Muhammad’s favorite wife was six-year-old Aisha. That is the very definition of pedophilia. The European Court of Human Rights is anti-human and is nothing more than a sharia court.
Raymond Ibrahim at Jihad Watch:
Consider, for example, this Muslim cleric discussing Muhammad’s marriage to the child Aisha when she was nine. Far from blushing for shame, the cleric actually uses this anecdote to boast of the prophet’s “patience” and “magnanimity.” Translation of relevant excerpt follows:
The story of the prophet’s marriage to Aisha reveals to us aspects like the prophet’s conduct with Aisha, and more importantly the aspect regarding the relationship between the husband and wife, to show how one should treat his wife, just as the prophet did with Aisha.
We know that Asia’s mother went to take her down from the swing that she was playing on to fix her hair and prepare her for the prophet so he could enter her [have sex with her]–and she did that all on the same day.
Aisha’s own account in Sahih Bukhari is telling enough: she talks about how her mother hurriedly prepared her and then “handed” her over to Muhammad, and how “nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.”
The cleric continues:
So you see, she was playing with her fellow playmates even though her day of consummation was that very same day–and all that they did was to fix her up for the prophet so he could have sex with her.
Now what do we see when the prophet married Aisha? Did he go to her and say “Okay that’s it, you’re married, you’re now a grown up, you’re supposed to be mature, you need to do this and that; you need to forget about your toys and your little friends; you are now a wife of a man, you have to see to my needs” and that’s it?
No. The prophet allowed her to continue playing with her toy dolls–indeed, the prophet even sometimes gave her such things to play with. [This hadith has more details, including how Aisha’s little girl friends would “hide themselves” whenever the prophet came to her until he called them out.]
It should be noted that the cleric recounted the above with much awe and amazement–as if to say, “Look how indulgent and open-minded our prophet was!”
In fact, such was the cleric’s whole point: to show that Islam, according to the example of Muhammad, expects older Muslim husbands to be patient with their younger wives: “The older husband should not expect the younger wife to be at his level of maturity; rather, he should go down to her level, for he is capable, whereas she is not.”
As “gentlemanly” as this ostensibly sounds, it is yet another example of how Muslim scholars deal with Muhammad’s lifestyle: because they cannot condemn or ignore his practices, they inevitably go to great lengths to rationalize or justify them–to find the good in every situation their prophet was involved in, while being oblivious to all the bad.
Thus here we have a cleric straining to find a positive aspect to Muhammad’s pedophilia–that he was patient and indulgent of his child-bride–while ignoring the heart of it: that the man Islam is built around desired to have sex with a child in the first place.
Islamic law is now European law. One must not insult the prophet Muhammad.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 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 decision by a seven-judge panel came as an Austrian national identified as E.S. 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 Strasbourg-based ECtHR said that the woman’s comments could not be covered by the freedom of expression.
The court said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her 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.”
Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email firstname.lastname@example.org
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.