Monday, February 21, 2011

The Example of Mohammed

Elisabeth's Voice banner 3

The day after Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court, a reader wrote a letter to the editor of the print edition of Die Presse about the travesty of justice that took place last Tuesday in that Vienna courtroom.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Letter to the editor
Islam seminar: Lecturer convicted

According to the mind-boggling logic of the “judge”, ‘the factually completely unjustified charge of pedophilia’ was made against the founder of the religion and therewith ‘an absolutely dishonorable behavior’ confronted, which was calculated to denigrate him in the eyes of the public.” For, according to the judge, pedophilia is exclusively directed against children, which was known not to be the case with Mohammed. Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff never maintained this to be the case. Indeed, the charge against her mentions not only sex with children but the relatively high “wear-out rate” of wives.

On this subject, the following points:

  • Not just pedophilia but every child abuse — whether pedophiliac or not — is “absolutely dishonorable behavior” and a crime! And by today’s standards, Mohammed was doubtless guilty of child abuse: According to Islam’s basic texts, at age fifty, he married a six-year-old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

    Aside from that, pedophilia is interchangeable with child abuse in everyday speech. Thus, for instance, the demand for removal of the celibacy requirement in the Church is made repeatedly in connection with pedophilia — as presently in the memorandum of German theology professors.

  • Far worse is the fact that Islamic legal scholars to this day invoke his example as well as the Koran (which regulates the divorce/repudiation of pre-pubescent girls) to justify child marriages with considerably older men and consequently child abuse. This is true from Morocco to Indonesia and even includes the “moderate” and largest Muslim organizations in the lands. In several Islamic countries, there is not even a legal minimum marriageable age. Even where there is one, there are child marriages, and in no small number: In Turkey alone there are said to be hundreds of thousands.

  • Pedophilia, as the judge defines it, can be “legally” pursued. Indeed, a Muslim can divest himself of his wife at any time without grounds and take another or several others. Besides, Islam under the Sunnis also recognizes the ever more popular temporary marriage. Islamic law — based on the Koran as well as on the deeds and sayings of Mohammed — not only sets no limits on child abuse; it approves it.

What was pronounced here was not justice but injustice. A hair-splitting, tortuous maneuvering is being performed, for the sole purpose of avoiding annoyance to the adherents of a “religion” which, in its own area of dominance legitimizes precisely what it denounces with vehemence and outrage as defamation in the West.

It is not the colloquial and “slipshod” use of the term pedophilia that is apt to demean Mohammed in the eyes of the public, but his own deeds and example!

Had the court’s decision had anything to do with justice and the defense of civilized standards, then — faced with the dire effect of his example up to now — it could not protect him from denigration. Quite the contrary!

— Dr. Maria Stückler

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


Melvin Muskrat said...

That's kind of the crux of the matter isn't it. Who really knows at what age Aisha was when her marriage with Mohamed was consummated? If Muslims believe it was at six, or more popularly nine years, its more than OK for them to emulate that sexual behavior. To follow the ways of the Profit in all his ways is to please Allah and to be a good Muslim. Of course this goes for all Mohammed's activities. Lost in space, lost in time.

Blogger said...

Apart from Muhammad's many other evil deeds, I find the story where he stones to death an obviously depressed single mother. She approached Muhammad when she was pregnant, confessing her sin and requesting punishment. He told her to come back after she had the baby. She returned while breastfeeding, so Muhammad told her to return after the baby was weaned. She returned and Muhammad ordered that the child be taken away from her, a hole was dug and she was stoned to death.

1. She was obviously depressed and sought a "legitimate" means to suicide.
2. She was no doubt ostracised by her community.
3. She obviously felt incapable or worthy of being a mother.
4. The child was orphaned, probably crying its mother for weeks.

How can all that be from God?!

Imagine if Muhammad had "really" been a prophet? How different it would have all looked. He might have had her acknowledged and treated/supported for depression. He could have found the man responsible and made him either marry her or pay her maintenance. He might have spoken out against ostracism of vulnerable people.

Hesperado said...

Melvin Muskrat,

You're right about everything you wrote; but one thing is not quite precise enough:

"Who really knows at what age Aisha was when her marriage with Mohamed was consummated? If Muslims believe it was at six, or more popularly nine years..."

First, it's not "more popularly" thought to be nine when Mohammed first sexually copulated with little Aisha -- it is attested in the most authoritative hadiths of all, those of Sahih Bukhari. Saying it's "more popular" implies that Muslims are just having different opinions about this, some more popular, some less; and, as you then infer, who's to tell what's the truth? But there is no argument in Islam about some things: if it's in Bukhari, it's authoritative.

And here is what we find in Bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

...he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

...the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Also, there are other Hadiths, in Bukhari and in the other authorative collectors (Dawud, Muslim) fleshing out Mohammed's sexual perversity vis-a-vis Aisha; as for example, these five consecutive hadiths, again in Bukhari:

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

Narrated 'Aisha:

[as above (229)]

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.


The hadiths are the main building blocks of Islamic law and as such are at the very center of the Sunna. One Muslim professor of law (and the EU Jean Monnet Chair in European Law) Chibli Mallat said this about the relative influence and value of the Koran ("the Book") and the Sunna in Islam:

“...none [of the 4 schools] would disagree with the statement attributed to the Syrian jurist Awza’i (died 774 a.d.) that the Book is in greater need of the sunnah than sunnah is of the Book.”

-- from “Islamic to Middle Eastern Law a Restatement of the Field (Part I)”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), p. 724.

Gary said...

@blogger Muhammad joined a group of monkeys and stoned a she monkey because she had committed illicit sex. Incredible but true according to Islamic sources. It is in Bukhari.
`Amr b. Maymûn – a Companion – in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3849):
I had seen in the days of ignorance before Islam, some monkeys who surrounded a she-monkey who had committed unlawful sexual intercourse and they stoned it, so I stoned it along with them.

Anonymous said...

You say, "Po-ta-to," and I say, "Po-tah-to." You say, "Denigration of Religion," and I say, "Denigration of Children."

The specifics about Aisha's forced child marital "consummation" are great.

It is also important to realize that a myriad of other types of "sexual relations" may have occurred between Mohammed and Aisha well BEFORE the age of her forced child marriage at the age of six years old or forced child rape/consummation at the age of nine years old.

After all, Supreme Leader Khomeini used his interpretation of Sharia Law to decree that all children from the age of infancy are fair game for dare-we-say (!) Islamic pedophiles.

Anonymous said...

Islam Watch: Sexual Perversion in Islam


"Let me begin with a quote from a fatwa by the late and unlamented Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran."

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

"You need not fear that your Muslim male baby-sitter will rape your 7-year-old daughter. If he is a good Muslim, he will only sodomize her. If he does force his penis into her tiny vagina he is obligated to pay for any surgical repairs that may be required. If those repairs are deemed insufficient you may work out a financial settlement to compensate you for his trivial infraction. No big deal. Muslim boys will be Muslim boys. And, after all, she is only a girl."

"Other forms of sexual abuse inflicted on children by Muslim male family members include fondling of genitals, coercing a child to fondle the abuser's genitals, masturbation with the child as either participant or observer, oral sex, anal or vaginal penetration by penis, finger or any other object. Another technique used by Muslim men is called "thighing". The child's legs are pressed together and the abuser inserts his penis between the thighs of the little boy or girl. As this was how Mohammed had sex with his wife, Aisha, from the time she was six years old the practice, of course, was approved of by Ayatollah Khomeini who in his Little Green Book asserted “It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.” Yes, indeed, you can be a good Muslim while copulating with the thighs of an infant. An Arab woman vigorously denounces this vile practice in the following video clip from Bahrain TV. Her denunciation of the "thighing" of infants and young girls comes towards the end of the interview."

Zenster said...

Egghead, I just wanted to express appreciation for your tireless campaign to expose Islam's endemic child abuse and the incredible level of hypocrisy that accompanies its warped stance on homosexuality.

The way that Muslim children are, literally, twisted in the cradle and fed hatred in their mother's milk is incomprehensible to Western minds. Even with a thorough knowledge of it there is still an inability to fully understand the depth to which these forms of abuse deform mind and body alike.

As always, FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) stands as the primary example of just how exceptionally evil Islamic views of human sexuality are.

The notion that Islam wants to inflict such permanent, protracted and heinous abuse upon over half of this world's population and do so on a 24/7/365¼ basis is, all by itself, sufficient reason to see this barbarous theocratic tyranny dismantled for all time.

Again, please keep up the good work. Some of us may find it repetitive or tiresome but each new mind you bring into awarenss of this abomination more than makes up for it. As a woman, especially, you have every right to beat this deceased equine into utter oblivion.

Kevin Stroup said...

Why are we debating fine points of Muslim ideology? Did we do this with the Nazis? NO! We destroyed them, which is what we need to be doing to the Muslims, another group of fascist pigs.

joe six-pack said...

This goes along with the entire Islamic idea of that 'special' place that Islam has for women. You know, like the idea that because Islam allows for no other sexual outlet, a man can take his wife against her will. We call this rape. Another term that Muslims appear to disagree with us about.
And if he beats her, he can't leave any visable marks. No wonder they want to cover all the women in burkas. This way, no marks are visable. They do think of everything.

I have studied warfare for more than 40 years. I have never studied a conflict that had anywhere near as many GOOD reasons to wage war for and against. This war is far from being over. And I just can't see how the conflict can be contained to be just a small, regional one.

Henrik Ræder said...

Why are we debating fine points of Muslim ideology?

In order to discredit the ideology, so we can easily stand together and take whatever next steps are needed.

Had other Brits than Churchill done so in the early 1930's, we probably would not have needed to go to war over the problem in Germany.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Zenster! I enjoy conversing with you online. :)

Hesperado said...

Henrik Raeder,

"Had other Brits than Churchill done so in the early 1930's, we probably would not have needed to go to war over the problem in Germany."

This is a gem -- but not a felicitous one. It exquisitely captures precisely the wrongheaded approach that contributed to the appeasement atmosphere at the time. I can clarify what I mean by reversing Henrik's formula: Had Europe and Britain been more ideologically clear and perceptive of Hitler, they would have gone to war sooner against him, proactively, to stop him. Why? Because with people like Hitler, as with Muslims, there is no negotiation, no diplomacy. You have to stop them before they try to kill you because they are mass-murderous fanatics.

Had we proactively attacked Hitler, we would have saved millions of lives that were killed, starved, died of disease, and were horribly displaced and whose lives were ruined. And we would have killed far fewer Germans in the end. Ditto for Japan.