Anger of Muslims

Brandon Ferdig is incredulous that the extended trailer for “Innocence of Muslims” is responsible for riots in the Middle East.

This was previously published on New Plateaus.

The narrative surrounding the protests and violence in the Middle East is that it is occurring because a film called Innocence of Muslims depicts Mohammed. It’s against Islamic law to create images of their prophet, and this movie certainly crosses that line as it has an actor portraying him. This same reason was credited for the fury in reaction to a drawing of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper in 2005. This led to a Danish embassy bombings and fires across the Middle East:

Danish embassy in Lebanon

As well, threats were directed toward the creators of the American television series South Park for featuring Mohammed in a bear costume in an episode in 2010:

Interestingly, in the summer 2001, South Park featured an image of Mohammed in an episode alongside all the figures of the major religions: Jesus, Buddha, Moses, and others:

It takes what is most sacred to Islam and mocks and desecrates it to extreme levels. And to help get away with it, the filmmakers duped the actors by having them recite the scripted lines and then dubbing in different words in post-production.

Truth be told, though, it’s not just the depiction of Mohammed in Innocence of Muslims that’s getting people’s goad. The film—or rather the extended trailer lasting almost 14 minutes—shines a very unflattering light on Mohammed, Muslims, and Islam in general.

Featuring slayings of innocents and resisters—some almost comically gruesome, plenty of womanizing by Mohammed and his followers, asserting Mohammed as homosexual and pedophile, and demonstrating Islam as nothing more than a improvised set of rules to favor the movement’s leaders, this trailer does a “nice” job of touching on every way to irritate and inflame a religion’s followers. It takes what is most sacred to Islam and mocks and desecrates it to extreme levels. And to help get away with it, the filmmakers duped the actors by having them recite the scripted lines and then dubbing in different words in post-production.

When looking at the deception and poor taste of the filmmakers, combined with the reaction from the Middle East, there are two common angles to this topic: one that gets after the movie-makers for causing the violence that’s led to untold property damage, further eroding international relations, and the killing of Americans and locals abroad. The other gets after the protesters for doing all this. It’s an important distinction where to place your scorn, because the one you blame is the one you demand more from.

U.S. officials are taking both sides, prefacing their condemnation of the violence with a condemnation of the film:

Diplomatically, this may be best. Legally, I have to wonder why the FBI reportedly detained the filmmaker for questioning:

filmmaker/invisible man

This is a mess of a situation, and much must be done to clean it up. But beyond the on-the-ground Xs and Os of how to move forward, the intriguing questions remain about the fury in the Middle East. Why do they get so angry? (Have psychologists studied this phenomena?) We take it granted as this has happens repeatedly, but it is extraordinary:

Recent protests: what level of attachment does one have to have with one’s belief system to engage in this kind of activity?

It appears to be one so rigidly defining that it proves too brittle to withstand the satirical attacks of a film.

Watching it, I actually laughed at how silly it looked and over-the-top it was.

Apples to apples, I would think that most Christians viewing a comparable indictment of Jesus might even laugh at such an attempt to rouse them. Christians I know who are strong in their faith use it as a shield against naysayers, able to stand the barbs of others. This film about Mohammed is so barb-full that it becomes a joke making fun of itself.

still from the film

another one

And here, in all it’s glory, is the 13:51 seconds that has triggered chaos, vandalism, and death:

Then again, I do think one has to simultaneously take an apples to oranges approach. Americans either by word or deed have been riling up the region for many decades. This film is the latest in escalating tensions in a region of growing instability; it didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Nor is it the first example of a group taking exception to a film. I remember how angry some Jewish groups got over The Passion of the Christ. Sometimes things that seem trivial to one person are a big deal to another.

Nonetheless, the rage in the Middle East all seems to go back to the age-old lesson: not caring so much about what others think. If people insult you or your religion, you don’t have to get so incredibly angry. I am open (actually hopeful) that there’s more to explaining these emotional explosions than a movie.

This is worth discussing, because I want to expect more from these charged and reactive populations. To dismiss their activity as usual or normal, I think, implies a severe loss of respect: When a young child eats too much candy we blame the adult looking after them. “The child doesn’t know better,” says the common knowledge. We can blame this film-maker for poor taste. We can blame him for taunting. We can blame him for creating hateful art. But by pinning the violence on him, what are we then saying about the Muslims? Who have they become in the above analogy?

to new plateaus,


p.s. Please chime in if you’ve anything to add. This is a tough topic to cover in one article, but perhaps it can be used as a jumping off point for further discussion below.


Read more on Conflict

Images courtesy of the author

About Brandon Ferdig

Brandon Ferdig is writer from Minneapolis, MN. He shares his personal growth pieces, human interest stories, and commentary at his blog. He is currently writing a book titled New Plateaus in China, a compilation of travelogue, personal experience, human interest, and social observations from China. You can follow Brandon on Twitter @brandonferdig.


  1. Bless you heart, Brandon… you’ve got courage to step up and speak out on a difficult topic. No, no one should write songs, write literature, make films, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum on things that will offend other people, BUT…. that is every person’s right: to speak their mind and express what they feel regardless of how I might perceive it. Personally, I don’t think this film has any value. On the other side, I have a great deal of difficulty resolving Islam, and I do believe that Allah is God. A Hindu man once watched Mother Teresa tend to a dying man in her Home for the Dying in Calcutta. When Mother Teresa had completed her task, the Hindu man said to her, “Because it gives you the strength to do what you do, your religion has to be true.” If I apply that same logic to Islam, I am tempted to say, “Because it inspires you to do what you do, your religion CANNOT be true.” Allah would NEVER support the killing of any human or any creature. Anyone who says differntly…. Thanks for not being afraid to voice and express your opinions on this regrettable situation.

  2. To borrow:
    “I have no special knowledge but even a moron can discern certain patterns. Half of the pattern is a bunch theocratic douchebags that oppress people. They have perfected the successful gambit of blaming America (or Israel) for their manifest failures. Their people, exposed to generations of propaganda, are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Here’s a hint, if your cat barfs on the rug in Aswan (Egypt) and you think America (or Israel) is the cause, you’re an embarrassment to yourself and your society. The other half are American elites (both parties) who make a living pretending that theocratic jackoffs are “moderates” and evil does not exist. Here’s a hint; evil does exist and if you don’t accept that you’re useless.”

  3. In case you haven’t heard, the Administration has admitted that the embassy attack was planned, and set up for 9/11. Including RPGs and mortars, and intelligence gathered. This, remember, is in a country where we just helped get rid of the Kadaffy, and have been supplying lots of money and other donations. The video is an excuse being used, nothing more.

    Now, in other countries, yeah, lots of muslims are losing their collective minds over an insult to the prophet; which is also enough, in their minds to try to kill people over cartoons, Might check this out:
    As to ‘why the anger’, there’ve been a number of studies on that, and a lot of it is blame & shame: shame that so many muslim societies are what they are, blame in that ‘SOMEBODY is to blame for this, it obviously can’t be us!’
    Not all muslims, but any stretch; in some countries it IS a majority. And supported by their governments; noticed the demands for us to trash our 1st Amendment and make blasphemy a crime?

  4. …and the guns are to blame for ATF’s Fast & Furious.

  5. Kirsten (in MT) says:

    Here is another missing bit of context:
    30,000 protest militias in Benghazi, Libya, burn militants’ compound

    These thousands of people marched in opposition to the embassy killings, many carrying signs of mourning for the victims, expressing nearly comparable outrage (although nobody was killed in this case) about the murders as the murderers themselves expressed.

    About 50 people are believed to have been involved in the killings. About 30,000 marched in opposition to them and their crimes. That is 600 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE opposing the crimes as those who committed them. Yet the broad brush strokes used to paint Muslims in the Middle East in this article are those stereotyping them as irrational and unstable murderers. Why is that?

    • Kirsten, thanks for your contributions–each of which add something to this conversation.

      Though I believe we receive a sensationalized version of the emotion that exists there, and though I do not believe them to all be murderers as you accuse me, I do choose to believe the reports that there are mass protests in many locations throughout the Muslim world–in this latest case–due to this video.

      And I don’t want to lay blame on the film-maker for stirring up the hornets nest, because I think that that’s insulting to these angry Muslims who get dismissed as crazy. So, no, I do not label them as “irrational and unstable”. I simply want to know why they are acting this why.

      I think you and others here would enjoy the Part 2 of this blog. It features two theories posed by other writers. Perhaps the GMP will post this follow up. Otherwise, you can read it here:

      • Kirsten (in MT) says:

        “I simply want to know why they are acting this why.”

        Again, have you directly asked any Muslims about this? You say that you choose “to believe the reports”- from whom exactly do these reports come? What about the analysis of the situatioin from Tariq Ramadan that I posted above? Do you choose to believe that?

  6. As a side note, has anyone else noticed a shitload of anti-muslim hate? In Australia after the Sydney riot I saw so many people comment hate and want to deport all muslims…It made me sick. I guess I know who of my “friends” are bigots now…

  7. It’s pretty obvious why A FEW muslims are angry, espeicially as they’re targeting the U.S Embassies. What’d the U.S think would happen? You go slapping bee’s nest, expect to get stung. The video is a spark, history (especially last decade) provided the fuel. I think they have a good reason to be angry, though nothing excuses the violence. I’d be pissed too if westerns/or a group of people were invading my homelands and killing, especially after seeing kids get killed. People in the U.S would react the same way if they were invaded, hell look at the hatred after 9/11? 3000 died. 1 MILLION civilians in Iraq died in the last decade over an illegitimate war, take a wild guess why the people in the middle east might be worried, especially as Iran is now in the crosshairs. If I lived in England and France was invaded by a super power, I’d be shitting bricks especially given the past history in the Middle East if you think of that as Europe.

    • Archy,
      fortunately not everybody repays perceived injustice with violence. As you say, a few Muslims are angry. There are plenty of examples in history where countries didn’t retaliate. Look for example at the Europe post second world war.
      “1 MILLION civilians in Iraq died in the last decade over an illegitimate war”
      Who killed those people? Who should be held responsible for those killings?
      Please don’t tell me that the responsibility lies with the US invasion, if the logic would work that way you would have had a lot more killing in Soviet occupied eastern Europe for example.

      • Unnecessary death, “collateral damage”, of course people are going to be pissed even if they can’t blame anyone but yes American led forces did contribute heavily. Would they have died if there wasn’t invasion? Even if only 10,000 deaths were caused by the fighting alone, that’s enough to cause major anger. Doesn’t matter if the U.S didn’t purposely aim n kill those 1million, what do you think the people would think around the world seeing a death toll like that after an invasion?

        • Archy:
          “Unnecessary death, “collateral damage”, of course people are going to be pissed even if they can’t blame anyone…
          I think it is normal that they are angry, the problem is how they express this anger and esecially towards whom.
          “Would they have died if there wasn’t invasion?”
          Well, we don’t know, do we? The rule of Saddam Hussein was certainly bloody and many of the death seem to be victims of the conflicts between different Muslim groups. There is no natural law which makes a person resort to terrorism, when faced with occupation, bombarding or killing of loved ones.
          “Doesn’t matter if the U.S didn’t purposely aim n kill those 1million, what do you think the people would think around the world seeing a death toll like that after an invasion?”
          Well there are other examples, look for example at all the peaceful people in Iraq. But I even have a more personal example: my grandmother as a patriotic Polish teenager during second world war was a forced labourer, forced by Germany (the political entity). Shortly after the war she married my grandfather, who was not only German but even a soldier in the Wehrmacht; his brother was in the Waffen-SS and my grondmother got along with him fine. Such forgiving behaviour is way more common with regular people, than the extremes we see in the news.

          • Saddam wasn’t a foreign aggressor.

            Only the extremes are getting batshit angry about it all, the majority don’t seem to be supportive of that anger, hence the point. It gives fuel to the extremists to wage war and gives great propaganda material to recruit more hate.

            • John Anderson says:

              “Saddam wasn’t a foreign aggressor.”

              What about with the Kurds in Northern Iraq? You might say they’re Iraqi, but from what I’ve heard Iraq was formed by the allies after WWII. If might made right to bind the Kurds to Iraq, then why doesn’t might make right when the U.S. invaded Iraq?

              • I stand corrected, he was a foreign invader to some, others he was their leader. Although he was still of a similar descent was he not? Similar background vs someone christian, white (at the time) waging war on your country from an ocean away based on dodgy intel. How many American’s would feel good about China invading and bringing “freedom” to them?

                • John Anderson says:

                  Based on U.S. media accounts and my memory, the Kurds were actually hopeful for U.S. intervention in 2001 when the U.S. liberated Kuwait. People tend to forget that this started with Iraq’s invasion of it’s neighbor. After the U.S. bombarded Iraq, they turned over the captured Iraqi artillery to the Kurds by way of abandoning it. They basically purposely left it unsecured so the Kurds could retrieve it in hopes that the Kurds would revolt, which they did. Unfortunately, the Kurds expected U.S. support, which they didn’t get and they were slaughtered.

                  Let’s accept the premise for the moment that the Iraqi Kurds wanted U.S. intervention like they supposedly wanted in 2001. Would that justify the invasion in 2003? If fighting breaks out between the Kurds and the Sunnis, is the U.S. responsible or is it the responsibility of the Kurds having been given a semi-autonomous state and the Sunnis?

                  If Muslims in the area look at things as a Christian / Muslim thing and they want to get caught up in historical grievances, they only need to look back 100 years to the Armenian Genocide, where 1,000,000 Christian Armenians were estimated to have killed by the Muslim Ottoman Empire, modern day Turkey. Of course, populations were much smaller then and 1,000,000 represented about half the Armenian population. That would have translated to about 10,000,000 Iraqis for half the population.

  8. Kirsten (in MT) says:

    Speaking of apples to apples, Christians would be a lot angrier if they were being bombed into oblivion for other people’s crimes for more than the last decade, if they had to get used to seeing or holding bloody, mangled, and lifeless children in their arms as a “normal” part of daily life, if they were subject to torture and indefinite detention with no due process or recourse, if they were targeted for assassination merely because the president and is cronies took such a whim at the Tuesday kill list meeting, and so on.

    Framing this as just about a movie misses a shitload of context, whether purposely or inadvertently. I recommend Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan’s take on the situation for a less simplistic and/or naive view of the sation:

    • Kirsten (in MT) says:

      By the way Brandon, how many Muslims have you asked about this? What were their answers to your question about why Muslims are so angry?

    • Kirsten,
      there are indeed examples of Christians being attacked, murdered and occupied by a foreign country and a foreign culture, for example the very Christian country of Poland. Now have Poles attacked Russian embassies? Btw to my knowledge Polish people really hate Russia, but they show their hatred in different ways.

      • Kirsten (in MT) says:

        It is, of course, very easy to cherry pick examples and come up with a picture of angelic Christians vs. evil Muslims. It is not, however, very useful in developing an accurate picture of reality. Let’s visit first your Poland example, and then another Christian example or two to see how terribly skewed a picture this one example suggests.

        First, Poland. When was the last time Poland was bombed on a regular basis by the Soviet Union? When was it last occupied by the Soviet Union? When was the last time Polish mothers and fathers collected their children off the streets in bloody pieces?

        The Soviet Union gave up control of Poland after a series of strikes and political actions taking place in 1988-89. Basically, Poland restructured its own government and the Soviet Union, which was falling apart, didn’t put up any resistance. So no surprise that the revolution was pretty non-violent. This is very different from what has been taking place in the Arab world where the United States is meddling.

        And there was an important cultural factor at work here as well. Poland isn’t just a generically Christian country, but very heavily skewed Roman Catholic (more than 85% Catholic as of 2010). Who was pope in 1988-89? That would be John Paul II, formerly Karol Józef Wojtyła, born in Poland. JPII was both staunchly and uncompromisingly anti-communist and very vocally anti-war. Many historians give credit to his influence in how the Solidarity movement formed and how the Polish revolution was expressed. He met with Polish Solidary leader Lech Walesa (who would ultimately become the first post-revolution president) in 1983, urging a strategy of dialogue over confrontation.

        So this example is both very different from the situation in the Arab world today and also not typical of Christians as a whole.

        You could just as easily have picked as an example of how Christians express political anger the case of what is known as “The Troubles” in Ireland- a period of ongoing violence between Catholics and Protestants that sometimes even spilled over outside of formal Irish borders. At its peak, hundreds of people including hundreds of civilians, were killed in northern Ireland. Thirteen hundred bombings took place in 1972 alone, 22 of them on Bloody Friday in Belfast killing 9 people, both civilians and soldiers, and injuring over a hundred more. The response from the opposing side included gruesome killings of people only after they were beaten and tortured. The situation was incredibly violent on both sides- Catholic and Protestant.

        Fortunately, this is again, not typical of Christianity as a whole- just as the actions of 50 or so Muslims are not typical of Islam as a whole. Once again, I point out per my link above that 600 TIMES AS MANY LIBYANS OPPOSED the killings as those who were involved in committing them.

        To take the example of George W. Bush’s Christian holy war against Islam under the guise of 9/11 retaliation, when have 600 times as many Americans marched in opposition to the Muslim bloodbaths being committed in our name and on our tax dollars as those who are involved in perpetrating that bloodbath?

        • Russians killed millions of people in Poland. Do not forget that.

        • Kirsten:
          “It is, of course, very easy to cherry pick examples and come up with a picture of angelic Christians vs. evil Muslims.”
          I haven’t said anything Muslims, though I concede that somebody reading my response to you might think, I want to go in the direction “Christian good-Muslim bad”. Frankly I don’t. What I was objecting to was your statement:
          “Christians would be a lot angrier if they were being bombed into oblivion for other people’s crimes for more than the last decade”
          You didn’t provide evidence for this prediction. As I see it most people (whether they are Christians, Muslims or whatever) don’t react to being invaded, being bombed and being killed with terrorism, they don’t even react with violence. People want that violence against them stops, but most are very reluctant to use violence themselves, especially against innocent.
          The people who react with terrorism are terrorist, meaning people that believe that their terrorism works and have a strong diregard for human life. Of course factors like invasion of a Country have some influence, but looking at the history of mankind and the terrorist own statement leads me to three concusions:
          1.Even minor things like films, books, having the wrong religion or having the wrong heritage can motivate terrorist.
          2.Most people don’t become terrorists, no matter what.
          3.Terrorist act rationally, they use terror when they believe it will work, not out of principle.
          Now on a side note I don’t know, why you don’t like my Polish example. Yes the example lies in the past, so what? Roman-Catholic is by far the biggest denomination in Christianity. As you noted the involvement of the Catholic church might have made the movement more peaceful. It seems that this rather supports the thesis of Christians being peaceful.

          • Kirsten (in MT) says:

            “Christians would be a lot angrier if they were being bombed into oblivion for other people’s crimes for more than the last decade”
            You didn’t provide evidence for this prediction. As I see it most people (whether they are Christians, Muslims or whatever) don’t react to being invaded, being bombed and being killed with terrorism, they don’t even react with violence. People want that violence against them stops, but most are very reluctant to use violence themselves, especially against innocent.

            First of all, there is a difference between anger and violence. Are you seriously suggesting that we need “evidence” that most Christians would be angrier about sorting bloody pieces of their loved ones from the burning remains of their property than about a movie? Really? We need to take a poll to determine that instead of giving Christians the benefit of the doubt that they love their families and friends and neighbors more than they are worried about some obscure sleight to their god?

            Separately, there is the question of violence. I agree that most people do not want to be victims of violence, nor do they want to personally respond to violence by themselves being violent. (Having their government send other people into harm’s way to act out their anger for them without them being at risk themselves may be a different story as over a decade of American violence in the Middle East seems to suggest.) In fact, if you look at the ratio of people involved in the killings in Libya to the people protesting the killings, you will see that the few people who actually harmed other humans are a tiny, tiny fraction compared to the people who decried that harm and mourned the dead.

            When was the last time we have seen in the United States 600 TIMES as many people come out to protest the killings of innocent Afghanis or Iraqis as the number of troops we have involved killing those innocents? Let’s take a look at some data on how Americans feel about having our troops kill innocents: Per this Gallup poll of August 2011, more American Protestants, American Catholics, American Mormons, and American Jews thought that for the military to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified that those who thought such action was never justified. Only majorities of Americans with no religion and American Muslims believed that for the military to target and kill civilians is never justified. In fact, American Muslims by FAR were the most opposed to this, with 78% saying it is NEVER justified.

            To try and frame Muslims as a group as having some unique rage is just ridiculous. All of the evidence presented anywhere in this article or comments suggests the following two things:
            1. Violently expressed rage isn’t a uniquely Muslim problem, but one which is associated with other religious groups including Christians.
            2. Violently expressed rage by individuals isn’t anywhere near universal among any religious group, including Muslims.

            This article and some of the comments in it seem to be trying to single out Muslims as a group as different from, more violent than, and less rational than other groups, especially Christians. The facts suggest otherwise.

