United Kingdom: Subway Restaurants Becoming Sharia Compliant in the Name of Multiculturalism

Ever notice that "multiculturalism" tends to mean submission to one particular culture?

Daily Mail—Almost 200 branches of Subway have cut ham and bacon from their menus, serving halal meat in response to calls from their Muslim customers.

The sandwich chain said 'following a strong demand from our Muslim customers', 185 outlets in the UK and Ireland have introduced the meat, which is prepared under strict Islamic rules.

In Arabic the word halal means 'permitted' or 'lawful' and defines anything that is allowed or lawful according to the Qur'an.

It is often used to indicate food - particularly meat - has been prepared in accordance with Muslim principles and techniques.

Muslims are forbidden from eating any non-halal food and meat from pigs and Subway said customers can identify those stores selling halal food by the special 'All meats are Halal' sign, which must be displayed in participating branches.

In the halal-only branches ham and bacon has been substituted for turkey ham and rashers.

Many animal charities condemn halal slaughter as being cruel to animals.

Traditionally in halal abattoirs the throats of the animals are cut while they are fully conscious - an act many campaigners say is inhumane and needlessly cruel.

In non-halal abattoirs, livestock are stunned before killing to prevent any unnecessary suffering.

Some halal butchers also practise pre-stunning, though it is not permitted by some Islamic scholars.

In Britain, killing an animal without prior stunning is illegal, but the law gives special exemption to Muslim and Jewish meat producers on the grounds of religion.

There are thought to be around 12 abattoirs dedicated to unstunned slaughter in the UK, while hundreds practise stunned halal slaughter.

A Subway spokeswoman told MailOnline all halal meat served in the participating branches is from animals who were stunned prior to slaughter.

She said: 'The growing popularity of the Subway chain with the diverse multicultural population across the UK and Ireland means we have to balance the values of many religious communities with the overall aim of improving the health and welfare standards of animals. (Continue Reading.)

Urine Trouble, He's in Trouble, You're Both in Trouble

You can learn a lot about a religion by looking at the sorts of things its adherents argue about.

In the following video we get a glimpse at one of the issues debated by Sunni and Shia Muslims. Watch as a Sunni Muslim, who believes that drinking urine from a camel is part of Muhammad’s Sunna, takes a Shia Muslim to task for drinking (and eating) a different brand.

Ali A. Rizvi: The Phobia of Being Called Islamophobic

Never thought I'd see something like this at the Huffington Post.

Huffington Post—As of this writing, the National September 11 Memorial Museum still hasn't caved in. But the pressure is building, and it feels very familiar. 

The problem is a seven-minute film being shown at the soon-to-open museum called The Rise of Al Qaeda. Narrated by NBC's Brian Williams, it uses words like "Islamist," "Islamic," and "jihad" in reference to the 9/11 hijackers and their motives.

Some Muslim groups, and others like the Interfaith Center of New York, want the film edited to remove those terms. They don't want the public to think that Islamism or jihad had anything to do with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, because that could foster "Islamophobia." We've so been down this road before.

As a brown-skinned person with a Muslim name, I can get away with a lot more than you'd think. I can publicly parade my wife or daughters around in head-to-toe burqas and be excused out of "respect" for my culture and/or religion, thanks to the racism of lowered expectations. I can re-define "racism" as something non-whites can never harbor against whites, and cite colonialism and imperialism as justification for my prejudice.

And in an increasingly effective move that's fast become something of an epidemic, I can shame you into silence for criticizing my ideas simply by calling you bigoted or Islamophobic.

For decades, Muslims around the world have rightly complained about the Israeli government labeling even legitimate criticism of its policies "anti-Semitic," effectively shielding itself from accountability. Today, Muslim organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have borrowed a page from their playbook with the "Islamophobia" label -- and taken it even further.

In addition to calling out prejudice against Muslims (a people), the term "Islamophobia" seeks to shield Islam itself (an ideology) from criticism. It's as if every time you said smoking was a filthy habit, you were perceived to be calling all smokers filthy people. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. But when did we start extending those rights to ideas, books, and beliefs? You'd think the difference would be clear, but it isn't. The ploy has worked over and over again, and now everyone seems petrified of being tagged with this label.

The phobia of being called "Islamophobic" is on the rise -- and it's becoming much more rampant, powerful, and dangerous than Islamophobia itself. (Continue Reading.)

Arizona Muslim Ansar Muhammad Says That Islamic Law Allows Him to Kill His Wife

Maybe some day we'll be allowed to talk about what Islam teaches about women (without being called "racists," "bigots," or "Islamophobes"). In the meantime, it seems that, in order to be tolerant, we have to sit back and do nothing while women are beaten, raped, and killed.

Avondale, Ariz. - Police say a valley man threatened to kill his wife, telling his victim "Islamic Law" gave him the right to kill her.

Ansar Muhammad, 43, is facing several charges, including assault and imprisonment.

According to the police report, on April 26, Muhammad sexually assaulted the victim, held her against her will while threatening to kill her, punched and strangulated her, causing physical injuries at their home near 112th Avenue and Encanto Boulevard.

Police say the victim fled to a neighbor's home to call them after the suspect fell asleep.

Muhammad was detained outside his residence upon police arrival and refused to make any statements.

In the report, police say their investigation determined that Muhammad and the victim were arguing about her having an affair when "Ansar picked the victim up, carrying her like a baby and put her in their vehicle against her will." He then proceeded to drive to the rear of a nearby Walgreens store where "Ansar began to assault the victim by punching her multiple times, leaving physical injuries on her face, neck, back, chest and legs."

When the victim continued to try to get away and told him to stop, police say he told the victim he was going to kill her because he had the right due to his "Islamic Belief."

The victim told police Muhammad then drove back to their home and threatened to throw her in a lake because she can't swim. When they arrived at the residence, Muhammad told the victim to remain quiet and not wake their three children before taking her phone, per the police report. (Continue Reading.)

For more on women in Islam, watch this:

Egyptian Court Sentences Nearly 700 More Muslim Brotherhood Supporters to Death

Just a few years ago, the Muslim Brotherhood was viewed quite favorably in Egypt. Indeed, after Mubarak was ousted from leadership, Egyptians voted Brotherhood members into the highest leadership positions. Then Egyptians got a taste of orthodox Islam, and now they're sentencing Brotherhood supporters to death by the hundreds.

Sad to see so much trouble in Egypt. I hope the nation can eventually recover from the "Arab Spring."

CNN—An Egyptian court has recommended the death penalty for the leader of the now-banned Muslim Brotherhood and 682 supporters, state television said Monday.

The same court also handed down a final capital punishment ruling for 37 others.

Charges in both cases, which were tried by the same judge, are related to violent riots in the central Egyptian city of Minya in August, including the murder of a police officer.

Mohammed Badie, the Brotherhood's general guide, is among 683 supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsy whose death sentences are not final -- as the case has been referred to the nation's grand mufti, Egypt's highest religious authority, for review.

In the second case, relating to 529 Muslim Brotherhood supporters sentenced to death last month, the judge upheld 37 death sentences. The rest saw their sentences commuted to life in prison.

Most of the people sentenced are being tried in absentia. All defendants are still permitted to appeal. (Continue Reading.)

Muslims Disrupting Church Services in Great Britain and France

Any objections to the spread of Islam are labeled "Islamophobic." Yet it's a simple fact that, as Islam spreads, it becomes more aggressive and confrontational. When Islam dominates an area, non-Muslim groups are ultimately subjugated. Oddly enough, if you oppose the prospect of being subjugated, you are considered a racist and a bigot.

In Great Britain, Christians at New Life Church are so incredibly intolerant that they objected to a Muslim interrupting their church service and telling them to "turn to Allah."

Mohamed Dar

Derby Telegraph—Churchgoers were left terrified after believing a 52-year-old man who walked into their church “dressed like a terrorist” on Remembrance Sunday “might be armed with a bomb”.

Mohamed Dar covered his face with a scarf and his head with a bandana that had the words “God is Great” in Arabic written on it when he entered the New Life Church, in Alfreton.

Within minutes he was shouting how the congregation should “turn to Allah” and that Islam “sent boys aged 10 to war”.

