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.”
Apparently the factual statement by ES, that 54-year-old Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was nine years old, which can be found in the most authoritative collection of hadith, Sahih Bukhari, is considered by the court to be “an abusive attack.” The truth of the statement does not matter to the ECtHR. They are alarmed only by the reaction of Muslims. If Muslims in Austria feel that ES, merely by repeating the hadith report of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, has been guilty of “an abusive attack,” the ECtHR is not about to take issue.
Is the ECtHR correct to punish ES for making a true statement about Muhammad’s behavior that was “capable of stirring up [anti-Muslim] prejudices”? It would be more accurate to state that bringing Muhammad’s marriage to the attention of Infidels would not “stir up prejudices,” but would make them more justifiably anxious about Islam, and distressed about its central figure, Muhammad. “Prejudice” has nothing to do with it. Or is all criticism of Islam to be suppressed because it is “capable of stirring up prejudices”? If Europeans are told this indelicate truth about Muhammad’s behavior, if they are further told that, as the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, Muhammad’s own behavior justifies, and indeed promotes, similar behavior by Believers today, as it has for the past 1,400 years, the only question should be: is this story of his behavior false or is it true? And do Muslims regard Muhammad as the Model of Conduct? The European Court’s function is not to protect Islam, but to allow people to freely give their opinion about Islam, even if Muslims are angered, just as they would about any other religion.
Muhammad is reported as saying, again in a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, that “I have been made victorious through terror.” Does reporting that hadith “stir up prejudices” against Islam? Or does such reporting properly alert non-Muslims to the fact that terrorism by Muslims has received the sanction of Muhammad himself? Should we punish anyone who informs non-Muslims about this statement because it is “capable of stirring prejudices,” or should we instead be grateful for such truth-telling? What about the Qur’anic verses that command Believers to take part in violent Jihad, to “strike terror” in the hearts of Infidels, to kill them? Should we punish those Infidels who dare to quote such verses from the Qur’an as 2:191-193, 4:89, 8:12, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4? Should the European Court of Human Rights keep those verses from being discussed? Are they informing us, or are they only “stirring up prejudices” and engaging in an “abusive attack” on Muslims? On what theory should people who raise such matters be silenced? Should all speech that includes any discussion of Muhammad or the Qur’an that is at all critical, that might offend Muslims, be silenced? Isn’t the Court going down that road?
The European Court of Human Rights is supposed to enforce European standards for regulating freedom of speech. Europe is not yet part of Dar al-Islam. ES truthfully described Muhammad’s behavior with little Aisha, by quoting from an “authentic” hadith. Her speech was neither “abusive” nor “hate speech.” It was meant to inform.
It [the ECtHR] 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.
Religious beliefs must be subject to criticism and denial, the ECtHR observed, but when statements about religions went beyond critical denial and were likely to incite religious intolerance, states could take proportionate restrictive measures, the court said.
ES did indeed make a “value judgement” when she described as “pedophilia” the act of sexual intercourse forced on a nine-year-old girl by a 54-year-old man. And Muslims outraged about ES are making other, quite different “value judgements,” when they defend whatever Muhammad did only because it was Muhammad who did it. The ECtHR does not tell us the “untrue facts” — that is, falsehoods — in anything ES said. As for ES not having sufficient regard for the historical context, this is an attempt, as already noted above, to liken Muhammad’s behavior to the European child marriages entered into for dynastic purposes, where both parties were roughly of the same young age and “consummation” of the marriage was far in the future. Such marriages have nothing in common with what Muhammad did with little Aisha.
The ECtHR then declared that criticism of religion was permissible, except when it was “likely to incite religious intolerance.” So no one should be permitted to say things likely to make others “intolerant” of a faith that is misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, that executes apostates, stones adulterers to death, and commands Believers to “strike terror” in the hearts of the enemy, and to kill Unbelievers, until the whole world belongs to Islam, and non-Muslims are either put to death, or convert to Islam, or resign themselves to the wretched condition of dhimmis.
The European Court of Human Rights has performed a grave disservice in allowing the “indignation” of Muslims to limit the freedom of speech of islamocritics in the advanced West. We have a perfect right to know the contents of the Qur’an, and about Muhammad’s life as recorded in the hadith, and to make our own judgements, and freely speak our own minds about the texts and teachings of Islam and the morality of Muhammad’s acts. In Europe, he is not yet the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct. The sanitized version of Islam that the European Court of Human Rights now seems determined to promote, lest something be said that causes Muslims to become violent, will only contribute to the outrage, and sense of despair, among Europeans, as a devastating article in Le Figaro on the Court’s decision made clear. For many now see that the European Court of Human Rights, whose duty it is to protect their rights, is instead determined to keep the peace by surrendering their freedom of speech, to meet the demands of an implacable and relentless enemy.
nicu says
I can speak for germany , only : if you speak the truth about Islam and Muslims you might go to jail – at least you get banned from fuckbook for Hate Speech ! While lefties and Muslims even call for murder and rape – nobody cares about that .
Media may not report about Muslim crimes etc . — many East germans say it’s worse than GDR !
Peter Buckley says
You can now sign the petition to maintain free speech in Europe:
https://www.citizengo.org/en/node/37129
mortimer says
The court decided that STATES OF FACT are NOT A DEFENSE in law.
The court imposed the HECKLER’S VETO, which was defined by Justice D. Sloviter :
-“A heckler’s veto is an IMPERMISSIBLE content-based RESTRICTION on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an ANTICIPATED DISORDERLY or VIOLENT reaction of the audience.”
