This is an attempt to impose Islamic law’s prohibition of criticism of Islam and Muhammad upon Google. Since Barack Obama has said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Google may find itself short on friends in high places.
“Jordanian lawyers sue Google over anti-Islam video,” by Courtney Trenwith for ITP, February 4 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Lawyers have appeared for the first time in months at a court hearing in Jordan against Internet company Google over an anti-Islamic film posted on video-sharing website YouTube, which sparked widespread violent protests across the Muslim world in 2012.
Three lawyers from Jordan Bar Association’s Freedom Committee are suing Google as the parent company of YouTube, which published a trailer of the film “Innocence of Muslims” in September 2012.
The film is considered blasphemous by Muslims as it depicts Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in a negative light.
Protests in response to the video began in Cairo on September 11, 2012 and flowed across the Arab world, including attacks on US embassies in Libya and Tunisia.
The film’s director, Alan Roberts, and producer, Nakoula Nakoula, are being tried in a court in Amman in absentia.
Lawyer Duaa Zyoud told the court on Sunday the video was easily available for download and did not contain any warning, The Jordan Times reported.
The lawyers claim the video violates article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”
They had agreed to drop the court case, which was filed in February last year, if Google published an apology on its website for a week, admitting it had made a mistake.
But Google lawyer Thaer Najdawi said at the time that the lawyers suing the company misunderstood the concept of YouTube, and Google did not advocate for the video or its message….
Uh oh. Gotta watch out for those Misunderstanders of YouTube.

nacazo says
This bad quality video depicts stories that are 100% accurate according to Islamic sources. Only one scene is incorrect according to Father Zakaria.
Jay Boo says
Obama and Hillary apologized profusely for this highly accurate portrayal.
Meanwhile the Discovery Channel puts out a blatant farce called ‘Amish Mafia’ to the FULL STINK APPROVAL of the anti Christian leftist infested media and yet Obama and Hillary are not outraged in the least.
I am beginning to suspect they both may be Islamist butt-kissing hypocrites.
It is time to make a film called the ‘Dearborn Mafia.’
Are you listening DISCOVERY CHANNEL?
Coming soon:
The ‘Dearborn Mafia’ on the DISCOVERY CHANNEL
Opening season will begin with a defector BURNING A QURAN
Aardvark says
“Meanwhile the Discovery Channel puts out a blatant farce called ‘Amish Mafia’ to the FULL STINK APPROVAL of the anti Christian leftist infested media and yet Obama and Hillary are not outraged in the least.”
It would be a different story if the Amish responded with the same manic violence that mohammedans exhibit at the slightest hint of criticism.
The western media and governments are not really showing respect for the mohammmedans, they are showing despicable cowardice and fear.
This has to change.
nacazo says
The name of the group is orwellian:
“Jordan Bar Association’s Freedom Committee”
What is Freedom again?
Freedom to refain of criticizing Mohammed?
Januk36 says
Since you mention the widespread orwellian perversion of language why not returning the favour and reclaiming the word “muslim” (servants of God) for ourselves while making clear that “they” are mohammedans.
Petey says
NICE! but i must admit, calling myself muslim just seems………whats the word Im looking for…..Wrong…Nope dont like it…lol
Salah says
Innocence of Muslims…dissected:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/10/innocence-of-muslims-dissected.html
fair_dinkum says
its hard to depict muhammed in any other light.
what good did he actually do?
brought some sort of rulebook to very backwards people.
and the backwards people are the stars. its not for the intelligent.
a book based on reaction to personal slighting, that holds hate and murder and violence very dear.
i think muhammed was oversensitive to any criticism. and the whole club has followed suit. its immature alright, but ive noticed that moslems are almost autistic children when it comes to shedding light on this dark, evil, cult.
it never stands up.
Jay Boo says
Muslims claim they love and respect their “prophet” Muhammad.
The one who loved and admired Muhammad most of all was Muhammad himself.
MESSAGE FROM GABRIEL
Desert spirits spoke in twisted verse, a dance of words to recite, to recite.
Medina’s false prophet this rehearsed in a cave near Mecca veiled by night.
But the angel Gabriel saw his descent, and said “Pawn of Satan turn, repent, repent.”
But, sharia’s verse planted its infected creed fertilized by this false prophet’s made-up dream.
A vain attempt to partner with God almighty was dredged up from the lowest pit of his vanity
Abdullah ibn Salam says
You might think it is funny, when it is in fact the devil who laughs at you.
Follow Muhammad, this is a straight way. A Prophet of God, the Best Prophet, should not be a subject to ridicule. If you ridicule a Prophet of God, you ridicule God.
When you realize it, your pain will be immense. You are on the wrong side of things. Your corruption is so great that you don’t even begin to phantom it!
