And French authorities can do nothing: “According to Le Figaro, distributors have ignored petitions and criticism and the authorities have no legal recourse to impose a ban on them.” Yet the call for jihad is an open call for the destruction of the French Republic and its replacement by a very different governmental and societal structure — one which would institutionalize discrimination against women and non-Muslims. The French authorities really can’t do anything about that? Then they have resigned themselves to defeat at the hands of the jihadists who are motivated and inspired by these books.
“France: outcry after pro-jihad books sold at supermarket,” ANSAmed, July 30, 2014 (thanks to Lookmann):
(ANSAmed) – PARIS – Heated debate has arisen in France due to the selling in over 1,000 supermarkets of books openly calling for jihad and ”death to heretics”, such as ‘Voie du Musulman’. The books were distributed as part of ‘Operation Ramadan’, an initiative to promote the sale of Islamic publications in France sponsored since 2001 by the Lebanese publisher Mansour Mansour. According to Le Figaro, distributors have ignored petitions and criticism and the authorities have no legal recourse to impose a ban on them. (ANSAmed).
Charli Main says
What the hell is wrong with the French??? If the necessary laws don´t exist, create them.!!!!!
Mind you, laws to the incitement of religious and racial hatred exist in Britain but Muslims are exempt.
Muslims can preach hate, violence and murder but that’s all ok—-they are only good Muslims practicing their religion.
epistemology says
The French have got great laws. Among all the European nations France is the the most secular, they’ve got a name for it “laicité”. But something is wrong with law enforcement, the politicians. A French co-warrior sent me a link to an article where a French flic (cop) anonymously said: “We’re no cowards, we’d love to act, but we’re not allowed to.” European politicians are wimps when it comes to Islam, the religion of terrorism.
Charli Main says
Agreed. your points are good and I have taken them on board. Any implied criticism of the people of France was unintentional. Please accept apologies.
No Fear says
If French authorities sent copies to every person in France would that be “religious vilification” or “cultural enrichment”?
duh_swami says
I wonder if these books are big sellers?
Jan Fourowls says
More proof from France that we need to “slander” the prophet of Islam as much as possible over the global internet so that the French, the Germans, the Americans, the decent people of all nations can see the true counterpoint about why evil pro-jihad Islam would call for both murder and institutionalized discrimination short of genocide.
Convinced already the President of the U.S. is a Benedict Arnold, since I saw his asinine “future doesn’t belong to those who slander the prophet [Mo/Allah]” threat to Americans’ free speech —which Obama as a Harvard Law grad (1L torts class) knows full well is only his Muslim bullying threat to non-Muslims because (A) truth would be a complete defense to a bogus slander charge if somebody was alive but (B) you cannot defame the dead (!!!) and (C) you particularly cannot defame the deadly dastardly dead-as-a-door-nail-damned-to-hell-pedophile-murderer-Muhammad — it has motivated my blog commenting as widely as possible all around the internet about the typically dastardly, deadly deeds (like the article’s depiction of incitement to Muslims’ warring jihad) of those who follow Islam’s prophet in the 21st century.
For example, I recently learned that Sunni Muslims are responsible for 70% of the terrorist murders the world over. Thus, when you define terrorism as murder instead of defining it as scaring people the way Muslim-American apologists on the taxpayers’ payroll like to define it to get their murdering numbers down, the truth gets a little clearer.
I’ve also been floating a little excerpt from the Quran in blog comments, inviting anybody to share it widely with their friends, lists, families, etc. You’re also welcome to share.
The feedback from those not regular JW readers is that who knew (!) the Quran so clearly authorizes both horrible torture and murder but also deception and scheming by Muslims against non-Muslims.
Somebody remarked to the effect “now I know why Obama is always lying.”
Here’s the excerpt (certainly not everything the Quran and Hadiths say about the hateful, hostile, violent teachings of Islam or deceiving the rest of us, but as much as most people who don’t already know can wrap their heads around at first):
” …’I [Allah] shall … cast terror into the hearts of the infidels.
Strike off their heads, smite the ends of their fingers.’
This is because they defied Allah and His Apostle [Muhammad]. He that defies Allah and His Apostle shall be sternly punished. (We said to them): ‘Feel our scourge.’ …
Allah plotted also. Allah is most profound in His machinations.
… Make war on them until persecution is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.
… Let believers [Muslims] not make friends with infidels [non-Muslims] in preference to the faithful [Muslims] — he that does this [makes friends] has no connection with Allah unless you guard yourselves against them [don’t tell the truth to non-Muslims] …. Allah schemed.
Allah is the supreme schemer. …
But in the end I [Allah] smote the unbelievers: and how terrible was My rejection [some translations say abhorrence] of them. ”
(Quran [Surahs] 8:10, 12 -15, 30, 39, 46; 3:28, 54 – 55; 35:25 – 26).
Decent people who expect a religion’s holy guidelines for conduct to be something like the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount are astonished and appalled when they read an excerpt from the Quran after hearing only the Muslim hypocrisy of its internal Quranic lies about the merciful (blah, blah taqiyya) and peaceful character of Allah.
Claiming to be a non-Satanic religion is such evil brilliance for the evil Islam that works only when they can silence the truth about their own unholy scriptures.
Claiming to be a religion as decent people understand religion is such evil brilliance that if I weren’t a Christian already I’d be tempted to wonder if anything but Satanic force in the Devil [Allah] vs. God [and His Christ/Messiah] spiritual war could have spawned Islam.
Devout Jews and Messianic Jews no doubt have their own similar opinions because we are all (Jews and Christians alike) “people of the Book” to Muslims, and their Quran proves that with every intolerant breath they draw, they hate and want to destroy us.
john spielman says
It is NOT slander to tell the TRUTH about Muhammed that demon possessed mass murderer, thief liar misogynist and PEDOPHILE false prophet of islam!
Fr. Basil says
\\(B) you cannot defame the dead\\
I believe there have been court cases or even laws in the USA reversing this common law principle.
Jan Fourowls says
Actually, no, Fr. Basil, it remains generally true in the U.S. that you can’t defame the dead in a civil case: http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/01/can-you-be-sued-for-libeling-dead-john.html
I’m sure you’re not intending to give legal advice; neither am I. What follows (and the basis of my comments always) is generally available public information on the internet, and a lifetime of common knowledge as a U.S. citizen who’s lived from sea to shining sea (including the central coast of TX).
See generally from a comprehensive fact sheet as one state’s example: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-defamation-law. As that resource states: ‘Georgia recognizes no “right of action for defamation of a deceased person.” Saari v. Gillett Communications of Atlanta, Inc., 393 S.E.2d 736, 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).’
This example is provided because Wikipedia incorrectly suggests that 10 states including GA by statute, for example, broadly prosecute statutory criminal defamation (as opposed to civil defamation by private lawsuit), cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/; so if you get your info from wikipedia, consider the source — some of its articles much more reliable than others. Even by the wikipedia article’s inferences, criminal defamation of centuries-long dead public religious figures would be practically and constitutionally unprosecutable even if the state statutes are not formally repealed, instead subject to judicial abrogation following court decision, e.g., http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state, which using the GA example states, “Williamson v. State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional because the language “tends to provoke a breach of peace” is vague and overbroad. ”
California and New York — the biggest U.S. population centers — have no criminal defamation statutes at all, and Illinois according to the online source, firstamendmentcenter.org, only makes it a misdemeanor “to defame or libel a bank or other financial institution with the intent to damage its solvency; truth is an absolute defense.” 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 300/1 (2005).
Obviously if it were criminally prosecutable “slander” to speak out against a long-dead or even recently dead religious public figure, Muhammad or otherwise, we could not speak about Gandhi’s creepy conduct in bed with pubescent girls as a supposed test of his Hindu asceticism, we could not speak about Roman Emperors and Catholic Popes of the first millenium A.D. who distorted the message of Jesus Christ when they attempted permanently to make His church an arm of Roman empire, we could not be Americans under our current Constitution.
A few states in the U.S. with which I’ve had little contact apparently have some odd criminal libel laws on their books (Colorado, e.g., http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state), but the Constitutional freedoms of and from religion would come into play even in Colorado for “slandering” Muhammad as the putative founder of an ostensibly peaceful (not) religion provably unpeaceful by terrorist conduct of its Arabic-Quran-reading adherents from its founding in the 7th Century and into the 21st Century. Making comments about Muhammad and Allah invokes another layer of Constitutional protection on religious grounds different from what dead people who are not religious public figures might enjoy through their family members as protection of their good family name in Colorado.
Kansas criminal libel statutes make clear the justification for any libel protection against vilifying the memory of the recently (not 7th century) dead who are not religious public figures regarding their still living family-member kinfolks and close friends. The Louisiana criminal defamation statute has largely been judicially abrogated, it would appear. And so on.
The rhetoric arguing to allow defamation cases on behalf of the dead, e.g., http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/defaming-the-dead/, has not been accepted in the U.S.
People can bring bogus slander and libel lawsuits on behalf of the dead (and they do), but those cases typically are summarily dismissed. Generally under the Constitution there’s no defamation of living public figures without actual malice. Who of us actually hold malice against Muhammad, who’s been dead for more than a millennium and we’ve never met, instead of rationally, as all civilized and moral people should, hating (1) the intolerant, discriminatory, hostile and violent words of the Quran his religious followers say he wrote single-handedly by divine inspiration and which as point of fact inspire Islamic terrorists’ conduct today, (2) and the intolerant, discriminatory, hostile and violent acts of the Quran-reading terrorists who claim Muhammad and his Allah as their inspiration for intolerant, discriminatory, hostile and violent acts and omissions?
Moreover for most defamation cases (per quod and not per se), actual damages are required. Of course exceptions prove the rule and angels dance on the heads of pins, but “slandering” Muhammad is currently in the U.S. not actionable, as Obama knew when he issued his Muslim bullying threat about it.
As a practical matter what we write and say about Muhammad, given the extensive scriptural and historical record not to mention current events, should be protected as U.S. citizens even under unconstitutional UN Resolution 16/18’s terms. The problem is that with so traitorous a pro-Islamist as Obama running the White House, and a Congress which won’t reign him in, and quisling Eric Holder in the administration, we are at risk of back-door selective, subjective and biased enforcement of the unconstitutional UN Resolution — an end run around criminal defamation laws that don’t really exist in practice in the U.S. any way for applicability to Muhammad — if the S.2219 of Sen. Ed Markey and the H.R. 3878 of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries are enacted this year.
What happens if the U.S. Congress enacts S. 2219 from Sen. Ed Markey and H.R. 3878 from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries — which would provide policing and enforcement teeth to Obama’s collaboration with the UN’s Islamic states for UN Resolution 16/18 — is anybody’s guess.
With the way this Presidency and big-talk-do-nothing Congress is going, by Executive Order de facto dictatorship we could be robbed of our Constitutional rights to litigate in court the unconstitutionality of S. 2219 and H.R. 3878.
It’s still not too late, if you have any belief remaining in the viability of the American red-blue two party system, to write and call members of Congress and oppose S. 2219 and H.R. 3878.
I no longer have any belief it their viability, although some might not be entirely co-opted contrary to the Constitution at this point, so I did both write and call. We’ll see what the rest of America does, and how it goes for our country.
Jan Fourowls says
By first sentence above I meant that as a general principle in U.S. there is no civilly actionable (common law) cause of action in a court case for defamation of the dead.
Also no precedent in U.S. for successfully using a criminal defamation statute (in those few states where they exist) to prosecute for words said about a long-dead religious public figure.
“Slander” was by any reasonable inference a calculatedly misused word in Harvard Law graduate Obama’s threat as a Muslim bully to the American people.
If there were already ways in the U.S. currently to prosecute Americans for “slandering” Muhammad, then Sen. Ed Markey would not need to be proposing his S. 2219 as companion to the H.R. 3878 of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.
islamforbids.com says
Can’t or wont .Government is force If they are unwilling to act replace it with force or die under Islam .
Dumbledoresarmy says
Question.
Would it be possible for shops or cafes owned by non-Muslims, in France, to have available on a bookshelf or on the counter, for their customers to pick up and read at will, copies of Robert Redeker’s article from Le Figaro of September 19 2006? In which, among other things, he states plainly that “Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence”?
Or photocopies of French translations of Dutch scholar Hans Jansen’s article, “On Stopping the Advance of Islam?”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/20827
Or to sell, for those who can read English, copies of Robert Spencer’s “The Truth About Muhammad” and “Did Muhammad Exist?” and “Not Peace But a Sword” and “Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t”.
Or …get the publishers to reprint Jacques Ellul’s “Un Chretien Pour Israel” (1983) …and if they won’t, then find an existing copy, do a digital scan and make it available for customers to read on their computers, right there, or printed off as hardcopy and stapled together in folders…samizdat. Bound in with Ellul’s essay on Jihad that he wrote as preface for Bat Yeor’s “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam” (now *there’s* another book that could be on the shelf, for people to dip into as they sip their coffee), and with his magnificent essay demolishing the usual interfaith snake-oil, “Les Trois Piliers du Conformisme”.
Michael Copeland says
Shopkeepers who do might find their premises visited by fire-raisers, or themselves “leant on” and “persuaded” to refrain. Thuggery pays, remember.
jose allen says
I had not seen this section (in the picture at the top of this article) in my local grocery store…but a thought occurred to me. Is there anything to stop people putting pork into their grocery carts and placing it amongst the halal meat?
Jay Boo says
I guess this means Muhammad Halloween clown masks are not halal in France.
Walter Sieruk says
Once again France is receiving the fruits or results of its officials being so kind ye so foolish to let into their country all the Muslims..For many of them, if given a chance will try to overthrow that nation is institute an Islamic regime. Let face France does not need Islam and never will and is better off with out it. If those Muslims really believe that they are better or superior to the French then they should go back home to their Islamic countries. France is now infected with the plague of Islam. One outcome of this Islamic invasion was the shooting of the Jewish people in Paris by a Muslim who was engaging in the jihad against the Jews for Islam. In this murderous Islamic shooting even a little Jewish girl was murdered. Its thus only a matter of time before France has suicide/homicide bombing. This is ,many times, the result of Muslim male believing in the odd, and strange doctrine from the Quran of a sex filled paradise with many virgins in it for the Muslim male who dies in the jihad for the cause of Islam. As in Sura 44:54. 55:56. 787:31. Faith in this bizarre ,weird teaching of Islam has the outcome of much evil and mayhem. To further explain the terrible results of belief in the nonsensical and far-fetched doctrine of Islam in a place with virgins, houris, may be described in the essence of the statement of the French philosopher, Voltaire, who wrote “As long as men continue to believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.”
Pennswoods says
The problem with the French and all Western societies is that they/we are obsessed with “equality”. Not all religions are equal. In our modern world Islam is incapable of looking at other religions or people with no religion as equals. Therefore Islam is not to be judged as an equal.
Charli Main says
Excellent point, well presented. I don´t even consider Islam a religion, as Islam only advocates death, rape and murder.
Jeff says
Are Muslims calling for the removal of these jihadist materials? If not, then it is clear France must begin to remove the infestation of Muslims it has allowed into its society, homes, and neighborhoods.
GP says
At first it was only in the muslim ghettos of Western nations that non-muslims were not welcome. Now it has come full circle, clearly muslims have never wanted to assimilate into their host country. Rather they wanted to convert them into another one of their wretched hives, by any means fair or foul. They are cunning and masterful at harnessing the freedoms and tolerance found in Western civilization to achieve their goals.