WWMD? What Would Mohammed Do?
Well, probably tell his followers to do exactly as it seems they did at Bataclan -- not only murder "infidels" but engage in the most barbaric torture of their victims.

Yes, mass-murdering psychopathic "prophet" "Muhammad himself approved of torture as both an interrogation technique and a way of putting an offender to death."

Oh, and if you are an "infidel" -- or gay, or an apostate, or you are a woman who is raped without four male witnesses standing by as it happens -- you are an "offender."

Here is the testimony in French.

Louise Mensch writes about it at Heat Street -- how France suppressed reports of the sick and terrible torture that the Muslim terrorists did to their infidel victims. As one investigator put it:

Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disemboweled. There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

The father of one of the victims wrote this:

"On the causes of the death of my son A., at the forensic institute in Paris, I was told, and what a shock it was for me at that moment, they had cut off his testicles, had put them in his mouth, and he was disemboweled. When I saw him behind glass, lying on a table, a white shroud covering it up to the neck, a psychologist was with me. He said: This is "the only presentable part, your son's left profile." I found that he had no right eye. I made the remark; I was informed that they had punctured his eye and sliced down the right side of his face, where there was a very large hematoma that we could all see."

More on the torture Islam sanctions:

Rather than prescribing quick methods of execution there were times when Muhammad ordered his men to make a victim's death as slow and agonizing as possible. In one case, his men literally pulled apart the body of an elderly woman named Umm Qirfa by tying her limbs to camels then sent in opposite directions (Ibn Ishaq 980).

One of the most influential Shi'a religious leaders in Iran recently extended the validity of torture to the practice of raping prisoners in the defense of Islam. Mesbah-Yazdi said that it was advisable for the rapist to "perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner."

Mesbah-Yazdi went on to add that "If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi'ite holy city of] Karbala."

According to the cleric, "If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus." When asked if the rape of men and young boy was considered sodomy, he said, "No, because it is not consensual."

A 2006 fatwa on the popular Islam Web website authorized burning people as a form of punishment. (It was pulled after ISIS began doing this to people in 2015).

Muslim apologists often tell a different story in the West, where rhetorical strategy creates the impression that they oppose torture in and of itself, thus attracting the support of a broader coalition. (CAIR's short-lived 2006 "Campaign against Torture" is one of the best examples of this). The scope of their efforts, however, rarely extend beyond condemning Western countries in general (and the US in particular). Sympathies are also tellingly limited to the alleged treatment of Muslim terror detainees.

In fact, these organizations have very little to say about ending the less ambiguous and far more brutal human rights violations practiced by Muslim governments, even though the victims there are usually Muslim as well (such as the cleric Mesbah-Yazdi's unfortunate victims of rape). The goal of these "anti-torture" campaigns is not an end to torture, but rather an attempt to capture the moral high ground on a controversial issue by exploiting Western attitudes - with no regard for the victims of true torture.

The barbaric treatment of hostages by groups like ISIS is a direct product of religious belief. The Quran is quite explicit in teaching that the 'merciful' Allah tortures non-believers for eternity using supernatural methods to inflict pain that are not even possible in this life. There is no reason for a believing Muslim to think that Allah would disapprove of a far more temporal and limited practice against those whom he has destined for such anguish.

In summary, Islam is not fundamentally opposed to torture in certain circumstances, as long as it is the Muslim party applying it. This is a good example of the many common double standards within the religion that must be recognized and brought out in the open to facilitate honest dialog.

(Note: There are Muslim individuals who sincerely object to torture on principle. So, it would not be right to make assumptions about anyone's personal view on this subject - or any other - based on nominal religious affiliation).

What's terrible about the suppression of information is that only by being honest about what Islam calls for -- and what some Muslims carry out (and many more sanction, per Pew and other polls) -- we cannot begin to deal with the terrorism that is increasingly being waged on non-Muslims (and Muslims of the "wrong" sects) around the globe.