The court in so doing has RECOGNIZED THAT ISLAM USES VIGILANTISM, RIOTING and VIOLENT ASSASSINATION to enforce discriminatory Sharia law.
The court has recognized that ISLAM IS NOT A PEACEFUL RELIGION, but a society of violent vigilantes.
mortimer says
correction STATEMENTS OF FACT
eduardo odraude says
Great article from Hugh Fitzgerald.
Building “Counterjihad” Energy and Morale
Too much bad news and not enough good news causes people to start giving up.
Too much good news and not enough bad news makes people complacent.
I’d say that currently the balance at Jihad Watch is not optimal, leans too much toward the bad news.
Still, one must be very grateful for Jihad Watch. We should express thanks to Jihad Watch writers especially when they find a “good news” story in this struggle.
James Lincoln says
Eduardo,
I am certain that your post will be read by the Jihad Watch writers team.
First and foremost, I was not aware that you had once organized a massive mailing of one of Robert Spencer’s books to Congress. Much thanks!
I totally agree, at least a modicum of positive stories would be helpful for morale. I’m not sure that it would or should rise to 50% of content, but at least some positive stories would be helpful.
I have read Jihad Watch now for about three years. I read all of the feature articles and all of the comments. I started posting about four months ago after I felt that I could contribute somewhat intelligently.
Nearly 100% negativity can breed intense cynicism. Even Robert Spencer himself often uses sarcasm, my guess, just to cope.
Peter Buckley says
You can now sign the petition to maintain free speech in Europe:
https://www.citizengo.org/en/node/37129
Walter Sieruk says
This ECtHR ruling exposes the insidious growing power of Muslim influence in the West. This is known as the Stealth jihad otherwise called the Muslim method of Islamic Gradualism to enact Sharia law in America. In contrast to the way of the violent jihad or also called the militant jihad .This non-violent form of the jihad for Islam is a very sly, insidious, subtle and deceptive way of working for the advancement of Islam.
This Muslim scheme for achieving the goal of the Islamic agenda is as, many times, as subtly effective as it is demonically clever. Furthermore, this Islamic gradualism, in some ways, is very similar to the instruction printed in the book entitled THE ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu. Which reads “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you”
Walter Sieruk says
Such an awful and outlandish ECtHR declaration shows the sly and powerful subversive Muslim influence Sharia law set up in the nations of Europe engage in the doctrines of the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya which is very insidious. Taqyyia is the jihad dogma that deception is a good thing to do as long as it’s done for the advancement of Islam. Nevertheless, the God of the Bible “condemns those who devise wicked schemes…” Proverbs 12:11. [N.I.V.] Likewise, Proverbs 12:20 teaches “Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil.”
Walter Sieruk says
Please excuse my error I meant to post about the insidious Islamic gradualism “to enact Sharia law” in the nations of Europe not “America” in my first posting Nevertheless , those stealth jihadists as well as the violent jihadists still strive for the advancement of Islam , by hook or by crook, in both the whole of Europe and also North ,Central an South America They need to be stopped !
Crusades Were Right says
“European Court of Human Rights”…
…MY AUNT FANNY!
Michael Copeland says
“…statements …. likely to incite religious intolerance”, says the ECtHR, are what allow states to “take proportionate restrictive measures”.
How about this?
“I am telling you that my religion doesn’t tolerate other religion. It doesn’t tolerate”,
Abu Bakr, Algerian-born cleric, Australia.
That statement is likely to incite religious intolerance.
Michael Copeland says
This is bad law. The judges are incompetent. They make a status depend on an assessment of what is LIKELY – “LIKELY to incite religious intolerance”. Likelihood is a subjective judgment which varies from individual to individual, from judge to judge. Worse, it is a category which is everlastingly extendable.
Theresa May excluded Robert Spencer from the UK for “making statements which MAY foster hatred”. That also is an everlastingly extendable category. As it happens, she did not even quote the law correctly. The law penalises “statements which foster hatred”..
Anne Smith says
The vile Theresa May has engineered a so called Brexit leave plan and under its terms we shall still e bound by rulings of the ECHR. (Plus just about everything else we voted to leave behind)
This appalling woman has instigated hate speech laws which the Police are feasting on and is just about the most outstanding example of a dhimmi to be found in Britain.
Norger says
Yes, exactly. This is terrible law.
Kudos to Mr. Fitzgerald for a devastating critique of of an intellectually dishonest and cowardly legal decision.
Michael Copeland says
As has been observed before, what on earth is an “untrue fact”?
Michael Copeland says
Is this “likely to incite religious intolerance”?
“If anyone desire a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him”
Koran 48:29, part of Islamic law.
Crusades Were Right says
“You’re A Pain – Caught Yer Assuming Rights”
; ¬)
PRCS says
“when they defend whatever Muhammad did only because it was Muhammad who did it”
…when they defend whatever someone possibly named Muhammad–or not–(drawings and/or proof of existence unavailable) is believed to have done only because they believe–without supporting evidence–it was that very Muhammad who–they believe–did it…
Lory says
Does Europe Still Have Free Speech? NO.
Kay says
In my youth I heard from people who hadn’t had free speech. These were people who had escaped Iran at the takeover or who had lived in Communist China. It was then an unimaginable infringement. Certainly unimaginable to happen in Western Europe or North America.