About Mohammed III: Of Pork, Pictures, And Pedophilia

Footnotes:

{1  The most common issue with under-cooked pork is trichinosis–involving a parasite (the roundworm, trichinella spiralis) that tends to reside in that particular animal.  In ancient times, this would have been especially problematic, as the meat of swine must be more cooked than most other meat.  Of course, larvae of various organisms can be found in ANY undercooked meat; but different meat requires different degrees of cooking to be rendered edible.  Such problems are not unique to the muscle tissue of swine.  The issue–it would seem–is that goat, lamb, poultry, etc. do not require the same degree of cooking in order to avert such problems (e.g. from bacteria like, say, salmonella typhimurium).  Note that the Creator of the Universe did not see fit to explain HOW and WHY such meat may have caused problems.  Oddly enough, his knowledge seemed to be limited to the experiences of the (scientifically illiterate) people he was addressing.}

{2  Ref. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, in which there is a peculiar fixation on “cloven hooves”.  Yet EVEN THIS proscription comes with a rather daffy proviso, which limits the forbidden meat exclusively to animals that have split hooves OR that chew cud.  Presumably, then, the proscription did not apply to animals that satisfy both conditions.  (Hence, it seems, animals WITH split hooves that do NOT chew cud are the ones to be worried about.  Those with split hooves that DO chew cud are fine.)  Among other things, we encounter the erroneous impression that pigs are somehow more unsanitary than bovidae.  The concern seems to primarily be with cleanliness; not with the type of meat per se.  It can be adduced that the focus is on a set of animals with which there had been incidents of sickness–a pattern that hews to the aforesaid conditions.  Even if we were to grant this temporal concern, Yahweh’s powers of discernment were–apparently–rather stunted.  So far as aerial creatures went, the restriction was–understandably–limited to scavengers like eagles, vultures, kites, falcons, and ravens (i.e. birds most likely to transmit disease).  On land, the terms of the stricture explicitly applied to camels, hyrax (a kind of badger), rabbits, and swine.  As far as aquatic animals went, the concern seemed to be with creatures sans fins AND sans scales (therefore, no shrimp or–well–manatee allowed).  It is quite likely that in ancient times, denizens of the Levant would often fall ill after eating shell fish; hence the concern.  MoM did not have any clam-bakes or lobster picnics, yet he DID eat rabbit and camel.  (Hence an inconsistency.)  Here’s the catch: If we are to go by 2:208, which exhorts followers to eschew Jewish mores so that camel and rabbit are made permissible, then–by the exact same token–swine is rendered on-limits as well. (!)  As I point out elsewhere, those who fashioned the Sunnah were likely unfamiliar with the details of Judeo-Christian doctrine; so when they attempted to invoke it, they often botched the rationalization.  The proscription against swine likely remained in tact because pork continued to pose problems in the Middle East during the Middle Ages; whereas being able to eat the meat of camels and rabbits would have come in handy.  As with ALL doctrinal modifications, redaction was selective–that is: done to comport with the exigencies of the time and place.  It was clearly not about hewing to timeless / immutable laws; it was about doing what made sense under the circumstances.}

{3  This misconception also exists amongst some (otherwise) educated Jews and Hindus–who sometimes countenance the same prohibition.}

{4  Due to daily pre-dawn and post-dusk binges, food consumption during Ramadan actually INCREASES amongst those who fast; even as incidence of sickness skyrockets.  For more on this subject, see my essay on “Prayer”, where I discuss fasting.}

{5  A common rationalization is that neck-slitting is more “humane”; but it is rather far-fetched to suppose that animal suffering was a pressing concern for people during the Iron Age.  Another query: Does the proscription against consuming “swine” (qua suidae) include ALL animals in the sub-order, “suina”?  Or are other suiformes in-bounds?  How about peccaries?  Where is the line, exactly?  If the Sunnah is supposed to apply to everyone, everywhere in the world, forevermore, then the demarcation of “khinzir” isn’t always so straight-forward.  Presumably, the Creator of the Universe was well-versed in the taxonomy of the highly-variegated animal kingdom he so meticulously designed.  Yet the Koran’s authors seem not to have been up to snuff on the finer points of zoology.  We might also wonder: Why not a proscription against eating, say, elephants (which are even more intelligent)?  Was the Koran’s protagonist only concerned with fauna found in Arabia?}

{6  It is no coincidence that child marriage is found–overwhelmingly–in hyper-provincial and/or hyper-religious communities, where education for females is not valued.  Parochialism and Reactionary thinking typically go hand in hand.}

{7  Usually, he is (satirically) depicted as an old, white man with a long, white beard.  Based on how bent-out-of-shape some Muslims get when MoM is drawn, we should expect them to be up in arms every time the guy-on-a-cloud-wearing-a-robe illustration occurs.  Yet there has never once been a protest when such tongue-in-cheek cartoons appear.  The logic, then, is inconsistent.  If it is permissible to be sardonic with god yet there can be no leeway with a prophet, peculiar priorities seem to be afoot.}

{8  In spite of a Grand-Ayatollah-issued fatwa conscripting his murder (for his novel, “Satanic Verses”), Salman Rushdie has thus far managed to elude this dire fate.  For his film documenting violence against women in the Muslim world, “Submission”, the Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, was not so fortunate.}

{9  Recall that in Islam, Jesus of Nazareth is considered one of the most important prophets.  He was born of a virgin, resurrected the dead, and performed other amazing miracles. Moreover, HE–not MoM–will be the one who comes at the end of the world to render Judgement.}

{10  The three-month “idda[h]” (waiting period) for girls who had not yet menstruated (had their courses / cycles) is also well-attested in the various “tafsir” (commentaries): those of Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abas, and Al-Jalalayn–where unambiguous annotations make the lesson here glaringly explicit.  The issue, of course, was divorcing a pre-pubescent girl after having had sexual intercourse with her.  The point was to ensure she had not become pregnant due to having reached menarche in the intervening time–always a possibility.  Here’s the catch: Had sex NOT been involved with such girls, the need for “idda[h]” would have been moot.  This is spelled out in 33:49, in which the Koran’s audience (men) are notified: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before having had sex with them, no ‘iddah’ is warranted.  Simply give them a gift and set them free in a pleasing manner.}

{11  In the non-Muslim world, middle-aged men copulating with pre-pubescent girls was never acceptable anywhere, at any time, outside of a few precincts of India (a point I explore further in footnote 14 below).  In the Far East (notably: Mongolia and China), when children of royal blood were commissioned to (eventually) marry an appointed co-ed, it was usually with someone of similar age.  Thus: In the event that betrothals were arranged for a child, it was to ANOTHER CHILD.  Moreover, sex was not involved (at least, while the parties were pre-pubescent).  During the Middle Ages, there were some cases where the bride was 15 or 16–as with Emilie of Saxony, Beatrice d’Este, Mary Queen of Scots, and–most famously–Marie Antoinette of France.  Note that such cases are so well-known precisely because the girls’ youth was so notable.  Such exceptions–being exceptional–prove the role. One needs to go back to the ancient world to find societies in which arranged marriages occurred at an even younger age.  (Such marriages primarily occurred in Jewish communities.)  Again, in cases of early marriage (which was not uncommon in Ancient Greece), the bride and groom were typically of comparable maturity.  And even in the most extreme cases, we find proscriptions against the marriage of pre-pubescent girls (see footnote 13 below).  In Roman Catholic law, girls could not be married until they reached menarche.  In Vedic law, girls could not be married until at least three years after menarche.  EVEN IN PRE-ISLAMIC (pagan) BEDOUIN culture, we find this proscription.  It is a myth that pedophilia was usually tolerated in the ancient world.  Barring certain isolated (Hindu) communities on the Indian subcontinent, pedophilia was ALWAYS considered pedophilia; and was thus seen as unethical (see footnote 14 below).  As it turns out, the stricture against this heinous act transcends culture. The taboo has existed virtually everywhere at every point in history.  This makes perfect sense, as revulsion of the act is primally-hardwired into us; and for obvious reasons.  It comes as no surprise, then, that the prohibition goes back THOUSANDS of years.  After all, mother nature has no purpose for sexual intercourse when the female has not yet menstruated (see footnote 12 below).  Alas, the Sunnah–and consequently instances of sharia–permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls, per the example set by MoM with Aisha.  This is a disgrace; and should be recognized as such by responsible Muslims.}

{12  The condition of physical maturity (“bulugh”) vs. mental maturity (“rushd”) is moot when it is specified that the girls being discussed have not yet menstruated.  Clearly, due to physiological conditions, it is the former that is the pivotal factor.  Precocious-ness of the child does to exculpate her rapist.  It is a fiction that girls used to reach menarche significantly younger than they do now.  The anatomy of homo sapiens has not changed significantly in the past millennium or two; and menarche–along with the accompanying thelarche–has never occurred sooner than 10 years old.  If anything, it used to occur LATER than it does now.  (In the modern area, it typically occurs between 12 and 15.)  Today’s improved nutrition has enabled maturation to occur at a slightly FASTER pace; just as it has increased height and life-expectancy.  Suffice to say: It was at least as physiologically improbable for an 8-year-old to menstruate in the Middle Ages as it is now–irrespective of how precocious she may have been.}

{13  Even in the most questionable instances (as with Theodora Komnena, Elizabeth of Portugal, Agnes of France, and Joan of France), the girls were not pre-pubescent.  Note that when Caterina Sforza wed Girolamo Riario, Roman Catholic law did not allow consummation until the wife was at least 14.  In all of Western history, there is only ONE known exception (with respect to age discrepancy): Isabella of Valois, who wed King Richard II of England in 1396 when she was seven.  This marriage was arranged solely for political purposes.  According to all accounts, the marriage was NOT CONSUMMATED.  The king actually arranged for Isabella to reside at alternate locations (first Windsor castle, then castles at Portchester, Wallingford, and Leeds) for the duration of her childhood, where she was given her own court.  In other words: In the single case where a full-grown Occidental ruler wed a pre-pubescent girl, it was not for sex.  Indeed, measures were taken to ensure celibacy–reflecting a recognition that sexual intercourse under such circumstances would have been opprobrious.}

{14  Outside of Dar al-Islam, Hindu culture is the sole culture in which marriage of pre-pubescent girls has (sometimes) been seen as acceptable.  As it happens, this exception ALSO seems to be based on religious precedent: Seeta (child-bride of Rama) and Rukmini (child-bride of Krishna).  It is unfortunate that the “Manu Smriti” recommends arranged marriages for girls who are still within three years from menarche–mentioning girls as young as 8.  Once again, we see that ancient texts are the main culprit when it comes to this execrable practice.  In any case, as society has ITSELF matured, the accepted marriage-able age for females has steadily increased; a historical trend that is found the world over.  If we extrapolate back in time, the trend is not linear; it is asymptotic.  The asymptote is located at the age of menarche.  It is no secret that as any society has become more civil, the earliest normative age for a female to wed has INCREASED.  We might note that it is the RECOGNITION OF morality, not morality itself, that has changed.  Moral principles are timeless.  In this respect, more primitive societies tended to be more morally confused.  This steady increase in acceptable age actually goes in the OPPOSITE direction of the typical age of menarche, which has DECREASED as society modernized (due to a better diet and increased health). It is likely that Aisha reached menarche LATER than the average girl today.}

{15  How shall we account for this?  Part of the explanation may have something to do with the discrepancy between the lunar and solar calendars.  At the time, Hijazis would have used the former (in which “years” were eleven days shorter than a full revolution around the sun).  Thus a designation of “six years” (according to the lunar calendar) translates to two months less that six (actual) years.  This also accounts for claims that MoM was in his early 50’s when he wed Aisha, even though just UNDER fifty years would have elapsed since his birth c. 570.  (That would have made the claims of Aisha’s age OVER-estimates as well; for the same reason.) There also seems to be a discrepancy regarding the time that elapsed from the consummation (two years after the betrothal to Aisha) to MoM’s death–when he was roughly 62 years of age–in June of 632.  We are told in Islamic sources that this span was nine “years”, putting MoM at 53 years of age at the time of consummation.  But that would mean the consummation occurred in 623 rather than in 621 (thus placing the betrothal c. 621 rather than c. 619).  Regardless, this does not change Aisha’s age at the time of marriage (which is explicitly attested); it simply shifts the dating of her birth on history’s timeline (depending on which calendar is used).  The fact that the marriage took place in the advent of Khadijah’s death indicates that it took place in Mecca (i.e. pre-Hijra); which means prior to 622.  THAT might explain why MoM opted to wait two or three years after the betrothal to Aisha before engaging in sexual intercourse with her.  Having sex with such a young girl in Mecca may have posed a problem with the community (given pre-Islamic Arab mores); whereas in Yathrib-cum-Medina, he could get away with the act (given the fact that he was now proclaiming what was halal vs. haraam).}

{16  In some nations, child marriage still takes place, but the practice is primarily limited to Muslim communities.  This is the case in Niger, Chad, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Mali, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Tanzania (insofar as Africa is concerned).  (Note that many of these are also the countries where slavery is still routinely practiced…again, due to sharia.)  Such marriages tend to have a correlation with the incidence of human trafficking.  The exception to this trend seems to be the Central African Republic, where both FGM and child marriage are prevalent, yet have little connection with Islam.  In that case, the primary factor seems to be human trafficking (on secular terms).  Predictably, sex with pre-pubescent girls is commonplace WHEREVER rampant sex-trafficking occurs–be it sub-Saharan Africa, India, or Thailand.}

{17  Note that Manaf’s son, Hashim, is the patriarch of the Dar al-Hashim, namesake of the Hashemites–who preceded the House of Saud as rulers of Arabia (and who currently rule Jordan).  Ironically, though Sunni, Hashimites are part of the Dhawu Awn, which shares ancestry with the second Shia “imam”, Hassan (son of Ali ibn Abi Talib).}

{18  In Al-Tabari’s “History”, we find the admission that there was no consensus as to what might have happened prior to Adnan: “The genealogists do not differ concerning the descent of [MoM] as far as Ma’ad ibn Adnan.”  Beyond that, there seems to have been no working hypothesis.  During my research, I have encountered attempts to fill in the 16-plus century-long gap (assuming Abraham lived in the 18th century B.C.) between Ishmael and Adnan; by proffering forty generations of confabulated names.  This assumes the average siring age would have been at least forty.  (40 x 40 = 1,600.)  Such a chart can be found on the “Family Tree Of Mohammed” Wikipedia page.  The glitch in this chart, though, is that Elijah (as Alyasa or Ilyas) is designated as the great-great-grandson of Aaron (Harun), who was the brother of Moses (Musa), who was–in turn–a great-grandson of Levi, one of Jacob’s sons (and thus a Levite).  Jacob was born of Isaac, not Ishmael.  Therefore Elijah is taken out of the Ishmaelite lineage in this account.  In any case, Qedar’s son is designated as Aram in this hypothetical genealogy.  Hence the Arameans are supposed to serve as the vessels of the Ishmaelite line.  This hypothesis is interesting in that the Arameans (putative source of Aramaic) would have spoken SYRIAC by Late Antiquity…which means that those who countenance to this hypothetical lineage are (inadvertently) conceding that the Ishmaelite legacy came through a Syriac-speaking people (see my essay, “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Text”).}

{19  There is, of course, a simple explanation for this omission.  3:83-84 doesn’t mention Kedar because neither MoM nor the authors of the Koran were aware of such a figure.  In other words, Kedar was a post-hoc fabrication.  To wit: Mohammedan lore contrived the hallowed Ishmaelite genealogy long after the fact.  MoM and his Bedouin contemporaries were only aware of the Abrahamic lore that circulated in Arabia from Syriac sources (see my essay, “Syriac Source-Material For Islam’s Holy Book”).  This is yet another illustration of the fact that the content of the Koran (and of the earliest Mohammedan lore generally) reflects the limited information (and erroneous impressions) about Abrahamic lore that happened to be circulating in the Hijaz during the Dark Ages.  As pointed out elsewhere, many of the most glaring misconceptions about Abrahamic lore are simply regurgitations of the misconceptions found in Syriac material (e.g. the talking baby Jesus).  This makes perfect sense, as the Syriac “Peshitta” was the primary Biblical source available to Hijazis–who SPOKE Syriac–at that time.}

