Salon: Spencer, “go-to Islam expert for the right wing,” is “fearmongering” on Sharia, spreading “baseless claims” about Anthony Weiner

As I said last night, it’s thin gruel, but here is the Leftist dhimmi pseudo-journalist’s hit piece on my FrontPage interview regarding Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin: “Anthony Weiner-converted-to-Islam meme spreads,” by Justin Elliott at Salon, June 21:

This interview with Robert Spencer, the go-to Islam expert for the right wing, offers a taste of the worldview of the Shariah fear-mongering set…

The “go-to Islam expert for the right wing”! I like that, although I don’t see what is or ought to be particularly “right wing” about acting in defense of the freedom of speech and equality of rights for all people. On the other hand, the left wing has always been inclined toward totalitarianism and elitism, so perhaps Elliott considers defending freedom and legal equality to be “right wing” indeed.

In any case, in this he is signaling to his hapless Leftist readers at Salon that I am evil and not to be trusted. After all, I engage in “Shariah fear-mongering.” Of course. What’s to be concerned about regarding a law that approves of female genital mutilation; the restriction of non-Muslim religious practice; the devaluing of a non-Muslim’s life as compared to that of a Muslim; the brutalizing of women; the forbidding of music; and, of course, jihad and Islamic supremacism?

This is the second time we’ve heard the baseless claim that the very Jewish Weiner might have converted to Islam when he married Huma Abedin.

The important point here is that Spencer is no fringe figure; he’s at the very center of the anti-Muslim movement in the United States. His bio describes the impressive access he has to both mainstream and right-leaning media sources:

His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, the UK’s Guardian, Canada’s National Post, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, National Review Online, and many other journals.

Spencer has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews’s O’Reilly Factor, the Sean Hannity Show, the Glenn Beck Show, Fox and Friends, and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others. He has been a featured speaker at Dartmouth College, Stanford University, New York University, Brown University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, Washington University of St. Louis, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and many other colleges and universities.

Can you picture Elliott’s static and impotent rage as he read all that? After all, the Left is pro-censorship and favors the silencing of dissenters rather than free and open discussion. Clearly the fact that I’ve appeared in all these places and more nettles him. But unfortunately for him, the truth is getting out in more places and among ever more people all the time.

I asked Spencer about his claim, and he emailed: “If [Weiner] converted, it was almost certainly for convenience, not out of conviction.” Spencer also amended his statement that Weiner “most likely” converted to “most immediately obvious”:

“‘Most likely’ is a bit overstated. That is the most immediately obvious scenario, given Abedin’s background and self-identification as a Muslim. It is, as is obvious from the rest of what I said, not the only possible scenario,” he wrote.

That’s all there is. I warned you it was thin gruel. Anyway, apparently to speculate as to whether Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin complied with the letter of Islamic law when they got married is deeply offensive and evidence of some kind of bigotry, even though Abedin identifies herself as a Muslim and thus it wouldn’t have been unreasonable at all, or unusual for such situations, if he had asked Weiner to make a pro-forma conversion to Islam for the sake of the marriage. They’re both likely to be post-modern secularists anyway, so would it really have mattered all that much to him, or necessarily interfered with his cultural Judaism? Elliott’s link above to the “very Jewish” Weiner actually goes to a piece that says that Weiner “doesn’t belong to a synagogue or consider himself close to a single rabbi,” and that as a child “we weren’t a very religious household, but we had a very strong sense of our Judaism.” It also details his pro-Israel voting record. Would all this be jeopardized by a formalistic conversion to a religion about which Weiner almost certainly knows next to nothing, and which presents itself to prospective converts as tolerant and ecumenical? Not necessarily.

What’s more, Weiner fasts during Ramadan and has given up alcohol, and Arab News describes his wife as a “pious” Muslim — i.e., one who probably knows of and respects the Islamic law forbidding a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. But speculate that Weiner has converted to Islam? You must be some kind of conspiracy theorist or greasy Islamophobe, or both!

In any case, in light of all this, the possibility that Weiner might have converted to Islam is anything but “baseless,” although we may never know for sure one way or the other. What is demonstrably baseless right now is Justin Elliott’s claim to journalistic fairness and integrity.

New York Times' ridiculous lie: "Immigrant crime not visible in statistics"
The imam Justin Elliott explains Islam for you (courtesy the Saudi-funded John Esposito)
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    It’s amazing how these left wing pc liberals are not ashamed of showing their ignorance about Islam and sharia laws. Maybe they are even proud of it to show their support to the followers of this murderous cult!!

  2. says

    “What is demonstrably baseless right now is Justin Elliott’s claim to journalistic fairness and integrity.”

    Don’t ya just love it!

  3. says

    I read Elliott’s article earlier in the day and was struck by one thing, he doesn’t at any point try to refute what Robert says, he quotes him at length and provides a long list of media where he has been quoted, but he actually say nothing.

    Justin Elliott’s whole arguement is simply this: “Robert Spencer is right-wing, therefore he is wrong, wrong, wrong. No, I can’t prove it, but Robert Spencer is right-wing therefore he must be wrong.”

  4. says

    The Modern Left and Islam have much in common, among which are intolerance of opposing ideas, a strong strain of totalitarianism and a callous regard for the truth. Fitting that these two aberrancies should be the twisted soul mates they are. No wonder both fear and loathe Robert Spencer.

  5. says

    Weiner fasts and gives up alcohol while married to her which makes you want to ask—“Hows that working for ya there Mr. Weiner”?? Apparently the weiner wasnt satisfied with the pious Muslim babe. Speaking of the spiritual aspect of the relationship; its possible the spiritual door he opened by the marriage and the marriage bed allowed some very demonic spiritual entities to overcome him and cause the behaviour that caused his down fall. A “secular” Jew can sometimes become as lost as a goose in a fog when it comes to the spiritual realm.

  6. says

    Slightly off topic:
    we need to find a way to educate the ‘near enemy’, as Bill Warner calls those who unwhittingly or intentially assist islam. This is what the islamists do so well. They ‘educate’ our media, politicians, police, children. We need a nationwide movement that does the same. We need to educate these people so that they can educate the public. We need friends in these places not enemies. I know this sounds difficult but it has to happen if we are to win this war. We need to win the propogation war. Educating those who educate the masses is soo important!! Any ideas?

  7. says

    What’s more, Weiner fasts during Ramadan and has given up alcohol, and Arab News describes his wife as a “pious” Muslim…

    Weiner’s comporture before the House and when on camera was shrill even by Moslem standards.

    *** 33:21 ***

    Now that he’s got spare time on his hands, maybe Anthony should get back on the bottle to cool out a little. His wife is a Moslima, so she ain’t gonna complain.

  8. says

    “My Muslim faith has helped me overcome the self-destructive nature of my jahiliya (ignorance) period”

    —Anthony Weiner in around 3 months…

  9. says

    “In any case, in this he is signaling to his hapless Leftist readers at Salon that I am evil and not to be trusted.

    Hey!…no one is accusing his hapless Leftist readers of being intelligent…

  10. says

    Sez Mr Elliot – “the anti-Muslim movement in the United States”.

    Say I: “the American branch of the Order of the Phoenix”.

    You become a member of the real-life de facto ‘Order of the Phoenix’ the moment you wake up and realize that 1. Islam is a religion of blood and war, a Clear and Present Danger, and 2. the Ummah, or Mohammedan mob, the military wing thereof, supported tacitly or actively by the nonmilitary members of the Mob, intends to attack (and is, indeed, already attacking) *your* country with a view to turning it into a replica of the hell made manifest on earth that may be seen in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.

  11. says

    So he gave up alcohol, and fasts during Ramadan.

    I imagine sexting was okay and he didn’t have to give any of that up what with is nods to
    his wife’s culture.

  12. says

    With that impressive list of media outlets you’ve appeared on you’re hitting the big time Robert. Congratulations! There must be something to this “taste of the worldview of the Shariah fear-mongering set…”

    BTW, Elliott who?

  13. says

    I think the mainstream American media could easily find out whether or not Weiner converted to Islam by doing a bit of digging and/or by asking him. Also, even if some in the media claim it is distasteful, inappropriate, or irrelevant to pursue this question (which is indeed a hypocritical posture since they generated the controversy over Weiner in the first place by delving into his private life), since when has the mainstream media not been able to circumvent such concerns (real or genuine) by introducing questions about rumors etc. with queries like “Some people are suggesting that you [Anthony Weiner] are a [insert controversial category here]…how do you address those people?”? It is a not-terribly-subtle way for the media to have its cake and eat it too; that is, it can posture as though it is above the rumor-mongering and controversy, while eagerly participating in both.

    On the more general question of the degree of adherence by Muslims to the taboo/law against a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, there is not much data that I’m aware of, but there is this indirect evidence from polls [my note in brackets]:

    From PEW (2007), American Muslims were asked

    “Q. D7 Do you personally think it is okay or not okay for a Muslim to marry someone who is not a Muslim?”

    62% Okay
    24% Not okay
    11% Depends
    3% Don’t know/ refused


    [The question did not specify the non-Muslim male with Muslim female prohibition, and did not specify that the non-Muslim partner remain non-Muslim, and did not distinguish between people of the book, polytheists, and non-religious]

    From a poll of British Muslims, which was more specific:

    “That a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim.”
    51% Agree
    43% disagree
    5% don’t know/refused


    On the issue of “reinterpretation,” from the above cited PEW poll (M = Muslim, GP = General Population, and numbers beside those designations are percentages):

    Q. E4 Which comes closest to your view?
    Q. E5 And would you say that ___________?

    M 86 GP 69* The Koran is the word of God
    M 50 GP 35 The Koran is to be taken literally, word for word.
    M 25 GP 28 That not everything in the Koran should be taken literally, word for word.
    M 11 GP 6 Other/Don’t Know/ Refused

    M 8 GP 22* The Koran is a book written by men and is not the word of God.
    M 1 GP 2 Other
    M 5 GP 7 Don’t Know/refused

    *[This is comparative data obtained from the general public on similar question asked re the Bible]

    [Re literal word-for-word: The Koran itself says it contains some allegorical verses (3:7) and parables; this is yet another problem with this option. Moreover, non-literal interpretations are not necessarily better]

  14. says

    I just flew over the article Robert cited from the ArabNews, and nearly spilled my coffee when I read who signed it:

    ” Mohammed Azhar Ali Khan is a retired Canadian journalist, civil servant and refugee judge.”

    a Mohammed who had served as, no less than a REFUGEE JUDGE!

    When is a real Canadian journalist going to investigate what kind of decisions he took as a refugee judge?

  15. says

    Salon, aside from its sometimes amusing but usually annoying and/or boring penchant from publishing posts by “columnists” (i.e., “journalists” with no talent, skill, or initiative actually to go out and find a newsworthy story) discussing their self-aborbed selves’ personal travails (recent example: one regular contributor- I use the word advisedly- who wrote in graphic detail about her problem with diarrhea in public places), is largely a bulletin board for received knee-jerk leftist opinion, the place that provide the likes of Joan Walsh and the especially abominable Glenn Greenwald (a self-hating Jew who makes Tony Kushner look like Bibi Netanyahu by comparison) with a meal ticket and public renown. Nobody with a dozen working brain cells has taken Salon seriously for years.

  16. says

    Yes, the plot thickens, but…

    A part of my very right-wing, Kufr, and unabashedly masculine soul actually feels very sorry for Huma Abedin. As a protege of Hillary Clinton, she probably is someone whose main motivation in life is political power; hence marriage to an up-and-coming star in the social democratic wing of the Democratic Party–and betraying her religion and former associations to make that marriage. Yet now, Anthony Weiner’s political career is in tatters, he’s proven that he’s sexually disloyal, and poor Huma’s carrying his baby to boot.

    While alchohol abstention and fasting in Ramadan may indicate that the ex-Congressman underwent a pro forma conversion to Islam, my suspicion is that it’s something that sits lightly with him. Every Sunday morning, the golf courses of America are full of converts to one or another Christian denomination who made their conversion simply to please a wife rather than out of any real conviction.

    On the other hand, could we also be seeing part of an ongoing revelation about how Clintonistas bring a kind of poor judgment to bear in almost all that they do? Huma marrying Anthony; Hillary herself along with Samantha Power being the movers and shakers of the Libyan intervention; belated support for the O [a title for BHO that I like, since “Se Ou”, pronounced “say oh”, is “small child” in the Kejia or Hakka language].

    Robert, I’m glad to see that you don’t seem disheartened by attempts at character assassination and ad hominem attacks by your enemies. Keep up the good work.

  17. says

    I am truly happy that you escaped hopefully to Christ, if not you still have the free will to do so unlike islam we dont kill people that leave we just pray that they come back. This is the first and most important difference free will.

  18. says

    You scare them, Robert! Keep up the good work.

    If Tony had come out the closet and said he was a Muslim, he’d still be in Congress. And we’d all be asked to apologize to him and to the great religion of peace.

  19. says

    “Justin Elliott’s whole arguement is simply this: ‘Robert Spencer is right-wing, therefore he is wrong, wrong, wrong. No, I can’t prove it, but Robert Spencer is right-wing therefore he must be wrong.'”

