• 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

Confucius rebukes Obama

Jun 15, 2016 10:29 am By Robert Spencer

confucius

The Chinese sage has something to say to Obama about this story.

“Obama slams Trump over Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam,’” CNN Wire, June 14, 2016:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday unleashed a blistering verbal assault on Donald Trump and his proposal for a ban on Muslims entering the country, saying the suggestion violates the principles of American democracy and dismissing the “yapping” from “politicians who tweet.”

Obama also angrily pushed back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling it “loose talk.”

“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?” Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. “Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?” he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.

“Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

“The men and women who put their lives at risk and the Special Forces I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria — they know full well who the enemy is,” Obama said. “So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spent countless hours disrupting plots. And protecting all Americans, including politicians who tweet, and appear on cable news shows. They know what the nature of the enemy is. So there’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point.”

Obama added, “This is a political distraction.”

Here is an answer to Obama from Confucius:

Zilu said, “If the ruler of Wei were to entrust you with governance of his state, what would be your first priority?”

The Master said, “Most certainly, it would be to rectify names.”

Zilu said, “Is that so? How strange of you! How would this set things right?”

The Master said, “What a boor you are, Yóu! A junzi keeps silent about things he doesn’t understand. If names are not right then speech does not accord with things; if speech is not in accord with things, then affairs cannot be successful; when affairs are not successful, li and music do not flourish; when li and music do not flourish, then sanctions and punishments miss their mark; when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet. Therefore, when a junzi gives things names, they may be properly spoken of, and what is said may be properly enacted. With regard to speech, the junzi permits no carelessness.” — Analects of Confucius 13:3

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: Barack Obama, Featured, willful ignorance Tagged With: Confucius


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. marc says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:37 am

    If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.
    Sun Tzu

    • American Pragmatism says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 10:40 am

      That is a good quote too. Trump should use some of these. I did however appreciate Trump’s claim that Obama was more upset with Trump than the Orlando shooter.

      • mortimer says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 10:59 am

        -It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle. – Sun Tzu

        Obama loses almost every time in foreign policy. Why?

        • Jim says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 8:38 am

          Mortimer, I highly respect your words and have for many years! However, it is far past time for any to speak of obama in but one way. He is a traitor! He, and Jarret, and Brennan, and so many others he has with him are conspiring against this country, against the foundations of this great country–namely Christianity. He has not ‘lost’ in foreign policy–he has won! His objective is to defeat America–to let islam(piss be on it!) rule. God has told us how to defeat this evil. It is in Ephesians, 6:10-19. We must have a man who knows God and who knows the evil words of islam stand up before obama and confront him, attack him with the words of truth, so the world will see who he is. Then he must be ‘impeached’ and his motley crew removed in disgrace, even expelled to live in a desert hell hole! Please God let it be so!

      • blitz2b says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 12:21 pm

        Is there some way that Trump was sent this quote? This is exactly what potus odumbo needs shoved up his wazoo to shut his flapping trap for good.
        If somebody can send this page to the Trump campaign it would be awesome.

    • Nigel GFF says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 4:39 pm

      Taxonomy is wonderful.

  2. American Pragmatism says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Very true. I point that out too but with a smaller quotation. “The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper name.”

    Why should Obama lying to us about an enemy he says we don’t have, about their jihad he says isn’t real affect us?

    It’s not just bad governance it’s knowingly lying to prevent demands that could keep the USA safer.

    The fact he keeps knocking guns and speech means those are the effective weapons against jihad. We need to have a free press and a well armed populace.

    • mortimer says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 11:00 am

      AP wrote: “knowingly lying”

      That is the most offensive thing about Obama and Cameron…the constant lying about the true nature of totalitarian Islam.

    • Keys says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 11:45 am

      Well said, AP, and insightful, especially your last paragraph.

      “The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper name.”
      And what shall we call Islam? Evil.

    • Carolyne says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm

      I believe that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the Second Amendment because they knew there was a danger of a renegade government installing itself and usurping the power given to the people. In my opinion, this is why the New World Order people are so upset that many of us are armed. They don’t really know where the guns are but I suspect many of us have guns that we have had so long that they are recorded nowhere with the government.

      If things continue as they are, I would expect an armed insurrection against repressive government. And, much to the dismay of those who wish to install Islam, we are armed.

  3. William says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:42 am

    Wise words from Confucius and ones we should heed.

    Meantime, did you know the petulant, thin-skinned, half-breed bastard has not called the governor of Florida? Imagine that! The worst mass shooting in US history and the President of the United States doesn’t have the decency to call the governor of the State that has been impacted by a grievous act, after which the governor requested the declaration of a state of emergency.

    • gravenimage says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 10:17 pm

      No surprise there…

    • Carolyne says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm

      Obama is in FL now to speak to the families of those killed and wounded in Orlando. If I were a family member, I would turn my back on him and stay that way during his entire visit. If I were to see him anywhere, I would turn my back. I do not wish to defile my eyes with Muslim trash.

  4. rachel says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:42 am

    Another link to response to obama’s petulant rant.
    https://youtu.be/XXm0Xwts19A

  5. Richard says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Obama – “What exactly would using this language [calling Islamic terrorists, Islamic Terrorists] accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

    It would accomplish the acknowledgement that Islam is the problem. That the ideology of Islam is the problem and allow the discussion and countering of the ideology openly, in public and countering it in our media and schools.

    Right now the ideology of Islam gets an apology after every heinous massacre carried out under its name, by its directives and inspired by its ideology, instead of being exposed for the evil that it is. It is treated as sacrosanct, above criticism.

    • Face_The_Truth says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 11:59 am

      Of course, the names or words change the whole meaning of the ideology of Islam to all Western people — who are unaware of Islamic Trojan Horses — by identifying the devil within.

      Ideology of Islam is presented by British and American governments as a benign subject matter!

      Once government officials start routinely naming names, many ordinary folks will ask questions such as if the ideology of Islam is so great, how come Muslims are committing so many terror-attacks on non-Muslims?

      Then, the deck of cards will start falling apart and the ideology of Islam will be eradicated from the West, which British and American governments do not want to happen.

    • Ted Tyler says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      Richard. You have just given an accurate definition of the problem.

      And now we have another possible Slogan for a T-Shirt!:
      “The Problem is the Ideology” possibly to go with “It’s the Ideology, Stupid”.

      • Richard says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm

        “The Problem is the Ideology” possibly to go with “It’s the Ideology, Stupid” are both terrific catchphrases and true. But they leave out Islam.
        Would “It’s the Islamic ideology, Stupid” or “The Problem is the Islamic Ideology” or “The Problem is the Ideology of Islam” be too long?

        • Ted Tyler says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 12:48 pm

          Yes, the Tee shirt might say “The problem is the Islamic Ideology”. Long, but not too long, but it is a statement that gives the answer. If your shirt says “The problem is the ideology”, then that should create the logical question: What Ideology?? Hum. On second thought, I may be asking too much from the reader of the Tee shirt.

        • WorkingClassPost says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm

          Why not keep it really short;-

          Stupid islam

        • Ted Tyler says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 7:06 pm

          For a short slogan, you might say “Islam is Evil” but you cannot say “Stupid Islam”. That is simply not true. Islam may well be the most brilliant system of enslavement and conquest that has ever been devised by man. It effectively combines a religious system with a political system. The religious portion effectively induces extensive brain damage by repetition of prayer five times as day. Islam reduces women to possessions and their only use is to provide pleasure for the men and to produce many children to be further indoctrinated in Islam – thus spreading the disease. All criticism of Islam is met with swift and effective punishment. Free speech is not allowed. Then one moves to the political aspects of Islam. The holy texts of Islam provide a blueprint for the conquest of the non-believer – by hook or by crook – by aggressive military conquest when you are strong or by subversion and treachery when you are weak. So Islam is not “Stupid”. Islam is a powerful enemy and must be recognized as such.

        • Richard says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 8:40 pm

          “Islam Kills”?

        • Alain B says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 12:39 am

          The T-shirt should be double sided, with the front saying “the problem is not terror”, and the back ” It’s Islamic Ideology” with a picture of Old Mo with a bomb in his turban.

      • Carolyne says

        Jun 16, 2016 at 2:07 pm

        How about, “It’s Islam, stupid!?”

  6. Jay Boo says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:48 am

    America forget Orlando
    America forget the link to ISLAM

    Gun Control needed as solution
    Because of attack on black church, a school, and a movie theater. which Oh by the way did I happen to mention by non-Muslims.

    Obama deliberately omitted workplace Christmas party in his list.
    I have not heard of even one MSM calling him out on that.

  7. dragaozao says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:51 am

    And by not using that language what has he achieved? He received a dangerous world from Geroge W. Bush. He’s going to live a world even in worst conditions. And… that’s ok?

    • Vyx says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 1:26 pm

      Obama asked for the job.

      He ASKED to receive this dangerous world from GWB.

      Not like he didn’t know what he was getting into.

  8. citycat says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Someone has hit the mark, judging the angry response of Obama.

    • Abu Nudnik says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 11:08 am

      Yes. What do they say about taking flak? You’re over the target.

      • citycat says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 12:56 pm

        Yes, and it comes often from some stitched up, spurious one-sided morality, like found in gang warfare.

  9. Atilla says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 10:56 am

    The list of treason charges against the Izslimanian candidate is getting longer

  10. Diane Harvey says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:00 am

    The bitch is really coming out of the One now.

    The more he wades into the campaign for Hillary, done only to “preserve” his miserable and treasonous record, the more he’s gonna get beaten around the ears.

    Even Muhammad Ali knew the significance of calling things by their rightful names.

    Ali v. Terrell, 1967,

    “From the eighth round on, Terrell was virtually helpless,” Hauser wrote in his book. “And from that point on, Ali taunted him mercilessly. Time and again, he shouted, ‘What’s my name,’ and followed with a burst of blows to Terrell’s eyes. ‘Uncle Tom! What’s my name! Uncle Tom! What’s my name!’ ”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ernie-terrell-boxer-who-lost-to-a-taunting-muhammad-ali-in-1967-dies-at-75/2014/12/20/0bafab34-86d0-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html

  11. Abu Nudnik says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:04 am

    You say ISIL, I say ISIL. Most have called the whole thing off and settled with IS. But Obama always plays politics. “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” includes Israel, and Obama never tires of delegitimizing that State.

    • Face_The_Truth says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 12:08 pm

      Some say, A$$HOLE.

  12. Aron says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:06 am

    This is one of Robert Spencer’s greatest Retorts.

  13. mortimer says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Mr. Obama, “If names are not right then speech does not accord with things.”

  14. mortimer says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:11 am

    ‘Radical Islam’ is the correct name. ‘Militant Islam’ is a good name. ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ is an appropriate name.

    • Alain B says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 12:59 am

      I beg to differ, but I think the appropriate name for it would be or should be, literal Islam, which is exactly the kind of Islam IS is dishing out. It’s all spelled out in black and white. You must understand that when one studies the Qu’ran by heart through repetitive reading of it, in a language one does not understand, it leaves no room for understanding what one is reading, which in turn results in a literal application of the Qu’ran.

    • Cecilia Ellis says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 1:25 am

      Mort, why is just plain “Islam” not the correct name? ISIS does not refer to itself as the Radical Islamic State or as the Militant Islamic State. The Qur’an does not suggest those options are appropriate, as any deviation from, as Alain states below –literal Islam — canonical Islam would render that practice heretical.

    • Celtic says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 2:29 am

      @Mortimer

      “Radical Islam’ is the correct name. ‘Militant Islam’ is a good name. ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ is an appropriate name.”

      I disagree. The correct Name is orthodox Islam or simply Islam.

    • Carolyne says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 2:09 pm

      Just plain “Islam” is a better name.

      • Ted Tyler says

        Jun 16, 2016 at 5:24 pm

        How about: “Radical Islam is True Islam!”

    • Noel says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 10:44 pm

      I got this from a clever person posting on you-tube:

      There are three kinds of Muslims:

      1) The Muslim who lives in an Islamic dominated society, who is Muslim because to be otherwise would mean certain death.

      2) The western world Muslim who wanted to be a part of something and so became Muslim but has no clue what Islam really teaches.

      3) The ACTUAL Muslims who spend their lives subjugating or attempting to subjugate others because they understand that this is exactly what Muhammad taught.

      It was posted under the video Three Questions for Moderate Muslims (David Wood)
      https://youtu.be/lpR0qbt41es

  15. Don McKellar says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:16 am

    Obama, simply by referring to the Islamic State or ISIS by the term ISIL, gives away the whole game of his agenda on the matter.

    He views the Islamic State as encompassing a much large area than just Iraq and Syria as in the term Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but rather as Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL). The Levant historically is an enormous area which engulfs part of North Africa, Israel, and a further sweep north west. Obama’s actions in the service of ISIL have enabled this larger sweep as best he can. Here’s a Wikipedia of the Levant. The Islamic State and Obama of course consider the Levant to the the entire area covered by all the shades of green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant

  16. WorkingClassPost says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:23 am

    If what it’s called doesn’t matter, then why is he so all fired up about it?

  17. William says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Here’s something else Confucius said concerning governing well:

    “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.

    “If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by
    the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and
    moreover will become good.”

    • WorkingClassPost says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 5:36 pm

      That Confucius was one clever sob.

      • linnte says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 11:25 pm

        He was, Working Class! A mind right up there with Aristotle and others of ancient thought.

        • WorkingClassPost says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 5:51 am

          Yup, and I’d say there are a few around these parts who are not so far behind.

  18. common sense says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:35 am

    A samurai lord set up a test for his 3 sons: An expensive vase on the top of the entry way set to fall when each son was summoned one at a time. Based on a true story from the “Unfettered Mind” by Takuan Soho. ( I believe, it may also be in “Hagakure” by Yamamoto Tsunetomo)

    The eldest son when summoned walks in the vase falls and breaks the eldest son does nothing and is sent away.
    The 2nd born son walks in see’s the vase falling, draws his sword and cuts the vase destroying it. He is sent away.
    The 3rd born son walks in see’s the vase falling, catches it, inspects it and with great respect presents the vase to his Father.

    The two eldest sons are deemed ignorant and reckless and are sent away to live in the village while the 3rd son remains to inherit his fathers estate and business affairs.

    We all know who Obama is and its great to see Trump dance on him even if Trump does not become POTUS.

    • linnte says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 11:37 pm

      Great story. Thanks and I agree about Trump! But let’s hope he does her elected.

  19. dts says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 11:52 am

    I see Robert Spencer and his ilk as the gas-line inspectors that tell me (after having been assured otherwise, for years – assured that the fault is with my perceptions) that the gas-lights really ARE flickering and even show me the leak in the valve that causes it – to finish the metaphor. Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for such an elegantly apt rebuttal here, and for your tireless work in general.

  20. Islamorefugee says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Americans are now paying the price of their indifference , or ignorance,if you please . What kind of political maturity it is not to be able to know a person thoroughly before handing over your hard earned Republic and to serve as it’s Supreme Commander at the time of adversity ?? What people knew about him ?? How accurate was the knowledge ?? How.competent was he for the responsibility ? After all ,the presidency of the USA was adorned by the likes of George Washington ..Abraham Lincoln .. Does this man qualify by those standards.???
    This man now bows before the Soudi king . He made the whole America bow before the king. That too with a submissive body language. Those who love the great Republic was far from being happy. After all, the Arabs could never be able to find and take out the oil that was there under their feet. It was only due to the British American effort that the nomadic and quarreling Arab tribes are well fed for the last few decades.
    We must not forget that the man has his middle name ‘ HUSSEIN’.
    A dangerous thing indeed for those who know.
    Conclusions : Complacent and indifferent Americans have to face this ‘Trojan Horse ‘ of islam on their own land.
    Long Live America.
    On God we trust.

  21. Angemon says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    My favourite Confucious quote is “man who run behind car will get exhausted but man who runs in front of car will get tired” 😉

    Seriously though, I think Obama and the rest of the pack refuse to call things by their names because they operate on a logic where words magically influence the world. Ban people from saying “nigger” and racism will magically disappear (as for why “cracker” isn’t banned is beyond me). Ban people from saying “faggot” and homophobia disappears. Don’t call islamic state “islamic state” and presto!, muslim “radicalization” magically stops happening.

    • Bezelel says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 10:35 pm

      Man who eats jelly beans farts in technicolor.

      • linnte says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 11:38 pm

        Hahahahahahaha! So That’s why my ex was a rainbow toting fart machine! Hahahaha!

        • Bezelel says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 4:21 pm

          Speechless, but laughing very hard.

  22. warren raymond says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    Some more Confucius:

    If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

  23. Guest says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    I think that means political correctness is wrong. If so I agree with Confucius.

  24. Ren says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    Americans can not tolerate 4 more years of Dumbama administration. It’s gonna be catastrophic!

    • Carolyne says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 2:22 pm

      Yes, if Hillary Clinton wins, it will be catastrophic. She will have the power to appoint at least one and maybe four members of the Supreme Court. They will be leftist, New World Order justices who will do away with the First and Second Amendments and we will be forbidden to criticize Islam. She attended a UN meeting in Istanbul when SOS on that very subject.

      We will lose the right to “Bear arms.” One of the aims of the NWO is to disarm Americans so we will have no means to resist the hordes of Jihadis she means to bring into this country.

      She is on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and Qattar. Bought and paid for. She is not pro-women, pro-gay, or pro anything which will interrupt her plans for the complete destruction of our country as we know it. I am so tired of seeing her nod her head, agreeing with herself that “That is not who we are.” That is exactly who we are, Mrs. Clinton, and we will not bow down to your masters, even if you do.

  25. Schrödinger says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    The US Stealth Jihadist in Chief’s insufferable pretence (fully permitted in islam – refer to Sura 16:106 and the many related Hadith & Tafsir) suffices to continue fooling far too many, despite Obama repeatedly confirming his true fealty and submission to “allah”.

    No loyal slave is ever unfaithful to their master.

    The United States must understand it’s not merely at a crossroads but the brink of a precipice. Trump may not be a perfect candidate — there’s no such thing — but politics means choosing the better option. Thank your Stars and Stripes; if you prefer, thank God there’s a choice for President who is prepared to begin doing what must be done regarding muslims and islam, and to set about repairing the damage wrought these last eight years. As Trump has said, you won’t continue to have a country otherwise.

    Should US citizens instead make the catastrophic mistake of permitting Hillary Hijra Clinton get anywhere near the White House ever again, rather than ensure she find herself somewhere appropriate (preferably a Federal prison, washing dishes) things will continue deteriorating to the extent this once great nation will likely be beyond salvation — along with the rest of the free world.

  26. Champ says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    One

    Big

    Ass

    Mistake

    America

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    TRUMP 2016!

    • Keys says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm

      Good one, Champ. How about adding a first name:

      Bad
      Ass
      Ruining
      America
      Know-It-All

  27. underbed cat says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    I would have missed another episode of listening to Obama explain his mindset and lecture some guy, about using the correct words. that are only found in Ism…had I not received a phone call. He was quite concerned about the backlash that may occur…maybe he is concerned with the word radical, so if this word was dropped nothing would change. Just the position of the adjective.

    • underbed cat says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 9:45 pm

      Sorry maybe that did not make sense…adherent ism is what we see each time there is a attack. muslims have to remain silent about the violence or face it themselves..some follow doctrine the rest support it by money, silence and preparing people with misinformation so they will be able to sneak under the moral code of most religions and get a pass…so maybe Ob is the man with the passes that says it is just radical ism…

  28. WakeUpCall says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    From The Art of War, By Sun Tzu
    1. Defeat evil ideology and win the hearts of the people is the key to winning the war against Islamic terrorism

    Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country
    whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an
    army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to
    destroy them.

    2. Win the heart of people, otherwise Islam will win it and the consequence is dire.
    Sun Tzu said: “The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”

  29. isntlam says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    “…when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet.”

    “And when the people have no place to set their hands and feet, uh, I don’t know what comes then,” said the Master.

  30. Bridgette says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    If you knowingly don’t call things by it’s proper name then you are knowingly responsible for their deaths as well.

  31. WorkingClassPost says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    Zen says that the greatest prophecy does not come true, because the people listen, and avoid catastrophe.

  32. eduardo odraude says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Brilliant multicultural retort to Obama by Robert Spencer. Brilliant statement by Confucius.

    (Normally, I’m not much of a Confucius fan, as I suspect he is one of the main forces that keep China a closed, undemocratic society.)

    • Soh says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 8:28 pm

      It has been like this for millennia. Confucius is certainly no proponent for free speech or freedom of expression. You might recall a story in the Analects where he ordered performing midgets to be beheaded as that performance was unbecoming of a very sacred and important gathering of the leaders of the various Chinese kingdoms. He is more concerned about *proper* speech and *proper* expression or propriety in short.

      I don’t know what you mean by closed or undemocratic since it has an open economy and holds elections at her grassroots though it doesn’t elect its leaders directly so I am assuming that China doesn’t conform to your political ideals. My only retort is that this hasn’t stopped China from running a civilisation and empire that has weathered the ravages of time and neither is it an impediment to its power and clout now.

      • Andrew says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 9:34 pm

        Well there is something akin to democracy in Confucianism, called the Mandate of Heaven, which makes itself known through the feelings of the people, and comes into play in emergency situations (and is arguably used to lend legitimacy to the overthrow of rulers).

        I would think however that the current situation in China is not really to do with Confucianism – remember that the Communist party tried to stamp out Confucianism in the early days as it saw it as an enemy to progress.

      • eduardo odraude says

        Jun 15, 2016 at 9:40 pm

        Soh,
        There is no freedom of speech or freedom of religion in China. The leaders of the society cannot be freely chosen by the people. If you say the wrong thing, you go to jail.

        Without intellectual and spiritual freedom, you have a closed society. Intellectual and spiritual freedom are essential to a healthy and sane social order, at least today, in the modern world. Intellectual and spiritual freedom are the only means by which the evolving collective wisdom of a people can exist, instead of the peculiar blindness of a narrow group in power.

        One of my prayers is for real Chinese democracy in the near future, together with freedom of the press.

        I don’t only criticize Chinese government. I have problems with the US government, though they are different problems.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 9:44 pm

          Soh, an addendum: you say China has survived for millennia and its closed nature does not hinder its power and clout. You are wrong on the second point. China as a democracy would be tremendously more powerful than it is now, both culturally and economically. Further, do you really think that “power and clout” is all that is needed for a society to be healthy? No. Intellectual and spiritual freedom is an essential part of what it means for all of us to reach for our most basic humanity. Without that freedom, we are blind, we cannot know our inner selves properly nor the outer world properly.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 9:50 pm

          One final addendum: democracies throughout history have either never or almost never made war on each other. Democracy is the only kind of government of which that can be said. It seems to follow with iron logic that if you are against war, you must be for democracy, at least when it can be achieved successfully and peacefully — and I don’t mean local democracy only, in a system where people cannot criticize the top leadership or speak freely.

        • Soh says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 10:58 pm

          No, no. You claim that China is closed and is not a democracy. I am arguing that it technically isn’t because it has a globalised economy and its citizens work in places all around the world (You should try speaking to them if you think they are brainwashed and slavishly toe the line of the Communist Party). And it is a technically a democracy because it holds elections. What you mean by closed and non-democratic is something else altogether, a political ideal that never has taken root in China.

          Except perhaps for that period after the fall of the Qing Dynasty post 1912 where it adopted a Western style government which did nothing to stop China from sliding into fractional infighting and warlordism. History is not on your side when you make that assertion of China being more powerful if it is ‘democratic’.

          Ironically, it is under a despotic and centralised government, imperial, communist or otherwise when China prospered. You might think that having power and clout is not important, but it is certainly is at the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century when it was invaded by the West and Japan. Who now wants to invade China? You speak of intellectual and spiritual freedom, but how can that be achieved if you don’t have security and stability. You might not like how Imperial China and Communist China do things but they have provided that.

          The point I am making is, you dislike how things are run in China. I am saying that this is how things have always been. You needn’t worry about world adopting China’s model though. Unlike Islam and the Soviet Union, I think the Chinese government is more concerned about maintaining that empire rather than to spread their model of government.

        • Soh says

          Jun 15, 2016 at 11:11 pm

          Apologies for going off topic. You might have guessed that I am of Chinese heritage. I feel apprehension at your suggestion that China ought to follow your prescription because it is a different country run by different rules. China has experimented with a Western style government only to lead to disastrous results.

          I might agree that Confucius doesn’t support the freedom of speech especially if it means saying things with scant regard of the circumstances. He supports proper speech. Personally, I think that is reasonable.

          I wonder if you support the freedom of a radical Islamic cleric on issues like jihad and sharia? Robert Spencer rightly calls for mosques to be monitored but that will certainly infringe on the freedom of religion and of course the freedom of speech. Not unreasonable to throw him to jail as well too for inciting people to commit violence.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 1:40 am

          Soh,

          I am not under any illusion that Chinese citizens are entirely brainwashed — I believe many of them know exactly the situation. I realize that the Chinese economy is in many ways capitalist now and Chinese business people are all over the world.

          I believe your view is the traditional one in China — you think stability is more important than freedom. Your view is not exactly wrong — but the assumptions underlying your view are wrong. Why? Because with every decade that passes, perhaps even with every year, we will learn increasingly that stability that fails to integrate freedom will become increasingly unstable.

          I partly agree with your view about democracy, partly I would differ with you. I agree that the transition from one party dictatorship to democracy, depending on how it happens, could bring chaos rather than democracy. So it is very reasonable to be cautious about that.

          I disagree that one-party dictatorship is more stable than an established democracy. The Far East has shown that its peoples can have great stability once democracy is well-established. Japan is a good example. South Korea and Taiwan are also increasingly good examples of how strong, prosperous, and stable democracy can be in the Far East.

          If China could find its way peacefully to democracy, it would soon develop the political, economic, and cultural power of perhaps ten Japans. China would become the most powerful nation in the world. I believe Japanese democracy is more stable than China’s one-party dictatorship, because the Japanese government is there by the will of the Japanese people. The same for South Korea.

          In China, those who want a different government are mostly forced into silence, so what we hear is mainly support for the Chinese government, and thus you think that you can claim that the current one-party Chinese government is what most Chinese truly want. That claim would be proven very quickly wrong if you had really free elections at the national level. Such elections would prove that, given a real choice, if they could have that choice peacefully and without chaos, the Chinese people would rid themselves of a one-party state the first chance they got. The risky part is not democracy, but the transition to democracy.

          I don’t say China ought to carelessly move toward democracy. But I hope that they can find a careful way to get there. I hope for changes of a different sort in the US. I don’t think China or any other nation should become a clone of the US. But having democracy does not mean becoming anyone’s clone.

          When you ask me if I support the freedom of a radical Islamic cleric on issues like jihad and sharia, I believe your question is confused. Radical Islamic clerics’ speech should only be suppressed if it calls for violent overthrow of the existing order, or for other violent attacks. If Muslims only wanted to use non-violent persuasion, I would see no problem. The problem is that the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira propose to violently establish an expansionist, totalitarian system. They are not mainly about non-violent persuasion, but the very opposite.

          You are mistaken if you have somehow gotten the impression that freedom of religion and freedom of speech means the right to call for violent attacks on people minding their own affairs. If one criminal starts urging another criminal to murder someone or invade his house, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

          I hope you are right when you suggest that Chinese culture does not incline the Chinese to try to take over the whole world. I believe you might be partly correct on that.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 2:10 am

          Soh, Addendum: as to your view that it is “reasonable” to limit speech to “proper” speech, well, that is a formula for intellectual slavery, and I don’t find it reasonable at all, but rather a case of not thinking things through all the way to the end.

          Who decides what is “proper”? That will be the people in power. And what happens when someone sees corruption among the authorities? The authorities decide that it is “improper” to point out what they are doing wrong. I would go so far as to say that your hope of effectively approaching the Tao is greatly diminished without freedom of speech. But perhaps the Tao — or anything like the Tao — means nothing to you.

          Without true freedom of speech — which, let’s be clear, does not include freedom to tell people to murder or to commit violent crimes — you doom yourself to cultural sleep, to having your mind managed by authorities. Good luck with that. What does it mean about us when we have lost the ability to care about the freedom of our own minds! It is almost as if someone were to say to a group of people who have their arms tied behind their backs, “hello, let’s untie your arms, so you can have full use of your limbs.” Then the rulers of that group of people step forward and say, “no, no, that would be improper. We don’t want your so-called freedom.” The mind – and the interaction of minds — depends every bit as much on freedom of movement as do the limbs — the only difference is that anyone can see the limbs of the body — but the limbs of the mind are invisible, so it is possible to not realize the importance of the freedom of intellectual movement.

          I prefer the thinking of the dissident Chinese physicist Fang Lizhi.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/asia/fang-lizhi-chinese-physicist-and-dissident-dies-at-76.html?_r=0

        • Soh says

          Jun 16, 2016 at 6:40 am

          I hope others wouldn’t mind this digression. I enjoy an argument and it appears that you do as well.

          I am afraid your assertions about stability, from which I gather that centralised rule is ultimately unsustainable, are based on a lack of understanding of Chinese history and society. Centralised despotic rule is the norm rather than the exception for much of China’s history. People may or may not support one party rule but I am not arguing that one party rule is popular or what the Chinese people want. I am arguing that one party rule be it by the Imperial Court, by Nationalist or the Communist Party, is the norm and history has demonstrated that it produces stability that enables China to make the progress she has enjoyed for past 3 decades. It has dominated East Asia in the past under despotic imperial rule as evidenced by how Chinese culture greatly influences Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese culture so I am not buying the argument that adopting a Western style government would lead it to be even more powerful.

          So bringing the examples of South Korea and Japan is irrelevant since their histories and societies are different and they resemble nation states rather than an ancient empire. Though you may remember that tremendous economic progress took place in both Taiwan and South Korea under martial law in the 70s and 80s. (And I am sorry, as a person who follows Taiwan politics, I have to snigger at the thought of Taiwan being a stable democracy but that is another story)

          You should visit Mainland China if you have a chance. It is not regimented like Mao’s China or North Korea where people are confined to work units. Many of her cities are comparable to other cities around the world. Fang mentioned about basic human rights including the freedom to be educated and the freedom to be married. I am quite certain that this is practised in China. So asserting that there is absolutely no freedom in Mainland China is an ignorant remark. Do you really think that a country that puts a straitjacket on how people should think and behave produce cities like these?

          Just to clarify, it is my belief that Confucius is no advocate for the freedom of speech. From my studies of Confucianism, Confucius is an advocate for propriety and that places limits on what you can say and do Confucius’s political idol is Duke Zhou who laid the foundations of Chinese culture and customs that we know of today. From Confucius’s standpoint I believe the source of propriety, established traditions and customs.

          I deem it not proper to hurl insult and abuse for no good reason, I deem it not proper to preach the killing of the infidels and so on. Are you suggesting that I am intellectually enslaved? I maintain and agree with Confucius that placing limits on speech and expression is reasonable.

          By saying that some forms of speech is not protected by the First Amendment and that freedom of speech does not include incitement to violence you are admitting that there are limits! (If you ask me, the First Amendment only applies to passing of Bills and what the government can or cannot do. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion since we are not talking about what the government can or cannot do.)

          (You also have to understand that “Tao” means different things in different schools of thought. Approach a follower of Confucius and he might deem “Tao” is to return to the social order that Duke Zhou espouses. Approach a Taoist on what “Tao” is and he will give you a different answer. “Tao” really means the way to go. So what do you mean by “Tao”?)

    • gravenimage says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 11:46 pm

      One need not be an unreserved fan of someone to quote them when they are right.

      I very much doubt that the freedom-loving Robert Spencer agrees with all of Confusious’s views–nor is this implying that he does.

  33. eduardo odraude says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    If things are not called by their right names, we are gradually blinded and will all fall into a ditch.

  34. jewdog says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    They are silent because they don’t understand, and then they make excuses for their ignorance.

  35. Wellington says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    The wisdom of Confucius will be lost on Obama. Much is lost on Obama. Much.

    • Keys says

      Jun 15, 2016 at 10:33 pm

      Obama is lost; much lost, the worst kind of lost because he doesn’t know it.
      A blind guide; a dangerous man.

  36. Soh says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Yóu, (由) who was described by Confucius as a boor, is the given name of Zilu (子路). Zilu is his courtesy name, if anyone is interested in the quote.

  37. gravenimage says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    Confucius rebukes Obama
    ………………..

    Confucius was very wise. If you do not call things by their right names, you cannot hope to understand them. If you do not call your enemies by their right names and name their tactics and their goals, you cannot hope to consistently defend against them.

    That is, in fact, exactly what the doctrine of Taqiyya is intended to do–to confuse those Islam targets, and to lull them into a false sense of security the easier to victimize them.

    • MaryC says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 10:15 pm

      gravenimage,

      Brilliant! As irony would have it, my Concealed Carry Weapon instructor was saying almost the exact same thing earlier today about your typical gangbanger accosting one on the street. He said their intent is to rob you or maybe just go on a power trip. They’ll say odd things to put you off balance and the weaker your response, the more they will try to take from you. I brought up multiple scenarios, probing to find out how much/what to say before taking one’s gun out. Finally he told me to look up “use of force chart” on the Internet. Obama is trying to fool us into thinking if we’re just nice to them, they’ll be nice to us when in fact he knows full well that if we’re nice to them they will take it as a sign of weakness, all the easier to victimize us, just as you said.

      • MaryC says

        Jun 16, 2016 at 10:30 pm

        I meant to add: Donald Trump gets all this to a ‘T’; it really ticks Obama off that Donald is waking the American people up and showing them just what a quisling Obama is. What really ticks me off is the “That’s not who we are” language. It makes me want to shout, “That’s not who you elites in your gated communities are. For those of us who are much more vulnerable, it is EXACTLY who we are, and there is no lack of virtue in it.” It disgusts me far more to hear “That’s not who we are” from Paul Ryan than it does to hear it from Hillary Clinton. The betrayal is far worse coming from Ryan.

  38. Andrew says

    Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    I’m doing a PhD in Confucianism – and this is part of a movement in Confucianism called the Rectification of Names.

    The idea of Rectification of Names isn’t just that things should be called things by their proper names – that’s trivial. Instead Rectification of Names is also that people ought to start behaving in a way that corresponds to their roles – or else be called something else.

    And so a father should behave like a father if he wants to be called a father. A son should behave like a son if he wants to be called a son. The prince should behave like a ruler if he wants to be called a ruler.

    To bring it back to the discussion here then, Rectification of Names would therefore mean that if a leader really wants to be called a leader, they should step up and exercise real leadership – or instead be called a grovelling servant from now on. 😉

    • WorkingClassPost says

      Jun 16, 2016 at 6:53 am

      Looks like bamo has chosen the latter.

  39. eduardo odraude says

    Jun 16, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    Yes Soh, you are correct, I do, sometimes, enjoy an argument:

    You said

    I am afraid your assertions about stability, from which I gather that centralised rule is ultimately unsustainable, are based on a lack of understanding of Chinese history and society. Centralised despotic rule is the norm rather than the exception for much of China’s history.

    Granted, but it is risky to stick with tradition and the norm too rigidly in a world where norms have been shattered with ever greater rapidity over the last two centuries. Are you sure what has served China during thousands of years when human history everywhere moved very slowly will continue to serve in a world changing ever more rapidly?

    People may or may not support one party rule but I am not arguing that one party rule is popular or what the Chinese people want. I am arguing that one party rule be it by the Imperial Court, by Nationalist or the Communist Party, is the norm and history has demonstrated that it produces stability that enables China to make the progress she has enjoyed for past 3 decades. It has dominated East Asia in the past under despotic imperial rule as evidenced by how Chinese culture greatly influences Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese culture so I am not buying the argument that adopting a Western style government would lead it to be even more powerful.

    I don’t think these old divisions between “Western” and “Eastern” are particularly useful. “Eurasia,” is a single continent. Europe is essentially an Asian peninsula. Ultimately the West was born out of the East, is a child of the East. Democracy is not essentially “Western,” even if it was born in the West. Many things were born in the West that the East would never want to do without. We will have to agree to disagree about whether China would be more powerful if it could peacefully attain democracy. I believe the three main domains of social life — economy, culture, and polity — would all tend to become far more powerful, creative, and stable.

    So bringing the examples of South Korea and Japan is irrelevant since their histories and societies are different and they resemble nation states rather than an ancient empire. Though you may remember that tremendous economic progress took place in both Taiwan and South Korea under martial law in the 70s and 80s.

    I agree that capitalism under authoritarian governments can temporarily lead to great economic progress.

    (And I am sorry, as a person who follows Taiwan politics, I have to snigger at the thought of Taiwan being a stable democracy but that is another story)

    Depends what you mean by stable democracy. To my knowledge, Taiwan has enjoyed many peaceful democratic transfers of power. Since the transition to democracy there have been no violent coups. If to you “instability” means that different parties struggle to win elections, and different parties take turns ruling, well, that’s called multi-party democracy. The only thing that makes for instability in Taiwan is the threat from China to invade and take over.

    You should visit Mainland China if you have a chance. It is not regimented like Mao’s China or North Korea where people are confined to work units. Many of her cities are comparable to other cities around the world.

    I am fully aware that China is nothing like North Korea or Mao’s China. I am fully aware that many Chinese cities are technologically advanced places. Compared to how things used to be in China, the place is much freer than it was. I am also aware that the internet is censored in many ways, newspapers are controlled in many ways, religion is controlled in many ways.

    Fang mentioned about basic human rights including the freedom to be educated and the freedom to be married. I am quite certain that this is practised in China. So asserting that there is absolutely no freedom in Mainland China is an ignorant remark.

    That is called attacking a strawman. I never said “there is absolutely no freedom in China.” I never even said “there is no freedom in China.”

    Do you really think that a country that puts a straitjacket on how people should think and behave produce cities like these?

    It depends how tight the straitjacket is. Obviously China must have some significant freedoms to produce the kind of economic growth we have seen there. The straitjacket in China has more to do with aspects of politics, philosophy, and religion, and those three forms of censorship, put together, have serious harmful effects on China, and even in some ways on economic life. I wonder what you think of Gordon Chang’s view (he’s with the Wall Street Journal) of the direction of the Chinese economy?

    Just to clarify, it is my belief that Confucius is no advocate for the freedom of speech. From my studies of Confucianism, Confucius is an advocate for propriety and that places limits on what you can say and do Confucius’s political idol is Duke Zhou who laid the foundations of Chinese culture and customs that we know of today. From Confucius’s standpoint I believe the source of propriety, established traditions and customs.

    I deem it not proper to hurl insult and abuse for no good reason, I deem it not proper to preach the killing of the infidels and so on. Are you suggesting that I am intellectually enslaved? I maintain and agree with Confucius that placing limits on speech and expression is reasonable.

    The question is, what limits? I say the only limits should be on provoking violence. Discussing politics, peacefully protesting the actions of rulers, criticizing the rulers in the news, should be legal. The problem with making “insult” illegal, is that what one person considers “offensive,” another person considers true. Those in power can say “you have no good reason” and then throw in jail anyone who criticizes. Soh, the best answer to bad speech is more speech and counterspeech, not jails.

    By saying that some forms of speech is not protected by the First Amendment and that freedom of speech does not include incitement to violence you are admitting that there are limits!

    Yes, freedom of speech should permit criticism of rulers and peaceful protest, and peaceful public arguments for different forms of government. Freedom of speech obviously does not mean criminals should be allowed to tell other criminals to go out and kill people.

    (If you ask me, the First Amendment only applies to passing of Bills and what the government can or cannot do. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion since we are not talking about what the government can or cannot do.)

    First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    I don’t know about you, but I absolutely am talking about what the government can and cannot do.

    (You also have to understand that “Tao” means different things in different schools of thought. Approach a follower of Confucius and he might deem “Tao” is to return to the social order that Duke Zhou espouses. Approach a Taoist on what “Tao” is and he will give you a different answer. “Tao” really means the way to go. So what do you mean by “Tao”?)

    Yes, I am quite aware from my own studies and discussions with Chinese friends that the meaning of Tao is something of a mystery. I used the term to indicate precisely that — some spiritual something that lives — and because it lives, can only be accessed by collective efforts in freedom. Perhaps the Tao appears in the Bible, where it is said that “the spirit blows where it lists, and no one knows from where it comes or wither it goes.” Alternatively, perhaps Christ was the Tao come to earth for a time. In any event, my point was that the Tao, the spirit, whatever it is, requires freedom.

    Soh, thank you very much for stimulating discussion.

  40. Shan Lim says

    Jun 16, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    The word “junzi” is a transliteration of the Chinese character word 君子. Sometimes it is translated into English as a noble man, a gentleman or a superior man. It’s close but not quite. The word 君子 has a deeper meaning that includes the idea of a well cultivated person.

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

  • Mojdeh on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Henry Mansfield on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Crusades Were Right on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Naildriver on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Crusades Were Right on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’

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.