Rabbi still going after Bachmann over questions about Huma Abedin

If you decide to take a trip to the north pole, head south because the world is upside down. The latest example comes from Rabbi David Saperstein, who is going after the very pro-Israel Michele Bachmann for inquiring about the verifiable connections Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, has to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA):

Some of the toughest condemnations of Bachmann have come from major Jewish groups.

The allegations, and the apparent split among some in the Republican leadership over whether to denounce them, underscore a return in recent years to scapegoating “outsiders,” according to the Jewish leaders who slammed Bachmann for launching what they called a “witch hunt.”

“It’s likes someone who says there’s a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world,” Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, said in a JTA interview. “And then they say prove it’s not true. What proof can you bring to ideologues who want to believe it’s true?”

Saperstein’s July 17 statement was the first among Jewish leaders to deplore Bachmann’s call — and one of the toughest.

“I am deeply troubled by the allegations made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann and other Members of Congress in letters to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and State asserting that respected government officials and religious organizations are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood,” he wrote. “The letters assert that Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary Clinton, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and ISNA President Imam Mohammed Magid are all connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, posing a potential security risk to the United States.

“The Reform Movement, and I personally, have worked with Ms. Abedin, Imam Magid and ISNA for many years,” he continued. “All have worked on behalf of U.S. interests at home and abroad, built relationships across religious lines and affirmed U.S. constitutional values.”

In response to Saperstein’s July 17th statement, which included a defense of Magid, Walid asked why Saperstein hadn’t condemned the words of another ISNA leader named Louay Safi, who wrote:

“The war against the apostates [Saperstein] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order.” (Louay Safi, Religion and Politics pp.121)

Saperstein obviously prides himself on religious reformation; it’s at the heart of his organization’s name. Does he contend that the Muslim Brotherhood has reformed? If so, when does he think this reformation took place? Was it, by chance, after a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document was entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial? In layman’s parlance, that’s typically referred to as a jailhouse confession. It’s like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar and then saying you were actually caught putting one in it. Here is an excerpt from that document, which also lists Magid’s ISNA as a member group:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Saperstein does something else worthy of note. By defending Magid and Abedin on the same grounds – that he’s worked with them both and can vouch for them – he inadvertently raises another question. How well do Abedin and Magid know each other? When one considers the fact that Magid leads an organization that seeks the destruction of the United States from within, the question gains relevance.

Perhaps Saperstein is saying there’s no need for reform of the Muslim Brotherhood because he believes the group doesn’t exist. Does that mean he agrees with Suhail Khan – son of Mahboob Khan, the man who was one of ISNA’s founders – who actually asserted at CPAC in 2011 that, “there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” When the United West’s Jay Mark Campbell gave Khan the chance to retract that statement, saying, “There’s no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?!”, Khan doubled down, saying, “no”. Here is Suhail at the moment he realized he just got busted while simultaneously lying about his own father’s accomplishments:

This quote from Saperstein is priceless:

“I hope that Rep. Bachmann and the other signatories will either produce credible evidence that substantiates their claims or withdraw them and do no further damage to the level of public discourse through the dissemination of unsubstantiated and harmful claims,” Saperstein wrote.

Ok, since Saperstein has no interest in looking at the ‘credible evidence’ that Huma Abedin served on a Board alongside Abdullah Omar Nasseef, a man with multiple ties to Al-Qaeda and since he won’t concede that the ISNA is documented to be a Muslim Brotherhood group that seeks the destruction of the United States, it’s obviously all about ‘public discourse’ regardless of facts.

In essence, Saperstein is running interference for the Muslim Brotherhood by ignoring the evidence that implicates the group. If he’s clearly doing that when it comes to Magid, why is he defending Huma? We’d like to know.

Speaking of Nasseef, check out who the JTA article quotes as also having a problem with the efforts of Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney. That would be the Anti-Defamation League (we will explain the significance after this excerpt):

Joining Saperstein were the Anti-Defamation League, which accused the lawmakers of “stereotyping and prejudice,” and interfaith umbrella bodies that included among their numbers other Jewish defense and religious groups, including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the community’s public policy umbrella.

Huma Abedin (not just every member of her immediate family) has verifiable ties to Abdullah Omar Nasseef; all have served on the IMMA Board with him. Here’s what the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is defending Abedin today, had to say about Nasseef as recently as 2009:

On October 12, 2001, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the Rabita Trust, a charity in Pakistan “for its close ties to senior al Qaida leadership and for providing logistical and financial support to Al Qaida.” The Rabita Trust was founded in 1988 by Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef, the former secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL) in the 1980s.

The fact remains that Saperstein is defending the Muslim Brotherhood – a virulently anti-Semitic organization with irrefutable ties to Nazi Germany (Hajj Amin al-Husseini became the group’s leader after aligning with Hitler during WWII) – when he defends the likes of Magid and refuses to acknowledge the Abedin family’s connections to the group.

Reform of the Muslim Brotherhood certainly didn’t take place under Husseini and, based on the evidence produced in the Holy Land Foundation trial, it didn’t take place prior to 1991.

As for the ‘credible evidence’ that Saperstein says he wants to see while simultaneously appearing disinterested in looking at it, here’s 37 pages (including screen shots) for him to chew on.

In the film, 300, Sparta’s Leonidus knew his country was in grave danger; the Persians were closing in. He wanted to fight but required the approval of the Ephors to do so. Quite inexplicably (at least until after this scene), they didn’t give it to him, despite all the evidence that warranted it.

Those who blindly stand in opposition to the valid questions raised by Bachmann, et. al. (including McCain, Boehner, Rubio, Brown, and Sensenbrenner) should perhaps watch the film and look in the mirror. Hopefully, they won’t see an Ephor staring back at them.


, , , , , ,