Next Stop: The European Court of Human Rights

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is still guilty of “hate speech”. The Austrian Supreme Court upheld Elizabeth’s conviction of denigration of religious beliefs.

Tundra Tabloids live-blogged the story earlier this morning. Here’s what happened (times are in CET).

I will be live blogging from the Austrian Supreme Court House with the help of journalist, Henrik R.Clausen who is accompanying Elisabeth. The Austrian Supreme Court will be hearing Elisabeth’s case on Dec. 11th (today) at 10 am.

Her lawyer told her this is to seen as a very positive sign as the court could have and would have thrown out the case in written form. So, we may assume that the case will not be thrown out. This leaves the following two possibilities:

1.   Uphold the existing conviction
2.   Elisabeth will be acquitted, or
3.   The case goes back to the lower courts.

The main question to be discussed is the merit/of what Elisabeth said. Does freedom of speech trump religious teachings?

In the courtroom:

10:42:   Henrik R.Clausen: We are now in the courthouse. The defence atterney Dr. Rami says that an acquittal is quite likely — but adds that live reporting from the court room is not quite doable.
    (TT: If that’s the case, then I will have to wait until they leave the courtroom and update the report at that time)
10:44:   Henrik R.Clausen: While there is a good chance the case will be over and closed here, today, there is a reason it would be better to lose:

If the case is lost in Austria, it would be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, where the chance to win is very good. And winning it at the ECHR would have positive implications for free speech, includring the right to critize religion, all through Europe.

10:45:   Henrik R.Clausen:   Elisabeth getting ready for the court.
10:49:   Henrik R.Clausen:   The hearing is scheduled to last an hour. We cannot report directly from it, but will be taking notes and reporting right afterwards. The result first, of course!
11:51:   Henrik R.Clausen:   Bulk update coming below (Court is in recess):

The hearing is delayed due to the Public Prosecutor missing the 10 o’clock starting time. The Court starts with making a summary of previous proceedings, including the conviction of a € 480 fine or 60 days in prison for violation of Article 188, denigation of a legally recognized religion.

The Defence, Dr. Rami, presents his case, that since the statements of Elisabeth are based in documentation, they cannot be punishable under the law, as it does not constitute denigration.

He refers to the case of Salman Rushdie and his book “The Satanic Verses”, which would also be shocking to the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and to the Danish Mohammad cartoons, which were explicitly meant to mock the beliefs of others. Those cartoons led to extensive riots and many deaths, a clear sign that Islamic forces seek to limit our freedom of expression, in particular as it pertains to Islam.

Dr. Rami also refers to two similar cases which led to aquittal, despite broad negative portrayals of religions, including stating “Christianity is permeated by anti-Semitism”. What is on our desk today is benign compared to this. Further, the disputed statement (if Mohammad could rightly considered a paedophile or not) is a mere detail of a seminar about the foundations of Islam. And, as has been stated earlier, the idea that Mohammad was a paedophile makes sense in light of him having sexual relations to a minor (Aisha), as documented in Islamic scripture.

Finally, the whole point of freedom of expression is that it must be permissible to say things that cause offense, shock and unpleasent reactions among some listeners.

For the reason above, the Defense proposes that the Court delivers an unconditional acquittal.

12:05:   Conviction upheld!
13:35:   Henrik R.Clausen supplies more information:

The Prosecutor, held that it had no relevance that the statement in question was made during educational seminars. Further, the Prosecutor disagreed with the advertising of the seminars as being “historical science”, and asserted instead that the intention of seminars was to defame Islam under a mantle of being “scientific”.

As a comparison, she noted a case where somebody had asserted that microwave ovens cause severe damage to the quality and food and to public health, and had put skull warning stickers on the ovens. He was convicted for statements and actions that could not be justified by scientific methods.

