ESW Frontpagemag


Photo credit: Aeneas

Editor’s note: The following is the third installment of a series of articles following activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s battle against her own government, as they proceed to prosecute her for disseminating the truth about Islam. Click the following to read Part I and Part II.

When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close.

Judge: The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest — you are allowed to be critical — but not incitement of hatred

[judge states the permitted utterances]

The language used in the seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable.

“Pedophilia” is factually incorrect, since pedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. This does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18.

The verdict:

On the count of “incitement to hatred”: Not guilty.

On the count of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: Guilty.

The defendant was sentenced to pay a €480 fine.

Judge: Did you understand the sentence?

[discontent in court]

The judge second-guessed the Qur’an, noting that Aisha was 18 years old when Muhammad died, which is factual, based on the hadith. The fact that he did not divorce her after she reached her majority proved that Muhammad had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to somewhat older females. Therefore he was not a pedophile.

More here at FrontPageMag

4 Responses

  1. I do not know the law there, but under US law, the age of the child when the act occurred determines pedophilia. So, in the US, Mohammed was a pedophile and there is no sugarcoating or massaging of the evidence to make it otherwise. All those Catholic priest cases and other cases were reported by the children when they became adults. There was no getting around it and no excuses. I hope she takes the case as far as she can. I don’t wish to see her jailed, but it would serve to publicize the issue.

    She can come to the US and say it.

  2. And islam needs to be legally challenged as a “legally recognised religion”. It is a death cult and opposite to the great religions. It tells followers to commit crimes. It should be legally challenged(assuming it has in fact been legally recognised).

  3. I agree with you Joy52. It would probably cost a fortune but it has to be done.
    Any lawyer can help? Where could we send our demand? Who to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.