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