Top Menu

Washington Post Neutral on Anti-Muslim Bigots Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller

UPDATED below (8/20/10).

Michelle Boorstein, a journalist with the Washington Post has written on anti-Muslim bigots Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their growing influence amongst Conservatives. We have extensively followed these two, providing evidence of their hate, bigotry, genocidal rants, and pseudo-scholarship through links, snapshots and in-context quotes.

Boorstein puts on the kids gloves when tackling these two, and labels them “Islam critics.” However, they are more than  mere “critics” of Islam, (a statement one might make of Orientalist Bernard Lewis), they are anti-Muslim Islamophobes. They wallow in, pander and promote the vilest and weirdest conspiracy theories about Islam and Muslims, and sometimes non-Muslims as well.

Boorstein’s article, though it recognizes Geller and Spencer as the principal front figures and activists propelling the anti-mosque agitation is at the end of the day an epic failure due to its neutrality. Despite one mention of Geller’s nutty claim that Obama was the “love child” of Malcolm X, it glosses over the plethora of bigoted, hateful, irrational and borderline genocidal statements Geller has made.

When it comes to Robert Spencer the failure is even more pronounced, Boorstein cites Islamophobe Daniel Pipes (whom she dubs, “perhaps the most prominent US scholar on radical Islam”) opinion of Spencer as a “serious scholar.” This is like a kid being asked what grade his best friend should get on his report card, especially since Pipes considers himself allied with Spencer and Geller against similar “enemies.”

Pipes, according to Boorstein claims to be in the middle now, but that is belied by the fact that he admits he is “raising money” for the “most anti-Islam” individual out there, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, to supposedly “protect freedom of speech.”

Wilders you will remember says Islam is not a religion, compares the Quran to the Mein Kampf and wants it banned, wants to tax the hijab, and repatriate “criminal” Dutch Muslim citizens to their lands of origin. So how in his right mind can Pipes claim to be in the middle?

In the same breathe that Pipes says the “anti-Islam” agitation is growing in the US he admits that the “anti-Islam” bloggers (presumably including Spencer and Geller) have brought an “unsophisticated tone to the debate,” but then nimbly moves to say he shares the “same goals” as them. Double talk anyone? In reality the divide between Pipes and Spencer is a difference without a distinction.

You cannot have your cake and eat it as well. You can’t say that you don’t share in the methodology or beliefs of vociferous anti-Muslims whose goals are to eradicate Islam and strip Muslims of their citizenship but then join them because you have similar goals of “preserving freedom.” That is hypocrisy wrapped up in a contradiction.

In the mean time what is being missed by reporters and journalists in news papers and on TV alike is that these mere “critics” of Islam are at the forefront of a growing, organized anti-Muslim movement. The Park51 “Ground Zero” mosque controversy did not come out of nowhere, it is part of a plan to dig up and spread controversy about Islam and Muslims.

What is surprising is that Michelle Boorstein made no mention of the link between Geller and Spencer and the anti-Muslim movement, especially considering we featured her as an anti-loon in June for asking the question in her blog, “How influential will anti-Muslims become?

What is the future of the anti-Muslim movement in the United States?

For years there has been a small but passionate group of people concerned with the influence of Islam, and their activism seemed to be largely focused on blogging and lobbying political conservatives. But their presence — and the arguments they raise — seem to be coming into the broader sphere of late.

There’s the fight over a mosque at the Ground Zero site, and this weekend the on-line electronic payment firm PayPal reportedly cut off the anti-Muslim blog Atlas Shrugs, saying it’s a hate site.

Needless to say, this has prompted a roar from Atlas Shrugs supporters who see political bias.

Commentators across the spectrum, from the libertarian Becket Fund to the progressive Media Matters are asking: Where is this anti-Muslim movement going? How significantly will it steer the debate in this country about religious freedom and bias?

Why couldn’t she make that connection about these two leaders in the anti-Muslim movement in this article? Is it a reversal of nomenclature on her part due to pressure from the anti-Muslims? Hopefully she is not kowtowing to pressure.

Boorstein mentions Loonwatch towards the end of her piece (hat tip: Marco). One sentence, in a very obscure paragraph.

A site monitoring the Muslim critics is called Loonwatch. Conspiracy theories on the blogs about murder attempts and bestiality are common. People on both sides say they get death threats and thus can’t disclose where they live.

This paragraph is odd and it is a poor transition from the previous paragraph. Loonwatch does not monitor “Muslim critics” which is what that sentence implies. Muslims and Islam may justifiably be criticized by anyone. We don’t have a problem with that. We monitor anti-Muslims and Islamophobes. The paragraph also doesn’t specifically assign the “conspiracy theories” and “bestiality” to the Spencer and Geller blogs and for that reason is too ambiguous. It leaves the door open for people to think we partake in “conspiracy theories” or talk about “murder attempts” and “bestiality” which we do not.

Boorstein could have used a number of our posts and pieces to highlight how insane it is for the Right-wing to allow these two Muslim haters to rise up to stardom in their ranks. How, in fact they belong on the periphery amongst the fringe, but she chose not to and for that reason her article leaves a lot wanting.

However, I did find the final few sentences of her piece quite revealing,

Asked if he was being deliberately combative and provocative, Spencer chuckled.

“Why not?” he asked. “It’s fun.”

This gives us a glimpse into who Spencer is and what he really is about. He finds the fact that he is dooping Conservatives and others in America by creating controversy funny. It is not at all about being a “serious objective scholar,” it is all about the anti-Muslim crusade.

Update: Michelle Boorstein changed the title of her article it is no longer, In flap over mosque near Ground Zero, conservative writers gaining influence, now it is “The pens of anti-Muslim conservatives impact N.Y.C. mosque debate mightily.” She deserves kudos for that.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • http://false-flag.tumblr.com False Flag

    Boorstein could have been much tougher on those stooges. The Botox Queen got off easy.

    http://www.false-flag.tumblr.com

    rooting out Islamophobia on facebook/youtube

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    lol@jaydev everyone knows that Special Branch and MI5 have the UK branch of Hizab al Tahir in their back pocket.

  • Danios

    LOL @ Jaydev claiming that Hizb ut-Tahrir is funded by the Saudis! hahahhaa

    Next thing you know he will claim that Iran funds the Taliban LOL!

    These people really ignorant.

  • Jaydev

    @Biz,
    Thanks 4 response,
    “Fabrication”&”one-sided” is a subjective thingy.Ppl cannot be blamed for saying their part.What Spencer is saying is that,all schools(he presents 5/6 of them) i.e. those that are training Islamic students..have interpreted Koran+affiliated texts in such a way that inculcate intolerance in students irrespective of other unorthodox schools of thought present.I have seen statements by Saudi&Pakistani leaders/clerics and their legislation ..they are pretty much intolerant of other faiths or outright hostile to them.If that is the case and they are “unorthodox” then why these countries are not kicked out of Islamic conferences like OIC etc..Yes,you can say US deals with Saudis etc..but US does things on its secular interests/realpoliticks and not based on morality..since 80% of countries in the world are not exactly democratic(some may be democratic in name like DPRK/Korea)..and such positions are untenable.Corollary of this point is,if ppl like CAIR/Tabliq-Jamaat/Hizbul-e-Tehreer are taking donations from Saudis..they are also importing their intolerant ideology too..which you can see in abundance in United Kingdom etc..So,Spencer have a valid point,eveb if his scriptural basis are completely incorrect..since he quotes various islamic scholars which are widely respected in Islamic world.

  • Spencer’s conscience

    Muslims should try to woe rational conservatives like Charles Johnson.

  • Biz

    Jaydev,

    To be critical is one thing but to fabricate stories and to lie is another. A critic gives his or her opinion on a matter and presents both the good and the bad. A hater only presents one side of a situation, the bad, that is viable for his or her opinion. You do not seem like a hater to me. I would ask you to read some of the articles that Danios has posted on this site so that you can see the other side of the information Spencer presents. I think this will help you.

  • Terry

    These loonies mentioned are part of the neconservative and Zionist agenda, to demonize muslims in order to justify land grabs and continued ethnic cleansing in Palestine and to support future US wars and Empire in the Middle East. They are basically criminals.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    I am not a muslim and could be critical about muslims ( and christians for that matter ) but there is a difference between being critical and hate filled ranting ,lies and utter tosh put forward by the likes of Pipes ,Geller and Spencer.
    One has to ask why are they are doing this ? They must know they are talking rubbish. The only answer that makes sence is they are paid too.
    That leads to the next question, why are they being paid to do this?
    In the past couple of days an idea occurred to me . Normally I am not conspiracy theorist but I was watching coverage of the Palestine/Isreal conflict from the 70’s. Islam is not mentioned everything is not in religious terms but political terms. Poor little Ireal needs help before the Arabs supported by the Soviet Union etc.
    So why the change ?
    The Soviet Union no longer supplies toys for free for the military of Syria Egypt etc so Isreal needs to justify the billions of free military goodies given by the USA.
    So in the early 00’s on one side F16s ,attack helicopters,cluster bombs on the other surface to air …er …stones mostly .
    Isreal won every war militarally but politically things were not looking good in the long term. Secular Isreal needed a new foe to justify itself.
    So lets change the whole thing to a religious/race one . The result all the american bible bashers will support you ,every jew will feel guilty if they dont support you and Islamic extremists and Iran will join in with your world view and propaganda for free .
    Fund Hamas to divide the Palestinian cause
    Then after 9/11 you never have to worry about your free billions of military goodies again. All you do is pay some people to keep the fires of hate and fear burning.
    Enter the sad, mad and bad ,Pipes ,Spencer and Gellar small change really.

  • Rocky Lore

    Loonwatch are the real bigots for supporting radical Islam.

    Comment from Danios: We oppose radical Islam, tooth and nail. But I suppose for you “Islam” = “Radical Islam.”

  • Jaydev

    Could you plz describe wat is difference between Muslim critics (which you think is acceptable) and anti-Muslim.Pamela gellar is unsophisticated…but I have followed Robert Spencer closely..he is anti-Islam(he havent provided solutions..says he dont except educate ppl about conspiracy of silence in mainstream western media wrt political correctedness to call spade a spade)..or atleast he calls for a reform movement in Islam.Its unfair to call him anti-Muslim..which means whether a person who by birth is a muslim whether practising/subscribing to Islam or not…he is anti-Muslim..that I believe is a false statement.
    Thank you,

  • SillyGuy

    I have sent this article to Boorstein.

  • http://loonwatch NassirH

    JihadBob, don’t you find it a little disgusting that Pamela and Geller make a living out of propaganda and hate? Not even a teeny bit?

  • JihadBob

    *yawn*

    Another rant against someone for not following the party line.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Washington Post Neutral on Anti-Muslim Bigots Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller | loonwatch.com -- Topsy.com()

Powered by Loon Watchers