Top Menu

Pamela Geller: “I love Muslims.” Ha!

Plastic Pam or Catwoman?

And the award for most disingenuous statement of the year goes to…Pamela Geller!

LoonWatch recently reproduced an article by Michelle Boorstein, entitled “How Influential Will the Anti-Muslims Become?”  Ms. Boorstein updated her article, with the following (emphasis is mine):

UPDATE: Ms. Geller and some of her supporters objected to us characterizing their comments as “anti-Islam.” She wrote the following at the bottom of this post, for those who don’t read the comments:

“I am not anti-Muslim. I love Muslims. I am pro-freedom and anti-islamic supremacism.” (ironically, the next line is a threat to sue the Post)

One reader sent a recent report of her comments at a protest of the building of a mosque in lower Manhattan:

“We’re not here today to condemn Muslims or Islam,” but “to condemn the kind of mosque that will teach the very same radical ideology that gave birth to the 9/11 attacks.” She reportedly went on to say that “building a mosque just several blocks away from Ground Zero is an insult and an afford to every single person that was killed on 9/11.”

Pamela Geller saying “I love Muslims”!?  Come on, not even she can say that with a straight face…although maybe all the botox enables her to do just that.

Geller’s truthfulness can be gauged by a statement that I do not think even her die-hard supporters can believe.  It would be the equivalent of David Duke saying “I love blacks.”

On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being extremely dishonest and 10 being insanely dishonest), how dishonest do you think Geller is?  Said another way: what do you think is faker, her statement saying she loves Muslims or her post-botox leather laced catwoman face?

Perhaps Pamela Geller also has a Muslim friend…?


Just another thought I had: even the phrase “I love Muslims” sounds awkward.  What does that even mean?  Racists and bigots often give bumbling responses when they try to claim they are not racist or bigoted.  There are nearly a billion Muslims in the world, and they are not monolithic enough to say such a broad statement as “I love Muslims.”  You could say “I love some Muslims”, but to say it the way she did it is just uber-weird.

, , , , , , ,

  • AJ

    Islam is surely giving a lot of people here sleepless nights. The prophecy is that Islam will insh’Allah take over the world…be afraid….be very afraid!

  • Michael Elwood

    Dave’s post reminds me of a scene from Enter the Dragon where O’Hara tries to impress Bruce Lee with his board braking skills. Bruce Lee points out that boards don’t hit back (then he proceeds to kick his a**):

    Islamophobes spend a lot of time on their websites and in their conferences beating up on straw men of their own creation. And I’m sure they think these arguments are quite impressive. But when they find themselves in a situation where Muslims can respond, they don’t fare so well.

    The first thing I notice about the “sword verse” that Dave (mis)quoted is that it doesn’t mention swords. The second thing I notice is that the verse is in the context of war, not peace. The third thing I notice is that the verse is alluding to a war that happened in the 7th century, not some war in the future. That should be obvious from the mention of the prophet in 9:1 and 9:3.

    Dave also (mis)quotes what sectarian commentators call the “tribute verse” (Quran 9:29). But just like the “sword verse” doesn’t mention swords, the “tribute verse” doesn’t mention tribute. The word for tribute in Quranic Arabic is kharj, not jizya. And the Quran specifically rejects the payment of tribute:

    “Are you asking them for a tribute? Your Lord’s tribute is far better. He is the best Provider.” [Quran 23:72]

    The word for reparations in Quranic Arabic is jiziya. The Quran 9:29 orders those who participated in the battle of Hunayn, mentioned by name in 9:25, to pay reparations for the damage they inflicted on the community. Jiziya has nothing to do with tribute or poll-taxes.

    There’s a reason Dave quoted those specific verses. According to Islamophobe logic, these verses conveniently abrogate all the “peaceful” verses in the Quran. However, Prof. Aisha Musa points out that the theory of abrogation is dubious:

    “However, the idea of abrogation here is also problematic. First, because as John Burton and Abu Yousuf al-Corentini have demonstrated, there a number of serious issues related to the question of abrogation itself, not the least of which is that there has never been agreement among Muslim scholars on the existence of abrogation within the Quran, let alone on the issue of specific verses are abrogating and which are abrogated.”

  • Ilisha

    @Dave Behrans

    “Read the Quaran!!!”

    I have, cover to cover, and I’d say you need to take your own advise. If you’re such an expert, why don’t you know the difference between an ayah and a surah?

