Donald Trump’s Despicable Anti-Muslim Huma Abedin Smear

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
A candidate who’s built his entire appeal around fear and loathing once again shows his true, dark colors.

After the backlash when chicken hawk Donald Trump mocked the mother of American hero Capt. Humayun Khan, you might think he’d at least pause before launching another hateful attack on a grieving Muslim woman. But there he was Monday suggesting that Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton and wounded wife of Anthony Weiner, was somehow tied to radical Islamic groups.
The media has largely ignored Trump’s remarks, as if a famous Muslim American being smeared with a false connection to terror by the Republican presidential candidate is not worthy of coverage. But this vicious attack is very much a story—one that says nothing at all about Abedin and a great deal about Trump.

Trump’s first comment about Abedin was no doubt drafted by his handlers desperately trying to attract female voters. In a prepared statement released just after Abedin announced Monday that she was separating from Weiner, the serially disgraced former congressman, Trump said: “Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him.” From there, he attacked Hillary Clinton’s judgment but didn’t cast any aspersions on Abedin.

But later that day Trump spoke for himself, and showed his true colors—the same ones that gave us his racist attacks on American judges, bully-boy mocking of a disabled reporter, and taunts about women’s faces and bodies. While appearing on a conservative radio show in Seattle, Trump suggested Abedin was somehow in league with radical Islamic groups: “You know, by the way, take a look at where she worked, by the way, and take a look at where her mother worked and works. You take a look at the whole event.”

Trump’s first comment about Abedin was no doubt drafted by his handlers desperately trying to attract female voters. In a prepared statement released just after Abedin announced Monday that she was separating from Weiner, the serially disgraced former congressman, Trump said: “Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him.” From there, he attacked Hillary Clinton’s judgment but didn’t cast any aspersions on Abedin.

But later that day Trump spoke for himself, and showed his true colors—the same ones that gave us his racist attacks on American judges, bully-boy mocking of a disabled reporter, and taunts about women’s faces and bodies. While appearing on a conservative radio show in Seattle, Trump suggested Abedin was somehow in league with radical Islamic groups: “You know, by the way, take a look at where she worked, by the way, and take a look at where her mother worked and works. You take a look at the whole event.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...despicable-anti-muslim-huma-abedin-smear.html
 
Establishment said:
So, should just pretend that Huma doesn't have ties to an Islamist publication? Would that make you feel better?
Click to expand...

The Facts

First of all, Abedin was not associated with a newspaper but a staid academic journal called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal is edited by Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who is a dean of a Saudi woman’s college in Jiddah that Clinton visited when she was secretary of state. The peer-reviewed journal had been founded by Abedin’s late father, Syed, who died in 1993. Circulation figures are not available, but the online resource WorldCat says it can be found in fewer than 600 libraries around the world. (Generally, academic journals are mostly sold to libraries, at high cost.)

The fact that Huma Abedin was listed as an assistant editor between 1996 and 2008 is not news, as that had previously been reported in 2012. The Clinton campaign says Abedin played no role in editing articles; her brother and sister are also listed as staff members. The New York Post described the journal as “a radical Muslim publication” but that’s ridiculous, according to experts on Islam and members of the advisory board. The New York Post report cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles published over the years, including by Saleha Abedin, according to a review of the articles by the Fact Checker.

“I wouldn’t consider it ‘radical.’ Quite the contrary,” said Noah Feldman, director of the Julius-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of articles expressing conservative viewpoints, of course. But I’ve never seen anything in any way radical.”

Dale F. Eickelman of Dartmouth University, who is a member of the journal’s advisory board, described it as a “fairly innocuous journal.” He said it was “anything but radical, within the golden mean of what academic journals do.” He said most of the articles are written by emerging scholars who are relatively early in their academic careers. “The authors can vary in quality, as is the case with most academic journals,” he said. “Some are more edgy than others, but you can learn some fresh things.” He added that no one works on the journal full time...

Oddly, the New York Post described the journal as a “Saudi propaganda organ” — even though the Saudi government has banned the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Presumably one cannot be both a Saudi propagandist and a Muslim Brotherhood operative at the same time.

This brings us to Huma Abedin’s supposed “ties” to the Muslim Brotherhood. Bear with us, as it’s really a case of six degrees of separation.

Syed Abedin in 1978 founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank which began publishing the journal a year later, with the support of Abdullah Omar Naseef, at the time president of King Abdulaziz University. Later, between 1983 and 1993, Naseef was secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a pan-Islamic nongovernmental organization. (Interestingly, in 1983, Naseef was also awarded the Bronze Wolf, bestowed by the World Scout Committee for “outstanding service to the World Scout Movement.”) Naseef thus was secretary-general when the Muslim World League, after heated debate, in 1990 endorsed Saudi Arabia’s decision to call in U.S. troops to help defend the kingdom after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Naseef’s name also appeared on the advisory board of the journal until 2004, though members say their duties are limited to reviewing an occasional article before publication.

In 1988, during his tenure at the Muslim World League, Naseef authorized a Pakistani charity called the Rabita Trust at a time when the United States and its allies funded the mujahideen fighting the Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan. Years later, the fund became associated with al-Qaeda (which, after all, emerged from the mujahideen) and was frozen in 2002 by the Treasury Department after the 9/11 attacks. But that distant connection, a quarter-century later, is now used to tar Abedin. Meanwhile, Abedin’s mother founded an aid organization in the 1990s called the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which at one point was said to be affiliated with International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief. IICDR was banned in Israel years later for allegedly supporting Hamas, a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, under the auspices of yet another group, the Union of Good. The Union of Good was designated by Treasury in 2008 for aiding a terrorist organization.

The connections are so tenuous as to be obscure. Harvard’s Asani said the alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are “crazy” when you consider the stated purpose of the journal. “The Muslim Brotherhood was the last organization interested in this issue” of the rights of minority Muslims, he said. “Syed Abedin was far from the Muslim Brotherhood. It makes absolutely no sense.”

The Pinocchio Test

Duffy asked why the alleged Muslim Brotherhood connections to Huma Abedin are not being talked about. Perhaps it’s because they are bogus. Abedin has lived in the United States for nearly a quarter-century, working in the White House, the Senate and the State Department. Vague suggestions of suspicious-sounding connections to her parents don’t pass the laugh test, even at the flimsiest standard of guilt by association. The journal edited by her mother, meanwhile, is not “sharia newspaper” but a sober academic journal with a range of viewpoints on Muslim life around the world.

Four Pinocchios


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-the-muslim-brotherhood/ar-BBw20lK?li=BBnb7Kz
 
What, no Trump defenders here to praise a woman who finally left her cheatin' husband?

Guess I'm not surprised. Trumpers will criticize the woman no matter what she does.
 
christiefan915 said:
The Facts

First of all, Abedin was not associated with a newspaper but a staid academic journal called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal is edited by Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who is a dean of a Saudi woman’s college in Jiddah that Clinton visited when she was secretary of state. The peer-reviewed journal had been founded by Abedin’s late father, Syed, who died in 1993. Circulation figures are not available, but the online resource WorldCat says it can be found in fewer than 600 libraries around the world. (Generally, academic journals are mostly sold to libraries, at high cost.)

The fact that Huma Abedin was listed as an assistant editor between 1996 and 2008 is not news, as that had previously been reported in 2012. The Clinton campaign says Abedin played no role in editing articles; her brother and sister are also listed as staff members. The New York Post described the journal as “a radical Muslim publication” but that’s ridiculous, according to experts on Islam and members of the advisory board. The New York Post report cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles published over the years, including by Saleha Abedin, according to a review of the articles by the Fact Checker.

“I wouldn’t consider it ‘radical.’ Quite the contrary,” said Noah Feldman, director of the Julius-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of articles expressing conservative viewpoints, of course. But I’ve never seen anything in any way radical.”

Dale F. Eickelman of Dartmouth University, who is a member of the journal’s advisory board, described it as a “fairly innocuous journal.” He said it was “anything but radical, within the golden mean of what academic journals do.” He said most of the articles are written by emerging scholars who are relatively early in their academic careers. “The authors can vary in quality, as is the case with most academic journals,” he said. “Some are more edgy than others, but you can learn some fresh things.” He added that no one works on the journal full time...

Oddly, the New York Post described the journal as a “Saudi propaganda organ” — even though the Saudi government has banned the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Presumably one cannot be both a Saudi propagandist and a Muslim Brotherhood operative at the same time.

This brings us to Huma Abedin’s supposed “ties” to the Muslim Brotherhood. Bear with us, as it’s really a case of six degrees of separation.

Syed Abedin in 1978 founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank which began publishing the journal a year later, with the support of Abdullah Omar Naseef, at the time president of King Abdulaziz University. Later, between 1983 and 1993, Naseef was secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a pan-Islamic nongovernmental organization. (Interestingly, in 1983, Naseef was also awarded the Bronze Wolf, bestowed by the World Scout Committee for “outstanding service to the World Scout Movement.”) Naseef thus was secretary-general when the Muslim World League, after heated debate, in 1990 endorsed Saudi Arabia’s decision to call in U.S. troops to help defend the kingdom after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Naseef’s name also appeared on the advisory board of the journal until 2004, though members say their duties are limited to reviewing an occasional article before publication.

In 1988, during his tenure at the Muslim World League, Naseef authorized a Pakistani charity called the Rabita Trust at a time when the United States and its allies funded the mujahideen fighting the Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan. Years later, the fund became associated with al-Qaeda (which, after all, emerged from the mujahideen) and was frozen in 2002 by the Treasury Department after the 9/11 attacks. But that distant connection, a quarter-century later, is now used to tar Abedin. Meanwhile, Abedin’s mother founded an aid organization in the 1990s called the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which at one point was said to be affiliated with International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief. IICDR was banned in Israel years later for allegedly supporting Hamas, a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, under the auspices of yet another group, the Union of Good. The Union of Good was designated by Treasury in 2008 for aiding a terrorist organization.

The connections are so tenuous as to be obscure. Harvard’s Asani said the alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are “crazy” when you consider the stated purpose of the journal. “The Muslim Brotherhood was the last organization interested in this issue” of the rights of minority Muslims, he said. “Syed Abedin was far from the Muslim Brotherhood. It makes absolutely no sense.”

The Pinocchio Test

Duffy asked why the alleged Muslim Brotherhood connections to Huma Abedin are not being talked about. Perhaps it’s because they are bogus. Abedin has lived in the United States for nearly a quarter-century, working in the White House, the Senate and the State Department. Vague suggestions of suspicious-sounding connections to her parents don’t pass the laugh test, even at the flimsiest standard of guilt by association. The journal edited by her mother, meanwhile, is not “sharia newspaper” but a sober academic journal with a range of viewpoints on Muslim life around the world.

Four Pinocchios


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-the-muslim-brotherhood/ar-BBw20lK?li=BBnb7Kz
Click to expand...

