ECHR rules that defamation of Mohammed doesn't count as free expression

[Hotwired]

But that isn't what is being insisted upon. I don't think that this narrow definition of paedophilia matters too much, she didn't specify that she meant some strict psychological definition simply asked what we'd call him today.

Here is a British Barrister who thinks the ruling is dreadful, he certainly isn't hung up on the fact she's technically got the labelling of "paedophile" wrong in a strict sense of the word:

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/matthew-scott-ecthr-blasphemy-law-judgment-is-dreadful

I don't believe the point is worth being hung up on. The court made the decision on that point exactly as they had to.

Forum members were happily saying the ruling was justification for child sexual abuse. Which is incorrect at best.

Carry on if you want to open a new point.

 

[dowie]

Well I guess we can agree to disagree then, hopefully she appeals it and the silly decision is reversed.

 

[enkoda]

No it isn't. The Quran itself states that you must believe in Jesus and Moses just as much as Abraham or Mo.




Isn't that quote basically saying abe, ish, isaac jacob, mo, jesus et al. are ALL sons of god???


Not that I even care because its all BS but facts are facts.

You're kidding me, right? Muslims believe Jesus is the son of God, that he is God incarnate?

Standard wiki cut'n'paste job incoming in 3...2...1...

In Islam, Jesus is believed to have been the precursor to Muhammad, attributing the name Ahmad to someone who would follow him. Islam rejects the divinity of Jesus and teaches that Jesus was not God incarnate, nor the Son of God, and—according to some interpretations of the Quran—the crucifixion, death and resurrection is not believed to have occurred, and rather that God saved him.

I'm afraid the quote doesn't say to me what you think it says to you.

 

[asim18]

You're kidding me, right? Muslims believe Jesus is the son of God, that he is God incarnate?

Standard wiki cut'n'paste job incoming in 3...2...1...


I'm afraid the quote doesn't say to me what you think it says to you.

Yes muslims believe Jesus is the son of god, figuratively, as in one of the prophets (thats what they "should" according to the quran"

If you wanted to take "son of god" literally then you might as well say god beemed down himself in the middle of the night and actually gave Mary a real bone.

I'm thinking "son of god" is figurative the whole time, like in fairy-tales, not literally as in literal son of god where gods junk went inside mary and he fathered a child with her or something. If you're going to take fairytales literally then might as well take everything literally.

 

[D.P.]

They used a rather narrow definition. She's perfectly correct to point out that we'd call someone a paedophile today if they did what he did.

Daily Mail mouth frothers might, but that doesn't make it correct.


But the real point is true Pedophilia was illegal in the prophet's time punishable by death, so it is unlikely he consummated his marriage until post-puberty, as was the norm, and therefore incredibly unliekly to be a pedophile. Let alone the exact ages are not exactly known, there is a some debate if she was actually between 16 and 18 when the marriage was consummated.

 

[dowie]

Daily Mail mouth frothers might, but that doesn't make it correct.

The general population would and that is why she was correct IMO. Regardless of whether she was technically correct or not it was still a terrible ruining.

But the real point is true Pedophilia was illegal in the prophet's time punishable by death, so it is unlikely he consummated his marriage until post-puberty, as was the norm, and therefore incredibly unliekly to be a pedophile. Let alone the exact ages are not exactly known, there is a some debate if she was actually between 16 and 18 when the marriage was consummated.

I wouldn’t say that’s the real point at all.

 

[RaohNS]

Isn't that quote basically saying abe, ish, isaac jacob, mo, jesus et al. are ALL sons of god???

The Koran doesn't say any such thing.

Not that I even care because its all BS but facts are facts.

Yes facts like the Sons of God eh? Looool

 

[enkoda]

Yes muslims believe Jesus is the son of god, figuratively, as in one of the prophets (thats what they "should" according to the quran"

If you wanted to take "son of god" literally then you might as well say god beemed down himself in the middle of the night and actually gave Mary a real bone.

I'm thinking "son of god" is figurative the whole time, like in fairy-tales, not literally as in literal son of god where gods junk went inside mary and he fathered a child with her or something. If you're going to take fairytales literally then might as well take everything literally.

Literally, dear chap, literally.

I've "literally" lol'ed at "gods junk"!!

 

[asim18]

The quote says that there is to be made no distinction between mo and jesus. That doesn't mean mo AND jesus are the same.

The Koran doesn't say any such thing.



Yes facts like the Sons of God eh? Looool

Have you ever read a fictional book?

If I talk about facts in fictional books they are still facts within the fictional book's realm. Did you ever analyse fictional materials at school? Just because they contain fantastical themes doesn't mean things cannot be said to be factual within the realms of that particular piece of fiction.

