Leaving the “sacred history” claim aside, how can this story be seen as “soft-core”? Muhammad was in his early fifties when he married Aisha.

According to Muhammad al-Bukhari — one of the most respected compilers of Muhammad’s sayings — Aisha was then “a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old”.

This is, admittedly, awkward. So embarrassed was ex-nun Karen Armstrong that in one of her interminable books she portrays Aisha as having reached puberty at the time of her deflowering. Armstrong cites the Persian Muslim historian Abu Ja’far Muhammad al-Tabari to back up her claim. But Tabari actually quotes the following: “The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine.”

But why, cowed critics always ask, do we even need to talk about this? I would suggest at least one reason to be getting on with. Western politicians routinely speak in praise of Muhammad and the tenets of the faith that he founded. That is fine. But holding up Muhammad as a moral guide whilst discussion of uncomfortable facts about him is made impossible means he is not the subject of critical inquiry, but solely of proselytising. At a time when every other religion is subject to critical inquiry, the advantage this gives Islam should be considered seriously. We are in the realm of Mill’s first justification for freedom of speech here: what is being said must be said because it is true; silencing the truth ennobles lies.