South Park's recent episode showing Muhammad inside a bear suit elicited violent threats from Revolution Muslim, a radical Islamic web site. The site's warning that South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone might suffer the same fate as murdered Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh led Comedy Central to censor the episode, much to the dismay of pundits and bloggers.
But the blogosphere got a chance to chuckle at a lighter side of Revolution Muslim's hatred: its condemnation of a crunchy cracker. In an interview with Gawker discussing the threats, Revolution Muslim editor Younus Abdullah Mohammed launched a bizarre attack on an American snack staple, calling the reporters "Darwinist f------ who are as despicable as the rest, walking around eating your Triscuits."
In a follow-up post, Gawker's Ravi Somaiya asked the obvious question: Why Triscuits? Seeking clarification from Mohammed proved little help:
When pressed on his choice of Triscuits as a snack-based insult, [Mohammed] was curt in his response. "It doesn't matter what your favorite crackers or cookies are. They are not more important than the hegemonic wars the West is fighting against Islam." He refused to elaborate further on his disdain for the delicious wheaty squares.
Baffled and bemused, Somaiya sought answers from the offending package itself. "Perhaps the squares, made of "soft white winter wheat," are too decadent," he mused, tongue deeply in cheek. "Indeed the ingredient is described as "a kind of cashmere of wheat because of its soft texture and delicate taste.""
As with South Park, the blogosphere has rushed to plant its flag in the Triscuit camp. Marshaling the Twitterverse was MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who defiantly tweeted, "I, too, stand with the Triscuits." Somaiya provided the last word, calling for worldwide freedom of crackers.
We consider this to be a coded call for unity and peace. The religious and the secular alike must enjoy the crackers of their choice, free from the tyranny of snack censorship.