Likewise, despite Islamic scripture and scholars being in agreement on the fact that Mohammad systematically had a sexual relationship with a minor (Aisha, aged 9), that is insufficient to deduce that Mohammad was a paedophile. Thus, stating so is unscientific and constitutes an impermissible excess of opinion.

The Court asks Elisabeth if she agrees with the presentation made by the Defence, which she wholeheartedly confirms.

First decision of the Court: The case will not be returned to a lower court for retrial.

It is the opinion of the Court that defaming Mohammad was a primary purpose of the seminars, rather than the purported purpose of providing factual knowledge of Islam. Thus, the seminars have made no meaningful contribution to discussions that would be of public interest, but instead had a primary purpose of defaming Mohammad, an icon of a legally recognized religion.

[Reporters’ note: Having seen the slides used in the seminars, I can say with certainty that Mohammad was not a primary topic of the lectures, the focus was on Islamic law and practice.]

The Court considers the case to balance freedom of religion against the right to free expression against freedom of religion, Articles 9 and 10 Human Rights Convention. However, there is a much narrower limit to value judgements concerning religion than concerning nonreligous matters, and the notion that Mohammad may have been a paedophile constitutes an “excess of opinion”, “of no public interest”, as decided upon previously by the High Court.

The European Convention of Human Rights grants individual countries the right to interpret Article 10 (freedom of expression) as they see fit, and the Court holds that there are much tighter limits to freedom of expression on matters related to religion than on other issues.

Thus, the conviction for defaming a legally recognized religion is upheld.

Further, the Court considered the proportionality of the punishment relative to the crime of expression committed. The lower courts did not find unconditional imprisonment a necessity, but rather convicted Elisabeth a fine of € 480, which is fitting in light of her low income, optionally converted into 60 days of prison. The Court considers this proportionate to the crime committed and upholds it.

The complete verdict will follow in written form.

Side note: The conclusion is that Elisabeths’ case is now proceeding in full force at the European Court of Human Rights. Her defence attorney, Dr. Rami, takes this case very seriously and is with her all the way.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

47 thoughts on “Next Stop: The European Court of Human Rights

    • Eh, Austria is still in a better situation then most European countries, for the moment anyway. Their “far-right” party is somewhat of a mainstream party and they’re in the top 4, getting vote % in the 2 digits.

      Maybe there’s still some hope for them.

      I think Sweden, Belgium, or Germany will be the first to be gone.

    • “Free speech is officially dead in Europe.”

      And don’t think that the US isn’t far behind. Like all the others, the 1st amendment means what the Left says it means.

      A fiberglass thirty-footer may indeed be the last escape pod.

    • Ah, the courts. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg around, burning the U.S. Constitution while resorting to models from the “international community,” can we be far behind. Throw in the fact that this monstrous king can now stack the lower courts as he sees fit, with virtually no opposition, and you understand that our situation is hopeless. All it would take to achieve the final tipping point is the death of Scalia, Thomas, or Alito, and we are guaranteed to lose any meaningful concepts of liberty and private property, without which a free nation cannot stand.

      The Gates of Vienna were breached years ago, as were the gates of Washington, D.C. (from Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to LBJ to GHWB to Clinton to W to Obama, those gates were opened a little more as each administration worked its own special brand of evil). It is over folks. Your churches will be burned down, your children either taken from you or brainwashed to “see the light of Obamessiah,” and any notion of liberty and private property buried 6 feet under.

      We will live to see, in the not-to-distant-future (possibly as early as 2016), the blood of good, decent patriots flowing in the streets. It will be a slaughter, as “Wolverines” is fiction and modern technology and weaponry will lead to wholesale massacres of anyone who resists. You will have two choices. Bow to Obamessiah or his chosen successor (possibly in a UN-led, Agenda21 driven global order) or live free and die. Your call. I choose to live free and die.

      • That sounds apocalyptic. If the Lord does not call us home soon it will happen and already is happening in Africa, Syria, and throughout the Middle-East where unwashed savages out number Christians.

