interview with her which that august mountain of liberal lies posted online on Saturday. For those of us wondering what Geller’s bottom line on Islam is, it makes a useful read. She says right out that the only moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim, that is, a non-believing Muslim. Meaning that no believing, observant Muslim can be considered a moderate. Very good. I didn’t know she had taken this strong position. But then, in the usual incoherent Geller manner, she also says this:
This is absurd. The Ground Zero mosque, for example, has nothing to do with some union of mosque and state, yet Geller opposes it. The Campbell’s Soup Company’s adoption of halal has nothing to do with some union of mosque and state, yet Geller opposes it. Rifqa Barry’s father’s threat against his daughter has nothing to do with a union of mosque and state, yet Geller opposes it.
Existentially, Geller opposes, not just a union of Islam and state. She opposes Islam itself. But because of her underlying right-liberalism or libertarianism, combined with her habitual shoot from the hip style, she is unable to articulate consistently that which she existentially feels.
The problem with Geller is not that she is an extremist. The problem with Geller is that she fails to relate together the multiple ideas that are popping off in her head all the time and try to reconcile them and resolve their mutual contradictions. The problem with Geller, in short, is that she doesn’t think, and she leads her readers into the same intellectual incoherence and resulting paralysis about the Islam problem that she herself evinces. At the same time, through her passionate advocacy, Geller is helping bringi the Islam threat to the fore of public attention, and this is good.
The New York Times is doing a Sunday piece on…. Pamela Geller. Yikes. Let me say that I was very reluctant to speak with them, for the obvious reasons. I did not want to do it. But they were going to do a Geller piece with or without me. My thinking was that if I could present my ideas, perhaps I could influence the rational thinker.
I sat down with Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer for over three and half hours. They pulled interview excerpts from our long conversation and posted them in their Saturday online edition. Check it out. I don’t know what they plan for Sunday; I can only imagine. I do know that these quotes are online today—not in print. Nor is their a link to them on the Region main page. I will be curious to see if they make it into Sunday’s piece alongside their narrative…. Here are a few excerpts of their excerpt:
Pamela Geller: In Her Own Words NY TIMES
The following are excerpts from an interview with Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger who has been vocal in opposition to the Islamic center and mosque to be built near ground zero. Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer interviewed Ms. Geller on Sept. 28, 2010.
Fight Against the ‘Mosque’
Ms. Geller on whether she is a leader in the fight over the planned Muslim center:
PAMELA GELLER I didn’t choose this moment; this moment chose me in that you decided that I was responsible, which is so amusing to me. I’ve been doing what I’ve been doing for years. I update the blog 10, 15 times a day. I treated the ground zero mosque story the way I treat every other story. To me it was an outrage, to me it was deeply offensive, to me it was indicative that interfaith dialogue and mutual respect and mutual understanding is a one-way street with Islamic supremacists, not Muslims. I believe that Muslims are more victimized by Islamic supremacists than even non-Muslims. But I covered it the way I covered any other story.
ALAN FEUER Do you consider yourself at this point a, or the, or one of the leaders of this fight against the mosque?
PAMELA GELLER No. No.
ALAN FEUER Why not?
PAMELA GELLER Because I think that I’m giving voice to the voiceless. But how am I a leader? Look, there is no way that I have a magical power wherein 70 percent of the American people are opposed to this mosque. It’s demeaning and it’s condescending to the individual, for you—not you, sir—for someone to say that.
Now someone somewhere decided that we’re going to make it about her and we’re going to demonize her and marginalize her and call her a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot so that anybody that agrees with her is a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot. But you know what? Maybe it’s because all the Tea Partiers were called racists, or because it’s been tried too many times, it’s just not sticking. Maybe it’s sticking on the left, but the chattering classes and the political elites do not represent the American people. Not at all. And you’ve lost their trust, which I think is the absolute worst thing.
Her Drive
Ms. Geller on what motivates her:
[..]
I feel as if I am doing something that must be done. I’m making an important contribution in the information battle space, because that’s where we are now. You know, it really is a war of ideas and it’s important. That’s why the free-speech issue for me is everything. It’s the line in the sand; it is the difference between peace and war, because with freedom of speech, peaceful men can effect change. Without freedom of speech, peaceful men have no choice but to resort to violence. You have no alternative. Freedom of speech is the line in the sand.
And that’s why when I see the press, I see this self-imposed Shariah. And it’s Shariah: do not defame Islam, do not insult Islam.
A Moderate Muslim
Ms. Geller’s definition:
ANNE BARNARD Just to be completely clear, so you’re saying if someone is a devout Muslim, meaning if he or she is practicing and believing in the tenets of Islam, they cannot in your view be a political moderate?
PAMELA GELLER No.