{20  The 2nd-century “Book of Jubilees” (a.k.a. “Lepto-Genesis”) was the most prominent attempt to remedy this sexual conundrum–conjuring a female named “Azura”  [meaning “restraint”] for Seth, who was both his sister and mate.  For Cain, we are given “Awan” [alt. “Aven”; meaning “vice”], who was both his sister and mate.  (Other sources posit “Aklima” / “Kalmana”.)  This was followed by a roster of female mates–furnished ex nihilo–for the antediluvian patriarchs: “Noam” for Enos[h], “Mualaleth” for Kenan, “Dinah” for Mahalaleel, “Baraka” for Jared, “Edna” for Enoch AND for Methuselah (père et fils), as well as “Betenos” for Lamech.  (That is: Lamech from Seth’s line; as opposed to the Lamech from Cain’s line, who mated with “Adah” and “Zillah”.)  Mercifully, in this scheme, Noah is given a maiden named “Emzara” with whom to sire offspring (instead of his half-sister, “Naamah”).  In Gnosticism, Adam and Eve produce a daughter, “Norea”, who is the sister and wife of Seth.  She is also sometimes rendered the wife of Noah.  Elsewhere, Seth is given a mate named “Horaia”.  We see, then, that the primary role for women in the Torah was to serve as vessels for bearing progeny.  So far as Islamic etiology is concerned, the dogma that all mankind came from a single person (Adam) is explicated in 6:98, 7:189, and 39:6.  Meanwhile, various passages (e.g. 17:70) refer to mankind as “the children of Adam”.  Also note that some legends posit a FIRST wife of Adam (prior to Eve): “Lilith”–as conveyed in the “Othijoth” [“Alphabet”] of Ben Sira[ch].  Lilith’s crime: She wanted to be equal to Adam–an impertinence that got her banished.  She was then demonized, and portrayed as the Judaic equivalent of a Succubus.}

{21  This is all quite dubious anyway.  According to Hebrew lore, ONE Lamech was the father of Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-cain, and Naamah (Noah’s mate). He was son of Methus[h]ael, son of Mehujael, son of Irad, son of Enoch, who was the son of Cain (via his own sister, Awan).  That makes him SIX generations from Adam and Eve.  However, there was ANOTHER Lamech (the one who sired Noah).  He was the son of Methuselah (via Edna), who was son of (a different) Enoch (also via Edna), son of Jared, son of Mahalalel, son of Kenan, son of Enos[h], who was the son of Seth (via his own sister, Azura).  That makes him EIGHT generations from Adam and Eve.  This all only works if Seth was the third brother of Adam and Eve.  (We must also assume that Adam and Eve bore two daughters, Awan and Azura, to mate with their two surviving sons.)  Leaving incest aside, we are still left with a shortage of female mates in subsequent generations.}

{22  There is no Islamic attempt to trace Abraham’s progeny to the time of Exodus (since, after all, Moses was Hebrew); and the Ishmaelite lineage had no prominent representatives (i.e. candidates) in the traditional historical record.  However, the Judaic attempt is rather amusing.  In brief: Via Sarah, Abraham begat Isaac, who (via Rebekah) begat Jacob–who was the father of the 12+1 tribes of Israel (see footnote 26 below).  Via Leah, Jacob begat Judah and Levi (see footnote 27 below).  Via Milkah, Levi sired Kohath (son) and Jochebed (daughter).  Kohath’s son (Amram; “Imran” in the Koran) mated with his own aunt (Jochebed) to produce Miriam, Aaron, and Moses.  Positioning Abraham only five (or six) generations prior to Moses (who himself lived in the late 13th century B.C.) would place Abraham c. 1400 B.C.; thereby placing Adam and Eve c. 2,000 B.C…if, that is, we assume the aforesaid 19-generation interim between the exile from Eden and the fall of Sodom & Gomorrah (see footnote 28 below).  Meanwhile, Judah sired Perez, who sired Hezron, who sired Ram, who sired Amminadab, who sired Nahshon, who sired Salmon, who sired Boaz, who sired Obed, who sired King David’s father, Jesse.  Thus: David is 13 generations from Abraham (almost 4 centuries later; putting him appropriately at c. 1,000 B.C.)  There is nothing novel about concocting “just so” taxonomies by divvying up mankind into (contrived) tribes…which are often based on fictional characters.  Mormons believe in patriarchs like Lehi, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Amnor, and Mormon himself…as well as Nephi, Mulek, Laman, and Shule.  (Hence they posit tribes like the Nephites, Mulekites, Lamanites, and Jaredites.)  It’s all bullshit; but it is GILDED bullshit.  More to the point, it is bullshit that serves a purpose.}

{23  This is roughly in keeping with the ancient Hebrew calendar, which places the beginning of mankind at 3,760 B.C.  The earliest patriarchs were believed to have often sired offspring when they were over a hundred years old, thereby stretching out the duration of generations.  Since the Creation of Man is equated with the Creation of the world, the epoch is referred to as “Anno Mundi”.}

{24  Getting from Abraham to David is also rather amusing.  According to Judaic tradition: Via Rebekah, Isaac begat Jacob.  Via Leah, Jacob begat Judah (their fourth son; after Reuben, Simeon, and Levi).  Via Tamar, Judah begat Perez…who begat Hezron who begat Ram (a.k.a. “Aram”) who begat Amminadab who begat Na[h]shon.  Na[h]shon was a contemporary of Moses and is said to have been involved in the fabled Hebrew Exodus from Egypt (leading the crossing of the waters).  That brings the line up to the late 13th century B.C…which puts Abraham just SEVEN generations (i.e. roughly two centuries) before Moses.  In other words: just prior to 1400 B.C.  Insofar as we assume Moses really existed, he lived in the late 13th century.  So that still leaves almost TWO CENTURIES to account for (in order to traverse the remaining time required to arrive at King David, who was born in the late 11th century B.C.)  Judaic tradition lists only five more generations to span that period.  Nahshon’s son, Salmon, begat Boaz of Bethlehem (via a prostitute, designated as Rahab of Jericho).  Via Ruth, Boaz begat Obed, who begat David’s father, Yishai (a.k.a. “Jesse”).  This is why David is sometimes referred to as Ben Yishai.}

{25  Note, for instance, the mythical Roman lineage of Trojan hero, Aeneas (purported son of Venus & Anchises), who begat King Ascanius of Alba Longa, who begat Silvius, etc.  I present a case-study of such confabulation / obfuscation in my essay: “The Forgotten Diaspora”, wherein the Turkic ancestry of Ashkenazim is adamantly denied by Revisionist Zionists, who stake their claim on the Levant based on Semitic bloodlines.}

{26  On the Hebrew calendar, Joseph was purchased (in Egypt) in the year 2216 (1544 B.C.)  The demarcation of tribes based on Abrahamic progeny via the seed of Joseph (great-grandson of Abraham) in Judaic lore was nothing new.  Indeed, it echoes the Greeks’ demarcation of tribes based on the sons of Hellen (grandson of Prometheus): Aeolians as the descendants of Aeolus, Dorians as the descendants of Dorus, then the Achaeans and Ionians as the descendants of Xuthus’ sons: Achaeus and Ion.  The conventional tabulation of twelve tribes of “Israel” is based on a discrepancy, whereby the 12+1 tribes is truncated via legerdemain. I explore this topic during the discussion of genealogical machinations in my essay: “Genesis Of A People”.}

{27  Levi was the salient son, as his progeny would be the high priests: the so-called “kohen-im”.  However, there was a “catch” when it came to Jacob’s progeny.  He had FOUR mates: Zilpah (with whom he sired Gad and Asher), Leah (with whom he sired not only Levi, but also Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun), Rachel (with whom he sired Joseph and Benjamin), and Laban’s handmaiden, Bilhah (with whom he sired Dan and Naphtali); see footnote 29 below.  All that accounts for the fabled tribes (see footnote 26 above).  Later: Ephraim and Manasseh would be the sons of Joseph (via Asenath of Heliopolis).  Joseph is one of the most fabled characters in the Torah, due to his banishment to Egypt and eventual redemption.  According to the Hebrew calendar, Joseph was purchased in Egypt in the year 2216 (that is: in 1544 B.C.)  Also note: Israelite leader, Joshua [Hoshe’a ben Nun; cum “Yehoshua”] was a descendent of Ephraim.}