If I say it's a fact that Harry potter used to wear broken glasses, you're just going to say that can't be a fact?

And the Qur'an does say that.

If Jesus was the son of God and then someone says mo, jesus, Abe, ish, et al are not to be distinguished from one another one can assume that what is being said is that they are the same type of being.

 

[enkoda]

The quote says that there is to be made no distinction between mo and jesus. That doesn't mean mo AND jesus are the same.

Have you ever read a fictional book?

If I talk about facts in fictional books they are still facts within the fictional book's realm. Did you ever analyse fictional materials at school? Just because they contain fantastical themes doesn't mean things cannot be said to be factual within the realms of that particular piece of fiction.

If I say it's a fact that Harry potter used to wear broken glasses, you're just going to say that can't be a fact?

And the Qur'an does say that.

If Jesus was the son of God and then someone says mo, jesus, Abe, ish, et al are not to be distinguished from one another one can assume that what is being said is that they are the same type of being.

Are you quite sure the Quran says Harry Potter wore broken glasses....?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)
The Bible says Jesus is God incarnate, the Quran says he isn't.
Neither book passes even the most basic level of scrutiny so they can both be filed under 'fiction' regardless of any "facts" in them.

 

[RaohNS]

And the Qur'an does say that.

If Jesus was the son of God etc.

Where in the Koran does it say Jeebs was the son of god. From what I remember reading it said words to the effect of him preaching about loving God, not him.

And as for reading I read a lot of sci-fi and a lot of NF. Generally a book a week, sometimes more for heavier books.

 

[DreadNiK]

 

[Caracus2k]

And for a little perspective as to why the west and even 'Murica under Trump are just plain better then large swathes of the rest of the world we can always look to the news for assistance....

Like this example mass protests demanding a minority female be put to death after an argument over her being deemed 'unclean' to drink from the same vessels as the regions dominant religious group where there were *allegedly* some mutual insults made about the two parties respective religions.

Asia Bibi: anti-blasphemy protests spread across Pakistan
Anti-blasphemy campaigners bring country to standstill in protest over acquittal of Bibi

Thousands of Islamist protesters have brought Pakistan to a standstill, burning rickshaws, cars and lorries to protest against the acquittal of a Christian womanwho spent eight years on death row on false charges of blasphemy.

Don't roll over and allow you ability to criticise and indeed ridicule any religion be curtailed by religious fundamentalists of even worse the useful idiots who think (other people) believing in supernatural things means you get to be protected by the law against hearing things that you don't like about said beliefs and worse (but strangely only for certain supernatural beliefs) get to cry racism when it's pointed out that your beliefs might just be morally inferior to other (potentially non supernatural) systems

 

[Destination]

It would appear the information minister on TV stated that you have to give a little when you take a little.
In this case in Pakistan, the 'taking' was upholding their actual law statutes, as their supreme court held them.
The 'giving' may involving trapping the woman in the country as a result, with people who will kill her to do the work of what they claim to be their God.

Pakistan means land of the pure.
Yup.
Does.

 

[enkoda]

Don't roll over and allow you ability to criticise and indeed ridicule any religion be curtailed by religious fundamentalists of even worse the useful idiots who think (other people) believing in supernatural things means you get to be protected by the law against hearing things that you don't like about said beliefs and worse (but strangely only for certain supernatural beliefs) get to cry racism when it's pointed out that your beliefs might just be morally inferior to other (potentially non supernatural) systems

Completely agree.
If they believe their God is the source of morality, then their holy book can literally deceive its followers into committing any evil act because God has condoned it - and if God condones it then it can't be immoral (not just Islam).

How about this video - it would be hilarious if it wasn't so disturbing:

Skipping to about 3:25 when the main speaker asks how many in the audience are normal Muslims (i.e. not radicals or extremists) the vast majority raise their hand (a tad worrying that some don't....).
Later on (around 4:08) he also asks whether the death penalty for things like adultery, as prescribed in the Quran by God and his messenger, is the best punishment possible and that it should be applied in this world - almost everyone raises their hand.

Is it any wonder Islam sometimes gives itself a bad name when extremist views are deemed normal?

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

 

[h4rm0ny]

Everyone should read the ruling before commenting.

