This was the most popular featured post of last week and was originally published here on November 3.
I’m not sure how I got along before I discovered Investor’s Business Daily.
All I know is, sometime after 9/11, I started reading IBD and encountered, in their op-ed pages, a robust, refreshing alternative to the wimpy “on the one hand, on the other hand” drivel that passes for editorial comment in most legacy newspapers.
IBD has outdone itself with a new editorial slamming the twee concept of “interfaith dialogue” and “understanding”:
On October 29, the editors at IBD wrote:
A new international poll shows the folly of Washington’s strategy of winning Muslim “hearts and minds.” Despite all our help, Muslims still hate us. (…)
Even so-called moderate leaders are against us. “Yes, Muslims are against the West,” responded Adnan Abu Odeh, 73, former political adviser to Jordan’s King Hussein. “Why? Western foreign policies, especially on two issues: the Palestinian issue and now Iraq.
“These are the issues people talk about day and night. And which the news focuses on day and night. And they come to the eyes and ears of the Muslims who have been surveyed, daily in the bloodiest way — it’s killing, women screaming and yelling, and soldiers frowning. So what they hate is American foreign policy.”
Now, far be it from me to mock the sinister international menace known as “Soldier Frown,” which sounds like it should be right up there with “Restless Leg Syndrome.”
But let’s always remember: Islam has been at war with the West long before 9/11 or the establishment of the state of Israel. Alas, the Muslim predilection for absurd conspiracy theories (which are altered on the fly as current events demand) is abundantly and embarrassingly evident in the Pew study that inspired the IBD editorial.
(In fact, I’ve finally solved the puzzle that has confounded so many since September 11, to whit: “Why is the Left allying itself with its supposed ideological opposite number, namely radical Islam?”
(The answer lies in a famous quotation of Ronald Reagan’s; merely substitute the word “Muslims” for “liberals” and magically, all is revealed: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”)
Alas, the Pew results will simply inspire the elites to call for still even more “interfaith dialogue,” “bridge-building” and “Muslim outreach.”
My fellow Canadian blogger, Scaramouche, has a phrase for these impotent, feel-good make-work projects: “Project Samosa.” Progressive Jews and Christians share tasty, exotic ethnic food with professional Muslims, and come away thinking their unctuous hosts are as interested in “dialogue” as they are.
Wrong. Quite simply: dialogue, education and compromise are Western notions, not Muslim ones.
What good is “dialogue” with stubborn, delusional, uneducated, compulsive liars?
The answer is: it makes the “dialog-ees” — the progressive Jews and Christians — feel both worldly and virtuous, which is a rare combination and therefore an intoxicating feeling. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t come up with a new colored ribbon for “interfaith dialogue.” Give it time.
Like all addicts, progressives will keep on chasing the “dialogue” dragon, to relive that exciting yet ultimately empty sensation.
And we pay the price for their delusions, in terms of our sovereignty and security.
By the way: Muslims hate us because we are helping them. Needing help implies weakness and inferiority. In an honor-based culture like Islam, accepting help from outsiders, particularly infidels, is humiliating.
As an ancient saying from yet another culture has it: “Save a man’s life — and he’ll never forgive you.”