{28  This motif (positing an ancestral patriarch for each tribe) is not uncommon.  In a few cases, matriarchal lineage has taken precedence.  For example, Kikuyu (Bantu / Kenyan) folklore tells of the prehistoric couple, Gikuyu and Mumbi, who bore nine daughters–each of whom begat one of the nine Kikuyu tribes.  Matrilineal-ity, it turns out, is most common in NON-Abrahamic traditions–as with, say, the Nubians of north Africa and the Carolinians of Austronesia.  Swahili lore also tells of the original “Thenashara Taifa” [Twelve Tribes / Nations]… the patriarch of which is a figure named “Mwana Mkisi”, deemed the personification of “ukisi” [Bantu: “that which is holy”].}

{29  Even the emergence of these tribes was the result of morally-dubious acts–as well as subterfuge.  As mentioned, Abraham sired Isaac via his half-sister, Sarah.  Isaac was thus the product of incest (Genesis 20:12).  Isaac–in turn–sired the twins, Jacob and Esau, via an Aramaean woman: Rebekah.  There was much “palace intrigue” (sans palace) surrounding Jacob’s liaisons.  Never mind that Jacob betrayed his brother, Esau, for Isaac’s blessing; thereby securing the mantle of anointed patriarch via deception.  There were plenty of shenanigans to go around.  Laban covertly transplanted Jacob’s favored bride, Rachel, with his other daughter, Leah.  As mentioned, Jacob ended up siring seven children via Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and (the sole daughter) Dinah.  Jacob’s beloved, Rachel, then offered her slave-girl, Bilhah, to Jacob (which yielded Dan and Naphtali).  In reprisal, Leah offered her slave-girl, Zipah (which yielded Gad and Asher).  Finally, Jacob sired Joseph and Benjamin via Rachel (with the help of magical incantations).  ALL of this is supposed to be lauded–as if each tryst was the reflection of Providence.  That women were being used as bartering chips in each round of bloodline sweepstakes goes un-noticed (see footnote 30 below).}

{30  The notion that the primary role of women is to serve as vessels for producing offspring (to carry on a patriarchal lineage) is–to put it mildly–problematic.  Alas, it was presumed that a female’s raison d’etre was to bear sons–a presupposition which suggests that a woman’s life is defined by how well she fulfills her role (as a vessel for more men).  A woman’s procreative charge entails that her life be devoted to pandering to male counterparts.  We might bear in mind that this deranged mindset did not end in the ancient world–as King Henry VIII so famously reminded us.  The psychopathic English king’s fancy for Ann Boleyn was promptly transmogrified into seething disdain as soon as it became clear she would default on her appointed function: furnishing him with a male heir.}

{31  Swine, it turns out, were negatively stigmatized for reasons other than the nature of their meat.  They were seen as INHERENTLY unclean–an impression that is demonstrable false.  (Pigs are actually much cleaner than some of the animals considered “halal” in Islam.)  It seems that the authors of the Koran deemed swine SPIRITUALLY impure.  This is made clear by the use of swine as a pejorative for non-Muslims–as in 5:60.  (2:65 and 7:166 use apes as a pejorative.)  To call “kuffar” (non-Muslims) SWINE was to point out their inferior nature.  This had nothing to do with dietary practices.  Yet if certain animals were seen as cosmically tainted, it made sense to not eat them.}

{32  Within Beth Israel, there even exists a chimerical bloodline that Orthodox Jews hold to be the most exalted: the one (purportedly) proceeding from Moses’ brother, Aaron.  This vaunted patriarchal lineage is referred to as the “kohen-im” [“priests”].  For other expositions on chimerical Judaic genealogies, see the “Seder Olam Rabbah” from the 2nd century A.D. and the “Seder Olam Zutta” from 804 A.D.}