| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Important observations from Samia Barakat, a Beirut-based Jihadism analyst:
In the September 2006 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, an article authored by ex New York Times Corespondent Amy Waldman, was published under the title "Islam on Trial." In her "report" about several Terrorism trials in the United States, Waldman, a long time sympathizer of the Jihadists, claim Islam is on trial in American courts. She said she conducted interviews with experts and reviewed the proceedings of the trials thoroughly, and declared in her findings that the trials are about theology and religion by people who do not understand them. Her central allegation was that Salafism and Jihadism are just religious concepts and that the U.S Government and its prosecutors are after people (even if radicals and caught preparing for Terror) only because of the faith they believe in. Waldman's dangerous and false stipulations not only are baseless but shows a hidden agenda of covering up for the Jihadists. Indeed, Waldman, who spent a long time as a corespondent for the New York Times in India has, according to Indian analysts, cultivated a "hatred for Hindus and a strong sympathy for the Islamists." According to readers and analysts, the now national corespondent for the Atlantic Monthly, has been "all over the place to promote the image of Jihadists, particularly in Great Britain." It was learned recently that Waldman was granted a position at a New York based institution to write on Britain's Islamists and criticize those who claim the latter are extremists.In her Atlantic Monthly article, which she attempted to portray as balanced, fair and researched, Waldman aimed at achieving the following goals while discussing the Detroit Terror trial of 2002-2003:
1. Asserting that the US Government, intentionally is attempting to put the Islamic religion on trial through Terrorism trials.
2. Describing one of the experts of the US Government, Professor Khaled Abou el Fadl, as unfit to perform his duties and unaware of the facts and of the developments that followed the trial.
3. Criticizing another expert of the US Government, Professor Walid Phares, as "not knowledgeable" of Islam.
4. Promoting the expert of the defense (of the sentenced Terrorists afterward), Professor Bernard Haykel, as the "only" expert on Salafism in the courtroom. Haykel, according to sources who follow his research activities, is a leading apologist for the Jihadfi Salafists and a close ally of the Saudi embassy in Washington.
After reading the article, experts came to the conclusion that Amy Waldman wrote the article in the framework of a greater effort by Wahabi and Salafi propaganda to counter the rising awareness among Americans and others, about the threat posed by Jihadism, particularly in US and European Courts. Waldman's record of Jihadi sympathizer around the world and particularly as a "Hinduphobe," (hater of Hindus) being established, her article is now being reviewed by analysts to determine the deeper background. The Atlantic Monthly being a serious publication, concerns are that Jihadi sympathizers have been able to penetrate the publication as they have done with other media in the West.
A more comprehensive analysis of Waldman's Jihad in the Atlantic Monthly will be released on December 10.
Posted by Robert at November 25, 2006 1:43 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"...concerns are that Jihadi sympathizers have been able to penetrate the publication as they have done with other media in the West."
This explains so much of the pro-Islam propaganda that I keep seeing in print.
Posted by: Josephine![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 25, 2006 1:56 PM
Waldman is a delusional fool.
Posted by: callmeinfidel at November 25, 2006 1:57 PM
Investigate her finances; look for Saudi money. If she's not on the take, my screen handle ain't Pelayo.
If she is a delusional fool, she is deluded by the cash,
and she's a greedy little . . .
Any body have a better explanation?
Posted by: Pelayo at November 25, 2006 2:05 PM
"just religious concepts"... I'm new to this site and have never posted anything before, but after the French ZUS piece et al, I despair.
Posted by: grobari at November 25, 2006 2:08 PM
Asserting that the US Government, intentionally is attempting to put the Islamic religion on trial through Terrorism trials.
What is wrong with putting Islam on trial? Someone tell me.
Betcha can't.
at November 25, 2006 2:12 PM
I just wonder how Waldman react if the Jihadists win, and she is required to remain at home wearing a burqa, and being considered inferior to men.
Posted by: MikeB52 at November 25, 2006 2:16 PM
"concerns are that Jihadi sympathizers have been able to penetrate the publication as they have done with other media in the West."
What? They were able to penetrate the Liberal Media, who shuns Republicans, pro-lifers, Christians, and pro-gunners??? No way! *grin*
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 25, 2006 2:20 PM
Another classic example of a Left-wing Jewish journalist. It's bad enough that the muslims hate the Jews, why do the Jews have to get their kicks in too?
Posted by: August22 at November 25, 2006 2:35 PM
Some good news. I heard (although through the haze of flu) on FNC, that Denmark is experiencing something of a revival. Islam is causing an interest in returning to Christianity. Hooray for the "Light".
Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 25, 2006 2:51 PM
"Muslim lover".....Ha Ha Ha....that's good!! You crack me up american.
The term "jihad sympathizer" is just so WRONG. How could anyone in their right mind even entertain these thought -- let alone write an article in SUPPORT of jihad. In my opinion, anyone who sympathizes with jihad, is sympathizing with the terrorists, and is a terrorist too. Shame on you, Waldman.
Posted by: champ at November 25, 2006 3:01 PM
The death of Michael Kelly in Iraq looms larger every day. The shift of The Atlantic from Boston to Washington, and the change of personnel -- Toby Lester of the staff while it was in Boston, knows about Islam, and a few years ago wrote and published in The Atlantic an excellent article, a tour d'horizon of recent scholarship on the early Qur'an, including Ibn Warraq and, if I remember rightly, Christoph Luxenberg among others. But something may have happened in the move: a little wear and tear, a little mental tret.
Hard to say.
As for Waldman, Khaled Abou el Fadl is not a trustworthy witness, but not in the way she thinks. Incidentally, just how much do these witnesses get paid? For that matter what do these "consultants" to the various networks get, some of them for saying things any schoolboy could cobble together?
I ask because a few years ago, I have been told, Fawaz Gerges greedily demanded some huge sum - $5,000 or $15,000, I can't remember -- to write a letter on behalf of a Christian trying to stay in this country and not be sent back to Egypt. His offer was not accepted.
Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2006 3:13 PM
Waldman. Pathetic.
Posted by: sounder at November 25, 2006 3:16 PM
If she is a delusional fool, she is deluded by the cash,
and she's a greedy little . . .
Anybody have a better explanation?
Posted by: Pelayo
Yours is as good as any one this board. But I wouldn't be surprised it's simply a case of being invested in Political Correctness. These journos don't even need to be bribed. They REALLY don't know better. They merely provide to foil for our 'leaders' - who are being bought off and who DO KNOW BETTER.
There's the difference between a useful idiot and a traitor in a nutshell.
Problem is: we need a split in the Republican Party. The traitors [the Bush wing] need to be cut loose by the Traditionalists [Tancredo wing].
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 25, 2006 3:17 PM
How could anyone [non-Muslim] in their right mind support jihad?
Ingredients of the answer:
1) 1 heaping cup of Leftism, or 2 cups of ultra-Right Wing Gnosticism
2) 2 tablespoons of Hatred and Shame of the West
3) 10 fluid ounces of Romanticization of the non-white non-West
4) A twist of Reverse Racism
5) A dash of Utopianism
Mix together and put on low heat for approximately 217 years, from 1789 to 2006 (with periodic blasts of high heat, in 1917, 1939, 1960s, etc.).
Posted by: remote_control at November 25, 2006 3:17 PM
I agree. How could anyone in their right mind support jihad?
Any woman, especially a Jewish woman, who sympathizes with jihad is just a damn fool, or she's been bribed.
Posted by: americaningermany
AIG... they really ARE that stupid!! I am beginning to think that among Westeners brains are quite unevenly distyributed: The few independent thinkers 90% of all the useful grey matter.
at November 25, 2006 3:46 PM
Mr. Spencer,
I have not read the Atlantic Monthly for a couple of years now, but I am wondering if you (or Mr. Fitzgerald) have written or plan to write to the magazine to criticize Ms. Waldman's article.
Posted by: kaffirchick at November 25, 2006 3:56 PM
ALERT TROLL MARYAM ("Im a devout English muslim" and I do not believe what you say about Islam) is on the suicide bomber 'Ahmed' bomber thread right now giving americaningermany a hard time. Im helping out come out and check it out at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014168.php#comments
at November 25, 2006 3:58 PM
From the article:
...experts came to the conclusion [...] her article is now being reviewed by analysts [...] A more comprehensive analysis ... will be released on December 10.
Who are these "experts" and "analysts" who are gathering in a dark control center to analyze Waldman's writings? I'm sick of the media bias too, and kudos for writing the article, but the tone of the article sounds a little spooky and self-important, as if we had a Dean Esmay-esque blogger on our side.
If this article causes the Atlantic Monthly to get rid of one biased reporter, that's great. There are plenty of others waiting in the wings.
Posted by: special_guest at November 25, 2006 4:37 PM
kaffirchick, I believe that is where we come in. We cannot watch the anti-jihad from the sidelines, we're all there is.
