Contrary to what the "experts" conclude, Obama's foreign policy is neither "a mystery," "incoherent," nor "demented." It's treason.*

Just like his domestic policy. (But's that's going too slowly for someone who's got only a few months left on his License to Bring Down America from Within.)

Reports this week show that B. Hussein's bombing of Libya to help its rebels is aiding Al Qaeda, who have joined them. That's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention, since when Iranians protested against Islamic rule in Iran and were murdered in the streets, all Obama could muster was "Let's not get involved in others' internal politics. Where's the ice cream?"

Look at the facts: Obama's enforcing suicidal Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan. He's bombing Qaddafi in Libya to help a rebellion supported in word and personnel by Al Qaeda. He supported Mubarak's removal in Egypt, which has given the country to the Muslim Brotherhood; Egypt's Copts have gone from the frying pan and into the fire.

When President Bush was deciding what to do in response to the global jihad, his ignorance of Islam prevented him from recognizing the truth about our enemy, and he erred accordingly. Obama has no similar excuse.

If the "smartest president ever" who was raised Muslim and attended Qur'an classes does everything he can to aid the rise of Islamic rule throughout the lands of Islam, it's no accident.

It's treason.*

*Of course, for it to be treason, the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief would have to have been American at some point.

Egypt's freedom-loving Muslims bring tanks, armored vehicles, live ammunition, and RPGs to war against . . . monks

For more than a millennium, non-Muslims have endured the ravages of jihad as their husbands, fathers, wives, daughters, sons, and civilizations were beheaded, raped, and enslaved by Islam.

How many of them wished -- prayed -- for the military superiority that the West possesses today? Yet our leaders obfuscate, bloviate, lie, and demonize in defense of Islam, including and especially our treasonous (allegedly) former-Muslim-in-Chief, who knows better.

We are at war. To those who would argue that we cannot become like our enemies, it's not your little girls being kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted to the religion from hell. What will you do when those malevolent fiends are at your daughters? "Please, go ahead. I don't want to be like you"? This is the time for self-defense, not craven, self-righteous stupidity.

As bad as it was for the Copts under Mubarak, it's going to be hell from here on out. Egypt's Muslim army now wages open war on monks, from here:

Monk Aksios Ava Bishoy told activist Nader Shoukry of Freecopts the armed forces stormed the main entrance gate to the monastery in the morning using five tanks, armored vehicles and a bulldozer to demolish the fence built by the monastery last month to protect themselves and the monastery from the lawlessness which prevailed in Egypt during the January 25 Uprising.

"When we tried to address them, the army fired live bullets, wounding Father Feltaows in the leg and Father Barnabas in the abdomen," said Monk Ava Bishoy. "Six Coptic workers in the monastery were also injured, some with serious injuries to the chest."

The injured were rushed to the nearby Sadat Hospital, the ones in serious condition were transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian Hospital in Cairo.

Father Hemanot Ava Bishoy said the army fired live ammunition and RPGs continuously for 30 minutes, which hit part of the ancient fence inside the monastery. "The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying 'Lord have mercy' without running away. This is what really upset them," he said. "As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting 'Allahu Akbar' and 'Victory, Victory'."

He also added that the army prevented the monastery's car from taking the injured to hospital.

"Amateurishness" or malice?

What must one conclude when every decision an allegedly-former-Muslim makes advances jihad against the non-Muslim world? When it was Presidents Clinton and Bush bombing Christians in defense of Muslims waging jihad, enshrining shari'a into the constitutions of two new "democracies" (how's that for oxymoronic?), and agitating for an Islamic Kosovo in the heart of Europe, one could reasonably conclude that they were merely clueless dhimmis either indulging their multiculturalist prejudice against the greatest civilization the world has ever known or operating on the suicidal misconception that Islam lends itself naturally to freedom. But President Obama?

How can the "smartest president ever" who:

-was Muslim,

-attended Qur'an classes as a child (was he illiterate and deaf?),

-has received and given aid to rabid Muslim anti-Semites (yes, that's doubly-redundant),

-attended a rabidly-anti-American "church" for twenty years, calling its anti-Semitic leader his "spiritual mentor,"

-expressed his determination to "stand with the Muslims" after 9/11,

-referred in an interview during his last campaign to "my Muslim faith,"

-described the Islamic call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,"

-invited the Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated purpose is to "bring down Western Civilization from within" -- to both his Cairo propaganda event and to govern Egypt,

-obfuscated and deflected when an Indian schoolgirl at another photo op in Dar al-Islam asked him about the meaning of "jihad,"

-works tirelessly to undermine the only decent nation in the Middle East, Israel, and

-is bankrupting and disarming the Republic

not know that he's aiding the advance of jihad and shari'a?

I hope that Niall Ferguson is right. Perhaps I'm giving Obama too much credit. Maybe he's only Another Liberal Fraud feigning competence while indulging a typically-leftist loathing of the West.

But if Obama really is as intelligent as his followers claim, then it's not "amateurishness" that leads him to help our enemies and abandon our friends, it's malice.

Niall Ferguson explains Obama's malfeasance alleged incompetence:

If this is what happens in a "moderate, secular" Egypt, wait 'til the Muslim Brotherhood's in power

CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests:

"On Friday, Feb. 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a '60 Minutes' story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."

Keep her in your prayers.

UPDATE: The Muslims were shouting, "Jew! Jew!" while they raped her for twenty to thirty minutes. How did CBS forget to print those little details? We mustn't confuse anyone with the facts, right, CBS? Can't throw a wet blanket on Obama's little rebellion, can we?

Just like Carter, who still doesn't understand that removing brutal dictators holding rabid Muslims in check only allows the rabid Muslims to take over.

Well done, CBS. Great job, Mr. President!

A glimmer of hope in Egypt?

Powerline has comments from a free Egyptian on the protests. I hope his side wins.

If it does, will the free people of Egypt be either willing or able to say, "No," to the Muslim Brotherhood and their coreligionists?

Now, just in case this isn't clear: This protest is not one made or sustained by the Muslim Brotherhood, it's one that had people from all social classes and religious background in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood only showed up on Tuesday, and even then they were not the majority of people there by a long shot. We tolerated them there since we won't say no to fellow Egyptians who wanted to stand with us, but neither the Muslims Brotherhood not any of the Opposition leaders have the ability to turn out one tenth of the numbers of Protesters that were in Tahrir on Tuesday. This is a revolution without leaders. Three Million individuals choosing hope instead of fear and braving death on hourly basis to keep their dream of freedom alive. Imagine that.

Muslims beheading the Left's fantasies about Islam, one journalist at a time

What, if anything, have our "unbiased observers," our professional opinion makers, learned from their experiences up-close-and-personal with Islam? Expecting masses grateful for Obama and the Left's shared hatred of Western Civilization enlightened multiculturalism and support for implementing shari'a their "democracy," what did they find?

Anderson Cooper punched in the head ten times. Christiane Amanpour threatened repeatedly by a man clearly barely able to restrain his rage (I've seen that face of Muslim civility before; he would have snapped if not for his friend's restraining him). Katie Couric "menaced" and shoved. An ABC News team nearly beheaded. A Fox News team "beaten severely."

Will they blame Islam, which inculcates both a deep and abiding hatred for all things non-Muslim and an autonomic resorting to threats and violence?  Or will they continue repeating the Big Lie, blaming instead Mubarak, poverty, President Bush, America, or the Jews?

And do you think that Anderson Cooper's noticed yet the stark contrast between the completely peaceful, respectful, and restrained protests of American patriots and the rage of the Muslim street? Will he apologize for his ridiculous and disgusting name-calling and begin to investigate just why the "Arab" world is on fire?

Too many coincidences for it to be coincidental

The Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within -- is seeking to usurp the Egyptian government in partnership with former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the "moderate" Muslim who duped the West with soothing talk of "dialogue" and "mutual respect" into doing nothing with Iran, a jihad state in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

How does a Muslim's aiding a Muslim terrorist nation gain Weapons of Mass Destruction deserve a peace prize, again?

Speaking of losing nations entirely to Islamic rule, just as Obama and his Goebbels in the media are trying to convince you that he's the new Reagan, GE's begun a campaign in "remembrance" of the great former president.  Yes, that GE.  Living-off-your-tax-dollars GE.  Just-absorbed-into-the-Obama-administration GE.

It's good to see that while the world burns, Obama's focusing his attention on what really matters.

Another Islamic revolution? For non-Muslims within the borders of Dar al-Islam, it's out of the frying pan and into the fire

Supporting a popular Muslim insurrection against a government allied to the U.S. worked so well in '79.  Unsurprisingly, devastating incompetence (treason?) in domestic affairs isn't the only thing that President Obama's borrowed from the rabid anti-Semite Jimmy Carter.

