And in another turnabout for the global Jihad, a Danish court just tossed out the frivolous defamation lawsuit brought by Muslims against the Jyllands-Posten daily newspaper for printing the Mohammed cartoons with the “intention to harm our religion and our prophet.”
It’s no big surprise that the defamation lawsuit was thrown out, since, as one would expect from any rational Western court, even in decadent Denmark, “the drawings did not violate any laws.” Nor is it news that, right on cue, the Muslim spokesman for the plaintiffs said there would be an appeal, with the required threat that “he feared people around the world would be upset by the ruling.” Well, every ruling makes the losing side unhappy. But it hardly rates a headline that we must always expect violence from the highly upsettable Muslim population, as we learned recently during the Pope riots, the Cartoon riots, the Abu Ghraib riots, the Guantanamo Koran riots, and on and on and on. No, the real news is that right after “Arab politicians and intellectuals" threatened that the ruling “would widen the gap between Westerners and Muslims,” they immediately then went on to say that “mass protests were unlikely.”
Mass protests were unlikely? Is that even possible? It almost sounds as if these Arab politicians and intellectuals might actually have some idea when religiously-motivated violence by devout Muslims is, or is not, calendared to spontaneously break out. But how could that be?
It could be because, as we learned during the “Cartoon Jihad” of early this year, the spontaneous outburst of Muslims around the world were anything but spontaneous, since the faithful were told to keep their powder dry for months after the cartoons’ first appearance the previous September, right up until their puppetmasters signaled the moment was right in February.
So, on second thought, maybe it’s too soon to assume that Denmark and the rest of us won’t have to pay a price for the rejected lawsuits until a bit later on. But still there’s part of me that wonders if events of the last few weeks haven’t shown the West beginning to throw off some of its torpor.
First, we saw Jack Straw actually standing up to the self-segregation of the Islamic community in Britain by means of the veil.
Even the French are starting to talk back to their Muslims. Reuters, the anti-Western news agency that excised the word “terrorist” from its style manual, describes this sad development with a headline, “European Muslims worry about frank new Islam debate.”
But that headline is a bad joke, since Muslims have never tolerated any debate of any kind from nonMuslims in their host countries, frank or otherwise, so any debate about Islam would be new. Dilwar Hussain, head of policy research at the Islamic Foundation in Britain, summarized the article’s worried point of view this way: “With all the security concerns, people feel they can be more frank. The reaction from Muslims is to recede further and further into a sense of victimhood.” Oh, well, we wouldn't want people to feel they can be frank, because our frankness makes you a victim.
And as for victimhood, Muslims, (especially Muslim males), have had centuries of religious indoctrination regarding their spiritual superiority as Muslims, and that in France, or Britain, or Italy, or Spain, or elsewhere in the dar al Harb, the non-Muslims amongst whom they dwell are to be considered in the same category as “urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors, and 'the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things]'" (as declared in an edifying fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the supreme religious authority of Shiite Iraq). This being the case, it doesn’t seem logical that Muslims can actually see themselves victims of beings so inferior—except perhaps for strategic reasons having to do with the conquest of the little devils. And we all know Westerners instinctively feel for victims, which less merciful nonwestern enemies have managed to exploit more than once.
You can bet that when European Muslims, who have deliberately refused assimilation for decades, begin to complain that Europeans are starting to debate the wisdom of their decadent and self-destructive multi-culti suicide pact with Islam, it really means that Europeans are beginning to start talking out loud to each other about their growing sense of danger. From the Reuters article:
“There is a sense we are living in a different time. Intolerance is growing in Europe,” said Dalil Boubakeur, president of France’s Muslim Council, who saw the new mood as a response to security fears and the radicalisation of a small minority of Muslims who do not accept European values.”
In other words, when Muslim violence, unreasonable demands for accomodation, and adamant Islamic dismissals of all viewpoints but their own, force Europeans to think about their own security, the very logical place to start is by re-examining the whole diversity and tolerance regime. This re-examination Europe’s Jihadists cannot afford, which is why they always try to tamp down all discussion by screaming that “intolerance is growing.”
The problem for Jihadists in Europe, (at least, I hope it becomes a problem for them), is that this endlessly repeated complaint about not being tolerated is keeping before the minds of Europeans that indeed intolerance is growing—or rather, that the population of intolerant Muslims in Europe is growing--in the suburbs of Paris, in the mosques of London, in the no-go cities like Malmo, Sweden, in the law courts of Denmark, in the bloodied streets of Amsterdam, in the town squares of Florence.
Who knows that by some irony the aversions of Europeans for the intolerance of their Muslims will win out over their misguided weakness towards the Muslim cries of "victim!"