        In fact if we look at even Detroit, let alone Islamic Africa, and Middle-East we see what the Lord sees when he says that the birds of the air shall feast on the flesh of kings. Destruction of homes, buildings and churches. When all Christians are raptured from the earth it will cause the planet’s inhabitants to descend into darkness not seen in thousands of years. All that will be left are humans who do what is right in their own eyes, like this Danish court and far worse.

  1. Pingback: Coming Soon To A “People’s Court” Near You | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. “and the notion that Mohammad may have been a paedophile constitutes an “excess of opinion”, “of no public interest”, as decided upon previously by the High Court.”

    This is quite unacceptable, the simple fact is that there are a lot of people running around in Europe who emulate Mohammed as the perfect man and that refuse to accept laws made by man, therefore to them sex with a 9 year old is acceptable and a right as Muslims.

    Because this affects their interactions with us non-Muslims, across Europe there are many Muslim gangs grooming young females and ignore our laws in terms of sex with minors, and these idiots say that this if of no public concern!

    • Because he is a “revered person” in a legally recognized religion. As simple as that. As evil as that.

  3. In the nude world order the excess of risk, (death threats from muslims), is the factor determining the access to justice for 700 plus Europeans. God the average savage must be dizzy with a sense of power and domination over the eurokufar. It’s too weird to wonder about anymore.

  4. So Islam is getting the EU to slit its own throat by its own hands. This is how their world domination handbook reads. It is much like the deer that trots the deer back to its den, then kills it to feed her pups.

  5. “Thus, the conviction for defaming a legally recognized religion is upheld.”

    I am certain that some of you will hate what I have to say – especially considering that the false equivalence model of “The Big Tent” is what is often advocated to combat the rise of Islam.

    It is IMPORTANT to recognize that – while Islam is the legally recognized religion – the legally PROTECTED religion is state-sanctioned PEDOPHILIA.

    Legalized pedophilia benefits homosexuals because pedophilia substantially increases the homosexual pool of minor and adult sex partners (i.e., minor partners being active victims and adult partners being formerly victimized children).

    In addition to Islam, pedophilia is advocated and practiced by other world religions including fundamental Mormonism and Satanism AND individual pedophiles (i.e., If pedophiles are born as pedophiles, how can pedophilia be wrong?). The plan is that legalized pedophilia is to be facilitated by Islam and the homosexual-led LGBT ‘civil rights’ movement.

    Note that the same ‘rulers’ who arranged to bring Muslims to the West also assigned homosexual LGBT practioners the ‘right to love’ which led to the ‘right to marry’ and then ‘the right to criminally and civilly sue’ practicing Christians out of ‘civil’ society most especially government and business – with the intended effect to make practicing Christians legally and financially powerless to protect children from the predations of pedophilia – which are to be accepted, normalized, and legalized….

    In reality, Islam is the most homosexual religion ever – and practicing homosexuals understand and know that fact.

      • Lack of investigation and lack of prosecution give pedophilia effective legal protection in both Eastern and Western countries.

        However, according to the American Family Association via its radio programs, the homosexual who started the gay marriage movement bragged that the destruction of marriage is the goal – and actual legal protection for polygamy, polyandry, 3+ partner marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality are active items on the LGBT agenda.

        You need to seriously examine WHY you might FEEL the need to come to the defense of homosexuals (as if homosexuals need you to defend them) and WHY you might FEEL that homosexuals are ‘victims’ when homosexuals actually have a significant amount of political, financial, and social power.

        Carefully consider if recent homosexual propaganda has shaped your FEELINGS about homosexuality – where feelings are easier to change than facts – facts that indicate that homosexuals often lead a lifestyle that is very destructive to themselves and others.

        There are real people who need defending and protecting from the fruits of the homosexual-led LGBT ‘civil rights’ movement – and those people are the boys and girls who have been, are, and will be the victims of LGBT-empowered predators.

