At 05:41 AM 12/24/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friends, this is how Child Molestation is defined in our legal system:
"Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecent or
sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 14.
This appears to be quoted from something, but it's not stated what.
It is not a legal definition. The "definition" is confused.
In psychiatric terms, these acts are sometimes known as pedophilia.
It is important, however, to keep in mind that child molestation and
child Sexual Abuse refer to specific, legally defined actions. They
do not necessarily imply that the perpetrator bears a particular
psychological makeup or motive. For example, not all incidents of
child molestation are perpetrated by pedophiles; sometimes the
perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not
manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus,
not all child molestation is perpetrated by pedophiles, and not all
pedophiles actually commit child molestation.
Basically, "pedophilia is a red herring." It is not part of the
definition of Child Molestation, which also "in our legal system" --
Jojo doesn't say where he lives, so I'll assume the United States,
but this may vary with state -- isn't called "Child Molestation."
Regardless of the terminology, it is illegal for an adult to touch
any portion of a child's body with a "lewd and lascivious" intent.
Usually, consent is not a matter of consideration, and is not
available as a defense to a charge of child molestation. Even in
cases where it can be proven that the minor victim was a willing
participant, a sex act or improper touching is still a crime because
children cannot legally consent to anything. Criminal penalties are
severe for those convicted of child molestation."
The definition is from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Child+Molestation
Funny, Jojo made a huge point out of citations, openly acknowledge,
from Wikipedia (which generally are sourced there), but here he cites
the Free Dictionary, which has an article of unknown provenance. At
least I couldn't find it.
There is nothing wrong with the definition. Certain acts are
prohibited today that were not prohibited centuries ago, and this
page doesn't define "children." The term "minor" is used, which is a
term that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and time to time.
Notice the article actually says "usually under the age of 14."
That's based on what?
My friends, in fact, muhammed is guilty of Child Molestation.
What law, specifically, and when and where was this law passed?
Muhammad died 1400 years ago. He didn't live under "our legal system."
What Jojo is essentially saying is that if everyone in the tribe
believes that Ayesha is a woman, not a child, if that is the local
custom, and even though these people never heard of this "law" --
which Jojo did not actually cite -- even though this issue of alleged
child molestation was not raised, even by Muhammad's enemies until
fourteen centuries later, Muhammad is to be judged "guilty." Great.
Take him to court. Make him register with the police. Be my guest.
Make a total idiot out of yourself, even more than you already have.
If any Muslim (say) in the U.S. were to take the example of the
Prophet as binding, and "marry" a 9-year old and consummate the
"marriage," sexually mature or not, without having the permission of
a court first, they would be charged and convicted not of "child
molestation," but of "statutory rape." Generally, the "marriage"
would be voided. (But if it happens that she becomes pregnant, that
is exactly the situation where a court might, at least in some
states, recognize the marriage.)
The prosecution would not be violating Muslim law, nor not allowing
the "practice of religion," because "marriageable age" is actually a
matter of custom and community consensus. Of course, as I mentioned,
I'm Maliki as to school of law. Some of the other schools might
disagree with this. Further, as pointed out, in the Qur'an, there is
more than sexual maturity to be considered, there is general fitness
for marriage, which includes matters of judgment, and the judgment is
in the hands of the "wali," or guardian, which is generally assumed
to be the father, but it's not restricted to that, and in a state
which requires judicial consent, the court functions as wali.
This is really funny, actually. So Jojo's thesis is that what
Muhammad did in Arabia 1400 years ago would be illegal if done today,
here. Yes, it would -- maybe. And so what? There are many things like that.
(*We don't know what Muhammad actually did in this matter.* We have
stories, and there is some level of conflict in the stories. But,
yes, if Ayesha was nine at consummation and if there was no court
permission, it would be a serious crime here and now. I'm not seeing
any Muslim push to change this, nor do I expect it. The trend in
Muslim countries seems to be against restoring the "sunna" ages, or,
at least, requiring judicial consent. Judicial consent, in those
countries, would avoid setting a fixed age *contrary* to the
tradition, while still protecting real children.)
The position is bizarre for Christians. "Guilty" of a sin, before the
sin was defined.
