A few days ago we launched The EBFington Post. It’s part of a wider plan to step up our campaign against Britain First and the far-right in general. Britain First is on its way out but tin-pot neo-nazis will remain. We’ll have to wait and see which ludicrous banner they flock to next. For now the job of EBF is to deliver Britain First’s final death blow. It’s a war of ideas and Britain First is losing ground fast but it’s not quite dead yet.
The EBFington Post’s newly appointed editorial team aims to make The Post a resource for Antifascists to stay informed for many years to come – long after the Biffers have been forgotten. Our library of free information guides begins with this inaugural special edition, EBFington post Britain First exposed.
Please download it, use it for reference and pass it around to all your contacts. And remember to bookmark this blog to make sure you don’t miss future editions as they’re published too.
In the light of the recent spate of hate crime in Rotherham and Jayda Fransen’s ignorant rant about Muslims and paedophilia (aired today by SKY News) we couldn’t have been more timely. Here’s an extract from EBFington post Britain First exposed to whet your appetites…
Another favourite of Fascist propaganda is the claim that all Muslims are paedophiles. The argument is that since Mohammed married a child, Aisha and since several Muslim paedophile rings have come to light then the inescapable and obvious reality must be that all Muslim men are child sex abusers. Or are they….?
Unfortunately for ‘the fash’, the argument falls flat in some crucial ways…
Mohammed’s child bride
Aisha was Mohammed’s second (and favourite) wife. Estimates of her age at the time of her marriage vary. The best we can say with confidence is that she was somewhere between the ages of 9 and 21 on the day of her betrothal. That’s a pretty big margin of error. Some far-right Islamophobes claim that she was actually only 6 years old when she married but that seems extremely unlikely. Marriage at such a young age would have been against the rules of the Ummah (Islamic community).
We can say with confidence that there is absolutely no evidence that the marriage was consumated during Aisha’s childhood. That’s very important. It means that there’s nothing to suggest that Aisha had sex before she came of age, despite her marriage to Mohammed, which may not have been until her early twenties anyway.
But let’s consider the lowest plausible age. Let’s assume that she was only 9 years old.
It’s important to remember that we are talking about the customs and practices of a nomadic tribal community in the early part of the 7th century. The betrothal of children was common throughout both the East and the West at the time. European history records many Western monarchs who not only married long before puberty but who also produced children as soon as they were biologically able to. There’s nothing unusual about child brides in the context of the time. There is something unusual about Aisha and Mohammed though. They appear not to have had sex until long after Aisha hit puberty.
Aisha is said to have joined Muhammad on the raid that culminated in the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE. Since only those aged 15 or over could have been present at the raid, Aisha must have been at least 15 by then which means she must have been 13 at the very least on her wedding day in 622.
According to Tabari, Aisha was first offered in marriage to a different man in 615. The minimum age for Muslim betrothal at the time was 9 years old which would have made her at least 16 years of age by 622.
Aisha was one of Abu Bakr’s four children, all of whom were born prior to 610 and the beginning of the Islamic era. This would put her at no younger than 12 years at the time of her betrothal (an absolute minimum). Significantly older than many contemporary Christian brides.
None of this suggests that sex with children is acceptable in modern UK. It simply demonstrates the double standard of Britain First and the rest of the far-right Islamophobic groups who delight in chanting “Mohammed was a paedo” on the streets of Britain. The evidence against Muslims in this regard is far less damaging then is the evidence against Christians. And in both cases the ‘evidence’ has been taken so far out of its historical context that it is both meaningless and stupid.
Muslim grooming gangs
There have been some very high profile cases involving Muslim men, especially of Pakistani origins who committed a range of crimes against children. The scandal against young people in Rotherham is a particularly well-known and prominent example, although it’s not the only one.
However this doesn’t mean that all Muslim men, or even all Pakistani Muslim men are paedophiles any more than all Catholic priests can be accused of paedophilia on the strength of the Roman church’s unfortunate relationship with (and protection of) paedophile clerics. Recent child sex scandals within the Anglican and Methodist churches don’t reflect upon all protestants either.
There are paedophiles in every community.
1400 years ago every community accepted child marriage, sex and childbirth at a very young age. If these things are enough to convict all Muslims then they also must convict all Christians by the very same logic.
This stuff doesn’t convict all Christians, of course. And it doesn’t convict all Muslims either. It does reveal an awful lot about the bigotry and selective attention of modern neo-nazis who will grab on to even the flimsiest fantasy to demonise their Muslim neighbours.