■ Recensement par département des mosquées, centres cultuels, salles de prière, lieux de culte, instituts, centres éducatifs , écoles coraniques et sièges des associations culturo-cultuelles islamiques pour l’année 2018 > Avertissement avant lecture. ( List of mosques to islamic associations in France )

■ Liste des départements:  cliquez sur le lien en rapport pour accéder à la liste départementale : (List of French departments and numbers – Continental France is divided into 95 administrative departments.

■ Dernière mise à jour :  02 novembre 2018 : 6871 lieux  recensés (←Number of mosques, islamic associations and koranic schools in France) 

01 Ain
02 Aisne
03 Allier
04 Alpes de Hautes-Provence
05 Hautes-Alpes
06 Alpes-Maritimes
07 Ardèche
08 Ardennes
09 Ariège
10 Aube
11 Aude
12 Aveyron
13 Bouches-du-Rhône
14 Calvados
15 Cantal
16 Charente
17 Charente-Maritime
18 Cher
19 Corrèze
2A Corse-du-Sud     (20 A)
2B Haute-Corse       (20 B)
21 Côte-d’Or
22 Côtes d’Armor
23 Creuse
24 Dordogne
25 Doubs
26 Drôme
27 Eure
28 Eure-et-Loir
29 Finistère
30 Gard
31 Haute-Garonne
32 Gers
33 Gironde
34 Hérault
35 Ille-et-Vilaine
36 Indre
37 Indre-et-Loire
38 Isère
39 Jura
40 Landes
41 Loir-et-Cher
42 Loire
43 Haute-Loire
44 Loire-Atlantique
45 Loiret
46 Lot
47 Lot-et-Garonne
48 Lozère
49 Maine-et-Loire
50 Manche
51 Marne
52 Haute-Marne
53 Mayenne
54 Meurthe-et-Moselle
55 Meuse
56 Morbihan
57 Moselle
58 Nièvre
59 Nord
60 Oise
61 Orne
62 Pas-de-Calais
63 Puy-de-Dôme
64 Pyrénées-Atlantiques
65 Hautes-Pyrénées
66 Pyrénées-Orientales
67 Bas-Rhin
68 Haut-Rhin 
69 Rhône
70 Haute-Saône
71 Saône-et-Loire
72 Sarthe
73 Savoie
74 Haute-Savoie
75 Paris
76 Seine-Maritime
77 Seine-et-Marne
78 Yvelines
79 Deux-Sèvres
80 Somme
81 Tarn
82 Tarn-et-Garonne
83 Var
84 Vaucluse
85 Vendée
86 Vienne
87 Haute-Vienne
88 Vosges
89 Yonne
90 Territoire-de-Belfort
91 Essonne
92 Hauts-de-Seine
93 Seine-Saint-Denis
94 Val-de-Marne
95 Val-d’Oise 

 [] Signaler une erreur ou un doublon

■ La copie et la distribution de copies exactes des documents se trouvant sur ce blog  est autorisée , sous condition de mentionner la source.

© C.S.P.I.F. Collectif de Surveillance de la Progression Islamique de la France. http muzulmania.wordpress.com

 En savoir plus :

  Adresse du CCIF – Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France  >>> ADDH-CCIF 8-10 passage du Désir PARIS 75010

 «  Que les mécréants ne pensent pas qu´ils nous ont échappé, non, ils ne pourront jamais nous empêcher de les rattraper à n´importe quel moment  «  Le Coran – Verset 8.59وَلَا يَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَبَقُوا ۚ إِنَّهُمْ لَا يُعْجِزُونَ

Publié dans Retour sur liste | Tagué , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Laisser un commentaire

The court (ECHR) concluded that the applicant had intended to wrongfully accuse Muhammad of having paedophilic tendencies.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH)


FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 38450/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 October 2018

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of E.S. v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
André Potocki,
Síofra O’Leary,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
Lәtif Hüseynov,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

« The Regional Court found that the above statements essentially conveyed the message that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. It stated that the applicant was referring to a marriage which Muhammad had concluded with Aisha, a six-year old, and consummated when she had been nine. The court found that by making the statements the applicant had suggested that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship. However, it also found that it could not be established that the applicant had intended to decry all Muslims. She was not suggesting that all Muslims were paedophiles, but was criticising the unreflecting imitation of a role model. According to the court, the common definition of paedophilia was a primary sexual interest in children who had not yet reached puberty. Because paedophilia was behaviour which was ostracised by society and outlawed, it was evident that the applicant’s statements were capable of causing indignation. The court concluded that the applicant had intended to wrongfully accuse Muhammad of having paedophilic tendencies. Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty. In addition, the court found that because of the public nature of the seminars, which had not been limited to members of the Freedom Party, it was conceivable that at least some of the participants might have been disturbed by the statements »   >>>> read more  PDF file  

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

رقم الهاتف
09.54.80.25.93

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم،
الحمد لله رب العالمين، والصلاة والسلام على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وأصحابه أجمعين

 

 

muzulmania_retour

 

Publié dans islamophobie | Tagué , , , , , , ,