BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin


Witnesses say Clinton aide “overrode security protocols,” hoarded classified information at home.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 27, 2016:

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.

The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”

While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the ( domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was, was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.

Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her account to either her or her account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.

Big Brotherhood is Watching You


Why is the U.S. government only interested in partnering with the most radical Islamic groups?

Front Page Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, October 19, 2016:

According to pollster Frank Luntz’s audience meter, one of Hillary Clinton’s best moments in the first presidential debate was when she asserted that we need to cooperate with the Muslim community and not alienate them.

That makes sense, but only if you’re cooperating with the right people in the Muslim community. The trouble is, we’ve been cooperating with all the wrong people—namely, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These are not moderate Muslim groups. They are stealth jihad organizations whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were established in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in turn, has been designated as a terrorist group by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. And the UAE has also named CAIR—whose representatives are frequent visitors to the White House—as a terrorist group.

Our government has been doing community outreach to groups that ought to be highly suspect. In their bookMuslim Mafia, authors Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz contend that CAIR operates like…well, like the Mafia. Instead of urging the Muslim community to cooperate with the authorities, CAIR has been instructing them not to cooperate. According to Jihad Watch, on two occasions CAIR chapters actually printed posters urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. Like the Mafia, CAIR and similar Islamic organizations have worked to impose the omerta code on their fellow Muslims.

It sounds enlightened to say that we should be cooperating with the Muslim community, but what’s so enlightened about organizations that want to transport the Muslim community back to the Dark Ages via sharia law? There are enlightened, moderate Muslim groups in the U.S., but our government studiously ignores them. Where’s the outreach to Zudhi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Where’s the outreach to the moderate Muslim groups and individuals listed on the Clarion Project’s website?

It seems that our government is more interested in cooperating and consulting with Muslims of a more radical stripe. For example, Jeh Johnson, the director of Homeland Security, recently addressed the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America. He told them that theirs was “the quintessential American story,” and he apologized profusely for the “discrimination,” “vilification,” and “suspicion” they had been subjected to. That’s all very nice, but isn’t it the main job of Homeland Security to be suspicious—especially of groups like ISNA which are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Johnson’s boss, President Obama, has shown remarkable sympathy not only for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, but also for the Brotherhood itself. His administration did everything it could to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, and everything it could to keep them in power. By contrast, the Obama administration has been reluctant to cooperate with Egypt’s new government under President El-Sisi—a genuine moderate.

Hillary Clinton herself was involved in the machinations to keep Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi in power. And, although it wasn’t widely reported, many members of the Muslim community were not happy with her. When she visited Egypt in 2012, her motorcade was pelted with shoes and tomatoes.

Another, not-so-widely-known feature of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was her collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in their efforts to find ways to silence criticism of Islam and even to criminalize such criticism. For many years the OIC’s chief ambition has been to impose omerta on the whole non-Muslim world.

Indeed, on one occasion, Clinton was instrumental in enforcing Islam’s blasphemy penalty on an American citizen. Like others in the administration, Clinton claimed that the spark for Benghazi and the Arab Spring riots was a fifteen-minute trailer spoofing Muhammad that was made by an obscure California filmmaker. She promised that he would be punished for this outrage, and, sure enough, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in prison shortly thereafter.

Even more troubling is Secretary Clinton’s close relationship with her longtime assistant and advisor, Huma Abedin. Abedin’s late father had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother, sister, and brother still do. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood, her mother has been a strong advocate for sharia law—even to the point of opposing a proposed ban on female genital mutilation.

Huma Abedin herself was for twelve years the assistant editor of a Muslim Brotherhood publication—The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Interestingly, one of JMMA’s top priorities is to encourage Muslim minority communities not to assimilate with their host cultures. Its policy, as Andrew McCarthy observes, is “to grow an unassimilated aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Huma Abedin stopped working for the cause of Muslim separatism just before she started working at the State Department. Or did she? We may never know. In 2012, Congress blocked a request by five House members for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the government. The request specifically named Abedin.

Huma Abedin may be completely innocent of any subversive activities, but her family associations and her own background would seem to disqualify her for the sensitive positions she has held. In other, more commonsensical times, it’s unlikely that Abedin would have been hired as a receptionist at the State Department, let alone as deputy chief of staff. And, should Clinton be elected, Abedin might well serve as White House chief of staff, or—as some have suggested—as our next Secretary of State.

It’s important to understand that when Hillary Clinton talks about the need for close cooperation with the Muslim community, she doesn’t have Zuhdi Jasser in mind, or any other genuinely moderate Muslim. She’s thinking instead of groups like CAIR, the OIC, and the Muslim Brotherhood—and of individuals like Huma Abedin.

William Kilpatrick is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad (Regnery Publishing). For more on his work and writings, visit his website,

Islamist Ties and Security Clearances: An Urgent National Security Debate

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 7, 2016:

In a lengthy article at, Christine Brim asks, “Should Family Affiliation With Foreign Islamist Movements Prevent a Security Clearance?”

While the article concerns an official in the office of the Defense Department Inspector General named John Crane, an even more urgent example would be longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who has similar family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and might be just a few months away from access to the Oval Office.

John Crane rose to the position of Assistant Inspector General after 25 years with the Defense Department, even though his father Robert Crane converted to Islam in 1980 and became “a high-level official in multiple Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated organizations in the U.S. and Qatar.” Crane told Brim he was never once asked about his father’s affiliations during his long DoD career.

The younger Crane has a position in the battle over Edward Snowden, who has lately been the beneficiary of a massive left-wing effort to rehabilitate his reputation as a “whistleblower” and secure a pardon for his offenses. As Brim explains:

Crane has recently been the subject of numerous media interviews as “The Third Man” in the new book Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden, a defense of Edward Snowden’s theft of classified documents from the U.S., UK and Australia. John Crane was quietly removed from his Inspector General and whistleblower office positions in February 2013, four months before the Edward Snowden case became public knowledge.  He immediately became a consultant for the General Accountability Project (GAP), the legal counsel for Snowden. GAP was founded in 1977 by the extreme far left Institute for Policy Studies.

[…] Crane’s allegations against the DoD in Bravehearts have been cited as a vindication of Snowden’s acts by the Intercept, the website of Snowden advocate Glenn Greenwald (“Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga”).

He was suspended from his job as Defense Department Assistant Inspector General in 2013, accompanied by the loss of his security clearances, but is now appealing for reinstatement. This means Crane will have to complete a new security clearance questionnaire, Form SF 86, which now asks about the affiliation of relatives with any “foreign government, military, security, defense industry, foreign movement, or intelligence service.” This is where the elder Crane’s relationship with Islamist groups could enter the picture.

The problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood might not be as problematic as it should be. The Obama Administration has labored mightily to rehabilitate the group’s image, but Brim lays out a convincing case that it is exactly the kind of “foreign movement” our guardians of national security should worry about. It is already been designated a terrorist organization by a number of U.S. allies (plus Russia), and will obtain that designation in the United States if the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 is enacted.

Brim recalls the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto – “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” – and notes their determination to “impose strict Islamic law in Muslim-majority countries and the world, using a mix of politics and violence.” They have ideological ties to some of America’s worst non-state enemies, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Islamic State.

And yet, there does not seem to have been any effort made by this Administration, or its predecessors, to explore Robert Crane’s Muslim Brotherhood ties, or the possibility that they might compromise his son. CounterJihad’s exhaustive investigation ended with picking up the phone, calling John Crane, and asking if his father was that Robert Crane. He answered in the affirmative, but based on Brim’s report, no one in the U.S. government bothered to ask.

Robert Crane, who did not respond to an interview request from CounterJihad, has a lively resume, explored in detail by CounterJihad. He was, for example, appointed Deputy Director for National Security Planning by Richard Nixon, and then fired by Henry Kissinger; his connections in the Gulf Arab states made him Ronald Reagan’s choice for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but his appointment was scuttled by Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

Brim writes of Robert Crane’s conversion to Islam:

In 1980 Crane “became Muslim after seeing Sudanese leader Hasan al-Turabi preach and pray at an Islamic affairs conference in New Hampshire” (a variation on the conversion anecdote here). That Robert Crane would credit Hasan al-Turabi for his conversion is both surprising and concerning. Hasan al-Turabi became a leader of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood starting in the 1960s, was best known for inviting Osama Bin Laden to shelter his entire operation in Sudan from 1991-1996 and according to Human Rights Watch, imposed brutal sharia law as head of the National Islamic Front (the Muslim Brotherhood party) and in high office as Minister of Justice starting in 1979.

Brim relates many disturbing activities conducted by the organizations on Robert Crane’s resume, but the central question would be how much any of it reflects on his son John Crane. Brim’s antennae went up when the authors of the Bravehearts book about Snowden devoted a paragraph to Robert Crane, without naming him, or saying a single word about what he did after his spell with the Nixon Administration. Crane told Brim the authors did not ask about his father’s conversion to Islam or ties to extremist groups, and he did not volunteer the information – which seems to be a fair summary of his relationship with U.S. intelligence as well.

“If Crane undergoes a new background investigation, what answer will he give regarding his father’s affiliations to a foreign movement? Will it be the factual one, or the whitewashed one he provided for Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden?Would a factual answer bar a return to his old position – or facilitate it, in a future administration that may actively support the Muslim Brotherhood?” Brim asks.

Similar questions could be asked about Huma Abedin, whose family journal, where she is listed as an assistant editor, has advocated some disturbing interpretations of Islamic law, as well as accusing the United States of inviting the 9/11 attack by heaping “various kinds of injustices and sanctions” upon the Muslim world.

Her mother is an official in a group chaired by the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Her father founded an institute supported by a major Muslim Brotherhood splinter group.

Questions about Abedin are never answered. They are deflected by furious allegations of conspiracy-mongering and anti-Muslim bigotry. Hillary Clinton and her top aides are clearly above the law, and above all reasonable national security scrutiny.

Crane does not have the magical Clinton immunity, but as Brim pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood certainly has not been shunned by the Obama Administration, and it is poised to do even better in Washington if Hillary Clinton becomes President. The current climate of political correctness treats very few Islamic organizations as security risks, unless they’ve been directly classified as terrorist organizations under American law.

The web of connections between hardcore Islamists and more “mainstream” groups is complicated, making it easy to caricature discussion of those links as “conspiracy-mongering.” The groups cluttering these complex flowcharts tend to have the word “Muslim” in their benevolent-sounding names, and that’s all the dominant political culture in Washington needs to see before averting its eyes.

It’s fair to ask whether someone like John Crane has been unduly influenced by his father, or might compromise sensitive information by talking to him. The answer to that question could be “no.” It is terrifying beyond belief to consider that no one at the Defense Department had the desire, or maybe the courage, to ask.

EXCLUSIVE: Huma Abedin Email Attacked Jewish Group Photo of Richard Pollock RICHA

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin (Reuters photo)

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin (Reuters photo)

Daily Caller, by Richard Pollack, October, 5, 2016:

Huma Abedin, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, urged former President Bill Clinton in 2009 to reject a speaking invitation before the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), asking his assistant in an email, do “u really want to consider sending him into that crowd?”

Abedin’s comment about “that crowd” has sparked anger and consternation among Jewish and non-Jewish leaders who consider it hostile to Jews and to the State of Israel. Her comments are raising uncomfortable questions about Abedin’s past and her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Appalling” is how Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, described the email, adding that it, “shows hostility toward Jews and Israel in light of the fact that ‘that crowd’ gives huge ovations to White House speakers.”

Klein pointed to the Abedin family’s ties to a radical Islamic group, saying, “it makes me think about the allegations about her parents and other family members who were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes called Abedin’s comment “disdainful” of AIPAC. He also noted her past association with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Abedin’s disdainful comment about AIPAC as ‘that crowd’ could derive from her Muslim or her leftist identity – or both,” Pipes told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Andrew McCarthy, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and others for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, told TheDCNF Abedin’s background raised security concerns.

“During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, some of us pointed out that Abedin’s background raised concerns about Islamist sympathies and unfitness for a security clearance that gave her access to top-secret intelligence,” McCarthy said.

Abedin was raised in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, by fundamentalist Muslim parents who ran the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was published by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which was founded by her father Syed Abedin. Abedin remained on the masthead as an editor of the journal for 12 years until she entered the Department of State with Clinton in 2009.

Critics noted her father’s main benefactor was Abdullah Omar Naseef, secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL). The U.S. Department of the Treasury designated Rabita Trust, a subsidiary of the MWL, as a terrorist entity. Osama bin Laden credited MWL as a funding source after the 9/11 attacks.

Abedin has kept her personal political views to herself. Accusations of anti-Semitism were blunted by her marriage to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, who is Jewish. That marriage is ending after Weiner was caught multiple times sexting online, most recently while sitting next to his son.

The issue of AIPAC’s interest in Bill Clinton’s attendance was raised in two sets of emails, all dated Sept. 10, 2009.

The State Department released them Sept. 21, 2016, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the conservative advocacy group Citizens United.

The AIPAC issue was raised by Doug Band, who was Bill Clinton’s White House “body man.” Band now boasts on his corporate web site that he was “the key architect of Clinton’s post-Presidency” and created and built the Clinton Global Initiative that critics link to corrupt “pay to play” deals with overseas corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign governments.

Band also was recently credited with securing access of Clinton Foundation donors to Hillary Clinton. Band is now the chairman of Teneo, a company that has been dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” Abedin was senior adviser to Teneo while she was serving as deputy chief of staff for Hillary Clinton.

Abedin’s special status allowing her to draw paychecks from the government and Teneo is being investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

In a Sept. 10, 2009, email, Band told Cheryl Mills and Abedin that Bill Clinton was reluctant to attend the AIPAC Jewish forum, stating, “Aipac begging for wjc to come speak at conference.  He doesn’t think he should unless you all do.”

Mills, Hillary’s chief of staff, told Band the final decision was up to Hillary Clinton and she would touch base with her. As Mills sought that answer, Abedin comments, “U really want to consider sending him into that crowd?”

An apparently impatient Band pointedly asked, “Go or not go?”

Abedin finally responds: “No go to aipac.”

It’s unclear from the email exchange why they wanted to skip the AIPAC meeting. Bill Clinton twice addressed AIPAC in the 1990s as president. Hillary Clinton spoke before AIPAC in 2010 after her husband was asked to address the group.

Bill Clinton attended the funeral for Israeli leader Shimon Peres last week, but in years past, Bill Clinton has expressed more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis.

“I will never forget what it taught me about your suffering, your history of dispossession and dispersal, but also about your resilience and courage,” he said in an open letter to the Palestinian people on Jan. 19, 2001, the day he left the White House.

He also released a statement to the Israelis. Here, however, he counseled “compromise” rather than empathy: “Compromise is often difficult and always painful. But the people and leaders of the region must understand that to seek a peace without compromise is not to seek peace at all.”

A spokesman for AIPAC declined to address the email. The Clinton campaign did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views?

Huma Abedin (left) and Hillary Clinton (Photo: © Reuters)

Huma Abedin (left) and Hillary Clinton (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Meira Svirsky, October 2, 2016

Concerns about Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, both when she was secretary of state and now, as the Democratic presidential nominee, began surfacing in 2012. According to leaked emails, Abedin is slated to become secretary of state if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.

Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.

Clarion Project covered that request extensively, as the Congressional members who made it were pilloried by their colleagues. We also covered the extremism of Abedin’s mother, father and other family members.

Now more information has been uncovered regarding the Islamist beliefs of Abedin’s parents. While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.

Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:

As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”

In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.

In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”

The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“

In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of 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,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.

The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

However, an exception does exist: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty.”

The New York Post reports that Saleha is on the payroll of the Saudi government and part of her job is to advocate for sharia law in non-Muslim countries like the United States.

“In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.

“Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse,” reported the newspaper.

We hope that Abedin does not hold the same opinions as her parents or the journal of which she was the assistant editor. And it would certainly be nice to have to tell us that.


Jamie Glazov outlines the concerns about Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood influences and the need for answers on her beliefs. I would point out that neither Hillary or Huma would pass a proper background check.

Huma Abedin’s Father: “Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law”

abedin-1Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Sept. 28, 2016:

Syed Abedin, the father of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma, outlined his view of Sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile” during a wide-ranging video interview that shines newfound light on the reclusive thinker’s world views, according to footage exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Abedin, a Muslim scholar who was tied to the Saudi Arabian government until his death in 1993, has remained somewhat of a mystery as the media turns its eye to his daughter Huma, a top Clinton campaign aide who recently announced her separation from husband Anthony Weiner following his multiple sex scandals.

Syed Abedin explained his views on the Muslim world and spread of Islam during a 1971 interview titled The World of Islam, which was first broadcast on Western Michigan University television.


Abedin said that Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law, and explained why the majority of Muslims view Israel and the Western world in primarily “hostile” terms.

The video provides a window into the Abedin family’s ideology, which has been marred by accusations it is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abedin, who was then a professor in the university’s college of general studies, said that Western intervention in the Arab world has sparked a backlash among many faithful Muslims.

“The response to the West has been of two kinds,” Abedin said. “By and large the response has taken more of a hostile form.”

“The first impulse of the average Muslim in the Islamic world is that this kind of borrowing [culturally] would be somehow an alien factor into our social fabric and thereby destroying the integrity of our ethos … the integrity of our culture,” he added.

In a separate discussion on the state’s role in a person’s life, Abedin said it is necessary to police the application of Sharia law.

“The state has to take over” as Muslim countries evolve, he argued. “The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the Sharia.”

“Suspicion” runs rampant in the Muslim world, Abedin said, citing it as a reason why Western governing values have not been quickly adopted in the region.

“In the contemporary Islamic world, religious leadership is of very crucial significance because any change that will be abiding, that will make any positive contribution to the development of Muslim life, must come from that source, and that is one reason why ideologies like socialism or communism that have been introduced into the Muslim world have never really taken root,” Abedin said. “They have always been considered as foreign importations. … It’s a kind of suspicion.”

Abedin also discussed the clash between modernity and the Islamic world.

“When you talk of an Islamic state … does it have to have a caliph?” he asked. “What does it mean? What is the Islamic concept of good in the present day world?”

Any cultural change, Abedin concluded, will have to be validated by the tenets of Islam.

“The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam,” he said. “Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s views on religion have become a central topic among those who have questioned Clinton’s choice to elevate Human Abedin into such a prominent role.

The Abedins helped create the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a publication accused of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and of promoting a hardline Islamic ideology.

Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor of the journal for 12 years and also played a role in its offshoot, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think-tank established in Saudi Arabia by an accused financier of the al Qaeda terror group, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Muslim Brotherhood’s ties to the Obama Administration

obama-egypt-450x338-1Family Security Matters, by Slater Bakhtavar, Sept. 23, 2016:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

The above is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, and organization founded in Egypt in 1928 for the express purpose of rebuilding human civilization in a form consistent with the customs of Shariah (Islamic) law and instituting a global Muslim paradise. The group’s own original bylaws leave little for interpretation, declaring: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.” As can be expected, then, the Brotherhood has been an enemy of the free world since its inception, engaging in such malignant acts as aligning itself with the National Socialist (Nazi) party in Germany during World War II, openly committing terrorist acts on its own, and more recently, supporting other terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

By any reasonable measure, the Muslim Brotherhood should be an unambiguous enemy of any American, regardless of political stripe. That is why it’s profoundly disturbing to consider that the group has steadily risen in influence within the United States, most particularly within the Democratic party. We see this broadly in the findings of a 2014 analysis that shows Islamist campaign donations overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since 9/11, but a specific and disturbing example can be found in the person of Huma Abedin, Vice Chairwoman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and reportedly longtime personal friend of Mrs. Clinton. Through her family, Abedin has a number of troubling ties to extremist Islam in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Her father is known to have founded the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an academic publication that has been called a “sharia newspaper” by some. Her mother currently runs it, and Huma herself has worked as an editor on it.

Her brother introduces further suspicions of extremist loyalties. Abedin’s shady connections to the Muslim Brotherhood – which the Democratic party never fails to frantically deny or simply ignore – run so deep that five members of Congress wrote a letter in 2012 to the State Department Inspector General, listing her suspicious associations and contending that her family affinity with Islamic extremism disqualifies her from the sort of high level security clearance that would grant her access to someone like Hillary Clinton – an important and powerful person, and possible future President of the United States.

Huma Abedin’s role in American politics first rose to prominence when she served as a top adviser to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (again, their friendship stretches back considerably). Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has vastly strengthened its position within the US. Within that time period, the US government has reversed a standing policy against formal contact with the Brotherhood, went on channeling funds into Egypt despite the Brotherhood’s victory in post-Mubarak elections there, and hosted official Brotherhood delegations in the United States. Abedin’s level of involvement in these actions can be debated, but whether she is personally responsible or not, what is beyond question is that the Democratic party should not be coddling a known terrorist organization like this.

One would think the Democrats had learned their lesson when it comes to backing Muslim extremists. After all, that was their strategy in and immediately leading up to 1979, when they forsook the United States’ “stalwart ally” (as Ronald Reagan put it) in the Shah of Iran, effectively allowing the Islamic Revolution and the brutal, theocratic dictatorship that has followed ever since. Today Iran, once a generally friendly nation toward the United States and potential ally in the crucial Middle East, is a bitter enemy, its people strongly sympathetic to American ideals while its fundamentalist government denounces the US, and its absolute religious “Supreme Leader” works feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons.

In case it was not obvious, all of the above obviates the fact that it is in the best interests of the United States (and, ultimately, the people of the Middle East) to support secular leaders and causes. Especially in countries such as Iran and the northern part of the African continent, there are many younger and well educated people who are far less indoctrinated in the uncompromising religious dogma of the past than their elders. These are the people whom the West should be supporting, both abroad and at home – while being exquisitely careful to avoid allowing individuals like Huma Abedin to reach powerful positions within the United States.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an unambiguously dangerous organization with a shady and bloody past. It is imperative that the United States awake to the reality that this organization must be combated and avoided, not embraced, and that secular segments should be encouraged to flourish around the world – especially at home, and in the Middle East.

Slater Bakhtavar is an attorney, journalist, author and political commentator. He is author of “Iran: The Green Movement”. He has appeared on hundreds of network radio shows, including G Gordon Liddy, Crosstalk America, Les in the Morning, NPR,  Jim Bohannon Show and VOA.

An Ongoing Affront to Freedom: UN Resolution 16/18 and the Assault on Free Speech

1618webThat Hillary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.

CounterJihad, Sept. 17, 2016:

Often the worst attacks on liberty are camouflaged with shining names.  United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, among international governments’ worst assaults on the freedom of speech, was formally titled “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”

Who could be against that?  Certainly not Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, who hosted the conference to help the UNHRC implement this resolution.  She said that the United States was hosting this conference because the resolution captured “our highest values… enshrined in our Constitution.”  In fact, what the Constitution protects is the freedom to criticize any idea – religious or otherwise.  In fact, the Constitution forbids laws that establish any religion as beyond criticism, or as being especially protected by law.

Of course it will be no surprise that the real authors of 16/18 were members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  Hillary Clinton was the Obama administration’s point-person in working with the OIC.  Of course it will come as no surprise that the real thrust of 16/18 is preventing criticism of Islam or Muhammad.  Obama himself said that the future must not belong to those “who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

In fact, 16/18’s original text simply said that it forbade “Defamation of Islam,” and made no mention of defending any other faith.  Following the adoption of the resolution by the High Commissioner of Human Rights, who expanded it to other faiths as well, there was an intense push by the OIC nations to include “Islamophobia” as especially forbidden.  The focus on Islam expanded throughout the period of the resolution’s negotiation.

The UN’s Secretary General went so far as to say that the freedom of speech and expression did not extend to “insulting others.”  He said this in 2012, after the high profile murders of cartoonists critical of Muhammed.   He later claimed that 16/18 limited freedom of speech, which he called a “twisted negative logic,” a logic belonging only to the West and hostile to Islam.

It is an open question whether UN Resolution 16/18 endorses anti-blasphemy laws, but the OIC nations clearly believe that it does.  The fact that Secretary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.


Mark Christian Moment: Hillary’s Islamization of America. Mark discussed Hillary’s Islamization of America, focusing on Huma Abedin, the Muslim Brotherhood and other threatening connections.

Also see:

Serving Muslim Interests With American Foreign Policy


Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Sept. 2, 2016:

A Hillary Clinton presidency would likely continue along the pro-Islamist foreign policy arc that both her husband’s administration and the Obama administration have developed.

President Bill Clinton committed U.S. military resources to help Muslims during the so-called “humanitarian” intervention in Bosnia. However, he chose to turn a blind eye to the genocide that swamped Rwanda during his administration. As G. Murphy Donovan wrote in his American Thinker article “How the Clintons Gave American Foreign Policy its Muslim Tilt,” “Muslim lives matter, Black Africans, not so much.” Noting that “it was Muslim unrest that precipitated Serb pushback, civil war, and the eventual collapse of Yugoslavia,” Donovan added, “Bosnians are, for the most part, Muslims with a bloody fascist pedigree.” Nevertheless, with no strategic U.S. national interest at stake, Bill Clinton tilted American foreign policy in favor of the Muslim side in the Bosnia conflict. We are now reaping the lethal consequences of that tilt. Donovan points out in his article that, on a per capita basis, Bosnia Herzegovina is the leading source of ISIS volunteers in all of Europe.

