The European Court has ruled that calling Muhammad a paedophile does not fall within the freedom of free speech criteria. And an Austrian woman has been fined for “disparaging a religion”.

Now, we should never judge history by today's rules and mores; but today's laws say that you can't libel the dead. Having died around the year 632, I would say that Muhammad has been dead long enough for us not to concern ourselves with his bonking a 9 year old - it is said that he did wait until she was 11.

What a ridiculous ruling by a ridiculous court in a ridiculous, undemocratic European entity. One of many, many reasons why out UK cousins are Brexiting

Yep won't stop the perverted ones on the abc mocking and blaspheming Jesus Christ. Cowards and hypocrites.

ttbn,

Thank You for raising this case. It's an interesting one
concerning the legalities of blasphemy in Europe. It
Should be an interesting discussion - especially seeing
what others think about blasphemy and free speech. Different
religions, different countries, different laws.

The following link explains further:

http://weeklystandard.com/dominic-green/european-court-blasphemy-free-speech-isnt-what-it-used-to-be

No GOD ever existed, there done, that would get me murdered in parts of the world.
Yet it is true

Dear Belly,

You are correct, but why do you consider existence to be a good thing?
Only objects exist, so to claim as if God existed would demote Him to the level of an object - what greater blasphemy could there be?

I only found out recently that blasphemy is still a
crime in Australia - but apparently only against
the Christian religion. You can say what you want
against the other religions.

I'll try to find the link and get back to you.

Here's the link:

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/06/21/blasphemy-still-crime-australia-and-it-shouldnt-be

Belly,

You are not smart enough to categorically deny the existence of God. Many people a lot smarter than you are not sure whether or not God exists, but they are intelligent enough to know that they can't be sure.

Apart from that, this thread is about a court ruling on comments made about someone who did exist - Muhammad. God has nothing to with it.

PS,

Are you making the common mistake that God and Allah are one and the same? Because they most certainly are not.

Blasphemy? Is telling the truth about a mortal actually blasphemy? I have always thought blasphemy was 'taking the Lord's name in vain'. The Lord being the Christian God, not some murderous bandit like Muhammad, who was only an agent for an imagined super natural being he called Allah.

Blasphemy? Is telling the truth about a mortal actually blasphemy? I have always thought blasphemy has 'taking the Lord's name in vain'. The Lord being the Christian God, not some murderous bandit like Muhammad, who was only an agent for imagined super natural being he called Allah.

Wikipedia tells us that - blasphemy is the act of
insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence
to a deity, or sacred things, or towards something
considered sacred or inviolable. Some religions consider
blasphemy to be a religious crime. As of 2012 Anti-
blasphemy laws have existed in 31 countries while 87
countries have hate speech laws that caused defamation of
religion and public expression of hate against a religious
group.

As pointed out in the two links given earlier - Europe
as well as Australia have these laws.

Belly,

"No GOD ever existed, there done, that would get me murdered in parts of the world.
Yet it is true"

Reference?

saw ise mise and ttbn just underlining no need to reply exists see you in another thread

'I only found out recently that blasphemy is still a
crime in Australia - but apparently only against
the Christian religion. '

how come no one has ever told the abc/sbs. They are happy to promote sex robots while mocking anything decent.

runner,

The ABC has programs on a wide variety of subjects
and the panel on Q&A covered the discussion on artificial
intelligence broadly - yet all you appear to have seen
is "sex robots?" BTW - if you are so against the ABC
how come you were watching? A closet fan perhaps?

The Collins Concise Australian dictionary has blaspheme: “to show contempt or disrespect for (God, a divine being, or sacred things) to utter profanities, curses, or impious expressions”. I suggest that the word is not applicable in the case of calling Muhammad - an ordinary mortal, to be charitable - a paedophile.

He might very well not have been considered a paedophile 1400 years and as I have said, we should not be judging history on today's laws. My only gripe is that an idiotic court fined a woman for calling Muhammad one. And, even more idiotic, was the judgement that she had disparaged a religion. What Muhammad did in his private life has nothing to do with religion - even the disgusting pseudo religion of Islam

I should have also said that comment about Jesus Christ - and the so-called art of the PissChrist - is not blasphemy either. Jesus Christ was also mortal, not God, but a prophet just like Muhammad, but with a much better story, and behaviour far superior to that of the vicious old bandit and murderer.

Belly,

You made a positive statement, "No GOD ever existed,".

Are you not prepared to back up your statements?

During a recent court case, a leading religious scholar had this to say on the sin of blasphemy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU

Gee, ttbn what did Muhammad do to you? Didn't he invite you to his birthday party or something. Yet he speaks highly of you.

Mohammed is accused of paedophilia because he was married to a child bride.

In accordance with Jewish tradition at that time Jesus' mother could have been married at around the age of 10 but with the marriage not consumated until she was around 12.

Muhammad was not a paedophile according to the law of his day and his followers who follow example are not paedophiles according to the traditions of Islam although the girl should have reached puberty, not necessarily before marriage but before consummation.

Whether or not Muhammad was a paedophile is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the anti-free speech decision of the European Court.