http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4102:elizabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-and-mohammad-the-long-term-paedophile-and-child-abuser-&catid=180&IElizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Mohammad the long term paedophile and child abuserElizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff , an Austrian citizen was convicted on the 15th of February in an Austrian court of ‘denigrating the teachings of a legally recognised religion’ namely Islam. Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff was charged because she dared to accurately quote the Koran, hadith and sharia law to others in a series of talks. However, the charge that gained the conviction was added by the judge, Bettina Neubauer, during the case which in my view brings into question the integrity and agenda of the judge. A journalist from the Austrian magazine NEWS.at, filed the original police report.
The charges:
incitement to hatred - she was aquitted.
denigration of the teachings of a legally recognised religion – convicted and given 120 day fines for a total of 480 euros.
Note: she was also charged as a repeat offender when it was her FIRST conviction.
On the first charge, the defense presented the factual details of her lectures showing they were firmly based on Islamic source material including laws from ‘The reliance of the Traveller’ from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, famous in the Islamic world. Recordings of the lectures proved they were held in a peaceful, non-inciting manner giving the audience the opportunity to ask questions. This evidence also showed that the prosecution claimed Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff had made statements that were, in fact, made by others.
All seemed to be going well and an acquittal was expected when, at the end of the second hearing, the judge, Bettina Neubauer, enquired of Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff regarding comments that the actions of Mohammad would today be considered paedophilia. The Judge then added the charge of “Denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion”.
Isn’t this ENTRAPMENT – ie the judge deliberately setting Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff up to incriminate herself on a charge the judge had already secretly planned to use if possible? Under Austrian law the judge can extend the charges but this was more than that -Are there no laws against entrapment in Austria?
Of course the prosecutor was thrilled as they were unable to make a case on the original charge. Clearly the judge was determined to convict so one could hardly regard her as open-minded.
Anyone who accurately teaches Islam’s text and laws will note very many ‘unpleasant’ aspects such as its misogyny, its racism, its sadism, the hatred of Jews and black people, the hatred of ‘hypocrites’ and calls for death to apostates, slavery and the rape of slaves, thieving from infidels and the endless abuse of others and violence towards non-Muslims. Yet Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff was not charged over any statements related to these aspects but instead was charged with the same charge that had earlier convicted Dr Susanne Winter, ie Mohammad the paedophile, in what was clearly a carefully planned act of judge Bettina Neubauer. (please see Landen 2008 which also shows the selective nature of such charges where extreme offense to Christians is NOT prosecuted but telling the truth about Mohammad is – of course Christians don’t give death threats; Dickson 2009; Speigel 2008 for information on Su sanne Winter who was convicted in January 2009 and fined many thousands of Euros).
Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s conviction rested on a twisted, limited definition of paedophilia and deliberate blindness and white-washing of the sexual behaviour (driven by internal needs) of Mohammad.
Some dictionary definitions of paedophilia showing paedophiles can also be attracted to sex with adults -
A) Paedophilia: From the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders - Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children.
Pedophilia is also a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or actual act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be directed toward children of the same sex or children of the other sex. Some pedophiles are attracted to both boys and girls. Some are attracted only to children, while others are attracted to adults as well as to children.
The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child (some claim under 18, most under 13 ...).....The sexual behaviors involved in pedophilia cover a range of activities .(ie not necessarily intercourse).....
In the United States, about 50% of men arrested for pedophilia are married. (
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html)
B) Paedophilia: “The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.”
( The American Heritage(r) Stedman’s Medical Dictionary)
C) Paedophilia: a) sexual feelings of adults directed towards children. b) Overt sexual acts directed toward children. (
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paedophilia)
“Judge Neubauer in her verdict pointed out this distinction between paedophilia as a mental attitude as opposed to paedophilia as actual actions, and underscored that in professional circles this label applies to the mental state of having one’s primary sexual attraction directed to prepubescent children.”(Clausen 2011)
Well, not according to the ‘Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders’ or the ‘Medical dictionary’ which states it as an ‘act’ of sexual activity with a child (not necessarily children plural). AND, it does NOT exclude other forms of sexual activity including sex with adults.
On this basis, judge Neubauer found that it was not legally acceptable to apply the label ‘paedophile’ to Muhammad, for two distinct reasons:
1. Apart from the marriage to Aisha, which was formalized when she was 6 and consummated at the age of 9, Muhammad had many other women, in wedlock, as mistresses, or as war booty. This documents the fact that Muhammad did not have a primary sexual attraction directed towards minors.
2. The marriage, and thus the sexual relations with Aisha, did not end when she reached puberty, but continued until she was 18 and Muhammad died. This further underscores the fact that Muhammad was not attracted to her primarily due to her being a minor.