Having read most of that now, I'm almost too angry to finish it: " The domestic courts made a distinction between child marriages and paedophilia. In their opinion, by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha..." Primary sexual interest? There shouldn't be ANY sexual interest in a six year old girl. Their attempts to separate out child marriage as better infuriates me having been a long-term campaigner trying to prevent this abuse which is still commonplace in much of the world. Are they trying to pretend he had no sexual interest in her nor tried to consummate the marriage? Islam's sacred texts rather undermine both of those. And unlike the Bible which has gone through many versions, many languages and was compiled loosely from various accounts around two-thousand years ago, the relevant parts of the Koran and Hadith were written in fairly modern Arabic in the midst of a thriving and expanding empire and it was regarded as blasphemy to alter a single word. When it talks about Mohammed 'consummating his relationship with the girl', i.e. child rape, that's pretty damn strong evidence he did. Which is why it's even further angering me when the ruling talks about how the defendent failed to offer proof. Muslims BELIEVE he did. They're all but required to yet this court thinks to fine the speaker because they hadn't proved the case and it was "subjective"!

It also angers me how often they go on about the venue being "Right Wing" or her being "Right Wing". Markers to immediately demonise her and make it okay with some people that she's fined. Because, you know - Right Wing means throw out neutrality, they're the bad guys.

It further disgusts me that part of their judgement is that the speaker didn't "explain the historical context". That's as good as saying "it was okay back then". No, it wasn't. Rape of a child never has been okay no matter what society you come from. Cultural relativism is ****. Some things are WRONG. Also, as the religion of Islam holds Mohammed up as being the perfect man to be emulated, it's very relevant indeed if you're not allowed to criticise what he did.

The truth of the ruling is contained in one single line:

"As the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country."

This is what it really comes down to. They fined her to signal they were on the side of those they thought might get violent in response to her words and try to pacify them.

I say pacify. Placate would probably be the better term.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Skipping to about 3:25 when the main speaker asks how many in the audience are normal Muslims (i.e. not radicals or extremists) the vast majority raise their hand (a tad worrying that some don't....).
Later on (around 4:08) he also asks whether the death penalty for things like adultery, as prescribed in the Quran by God and his messenger, is the best punishment possible and that it should be applied in this world - almost everyone raises their hand.

A girl I worked with who was muslim once told me one afternoon in the office, that gay people were an abomination and they should be executed. She was born and raised in Britain so far as I know though I don't recall from whereabouts. Somewhere in the Midlands, I believe.

If she hadn't been a Muslim, I wouldn't have been surprised if she'd been fired for that comment. The thing is most Muslims don't need to be radicals who go out and commit violence. When they have sufficient numbers, all they have to do is vote. A majority is not required. Just enough to sway the law on things like homosexuality, freedom of speech, blasphemy laws, divorce, etc.

 

[Commers]

When they have sufficient numbers, all they have to do is vote. A majority is not required. Just enough to sway the law on things like homosexuality, freedom of speech, blasphemy laws, divorce, etc.

Muslims aren't a homogenous block vote. Plus it's why liberal democracies like the UK have adopted laws such as the Human Rights Act, so that the rights of individuals cannot be just voted away by a majority.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Muslims aren't a homogenous block vote.

Muslims do tend to have Islam in common, though. You perhaps aren't aware surveys have shown only 18% of Muslims in Britain believe Homosexuality should be legal. About half think gay people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers. And that's British muslims who are much more liberal than those arriving from most other Islamic countries. Point stands whether you like the conclusion or not.

Plus it's why liberal democracies like the UK have adopted laws such as the Human Rights Act, so that the rights of individuals cannot be just voted away by a majority.

You're posting this on a story about someone being convicted for stating the (historically supported) fact that Mohammed married a six year old girl? You talk about the security of rights of individuals when we're discussing someone being punished for speaking the truth? Britain doesn't have a solid constitution. In the USA we see constitutional rights under attack on issues that affect far greater percentages of the population than comprises gay and lesbian people; and their Constitution is both legally and socially far more secure than an act that came in around 1998 and was already almost repealed once. Also, you may want to read up on your human rights act as the highest authority specified in it is the ECHR. The same body that has just supported suppression of Free Speech.

Your faith is built on shaky foundations.

 

[Efour]

Completely agree.
If they believe their God is the source of morality, then their holy book can literally deceive its followers into committing any evil act because God has condoned it - and if God condones it then it can't be immoral (not just Islam).

How about this video - it would be hilarious if it wasn't so disturbing:

Skipping to about 3:25 when the main speaker asks how many in the audience are normal Muslims (i.e. not radicals or extremists) the vast majority raise their hand (a tad worrying that some don't....).
Later on (around 4:08) he also asks whether the death penalty for things like adultery, as prescribed in the Quran by God and his messenger, is the best punishment possible and that it should be applied in this world - almost everyone raises their hand.

Is it any wonder Islam sometimes gives itself a bad name when extremist views are deemed normal?

never seen that before. Its 100% real? if so just wow.