    That’s just it: Justin and his pathetic ilk don’t refute a damn thing (as the facts against Islam are irrefutable, anyway), but they’re quick to give the false impression that they’ve exposed an unreliable source (at the very least, in their pathetic minds).

    They’ve been ingesting bullshit for so long that they’ve become immune to it.

  20. says

    She is now married to a disgraced fallen congressman. Would her emotions be grief, sadness, anger or perhaps—-mission accomplished. Hmmmm (She could always claim so to the Sharia police should they eventually take us over).

  21. says

    That is a great idea. I think you should do it. You and as many apostates as you can find. I support this idea!!

  22. says

    The connection may be closer than you think Wellington.

    As much as some within its ranks deny it, the left and its overt policy of destroying Western democracy, take their doctrines and teachings from a pretty vile American leftist by the name of Saul Alinsky.

    In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his methodology for bringing about the downfall of the West (or at least the downfall of America).

    Alinsky’s stated purpose:

    WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be
    … In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.

    Not far off the world plan of Islam albeit the Islamists don’t intend to give power to ‘the people’ but then again, neither did Alinsky.

    Alinsky provides rules for ethics and rules for action for the modern radical.

    For example:
    The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

    In other words the radicals set the moral context of their actions not those being affected by the radical actions.

    Now we know, the leftist radical and by extension the Islamist radical suicide bomber are innocent of their destructive behaviour. Only they can determine the moral context within which their actions can be judged; well, according to Alinksky.

    The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.

    I would imagine the above accords with “War is deceit” and a dozen other repugnant doctrines of Islam. It also tells you one of the reasons why leftists don’t have trouble lying. They have taqiyya built into their Qur’an as well.

    The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

    I think JW readers will have no trouble connecting this to the way Islamists behave depending on whether they are in a position of strength or weakness (e.g. hudna, taqiyya etc.)

    The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

    This is the most insidious of the leftist ethics rules. It clarifies that there never is an intent on their part to do things to achieve a ‘moral’ end. They do it because it appeals to those who do have morals and ethics. Those individuals will be predisposed to support these endeavours while not truly understanding their import.

    This isn’t far off from how Islamist portray their actions when they pressure for implementation of Sharia. They even argue they want to implement Sharia because it is ‘pro-Woman’. The public just eats that one up especially because they don’t see women’s rights groups protesting Sharia. If ‘women’s libbers’ support it, it must be okay.

    Alinsky also specified rules for action. I will only deal with two of them.

    The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the
    Christian church can live up to Christianity.

    Of all the things that Alinsky ever taught, this is the most pernicious. It laid the foundation for the liberal left’s influence on the conduct of the Vietnam war. Absolutely inane rules of engagement were forced onto the US military to live up to ‘Western standards of conduct.’ These rules of conduct made it impossible for the military to do its job and at the same time put the lives of US soldiers in extreme jeopardy.

    The liberal left has been doing the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been doing the same for Guantanamo.

    You may also recognize this rule as the enabler of Political Correctness. Over time the left was able to sneak in laws or applications of law (court decisions etc.) that took away society’s ability to defend itself.

    If you ever wondered why Islamists are finding it so easy to chip away at our freedoms you will find it in the above rule.

    The liberal left, because it uses the Alinksy playbook, see’s the Islamic movement as a kindred spirit having similar goals and objectives. The liberal left stupidly thinks that if the West falls then they will share the spoils of the Islamists. If this ever happens, the left is in for a very rude awakening.

    The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

    This brings us back to the current JW article.

    Robert Spencer shows how false the fifth rule actually is. He is above ridicule because he speaks the truth and he argues honestly. He therefore can’t be caught and that is why the left and the Islamists have to resort to out-and-out lies to deal with him. That is why few of them are willing to confront him directly. They understand that they will bring ridicule down on themselves by the time the smoke clears.

    If you are wondering if anyone reads Alinksy, you might look at the following Wikipedia articles. One on Hillary Clinton and one that references Barack Obama’s link to Alinksy.

    You can be sure that they aren’t the only ones in power who have read this evil book.

  23. says

    Thanks for this post, Peter. It is perhaps useful to note that Barack Obama and many of his supporters are acknowledged admirers of Saul Alinsky. One sees Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” being followed every day in the actions of the Left.

  24. says

    Now you see why some of us see the Left as purely destructive.

    From my late teens on, I have found Marxists a sickening species. Someone ought to tell them that they have no right to speak until there is not a single child dying from measles, mumps, or rubella in Cuba, and not a single case of starvation or imprisonment for ideological reasons in North Korea [absent thoroughgoing regime change in those countries].

    Marx saw exploited workers in Britain, but the only unpaid one he ever saw there was the German peasant girl Engels brought over to do housework for him.

    The Marxists charge the rest of us with “racism” at every opportunity, but press them on why their great social experiment failed to unleash the unheard-of productive forces that Marx promised, they will tell you it is because Russians are basically backwards and superstitious people; the Chinese are primitive; and Cuba lost its white middle class (even though that same white middle class escaped with just the clothes on its backs). in short, blame it on the Uentermenschen.

    A man named Harry Blamires once wrote that insanity isn’t loss of reason, but when someone has nothing but reason left. Maybe he was thinking of Marxists.

    And now, it is America’s national shame that we have a disciple of Alinsky as our president.

  25. says

    You are welcome Eastview.

    My greatest fear in the story is the fact that we are fighting a war on two fronts but everyone’s attention is focused mainly on the threat of Islam.

    The left is the greater threat because it currently has political sway in the US at the federal, state and municipal level. It has strong control of the media and an iron grip on some pretty strategic universities. Education in the real sense has disappeared. Even institutions like Harvard and Yale do not turn out scholars like they used to.

    The Islamists, in the US, would not be able to do what they are doing now except for the fact that the liberal left through the above mentioned control make it impossible for the US to properly respond to the internal threat. That is not a coincidence and the Islamists know it.

    Getting back to University education, a fuller account of the problem is provided in a very good documentary called Indoctrinate U.

    If you haven’t seen it, do so. The full documentary is presented on YouTube in 8 to 10 parts, I think. It will be worth your while to view the whole movie.

    The link to part 1 is:

  26. says

    I couldn’t agree with you more Kepha.

    Regarding your President, what concerns me is that fact that he was a Community Organizer. That is pointed out in the Wikipedia article on Alinksy.

    It occurred to me, after I sent the Alinksy Wikipedia link to Wellington, that I should have included some comments on the term ‘community organizer’ which was attributed to Obama.

    A Community Organizer sounds nice but it is an Alinsky term and therefore is anything but nice.

    Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding some of my source material on Alinsky at the moment; so, I can’t give a direct quote on this concept. The following quote from an Internet site dedicated to Alinksy’s thoughts (Yuck!) might help put this term in perspective.

    The article is titled “Community Organizing in the Eighties:Toward a Post-Alinsky Agenda”

    The link is:

    For Alinsky and his disciples, the city was reducible to two basic units: the neighborhood and the “enemy” outside the neighborhood. Poor and working-class neighborhoods continually suffered because external decision-makers controlled the internal distribution of services and goods.

    I’m sure you can recognize this as the politics of division or the war doctrine of “divide and conquer”.

    This is the very trick the left used in creating its “Civil Rights Industry”.

    Essentially, it created a class of Americans that have been enslaved in a new way. A way that makes them a client of the ‘Industry’ rather than the beneficiary of the ‘American dream’ which is theirs by right of the US Constitution.

    Anyway, to my mind, the concept of ‘Community Organizing’ has always been as close to sedition as you can get without actually crossing the line.

    Hopefully, when President Obama portrayed himself as a ‘Community Organizer’ he meant it in a more benign sense than Alinsky meant it.

    You may already be aware of the following video Kepha, and if you are, my apologies, in advance, for bringing it up; but, some who come to this post may not be aware of it.

    It does show how extreme the mindset and behaviour patterns of the liberal left can be. You can’t debate intelligently with these peoeple because they are too arrogant and too poorly educated to understand that facts play an important part in any argument. [That is probably another commonality between Leftists and Islamists]

    The antagonist of the story is Richard Belzar, an American actor who is a little over the top at the best of times. He is a typical Hollywood liberal leftist who’s greatest love is his voice and whose greatest hate is dissent (against his thoughts). This may be another commonality between liberal leftists and Islamists.

    He has a habit of saying things that come across as stupid brain farts.

    Most of the time I don’t mind such things; but, I do draw the line when someone, like Belzar, cloaks his stupidity with arrogance.

    I’m sure few people, will have much problem picking apart everything and I do mean everything that he says.

    How can you ever deal rationally with people who think and argue along these lines?

    The answer is you can’t.

    That creates a big problem for the US because more and more of these types are being churned out by American Universities. Small wonder, the professors who helped create them are of the same ilk.