[Part 1 of a series on the subject of Mohammed (the man Muslims regard as their prophet) and his child bride Aisha who according to the Islamic hadiths was only 9 years old when he consummated their marriage]
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in October that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW) had exceeded the limits of freedom of expression by making:
statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies
Quote from the ECHR judgement:
It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.
ESW’s exact words as quoted in the ECHR ruling were:
Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?“.
The implication of this ruling is that a person cannot be called a paedophile unless they can be shown to have a particular sexual interest in children in general; a sexual relationship with a single child (even one as young as 9 years of age) is not sufficient evidence that a person is a paedophile in other words, at least according to the ECHR. To even hint that Mohammed was a paedophile is to go “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate”, according to the ECHR.
Of course those of us who possess a moral compass were quite bewildered by this ruling, but for the sake of argument let’s just go along with the ECHR’s reasoning for a moment. Even if we do not call Mohammed a paedophile we still have the huge insurmountable problem that he had sex with a 9 year old child (according to authoritative Islamic hadiths), surely a wildly immoral act whatever we choose to call it? The problem is increased greatly by the fact that Muslims are supposed to regard Mohammed’s life as a most beautiful example to follow, according to the Koran (33:21).
The ECHR ruling implies that we are not free to suggest that Mohammed was a paedophile, because this may inflame religious tensions. However even if we simply say that having sex with a single 9 year old child is wrong then we are by implication condemning Mohammed (and thereby contradicting the Koran) and similarly then we STILL risk inflaming religious tensions. By implication then we can no longer criticize those who have sex with small children, because to do so implicitly criticizes Mohammed, and so risks inflaming religious tensions.
Furthermore by implication then we can also no longer have laws that prohibit sexual activity with children, because of course to have a law against something is surely an extreme form of criticism of that behaviour. Of course by this point my readers may think I have gone a little bit round the bend, but yet all I am doing here is simply logically following the ECHR’s reasoning to its rational conclusions. What’s more, there is plenty of evidence from the Islamic world that the reasoning does indeed lead to these very conclusions.
Take for example Pakistan, where in 2014 The Council of Islamic Ideology ruled that laws prohibiting underage marriage were un-Islamic. From Dawn:
In 2016 an attempt to bring a bill failed due to the Islamic ruling. From the Washington Post:
According to this article some 20% of girls in Pakistan are married before the age of 18.
Take for example Saudi Arabia, where the Grand Mufti apparently said there was nothing wrong with girls under the age of 15 getting married. From Gulf News:
Needless to say, by this ruling the ECHR have taken us another step backwards towards the 7th century. Worst of all, the problem arises that frequently does arise when freedom of speech is limited, namely that we are now in jeopardy simply by talking about the decision of a court, because in order to question the judgement of the ECHR we must raise the question once again of the morality of Mohammed’s relationship with his child bride Aisha. Of course the laws affecting speech are different in the UK, but now we know that we cannot expect the so-called “European Convention of Human Rights” (or the so-called “UK Human Rights Act” that is based on it) to afford us any protection in this matter.
As also frequently happens when freedom of speech is limited, the very subject that the authorities are trying to stop us talking about becomes even more a subject that people are talking about. This is the first post in a long series of regular posts that I intend to write on the subject of Mohammed and his child wife Aisha. I intend to continue this series at least until the ridiculous ECHR ruling is overturned and the convention is re-written to allow a meaningful degree of freedom of speech or else until the UK withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Apparently Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is continuing her campaign to get the ruling overturned, please consider assisting her campaign here:
From the ECHR:
From Faith Freedom: