Obama's desire to use the fruits of your labor to increase his political power should come as no surprise

In 2001, the future president confused protecting the rights of the individual with stealing your property.  Notice his regret over the Supreme Court's not "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," restrictions put in place to protect us from government.

Notice also his use of the mob ("political and community organizing and activities on the ground [. . .] the actual coalition of powers") to "bring about redistributive change."  If one gang in black robes doesn't get us, the other gang in street clothes will. Tyrants dress up their malice and greed as "serving the people," but they're really only serving themselves.

Watch out for socialists' ideas of "political and social justice."  It's anything but "just":

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Suicidally-ignorant bigots align with their future Islamic overlords in calling ivory "black" and agitating for freedom of beheading, child-rape, and slavery

An obviously principled defense of religious liberty . . . if you call "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason "religion"

What more than blind hatred of Christianity -- and of America for retaining vestiges of its Christian founding principles, along with no small number of Christians -- spurs the godless left to rally in defense of "religious freedom" when the "religion" they're defending will take away not only their freedom, but their heads, their wives, and their daughters?

The truth is, when it is Christians or Jews expressing their religion freely (or engaging in just plain self-preservation, as in Israel's defense of its very existence or the effort to stop the Islamic house of ill-repute at Ground Zero) those defending the mosque now foam at the mouth about separation of church and state.

What in the world do socialists have in common with pseudo-religious, murdering tyrants?

And what race is Islam, anyway?

Deep down inside, many of these craven traitors must understand that when push comes to shove, and they've succeeded in diminishing the influence of Christianity in America so that Islam reigns, they'll be forced to make a choice: Convert, submit, or die.  And they must know that when that time does come, they're going to convert.  When faced with tyranny, cowards submit.  And being the tyrants that many of them are, they'll delight in having a chance finally to stick it to "Good white Christian folk" of every ethnicity.

But these Useful Idiot dhimmis and their Muslim puppet masters misunderstand the American spirit because they are not American in any meaningful sense of the word.  Americans do not submit. We do not surrender.  We will not stand by idly while the rabidly-ignorant-and-vicious savage those we love.

Look, she misspelled "dead."
Good Muslims make "dead" neighbors.

Notice how the treasonous, clueless media support the cultural jihad in America, a movement which will do away ultimately with their freedom of the press (not that they're using it lately for anything other than undermining the Republic): "which would include a prayer room;" as if having one means that Muslims obeying the word of Allah and emulating Muhammad's example didn't bring down the towers and exterminate the three thousand.

In other words, what comfort to non-Muslims is a "prayer room" when its occupants will be praying for our subjugation and humiliation or slaughter?  The mujahideen media gins up opposition to defense of the Republic by Americans opposing a monument to the nineteen and their murderous "god" at Ground Zero:

Opponents of the center, which would include a prayer room, say its proposed location is insensitive and fear it will harbor religious extremism. Those who back it cite the right to religious freedom and a need to promote tolerance and understanding.

Hundreds of opponents on Sunday chanted 'No Mosque,' sang patriotic songs and waved photographs of violent attacks by Islamic extremists.

One sign read: 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists were Muslim.'

Around the corner, supporters chanted: 'We don't care what bigots say, religious freedom is here to stay.'

A supporter, retired school teacher Ilene Kahn, said: 'This has become a political tool to preach hatred. The peace-loving Muslims did not attack us.'

What Ms. Kahn doesn't realize is what every Muslim knows: The mosque represents imperialistic, triumphalist, militant Islam.  Also known as "just Islam."  Yet, besides Miss America -- who adds treason to lewdness in Muslim eyes; I can hear that fatwa coming, it's coming 'round the bend -- where are the "peace-loving Muslims" opposing the mosque?

Ali Akram, a local doctor who supports the project, said: "The people who say the mosque is too close to Ground Zero, those are the same people that protest mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island and Tennessee and Wisconsin and California. What radius will they go for?

How 'bout Mecca?  But even then, that city belongs to the pagans from whom it was stolen.

Many in the crowd opposing the center were firefighters and construction workers, who carried signs reading: "This is Sacred Ground to New Yorkers."

And it should be to all non-Muslims of every religion and nationality.

One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11."

That's pretty much it.

The mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? Obama says, "Let's not jump to conclusions."

Just hours after a report declaring that, "The Obama administration has assured Israel that Iran's process of converting nuclear material into a working weapon would take at least a year," the little caliph has a reactor.

Bolton was right:

Iranian and Russian nuclear technicians made final preparations to start up Iran's first reactor on Saturday after years of delays, an operation that will mark a milestone in what Tehran considers its right to produce nuclear energy.

Nationwide celebrations are planned for the fuel loading at the Bushehr facility in southern Iran, while Russia pledges to safeguard the plant and prevent spent nuclear fuel from being shifted to a possible weapons program.

Well, there's nothing to worry about then, is there?

And how much you wanna bet those celebrations included shouts of "Allahu akbar!" and "Khaybar! Khaybar!"?

'The startup operations will be a big success for Iran,' conservative lawmaker Javad Karimi said in Tehran. 'It also shows Iran's resolve and capability in pursuing its nuclear activities.'

The West has not sought to block the reactor startup as part of its confrontations over Iran's nuclear agenda, a clash that has resulted in repeated rounds of U.N. sanctions against Tehran. Washington and other nations do not specifically object to Tehran's ability to build peaceful reactors that are under international scrutiny."

What does it mean when your allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief agrees with Muslim terrorists (Hamas) about a mosque at Ground Zero?

A devout Muslim believes that Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah and that Muhammad is a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.  Since Muhammad and his deity commanded the imposition of Islamic law (shari'a) over all mankind -- using force when necessary -- then a devout Muslim must support the overthrow of all non-Muslim governments.  That includes our Constitution.

Being a former Muslim who attended Qur'an' classes for the best ("most devout") students and the "smartest president ever," then B. Hussein Obama knows exactly what he praises here:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Republic has elected to defend our Constitution and our borders someone who hearts Islam.  Here is what Barack Hussein Obama, our Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever known, the Most Powerful Man on Earth, recites with "a first-rate accent" and describes as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth . . . .":

Allah u Akbar
Ash-hadu alla ilaha illallah
Ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah
Hayya ‘alas-salat
Hayya ‘alal-falah
Allah u Akbar
La ilaha illallah

Allah is The Greatest
I bear witness that there is no lord except Allah
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
Make haste towards prayer
Make haste towards welfare [success]
Allah is The Greatest
There is no lord except Allah

"Allahu akbar!"; Where have I heard that before?*

*Muslims shout this when slaughtering non-Muslims.

Allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief aids jihad by playing into the hands of the little caliph

Imagine the prime minister of Great Britain negotiating with Hitler on the eve of World War II. What's that? He did? How did that work out?

Notice below the "fair-and-balanced" tone the author uses: "Mr. Ahmadinejad." It's a good thing our media treat the Iranian butcher with the derision he deserves.

Assuming that the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief is not merely aiding the little dictator, Ahmadinejad will run circles around Obama and expose him for the pretender he is, here on the eve of a new Holocaust.

Barack Obama 'may be prepared to meet Iranian president’:

Earlier this month, Mr Ahmadinejad requested face-to-face talks with Mr Obama during the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The White House had appeared to rule out any meeting.

However, in an interview with CNN, Gen Jones said “the door’s open” if the Iranians agree to resume talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

When asked whether Mr Obama may meet the Iranian leader, Gen Jones said: “Ultimately if we find a convergence of paths all things are possible.

With Obama "all things are possible"? The general certainly has a high opinion of his commander-in-chief.

More on the mosque at Ground Zero

Pat Condell offers his perspective here:



Wafa Sultan observes here.

A new mosque is now being planned in New York near "Ground Zero," two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to be. This mosque is headed by an Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative, who proposes to convert the now-shuttered Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place into an Islamic Cultural Center which would contain a mosque.

It is crucial to study the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize, for example, that the building of a mosque especially at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam's march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law.

On a daily bases, in so many parts of the world, deadly attacks are perpetrated by Jihadists either against non Muslims or, frequently, against Muslims -- especially Muslim women. The terror type of Jihad, however, is only one way for Islamists to accomplish their mission of making the "Kafir," or infidels, submit to Sharia Law. Another method is, as the author Robert Spencer calls it, an insidious, creeping "Stealth Jihad."

While Mr. Shahzad is the impatient Jihadist who attempts to destroy the West through terror, there is also the second type of Jihadist, who is much more patient, and who employs the "Stealth Jihad." The Stealth Jihadis are subtle in their approach and take their time to accomplish the same objective of submitting us all under Islam and under Sharia Law.

Recently, two separate episodes highlight this gloomy reality. The first is the attempted bombing of Times Square by the Pakistani terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, called by Leon de Winter "The Foreclosure Terrorist" from an anchor at CNN who said, "It can be confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine, that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."

To someone who grew up in a Muslim country, as I did, this can only be seen as ludicrous. Perhaps there should be a formal Fatwa, or religious edict called the "Foreclosure Jihad." No doubt, those at Al Azhar University in Cairo - the epicenter of Islamic jurisprudence -- might like this idea: It is an effective way to conceal the true narrative of Islam.

According to the Center of the study of Political Islam (www.politicalislam.com), over the last 1400 years, Muslims have murdered roughly 270 million kafirs [non-Muslims]; 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and around 120 million African slaves. Until today, as far as we know, there has not been any official acknowledgement or official apology by any official Islamic organization for these atrocities. This calamity is not a modern day phenomenon. It has been taking place since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

This is what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a few years ago, said at the Chautauqua Institution in New York:

"Seven centuries before the Declaration of Independence was written Shari'a Law was intended to protect life, religion, property, family and mental well being. This is why I assert that America is in fact a Shari'a compliant state".

The Imam avoids mentioning that Islamic Sharia allows, among other ruthless practices, to beat women to discipline them, and that Sharia also still sanctions slavery. Is that not a bit different from American set of laws? Does the Imam recommend that the US implement the previous two practices into our system to be a more "Sharia compliant state"?

The Imam also said, in Sydney, Australia, that "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end."

The declaration of war on the West -- as Bin Laden declared initially -- was not, bear in mind, based on this "harm" allegedly done to Muslims, but on Hadith, [reports on the sayings and activities of Mohammed and his companions] of Mohammed in Al-Buchary:

"I have been ordered to fight and kill all mankind until they say no God except Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah."

Read it all.

And found at Diana West's excellent site:

A little levity

From here:

"A Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Priest met at the town's annual 4th of July picnic. Old friends, they began their usual banter. 'This baked ham is really delicious,' the priest teased the rabbi.

'You really ought to try it. I know it's against your religion, but I can't understand why such a wonderful food should be forbidden! You don't know what you're missing. You just haven't lived until you've tried Mrs. Hall's prized Virginia Baked Ham. Tell me, Rabbi, when are you going to break down and try it?'

The rabbi looked at the priest with a big grin, and said, 'At your wedding.'"

Elected tyrants strengthen their Court of Last Resort

What do you do when reasonable people reject your efforts to enact into law your suicidal and perverse policies? Implement them by judicial fiat! B. Hussein and his Democrat persons of hench have strengthened the statists by confirming Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Paul Mirengoff explains why this is another cement block hanging from Harrison Bergeron:

"To get a sense of what it means, think of the three big constitutional decisions rendered by district courts in the past week or two. They are: (1) Judge Bolton's grant of a preliminary injunction blocking key portions of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, (2) Judge Hudson's ruling permitting the Commonwealth of Virginia to proceed with its lawsuit challenging the portion of Obamacare that requires individuals to purchase insurance, and (3) Judge Walker's outrageous ruling that California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

If these matters reach the Supreme Court, as seems likely, I have no doubt that Kagan will side with those who challenge the Arizona immigration law and Proposition 8, and with the government in the case of Virginia's challenge to Obama care. But that's just the tip of the iceberg -- probably less than one year's worth of bad jurisprudence. Kagan is only 50 years old, so we can expect at least 25 years of the same sort of leftist assault on our traditional freedoms and the rights of our states.

The only way Kagan's confirmation doesn't become a disaster is if we are able to elect Republicans presidents pretty consistently during the next 22 years or so, starting in 2012, and thus can keep Kagan busy writing dissents."

No more excuses, folks. It's time to restore the Republic.

Deception and censorship: A Muslim apologist's only friends*

Because Islam's apologists can't win on the facts -- even with their own people; that's why Muhammad prescribed death for those who leave Islam -- they resort to other, less forthright tactics.  Two of those are on display below.

Fazeel Gareeboo obfuscates in defense of Islam:

. . . I still don't understand how because some followers of a religion are criminals and claim that their religion gives them justification for the crimes they commit, that means that the religion itself, and the overwhelming majority of its followers is criminal. It seems to me that you go from 'A large majority of (claimed) religiously motivated crimes are committed by Muslims these days... therefore their religion must be criminal'. Is that the gist of your argument/reasoning?

To which I replied:

Refusing to answer my question, Fazeel? I'm not surprised.

As for your straw man: Is your gross misstatement of my position due to a lack of reading comprehension or honesty? (Now, before you pretend to be offended, you and I both know that Muhammad declared that "War is deceit," and had no qualms at all about lying to advance his goals.) Since Allah called him a "beautiful pattern of conduct" (according to Muhammad himself -- how convenient!), the faithful Muslim should not only obey Allah's commands to enslave and slaughter, but also imitate the genocidal pedophile's example. And what is that example, exactly?

Your "Ideal Man" committed genocide, kept a prepubescent nine-year-old as a sex slave, and raped, mutilated, tortured, enslaved, stole, extorted, practiced polygyny, beat his wives (endorsed wife-beating, at least), instituted religious and gender apartheid, deceived, and blasphemed the living God. Even worse, Muhammad claimed that "the devil made me do it" and demanded that his followers do the same, or else.

That's the "gist of my argument."

So, back to my question: Do you support jihad against and the imposition of shari'a on non-Muslims or not?

Seeing someone defending Western Civilization, the valiant Dennis rode in to save the day with:

Reported as inappropriate. Please take your hate someplace else.

He did not escape unscathed:

That's what Muslims and other tyrants do, isn't it? When you can't win on the facts, silence your opposition using whatever means you can.

Dennis, you defend genocide, rape, and slavery on "religious" grounds, but accuse *me* of "hate"?

Instead of resorting to censorship in order to silence the facts about your genocidal pedophile-as-prophet, why don't you expose and condemn his perverse and murderous ideology?

You ought to report yourself as "inappropriate."

*Unless you count the mainstream media, Bill O'Reilly, every Democrat, and most Republicans.

Muslim apologists don't engage in horrific violence, typically.  That's reserved for their more "courageous" coreligionists.

"So, should the guy with halal cart not be allowed within a certain radius of Ground Zero? Just curious..."

So asks someone to whom the obvious answer apparently is, "No, he should be allowed . . . ."

I disagree:

That depends, Ryan.

If it’s 1942, should the guy with the hibachi and a tattoo of “I heart Hirohito” be allowed anywhere near Pearl Harbor?

If it’s 1944, should the dude wearing the swastika armband and goosestepping down the sidewalk to his bratwurst stand be allowed anywhere near D.C.?

Today, should a registered sex offender wearing a t-shirt that declares “I like little girls” be allowed near your daughter?

Just curious.

Do you realize that the Muslims who flew our own planes into our own buildings did so because they believed that it pleased their god to kill non-Muslims? That they would earn “paradise,” a cosmic brothel populated by dozens of perpetual virgins and “boys like pearls” for killing or being killed while fighting in Allah’s cause (Qur’an 9:111; no, that citation is not a joke)?

Tragically, contrary to what the unaware, incurious, and possibly-compromised President Bush would have us believe (not to mention the “smartest president ever” who grew up Muslim, took Qur’an classes for the best students, received aid during his college years from an adviser to a member of the Saudi royal family, “vacationed” in Pakistan when Americans could not, described the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth,” and “misspoke” in an interview by referring to “my Muslim faith”), Islam is not a “religion of peace,” and the 9/11 butchers were not “hijacking” a “great world religion.”

“Islam” means “submission,” not “peace,” and its founder Muhammad and his allah commanded the establishment of Islamic rule over all mankind by any means necessary, including violence: “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, primarily] until they pay the jizya [oppressive poll tax required of conquered "dhimmi" survivors] willingly and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9).

So, Ryan, should the guy whose heart and mind belongs to Allah and his apostle Muhammad — who boasted, “I have been made victorious with terror” — be allowed anywhere near the site of one of his coreligionists’ bloodiest crimes?

Just curious.

Newt Gingrich radically misnames Islam

At least he's getting the "fundamentals" right, so to speak.

Andrew McCarthy credits Newt Gingrich with "dramatically refocusing our understanding of the threat to the West posed by Islamism," which he does, but he allows Newt to fall into and rot in the semantic quicksand of referring to what is essential (not "essentially") Islam with the misnomer "radical Islamism."