Thank goodness for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, [I believe JW/DW is still associated with DHFC, no?], but there are no politicians, no media pundits, and no well-funded anti-jihad groups the way there are well-funded pro-jihad groups. Anti-jihadists are not paying current-and-ex Presidents multi-million dollar "speaker fees" to "exchange dialogue" and "share ideas".
Anyways, here is the page to give feedback to Atlantic Monthly.
Posted by: special_guest at November 25, 2006 4:54 PM
This is part of the Green/Red alliance which the great French observer and sentinel of French Islam Michel Gurfinkiel discusses in the Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/975cjsub.asp?pg=1
The idea is that the Left will join forces with Islamists to overthrow existing constitutional democracies. We have seen this phenomenon in France, Italy, the UK, Sweden, Holland, and Beligium.
How will we know if this is working: watch for middle class "white flight" from these countries.
I believe there is an incipient movement to do the same thing here. Example: Amy Goodman attending the recent CAIR banquet, along with a couple of far-left Democrats, and celebrating the Islamist agenda on the radio.
Oriana Fallaci discusses why the Red/Green alliance is a natural fit: both forces are "religious" in nature (absolute right and wrong), both forces loathe the individuality which characterizes modern Western society, and both detest non-authoritarian governing regimes.
Posted by: sonomaca at November 25, 2006 5:04 PM
Well, well, well. JW/DW regulars see here. . .
Interestingly, Ms. Waldman has posted the following:
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
Harvard University
2006–2007 Research Partnerships
British Islam
Senior Partner: Amy Waldman
Journalism
I will be researching a nonfiction work on the social and intellectual history of Muslims in modern Britain, looking at how the debates within Islam over meaning and practice are playing out there, and at Britain’s effort to balance liberty and justice in an age of Islamic terrorism. I will trace the migration of Muslims, as well as the movement of ideas, ideologies, and schools of Islam, from the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world.
I am looking for assistance in researching primary and secondary sources (both written materials and possible interview/profile subjects) across a range of disciplines: the development of Islam under colonial rule; the history of Britain’s Muslim community, and its intersection with the economy, culture, and legal system of modern Britain; and material on theological debates within Islam.
An interest in Islam, the colonial era, and/or modern British history would be welcome, but most important are good research skills and curiosity across a range of disciplines. An interest in writing and the construction of narrative would be helpful as well.
ANY TAKERS?
at November 25, 2006 5:07 PM
In this Alice in Wonderland world, the Muslims have placed the bomb at the center of Islam under us. There's no way for us to resist their Jihad without them interpreting our actions as an attack on Islam, or a grave insult to Islam and Muslims.
Many of our simpering and craven politicians facilitate the threat this bomb presents... They, and so-called journalists such as Waldmen (and there are thousands of others) go to ever more outlandish lengths to pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. This is sometimes done because they are utterly ignorant of the methods and intentions of the Muslims -- but more often I believe this is a gesture of cowardly appeasement -- appeasement based on the false hope that if we just keep saying it, like Dorothy clicking those ruby slippers, eventually something magical will happen and the Muslims will stop their vicious attack against our civilization.
In truth, since I believe that Islam and terrorism are inextricable, Islam IS on trial in America, and Amy Waldman has it right -but not for the right reasons... Whereas she appears to wish to obfuscate our understanding of Islam by posing as a clarifier of Islam (and in the process pointing out our own heinousness for our supposed ignorance), I would much prefer that Islam and Muslims in the West be handled as enemies until proven otherwise. Islam should be treated as a dangerous ideology which threatens the very fabric of our society -- Muslims found to be supporting the spread of that ideology, even if they arent' strapping on the bomb at this or that moment, should be treated as enemies, not criminals.
But rather than having inhindered discussions about whether or not our courts are the best place to deal with millions of seditious Muslims in our midst, (they are not...) or whether it should be legal to practice Islam in our society -- these empty meaningless platitudes are repeated and overwhelm the better truer message...
Islam is war. Muslims know this, or are ignorant of their own religion. I don't believe most of them are ignorant, so I can only conclude that most of them are dedicated to devoting large amounts of energy to subvert our systems and further their agenda of Islam. They have come to our splendid domain, and in the most cynical manifestion of contempt, they've hijacked our tolerance, our pluralism, our wealth, and our technology to subvert and slaughter us, and protect themselves from recrimination. The bomb the Muslims have successfully placed deep within our sanctity is a bomb which is deep within Islam. Resist Islam and, according to them, this is sufficient for you to be destroyed.
As long as Muslims remain in our land, we cannot win the war they're waging against us.
at November 25, 2006 6:42 PM
special_guest, thanks for the link to the AM site. I do actually write letters and emails frequently on these issues (to media outlets, politicians, etc.) and sometimes have had them published; however, I believe a letter from someone like Mr. Spencer, a noted scholar and published author (albeit one that the AM would probably not want to acknowledge) would be much more effective.
Posted by: kaffirchick at November 25, 2006 6:51 PM
I think it is possible to have a slightly different view of where she is coming from. Islam, after all, is a very bad and warped copy of Hebraism, with all the good bits removed and the bad bits emphasized. And we are told that Waldman showed violent prejudice against Hinduism (a pantheist religion with polytheist overtones, about as far from Hebraism as it is possible to be) during her time in India. She might have got that emotional feeling that some Jews get, that they have more in common with Islam (poor deluded fools) than with the "persecuting" Christians or other "polytheists". I think her hatred of Hinduism is a strong clue to what makes her tick.
BTW, about her looks. I know that we are not supposed to judge people by their looks, and God knows that some of the greatest men and women in the world have been, shall we say, visually inadequate. But I have image-googled her, and, well, I do not find her very attractive.
Posted by: Paolo at November 25, 2006 6:54 PM
I've always felt that Atlanticists are inherently in the hip-pocket of Europe, and are thus going to be pro-Islamist.
This is the ugly reality of our times -- they are a die-hard bastion that won't be turned through force of reasonable argument.
Posted by: sanman at November 25, 2006 7:14 PM
I've read many of Waldman's articles, and all are pro-Muslim. She usually denies that Muslims are capable of violence, and depicts Muslims as invariably the victims. She caters to those in the West, in the UK and Canada in particular, who are sympathetic towards Muslims, not because they believe Muslims are oppressed, but because they either hate Hindus or Jews and consider Muslims as allies against them.
David
Posted by: david at November 25, 2006 7:14 PM
These days anyone who criticizes Jews, Christians or Hindus is considered an intellectual. Anyone who criticizes Muslims is considered a bigot.
at November 25, 2006 7:26 PM
Waldman should have a holiday in saudi arabia. let her find out accomodating they are women in the middle east. if not try iran. either way she can find out first hand. the cow!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 25, 2006 7:29 PM
"jihad sympathizers________"
Fill in the blank.
"Suck" is one possibility.
Posted by: champ at November 25, 2006 7:30 PM
"jihad sympathizers________"
Fill in the blank.
are incredibly stupid
Posted by: MikeB52 at November 25, 2006 8:16 PM
How infuriating. Another serious publication infiltrated by apologists and deceivers.
...Waldman's record of Jihadi sympathizer around the world and particularly as a "Hinduphobe," (hater of Hindus) being established, her article is now being reviewed by analysts to determine the deeper background. The Atlantic Monthly being a serious publication, concerns are that Jihadi sympathizers have been able to penetrate the publication as they have done with other media in the West.A more comprehensive analysis of Waldman's Jihad in the Atlantic Monthly will be released on December 10.
December 10 is now a red-letter day. I am looking forward to the "deep analysis."
Posted by: Eleanor at November 25, 2006 10:01 PM
kaffirchick, I certainly didn't mean to question your level of engagement. And I agree that a letter from Robert or Hugh carries more weight and substance.
Posted by: special_guest at November 25, 2006 10:15 PM
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/events/conferences/georges2006/images/waldmanx.jpg
Who cares if Amy Waldman is a Jew or not? She is a traitor, its a simple as that, if we are to belive Samia Barakat, the Beirut-based Jihadism analyst. True, Samia ought to justify his/her claims that Waldman is a jihadhi sympathiser accordiing to Indian analysts. But the important thing is that the issue of Wahabi-funded western apologists has been flagged once again. Whether its about the cash in Waldan's case (this ought to be explored) or pathetic PC multiculti extremism, the issue has been raised yet again and we ought to be encouraging more of our own research programs (thanks to justamonof4 for this link https://www.radcliffe.edu/fellowships/rrp/2007/Waldman.php) for 1) Saudi funded "research" into Islam and 2) Islam and its historical relations and the West etc (including slavery, oppression of women, human rights under sharia law, death sentences for apostasy, homosexuality etc). We need a forum for action, not just for slating Islam.
Posted by: exfidel at November 25, 2006 10:43 PM
Link to Waldman's article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/waldman-islam
Perhaps we ought to be reading this before we comment on this incomplete piece by Samia Barakat and jump to any conclusions.
Posted by: exfidel at November 25, 2006 10:54 PM
David - say more about your blog - VICTIMS OF ALLAH. This is powerful stuff.
For anyone who hasn't paid a trip:
http://victimsofallah.blogspot.com/
Sure David might appreciate more images / links ...
Posted by: exfidel at November 25, 2006 11:21 PM
This is what 60 million buys you
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at November 26, 2006 12:40 AM
I googled for her bio, just to get a sense of where she is coming from. She's an English major from Yale University. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I was an undergrad those who were education majors or English majors were considered the least intellectual and deep on campus. They are in fields of study which are the least rigorous in terms of critical thinking or background in the history of ideas. Those departments tend to be intense enclaves of various Trotskyist and socialist groups.
This Jewish woman is a traitor to her people and to her fellow Americans. She has allied herself with the adherents of perhaps the world's most barbarous, murderous ideology in history. It has killed many millions more people than Communism ever did.
She is a despiser of everything we hold sacred and dear to our civilization and faith. It would not surprise me if she was on the take for Saudi money, but I suspect that she is in it more out of ideology than anything else. And, as a former Leftist myself, I know her type well.
I'm willing to bet she has never read the Qur'an. I'm willing to bet she has never read even a few ahadith. Her knowledge of the Prophet is probably some romanticized version that she took on faith.
The day is coming when, under very violent threats from further Muslim attacks on the West and the United States, our people will wake up. And when they do wake up people like her, and the politicians who sell us out, will be escorted up the gallows for their well-deserved end.
at November 26, 2006 1:11 AM
I believe that the wake-up call, ie when all the Islamist apologist like Waldman are swept away, will come when the President of the French Republic decamps from the Elysee Palace as Paris is overrun.
When will this happen? Well 50% of babies born in Paris today (and the same or more in other French cities) are Muslim. In 15 years, these babies will be footsoldiers. So, let's say 2022.
However, I believe that is a conservative figure, given the kind of enhanced operational sophistication we saw on the part of Muslim forces this year (the bus burnings were well-coordinated, well-planned, and well-equipped attacks).
You'll see similar events in Brussels, in Stockholm, in Rome, in Oslo, and perhaps in London, but Paris will be the first to fall.
Posted by: sonomaca at November 26, 2006 1:39 AM
Anyone actually bothered to read the Waldman piece though?
Posted by: exfidel at November 26, 2006 4:51 AM
If this is the idea amy waldman has about the jihadists, then we are surely in a bad soup.
This pathological love for jihadists and their evil propensities is definitely going to poison many impressionable minds.
Posted by: mystichealer at November 26, 2006 5:38 AM
A once fine magazine, the Atlantic Monthly went to Hell in a handbasket about 15 yrs ago. So no wonder that a fraud like Amy Waldman, a Jewess no less, would rabidly turn on reality in favor of personal aggrandizement. A pompous ass, she is.
Asserting that the US Government, intentionally is attempting to put the Islamic religion on trial through Terrorism trials.
I agree with Ms. Waldman that Islam should not be put on trial in jihad terror war prosecutions.
It should be done in a forthright manner on Capitol Hill. Here's how it should go, Ms. Intellectual Amy:
1) First, elect Congressional representatives with courage.
2) Invoke the key clause in Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution that reads, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make and proceed to by democratic legislation remove all matters having to do with Islam from the purview of the courts and, thereby, case law.
3) Make the practice of Islam a federal felony crime, and do the same for possession of Islamic scriptures. Condemn all mosques. Seal the borders both north and south. Boost production of ABMs, submarines, and MIRVs a hundredfold. Begin a program of mass expulsion to rid American soil of all Moslems.
This recipe, and not your subintellectual hallucinations, is the only way at this juncture to avert mass disaster, Amy.
This is cuz Moslems are no more a part of America's rich melting pot tapestry than Stage 3 cancer is a healthy part of the human body.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Believe it or not Amy Waldman is one of the less anti-Hindu writers in the NYT stable. There are others who are much much worse - Barbara Crossette, Celia Dugger, Martha Nussbaum (ex-wife of unreconstructed Communist Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen). Most of these female writers absorb their Hindu hatred from various sources including Indian leftists.
I believe Paolo is the one who got it right.
at November 27, 2006 11:36 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)