(And for bonus points, resolve these legal dilemmas:)
1. A man marries two women in a place that allows multiple marriages.
Then they all move here. How does the law treat these marriages?
2. A man marries a young woman in a place that allows marriage at her
age. They move here. If he is accused of having sex with his wife,
should he be investigated and prosecuted for child sexual abuse
because she is under age? Is he "guilty" of "child molestation"?
Assume there is no issue of lack of actual consent, the only legal
issue about consent with statutory rape is that the woman is presumed
to be unable to give consent. She is happy to be married, her parents
back where they came from are happy with the marriage, and, let's
spice it up, she is actually pregnant.
Sexual maturity, menstrual cycle, parental permission, self
permission, size, etc do not negate the fact that an adult
performing indecent sexual activities with a child less than 14 is
considered Child Molestation.
By the Dictionary.
There are two issues involved, and they are related. There is the age
of consent and there is the marriageable age. Marriage requires
consent, and, in the relevant situations, marriage *represents* the
consent of the parties *and* of the society, so law (or custom, in
tribal situations) must be followed as well.
Lomax would like us to believe that muhammed committed no child
molestation; but in fact he did, by every aspect of the definition.
That's an exaggeration, because the definition does not clearly
define the age, first of all, the definition says "usually under the
age of 14." That is because the age of consent, the age at which a
person is considered to have the capacity to consent, is defined
differently in different jurisdictios. So what is the relevant jurisdiction?
It seems that Jojo thinks jurisdiction does not matter, that there is
some *absolute* jurisdiction, like an absolute frame of reference.
Okay, perhaps God set the age. Did he? How and where? Don't recall
seeing this in the Bible or the Qur'an. Maybe he inspired it in the
leaders of Jojo's church, or Jojo himself. What say ye, Jojo, Prophet of God?
Reading the Qur'an itself on this, it looks to me like God punted. He
said, essentially, "It's up to you. Judge with concern for the
welfare of the young woman." He's saying that to the wali, the person
charged with her care. Father or guardian. I've served as wali for
two women who was seeking to be married and wanted to follow the law
on that. Long story. There was no issue of age.
It seems that to apply the "definition" Jojo asserted, we need to
know the jurisdiction, the location of the possible crime. We'd also
need to know when it allegedly happened, or the law under which the
alleged guilty party would be prosecuted would be an ex-post facto law.
May it please the Court, my client is deceased, 1400 years ago, and
lived in the Arabian peninsula. He violated no laws in effect at the
time of the alleged crime, which was simply that of loving a woman
known and accepted as his wife. I move for complete dismissal of the
charges, based on lack of jurisdiction and lack of violation of any
law in effect at the time. And please ask the bailiff to remove the
man shouting "Pedophile!" in the back.
Lomax appeals to the custom back in the days of muhammed's tribe
that says such acts are not child molestation.
"Muhammad's tribe" makes it seem far more particular than it was. But
the argument would be the same if it were only his tribe. They had
defacto legal jurisdiction there, they were subject to no outside
government. As a tribal society, they had little or no written law,
they didn't keep written birth records, and as one consequence, we
only have what might be called strong rumors as to the age of Ayesha
at "full marriage." What is clear is that she was considered, by her
family and by her society, as "marriagable." I.e., of the age of consent.
The Prophet having a dozen wives (actually it seems to have been nine
at the peak, "dozen" forgets that at least one wife died, or there
were divorces, but I'm not sure of exactly how many)) was raised as a
scandal by European critics of Islam in medieval times, but the issue
of "child molestation" doesn't seem to have been an issue. From
evidence I've cited on Christian attitudes at the time, it wasn't so
far from what Christians allowed.
Jojo misrepresents the argument. I'm saying that what Muhammad did
was not "child molestation" *at the time.* It would be, now, in the
United States.
I'm saying that you can't apply modern standards, applying to a
society that is different in many, many different ways, to an ancient
one. And the matter of the definition of "child", for marriage, is
very much something that has shifted from culture to culture and time to time.
My friends, that is exactly my point. Lomax appeals to a retrograde
and abhorrent subculture to justify the actions of his holey prophet.
