The recent terrorist attacks in Germany have profoundly and permanently shaped the political climate. The rise of the far-right AfD, the demand from many German parties for tougher asylum laws — potentially unconstitutional and in violation of EU regulations — are just a few signs of this shift.
But this situation also affects Muslims living in Germany. They find themselves asking: Another attack. Another suspected Islamist motive. Another perpetrator who sought asylum here. These patterns keep repeating—along with the debates that follow. It is painful to even ask: How is it possible that someone who found refuge here becomes a threat to this country? It hurts to acknowledge that the perpetrators are asylum seekers. Even more painful is the realization that their victims might still be alive if these attackers had been deported.
Yet while the democratic mainstream primarily criticizes the AfD’s xenophobia, one crucial debate is missing: the ideology behind these acts.
Islamism is not a footnote. It is a totalitarian, violence-glorifying ideology that must not be downplayed but actively opposed. Many believe that simply taking a stance against the AfD is enough to be morally on the right side—and that this alone fulfills their civic duty.
In the home countries of many Muslims who have fled to Germany, there is no freedom. Authoritarian Islamic regimes oppress minorities, strip them of their rights, and degrade them to second-class citizens. Islamists hunt down anyone who does not conform to their fanatical worldview. Churches are bombed, Christians massacred, buses ambushed, and people wearing cross necklaces brutally beheaded. Those who have fled such atrocities to Germany are the true victims of Islamism—and they are horrified to see Islamists gaining ground here as well.
Instead of having an honest debate about the problem of Islamist terror, the atmosphere is poisoned. Right-wing agitators portray all migrants as a threat. Leftist circles do the opposite: They downplay, deny, and trivialize the terror. One example: An influencer’s video has over 100,000 likes—she compares Islamist attacks to severe but apolitical acts of violence committed by Germans. This comparison is not only false but dangerous. It is pure whataboutism. It is pure mockery of the victims. Because there is a fundamental difference: In Villach, Munich, Solingen, and Mannheim, the motive was extremist. Extremist violence is more than just crime—it is an ideological weapon against our society, unlike individual violence, which usually has personal motives. When will people finally understand that violence cannot be played off against one another?
Since Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, jihadist terrorism has been on the rise. Terrorism expert Peter R. Neumann explains that the greatest terror threat in Germany once again comes from Islamism, as the number of attempted attacks has multiplied. Yet, some people are more outraged by those pointing this out than by the perpetrators themselves. Many remain silent about the Munich attack—except to share the victim’s family’s statement asking that the crime not be used for xenophobic purposes. That’s valid, but is it enough?
In German cities, tens of thousands have protested against the AfD and the “normalization of right-wing positions.” But there is no word about the Islamist murders of recent weeks. Why not both? I can oppose the AfD and still condemn religious extremism. Yes, of course, xenophobic AfD agitation must be countered. Of course, we must discuss the pros and cons of deportations, which often affect the wrong people.
These issues weigh heavily on many people with an Islamic background—especially because holding this position often leaves them isolated in the media industry. Many media professionals ask: “Why should we report on Mannheim? Just because the perpetrator was Afghan?” A police officer was murdered in broad daylight by an ISIS sympathizer. Anyone who wanted to could watch it live. In that moment, it became clear: Persecuted asylum seekers and all those who are victims of Islamism simply do not matter to some people—because the perpetrators do not fit the preferred narrative.
This is also evident in the case of Iraqi Christian Salwan Momika: When he publicly burned a Quran in Sweden in August 2023, it caused a global outcry. Western media saw it as an abuse of free speech, and Sweden faced international pressure to ban such actions. But when Momika was shot dead in his apartment in January, the incident barely made the news.
They remain silent out of fear of being accused of racism. But silence protects no one—it only invites repetition. In the face of ongoing violence, we must ask: Where is the red line? How many victims, how much terror? We analyze, relativize, and dissect the issue until the core problem disappears. We downplay it so much that we don’t even realize when we are mocking the victims. Our greatest fear is not terror itself. It is unintentionally aiding the AfD. Yet this cowardice ultimately strengthens the very forces we claim to oppose.
