• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Jonathan Power and the “Expressio Unius…”

Mar 11, 2016 12:51 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

jonathanpower2

Jonathan Power, a well-known foreign-affairs columnist for the past 30 years, whose work now appears in 40 papers, has latterly become a prominent Defender of the Faith (that faith being Islam), and has just produced one more of those bizarre defenses of Islam that we long-suffering Infidels keep receiving, world without end.

In his latest piece, Power asks rhetorically “Is Islam Violent?” and attempts to convince readers that the only conceivable answer, in a world reeling from Muslim violence everywhere you turn, is the counterintuitive “No.”

In his very first paragraph, Power offers what is clearly meant to demonstrate that he recognizes that some examples of Muslim violence can be found, and he lists a few for us. It’s not a list, however, intended to suggest that “this is only a small sample” of Muslim violence, but rather, a disingenuous attempt to disarm potential critics. It’s what he leaves out that’s important.

Here’s that first paragraph:

Is Islam violent? ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In Pakistan, there is the Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the attempted murderer of the schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai. Immigrant Moroccan men roughly pushing women and fondling them in the crowd in Cologne. Murderous bombs in Paris.

Let’s take those sentences and incomplete sentences, one by one.

“ISIS In Syria And Iraq”

This paragraph’s greatly abridged list of current examples of Muslim violence gives the false impression that only here and there – very much here and there – have Muslims engaged in violence. Given the Latest News, Power can hardly avoid mentioning ISIS. But why does he mention “ISIS In Syria and Iraq” and nowhere else? Why not do it full justice, and list as well its branch offices in Libya (centered on the city of Sirte), Nigeria (Boko Haram), the Philippines (where the Abu Sayyaf group has just pledged allegiance to the Islamic State), and many other groups in a dozen countries where Islamic State admirers have raised the Black Flag of Islam and sworn fealty to the Caliphate? And why does Power pass over in silence all the many horrific acts by ISIS, such as the mass beheadings (Shiites, Alawites, Christian Ethiopians). No details are given; Power simply presses fast forward in his attempt to rush through, paying no never mind to the scope, the size, the nature of the hyper-violent Islamic State and its archipelago of affiliates.

And Power fails to mention any of the Muslim terror groups other than the Islamic State, especially the most formidable of all, Al Qaeda. Its centers of operation are no longer located in distant Afghanistan and Pakistan, but with AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, headquartered in Yemen) and AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, which covers all of North Africa). These are active affiliates, training and sending out suicide bombers. Al Qaeda’s tentacles are indeed everywhere: Jabhat Nusra, or the Nusra Front, is the fighting unit of Al Qaeda in Syria, while other Al-Qaeda branches were responsible for the bombings in Mali last November, and for killing 30 people this January in Burkina Faso.

And it’s not only Al Qaeda and all of those who have willingly become part of its network, including the aforementioned Al-Shebaab in sub-Saharan Africa and a half-dozen groups in North Africa, Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis in Egypt, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and its offshoot, the Salafia Jehadia, in Morocco, that he has failed to mention. He also fails to mention still other Muslim groups known mainly for their violence – the Ikhwan or Muslim Brotherhood (which even the United Arab Emirates now recognizes as a terrorist group), Hezbollah, and Hamas — are nowhere to be seen. Jonathan Power, in an article purporting to persuade us that Islam is not violent, simply leave out all mention of every one of the many dozens of Muslim terrorist groups other than the Islamic State. Does he expect us, his readers, to collaborate in this blatant exercise in willful forgetfulness?

In summing up the menace of Muslim terror groups and groupuscules, do those five words — “IS in Syria and Iraq” – constitute in your mind a sufficient summary of the deeds of Muslim terrorists, from the London Underground to Luzon, or from San Bernardino to Bali? Or do they deliberately diminish the threat?

The whole seething world of violence that is central to Islam, stemming directly from passages in the Qur’an (Power, later in his piece, claims that in the entire Qur’an, only Qur’an 9:29 encourages violence!) and from the example of that central figure, Muhammad the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) and Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), has its outlet in attacks throughout the world, in both Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, by ordinary (i.e., not members of terrorist groups) Muslims against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and, in Muslim lands, against Shi’a who are regarded by not a few Sunnis as no different from other Infidels. None of this is recognized in his summary. But his aim is to pooh-pooh the claim that violence is an important part of Islam. So he presents IS as limited to its original territory in Syria and Iraq.

