Cultural Sensitivity Does Not Win Wars

NRO ^ | David French

[RoosterRedux]

We cannot possibly conform our culture to comply with the often-conflicting and ever-shifting religious sensibilities of both friends and enemies. But we can be a faithful friend to proven allies. Abandoning the Kurds until ISIS was on the outskirts of Erbil is far more dangerous than ten thousand Mohammad cartoons. Our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq alienated potential allies — driving them straight into Iran’s arms — far more than did Terry Jones (or anyone else) burning a Koran. Did we send a message of sensitivity or stupidity when we armed Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government, then suspended support for the el-Sisi regime, a stalwart enemy of jihad?

The bottom line is clear: Our politically correct sensitivity often broadcasts not respect for Islam but weakness in the face of bullies, and in the Middle East weakness is the one unforgivable sin.

[mrsmel]

NRO should know, they fired John Derbyshire for not being “culturally sensitive”.

[CharlesOConnell]

"Doctrinally, the traditionalist school held that the Qur’an was not created in time; the Qur’an has forever co-existed with Allah on a tablet in heaven in Arabic, as it exists today. God, in other words, speaks Arabic. The Qur’an is outside the scope of history; it is ahistorical. The time at which it was revealed and the culture into which it was received are irrelevant. Although coeternal with God, the Qur’an is somehow, like his attributes, distinct from God’s essence. The profound problem with this position, which the Mu’tazilites pointed out – that this made the Qur’an another God, and those who held this position were therefore polytheists – was dismissed by Hadith collector al-Bukhari (d. 933), who said, 'The Qur’an is the speech of God uncreated, the acts of men are created, and inquiry into the matter is heresy.' " - Robert R. Reilly, "Closing of the Muslim Mind"