A presidential candidate who understands jihad, or more of the same?

That the question has to be asked gives cause for concern.

Tom Tancredo would not rule out erasing Mecca and Medina as a deterrent to OBL and his fellow inner spiritual strugglers, and I've heard that Mitt Romney has used the word "jihad" (Although if Hugh "Islam is a Religion of Peace because some apostate -- or deceptive, I can't tell the difference, but it doesn't really matter, does it? -- Muslims told me so" Hewitt supports Mitt, then how much can Mitt really know?)

Where's Fred Thompson on the vital issues?

-Excellent voting record in defense of the unborn? Yes.

-Directly condemns by name the NEA, ACLU, and Michael Moore? Yes.

-Opposes judicial activism? Yes.

-Recognizes that the powers of the Federal Government are limited to only those explicitly stated in the Constitution? Yes.

-Understands that small government, low taxes, secure borders, and military supremacy are essential to our prosperity and safety? Yes.

-Rejects the Big Government, Borrow-and-Spend, Open Borders recent history of the Republican Party (and how that lost the Congress)? Yes.

-Acknowledges the blessings and protections of Divine Providence -- and uses the language of the Founding Fathers in doing so? Yes.

-Understands, explains, and condemns jihad? There's a problem.

Debbie Schlussel and Michelle Malkin both wrote mid-year against Thompson's hiring of Spencer Abraham to his campaign. Ms. Schlussel notes that Abraham is an open-border, Islamized Christian who:

"favored pan-Islamists from HAMAS front group CAIR and others from Islamic charities raided by Customs Agents for laundering money to Al-Qaeda. He invited a man tied to one of the Al-Qaeda-related charities to the Bush White House to give out post-9/11 "awards." Abraham also took campaign contributions from Nijad Fares, the son of then-Hezbollah installed Deputy Prime Minister of Lebanon.

We're glad that Abraham has now come out in the open and made it official that--as we've previously lamented--he can be bought by the highest Pan-Islamist Mid-East bidder. We only hope he does not share vital energy secrets with them.

. . . he became a whore to radical Islamic causes once he reached the U.S. Senate and to date.

There is some good news, though it presents another dilemma. When CAIR filed recently is galling and treasonous Flying Imams lawsuit, this was Thompson's response:

I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.

For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslims in America than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.

Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.

CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.

Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?

CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.

So, Fred recognizes the threat posed to America by CAIR and our "allies" in the Islamic world, but he hires someone who "favored" and served those same agents.

Only adding to the confusion is Fred Thompson's commentary on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali can’t leave her Washington D.C. home without guards.

Born a Muslim in the African nation of Somalia, she was treated as property. Hirsi Ali, though, escaped a marriage, arranged by her father, to a cousin in Canada she’d never met.

Granted exile in the Netherlands, Hirsi Ali rose like cream and was elected to the Dutch parliament. She also wrote a script based on her experience volunteering in battered women’s shelters. There, she learned that her fellow Somali immigrants were maintaining the feudal ways she thought she had left behind.

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the great-grand-nephew of the famous painter, made her movie — but paid for it with his life. His Islamist murderer used a dagger to pin a note, promising Hirsi Ali’s death, to the director’s chest. Unsafe, and unwelcome to many, Hirsi Ali came to America last year and was able to live pretty much like a normal person.

But her new autobiography, Infidel, is out now and the usual suspects are furious that she would argue for the liberation of Muslim women. Due to serious and credible threats, she is once again surrounded by guards.

There were many Germans and other Europeans who came to America and warned of the Nazi threat in the 1930s, including writers and filmmakers. Can you imagine that any of them would have ever needed bodyguards?

Hirsi Ali does — right here in America. Yet too many people still don’t understand what our country is up against. They might if they read her book.

"Islamist," but not, "jihad." Though not directly comparing Islam to Nazism, at least he is unafraid to make the historical analogy.

Does Fred understand what our country -- and the rest of the non-Muslim world -- is up against?

Here's Fred Thompson before the Iowa Caucus:

Burnt by the truth about Max Cleland

Burnt Orange Report defends one who slanders our military by slandering one who defends our military. More illiberal illogic.

In response to an attack on Ann Coulter as "unpatriotic" (isn't that what liberals are always accusing Americans of doing?) for pointing out facts inconvenient to the Democratic Party's misuse of Max Cleland who -- though all who serve deserve honor and gratitude -- has slandered unapologetically our military:

When will you denounce John Kerry for his "anti-American, anti-soldier, hateful, malicious and untrue statements"? When will you demand of him "a huge apology for the vitriolic hatred [he] spew[ed]" against our servicemen in Vietnam?

If you believe Kerry, was not Cleland a murderous, raping butcher along the lines of Genghis Khan?

You can't have it both ways (unless you're an irrational, craven hypocrite).

As for Max Cleland, how can you call "great" someone who accused falsely our Marines in Iraq of murder? Was he not "spewing anti-American, anti-soldier, hateful, malicious and untrue statements" about our military while they're in harm's way? Are they not "great men" for defending us and our rights against those whose god and prophet command them to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5)?

Here's an excellent rebuttal by Mark Harden:

Coulter pretty much blows away the misrepresentations of her column here.

Back in 1997, before he was hijacked as the Dem's Disabled Vietnam Vet poster boy, the media was more honest about what actually happened to Cleland:

Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:

"Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

"Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future."

Ann Coulter sums up the Left's problem succinctly:

Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty — hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.

Here are more of Ms. Coulter's remarks on Cleland:

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)

Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush.

The real Pakistan

Max Boot disagrees with Andrew McCarthy on the "real" Pakistan.

The battle in Pakistan, as it is in all Muslim (and increasingly non-Muslim) nations is between those who desire to obey Allah and those who do not.

Considering that it is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, that the government's official history of the nation says that the foundation of Pakistan was laid at the invasion of the Muslim general Muhammed bin Qasim in 712 a.D., that its people overwhelmingly support murdering those who leave Islam (just like Mohammed dictated), and that half of those willing to answer a Western poll support Osama bin Laden, I'd say the real Pakistan -- the Pakistan one Musharraf heartbeat away from acquiring control of jihad's ultimate weapon -- is not the modern, moderate delusion of ignorant and gullible Western Infidels, but the nation that continues to move toward more Islam.

In light of Allah's will and Mohammed's example recorded in Qur'an and Sunnah, that is not a good thing.

(See also here and here.)

In response to Max Boot's post and a few of the comments following:

How can democratic elections in a country where half its people willing to respond to a western poll approve of UBL be a good thing for America (and non-Muslims, in general)?

The reason Pakistan has been moving ever closer to Shari’a is not because of American foreign policy, Israel, a lack of education, or poverty (jihadists tend to be better educated and wealthier than their peers), it is because of Islam.

Bhutto advocated not the different, peaceful, moderate (mythical) Islam that President Bush, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others like them hope exists, but less Islam. A secular democracy led by a woman is doubly anathema to Allah.

The President has not recognized — neither has any other world leader — that the reason Islam wars against the Infidel (and those considered not-Muslim-enough) is because its god and prophet require it:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause’ . . .’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Mike Huckabee, George W. Bush II

Mike Huckabee is George W. Bush II: a professed Christian who also happens to be a Big Government, State-Knows-Best, globalist, politically-correct dhimmi who, if he understands the Constitution at all, overlooks the parts he finds inconvenient.

Making matters worse, he thinks we can negotiate with jihad.

America needs as president someone who will fulfill his or her presidential oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and who has a clue as to what our enemy in the Global War on Terrorism is. (Hint: It's not the tactic terrorism, it is the jihad ideology and those who advance it.)

Here is the redoubtable Ms. Coulter on another statist wolf in conservative sheep's clothing:

Despite the overwhelming popular demand for another column on Ron Radosh's review of Stan Evans' book, this week's column will address the urgent matter of evangelical Christians getting blamed for Mike Huckabee.

To paraphrase the Jews, this is "bad for the evangelicals."

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

I went on a massive book tour for "Godless" just last year, including a boffo opening interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today," a one-on-one, full-hour interview with Chris Matthews on "Hardball," and various other hostile interviews from the organs of establishmentarian opinion.

But I didn't get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.

If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have also rejected Darwin's discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it.

But they won't ask us, because, unlike the cornpone, we won't immediately collapse under gentle questioning. It's one thing to be "easily led" by the pope. Huckabee is easily led by Larry King.

Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

I don't understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions – as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism – does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as "man-made global warming." Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

Huckabee immediately dropped his alleged skepticism of Darwinism and turned to his main goal as president of the United States: teaching children more art and music. This, he said, was his "passion" because "I think our education system is failing kids because we're not touching the right side of the brain – the creative side. We are focusing on the left side."

I think I know someone who has just read an article in Reader's Digest about left brain/right brain differences!

When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible's rather pointed remarks about sodomy – fitting the MSM's image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I'm usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.) And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) – despite the allegedly hallowed principle of "stare decisis." As explained in "Godless," stare decisis means: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays' rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.

Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy. But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion "probably was appropriate."

He made these remarks on his monthly radio show, "Ask the Governor," as was widely reported at the time, including a July 3, 2003, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article titled, "Huckabee Says Sex Lives of Adults Not State Affair." I stress that "Ask the Governor" was not a wacky, comedy-based, morning zoo-type radio program. It was supposed to be serious.

Employing the ACLU's "any law I don't like is unconstitutional" test, Huckabee said he supported the court's decision because a law "that prohibited private behavior among adults" would be difficult to enforce. Next he'll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers "nonstarters."

How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage?

Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are "probably" unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a spirited dissent in Lawrence, joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, raising the somewhat embarrassing point that homosexual sodomy is not technically mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, our Founding Fathers would have been our "Founding Life Partners."

Scalia said that inasmuch as the Texas law furthered "the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity," the court's ruling placed all these laws in jeopardy.

Most important, Scalia said: "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." At least no court has tried to legalize gay marriage since that 2003 ruling, so we can be grateful for – Hey, wait a minute!

Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but he supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a "constitutional right" to gay marriage. I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

No wonder Huckabee is the evangelical liberals like.

Defending Teddy bear jihad by accusing the West of overreacting

Obfuscating for Islam by blaming the victim, just like the Democratic Presidential candidates do when they blame non-Muslims for Muslim hate.

From here:

Rob,

So, Sudan duped the Western press?

It's amazing that those "yahoos" were able to manipulate the non-Muslim world into thinking that they wanted to incarcerate, brutalize, and kill a teacher over a teddy bear.

Your defense of jihad is transparent, immoral, and incoherent.

First, you lament the "injury" done to Islam by its own followers' barbarism rather than that inflicted upon the non-Muslim world by them.

Second, you call first the Sudanese "yahoos;" then, it's those who report on their insanity who are the idiots.

Third, rather than condemn Muslim bloodlust, you blame the actual and potential victims of it for their "broad-brushing."

Finally, you dismiss the utter depravity of Muslims imitating Mohammed's example and mock justified revulsion and alarm with lines like:

"the big bad Muslims"

"the Western press was duped"

"half-assed teddy story"

"conservative pundits whipped up a feeding frenzy"

"a piece of performance art"

"stage-managed"

"The West lapped up every bit"

"It doesn't take much to set off the West"

"chants of “death to the infidels” and threats of 40 lashes to some innocent usually does the trick"

"We nod our heads knowingly that the madness among Muslims will never end until we end it ourselves"

"most of the “knives” were ceremonial swords"

"pay small sums to uneducated members of their mosque"

"partners in the orchestration"

"frame the demonstrations"

"give the event a sense of urgency"

"We fell for it because we wanted to"

"It justifies our moral outrage"

"duped the Western press"

"opportunists in the West saw it as a means to paint all Muslims with a broad brush as unreasonable and violent"

Muslims want to kill over a teddy bear, actually riot and murder over cartoons, terrorize authors, slay artists, and commit over ten thousand attacks since 9/11, but it's the West which misrepresents "all" Muslims.

This is craven, seditious submission.

This is the fog of war.

This is the Genocidal Pedophile's "War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

So much for your false accusation of taking your words out-of-context.

Islam has little love for girls unless -- as in the case of Mohammed -- she's nine, he's in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape her

From here:

robin,

The religious inequity noted in that last statement just flew right by you, didn't it?

Why is that a Muslim man can marry an Infidel woman, but the reverse is forbidden? Is that "tolerant" to you? Is that "equitable"?

otter's suggestion that your ex was an apostate is not unreasonable; more lamentable for you is the possibility that he was a devout Muslim compromising outwardly to advance the cause of Islam. I would question also whether you are much of a Catholic, since you seem perfectly proud to state that your daughter "by birth is a Muslim."

Assuming that you are a decent person, such a position indicates your ignorance of the faith into which you married, for Allah and his apostle have little love for girls unless -- as in the case of Mohammed -- she's nine, he's in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape her:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

In ten minutes she speaks more truth than the President has in six years

While he equates Islam's "sacred" texts with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, Wafa Sultan expounds on the malevolence of Allah:

What would Mohammed do?

In light of Allah's statement, "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21), it is reasonable to assume that the educated, faithful Muslim will strive to imitate his example.

In fact, Mohammed is called the "Ideal Man" in Islam. His words and deeds (and even what he saw and permitted) determine what is right and good.

If Mohammed's words and actions were at least somewhat moral, then non-Muslims can hope that more Islam will reduce and end eventually the threat posed by Muslims raping, enslaving, mutilating, and butchering in the name of Allah.

So, what is that example Allah desires his people to follow? What would Mohammed do? Let's ask him:

1. Slaughter all non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to its oppression, humiliation, degradation, and jizya:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

2. Engage in terrorism:

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

3. Kill even women and children:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

4. Behead, crucify, mutilate, and slaughter:

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

5. Marry the six-year-old daughter of a close supporter and begin raping her when she turns nine (after all, Allah wanted it):

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

6. Beat potentially disobedient wives . . . .

Things named "Mohammed"

A teacher is threatened with death for naming a teddy bear "Mohammed."

"Just a 'tiny minority of extremists'" you say? Actually, it's the non-Infidel population of Sudan.

"Not official" you protest? The government's sentenced her to prison time.

"Muslims around the world condemn this"? Where are the counter-protests by the fabled "huge majority of moderate Muslims"?

Name any part of Islam which rejects such a reaction as un-Islamic.

You can't, since Mohammed silenced critics not by good deeds and sweet reason, but by silencing them.

Asma bint Marwan was a poetess who challenged the false prophet. This is what that brought her:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

A little more detail on the foul deed:

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Let's see, things named "Mohammed" . . . .

1. Bill Keller's little friend: