Thursday, May 20, 2010

Telling the Truth About Mohammed is a Crime in Sweden

Child Bride

Here’s another news story that demonstrates the importance of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day: a man in southern Sweden is being prosecuted for his presentation of completely factual and authentic material about Mohammed and his child bride, Aisha.

What was the crime in question? A poster depicting Mohammed and Aisha, accompanied by these words:

He is 53, she is 9. Is that the kind of marriage we want to see in Skåne?

This information is straight out of the sunna, and is considered an unquestionable truth in Islam. Yet a Swede is being prosecuted for saying it.

Ted Ekeroth has kindly translated an article from Sydsvenskan about this farrago of justice (he also has a blog post in English on the same topic):

Justice Chancellor to prosecute Herslow

The chairman of the Skåne Party, Carl P. Herslow, displayed anti-Muslim posters during a public meeting. He is now being prosecuted for hets mot folkgrupp [“inciting racial hatred”].

After holding a public meeting at Stortorget [“the grand square”] in Malmö at the beginning of May, he was taken away by the police for interrogation. The police intervened after he had shown posters with different texts and illustrations.

The pictures shows the prophet Mohammed naked with a 9-year-old wife.

Herslow was photographed and immediately taken into custody by the police. He has been interrogated and the seized posters have also been analyzed by Statens kriminaltekniska laboratorium (“the state crime lab”, SKL).

SKL has said that the posters were printed using a large-format printer, and the crime is therefore subject to the “press freedom laws”.
- - - - - - - - -
The crime is labeled as “inciting racial hatred” (hets mot folkgrupp) since Herslow showed the pictures in public.

The decision to prosecute was made yesterday by the Justice chancellor, JK, and if convicted the chairman may face jail time.

“If you look at previous cases where representatives of extremist groups haves been convicted of ‘inciting racial hatred’, Herslow may spend 4-6 months in jail,” says deputy chief prosecutor Bo Birgersson. There are similar cases where leaders of National Socialist Front were convicted in the Supreme Court for inciting racial hatred according to the freedom of the press laws.

“This is incredible. It will be interesting to discuss Islamic superstition in court,” says the party leader concerning the case.

As early as April 21, Sydsvenskan wrote that both the police and at least one individual reported the Skåne Party for putting up anti-Muslim posters in Malmö.

Björn Lagerbäck (FP), leading the “Malmö dialogue forum”, appealed to Muslim groups not to be provoked and called the Skåne Party “a small isolated sect”.

This is unbelievably Orwellian: Mr. Herslow is being prosecuted under “freedom of the press” laws.

Another article on the same topic may be found here (in Swedish).


Pedofiilimuhammed haluaa keskustella islamista said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Mr. Lehto neglected to include this:

WARNING: the image linked here is obsscene and may be offensive to some people. Viewer discretion is advised.


Pedofiilimuhammed haluaa keskustella islamista said...

Seppo LEHTO finnish muhammed caricaturist memo to this 20.5.2010 day is here: link

Zenster said...

This is unbelievably Orwellian: Mr. Herslow is being prosecuted under “freedom of the press” laws.

Freedom is slavery.
Slavery is freedom.

What is there about this that is so difficult to understand? Muslims will certainly tell you that slavery to Allah is "freedom". Does this not erase all doubt?

Haven't we seen this all before?

Arbeit Macht Frei

It's not as if Islam has exclusive rights to moral inversion, they just somehow manage to raise it to a cultural imperative.

This information is straight out of the sunna, and is considered an unquestionable truth in Islam. Yet a Swede is being prosecuted for saying it.

Sweden's descent into total Islamic subjugation can be measured rather easily against one single fact:


There will come a time when this deference to and preferential treatment of Islam will be regarded as a crime against humanity. Sweden appears to be leading the way.

Hans Erling Jensen said...

I have made an article on the issue in Danish -

I think it is fantastic that the truth now are criminalized! I cannot find words for it!

Juniper in the Desert said...

This is what the Dutch court said to Geert Wilders!

Robert said...

It is true that many Muslims believe that betrothal and marriage of Mohammed to Aisha took place when she was very young.
It is also true the many Muslim scholar have presented historical evidence that contradicts that view.
The age of Aisha at her marriage to Mohammed is not an article of faith.

Zenster said... The age of Aisha at her marriage to Mohammed is not an article of faith.

One more time ... As Robert Marchenoir noted in GoV’s “The Circumstances of Our Oppression” thread:

"Islam" does not exist. Unless your aim is to entertain a purely academic debate with no practical implications, "Islam" actually means what real Muslims think and do. [emphasis added]

What the Qur'an does or does not say means exactly squat. Islam is "what real Muslims think and do". And what real Muslims think and do is seek out and enter into marriages with child brides on a regular basis. Ergo, Mohammad being The Perfect Man™ for all Muslims to emulate means that wedding prepubescent girls is an Islamic practice.

You can argue all you want about what the Qur'an says or does not say but it is meaningless because what Muslims actually do is all that really counts.

Professor L said...

Actually, given that Mohommed is considered the ideal Muslim, and that Muslims can and do marry pre-teen children (as young as 9 years of age), then is it not simple logic to say that they are following the example of the prophet?

