The Political Persecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Pages: 1 2

Photo credit: Aeneas

Editor’s note: The following is the third installment of a series of articles following activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s battle against her own government, as they proceed to prosecute her for disseminating the truth about Islam. Click the following to read Part I and Part II.

When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close.

Judge: The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest — you are allowed to be critical — but not incitement of hatred

[judge states the permitted utterances]

The language used in the seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable.

“Pedophilia” is factually incorrect, since pedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. This does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18.

The verdict:

On the count of “incitement to hatred”: Not guilty.

On the count of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: Guilty.

The defendant was sentenced to pay a €480 fine.

Judge: Did you understand the sentence?

[discontent in court]

The judge second-guessed the Qur’an, noting that Aisha was 18 years old when Muhammad died, which is factual, based on the hadith. The fact that he did not divorce her after she reached her majority proved that Muhammad had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to somewhat older females. Therefore he was not a pedophile.

By implication, of course, the child marriages that are so prevalent in fundamentalist Islamic countries cannot be legally categorized as “pedophilia” either.

Elisabeth said: “This is a sad day for my daughter and all girls.”


By the time the verdict was handed down, it had become obvious that the court was absolutely determined that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff must be found guilty of something. The playing of the tapes — which showed that many of the recorded statements that had been used against Elisabeth had in fact been uttered privately — made the prosecution realize that the original charge would never hold up. To attain the desired outcome, the judge added a second charge of her own devising. A juridical move of this sort would have been unimaginable (and illegal) in the United States and many other countries, but it is quite legal in Austria.

The charge on which Elisabeth was eventually convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did she never say that Muhammad’s actions constituted “pedophilia”, but Muhammad’s actions — which were undisputed by the court — included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. If she had said what she was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unexceptional from the standpoint of any normal person.

But the folks who run the Austrian system of “justice” are not normal people. They concocted the absurd rationalization that remaining married to the little girl past the age of 18 meant that Muhammad did not exclusively target children with his sexual attentions; hence he was not a “pedophile” by the strict psychiatric definition. Thus Elisabeth was wrong, even though she did not say it, and even though no ordinary citizen would disagree with her if she had said it.

Interestingly enough, this farrago of justice was made possible by the recognition of Islam as a state religion in 1912 through the law Islamgesetz, which had as itsprimary purpose the full integration of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Austrian Empire. When Austria lost Bosnia in 1918, the law became irrelevant, but it has remained on the books until this day.

What might the long-term consequences of the verdict? As Henrik Ræder Clausen wrote at the time:

Fortunately law is logical, and thus one can rightfully deduce some consequences from the verdict:

1. It can constitute a criminal offence to use a label wrongly, even if that usage is in line with how it is applied by the general public.

2. 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.

3. 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 Qur’an 33:21 and fundamentalist readings of Islam.

4. Under Austrian law, Islam has a remarkable degree of protection from criticism, and this verdict extents 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.


That the example of Muhammad is used to justify child marriages even today is a fact that seems to have escaped the attention of the judge. Reports about child brides and their aged husbands now routinely appear in the Western press, but even though we hear these stories over and over, few seem willing to stand up for the rights of these minor girls. Even the sheikhs, the persons learned in Islamic law, do not take action or in any way use their authority to stop child marriages.

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.

The precedent established by Elisabeth’s case would imply that Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man who began sexually abusing his daughter when she was 11, fathered her children, and kept her a prisoner for 24 years, was not a pedophile, because their incestuous relationship continued after the victim was 18.

Was this what the judge intended when she handed down the verdict in Elisabeth’s case?

Pages: 1 2

  • StephenD

    This "evil" is only going to bring added attention to the very good work this heroine is doing. I hope she decides to take the two months jail time instead of giving in and paying the fine if her conviction is upheld on appeal.
    The judges’ reasoning is so appropriately exposed with the comparison to the case of Josef Fritzi. Although in line with the judges’ way of thinking it would be countered that he was guilty of incest and not pedophilia.

    • Ned May

      This is the big choice Elisabeth has to face. To pay the fine would be an implicit acknowledgement of the validity of the verdict against her. Not to pay means going to jail.

      That's not a decision I'd like to have to make. She deserves our prayers during the difficult time that lies ahead, especially since the crucial date, December 20th, falls just before Christmas.

  • joy52

    I don't want her to suffer, but I hope the goes to jail. Islam needs to be challenged.

  • Stuart Parsons

    If Islam is recognised as a state religion, then so must be wife beating, the acceptance of a woman's evidence as being worth half that of a man, marriage to prepubescent girls, the revilement of all non-Muslims, the call to kill, convert or subjugate non-Muslims, the right to kill apostates, homosexuals and adulterers and the right to keep and rape slaves and the wives and daughters of those you have killed and captured etc etc etc. Perhaps Austria should make it illegal to allow urine drip down one's leg ( fine E480 or 2 months in prison). After all dear old Muhammad believed it would earn one torture in the grave. Aint Islam just the most ridiculous, dangerous and disgusting 'religion' there ever was ? And poor Elisabeth is to be punished for pointing out its failings.

    Muhammad was Arabia's Adolf Hitler. He murdered all who spoke out against him and with his deluded, booty and sex motivated, Arabian SS he lied plotted, tortured, killed, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to absolute power. But Shhhhhhhhh we must not say so.

  • taxpayer

    Take a peek at our future. She is it. Get ready to bow down to Allah. Or take a stand for Freedom.

  • Ann

    The freedom loving Austrians should unite with Elisabeth and all show up together to go to jail—if I could get there I would go—we have to Unite and stop this—I for one will not walk into the ovens, I am going to fight!!!

  • No Dhimmi

    The judge must be a pedopervert himself, trying to justify this disgusting behavior.

    Get rid of him.

    What a disgrace. The "authorities" worldwide have more than proved themselves immoral with their despicable coddling of this vile misogynistic cult founded by a CHILD RAPIST.

    There, judge, I said it. Go screw yourself.

  • steven l

    By today creteria he is a rapist.