Displaying posts categorized under


The Muslim Brotherhood: Peddling Sharia as Social Justice by Judith Bergman

Human Rights Watch, an organization that is supposed to look out for victims of human rights abuses, not abusers of human rights is begging US decision makers not to designate the Muslim Brotherhood — which, if it had its way, would take away everyone’s human rights and substitute them with sharia law — a foreign terrorist organization.

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”. — Muslim Brotherhood motto.

Conveniently, Hamas — which according to article two of its charter, is “one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine” — is, it seems, working on a new charter. The new charter would declare that Hamas is not a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite its always having been so. That way, is the Muslim Brotherhood’s “narrative” of newfound “nonviolence” suddenly supposed to become believable?

Gehad el-Haddad, official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is on a mission to rewrite the terrorist and radical history of the MB. He seems to be doing this for the consumption of naïve Americans. These seem only too willing to believe — in the name of tolerance, diversity and trying to be non-judgmental — that an organization whose ultimate goal is the supreme reign of Islamic sharia law everywhere — if necessary through violent jihad — could possibly value anything even approximating equality and the rule of (non-sharia) law.

“We are not terrorists,” wrote a political activist for the MB, Gehad el-Haddad, in a recent article in the New York Times.

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy is inspired by an understanding of Islam that emphasizes the values of social justice, equality and the rule of law… We believe that our faith is inherently pluralistic and comprehensive and that no one has a divine mandate or the right to impose a single vision on society… Nothing speaks more to our unequivocal commitment to nonviolence than our continued insistence on peaceful resistance, despite unprecedented state violence”.

The “faith”, which el-Haddad avoids naming, is Islam. The very essence of Islam, as sanctioned in the Quran and the hadiths, however, seems to be the belief in a divine mandate to impose the single vision of Islam on the world — if necessary, through violent jihad. Its motto is:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.

Even dawa, the Islamic call to conversion, or proselytizing — as explained by the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, host of one of Al Jazeera’s most popular programs, Sharia and Life, which reaches an estimated 60 million viewers worldwide — is an Islamic summons for the non-violent conquest of non-Muslim lands. As Qaradawi told a Muslim Arab Youth Association convention in Toledo, Ohio, in 1995, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.”

Qaradawi, in a recording from 2007, says that the aim of this “peaceful” conquest consists mainly of the introduction of Islamic law, sharia. According to Qaradawi, sharia should be introduced in a new country gradually, over a five-year period, before implementing it in full. Sharia includes the end of free speech under “blasphemy laws”; the oppression of women, including women being worth half as much as a man in court and inheritance; polygamy, and the persecution of Jews (Qaradawi advocates killing all of them). Qaradawi has explained in TV recordings how sharia also includes chopping off hands for theft, killing apostates and homosexuals, as well as beating women as a means of “disciplining” them.

The New York Times, ostensibly concerned with “fake news”, evidently has no qualms about lending its pages to such straightforward propaganda as El-Haddad’s piece on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to a recent report by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the MB recently launched a lobbying offensive in the United States to charm decision-makers in the Trump administration and Congress to give up on the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017, re-introduced on January 9, 2017, by Senator Ted Cruz.

According to the MEMRI report, the Muslim Brotherhood’s lobbying efforts include:

“Launching a widespread informational media campaign, including the hiring of U.S. lobbying and legal firms, outreach to the press in the U.S., and dissemination of informational content aimed at improving its image in the West, particularly in the U.S.”

Graham Culver The Incompatibility of Islam and the West

There is a vast gulf in Arab societies between an elevated self-esteem based on an alleged superiority in religion and civilisation and, on the other hand, the constant denial of this superiority by the grim reality of curtailed liberties, intellectual atrophy and institutionalised corruption.
Islam today, specifically in the Middle East, can be described as being in a state of anomie. The history of the Arab-Islamic civilisation since the ascendancy of the Ottoman Empire has served to bring the Arabs to a state of physical and philosophical distress. Given the present state of the Middle East—the internal and murderous sectarianism now largely centred on Iraq and Syria, though necessarily affecting their neighbours; the peril and harm befalling, in different parts of the Islamic world, non-Muslim peoples; the mass murder being inflicted upon major European centres to cause random deaths and create civil panic; and the political chaos in many Islamic countries causing armies of displaced people to seek refuge in the West—clearly something is seriously amiss. As a consequence, concern in the receiving countries grows at the evident difficulties many of Islam’s refugees experience adjusting, or failing to settle in, to a Western culture which is almost ontologically opposite the faith refugees bring with them. For faithful Muslims, shrouding themselves in their faith is their only way forward; but necessarily a separate forward.

