The eternal flame of Muslim outrage
Every blogger worth his salt knows “Islamic Rage Boy.” He represents the professional Muslim grievance-monger, always at the ready to protest whatever manufactured insult could be exploited to curse the West. Christopher Hitchens wrote on the futility of appeasing the worldwide Rage Boy mob — a theme I’ve struck here for years, which bears repeating as we prepare to mark the 9th anniversary of 9/11, and which I reiterate in my syndicated column today. We didn’t start the fire.
***
The eternal flame of Muslim outrage
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The “Muslim world” will “explode” if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the “Muslim world” not ready to “explode”?
At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways.
Just a few months ago in Kashmir, faithful Muslims rioted over what they thought was a mosque depicted on underwear sold by street vendors. The mob shut down businesses and clashed with police over the blasphemous skivvies. But it turned out there was no need for Allah’s avengers to get their holy knickers in a bunch. The alleged mosque was actually a building resembling London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral. A Kashmiri law enforcement official later concluded the protests were “premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere.”
Indeed, art and graphics have an uncanny way of vitiating the Muslim world’s atmosphere. In 1994, Muslims threatened German supermodel Claudia Schiffer with death after she wore a Karl Lagerfeld-designed dress printed with a saying from the Koran. In 1997, outraged Muslims forced Nike to recall 800,000 shoes because they claimed the company’s “Air” logo looked like the Arabic script for “Allah.” In 1998, another conflagration spread over Unilever’s ice cream logo — which Muslims claimed looked like “Allah” if read upside-down and backward (can’t recall what they said it resembled if you viewed it with 3D glasses).
Even more explosively, in 2002, an al-Qaida-linked jihadist cell plotted to blow up Bologna, Italy’s Church of San Petronio because it displayed a 15th century fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented in the ninth circle of Hell. For years, Muslims had demanded that the art come down. Counterterrorism officials in Europe caught the would-be bombers on tape scouting out the church and exclaiming, “May Allah bring it all down. It will all come down.”
That same year, Nigerian Muslims stabbed, bludgeoned or burned to death 200 people in protest of the Miss World beauty pageant — which they considered an affront to Allah. They shouted, “Allahu Akbar!” And “Down with beauty!” And “Miss World is sin!” Contest organizers fled out of fear of inflaming further destruction. When Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel joked that Mohammed would have approved of the pageant and that “in all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them,” her newspaper rushed to print three retractions and apologies in a row. It didn’t stop Muslim vigilantes from torching the newspaper’s offices. A fatwa was issued on Daniel’s life by a Nigerian official in the sharia-ruled state of Zamfara, who declared that “the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed. It is abiding on all Muslims wherever they are to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.” Daniel fled to Norway.
In 2005, British Muslims got all hot and bothered over a Burger King ice cream cone container whose swirly-texted label resembled, you guessed it, the Arabic script for “Allah.” The restaurant chain yanked the product in a panic and prostrated itself before the Muslim world. But the fast-food dessert had already become a handy radical Islamic recruiting tool. Rashad Akhtar, a young British Muslim, told Harper’s Magazine how the ice cream caper had inspired him: “Even though it means nothing to some people and may mean nothing to some Muslims in this country, this is my jihad. I’m not going to rest until I find the person who is responsible. I’m going to bring this country down.”
In 2007, Muslims combusted again in Sudan after an infidel elementary school teacher innocently named a classroom teddy bear “Mohammed.” Protesters chanted, “Kill her, kill her by firing squad!” and “No tolerance — execution!” She was arrested, jailed and faced 40 lashes for blasphemy before being freed after eight days. Not wanting to cause further inflammation, the teacher rushed to apologize: “I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone, and I am sorry if I caused any distress.”
And who could forget the global Danish cartoon riots of 2006 (instigated by imams who toured Egypt stoking hysteria with faked anti-Islam comic strips)? From Afghanistan to Egypt to Lebanon to Libya, Pakistan, Turkey and in between, hundreds died under the pretext of protecting Mohammed from Western slight, and brave journalists who stood up to the madness were threatened with beheading. It wasn’t really about the cartoons at all, of course. Little-remembered is the fact that Muslim bullies were attempting to pressure Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. The chairmanship of the council was passing to Denmark at the time. Yes, it was just another in a long line of manufactured Muslim explosions that were, to borrow a useful phrase, “premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere.”
When everything from sneakers to stuffed animals to comics to frescos to beauty queens to fast-food packaging to undies serves as dry tinder for Allah’s avengers, it’s a grand farce to feign concern about the recruitment effect of a few burnt Korans in the hands of a two-bit attention-seeker in Florida. The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
22 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
46 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
112 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
So that’s what makes it okay? When they burn our flags and Bibles, it’s not offensive because they’re showing us they’re not afraid of offending us?
glad my words stick in your craw!!! HAHAHHHHAHHA
I don’t remember much that a loser like you says, so sorry sonny!!
you and chappy…creepy fascists stalkers of a feather flock together!!
but hey keep following me around..sniffing my backside, since it seems to turn you on so much!!
everything you’ve said about me is a lie…the whole part about slaughtering all the muslims…yadayadyd…
but keep on with your lies…I know its the only thing that comforts you!
wakco
oh and john-boy, I come and go as I please…I know you miss me so!! LOL
In this context, yes, when it’s done in the face of actual attempts to intimidate us into toeing their line.
I really don’t see it as any different than Rushdie publishing The Satanic Verses.
The moral equivalence you suggest just isn’t there. We’ve never given them any kind of reason to be afraid of offending us (making them afraid of attacking us is another matter, of course), so what logical reason would they have to demonstrate that they’re not afraid of doing so?
johnny is a dhimmi. he will submit
You can’t see any difference between disputing the contents of a book and burning it?
burning a book that YOU own is freedom. how hard is this?
but given your limited cognitive ability…
oh and I remember your OUTRAGE when the military burned the bible….NOT.
Unfortunately, I can’t top chapoutier’s assessment of r4l.
I believe it was something about a preening narcissist with roid rage.
Now go get your dictionary because those are big words.
Gee…
I’m looking for anything RATIONAL in here….
no surprise given your limited cognitive ability.
In terms of moral differences, no. Both acts are going to be interpreted as blasphemous and offensive by the adherents of the book in question.
Seriously, I don’t get where this idea comes from that the mere act of burning a book (that is the legal property of the burner) is some kind of crime against humanity. If it’s done with the intention of trying to forbid, deter, or intimidate someone out of reading it, then of course I can see the problem there. But it’s the intent behind the act that counts, not the act itself.
Things haven’t changed much here…
Unless you are an anal retentive librarian.
perhaps…I think rags has been banned
So, toppling the government under Saddam Hussien and working with the UN to set up a new, non-tyrannous state is a loss???
Iraq an ally of Iran?
You don’t know much about the Arab-Persian rivalry do you?
Luigi,
Be careful there. It starts with logic, reason, and facts. It ends with Captain Ad Hominem displaying the reason why he has no friends.
I was all for toppling Saddam, not because he was a tyrant, but because he was a reckless and dangerous tyrant.
We achieved that easily. We should have quit while we had the win. “Mission Accomplished.”
The state that is replacing him will certainly not be ‘non-tyrannous.’ And it will be/already is an ally of Iran.
I am fully aware of the Arab/Persian rivalry. I am also aware that doesn’t get in the way of Iran’s alliance with Syria, nor its control of Hezbollah and Hamas.
And those Arabs aren’t even Shia. Most of the Iraqi Arabs are.
Rags has been ad hominem all over me for a while now. So are you joining in without even the pretense of using logic, reason and facts, only the unsupported claim you do?
Whatever is going on between you and rags is another thing entirely. r4l has a history of insulting and demonizing people who don’t agree with him as I’ve shown in that link.
I’m opposed to burning the Koran for the sole purpose of insulting 1.2 billion people. I don’t have a problem with the government burning unused Korans as they did Bibles. It’s the motive, not the act, that I have a problem with.
sniff sniff..poor baby…I just respond to people as I am responded to…people like you and rags,zero, chappy, etc…cannot remain civil for long….something about when you lose the argument you get nasty.
of course you don’t have a problem with burning bibles…by the government…no surprise…
did you starch your brown shirt this morning?
interesting…I can’t seem to find that link…perhaps your post was deleted…like rag’s post was deleted…and then he was banned apparently…
Flyoverman replied to you yesterday about this.
What indications are you seeing that the Iraqi government will start (or is already) oppressing its people the way Tehran does?
I think you may have misconstrued the motive. I don’t think it was done specifically to offend all Muslims, any more than that’s the intent when the government burns unused Qurans (even though that too might offend Muslims). I see it as being done as a way of standing up to the Rage Boy types in order to show them that they can’t get away with intimidating us into giving up our own constitutional freedoms (unfortunately, they succeeded this time).
yes I know…and the answer was basically…REGULATIONS…its ok…the regulations say its OK.
thats an answer?
but of course REGULATIONS NEVER say burn the quran…oh no…handle it with gloves on…
yeah thats a real good answer…
Bingo. And those who piled on in condsemnation of the burning have now affirmed to the muslim world that we as a society can be intimidated into treating Islam in a superior manner to the way we treat Christianity and all other religions.
That is the definition of dhimmification. The process is well under way.
Roland,
When your life and limbs are on the line, go burn all the Korans you want in Afghanistan. In a year or two the troops will pull away from the general population. You can then go over there and show them your stuff — I will only wave and say night-night.
Sure. Let’s just keep submitting until some indefinite date when all of our troops will finally be at home.
You really don’t see a problem with that?
Read through some of Ralph Peter’s columns. In my view, he succinctly explains what must be done.
Rags, did you actually read Ann Coulter’s column?
