Skip to content

Huma Abedin And Her Dhimmi Friends

23 July 2012 @ 13:56

From yesterday’s New York Post, Larry Celona reporting, we learned [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum]:

Police and federal officials have placed security around ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, after a New Jersey man threatened her, law-enforcement sources said.

An individual, described as a Muslim man, made the unspecified threat after Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) last week claimed Abedin’s family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and asked for a probe to see if she is helping the Islamist organization

As Robert Spencer points out over at Jihad Watch:

…Yahoo headlined this story "Bachmann’s accusations lead to threat against Huma Abedin," thereby giving the impression that some greasy Islamophobe, driven mad by Bachmann’s "hate speech," had threatened the pure, the innocent, the unjustly accused Abedin. Only when you go to the original story do you find out that it was a Muslim who threatened Abedin.

In a disgraceful report that tarnishes it’s reputation, The London Daily Mail, published this piece of ‘reporting’ by Meghan Keneally and Nina Golgowski [emphasis mine]:

Bachmann, who rose to national prominence during her failed bid for position of this year’s Republican presidential candidate, alleged that Ms Abedin’s deceased father, mother, and brother are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, the controversial political opposition group who often works against American interest in Arab states.

Touting her role on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Bachmann wrote a letter- which was co-signed by four other congressmen- alleging that given Ms Abedin’s highly-sensitive position in Ms Clinton’s staff, she is effectively a national security threat due to her fictitious connections to the Brotherhood.

In the letter, which was sent to the deputy inspector general of the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence among others, Mrs Bachmann and her co-signers gave no traces of evidence of their findings.


From an article by Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag last week [tip of the fedora to Donald Douglas]:

…in her letter to [Democratic Representative and Muslim Keith] Ellison, Bachmann explained that much more was behind her concern about Abedin than guilt-by-association based on family members: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”

And in Abedin’s case, there are ample reasons for raising these questions. Her father, Syed Z. Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization supported by the Muslim World League, a Brotherhood organization. Her mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, the Brotherhood’s adjunct organization for women. The Brotherhood itself is in its own words, according to a captured internal document, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

As Bachmann pointed out in her letter to Ellison, the Muslim Brotherhood ties of Abedin’s mother, father and brother have never been a secret, and have long been noted in the international press. Abedin herself has never publicly distanced herself from the Brotherhood, or explained how her worldview or her vision of Islam differ from that of her parents or brother. So by what moral calculus can it possibly be “sinister,” as [Senator John] McCain put it, to ask that Abedin be subjected to the same scrutiny that would be focused upon anyone seeking a security clearance that would allow access to sensitive material comparable to that which she enjoys?

What’s more, the Obama administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is so obvious that Egyptian demonstrators just days ago pelted Hillary Clinton’s motorcade with tomatoes and shoes for delivering that country up to the rule of the Brotherhood and the imposition of Islamic law that is almost certain to come. Protestors held signs reading “Message to Hillary: Egypt will never be Pakistan”; “To Hillary: Hamas will never rule Egypt” and “If you like the Ikhwan [Brotherhood], take them with you!”

Did Huma Abedin have any influence over the Obama administration’s warm support for the Brotherhood? No one knows. Michele Bachmann doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim otherwise. John McCain, for that matter, doesn’t know that Abedin didn’t have this kind of influence. That is precisely why an investigation should be made.

In Abedin’s defense, McCain recounted: “Some years ago, I had the pleasure, along with my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, of traveling overseas with our colleague, then-Senator Hillary Clinton. By her side, as always, was Huma, and I had the pleasure of seeing firsthand her hard work and dedicated service on behalf of the former Senator from New York – a service that continues to this day at the Department of State, and bears with it significant personal sacrifice for Huma.”

In this McCain demonstrates a naivete that is astonishing if he really means what he says. That Abedin works hard and has served Clinton with dedication is not at issue. But the lingering question is: To what end? It may be that she is just as patriotic and loyal to American principles and American freedoms as McCain implies. It may also be that her familial loyalties have led her to take a positive stance toward the Muslim Brotherhood that is ultimately inimical to the interests of the United States. There simply isn’t enough to go on to answer that question either way at this point. That’s why there should be an investigation, and why John McCain is wrong, and Michele Bachmann is right.


And so is David Horowitz:

Senator John McCain thinks it’s “sinister” to question the political attitudes and influence of Huma Abedin, the Secretary of State’s close adviser even though Abedin’s mother and father are (or were — her father is deceased) figures in the Jew and Christian-hating Muslim Brotherhood, spawner of al-Qaeda, parent of Hamas — an organization dedicated in its own words to “destroying the American civilization.” If Abedin’s mother and father were influential figures in the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party during the Thirties would McCain have the same attitude. It’s disgraceful that that there are still influential Republicans who are clueless when it comes to the internal threat to this country posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, its front groups and its allies in the White House and the Democratic Party. It is also dangerous.

Indeed — very much so.

From a Center for Security Policy report just issued [the file is a PDF][tip of the fedora a second time to Donald], we learn some interesting things about Mzz. Abedin’s mother:

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, was described in Foreign Policy misleadingly as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” for her work on Islamic women’s issues. The content of that work, however, turns the western concept of women’s rights on its head; Abedin’s mission is the promotion of doctrinal shariah in family life and justification of the brutal and objectively anti-women practices commonplace everywhere that shariah is enforced.

An organization Abedin founded and chaired, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), advocates for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice. As shariah justification for this position, the IICWC quotes infamous Hitler-praising Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, long banned from entering the United States for advocating the murder of Americans in the Middle East.

In the 90s, Dr. Abedin and her late husband (and Huma Abedin’s father) published the Arabic edition of Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations by Saudi Islamist academic Fatima Umar Naseef, through the organization they had created, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The book is still sold by the London office of that organization, where Dr. Abedin is still listed as the editor of their decades-old academic journal. In 1999, in her capacity as Chairperson and founder of the IICWC, Dr. Abedin published the most recent edition of the book in Egypt, supervising and editing its translation into English.

Donald has much more here.

Clearly, Huma Abedin needs to be thoroughly vetted, especially in light of the Mohammedin belief in Taqiyya.

A highlight from Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent background piece on the practice:

…While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar"[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

One has to be wary of every single Muslim because this practice is not simply allowed but encouraged by those who interpret Islam and by The Koran itself. Surely vetting of a Mohammedin, especially one so close to the Secretary Of State, is quite reasonable. Ahhh…but, when it comes to the Left, Reason plays no part in their lives, as we well know. And, even if it did, it would be relegated many rungs below their efforts to gain and maintain power and control.

As Reason plays no part in the life of the Leftists, neither does the word Treason.

  1. 24 July 2012 @ 05:02 05:02

    There’s not much reason in Australian courts either when an islamic preacher gets the soft treatment from a judge.

    • thecampofthesaints permalink
      24 July 2012 @ 07:36 07:36

      The whole of The Western World seems bent on committing suicide – very slowly.

  2. 14 August 2012 @ 21:24 21:24

    Linked – just a little late:-)

    • 14 August 2012 @ 23:26 23:26

      Thanks, Dame Maggie – how are you doing?

      • 15 August 2012 @ 10:16 10:16

        I’m doing well Bob. Still a little twinge in my neck but I’m close to 100%. Thanks for asking.

        • thecampofthesaints permalink
          15 August 2012 @ 10:20 10:20

          Glad to hear it.


  1. The Elephant in the Room: Is Muslim Brotherhood Paying Huma and Weiner Rent for $3.3M Apartment? | Maggie's Notebook
  2. Manifesto Puts Hillary’s Deputy Chief In Middle Of Muslim Plot Read more: | askmarion

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: