I believe the environment a person grows up in does affect their decisions and reactions in their adult life extensively and my husband believes this influence is somewhat limited. We both, over time, have agreed that there is accountability in life–and therefore, whatever the environment taught in a person’s youth creates a type of “default” setting for beliefs and behaviors. Individuals still have choices in the decisions we make about how to live our life as adults but in many circumstances our “default” behavior is what we were either taught or watched during the formidable years of our youth.
Social media sites are a great way to investigate my theory. If you are ‘friends’ or ‘follow’ individuals you knew early in life and were acquainted with their home lives because of school, church or other social settings, it is easy to see how beliefs change from adolescence to adulthood. Even if someone has gone from a church-going background as an adolescent to an adult who now shuns the church and their beliefs, you still see a shadow of the religious upbringing they based their earlier life on by the things they say in their postings. The book of Proverbs states, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” Proverbs 22:6 (NIV).
In today’s world however, many individuals, possibly due to a bad home life as a child or to exert independence from their family, want to believe home life as a child has little or no influence in adulthood. Of course, there are instances where using that early environment to blame others relieves some individuals of the responsibility for their current bad behavior and is used many times in our legal system today.
So why does any of this matter in the world of politics?
It matters when individuals with great influence and effect on sensitive issues come from environments diametrically opposed to the principles America was created on and the ideals our Founding Fathers set forth. Ideals so many men and women have given their lives for to preserve our Constitution and our Freedoms.
It is concerning however, when sects of various religions are infiltrated by individuals who lead those religions conceptually to a path of destruction and violence toward other nations and people.
Certainly there are groups of individuals in a variety of religions, some biblically based, who exert a loud voice of their beliefs in manners, which cause division and arguing among people, but none go to the extreme of the Jihadist believing Muslims. This group of Muslim followers is vastly different than those who practice the “traditional” Muslim religion.
Politically, what draws great concern are people like Huma Abedin. Abedin most recently served as Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and is thoroughly embedded in our political system. However her life as a child was cultivated by her mother, who has been identified as “one of the founding members of the Muslim Sisterhood, a Muslim Brotherhood women’s group.”
Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, Huma Abedin’s mother, is an alleged activist supporting Sharia law. In addition, she has been the chairperson for the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC). Dr. Abedin is a Pakistani and Huma Abedin’s late father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian. Both parents earned doctorates from the University of Pennsylvania. Huma Abedin’s father was an Islamic and Middle Eastern scholar, founding “his own institute devoted to Western-Eastern and interfaith understanding and reconciliation.” He also published a journal about Muslim minorities. Her mother has been a professor in Saudi Arabia.
Ms. Abedin herself was part of Abdullah Omar Nasseef’s organization, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), prior to becoming Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton. Nasseef is allegedly a “financier” of terrorism. (Conflicting research shows Nasseef as the founder of the IMMA; however some research identifies Abedin’s father, Syed Zainul Abedin as credited for founding the institute.)
When congressional members began looking into Ms. Abedin’s background and asking questions regarding vetting and security clearances, many people, including those who hold elective office in our government, basically said, ‘So what?’ Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was raked across the coals this summer when she began asking questions regarding Ms. Abedin’s “appendage-like access” to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Abedin held the highest administrative duties for the Secretary of State in the position of Chief of Staff where her access and influence were presumably immeasurable. Not to mention, during her earlier months of marriage, her husband served as a Congressman from New York, Anthony Weiner. Since Weiner is of the Jewish faith and Abedin of the Muslim faith, it is alleged that special permission was given to allow the two to marry, to serve the greater purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Abedin has had access to the American government that many people will never be blessed to enjoy. She began working as an intern for Hillary Clinton when Clinton she was the First Lady. She was also Staff Assistant to Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, during the Clinton Presidency, then was elevated to aide and advisor and “Traveling Chief of Staff” for Mrs. Clinton.
But when Rep. Bachmann began raising questions for public verification of Ms. Abedin’s security clearance background, in which Abedin was allowed access to work in such highly sensitive areas with a potential and allegedly more ‘radical’ belief in her Muslim faith, Bachmann was criticized for her statements and pushed to the side.
