest, and the WikiMedia Foundation is essentially hands-off. The
active cofounder of Wikipedia detailed, many years ago how it
*should* work, and his ideas weren't bad. The problem is that no
structure was set up that would actually create this as a reality.
Instead, Wikipedia is what it is. POV balance is not at all reliable.
But fact is *roughly* reliable, and the community does come down hard
on true falsification of sources. Misinterpretaton of sources, by a
"respected editor," which can happen, is treated a little more
circumspectly. If you are an unpopular editor, and you are found to
have misinterpreted a source, you are dead meat. Your account is
toast. If you are popular, you may get a "go and sin no more"
wikitrout slap. But nobody follows up and checks. As long as you
don't run afoul of another popular editor, you can do this over and over again.
Those editors would not waste their time with the Allah as Moon-God
article. I reviewed the history of the article. I found one name of
an editor that was vaguely familiar, User:Dougweller. Administrator.
Not one of the abusive admins I'm familiar with. But I don't know.
The article is stable. I noted that it might be subject to AfD. Yes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moon-God_Allah
The editor who started the article claims to be from Texas. Here is a
version that was little edited by anyone else,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allah_as_Moon-god&oldid=470587644
While it's not terrible, the editor was clearly not experienced. At
the end of his version, there are two sections for Further Reading.
There are five books cited as "in support of," and one "in opposition
to." That is "original research," a sign of an inexperienced editor,
who is looking at sources as being on "sides." Sources which are on
sides would be considered biased, but obviously someone might think
of an unbiased source as being on a side. That, then, is a judgement
of someone. Of whom? Rather obviously, the editor. This article was
almost deleted because of characteristics like that.
I don't see any sign of administrative heavy-handedness, though. That
editor has never been blocked. The editor is still (rarely) active.
It looks to me like the editor may be Iranian. I've seen no clue as
to the editor's religion.
There is an editor who was active with the article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Historylover4
This editor is blocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHistorylover4
The editor was obviously Trouble. The first edits for this account,
in 2009, were of "Bible code." The editor is a skeptic, and appears
to be highly inexperienced, making *many* edits one right after
another to that article on March 5, 2010, with no edit summaries.
This is a strong mark of a clueless editor. He eventually got himself
in trouble, as could be predicted. See his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historylover4&oldid=508012594
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allah_as_Moon-god&diff=472731177&oldid=472292229
shows a set of this editor's changes to the article. He's debunking
the Moon god story in a totally improper way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allah_as_Moon-god&oldid=484208213#Historylover
is a discussion between Historylover4 and Paul B, who massively
rewrote the article to make it more compliant with Wikipedia policy.
Historylover4 is anti-AMG, strongly.
So if there is Wikipedia bias at work here, how is this bias
manifesting? The article was begun as more or less a copy of Morey's
ideas. See the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allah_as_Moon-god&oldid=484208213#Untitled_discussion
I'm not seeing "Wikipedia bias" here, beyond the usual insistence on
notability and reliable sources. ("Reliable source" is a Wikipedia
term of art, it does not necessarily mean that the source is
"reliable" in the usual meaning. Whether or not to use a particular
source, and how to use it, is up to editorial consensus, and serious
problems only arise, in general, when factions of editors focus on an
article. I see no sign of this article being such a battleground.
Study real books, not blogs on the Internet.
What blogs? Wikipedia isn't a blog. This mailing list is not a blog.
And I study real books on Islam, Voting systems, and Cold fusion, my
major fields of interest. But I don't necessarily do the work *when
there is no evidence that some author's thesis is true." I've done a
lot here, actually, given how preposterously Jojo writes.
No wonder you can't graduate with a degree. You don't know how to
research and do your own thinking. Wikipeida ... here we come .... LOL....
Indeed. I'm an expert on Wikipedia, having survived, for some years,
the enmity of a dedicated faction, well known to some here.
Generally, overall, a waste of time, but I was highly effective, as
those things go. Wikipedia is what it is. It's quite valuable as a
guide to research on a subject, and that usage is encouraged in
academia. It is not a reliable source. Generally, *no* encyclopedia
is particularly reliable, they are tertiary sources, compared to
peer-reviewed secondary sources and academic publications, things
which are carefully edited and where matters aren't over-simplified.
There is an example in the history of an article, Hubal as "moon
god." From the Encyclopedia of Islam. Passing mention.
Spins and lies will not help your case. A simple and quick research
effort will definitely reveal allah to be the moon god of muhammed's tribe.
It does not become more true because it is repeated. Very simple: if
anyone reading this is motivated to do what Jojo is saying will
reveal what he claims, they can do it and post the sources. Jojo, if
he were telling the truth, could post the sources. He's not.
The Wikipedia article can be edited by anyone. I'm site-banned, and I
could edit it if I wanted to. I don't. *I don't care about Wikipedia
articles." But they are still very useful, for *quick* research, and,
frankly, Jojo's claims have proven to be false, so many times, that
it's doubtful if his claims are worth quick research. Now, here is
the paradox: he's claiming that a "simple and quick research effort
will definitely reveal ..." The Wikipedia article is the result of
quite a bit of research, by people who read the sources available,
some in libraries. One can find *lots* of sources there, only a few
are still reflected in the article. I've looked at lots of these
sources. They don't back up what Jojo says.
Now, we are talking about an idol in a temple in Mecca, over 1400
years ago, when Mecca was a backwater, not of great interest to our
normal sources of history. Knowing *anything* about these times is
far from "definite." We can come to likely conclusions, that's about
the best of it. The etymology of "Allah" is in dispute, but the
dispute is not between "al-ilah" and the weird version Jojo came up
with, "al-ilyah," it is between "al-ilah" and a more direct form of
the semitic name for God, Elah. Or the like. I.e., does the name
"Allah" include the definite article or not? As it is written, it
almost certainly does, and the scholar who wrote the contrary, well,
it didn't make sense. Scholars speculate and sometimes claim their
speculations are truth. We all do that from time to time....
And muhammed did have dozens of wives and concubines including a
9 year old little girl.
He repeats dozens. (he's changed his claim, without acknowledging it,
he originally wrote "dozens of wives." I don't know how many
"concubines" Muhammad had. The term in Arabic would just mean "female
servant." I had a female servant one time. We did not have sex. Honi
soit qui mal y pense. What might be claimed is that having sex with
servants was allowed in Islam. It's controversial *within Islam,* and
the kind of servant that one might have been allowed to have sex with
is *by universal consensus,* no longer allowed, i.e. a "possessed"
human, i.e, slaves. The Prophet did have slaves, as did many others,
it was common. That's not the issue. But we don't know much about his
slaves, except for a few. I know of no number of slaves that would
have any authority. Wives, yes.
And the sources say, generally, 12. But that's slightly misleading. I
could also say he had one wife. Until she died, that's all he had.
And, per custom, he did marry more after she died. 11 more, which is
what the sources generally say, or I've seen nine or ten, is higher
than usual, but this was not an ordinary man. I have read a
compilation that shows 24. And that compilation essentially reports
every rumor or weak story that could be found. Some of the stories
about the *eleven* are not terribly strong. I'm not bothering to
report the compilation, it's useless, it just takes time, and I
believe I already did this in this thread.
If I marry a woman, and she dies, and I marry another, would you say
that I had two wives? Generally, what is being attempted here is to
convey a *moral impression,* of a libertine. Not all of the wives of
the Prophet, apparently, had sexual relations with him. We know about
some, probably most about Ayesha, the youngest, who talked a lot about it.
And is Ayesha the one Jojo is talking about? Why the age "9"? And was
she "little"? And what is Jojo conveying by that? The phrasing
implies a "nine year old little girl" as a *concubine.*
Nine-year-olds can be servants. But if it's Ayesha, she was his third
wife. (And because the first wife had died, she represented the point
at which Muhammad started to marry more than one.)
What's being done, it looks like, is to take Islamic sources *which
is all we have* on these issues, and then extract facts from them and
construe them differently, tacking in anachronistic meanings, as if
these were the "real facts." Fact: some sources say that Ayesha was
six when betrothed, and nine when the marriage was consummated. Is a
9-year old a "litte girl"? We think of that, sure. However, tribal
societies typically separated childhood from adulthood *at puberty*,
and for girls, specifically at menarche. And consummating a marriage
to a betrothed girl, when she has not begun to menstruate, was just,
in a famous case, considered rape, in the Yemen. Christian sources I
cited, in the Middle Ages, considered that the age of consent might
be quite young, seven was cited. *It depends on the girl.*
Essentially, is she a big girl yet? Literally, big, i.e., enlarged breasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
Most nine-year old girls still look like "little girls." Mine do. But
some don't.
In any case, the current Wikipedia article on the woman isn't bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha&oldid=528348755
It points out that there is controversy over the age of Ayesha. There
were plausible political motives, later, to exaggerate her youth. She
was the first (and only?) *virgin wife.* The claim is that the
stories about extreme youth (not so extreme in the world at the time,
actually) were to emphasise this, to claim her high status (and to
deprecate the status of the family of Fatimah, the prophet's daughter
and his husband 'Ali, so this would be part of the ancient Sunni-Shi'a split.)
And this is a general problem in dealing with very early Muslim
history. The text of the Qur'an is *quite* authoritative, that is, it
is quite likely, from all the evidence, to be accurately preserved
from the actual usage as read by the Prophet. (There are details
about this, it appears that multiple readings *were possible*, but
that these readings would not be far from each other in meaning. Long
story. Whatever might have been true about very early variations, the
text of the Qur'an was reduced to a single authoritive mutawaatir
text (multiply transmitted) within twenty years of the passing of the
Prophet.) But almost all this *historical information* is dependent
on "stories." Verbal transmissions that are *mostly* not mutawaatir.
Many of these were almost certainly fabricated, or if not fabricated,
distorted. Some Muslims (a small minority) *totally reject* the
entire body of hadith and depend on the Qur'an only.
Spin it all you want. I just hope people are wise enough to see
thru your lies.
I hope that anyone interested will actually check what I've written.
I enjoy being corrected.
To my other friends reading this,
One other thing is true; islam only spreads by 2 means: By force
and by deception.
Well, I wasn't forced, that's for sure. So how was I deceived? Jojo's
thesis here is apparently that I was tricked into worshipping the Moon.
Actually, that could explain a lot. Made me into a lunatic, eh?
No, my early contact was with Reality. I didn't use the name "Allah."
I had no clue that there might be anything to Islam, but I was very
interested in direct experience, and, yes, I had some of what might
have been direct response from God. I asked a question, and I got an
answer, and the answer, essentially "rung true." It didn't tell me
anything about "Allah," and what I was led to was purely
understanding of myself and my relationship with reality. And out of
that I started looking at what there was in the world. But I already
knew something, and that something made it easy, for example, to
understand what we have reported from Jesus. He told the truth. He
was what he actually said he was -- but not necessarily what others
said about him. You won't go wrong following him. Of course, Jojo
believes that I lie.
"Other sheep have I than those of this fold." Hmmmm. what does that mean?
This is simply my story. It's not proposed as something for others to
believe as "truth." I'm really just pointing, and, ironically, the
Buddhist version of this is "pointing at the Moon." Are they
Moon-worshippers? Hint: No.
A name is a pointer. It is not the thing named.
By Force: Anyone who reads the koran will see that it is commanded
for a muslim man to kill someone who will not convert to islam; and
show that his conversion is real by paying alms.
Gee, where is that verse? I could find a verse that someone confused
about context could read that way, but I won't bother. Islamic law
has always forbidden compulsion in matters of belief. Quite simply,
we do read the Qur'an and we don't think that way. Q.E.D., the claim is false.
Yes, by force, by crashing 2 airliners into the "heart of the
Great Satan". Yes, by force, by issuing fatwah to kill all the
enemies of muhammed.
Those terrorists dove straight into a burning fire. Go directly to
Hell, do not pass go, and it's totally obvious to anyone who
understands Islam and the Qur'an. People like them are well-described
in the Qur'an, but someone like Jojo is utterly uninterested in what
it *actually* says and means. He's just looking for dirt, stones that
he can toss.
He's got absolutely no clue about what Jesus actually taught.
My friends, if you are reading this, let me tell you a true story
that you can research also.
There is very little way to research stories like this.
There was a flight full of muslim men on board getting ready to
fly to mecca for the ramadan. You know that annual thing muslims
do where they walk around that big black meteorite stone. Before
taking off, the plane suffered engine trouble and had to be
delayed. The muslim men on board were so incensed by the delay,
that they would be late for this "walking around the meteorite"
thing, that they rose up in a mob and killed the pilot and his
co-pilot for conspiracy to prevent them from reaching
mecca. Needless to say that the delay would not have made them
late; and furthermore, if I remembered correctly, the pilot and
co-pilot were also muslims. This my friends is the violence of
islam. This my friends, is one way islam spreads, by force of terror.
Let's suppose this story is true. What would it say about Islam?
Nothing. Because what they are reported as having done is uttery and
totally contrary to Islam. The story shows that some people called
"Muslims" are idiots. The Qur'an essentially confirms that, it talks
about people who will wreck the earth if you let them, and they will
say, "we believe in Allah and the Last Day." (i.e., that there is
justice in the end). But they don't believe. This is actually a
substantial theme of the Qur'an, hypocrisy.
Jojo tells that story as if it means something about how Islam
spread. But those were vicious idiots. They could spread Islam? Can
you imagine an army of such people? It could conquer almost all the
known world? It makes no sense, like everything Jojo writes.
Let me guess. They didn't get to Mecca on time.
We don't "walk around a meteorite," as such. We walk around an
ancient temple, that's known about it. An empty building, there is
nothing inside. In one corner, there is a black stone set, apparently
it's been there for a long time, there is a story that it was
necessary to repair the setting, and that the young prophet helped.
While there are legends about the stone, it is not mentioned in the
Qur'an, while the House is. People sometimes kiss that stone, because
of love for the Prophet. After all, he touched it. But this is not an
element of the religion, it's popular devotion.
The Qur'an is explicit on behavior during the travel to Mecca in the
pilgrimage, which used to take, for some of these people, a very long
time. No fighting. Period. So those "Muslims", if they did what they
did, were clearly violating a direct, Qur'anic injunction. *They*
were ruining their pilgrimage. However, *lots of Muslims* are
clueless about the Qur'an. They don't read it in their own language,
and they don't understand the Arabic, and they often know, even in a
language that means almost nothing to them, very little of it. I also
knew a Hafiz, a very sweet man who knew the whole Qur'an, having
learned it as a child. He didn't understand a word, at least that's
what he said. I'm sure he knew some words!
However, the story is indeed ignorant. We don't go on hajj for
"ramadan." No news account from any reputable source would say that
or the "meteorite" thing. Jojo, as usual, doesn't tell us any source.
I spent a little time looking, I have some kind of sick fascination
with people doing Really Stupid things, kind of like those Fair
videos on Youtube. Ouch! Don't do that!
What I found with way too much wasted time.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/738467/
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-3203.html
http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2002/february/feb15b2002.html
The last of the above tells far more about the story. It is not as
was presented. The pilot and copilot were not killed. It was the
Afghan interim minister for air transport and tourism. This was not
some minor delay. Two women may have died from exposure while waiting
for the flight.
And that story, in turn, may be radically incorrect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/15/afghanistan2 Not a mob of
angry pilgrims. A political assassination. Or was it?
Now, maybe there was some *other* incident. But Jojo gave no details, really.
No other religion go about their recruiting will so much violent gusto.
I've never seen anything remotely like that. There are Muslims who
are insanely ignorant about their own religion, but who are damn sure
that everyone else is wrong ... hey, that's like Jojo and others of
his ilk ... but that's not about Islam, that's about humans.
Heck they even go after each other to prove which of their prophets is right.
Eh? He means political leaders, except that the Shi'a get it a bit confused.
No 2 groups go after each other's throats like sunnis and shiites.
Yes, this is the trademark of islam. Conversion and expansion thru violence.
The Shi'a have about fourteen centuries of isolation, they tend to be
shy, hence the name, Shier. Okay, sorry, that's a Massachusetts joke.
They are insular, maintaining their own separation. It's a bit like
the Jews. Yes they have been persecuted, in places, and, in turn,
when in power, can be just like everyone else. But the reality of
Muslim communities is that people get along, most of them. In the
U.S., I've seen rapid anti-Shia polemic only from the same people who
would support al-Qai'da, and, yes, these people will kill anyone who
gets in their way. It's not about religion, these people are
generally ignorant, it's about power and sectarian chauvinism.
The degree of "violence" in the expansion of Islam is complicated.
This much is clear: *most* of the expansion of Islam happened without
military conquest. The history of Islamic *governance* is a history
where political forces overtook religious ones, it's quite like the
history of Christianity. Or does Jojo think that the conquest of
Mexico and South America was purely a nice invitation to join in
worship? That the Crusades were a simple religious pilgrimage, where
the peace-loving pilgrims were *absolutely forced* to kill those
attacking them, down to every man, woman, and child? Muslims *and*
Christians, because the local ones looked alike.
(BTW, this walking around the meteorite stone Kaaba, is a tradition
dating back to their worship of the moon god allah on the kaaba.)
What it dates back to is unclear. There was a statue of Hubal in the
Kaaba, and some sources claim that Hubal was a moon god, that's not
clear, but -- Jojo, without showing *any sources*, is claiming that
the moon god was Allah, not Hubal. The idol for Hubal was converted,
one source says, to a doorstep by the Prophet, I suppose to make a
point. Some god, eh? Tawwaaf, the circling, *is* an old tradition,
apparently, reportedly begun by Abraham, before the building itself
was erected. But that's all very vague, it's a story from Muslim
tradition, and I know of no independent confirmation.
We don't walk around the stone. That's just Jojo polemic. The stone
is set in a corner of the building, so walking around the stone is
obviously going to happen, but ... I've never done hajj, and I don't
recall if tawwaaf is mentioned in the Qur'an, and it's getting too
late to check. What I *know* is that the Black Stone is *not*
mentioned in the Qur'an and it plays no part in the obligatory
pilgrimage (obligatory, that is, on those who can do it). I can be
very sure that if I were walking there, though, my attention would
not be on that stone, except maybe occasionally. It would *alwasy* be
on the Bayt al-Atiq, the Ancient House. And I'd be with thousands of
other people, it's a flow, you know. Jojo's little story assumes that
the pilgrims were "Muslim men." In fact, a lot of women go, and it is
the one place where women pray side-by-side with men. Not in the back.
And by deception: exactly Lomax is doing right now.
Cool. Find one.
He spins the facts and say "it's more complicated than that."
Some things are, but not to Jojo. To him, the world is very simple.
THEY ARE WRONG. I'M RIGHT. IF THEY DON'T AGREE, THEY ARE LYING.
What's complicated about molesting a 9 year-old little girl
barely out of diapers.
Nothing, because it did not happen. That's not what's complicated.
Let's start with the funny part. Highly unlikely that babies in
Arabia wore diapers. When water is a issue, and cloth is hand-woven,
would you use diapers? I wouldn't. I have a Chinese daughter, and I
know what Chinese parents do, except for the wealthy, who use diapers
because it's the "modern thing" -- the expensive thing -- to do. No,
children wear pants with no crotch, essentially. And they train the
children from *very early* to urinate and defecate on a signal. And
they do it. Western pediatricians have claimed that it's impossible
for children to do this (the training starts at maybe one month),
they supposedly don't have the muscle control. But it's not done
through muscle control, it's done through stimulation and sound. And
we saw it. My daughter, who was about ten months old, when we held
her over the toilet and whistle, as we were told to do, she
immediately responded.
We could go around and around as to how old Ayesha was. Certainly
Muslim sources, many, claim she was 9 when the marriage was
consummated, but those *same* sources obviously don't think this was
molestation, and I showed how, in a quite traditional Muslim society
(the Yemen), for a man to consummate a marriage when the girl wasn't
yet a woman, i.e., in advanced puberty, was judged to be *rape*.
So the Muslim sources, you can be sure, were not accusing the Prophet
of rape. The law is that the marriage cannot be consummated until the
girl grows up, so to speak. Before that, it was a *betrothal,*
essentially an engagement, *not* a full marriage. If Ayesha were
pre-pubescent when the marriage were consummated, I assume that the
"law" would have become that there was no need to wait!
(The *actual practice* of the Prophet has been assumed to be
normative, though the Prophet is not described, in the Qur'an, as
perfect. He made mistakes. However, he is *also* considered in the
Qur'an to be a model for us. I find that fascinating, in fact, for we
aren't perfect, we make mistakes, and so if we want to learn from
someone, we might best learn from someone else who is likewise
flawed. Indeed, a somewhat similar argument is made in Christianity
about Jesus, as to why the incarnation was necessary.)
We know a great deal about Ayesha, she was very open and very
talkative about her private life with the Prophet. There is no sign
of shame, nothing like what we see from women molested as children.
I've known of a recent case where a child clearly enjoyed her
"special relationship" with a molesting father, but once she
realized, as an adult, the full implications of what he'd done, she
was *angry* and did everything she could to protect others from him.
However old Ayesha was, and one prominent ancient source placed the
betrothal at about 10 and the consummation, then, several years
later, which is *very* much in line with common Christian practice of
the time, we can be totally sure about one thing: the marriage was
open, not considered a shameful thing, was fully consensual, the
girls father consented and Ayesha herself was very pleased. And the
stories show real love in both directions, with all the
complications, i.e., jealousy, some anger, etc.
As far as I know, islam is the only religion that condones and
promotes this.
I actually wrote about that. Jojo doesn't read it. He just pushes the
button that says "Spew." And out it comes. No, the practice of
considering puberty as the onset of marriagability was *common*, in
many cultures (and every culture has its religion.) Jojo might do
some research himself, on the history of marriageable age in Christianity.
This is so repulsive to the sensibilities of man, that we shriek
back in horror of the thought of molesting a 9 year-old girl.
We do. But "we" is not the world. And what is "molesting," o you with
a mind of darkness and filth?
Even in prison, child molesters are the second class outcasts that
have to be separated from the general prison population for fear
that other inmates would kill them.
Indeed.
Yes, even prison criminals shriek back at the crime of child
molestation. But not islam. They celebrate it, justify it or lie about it.
Wait. Do we celebrate it or lie about it?
Frankly, I don't do either. I don't believe it's my job to judge the
people who came before. Judge not, Jojo, lest you be judged.
As another pointed out here, you are full of hatred and contempt.
What fills you with that? How was Jesus with the woman at the well?
Did he hate her and condemn her?
Our children are the most precious things in our lives and we do
everything to protect them.
You have children, Jojo? Do you know that I have *seven*? And six
grandchildren? Two of my children were adopted, from China and
Ethiopia. You cannot just go out and adopt children if you have the
money. You have to go through about the most intense screening I've
seen. It includes CORI checks, psychological evaluations, and lots of
followup. The Chinese and the Ethiopians love their children. They
are not about to send them off to people merely because they have some money.
If you have children, Jojo, it is all the more urgent that you get a
grip on whatever is causing you to hate so intensely. Or you will
transmit it to them, and you will be causing them the worst damage imaginable.
But not in islam. Women, especially little girls, are just objects
to satisfy the lusts of powerful men.
Not. Look, this is not the story of Ayesha, and, really, you are
insulting *her*.
History is replete with these examples. And people like Lomax have
to lie about it because he is so embarrassed by this retrograde heritage.
Embarrassed by what? I've acknowledged all the confirmed facts here.
It is only Jojo's evil imprecations that I've rejected, his utter stupidity.
Either that, or he condones and practices this himself and has to
spin it away and justify it.
Hmmpph! Making some accusation here, Jojo? I have beautiful children,
astonishingly beautiful. And I've had beautiful wives, and one was 17
years younger than I. So what are you saying? What, specifically,
about my writing, would lead you to your conclusion, other than I
don't support your garbage?
I have cited sources, again and again, or referred to documents which
cite sources. You provide *nothing* but your repeated nonsense.
I can show you proof of many statements by islamic leaders about
this, but people need to do their own research to prove me wrong.
No. People do not need to do research, most people, anyway, because
your frothing at the mouth is totally obvious. I've researched your
claims, many of them. You have been lying. More accurately, if you
believe what you have been saying, you are insane. You believe
without evidence, which is *not* faith. Faith is a condition of the
heart, not a belief that some set of statements about the evil of
others is true.
A simple research effort will reveal the truth.
Sure. It reveals, quickly, that Jojo is totally unreliable, and I
testify, it's only valuable for learning what believers in obscure
weird theories think.
JUST DO IT. Don't relay on Lomax's spin and lies, unless of course
you want to convert to islam by deception.
Convert to Islam? Huh? Does any of this look like an attempt to convert?
Heh! Heh! Heh! If I can just get people to say "Allah," my Lord Satan
will reward me for getting them to worship the Moon god! Their brains
will instantly turn to goo!
Look, I don't care beans about whether or not people say "Allah." I
care about the relationship people have with Reality. That's my god.
I don't think you have a better one, in fact, I don't think you have
a god at all other than yourself. You use some names that don't
belong to you, and you imagine that these names will protect you.
They won't. Unless you take up his burden and *actually follow him*,
Jesus has promised he will deny you.
He wants no part of your lies and hatred.
And one more thing. Do not rely on what I say also.
Definitely not. And if I've said anything doubtful, check the
sources, and let me know if I've erred. I can make mistakes, and my
memory is sometimes flawed.
Find out for yourself. That is the only way to convince you of these
truths. Not any posts or blogs or lies from self-proclaimed experts
who did not graduate.
Didn't graduate from what? I graduated from some schools and courses,
and not from others. I studied certain things and chose to study
others, so I did not complete *one* program. And I've come back and
my life is moving full circle on this. I'm back in the sciences,
working with real scientists, making a difference in the world. I'm
pretty happy about that, but I'm also grateful for what I did, almost
fifty years ago, leaving Caltech. I could never have done what I've
done without the real-life experience that I was not getting in academia.
I left. I was not kicked out. I left in good standing. That's very
clear. I did not continue because I chose not to continue.
But I learned a great deal at Caltech, most especially from Feynman,
I was in his physics lectures for two years. I learned how to think.
Anyway, is this Jojo's authoritative source?
http://chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp
