Have you read the link? It provides muslim sources that categorically say the
things I am saying. How can one who claims to be objective say that Lomax is
right about this. You fancy yourself as being objective right? If not, I have
nothing else to discuss with you. I will only discuss with people who want the
truth, not win with propaganda and lies.
What evidence has Lomax actually provided? And how good is that evidence? My
evidence is Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. Two of the most respected and
venerated mulsim scholarly works. He's is wikipedia and Internet opinion blogs
and his evidence is better than mine? Come on man. This is getting ridiculous.
Are you actually claiming that Lomax is fluent in Arabic? Please if you are,
point to me where he said that. I don't read his lengthy tiresome essays
completely so I may have missed that.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
The problem it is not that he is informed. Not only vastly more than you,
since he can actually not only read the canon in Arabic but also criticisms
and counter criticisms, discussion, of the highest authorities, all in Arabic.
Although we should all question whatever people tells us, he provided enough
evidence that you be just either a troll or fanatical to not accept as true, or
much more probable as true than what you can find, whatever Abd says.
2013/1/1 Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop
the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the
link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it
first lest you look ignorant.
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
<a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; "Vortex-l" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote:
First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite
my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved.
It's always "too important" to keep the promise. The whole farrago of
topics are "too important" not to dwell on.
Jojo has called himself a "turd," i.e, worthless and despicable. That's
his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we
talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan.
Satan speaks to us from "where we do not recognize him" (Qur'an). I.e., we
think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we?
Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not
stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe*
them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep
identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep
trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to
*stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.*
Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes
he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd?
There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for
survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through
listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we
experience are "true." They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They
can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically
stuck. They just are what they are.
Now, to the point here.
On further googling the terms "bestiality" and "islam", I found this
page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's
practice with regards to prepubescent little girls.
Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of
outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google
"Christian bestiality." Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough
work but someone has to do it.
Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can
waste their time.
Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The
references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not
say they are biased.
I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I
can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo,
but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all
Christians would believe his arguments, there are "strong arguments" made that
are *made up* by some Muslims. A "scholar" wants to prove something, so he
searches through the body of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in
reliability, and finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares
not at all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a bulldog,
out to prove *one thing.*
And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it.
A couple of points to highlight.
1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among
muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old.
That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the "not in
dispute" claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims that differ
on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case if the reports are
true. The reports do not actually prove "consummation." I consider it likely,
however, that they are about consummation, but the reports do not establish how
the persons -- including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was.
This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried.
*Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems incredible in
today's world, but this wasn't today's world. This was a mostly non-literate
society, with no birth records. Age was not a standard for *anything,* the
present physical and mental condition of a boy or girl were *everything.* The
consent of the wali (a girl's father, in this case), was *essential*. The wali
determines readiness for all aspects except one, actual sexual maturity. It has
been so in *every culture* when it was pre-literate, and age-based standards
only arose in rule-of-law societies.
So when Ayesha is *reported* as having said (recorded many years later,
after she was dead, by someone else) that she was "nine" when she went to the
house of the Prophet, that is a *report*. Later, the age became important, as
people created "Islamic law." But what is clear from *all the sources* is that
she was sexually mature, in a basic sense. They do not actually tell us that,
but it is so obvious from context that it's essentially indisputable, and an
example was given in what was uncovered in the discussions, of the adjudicated
*rape* of a ten-year-old girl, by her "husband," purely on account of her not
having reached menarche.
That's the "age of consent" in very conservative Islam, and the
*additional consent* of the parents would be necessary.
Because marriage requires the *woman*'s consent, and a woman is not
considered, under normal circumtances, to be *able* to give consent until
menarche, the parent's consent is *not enough*. Presumably the parents did
consent, but *they consented to betrothal, not consummation.* So for the
"husband" to have intercourse with her -- whether it was forcible or not -- was
what we call in the U.S. "statutory rape." She did not have the legal power to
consent. Nor would her parents, if she is not past menarche.
2. There is evidence A'isha was prepubescent when muhammed had
intercourse with her.
Jojo has found such an assertion, on an evangelist Christian web site.
I've just glanced at it, so far, and have not yet researched the sources.
However, it's already obvious that they are taking an argument out of context,
and using it to "prove" something that the actual witness would be horrified
by. It's done by putting together evidence about various pieces of what must be
understood as something between myth and history, a body of hearsay evidence,
and then drawing conclusions, but not in an unbiased manner, as to
preponderance of evidence, but to prove some pre-determined point.
That is, there is evidence, all right, that, interpreted out of context
and with a set of assumptions about many things, can be used to *argue* that
she was prepubescent. But not when there was intercourse, rather when she went
to the house of the Prophet. That actually tells us *nothing* about her sexual
maturity or emotinal maturity at the time of consummation, and I've seen no
story that actually bears on this, directly.
3. This practice remains a significant practice in muslim countries to
this day. Read about the muslim cleric in Indonesia.
There are all kinds of practices that happen in the world that are
horrific to this Muslim and to many others, and if there is evidence that
intercourse with prepubescent females is sanctioned by Muslim authorities, this
would be a clear impeachment of those authorities as corrupt. We'll see what
the source actually shows.
It should be understood that there are, on the internet, active "Muslim
clerics" who are promoting highly sectarian ... the technical term is
"bullshit."
4. A little girl's body is in fact not ready for sexual intercourse
and pregnancy at the age of 9.
