I had the pleasure of serving in the Strategic Air Command while in the USAF.

In the situation that we are faced with presently, I would like to stop the B.S. with a quote from General Curtis LeMay the first head of SAC (Strategic Air Command). "Kill enough of them and they will stop fighting." (Gen Curt LeMay, 1943-1944)

Posted by: credit man at July 19, 2007 9:39 AM

Good response Robert.

I can see through it as clear as 20/20 vision and my eyes are lousy.

Posted by: Dsinc at July 19, 2007 9:46 AM

When a religion can't take criticism, or considers itself above it, or chops the head off its detractors, that's, er, a red flag..

Poke fun/criticize == Off With His Head!

If militant Islam is a disease, it would be considered rabid.

Yikes...

Posted by: -osgo- at July 19, 2007 9:46 AM

Crane is a convert to Islam, and his biography -- the one he himself composed -- shows other evidence of mental bizarrerie (google "Robert D. Crane" and "Posted by Hugh" and "Jihad Watch"). He has a vested interest in protecting Islam, and protecing as well his own emotional investment, as a convert, in Islam. At this point, he is unlikely to say -- it would be impossible for him to say, given his mental makeup, to say or even to allow himself a glimmer of a hint, that --yes, you're right, I "reverted" to something I did not understand, that is quite different from what the naive revert may think, and that those who are born into Islam, and have managed to defect or escape -- and these are, essentially, all the best people, intellectually and morally superior people, who through no fault of their own are born into Islam -- such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Azam Kamguian and Irfan Khawaja and a great many more, and in whose ranks I would also place those who, largely out of filial piety, continue to call themselves "cultural Muslims" or even, in the case of Magdi Allam, "Muslims."

That is one explanation, a more innocent one, for the behavior of this bizarre representative -- but aren't "reverts" from Leopold Weiss (Mustafa As'ad) to St. John Philby to John Walker Lindh and David Hicks and Richard Reid and Yvonne Ridley all of them just a little, or a very great deal, off?

Another, more sinister explanation, is that Crane wishes to keep up a collective game of "Let's Pretend." Let's tell Muslims there is nothing wrong with Islam; let's tell Muslims that yes, they are right, the "real" Islam is swell, and there is nothing to worry about. And in so doing, of course, we are also forced to tell another audience -- ourselves, the audience of Infidels --the same soothing untruths, soothing and dangerous, because we will then, presumably, not be sufficiently alert and wary to protect ourselves from, inter alia, the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

After all, if as Robert D. Crane claims, there is nothing wrong with Islam, and if his characterization of Robert Spencer is correct, if Spencer is indeed "diabolical" and prompted by the carefully-undefined "islamophobia," then we should do nothing to protect ourselves against, not only or merely terrorism, but against that Money Weapon (that supports the spread of Islam all over the Western and greater Infidel world), those well-financed carefully-targetted campagins of Da'wa, planned like a military campaigns, which is what they are, and of course demographic conquest, the beginnings of which were made possible by Infidel negligence and naivete -- the very negligence, the very naivete, that the Cranes of this world would in sweetly sinister fashion have continued until it is too late. Why not -- for Crane, as for other converts or reverts, Islam should cover the globe, Islam should dominate, Muslims should rule.

If, however, you do not agree with the true-believing likes of Robert D. Crane (or the propaganda spun by the armies of Western hirelings, academics, journalists, ex-diplomats, who are "only" doing it for the money), then you may not be eager to participate in this collective game, a game to be played by Infidels in order that Muslims will not be offended and pushed into the camp of the "extremists," if, in other words, you agree that the work Robert
Spencer has done in his meticulous presentations, devoid of rhetorical frills or furbelows, and based deliberately not on Western texts, but entirely on the texts of Islam, or on the commentaries on those texts by Muslims themselves, then you will not take kindly to the likes of Crane attempting to persuade you that we can "do more good" with Muslims by never telling these truths, to ourselves as well as to them, never bringing up the evidence of the texts (or for that matter the evidence of 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims of every kind.

No, you will not take kindly to such advice at all. You will instead regard Robert D. Crane as what he is: a transparent propagandist for Islam. Whether fully or semi-demented, is to me unclear. But it hardly matters.

Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2007 10:00 AM

Islamic apologist Robert D. Crane is such a blind fool and his attacks on people like Robert only encourages islamists terrorists and other muslim appologists to keep on using their koran to feed they violence against non muslims.
When applogists like this Crane character have no ammo to attack the words that Roberts used, they attack him personally. Mr.Crane you are the sad fool on the hill.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 19, 2007 10:03 AM

Watch this video. Radio host tears into offended Muslim and well not relent.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3af_1184708307

Posted by: The Resistance at July 19, 2007 10:07 AM

The evil pez will now do the terrorist’s sinister bidding by translating the Qu’ran. Ha Ha Ha!

From the Qu’ran: 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Translation: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

From the Qu’ran: 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Translation: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Posted by: pez at July 19, 2007 10:09 AM

"It should seem obvious by now that demonizing Islam merely breeds more Muslim extremists by evoking extremist reactions."

Even if Crane is right and there is nothing wrong with Islam then why wouldn't "peaceful" Muslims themselves condemn the actions of the likes of Osama, the Taliban, Hezbollah and others? Why must they see an attack upon a single individual as an attack upon the religion? Either Osama is right or he is wrong. Either Qutb was right or he was wrong. Which is it? Why can't Muslims discern bad people within their own ranks? Why is denunciation of the views and actions of such men an attack on or a demonization of Islam?

If the moderate's reaction to a condemnation of someone like Osama or a cartoon in a newspaper is to "evoke extremist reactions", then those reactions were right beneath the surface the entire time.

Even after 9/11, Americans didn't condemn all or most Muslims but it seems Muslims are willing to condemn all non-Muslims for the unforgivable sin of not acknowledging the greatness of Mohammed.

Posted by: PMK at July 19, 2007 10:20 AM

Here's the first part -- in a charitable mood, I won't inflict the whole article on innocent visitors to this site-- of an interminable piece by Robert D. Crane. The version of Islam it presents -- protective of religious rights of all, and so on -- can be read aloud for humorous effect. Equally humorous is the autobiographical prefatory note, in which he notes that "from 1963 to 1967 I doubled as principal foreign policy adviser to Richard Nixonchief foreign policy advisor." Presumably he was sharing responsibilities, as a co-equal, with Henry Kissinger.

Here is the first part of Crane's magnum opus on Islam:

"Compassionate Justice: Source of Convergence between Science and Religion - Part 1

Dr. Robert Dickson Crane

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compassionate Justice: Source of Convergence between Science and Religion

by Dr. Robert Dickson Crane

International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, Virginia, July 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Due to limitations on the length of articles on The American Muslim site, this important article has been put online in a serialized format. The Table of Contents link gives the links for all chapters.

Introduction

This book on the traditionalist contribution of classical Islam to human rights introduces a new paradigm of compassionate justice as the source of convergence between science and religion. It does so by reviving the traditionalist perspective of the world’s religions as developed in the teachings of classical Islam under the rubric of ‘ilm al ‘adl and ‘ilm al taqwa. These sciences, respectively of the immanent and the transcendent, provide a new vocabulary of metalaw as a holistic basis for exploring the consonance, complementarity, and mutual engagement of science and religion.

The first question when I read a new book is to figure out where the author is coming from, what his premises are, and what kind of new spin he is going to put on old issues.

This book has been condensed from hundreds of my usually quite lengthy articles published in The American Muslim. This scholarly publication, which I co-founded with Sheila Musaji, started as a quarterly print journal in 1989 and soon acquired more than a dozen American-born editors, among whom I was Associate Editor for Political Affairs. Sheila, I, and two others restarted it online as a monthly a few weeks after 9/11, after which its readership measured in hits eventually passed the one million mark. This electronic journal published more than one hundred of my articles during its most recent year, 2006, relevant to metalaw as a transdisciplinary framework for study of the permanent things. This book is the first of a series, if funding can be obtained, to make the content of this electronic journal available again in print form.

My lifelong interest in the classical thought both of America and of Islam, which I hold to be almost identical, started when I entered Harvard in 1945 at the age of 16 to study Russian as the first step in becoming an international journalist. In 1948, I became the first American permitted to study at a university in Occupied Germany, where I 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, I celebrated my twentieth birthday as a prisoner in Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago, from which miraculously (freely translated as “against all odds” I escaped twice.

This introduction to the phenomena, causes, and interaction of good and evil led me to earn a doctorate of law (juris doctor) in comparative legal systems at Harvard Law School in 1959 and to continue these studies later in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the mountains of Pakistan in Central Asia.

My lifelong profession as a futures forecaster for government and industry began in September, 1962, when I became one of the four co-founders of the first Washington-based foreign-policy think-tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 1966, I left to become Director of Third World Studies at the first professional futures forecasting center, The Hudson Institute, led by Herman Kahn.

The policy-oriented perspectives in this book result also from my work as a “prolicon” (progressive, liberal, conservative) in Republican politics. From 1963 to 1967 I doubled as principal foreign policy adviser to Richard Nixon, who appointed me on January 20th, 1969, to be Deputy Director for Planning in the National Security Council. In 1977-78 I spent a year as Principal Economic and Budget Adviser to the Finance Minister in the Emirate of Bahrain. In September, 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed me U.S. Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, with two-track authority to maintain contact with the various Islamist movements in the Middle East and North Africa.

When Henry Kissinger arranged to have me fired, I became a full-time Muslim activist, serving in the mid-80s as Director of Publications at the new International Institute of Islamic Thought and in the early 1990s as Director of the Legal Office of the American Muslim Council, followed by several years as head of my own one-man think-tank, the Center for Policy Research.

My 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; and Shaping the Future: Challenge and Response, Tapestry, 1997. These have been augmented by countless monographs, including Metalaw: An Islamic Policy Paradigm, 49 pp; The Grand Strategy of Justice, 83 pp; Kosovo and Chechnya: Products of the Past, Harbingers of the Future, 32 pages; The Role of Religion in America, 24 pages; and The Muslim Challenge in America and the World, 35 pages, all pre-9/11 products of my think-tank, The Islamic Institute for Strategic Studies.

As a theoretician with a lifetime of practical experience in my field of civilizational renewal during a time of worldwide civilizational degeneration, including twenty-five years as a full-time Muslim activist, I have necessarily been policy-oriented as a student and participant in the think-tank industry. A major challenge for Muslims in America is to help revive the common ideative heritage of Islam and Christianity based on the common Abrahamic wisdom, so that they can expand their horizons to place higher priority on what is good for America rather than on what is good only for themselves.

This requires both the reform of Muslim thought and support for interfaith efforts not merely to understand Islam but to cooperate in a strategy to accelerate such reform. The most basic challenge for both Muslims and others is to understand the traditionalist contribution of classical Islam on human responsibilities and rights, because ignorance on this subject is the principal barrier in the task of marginalizing extremists.

The three most important questions are: What is the position of Islam as a religion on this critical issue of respect for human rights? Is there a difference between Islam and Muslims? And does it make any difference in the real world?

The second set of questions deals with applying the result of such explorations to the world of policymaking in order to promote justice, order, and freedom in the world, which the Preamble to the American Constitution posited as the three classical purposes of every true civilization. This requires expertise in leveraging the power of ideas through the media and think-tanks.

Governance in America is based on five primary institutions. The first three are formally enshrined in the American constitution. These are the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. In America’s free society the other two primary institutions as de facto branches of governance are the public media and the think-tank community, which feed each other.

The intellectual and moral framework for both the media and think-tanks is shaped by experts and opinion leaders in the civil sector of society, including the leaders of America’s religious traditions. Whoever can shape the paradigms or frameworks of thought, especially in the think-tank community, can shape the public policy agenda. Whoever controls the policy agenda controls policy.

Think-tanks function most cost-effectively not by trying to house on their own premises those most knowledgeable about any particular subject, but by marshalling the expertise of acknowledged scholars, primarily from the academic world of higher education. Without the think-tanks as their means of access to the formal branches of government, these denizens of academia would be irrelevant to the “real world” of politics.

Interfaith understanding both requires and promotes respect based not merely on spokespersons for any particular religious tradition but on the often more objective knowledge of true scholars in the university community. Marshalling their expertise is a primary task of think-tanks.

Religion will gain increasing importance throughout the world in the decades ahead, for either better or worse. This is now accepted in every professional futures forecast. The least understood religion is Islam. An increasingly important task therefore must be to promote better knowledge of Islam, especially among those in the think-tank community, whose profession is to shape the agendas that govern government.

Part One - Interfaith Understanding and Cooperation

Chapter One - The Origin and Fruits of Respect

Islam as a religion, like all religions, is not always well understood or represented even by its own followers. Two approaches can be followed in pursuing the truth about Islam. The first is the negative and confrontational refutation of misunderstandings in order to clear the deck for constructive dialogue. This is putting the cart before the horse. The second is to go to the source of all the understanding and misunderstanding, namely, the scriptures and tradition as understood by most Muslims throughout history.

The most egregious denial of human rights is to deny the right of others to define and interpret their own religion, because this is a denial of human dignity and human freedom. The base case should be Islam as a religion not Muslims as they sometimes understand and practice it in pursuit of political agendas. This is the basis of respect both by and for Muslims within the community of Abrahamic faiths. This should be the basis for long-range planning especially for Muslims and Jews, who throughout most of their history during the past thousand years have been each other’s most reliable friends.

Governments, of course, must base policy prudentially on practical threat analysis, not on theory, but equal emphasis should be placed on “opportunity analysis” in the pursuit of compassionate justice as an end goal in both domestic and foreign policy. The base case for all followers of the Abrahamic faiths who share an opportunity mentality, as distinct from an exclusively threat mentality, should be not the extremes but the balanced middle as understood by the great jurisprudents, philosophers, and spiritual leaders over the course of more than a thousand years in interpreting the Islamic scriptures. These include the Qur’an, the hadith or traditions about the sayings and practice of the Prophet Muhammad and his early followers, and the scholarly writings of the great intellectual leaders, most of whom admittedly have been imprisoned or executed for trying to maintain the purity of Islam as a religion.

Two paradigms of scriptural interpretation have been debated among Muslims since the very beginning. These are whether the messages of God in the various religions should be interpreted as exclusive or inclusive. Historically, the exclusive approach, often condemning to hell all who disagree with the particular interpreter, has gained influence and even dominance in the presence of existential fears in the face of perceived mortal threats from the “other”. Such existential fears fuel the challengers within each religion who would hijack it in their worship of themselves as false gods infused with hatred for everyone who refuses to bow down to their claims to exclusive possession of ultimate truth.

The inclusive approach, on the other hand, welcomes the followers of other paths to God as part of the divine design for all of humanity. This paradigm of thought, which has been the most pervasive in the spread of Islam throughout the world, has been advanced especially by the Sufis. The majority of Muslims in the world follow one of the Sufi paths. They believe that the purpose of divine revelation is to unify in common purpose all persons and communities not at the level of politics but at the level of worship and morality.

The common purpose is love of God, which is every person’s reason for existence, but the paths to this end have always been found in the externals of religious diversity. As persons converge from the externals on the circumference of a circle toward the Oneness of God at the center, they themselves can become unified in action. The spiritual leaders believe that this unity in purpose through diversity in means is the only way to turn justice from merely a utopian word into practice. They believe that this unity in diversity is the only way to turn justice into a practical reality.

The governing paradigm of thought among those who follow the inner meaning of their religion is loving submission to God, known by Muslims as taqwa, which gives meaning to everything else. This is the root of the opportunity mentality and is the best basis for dialogue and mutual cooperation in addressing the practical issues of conscience in both domestic and foreign policy in the world today, because it is based on mutual respect among the followers of all the world religions.

The challenge thereby becomes not a clash of civilizations based on a chasm of purpose between irreconcilable cultures. The major challenge is not even a chasm of meaning within each civilization. Rather, it is the growing chasm between humanity and God.

Chapter Two - Tolerance or Pluralism

We may accept the basic thesis that civilizations as the highest form of human self-identity will be increasingly important in the ‘global village’ during the century ahead. The challenge is whether we can shift to the opportunity mentality in order to transcend the Cold War psychosis and make possible a century of peaceful engagement designed to promote the interests of all civilizations, nations, and persons.

Two underlying questions are whether we can respect each other and whether tolerance is sufficient for this purpose. Is tolerance compatible with peaceful engagement? Is tolerance even a human right? Scholars of interfaith understanding and cooperation are now advancing the view that tolerance is a bankrupt paradigm of thought that must be replaced by a better paradigm if civilization of any kind is to survive the present century.

The generic word “respect” reflects three different levels of a new paradigm of thought. They range from tolerance at the bottom as the least inclusive level, and diversity at an intermediate level, all the way to pluralism as the most inclusive level and in this sense as the opposite of tolerance.

Basic tolerance means merely, “I hate you, but I won’t kill you yet.” Diversity means, “I can’t stand you, but you are here so I can’t do much about it.” Pluralism means, “We welcome you. We have so much to learn from each other because we each have so much to offer.”

Pluralism means that we shift from the mindset that calls at best for both individual and group suicide through assimilation, and that instead we pursue integration whereby the individuals of each group in society proactively bring the wisdom of their tradition to enrich the overall society by sharing responsibility in forming and implementing the society’s agenda.

Mutual respect must emerge from recognition that all the revealed religions contain a universal paradigm of thought. Muslims call this Islam. It is based on affirmation that there is an ultimate reality of which man and the entire universe are merely an expression, that therefore every person is created with some innate awareness of absolute truth and love, and that persons in community can and should develop from the various sources of divine revelation, including natural law, a framework of moral guidance to secure peace through compassionate justice. Recognition of this wisdom is the essence of classical thought in both America and Islam.

Most Muslim radicals deny that this has ever been the mission of American exceptionalism as a unique phenomenon in human history. At best they claim that this vision has been bawdrylized or prostituted to pursue the false gods of power, prestige, privilege, and plutocracy. Even if the original American mission was to be a moral model for the world, these radicals say that the hubris of American self-worship has come to justify and mandate cultural imperialism as a tool to ensconce American power as the epicenter of the political cosmos. The only options presented to its victims are cultural retreat or military defeat.

This confrontational view of the world, shared by so many on both sides of what they see as a growing civilizational divide, raises two questions. First, for Muslims, is America inherently a fraud? If so, can Muslims continue to live in the same world with Americans? Second, for Americans, is Islam a fraud? If so, can Americans or anyone else continue to live in the same world with Muslims, especially those with weapons of mass destruction, or is the world too small for both of them? This is the dilemma that sustains the threat mentality on both sides of the global confrontation between the hawks in America and their only perceived rivals on the global scene, namely, the Muslim hawks on the other side.

This is a false dilemma. The real threat is the threat mentality itself, because it leads to its own self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who predict chaos and oppression unless they can impose their own power on the world are precisely the ones who are turning their fears of chaos into reality.

Part of the problem is the universal temptation to define another person’s religion by defaming it in defense of one’s own. This is the substance of classical apologetics, but in the current environment it can turn into a lethal boomerang. This is so because to interpret another religion as inherently extremist plays into the hands of extremists in this religion by legitimizing their own perversions. Far better as a global strategy would be to support those in every religion who are trying to marginalize the hi-jackers in their own religion by preserving the enlightened understanding that is mutually shared by the traditionalists in all of them. This is the origin of respect and also its fruit.

Chapter Three - The Principles of Respect

The major intellectual challenge for Islamic scholars throughout their history has been to develop from the Islamic scriptures and from the ethical teachings of all civilizations a framework of moral guidance to secure compassionate justice. This framework is entitled the maqasid al shari’ah or the purposes of Islamic law. The underlying purpose is respect for all of God’s creation, and especially for sentient beings made in the divine image.

The role of respect in the Islamic scriptures for followers of the Abrahamic religions, including Muslims as well as Jews and Christians, can be brought out by citing three basic principles emphasized throughout the Qur’an.

The three principles, which are pervasive throughout the Qur’an, are:

1) Freedom of religion, which includes equality in human dignity, unity in diversity, universal conditions for salvation, and equality of the prophets;

2) Love, which includes one’s personal relationship with God, forgiveness, and peaceful reconciliation; and

3) Compassionate justice, which includes personal righteousness and normative law.

Together these three lead to respect for Jews and Christians and to
acceptance of them as fellow peoples of the book.

A. Freedom of Religion

1. Equality in Human Dignity

Immediately following the “throne verse,” which is the most beautiful verse describing the attributes of God, in the second surah, Surah al Baqara, is verse 257. It states simply, “Let there be no compulsion in religion (la ikraha fi al din).”

This is axiomatic because absolute truth does exist and it is human instinct to seek it, but no person or community can know more than a portion of this truth. Certainly no one should claim to possess it to the exclusion of others, because this would be the same as claiming to be God. This is clear from scholarly interpretation of the statement in the throne verse, “He knows all that lies open before men and all that is hidden from them, whereas they cannot attain to any of his knowledge except what He wills [them to attain].” Some scholars consider that this refers to earth and heaven, but the meaning is essentially the same.

The word din used here for religion is the broadest of several related terms and refers to the unchanging spiritual truths that have been preached by every one of God’s prophets. Twice the Qur’an refers to the shar’, which refers to the normative jurisprudential principles common to Judaism, Christianity, and all human communities. The term din in reference to freedom of religion includes also the more restrictive terms minhaj, which refers to an entire way of life based on one’s own conscience and the wisdom of one’s community, and shar’ah, which refers to the governing laws of the particular community. The still more restrictive term, shari’ah, is reserved for the normative principles and specific regulations that are binding only on those who profess to be Muslims.

The Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, was specifically ordered to treat all people equally regardless of their religion. Shortly after the throne verse we find Verse 2:272, which reads, “It is not for you, O Prophet, to bring people to the path of right guidance, since it is God [alone] who guides whom He will.” The circumstance of this revelation was the Prophet’s advice to his companions to give charity only to his own followers in Medina who were poor. The above revelation came immediately, whereupon the Prophet enjoined his followers to disburse charity based on personal need without regard to religion. Freedom of religion means freedom for all persons to be treated equally in dignity as human beings.

The reason for this requirement of equal treatment is the requirement of respect for every person’s free will. Surah Yunus 10:99-100 reads: “If God had willed, everyone would have believed. Will you then compel humankind to believe against their will? No soul will ever attain to faith except by the Will of God.” As a moral being, every person is free to discriminate and choose between right and wrong and to use one’s reason in conforming to one’s God-willed nature, but this is possible only through the grace of God. No one knows what graces have been bestowed upon another human being or why a particular person was created to choose a path to God within a particular religious community

2. Unity in Diversity

Throughout the Qur’an, we are asked to see the coherence of the universe in the diversity that points to its Creator. If uniformity were the norm, there would be only one standard tree, one standard cloud, and one uniform sunset all over the world. Furthermore, we are directed to see that all beings are created to form pairs and with a nature that seeks community. This communal nature applies also to religion.

Sur’ah al Ma’ida 5:48 reads thus: “To you have we given the scriptures, just as we have given scriptures to people before you. We have protected your scripture [the Qur’an] in its entirety. So, judge among people from what knowledge has come to you, and do not be carried over by your vain desires. Unto every one of you We have appointed a [different] governing system of law (shir’ah) and a [different] way of life (minhaj). If God had so willed, all humanity would have been a single community. God’s plan is to test you in what each one of you has received [in both scriptures and inspiration]. So strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of all people is to God. God [alone] will tell you the truth about matters over which you dispute.”

This is why the immediately preceding verse, 5:47, states: “Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed in it, for those who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high are truly the iniquitous.” In other words unity in diversity can come only when the diverse paths are respected as legitimate in the plan of God, even though the most comprehensive expression of truth may be found in the Qur’an, after which no further revelation is necessary.

3. Universal Conditions for Salvation

One of the clearest and most insistent messages throughout the Qur’an and in the teachings and practice of the Prophet Muhammad was the universality of salvation within the various religions that have developed in various times and places.

Only three conditions are given as the requirements for salvation. These are: 1) belief in One God; 2) belief in the justice of God both in this world and the next; and 3) the practice of good works.

Near the beginning of the Qur’an in the second surah, Baqarah 2:62, we have the standard formulation: “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish Scriptures, the Christians (those who follow the teachings of the Gospel), and the Sabians – all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds – shall have their reward from their Lord, and they need have no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
____________________________

For the rest of the article, go to the Wikipedia entry on Robert D. Crane and click on "Compassionate Justice" listed in the articles listed at the end.

Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2007 10:22 AM

Kaif Halak,

The cut and paste view of Islam that has been adopted as a "policy" by many is indeed as disturbing as their incessent Jihad, er uh, struggle to protect and defend the religion against any who they disagree or subvert their agenda. Of course Mr Crane knows the Hadith and koran are like hand and glove.
When these people allow a Foreign Government to set up and support it's own State Religion within the United States whose Constitution specifically PROHIBITS such and then justify refusing to stop the practice citing "Free Speech", is it a mystery to anyone they would be a Tuna Sandwich shy of a Picnic lunch or have an Agenda which possibly matches the mission statement of the orig charter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Next Mr Crane may be defending, talking about Isa coming back to kill the Christians (except for "True Christians" who accept the teachings of Allah's prophet of course) for believing a false doctrine and rocks calling out to come kill Jews(except "True Jews" of course) hiding behind them or that Judgement Day can't come until you kill the Jews. Oh wait, that is obviously bashing.

Posted by: AllahSnackbar at July 19, 2007 10:22 AM

Robert-

The basic point you are making (over and over) is that the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace (especially for non-believers) is a fantasy that does not address reality and that if Islam is to be a religion of peace for Muslims and unbelievers, then all must face reality that Islam requires force against unbelievers who do not submit. Islam is not a religion of the Golden Rule. It is a religion that requires Muslim dominance. Bob's world is not reality on this matter. Maybe someday it will be because of the work of people such as yourself.

Posted by: Frank at July 19, 2007 10:36 AM

Well said, Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald.

Posted by: Josephine at July 19, 2007 10:41 AM

This introduction to the phenomena, causes, and interaction of good and evil led me to earn a doctorate of law (juris doctor) in comparative legal systems at Harvard Law School in 1959 and to continue these studies later in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the mountains of Pakistan in Central Asia.

I would be very curious how he continued his comparative law studies in the mountains of Pakistan?

Posted by: Borg at July 19, 2007 10:48 AM

So, the islamopologist thinks we should make friends with them, if they participate in murder, rape, forced marriage, beatings, genocidal musings ignore it! Don’t think about it, don’t talk about it and for gosh sakes don’t make them mad by pointing out what they are doing all over the globe. Well, Mr. Spencer is not alone it seems that every day more Americans decide that they are indeed islamophobes, but I’m sure Bob will tell them that they are muslim bashers, whatever.
“Three potential jurors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial were sent home Monday after each said they were afraid their service might put them or their families in danger.” http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/07/jurors-fear-saf.html
That’s right Bob Americans don’t want to participate in the bastardized process of trying murderous cult members, they don’t care if the powers that be say, islam is peace, they just don’t freaking care anymore. They have seen enough, they have listened to the bologna, they aren’t buying the if we be nice to them they will change the entire underpinning’s of their cult and allow us to live, let our girls travel the streets without worrying that some crazed islamists will attack them, go to church/school/the mall without concern that they will be blow up, you know, the kind of stuff that free people do. Meanwhile the alkaydacrats are attempting to crush the John Doe amendment. Don’t worry though, the alkaydacrats are not the same as al kayda, they are different than al kayda in Iraq, you see, there are lots of different al kaydas and they don’t have anything to do with each other, harry reid sez so!
“Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/19/dont-let-the-dems-kill-the-john-doe-amendment/
Looks like Bob has friends in congress but that should come as no surprise, so does osama.

Posted by: tgusa at July 19, 2007 10:56 AM

Today we are literally overwhelmed by stories and images of the so-called religion of peace, apologists and propagandists like Bob Crane who can possibly fool several people but not all the people all the time. We cannot afford to ignore what we see, what we read at ad nauseam every day like Mr.Crane can.

The ugliness, and the evil that the Islamic fundamentalists embrace is there for all to see. Its aggressive arrogance is demonstrated daily in our western societies. Mr. Crane, America; may be slow to come around but you cannot continue to try and deceive all of us from what we see. Bob,You need to clean up your act and we do not need to change are visions of what Islam so aptly demonstrates to us on a daily basis.

Just a few examples:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id92.html

http://www.creationapologetics.org/editorials/islamsmohammed.html

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bailey/jihad.html

"Know your enemy and know him well"
General Douglas MacArthur

Posted by: Mackie at July 19, 2007 11:09 AM

ding ding ding ding...Love you Robert! and Hugh!

Posted by: MZ at July 19, 2007 11:37 AM

From the linked article:(slog through it if you have the time/inclination. It'll set you off on all sorts of good tangents)

"What would an Islamic grand strategy have to say about such counter-productive trends? Instead of focusing on the tactics of trench warfare and losing sight of the big picture, grand strategy would suggest that the real issue is paradigmatic. Instead of exhausting one’s energies in fighting Muslim bashers, it would be more productive to develop and promote the enlightened Islamic paradigm that gave rise to the Islamic civilization a thousand years ago. This civilization imploded when its guiding jurisprudential paradigm was abandoned and was replaced by an obsession merely to preserve the externals, which without the holistic paradigm of classical Islamic thought no longer had much meaning."

From this, I gather there was once a kinder, more thoughtful Islam years ago. Back when scholars were more interested in the "maqasid al sharia" or intentions of the laws, rather than the actual laws as stated.

So, do I read the Raysuni or the Ibn Ashir "maqasid"?

And when I do, will I be understanding Islam as most Muslims do, or is this just an obscure "thought experiment" presented to Westerners as the "real Islam"

Posted by: freedomschool at July 19, 2007 11:43 AM

Um, Mr. Hugh - You said you did not know whether Crane is "fully or semi-demented."

May I answer that? Fully.

Posted by: darcy at July 19, 2007 11:50 AM

Really, anyone who accuses someone of being in league with the devil, most likely has a screw loose.

Posted by: Rogster at July 19, 2007 11:58 AM

Thank you to The Resistance for linking that radio clip above.

The host to that show is Neil Boortz, his show is syndicated but believe most of the stations carrying the show are primarily in the Southeast U.S.

I have never before heard a host of this level popularity rip into a caller and tear down myths about Islamic tolerance and the religion of peace. In this piece Boortz went so far as to question whether Islam is even a religion. Bravo for Boortz.

I also checked Boortz.com and found an audio clip of an interview w/ Mark Steyn (America Alone). In his introduction Boortz says " I am trying to write a book, and now and then I stop and read stuff from Mark Steyn and "Bob" Spencer and realize how much I don't know about these things (Islam)".

I think the reference to Steyn and Spencer is significant. Media types like Boortz need to be encouraged and supported for their willingness to tackle this issue where others are silent.

While it is welcome news, Boortz and others still take on these issue using the common terminolgy such "the war on terror" which misidentifies the problem, and "islamic extremist" when the proper terminolgy should center on islamic jihadist idealogy and about the duty of ALL muslims, not just extremist, to conduct jihad.

And all, not a single one, no matter how conservative or libertarian, as in Boortz case, ever suggest that leaving Iraq can be considered a good thing as Hugh's many essays here argue.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who thinks bringing liberal democracy to an islamic nation is possible, has not studied the true nature of Islam sufficiently.

I write this to encourage readers here to use mediums like talk radio as a way to bring this much needed discussion in the open. We all just witnessed the power of talk radio in opposing the immigration reform legislation. It can make a difference. Writing and complaing to politicians doesn't seem to have effect. The Beck's, Rush's and Hannity's do.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 19, 2007 12:06 PM

Bob's labels of 'muslim basher', 'demoniser', 'hater' ect, are a seperate issue from correctness of texts.
Such labels have no scholarly merit at all. In fact it proves that a good education, and lots of degree's, is not a guarantee of a decent human being. By using these, Bob give's himself away as a hysteric. So this is what Allah has done for him,
observable hysteria.
This is also what happens to some liberals when they run out of talking points. It's time for name calling and other insults.
I dont think Bob should sword fight with Robert, Bob will not hold up well, and will emotionally fall apart. It's to brutal for me, I hate to see a grown man cry.

Posted by: duh_swami at July 19, 2007 12:15 PM

As for killing prisoners Im pretty sure that Mohammad was clear that killing them was preferable unless you thought allah would not provide more to hold for ransom in the future

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at July 19, 2007 12:29 PM

I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali that there's no such thing as Islamophobia (if you define a phobia an irrational fear). Liberals and Muslims also frequently confuse criticism with bigotry.

Posted by: SerbInfidel at July 19, 2007 12:52 PM

Crane:
"My lifelong interest in the classical thought both of America and of Islam, which I hold to be almost identical, started when I entered Harvard in 1945 at the age of 16 ... ."

Yikes. this guy fell off the deep end years ago. I'm lucky, inasmuch as after reading a statement like this, I can relegate the writer to the demented file, & stop reading. Robert & Hugh, who have taken upon themselves the task of providing a point-by-point rebuttal, aren't so lucky.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at July 19, 2007 12:55 PM

Don't mind the Bobster, Robert.

I know by now you must reply to Crane to set the record straight, as well as ensure your reputation remains on the solid ground it deserves.

But I'm gonna give you my response to this dumbbutt:

When I was teaching in a large inner-city school (60% Black, 40% Latino), I was very strict but fair with my students. I was also diligent in going beyond the curriculum.

One day, one of my black students accused me of being a racist. I didn't flinch, because I was tired of that kind of crap & I was only 24.

So, I replied:

"If trying to educate you is racist, then call me that term all you want. You still need to turn in your assignment, Tyrone."

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at July 19, 2007 1:01 PM

Hugh-

Kissinger and Haig both fired him. I'll bet he doesn't pass the smell test in his attitude toward Jews and Israel. There's is a lot beneath the surface with this guy. Islam is one of the symptoms of his mental unbalance. I'll bet I'm right.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:V5aU4UCa3akJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Crane+Robert+D.+Crane&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Posted by: Frank at July 19, 2007 1:25 PM

Who the devil is this "Bob"? A brief look at the linked article turns up this:

"The prophets of monist materialism, such as Lenin, Mao Tse Dung, Hitler, and Herzl, are here today and gone tomorrow. They belong to the dregs of history, because they excluded the spiritual dimension of human nature, which is eternal, even though they hypocritically tried on occasion to enlist its spiritual terminology to advance their utopian dreams.

Twenty years later, I was asked as a non-Muslim to write a manual on Islam for the employees of the Fluor Corporation in Saudi Arabia, because Fluor could not find any Muslim capable of explaining it to Americans. This was when, thirty years ago, I first encountered the only code of human rights in existence based on a coherent set of universal principles, known in classical Islamic jurisprudence as the maqasid or purposes, kulliyat or universals, and dururiyat or essentials of universal justice. These were briefly treated, but not developed, in a little known book in English, Islamic Law, by Sa’id Ramadhan, who was the imam at the big Islamic Center in Geneva, Switzerland. He had married the daughter of Hassan al Banna, imbibed Al Banna’s Sufi-inspired teachings on justice sufficiently to be banned from Egypt, and fathered one of the greatest Islamic scholars of the twenty-first century, Tariq Ramadhan.

Thanks Bob, but I'll stick with "Islam bashing".

Posted by: Zeno at July 19, 2007 1:35 PM

Okay, I see Huge has aleady given us the rundown on this Bob dude -- a convert -- the worst sort of fanatic.

I'm about 2/3rds the way through Guillaume's translation of Ishaq's Life of Mo. What an appalling tale of robbery, lying, murder, and fanaticism. I find it hard to believe that any American could read this and not understand the permanent threat of this repellent ideology. And it's not only the historical facts, but also what Hugh aptly refers to as its "atmospherics" -- oppressive, suffocating, frightful, idiotic. I have to force myself to read the damn thing. That we let Muslims into our country is dangerous PC folly. That our President calls it a religion of peace is criminal ignorance.

Posted by: Zeno at July 19, 2007 2:05 PM

As far as I know, Bob Crane was murdered in his hotel room. Some say it was because he mocked Colonel Clink and General Burkhalter.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at July 19, 2007 2:08 PM

CALLING BOB CRANE:

PLEASE--get a copy of the "Glorious Kuran", read it-- and shut up!!!

Oh, yes. I have a question for you--

Isn't Islam producing the "terrorists" we are supposedly at war against??? Since the answer is clearly "yes" (all of these "terrorists" belong to some imam's congregations somewhere), then how is it you cannot deduce that Islam is the root of the 'terrorism' problem we are 'at war against'??

This isn't "Islam bashing" Bob-- it's called LOGIC!!

Or are you 'logically' challenged???

Posted by: pythagoras at July 19, 2007 2:21 PM

Zeno-

I wonder if Bob isn't "Progressive" posting on JihadWatch.-LOL. I can just hear him with Nixon re Jews. I wonder if there are any tapes. My guess is that this guy has made his hatreds and dementia respectable (to himself) by camaflouging it behind Islam. Bob is another middle-of-the-road-kill Muslim speaking from his Stink Tank.

Posted by: Frank at July 19, 2007 2:31 PM

Bravo, Mr. Spencer. You're a better man than I, clearly, by responding to such insults and tripe with tact, reason, and polite discourse, rather than slinging back the same as many (such as myself) would have done in the face of such attacks. Good going.

Posted by: Jonas Salk at July 19, 2007 2:49 PM

"It should seem obvious by now that demonizing Islam merely breeds more Muslim extremists by evoking extremist reactions."

I admit I have some trouble spelling big words, even some smaller ones.

This guy admits he can not as yet read, or tell the truth, or understand what he is reading.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at July 19, 2007 3:14 PM

"It should seem obvious by now that demonizing Islam merely breeds more Muslim extremists by evoking extremist reactions."

Does that mean we are relegated to Muslim demands and wishes for the rest of our existence, because we are to never offend Islam. Heck, Muslims have done more than demonize Christians, they exterminated them in their areas, but you don't see Christians up in arms out to exterminate Muslims. It's Islam stupid.

Posted by: ofcourse at July 19, 2007 3:24 PM

"It should seem obvious by now that demonizing Islam merely breeds more Muslim extremists by evoking extremist reactions."

The logic of this comment seems strange to me. Christians are often demonized by secularists, gay activists, and others, however I do not see a process of extremist reactions occurring. We might be pissed off, but I don't see anyone, even devotees of Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson calling for beheading those "who insult Christianity".

Then there are the Mormons. They have taken a beating since one of theirs is running for President. Sure they are annoyed that the good ol' polygamy stuff is coming up again, however no one is worried that they will get beheaded by those nice young men who come to their doors.

There is something within Islam that is violently reactive and we should not be blamed for it. It is like telling wives that they should not provoke their violent husbands by calling them on their abuse.

More sound logic would conclude that their is indeed something demonic within Islam because it evokes an extremist reaction by being labeled demonic. Islam is demonic because it is violently reactive due to its dualistic valuing of human beings (Muslims are more valuable than non-Muslims) and because of its supremacist theology (Muslims are most deserving of God's mercy.) Christian and Jewish theology see the life of the non-believer as equal with the believer. Israel is chosen by God's favor, not because of Jews merit. Christians are adopted into the family of God because of God's grace, not because of the merit of the individual. God's concern is equal and perhaps greater for the non-believer than the believer.

Islamic theology is demonically toxic due to the dualism of human dignity and is belief that Muslims are more deserving of God's mercy and concern.

Posted by: James Martel at July 19, 2007 3:54 PM

Every time I see a multitude of muslims surrounding the black shrine of kabaa in mecca, I fantasize about B-1s flying over and taking them all out.

Or perhaps, this is less painful, a mass sterilization. Just think, if 50% of all muslims suddenly disappeared, so would 50% of the world's misery. The goal should be 100%.

ISLAM--it's a blast.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at July 19, 2007 4:06 PM

Robert Spencer is an excellent debater. This crushes Crane.

Posted by: traeh at July 19, 2007 4:40 PM

Precisely, James.

Posted by: ofcourse at July 19, 2007 4:45 PM

James Martel-

Right you are. But I've come to the conclusion (with rare exceptions) that these Crane types cover their desires (usually hatreds/resentments) with "disinterested principle" poses. Their predatory nature (many are from bourgeois "liberal"-privileged classes) is hidden under a pile of leftist ideology or Islamic style religion. It's no accident that the bourgeois left and Islamic predators are allies.

My heroes are Abe Lincoln and Barry Goldwater. I'm the enemy to these creeps. They have a lot of enemies in America. I'm sure they feel very uncomfortable here. They have much to fear from the anti-authoritarian soul of America.

Posted by: Frank at July 19, 2007 4:59 PM

Well, let's take Pakistan for example and look at the situations there since the political climate in the US had changed with the democrats taking control of Congress, pushing a softer line in the war, and threatening to withdraw from Iraq.

If what Crane claims is right, Musharrafs position should have been strenghtened and terrorism declined now that the democrat doves in the US are acquiring mre political power.

In fact, exactly the REVERSE happened. Musharraf is facing some of the most direct and serious challenges to his rule since he took power, and Pakistan muslim terror has spiked.

MORE MILITARY FORCE = MORE "MODERATE" MUSLIMS

LESS MILITARY FORCE = MORE JIHADIS

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at July 19, 2007 5:25 PM

Good grief do these people ever get tired of polishing that turd?

How can you be friends with a people that utterly hates your existance?

Friends with infedels is not possible through Islam. Islams choice, nobody elses.

Also the threats that one should not upset muslims is ignorant.We do not fear you Bob and co.We dig our heels in deeper with every threat.

Accountability Bob.How about some of that from your "religion"?

Appologies Bob. I think there are plenty in this world and plenty that have passed from this world that could use some appologies from Islam Bob. (not that it would do much good now)

Bob the poor muslim victim and his poor victimized religion.

No matter how you polish it,twist it,color it or what light scheme you shed on it BOB it's still a turd.

Bob and co. keep polishing.

The American people (excluding muslims) are so much better than muslims because we can stand up to our leaders in all shapes and forms.

What can you ,BOB,and your horde do? March lock step to your masters tune. Big deal!

Bob islam offers NOTHING.It never has and it never will.

What a joke.

Bob i wish you and people like you had more air time as you hang yourselves with the very words of allah and your prophet.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 19, 2007 5:36 PM

I sincerely admire your energy and perseverance Mr. Spencer but I think Robert D. Crane is brain dead, a total waste, some people don't want truth.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at July 19, 2007 5:40 PM

In other words unity in diversity can come only when the diverse paths are respected as legitimate in the plan of God, even though the most comprehensive expression of truth may be found in the Qur’an, after which no further revelation is necessary.

Doesn't everything in this sentence after the first comma directly contradict what went before? Where is respect for diverse paths when you say the most comprehensive expression is in the Quran and that NO FURTHER REVELATION is necessary?

Posted by: PMK at July 19, 2007 6:03 PM

"I write this to encourage readers here to use mediums like talk radio as a way to bring this much needed discussion in the open. We all just witnessed the power of talk radio in opposing the immigration reform legislation. It can make a difference. Writing and complaing to politicians doesn't seem to have effect. The Beck's, Rush's and Hannity's do."

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now

Leaveiraqnow i agree whole heartedly with your entire post.However there can be no excuse for the "writing and complaining to politicians doesn't seem to have an effect." Part.

While the blacks have the million man march,the ILLEGAL ALIENS have thier demand citizenship march,gays have thier marches and islam have thier protests every other day.

There is no one demanding and marching to restore the power back to the people.

Just try to get something started.people prefer to hem and haw and moan and groan.

The only sacrifice made these days are in Iraq and afghanastan.No sacrifice at home not even discomfort.

It's all shameful.

If the Americans ever decided to roar at home the polishers would be horrified.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 19, 2007 6:04 PM

Basic tolerance means merely, “I hate you, but I won’t kill you yet.” Diversity means, “I can’t stand you, but you are here so I can’t do much about it.” Pluralism means, “We welcome you. We have so much to learn from each other because we each have so much to offer.”

If this is what Muslims really think, then I must apologize. I was wrong all along. Muslims really ARE tolerant, aren't they?

Posted by: PMK at July 19, 2007 6:08 PM

Their "allah," a pre-Islamic pagan Moon deity, is NOT our God, the ONLY GOD, Judeo-Christian.

End of Story.

See ya, Bob Crane! (You'll find out when you pass, you dimwit).

Posted by: darcy at July 19, 2007 6:23 PM

Hey Robert:

Looks like he's bucking for fellow former-repub-turned-kooks buchanan's or paul craig robert's jobs?
I don't understand why you're giving this wacko the time of day, but trust your judgement-proceed as you think best and tear his ass apart...
...oh, yeah, forgot...you just did.
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at July 19, 2007 7:33 PM

"This is why the immediately preceding verse, 5:47, states: “Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed in it, for those who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high are truly the iniquitous.” In other words unity in diversity can come only when the diverse paths are respected as legitimate in the plan of God, even though the most comprehensive expression of truth may be found in the Qur’an, after which no further revelation is necessary."

I had to go through that over a couple of times to figure out what "in the hell" he was saying. (I bet he has no idea what he's saying himself.) What he's saying is that we can only respect you if you are a member of a Muslim sect, as long as in the end you succumb to Allah's orders (or whoever owns the Allah® monopoly/monarchy at that time.)

Posted by: ofcourse at July 19, 2007 8:24 PM

I tried reading some of the long quote from Crane above.

Bloody hell!

There are a lot of people in this world who go to school and develop a large and impressive vocabulary, without ever fully absorbing what the words actually mean, and without developing any sense that worthwhile statements actually have to assert something observable, or at least logically valid about reality.

I have rarely seen such an incoherent salad of meaningless verbiage, irrelevance, groundless assertion and plain falsehood.

This stuff is not reasoning. It is rationalization.

What exactly Crane is trying to rationalize eludes me, as does the benefit he expects to derive from the exercise.

In any case it is truly offensive and repellent nonsense.

Posted by: joeblough at July 19, 2007 8:50 PM

ofcourse and joeblough - I read Crane' entire piece and I was utterly appalled that someone could write so many words and say absolutely nothing. Are there courses one takes to peddle this sort of utterly meaningless bullshit?

In any case, what I took away loud and clear from wading through the repulsive swamp of Mr Crane's nauseating and meaningless rhetoric, is that Mr. Crane is a big, big fan of Sharia law.

So after chastizing the "Islam-bashers", why is he running on with so many hundreds of words devoted to a love story to Islamic sharia?

Mr. Crane - in case it escaped your notice, we infidels (especially us female infidels) detest Sharia law! It doesn't much matter in the long run whether you folks get there by violence or by demographics - the fact that you are such a big fan of Sharia law makes YOU an extremist in my book!

So I don't know what the hell you are talking about when you refer to the possibility of "us" being on "your side" in the global WOT, because speaking for myself here only - NOT!

For one thing, just for starters - Muhammad was a false prophet! He was a fraud - so why would you think that any of us who recognize that fact would be interested in somehow aligning with you to fight what you call the extremists, especially when they are merely the ones among you who are "jumping the gun" in getting at your common aims of instituting Sharia law?

What do you take us for Crane? Complete idiots?

Posted by: Caroline at July 19, 2007 9:50 PM

Islamic apologist Robert D. Crane is such a blind fool and his attacks on people like Robert only encourages islamists terrorists and other muslim appologists to keep on using their koran to feed they violence against non muslims.
When applogists like this Crane character have no ammo to attack the words that Roberts used, they attack him personally. Mr.Crane you are the sad fool on the hill.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

Spot on, Zena.

This Robert Crane sounds dumber than a sack full of bricks. Another useful idiot for the global jihad, just like Gavin King from the Cairns Fishwrap.....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 19, 2007 11:56 PM

Anyone thinking about going to Cairns?

This upcoming event should attract a few souls:

WEDNESDAY 25 JULY
UNDERSTANDING ISLAM - 3:30pm to 6pm
Public Forum - bookings essential contact 4044 3324
Venue: Cairns City Council Civic Reception, Spence St
Guest speaker Dr Mohamad Abdalla, director of the Griffith
University Centre for Islamic Studies speaks about the basic
teachings and beliefs of Islam with an emphasis on clarifying
issues such as Jihad and women in Islam.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 20, 2007 12:02 AM

Sharia. That supposedly 'perfect' system, which creates hell on earth.

In 'Among the Believers', Naipaul describes what was happening in Pakistan by the 1970s.

One of the most important chapters is called 'The Disorder of the Law'.

It ends with these words:

"Step by step, out of its Islamic striving, Pakistan had undone the rule of law it had inherited from the British, and replaced it with nothing".

In the light of the chapters that have preceded it, the chronicling of the nature of everyday life in Pakistan in the 1970s, in particular, the nature of public life, political life, that summation is flat truth.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 20, 2007 7:50 AM

"And I am not the only one who can see through what you're doing here, Bob. ""

......yep......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 20, 2007 10:58 AM