Aside

While we Announce, will Huma Denounce?

Walid Shoebat

I am ANNOUNCING that in the coming days, we will release a bombshell more explosive than before. This time, it’s the link between the family of Huma Abedin, the closest advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Wahhabist grand plan in Saudi Arabia. It is a plan that represents a grave threat to the United States. I promise you’ve never heard anything like this before—not in a million years.

Let’s start with the man who founded the Abedins’ organization, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), which will be included in our upcoming report. His name is Abdullah Omar Nasseef and he founded a group that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist entity that funded al-Qaeda. That makes Nasseef an al-Qaeda financier. I guess it’s no big deal and a bit taboo to say it is. So I will choose my words carefully:

The Abedins were not in bed with terrorists and Huma’s mother was not a member of the Brotherhood.

Now that I’ve cleared the runway, here’s the politically incorrect, factual truth:

Huma’s mother is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood and the Abedins were in bed with terror-king-pins. It is much worse than anyone thinks. That detail can be read [here]

During my time in Chicago, I was a Muslim Brotherhood activist. Imam Jamal Said was my recruiter; his colleague was Abdullah Azzam, the founder of al-Qaeda. Had the 9/11 attacks happened a decade earlier than they did, any attempts to implicate me or Said would have been met with charges of “guilt by association”. In a legal sense, those arguing on my behalf would have been right.

However, if I then proceeded to apply for a position at the State Department, which required issuing me a security clearance, those associations would have disqualified me from being eligible. What amazes me is that today, the liberals couldn’t care less about Huma’s associations while being very concerned about mine. Conversely, Tea Party conservatives are rightly concerned about Huma’s associations and have no problems with me.

The reason? I publicly denounced my past allegiances. Huma has not. Why?

Had I applied for the position Huma now holds under Clinton – at the time I was loyal to the Brotherhood – the likely response would have been something like:

“We’re sorry Mr. Shoebat, but your associations lead us to believe that there may be a conflict of interest between your loyalties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the interests of the United States.”

Guilt by association may not apply in criminal cases but in matters of national security, associations absolutely do. As the closest advisor to the Secretary of State, Huma Abedin should unequivocally denounce the Muslim Brotherhood as well as her family’s connection to it. That should only be a start.

In a recent interview with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer cried out:

“…Huma Abedin, who is a wonderful, wonderful person… it smacks to start raising all of these issues, of McCarthyism, to say she’s not really loyal because she’s Muslim.”

A lie always grows out of a bed of truth; the five courageous congressmen did not express concern over a particular “Muslim”. They expressed concern over the “Muslim Brotherhood”. Imagine if Blitzer had said:

“to say she’s not really loyal because she’s Muslim Brotherhood.”

He would have looked like a doofus.

Blitzer continued as a character witness:

“You don’t know her; I know her. You know, she’s married to a Jewish guy, Congressman Anthony Weiner and she is not part of a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy or anything like that. That’s ridiculous to even raise her name like that.”

Once again, the point is missed. The issue is Abedin’s affiliations with individuals and entities that sympathize with or represent the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s an issue, not in a criminal sense; it’s an issue in a national security clearance sense.

Abedin’s marriage to a “Jewish” man has obviously become a factoid the left wants to exploit. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank finds this relevant too. In an op-ed, Milbank wrote:

“If Abedin is in fact a Muslim Brotherhood plant spreading Sharia law in the United States, she’s using unorthodox methods: posing provocatively for a Vogue spread, then marrying and having the child of a Jewish congressman who sent out a photo of his genitals on Twitter.”

Actually, marrying a Jew is no evidence of Huma’s loyalty to the United States. In fact, it’s additional cause for concern. If I asked Blitzer and Milbank to define Muruna they would sit there baffled, they know zip when it comes to Arabic or Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood who has been close to – and served by – the Abedins, explains it:

“Is it permissible, then, to have alliances with powers that are non-Muslim? Can Muslims work in banks that practice usury? … For the young Muslims they should not leave their jobs in banks and insurance agencies despite their work being evil, since their experience in these agencies would gain experience for what would benefit the Muslim commerce … whoever examines the issues in light of the Doctrine of Muruna would find that entry into these arenas is not merely a project, but a preference and a duty.

Muruna (Flexibility) which includes “sanctioning Sharia prohibitions for an interest” is completely justified by the Brotherhood. If Huma had denounced the Brotherhood, there would be no need for Weiner to have to convince his mother-in-law Saleha Abedin that he is cured of sexting, nor would Huma arrange for Hillary to speak at Dar al-Hekma College where her mother worked.

Americans will get it, sooner or later. Blitzer continued by saying:

“You can raise all sorts of questions about the Muslim Brotherhood … all that is legitimate…”

Ah, ha! It used to be taboo to even question any possible infiltration; Bachmann was justified.

The remainder of Blitzer’s comment…

“…but to take a woman, who is a wonderful American patriot and to start throwing her name out there as if she’s some sort of spy… because maybe some distant relative or something…”

…will go into the bin of history.

Last year, Blitzer’s network demanded my vetting, despite my public denunciation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

However, CNN thinks vetting Huma is taboo.

Good grief.

Ben Barrack, contributor

Print Friendly

, , , , , , ,