Monckton Wants the Quran Outlawed

“Lord” Christopher Monckton apparently fancies himself an expert on the First Amendment and in his latest Worldnetdaily column, he demands that Congress pass a law outlawing all passages of the Quran that call for violence. He says nothing, of course, about virtually identical verses in the Bible.

Craven public authorities have failed to act against the circulation of the Quran in its present form because they fear a violent backlash.

How, then, is this manifestly illegal text to be dealt with? It is not our custom to ban books, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, it is our custom to prosecute for incitement to murder. And the fact that incitement is on every page of what is said to be a holy book does not diminish, still less extinguish, the offense.

A bill should be brought before Congress identifying all passages in the Quran which, whether in isolation or taken together, constitute incitement to murder.

The bill should specify that anyone who reads any of these passages out loud is to be charged with that crime and, if convicted, subjected to the usual penalty for it – a long prison term.

The bill should state that, after a grace period of a year, every copy of the Quran must clearly identify by emboldened and different-colored text the passages that constitute criminal incitement to murder, together with a clearly printed warning on the first page that reading any of these passages out loud anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States may result in prosecution.

And of course your next column will demand that same thing for Numbers 31 and many, many other Bible passages that say nearly the same thing, right? Of course not. Which is why no one need take you the least bit seriously.

"Fake news! The Earth is a oblate spheroid ."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"How and when did "boring" become a compliment? By focusing on traffic and infrastructure instead ..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"Funny. Not finding that statement anywhere that I care to put the effort into looking. ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"What you quoted them as saying, wasn't all that bad. So what's your problem with ..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • cptdoom

    The bill should specify that anyone who reads any of these passages out loud is to be charged with that crime and, if convicted, subjected to the usual penalty for it – a long prison term.

    Does that include “Christian” preachers who read those passages to “prove” how barbarous the Muslims are?

  • http://www.facebook.com/charlie.cain chuckcain

    “Manifestly illegal text” pretty much tells you all about his lordship that you need to know.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    To be fair, Monckton’s understanding of the First Amendment is at least on par with Sarah Palin’s.

  • raven

    I have read the bible but not much of the Koran. One was enough of a slog for a while.

    Scholars who have read both say they are about equivalent in gruesomeness and atrocities. The bible might even be worse because it is a lot longer.

    Heresy, blasphemy, atheism, and apostasy are all death penalty offenses in the bible. These are also of course, thoughtcrimes.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    What, this guy saw “V For Vendetta” and thought it was a good policy guide?

  • AsqJames

    It is not our custom to ban books […] it is our custom to

    First of all, traditionally it certainly has been. Moreso in the UK than the US, but both countries have had shameful periods of censorship and/or suppression of various forms of expression. The UK in particular has a strong tradition of censorship – from the Lord Chancellor banning plays to Lady Chatterly’s Lover to Spycatcher to the Guardian being forced to destroy it’s UK-held copies of the Snowdon files.

    Which leads me to ask a question: When did Lord Monckton become a US citizen? Or does he imagine readers of his WND column mostly share his nationality?

  • bmiller

    One thing that confuses me, how did this crackpot get through the immigration system when tens of thousands of honest, hard working people who will contribute to the United States cannot?

    He’s not an American citizen? My bad. He kept using the terms like “our custom” and fulminating about the American Constitution. If he is British, why should we care what this loon wants, and what gives him the right to speak for Americans?

    Now, to a degree I agree with him that the Religion of Submission (the real meaning of “Islam”, not the puerile “religion of peace”) is vile as is the Koran. But so is the Unholy Bible. If It exists, the source of evil is of course Yahweh itself, as It admits multiple times.

  • bmiller

    oops, ASQ: you caught the same thing I did. :)

    One would hope and yes, pray, that the readers of WND are Americans. I can only fear that the irrational loonyness needed to read WND is spreading to previously rational places.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    I’ll take his love of the United States constitution seriously when he drops and renounces that ridiculous title of his.

  • whheydt

    Well…most people come to understand the difference between fact and fiction. I surmise that Monckton missed out on learning that.

  • Kevin Kehres

    @4…I tried and failed to get through the Koran. Repetitive and mind-numbingly boring, when it’s not telling you about all the evils that will befall nonbelievers.

    It has a lot in common with Southern Baptist theology.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    And then after that, maybe identify its readers with a crescent on their clothing. And, maybe set up some camps for them, later, concentrating them, as it were, in one location. Like Gitmo, but with a rail spur, shower facilities and central heating. To Keep Us Safe®.

  • caseloweraz

    Bravo, AsqJames. The first question I thought of asking when I read this was, “When did TVMOB become an American citizen?”

    Of course, he might just think he’s an American citizen. What’s one more delusion? Or maybe he’s forgotten about that event which was ended in 1783 by the Treaty of Paris.

  • Trebuchet

    Oh “Lord”. Not again. Damn it, Ed.

  • raven

    It is not our custom to ban books,

    Well, I hope not.

