| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
No, no, not this guy
Here I go again, answering a critic. And every time I do this, some of you mugs write in below, saying, "Who is this cheesehead, anyway? Why are you wasting our valuable time making us read you arguing with him?" Well, I'll have you know that the critic in question this time is none other than Bob Crane himself, star of the beloved 1960s sitcom Hogan's Heroes, and -- what's that? It's not that Bob Crane? He's...dead? Foul play? Scandal? Oh...dear.
In reality, the author of "The Mission of Imams in America: Marginalizing Extremists by Revealing the Real Truth About Muhammad" in The American Muslim is Robert D. Crane, former Nixon aide, former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.A.E., former Principal Economic and Budget Adviser to the Finance Minister of Bahrain, and present-day Islamic activist. Well, all that sounds important enough, doesn't it? I mean, a Nixon aide. Who knows? Maybe it was old Bob Crane who whispered into his ear, "Now tell them, 'I am not a crook!'" -- or maybe it was Bob behind the deathless classic "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore!" We could be on the threshhold of history here!
Okay. Seriously, now, I am having a bit of fun with Bob, but in reality, I am answering this for the same reason why I answer everyone, even raving, spitting, blinkered, self-deluded types and their cleverer, slyly disingenuous friends. The point in all such cases has nothing to do either with me or with the identity or importance of the critic. The counterjihad, the resistance to Islamic supremacism, is much larger than any personality. I post these things as a pedagogical exercise. There is every possibility that you may find yourself confronted by the same arguments I deal with in this or that reply to this or that individual, be he a frothing-at-the-mouth repo man or a friend and advisor to Presidents and Emirs. Perhaps you will find my responses helpful. Forget about the people involved and concentrate on the issues, will ya?
All right. Now that that is out of the way, let me say that in reality Bob Crane has done me a great service, for which I offer him a hearty "Ho-gaaaannnn!!" (Okay, okay, I know it's not that one, already.) Lots of people have dismissed my book The Truth About Muhammad, but almost no one has even attempted to deal substantively with what it says -- and one of the few who did was the severely truth-challenged Karen Armstrong. But here ol' Bob dives right in -- to be sure, with somewhat Nixonian candor, and in the same spirit that led his old boss to devise his Enemies List -- but nonetheless, dive in he does.
My talk today, a first draft of which is available on the tables at the entrance and will be available edited post-conference on line at http://www.theamericanmuslim.org, addresses the professional hatemongering best illustrated by the New York Times bestselling polemicist, Robert Spencer, in his popular book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.This book is significant partly because it bases all its perversions of the Qur’an on statements by Muslims. This is designed to show that Muslims themselves properly interpret Islam as inherently terroristic and as a threat to America and to all traditional American values....
Bob veers close to the truth here -- my book is indeed made up of "statements by Muslims." How this amounts to "professional hatemongering" is unclear. I have never figured out how it can be hatemongering just to quote someone, but Bob seems to have it all figured out. Maybe it's something he picked up over in Bahrain:
The favorite tool of political movements is to adopt an enemy to demonize. The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism. Islam is demonized by interpreting the Qur’an and ahadith as the source of Muslim extremism and therefore as the ultimate cause of terrorism throughout the world.
Wait a minute, Bob. If I quote Muslims using the Qur'an and ahadith to justify violence, how does it qualify as hatemongering and demonizing? I'm just reporting on what's in the Islamic texts and how Muslims use them. If I were inventing quotations, or inventing interpretations of them, you might have a case. But you already acknowledged that I based everything on "statements by Muslims." So...shouldn't you be directing your energies toward disabusing your fellow Muslims of these ideas, rather than demonizing me for drawing attention to the use Muslims make of certain Islamic texts? (And I do mean demonizing -- read on.)
Of course, what Bob means is that I take the jihadists' "hijacked" Islam for the real thing:
There have always been extremists among Muslims who pervert the Qur’an in their efforts to hi-jack their own religion, just as extremists among Christians and members of other faiths have often done so in the past and continue to do so even today.
This, however, is false. As I have said many times, there is no "true Islam." But jihadists make recruits by presenting their Islam as the true Islam, and by pointing out chapter and verse of the Qur'an, as well as the example of Muhammad and the rulings of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. For peaceful Muslims to stop this from being a successful appeal, they have to confront it. Bob thinks so too, but he contends (in the face of quite a bit of evidence) that the original Islam and the example of Muhammad do not actually contain anything the jihadists can use:
This attack on Islam from within can be countered only when the imams assert their right and responsibility to bring their knowledge of classical Islam to bear in countering and marginalizing Muslim extremists. As I have been preaching for decades, Muslims must revive the classical teachings of the great Islamic scholars, almost all of whom have been imprisoned by one tyrant or another for trying to maintain the purity of Islam as revealed by Allah and taught by the words and actions of his prophet, Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam. Only Muslims can do this. Among Muslims only the most courageous can do so, because the extremists have tried to terrorize all Muslims who disagree with them. And among the courageous we must begin to rely on the imams among us, whose calling is to preserve the purity of the traditionalist teachings of all the world religions....
Crane attempts to establish this in discussing my alleged "lies":
For short-run impact, however, it would be useful to expose Spencer’s demonic lies directly and in detail. For this purpose, I have been asked to write a book for this express purpose. Exposing Spencer’s bias is very simple, because one needs merely show that in every case he quotes only Muslim extremists and ignores untold centuries of mainline scholars who taught the exact opposite of what he contrives to be the message of Islam. His bias is embarrassingly evident throughout the book. For example, he questions whether the Medina constitution calling for protection of the Jews ever existed, but he has little doubt that the story about the massacre of the treasonous Jewish Qurayzah tribe is true. He dismisses the scholarly investigation by W. N. Arafat reported in a lengthy article in 1976 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, which concludes that the alleged massacre never happened. Spencer attacks Arafat by ridiculing one of his arguments, namely, that such a massacre would violate Islamic law. Since Spencer’s whole purpose is to brand Islam as terroristic, he dismisses every scholarly analysis that would undermine his diabolical strategy.
"Diabolical strategy"! (Hey Bob: Boo!) I stand by my points here. No reference to the Medina constitution is made in any of Muhammad's subsequent dealings with the Jewish tribes with whom it was supposed to have been made. That's rather like there being no mention of the U.S. Constitution in American history after 1789. The Qurayzah massacre has a much greater attestation in the early Islamic sources, and I stand by my view that W. N. Arafat's saying it couldn't have happened because it would have violated Islamic law is both silly and anachronistic. Islamic law was in its earliest stages at that time, and in any case human beings don't always act reliably according to how the laws on the books say they should act. Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature realizes this. Crane might have discussed the merits of that argument, but with Nixonian Enemies List gusto, he instead dismisses me as "diabolical." And he has more in that line coming, too.
Today, I have time only to touch on one example of Spencer’s apparently deliberate distortion both of the Qur’an and of the character of the Prophet Muhammad, salah Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam. This is Spencer’s treatment of the Battle of Badr and the several revelations from Allah that came immediately afterwards. These set forth the guidelines for all subsequent scholarship on human rights in Islam. Spencer distorts all these revelations in an effort not merely to counter them but to reverse their meaning. According to the ahadith on the Messiah al Dajjal, known in Christianity as the Anti-Christ, such reversal of truth and falsehood is the definition of evil....
Good words to keep in mind as we read more of what Bob has to say, and see how much truth and how much falsehood is in what he says. He continues with a long disquisition on defensive jihad, which is generally accurate as far as it goes, and then:
Spencer starts his commentary on the Battle of Badr by asserting, “Allah told Muhammad’s followers to fight fiercely and behead their enemies.” Spencer, incidentally, uses the term Allah rather than God in order to show that Allah is a false god who incites all manner of crimes.
What I actually wrote was this: "I have in all cases referred to the deity of Islam as 'Allah,' while the English translation of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad refers to the same deity as 'God' – as I’ll illustrate in my quotations from that biography in this book. Of course, the word 'Allah' does not belong exclusively to Islam; it predates Islam, and Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use the word Allah for God. The Qur’an, of course, claims that the deity of Jews and Christians is the same as that of the Muslims (29:46). However, since traditional Islam rejects such Christian doctrines as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and others, and classifies Judaism along with Christianity as a renegade perversion of Islam, it seems prudent to me, as well as to many English-speaking Muslims, to continue to use the Arabic word 'Allah' to refer to the Islamic deity in English. I hope that this will not cause further confusion." (Page 17)
Do you think Crane's is a fair and accurate summation of that? Neither do I.
The issue here concerns Surah al Anfal 8:12-13, which uses the phrase “smite above their necks.” Spencer says that this provides the basis for the practice of beheading hostages and prisoners, when in fact this phrase in classical Arabic calls merely for unconditional surrender.
Classical Arabic, English, French, Swahili, you name it, and I expect that "smite above their necks" means something a trifle closer to beheading than just "unconditional surrender." I don't recall there being any "smiting above the necks" of the Confederate forces of Robert E. Lee after he surrendered unconditionally to General Grant. Also, Bob has to deal with the fact that the late Zarqawi himself, as I point out on pages 108 and 109 of the Muhammad book, invoked Muhammad's behavior after the Battle of Badr, when he ordered some prisoners beheaded, to justify his beheading of Nick Berg. So here again, this isn't the demonic Spencer misinterpreting the Qur'an, this is a jihad terrorist misinterpreting the Qur'an, and me reporting on it all. Crane's quarrel should properly be with those Muslims who agree with Zarqawi. If he can convince them all that 8:12 refers only to unconditional surrender, not beheading, I for one would be delighted.
Spencer then uses Surah al Anfal 8:1 and 8:41 to claim that the early Muslims were greedy bandits interested only in booty. In fact, these two ayat were revealed to command that booty captured from the enemy should not be an object of individual greed, as was common at the time in Arabia (Surah al Anfal 8:41). For this reason the sole authority on disposing of the booty was to be the Prophet Muhammad, who was directed to distribute a fifth for the common good as determined by the government, “for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer.”
Stonewall 'em, stonewall 'em all, eh, Bob? In fact I never say that "the early Muslims were greedy bandits interested only in booty." I do record disputes over booty that arose after Badr, which are recorded by Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq -- a pious Muslim. Is Crane saying that those disputes didn't happen? Then he needs to take issue with every Islamic historian who has ever relied on Ibn Ishaq as a source, not just with me. But I won't be holding my breath.
The third revelation, in 8:67, is interpreted by Spencer, on pages 110-111 of his book, to call for the killing of prisoners of war in order to promote the religion of Islam. In fact, 8:67 merely forbids the taking of captives in peacetime, that is, except after a legitimate defensive jihad on behalf of justice and freedom. This was designed to forbid the taking of slaves as an object of warfare and, in effect, at the time was designed eventually to eliminate slavery altogether. And even those POWs taken in legitimate warfare, according to the previous surah (47:4), must be freed after the war is over.
Crane's interpretation may be true, but I didn't invent mine. Here again, I just record Ibn Ishaq's interpretation of 8:67. You can find it on pages 326 and 327 of the Oxford edition of the Sirat Rasul Allah, The Life of Muhammad. But about the fact that Muslims have viewed the Qur'an this way, Crane is stonewalling again, as any good Nixonian would.
Spencer discusses the ahadith that describe a dispute between the men who became the first two political successors of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar, over what to do with the prisoners taken at the Battle of Badr. ‘Umar ibn al Khattab argued that they should all be killed in revenge. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, argued that they should be released in return for ransom, because such an act of mercy might induce them to appreciate the truth of Islam. This dispute was settled by another revelation, Surah al Anfal 8:68, which has been interpreted by most of the classical scholars as a warning that the taking of booty is legitimate but the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin and warranted a “tremendous chastisement.” Spencer uses these ahadith to show the opposite.
I do, eh? I made it all up, I suppose? Here's what Ibn Ishaq says about this incident, quoting and interpreting Qur'an 8:67: "God said, 'It is not for any prophet,' i.e. before thee [Muhammad], 'to take prisoners' from his enemies 'until he has made slaughter in the earth,' i.e. slaughtered his enemies until he drives them from the land. 'You desire the lure of this world,' i.e. its goods, the ransom of the captives. 'But God desires the next world,' i.e., their killing them to manifest the religion which He wishes to manifest..." (Pages 326-327).
"Killing them to manifest the religion which He wishes to manifest." Does that sound like "the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin" to you? "I am not a crook," hey, Bob?
Another revelation cited in connection with Badr is Surah al Nisa’a 4:91, which reads, “But if they do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them, for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]”This command follows a series of revelations that urge Muslims to seek peace in every way and to make war only after exhausting all means to peace. Spencer perverts every one of these revelations. In his chapter, entitled “War is Deceit,” he argues that they call for the exact opposite of what they clearly mean. In Surah al Anfal 8:58, the Muslims are warned against treachery, whether committed by themselves or by others: “If you have reason to fear treachery from people [with whom you have a covenant], cast it back at them in an equitable manner (sawaa’wink”. The classical scholars interpret this to mean that one should not attack without warning, but announce beforehand that the treaty is no longer binding....
In other words, tell those with whom you are breaking a treaty that you're breaking it. Gee, I feel so bad for making this sound as if it's something negative!
Anyway, Bob goes on to purvey some great steaming piles of careful Islamic analysis on the order of what has gone before, but I think you get the idea. And here's the conclusion:
The major challenge to Muslims today does not come from people like Robert Spencer, who come from the fringes of society, but from all those Muslims who are afraid to speak out against Muslim extremists....
of course, Bob. I'm just a fringe element. Sure. Unfortunately for you, the elements of Islamic tradition about which I have reported in my books aren't going to go away no matter how much you vilify me and call me demonic. And you're doing less than nothing about this -- in fact, you're abetting it by purveying your inaccuracies about the Qur'an and Muhammad instead of confronting what's there and formulating some positive way to deal with it.
But of course, I'm hopeless:
We must do this not only to educate people like Robert Spencer, who no doubt are hopeless. Much more importantly, we must speak out in order to inspire the youth, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to recognize the power of Islam to change persons and to focus attention on the possibilities and responsibilities to promote compassionate justice as the only road to peace and indeed for the survival of civilization.
I don't think you're hopeless, Bob. Dum spiro spero. I don't think you've been quite as forthcoming as you might have been, but if you're willing to deal honestly with the points I've raised here, so am I -- unless, of course, you're afraid to discuss matters with a demonic, funny looking Jewish Jesuit. And I expect that you are.
Posted by Robert at June 26, 2007 5:00 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
You are a very patient man Mr Spencer.
Posted by: MoBlows![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 26, 2007 7:20 PM
Veerrrry Interresstting!
Posted by: AMartinez at June 26, 2007 7:27 PM
Sorry wrong show.lol
Posted by: AMartinez at June 26, 2007 7:31 PM
Dr. Robert Dickson Crane's Wikipedia entry on Dr. Robert Dickson Crane:
Dr. Robert Dickson Crane (born on March 26, 1929} is the former adviser to the late U.S. President Richard Nixon, and is former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council. He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books and over 50 professional articles on comparative legal systems, global strategy, and information management. His great-grandfather was one of the financial founders of Northwestern University.
Contents
1 Early Life and Education
2 Political Career
3 Muslim Activism
4 Personal Life
5 Publications
[edit] Early Life and Education
Dr. Crane was born in Cambridge, MA. In 1945, at the age of 16, he entered Harvard University to study Russian as the first step in becoming an international journalist. In 1948, he became the first American permitted to study at a university in Occupied Germany, having been accepted at the University of Munich. There he studied the sociology of religion and prepared a book on the phenomenon of totalitarian ideology and on the spiritual dynamics of resistance against it. As a result of “field work” with the anti-Communist underground in Eastern Europe, he celebrated his twentieth birthday as a prisoner in Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago, from which he miraculously escaped twice.
Upon his return to the USA, Dr. Crane got his B.A. from Northwestern University, Evanstion, IL, in 1956, graduating summa cum laude, with majors in political science, economic planning, Sino-Soviet studies. He went on to obtain his J.D. from Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA in 1959 with specialty in comparative legal systems and international investment. His thesis was titled "The Accomomodation of Ethics in International Commercial Arbitration" and was published in the Arbitration Journal, Fall 1959. At Harvard, he also founded the Harvard International Law Journal and acted as the first president of the Harvard International Law Society.
Dr. Crane was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1960.
Political Career
In 1962, Dr. Crane became one of the four co-founders of the first Washington-based foreign-policy think-tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). In 1966, he left to become Director of Third World Studies at the first professional futures forecasting center, The Hudson Institute, led by Herman Kahn.
From the time of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 until the beginning of Nixon’s victorious campaign for the presidency in 1967, Dr. Crane was also his principal foreign policy adviser, responsible for preparing a “readers digest” of professional articles for him on the key foreign policy issues. During the campaign, Dr. Crane collected his position papers into a book, Inescapable Rendezvous: New Directions for American Foreign Policy, with a foreword by Congressman Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon as President.
On January 20, 1969, Dr. Crane moved into the White House as Deputy Director (for Planning) of the National Security Council. The next day, the Director, Henry Kissinger, fired him because they differed fundamentally on every single key foreign policy issue. Kissinger was determined to orchestrate power in order to preserve the status quo. Crane was equally determined to promote justice as the only source of dynamic and long-range stability.
In 1977-78 he spent a year as Principal Economic and Budget Adviser to the Finance Minister in the Emirate of Bahrain.
In September 1981, President Reagan appointed Dr. Crane to be U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but this also was short-lived. President Reagan’s best friend, Judge William Clark, who became Director of the National Security Council, wanted Crane, as the first Muslim American ambassador, to pursue two-track diplomacy by developing relations with the various Islamist movements in the Middle East and North Africa. The new Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, whose entire career was promoted by Henry Kissinger, wanted none of this and had him fired.
Muslim Activism
From the early 1980s, Dr. Crane has worked full-time as a Muslim activist in America. From 1983 to 1986, he was the Director of Da’wa at the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. In 1986 he joined the International Institute of Islamic Thought as its Director of Publications, and then helped to found the American Muslim Council, serving as Director of its Legal Division from 1992 to 1994.
From 1994 until the present time he has headed his own research center, the Center for Policy Research, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C. Since 1996 he has also been a board member of the United Association for Studies and Research and Managing Editor of its Middle East Affairs Journal. He is also an editor for the online magazine The American Muslim.
Dr. Crane was also the founding President of the American Muslim Bar Association.
Personal Life
Dr. Crane is married to Diana Huntress, and they have five grown children. His hobbies include long- distance running and mountaineering. He speaks English, German, Russian, Spanish, French and Arabic.
Publications
His more than a dozen authored or co-authored books include:
Détente: Cold War Strategies in Transition, Dulles and Crane, CSIS, Praeger, 1965
Planning the Future of Saudi Arabia: A Model for Achieving National Priorities, Praeger, 1978
Shaping the Future: Challenge and Response, Tapestry, 1997.
These books have been augmented by numerous monographs, including the following produced under the Islamic Institute for Strategic Studies before the events of 9/11:
Meta-law: An Islamic Policy Paradigm, 49 pages
The Grand Strategy of Justice, 83 pages
Kosovo and Chechnya: Products of the Past, Harbingers of the Future, 32 pages
The Role of Religion in America, 24 pages
The Muslim Challenge in America and the World, 35 pages"
The bizarre nature of Dr. Robert Dickson Crane should be apparent to everyone. No doubt a reading of his pamphlets, listed at the end with such pride, would do much to buttress that suspicion.
One piquant detail, however, that has nothing to do with him, is his wife's maiden name: Diana Huntress. Now that is something. And it is possibly the only undisturbing part of the biography of this psychically marginal creature, who apparently once made it into the National Security Council -- one more alarming sign of criminal negligence at the top, for it is not only the traitors of the Hanson Soviet-agent variety, at the FBI and CIA, who worry, but also infiltrators who, as True Believers, owe their sole loyalty to Islam and the cause of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2007 7:33 PM
In high school, I thought Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, was the epitome of a knowledgeable and intellectually curious foreign policy expert. But his latest effort (thanks to the information presented many of the posters here, Hugh Fitzgerald, and above all, Robert Spencer) has just left me shaking my head.
Pop quiz:
True or False: We Are Losing The War Against Radical Islam
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19389332/site/newsweek/
The answer is...FALSE.
Last paragraph, after saying he was radicalized by the Wahibi sect even before 9/11:
Britain, the United States and most other countries have not found it easy to address the root causes of jihad. But clearly, they relate to the alienation, humiliation and disempowerment caused by the pace of change in the modern world—economic change, migration from Third World to First World, movement from the countryside to the city. The only durable solution to these ongoing disruptions is for these people to see themselves—and, most important, the societies they come from and still identify with—as masters of the modern world and not as victims.
Should we just hand over the keys then, so that way they are the masters? Continuing...
How to open up and modernize the Muslim world is a long, hard and complex challenge. But surely one key is to be seen by these societies and peoples as partners and friends, not as bullies and enemies. That is one battle we are not yet winning.
Kumbayaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Mr. Spencer will need the patience of Buddha...hey, we all do. I look forward until Mr. Spencer trashes him on this.
at June 26, 2007 7:43 PM
This part got cut off:
I've always appreciated the service that Robert Spencer has done refuting these apologetics. I would like for him to tackle even larger names.
Posted by: npabga at June 26, 2007 7:46 PM
A few things speak for themselves:
a) no one [who is actually muslim] will debate Robert Spencer
b) the history of Islam
Mainline traditions (implying moderate behavior), Mr. Crane? Ask everyone in Eastern Europe, I'm sure they are biased for some reason. Could it be that they've seen their brethren beheaded for 10 centuries instead of just the internet area?
Robert, I know your heart is in the right place, and it flabbergasts me to see how undebatable and evident your arguments are. We wouldn't be talking about this religion unless they killed people on a large scale. What do people not get about it? We don't talk about Hinduism or Buddhism at all. Maybe because they don't harm people and draw attention to it. Astounding.
Ask Mr. Crane for one islamic society that EVER allowed equal status for non muslims? Can that be coincidental? I call it mainstream teaching, Crane.
Why do people not want to face reality? I still have faith in the West. Too many of us are reasonable, critical people.
Keep up the good fight, Mr. Spencer. Cheers.
May the energies spoken of by St. Gregory help you maintain your honesty and humility.
Posted by: Palamas at June 26, 2007 8:05 PM
Do people like Crane not realize how idiotic he looks taking up this issue with Robert Spencer? Why not confront jihadi Muslims, and convince them that they have their own faith wrong when they resort to the interpretations that Spencer exposes?
Why not carry a protest sign in front of a Wahabbi Madrassa? Enlighten them, Bob Crane. Perhaps he does not have enough courage in the reserve for that.
Take along some of the kids who seem to be able to summon the will to lay down in front of Israeli bulldozers.
Posted by: Greek Fire at June 26, 2007 8:15 PM
Robert,
It doesn't matter even if "This book is significant partly because it bases all its perversions of the Qur’an on statements by Muslims." ALL THOSE MUSLIMS (I presume he means radical ones) just happen to constitute a demographic larger than the population of the entire U.S.
Cinder
Posted by: Cinder at June 26, 2007 8:18 PM
Wow, what a Dhimmi.
"fringes of society?" I believe Mr. Spencer's degree is from Chapel Hill? Whoa...that's so...fringe!
This guy is a hopeless Dhimmi...Mr. Crane - paid your jizya tax lately?
Posted by: darcy at June 26, 2007 8:20 PM
Darcy,
He's no dhimmi. He's a Muslim convert.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 26, 2007 8:24 PM
Dr. Spencer (& board member Hugh F.) thanks so much for "walking the walk" with obviously so much study, hours and research into this absolutely huge threat to inform and protect such as myself and others whom I've connected with JW...looking f'wd to your release of "Why Christianity..." this fall Pax
Posted by: nodak at June 26, 2007 8:24 PM
Fareed Zakaria is telling us to go back to sleep, there is nothing to worry about.
Dr. Crane, a 'revert' to Islam, is an agit prop for Islam, both are traitors among us, both are enemy agents.
They should be treated as such.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 26, 2007 8:25 PM
This Dr. Carne certainly 'deserves' an answer, he is a guy with a long history of disservice to his country and is actively working against us.
He cannot be discounted as a 'cheesehead'- but he can be exposed.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 26, 2007 8:28 PM
Wow.This article is a hoot!
The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism...
Secular fundamentalist?
I thought I was an infidel?Oh well...
Muslims must revive the "classical teachings" of the great Islamic scholars...
And they are which ones,again?Do I want to know?
Only Muslims can do this.... we must begin to rely on the imams among us, whose calling is to preserve the purity of the traditionalist teachings of all the world religions....
In Imam We Trust....NOT!!
...untold centuries of mainline scholars who taught the exact opposite of what he contrives to be the message of Islam.
untold centuries of mainline scholars?
Geez!That's a lotta mainline scholars!
Can't argue with that!
Oh well.Back to fingerpainting.
Posted by: anonamustafa at June 26, 2007 8:29 PM
Lets look at these quotes a little closer...
"The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism."
God D'Souza could not have said it better. This movement of a very few who are against "secular fundamentalism" are a lot like those on the left who see a world wide "Christian Crusade". It is madness to think that supporting the very people who each day get up in mosques and preach the death of everyhting we hold dear is a good idea.
"This attack on Islam from within can be countered only when the imams assert their right and responsibility to bring their knowledge of classical Islam to bear ..."
The problem is the imams! They are for the most part the ones causing this war. Where do you think they get all those wonderful ideas about jihad? From thin air! If you are so dam smart maybe you should talk to the all those wonderful saudi imams...you know the ones who keep saying all those nasty things. Explain their religion to them I am sure they will understand.
"For this reason the sole authority on disposing of the booty was to be the Prophet Muhammad, who was directed to distribute a fifth for the common good as determined by the government, “for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer."
Once again as a Non-muslim why should this make me feel better? So what after I am killed or enslaved he divides up my stuff for his followers....well I should feel so honored.
"This command follows a series of revelations that urge Muslims to seek peace in every way and to make war only after exhausting all means to peace. Spencer perverts every one of these revelations. In his chapter, entitled “War is Deceit,” he argues that they call for the exact opposite of what they clearly mean. In Surah al Anfal 8:58, the Muslims are warned against treachery, whether committed by themselves or by others: “If you have reason to fear treachery from people [with whom you have a covenant], cast it back at them in an equitable manner.."
Once again the use of the words "peace" and "treachery" don't mean the same things for non-muslims and muslims. "Peace" means Islamic rule and "treachery" could mean the non-muslims are reading their bible (insert your favorite..mine is "Truth about Muhammad" by Robert Spencer) in public for muslims to see.
"Much more importantly, we must speak out in order to inspire the youth, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to recognize the power of Islam to change persons and to focus attention on the possibilities and responsibilities to promote compassionate justice as the only road to peace and indeed for the survival of civilization."
Spoken like a true follower of the prophet of Islam. Once again the words: "Peace", "Compassionate", "Justice", and yes "Civilization" have different meanings to a western non-muslim and muslim.
at June 26, 2007 8:31 PM
Oh, so he actually became a Muslim. Wow, that's heavy. To those calling him a traitor, coincidentally I rented the movie "Breach" last night about the American traitor Robert Hanssen. Yes, I see how Crane is also one.
I did some research. Crane is the former Chairman for "cui" or the Center for Understanding Islam. He is now listed on that site as an Advisor. And lo and behold there's a "contact us" option! Which is: contactcuii@cuii.org, should anyone want to say anything to Mr. Crane. Nicely and politely, of course. To defend Mr. Spencer and "The Truth About Muhammed."
He was born in 1929 - Be gentle! LOL
Posted by: darcy at June 26, 2007 8:51 PM
You don't have to apologize for responding to people like this. I find it very useful and thank you for it. And I would love to know if he responds to your rebuttals.
Posted by: Huntley Haverstock at June 26, 2007 8:51 PM
"classical Islam", a new take on the same old tired cliche'. Well, I guess you do learn something new every day.
His take that we should ignore the "tiny minority of extremists" who adulterate "classical Islam" is equally valueless as his predecessors who have proclaimed as such.
One more big fat stipend from Saudi Arabia for his new book, I am sure, before he expires, for it seems he is no "spring chicken". Nixon and Islam...talk about being down 0-2 in the count early.
I agree with Hugh. Diana Huntress is quite a powerful name, in the obvious Roman mythological way, of course.
Islam is indeed a false religion and that inherent truth is quite understandably uncomfortable for so many lost souls who bought and continue to but that unfortunate bill of goods.
Posted by: awake at June 26, 2007 9:10 PM
Here I go again, answering a critic. And every time I do this, some of you mugs write in below, saying, "Who is this cheesehead, anyway? Why are you wasting our valuable time making us read you arguing with him?...
Ignore them. The rebuttals to your critics is one of the best parts of this site. There is no better way to learn how to debate the topic than reading your thorough point-by-point demolition of your critics.
Posted by: Charles the Hammer at June 26, 2007 9:11 PM
Here's a copy of an email I sent to cuii:
To whom it may concern,
It was with great interest that I read Robert Crane's article on Robert Spencer, specifically in reference to his book The Truth About Muhammmad. What struck me most about the tack Mr. Crane employed in his writing is its hypocricy; to wit, he repeatedly accuses Spencer of trying to "demonize Muslims" all the while calling him names like "diabolical" and "a liar" and even "demonic," thus employing exactly the tactic he (wrongly) accuses Spencer of using.
I doubt Mr. Crane realizes how amusing this is, but I had a nice laugh. Significantly, Crane once again commits the woefully common error of attacking the messenger. If Muslims around the world did not every day commit acts of violence and oppression, preach Islamic supremecism and take heads for Allah while using the Quran, ahadith and sira as justification, then Crane and others of his ilk would have a point. The problem is that if Islam really is "a religion of peace," it's not us in the west you have to convince -- it's Muslims. But as long as Crane and others address Islam's critics who only report what is painfully obvious and fail to address the vast numbers of Muslims who somehow don't see Islam as he does, then observers have no choice but to see people like Crane, Armstrong et al and organizations like CUI as disingenuous at best.
Spencer responded quite well to Crane's allegations at jihadwatch.org. I encourage Mr. Crane to respond to his rebuttal. I hope that it leads to a clearer and more respectful exploration of these issues. Short of that, it may at least provide a few more laughs.
Respectfully yours,
Posted by: Huntley Haverstock at June 26, 2007 9:13 PM
Apparently Robert Crane is part Cherokee and believes that Abu Bakr sent a ship to the Carribean in 1310 or so that gave Islam to the Cherokee. The Cherokee then migrated and joined the Iraqois. Thomas Jefferson admired the Iraqois federation and copied their federal system. Therefore Islam forms the foundation of the US republic. Can Robert or Hugh shed any light on this?
Posted by: justask at June 26, 2007 9:23 PM
Sorry, I was going to include this link to the Cherokee article.
http://www.al-huda.com/Article_6of33.htm
Posted by: justask at June 26, 2007 9:28 PM
"With Spencers demonic lies." crane does not mention 911, 7/7, Spainish subway bombings, car bombings, car burnings in France, wife beating, fgm, marrying little girls to grown men, beating and humiliating young men for wearing Western style clothing and on and on. With hands on hips, I declare Mr. diabolical Spencer, the cause of all that grief surely must have been Christians and Jews in cahoots with one another.
Posted by: mustang65 at June 26, 2007 9:36 PM
Crane: "As I have been preaching for decades, Muslims must revive the classical teachings of the great Islamic scholars, almost all of whom have been imprisoned by one tyrant or another for trying to maintain the purity of Islam as revealed by Allah and taught by the words and actions of his prophet, Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam."
I wonder what he thinks the Wahabbi revival was all about if not a return to the purity of early Islam? It's amusing that merely a few days ago the "Reverend" Sutter was accusing Spencer of basing his interpretations on those very same classical scholars (the "dead clerics") - i.e. the ones who founded all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. I am getting the distinct impression that Islamic apologists are searching desperately for a peaceful Islam that only exists in their imaginations.
Posted by: Caroline at June 26, 2007 9:37 PM
Take your shoes and socks off people, George W. Bush will speak again at Islamic Center of Washington tomorrow:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/06/27/george-w-bush-will-speak-at-islamic-center-of-washington-dc/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 26, 2007 9:41 PM
I am always astounded by intelligent people reverting to islam. What, pray tell, is the attraction to this false faith?
Mat 23:24 [Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
at June 26, 2007 9:42 PM
"He's no dhimmi. He's a Muslim convert.
Cordially
Robert Spencer"
After his conversion, that explains everything. If he were to renounce his newly found 'faith' he could face death. Patience, patience, they will self-destruct. It's just a matter of telling the truth. And 1400 years of destroying indigenous peoples and cultures is truth enough. We will win this.
Nice job, Robert, impressive response. Let the Muslim read and beware, we understand where they're coming from. There is no hiding anymore behind benign dawas. Their eager Jihadic brethren tell it like it is, and you do too, in their own words. Bravo!
at June 26, 2007 9:47 PM
Just another appologist.
We are able to smell the fruit of this tree clearly.
I try to understand this blathering about how the "normal" muslims fear the "extremists".So they,in reality,are saying that all the Islamic nations and thier leaders which include the top imams are SCARED out of thier wits of a...."few extremists?"
They say they have no power nor any other means to rid themselves and the rest of the world of these lunatics?But islam is the answer isn't it?Of course once the lunatics have done thier job and brought the world to kneel before allah (those allowed to live) then islam will be the answer ,huh Bob?Then the "extremists go away right Bob?Or will the extremists ever go away?Will there always be someone who might have a single thought and not the collective one,huh Bob?
Will there always be the need for these overly pious nut bags to hack someone into pieces you think Bob?
You know what it's all just a waste of time when these morons who are around nothing but morons all day try to create an illusion for us who live even in the here and now.
Do you think we are this stupid?Do you actually think we can't see for ourselves what islam has built?The only reason the lunatics have risen up is because the umma needs what others have,they get what they need by the only way allah delievered to them,by the only means they are cappable of gaining.Allah loves blood and death and Bob and his friends want to give it to IT.
We see what islam has to offer.To bend to islam is like to fall into a mud pit and not have the energy to get out.
There is no justice in islam.There is no life in islam.Islam OFFERS NOTHING....Bob.
Keep polishing but i am telling you ,Bob, the more you polish that turd the more it stinks.
How is it that now we have "moderates" to speak for islam and yet it's basicly the same story as the "extremists?"
Why is that Bob?
Huh Bob?
On a side note Re: Hogans Heroes i believe someones intended post was to say
"I see noth-ing" ,the german seargent when bribed with a candy bar. Shultz
Posted by: Dar al-harb at June 26, 2007 9:57 PM
Man...I don't know where to begin, but I'll give it a try with a couple of points:
Mr Crane, you don't seem to be well versed in old-fashioned, Western-based logical argument.
You say:
"The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism. Islam is demonized by interpreting the Qur’an and ahadith as the source of Muslim extremism and therefore as the ultimate cause of terrorism throughout the world."
1. You can't say Islam is "the most powerful force in the world" against the secularizing West and, at the same time, blame the West for "demonizing" Islam, can you? Islam is either "the most powerful" enemy of the West, etc., or a "demonized" Other, a figment of the West imagination. You can't have it both ways.
I know where I stand: Islam is, indeed, the worst enemy of Western civilization today--nay, make it the entire humankind, especially its womenkind--an ideology worse than anything humanity has seen.
2. The surest way to be ridiculed among those with a sane brain is to call Robert "demonic." You've just relegated yourself to the huge number of certified paranoid schizophrenics with a religious theme.
3. Your ritualistic invocation of Mohammed (Piss be upon him) betrays you as an idolater of a fallible human being who robbed and cut the heads of his enemies with clear delight.
Posted by: ovidius_naso
at June 26, 2007 10:17 PM
Robert Hogan said
The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism.
greatcometof1577 has beaten me to it, both in pointing out the significance of this quote, and making the link to Dinesh D'Souza. Hogan sees the jihadists as his allies in the fight against "secular fundamentalism". This is both self-defeating, since the jihadists would make short shrift of Mr. Hogan were they to ever come to power, and un-American. The "favorite enemy" is Muslims because of the number of civilian deaths they are causing in the U.S., in Europe, and in fact in almost every continent on the face of the earth. How Mr. Hogan could see the people who attacked us on 9/11 as his comrades-in-arms in the fight against the evil secularists is, thankfully, beyond my comprehension, but it disgusts me none-the-less. The "silent majority" of "moderate" Muslims are not really standing up to anyone anywhere, so it is hard to imagine that Mr. Hogan is referring to them and not the jihadists when he imagines someone "resisting any new international law".
More jawdropping anti-Americanism from our politicians and former politicians.
Posted by: special_guest at June 26, 2007 10:18 PM
When I began to read this article I was concerned.
I thought I might be reading a summary of a new book about to be published for the masses along the lines of popularity of a Dinesh D'Souza perhaps. Despite its inaccuracies and fallicies as Robert ably points out, I nonethelss thought that Robert's work could be irreparably damaged, not for the truth in Crane's work, but becuase if D'Souza can fool and persuade so many, a Nixonian aide might be able to do tha same.
But then we see who Crane actually is.
Roberts says:
"The point in all such cases has nothing to do either with me or with the identity or importance of the critic. The counterjihad, the resistance to Islamic supremacism, is much larger than any personality. I post these things as a pedagogical exercise."
Robert, as a person most quailified to do so, exposes Crane's arguments as false, and as he said he would. But Crane's identity is also important in judging the credibility of the man. Is he prone to lie?, to exaggerate?, to assert false claims for his own benefit? How and why would he be so incorrect?
His wikepedia Bio exposes his bias:
He cut out articles for Nixon to read while Nixon ran for president. He was hired and fired on first day of his appointmnet to work in the white house; thus his tag as a "Nixon aide".
He was hired and fired within days again in 1981 as Ambassador to UAE.
He is a muslim revert.
He was an employee for a muslim country, Bahrain. (Is he still? He doesn't say.)
His speech/khutba is presented to a roomful of imans.
If Dr. Crane was someone of impact, or influence, or, someone of credentials and credibility, I might still be concerned. Not becuase of of any plausibility to his arguments but just becuase his possible appeal to the fans of the likes of D'Souza and like those weekly faithful millions of inquiring minds that buy and read the National Enquirer tabloid.
He is and his work are non-issues.
Good that Robert rebuts him and challenges him.
I worry no longer.
at June 26, 2007 10:20 PM
Does anyone out there -- and I know there are a few here that are well-versed in 20th-century history -- that know of American apologists for Nazism in the 1930s? There had to be some, though to match Crane's cravenness is going to take some work.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at June 26, 2007 10:32 PM
Crane is one of these "islam came to N. America twerps"? Insane or asinine, then. As if native North Americans don't have enough to worry about, now an entirely new group of Old Worlders wants to lay claim to their souls...and their existence.
Crane should be ashamed; still, one is known by the company one keeps, or kept.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at June 26, 2007 10:51 PM
Also from the wiki site:
In September 1981, President Reagan appointed Dr. Crane to be U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but this also was short-lived. President Reagan’s best friend, Judge William Clark, who became Director of the National Security Council, wanted Crane, as the first Muslim American ambassador, to pursue two-track diplomacy by developing relations with the various Islamist movements in the Middle East and North Africa. The new Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, whose entire career was promoted by Henry Kissinger, wanted none of this and had him fired.
In other words, they thought Crane would have better outreach to the extremists. Not a ringing endorsement of his moderacy.
Posted by: Geoff at June 26, 2007 10:55 PM
Holy Cow, this guy is slick.
"The favorite tool of political movements is to adopt an enemy to demonize. The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism. Islam is demonized by interpreting the Qur’an and ahadith as the source of Muslim extremism and therefore as the ultimate cause of terrorism throughout the world."
The idea that poverty and oppression exist in the world because of "secular fundamentalism" is a way to meld rightwing outlook on ideologies like Communism and Nazism with leftwing outlook on class structure. There are large portions of both the right and left that would be sympathetic to this man's speech because of this outlook.
It is interesting how the righwing belief that all good ideologies are religious and all bad ideologies are "secular" is working in here. He's playing this intellectual laziness, this refusal to understand belief systems as complex and made up of multiple elements, like a fiddle. Belief in God doesn't automatically make something good, secular isn't automatically bad. Our political system in secular so that people can arrive freely at their religion.
It is interesting how the leftist idea that all success stems from exploitation and all failure from oppression dovetails with Islam. Failed Islamic states use the same idea to convince their population that they are justified in theft, and that the oppressive Islamic leaders and political system can be kept because they are not the root problem.
Truth: The poverty and oppression most experience worlwide had little to nothing to do with "securlar fundamentalism" or the West in general, which he presumably blames for secular fundamentalism if he is anything like the Weekly Standard or the WSJ editorial page.
It has to do with the histories, cultures, and ideologies of those regions. Not us.
There is some recent intervention that we probably shouldn't have engaged in, and there is a history of defending ourselves once attacked by Islamic armies, and that's about it. That's not anywhere near enough to explain the great many centuries of decay in the Islamic world. The truth is that totalitarian government creates disincentives for individual thought and for productivity, and Islamic texts encourage a totalitarian government.
The flipside is that the VAST majority of our wealth is created by us, because our political system creates incentives for it. Our farmers, our inventors, our engineers, etc., are what made our wealth and our position in the world. One example often thought to be to the contrary is slavery, but the South's exploitation's of blacks actually crippled them dramatically relative to the North, because that system disincentivized work.
Today, the best case for exploitation can be made with regards to places like India, China, and Mexico. But still, our wealth and power are actually working in such a way that these countries, as countries, are benefiting tremendously from working with us. That's hardly exploitation. Yes, the human rights abuses in these places are horrible, but that's the doing of their governments. It is rooted in their histories, and if anything it is working against us economically and politically (with rights, we can't produce as cheaply, and lose in trade), not for us.
Oh well. This:
"[...] we must speak out in order to inspire the youth, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to recognize the power of Islam to change persons and to focus attention on the possibilities and responsibilities to promote compassionate justice as the only road to peace and indeed for the survival of civilization."
Makes it pretty clear that he's intent on selling Islam as the "solution" in the West.
Intended solution : Bring Eden back to the world by chaining the West and forcing it to submit to what he supposes is God's will. It isn't REALLY a fallen world, not in Islam. We'll have paradise again if we only submit submit submit.
This is all theology just under the surface.
What is so frustrating is that our conservative theologically-minded thinkers are all dealing with the last batch of utopian totalitarians, the atheist ones. They're just caught up in superficials, not in the guts of ideologies. They're not willing to admit that a non-totalitarian Christopher Hitchens is a heck of a lot less likely to ban their religion in pursuit of a perfect society than a totalitarian Muslim.
Let alone that our liberal theologically-minded thinkers still haven't considered the bad side to nanny-state socialism in a "fallen," or imperfect, world...
Let alone that our non-religious thinkers still can't be bothered to distinguish between religions, though it is literally life or death for their way of thinking that they do so.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at June 26, 2007 11:06 PM
As a "secular fundamentalist", which means I subscribe to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I find Mr. Crane to be one more in a long line of useful idiots for a terroristic ideology.
A low-browed line that began with the craven apologists for Lenin, most notable, and shameful in their overlooking of communism's horrors for its ever-receding Utopian Worker's Paradise. (Everything brutal and subhuman is excused if the ultimate goal is "pure".)
This tedious and sophistical "treason of the intellectuals" foolishness continues in the figure of Crane, a whitewasher-of-theocratic-madness and cross-eyed dogmatic hitman for the Ummah. (Calling your opponent "demonic" is as shabby and trite as only the weakest of such flabby argumentation gets.)
What does he think Mr. Spencer's aim is?
Doesn;t he grasp that it is to help Muslims?
Does he care about Muslims, himself?
Or just the mechanical defense of the dogma?
Muslims are the first and worst victims of Islam, and I hope for their eventual liberation from this joyless creed.
Instead of working within the Mohammedan faith to reform its murderous tenets, Crane attacks those who are trying to help Islam avoid a clash with Civilization. One that may destroy it and its followers because of the intolerant extremism of its most vocal and militant believers.
Wishing Islam were something -and ignoring what it is - and has been, historically- may be smugly soothing, but solves nothing about this fateful dilemma.
Islam has a heart of violence. (Sura 9:5, et al.)
And until this call to holy terror is excised from the Koran, it will continue to threaten all freedom-loving humanity.
Its answers are: paralysis, denial of our shared humanity, denial of intellectual inquiry, denial of the equal value of women, and denial of its own believers' right to leave the faith without being threatened with death for doing so.
This last fact negates any other value Islam might have.
It argues against such a creed as being considered anything but a deathcult. (The "poetry" doesn't make up for the malignancy.)
Dreamers like Crane are welcome to its Procrustes' bed.
(Just watch your head, doc.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 26, 2007 11:19 PM
This Crane is a relative, possibly even a son or grandson, of the fanatically anti-Jewish and pro-Arab Charles R. Crane, of the infamous King-Crane Commission that showed such a total lack of sympathy for the Jewish plight in "Palestine."
Curiously, one of Charles Crane's daughters was briefly married to that great man Jan Masaryk, future Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, son of Tomas Masaryk (the father of modern Czechoslovakia), and someone who was deeply philo-semitic, as were many of the most advanced Central Europeans and, with Eduard Benes, one of those who found nothing wrong, for the sake of Czechoslovakian security, of a kind of anticipatory repudiation of what they foresaw would be a breach of the national contract, given all that had happened in the perido 1938-1945, by ethnic Germans -- hence the Benes Decree which provided for pre-emptive repatriation to Germany of those who had so thoroughy and willingly identified with Deutschtum.
Posted by: Hugh
at June 26, 2007 11:21 PM
justask
Yes I just found the same thing..also according to Contemporary Authors, Gale, 2002
Crane says in is own wornds:
"My background as a Cherokee Indian with an inherited responsibility to the tribe has produced a lifelong interest in the dynamics of civilization as a guarantor of justice. At the age of eleven, I wrote 150 pages of an intended one thousand-page book, entitled From Savagery to Civilization. The book ended when the budding civilization abandoned its culture and reverted to savagery. The next ten years I spent studying the intellectual dynamics of resistance against the worst perversions of Western civilization. As a result, I was imprisoned once in Mexico in 1944 and twice in Eastern Europe in Communist concentration camps. The decade of the 1950's was devoted largely to acquiring a bilingual command of Russian and the first degree ever issued in the United States on combined Soviet and Chinese area studies.
"A decade in American think tanks during the 1960's convinced me that Communist global strategies of political and military expansion can be countered best by positive strategies to build capitalism. Since capitalism is nothing but the economic dimension of liberty, its power requires that the citizens abide by the principles of liberty. Foremost among these is the responsibility of each individual to produce as much as he consumes. The power of voting blocs organized to rip off the producers in society will destroy the profit incentives that power capitalist production. This is another way of saying that if there are solutions to injustice in this world, they lie not in economic or political systems but in the moral sensitivities and discipline of each individual human being. Someday I will say this more fully in a series of novels patterned after Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and based in ancient Arabia."
Dear lord....:)
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 26, 2007 11:52 PM
Spencer then uses Surah al Anfal 8:1 and 8:41 to claim that the early Muslims were greedy bandits interested only in booty. In fact, these two ayat were revealed to command that booty captured from the enemy should not be an object of individual greed, as was common at the time in Arabia (Surah al Anfal 8:41). For this reason the sole authority on disposing of the booty was to be the Prophet Muhammad, who was directed to distribute a fifth for the common good as determined by the government, “for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer.”
Hogaaaan
And what other religion even has rules for dividing spoils of war as a part of its dogma? How does this guy excuse such a "revelation" in the first place?
Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2007 11:57 PM
Hugh (More data...His father was John Beaver Crane)
Also according to Contemporary Authors, Gale, 2002
"Family: Born March 26, 1929, in Cambridge, MA; son of John Bever (an economics educator) and Catherine (a book seller; maiden name, Dickson) Crane; married Sigrid Ruedel (a parliamentarian), March 5, 1951; children: Marietta, Hanns, Mark. Education: Northwestern University, B.A. (summa cum laude), 1956; graduate study at University of Munich, 1955-56; Harvard University, J.D., 1959. Politics: Independent conservative. Religion: Independent Roman Catholic. Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Army, 1950-53. Memberships: Phi Beta Kappa."
They still claim he is Roman Catholic? Is this the same "cat"? My guess is Gale needs to do some updating (2002 edition).
Also...
"Admitted to the Bar of Washington, DC; U.S. Air Force, Defense Research division, China affairs, department deputy head, 1959-61; Georgetown University Center for Strategic Studies, Washington, DC, research principal, 1962-66; Hudson Institute, Croton-on-Hudson, NY, project director, 1966-69; U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, policy planner and systems analyst, 1969-73; independent investment banking consultant, 1973--. Co-founder, corporate secretary, and director, American Indian National Bank, Washington, DC Chairman, Fairfax County Civil Rights Committee, 1964-66."
Awards...
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics fellowship, 1961; American Society of International Law fellowship, 1961.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 27, 2007 12:01 AM
Robert and Hugh ;
A great post, Robert as you removed the layers, and Hugh (Huge?) in his history and command of the facts on this gent.
A super burst of facts, and truth.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at June 27, 2007 1:41 AM
PMK
What's even more priceless is the notion that Mohammed possessing all that booty makes it okay, as opposed to his forces fighting amongst themselves for it. Also, Mohammed was so selfless and socially conscious that he kept a mere 1/5 for the common good as determined by the government, “for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer.” i.e. himself
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 27, 2007 1:54 AM
"...after a legitimate defensive jihad on behalf of justice and freedom" -- Crane
Wow, that sounds downright lovely!
Who wouldn't want to be the recipient of such a gift?
at June 27, 2007 2:16 AM
Marwan'sDaughter asked
Does anyone out there ... know of American apologists for Nazism in the 1930s?
Check out Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK) for starters, they were the most famous.
For a less ambiguous Nazi apologist, check out Fritz Kuhn, leader of the American Nazi Party.
They were out there then, and they're out there now.
Posted by: special_guest at June 27, 2007 2:43 AM
the great Islamic scholars, almost all of whom have been imprisoned by one tyrant or another for trying to maintain the purity of Islam as revealed by Allah and taught by the words and actions of his prophet, Muhammad
Let's see now....Crane bemoans tyrants who somehow manage in their "minority-ness" to imprison classical Muslim scholars beloved by the faithful, yet evidently overpowered majority....and then goes on to suggest that the real threat to Islam is a non-violent, non-tyrannical author named Spencer, whose only "weapon" is a computer keyboard???
Classical Islamologic.
Posted by: yadayada at June 27, 2007 3:55 AM
"There he studied the sociology of religion and prepared a book on the phenomenon of totalitarian ideology and on the spiritual dynamics of resistance against it."
It's odd he studied about totalitarian ideology - yet failed to see that Islam is a totalitarian ideology - a conclusion that is quite obvious to anyone who bothers to examine Islam.
Posted by: Fennec at June 27, 2007 5:40 AM
"As I have been preaching for decades, Muslims must revive the classical teachings of the great Islamic scholars, almost all of whom have been imprisoned by one tyrant or another for trying to maintain the purity of Islam as revealed by Allah and taught by the words and actions of his prophet, Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam. Only Muslims can do this."
...so, in 1400 years "almost all of whome have been imprisioned"...hmmmmm...and "only Muslims can do this".....hmmmm...seems to me the Muslims have had serious egotistical paranoias from day one....a dyslexic society..no doubt.....it appears to me that Muslims prefer blood and guts type of Islam that is well documented in their own texts than any supposed peaceful type of Islam they are fond of spewing out....
....it is revealing (although, not unexpected) that such people as Robert D Crane are deeply embedded into our government in high positions able to influence the decisions which ultimately affect our national security issues and ultimately affect the lives of the average joes on the street....It becomes clearer to understand that the blame for some of the government failures and misadventures have been misdirected....Influential people in the government (such as Mr Crane) often are hidden from public view, their influence and activities coming out many years too late....
....it has been often stated by many here that one of the governments failures has been the inability to know Islam....this is probably true, but how many people in the government with Islamic leanings such as Robert D Crane are in positions to advise and mislead the President...I would wager more than one....
....in todays violent Islamic world, we need knowledgeable and fearless leaders...we should find them soon or we may find ourselves in the hectic and dyslexic system that the Muslims have found themselves involved in.....
...until then, we must slow down the flow of Islamic dyslexia and we must ban Muslim Immigration....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 27, 2007 6:21 AM
"Does anyone out there -- and I know there are a few here that are well-versed in 20th-century history -- that know of American apologists for Nazism in the 1930s? There had to be some, though to match Crane's cravenness is going to take some work."
-- from a posting above
Find that book, a best-seller in 1943 and 1944, called "Under Cover" by John Roy Carlson. It can be bought on on-line, or found on the shelves in older rental properties in Maine and Cape Cod. It was written by someone who, pretending to be sympathetic to pro-Nazi and antisemitic causes, penetetrated various groups or individuals connected to them.
The cast of characters, I recall, include Fritz Kuhn of the Bund (which had pro-Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden as late as 1940), and George Sylvester Viereck (whose late son Peter, a professor at Mount Holyoke, clearly atoned for his father), the White Russian Boris Brasol (the kind who gave other Russian emigres a bad name), and others whose names I forget.
Everyone should have a copy of "Under Cover." It doesn't date.
Posted by: Hugh at June 27, 2007 6:44 AM
unless, of course, you're afraid to discuss matters with a demonic, funny looking Jewish Jesuit. Posted by Robert at June 26, 2007 5:00 PMYou forgot "Tiberian."
at June 27, 2007 6:56 AM
Anyone who took the time to do a line-item analysis of Crane's manic credentialism -- including his claims about the Hudson Institute, and his founding of this or that -- would find a great deal of exaggeration.
But in any case, those degrees hardly matter. Fools can graduate from Andover and Yale (see our current President), or for that matter from Exeter and Harvard, as well as from a local community college. And Crane strikes me more as the semi-demented, and they are always with us. The conditions of modern life, with its confusion and speed and hectic vacancy and anomie, encourage their production.
The one thing about Crane that interests is that piquant "Diana Huntress." A later posting gives his wife as "Sigrid Ruedel (a parliamentarian)" whom he married in 1951, while serving in the American army in West Germany. What does that word "parliamentarian" mean? Serving then, or a few years earlier (which if she were Crane's age, and born in 1929, would be impossible) in the German "Parliament"? And perhaps there really is no such person as "Diana Huntress," but Crane merely called his wife that, in an uncharacteristic display of wit ("Queen and huntress/Chaste and fair...") and even listed that name in his public biography. On the other hand, "Diana Huntress" could be a second wife, who followed upon the "parliamentarian."
A curious exhibit.
Posted by: Hugh at June 27, 2007 6:58 AM
Mr. Crane said, "I have been asked to write a book for this express purpose."
Well, I would like to know who or what group 'asked' him to write this book to deliberately challenge what you wrote Robert? Clearly someone or some group feel threatened by you and you’re body of work.
He also said, “Spencer’s demonic lies” I think the use of the word ‘demonic’ is a tad melodramatic in this context.
at June 27, 2007 7:19 AM
"Does anyone out there -- and I know there are a few here that are well-versed in 20th-century history -- that know of American apologists for Nazism in the 1930s? There had to be some, though to match Crane's cravenness is going to take some work."
and Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Posted by: sublimer at June 27, 2007 7:43 AM
"From 1983 to 1986, he was the Director of Da’wa..."
Well, that explains everything.
Posted by: Josephine at June 27, 2007 8:58 AM
Crane appears to be one case of the many addle-brained scions of the elite ruling class. The British refer to these as "twits". In addition to Muslim converts and quasi-Muslims, like Grover Norquist, there is the hilarious Imam (Islam is a religion of peace) Bush. There are persecutors, uh prosecutors, like Bush's spoiled frat boy protege Sutton who threw two Hispanic border agents into prison for doing their jobs too well, and the now disgraced DA Nifong.
And let's not forget the members of the House of Lords, uh Senate. As shown by yesterdays vote some of them are absolutely determined to bring back a new slave class in the form of "guest workers", others view their mission in life as one of replacing the very American people who have, foolishly elected them to high office.
The motto for the Cranes, Norquists, Bushes et al should be the mantra constantly repeated by another character in Hogan's Heroes, Sgt Schultz- "I know nothing, nothing!"
at June 27, 2007 9:43 AM
As usual, You are "Right On" with your analysis, Mr. Spencer. Thanks for the in-sight, it is much needed,and always appreciated by this dumb German.
Posted by: ThatKraut at June 27, 2007 9:52 AM
Hugh
I found some neat information on Sigrid Ruedel. It appears she is the daughter of Gunther Ruedel (or Günther Rüdel) who was a general of Luftwaffe (accordining to the German Wikipedia version) and another site.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%25C3%25BCdel&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGunther%2BRuedel%2B%26hl%3Den
This site claims: "daughter living in America is Sigrid Rüdel Crane"
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.wissen48.net/x/Gelungener_Kampf_um_des_Vaters_Ehre-476319.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Sigrid%2BRuedel%2522%26hl%3Den
My German is rusty and the google translation does an ok job but still a pure reading in German will make better sense. Also wikipedia is not the best source anyway but close enough in this case. Also the other site cannot be trusted either.
However on this site: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/findaid/prperson.htm
A "Crain, Sigrid Ruedel P" appears along with Robert D. Crane in the PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL, OFFICE OF: Records, 1981-1989.
At this site: http://www.cesj.org/minutes/2005/minutes0509.htm
It states...(from 2005)
Bob Crane Marketing Letter. In an email response to Sigrid Crane regarding an essay she had sent him, Bob developed some excellent language that could be used for marketing the American Revolutionary Party: “[T]he missing element in pursuing the goals of America’s founders is the need to protect private property and to promote economic justice by perfecting the financial system in order to broaden capital ownership.” We should ask Bob’s permission to put extracts of his letter on the CESJ web site.
Bob D. Crane sits on the board of CESJ.
see: http://www.cesj.org/about/cesjnetwork/directors.htm#Robert%20D.%20Crane%20bio%20brief
at this site:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/print/colloquium_spiritual_pluralism/
This site has a rather bizarre "conversation" between "Diana Huntress" talking about Buddha and Bob Crane talking about the wonders of Islam .
Outside of a few mentions on his own website as Hugh states there is no other mention Diana Huntress.
at June 27, 2007 11:33 AM
Sorry about the two links above that don't work just copy and paste into the browser address field or just type in "Sigrid" & "Günther Rüdel" into google search.
at June 27, 2007 11:42 AM
Another Islamic convert who has a big can of whitewash and a very wide brush. You can tell, he is not the least bit biased...
Posted by: duh_swami at June 27, 2007 12:20 PM
""There he studied the sociology of religion and prepared a book on the phenomenon of totalitarian ideology and on the spiritual dynamics of resistance against it."
It's odd he studied about totalitarian ideology - yet failed to see that Islam is a totalitarian ideology - a conclusion that is quite obvious to anyone who bothers to examine Islam."
I've run into that before - there are many people who believe that a religious ideology cannot be totalitarian. In their minds, only atheistic or secular ideologies can be totalitarian. They have already split ideologies along those lines, and it makes them feel good and justified. For public figures, Dinesh D'Souza seems to fall in this camp.
They'll therefore apporach Islam with a prejudice, and spin, to themselves, the totalitarian aspects in ways that make them seem non-totalitarian.
People can fool themselves really easily when they want to because it comforts them, or because it helps them align with something they like for other reasons (power, Jew-hating, etc.).
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at June 27, 2007 2:00 PM
The counterjihad, the resistance to Islamic supremacism, is much larger than any personality.
Do we have a new name for the war here?
I like it. I like it.
I've been mulling over these and similar phrases myself. But not settled on one yet.
What do you-all think?
Posted by: joeblough at June 27, 2007 2:10 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)