In Iran, people are isolated, discriminated against, and imprisoned because they are supposedly westernized, because they want a Western lifestyle and a Western democracy. If they are fortunate enough to escape, they become refugees. Upon arriving in the West, they often have to explain, especially to the right and sometimes even to the so-called center, that they are not religious fanatics. They must constantly prove their belief in democracy, equality, and so-called Western values—sometimes even more than some people in the West do. However, the disenfranchised refugee rarely experiences these much-praised values firsthand. Instead, they are confronted with exclusion, racism, and degradation on a daily basis.
In response to the Islamist attack in Solingen, Germany, politicians are now outdoing each other with actionist and unconstitutional demands. As expected, it’s the usual suspects, like the conservative party leader Merz or the head of the partly far-right AfD, Weidel, who are calling for a halt to accepting people from Syria and Afghanistan or even a general “immigration stop,” suggesting that this would be the solution.
Changes in asylum and immigration laws may indeed be necessary. However, these demands initially label all people from Muslim-majority societies as potential terrorists or criminals. When demographers are asked, they cite a figure of one and a half billion Muslims worldwide. This, too, is an oversimplification, as they essentially just add up the populations of Muslim countries. Yet there are many atheists in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the Middle East in general. These people are neither statistically recorded nor even considered a possibility in the imagination of many Europeans. If someone comes from a “Muslim” country, they are assumed to be Muslim. For the political right in Europe, it’s clear: if you’re Muslim, you might also be a terrorist.
On the other side, when speaking with those who lean left, one is sometimes labeled an anti-Muslim racist for criticizing Islamist extremism, as the assumption is that Islam is part of one’s identity. Many on the left are quick to unmask populist demands from the right, yet when it comes to Islamism, they lose their ability to critique—even in the face of Islamist terror attacks. The idea that Muslims can distance themselves from religion and view it critically is often unimaginable to many on the left. They assume that Islam is identity-forming and that belonging to it is unchangeable. This view isn’t far removed from the right’s assumption that people from certain countries are “genetically” Muslim and, therefore, “genetically” criminals and terrorists. Both views are racist. The left not only largely avoids criticizing Islam but also leaves the critique of Islamism to conservatives and the right. The latter portray themselves as saviors of the “Christian Occident,” despite understanding little about either Islam or Christianity, which actually originates from the East.
It is in these murky waters, between the failures of politics, racism, and xenophobia of the right, and the left’s inability to critique, that Islamists are fishing. And they are good at baiting. For a long time, both organizations of political Islam and terrorist groups like ISIS have used the marginalization and exclusion of people to radicalize them. Although Muslims in Europe generally enjoy more freedom and rights than in Islamic countries, Islamists like to push a certain narrative: you are being treated racially because you are Muslim, not because you are a migrant. This victim narrative of an inherently evil West that oppresses all Muslims is repeated and spread. At the same time, Islamists tell you that you are someone—”a real man,” a Muslim, one of the chosen ones, superior to the unbelievers from the majority population who put you down every day. While this never justifies any form of violence, aren’t many in such a vulnerable state susceptible to such whisperings?
Islamist propaganda finds fertile ground, in part, because there are real issues that make people vulnerable. They become receptive to recruitment by the hypocritical, violent Islamists who claim to seek revenge for the murdered Muslims in Gaza, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, they themselves have more Muslim blood on their hands than anyone else: wasn’t it ISIS that murdered not only Yazidis and Christians but also Shia Muslims in Iraq and continues to do so in Afghanistan? Doesn’t the Iranian regime claim to attack Israel in revenge for killed Muslims, while at the same time murdering the predominantly Sunni Baloch within its own borders? Aren’t the Uyghurs, who are suffering from genocide, Muslims? They languish in re-education camps, where women are forcibly sterilized, and people disappear, yet has any “Islamic nation” criticized China for this? China remains the Taliban’s and Iran’s best partner.
What characterizes Islamists is their double standards on the one hand and their hostility toward democracy and the idea of a free Europe on the other. And without question, this free Europe must protect itself. But does the demand for an asylum and immigration stop from “Muslim” countries offer a solution to the problem of radicalizing young people who were born or raised here, like the attacker in Vienna who murdered four people in November 2020, or the man recently arrested for a potential attack on the Taylor Swift concert? What does an immigration stop achieve against the “holy warriors” socialized in Germany, who tried to proclaim a caliphate in Hamburg just a few months ago?
And does it help, if one truly wants to fight political Islam and Islamist violence credibly, to cooperate with the Taliban or other questionable regimes just to deport a few people? The money and recognition that the Taliban and others would receive from the West would cement their power, which would, in turn, lead to more refugees in the long run. In Europe, we need a much broader, cross-cutting approach: more social policy and real political participation would help people truly arrive in democracy (including those who have lived here all their lives). Psychosocial support, widespread prevention work, and secular, liberal role models would provide stability. And zero tolerance for any form of violent extremism is necessary to defend this free Europe—whether it’s Islamism or right-wing extremism.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