            If you listen to the interview with Tariq Ramadan, he makes the case that a small, power-seeking group is trying to use the symbolism of and emotions surrounding the movie as a way of inflaming the population to violence against innocents. This seems to have somewhat backfired as the militants involved in Libya have instead been sent packing. But how is this any different from the Bush administration using the TOTALLY UNRELATED symbolism and emotions surround 9/11 to stir public opinion in the United States to go kill a bunch of Muslims in Iraq who had BY THE ADMINISTRATION’S OWN ADMISSION had not a damned thing to do with 9/11? There are so far 100,000+ Iraqi civlians dead on our tax dollars and in our names because of this lie, and we’re busy finger-pointing at so-called Muslim rage over less than 1% of that in this case?

            It’s shameful and dishonest distortion of the situation. We just absolve our sins by calling them “terrorists” and ourselves “soldiers”.

            • These are exactly the points that I would have tried to make on this topic, if you hadn’t made them so well already. Thank you, Kristen, you’re awesome!

            • John Anderson says:

              Here is a different example. Did you see the cheering for the deaths of 3,000 American civilians by the majority Muslim Palestinians? When was the last time you saw mass celebration in the streets for the killing of 1,000s of innocent civilians in the U.S.? Innocent civilians might be killed in war, but only one side actively and routinely targets them.

              • I saw plenty of Americans show an attitude of basically “F them R-Heads” “Kill em all”, etc. No cheering in the streets but I guarantee there are just as many racist assholes in both countries, cept the ones in the U.S decided to do it mostly online vs walkabout protests.

                • John Anderson says:

                  And therein lays the problem. When the argument becomes these grievances are my justification for why I’m about to perpetrate an injustice against you, you never get rid of the violence because one side will always feel that they were more victimized and so owe the other side some violence. People can continue to fight the battles of the past or they can forge a future peace. They can’t do both.

          • Kirsten (in MT) says:

            P.S. Data for civilian deaths in Iraq:

          • Kirsten (in MT) says:

            Yes the example lies in the past, so what? Roman-Catholic is by far the biggest denomination in Christianity. As you noted the involvement of the Catholic church might have made the movement more peaceful. It seems that this rather supports the thesis of Christians being peaceful.

            No, it’s a cherry-picked example that shows that SOME Christians are peaceful, and it is placed next to a cherry-picked example that shows that SOME Muslims are violent. This provides a misrepresentative and skewed picture of the situation. If we pick a different example, such as the Irish example I provided, where we take an exceptional case of Christians to compare to an exceptional case of Muslims, the story looks very different. I could do the same with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, people of no religion, and so on. At humanity’s worst, some members of any group are capable of and willing to commit great evil. But these people are exceptional. To juxtapose the best of one group with the worst of another is a distortion that needs to be challenged, and I’m challenging it.

  9. crystalwolf says:

    I think it was made to piss off the Muslims by the RWNJ who are anti-Muslim and want to start a war with Israel.
    It backfired on them and killed Americans there and threatens our troops.
    I even think it might be our Oct. surprise as it leads up to Romney meeting with a bunch of anti-Mulsims in Aug.
    And Yes we have religious zealots here, they say PBO is trying to take “God” out of the square? What square? And everyone at the DNC HAD to say “God bless the United States of America” a zillion times.
    They want laws based on the bible. If a Muslim had made a movie about Jesus they would be outraged and acting out almost as bad.
    B/c the RWNJ are just like the zealots of the middle east.

  10. I suspect that a lot of the anger has less to do with the video itself and more to with the perception in the region of the US as a meddling imperialist power. The video is just a pretext for people to express preexisting grievances.

    I’ve also read a theory that makes a lot of sense to me (although it originated with a random cab driver, so take it with a grain of salt) that citizens of Middle Eastern countries that have media that are tightly controlled by the government find true freedom of speech difficult to believe in. Everything that is filmed in their countries has to be approved by the government, so they assume that any media produced in our country must be approved by our government. Innocence of Muslims becomes much more plausibly offensive if you view it as propaganda officially sanctioned by the most powerful government in the world instead of a fringe film made by a con artist.


  1. […] was previously published on New Plateaus. Read the first part of this series, Anger of Muslims, here on The Good Men […]

Speak Your Mind