[ … ]
No, no, they can’t. Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to. That’s deeply troubling. And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don’t think they know that.
ALAN FEUER Right. So you believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim, if not …
PAMELA GELLER Oh, I absolutely … Oh, I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam.
ANNE BARNARD What would be a moderate Muslim then?
PAMELA GELLER I think a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim.
[ … ]
Seminal Moment
Ms. Geller refers to the landing gear of one of the 9/11 planes, found at the site of the planned mosque:
PAMELA GELLER You guys ran the landing gear—
ANNE BARNARD Yes, yes.
PAMELA GELLER—that I held up at all my rallies, thank you very much. That was the—for me that landing gear was the seminal moment, it was the—the landing gear is in the building? God, it gives you the chills. I mean the Japanese could build a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor; they never asked. They would never ask. It’s just wrong.
[..]
Even the cabdriver who was slashed, the Muslim cabdriver, by a pro-mosque supporter, who had an affiliation to Park51, who worked for Park51, the cabdriver said the mosque is wrong. That story did not get the ink it should have gotten because, A, it wasn’t someone who was against the mosque. If it was someone that was against the mosque, forget about it, I’d be hanging. I’d be hanging in Union Square. Yeah. Whatever.
[ … ]
Shariah
Ms. Geller on Islamic law in the United States:
ANNE BARNARD So do you really think that creeping Shariah is the biggest danger to America right now?
PAMELA GELLER No. The biggest danger to America? No. Do I think it’s a big danger? Yeah. Am I worried about it for tomorrow? No. Is that how it happens? No. It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. The mosque-ing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day: it’s wrong. And in places like Greeley and in Marshall, in Colorado, the media doesn’t report on it, but they’ve come to fisticuffs, there’s been rioting. The non-Muslim workers, they’re mainly Hispanics, they don’t want to lengthen their day.
The thing is: I don’t care if you worship a stone; just don’t stone me with it. These demands are a way of imposing Islam on a secular society. Asking for prayer space in public schools for Muslim children is imposing Islam. If the child is religious, send them to madrassa. If you don’t want to handle meat that’s not halal, don’t become a cashier at Target or Wal-Mart. If you want to wear the hijab, don’t work at Disney.
ALAN FEUER Do you detect a level of coordination behind this?
PAMELA GELLER No. Yeah, yes. The level of coordination is Shariah, is the Koran. This is living under Islamic law. It’s not that there’s a—look, I guess there’s conspiracy theory and there’s conspiracy fact. And clearly the global jihad, the installation of a universal caliphate, is the objective of a great many Islamic supremacists who make no secret of it.
[ … ]
Separation of Mosque and State
Islam in European politics:
PAMELA GELLER I understand what you’re saying and I have no problem with the identity politics. Honestly, I have no problem with hijab, I have no problem with burqa, I have no problem with purple hair. I don’t care. What I’m saying is the separation of mosque and state needs vigilance, that’s what I’m saying. And all you need to do is look at the current global map and the historical evidence to see what happens when you get these increased demands to Islam. Now, depending upon the region. The Middle East was once a Christian region, and look at all the Muslim countries that are living under the Shariah.
Look at even in Europe, the Islamization of Europe, you cannot ignore it. You cannot ignore the fact that there are no-go zones, where the police cannot go in France, cannot go in England, the fire department cannot go. When they go, it’s a trick, it’s an ambush many times. And there are no-go zones and the rule of law is the Shariah.
So what are we talking about? What are we looking at, if we can look past our watches in 10 years, 20 years? What are you looking at? Are you looking at reverting to city-states in Europe? I’m serious. This is not static. You think that where we are right now is where we’re going to be?
ALAN FEUER No, of course not.
PAMELA GELLER Of course not. So yes, I look at Europe and I’m concerned. I think the first country that will be Islamic in Europe will be the U.K. They already have introduced the Shariah law into their judicial system. And again you’ll say, “So what’s wrong with that?” What’s wrong with adjudicating family disputes and, and I say to you it’s always incrementally. The fact that welfare benefits in the U.K. go to multiple wives. If you have multiple wives, you get multiple benefits. Why would you encourage polygamy? I know it’s happening in America, the polygamy, but so far I have not heard of multiple benefits, and if I have, it’s not a matter of law, it’s not a sanctioned entitlement.
And so freedom of speech is in jeopardy. Religious freedom under the Shariah does not exist, and while it all may sound outlandish, you’ll wake up one day, you won’t recognize your own country. I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with a political Islam. And I’ll say it once, I’ll say it 100 times that the separation of mosque and state needs to be maintained, and it’s not as simple as you’d think. Because you see a little kid and he wants to pray, you give him a prayer space. You’re not thinking. I mean, I see the face, I’m a mother. But I do. One’s not thinking in terms of precedent.
On the Prism of Israel….