North East and Dales Magistrates’ Court heard how minutes before he walked into the church he had disrupted a Remembrance Day parade at the cenotaph in Alfreton. (Continue Reading.)

At a church service in France, attendees were even more racist and bigoted. They objected to a Muslim laying out his prayer rug and reading Qur'an verses during Mass.

Diversity Macht Frei—The worshippers present at the scene were dumbfounded. This Sunday morning, in a collegiate church full to bursting, a man wearing a djellaba and headgear came to pray. He laid a carpet to the left of the altar, while the Easter mass was underway.

The man, visibly disturbed, read verses from the Koran before writing some lines in Arabic in the parish register. After having caused disruption for the first time during the mass on Palm Sunday one week ago in la Bedugue then in the collegiate church, some worshippers had warned the police.

A team came to ask him to leave the premises, calmly. The deputy commissioner, who had been notified of this disruption to public order, insisted on specifying: "We don't need to generalise. This inappropriate attitude comes from an individual who is clearly disturbed." (Continue Reading.)

Far from being disturbed, the Muslim was kind enough to write out Surah 112 in the church's register:

Surah 112 is a warning to Christians. The chapter declares:

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him."

Can anything be done to stop Islamophobic Christians from objecting to having their church services interrupted in the name of Allah?

Yahya Snow Caught Asleep At the Wheel

The following is one of Yahya Snow’s favorite questions:

Yahya is so impressed with his question that he decided to turn it into at least three different posts over the course of three months, swapping out the title each time to contribute to the illusion of being more productive than he is and to help mask the still rather obvious truth that the vast majority of his posts are not about substantive issues but consist rather of personal attacks, one of the lowest of which is when he took a stab at Sam Shamoun on the occasion of his beloved Mother’s passing into glory. Here are the screenshots* of the two additional times Yahya posted the same thing under different titles:

In other words, most of Yahya’s attacks on the Trinity, the Lord Jesus, the prophetic and apostolic writings, etc., are just Yahya duplicating one or another of the handful of articles he has written on these topics, sprinkled in between thinly veiled defenses of terrorism, as well as outright defenses of pedophilia, tongue sucking, timeless erections awarded to Jihadis, and, most frequently, the scores and scores of new slander pieces he cranks out faster than Muhammad picked up other people’s wives and possessions. All of this seems calculated to hide the fact that Yahya doesn’t really have anything of consequence to say on the apologetic front; instead, he mostly spends his time reminding us that he doesn’t like certain people, as if that is a newsflash to those of us who know that Muslims routinely curse Jews and Christians in their hearts and prayers (q.v. Surah al-Fatiha, v. 7, and the commentary of Ibn Kathir).

Now, in answer to Yahya’s question, it would be easy to quote believing textual scholars like Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee and Daniel Wallace. Upon doing so I am only too sure that Yahya would, as usual, shift his ground and reject anything they have to say, even though he asked them for an answer, pretending all the while that the question was sincere on his part. In fact, I don’t have to guess that this is what Yahya would do since this is what he has done, deleting my responses to hide the answer from his readership, which is admittedly few in number.

Rather than repeat what I pointed out to Yahya before from Wallace and others, and rather than post this on his blog where I am sure it will not scrabble its way to the top of the muddy pond in order to see the light of day – at least not as long as Yahya has his finger on the “abrogate” button, something Allah and Muhammad also found quite useful when writing and redacting the “eternal” Qur’an, not to mention Uthman who committed additional unwanted Quranic material to the flames – I decided I would post the answer here on AM, and this time from Bart Ehrman, who so happens to be Yahya’s favorite unbelieving textual scholar.

In a revised presentation of his review and evaluation of the ECM project, originally presented to the NTC section of the Society of Biblical Literature back in 1997, Ehrman said the following:

19. In my opinion, we need to reconceptualize the task of NT textual criticism. If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we're not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are. Barring some fantastic manuscript discoveries (like the autographs) or some earth-shattering alterations in text-critical method, the basic physiognomy of our texts is NEVER going to change. I've been arguing this for several years now, sometimes to the discomfort of my colleagues in the field. But I have to say that this edition does nothing to disconfirm my view. There are masses of data now available for reconstructing the text of James--several times more witnesses than available, for example, over a century ago to Westcott and Hort. How much has this mass of evidence affected the textual complexion of the book of James? ALMOST NONE AT ALL. The two changes of the NA²⁷ text in this new attempt are completely minor. And I should point out, in both cases the text now reads exactly as it did in Westcott and Hort's edition of 1881.