    You are supposed to pile the books up. Pour gasoline over them and light them up. Upload the video to Youtube.

    This is christofascism 001 remedial, and even Lord Monkton should know this.

  • AsqJames

    @bmiller & caseloweraz,

    I’m having second thoughts about the meaning of “our”. I suspect he’s actually identifying with “western civilisation” generally, and those of “Judeo-Christian” heritage more specifically. Of course that would make his claims re. banning/burning books even more ridiculously ahistorical, but such denial of history surely comes easily to a man who spends most of his time denying the present.

    Really it’s just a rhetorical device intended to distinguish his type of authoritarian fascism from the authoritarian fascism he is attacking:

    1. We believe in freedom of expression and live-and-let-live.

    2. They believe in censorship and do-as-we-tell-you.

    3. Therefore (to protect freedom of expression and individual rights) we must censor ideas and tell people what they can and can’t say on pain of imprisonment.

    There might just be a tiny logical contradiction in there somewhere.

  • doublereed

    The Quran should not be blessed with the honor of being banned.

  • busterggi

    Since Rethugs would write the bill its likely they’d end up outlawing Korn.

  • Johnny Vector

    On the brighter side, this bodes well for the general public acceptance of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. In the sense that it appears Lord M. believes that particular gravy train has been switched onto an unused, overgrown section of rusting track, and has, at the last minute and employing a very expensive stunt double, leapt across the void onto the anti-Islam gravy train. In 3D.

    Thus leaving the other anti-AGW passengers in a bit of a lurch.

    WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF ANTHONY WATTS???

  • Hatchetfish

    Ignoring the fascism for a moment, it’s amazing that he seems to think this would actually help. Because, you know, banning violent rhetoric on pain of imprisonment always calms down the people who for whatever reason might wish to use violent rhetoric…

  • aziraphale

    There is a difference between the Qur’an and Numbers 31. No-one today is taking Numbers 31 as a command to massacre the Midianites. It’s a record of a historical event, not a general command to all believers. Whereas members of ISIS are quoting the Qur’an to justify their ongoing massacres.

    I have some sympathy with the view that reciting some parts of the Qur’an in certain contexts could be an incitement to murder. But if so, the offences should be dealt with as they occur.

  • jnorris

    I want a law requiring all the Bible verses in the Constitution be printed in red.

  • iangould

    The Book of Mormon contains some very explicit incitement to murder.

    As does the Mahabharata.

  • iangould

    Azariphale – African witchhunters – including the guy who repeatedly visited Palin”s church – regularly cite the OT verse about not sufferinga witch to live.

  • dan4

    @21 What about Leviticus 20: 13, which explicitly calls for the death penalty for two homosexual men for the “crime” of them having intercourse?

  • aziraphale

    @24, @25: Good points. I would say quoting those verses in certain contexts could also be incitement to murder. But Monckton’s proposals for the Qur’an are of course ridiculous, as they would be for the Bible.

    @23: I don’t know the Book of Mormon. In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna urges Arjuna to do his duty by fighting in a war even though some on the opposite side are his kinsmen. Is that what you mean? If so, I don’t think it counts as incitement to murder.

  • dingojack

    Dan – I’m pretty sure the there are various laws in America that call for the death penalty, is US law then ‘an incitement to murder’?

    Dingo

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R2XG9CnOj8 Olav

    Trebuchet #14:

    Oh “Lord”. Not again. Damn it, Ed.

    Ed is right to put it in quotes. Unless you believe that such a silly title actually means something.

  • felicis

    “How, then, is this manifestly illegal text to be dealt with? It is not our custom to ban books, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.”

    How is this book ‘manifestly illegal’ when the right to print it is ‘guaranteed by the Constitution’?

    Of course – part of his problem is confusing the right of freedom of speech (and the press) with a ‘custom’ as though it were a quaint peculiarity that can safely be discarded.

  • iangould

    “Whensoever there is the fading of the Dharma and the uprising of unrighteousness, then I loose myself forth into birth.

    For the deliverance of the good, for the destruction of the evil-doers, for the enthroning of the Right, I am born from age to age.”

    Krishna; Bhagavad Gita Chapter 4, verses 7–8;

  • iangould

    “Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom the doubt born of ignorance that lies in thy heart. Be one in self-harmony, in Yoga, and arise, great warrior, arise.”

    Krishna; Chapter 4, verse 4

  • busterggi

    re: 30. Isn’t that a line from The Three Amigos?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    I have some sympathy with the view that reciting some parts of the Qur’an in certain contexts could be an incitement to murder. But if so, the offences should be dealt with as they occur.

    I think they are commands to murder. However, that’s a different thing than prosecutable incitement, assult, and threats under US law. I do not believe the Qur’an is prosecutable in that way. You have to go pretty far to get prosecuted under the US law standard. For example, posting the names, faces, addresses of abortion doctor providers, and detailed instructions on how to about killing them, and explicit assertions that you should kill them. A general statement “you should kill abortion doctors” posted online without further context is legal (pretty sure, but I am not a lawyer).