(Indeed, the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief is trying to convince you that he's a president in the mold of Reagan, hoping that his presidency will follow the same course as the Gipper's. Well, Obama's reign is following the same script, only he's not playing the lead, he's playing the lead's predecessor.

We all knew Ronald Reagan. Obama's no Reagan.)

The American Revolution is the only time in human history that a people fought for its freedom, won it, and founded their new nation on the belief that the Creator gives irrevocably to all people the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of moral Goodness (Happiness). This was possible as an expression of the will of the American people only because of what those people believed: They were the product of a fundamentally Christian civilization. (Even Thomas Jefferson -- often exhumed and paraded by the God-hating left as a "rebuttal" to simple statements of fact pointing out that America was founded as a Christian nation -- declared that he was a Christian in the only sense Christ intended, "sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.")

To expect (or wish for) an uprising in Islamic lands to result in something similar to our own is beyond wishful thinking; you can't expect a culture that considers "beautiful" and "Ideal" the words and deeds of a genocidal, pedophilic, megalomaniacal, emotionally-stunted tyrant to result in anything remotely resembling a free society. And "democracy"? When the people are ruled by Muhammad, democracy is only another path -- stupidly endorsed by the West's clueless and craven "leaders" -- to shari'a.  Our own recent history proves this.

In the '90s, President Clinton bombed Christians to aid jihadists.  In the last decade, President Bush used our best and bravest to enshrine shari'a in the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. (The latter's ancient Jewish population is gone and its Christians flee (when they can); those who remain are intimidated, abused, and murdered.) And today, President Obama supports an Islamic revolution in Arab Muslim lands (confirmed here); when it was the people of Iran protesting against a shari'a state, he was . . .  eating ice cream.

In Iraq, we removed a nominally-Muslim tyrant (Saddam worshiped himself more than Allah) and replaced him with a system of laws which sends Muslim souls to hell and creates hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls).

What reason do we have to believe that if successful, the current uprising throughout Dar al-Islam will result in anything more than moving its peoples -- especially its non-Muslims -- out of the frying pan and into the fire?

Troubling truths about Islam

An interfaith dialogue on the Religion of Peace, the kind that our political, media, and academic elites ought to be having, not the suicidal, politically-correct, Saudi-funded, jihad-enabling, ignorant nonsense going on today.

A response to Mohamed Fadly, from here, with slight modifications in format and some added, bracketed commentary:

1) Falsely equating Christ and Allah

Mohamed equates Christ's command to “Love your enemies” with Allah's not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one's enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one's enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

2) Qur'anic contradictions? Yes, Naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation.

Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur'an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad's position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

3) The tried-but-not-true, "Out-of-context! Out-of-context!"

[The only problem is, no one ever shows how my citations are actually, out-of-context.]

Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I've never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur'an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

4) Pulling the wool over the eyes of those unfamiliar with the Islamic texts commanding jihad

[Those new to Muhammad's hellish doctrines often jump naturally from The Verse of the Sword (9:5) to the conclusion that Muhammad and his allah want(ed) every non-Muslim dead. This misunderstanding provides the opportunity for the more experienced among jihad's apologists to score points in the eyes of the gullible, foolish, and perverse. Worse, it can confuse and demoralize those rightly alarmed at what they understand intuitively as the threat posed by Islam to all humanity.

Non-Muslims should be aware that yes, Muhammad and his allah love(d) infidel blood, but he also likes converts, which are one good way to swell the ranks of Hell.

I'd guess that Muhammad preferred non-Muslims as sex slaves and punching bags, because they just keep giving and giving and giving.

And attractive infidel women reproduce Muslims just fine.]

Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I've claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he's hoping someone else who isn't paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I'd wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let's look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context[:] Qur'an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:

"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).

A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):

"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 respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah's tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

5) Isn't it ironic (in a sad, suicidal, end-of-civilization-kind-of-way) that you have to take Islamic texts out-of-context to get a message of peace?

Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur'anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who've kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It's not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I've never said otherwise.

And isn't it curious that Mohamed doesn't volunteer the rest of the story?

6) "Peace." Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Non-Muslims should be aware that Islam uses words that we find comforting, reassuring.

The only problem is that Islam uses its own dictionary.

Consider "peace," "innocent," and "terrorism."

In Islam, "peace" means that state or condition when all non-Muslims have converted, are enslaved, or dead. It's not hard to be "the world's fastest growing religion" when you're killing the competition. (Microsoft must be mad at the double standard.)

Whatever "innocent" means (usually "Muslim"), it cannot be applied to any non-Muslim, for, by virtue of their unbelief, they are friends of Satan and enemies of Allah (which is ironic, because in the Real World, the two are indistinguishable).

And "terrorism" is whatever a non-Muslim does in defense of himself or others against Allah, especially if they're Jews.]

Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:

“it's an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don't aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It's restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”

With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don't agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don't aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad's example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, 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 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”:

"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 says of it: `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."]

I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

7) Dhimmi "rights," an exemplar of Islam's sick sense of humor

Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That's an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we'll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad's command in Qur'an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:

“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

Can't you feel the love?

8) Israelis defending themselves against animals who target innocents (from among their own people) because Allah told them to do so? The Israelis are the terrorists!

Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad's being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today's non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:

“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2

They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they'd have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

9) Islamic ideals of tolerance, justice, and safety? Muslims only, please.

Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur'an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don't say what they actually say:

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

[. . .]

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'" (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

"Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).

And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Christian children decapitated, crucified, and raped in the name of Allah, just as Mohammed commanded and practiced

Mohammed killed over religion:

"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).

"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).

Mohammed commanded and practiced terrorism to advance his religion:

"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).

“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).

Mohammed gave no thought to slaughtering innocents if they stood in his way:

"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)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

No crime was too unnatural for Mohammed:

"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).

This evil spreads unchecked throughout the West.

And what of all those Christians and other non-Muslims, women, and apostates tormented around the world by Allah's minions?

In Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt, Christians suffer unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Muslims, just as Allah and his false prophet demand.

Where is President Bush? He's established Sharia in several nations now, he brings in millions of Muslims without questioning whether or not they actually believe their god's commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or kill his fellow citizens, people he's sworn to defend, and he gives no thought to either the thousands of Americans sacrificing life and limb to protect Muslims who may or may not want them dead or to those Christians and other non-Muslims experiencing Islamic revival.

Could President Bush have done more to aid the global jihad and the persecution of the Church if he had tried?

Whose behavior more closely matches the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, the apparently decent, secular, "moderate" Muslim, or the monsters below?

Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.

Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents.

One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

Filham Isaac, speaking for the Nineveh Advocacy Committee, told the human rights committee that Iraqi Christian churches were bombed, clergy murdered and unveiled Iraqi women raped or scarred with acid.

It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims, he said. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, known as Chaldo-Assyrians, were once the largest Christian minority in Iraq. They are also the oldest, descendants of ancient Mesopotamians who adopted Christianity in the first century.

The Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Church of the East are among the Christian churches in Iraq.

Today, about 300,000, or one in three, is a refugee, he said.

"It's at a crisis point," Mr. Isaac's colleague, Zaya Oshana, said later. "Christians will be completely annihilated."

Yet, the Chaldo-Assyrians do not want to leave their country en masse.

Instead, they are asking for help to settle the Nineveh Plains, in northwest Iraq, where they can have some independence and form their own state. The land is rich there, and there may be oil, too.

There is some support in the United States and Europe for this independent area, and international news reports indicate more than 700 police officers have begun training to protect the Christians in Iraq, but another 4,000 would be needed to fully secure the region and establish checkpoints on all highways and roads leading into the villages.

The committee also heard from the Ahmadiyya, an offshoot of Islam that began in India about 100 years ago. Ahmadi Muslims differ from mainstream Muslims on their views of Jesus, and on their interpretation of jihad, which they say must be non-violent.

However, they told the committee that they are increasingly persecuted in Pakistan, where they are told they are not Muslim at all and, therefore, their beliefs are an insult to Islam.

Nadeem Siddiq, general counsel for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Community of Canada, told the committee the Pakistani government has been capitulating to mullahs who call them a "cancer" and forbid them from carrying out their prayers, or even mentioning Allah on their wedding invitations.

"They say by 'posing' as Muslims, we hurt real Muslims. The mullahs are still not happy. They want our properties confiscated and they want us charged."

Coptic Christians from Egypt had much the same story, with young girls regularly kidnapped, raped or forced to marry Muslim men. Despite these difficulties, there is no mechanism to claim refugee status in the beleaguered countries. Sam Fanous, of the Canadian Coptic Association, told the MPs that the Canadian Embassy in Cairo needed Canadian, not area Muslim, staff to evaluate refugee claims.

The committee passed a motion to research the issue further and to call for more testimony from minorities suffering religious persecution worldwide.