20. A lot of textual scholars have fretted about this as if it were a problem. The concern seems to be that if we can't radically modify the original text, we have no business engaging in this line of work. This view strikes me personally as completely bogus. We can still make small adjustments in the text in places--change the position of an adverb here, add an article there--we can still dispute the well known textual problems on which we're never going to be agreed, piling up the evidence as we will. But the reality is that we are unlikely to discover radically new problems or devise radically new solutions; at this stage, our work on the original amounts to LITTLE MORE THAN TINKERING. There's something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that A MAJOR TASK HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, but there it is. (Bart Ehrman, “Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation,” pts. 19-20; italics original, uppercase and bold emphasis mine.)

The above is no different than what I told Yahya can be found in the teachings of Dr. Wallace and others, and it isn’t even something Ehrman recently changed his mind on after further study as is the case on other topics related to the fact that the original disciples and followers of Jesus were convinced by the resurrection and ascension that Jesus is God. As Ehrman says in the above citation, which itself was made as far back as 1997, “I’ve been arguing this for several years now…” Perhaps if Yahya didn’t spend so much time making excuses for terrorists and trying to attack the reputations of others he wouldn’t be so far behind the scholarly curve or get caught so often asleep at the wheel of his studies.

*The reason for posting screenshots rather than links is in part due to the fact that a number of Islamic apologists often take down or alter their original posts after exposure. After this maneuver they promptly deny that taqiyya has any place in Islam, and then they say that their critics have just made up the story because they are Islamophobes. 

British Ahmadi Masud Ahmad Jailed in Pakistan for "Posing as a Muslim"

Fortunately, he was able to flee Pakistan while on bail.

Ahmadis are viciously persecuted by Muslims in places like Pakistan and Indonesia. Oddly enough, while Ahmadis are fleeing Muslim lands in droves in order to escape persecution, they become some of the most vocal defenders of the claim that Islam is inherently peaceful when they reach the West. Ahmadis thus end up defending the ideology that gives rise to their persecution.

Masud Ahmad with his granddaughter

BBC—A British man jailed for "posing as a Muslim", has spoken for the first time since returning to the UK.

Masud Ahmad, 73, was arrested in Pakistan in November under blasphemy laws but fled while on bail.

The 73-year-old is part of the minority Ahmadiyya sect, who are considered heretics in Pakistan.

They were declared non-Muslim in 1974 by the Pakistan government because of their belief in a subservient prophet after Muhammad.

One of the restrictions on their religious freedom is that they cannot publicly recite the Koran.

Late last year, a young man posing as a patient visited Mr Ahmad at his homeopathy clinic in Lahore, before asking questions about religion.

"I have no business talking about religious beliefs when I am working, I am only here to help people. But he kept pushing the topic into matters about Islam", Mr Ahmad said.

The man then used a mobile phone to secretly film Mr Ahmad reading the Koran and called the police to have him arrested.

Educated in Britain, Mr Ahmad first came to the UK in the 1960s, where he set up his own watch repair business, before returning to Pakistan in 1982.

The grandfather-of-nine, now living with his children in Glasgow, was placed in a jail with other prisoners also charged under the country's blasphemy law.

He said: "It was a small cell, 8ft by about 12ft and within it a toilet. We had to sleep on the floor. The temperature was almost minus one degree in the night."

About 400 people protested outside the police station in which Mr Ahmad was being held, demanding to see him.

He said: "They were shouting and chanting, 'let us kill him, let us kill him'. But I wasn't scared."

Members of the Ahmadiyya community helped Mr Ahmad flee the country after he was granted bail at a third attempt. (Continue Reading.)

Yahya Snow Advocates Sucking on the Tongues of Children

Say what you want about Yahya Snow's juvenile arguments and childish personal attacks, but at least he tries to respond to some of the odd things we read about Muhammad. Take, for instance, Muhammad's practice of sucking on the tongues of children, and letting them suck on his tongue:

Al-Adab al-Mufrad al-Bukhari 1183—It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "I never saw al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'" (Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari, Number 1183)

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).

Most Muslims simply avoid passages like these, hoping that, by ignoring them, the world will never ask questions about them. But not Yahya Snow! Yahya takes the issue head-on:

So far, Yahya has given us two reasons for letting children suck on someone's tongue: (1) to quench their thirst, and (2) to calm them down.

Yahya claims that if Jesus or Mother Theresa had allowed children to suck on their tongues, they would have been praised for it. I have to disagree with Yahya here: it would still be weird no matter who was doing it. But let's grant that it's a "genuine act of devotion" to let children suck on your tongue in order to quench their thirst. Notice that, in the passage from Musnad Ahmad above, Muhammad was sucking on the tongue of al-Hasan. But this would mean that Muhammad wasn't giving al-Hasan his saliva in the arid environment; instead, he was taking saliva from al-Hasan. How is it a "genuine act of devotion" to steal a child's moisture in an arid environment?

But Yahya isn't finished.

Instead of giving these hungry children milk or water, Muhammad would spit in their mouths enough to satisfy them. Here Yahya may appeal to the arid environment, but this is the prophet who used to shoot water from his fingers, isn't it? Muhammad is passing out female captives left and right, and dividing the spoils of war with his followers. But all the children get is a mouthful of spit?

Yahya also mentions the "blessings within the Prophet's saliva." Apparently, Muhammad's spit was miraculously sweet, with the power to sweeten an entire well:

Unfortunately, Yahya has ignored the most important reason Muhammad sucked on children's tongues. As we read in Musnad Ahmad, "no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)." In other words, Muhammad had the power to guarantee salvation simply by sucking on a child's tongue. Since Muhammad himself didn't know whether he was going to heaven or to hell, this is an amazing power. Even if a child grows up to be an axe-murderer, the child will not go to hell, so long as Muhammad sucked on his tongue or lips. (Note: According to Muhammad, drinking his urine would also guarantee salvation, not to mention forever cure a person of stomach ailments.)

So we have five reasons for sucking on the tongues of children, letting them suck on someone's tongue, and spitting in their mouths:

(1) Taking saliva from them, or giving them saliva.
(2) Calming them down.
(3) Satisfying them until evening.
(4) Sharing miraculous sweetness.
(5) Ensuring their salvation.

Obviously, reasons (4) and (5) only apply to Muhammad (since he's the only one with the miraculously sweet spit and the power to grant salvation by sucking on a child's tongue), but the other three are still in play. Reasons (1) and (3), Yahya may suggest, only apply in arid environments, but they would clearly apply even today. So if you see a thirsty or hungry child and you live in a dry area, Yahya's advice is to let the child suck on your tongue and to spit in his mouth. Of course, if you're thirsty, and you want some of the child's saliva, Yahya must also think that you should suck on the child's tongue.

Interestingly, reason (2) would be relevant in any environment. According to Yahya, if you want to calm down a child, simply stick your tongue in his mouth and let him use it as a pacifier.

I suppose we should all thank Yahya for showing us how rational and practical Islam is. Shame on us for thinking that Muhammad's teachings are absurd and that his earliest followers were shockingly gullible for mindlessly accepting everything he said.

Welcome to Islam, my friends, and to the wild and wonderful world of Islamic apologetics!

Eighty-One Percent of A.M. Readers Know What the Quran Says about Punishing Wives

This was a slightly tricky poll, since all of the answers were technically correct. According to the Qur'an, if a husband fears rebellion from his wife, he should admonish her, banish her to a separate bed, and beat her into submission:

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Hence, to answer correctly, it wasn't enough to know that the Qur'an promotes wife-beating. Readers needed to know exactly what 4:34 says.

Out of 499 responses, 408 answered correctly that the Qur'an promotes three penalties for real or imagined disobedience. This is significant, because politicians, the media, most of the public, and even most Muslims in the West seem to have no clue what the Qur'an says. Our readers are way above the curve!

For more on the Islamic view of women, watch this:

Three American Doctors Killed by Afghan Guard Assigned to Protect Them

These doctors could have gone somewhere else, but they chose Afghanistan because they wanted to help people in the struggling country. Their reward for their selfless service? They were gunned down by the guard who was assigned to protect them.

Fox News—The U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan confirmed Thursday that three American doctors -- including a reported father and son -- were killed by an Afghan security guard who opened fire at a Kabul hospital.

"With great sadness we confirm that three Americans were killed in the attack at CURE Hospital," said a statement posted on the Embassy's Twitter page. "No other information will be released at this time."

The shooting was the latest in a string of deadly attacks on foreign civilians in the Afghan capital this year.

Two of the dead Americans were a father and son, Minister of Health Soraya Dalil said, adding that the third American was a Cure International doctor who had worked for seven years in Kabul.

Dalil said an American nurse was also wounded in the attack.

"A child specialist doctor who was working in this hospital for the last seven years for the people of Afghanistan was killed and also two others who were here to meet him, and they were also American nationals, were killed," Dalil said. "The two visitors were father and son, and a woman who was also in the visiting group was wounded."

The attacker was a member of the Afghan Public Protection Force assigned to guard the hospital, according to District Police Chief Hafiz Khan. He said the man's motive was not yet clear. (Continue Reading.)

To understand jihad, watch this:

Pat Condell: "It's Good to Be Anti-Islam, But Not Anti-Muslim"

I guess Pat Condell has finally stopped mincing his words.

Here in the West, many people abhor the thought of saying, "I am anti-[insert some religion or ideology]," because such a statement sounds like bigotry.

But what happens when the religion or ideology explicitly promotes spousal abuse, child marriage, and terrorism? We're all against those things, so how can we be against them but not be against the religion or ideology that promotes them?

Terrorists Turned Oregon Ranch into a Training Camp

Hmmm. Why would "carloads" of Muslims living in Oregon train to become terrorists? Don't they realize that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, and candy-coated raindrops, and that Allah wasn't really serious when he commanded them to "fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Qur'an 9:29)?

New York Post—An Oregon woman says she thought she was opening up her family’s ranch to local Muslims to teach them how to grow and can veggies — and that her husband was even expecting a tax write-off.

But US-born Muslim convert Eva Hatley testified in Manhattan federal court Tuesday that after the “carloads” of fellow Muslims she met through her mosque arrived at the 160-acre ranch in Bly in 1999, the couple watched helplessly as their home was turned into an al Qaeda training camp.

“It wasn’t anything like I envisioned for the property,” insisted Hatley, testifying at the trial of one-eyed, hook-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Hatley, a two-time witness-protection-program flunky who prefers going by her Muslim name, Ayat Hakimah, said other Muslims from London would soon arrive on al-Masri’s orders.

Hatley’s then-husband, Ivan Rule, was temporarily out of town “shepherding” while his longtime ranch was being overrun with terrorists-in-training, she said.

According to al-Masri’s lawyer last week, the camp was similar to being in the “Cub Scouts,’’ with the men riding horses, tending to little lambs and telling campfire stories.

But Hatley said one of the arrivals, militant Oussama Kassir, boasted about previously running training camps in Afghanistan and being a “hit man” for Osama bin Laden.

She said Kassir told her that al-Masri was his “leader” and that al-Masri sent him and others to the Bly ranch to create a “training camp” where men would learn to shoot guns, throw knives and do calisthenics along open, spacious fields abutting a ravine and desolate dirt roads.

“He said he was there to train men for jihad,” she said. “He said that Abu Hamza sent him. He intended to train them to fight.”

The visitors, she claimed, said the ranch resembled Afghanistan.

She added that some had CDs with information on how to make poisons to “kill people” and regularly “talked” about “robbing and killing truck drivers” on nearby roads.

Kassir, she recalled, claimed there were plans to eventually dig a hillside compound at the ranch for al-Masri to hide out in.

“I was shocked,” said Hatley, who claims she fled the ranch in fear in December 1999, four months after moving in. (Continue Reading.)

Christianity Today: Why Muslims Are Becoming the Best Evangelists

Encouraging news from the Muslim world.

