Does any Muslim possess it?

No, because if they do, they cease being Muslim. Or their "Islam" ceases being Islam.

From here, in response to more Muslim mendacity:

Honesty is always the best policy, right, Timmy?

Shari'a is not yet part of American legal code (no thanks to Oklahoma's Useful Idiot dhimmi Miles-LaGrange), but your coreligionists are using every means at their disposal to promote it within their respective spheres of influence. You know, things like foot baths in airports, prayer rooms in colleges, demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad, agitating for special rights for Muslims (wearing coverings where prohibited by law), attempting to enforce Islamic norms at the workplace (Swift and Disney, for example). Of course, you avoided mentioning the attempt to establish shari'a courts in Canada and the successful effort to implement Islamic law in the UK, which has allowed dozens of shari'a courts.

But that's not the problem, is it, Timmy? As is your habit, you're dodging the real issue, which is the content of shari'a. You know, wife-beating, pedophilia, the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims, death for apostasy, all those doctrines-of-peace-and-mutual-understanding.

Which leads us back to where it all began, your buddy, the genocidal pedophile Muhammad. Will you now, after all these many posts, finally have the courage, the decency, the humanity, to condemn his preaching and practicing genocide, child-rape, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, religious and gender apartheid, spousal abuse, polygyny, theft, extortion, deceit, sedition, and treason?

A simple, "I do condemn them," will suffice.

Prejudice against Islam

In response to this post, Ray McIntyre offered this:

Let me see:

Muslims died in the WTC buildings. The Mosque is 2 blocks from the WTC ground Zero area. It is being built by a Sufi group, sufis are among those people that those who attacked the WTC attack, murder and whose graves they desecrate.

But I don't imagine this will dent your prejudice and fear.

Many are prejudiced regarding Islam. The question is, who is judging Islam unfairly and out of ignorance? Are those who've read its "sacred" texts "bigoted," or are those who know nothing of what Muhammad actually said and did misrepresenting the "great world religion"?

Here's my reply to someone in the latter group:

It is clear that even nine years after 9/11, nothing's "dented" your prejudice regarding Islam.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Sufis do not reject jihad against non-Muslims*. No major school of Islamic jurisprudence does. If you want to find genuinely non-violent Muslims, you have to go to groups like the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, who are persecuted as apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists, even in modern, moderate, Muslim nations like Indonesia.

To your ad-hominem-in-place-of-argument: Even if I were prejudiced and fearful, what does that have to do with what Muslims do in obedience to their god and prophet? What about what I've written is false? What does "two blocks" have to do with whether or not we should allow a trophy mosque at Ground Zero? (By the way, "Mosque at Ground Zero" was the name its backers came up with, not its opposition.)

If I quote Muhammad, then where is the "prejudice"? If I cite nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, where is the "phobia"?

Let's examine your logic a bit: Some Muslims who weren't flying planes died in 9/11. Does that mean that their coreligionists flying the planes weren't Muslim? Weren't trying to kill and terrorize non-Muslims? Weren't acting on the words and deeds of their "Ideal Man," the genocidal pedophile Muhammad?

Just the other day a Muslima suicide bomber killed dozens of her fellow Muslims. For fourteen centuries, Sunni have slaughtered Shia and Shia Sunni. None of that internecine violence negates the fact that Muhammad was a bloodthirsty, child-raping tyrant. In fact, Muhammad's words and deeds explain that violence.

So, why do you defend Muhammad's "sacralized" crimes against God and Man? Do you do so out of "prejudice" or "fear"?

*Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Here he is on jihad and dhimma (by way of Andrew Bostom):

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)"

The three words of his obfuscation

It's an impenetrable mystery. The Attorney General of the United States says that he stays up at night worrying about the next terrorist attack, but he seems to care little about why Muslims kill, referring cluelessly to their motivation being "for whatever reason."

Shouldn't an attorney general have at least a mild curiosity about the cause of 9/11 and more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since then?

"The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born," he said.

In the last 24 months, Holder said, 126 people have been indicted on terrorist-related charges, Fifty of those people are American citizens.

"I think that what is most alarming to me is the totality of what we see, the attorney general said. "Whether it is an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system, an attempt to bring down an airplane over Detroit, an attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square ... I think that gives us a sense of the breadth of the challenges that we face, and the kinds of things that our enemy is trying to do."

Just who is "our enemy"? I'm stumped.

What possibly could be the common denominator between all these people trying to murder innocents? American citizenship?

Holder says many of these converts to al Qaeda have something in common: a link to radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, an American citizen himself.

That clears things up a bit; links to Awlaki cause terrorism. So, from where is he getting the teachings that turn men into bloodthirsty animals? Is a pajama-clad Awlaki in his basement just making things up?

Speaking of basements . . .

"The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed ... they have an ability to take somebody who is perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side," he said.

Do you have a basement? When you see a Christmas tree, is your first thought, "Kill!"? When you see a Nativity, do you immediately reach for your pants to detonate your underwear? Are you "just interested" in maiming and decapitating unbelievers? Does the sound of "Jingle Bells" cause uncontrollable, murderous rage to well up within you?

Me neither.

To combat the threat of Americans turning to al Qaeda and violence, the United States is monitoring scores of radicals and has set up stings to blunt the threat.

So, Homeland Security has narrowed down the list of potential terrorists to American citizens, people who use computers, and people with basements.

You know, the usual suspects.*

*It's curious that this time, Holder didn't include tea partiers, conservatives, returning military, the Founding Fathers, or octogenarians on his watch-list. Perhaps it was just an oversight.

Qatar funding jihad? Let's give them the World Cup!

It turns out that those Religionists of Peace keep funding those perverting their great world religion.

When it emerged that most of the 19 were Saudis, the argument against attacking Saudi Arabia was that they were criminals acting independent of -- and contrary to -- the will of their nation. That made sense . . . until I learned that the ideology which motivated their mass murder was the Islam created and sustained in Arabia, the "religion" which fuels and funds the jihad against us.

What kind of "ally" supports murdering and maiming its friends? Could it be that President Bush should have spent less time holding hands with the house of Saud and more time studying Qur'an and Sunnah? Perhaps President Obama should stop bowing and start telling the truth about the Islam of his youth, the Qur'an he studied, the source of the "prettiest sound on Earth at sunset."

As long as our "leadership" continues to obfuscate -- intentionally in Obama's case -- for jihad and shari'a and demonize those who tell the truth about them, we'll continue bleeding.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

That's the problem, isn't it? Those "militants" aren't "disguised" as "holy pilgrims" at all. Rather, under Islam -- in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example -- "militants" and "holy pilgrims" are one and the same.

One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.

Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.

Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.

Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

But they do "treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." That's why they're not stopping it.

Muslims, the Justice Department, petty liberal politicians (I know that's redundant), and your local community college are really going to hate this

In an obvious hate crime against South Asians, this group manages to violate several of the Islamo-Leftists' cardinal rules. Not only are these people singing an actual Christmas song (no nonsense about obese trespassers dressed in red or Muhammad, Buddha, and Gandhi as analogues for Christ -- Liam Neeson, what are you thinking?), but they did it in a fast food court, in public, and they look happy!

Freedom of speech, assembly, and (possibly) religion, all in one excruciating apocalypse.

Merry Christmas!