Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court

[Alam_dar]

A bad decision, which will harm the humanity for next many decades. 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749

 

Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court

The ECHR ruled against an Austrian woman who claimed calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile was protected by free speech. The applicant claimed she was contributing to public debate.

An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria."

Read more: ECHR rules Muslim schoolgirls must take swimming classes in Switzerland

The woman in 2009 held two seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam," during which she likened Muhammad's marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.

Limits of free speech

The marriage according to Islamic tradition was consummated when Aisha was nine and Muhammad was around 50. Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's best friend and the first caliph, Abu Bakr.

The court cited the Austrian women stating during the seminar 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?"

An Austrian court later convicted the woman of disparaging religion and fined her €480 ($546). Other domestic courts upheld the decision before the case was brought before the ECHR.

The women had argued that her comments fell within her right of freedom of expression and religious groups must tolerate criticism. She also argued they were intended to contribute to public debate and not designed to defame the Prophet of Islam.

No intention of promoting public debate

The ECHR recognized that freedom of religion did not exempt people from expecting criticism or denial of their religion.

However, it found that the woman's comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.

The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship," the court said, adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended denigrate Islam.

It also found that even in a debate it was not compatible with freedom of expression "to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression."

[coffee_rules]

But the mullahs and hacks like Zakir Naik can deride other religions and MF Hussain can paint Saraswathi and BharatMata nude, but we cannot say anything about PBUH. 

[Alam_dar]

I don't agree with the decision of the court, but I see woman's arguments were correct. It was a debate and she has full right to have her opinion about prophet due to his marriage with a 6 years old girl. 

 

If a person shows intention of looking excessively at the minor girls, then there is no problem in blaming him for paedophile tendency.

 

And even if some one wrongfully calls other a paedophile, still there should not be any punishment for it. 

 

I think that making cartoons or burning Quran could come under hate, but how come that expressing her opinion about marriage with minor girls becomes a crime? Actually it seems the opposite, and making cartoons seems to be ok according to the European law and does not comes under the crime (if I am not mistaken). 

 

A very dangerous decision, which will harm the humanity for next many decades. People now fear to criticize Muhammad even in Europe. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Global.Baba]

Unless you are depressed and want to commit Suicide who the fk would want to do that to begin with?  

 

Obviously random YouTube user accounts are outside everyone’s jurisdiction. Looks like European court doesn’t have kaam-Dhandha. Can we transfer the millions of pending cases in Indian courts to them.

[velu]

hindus dont mind hindus making fun/criticize Hinduism ..

dont bother much when other desi non-hindus criticize us..

 

but many of us go mad when any western press/people make fun of us.. 

 

[beetle]

If a 9 year old is considered a child then how does having sex with this child not come under paedophilia.

 

[Moochad]

23 minutes ago, velu said:

hindus dont mind hindus making fun/criticize Hinduism ..

dont bother much when other desi non-hindus criticize us..

 

but many of us go mad when any western press/people make fun of us.. 

 

I saw that on twitter, the Republicans in teh US tried to make that image to connect with American desi voters, but that image upset them instead. 

[panther]

Fear works.

[Alam_dar]

12 hours ago, panther said:

Fear works.

Unfortunately. 

[Clarke]

European courts appear cuckoo at times. Check this out: 

 

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/austrian-gambling-addict-wins-2-5m-euros-compensation-1935992

 

I'm willing to claim addiction of many things now on. 

[Moochad]

EU is also passing some crazy copyright law which Euros on the internet are saying can kill the internet there.

It is comforting in a macabre way to know that Babus are stupid everywhere in the world, whether in India or in EU 

 

[Muloghonto]

combination of white guilt and fear from the liberals in Europe.

But then again, Europe has never been big on freedom of speech.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Muloghonto

[DHONI_FANN]

On 10/26/2018 at 12:27 PM, Alam_dar said:

A bad decision, which will harm the humanity for next many decades. 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749

 

Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court

The ECHR ruled against an Austrian woman who claimed calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile was protected by free speech. The applicant claimed she was contributing to public debate.

An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria."

Read more: ECHR rules Muslim schoolgirls must take swimming classes in Switzerland

The woman in 2009 held two seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam," during which she likened Muhammad's marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.

Limits of free speech

The marriage according to Islamic tradition was consummated when Aisha was nine and Muhammad was around 50. Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's best friend and the first caliph, Abu Bakr.

The court cited the Austrian women stating during the seminar 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?"

An Austrian court later convicted the woman of disparaging religion and fined her €480 ($546). Other domestic courts upheld the decision before the case was brought before the ECHR.

The women had argued that her comments fell within her right of freedom of expression and religious groups must tolerate criticism. She also argued they were intended to contribute to public debate and not designed to defame the Prophet of Islam.

No intention of promoting public debate

The ECHR recognized that freedom of religion did not exempt people from expecting criticism or denial of their religion.

However, it found that the woman's comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.

The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship," the court said, adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended denigrate Islam.

It also found that even in a debate it was not compatible with freedom of expression "to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression."

Bad decision indeed. What's wrong in calling spade a spade ?

[Ranvir]

The more I read these things the more I think the west wants to invite Muslims into their lands to cause chaos. Then they can use their divide and rule tactics amongst the general population.

[cricketpatzer]

On 10/26/2018 at 6:23 AM, beetle said:

If a 9 year old is considered a child then how does having sex with this child not come under paedophilia.

 

I think the Court's argument is that though the Islamic Prophet married a 9 year old, he did not necessarily have sex with her. If the woman had said "if he had sex with the 9 year old girl he married, it would make him a pedophile" then she probably would have bene in the clear.

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, cricketpatzer said:

I think the Court's argument is that though the Islamic Prophet married a 9 year old, he did not necessarily have sex with her. If the woman had said "if he had sex with the 9 year old girl he married, it would make him a pedophile" then she probably would have bene in the clear.

Age at marriage. ... According to Sunni hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad in Mecca. The marriage was consummated after the Hegira to Medina, when she had reached the age of nine or ten years old.

Aisha - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Age at marriage. ... According to Sunni hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad in Mecca. The marriage was consummated after the Hegira to Medina, when she had reached the age of nine or ten years old.

Aisha - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

This is a common manipulation done by Wahhabists, where there are certain radical sections of wahhabism that rejects any and all hadiths- they make up a tiny part of muslims but since they are represented, the court can rule ' this is not commonly accepted fact' and ignore the fact that it *is* accepted by 90% or muslims on this planet in practice.

 

[beetle]

7 hours ago, cricketpatzer said:

I think the Court's argument is that though the Islamic Prophet married a 9 year old, he did not necessarily have sex with her. If the woman had said "if he had sex with the 9 year old girl he married, it would make him a pedophile" then she probably would have bene in the clear.

People just trying  to make the disgusting bits more palatable to modern times.

 

Why would he marry if no sex was involved?Could have just adopted her if she needed to be taken care of.

Don't tell me marrying a child is halal but adopting one is haraam.Is it ?

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by beetle

[Nikhil_cric]

By modern standards, what the prophet allegedly did according to, admittedly, dodgy muslim traditional hadiths is now considered paedophilia. Nothing wrong with what that woman said. Free speech necessarily means the right to even insult and mock religius figures and God himself should be protected atleast in secular states.Pathetic from the European court.

[Alam_dar]

Alas, the world is so much ignorant about the real face of Islam. 

 

Aisha was a lucky girl that she was raped only at the age of 9 years. While the real face of Islam is this that:

 

(1) Islam allows even to marry a 6 months or 2 years or 5 years of 7 years old girl.

(2) And to drive SEXUAL PLEASURES from these minor girls by making them naked, by kissing all over their naked body, by making them to masturbate their husbands, by rubbing the penis in their thighs. 

(3) And if the minor girl is 6 or 7 years old, and husband feels that she is strong enough physically, then husband could even penetrate into her. 

 

(Quran 65:4) And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation , (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those (minor girls) who have not menstruated as yet.

Maulana Modoudi's Tafseer of verse 65:4 (link):

Making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permssible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.

The biggest Islamic website islamweb.net gave this fatwa(link):

الاستمتاع بالزوجة الصغيرة.. رؤية شرعية ۔۔۔
Taking sexual pleasure from minor girl according to the Sharia. 
فإنه لا حرجَ في تقبيلِ الزوجة الصغيرة بشهوة والمفاخذة ونحوَ ذلك ولو كانت لا تطيقُ الجماع وقد بيَّنَ العلماء أن الأصلَ جوازُ استمتاع الرجل بزوجته كيف شاء إذا لم يكن ضرر وذكروا في ذلك استمناءَه بيدها ومداعبَتها وتقبيلَها وغير ذلك
There is no problem to kiss the minor girl wife with intention of sexual pleasure and to do "مفاخذہ" which is to rub the penis between her thighs in order to ejaculate the sperms, or to do any other similar act. All these acts of sexual pleasure are permitted, even if she does not posses the power for penetration. According to Ulama a husband is free to enjoy her in every way till the time no harm is done to her. So, the minor girl could masturbate her, foreplay could be done with her, she could be kissed and similar other things.

And another one of the largest Website of Muslims is Islamonline.net, which says the similar thing (link):

فإنه لا ضررَ في الإنزالِ بين فخذي الصغيرة التي لا تطيقُ الجماع وتتضررُ به إذا كان ذلك الإنزالُ بدونِ إيلاج، وقد بَيَّنَ العلماءُ أن الأصلَ هو جوازُ استمتاعِ الرجلِ بزوجتِه كيف شاء إذا لم يكن ضرر
There is no problem if husband rubs his penis between the thighs of minor girl in order to ejaculate the sperm, even the minor girl does not possess the ability for penetration... According to the Islamic Scholars husband is allowed to enjoy the minor wife in every possible way till the time she is not harmed.

Yet another one of the largest Muslim website is Islamport, which says (link)

وإذا تزوج الرجل الكبير البنت الصغيرة جاز له أن يستمتع بها بكل أنواع الاستمتاع المباحة شرعا.
If an adult man marries a minor girl, then he is allowed to enjoy her in every way. It is fully allowed in the Islamic Sharia.

 

I hit my head in anger when I see the ignorance of the world towards the real face of Islam. 

 

Muslim Ulama are dishonest and they very successfully hide the truth. Today, they made whole world falsly believe that Islam allows consumption of marriage only when a girl is 9 years old as Aisha was. Nobody knows the exact Islam, which actually allows sex with minor girls who are even 6 months old.