SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As the days go by our hard won freedoms and liberty are slowly being eroded. In Europe a crushing blow has been made to freedom of speech with a European Court of Human Rights upholding a conviction for saying that the person known as Muhammad ten centuries ago was technically a paedophile based on information in historical texts. The statement was made in reference to Muhammad's marriage to a six year old child name called Aisha. The court found that “Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society.”. In giving its ruling that "Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship" the court has additionally demonstrated a complete misunderstanding as to the religion involved which worships "Allah", a word meaning 'God', not 'Muhammad' who claimed to be a prophet of this god. Freedom of speech is dying.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:13PM (39 children)
Wait, so if it is a historical fact that an old man had sex with a girl less than 10 years old centuries ago today it can't be said in public that the person was a pedophile?
"The court stated that child marriages were not the same as paedophilia, and were not only a phenomenon of Islam"
But this isn't about the 'marriage'. It is about that fact supported by historical documents that he was a paedophile. He had sex with a girl less than ten years old.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:24PM (29 children)
It also say that Adam was 40 feet tall in the koran. Do you make fun of muslims for that too?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:43PM (11 children)
There was no 'making fun of muslims' in the GP.
Speaking of the koran the book itself states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22) so whatever is in it must be true!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:11PM (10 children)
You are missing the point by quite a distance. The idea is not to make fun of Muslims--the idea is akin to, following your example, it would be forbidden to say that someone recorded to have been 40 feet in height was noted to have been "tall".
The example in TFA is that it's forbidden to say that someone recorded to have diddled little girls was noted to be "a pedophile". That's what those words mean, respectively.
Observing that someone was recorded to have been something, whether it's "tall" or "thin" or "a pedophile" or "fat" or "rich" or "poor" or whatever they have been recorded to have been, is just that: observing that something was recorded. It's not "making fun" of anyone to notice things written, not by them, long ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:10PM (5 children)
The way I read it is that the case was about her to pull an emotional reaction (hate/disgust/violence against Muslims) from her audience by stating that Mohammed was some paedophile, not that she stated some fact (independent of true or false) or opinion.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:21PM (4 children)
A parallel with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three Abrahamic religions, would be to put down Abraham by talking about "that child killer Abraham and his incestuous family".
I can see how that might put someone off, and fair enough. But as a Christian I wouldn't take offense to the content (the tone perhaps), because:
So Abraham, and his family, are recorded to have engaged in behavior that would today perhaps be frowned upon; they were just humans. In the same way, the prophet (and recorded pedophile) Muhammad is what he is, a man as are the rest of us, but one who is considered to be a prophet of God by one of the world's major religions. Not everyone agrees, of course, but that doesn't change any of the relevant facts pro nor con.
The recent case in Pakistan about many Muslims wishing a woman to die merely because she disagrees with them, I would think, is more of a reason to point out possible problems with Islam as practiced today than Muhammed's personal habits long ago, but to each his or her own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM
Another Christian here. I wanted to also point out another wrinkle in even daring to discuss this with Muslims. (I have had at least one or two...ummm...awkward conversations about this.) In Islam, a prophet is considered to be morally far above all the rest of us benighted souls. To even question their actions is tantamount to blasphemy. Thus, to their point of view Mohamed is not "just a man", like the rest of us. As you say, this does not change the relevant facts, but it does indicate how difficult it is to discuss the issue with Muslims.
Yes. People are being persecuted merely for disagreeing with someone else's religion. This strikes me as being necessary for much more immediate attention today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:07PM (2 children)
Abraham's response to God was not "human" it was being a sheep.
A human response to the idea of murdering your own child because some disembodied voice tells you to would "Fuck off, you psycho".
Lot also was a monster. His behaviour was not something "that would today perhaps be frowned upon", it would have been an abomination in his time too.
God acted worse than both though. Imagine forcing a follower to think he had to murder his own child to prove his loyalty.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:04AM (1 child)
Yes, and apparently none of the Christians/Jews here want to censor you for speaking this way about important people in their religion.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:39PM
How would any Jews or Christians censor me on this site? They're welcome to debate the issue, but that doesn't sound like censorship.
They're also welcome to mod my comments, but that doesn't sound like censorship either.
Maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Thanks for not posting A/C by the way.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)
simply speaking an inconvenient truth is outlawed as hate speech, just as designed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:53AM (1 child)
Intent matters.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:15AM
Nope. Offensive speech should not be banned, even if the intent was to be offensive.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:56PM
That's what that word means today. Is the article stating that his acts at the time are being categorized using the current definition of a word? Was there a comparable word at the time, and did it mean the same thing as it does now? Also, is this the current legal, dictionary, or common (or even scientific) definition of the word?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:15PM (16 children)
I was not aware it said that. Yes, people should make fun of muslims for that.
It seems that the creators of South Park really shouldn't travel to Europe. They've lampooned Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, and others.
These are well-established historical facts:
1. Muhammed had sex with a young girl. That makes him a literal paedophile. He wrote in the Koran that Allah said he could do it, which rather means Allah condones paedophilia.
2. Ancient Greek men had sex with young boys. That makes them literal paedophiles. The boys were called catamites. It was a well-established institution called pederasty.
3. Ancient Israelites ethnically cleansed Canaan after the Exodus. It is recorded in Deuteronomy (Amorites, the Horims, others). They wrote that Yahweh told them to, which rather means Yahweh condones ethnic cleansing. This is in the Christian Bible also. The book of Genesis also reports that Lot impregnated his daughters.
There, I stated a handful of facts that impugn three major world religions and the culture considered the font of the Western tradition. Anyone can go and read the proof in their texts. Should Europe now imprison me, too, for the evidence those parties gave against themselves?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:36PM
Muhammad probably just saw that people he met had been getting shorter the last few generations (perhaps some nutritional issue?) and extrapolated back to the time of adam. This is the same procedure as used by climate science to predict the earth will suffer a runaway greenhouse effect like venus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:44PM (1 child)
There, I stated a handful of facts that impugn three major world religions and the culture considered the font of the Western tradition. Anyone can go and read the proof in their texts. Should Europe now imprison me, too, for the evidence those parties gave against themselves?
Only if you don't pay your EUR 4.00 / day fine.
I agree the motives of the person pointing out that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile are beyond suspect, and maybe they should be convicted of inciting hatred (or whatever), as motives do matter when considering speach (think "yelling fire in a theater" just to watch the people run, vs. "yelling fire in a theater" when the place is actually on fire), but the idea that one cannot point out that he was, factually and by the words of their own religious texts, a pedophile is a bit much to put it mildly. And I say that despising these right-wing groups and all they stand for ... exactly as much as I despise religion, and all it stands for (which is arguably the same thing, as the vast majority of religions are just other kinds of hate groups, by other names. "You're not chosen of God/Faithful/Righteous enough, we shall look down upon you (or worse if you way anything that points out our Emperor wears no clothes)").
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:32PM
That's not even remotely analogous. The argument people use in favor of punishing people for falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic is that it creates imminent danger to others because they can't evaluate the situation quickly enough. Talking badly about a certain group of people, regardless of one's intentions, does not usually result in imminent danger (keyword: imminent) to that group of people. Because of that, the intentions there are irrelevant. If we're going to ban any speech, the imminent lawlessness standard is better. Merely inciting hatred should not be illegal.
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:08PM
Did Muhammad really have any sex with people other than Khadija? After all, he had children only from her. Maybe he had fictive marriages with those other women for political reasons, or to provide refuge for them.. As far as gender equality is concerned he was a lot more forward thinking than most Arabs either in middle ages or nowadays.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:19PM (2 children)
The only item in that list that is a well-established historical fact (as opposed to just found in some religious text) is the one about the ancient Greek men.
No, you didn't. Two of your items don't state established facts, but religious myths that may or may not be based on actual facts. And for the one item that does state established facts: I'm not aware of any world religion that gives special religious significance to ancient Greek men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:02PM (1 child)
the pederasty "of the greeks" was pushed by socrates (or whichever one it was) within his school/cult and was only widespread in that school/cult. it was not appreciated by the rest of the population and was attacked and i think this Head Pederast was either exiled or killed or somethin'. acting like a high percentage of greek men were pederasts is just antiwhite propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:57AM
The parent post is just completely wrong. So inaccurate that only an islamophobic white supremacist could have written it. Stupid white people, and the horses they ride in on, if you get my drift.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)
Why do some guys name their junk?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:10PM
The same way your mama named you "my little boy", "my little plaything" etc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:29PM (3 children)
According to the quoted court statement above, the ruling upheld was against much more inflammatory speech than your fact based neutral presentation. IOW, its not what you're saying but how you say it.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:25PM (2 children)
So now we're convicting people based not on ideas or facts but on a turn of phrase? That's absurd and dangerous and anathema to a free society.
Honestly, if Muslims don't like people in free societies saying things about their religion that they don't like, they can either A) decide to not give a shit (like the rest of us do when others criticize our religions) or B) stay in their perfect Muslim societies where they're free to stone blasphemers to death or whatever capital punishment they mete out. They do not get to invite themselves to our free societies and then presume that their particular cows are more sacred than anyone else's.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:56AM (1 child)
May I suggest you thank your lucky stars that Donald Trump is your President then. Only Trump has the guts to call for a Muslim ban and call out this kind of pandering to the whims of what amounts to foreign guests. It's only the Democrats that pray at the alter of multiculturalism and seek to punish anyone who disagrees with their policies of self loathing, self destruction and rejection of free speech rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:01AM
Are you saying that your pedophile leader says it's alright to say that their prophet was a pedophile? Trump has no guts, he is just scared from watching Fox News, as are you, evidently. Berlusconi.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:13AM
t. Herodotus
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 14 2018, @04:20AM (1 child)
As long as it isn't Comic Sans...
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:43PM
font [merriam-webster.com]:
Though, these days I'd say the preferred font of the Western tradition is dingbats. I mean, obviously.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:33PM (6 children)
My understanding from the record is that he officially married her when she was 6, but that he didn't consummate the marriage until she started menstruating. Still pretty icky, since she was somewhere around age 10 at the time, but not quite as icky as banging a 6-year-old. Nobody else at the time seems to have thought this was unusual or out of line, and the wife in question actually made a big deal about all of this as proof that she was more legitimate than his other wives because she had definitely been a virgin before she was married.
It's also worth mentioning that however icky all of this is, child marriage is happening among American Christians today [theguardian.com]. This appears to be the result of a literal reading of Deuteronomy 22:28-9: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Of course, they don't actually pay the silver shekels, because that would be inconvenient, but I guess the inconvenience factor isn't enough to not force a child into a situation where the man who raped her once gets to do so as often as he likes. So it's not like Christians can legitimately claim the moral high ground on this one.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:16PM
Where did Christians come into this? There are atheists in the crowd here you know.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:31PM (1 child)
That is also appalling. I have never heard of that, but it is repugnant.
See, oh Muslims of the world? Someone pointed out that child marriage is happening among American Christians today, and we Christians can say yeah that's gross and still not jihad on anyone.
That is how it is done by civilized people in free societies. Chew, and digest.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:15AM
I don't think you have to tell them that: As much as you hate folks like ISIS, there are lots of Muslims that hate them far more, which is the reason they've fought them and are on their way to wiping ISIS off the map.
It is strange, though, how the US government has repeatedly fought on behalf of the Saudis when the Saudis are the government sponsoring more Islam-motivated terrorism than just about anyone else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:31AM (1 child)
So if "American Christians" do it, that makes child marriage ok? What exactly is the point of "but group X does it too" (particularly when group X doesn't actually do it)?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:47PM
Some guy once said something about not focusing on the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the plank in your own eye. Given that a lot of the anti-Muslim hate is coming from conservative Christians, them hating modern Muslims because Mohammed married a child 1400 years ago (as was apparently normal at the time), while at the same time making themselves out to be all holier-than-thou because they're doing the exact thing right now (which is definitely not normal), is more than a bit hypocritical.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:03AM
What ever happened to MikeUSA? Did he actually try the fifty shekels thing, and get shot dead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:42PM (1 child)
you miss the point (as did the author of the article).
The Austrian court argued that marriage (even consumated) to a minor, especially in said historical setting, is not the same as being a paedophile (That might not agree with your definition though). To put this modern moniker on a person living in that time was therefore incorrect, as he probably did not marry her because he wanted to have sex with minors. And there were many hints that she did this with the purpose on giving people a negative impression of the religion, and she did not provide evidence or background to her statements.
Now, I know many of you would prefer (or think they prefer) absolute free speech, but actually, I am very convinced we are in the minority in most countries. Europe had religious wars many centuries ago and it is no surprise they instated such laws to keep the peace. I think the law did its job her and the ruling was fair (even although I think the law is outdated).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:43PM
So, what they are saying is that back then people didn't know this was a bad thing to do in that society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Wasilah [wikipedia.org]
Tahrir al-Wasilah Exegesis of the Means of Salvation or Commentaries on the Liberation of the Intercession; Tahrir al-Vasileh) is a book by Ayatollah Khomeini as a commentary on a traditional theological text, and as a guide for Shia Muslims.