Humans vary. Jojo has already accepted that there is variation within the
species, and there is also variation due to environmental conditions. No such
statement about readiness can be made, generally. The youngest recorded mother
was apparently five years old, this was modern. She gave birth by Caesarian
section, but it appears that was precautionary, that was no proof that she
could not bear children normally. There are *many* recorded instances of
mothers at 10, which is be adequate to show that sexual maturity at 9 (ability
to conceive and bear) is within human possibility.
Jojo consistently argues the norm as if it proves that a specific case is
outside the possible range. He continually betrays bias, that his conclusion is
set, and here we can see it in his language, which is not that of medical
report, which would never use the imprecise and inaccurate term "little." I've
seen eight-year-olds who are full-sized. Are they fully mature? I haven't seen
one. Maturity, which is equivalent to the "natural age of consent," is a
combination of sexual maturity, the state of the body with regard to
reproduction and desire for sexual relationship, and emotional and social
maturity, which is a matter of judgment. In ancient societies, the judgment was
exercised by the guardian, not by rule-of-law with respect to age.
And it's still the same, in fact, what rule-of-law has done is to set
certain limits that require judicial discretion.
Regular ovulation does not start until a significant amount of time
after menses (regularly up to 2 years from the first menses.) Mammary gland
start of development does not start until the first menses.
I pointed to a photo of that five-year old. Developed, pendulous breasts.
Check out the medical references.
I have checked medical references. The body is designed to handle these
situations. Very, very important point: *consent.* This is not the place for a
full exploration of the law of consent, but it's totally neglected by Jojo et
al.
So suppose this is the situation.
1. Age of girl is *unknown*. She's thought to be young, though, let's say
she's thought to be nine. But it's uncertain.
2. Girl has passed menarche.
3. She appears physically mature, not a "little girl."
4. She has her dolls, they are important to her, but her relationship
with them is as is normal for an older girl who still has her childhood dolls.
(I know women who are *past menopause* who still have their dolls. They pass
them on to their children.
5. Her parents consent to marriage.
6. She is emotionally and socially mature.
7. She consents to the marriage and to completion.
Is this girl "marriageable"? If not, when, and how is the society to
judge? Remember, they have no birth records.
Let me add an additional condition. Normal men look at her and see her as
attractive. Remember, they do not know how old she is. We are talking about
possibilities here. If the girl were seen by her society as a "little girl,
immature," the society would have considered the marriage and consummation as
unconscionable, and it is totally apparent that they did not consider this.
This is what I said with my pig breeding posts that many found to be
too offensive. Now, decide for yourself which of us both is lying.
Pig sexual maturity is no guide as to human sexual maturity, any more
than the sexual maturity of a mouse would be. As to mice, breeding is a complex
process that is triggered by the presence of a male mouse; it's likely that the
human process is somewhat similar. The whole process of normal sexual
attraction is not something that takes place in isolation, it's an interaction
between male and female. A normal male may be attracted, in some sense, to a
prepubescent female, but the complex process that leads to actual and
consensual intercourse does not normally happen. (In modern American society,
some girls are trained to appear sexy, made-up to appear more mature than they
are, trained to move in sexually-attractive ways, dressed for sexual
attractiveness, etc. That says nothing about how they would appear without all
these trappings. We are talking, in the traditions, about *neighbors.*)
<http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4>http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4
Please read the link before you call for my banning and decide for
yourself if this practice is acceptable to you. Decide if you will allow this
practice to your 9 year old daughter. Decide which of us both is lying.
I've now concluded that Jojo should be banned, but what is on that site
is irrelevant to it.
My conclusion is based on his obvious and demonstrated inability to
voluntarily refrain from continuing his highly contentious and off-topic
debates on the list.
Had he merely said something like, "I found this and I think it's
relevant to the question of Ayesha's condition at her marriage, so I want to
post the link, but I will not continue discussion of this here," it could have
technically violated the promise, but would have been far less objectionable.
"What practice?" Again, I have not done more than scan the anti-Muslim
source. If Jojo is claiming that Muslims condone sex with prepubescent girls,
*under any circumstances*, he's telling not only an untruth, but it is
certainly false about this Muslim. No, I do not condone that *at all.* So who
is lying?
And why is all this on the Vortex list? I'm responding here *because it's
here.*
I am not claiming the site is unbiased, I am claiming that the
references in the site is unbiased. Muslim sources should be acceptable to
muslims.
Why? There is no "central authority" that decides what is acceptable to
all Muslims. Jojo is making a radically incorrect assumption, and he's making
it because he wants to tar all of us with the same brush. I'll look at the
source separately.
Instead of saying Lomax has "excellent" research skills, why not just
research the links and references of this site.
I have never recommended that anyone depend solely on my claims, if a
matter is important to them. I provide sources and discuss them. It takes a lot
of work.
Decide for yourself which of us both is lying.
That's the argument of a troll.
Research for yourself before you are "enthralled" by Lomax's lengthy
essays and assume that it is a "well-researched" response.
Most users here are *irritated* by my long essays. A few have read them
and have appreciated them, and they are starting to burn out, themselves.
Enough, already.
Generally, my research is not truly deep. It's what I consider enough for
a decent first impression. Where I have knowledge of a field, my overall
comments might be well-informed. But I also make mistakes.
PS. Note that I have not insulted Lomax in this posts at all. But if
he finds the truth offensive, there is nothing I can do about that.
Jojo thinks all this is about trading insults.
Jojo mentioned me five times in his post.
What do I have to do with the history of this "little girl"? He's implied
that I -- and all Muslims -- would condone child rape. If that is not an
insult, what is?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