Hello MtsEdge, I hope you and yours are doing well!
I don’t think rags will answer anymore…I believe he was banned.
We’re well here, thanks!
Are you sure about Rags? What did he do?
He made a post, and then the post vanished, and he hasn’t posted since.
I don’t see why MM would have banished him. The vanished post didn’t seem even remotely worthy of removal, from what I recall. Maybe there’s some kind of glitch in the software making it fail to recognize his identity, or maybe he got found out as using two identities, or something like that.
I’m sure he’ll be back.
I was kind of enjoying the flame wars…and admittedly surprised by Rags’ statements.
Try comment 413.
Project much? That’s your modus operandi.
yeah just like I lost this argument with your now-banned apparently friend rags….LOL
and just like I lost arguments with chappy and zero…..yeah….I rang the bell…they foamed at the mouth!! LOL
oh thank you! I am so glad you find my words SO memorable…they must have REALLY left a mark!! LOL
oh and since you have so obviously missed me…I’ll try to post more often just for you john!!
Every time I go to the shooting range to practice marksmanship with my AR-15, I always target depictions of Islamic murderers. I wish I knew how to write in Arabic so that I could insult them more completely. I am offended by anyone doing any kind of “jihad,” any Muslim claiming to be insulted, by anyone who promotes Sharia-mafia “law”, and anyone who insults or interferes with Christians. “Death to Islamic murderers!” seems like a nice chant at protests.
I’ve been in Christian circles for 30 years and only the Sinless Perfection Holiness types preach that you never sin after becoming a Christian. In their case, it is after you receive the 2d blessing (baptism of the Holy Spirit). The biblical witness is clear: “There is not a just man upon the earth that does good and yet does not sin.” What people “fall away” from is persevering in the faith that Christ is their atonement. As someone already said, saying that to be a Christian means you don’t sin is nuts and doesn’t read the bible much.
In any event, it’s not a rationalization. We do it here, don’t we? Doesn’t just about every conservative on this comments board lament the presence of “RINOs” in the GOP? By the standard offered just offered re: “moderate Muslims we can work with”, we would have no basis to call RINOs “in name only”. We would have to concede that ANYONE could call themselves a Republican and we would have to accept their bare assertion as definitive, regardless of their subsequent actions or words. If someone says they are Republican and yet votes and supports the Democrat agenda time and time again, we rightfully question whether that person is really a Republican. Why can that not be the case with religioin?
A person who doesn’t observe the doctrine of their “faith” can’t rightly be said to be “observant”.
These things define a non-Muslim. It is the exact opposite of how a faithful Muslim expresses his obedience to his faith. If a person is doing all the above, how faithful is to the Muslim faith? Does that even make sense? “Yes, I’m a Muslim, I just don’t practice anything they teach.” ???
Can I just show up at a Kingdom Hall and say I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, I just don’t buy all that Charles Russell stuff; in fact, I’m a ’5 point Calvinistic’ Jehovah’s Witness? I suppose I could, but at that point, I’ve become something OTHER than a faithful Jehovah’s Witness; I’ve just established my own version of the JW faith. Why is that hard to understand?
Also, just to be on topic
I should add I do think burning the Qur’an was stupid and foolish. For me as a Christian, I can’t see how it accomplishes anything worthwhile.
It seems to me, and you can try to correct me if you think I’m wrong, but the rage engendered in mohammedans by their “religious leaders” over so-called slights against their “religion” prevents them from wondering why they don’t have hot and cold running water and sewage systems, health care that would prevent their babies from dying before they could grow up, educational opportunities that would allow them to compete in the world marketplace or at least read and write, information systems that would allow them to learn what is happening in more places that their little neighborhood in the shadow of their mosque, live long and healthy lives, that the acts of individuals are the responsibility of those individuals, and understand that everything bad that happens in the world isn’t the fault of the United States.
ECS
Be careful. One of these days the FBI may get after you.
Either begin restricting your comments to the topic at hand, or shut up.
To quote Robin Williams from “Good Will Hunting”…
My life and limbs are on the line, or don’t you understand terrorism?
To base political and military strategy on the fear that the enemy may want to hurt our troops is completely insane.
Pull the troops out if we’re afraid of them having to fight the enemy. We can shrink the size of the military, in that case, and save the taxpayers some money… of course, unemployment will go way up, but what the hey, at least they won’t be in harms way.
Enraging the enemy is a good thing. It gets him out in the open where we can kill him. It makes him make mistakes because his actions are based on rage rather than strategy.
Of course, it does no good if those in charge of the military (Biden, at present) are unwilling to actually kill the enemy, or indeed, acknowledge that they are the enemy…
It enrages the enemy. It shows that we don’t follow his superstition. It shows that we’re not afraid of his outrage. It makes more shelf space for Bibles.
And in enraging the enemy, it shows what medieval barbarians the enemy is.
This is one of the extremely rare times I agree with Christopher Hitchens.
He nailed it on the “Rage boy” thing.