This only makes sense if "fundamentalist Islam" is "the true nature of Islam." One can see how he comes to this, since the good Rev. Robertson is likely to equate "fundamentalist Christianity" with "the true nature of Christianity."
I just came across a 30 year old book, "The Arab Mind," studied by my father-in-law before he went to Saudi Arabia as a large corporation's exec to do business there. I've been testing the points made in this book (written long before the advent of Political Correctness, and by a Jew as well) against several years' personal exchanges with an Egyptian Arab colleague. Thus far, this book explains many things I have seen and experienced.
One point that comes through is that, long before its recent prominent appearance on the world stage, "fundamentalist Islam's" (radical Islamist's) nature is likely to be very attractive to, and will reinforce, certain elements of the Arab (cultural) character. Wahhabinist theology was still in the backwater when this book was written, but it fits the presented character to an amazing (and perhaps horrifying) degree.
I'm not about to whitewash Islam. (A fundamentalist Christian friend of mine who grew up Muslim says it is the religion of the devil.) Nor will I excuse the evils done in the name of Islam -- any more than I condone, say, the Inquisition, or the underlying basis for Henry the VIII's founding of a new church. But Islam is now where Christianity was not so long ago -- controlled by those to whom it represents their path to power, wealth and (in one form or another) revenge. Whether it can "grow up" to exist in a secular world (and suffer the fate of the diminishing and increasingly irrelevant Christian churches in the increasingly secular West?), whether it can minimize its major frictions with (in rough order) Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and the agnostic/atheist/pagan world is another matter.
I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
After we use a page of the koran to wipe ourselves with we interpret the result.
We interpret the part that's covered with feces to be 'abrogated' by the part which is merely stained, but still readable.
On a day after I enjoy chili, many changes have been noted in the (un)holy book!
For a good literal translation see Houque.
Also at amazon.com:
Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View of Islam
Why I am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq
Jesus told us that we can judge people by their fruits.
Take a look at the Muslim world, and discern what fruits Islam has brought forth:
War, terrorism, hate, slavery, persecution, repression, brutality, misogyny, etc.
On the positive side, I will admit that there were a few impressive cultural achievements at a few urban locations for a few years during the Islamic "golden age" almost a millennium ago. Examples: the Taj Mahal; the 1001 Nights. But these seem to be rather few and inferior compared to what has been ceated by most other great civilizations.
I will also admit that Islam is a relatively clean, non-idolatrous religion, and with the exception of its attitudes and relations toward females and infidels, emphasizes some commendable ethical principles. Again, though, there is nothing particularly unique about this.
I am left to conclude: there is much about Islam that is true and good, and much about Islam that is unique; however, nothing that is true and good in Islam is unique, and everything in Islam that is unique is neither true nor good.
Of course they do. Anyone who has read the Bible and the Koran would know this. Most of those who preach the "religion of peace" nonsense have read neither, yet are willing to spread their ignorance, "proving" their point with a couple of proof texts.
The only change I would make in the above quote would be to replace the "many" with "most". After all, our liberal theologians can prey on Biblical illiteracy, but these people memorize the entire koran in childhood.