CogitoErgoSum says
Abdullah, the only phantom I know is the imposter god, Allah, who has deceived you into believing his lies….and, yes, I fathom what I am saying. Muhammad was no prophet of God. I do not think this to be funny and, in fact, I take it very seriously. You may believe you are a servant of God, Abdullah, but you are actually a slave to the Father of Lies. But if your prayers are of pure intent, I am sure our Father in Heaven will still hear them and respond in His own way…….even if you have been misdirected. I pray that He grants you the grace and wisdom you need to accept the truth about your false prophet and that your pain will be slight to non-existent.
nacazo says
abdullah, how do you know if a prophet is of God?
Defcon 4 says
Muhammad said so, ergo, it must be true.
mortimer says
Obama is a Harvard lawyer who doesn’t understand the liberty of expression guarantees in the American constitution.
Obama called for censorship of Americans. His leftard friends didn’t blink! Free speech is being attacked by the President of the United States and his cabinet. They betray their oath to defend the constitution. This is impeachable.
David says
Here’s one senator who wants to impeach him anyway.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkansasmatters.com%2Fstory%2Fd%2Fstory%2Far-state-senator-calls-for-obama-impeachment%2F23034%2F0duesNLzPUqgscqESplDvQ&ei=mufxUpQNiYGVBaSlgKAE&usg=AFQjCNGTSEIF1glGqWHB-BC1jUJKmTKa8g
JessieJames says
At least there are two in Congress who show some sign of common sense; the Senator Rapert and Rand Paul.
CogitoErgoSum says
So President Obama says the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Is it slander if I say that Muhammad was a false prophet (which I do)? Does President Obama mean to imply that neither I nor anyone else who feels the same as I do should criticize Islam? What about the libel towards Jesus in the Quran? My religion has taught me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who became flesh and who was crucified, died and was buried and yet triumphantly rose from the dead so that all human beings may have eternal life. I believe that the Quran libels Jesus by saying a god called Allah simply tricked the followers of Jesus into believing an illusion of Jesus’s death and in actuality someone else died in His place…..making Jesus look like a coward and a betrayer of His own disciples. I call this libel and anyone who repeats it to be a slanderer of Jesus Christ. If you claim to be a Christian, President Obama, why do you not take a stand in defense of your own beliefs and your fellow Christians and against those who would libel and slander Jesus……or does the future not belong to Christians? If so, I must tell you that I pray for a future far different from yours, Mr. President. May the meek be truly blessed and may they soon inherit the Earth.
Jay Boo says
So President Obama says the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
————
“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
A person who does not belong in the future???
President Obama appears to be using code words to covertly acknowledge that those who criticize Islam should be murdered which would make him an accomplice to murder.
Obama’s words are clearly HATE SPEECH
I find it offensive, even.
“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”???
The political future does not belong to those who condone such awful hate speech.
Jorma says
The light that reveals the truth is not negative but the REFLECTION is!
duh_swami says
“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
And what is the most sure way a slanderer has no future? Sharia has the answer and Rasool Obama knows what it is. That treasonous statement went right over the heads of kuffar, but every Mahoundian that heard it knows what he meant.
revg says
To use the standards of islam, their own book depicts the Savior of Christianity in a negative light. Christians should demand profuse apologies from all muslims, along with destruction of all existing copies of the offending book. It is a simple quid pro quo interfaith dialogue, right?
Always On Watch says
Litigation jihad is a powerful tool for Islamic supremacism — particularly in this Era of Political Correctness, an era of madness and erosion of the right to freedom of expression.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
“The lawyers claim the video violates article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.””
So I guess they are even now filing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, Iran, all the “-stans” etc for violation of this article?
Hehe…sometimes I crack myself up…
Petey says
Why do you think the trial is in Jordan, Kinda hard to get a Judge so warped in the west, No Judge could twist the meaning that much unless he was a mahoundian, Thats why Google is being sued in a shitholistan. Cut off services for a couple of weeks see how Jordanians react. put them back in the 80s, a subtle hint of what it will be like in their caliphate
marky says
Realising of course that the film is based on what islams main teaching books detail about muhamad.
Now if muslims really wanted to stop things giving muhamad and islam a bad image, they would burn every copy of their satanic books, quran, hadiths and sira.
B Hall says
The broader context of Obama’s speech was one of religious tolerance. While he did say the sentence that was quoted above, he also said more:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”
The real question is whether “slander” can be defined as “writing the truth.” The adjunct question is whether writing such is equivalent to destroying property and killing innocents. If so, the Jordanian lawyers might have a valid point.
Defcon 4 says
I’m sorry, but there’s no context that redeems your islam0fascist apologist’s words. Free speech demands the right to slander anyone’s religion, if you, or he don’t like that then move to any islam0fascist state and wallow in the benighted ignorance and intolerance that all such states represent.
Publius says
You mistake government granted freedom of speech from socially acceptable speech.
I can say “Religious Figure X is a made-up human literary construct” (take your pick on the figure, it really doesn’t matter which one you choose).
The 1st amendment only promises that it is /legal/ for me to do so — you could vehemently disagree, call me names, and even refuse me service in most states as a result of my statement; there’s no law that protects me from you disliking me and treating me with disdain on account of my speech.
Defcon 4 says
I’m sorry but a world leader stating that “there must be no future for those who slander the prophet of islam” isn’t consistent w/your commentary that he’s merely referring to “socially acceptable speech”.
Publius says
Your quote is decidedly incorrect — he has never said “there must be no future…”, he said “The future must not belong to…”; there’s leagues of difference: the former implies an actionable idea, the latter clearly is stating that religious trolling should not continue as a culturally condoned primary means of interfaith communication.
Take a step back from this and view it in the abstract, which of these two methods is more likely to yield a world with inter-religious violence and hatred?
1) “Your god is retarded and I hate you, your vile way of life will cause you to be punished forever and ever after death.” or 2) “I fundamentally disagree with your beliefs, as you most likely also disagree with mine. Since neither of us is going to change our mind, drop the subject.”
You also did a lovely job of quote-mining while intentionally leaving out the second half of his “if a then b” statement, “Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”
You can twist anyone’s words if you choose to selectively edit them to fit your perceived world view, but it’s not going to get you anywhere, nor will it aid you in sharing your message with others. Attempting to categorically assign every single thing Obama says as some veiled attempt to be a cartoon bad guy isn’t even logical, though I’m sure if Obama said, “Sure is sunny today” you’d just counter with “not sunny enough, pinko”.
And even if I’m wrong on every single point I’ve just made (which I’m not), a presidential speech is not an ex cathedra declaration of policy, just as saying “mission accomplished” wasn’t a formal Bush policy calling for the wrap-up and withdrawal from Iraq.
CogitoErgoSum says
Although Obama did add those additional remarks, I wonder what constitutes slander against Muhammad? It will be interesting to see how an impartial court will decide in the matter.
The link below is to a site which provides a definition of slander and libel. If I read things correctly wouldn’t the plaintiff in this case have to be the person who was allegedly defamed, i.e., Muhammed…….who has been dead for about 1400 years? If this lawsuit is allowed to proceed, couldn’t a similar case be made on behalf of Jesus Christ against anyone who publishes the Quran?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander
Aardvark says
As the link you supplied states, libel and slander are “communication of false information about a person”. Hence, proving that the communication is true is a valid legal defence against any prosecution for libel or slander – but not under sharia law.
The sharia definition is significantly different: “libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent.” (See http://alturl.com/evwgx).
So any mohammedan can sue for libel if his feelings have been hurt by something you said or wrote, even if what you said is a direct quote from his ‘holy’ books!
So this case is likely to succeed in Jordan, even though it would be thrown out of court in short order in any civilised country.
gravenimage says
Jordanian lawyers sue Google over anti-Islam video
This is an attempt to impose Islamic law’s prohibition of criticism of Islam and Muhammad upon Google.
…………………………………..
That’s *exactly* what this is—an attempt to enforce Shari’ah as international law.
More:
Since Barack Obama has said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Google may find itself short on friends in high places.
…………………………………..
Yes—also an implication that Shari’ah strictures should be enforced—and one made by an American president. Chilling—and not anything I can imagine *any* previous president saying.
More:
Three lawyers from Jordan Bar Association’s Freedom Committee are suing Google…
…………………………………..
As others have already pointed out, the spectacle of a self-styled “Freedom Committee” pushing for court-enforced censorship is truly Orwellian…
More:
The film is considered blasphemous by Muslims as it depicts Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in a negative light.
…………………………………..
So? Firstly, one should have the freedom to depict *any* belief in a negative light. Secondly, the content of “The Innocence of Muslims”, despite its poor production values, is almost entirely accurate.
More:
Protests in response to the video began in Cairo on
September 11, 2012 and flowed across the Arab world, including attacks on US embassies in Libya and Tunisia.
…………………………………..
There’s some question as to whether the latter were spontaneous “protests”, but leave that aside. The fact that so many Muslims behaved like violent barbarians should be considered damning.
More:
Lawyer Duaa Zyoud told the court on Sunday the video was easily available for download and did not contain any warning, The Jordan Times reported.
…………………………………..
Why the hell should they? There are all sorts of things you can Google that might have disturbing content—I know how often I an shocked when searching for more information on the savagery of Jihad terror.
More:
The lawyers claim the video violates article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”
…………………………………..
*Grimly hilarious*—as though the free questioning of a faith impairs religious freedom—whereas, it is the very basis of religious freedom.
It is doubly grim when you realize how Islamic countries oppress and brutalize non-Muslims.
While Jordan is not *the* most horrifying Muslim country, Christians are persecuted, and since leaving Islam is not officially recognized, apostates face complete loss of their civil rights. Jews have been banned by law since before the founding of the state of Israel—from the 1920s. So Jordan is *hardly* a beacon of religious freedom.
More:
They had agreed to drop the court case, which was filed in February last year, if Google published an apology on its website for a week, admitting it had made a mistake.
But Google lawyer Thaer Najdawi said at the time that the lawyers suing the company misunderstood the concept of YouTube, and Google did not advocate for the video or its message….
…………………………………..
Google didn’t “make a mistake”.
This is just one of many Muslim attempts to crush freedom of speech.