Ahmadinejad in Ramadan speech: "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom"

I can't stop laughing, duh_swami !

Not in the Middle East, but freedom and justice, in great measure, was pioneered by various Western societies (e.g., ancient Greece, England and America) long, long before Israel was ever created.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel. Indeed, I esteem the nation. But rewriting history without facts is never a positive.

Well OK. I'll keep the day job!

I just wonder if this is not one more instance of the Koran perverting the original Christian text...
Luke 19:[35] And they brought it to Jesus, and throwing their garments on the colt they set Jesus upon it.
[36] And as he rode along, they spread their garments on the road.
[37] As he was now drawing near, at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen,
[38] saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

I suspect that Gail was thinking of ancient Israel's contribution to the West's ideas about liberty (ancient, as in Tanakh/Old Testament)--although I also believe that anyone who notes modern Israel's commitment to a multi-party republic with a wide range of human rights respected by the government is correct.

I'm not sure I recall what your earlier religious education may have been, although I am aware that now, you call yourself an agnostic. So, please bear with me if I turn into something of an on-site "Sunday School teacher".

For a couple of generations before John Locke, the Western world was full of people arguing about limits on government, especially the heirs of the Swiss-Rhenish-Puritan Reformation. Much of their 16th-17th century criticism of the then-new doctrine of royal absolutism (I refer you to J.N. Figgis' old book, _The Divine Right of Kings_) stressed the political supremacy of law over the ruler's will, to which they appealed to Deuteronomy 17:14 ff., the implied critique of the monarchs found throughout the books of Samuel and Kings, especially Samuel's warning about kings spoken to the Israelites in I Samuel 8. Further, they found the consent of the governed and a kind of representative government in David's covenanting with the elders of Israel in II Samuel5/ I Chronicles 11:3.

Indeed, the political theory of the 16th and 17th centuries was often couched in terms of an extended commentary on I Samuel 8 and Deuteronomy 17--and, in my opinion, with those who argued that the first text is a warning about monarchy (such as Rutherford, Knox, Buchanan, Ponet, Althusius, Hotman, Junius Brutus, and others) winning the debate hands down.

I don't know whether or not you are familiar with Locke's _First Treatise of Government_ (many American students of law and political theory seem more conversant with the _Second Treatise_), but in it, where Locke answers Filmer's thesis about the people being the sovereign's property, Locke argues much like the Puritans and Covenanters of his youth. For example, both he ca. 1677 (I follow Laslett's dating of Locke's _Two Treatises_) and the Scots Covenanter Rutherford in 1644 make much of how Nimrod (boo!!! hiss!!! one of the unbelievers!!!) was the first to be called a king, even though he seemed to reign while Shem, he firstborn of Noah, was apparently still alive; that dominion over the earth was given to mankind as a whole rather than strictly to a line of firstborns following Adam; and that there is no way anyone can tell who is the "legitimate heir" in those late days of the 17th century.

Further, with the prophets of Israel writing from the 8th-5th centuries B.C. and Moses going back to the Bronze Age, all well before the golden age of the Greek philosophers, the Hebrews rather than the Hellenes were the people who, in God's providence, injected that surprising self-critical streak into the Western mind.

I'm aware that many heirs of the Continental Enlightenment from Voltaire and others down to Marx have called abject submission to authority "the" Christian position in politics, citing Paul's words in Romans 13. Yet they forget that Paul belonged to a college of men (the apostles) who famously said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), and that many saw Paul himself setting up a system of church polity among his converts which included the laity having a choice in who leads, and plural leadership.

Granted, the position of rulers in the Lutheran and counter-Reformation lands lends some credence to the continental enlightenment's critique. But, against this, let's not forget Calvin's holding that a mixture of Democracy and Aristocracy (sound familiar, O readers of the US Constitution?) is the best form of government.

These are reasons why the Scottish political scientist Antony Black has written about a "republican" strain in Christianity which he notes in the Calvinists and traces back to Cyprian of Carthage in the 3d century. I'd quibble with Black only in pushing this "republican" strain back to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments themselves.

Hence, Uncle Kepha would not criticize Gail Duituturga's post about Israel's role in nurturing Western liberty. I strongly suspect that she was thinking about what the Old Testament bequeathed to the West.

For the record, while Uncle Kepha believes that the "chosen people" are those gathered about the feet of Messiah Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, rather than those connected to a strip of Middle Eastern real estate,and does not own either the new or old Scofield Reference Bible, he is also a supporter of the modern state of Israel.

While I'm at it, I see Ahmadinejad's noises as more than a little disgusting.

I'm not sure it's necessary to do more with Iran that send them a modest reminder through third parties that a fair amount of the world lies under the American nuclear umbrella, and that should he, his regime, or proxies launch a nuclear attack, he can expect 20-30 of Iran's most important strategic and populous centers to go up in nuclear smoke within 24 hours--and that if we so desire, we can drop something right down that well in Mashad where the 12th Imam is supposedly hiding.

Gerard: This is interesting, but you are probably right. Mohammed heard stuff from the scriptures and stole a few lines that he liked the sound of. He was more interested in the poetry. As Samuel L. Jackson claims in Pulp Fiction - He just wanted some scary shit that sounded good and that's why he quoted a verse from the Bible.
Mohammed had the same idea but didn't know what he was doing. We can all do it, if we want to.

Here's my attempt:

And the day will come when the stones in the ground will shake and huge famine will hit the land, and the Lord will sayeth, "behold, for the land is mine and the Palestinians will be destroyed like the grape withers on the vine, and the Iranian regime will be struck down by the four winds of the Earth, and then they shall know that my word is everlasting."

The false Prophet Mohammed had the same idea, he had heard a few Biblical quotes here and there, then he made up his own crap. He then had the cheek to claim that the Koran was a miracle and that there was no book better. What a complete prick!

You remarked: "It always amazes me how Muslims fail to understand the words 'justice' and 'freedom'."

It's simple.

In Islamspeak, 'justice' = Sharia (or, 'in compliance with Sharia'), and only that which is sharia-compliant is 'just'.

In Islamspeak, 'freedom' = Mohammedan Alpha Males rule the world and everyone else is under their boot and their whip.

I suspect that Gail was thinking of ancient Israel's contribution to the West's ideas about liberty (ancient, as in Tanakh/Old Testament)--although I also believe that anyone who notes modern Israel's commitment to a multi-party republic with a wide range of human rights respected by the government is correct.

I'm not sure I recall what your earlier religious education may have been, although I am aware that now, you call yourself an agnostic. So, please bear with me if I turn into something of an on-site "Sunday School teacher".

For a couple of generations before John Locke, the Western world was full of people arguing about limits on government, especially the heirs of the Swiss-Rhenish-Puritan Reformation. Much of their 16th-17th century criticism of the then-new doctrine of royal absolutism (I refer you to J.N. Figgis' old book, _The Divine Right of Kings_) stressed the political supremacy of law over the ruler's will, to which they appealed to Deuteronomy 17:14 ff., the implied critique of the monarchs found throughout the books of Samuel and Kings, especially Samuel's warning about kings spoken to the Israelites in I Samuel 8. Further, they found the consent of the governed and a kind of representative government in David's covenanting with the elders of Israel in II Samuel5/ I Chronicles 11:3.

Indeed, the political theory of the 16th and 17th centuries was often couched in terms of an extended commentary on I Samuel 8 and Deuteronomy 17--and, in my opinion, with those who argued that the first text is a warning about monarchy (such as Rutherford, Knox, Buchanan, Ponet, Althusius, Hotman, Junius Brutus, and others) winning the debate hands down.

I don't know whether or not you are familiar with Locke's _First Treatise of Government_ (many American students of law and political theory seem more conversant with the _Second Treatise_), but in it, where Locke answers Filmer's thesis about the people being the sovereign's property, Locke argues much like the Puritans and Covenanters of his youth. For example, both he ca. 1677 (I follow Laslett's dating of Locke's _Two Treatises_) and the Scots Covenanter Rutherford in 1644 make much of how Nimrod (boo!!! hiss!!! one of the unbelievers!!!) was the first to be called a king, even though he seemed to reign while Shem, he firstborn of Noah, was apparently still alive; that dominion over the earth was given to mankind as a whole rather than strictly to a line of firstborns following Adam; and that there is no way anyone can tell who is the "legitimate heir" in those late days of the 17th century.

Further, with the prophets of Israel writing from the 8th-5th centuries B.C. and Moses going back to the Bronze Age, all well before the golden age of the Greek philosophers, the Hebrews rather than the Hellenes were the people who, in God's providence, injected that surprising self-critical streak into the Western mind.

I'm aware that many heirs of the Continental Enlightenment from Voltaire and others down to Marx have called abject submission to authority "the" Christian position in politics, citing Paul's words in Romans 13. Yet they forget that Paul belonged to a college of men (the apostles) who famously said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), and that many saw Paul himself setting up a system of church polity among his converts which included the laity having a choice in who leads, and plural leadership.

Granted, the position of rulers in the Lutheran and counter-Reformation lands lends some credence to the continental enlightenment's critique. But, against this, let's not forget Calvin's holding that a mixture of Democracy and Aristocracy (sound familiar, O readers of the US Constitution?) is the best form of government.

These are reasons why the Scottish political scientist Antony Black has written about a "republican" strain in Christianity which he notes in the Calvinists and traces back to Cyprian of Carthage in the 3d century. I'd quibble with Black only in pushing this "republican" strain back to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments themselves.

Hence, Uncle Kepha would not criticize Gail Duituturga's post about Israel's role in nurturing Western liberty. I strongly suspect that she was thinking about what the Old Testament bequeathed to the West.

For the record, while Uncle Kepha believes that the "chosen people" are those gathered about the feet of Messiah Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, rather than those connected to a strip of Middle Eastern real estate,and does not own either the new or old Scofield Reference Bible, he is also a supporter of the modern state of Israel.

I daresay that you may have a point about the Qur'an corrupting the biblical text.

As for duh-swami's comments, I can also think of Abel's blood crying out from the ground against Cain (Gn. 4), the mountains skipping like rams (Ps. 114), and some sad and abject saint with one foot in Arabia and the other in Armenia (Meshech and Kedar--Ps. 120). I know I'm supposed to take the Bible "literally" (would Clarence Darrow and your young High School teacher who was oh-so-glad to finally be out from under the parental thumb lie to you?), but I don't think the Almighty, Blessed be He, needs my permission to use an idiom or metaphor once in a while.

Getting back to the hash the Qur'an and Hadith make of biblical material, it probably all goes back to Muhammad hearing various things, whether actually Scripture or folklore, rather than reading them, and assuming that if he hears it from a Jew, its from the Torah; and if he hears it from a Christian, it's from the Gospel. And let's not forget Muhammad throwing in a generous amount of the older Meccan paganism!

[Sorry, Robert, but with all due respect--and you are someone whom I respect much--I still think there actually was a 7th century Arab named Muhammad who thought he was a prophet].

Kepha

Here's an article that you may have read, for I have linked it a number of times before.

It chimes rather well with Tom Cahill's useful book "The Gifts of the Jews" (which though I don't agree with all of his readings, does I think *get* the fundamental strangeness of the Hebrew scriptures, the consistency with which, rather than being able to be 'derived' from pagan Egyptian worldview or pagan Mesopotamian worldview, they are written *against* those worldviews...which to my mind is a great argument in favour of their more-than-merely-human origin...).

It's Joshua Berman, a Jewish writer, discussing the Sinai Covenant...which might just as aptly be called 'the Sinai Revolution'.

With YHWH the architect of the Revolution...

Joshua A Berman: in Azure, online, Summer 5766/ 2006.
http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=131

"God’s Alliance With Man”.

Both Berman and Cahill are developing the insight that one also sees in a couple of brilliant paragraphs in Auerbach's 'Mimesis', where he contrasts the representation of people in a pagan Greek text like Homer's Odyssey, with the representations one encounters in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Gospels, arguing that the underlying paradigm is radically different; or in the Jewish writer Franz Rosenzweig in his 'Star of Redemption'.

(By the way, Rosenzweig placed Christianity and Judaism together, over against all non-biblical belief systems/ philosophies, among which nonbiblical belief systems he classified Islam, calling Islam a species of paganism - though *I* would argue that Islam is not so much 'nonbiblical' like, say, the belief systems of the native Americans or native Australians or Polynesians that developed in unawareness of the biblical stories but, rather, consciously and actively 'ANTIbiblical', because it is well aware of the biblical teachings about God and man and sets out to turn them inside out and upside down and back to front, in what I am inclined to call diabolic reversal. Something like the Ramayana is *separate* from the Bible; the Quran is parasitical upon *and* indeed a 'foe-fic' upon the Bible [ask your students what 'foe-fic' is]).

A sophisticated response as ususal, Kepha. My compliments.

I did consider that "gail" meant ancient Israel, though this was amibiguous, but even if she did I concluded that requiring Hebrew monarchs et al. to observe some higher law still did not equal what the ancient Greeks pioneered. Not even remotely. In short, I have to give the nod, big time, to Solon and Cleisthenes over Solomon and Samuel.

For me, true freedom, a real love of liberty, begins with the Greeks, not the Jews, though I fully acknowledge that the ancient Hebrews took a step in the right direction and, more impressively, established a major intellecutal cornerstone in the construction of Western Civilization. Contra the Muslims, eh?

Always good to read your enlightend posts. And, for the record, I was raised Catholic and, though now a pagan, am not adverse to being described as a devout ex-Catholic. For me, Catholicism will always have a soft spot in my heart and Christianity will always be considered by me to be a far superior religion to Islam. Take care, my friend.

In light of what I have just said: read Psalm 82 and then read Psalm 83.

I think that Psalm 83 follows logically from what YHWH is described as doing in Psalm 82.

The last three or so articles, and others, remind of the repetiveness of some of hussein's talking points, except for the overt anti-semite aspect, given that hussein hasn't quite gotten there, yet, I think. Although he did say rather publicly, how troubled he was to work daily with "Bini". Hmmmmm. The ramadan's must be brushing up on their politicing speechmaking, maybe they visited the WH before ramadan to brush up on how you do it, hammering the talking points, that is, with one of the WH friendlies. I mean, really, would they go to "Bini" for brush up political advice? Nah.....

Yes gerard, you're right, and mo ham mad was to his death a very angry, mad, man, clearly to those of us not brainwashed as an islam, and thusly, who can see reality. The "mad" part is rather prominent, one who specializes in language characteristics no doubt would have some interesting explanation, I'm sure. No doubt has something to do with arabic, ha. Al, la, and mad seem to top off the language, all right, and a bit of achh, ka, and ba, too. Well, so much for this scholarly dissertation, or likely, a soliloquy, on comparative language, ha.

mo was mad as a pack of apes, in both meanings of the term. Guess I'll keep my day job too.

"Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom"

It always amazes me how Muslims fail to understand the words 'justice' and 'freedom'."

It is us who are making the grave mistake of assuming that the Islamic definition of "justice" and "freedom" are in any way, shape or form even remotely resemble our concept of "justice" and "freedom".

Ours is based on the assumption that humans have personal, and unalienable rights, regardless of whether they believe in ANY religion or not.

For Islam; ONLY GOD's laws are valid. The only justice accepted as such is based on Islamic law. "Freedom" is only that which is permissible under Islamic law.

Islam = absolute submission to the will of Allah = slave.
Slaves can't have "freedom".

Imagine if any of us went around saying: The Latvians are the cause of all the problems in the world. You would soon find yourself locked up in a secure psychiatric institute. And yet these MADmen who see a Jew behind every tree are given space in the Media and on the political world-scene!!!

gerard, the analogy is both stark, and illuminating of the issue, indeed. Valid and excellent. It leaves one with an even greater sense of disaster, for those of us who so well know the basis of these MADmen, know how truly psychopathic they really are, and those of us (in my case have witnessed how progressive, unprincipled, and even unschooled many in the MSM media are, by and large, which yields up a hapless feeling) well tired of the long decades of failure of the msm media. That the UN is taken over by the oic, gives voice to the madmen on that global platform. Kofi Anan of UN fame, finally got his fill today, he met his limit with reality, of the madness.

So long as there are the Robert Spencer’s, the Gerard’s, the Kepha’s, the Wellington’s, the Cornelius’s, DDA, Pat Condel, and so many other well spoken, studied, and scholarly individuals and contributors from around the globe, the apostates, the many individuals who are trying to reach the brainwashed on a person to person basis, religiously and otherwise peacefully, often at their life's risk, and all contributing a continuum of intelligence and logic and reasoning for the brainwashed to have a chance to grasp, then there is hope, to turn this disaster in the world around.

Let it be understood very well, all contributors have a stunning variety of personal journeys in belief systems. From no beliefs, to minority or major legitimate religious beliefs. Reality, is recognized by each, of the sickness and destructive behavior and demands of islam, which stand out so starkly, and uniquely, against the backdrop of the history of civilization's progress.

That a gang such as this islam can exist, be suckered out to so many, even though a vast minority, for so long, and be so glaringly wrong to exist, reflects the madness in the design of the evolution of the human mind. Such realities define the mission.

Wellington, what about ancient Israel?

Oops, I see that you already responded to Kepha on the Israel question...

Oops, I see that you already responded to Kepha on the Israel question...

Oops, I see that you already responded to Kepha on the Israel question...

Dave, as Search4Truth explained above, the Muslim's definitions of freedom and justice are different than what we in the West believe them to be.

As for the phrase "to rout the epitome of the Zionist hegemony,..." being changed to "...the annihilation of the Zionist regime...", they basically mean the same thing as the Iranians DO want to 'rout' them out in a war and fulfill Mohammad's dearest desire, to kill all the Jews. Your point is moot. (I've been waiting years for a chance to use that phrase in context :-D )

You're a clown Dave! And a sucker for Islam's slippery use of language. Lissen up!

Ahmadinajihad said: "[Ahmadinejad] noted that people around the world have the right to enjoy justice, respect and freedom with no discrimination and exception, urging all freedom-seeking and justice-seeking nations to adopt a measure to rout the epitome of the Zionist hegemony, with the final purpose of establishing justice and freedom across the globe."

'Justice' in Islam-speak means the justice dished out by Sharia. There is none other. 'Freedom' means a time to come when there are no religions competing with Islam. In other words, it's 'game over' for all other religions on Earth - including Judaism!
He repeats these words in a final sentence that speaks about 'routing' - meaning total defeat - of so-called Zionist hegemony - 'rule'.

Now, Dave, what does Ahmadinajihad have in mind if there are no other religions on Earth, except Islam, and Sharia has been installed globally? Quite frankly, it means there is no Dar al-Harb, the Jews have been murdered to the last man, woman and child, as per Al Qur'an, and the land of Israel no longer exists.

You'd have to be a pretty stupid clown not to see that!

"So long as there are the Robert Spencer’s, the Kepha’s, the Wellington’s, the Cornelius’s, DDA, Pat Condel,and others" (and TJFREEDOMJIHAD)...
I just watched Robert on Michael Coren's show. I felt very encouraged. We have the best people on our side!!
Deo gratias.

Gerard, I think our old friend Dave 742 is not a muslim--but even worse--a muslim apologist! He likes to drop in from time to time and tell us how we have it ALL so WRONG.
How the "Palestinians" are so innocent and persecuted and Spencer is a bigot and we're clueless "islamophobes," etc, etc. And, as an added bonus, he'll tell you (with a straight face, no less) what REALLY happened on 9/11--that it was an "inside job" and those 19 muslims were FRAMED!
Which is why I think of him as "Truther Dave." Did I mention that he seems to have "Loonwatch" connections? Quite a resume'!

I think Dave has gotten a little punchy from all the times he's been slapped around here. But ya' gotta' give him credit--he keeps coming back for more!

George, I'm sorry to have only repeated what you said. I didn't see your post. I ought to have written faster and looked more carefully before clicked "Publish." My apologies to gerard and everyone else.

Classicus, I'm glad you posted--you provided some background that I'd forgotten. Now that you mention it though...I DO recall that bit about his wife-swapping. I recall finding it odd at the time, that this is something about which one would boast.
In any case, I think we've given Gerard an accurate description of our old "friend" Dave. And, you hit the nail squarely with, "A vehement critic of the United States." So, no apologies required and thanks!

G

Not that short-lived, Kepha. From Solon to the end of the Peloponnesian War was close to 200 years (with Peisistratus's tyranny and that of his sons being in there). Also, Athens (and other cities) continued the experiment at the local level into the fourth century and beyond. And yes, many intellectuals like Plato and Aristotle did not like the experiment in maximum freedom but, bottom line here, the ancient Greeks invented democracy. No one else can make this claim. And this was a stupendous achievement by arguably the single most creative people in all of history.

//Got called out on the Bicycle Thread//
What in God's name are you talking about?

Hey, 'dave' ! If you'd wanted to be 'Andy', you need to start using proper quotation marks, instead of your silly forward slashes. But actually, your sneering, and condescending 'style' would mark you anyway. Oh, and you're a rubbish writer, as well.

Did the ancient Greeks invent democracy? There are dribs and drabs of cuneiform evidence that the ancient Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians) also had something like it before dominant cities like Nineveh and Babylon created empires. The ancient Teutons seem to have developed something like it independently of Greek influence; and, in Iceland, at least, kept it better than most of the rest of us.

Actually, it seems that various kinds of consensual government arose and "worked" from time to time in many places in the Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and European worlds. I suspect that such things are "workable" in small states--and our founding fathers often wondered if their Constitution could really work in a continental federation.

OT, but I've been reading Natan Scharansky's _The Case for Democracy_. The former Soviet dissident (now an Israeli), argues that democracy can work anywhere, including the Islamic world. I'd like to believe he's right, but I'm not sure I can.

Elements of democracy, which would include different types of tribal or community talk sessions, should be distinguished from the full democratic experiment. I would vigorously argue that the ancient Greeks, and specfically the Athenians, are the inventors of the real deal here.

Didn't know about Schranansky believing that democracy can work anywhere. Thanks for that. He's ordinarily such a realist but not this time. I certainly don't think it could ever work in Islamic societies unless Islam were left just a shell of what it is, and even then I'd be dubious. Might as well argue that democracy can work within a Communist or fascist system. Totalitarian ideologies are antithetical to true democratic principles. I do not see how the two can ever be reconciled.