"Retrograde" implies that it went backwards. There is no sign of
that. Backwards from what?? "Abhorrent"? Sorry, I read the stories of
Ayesha and Muhammad and see a love story. "Abhorrent" is in the mind
of Jojo, it's full of spiders and snakes. Devils, really. Hatred, a
clear sign of Satan's involvement.
By the way, I've never used the term "holy prophet." That's Jojo's
trope. He uses it for sarcasm, it's part of his attempt to be
maximally offensive.
I'm not seeing an offensive action to justify. The actions of the
Prophet involved a young woman, apparently sexually mature -- that is
clear! -- who lived in Arabia, 1400 years ago, raised in a tribal
culture that defined male and female roles a certain way. His actions
in that culture, with her, offend me not at all.
What Jojo does is to translate these actions, without being explicit,
into actions today, as if by being not-offended at those actions, I
should not be offended by "similar" actions today. But what would be
"similar." It's actually impossible. Okay, here's a possible example.
I travel to a place where marriage at a young age is permitted. I
marry, say, a sexually mature twelve-year old girl. The marriage is a
cause of joy to her and to her family. If I stay there, there is zero
problem. Now, can I bring her back to the United States? And this is
where some real situation could occur, though, I'll tell you, I would
not do this, but the reasons are not what you might think. I'd make a
*lousy* husband for a twelve-year old.
I've never heard of a test case. It's a bit surprising, so maybe it's
simply that I never looked.
Now, suppose that we don't know the age of the girl. She is sexually
mature, but birth records were lost and she lived under circumstances
where age is pretty fuzzy, they lived in the boonies and with no
regular news, so birth and events can't be easily tied together. (My
youngest daughter is actually from a place like that, she's nine, and
not marriageable! We actually had a little doubt about her age, but a
bone study confirmed it as approximately correct.)
What about marriage to her?
My friends, a wrong act is always wrong irregardless of the time period.
Nope. Period. Full stop. Error. This is a Fundamentalist Christian
speaking, it's essentially the Fundamentalist mind set -- the same is
true for Fundamentalist Muslims. They'd make exactly the same argument.
I could give counterexamples from the Christian religion. Tell me,
Jojo, is it wrong to eat lahmi tair? Ah, you'd want a translation of
that. Pig meat.
Murder is always wrong since time immemorial.
Murder is killing without justice. Is incest wrong since time
immemorial. Who were the first humans? And who were the next generations?
So is Homosexuality, so is bestiality.
Certain specific acts were prohibited in the Torah, not
"homosexuality." "Bestiality" is a term that refers to acts, so, yes,
but, again, is that law still in effect, and how would you know?
Bestiality is illegal, generally. Homosexual acts are not. So are
they "wrong," and *who says so with authority*?
And my friends, child molestation is always wrong.
The word "molest" implies harm. Is "adult molestation" okay? The key
word here is "child." Where is "child" defined, for the purposes of
understanding what "child molestation" is, so that we can know what
is wrong, and where it is wrong, and when it became wrong, unless it
was *always* wrong, which requires a definition of law applying to
humans from the beginning.
Okay, if there is such a rule, a moral prescription, that both
defines "child" and what cannot be morally done with a child, where
is it? Can you cite the verse?
Don't confuse this for an argument that it's okay to have sex with
children, under present conditions. This is an argument that
standards have shifted, and might shift in the future. They are not
absolutes, they are dependent on cultural and other social conditions.
No one who is in his right mind would say otherwise.
But "chld molestation" *is* always wrong. However, what constitutes
child molestation depends on the definition of "child" and of
"molestation." The general term is "child abuse," and standards have
been shifting.
When I was young, it was routine to physically punish children in
school. I was paddled for being tardy, supposedly, by the Attendance
Officer when I as a senior in high school. Parents routinely spanked
their kids. They might have been slapped.
Now, slap your child and you are in for a conversation with child
protective authorities, and you can lose your kids. You could even be
prosecuted for assault, though that is unlikely unless you actually
cause physical harm.
"Child abuse" is always wrong. But what is "child abuse"? That
depends very much on context. And so does the definition of "child."
These acts are abhorrent and eminently retrograde that no modern
society would find this acceptable. But Lomax finds it acceptable.
I said nothing about what is acceptable in "modern society," by which
I assume Jojo means, like, the United States. Don't get me started.
I see nothing abhorrent about the acts of the Prophet, in themselves,
in context. Translating these acts to present times would require an
adjustment. Let's suppose something probably true about the Prophet.
He'd respect any non-harmful social tradition or law. Generally, the
majority of Muslim scholars rule that one is obligated to follow
local law. So if, here, he were betrothed to a girl of whatever age,
he'd wait to consummate the marriage until it were legal, locally.
That's what he apparently did, as to local custom there.
My friends, this is the corruption of islam for all to see.
I see corruption, all right, of the kind when things rot.
Lomax also lies that Christians do the same thing. Bullcrap. Where
in the Bible does it condone the sexual intercourse of a minor little girl?
Uh, nowhere, because we aren't talking about a "minor little girl."
Jojo doesn't seem to understand that "minor" is a legal definition
that certainly varies from place to place. We don't know the ages at
marriage of many of the wives mentioned in the Bible, because the
women weren't considered so important.... We don't know how old Hagar
was, for example, all we know is that she was Sarah's servant. I know
that such servants are often very young, they will be servants until
they marry. Was Hagar a slave? I don't know.
Lomax cites some dubious source supposedly of some group that he
calls Christain. Typical. Set up a strawman to break it
down. This is the act of desperate man. LOL...
Jojo is very likely a member of an isolated, evangelist Christian
group that did not exist centuries ago. What I cited was from the
middle ages, a probably Catholic authority. He'll just deny that they
are Christian. He'll also deny all those reports of very early
marriages in the early United States. Frontier conditions don't
encourage waiting to marry until you finish college! He can simply
say, no real Christian would do this terrible thing.
But "terrible" is not established by religious sources on this,
except for very modern sources that sometimes give themselves
prophetic authority.
Jojo did not respond to the specific sources cited. He waiting until
the matter came up again, then he makes this argument. It's trolling,
he is not at all interested in real discussion or debate.
Jojo
PS, you accuse me of lying for not providing proof that allah is the
mood god of muhammed beduin tribe.
No. I accuse you of lying because you lie. Like this statement, which
is about what I'd supposedly done. That is, I accuse you of lying
because you misrepresent, clearly, a discussion right here, where the
truth can be established by clear evidence, i.e., citation and
quotation, with links.
Are you prepared to eat your words and apologize for that? Are you
prepared to see proof that allah was the moon god of muhammed's
beduin tribe that is the same moon god who got promoted to the
universal god of islam. One look at the islamic moon crescent would
have tipped people off to this history, yet Lomax finds the audacity
to accuse me of lying.
Wow! He's waited until now to raise that canard!
So, shall I present proof from muslim sources? Of course not, why
waste people's time, eh? LOL .... At least I give you credit for
recognizing that I was about to give you a cargoship full of
whupass. ROTFL.....
Look, Jojo is utterly clueless about something. I don't care about
being right. I care about being careful about what I say, but often
we are talking about conclusions, and in coming to conclusions, I'm human.
Given that, however, I'll confess that I'd be astonished to see
"proof" as he describes. Given that he has proven hardly anything, so
far, in spite of repeated claims and a very small amount of evidence
that actually established the opposite case, I have no reason to
expect that he'd pull it off, now.
But, he's correct. I'm not going to ask that he post anything like
that here. But, okay, I'll bite. Send it to me by private email, you
have my address with this mail, and I won't complain about the mail,
and won't complain about more mail unless I ask you to stop and you don't.
But, enough of this. I'm bowing out of this insanity correctling
your lies and spin.
You are aware you have promised this many times, right? But, great,
it's never too late to honor your word.
Let the readers decide whether they find it acceptable for muhammed
to have fondled a 9 year old little girl, and yes, barely out of
diapers. I'm bowing out at least until after Christmas.
Two days. Somehow I'm less than impressed.
Jojo actually never learns. More accurately, if an argument is
completely demolished, he *repeats* it. That's actually a trolling
tactic. "Barely out of diapers", I'll repeat, Jojo actually
acknowledge was not fact, it was "spin." He's making a point by
saying something that is literally untrue.
Good chance, Ayesha never wore diapers at all, but even if she had, a
9-year old would be quite unusual to have recently been wearing
diapers. Even delayed potty training American kids are normally out
by two or so.
You have a few days to really set up a good spin of the truth. I
hope you make the most out of your time? Quickly, off to the
library to do some real research. LOL....
Laugh now, you may have less opportunity later.
No more original content below.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 10:30 PM 12/23/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Lomax accuses me of cherry picking what I read, but he does that
even better than I. Quite honestly, I have never met anyone with
such an innate skill at spinnng the truth. Excellent work Lomax.
The point is, Lomax conveniently ignores that the 2 muslim works I
quoted are some of the most respected and venerated works of any muslim.
That's sort-of true. I did not deny the works. Rather, I simply
pointed out that there exists controversy on the age. And then I
mostly responded assuming the age.
Yet, he finds it convenient to ignore what it says in favor of
his spin. To any sane man, these works are clear. They tell of
a story of a sex perverted child molesting prophet..
If Jojo is sane, give me insanity. Please.
There is nothing in the stories to indicate "sex perversion."
That's a conclusion, not "truth." How would Jojo know? And is a
sexually mature woman, capable of becoming a mother, a "child"?
Do "child molesters" openly marry the child, with the parent's
permission, the knowledge of the whole society?
Lomax criticizes me for using "diapers" to describe A'isha. Of
course, I know there were no diapers.
My point, actually.
I used that term to describe the situation in a more descriptive fashion.
Right. It's called "spin," i.e., what he accuses me of.
Just imagine your daugther just barely out of diapers still
preoccupied with dolls being fondled by a 50 year old fart.
Again, "fart"? And why should I imagine such an image? How is a
*six-year-old" "just out of diapers? Even modern kids, with delayed
toilet training that seems to be common, most are out by two.
SPIN. That's really what the whole set of claims is about.
Just imagine if you would consider that acceptable?
Of course I wouldn't. "Just barely out of diapers," i.e., maybe
three? In this case, it's quite clear, Ayesha wanted to be married;
and the marriage would not have been consummated later if she'd
changed her mind. That's what the Muslim sources show, and *there
are only Muslim sources on this.* So what people like Jojo do is to
spin those sources, to try to create something that is definitely
not in them. A child-molester.
Lomax justifies the holey prophet's actions
I have not justified anything. I've described what we can know
about the situation, and about Jojo's claims.
by saying that it is acceptable because the little girl has
reached menstrual cycle.
Sexually mature, it's called. Puberty. The dividing line between an
immature human female and a mature one.
That, my friends is exactly the point I am trying to make. Islam
is the only religion that would justify and condone and celebrate
this kind of child molestation just because the little girl is
already menstruating.
I cited a Christian source for medieval Christian practice. The
dividing line is puberty. Ages are *arbitrary*, and tribal
societies don't even know ages with any rigor. That's why there is
doubt about Ayesha's age, we don't know that she even knew how old she was.
Neither Judaism, nor Christianity does this. Even Hinduism who
used to have this retrograde practice, renounced it thousands of
years ago. Long long long time before muhammed came to the scene.
I cited plenty of evidence to the contrary. The age of consent
begins with puberty. Modern societies have added additional
conditions. Tribal societies likewise typically required parental
consent. (Muslim tradition is no different on that; indeed, it's
mostly considered that marriage without the consent of a wali
(guardian) isn't lawful. That is totally true, without exception,
for the very young. So what we are talking about is alleged "child
molestation" with the full consent of the father, no opposition
from *anyone*, open, public, the young woman in question openly
talks about it, there is no shame, she is proud of it, and yet this
Jaro-head wants us to think of her as a victim.
He can take his non-Christian hatred elsewhere.
A little girl of nine, is by all accounts still a little immature
little girl whether or not she is menstruating.
According to what source?
She is physcally immature with undeveloped mammary glands to
feed a child of her own.
Nope. Did you see the 5-year-old mother, I posted a link to her
Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
Developed "mammary glands." Yeah, truly "precocious puberty."
Apparently, she raised the child without a problem. She had a
C-section, definitely pelvic size would be an issue. But that's not
necessarily true for a nine-year old.
Though menstruating, she still has underdeveloped reproductive
organs. A little girl impregnated at such a yound age would
surely not be able to bring her child to term. We've seen that
time and time again. She's just not mature enough. She would
have been too small physically for the 50 year old.
Jojo, I was also a midwife. You are just making stuff up. Yeah,
there *might* be a problem, but ... who is "we" who has seen "this"
time and time again. Menstruation is a clear sign that the
reproductive organs are developed. They did a section on Lisa
Medina probably because they *feared* she would have a problem. She
had, "By age five, her figure displayed pelvic widening and
advanced <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_maturation>bone
maturation. When doctors performed the caesarean to deliver her
baby, they found she already had fully mature sexual organs from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty>precocious puberty.
The real "boner" here is the comment about her being too small
physically for the 50 year old. How would he know that? We don't
know how big she was, in any sense, but she certainly wasn't
complaining. A sexually mature woman has a wider pelvis -- see the
Lina Medina article. Jojo has no clue what he's talking about.
She is also emotionally immature. For creeps sake, in whatever
culture, we know that a little girl still playing with dolls is
emotionally immature. The little girl is not even a teen yet. It
was true then and is still true today. But yet, Lomax thinks she
is mature enough to have sex and start a family.
Depends on the culture she was raised in. She took her dolls with
her at nine. We don't know what that means, as to maturity. My
ex-wife, she's 51, the adoptive mother of my small girls, still has
the stuffie she had when she was little. Immature?
Jojo simply doesn't have a clue about the varieties of human
experience and culture. Medieval Christianity attacked the Prophet
as a "libertine," but they did not raise the issue of his "child
bride," only the number of wives, because they'd have been accusing
him of what was common practice in their own culture. Very young
marriages continued to be recognized in the U.S. There is no
absolute youngest age for a marriage in many states of the U.S.;
rather laws have been passed requiring not only parental consent,
but also judicial consent, below a certain age.
What I know is that presumptions about maturity from age are
artificial boundaries, and can be way off as to individuals.
A 9 year old would also have been mentally immature, not realizing
the implications of her actions. She wouldn't have understood
what it means to be married, have sex or start a family.
She didn't understand that by marrying the Prophet, she was going
to become a leader of her community, lead an army, etc.?
Probably right. But I see people get married all the time, much
older, and they are clueless about what it really means.
This was a very earthy culture. She knew what sex was. And she
waited perhaps three years for it. We don't have details about the
consummation. What we do know is that she was very happy with her
husband, mostly. They had disagreements.
This is the point I am making. Islam's practices are "creepy",
repulsive, loathsome, nauseating, revolting, contemptible and retrograde.
Anything else?
These are the acts of a man they celebrate as a great leader.
First of all, why was this brought here? Was I "celebrating" Muhammad? Where?
Someone once said, Islam is not a religion, it is a "malady" - a
madness. If you truly understand what I am saying here, you would
understand why he would say something like that.
"Someone once said." Some evidence.
Once again, I challenge anyone to point out any lie I have said here.
Many have been pointed out. Above, Jojo actually admits to saying
something he knew to be false, the "diaper" thing. That's just the easy start!
Whether you like what I've said here or not, I challenge you to
point out any untruths I have said about islam.
Liar, liar, pants on fire: "Diapers."
Actually, maybe he's right. None of this is about "Islam."
"Madness," he says about Islam, but that's not a discriminable
claim. It could not be shown to be either true or false. It's just
"story," i.e., what he called spin above.
If Lomax so desires, I will continue on and provide proof about
allah being the moon god of muhammed's beduin tribe. That after
everyone has finished assimilating the implication of muhammed's
sexual perversions.
I would never request such a waste of people's time.
The very idea of "proof" about something as preposterous as that is
insane. Basically, I've seen the claims, references to the sources,
and what they claim falls far short of "proof," the best
construction that could be put on any of it would be pointing to
some possibility of a similar name. The source cited by one of the
evangelical sites simply doesn't show what they say about the
topic. It's like most of what Jojo writes: it's in his mind.
So, best case: some pre-Islamic Arabs used the name Allah to refer
to a Moon God. Almost all sources claim that Allah was used in many
ways, but always with an implication of some sort of supreme God.
*None of that* would mean that *today,* Muslims are "worshipping a Moon God."
It's a confusion of name with reality. It's idiotic.
That comic book was rich, though. What a delusional writer!
