Mohommad Was A Pedophile

A Black Day for Austria And Europe

Austrian Court Rules In Favor Of  Sick Pedophiles

But Against Freedom Of Speech

Europe Marches Towards The Kingdom Of The Anti-Christ

...By their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt. 8:16)

     Most Westerners believe that Islam is really a peaceful religion.  They think that a few Muslim radicals have given this religion a bad name. You need to study their book and see what they really believe. The history of Islam reveals the true nature of this brutal religion which blossomed from its hateful writings.  Islam is a religion of hatred towards those who do not think as they do.  Christianity, true Christianity (not Roman Catholicism [remember the Crusades and "trial by fires?"]), is a belief of love towards mankind in support of repentance and salvation in Jesus Christ, regardless of a person's beliefs. If a person is afraid of losing the religion that they have in their heart, because they associate with other people of different faiths, then they do not have the real thing.  Real faith in a person's heart is permanent no matter what the conditions.  You do not have to hate or kill an infidel to maintain and impart your faith.

A Black Day for Austria

Jan. 1, 2012

A Black Day for Austria

By Soeren Kern

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2702/sabaditsch-wolff-appeal

     An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties. Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media. Sabaditsch-Wolff's Kafkaesque legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party.

     A glossy socialist weekly magazine, NEWS -- all in capital letters -- planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the leftwing publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one multicultural judge and no jury, began November 23, 2010.

     On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded. Neubauer also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more -- the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being "public." In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.

     More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the show trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, 2011, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case. On January 18, after realizing that the original charge would not hold up, the judge -- not the prosecutor -- informed Sabaditsch-Wolff that in addition to the initial charge of hate speech, she was now being charged with "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group." Sabaditsch-Wolff's lawyer immediately demanded that the trial be postponed so that the defense could prepare a new strategy.

     When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of "incitement" because the court found that here statements were not made in a "provocative" manner. But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code. The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were "Mohammed had a thing for little girls.") The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

     The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($625) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial. Although at first glance the fine may appear trivial -- the fine was reduced to 120 "day rates" of €4 each because Sabaditsch-Wolff is a housewife with no income -- the actual fine would have been far higher if she had had income.

     Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) in Vienna, but that appeal was rejected on December 20. The court says she will go to prison if the fine is not paid within the next six months. She says she will take the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court for Human Rights. After the trial, Sabaditsch-Wolff said her conviction represented "a black day for Austria." The Vienna Federation of Academics (Wiener Akademikerbund) said the ruling represented "politically and sentimentally motivated justice" and marked "the end of freedom of expression in Austria."

     Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country's anti-free speech laws. In January 2009, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the "crime" of saying that "in today's system" the Mohammed would be considered a "child molester," referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of "incitement" for saying that Austria faces an "Islamic immigration tsunami." Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

Denigrating Religious Stupidity

Dec. 25, 2011

Denigrating religious stupidity

By Henrik R. Clausen

http://english.savefreespeech.org

     While I was working on a polite essay "What is ‘denigration,’ really?” events overtook the intended polite and analytical approach. At an Austrian court, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had her conviction for "Denigrating the teachings of a recognized religion" upheld. The court deemed that her uttering "an excess of opinion" about Muhammad having sex with minors, and that doing so was subject to a fine of 480 euros, alternatively 60 days in jail.

     Many of us consider freedom of expression is a fundamental right in itself. Expressions used in criminal ways, like committing fraud or inciting violence is indeed a matter for the courts, but a victimless crime where not even a single Muslim protested that his faith had been ‘denigrated,’ surely cannot be subject to legal action, fines or jail time. In a free society, that is. The difference comes when the State as such submits to Islam. In that case, the supposed ‘sanctity’ of Islamic teachings obtain protection by the Law, and due to the Islamic tradition that the life of Muhammad was a perfect example for all (male) Muslims, everything Muhammad did is to be considered holy and thus protected from criticism. That includes his having sex with minors.

     The implications of this are huge, for how are we to speak out against the tradition of child brides that still exist in many Islamic countries if we’re not even permitted to express any "excess of opinion," as defined by the Court? Would we have to run every possible criticism or sarcastic comment past the Court for approval before it is made public? What are people whose livelihood consists of satire and mockery – stand-up comedians, satire magazines – supposed to do if they come across the idea to mock religiously sanctioned sexual relationships with minors, or those who justify them? Also, according to the Courts of Austria, we are supposed to avoid the term ‘paedophilia’ when talking about old men having sex with prepubescent girls. For, according to the Court of Austria, ‘paedophilia’ denotes the urge to have sex with under age girls, not the actual act of doing so. Further, if these sexual relations continue until the girl reaches maturity, calling the relationship ‘paedophile’ is an excess of opinion that cannot be permitted. One wonders what Mr. Fritzl thinks of that decision....

     There exist other and freer countries than Austria, for instance Denmark. Here it is still permissible to express negative opinions about religious stupidity or evil, as long as that is not directed against some minority group or others. Convictions do happen, however, if an ”excess of opinion” is directed against minority groups, as happened for Lars Hedegaard and Jesper Langballe, when they made passing references to the high frequency of sexual assaults within Muslim families. But enough of the boring analysis, let’s get to what matters, namely denigrating some religious stupidity. Here’s a Top 10 of Islamic "religious teachings" that deserve nothing but scorn and mockery. Let’s start with some benign and obvious issues, then move on to more complex ones:

1. Islamic ‘science’:

      Bukhari:V4B54N430: Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘Regarding the matter of the creation of a human being: humans are put together in the womb of the mother in forty days. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period. He becomes a piece of flesh for forty days. It is (fortunately) well known today that a human pregnancy lasts roughly 9 months, not the 4 months that Muhammad teaches. This unqualified take on embryology is probably a poor paraphrase from the Greek doctor Galen. (Mohammad is a fake paedophile, if he was truly of God then he would have had true scientific knowledge since God created humans.)

2. Denial of free will:

     Bukhari:V4B54N430: Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things: the new creature’s deeds, livelihood, date of death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. He will do whatever is written for him. The claim that an angel arrives dictating the life essentials of the newborn is both unsubstantiated (no angel-sightings are on record for more than a millennium) and a mockery of other religious teachings, in particular what most religions teach that we have a free will and a choice of being good or evil. Islam explicitly denies humans that fundamental freedom.

3.Megalomania:

     BukhariV1B7N1331: The Prophet [Muhammad] said, ‘I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

 A. Allah made me victorious by awe by His terrorizing my enemies.

 B. The earth has been made for me.

 C. Booty has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

 D. I have been given the right of intercession.

 E. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

     Now, isn’t this the material that the best of mockeries are made from? The Grand Leader declaring that the Earth was made for him, that terrorism and theft is legal for him, that he has direct contact to the God(s), and is destined to rule everyone? Yet, mocking this ‘religious teaching’ constitutes a punishable offence under Austrian law.

4. Simple theft:

     Qur’an 48:19: He rewarded them with abundant spoils that they will capture. Allah has promised you much booty that you shall take, and He has made this easy for you.

      Qur’an 9:103: Take alms out of their property in order to cleanse and purify them, and invoke Allah for them; surely this is a relief for them.

     The only difference between this and some criminal ‘relieving’ others of their property is that scorn of this ‘religious teaching’ is punishable under Austrian law.

5. Terrorism:

     Qur’an:8:12: I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.

     Qur’an:8:57: If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.

      Ibn Ishaq:326: If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.

     Qur’an:8:67: It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.

     Now, given that Austria has been participating in the "War on Terror," shouldn’t it be natural to mock and ridicule incitements to killing and terrorism as "not very religious?" Try that in front of a court in Austria, for doing so would surely constitute an "excess of opinion."

6. Confusion:

 Qur’an 37:6: We have decked the lower heaven with stars to protect them against all rebellious evil spirit, and provide security from every forward devil. So they cannot listen to the highest chiefs for they are pelted from every side, repulsed; they are under a perpetual torment, being driven off. Except such as they snatch away something by stealth, but then they are pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness. This rather nonsensical explanation of the purpose of stars is another ‘religious teaching’ protected by the Law in Austria. Calling it "utterly foolish" would probably constitute yet another "excess of opinion," when a cooler and more factual "science has obliterated this fake superstition for good” would do. Or was it the other way round?

7. Moderate Muslims:

 Qur’an 4:77:  Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: "Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?" Any decent peace activist should roll over laughing if told that this ‘religious teaching’ is protected by Austrian law against mockery and "excessive negative opinions." Austrians are permitted to state that war is compulsory in Islam, but suggesting that this implies that the idea of the ‘Moderate Muslim’ has been a lie and a fabrication from the time of Muhammed would probably fall on the wrong side of the fence, at least in Austria.

8. Fanaticism:

     Bukhari V4B52N46: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, "Allah guarantees that He will admit the Muslim fighter into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and booty." Calling Islam a "Fanatics creed" in Austria surely would invoke the "excess of opinion" problem.

9. Anti-Jewish agitation:

     Quran 33:26: Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.

     Quran 59:14: The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell. Not only is this openly racist, it is also terrorist, as well as inciting to theft and violence. Passages like these make a mockery of religion as such, yet are protected under Austrian Law.

10. Girls and women:

     Aisha, the child bride of Muhammad, explains: Tabari IX:131: My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Since Muhammad continued his sexual exploits of Aisha until she was 18, the court of Austria ruled that this cannot legally be termed ‘paedophilia’, since that would constitute a "denigration of a legally recognized religion."

     Ishaq:311: The Apostle saw Ummu’l when she was a baby crawling before his feet and said, "If she grows up, I will marry her." But he died before he was able to do so.

     This is so sick that adding further mockery seems pointless. Yet this is supposed to be ‘religious.’ Yet, it’s worth understanding the logic of the Court here: The key reason that the original verdict was upheld is that the court objected to her having said: "Muhammad had a thing with children," Elisabeth restraining her expression trying to keep within the bounds of the Law. That failed, for the use of plural was found unjustified by the Court. Yet, as shown here, the plural was justified, only death prevented another child marriage from taking place. In a truly free country, however, it would still be legal to make the trivial mistake of using a plural form, then accepting the correction to singular without incurring the wrath of the Court.

     Tabari IX:126: The Messenger of Allah married fifteen women. He combined eleven at a time and left behind nine.

     Tabari IX:139:  Layla approached the Prophet while his back was to the sun and clapped him on his shoulder. He asked her who it was and she replied, ‘I am the daughter of one who competes with the wind. I am Layla. I have come to offer myself to you.’ He replied, ‘I accept.’” [Layla shared her story with her parents.] “They said, ‘What a bad thing you have done! You are a self-respecting girl, but the Prophet is a womanizer.’”

     Again we see the Court unaware of Islamic scripture when reprimanding Elisabeth for mentioning that Muhammad "had a relatively high consumption of women," for that also can be found in the Islamic scripture. That the court objects to an obvious understatement of the facts is a mockery of justice.

The Little Green Book

Islam's Terrorist Dogma

In Muhammad's Own Words

Prophet of Doom

http://prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book.Islam

     The Little Green Book is a collection of fatawah handed down by the most prominent and arguably one of the most influential Muslim clerics in modern history; the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini, commonly known as the Ayatollah Khomeini. Fatawah (the plural of fatwah) are Islamic religious decrees sent down by Muslim religious leaders. Since Islam demands that Muslims abide by Sharia - Islamic law as individuals and as a society, these fatawah are not simply religious insights or advice. They are legal pronouncements, and define the law of the land in an Islamic country. In his unrivaled role as Iran's Supreme Leader and the highest-ranking cleric for Shi'a Muslims, the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatawah guided the lives of more Shi'a Muslims than did any other Islamic leader throughout history.

     It would have been damning to Islam if these inane, absurd, and depraved rantings had come from any Muslim, since they would serve as an example of how Islam corrupts a person's mind. Beyond that however, anyone who takes the time to analyze Islam's scriptures and what is recorded in Islam about Muhammad, the man whose life sets the standard to which Muslims are to strive, will see that the Ayatollah Khomeini was not off-base in his Islamic jurisprudence.

     This version of The Little Green Book, is a translation done by Harold Salemson, whose source was a French translation of the Ayatollah's fatawah compiled by a Persian named Jean-Marie Xaviere. The book is broken up into two volumes. The first volume deals with governing issues, and is so chock full of amazing quotes, we had to give up on trying to highlight the best ones. The second volume focuses on lifestyle guidelines, and tends to be a bit mundane. However, some of the more astoundingly reprehensible whoppers are in this section. Additionally, the emphasis placed on defining even the most miniscule details for a Muslim to follow serve as a tremendous example of how Islam thrives on replacing every last iota of independent thought with mindless servitude. Of course, this should not come as a surprise to anyone, since the religion's name literally means “Submission” (Islam), and its followers refer to themselves as "those who submit" (Muslims).

     The Little Green Book is a quick read. Additionally, much of it is so absurd, it's quite entertaining. That is, until you realize that this isn't a joke and you remember that billions of people are affected by these fatawah and thousands more like them from multitudes of other Islamic leaders. Below is a sample:

II. 19

On Marriage, Adultery, and Conjugal Relations