Not only that, but the site that you have linked to contains nothing more than historical conjecture, using sources with as much reliability as those it derides (less so, in fact).

Also, I have read that it takes Aisha's claim that she could only remember her parents practicising Islam as an indication that she was born prior to their conversion (this is not necessarily correct. Her parents may have been Muslims before her birth, and she would still be telling the truth, as they would have, at one point, not be Muslims).

Basically, that site counters conjecture (which is more consistent) with more conjecture (of less consistency). Her age is anywhere between ten and fifteen at the time of engagement, and fourteen to nineteen at the time of consummation by the arguments presented.

In these cases, you go with the earliest records (which indicate her age as six and nine at engagement and consummation respectively), rather than later historiography.

Also, the attempt to point out the failings in the Bible are hardly able to claim themselves as being "just like Islam" (which the intent undoubtedly is). In the cas of Abraham, Hagar was at least of her maturity and an adult, not a pre-teen child like Aisha. In David, nowhere is the act of sex mentioned. The sharing of body heat is a common survival technique in cold environments, and as a King, the David, does get a choice in his companion. And why this concept that two people who share a bed have sex? Surely they've heard of platonic love?

As for Mary and Joseph, the author admits that only the Orthodox Churches accept the assertion that Joseph was an old widower (and the conclusion it makes and quotes regards only Joseph's age, not that of Mary). Also, it was not uncommon for girls in their early to mid teens to be married off (a practice that continued even to modern days, with the fourteen-year-old Marie Antoinette marrying the then-fifteen-year-old Dauphin, later Louis XVI).

And still, we find that the age of the women present is nowhere near as low as that of Aisha, who was still but a child by the earliest and most-quoted records.

The issue at stake is not the morality of an older man marrying a younger woman (for it does happen, and is sanctioned by society and the various religions, even if not considered entirely appropriate). The issue of concern is the age of the woman who is being married. A teenaged girl (14 and above in earlier times, 16 now in the West) is considered intelligent and informed enough to be able to comprehend sex, what it means, and its context within holy matrimony. A pre-teen girl cannot, and therein lies the difference between the Christian and Muslim scriptures - Aisha is asserted to have married before puberty, while non-canon works in Christianity assert that Mary was married while in the early stages of puberty (which was then also when she bore the Virgin Birth).

My apologies, Baron, for the long post, but I felt it necessary to do a thorough rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

After reading about the dilemma you have in Europe regarding the encroachment of Islam, I am surprised that you, as a culture haven't banned the so called "Holy Koran" yet. Does it not incite violence against people who are unwilling to comply to it? In today's politically charged environment where we are all supposed to be so inclusive and non- abrasive, how is it that there can be a book as this that is so bigoted against Christians, Jews, and others? How can you have a book that teaches the Muslims that they can tax non Muslims just for tolerating them as if they are some kind of second class citizens? I read the Koran about three quarters through and by the end of it, I was feeling sickened to my stomach from not only it's lack of spirituality, but it's disgusting bigotry.

I personally, since Muhammed supposedly was given messages from Archangel Gabriel in Mecca, feel that he was obviously not qualified to teach, for Heaven found it necessary for a messenger to instruct Muhammed as to what to say to the people at that time. Then, the message ends and Gabriel disappears and Muhammed keeps treaching? Under what authority? Gabriel had departed. Who gave the messages to the so-called prophet after that? If Muhammed was truly qualified to teach on the behalf of Heaven, he would have never required the original message from Gabriel. After reading the Koran, anyone can see the shift in the tone of the teachings after the so-called prophet left Mecca. The teachings got more and more violent and brutal....and non of this came from the lips of Gabriel..they came from the illiterate and violent Muhammed. Why do Muslims insist that Mohammed was qualified to teach without the help of Gabriel? Isn't it obvious that what was said was seriously degraded as Muhammed moved away from Mecca? I don't get it.

The Koran should be bannned as hate speech and one of inciting hatred, and violence. If any of shall survive, let it be the peaceful teachings that emanted from Gabriel in the beginning at Mecca...leave the rest for the dogs..

These people need to be put into their right place. What yyou are allowing as a society to take place is an abomination. The simple fact is that Islam is incompatible with any other culture. It is designed to take over and eventually force everyone to comply at the point of a gun, or be eliminated. How do you negotiate this in the free western society?

You can't. What right do people as this have to come to impose their barbaric ways on your culture? None..they don't.
I suggest you move to eliminate the immigration of Muslims. Will they complain when you send them back to the "Holy Land"?

Stand up!


Robert said...

There are no earliest records outside the Koran itself. There are only collections of recollection of dubious validity gathered from people who related what they remembered that people said or were said to have said.
It is of course true that marriages are permitted at very early ages in some Muslim countries. In the context of Muslim historiography the debate about the age of Aisha is ongoing.
Perhaps you could contribue your thoughts on the three years and one day that frequently mentioned in the religious writings of a certain semitic people.

Anonymous said..., the Quran we see today was written later too - during the reign of the 3rd Caliph, if I recall right.

Dave, the question is why do we allow Muslims in our society, not why do we allow them to do something in it.

S said...

""There are no earliest records outside the Koran itself.""

There would be if muslims didn't destroy everything. History was being written down way before the koran was spouted.