Modernity, now set firmly in the West upon the continued unfoldings of science and technology, has little place in the Muslim doctrine of the complete transcendence of God. Muslims believe “man is neither autonomous nor free and only God has the power to make decisions. God has sovereign control over humans and this control is exercised through Islamic law.” This simple but demanding liturgy describes the different historical trajectories that have been followed by the Western-Christian and the Arab-Islamic civilisations from their beginnings. Though following a similar early trail, their different histories have produced radically different human experiences.

Many events shaped the beginnings of both Christianity and Islam. Without the long and eventful life of the Roman Empire, Western Europe and the nations and peoples surrounding the Mediterranean Sea would have a substantially different shape today. Without Rome, Christianity might have remained as blown sands among the passions and poetry of what is now known as the Middle East. Without Christianity, with its simple liturgy and potent narrative, the peoples of Europe would have fought and died for different gods and kings among their landscapes. The beginnings of Western civilisation emerged as these three historical strands connected. Islam began and remains in the life of its founder, Mohammed (570–632).

The early evolution of both faiths overlapped in time. Following the death of Mohammed, Islam, inspired by religious fervour, the anticipation of booty and the martyrdom rewarded to a death in battle, spread by conquest to Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, North and West Africa, Armenia, Georgia, eastern Khurasan, Sind, much of Transoxiania and most of the Iberian peninsula. The Arab-Islam empire, at its height during the period 700 to 850, absorbed and was influenced by classical literature, Hellenist thought, Byzantine institutions, Roman law, Syriac scholarships and Persian art. In addition, architecture and the sciences were enriched by Muslim research and practice. But Islam in substance was selective and discriminating, excluding all ideas and materials which offended the nature and ends of Islamic society. The early intellectual promise of Islam stuttered and a long decline in Arab power commenced. In the thirteenth century the Ottomans filled this void and established what was to become one of history’s great empires.

The Western world

Once Upon a Time in the West by Edward Cline

Imagine my surprise when I learned that many British government buildings are being subsidized by Sharia finance, and therefore come under Sharia law. The Daily Mail ran this revealing story just after the London-Westminster Bridge attack. This is an instance of abject submission to Islam.

Will the Royal Coat of Arms give

Way to the Islamic Crescent?

Admiralty House is one of two more public buildings that are revealed today to operate under Islamic law following the revelations that government properties were quietly transferred to finance an Islamic bond scheme in 2014.

In addition to two Department of Health buildings and the Department of International Development property on Whitehall, the bond scheme also covers Admiralty House and an unidentified building at 4-26 Webber Street in Southwark, south London.

It takes the total number of government buildings that were transferred to fund the £200million Islamic finance scheme to five.

But no imbibing of alcohol will be allowed, per Sharia . Doubtless down the road, criticizing Islam will not be permitted or you’ll be fined or attacked. No pork products to be sold or consumed on the “new’ premises. No British beef will be served unless it’s halal.

Under the terms of the lease, the sale of alcohol is one of the activities banned on the premises because they must conform to Sharia law.

George Osborne announced the move in June 2014 as part of an effort to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance.

But critics said the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain’s financial and legal systems by imposing Sharia law onto government premises.

Due to the Islamic bond scheme – known as Sukuk – the ownership of the leases on the five government buildings have been switched from British taxpayers to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.

The money raised will be repayable from 2019. But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are banned in Sharia law…..

Submission to Islam will be painless if you’re willing to lease your property (or the British taxpayers’ property) to the government per the “generous” terms established by wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.

The money raised will be repayable from 2019. But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are banned in Sharia law.