Illegal denigration of Muhammad
For this reason, judge Neubauer found that using the label ‘paedophile’ was unreasonable and constituted an illegal denigration of Muhammad, that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had therefore made herself guilty of denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion, and was thus convicted to pay 120 “day fines” for a total of €480 for her offence.
The judge makes several mistakes –
a) First of all there is NO prohibition on paedophiles having sex with older females as noted particularly in ‘The Encyclopedia of Mental disorders’ where some paedophiles are also attracted to adults and most are married! Does Judge Neubauer have insight into Mohammad’s ‘primary’ desires. Who said the desire for sex with children had to be ‘primary’ or exclusive before you could be labelled a paedophile and carryout acts of sexual molestation of a child as Mohammad DID?
Often fathers have sex with their wives AND with their daughter/s or other children as they become available. Males may have girlfriends yet still abuse children, male or female. Are we to pretend this isn’t ‘paedophilia’ and the man is not a ‘paedophile?’
b) Clearly Mohammad lusted after Aisha as he demanded her father hand her over. He had sex with her when she was a child over several YEARS ie he had the mental disposition of a paedophile and he carried out the acts of a paedophile. Such a disposition does not need to be exclusive of other associations. Aisha was clearly his favourite. (see articles this site for a wealth of text showing Mohammad’s sexual abuse of the pre-pubescent child Aisha eg Massive worldwide paedophile ring untouched - 11/04/08; Child marriage-Mohammad’s exemplary example - 08/11/07 ; Islam & Child marriage - 22/05/07 by Circe and others)
Aisha describes herself as pre-pubescent –
***Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163: Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.
Mohammad not only sexually abused Aisha, he also hit her hard eg
***Muslim Book 4, Number 2127: ....(Aisha) . He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ....(see Mohammad struck child wife Aisha HARD – 4/4/09 -circe)
c) Aisha was always available to him hence his lust for sex with a child was always able to be satisfied. There was no need to seek other children (sex with a child is sufficient -definition B). Text relating to Aisha and descriptions of her (thin, light, child still with her dolls) indicates that she did not reach puberty for some years after her marriage to Mohammad who by this time was approaching 60. Despite absurd Muslim claims to the contrary, by this time Mohammad was undoubtedly in sexual decline. Following the death of Khadija (first wife in Mecca) he married Aisha and others (12-22 females) where some were teenagers or 20year olds yet only one child was born to the Coptic maid so one wonders how sexually active he really was. Was the vast majority of his sex with pre-pubescent Aisha or was he an aging ‘bi-paedophile’ who liked children and adults! Either way, he's still a paedophile.
Under Islamic law men are required to spend time with each wife BUT they are NOT required to have sex with her (Reliance of the traveller Law m10.5 p 539). Indeed they only need to ‘satisfy’ her enough to stop her straying (Law m 10.12 (3) p 541) and as women face death for adultery I imagine that they don’t stray even is hubby doesn’t come near them for years ie wives would make no demands! Wives can give their ‘turn’ to another wife and we know at least one wife gave her turn to Aisha...
d) Aisha was a very powerful, indeed manipulative child and could clearly exercise control over Mohammad so even had he wanted more children she may have had sufficient power, due to his lust for her, to prevent this occurring.
e) Mohammad promoted SEX with CHILDREN –obviously something he liked and encouraged in others.
*Mohammad claimed revelations from allah which stated in Koran 33.49 that there was no iddat (waiting period before remarriage for a divorced female) if there had been no sex but in Koran 65.4 an iddat of 3 months is set for pre-pubescent females ---clearly endorsing sex with children. This is reinforced in the most revered hadith set -Bukhari
***Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63...... The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).
Mohammad told followers to marry young virgins so they could ‘play’ with them.
***Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
*Mohammad handed ‘GIRLS’ out for his friends to enjoy (yes he shared out women as well)
In Ibn Ishaq’s first biography of Mohammad –sirat Rasul allah (the sira)- we read on P 593 that Mohammad gave GIRLS to two of his sons-in-law and to a friend to enjoy!!! (also volume 8 “The History of al-Tabari” Page 29-30). This is distinct from handing out women which he also did eg p 511 of the same book.
f) Islamic law, allah’s law, drawn from text 'revealed' by Mohammad or describing Mohammad's behaviour, allows adult men to marry tiny children and ‘enjoy’ them sexually.
**Reliance of the Traveller: a classic manual of Islamic sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller Amana USA 1994) gives guardians (particularly fathers/grandfathers) the right to marry off the female without the female’s consent m3.13 p522 and the right to marry off a pre-pubescent daughter m8.2 p533.
**Hedaya -(a manual of the Hanafi school) Vol. I Book III, page 71 (Ref. 6) allows men to marry suckling babies.
A child can be married at any age under Shiite and Sunni laws:
Text supports the marriage of tiny girls –eg *Muslim hadith ch 10 ‘It is permissible for the father to give the hand of his daughter in marriage even when she is not fully grown up’ (puberty is NOT a pre-requisite for marriage)
g) Islamic law specifically allows men to have sex with small pre-pubescent children taken as slaves.
The Hedaya specifies that men cannot have carnal ‘connection’ with their female slave (enjoying her) until she is ‘clean’ ..... ie until she stops menstruating or ...
“The purification of a pregnant female slave is established by her delivery, And that of a girl in whom the menses have NOT YET APPEARED, by the lapse of a month...”(HedayaVol 4 p 106)
For those who will try to pretend this means ‘adult’ females who just don’t menstruate, there is specific reference to females deemed old enough to menstruate but Not menstruating – though these could still be young prepubescent girls.
“If the courses be delayed in a female who is of age to be subject to them, it is in that case requisite to refrain from any carnal connection with her, until it appear that she is not pregnant, when it becomes lawful to cohabit with her.” (Hedaya vol 4 p 106)
h) Across the Islamic world, as a result of Mohammad’s example, Mohammad’s revelations of allah’s text in the Koran and allah’s laws that follow from this, paedophilia as BOTH a psychological state and a physical act of sex with a child is widely practiced amongst Muslims as endless stories on the internet will reveal with regard to both girls and boys.
In Afghanistan in particular, the sexual abuse of young boys by adult Muslim men –no doubt with wives – is considered normal behaviour (Telegraph 2011- Paedophilia 'culturally accepted in south Afghanistan')
Hence the religion of Islam as expounded by Mohammad clearly fully promotes the psychological state of paedophilia and the actual practice of paedophilia ie sex with children. This tells us Mohammad’s mental state and his behaviour resulting from it.
Gee, what do you need to do to be called a paedophile???
To pretend that Mohammad was not psychologically a paedophile and that he did not practice paedophilia both as a mental state and as the physical act of having sex with a child is an absurdity. Islamic text tells us only one of his companions also married a child making Mohammad rather unique.
Mohammad, the perfect example for all Muslims to follow FOREVER WAS a PRACTISING PAEDOPHILE.
Hence the EU’s and this judge’s use of the word ‘paedophilia’ is at odds with other definitions of paedophilia and is contrary to the public’s understanding of paedophilia which fits these other definitions of paedophilia as ‘sex with a child’ noting that paedophiles may also have sex with adults. The Judge was totally incorrect in claiming Mohammad wasn't a paedophile because he only had sex with one child and had sex with adults. She wasn't privy to his mental state or to his sexual behaviour though text is full of his sex with tiny Aisha, indicating his mental state, making him a paedophile even under her narrow and twisted definition.
To play about with these terms in the insane way the female judge in this case did propagates the abuse of little girls (and boys) under Islam because no-one can dare speak of this abuse condoned in Islam’s text, Mohammad’s example and Islamic law, using clear, unambiguous and well understood terms such as ‘paedophile’ and ‘paedophilia.’
Her team’s response to the charge: She labelled Mohammad’s behaviour, not Mohammad.
“Did Elisabeth actually call Muhammad a ‘paedophile’?
As a matter of fact, no.
What she did do was something different, namely refer to his ongoing sexual relationship to the prepubescent Aisha, who was 9 years old when the relationship began, stating:
If this does not constitute paedophilia, what does?”
She was clearly referring to what Muhammad did, according to Islamic scripture, not to himself as a person. This is in line with common usage of the word ‘paedophilia’, is understandable to just about everyone, and by referring to actual acts of having sex with minors, it is about child molestation, not about Muhammad as a person. It now appears that calling sex with minors ‘paedophilia’ is outside the legal limits in Austria.”
(still let’s be honest, –if you carryout the act of paedophilia, ie sex with a child which Mohammad did over many years, doesn’t that make you a paedophile?)
How did Islam become a ‘legally recognised religion’ in Austria giving it ‘protection’ from criticism?’
In 1912 it was given such recognition in an effort to integrate Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The law establishing Islam in Austria is the same law under which Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff was prosecuted. Following World War 1, Bosnia-Herzegovina was nolonger part of the empire but the law remained giving Islam special protection under Austrian law.
If any think this is just a problem for Austria, please read Victoria, Australia’s insane ‘Religious Vilification Act’ which also legally recognises Islam as a religion (it is actually a totalitarian political ideology pretending to be a religion) and gives it ‘protection.’ Such laws protect the most evil ‘religious’ ideologies from essential analysis and open criticism. Judaism and Christianity have faced rigorous analysis and endless criticism for centuries so why can’t this be the case for Islam? Well we all know that Islam’s text, laws, practices and example of Mohammad are vile and unacceptable to the modern world so of course Muslims will constantly claim they have been offended, ridiculed or denigrated and take a legal remedy (litigation jihad) to ensure no-one dares tell the truth about Islam. Dare to criticise Islam and you could also enjoy the situation faced by Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff and others in Europe and the two Dannies in Australia.
That societies that claim to support freedom of speech and truth have such laws is to their endless shame. Such laws must be removed. Decent religions do NOT require them!
Conclusion: What is going on here –
*) We all know the aim is to gag any who speak against Islam using even the most twisted means to do so.
*) It’s all really about ‘terms’ or labels and if you don’t use them according to a narrow definition used by a judge, yet unsupported by many defining paedophilia, then this is a criminal offence – even if your usage of the term complies with common understanding and other reliable definitions! This is madness and is designed to trap people because who can know in advance the judge’s personal ‘quirky’ definitions?
*) The judge takes it as proven that Muhammad had a lasting sexual relationship with a minor. Strangely, she considers it an illegal denigration to apply the label ‘paedophilia’ to this behaviour. (Clausen 2011).
*) As the law is only concerned with “Religious teachings”, rather than “Founders of religion”, “Behaviour of religious persons” or similar things, this verdict must imply that the life and conduct of Muhammad — including his sexual conduct — constitute an integral part of the “Religious teachings” in Islam. This interpretation is in line with Quran 33:21 and fundamentalist readings of Islam. (Clausen 2011) ( K.33:21 -Mohammad is a good example to follow --we regard his example as horrifying!)
*) Under Austrian law, Islam has a remarkable degree of protection from criticism, and this verdict extends this protection to Muhammad, who is now protected from criticism. Other religions, say Buddhism, do not enjoy a similar protection of their teachings or founders. (Clausen)
As Clausen goes on to note, this now means that criticising Mohammad or his acts or actions justified by his example and this includes slavery, rape, thieving from infidels, violence to others, abuse of females, racism, beating females etc is now ‘illegal’ or very ‘problematic.’
“That the life and example of Muhammad in its entirety should constitute “Religious teachings”, protected from criticism under Austrian law, is a notion so absurd that it cannot be permitted to stand.”(Clausen 2011)
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff spoke of her trial at a meeting of the EDL in Luton, February 2011 –the whole speech is well worth reading.
My “crime”, ladies and gentlemen, was to tell the truth about Islam. To quote the Koran and the hadith. To cite the official texts of sharia. To explain that Islam tells men to beat their wives, and that sharia requires the amputation of limbs for theft.
In my seminars I explained that Islamic law sanctions the mutilation of the genitals of little girls. It demands that anyone who leaves Islam be killed.
In short, my “crime” was to educate my fellow Austrians about what Islam really means, as prescribed by Islam itself.
Telling the plain truth about Islam in its own words insults Muslims. How bizarre is that?”
She notes the destruction in basic rights eg freedom of speech and its essential place in maintaining our civilisation. She notes others prosecuted for telling the TRUTH about Islam - Tommy Robinson, Guramit Singh, Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, and others...
I stand behind any group that resists Islamization by peacefully invoking its right to speak freely about the evils of Islam. I was prosecuted for informing ordinary people about the reality of Islam. Educating our own people is our most effective strategy to use against sharia.
For that reason, I advise you not to burn the Koran, but to read it. Only by studying what Islam stands for will we learn how to face it down.
Know your enemy. We do not fight him with knives or guns, but with the pen, the microphone, the video camera, and the printing press. Understanding what Islam means is our greatest weapon in the struggle against it. We do not need any intimidation or bullying, because the truth is on our side.
Samuel Johnson once said, “Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others.”
In the deadly times that lie ahead, courage will be required of ordinary men and women who refuse to submit to the tyranny of Islamization. Hate-speech prosecutions and shotgun attacks are only a mild foretaste of what is in store for us.
Col. Allen West, one of the most stalwart soldiers of the Counterjihad, always signs his emails with the words “steadfast and loyal”. We too must remain steadfast and loyal to one another in the coming struggle.
Never give up. Never give in. We will never surrender! (Wolff 2011)
Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has appealed her conviction –let’s hope that Austrians rise and demand that the TRUTH can be spoken and that freedom of speech is guaranteed. I know everyone at Australian Islamist Monitor fully support Elizabeth and wish her success.
Topic: The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff GUILTY ON ONE COUNT, NOT ON THE OTHER (Read 802 times)