This ludicrous post is what gets Four Pinocchios, for posting a pile of bullshit a mile high. "peer-reviewed journal ? Really ? That's nice - reviewed by other Muslim Brotherhood activists. Swell. Gotta love that objectivity. geez.gif

And then we have this gem >> "The Clinton campaign says Abedin played no role in editing articles. Oh well, that sure makes it all good & grand. Can't argue with such a trustworthy source as the Clintons, now can we ? (Pheeeeww! high-pitched whistle;eyes rolling around in head) f_whistle.gif

The we've got more of this fox guarding hen house "sourcing". It goes on. "according to experts on Islam and members of the advisory board" Oh that really cute. the IMMA advisory board says that the IMMA is not “a radical Muslim publication” as the New York Post correctly defined it. And what would we have expected the IMMA advisory board to say >> that they're are a Muslim Brotherhood mouthpiece trying to Islamize America, along with all the other MB creeps ? :palm: (CAIR, ISNA, MSA, IIIT, MAS, MWL, MPAC, etc)

Can you just imagine who these so-called "experts on Islam" are ? HA HA HA. Wanna guess they didn't include Islam protectionists like Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and Paul Sperry ?

What a joke. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for posting such ridiculous garbage.

I could go on with obliterating this pile if idiocy, but I'm starting to get stomach queasy just looking at it.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
A candidate who’s built his entire appeal around fear and loathing once again shows his true, dark colors.

After the backlash when chicken hawk Donald Trump mocked the mother of American hero Capt. Humayun Khan, you might think he’d at least pause before launching another hateful attack on a grieving Muslim woman. But there he was Monday suggesting that Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton and wounded wife of Anthony Weiner, was somehow tied to radical Islamic groups.
The media has largely ignored Trump’s remarks, as if a famous Muslim American being smeared with a false connection to terror by the Republican presidential candidate is not worthy of coverage. But this vicious attack is very much a story—one that says nothing at all about Abedin and a great deal about Trump.

Trump’s first comment about Abedin was no doubt drafted by his handlers desperately trying to attract female voters. In a prepared statement released just after Abedin announced Monday that she was separating from Weiner, the serially disgraced former congressman, Trump said: “Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him.” From there, he attacked Hillary Clinton’s judgment but didn’t cast any aspersions on Abedin.

But later that day Trump spoke for himself, and showed his true colors—the same ones that gave us his racist attacks on American judges, bully-boy mocking of a disabled reporter, and taunts about women’s faces and bodies. While appearing on a conservative radio show in Seattle, Trump suggested Abedin was somehow in league with radical Islamic groups: “You know, by the way, take a look at where she worked, by the way, and take a look at where her mother worked and works. You take a look at the whole event.”

Trump’s first comment about Abedin was no doubt drafted by his handlers desperately trying to attract female voters. In a prepared statement released just after Abedin announced Monday that she was separating from Weiner, the serially disgraced former congressman, Trump said: “Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him.” From there, he attacked Hillary Clinton’s judgment but didn’t cast any aspersions on Abedin.

But later that day Trump spoke for himself, and showed his true colors—the same ones that gave us his racist attacks on American judges, bully-boy mocking of a disabled reporter, and taunts about women’s faces and bodies. While appearing on a conservative radio show in Seattle, Trump suggested Abedin was somehow in league with radical Islamic groups: “You know, by the way, take a look at where she worked, by the way, and take a look at where her mother worked and works. You take a look at the whole event.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...despicable-anti-muslim-huma-abedin-smear.html
Click to expand...


We don't see the truth about her as despicable at all.....
 
It's really odd how liberals will believe any excuse their leader gives them. How does one get to sit on a board and have their name associated with a publication yet that person supposedly did absolutely nothing whatsoever at the journal. That excuse flies?
 
Meh! She's guilty of being really gullible/lame/stupid, no doubt, because her husband is a total Douchebag and SHE chose him.

The rumored affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood is unsettling no matter how you slice it.
 
tinfoil said:
It's really odd how liberals will believe any excuse their leader gives them. How does one get to sit on a board and have their name associated with a publication yet that person supposedly did absolutely nothing whatsoever at the journal. That excuse flies?
Click to expand...

What's amusing is they say the journal is no biggie; yet Hillary's campaign wanted to make it clear Huma was unaware that she was listed as an editor for it.

So in case the white-washing of the journal didn't fly, they'd have a back up plan lol. Somebody put some thought into this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top