This is clearly the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was fined and given a jail sentence for calling Muhammad a pedophile. He married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, but “the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context.”
The problem that the Austrian courts overlooked here was that Muhammad is held up in Islam as the perfect example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21). Accordingly, his example does lead to pedophilia, and in any case the distinction between pedophilia and child marriage can be very fine. In Afghanistan virtually all girls above third-grade age are married, and because of Muhammad, but the Austrian court would have us believe either that there is no pedophilia in these child marriages, or that they have nothing to do with Muhammad, both of which could be proven false readily.
And as for “untrue facts,” the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable, Sahih Bukhari, affirms more than once that Aisha was nine at the time of the consummation of the marriage.
Finally, would the European Court of Human Rights rule that someone deserved a fine and imprisonment for criticizing Jesus? The case wouldn’t even come to them.
This is an important step toward the imposition of Sharia in Europe, as it is a tacit acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions on criticizing Muhammad.
“Insulting Prophet Muhammad not ‘free speech,’ ECtHR rules,” Daily Sabah, October 25, 2018:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that an Austrian woman’s criminal conviction and fine for her statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia did not breach her right to free speech.
The woman, named only as ES by the court, had held seminars on Islam in 2008 and 2009 for the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) where she discussed the prophet’s marriage to his wife Aisha, a child at the time, and implied that he was a pedophile.
An Austrian court convicted her of disparaging religious doctrines in 2011 and fined her 480 euros (548 dollars), a judgment that was upheld on two appeals.
Stating that the court had found that “the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis”, the ECtHR said that the woman’s comments could not be covered by the freedom of expression.
ES’ statements “were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages,” the ECHR held, adding that the moderate fine imposed on her could not be considered disproportionate.
The Austrian courts had drawn a distinction between pedophilia and child marriage, which was also a common practice historically in European ruling families.
The ECtHR also underlined that it classified the ‘impugned’ statements as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.”
It noted that the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context….
This content was originally published here.