https://sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_5_58.php
http://www.askourimam.com/2016/04/06/the-six-authentic-books-of-hadith/
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Kutub_al-Sittah
The passages in the image above, describing Muhammad's marriage to a six year old girl, come from the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, one of the Kutub al-Sittah, or six major hadith books of Sunni Islam, containing acts of the prophet Muhammad.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently convicted by a court in Austria for violating an anti-blasphemy law. Here is an interview with Sabaditsch-Wolff regarding her background, and her conviction for stating that Muhammad was a pedophile —
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/117135/persecution-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-jamie-glazov
http://archive.is/15PNJ
See the Tweets below from a "scholar" attempting to make the case that the prosecution of someone under anti-blasphemy laws, for repeating what is written in a religious text regarding Muhammad marrying a six year old girl (i.e. pedophilia), is "legally correct", given the existence of other laws which restrict free speech and prohibit denying recorded history, i.e. Holocaust denial.
Whether Muhammad actually married a six year old girl or not (or even existed at all), is not relevant. Millions of Muslims see the stories in the hadith as sacred, and they believe these books are true, just as Christians believe the Bible is true. Forcing people to remain silent about the statements in such texts is equivalent to forcing people to deny history, if only religious history. And to those who would object to describing Muhammad's marriage to a six year old girl as pedophilia, what would you call it?
And if such ancient religious texts (regardless of the religion) could be proven false (never mind criminal), then enforcing anti-blasphemy laws goes beyond denying historical fact, and becomes a defense of propaganda — the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth for a political agenda.
This defense of a blasphemy conviction is obviously contradictory, but it is no surprise that someone would make the nonsensical claim that it is "legally correct" to force people to remain silent regarding some religious text which advocates child abuse (a crime in any civilized society), since it is supposedly consistent with a law prohibiting speech that denies some period of history. A law prohibiting Holocaust denial, however misguided, is intended to prevent people from attempting to conceal a crime. And a law denying people the right to point out what are commonly considered crimes (e.g. sex with a nine year old) does the opposite — it helps to conceal a crime.
Such laws restricting free speech are invalid and contradictory, and would not exist in a society dominated by honest people. That is, such laws make expressing certain opinions a crime, and require the initiation of force. Those who deny the Holocaust, for example, deserve contempt and ridicule for attempting to whitewash history, but such ignorance or dishonesty by itself does not violate the rights of others, and so there is no reasonable way to argue that a government initiation of force is required to stop it.
No government could wield the power to control speech honestly.
So it is no surprise that government bureaucrats would contradict the intent of a law prohibiting a class of attempts to eliminate historical facts (i.e. Holocaust denial), by forcing people not to repeat damning facts about Islam, in order to whitewash Islam's history.
Denying history is required, when it fits the political agenda of the day.
https://twitter.com/ClaireBerlinski/status/1056032714707603456
https://twitter.com/ClaireBerlinski/status/1056032703211016192
https://twitter.com/Ayaan/status/1055984413643685889
http://archive.is/x1AP3
No comments:
Post a Comment