Christianity Today—After traveling 250,000 miles through Dar al-Islam ("House of Islam") as Muslims call their world, career missiologist David Garrison came to a startling conclusion:

Muslim background believers are leading Muslims to Christ in staggering numbers, but not in the West. They are doing this primarily in Muslim-majority nations almost completely under the radar—of everyone. In the new book, A Wind in the House of Islam: How God is Drawing Muslims Around the World to Faith in Jesus Christ, Garrison takes the reader on his journey through what he describes as the nine rooms in the Muslim-majority world: Indo-Malaysia, East Africa, North Africa, Eastern South Asia, Western South Asia, Persia, Turkestan, West Africa, and the Arab world. Muslims in each of those regions have created indigenous, voluntary movements to Christ.

"What did God use to bring you to faith in Jesus Christ? Tell me your story." This was the core question Garrison asked as he traveled and conducted more than 1,000 face-to-face interviews. In his background research, he documented 82 historic Muslim movements to Christ, consisting of either at least 1,000 baptisms or 100 new church starts over a two-decade period. The first sizable movement of Muslims toward Christianity did not occur until the mid-19th century, nearly 1,300 years after Mohammad established Islam. Garrison said 69 of these movements today are still in process:

• In Algeria, after 100,000 died in Muslim-on-Muslim violence, 10,000 Muslims turned their backs on Islam and were baptized as followers of Christ. This movement has tripled since the late 1990s.

• At the time of the 1979 revolution in Iran, about 500 individual Muslims were following Christ. Garrison projects that today there may be several hundred thousand Christ-followers, mostly worshipping in Iranian house churches.

• In an unnamed Arab nation, an Islamic book publisher Nasr came to Christ through satellite broadcast evangelist Father Zakaria. Sensing a call to evangelize, Nasr started a local ministry that in less than one year baptized 2,800 individuals. (Continue Reading.)

Yahya Snow Defends Al Qaeda Terrorist Attacks

Politicians and the media constantly assure us that the unimaginably vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorist attacks, and that the only reason we even notice the tiny minority of Muslim extremists is that we're a bunch of Islamophobic bigots who want to make Islam look bad.

But reality doesn't always line up with the fantasies of politicians and the media. For instance, a 2003 poll showed that 59% of Indonesian Muslims and 56% of Jordanian Muslims supported Osama bin Laden. (Note: those are majorities, not tiny minorities). Fortunately, support for bin Laden fell considerably after 2003, but his popularity could never be deemed insignificant by any standard.

Even more disturbing, support for terrorist attacks is surprisingly high even in Western nations. In a 2006 poll, for example, nearly a quarter of British Muslims said that the 7/7 subway attacks were justified because of Britain's involvement in the "War on Terror." (Note: the 7/7 attacks targeted civilians.)

Some Muslim apologists also suggest that terrorist attacks against Western targets are justified in Islam. Yahya Snow went so far as to defend Al Qaeda's promise to "eliminate the cross" by destroying America, "the bearer of the cross." Yahya justifies the attacks by saying exactly what Al Qaeda says, namely, that terrorist attacks against America are America's fault for interfering in Muslim countries.

Here's Yahya's response:

Of course, as far as Islamic doctrine is concerned, Yahya is entirely correct. Qur'an 5:33 commands Muslims to kill or crucify those who "make mischief" in Muslim lands (with lesser penalties for lesser crimes). According to Muhammad (see Sunan Ibn Majah 2759 and Sahih al-Bukhari 2843), anyone who financially supports a soldier (e.g., by paying taxes) is to receive the same reward as the soldier. Hence, if the penalty for American soldiers who interfere in Muslim lands is death, then American taxpayers (even civilians) are to receive the same penalty.

Since Yahya is now partners with Ijaz Ahmad, can we assume that Ijaz also agrees with Al Qaeda?

Pakistan: More Than 200 Women Honor-Killed in Sindh Province in 2013

Women are being brutally murdered by their own families in the Sindh province of Pakistan. In a sane world, men and women from around the globe would unite in drawing attention to the plight of women in Sindh, and countries would mobilize their resources in an effort to protect potential victims of honor violence. In the actual world, however, condemning any Islamic practices (no matter how barbaric) is regarded as a form of racism, so people generally ignore the problem.

ISLAMABAD—In 2013, as many as 202 women were murdered in the name of Karo-kari (honour killing) in Sindh, Special Home Secretary Sindh informed the Senate Functional Committee on Human Rights on Monday.

The secretary also stated that at least 28 honour killing cases have been reported in 2014 thus far.

He added that the incidence of honour killing in interior Sindh is continuously rising because of the jirga system that exists in all districts of the rural parts of the province.

“The weakness of the legal system and the encouragement of the jirga system in rural areas are both responsible for the rise in the murder of women in the name of honour,” the secretary informed.

He assured that to prevent violence against women, special cells were functioning in all districts of Sindh, encouraging civil society to join the cells and report such cases.

He said that to create awareness, special seminars about the issue are also organised from time to time for the general public.

The Senate Functional Committee on Human Rights Chairperson Senator Afrasiab Khattak expressed serious concerns about the rising number of women killed in the name of honour.

He directed the provincial government to take effective steps to discourage the act. (Source)

For a brief introduction to the Islamic view of women, watch this:

Wall Street Journal: The Middle East War on Christians

Christians in the Middle East are experiencing precisely the sort of oppression promoted by Muhammad and the Qur'an. When these Christians speak out, they are abused or killed. This means that their only advocates are people like us. But when we speak on their behalf, we're labeled "racists," "bigots," and "Islamophobes."

Wall Street Journal—This week, as Jews celebrate the Passover holiday, they are commemorating the Bible's Exodus story describing a series of plagues inflicted on ancient Egypt that freed the Israelites, allowing them to make their way to the Holy Land. But over the past century, another exodus, driven by a plague of persecution, has swept across the Middle East and is emptying the region of its Christian population. The persecution is especially virulent today.

The Middle East may be the birthplace of three monotheistic religions, but some Arab nations appear bent on making it the burial ground for one of them. For 2,000 years, Christian communities dotted the region, enriching the Arab world with literature, culture and commerce. At the turn of the 20th century, Christians made up 26% of the Middle East's population. Today, that figure has dwindled to less than 10%. Intolerant and extremist governments are driving away the Christian communities that have lived in the Middle East since their faith was born.

In the rubble of Syrian cities like Aleppo and Damascus, Christians who refused to convert to Islam have been kidnapped, shot and beheaded by Islamist opposition fighters. In Egypt, mobs of Muslim Brotherhood members burn Coptic Christian churches in the same way they once obliterated Jewish synagogues. And in Iraq, terrorists deliberately target Christian worshippers. This past Christmas, 26 people were killed when a bomb ripped through a crowd of worshipers leaving a church in Baghdad's southern Dora neighborhood.

Christians are losing their lives, liberties, businesses and their houses of worship across the Middle East. It is little wonder that native Christians have sought refuge in neighboring countries—yet in many cases they find themselves equally unwelcome. Over the past 10 years, nearly two-thirds of Iraq's 1.5 million Christians have been driven from their homes. Many settled in Syria before once again becoming victims of unrelenting persecution. Syria's Christian population has dropped from 30% in the 1920s to less than 10% today.

In January, a report by the nondenominational Christian nonprofit organization Open Doors documented the 10 most oppressive countries for Christians; nine were Muslim-majority states noted for Islamic extremism, and the 10th was North Korea. These tyrannical regimes uphold archaic blasphemy and defamation-of-religion laws under the guise of protecting religious expression. In truth, these measures amount to systematic repression of non-Islamic groups.

Last year in Saudi Arabia, two men were prosecuted for the "crime" of converting a woman to Christianity and helping her flee the Islamic kingdom. According to the Saudi Gazette, one of the men, a Lebanese, was sentenced to six years in prison and 300 lashes, and the other man, a Saudi, was sentenced to two years and 200 lashes. Those are relatively mild sentences in Saudi Arabia, where conversion to another religion is punishable by death.

The "justice system" in other Islamic nations is not particularly just for Arab citizens, but it is uniquely oppressive for Christians. Radical Islamists in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa are using an ancient law called the "dhimmi pact" to extort local Christians. The community is faced with a grim choice: pay a tax and submit to a list of religious restrictions or "face the sword." (Continue Reading.)