President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, took the side of Islamist “rebels” against the secular authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria that had managed to keep the lid on jihadist terrorism for many years. These Islamists included members of al Qaeda as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Libya, Hillary Clinton was the leading voice pressing for military intervention against Col. Muammar el- Qaddafi’s regime. She did so, even though, according to sources cited in a State Department memo passed on to Hillary by her deputy at the time, Jake Sullivan, in an e-mail dated April 1, 2011, “we just don’t know enough about the make-up or leadership of the rebel forces.”  In fact, as subsequently reported by the New York Times, the only organized opposition to the Qaddafi regime that had developed underground during Qaddafi’s rule were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist group, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The author of the State Department memo had acknowledged the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s terrorist past but said they “express a newfound keenness for peaceful politics.” Was Hillary Clinton relying on such assurances of a reformed “peaceful” Islamic group fighting against Qaddafi, even though it had been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 2004 and one of its leaders, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi,  praised al Qaeda members as “good Muslims” in a March 2011 interview?  If so, that is just another indication of her bad judgment.

As for Egypt, Hillary was informed by her outside adviser and confidante Sid Blumenthal, in an e-mail dated December 16, 2011, that the Muslim Brotherhood’s intention was to create an Islamic state. Moreover, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and other radical groups was “complicated,” Blumenthal quoted a source “with access to the highest levels of the MB” as saying. Blumenthal also reported, based on a confidential source, that Mohamed Morsi, who was then leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, believed that “it will be difficult for this new, Islamic government to control the rise of al Qa’ida and other radical/terrorist groups.”

Nevertheless, the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood in its bid to seek power in Egypt through a shaky electoral process. After Morsi’s election to the presidency, Hillary visited Egypt where Morsi warmly welcomed her and she expressed strong support for Egypt’s “democratic transition.” However, the only real transition Morsi had in mind was to impose sharia law on the Egyptian people, the very antithesis of true democratic pluralism. Yet the Obama–Clinton gravy train of military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamist regime continued without any preconditions. Hillary Clinton herself and her State Department referred to the importance of the U.S.’s “partnership” with the Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime.

When Morsi was removed from power, after millions of Egyptians had taken to the streets to protest the increasingly theocratic regime, the Obama administration decided to suspend aid to the more secular successor military regime. The “partnership” was no more once the Islamists were swept out of office.

While Morsi was still president, the Clinton Foundation, which has taken millions of dollars in donations from Muslim majority governments and affiliated groups and individuals, invited Morsi to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative. This invitation was extended just a month after an individual named Gehad el-Haddad, who was working simultaneously for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Clinton Foundation in Cairo, left his Clinton Foundation job to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood full time. Fortunes changed for this individual, however, when, after Morsi was overthrown, Haddad was arrested for inciting violence and given a life sentence.

The Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, also cooperated with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to pass and implement a United Nations resolution that was intended to curb speech considered Islamophobic. Clinton, in full spin mode, insisted that the new UN resolution was totally consistent with the free speech protections of the First Amendment, as opposed to the “defamation of religions” resolutions that the OIC had sponsored in the past but was willing to have replaced. The truth, however, is that all we were seeing was old wine in new bottles. To make sure that the OIC was comfortable regarding the Obama administration’s intentions, Clinton assured the OIC that she was perfectly on board with using “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She was trying to publicly assure American citizens that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were safe, while working behind the scenes with her OIC partners to find acceptable ways to stifle speech offensive to Muslims.

The signs of Hillary Clinton’s Islamist tilt as she runs for president include the sweepingly general and demonstrably false assertion in her tweet last November that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”  She has obviously learned nothing from her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. Neither is she willing to acknowledge that the terrorists whom she has called a “determined enemy” are jihadists animated by an ideology rooted in core Muslim teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and actions).  Is there something about the word “Muslim” in the Muslim Brotherhood and “Islamic” in the Islamic State that she is having problems understanding?

Perhaps, it is Hillary’s close association with Huma Abedin, her top campaign aide and confidante, who has had questionable links to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations, which explains Hillary’s denial of the truth. If someone as close to Hillary as Huma Abedin, whom she apparently trusts with her life, is a Muslim, then how could any Muslim possibly have anything to do with terrorism?

Then again, perhaps Hillary’s willingness to give Islamists the benefit of the doubt is all the money that the Clintons have received over the years from foreign donors in Muslim majority countries, including the Saudi government and affiliated groups and individuals. Hillary Clinton has also reached out for campaign donations from a pro-Iranian lobby group, the National Iranian American Council. Whatever human rights abuses are inflicted on people in these countries, it would be counterproductive to bite the hand that feeds you, in the Clintons’ way of thinking.

Finally, the Democratic Party itself has moved much further to the Left since the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, which has led to the broadening out of the pro-Islamist bias that began to take shape with Bill Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia. As David Horowitz wrote in a January 8, 2016 article published by National Review:

“Leftists and Democrats have also joined the Islamist propaganda campaign to represent Muslims — whose co-religionists have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents since 9/11 in the name of their religion — as victims of anti-Muslim prejudice, denouncing critics of Islamist terror and proponents of security measures as ‘Islamophobes’ and bigots. Led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats have enabled the Islamist assault on free speech, which is a central component of the Islamist campaign to create a worldwide religious theocracy.”

For a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton as president can be expected to move the United States towards an even more accommodative stance than her predecessors with Islamists who mean to do us harm.

Hillary First Broached Saudi Visa Deal During Visit to Huma Abedin’s Mom’s Saudi Madrassa


The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudis soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure, hitting a record 108,578 per year in 2013.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 31, 2016:

Earlier this month, broke the story that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was instrumental in cutting a special deal with the Saudi government to reverse post-9/11 restrictions on Saudi visas, triggering an unprecedented explosion in Saudi students entering the US. CJ has since learned that the seeds of this major change in immigration policy — one with serious national security implications — were planted during a 2010 visit by Clinton to a Saudi college founded by her top aide’s radical Muslim mother — a college that turns out to have direct ties to terrorists.

Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin arranged the trip to the radical Saudi school, overruling concerns by diplomatic security, in what was yet another example of Abedin, a self-described “devout Muslim” whose family has direct ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, playing an outsize role in influencing US policy when it comes to the Middle East and Muslim empowerment.

The policy reversal appears to have had its roots in a speech Clinton gave at the Dar al-Hekma girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, at the behest of Abedin, whose mother, Saleha Abedin, helped found the school and currently serves as its dean. Abedin also runs the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which seeks to boost Muslim immigration rates in the the U.S. and other Western countries, while also propagating Sharia law in those nations.

“You know that after 9/11, the United States closed its borders to students from around the world, and the number of Saudi students studying in our country fell dramatically,” Clinton lamented in her talk before the elder Abedin and her students. “Well, I am very pleased that we are now back to the levels that we had before 9/11.”

“But I am not satisfied,” Clinton quickly added. “I would like to see more exchanges, and more of them being two-way exchanges, where American students and American faculty come here, to Saudi Arabia, as well as going from here to there.”

Clinton delivered on her promise, big-time.

Despite evidence Saudi terrorists exploit the U.S. visa program, Clinton doubled the number of visas for Saudi visitors to the U.S., while helping broker a deal with the Kingdom to waive security procedures for Saudi nationals upon their arrival in the U.S.

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudi nationals soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, federal data show, hitting a record 108,578 in fiscal 2013 and reversing a post-9/11 pause in Saudi visa approvals.

Before leaving office, Clinton helped negotiate a little-noticed January 2013 administration deal with Riyadh to allow Saudi visa-holders to enter the U.S. as “trusted travelers” and bypass the normal border security process. The next year, the State Department issued an all-time-high 142,180 Saudi visas, consular data show.

All told, the Obama administration has opened the floodgates to more than 709,000 Saudi nationals, most of whom applied for student or business visas, records show.

It’s as if 9/11 never happened and 15 Saudi terrorists never infiltrated the country on rubber-stamped visas. The surge represents a major shift from changes in immigration policy made in the wake of 9/11, when the number of visas issued to Saudi Arabians plummeted 69.7%. In fiscal 2002, Saudi visas slowed to a relative trickle of just 14,126.

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Saudi immigration was tightened after it was revealed that the State Department’s Visa Express program benefited some of the Saudi hijackers on 9/11. Less known is that two other al-Qaida-tied Saudi nationals visiting America on student visas also took advantage of the lax policy. It turns out that, according to the recently released 29 pages detailing Saudi involvement in 9/11, these other young Saudi men made a “dry run” to test airline security ahead of the 9/11 hijackings.

Dar al-Hekma, which is Arabic for House of Infinite Islamic Wisdom, was co-founded and funded by a federal designated terrorist — Yaseen Kadi — and by key Saudi bankers named as defendants in the 9/11 lawsuit, as well as members of the bin Laden family, according to a list of “establishers” and “trustees” the school published on its website after it first opened in 1999.

It turns out that the burka-clad girls who gathered at the Saudi women’s college to hear Clinton speak heckled her in Arabic, as Huma and her mother stood by, according to accounts reported at the time in the Arabic press.

Also see:

Huma Abedin’s mom linked to shocking anti-women book

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a "town hall" meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin's mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 28, 2016:

As secretary of state, women’s-rights champ Hillary Clinton not only spoke at a Saudi girls school run by her top aide Huma Abedin’s ­anti-feminist mother, but Clinton invited the elder Abedin to participate in a State Department event for “leading thinkers” on women’s issues.

This happened despite ­evidence at the time that Saleha M. Abedin had explored the religious merits of sexual submissiveness, child marriage, lashings and stonings for adulterous women, and even the ­circumcision of girls.

The elder Abedin, whose daughter helps run Clinton’s presidential campaign, did take a pro-gender-equality stance on at least one issue: Muslim women’s right to participate in violent jihad alongside men.

As The Post first reported, Huma’s mom edits the Journal of Muslim Minority ­Affairs, which has suggested that America had 9/11 coming to it, because of “sanctions” and “injustices” the US allegedly imposed on the Muslim world.

The journal also opposed women’s rights as un-Islamic, arguing that “ ‘empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit.”

But that’s not all.

In 1999, Saleha translated and edited a book titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations,”  published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Written by her Saudi colleague Fatima Naseef, the book explains that the stoning and lashing of adulterers, the killing of apostates, sexual submissiveness and even female genital mutilation are all permissible practices ­under Sharia law.

“The wife should satisfy her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse,” the book states on Page 202, even if she is not in the mood. “She has no right to abstain except for a reasonable cause or legal prohibition.”

But getting in the mood may be difficult. The book says female genital mutilation is permissible: ­“Cir­cumcision for women is ­allowed.”

Laws promoting feminist equality, moreover, are ineffectual, since “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

And forget about working in a position of authority: “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam,” the book says.

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

“Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations,” it explained. “Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

There is one exception to the sexual division of roles: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad ­becomes an individual duty.”

On the back cover, Saleha says she is “pleased to launch” the book as part of a series on the study of women’s rights in Islam sponsored by the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), for which she is listed as chairperson.

Founded by Huma’s mom, the Cairo-based IICWC has advocated for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era laws in favor of implementing Sharia law, which could allow female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape.

Saleha is paid by the Saudi government to advocate and spread Sharia in non-Muslim countries like America.

In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.

Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse.

Pakistan-born Saleha main­tained that men who serially beat women tend to be unemployed, making their abuse somehow more understandable. “They are victims of a different kind,” she claimed. “And they are simply taking [their frustrations] out on women.”

Despite all this, Huma Abedin in 2010 arranged for Clinton, then the secretary of state, to travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to meet with her mother and speak at a girls school she founded and helps run as dean. Speaking to a roomful of girls, Clinton said Americans have to stop stereotyping Saudi women as oppressed, before assuring the audience that not all American women go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

While there, Clinton formed a partnership with Saleha’s Dar al-Hekma college called the US-Saudi Women’s Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, and prom­ised to reverse post-9/11 curbs on Saudi student visas to America.

The next year, Clinton invited Saleha and the president of the Saudi school to Washington to participate in a State Department colloquium on women, as revealed by internal emails released in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told the Post that while Huma Abedin was in fact listed as an editorial staffer of her mother’s radical journal from 1996 to 2008, she didn’t really do anything for the publication in her long tenure there.

Asked if Clinton regrets honoring the Islamist mother and bestowing ­legitimacy on her extreme views, Merrill had no comment.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

8 Things to Know About Huma Abedin’s Involvement with an Islamist Journal


At the very least, these connections should raise some red flags.

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, Aug. 26, 2016:

Following a New York Post article, which released new and revealing snippets from the pages of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a 2012 controversy about the nature of Huma Abedin’s associations, has again kicked into high gear. While some in the media have attempted to defend Abedin, and the journal, they’ve played fast and loose with the facts.

At the heart of the matter is Abedin’s involvement with an organization founded by a man named Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Saudi official who spent decades involved with organizations which would go on to be designated for engaging in terror finance.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Huma Abedin and terror-funder Abdullah Omar Naseef are directly connected.

This isn’t six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Huma Abedin served as the associate editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for 12 years from 1996-2008, and appeared on the masthead of the organization’s journal right up until the time she began to work at the State Department for Hillary Clinton. This included the time she was working as an intern for Hillary Clinton at the White House.  Nassef held the position of Chairman of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Huma Abedin and Naseef overlapped at IMMA for a period of seven years. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, “the journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre.”

2. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs was the Abedin family business.


Syed Abedin, Huma’s father, founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs with Abdullah Omar Naseef in the 1970s. The Abedin patriarch was the editor, until passing away after which time Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin took over the journal and held the same position, and still does to this day. Abedin’s brother and sister have also all held positions with the IMMA.

3. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs promotes views on Sharia, Islam and a Muslim’s role in the West popularized by the Muslim Brotherhood.


Editions of the journal openly endorsed the positions of known Muslim Brotherhood theoreticians, including Sayyid Qutb, and called for the imposition of sharia law among Muslim minorities residing in the West. “Muslim minority affairs” primarily refers to questions of the Fiqh (jurisprudence) of Minorities, the area of Sharia law jurisprudence concerned with the role and status of Muslims who have immigrated to non-Muslim states, popularized by Muslim Brotherhood thinker Yusuf Al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is best known for his fatwas supporting Hamas suicide bombing and attacks on Americans in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War.

4. The Journal’s benefactor, Abdullah Omar Naseef, served as Secretary General of the World Muslim League.


The controversy about Naseef stems from his role with the Muslim World League. Naseef held the position of Secretary General of MWL for a decade, from 1983-1993. The purpose of the Muslim World was to support efforts to proselytize Islam in the West. The organization combined Saudi funds with the intellectual efforts of Muslim Brotherhood thinkers including Said Ramadan and Taha Jaber Alwani who served as founding members.

5. The Muslim World League was specifically mentioned as a funding source by Osama Bin Laden.


The Muslim World League was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a source of funding and after 9/11 the Muslim World League offices in Herdon, VA were raided by law enforcement.  A Muslim World League subsidiary, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), would have two of its branches named as specially designated global terrorist entities.

6. Abdullah Omar Naseef created another organization, the Rabita Trust, which was also shut down for terrorism.


Another WML subsidiary founded by Nassef, the Rabita Trust, is also a specially designated global terrorist entity according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Nassef also appointed Rabita Trust Director General Wael Hamza Julaidan, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. Treasury department would eventually designate Julaidan as a specially designated global terrorist.

7. In addition to Al Qaeda finance connections, Naseef also worked for a group of Hamas financiers. So did Huma’s mom.


In addition to his Muslim World League ties, Naseef also held a position as an officer with the International Islamic Council for Daw’a and Relief, a position he shared with Abedin’s mother Saleha. The IICDR is a member of the Hamas finance coalition known as the Union of the Good, which the U.S. government considers a specially designated global terrorist entity.  Yusuf al Qaradawi, a preeminent Muslim Brotherhood jurist, runs the Union of the Good.

8. Huma’s mom ran a women’s organization dedicated to supporting Sharia law in place of women’s rights.


Saleha Abedin’s position at the International Islamic Council for Daw’a and Relief was to run the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC). The IICWC is a group which advocates for sharia law provisions of family law and seeks the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape. For the IICWC’s positions on matters of sharia jurisprudence the Committee turned to Hamas supporting Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi.

WaPo Fact Checker Misleads on Huma Abedin & the Muslim Brotherhood: What’s the Truth?


The Journal openly endorsed the positions of Brotherhood theoreticians and called for the imposition of sharia law among Muslim minorities in the West.

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, Aug. 25, 2016:

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post conducted a particularly inept attempt at “fact checking” reports that Clinton chief of Staff Huma Abedin has “ties” to the Muslim Brotherhood. Kessler’s attempt rests on essentially four claims:

1. That Huma Abedin held a position as Associate Editor for the Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs for twelve years, but never did any actual work.

2. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is not regarded as “radical” by its own board of advisors and selected “experts.”

3. That the Journal’s founder Abdullah Omar Naseef’s ties to World Muslim League is irrelevant.

4. That the World Muslim League could not have been a Saudi-funded operation and a Muslim Brotherhood-led organization at the same time.

To take Kessler’s objections in order:

Point 1 is simply a restatement of the Clinton campaign’s position, and Kessler does nothing to examine it critically. It is an undisputed fact that Huma Abedin was an employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) for 12 years, and appeared on the masthead of the organization’s journal, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) right up until the time she began to work at the State Department for Secretary Clinton.

As noted by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy:

The journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

Whether one finds it plausible that an individual might be listed as an “associate editor” for a period of 12 years, yet never be called upon to perform the task which their position suggests (i.e. editing) is not a question of fact. The readers, (Kessler’s and ours) will need to determine for themselves whether such an excuse holds water, but a reasonable person might look upon their own life’s experience and wonder whether they ever approached a decade or longer in a position without even having seen the work ostensibly produced there during their tenure.

Kessler’s Point 2 is that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs was not “radical” as defined by certain hand-picked academics who agreed with Kessler’s position and members of the journal’s own advisory board (who can safely be said to have a dog in the fight.)

To begin with, one should understand what is meant by “Muslim Minority” affairs. Kessler infantilizes this fascinating and complex area of Islamic studies, noting only that the journal’s interest in minority affairs, “continues to be demonstrated in the recent issue, with five articles on Muslim life in Australia.”

In fact “Muslim minority affairs” is principally concerned with questions of the Fiqh (jurisprudence) of Minorities, the area of Sharia law jurisprudence concerned with the role and status of Muslims who have immigrated to non-Muslim states. As Uriya Shavit notes in his work, Islamism and the West: From “Cultural Attack” to “Missionary Migrant”, this form of jurisprudence was created by prominent Muslim Brotherhood associated scholars, notably Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and Taha Jaber Alwani, who were principally concerned with how to transform Muslim migrants living in the West into “missionaries” for the cause of Islam in order to overcome a perceived civilizational/cultural conflict between the West and the Islamic world.

As a result it is entirely unsurprising to find that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs contains repeated, and approving citations to prominent Muslim Brotherhood thinkers, including Qaradawi, and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb. Far from being “cherry-picked”, as Kessler asserts, one should be surprised if there were NOT Islamist thinkers approvingly cited in a journal dedicated to an area of modern Islamist thought.

Understood in this way, it is impossible to understand the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs as anything other than a journal concerned with Sharia, particularly jurisprudence on Sharia as it relates to Muslim Minority Affairs. Kessler’s attempt to claim otherwise only serves to confirm that he is ignorant of Sharia or the scholarship and jurisprudence surrounding it.

The question than is only whether such Islamist thinkers are rightly deserving of the pejorative “radical.” Kessler’s academics say no, but who can blame the New York Post for thinking that approving citations to Qaradawi, who issued the fatwas permitting Hamas suicide bombings, or Sayyid Qutb, whom the 9/11 Commission described as inspiration for Osama Bin Laden, ought to earn the moniker.

Indeed can’t readers decide for themselves whether it was “radical” for Huma Abedin’s mother, JMMA Editor Saleha Abedin to blame 9/11 on U.S. perpetrated “injustices and sanctions” as she did in a 2002 issue of the journal?

This is a subjective question, which can not be fact-checked. It can however be quoted, and individuals can make the decision for themselves. Abedin the elder wrote:

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Rather than allowing readers to make up their own minds as to how much support for terrorism might be considered “radical,” Kessler chooses to rely only upon those who would be predisposed to defend the journal’s contents anyway, most notably Harvard scholar Noah Feldman, who is after all on record describing the Hamas-supporting Qaradawi as an “Islamic democrat.”

That’s good enough for Kessler. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Point #3 for Kessler’s apologetic is poo-pooing the fact IMMA was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, an influential Saudi leader, with the help of Abedin’s father Syed Abedin in the late 1970s. While Kessler attempts to paint Naseef’s position as having been essentially too long ago to be worth examining, the reality is that Nassef and Huma Abedin overlapped at IMMA for a period of seven years.

The heart of the controversy is Naseef’s ties to the Muslim World League. Kessler attempts to distance Naseef by reflecting that the Saudi leader held the position of Secretary General of MWL for a decade, from 1983-1993, while the Muslim World League offices in Herdon, VA weren’t raided by Law enforcement until after 9/11.

Never mind that The Muslim World League was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a source of funding or that MWL’s subsidiary, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) had two of its branches named as specially designated global terrorist entities, Kessler does not see fit to mention these facts.

Another WML subsidiary founded by Nassef, the Rabita Trust, is also a specially designated global terrorist entity according to the U.S. Treasury Department. While Kessler acknowledges the Rabita Trust connection, he attempts to downplay it by noting that it wasn’t until years later that the United States would get around to designating the Rabita Trust for supporting AL Qaeda.

But what Kessler choose not to tell you, is that when the U.S. Treasury Department did so, they designated Rabita Trust’s Director General Wael Hamza Julaidan, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. Who appointed Julaidan to the post?

None other than Abdullah Omar Nassef.

As National security analyst David Reaboi put this all in context when the allegations first surfaced in 2012:

In other words, many of the people and groups with whom a man like Naseef surrounds himself (at minimum) tend to be what you’d call “problematic,” and a locus of these links should (again, at the very minimum) give a background investigator pause–or, more sensibly, ring the alarm bells–if he finds not one but several links to Naseef or people like him.

The last, and perhaps most inept arrow in Kessler’s quiver is his pointing out that the Saudi government, for which Naseef worked and which funded the World Muslim League, designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group in 2014. Ipso facto, he suggests, they could not possibly have coordinated to stand up a journal of Islamist thought.

Of course every student of the history of Islamist movements knows full well that the Saudi government cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood in standing up the Muslim World League, and in many other projects besides. This is why the Muslim World League’s founding intellectuals included Said Ramadan (son-in-law of Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna) and the aforementioned Taha Jaber Alwani.

As Shavit notes in his previously mentioned work, “while Islamists provided expertise in theorizing and proselytizing, Saudi Arabia provided generous funding that promoted publications, conventions and missions dedicate to da’wa around the world.”

In other words, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs discusses the very kinds of issues that Muslim Brotherhood thinkers were working on at the time of its founding, supported by an organization founded by the Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals who were examining these issues, and was established, funded and supported by the Saudi government,including Abdullah Omar Naseef, in exactly the manner one would expect, if one had any serious inclination to the study the issue at all.

Kessler could have openly made the argument that these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi proselytizing organs exist, that there is nothing wrong with them, and that Huma Abedin should not be held to account for these associations. That would be a weak argument but would accept all of the known facts. Still Kessler cannot quite bring himself to do that. Instead he stakes out the more expansive, and ultimately indefensible position, that none of these organizations have any Muslim Brotherhood connections whatsoever.

As a result Kessler’s fact-check goes from not just subjective to aggressively counter-factual.

NY Post’s Sperry on Huma Abedin’s Role at Radical Muslim Journal: ‘Clearly She Has Two Faces’

huma and hillary2Breitbart, by Pam Key, Aug. 24, 2016:

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” New York Post columnist Paul Sperry detailed the connections of  Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin had with a radical Muslim journal run by her mother.

Sperry said, “Well, I found one article where the mother actually wrote an article arguing for the subjugation of women and actually excuses wife beating. In another article, I found she actually blamed America and American foreign policy for 911 using the same excuses that Osama bin Laden used in fatwa against us.”

Sperry said Huma Abedin was listed as an assistant editor, “For 12 years from 1996 to 2008. and so, it’s — I mean, it’s really hard for the campaign to reconcile this. They admit that she actually was on there, but they’re saying well, she actually didn’t do any editing which is hard to believe because even if you buy that excuse, Huma had to know how odious this radical journal was because her mother was the editor and her brother and sister worked there as editors.”

He continued, “So Hillary had to know too about this. She went over to Saudi Arabia in 2010 as secretary of state to give a speech to the radical mother’s … so she went over to this radical girl’s school that’s run by the Huma Abedin’s radical mother and actually apologized for American women wearing bikinis. So I mean, is Hillary really this champion of women’s liberation? I mean, this is very problematic for the campaign because it’s the centerpiece of it is Hillary stands up for women’s rights, but here you have her campaign manager actually publishing articles that oppose women’s rights as un-Islamic.

When asked if Huma Abedin agrees with her mom or Hillary Clinton Sperry said, “That’s a good question. Clearly she has two faces. The face that we all see and then the face that she shows to the Saudis and other radical Muslims. So this raises a lot of questions that unfortunately aren’t being asked of the campaign. I mean, if this was Trump’s campaign manager being attached to such an extremist publication, the media would be hounding him around the clock about this.”

He added, “She could be running the White House as Chief of staff if Hillary gets in.”

See video

Also see: