First, Salaam again Payam, and never, ever, apologize for speaking the truth.

Now Erik,



Exactly what sort of place is this technical forum if truth is unwelcome here? If you object to the statement being off-topic then don’t read it. But you weren’t content to ignore the statement. You had to punish, to chastise, the writer too. Why? Do you want to dissuade others from writing offensive truth? Or do you just want to dissuade others from writing any truth?

It is precisely this sort of self-imposed ignorance, the selfishness of a live-and-let-live philosophy, this burying-one's-head-in-the-sand accommodation of appeasement that empowered Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. And it is the same thing that today has left millions of Britons to face the fact that they've allowed a monster into their home.

Fact: Truth is not an artifact of moral relativism. Truth is absolute; obfuscation and confusion are the tools with which deception is wrought.

If truth is not absolute, then why is there a negative point for “Answer is wrong?” Let someone build a landfill next to your home and your home will stink. Even though you might acclimate to the smell, so that you don’t notice it, that will in no way alter the fact that your home stinks.

Fact: Islam does not mean peace. It means submission.

In what can only be described as poetic irony, from the time right after the Hegira, in 622 anno Domini, when Mohammed was driven out of Mecca and forced to flee to Medina, forced submission has been the principle form of evangelism for Islam. Islam is spread by political and military conquest. It was so from the beginning and it is so today.

So contrary to what so many seem to believe today, this conflict did not start with George Bush (either of them), or Tony Blair or anyone else alive today. This conflict, that we euphemistically refer to as the "War on Terror," started in the 7th Century with Mohammed. Omar was the successor (or caliph) of Abu Bakr, who was the successor (or caliph, and father-in-law by the way) of Mohammed. By the time of Omar, international jihad (not just the earlier local variety) was widespread. It was jihad that propelled Islam through the Middle East into Turkey and through North Africa onto the Iberian peninsula, into Spain. It was this very campaign of jihad that would eventually precipitate the Crusades, the original War on Terror. It was this threat of jihad and conquest that motivated Pope Urban II to call together the discordant French lords, not some bigoted desire to wipe out the Semites.

The point is this. From it’s inception, from the time right after the Hegira, bloodshed has always been the principle means of proselytization to Islam, to submission, and it still is today. Let me be plain about something right here. Nothing I say should ever be construed as a justification for repaying bloodshed with bloodshed. Nonetheless, if as reasonable people we must recognize that many Muslims do not want to kill all the infidels, then we must also recognize that they are obfuscating the truth that most do.

That’s right, most Muslims want to kill all the infidels. Why? Because that’s what Mohammed taught. If many of the few Muslims who live in our neighborhoods don’t reflect this philosophy, this belief system, that in no way changes the fact that in those parts of the world where such belief is tolerated they do. Moreover, the extent to which Muslims, as a population, hold to such belief is universally and directly proportional to the extent to which such beliefs are locally tolerated. Witness Leeds, England today, where the BBC won’t even call them terrorists, opting instead for the less morally judgmental “bombers.” Witness every nation on the planet where practitioners of Islam have gained political control. There is no such thing as freedom of either speech or religion in any Muslim nation. Where Muslims rule, tolerance is both vice and crime. And you, from the comfort of the U.S., would punish or chastise one who has had to live with this truth from the day of his birth for speaking of it?

If you choose ignorance, if you choose to ignore these truths today, then don’t cry when you are forced at the tip of a sword to pray five times tomorrow. And perhaps this isn’t a matter to be discussed here. But if not then I would ask why not? Can you honestly say, not to me but to yourself, that you aren’t just trying to appease the potential jihadist next door? And if not, then what? If you aren’t trying to actively welcome jihadists into your world, then why are you so actively trying not to offend them? Do you really want to welcome them into your neighborhood? Why not first ask those who have how it worked out for them?

I suspect that most people in 1930s Europe insisted that they had no desire to see the Jews exterminated, all the while appeasing the Nazis. I know that in the 1930s U.S., that burying-one's-head-in-the-sand accommodation of appeasement, that selfishness of a live-and-let-live philosophy of self-imposed ignorance and isolation was rampant. But rather than tasking our parents and grandparents over history, maybe we should task ourselves over the present and future.

As for me, I have no intention of either offending or appeasing Muslims. I will be as friendly to everyone as I am to anyone. On the other hand, if the truth is offensive, then what does that say about the offended? In the meantime I would ask one final question. If this indeed is a place where the truth is unwelcome, then why do you want to be here?