“Immigrant Moroccan men roughly pushing women and fondling them in the crowd in Cologne.”

Why does Jonathan Power insist that the Cologne attacks – sexual assaults, including rape, and theft (not just “roughly pushing and fondling” women) — were being committed by “immigrant Moroccan men”? One can find online the information that 58 men were arrested for the Cologne crimes and that “the majority of the suspects were of Algerian (25 people), Tunisian (3) or Moroccan (21) origin and three were German citizens, according to Cologne public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer” (in an interview with Die Welt on February 6). Another three were “refugees” from Iraq (1) and Syria (2). So why does Power call them all “immigrant Moroccan men” in an article published on March 6? Oh, that’s because nearly two months before he wrote his article, and not repeated since, there appeared a grand total of two articles in the British press – checked – reporting some initial, tentative speculation that perhaps these criminals in Cologne were “a gang of Moroccans” trying to pass as Syrians:

The migrant rapists who sexually assaulted hundreds of women in Cologne were a gang of Moroccans who entered Germany illegally by posing as Syrian refugees, it has been claimed.

Now what kind of columnist relies on a phrase like “it has been claimed” and turns it into a guarantee of unassailable truth? What kind of columnist relies on a nearly two-month-old story (from January 13) to serve as the basis for a story he publishes on March 6 about the Cologne criminals, without having done any checking of his own, so that he never learned of the statement of the German prosecutor apportioning guilt among Muslims from several different countries? Why, the kind of columnist that Jonathan Power has become, or perhaps – for all I know – the kind that Jonathan Power has always been. All he had to do was google “Cologne Muslim criminals” just before writing Is Islam Violent?, and he would have been set straight. He had six weeks to do so. But he just couldn’t be bothered. And most importantly, charging “Moroccans” rather than “Muslims from a half-dozen different countries” fit Power’s desire to de-emphasize Islam as the possible prompt for such violent behavior.

“In Pakistan there is Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the attempted murderer of the schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai.”

Yes, there is indeed Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan. But why does Jonathan Power not deign to mention a single one of the many other Muslim groups located in Pakistan that are as violent, or even more so? No mention even of the much-publicized Sipah-e-sahaba, the Sunni fanatics who specialize in assassinating Shi’a professionals, and of whom Jonathan Power can scarcely be unaware. Or what about such groups as Tehreek-e-Taliban, Lashkar eJhangvi, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Harkat-ul-Muhajideen, Jihad-al-Alami, Harkat-ul-Ansar, Lahkar e-Jhabvar – and dozens of others you can find here.

And then there is Power’s treatment of political assassinations by Muslims in Pakistan. He mentions exactly one attack, that on Malala Yousefzai, which she survived. But what of all the others who were attacked for offending Muslims and did not survive? Jonathan Powers would have been more honest had he written something like this:

Attacks on “moderate” Muslims or non-Muslim leaders are frequent and often successful in Pakistan, as in many other Muslim lands. The fact that Malala Yousefzai survived the attempt to kill her should not be mistaken for a diminished threat of violence in Muslim lands against Muslims deemed too “moderate” in their treatment of non-Muslims. Think of the killing of Salman Taseer, governor of Pakistan’s Punjab region, who spoke out against the use of Muslim blasphemy laws against the country’s Christian minority, followed soon after by the killing of a Christian politician, Shahbaz Bhatti, murdered because he had supported Taseer and defended minorities. Think of Benazir Bhutto, killed by political rivals. And outside of Pakistan, think of the endemic violence in Muslim lands that political assassinations so often reflect. Leading figures in Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh, have all been killed in the last few decades.

But Power wants to reduce all that to the single story of Malala, who – inspiringly – lived to tell her tale. And thereby he minimizes both the frequency, and the severity, of that political violence.

“Murderous Bombs in Paris”

This last incomplete sentence of Jonathan Power’s first paragraph is not meant to remind us of all the other attacks in Europe by Muslim “migrants and refugees,” but rather to be mentally received as the single attack we won’t forget; we need not think about the others. It’s not the killings in Amsterdam of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, not the bombs in Madrid at the Atocha Station, not the bombs in the London Underground or the London buses, of which you are supposed to be put in mind. “Murderous Bombs in Paris” is meant only to put you in mind of one thing – “murderous bombs in Paris.”

What Power ought to have written in this last section might read something like this:

The bombs at the Bataclan nightclub, the bullets at Charlie Hebdo, the murders at the kosher market, all of these are only the latest examples of Muslim violence against Infidels in Europe. Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Brussels are other examples of that same violence directed at Infidels, whether the targets are inoffensive commuters (as at Atocha station in Madrid, or the buses and Underground in London), or individuals deemed guilty of “blasphemy” against Islam, such as moviemaker Theo van Gogh and the cartoonists of Charlie-Hebdo and Jyllands-Posten.

But for his purposes, that would never do.

Throughout this paragraph Power’s strategy is captured by the legal maxim “Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius” – the “express mention of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded as impliedly excluding others.” He mentions “ISIS in Syria and Iraq” not to “stand for” other branches of ISIS or for other Muslim terrorist groups, but to exclude those groups. He mentions “Malala Yousefzai” and “Lashkar e-Taiba” to exclude, not to include, other victims of political violence and other terrorist groups in Pakistan. He mentions “bombs in Paris”— which means the Bataclan bombing – in order to leave out the gunfire at Charlie-Hebdo and the kosher market in Paris, and all of the Muslim terror attacks everywhere else in Europe.

It is difficult to understand what impels Jonathan Power to be so heedless of reality, so intent on convincing us, as he says later in his “Is Islam Violent?” piece, that “it is true, as [Karen Armstrong] says, that the Koran is mainly an advocate of non-violence. In nearly every passage it maintains that violence should only be used in self-defence” and “overwhelmingly, Muslims are a peaceful people, less prone to war than Christians and Jews.” In the topsy-turveydom created by Jonathan Power’s imagination, you not only have to hold onto your hats, but also have to hold onto what’s in those hats – that is, as you read him you’ve got to keep your wits about you. Jonathan Power, of course, hopes you won’t. And, of course, he’s not, alas, alone.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Hugh Fitzgerald, journalistic bias, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Jonathan Powers


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jay Boo says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Peeling away the outer layers of Jonathan Power’s prize onion and reveling its rotted core.

    good job

    • Nan Barr says

      Mar 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

      Wonder how much the Saudis paid him to turn on his own people?

  2. Atheist7 says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    A Question that we desperately need an answer to: “Why is Jonathan Power defending Islam?”

    • BlueRaven says

      Mar 11, 2016 at 2:30 pm

      Money – perhaps lots of it. The piece is written by an Islamists, because the real facts Islam are sidelined or thrown over the fence. He appears to me have signed it off for a good amount.

      • Champ says

        Mar 11, 2016 at 4:00 pm

        “Money – perhaps lots of it.”

        I had the same thought …nothing else makes much sense. He wouldn’t be the first person willing to lie to make some $$.

      • Peter Charles says

        Mar 11, 2016 at 5:16 pm

        Say, has Hillary received very large sums from islamists? Why yes, she has. What do the islamists think they have bought

  3. WorkingClassPost says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    I remember back in the not so distant past, when the pro-smoking lobby refuted and disputed every bit of real and anecdotal evidence that pointed to the harm that smoking caused.

    When I was really young, even doctors kept a packet of cigarettes on their desk to hand to patients in order to ‘relax’ them.

    What seems like madness now, made much sense to those who wanted to believe, then.

    We are like the non-smokers who would’ve sat in the surgery and implored the doctor not to hand us his ciggies, and more importantly, not to damn well smoke in our presence.

    Smoke if you want, Mr. Powers, but blow the smoke up your own arse, not in my direction, please.

    • ich says

      Mar 11, 2016 at 1:44 pm

      so true WCP

  4. ICH says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    as soon as you look at him you know.
    You know he will be smug and posh and oh so better then you.

    Hes also a coward.

    I am betting people like him figure if they are on the side
    of the bad guy they themselves wont get offed.

  5. BlueRaven says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I can’t think of a reason other than he got paid a lot for not killing a single neuron for the piece he signed off – not that he appears to me have any. No good man in a sober mind could write this kind of BS. Another dangerous vile pro-ISIS moron.

    Vote Trump.

  6. Michael Copeland says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    “Violence is the heart of Islam”
    Ayatollah Yazdi

  7. BlueRaven says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    He doesn’t mention what is the cost to the Western tax payers to keep these Jihadi A&& oles off our streets. He thinks they are not killing in masses in the States at their free will.

    I remember reading a statement by the friend of the St. Bernard Jihadi shooter that there are thousand Jihadies ready to do similar terror acts.

  8. Champ says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Is islam violent? Wrong question. Ask, how many terrorists are muslim? Yep–the vast majority!

    And the quran is a manual-4-murder:

    https://youtu.be/LXBgqa-xQwY

  9. awake says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Those darned murderous bombs!

    • Champ says

      Mar 11, 2016 at 5:41 pm

      …yeah and my lying eyes!

  10. Jack Diamond says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Power’s article is stupid. Islam is not violent “because most Muslims don’t commit acts of violence” he reasons. Regardless Islam is the greatest killing machine in history, it is not violent because most Muslims don’t kill people. Ignoring how differently (measurably, in regards to violence) Muslims behave when weak or when they have the “upper hand.”

    He quotes Karen Armstrong as an authority. He says the Koran “is mainly an advocate of non-violence” and says violence “should only be in self-defense.” With one “rarely quoted” exception, verse 9:29–which he does not quote in full–that ISIS & al Qaeda use as justification, but then he feels the need to mention their “refusal to fol­low Mohammed’s demand that the defeated ­be treated well” and then the truly stupid statement: “overwhelmingly, Muslims are a peaceful p­eople, less prone to war than Christians­ and Jews.”

    This is someone who knows nothing of the phases of warfare culminating in sura nine, knows nothing of jihad and that is an obligation from Allah and that it is a permanent state of war with disbelievers only deferred by peace treaty or dhimmi pact or Muslim weakness; knows nothing of abrogation; knows nothing about what the consensus of Islamic scholars and the mainstream schools of Islamic law teach about these matters. Does it make Islam violent if verse 9:111 indicates the one guarantee of Paradise for a Muslim is through the blood of the disbelievers, killing them fighting in Allah’s Cause? What does Power make of all these commands to fight–fight as in slaughter, massacre, qital, people merely because of what they believe or don’t believe regarding Allah & Muhammad?

    What they believe, mind you, not if they attack the Muslims (self-defense). Not just 9:29 but a hundred other verses, but 9:29 is important because sura nine is the last revelation on warfare and the controlling one. It is the reason for the OFFENSIVE warfare that caused Islamic armies to leave Arabia in the first place to conquer the world for Allah. The reason for the subjugation of dhimmis and the ransom they pay for their lives. There is an entire doctrine called “hate and enmity” toward people simply for what they believe or don’t believe about Allah & Muhammad. But this couldn’t incite violence, could it? Finally, there is Muhammad presiding over the beheadings of some 800 bound helpless men and boys of the defeated Banu Qurayza, who had surrendered to him without fighting. As an example of “Muhammad’s demand that the defeated be treated well”, here he murders the defenseless men and boys, gives the girls to his men as sex slaves, sells the rest of the women and children into slavery, and exterminates the tribe. Much as defeated peoples have been treated by Islam from the fall of Constantinople to the bloodbaths in India to the Islamic State itself (hardly an exception to the rule). None of which Jonathan Power will ever mention.

    • mortimer says

      Mar 11, 2016 at 4:43 pm

      Jack Diamond just did a superb job of showing J. Power’s lack of preparation. Power’s article is based on the fallacy of confusing people with an ideology.

      The ideology of Islam retains its pristine purity, whether Muslims follow it or not.

      The pure ideology of Islam is being practiced BEST by Saudi Arabia and ISIS at the moment, ISIS being the unacknowledged bastard son of KSA.

      Islam uses capital punishment and torture more frequently than any other ideology, save Stalinism or Maoism, but the last two are not recognized ‘religions’.

      Western elitists like Power brashly present themselves as authorities on Islam, and yet, they have not read Islam’s foundational source texts: 1) Sira 2) hadiths 3) Koran 4) canonical commentaries 5) Sharia law manuals 6) modern manuals of jihad.

      Power and other elitists have not done the basic reading list to become an expert on Islam, so their claim must be dismissed as empty boastfulness.

  11. Myxlplik says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    What kind of journalist uses phrases like, “it has been claimed”? I know the kind, ancient alien theorists who quote each other to substantiate their fantastic theories.

    These “journalists” are basically all lining up to see who can do the best mental triple gainer at this point, one after the other, showing off their skills at dissimulating reality, and the further they get from it, like their ancient alien theorist cousins, the higher their score is measured versus degree of difficulty.

    • Mark Swan says

      Mar 13, 2016 at 6:57 am

      Contrarians…people disposed to taking opposite position…habitual opponents of
      accepted facts, a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid uncomfortable
      truth.

      A defense mechanisms meant to protect the psyche against mentally disturbing facts
      and ideas.

      It is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of an experience or event,
      by the person refusing to accept a verifiable reality.

      Yes that might be it…or a bad man bought and paid for.

  12. Angemon says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Superb rebuttal, Mr. Fitzgerald.

    • Mark Swan says

      Mar 13, 2016 at 6:59 am

      Absolutely

      • CeltictotheBone says

        Mar 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm

        I echo the sentiment.

  13. mortimer says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    “Islam is the most Warlike religion” – Tina Magaard, PhD, professor

    Danish researcher Tina Magaard, PhD concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’

    Mr. Power, why does the Saudi flag have a sword on it?

  14. mortimer says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    Fitzgerald wrote: “It is difficult to understand what impels Jonathan Power to be so heedless of reality, so intent on convincing us, as he says later in his “Is Islam Violent?” ”

    A modest suggestion: Jonathan Power is being bribed by some unknown entity to whitewash Islam and paper over jihad, misogyny, al Walaa wal Baraa, the kafir doctrine, the vigilantism doctrine, the revenge doctrine, and the world conquest of Islam.

    Bribery of foreign emissaries was practiced by Mohammed. Mohammed also bribed a writer to satirize his enemies…to tell coarse lies and slanders about them.

    Power is no doubt being paid to write these falsehoods.

    • Jay Boo says

      Mar 12, 2016 at 1:54 am

      mortimer
      Many commenters have jumped both feet into the bandwagon of calling his motives purely financial.

      I am not so sure money is the only motivator,
      Ben Affleck for example.

  15. Richard Paulsen says

    Mar 11, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    He writes rubbish. Never give up good writing.

  16. gravenimage says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 1:19 am

    Mr. Fitzgerald, thanks for exposing this foul apologist for savagery.

    Here’s more from the egregious Jonathan Power re Islam, from back in 2011:

    “Islam: We have nothing to fear but fear itself”

    http://www.oldsite.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2011/49.Islam.html

    Outrageously, he claims that Nigeria, Turkey, Indonesia, Tunisia and Pakistan are “fully democratic, with a free press and independent courts”.

    Further, he claims that Islam is “moving on” from violence by groups like Al Qaida. He extols the wonders of the “Arab Spring”.

    And now it is five years and tens of thousands of Jihad terror attacks later, and he is still singing the same false song. *Ugh*.

    • Mark Swan says

      Mar 14, 2016 at 4:06 am

      Any Propaganda Once it is Out there, well, it sticks in enough minds to have some effect.

  17. BC says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 5:58 am

    This is modern day journalism. they do not present factual information but only information which advances their agenda. This is illustrated perfectly by the migrant crisis. The BBC and CNN never broadcast anything detrimental to the migrants, they go out and find some well spoken young man who wants to continue his university education, or follow a nice Muslim family on their painful journey to Sweden or Germany. Never a word about what the majority of migrants are doing

    • Mark Swan says

      Mar 14, 2016 at 4:07 am

      You Got It

  18. Demsci says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Peace, I stand completely behind Hugh Fitzgerald’s excellent article. And I loathe Jonathan Power and Karen Armstrong. I am deeply influenced by Bill Warner and his shocking Islamic invasion video. I watch all episodes of real crusades.

    I used to act on all opportunities to tell or correct the world when Islam was discussed. And there was a time when on the workplace, during breaks, I discussed Islam with 2 vehement Muslims and a bunch of ignorant Westerners quite a lot. And all agreed that I had a vast amount of knowledge.

    And I (tried to) set them straight about all this violence coming out of Islam, when I heard these Muslim-colleagues promote Islam and condemn America while the ignorant Westerners had no rebuttal at all and would have swallowed all the lies of the Muslims, who themselves were heavily indoctrinated. Please keep that in mind.

    And I shall now tell my reason for condemning and loathing this whitewasher Jonathan Power:

    Downright SURREPTITIOUSLY, right from the start, he talks about “Islam”, just like his source Armstrong does en they describe it as a whole, a clear, consistent set of instructions. Just like all Muslims I ever spoke to about Islam, did, who are mandated to see Islam thus.

    And these whitewashers, in my opinion, make their propaganda so much worse, deceitful, because in their conclusion they make it look like THEIR ISLAM is the only one true Islam!

    Highly effective and hamstringing any discussion. Because the discussion now focuses only on which IS the only true Islam,

    instead of reaching agreement that at least SOME interpretations of Islam simultaneously adhered to, contradict very much the Only True Islam the apologists describe, which any rational person can see. But now these problematic interpretations of Islam can be labeled false or twisted by the likes of Armstrong and Power,

    While OTHER apologists at other times, when terrorists strike again, or when told about Bill Warners video’s etc. say that: “Islam is so divers” and that we may NOT see “extreme Islam” as THE Islam.

    The monumental deceit is in my view that if that is true, then also that “beneficial, peaceful Islam” that Armstrong and Power and Obama and Cameron are presenting is

    ALSO ONLY ONE of many possible Interpretations of Divers Islam, Just as other glib apologists triy to present the horrible Islam-interpretation of terrorists, Islamic conquerors through the ages as ONLY ONE of many possible interpretations of Islam.

    If the public was deeply imprinted with the idea that that good beneficial Islam is only ONE possible interpretation of Islam and no more! and deeply realised this then Power’s and Armstrongs influence would be much less damaging, in my opinion.

    But the media, public and politicians don’t even notice this deceit it seems to me!

  19. Florida Jim says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 10:38 am

    This fellow looks, sounds and act like an American so he should guard hios throat around any muslim they are taught at age three to slit the throats of any infidel. He may not get time to explain his position many don’t.

  20. UNCLE VLADDI says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Is this creep related to Samantha (“R2P = Right To Attack First”) Power?!

    • CeltictotheBone says

      Mar 13, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      I doubt it. He is English (although he appears to have a connection to Pakistan).

      https://www.facebook.com/jonathanpowerjournalist/.

      Samantha Power is Irish (as an Irishman I’m ashamed to admit this, although I explain her insanity to my friends as her having moved to Liberal Pennsylvania at an impressionable age).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

  21. sidney penny says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    “It’s what he leaves out that’s important.”

    Hugh Fitzgerald as is Robert Spencer keeps hitting the nail on the head.

    Yes what is left out of a book article, speech is sometimes more important than what is in it.

    That is why it is so important to hear a reply by Hugh Fitzgerald.

    I wonder what makes intelligent people like Jonathon Power, write .and deceitfully at that, this rubbish.

  22. sidney penny says

    Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    “The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history…” — So wrote Will Durant on page 459, Volume 1, of his eight volume Story of Civilization

    http://tarekfatah.com/the-muslim-conquest-of-india-from-will-durants-classic-11-volume-story-of-civilization-2/

    http://quotingislam.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/mohammedan-conquest-of-india-is.html

    Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this;

    “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture, and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”

    Koenraad Elst, the Belgian historian writes in “Negation in India”

    The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and much more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. “And so on….

    http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/

    “Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts.”

    Say what, Jonathan Power.Islam is not violent?

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on UK: Woman converts to Islam, distributes Islamic State jihad terror videos
  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.