To be certain, no one wants to “persecute” Huma Abedin for her religious beliefs. However, when you have alleged ties to an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood—an organization that wants to see Sharia Law spread worldwide, along with the destruction of Israel–Americans should investigate this situation deeply enough to be assured our national security and that of our allies is not in danger. It is imperative to insure the structure of our government is not being influenced by someone who may hold radical teachings and ways of life more dearly in their hearts, than the beliefs of the American Constitution and the freedoms of their birth country.
Which leads us back to these questions: Is Huma Abedin is a National Security Risk?
Does it matter what her “Sphere of Influence” during her formidable years really looked like?
These questions—and the ability to ask them—are vitally important. Even though it may be subliminal, our formidable years absolutely have a distinctive influence on our beliefs and philosophies as adults, and in many cultures it is paramount. Thus is the influence of Muslim families.
When the Muslim family is studied, there is a striking importance attached to the family. According to the Western Journal of Medicine, the Muslim family unit is regarded as the “cornerstone of a healthy and balanced society” and forms the “basic building block of Muslim society”
If this research is accurate, whether the Muslim family practices a more “traditional” faith or a more “radical” faith, it appears that influences within the family hold great sway in all family member’s lives. This alone should support the need to investigate the background of anyone wishing to hold positions of great influence within our government—and this should include vetting their family members, too.
If we are willing to make people from every walk of life take off their shoes and jackets to be “cleared” to fly on an airplane in an effort to insure all passengers’ safety, we should be just as willing to investigate individuals who have ties, whether alleged or verifiable, with terrorist groups of any sort.
In many cases, the political influence that can be demonstrated by someone of a terrorist influenced background can be just as devastating as an immediate/physical attack. Individuals coming from backgrounds such as the Muslim Brotherhood could potentially have the ability to influence people and policy, with an alleged intent to damage an entire nation and its structure over a span of time. Slowly, yet methodically, causing change in our political structure, beliefs and alliances.
So getting back to Huma Abedin…
Ms. Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, while her father was working at the Western Michigan University. When she was 2 years old, the family “abruptly” left Michigan for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where Huma and her family lived until she returned to America and attended George Washington University.
During the fifteen years the Abedin’s lived in Saudi Arabia, they were surrounded by family and friends who allegedly participated in the political side of their religious practices. This amount of time and potential influence of others has the immeasurable possibility of greatly influencing a person’s attitudes into a particular way of thinking and believing that is difficult to change or indoctrinate to another belief.
The more “radical” religious practices Abedin may have been taught in her younger years are reaching our election ballots here in America. The state of Oklahoma has gone back and forth about whether or not courts should have the opportunity to rely on Sharia law when making decisions. The “Oklahoma International Law Amendment” offered on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot never went into effect due to a lawsuit, but the idea of American citizens voting on such an item is a frightening example of the influence of a more “radical” movement of the Muslim religion.
Based on the professional positions her mother held, it is reasonable to assume that Huma Abedin grew up in a home where the “radical” side of Islam was taught. So now, in 2013, Abedin, could absolutely use her beliefs to influence political decisions in D.C.
President Obama has hailed her a “patriot” and Huma Abedin’s resume definitely reflects the epitome of someone who has “climbed the ladder of success”. However, if her early life examples stem from a more violent approach to governing, those two facets of her life don’t seem compatible for a person so embedded in American politics.
Sphere of Influence is a critical factor in a person’s life. Not just the influence they possess and spread but also the influence thrust upon them. It will be interesting to see where Huma Abedin goes now that Hillary Clinton is no longer Secretary of State, but with the praises of both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the admiration of our current President, we should all be watchful of where she may resurface in the current administration. As aware Americans, we also need to watch how she manages her “sphere of influence”.
In such a large government, it is easy to say a few believers of radical theologies aren’t “too scary” or to convince ourselves that the influence of a few won’t be detrimental. Unfortunately, that is exactly what our radical enemies are counting on.