Leave it to the British government to sell out its own citizens. And also to the Canadiangovernment to sell out its real citizens, not the “refugees” in whose name the Parliament there seems to legislate Specially targeted: “Islamphobic” speech.

Will the Maple Leaf be replaced

with the Islamic Crescent?

for, and against freedom of speech.

Politicians in Canada moved forward a motion, with a vote of 201 to 91, that gives Islam special protections under hate speech laws. (M103)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is on board with the motion.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs the Muslimas Downunder By Olivia Pierson (Posted by Ed Cline)


It is with pleasure that I publish here another guest column by Olivia Pierson. I have retained the original spellings and syntax in her column.E.C.

The beautiful Somali born ex Muslim, ex right-wing-Dutch-politician-come-American, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is coming to speak to Australians and New Zealanders.

Being a much ruder culture than we Kiwis, Ozzies have already started to protest Hirsi Ali’s arrival using Australian Muslim women academics, business owners (and of course Diversity Peddlers) as spokeswomen. They even have a little on-line petition. You can read it here.

The message of this petition is laughable. Its dishonesty and hypocrisy are so palpably “on the page” I almost cringed on their behalf. The powerful Hirsi Ali is just so intellectually superior to these women that I don’t think she has anything much to worry about – except for the usual death threats, but then, as an ex Muslim female with a very persuasive voice, she’s used to those.

The group claim that their disappointment in having Hirsi Ali come to speak in Australia is “reflective of the huge diversity of opinion amongst Australian Muslim women. Although we are not a homogenous group, we are united in our condemnation of Hirsi-Ali’s discourse which is grounded in hate-mongering and bigotry.”

The petition has 348 signatories so far – in a country of 23 million people where about half a million identify as Muslim, they can’t even rustle up 0.1% from their “huge diversity of opinion amongst Australian Muslim women.” Not that I’m complaining.

Really Lovees, just go home and be quiet. Hirsi Ali is coming and she is going to blow your backward religion verbally to kingdom-not-coming-for-you. The most enjoyable part is that she will do this as she always does, eloquently, prettily, cleverly, without ever raising her beautiful, sonorous voice. She will crisply slice your 7th Century superstition to pieces – just as her Muslim family members once held her down and sliced off her genitals with scissors and no anaesthetic.

Like all Muslim-flavoured protestors, this group are supremely anti the great Western value of free-speech – unheard of in their own (or their parents’) countries of origin. This value is the only reason that these autocratic little Jezebels are allowed to speak. The petition states:

“Hirsi-Ali’s sheer presence in Australia undermines both intra and inter-community efforts toward social cohesion and in providing platforms for Muslim women to champion their own causes.”

Take a note of that (within all the intra, inter, social cohesion, platform weasel wordery) – they view Hirsi Ali’s “sheer presence in Australia” as a threat. Never mind that we have to breathe the very same planetary air as the likes of these sneaky vixens, who want the benefits of our cultural gifts, like capitalism & freedom, yet seek to culturally destroy our values as they set about thriving off them.

Not on my watch – nor Hirsi Ali’s obviously. And why do Muslim women need to champion their own causes in Western lands – the lands of freedom and tolerance? In this multicultural day and age, who stops them from doing anything they want to do? Nobody. Only their co-religionists would aggress them enough to warrant this nonsense about “championing their own causes.” They are pointing their irrelevant fingers at fake oppressors. It is either a twisted psychological projection inflicted via Stockholm Syndrome, or it’s a blatant deception.

Either way, they are not telling the truth.

Islam and the Jihad in London It’s not non-Western. It’s anti-Western. By Andrew C. McCarthy

It was a careful choice of words, Bernard Lewis being nothing if not careful. In 2004, the West audibly gasped when its preeminent scholar of Islam famously told the German newspaper Die Welt,“Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century,” if not sooner.

Listen carefully. He did not say that Muslims will be the majority population in what is still recognizably Europe. No, Professor Lewis said “Europe will be Islamic.”

We are not talking about Muslims here. We are talking about Islam. Lots of individual Muslims desire peaceful coexistence, even assimilation. But Islam’s aim is to prevail. So, yet again this week, Lewis’s foreboding has been brought to the fore by a jihadist mass-murder attack, this time in London.

As we go to press, five innocent people are dead after Khalid Masood, a terrorist acting on unambiguous scriptural commands to war against non-Muslims, rammed his rental Hyundai SUV into dozens of pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, many of them tourists taking in the iconic views of Parliament. About 50 people suffered injuries, some of them grave, so the death toll may yet rise.

Masood, a burly 52-year-old weightlifter with a long criminal record that included vicious stabbings, then crashed the car through the gate at Westminster Palace, home of the West’s most venerable democratic legislature. He alighted brandishing two long knives, which he used to kill Keith Palmer, a police officer who, pursuant to British policy, was unarmed despite being assigned to provide security at one of the world’s foremost terror targets. Masood was finally shot dead by a protection officer attached to England’s defense minister.

There immediately began the ritual media pondering over Masood’s motive. Yes, what could it possibly have been?

I’m going to stick with the patently obvious.

Masood was born as Adrian Russell Ajao on Christmas Day, 1964, in Kent county, just outside London. His 17-year-old single mother remarried two years later, and he was known as Adrian Elms (his stepfather’s surname) until converting to Islam when he was about 40. Prior to that point, while fathering three children with his wife, he had several arrests, some for violent attacks. During at least one of the resulting stints in prison, like many inmates, he began indoctrination into Islam.

An FBI-Investigated Islamist Takes Over the Vermont Democrats A Norquist Islamist reinvents himself as a Bernie leftist. Daniel Greenfield

Vermont Democrats have something else to celebrate besides the creation and failure of the first statewide socialized medicine system in America. Recovering from that glorious triumph, Vermont Democrats have elected their first Muslim state party chairman.

The lucky fellow is Faisal Gill who called his victory a rebuke of President Trump. “To have a Muslim and immigrant to be the state party chair sends a really strong message to Trump and his type of politics that this is not where the country is at.”

Gill’s election doesn’t send much of a message about where America is at. But it certainly sends a message about where the Democrats are at.

Back when Gill was playing a Republican, courtesy of Grover Norquist, left-wing media outlets like Salon were willing to report on his troubling Islamist ties. But Faisal Gil has been reborn as a supporter of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison. The left has become a warm and moist safe space for Islamists. The Salon article which Gill blamed for many of his problems would be nearly inconceivable today. Could anyone really imagine a leftist publication today describing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror nexus?

But did Faisal Gill really go from Norquist Republican to Sanders Democrat? Did he shift from believing in free enterprise to embracing Socialism? Or did Gill always hold to an overriding ideology in whose shadow the distinction between Capitalism and Socialism becomes pointless infidel quibbling?

When revelations first emerged that Faisal Gill had been under FBI surveillance, he blamed Islamophobia. When Snowden’s enemy espionage operation exposed national security documents which were published by left-wing terror apologist Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept, a site whose former writer is now charged with some of the terroristic bomb threats aimed at Jewish centers, Gill’s email appeared on a list of alleged terrorist suspects and supporters, including Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Glenn Greenwald had claimed that the Al Qaeda leader’s only crimes were “speak[ing] effectively to the Muslim world about violence that the U.S. commits in [Yemen] and the responsibility of Muslims to stand up to this violence.” Examples of this could include Anwar Al-Awlaki quotes such as, “Jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim”, “Don’t consult with anybody in killing the Americans, fighting the devil doesn’t require consultation” and “We will implement the rule of Allah on earth by the tip of the sword.”

Are the Hard Leftists Aligned with Radical Islamists? by Najat AlSaied

The leftist media and other American liberals insist on portraying President Trump’s position as a fight against Islam and Muslims. In fact, most moderate Muslims are not offended by the phrase “radical Islam,” because they are very distressed by the fact that their religion has been commandeered by the radicals and transformed from a religion of peace into a more radical version.

I just wonder where those feminists and John Kerry were when millions of Egyptian women needed their support when they marched against the Muslim Brotherhood, asking for America’s help. Where were they when thousands of Syrian and Iraqi women were enslaved and raped by radical ISIS militants?

While not a single voice among these liberal feminists spoke out against these inhumane acts perpetrated against Muslim women by radical Islamists, a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer, Linda Sarsour, co-organized the anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington. What’s worse, these liberal feminists want Sarsour to represent all Muslim women, while in fact she speaks for nobody except herself and those who fund her.

Since the presidential campaign began, and then right up until the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 24, 2017, President Donald Trump has kept saying the same thing: that the United States is at war with radical Islam, mainly represented by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Yet, the leftist media and other American liberals insist on portraying his position as a fight against Islam and Muslims. In fact, most moderate Muslims are not offended by the phrase “radical Islam,” because they are very distressed by the fact that their religion has been commandeered by the radicals and transformed from a religion of peace into a more radical version. Unfortunately, instead of the leftists giving a voice to and supporting these moderate Muslims, a kind of leftist-Islamist alliance has emerged.

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Saudi columnist for pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, said in 2004:

“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims… The majority of those who were suicide bombers on buses, other vehicles, in schools and other places, all over the world, were Muslim”.

This statement from a well-known columnist and a former General Manager of the Al Arabiya news channel demonstrates how moderate Muslims are critical of their own culture and how they are saddened by how their religion has been hijacked by radicals. However, these appeals fall on deaf ears with leftists; they call moderate Muslims passive, which instead supports and furthers the radical Islamists’ cause.

In 2009, while millions of Iranians were in the streets opposing a radical, theocratic regime as part of their Green Revolution, then U.S. President Barack Obama ignored this historic moment and continued reaching out to Iran’s rulers, who are designated by the U.S. government as sponsors of terrorism. His appeasing attitude was a clear sign that the US was so eager to reach a nuclear deal by befriending the Iranian regime, that it was willing to tolerate the mullahs’ brutal repression and its hegemonic policies across the region.

In 2011, we witnessed the Obama Administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, in the form of billions of dollars that ensured its victory, ignoring the consequences their rule has had on moderate Muslims, Coptic Christians and secular groups. Many moderate Muslim women in Egypt entreated the Obama Administration to support them against the Muslim Brotherhood’s tyranny and misogyny, but to no avail.


“Muslims have helped us to be more American, to be better Americans,” writes Loyola Marymount University theology professor Amir Hussain in his new book Muslims and the Making of America. Yet his volume offers little support for this multicultural, politically correct thesis.

“There has never been an America without Muslims,” Hussain states while noting Muslims among America’s African slaves both before and after the United States’ founding. Historians estimate their numbers at between ten and 20 percent of all slaves brought in bondage to America. He analyzes the subsequent “impact of Islamic practices on African American worship and music,” although, as other studies have noted, slave-master repression ultimately extinguished Islamic belief among American slaves.

Similarly examining the American founding, Hussain also concludes that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s “owning a copy of the Qur’an and reading it is crucial to my argument that Islam is part of the history of America.” He “began learning Arabic in the 1770s, after he purchased a translation of the Qur’an in 1765,” namely the 1734 English translation of the Quranic Arabic by English Orientalist George Sale. “It was this Qur’an that Keith Ellison used when he was sworn in as the first Muslim member of Congress in 2007,” Hussain enthuses.

“To be clear, Jefferson was no fan of Islam,” Hussain writes, and Sale’s Quran offers reasons why. Sale’s introductory essay describes Islam as “so manifest a forgery” that has motivated “calamities brought on so many nations by the conquests of the Arabians.” Hussain also notes President Jefferson’s campaigns against North Africa’s Muslim Barbary pirates; thus the “founding of the modern American Navy is connected to the Muslim world.”

The worlds of entertainment and sports loom large in Hussain’s assessment of Islam in America. Therefore he dedicates his book to Ahmet Ertegun “and to Muhammad Ali, perhaps the two American Muslims with the greatest global influence.” While Ali dominated the boxing ring, Ertegun was “president and cofounder of Atlantic Records and the chairman of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a man who shaped the music of the twentieth century.”

A strange Muslim role model, Ertegun’s biographies say almost nothing about piety, but note his elite background as a diplomat’s son who came to America when his father was Turkey’s ambassador. Using a truly broad definition of “Muslim,” Hussain concedes that Ertegun “wasn’t a ‘good’ Muslim. He lived the high life, was a bon vivant, drank, partied to excess, and had numerous affairs.” Ertegun himself noted in a 2005 interview that he “used to drink a bottle of vodka a day, every day, for about 40 years.”

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: February 2017 by Soeren Kern

Muslim pupils outnumber Christian children in more than 30 church schools, including one Church of England primary school that has a “100% Muslim population.” — Sunday Times.

Six Muslim men shouted “Allahu Akbar” as they were sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court for a total of 81 years for sexually abusing two girls — including one who became pregnant at age 12 — in Rotherham.

“By 2030, one in three people will be a Muslim in the world — that is a huge population.” — Romanna Bint-Abubaker, founder of modest fashion website Haute Elan.

A Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from ten European countries found that an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.

February 1. Jim Walker, a 71-year-old volunteer at Carnforth Station, was banned from the premises after someone complained about an alleged racist comment. Walker, who, for more than a decade, has been winding a famous clock at the station, was overheard discussing a newspaper article about young migrants entering Britain from the French port of Calais. Walker said:

“Carnforth Station Trust received a complaint from a visitor who was not happy about me speaking to somebody about the issue…. What they are doing is outrageous. It is absolutely unbelievable, it is a violation of free speech….

“I must be the only man in Carnforth who has a document saying where he can and can’t walk and all for expressing a point of view and quoting an editorial from a newspaper. Now [winding the clock] is no longer possible.”

February 1. Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons that women should feel free to wear the hijab, a traditional Islamic headscarf. Several European countries have imposed bans on parts of Muslim religious dress. “What a woman wears is a woman’s choice,” May said after she was asked — on world hijab day — if she supported the right of women to wear the garment.

Death and Destruction for Christmas Muslim Persecution of Christians, December 2016 by Raymond Ibrahim

“Nothing has been done by Pope Francis or the Bishop of Abu Dhabi to get me released, in spite of contact being made by my captors.” — Rev. Tom Uzhunnalil, a Catholic priest who was kidnapped on March 4, 2016 in Yemen, when Islamic terrorists raided a nursing home and killed 16 people, including several nuns and aid workers.

“Christians continue to be the most persecuted believers in the world with over 90,000 followers of Christ being killed in the last year.” — Massimo Introvigne, prominent statistician and researcher, interviewed on Vatican Radio.

As in previous years, the month of Christmas saw an uptick in Islamic attacks on Christians — much of it in the context of targeting Christmas festivities and worship.

The one that claimed the most lives took place in Egypt. On Sunday, December 11, 2016, an Islamic suicide bomber entered the St. Peter Cathedral in Cairo during mass, detonated himself, killed at least 27 worshippers, mostly women and children, and wounded nearly 70. A witness said:

“I found bodies, many of them women, lying on the pews. It was a horrible scene. I saw a headless woman being carried away. Everyone was in a state of shock. We were scooping up people’s flesh off the floor. There were children. What have they done to deserve this? I wish I had died with them instead of seeing these scenes.”

The death toll and severity of the attack (pictures and videos of the aftermath here) surpassed even the New Year’s Day bombing of an Alexandrian church in which 23 people were killed in 2011. A few weeks before the St. Peter’s bombing, a man hurled an improvised bomb at St. George Church, packed with thousands of worshippers, in Samalout. Had the bomb detonated, casualties would likely have been higher. In a separate December incident, Islamic slogans and messages of hate — including “you will die Christians” — were painted on the floor of the Virgin Mary church in Damietta.

In Germany, Anis Amri, a Muslim asylum seeker from Tunisia, seized a large truck, murdered its driver, and pushed him onto the passenger seat, then drove the truck into a Christmas market in Berlin. Twelve shoppers were killed and 65 were injured, some severely. Four days later, Amri was killed in a shootout with police near Milan. ISIS claimed responsibility despite original reports claiming the man had no ties to Islamic terror groups.