    In any case, you’re not the first cut-and-paste warrior to challenge us with verses you clearly don’t understand. We have our own challenge, issued dozen’s of times: Show us a verse in the Quran that calls for unprovoked aggression. You can’t. Islam has a very well defined just war theory.

    As for the specific verses (not chapters) you’ve cited, let’s turn to Loonwatcher Chameleon:

    “@no one, you bring as evidence verses 4:89, 4:91, 8:12, 8:39, 47:4, 47:35 and 9:29 to your claim that the Quran has a “script” to command “wars for power and personal glory.” Let’s assess your claim.

    Without even reading the first two quotes (4:89 and 4:91), it is obvious what you are trying to hide here: verse 4:90 between the two. It states, “Except those who take refuge with a people allied to you, or those who, weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you. If God had so willed He would surely have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.” In other words, fight those who fight you, and desist when they stop, which is a universally ethical standard of warfare, not a war for “power and personal glory.” Moreover, such an absurd claim is utterly ignorant of the fact that verses 4:89-91 address the fighting of combative Muslim hypocrites within the existing Muslim community, not the fighting of non-Muslims targeted for conquest.

    You also omitted just about the entirety of verse 4:91 — including the precondition of self-defense in the same sentence as that phrase — and merely quoted that one phrase totally devoid of context. Here is the entire verse: “You will find persons who, while wishing to live in peace with you as well as with their own people, turn to civil war the moment they are called to it. If they do not keep away from you, nor offer you peace nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them wherever they are. We have given you a clear sanction against them.” Again, fight those who insist on fighting you is the message, which is a universally valid justification for war….

    ….As for verse 9:29, this has nothing to do with some sort of kill order being implied, but simply to make sure that all citizens pay for and acknowledge the protection provided by the state, which is the main purposes of any government, even per the U.S. Constitution (although now everyone thinks it is to provide endless entitlements). Muslims cover this cost via Zakah, and non-Muslims via Jizyah. However, even though the proceeds from Zakah should far outweigh the token proceeds from Jizyah, for non-Muslims there is one further benefit of great value that is being received: exemption from military service, since the Muslims must fight on behalf of their non-Muslim citizens. The non-Muslims are actually referred to phonetically as “ahl adh-dhimmah”, which literally means “the protected people”. However, according to Islamophobic web sites, the abbreviated term “dhimmi” is made equivalent to a totally opposite meaning: those who are oppressed, subjected, killed or enslaved, rather than protected. If they truly were meant to be enslaved, then why would they not be enslaved to fight for the Muslims as Christian nations did to their slaves, including in the U.S. Civil War? Moreover, please answer me the following: If you were to stop paying taxes for the protection that is granted by the U.S. military, do you think that the U.S. government would turn the other cheek, or would they fight you by any means (including prison and physical force) until you do pay?

    As a conclusion, I would like to question how anything but a political response would be appropriate in the circumstances being referred to in the verses above. Or better yet, I would like to apply what I have coined as my “American values litmus test” to Islam, and compare that to the supposedly gold standard of Christianity. Unlike modern Christianity, which propagandizes some sort of apolitical love-cult fantasy of turning the other cheek and loving your enemy under all circumstances, Islam enjoins fighting based on universally ethical norms. Also unlike Christianity, Islam recognizes the stunningly obvious reality that a military is needed for a state’s protection, it costs money to support, and it should be fairly paid for by those who are being protected, especially by those who are under no obligation to put their lives on the line by participating in it….”


    I’d suggest you read the full comment here:

  • Dave Behrens

    Only out of ignorance of Islam and the Quaran can any non-Muslim on Planet Earth say that they ‘love’ or even respect Islam or Muslims as a group. Read the ‘Verse Of The Sword’ from the Quaran Surah 9:5:

    YUSUF ALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    Surah 9:29:

    YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Surah 4:89:

    YUSUF ALI: They (non-Muslims) but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

    Still ‘love’ Islam, after this small example (there are many more) of hate from the Quran???

    Read the Quaran!!!

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    And the winner of the most Bazarre Post on Loonwatch 2011 goes to Kluminati…………….
    Look mate I dont know what you are on but seek medical help soon .please

  • kluminati

    so if your saying she is lieing that she likes muslims… she is no one important it doesn’t matter. the media are making you put all focus on her and just have little petty arguments about the illuminate muslim brother hood. u see what’s happening… ur forgetting about the big picture and striate away putting your attention on Pamela Geller. who really is no body in their eyes. or should i say EYE………………………………………………………………………………………………/\………………………………………………………………../O \………………………………….

Powered by Loon Watchers