My sources are Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. If you do not want to accept
these, then say so. Do not pretend that I have not provided muslim sources.
At least Lomax has confessed that he thinks Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are
corrupt.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: de Bivort Lawrence
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's "Truth" about islam and little girls.
Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed,
evaluated, and used. Your use of the term "venerated" is revealing: the hadith
scholars are not at all "venerated."
What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you
are spouting???
On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and
Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still
consider them unrealizable and corrupted. 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
