The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

[Danno 1,228]

The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

by Michelle Malkin

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/10/the-eternal-flame-of-muslim-outrage/

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.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

by Michelle Malkin

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/10/the-eternal-flame-of-muslim-outrage/

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.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Somebody call the President! Danno is going inflame the Muslim world!

I have given you my fair share of vitriol but my hat is off to you sir, this post is a gem!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure a Michelle Malkin article is what's called for here, perhaps you can find some choice Ann Coulter as well. Nothing inspires a good debate like that pair of "respected scholars"

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm sure a Michelle Malkin article is what's called for here, perhaps you can find some choice Ann Coulter as well. Nothing inspires a good debate like that pair of "respected scholars"

Ah - the usual "attack the source" routine. How original.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah... Michelle Malkin is a "source".

Right

[Pooky 3,348]

Yeah... Michelle Malkin is a "source".

Right

Then find some evidence that what she wrote is untrue.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's an op-ed opinion piece that uses scattered factoids to advance a typically inflammatory false premise.

[luckytxn 2,263]

I love Michelle Malkin.

[Boiler 43,462]

It's an op-ed opinion piece that uses scattered factoids to advance a typically inflammatory false premise.

I guess you can be pretty sheltered in the US, much more in your individual face in the UK.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What are you referring to?

I love Michelle Malkin.

Naturally. You're a sheep for such things.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

It's an op-ed opinion piece that uses scattered factoids to advance a typically inflammatory false premise.

Ok, then let's look at the situation from a different perspective, and put the proverbial shoe on the other foot.

Let's say there's a fundamentalist two-bit imam in Afghanistan who has decided he's fed up with Christians and Christianity, so he decided he's going to burn a copy of the bible. Would there be rioting in the streets anywhere in the world? Chants of "Death to Afghanistan"? Journalists decrying the insensitive intolerance of a "radical"? National leaders, prominent politicians, and military generals pleading with the imam to abstain lest he put Afghanis abroad at great risk?

Any of this?

No.

First, you'd have a little difficulty even finding a bible in Afghanistan. Christians are not permitted to openly practice their faith under Islamic law. Bookstores have been burned to the ground for even selling the bible, since selling it is considered tantamount to proselytizing, which is banned. It's no longer as severe as it was under the Taliban, so Christians won't be summarily executed for attempting to enter the country with a bible, but they will be admonished to keep the book covered and read it only in privacy. However, the punishment for giving a bible to a Muslim is still death.

Second, it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity to react violently when they perceive that their religion has been insulted. Nowhere does the bible encourage Christians to go on a rampage and wage holy war against anyone who insults their religion, their prophet, their god, or their holy book. Christians largely believe that these punishments are reserved for God to dole out. Nowhere in the decidedly biased accounts of the life of Jesus given in the bible do we find any examples of Jesus waging war against unbelievers, ordering the murder of people who would not submit to his brand of religion, or demanding that people of other faiths be treated differently. In fact, about the only violent act that could be attributed to Jesus is knocking over merchant's tables in a temple. Can the same be said about the Quran or the Prophet of Islam? No. Muhammed was not only a prophet, he was also a military leader who waged numerous campaigns against the "enemies of Allah". The compulsion for Muslims to fight is made clear in the Quran.

Tolerance is a two-way street. It can't be practiced on a single lane road. Muslims who live in the west are largely tolerant of other religions. The overwhelming majority WANT to live in peace with their neighbors. The relatively few "radicals" don't have any choice because they are bound by western secular law. Muslims who live in Islamic countries do not have this luxury. Intolerance is mandatory. The Quran requires it. Christians and Jews don't have to convert, provided they accept dhimmi status and pay the jizzyah tax. Polytheists and atheists have no choice but to convert or die.

I'm not at all surprised by the reaction of Muslims in Afghanistan. This is endemic in their religion, and what this two-bit pastor in Florida wanted to do is deeply offensive to them. I am, however, amazed at the degree to which our national political leaders are humiliating themselves and our nation in response. I'm still looking for the clause in the first amendment that limits free speech and free expression when that expression might actually offend someone. I'm coming up empty.

[evli1966 88]

Ok, then let's look at the situation from a different perspective, and put the proverbial shoe on the other foot.

Let's say there's a fundamentalist two-bit imam in Afghanistan who has decided he's fed up with Christians and Christianity, so he decided he's going to burn a copy of the bible. Would there be rioting in the streets anywhere in the world? Chants of "Death to Afghanistan"? Journalists decrying the insensitive intolerance of a "radical"? National leaders, prominent politicians, and military generals pleading with the imam to abstain lest he put Afghanis abroad at great risk?

Any of this?

No.

First, you'd have a little difficulty even finding a bible in Afghanistan. Christians are not permitted to openly practice their faith under Islamic law. Bookstores have been burned to the ground for even selling the bible, since selling it is considered tantamount to proselytizing, which is banned. It's no longer as severe as it was under the Taliban, so Christians won't be summarily executed for attempting to enter the country with a bible, but they will be admonished to keep the book covered and read it only in privacy. However, the punishment for giving a bible to a Muslim is still death.

Second, it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity to react violently when they perceive that their religion has been insulted. Nowhere does the bible encourage Christians to go on a rampage and wage holy war against anyone who insults their religion, their prophet, their god, or their holy book. Christians largely believe that these punishments are reserved for God to dole out. Nowhere in the decidedly biased accounts of the life of Jesus given in the bible do we find any examples of Jesus waging war against unbelievers, ordering the murder of people who would not submit to his brand of religion, or demanding that people of other faiths be treated differently. In fact, about the only violent act that could be attributed to Jesus is knocking over merchant's tables in a temple. Can the same be said about the Quran or the Prophet of Islam? No. Muhammed was not only a prophet, he was also a military leader who waged numerous campaigns against the "enemies of Allah". The compulsion for Muslims to fight is made clear in the Quran.

Tolerance is a two-way street. It can't be practiced on a single lane road. Muslims who live in the west are largely tolerant of other religions. The overwhelming majority WANT to live in peace with their neighbors. The relatively few "radicals" don't have any choice because they are bound by western secular law. Muslims who live in Islamic countries do not have this luxury. Intolerance is mandatory. The Quran requires it. Christians and Jews don't have to convert, provided they accept dhimmi status and pay the jizzyah tax. Polytheists and atheists have no choice but to convert or die.

I'm not at all surprised by the reaction of Muslims in Afghanistan. This is endemic in their religion, and what this two-bit pastor in Florida wanted to do is deeply offensive to them. I am, however, amazed at the degree to which our national political leaders are humiliating themselves and our nation in response. I'm still looking for the clause in the first amendment that limits free speech and free expression when that expression might actually offend someone. I'm coming up empty.

I am sure it would be stopped as a national security issue.

I am no legal edumactaed person but IO bet that would be how Obama would have stopped the burning.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok, then let's look at the situation from a different perspective, and put the proverbial shoe on the other foot.

Let's say there's a fundamentalist two-bit imam in Afghanistan who has decided he's fed up with Christians and Christianity, so he decided he's going to burn a copy of the bible. Would there be rioting in the streets anywhere in the world? Chants of "Death to Afghanistan"? Journalists decrying the insensitive intolerance of a "radical"? National leaders, prominent politicians, and military generals pleading with the imam to abstain lest he put Afghanis abroad at great risk?

Any of this?

No.

First, you'd have a little difficulty even finding a bible in Afghanistan. Christians are not permitted to openly practice their faith under Islamic law. Bookstores have been burned to the ground for even selling the bible, since selling it is considered tantamount to proselytizing, which is banned. It's no longer as severe as it was under the Taliban, so Christians won't be summarily executed for attempting to enter the country with a bible, but they will be admonished to keep the book covered and read it only in privacy. However, the punishment for giving a bible to a Muslim is still death.

Second, it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity to react violently when they perceive that their religion has been insulted. Nowhere does the bible encourage Christians to go on a rampage and wage holy war against anyone who insults their religion, their prophet, their god, or their holy book. Christians largely believe that these punishments are reserved for God to dole out. Nowhere in the decidedly biased accounts of the life of Jesus given in the bible do we find any examples of Jesus waging war against unbelievers, ordering the murder of people who would not submit to his brand of religion, or demanding that people of other faiths be treated differently. In fact, about the only violent act that could be attributed to Jesus is knocking over merchant's tables in a temple. Can the same be said about the Quran or the Prophet of Islam? No. Muhammed was not only a prophet, he was also a military leader who waged numerous campaigns against the "enemies of Allah". The compulsion for Muslims to fight is made clear in the Quran.

Tolerance is a two-way street. It can't be practiced on a single lane road. Muslims who live in the west are largely tolerant of other religions. The overwhelming majority WANT to live in peace with their neighbors. The relatively few "radicals" don't have any choice because they are bound by western secular law. Muslims who live in Islamic countries do not have this luxury. Intolerance is mandatory. The Quran requires it. Christians and Jews don't have to convert, provided they accept dhimmi status and pay the jizzyah tax. Polytheists and atheists have no choice but to convert or die.

I'm not at all surprised by the reaction of Muslims in Afghanistan. This is endemic in their religion, and what this two-bit pastor in Florida wanted to do is deeply offensive to them. I am, however, amazed at the degree to which our national political leaders are humiliating themselves and our nation in response. I'm still looking for the clause in the first amendment that limits free speech and free expression when that expression might actually offend someone. I'm coming up empty.

You're asking the wrong question - why is it that a two-bit, insignificant extremist merits international news coverage because he plans to burn the Koran?

A lot of what happens in Afghanistan isn't reported, and there are far worthier stories out there than a imam burning a bible.

You can burn a Koran in your back yard if you wish. You can feel free to do it now. How many journalists do you think will turn up?

Point being - the entire thing, the guy burning the books, the media reporting of it, the reactions to it in places like Afghanistan - none of it is illustrative of anything. It's all irrelevant and pointless.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Peikko 1,575]

You're asking the wrong question - why is it that a two-bit, insignificant extremist merits international news coverage because he plans to burn the Koran?

A lot of what happens in Afghanistan isn't reported, and there are far worthier stories out there than a imam burning a bible.

You can burn a Koran in your back yard if you wish. You can feel free to do it now. How many journalists do you think will turn up?

Point being - the entire thing, the guy burning the books, the media reporting of it, the reactions to it in places like Afghanistan - none of it is illustrative of anything. It's all irrelevant and pointless.

You really expect those who buy into the hatred to get this? You expect too much.