        • Egghead- I was deeply shocked by the postings you and RKae made a few days ago, regarding the agenda of some LGBT activists, and you may say I’ve been naive.

          However, having lived in the decadent metropolis of London for 44 years, and worked mostly in retail, I’ve known many gay men as colleagues, acquaintances and friends, often finding them more congenial company than “straight” men: less aggressive, more sensitive, interested in arts rather than sport… and while it’s certainly possible that some were concealing unpleasant ideas, I find it very unlikely that all (or even a majority) were putting on an act for my, and others’ benefit.

          I’ll give you one example: a man I’ve known for 30 years or more, from an orthodox Jewish background, who told me a while back he was bisexual; to this day, I don’t believe his family know, but his gay son married his male partner recently- anecdotal evidence, not that it’s needed, that “lifestyle choices” are inherent, like ethnicity and unlike religious belief, which is why I take exception to blanket condemnations of homosexuals, which seem like a personal attack on people I know and care for.

          A parallel might be the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, in Israel and elsewhere, with attitudes remarkably similar, in some respects, to those of fundamentalist muslims; many Jews, in Israel and elsewhere, regard them as an embarrassing bunch of freeloaders and big. I find them detestable, as do my Jewish acquaintances, but that doesn’t mean I, or they, hate Jews in general.

          • Aaargh! Posted by mistake before I’d finished. Two lines from the bottom, “big” should have been “bigots”. (contd) Similarly I take exception to seeing all gay people lumped together as potential paedophiles and rapists (isn’t that what the more extreme feminists said about men?)

      • Tolerance for previously abhorrent behavior precedes restriction of the right to prosecute the behavior, which finally results in legalizing of the behavior. Coercion will never be permitted in civilized societies, but if the child (who cannot yet enter into a legal contract) says he was not coerced, then the sexual contact between adult and child will be ignored informally and later under the law.

        • The application of Sharia Law facilitates pedophilia by four interlocking laws:

          1. Marriage is to be arranged/approved by the family. Families may follow the example of the ideal Muslim man Mohammed and his child bride – and may marry their very young girls to much older men – which is simply legalized pedophilia – especially the temporary marriages – which are simply child prostitution.
          2. Sex outside of marriage is a capital crime.
          3. A girl who admits to being raped has committed the crime of having sex outside of marriage (unless she can produce four male Muslims who personally witnessed her rape).
          4. A boy who admits to being raped has committed the crime of having sex outside of marriage (and the victim is labelled to be a homosexual).

          The end result is that NO girls or boys will admit to being raped (i.e., victims of pedophilia) because that admission is a capital crime in Islam.

          NOTE: It is the being labelled to be a homosexual that is a capital crime – NOT being a homosexual or a homosexual pedophile – BUT rather being labelled to be a homosexual.

          Indeed, the Islamic cannon describes the ideal Muslim man Mohammed as having engaged in overt homosexual behavior – and Sharia Law dictates that Mohammed’s behavior should be emulated and imitated by Muslims.

          The judge in ESW’s first trial ruled that Mohammed was NOT a pedophile because he stayed married to his child bride after she became an adult. However, the judge’s ruling ignores the Islamic cannon that strongly suggests that Mohammed was a homosexual pedophile. Since the judge cited additional areas of the Islamic cannon as evidence of lack of pedophilia, then ESW should be able to cite additional areas of the Islamic cannon as evidence of pedophilia. And, ESW should make that argument in her appeal – the argument that her right to present refutatory evidence was violated in her original trial where the ruling was based on evidence that was NOT presented at trial (as I recall).

          In addition, the original judge’s ruling ignored the fact that Muslims emulate and imitate the behavior of Mohammed based on the individual elements of the Islamic cannon rather than the entire cannon (remember the accepted practice of abrogation where the later warlike passages invalidate earlier peaceful passages) – and irrespective of whether the Islamic cannon is scientifically true. It is the specific and accepted example of Mohammed’s marriage to and consummation of Aisha at a very young age that provides the basis for the Sharia Law which grants the right to Muslim men to marry and have sex with very young girls. The fact that Mohammed stayed married to Aisha – or even married other older wives – is irrelevant to Muslims who use his example with Aisha.

          As regards the latest court case, no one can scientifically prove whether Mohammed was a pedophile. However, people can scientifically prove that worldwide Muslims have historically believed, taught, and behaved as if the Islamic cannon is true from the time of Mohammed – by having sex with very young girls in both temporary and less temporary Islamic marriages – a modern Muslim behavior that is of public interest to the West as large numbers of Muslims visit and immigrate to the West.

          Also, people can scientifically prove that the Islamic cannon cites Mohammed as being MORE than an icon but rather the LAST Prophet and the FINAL lawgiver with his behavior being the basis of Sharia Law. Then, Islamic cannon cites Sharia Law as the only valid legal basis for Muslim behavior – in this case the behavior being that Muslim men may participate in pedophilia with girls and boys. In the Islamic cannon, the commonly accepted and described precedent of Mohammed’s behavior with Aisha and his serving boys incents Muslims to pedophilia.

          Koran 52:24
          Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

          Koran 56:17
          Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

          Koran 76:19
          And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

          “We came to the Prophet and stayed with him for twenty days and nights. We were all young and of about the same age. The Prophet was very kind and merciful. When he realized our longing for our families, he asked about our homes and the people there and we told him. Then he asked us to go back to our families and stay with them and teach them (the religion) and to order them to do good things.”

          Why do you think that the author emphasized that the boys were all young AND stayed with Mohammed at night?

          Henceforth, we should emphasize that Mohammed was very ‘kind’ to young boys who stayed with him for 20 nights!

          More here:

          At her next appeal, ESW’s lawyer should be sure to ask the court the question of whether the widespread practice of pedophilia under the label of ‘marriage’ is an appropriate ‘religious’ practice for a modern recognized religion – and whether the persecution of pedophilic rape victims under the label of fornicators and homosexuals is an appropriate ‘religious’ practice for a modern recognized religion.

          Create a legal record that pedophilia is a crime with child victims – rather than a religiously accepted interpersonal relationship between people of disparate ages.

    • What [material of questionable quality]. I think you will find if you take [actions that will enable you to see as well as I do] that there have been plenty of people who self identify as practicing Christians involved in sexual abuse of minors. Allthose Catholic priests for starters. And they did not only abuse boys.

      • Sharia Law which is the unalterable ruling law of Islam allows and indeed encourages pedophilia of girls and boys through a variety of means including child marriage, enforced marriage, polygamy, temporary marriage, and impossible-to-prove-rape requirements (i.e., rape must be witnessed by four Muslim men).

        Priest molesters sin against Christian laws and commit crimes under civil laws.

        Muslim molesters are completely within their rights under Sharia Law to ‘marry’ little girls, to copulate with boys without beards, to gang rape infidel children as sex slaves.

        Two wrongs do NOT make a right. All molesters are WRONG, but it is OUR duty as Christian Westerners to keep our children safe from Islam which both openly states its goals and gives its permission to Muslim men to prey upon its own and our children.

  6. If we do not have freedom to say what we want we have no freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is an absolute – we either have it or we do not. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say what another wants to hear but to say what another does not want to hear. The freedom of speech as regards Islam is enormously important – it is the freedom to question beliefs such as this that have historically made Freedom of Speech such an important right for Western Europeans and our critical and scientific thinking. Banning Freedom of Speech will condemn Islam to a dark place where the light of truth cannot instigate critical change that will help Islam and muslims evolve and improve.

  7. 732 After Muslim conquest of Spain during previous two decades, the Battle of Tours victory by Charles Martel’s Frank army over invading Muslim horde is considered the turning point of Muslim expansion into Gaul.
    1529 First Muslim siege of Vienna fails.
    1683 Second Muslim siege of Vienna fails.
    2013 Austrian courts open the gates of Vienna (and wider Austria) to Third Muslim invasion and occupation. Vienna falls. God help Christendom!

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.
    — W. B. Yeats

  8. Conviction upheld!
    No, that doesn’t mean that the court is right.
    All I see here is self-righteousness.
    Never mistake the one for the other.
    Conviction upheld, justice denied.

    • Yes. This decision is a sign of desparation.

      All seats of power seek to maintain their power and when the time comes they’ll do whatever they deem necessary to hold on to what they’ve got. When their situation becomes desparate so do their actions.

      And Western elites are in one hell of a desparate situation. They’re in crisis. Their world view no longer holds water. That set of ideas and of ways of interpreting the world that it espouses as a means of justifying itself is reaching the end of its days. It no longer makes sense.

      And in their desparation to maintain their position they are driven more and more to act, quite blatently, contrary to the supposed principles that they revere. The legal situation here with Elisabeth is just typical of the schizophrenia they exhibit in their efforts to square the circle.

      Just come back from the pub…!?


  9. Wow! I had every expectation that ESW would be acquitted.
    Look out Europe, things are going to get really rough.

  10. The Habsburgs are rolling in their graves right now. I mean, not that they were good people themselves, but I’m just saying. 😛

    • The Hapsburgs even on their worst day would never in a million years allow a muslim to hold sway or power over a native Austrian or anyone in the Empire for that matte. Maybe it might be time to bring the Hapsburg Empire back, at last they would have the backbone to face this scourge.

  11. Pingback: Elisabeth takes her case to the European Court of Human Rights — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  12. Once more Europe is threatened on the home front and the Quislings are out in force. I imagine sooner rather than later it will be “Once more into the breach”.

  13. Here is a dictionary definition of “defamation”: false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel. Ergo – one cannot defame someone by saying something, if that “something” is true… Moreover, the comparison to microwaves is absurd, unless the person putting stickers on the microwaves also presented scientific evidence to support their assertions. On the contrary, Elisabeth meticulously explained why Mohammed’s actions could be thought of as paedophilia.

    And if a fifty-something old man having a sexual relationship with a nine-year old girl, in the eyes of Austrian law, does not consitute “paedophilia”, then what does?! Surely there must be cases of men of Mohammed’s age having sexual relations with girls of Aisha’s age (or older) judged to have been engaged in paedophilia??

    The prosecution says that Elisabeth’s comments were meant purely to “defame Islam” and its most holy figure… however, what is the whole reason for this court action, if not to stymy freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (which surely also includes the right to criticise religion)?

  14. “…the fact that Mohammad systematically had a sexual relationship with a minor (Aisha, aged 9), that is insufficient to deduce that Mohammad was a paedophile….”


    Insufficient for whom? The generic ‘reasonable person’ could certainly make that inference.

    Or does the fact that Mo had other wives concurrently get him off the hook? i.e. he did not SOLELY have sex with the nine year old (as far as we know)

    So could this set a legal precedent – using the ‘Mohammed case’ as a defence? Someone claiming that they are not a pedophile because they also had sex with a prostitute the night before the offence.

    Truly bizarre – this case has nothing at all to do with justice or common sense.

    • The “reasonable person” test is used in the UK. Not sure how much it works in Austria. As for precedent-based rulings – that’s also more used in UK common law, while judges in mainland Europe (where legal systems are based on Napoleonic law) will look at the “intent” of a law – giving them room to (for example) criminalise critics of Mohammed, while letting those who’d say similar things about Jesus off the hook.

      • “As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (USA spelling) or paedophilia (British spelling) is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13”

        Perhaps they were using such a strict definition – “primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children “. But even then – Mo’s favourite wife was Aisha.

        • So, all that ESW needs to show is that Mohammed was over 16 years of age and had a PRIMARY sexual interest toward toward prepubescent children 13 years or younger?

          I would like to note two items: 1) ESW should ask the original court to provide its official medical source for its definition of pedophilia, and 2) a strict interpretation of the definition provided above would require a pedophile to be interested in MORE than one child (i.e., children).

          Under Islam, Muslims themselves may only derive ‘scientific’ knowledge of Mohammed from the accepted Islamic texts (otherwise Muslims are blasphemers).

          The accepted Islamic texts reveal that Mohammed had many wives and sex slaves, but do those texts indicate whether Mohammed had ‘primary OR exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children’?

          Muslim men have traditionally married for many reasons including political, financial, familial, and compassionate reasons that exclude primary or exclusive sexual interest. It can be argued that having sex with a wife does NOT, in fact, having primary or exclusive sexual interest with that wife. For example, homosexuals may marry wives, have sex, and have children, but their primary sexual interest still tends to other men.

          From Wikipedia:

          “In Arabian culture, marriage was contracted in accordance with the larger needs of the tribe and was based on the need to form alliances within the tribe and with other tribes. Virginity at the time of marriage was emphasized as a tribal honor.[2] Watt states that all of Muhammad’s marriages had the political aspect of strengthening friendly relationships and were based on the Arabian custom.[3] Esposito points out that some of Muhammad’s marriages were aimed at providing a livelihood for widows.[4] He noted that remarriage was difficult for widows in a society that emphasized virgin marriages.[5] Francis Edwards Peters says that it is hard to make generalizations about Muhammad’s marriages: many of them were political, some compassionate, and some perhaps affairs of the heart.[6] Muhammad’s first marriage lasted 25 years.”

          “Main Objectives of Muhammad’s Marriages

          “According to Islamic belief, the main objectives of Muhammad’s marriages can be divided into four.[7]

          1. Helping out the widows of his companions.
          2. Creating family bonds between him and his companions (Muhammad married the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar, whereas Uthman and Ali married his daughters. He therefore had family bonds with all the first four Caliphs).
          3. Spreading the message by uniting different clans through marriage.
          4. Increasing credibility and sources for conveying his private family life. If he only had one wife, then it would have been a tremendous responsibility on her to convey Muhammad’s private acts of worship and family life, and people would try to discredit her to destroy the credibility of these practices. However, with multiple wives, there were a lot more sources to the knowledge, making it more difficult to discredit. Therefore his marriages gave more women the opportunity to learn and teach the matters of his private life.

          “Muhammad’s first marriage was at the age of 25 to the 40-year old Khadijah. He was married to one woman until the age of 50, after which he is believed to have had multiple wives for the four reasons explained above. With the exception of Aisha, Muhammad only married widows and divorced women.”

          NOTE: Virginity was the MOST important attribute and the Islamic texts reveal that Aisha was the ONLY virgin that Mohammed married.

          Someone should qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the Islamic texts to see if the Islamic texts focus on and describe Mohammed’s primary sexual interest as being with male and female children!

          Someone could quantitatively analyze the amount of words and anecdotes related to Mohammed and sex to reveal whether the Islamic texts indicate that Mohammed had ‘primary OR exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children’ – as per the medical definition of a pedophile.

          I am sending Bill Warner of the Center For The Study Of Political Islam this comment to see if he might be willing to help with this task….

          • Correction: It can be argued that having sex with a wife does NOT, in fact, equal having primary or exclusive sexual interest with that wife.

  15. Pingback: News links for December 15 2013 – 1 | Vlad Tepes

  16. Pingback: Appointment in Vienna | Gates of Vienna

  17. Pingback: Bachmann & Gohmert in Vienna: “we don’t want this to happen in the USA; every American citizen has the right to express themselves…” — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  18. Pingback: A Fight to the End | Gates of Vienna

  19. Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » Lest We Forget: Freedom of Speech is On Trial Everywhere Because of islam

Comments are closed.