The existential threat facing Western Civilization and all non-Muslim societies is not "radical Islamism" -- or any other fact-denying, falsely-comforting, misleading euphemism you can conjure -- it is just plain, simple, everyday, historical, Qur'anic, traditional, Islam-as-Muhammad-practiced-it Islam.

When asked what is the greatest deed, Muhammad replied that to believe in Allah and his apostle is the greatest, and that jihad is second. And unlike Christianity, which promises eternal life to all who trust in the Son of God, in Islam, "paradise" (a cosmic brothel with dozens of perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls" waiting to satisfy the faithful Muslim) is promised to those who kill and are killed "fighting in Allah's cause" (Qur'an 9:111).

Those who doubt that Islam poses a threat to the non-Muslim world should consider Muhammad's own words and how Muslims have understood them traditionally. Consider this passage:

"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).

Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected Qur'anic exegetes in Islam says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

Why is Muhammad's preaching and practice a problem for non-Muslims?  If you are a faithful Muslim, you want to please Allah.  Allah called Muhammad a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.  That means that the faithful Muslim will want to imitate Muhammad's conduct.

That this belief system is just plain Islam and not the aberration implied by the modifiers "radical," "fundamentalist," "extremist," and the suffix "-ism" is shown also by the authors' own words: If shari'a is "Islam's legal and political framework," and the movement to implement shari'a throughout the entire world is "mainstream," then it is not the "moderate" Muslim who recognizes individual liberty and a distinction between the political and religious realms who represents Islam, but the "radical Islamist" who seeks to establish Allah's rule over all humanity.

And that is just what Muhammad and his deity commanded their followers. In Surah 9, its last major revelation on offensive jihad, Muhammad's god commanded: "Fight those who disbelieve in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, primarily], until they pay the jizya [the oppressive Islamic poll tax imposed on conquered, "dhimmi" populations] with willing submission and feel subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).  There's no "live and let live," with Islam.  If you beg and plead and grovel and apologize, if you struggle desperately to make it love you, you'll only die frustrated.

There is good news: That Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are welcomed by Fox as legitimate voices in the public square, that Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin denounce the jihad trophy mosque proposed for Ground Zero (however weakly in the latter's case), that thousands of Americans protest against it in the streets, that Andrew McCarthy participates in Sean Hannity's Great American panel bringing along with him his latest work, The Grand Jihad -- all are signs that America is awakening to the truth about Islam.

And not a moment too soon, for Muhammad who boasted, "I have been made victorious with terror," demanded:

"Say to the Unbelievers . . . if they persist [in unbelief], the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world) . . . " (Qur'an 8).

We must defeat jihad, but we can't defeat an enemy we can't (or won't) name.

Speaking of "out-of-context," some Qur'anic verses are not what they appear to be

Qur'an 5:32 is used often by Muslim apologists for Islam (and non-Muslims believing that they must be more enlightened than their fellows who for some strange reason see a connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism . . . perpetrated by Muslims . . . in Islam's name . . . while quoting Muhammad) in order to deceive non-Muslims into doubting their lyin' eyes. Even though Muslims maim, rape, and butcher non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) around the world every day in the name of Islam, Muslims want us to believe that Religionists of Peace are forbidden to kill non-Muslims (except in self-defense, of course). They quote just a portion of verse 32:

"Anyone who murders any person, it shall be as if he murdered all the people."

Sounds great, doesn't it? Islamic terrorism is just a crime that has nothing to do with Islam. Its practitioners are "perverting a great world religion." Nothing to worry about, right?

Despite Muslims' best efforts to let non-Muslims read into that little sound bite the tolerance and good will which we assume are naturally part of any decent religion, the actual verse is not a prohibition against Muslims killing non-Muslims, but a condemnation of Jews, Allah’s great “enemy”:

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

Even more ominous (and tragic), the following verse is actually much worse for "infidels" than it appears at first glance:

"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).

A non-Muslim in a nation which has never sent troops into Afghanistan or Iraq might be thinking that they're safe. After all, they're not "warring against" Allah and Muhammad, even by way of their elected officials. But their comfort is illusory. Taking the verse in the context provided by Ibn Kathir in his highly respected tafsir (Qur’anic commentary), the horrific violence required by Muhammad against non-Muslims is to be carried out against them for their not being Muslim:

“‘Wage war’ mentioned here means oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

Take Qur'anic verses in their proper context. Your civilization may depend on it.