Not that the newspaper identified them as such. To the Washington Post, Mohamed Magid ("disappointed" that McDonnell had not repudiated Robertson) was "imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society," and not also vice president of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism financing trial that last year convicted five defendants on all counts. To the Washington Post, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) (calling for McDonnell to disavow Robertson) was "a Washington-based civil rights group for Muslims," not a Hamas-linked, known Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the same landmark terrorism trial. To the Washington Post, Rep. Gerry Connolly's (D-Va.) demand for an apology from Robertson represented growing "political implications," not political payback from someone whom "Muslim Mafia" co-author Paul Sperry calls "the Saudi's new man in Congress" for Connolly's dogged defense of a bona fide Saudi madrassa in Fairfax Country coinciding with, as Sperry writes, "what appears to be an orchestrated outpouring of donations from Islamists with Saudi connections."
This is crucial information to deny readers. The story takes on a different cast when it becomes clear that behind this latest attempt to both stifle criticism of Islam and make it a liability to associate with a critic of Islam are groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which, according to its own manifesto, is engaged in a jihad against the United States. Indeed, the first news site to follow the Post's storyline was Islam Online, a Web site that the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qaradawi, helped establish, and where readers can find, for example, scholarly Islamic counsel condoning death for homosexuals. Qaradawi is himself a leading apologist for homicide bombings against Israeli civilians and insurgent violence against Americans, military and civilian, in Iraq.
But I digress -- or do I? Is not all of this information essential to understanding the motivations of those who have turned Pat Robertson's critical comments about Islam into a brickbat against the new Virginia governor? Such information never enters mainstream outlets or debate due to precisely this sort of hectoring enforcement of Sharia-style prohibitions on criticism, and even examination, of Islam that the Washington Post, in full dhimmi mode, is all too willing to enable.
Indeed, a recent lead editorial in the paper was headlined "Mr. McDonnell's albatross," with Robertson, of course, in the role of dreaded bird. The Post writes: "Doesn't Mr. McDonnell owe (Virginia Muslims" some reassurance that he doesn't share Pat Robertson's despicable views?"
Are they "despicable," or are they just too close to the historical record?
I guess we'll never know.