Allegations concerning Huma Abedin’s connections to Islamist groups and actors devoted to taking down America through a subversive jihad are no secret. But for those in the know about Islam, its goals and methods—and especially the power of indoctrination—her life story is more than enough for concern.

Born in the U.S., Huma moved to Saudi Arabia (SA) at the age of two. There, she likely spent her formative years being indoctrinated in the same Islam that ISIS—SA’s brainchild—upholds.

Just like ISIS, SA teaches hate and enmity for all non-Muslims; destruction of churches and all non-Muslim places of worship; fatal consequences for apostates and blasphemers; and, most importantly, the supreme merits of engaging in jihad, which is not limited to armed warfare, as the apologists often remind us, but literally consists of “striving”—or for our purposes, subverting—on behalf of Islam.

Such is the atmosphere and indoctrination that Abedin experienced growing up in SA; this was further supplemented at home by her mother, Saleha Abedin, a leading female activist of Islamic law and author of a book supporting female genital mutilation, death for apostates, and the participation of females in jihad. After 16 years of such indoctrination, Huma removed the hijab and returned to the U.S. at age 18. Two years later she was Hillary Clinton’s intern—and on her way to becoming, as Clinton later put it, a “second daughter” to her.

To many, Huma’s troubling background is irrelevant. After all, she doesn’t wear a veil, scarf, or hijab—as all women (including her mother) do in SA—and certainly appears secular and fashionable, definitely Western. Moreover, in direct contradiction to a Sharia stipulation that, when broken, often leads to murderous responses in the Muslim world, she, a Muslim woman, married a non-Muslim man, Anthony Weiner.

So how much, really, could she have been influenced by the Wahhabi/ISIS education and upbringing that all Saudi children are exposed to? Besides, why not believe that the moment she left SA, she was only too happy to forget all that Islam stuff and revel in her newfound American freedom? This notion, no doubt popular, is itself a reflection of the power of indoctrination—in this case, the power of secular and liberal indoctrination on the minds of many in the West who are convinced that the entire world is destined to and desirous of becoming “just like us.”

Aside from overlooking the power of Islamic indoctrination—which causes some people to become “martyrs” by killing themselves and others—these questions and observations overlook another Islamic teaching: Muslims are encouraged to deny their Islam—or in the context of the modern West, merely pretend to be “moderate Muslims”—if by so doing they can help empower Islam over infidels.

As usual, this sort of trickery goes right back to Muhammad himself. Here are two examples, both from Muslim chroniclers widely taught in Saudi Arabia:

The Assassination of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf

After an elderly Jewish tribal chieftain, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, mocked Muhammad, the prophet exclaimed, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka‘b and murder him, he needed permission from Muhammad to lie to the Jew. Allah’s messenger agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began complaining about Muhammad and saying that he had left Islam. He carried on in this way until his disaffection from Muhammad and Islam led Ka‘b to drop his guard, befriend him, and eventually invite him into his house—at which point the mask came off, Ibn Maslama slaughtered Ka ‘b, and brought his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

The Disbanding of the Confederates

During the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted the Muslims against the Arabian polytheists, one of the latter, Naim bin Mas‘ud, secretly went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his tribesmen and allies—without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp—and try to get them to abandon the siege. “For,” Muhammad assured him, “war is deceit.” Mas‘ud returned, pretending to be loyal to his former kinsmen and allies, and began giving them bad advice. He also subtly instigated quarrels between the various tribes until, no longer trusting each other, they disbanded. Mas‘ud became a hero in Islamic tradition. He is often seen as being responsible for helping an embryonic Islam grow at a time when its existence was threatened. One English language Muslim site even recommends his actions as illustrative of how Muslims can subvert non-Muslims.

Anecdotes of modern day Islamic clerics encouraging fellow Muslims to behave like non-Muslims when advantageous are in fact a dime a dozen. The other day I watched an Arabic language video of a sheikh from Al Azhar—arguably the world’s leading, and supposedly “moderate,” institution of Islamic learning—giving the traditional exegesis of Koran 3:28, which reads: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

After explaining that this verse means Muslims are forbidden from aiding non-Muslims against Islam—here again is another problem concerning Muslims working in the U.S. government—he said that “unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” means that Muslims under non-Muslim authority may deceive the latter by behaving like them, while keeping their Islam internally. By way of example, he said that if Muslims are under Christian authority, they have “license” to publicly hang, wear, and even pray to the cross—which is saying much if you understand Islam’s virulent hatred for the crucifix.

Nor is the issue of Muslims pretending to be non-Muslims to deceive and subvert infidels limited to historical texts and sermons from sheikhs. One recent example from Turkey: in order to get close enough to a Christian pastor to assassinate him, a group of Christian-hating Muslims—including three very “secular” looking women—feigned interest in Christianity and attended his church, where they prayed and made the sign of the cross. In the words of the pastor who eluded the assassination attempt: “These people had infiltrated our church and collected information about me, my family and the church and were preparing an attack against us. Two of them attended our church for over a year and they were like family.”

Returning to Huma Abedin. That she appears Western/secularized and married a Jew—that is, that she did everything that no good Muslim woman, especially one who spent her formative years being indoctrinated in the most radical form of Islam, to say nothing of her ties to Islamists—makes her appear more not less suspicious. It looks like an intentional attempt to do precisely those things that would most convince her American audience that she has nothing to do with Islam and is just “another” American.

After all, if some Muslims are willing to go to such lengths as attending churches and baptisms and becoming “like family” to those infidels they seek to slaughter, as in the above anecdote from Turkey, what are other Muslims willing to do to take down the Great Infidel, America? Could they not, perhaps, seek to endear themselves as a “second daughter” to a top politician and potentially the next president of the U.S?

Should this prove to be the case, then Saudi Arabia’s multifaceted jihad on America continues. If it first reached the general public’s awareness on 9/11 with the ugly and violent al-Qaeda, it may well be continuing with the comely and docile Huma.