Muhammad almost lost his life one day when he walked on the street with a small mobile phone in his pocket. It was the time when Daesh (also known as ISIS) had instilled its terror regime in Mosul, the city which got to be the terrorists most important stronghold in Iraq. The terrorists ‘police’ shouted at him from the distance. Neither the “normal” trousers Muhammad was wearing nor the mobile phone which they had not discovered yet, were permitted. He panicked.

“I began banging on the houses’ walls. I was so in fear, I didn’t realize they were not doors. I couldn’t breathe. If they searched me and they found my mobile, they would kill me”

“I began banging on the houses’ walls. I was so in fear, I didn’t realize they were not doors. I couldn’t breathe. If they searched me and they found my mobile, they would kill me”, he remembers now on the other side of the phone line from Mosul. He started to cough so loud, that other people began to gather around him to try and help him. They offered him water. Given the crowd that had come together, ISIS guards left. “Those people saved my life”, he says convinced.

“We want Christians to come back”

Today Muhammad is one of Sawaed al Mosuliya volunteers (Arms of Mosul), an NGO which has restored Saint Thomas church in the heart of Mosul’s city centre. The took out the rubble, cleaned up and reinstalled the light.

The terrorists destroyed the church, as well as the famous Al Noori mosque. Saint Thomas served as prison during ISIS regime. Muhammad explains the Christian temple means a lot to Mosul’s people after the horror they had to endure: “During the liberation battles in Mosul, there was no running water. The only source of water was an old well inside the church. This church was a source of life”.

“During the liberation battles in Mosul, there was no running water. The only source of water was an old well inside the church. This church was a source of life”

“Since I was a child, Muslim and Christian families used to visit each other for the religious feasts, such as Christmas. There was a church where we used to go to. I miss that, I want those traditions to come back”, Muhammad adds.

As for Ziad, the volunteers’ coordinator, he recalls that before the terrorists took the city, he shared life with his neighbours and friends without caring about the religion of one another: “It wasn’t an issue. We didn’t even know who was Christian”. But now he knows 15 families on his street and wants to rebuild their houses to help them come back.  

Why focusing on the houses of Christians, given that Daesh persecuted everyone, also Muslims? “Because tens of thousands of people who fled are coming back, but not even one Christian person who lived here has done the same”, he explains. Two of his best friends used to live in those houses and they call him almost every day to know how the situation is. “They want to come back, but they’re afraid”.

>>> You may also read: Three religions under the same roof: this is Berlin’s next revolution<<<

Their work restoring the historic Saint Thomas church, thanks to the financial support of USAID, was the first step to be able to use the temple again for a religious service. At the same time, it revealed a symbol of hope in the city being reborn. “When we published the pictures on internet, people from other parts of Mosul began asking where this church was. They wanted to visit it. Some of my Christian friends cried and thanked us”, Muhammad says.

“Since I was a child, Muslim and Christian families used to visit each other for the religious feasts, such as Christmas. There was a church where we used to go to. I miss that, I want those traditions to come back”

They had already planned an interreligious event in the church just before the coronavirus pandemic exploded, so it had to be postponed. Now there is a man from Erbil who goes from time to time sent by the Christian community of that city. He is finishing the electric work on the church. Ziad and Muhammad have seen how the neighbours of the area usually go to him to offer him some water or other kind of help.

The volunteers of Sawaed al Mosuliya were founded in June 2018, when they began cleaning up the rubble and rubbish of tens of houses. The founded a supermarket whose incomes go to the people in need. They also help orphans and take part in interreligious events hand in hand with Christians and Jazidis in favour of a peaceful together living. “We’re doing all we can so that everyone comes back. They’re all welcome”, Ziad underlines.

Bring back normality to defeat ISIS

When the terrorists took Mosul back in 2014, Ziad was doing his master, he had a shop and lived with his family. “Life was good. When Daesh arrived, their mission was to destroy life in the city and its residents. They forced me to flee to Turkey with my family. They took my house and my shop”.

Ziad estimates 25.000 homes were destroyed. Now he wants to “bring back normality as a way to defeat Daesh”. He got married one month ago, has a minimarket and his doing his PhD in Modern History at the Faculty of Education. He hopes to find a full-time job when he finishes his studies.

Muhammad had to close his mobile phone shop when Daesh arrived, and his Economics studies had to wat. Instead of graduating in 2015, when the terrorists dominated the city, he graduated in 2018. He stayed in the city, but his brothers -who worked in the media sector- had to flee to Europe and they have not seen each other since.

Both of them dream of a “stable and peaceful life” in their city. Together with other volunteers, they will go on cleaning up the rubble of war and the damage the terrorists left behind.

“We’re doing all we can so that everyone comes back. They’re all welcome”

>>>Follow SalamPlan – journalism against hate- on Twitter and Facebook. And check out the other languages you can read SP in HERE<<<

La entrada Muslims bring church back to life in Iraq after being destroyed by ISIS: “We want Christians to feel welcome” se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

Trump said the 1st amendment -which stands for freedom of belief and speech- makes clear “that our rights do not come from our government; they come from God”. He regretted “80% of the world’s population live in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted or even banned”.

The percentage he cites comes from a report from the Pew Research Center in 2016, where this independent think tank also mentions Muslims being targeted in the United States and directly links this to the current present president of the country:

“In the United States, Muslims were the targets of derogatory rhetoric and proposed discrimination. In July, Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump criticized the parents of a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq (…). Later in the year, President-elect Trump appeared to stand by plans for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States and a proposed requirement that U.S. Muslims register in a database”, the report summary reads.

>>> You may also read: Alicia and Aladdin, the beautiful love story of a Catholic and a Muslim<<<

But Donald Trump’s speech on religious freedom this Monday at the UN ignored his rethoric and measures against Muslims: “As we speak, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Yazidis and many other people of faith are being jailed, sanctioned, tortured and even murdered, often at the hands of their own government, simply for expressing their deeply held religious beliefs. So hard to believe”.

He called upon all the countries of the world “to end religious persecution”, “repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief, protect the vulnerable, the defenceless and the oppressed”. The US president assured: “Protecting religious freedom is one of my highest priorities and always has been”.

“Repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief, protect the vulnerable, the defenceless and the oppressed”

What he did not mention was the “temporary ban” on Muslims he promised to implement if he became president and which finally has gotten a version of it for some Muslim majority countries plus Venezuela and North Korea after the judges declared his first travel ban illegal.

He recalled recent “evil attacks” against worshippers in sinagogues in the US, in mosques in New Zealand and churches in Sri Lanka and urged every nation “to increase the prosecution and punishment of crimes against religious communities”. “There cannot be greater crime than that”, he said.

>>> You may also read: Attacks against mosques are more usual than you might think: they are committed by anti-Muslim terrorists and also by groups like ISIS <<<

Trump announced a coalition of US businesses for the protection of “all faiths” in the workplace, although he did not go into detail. “True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs”, he pointed out before saying to the victims of religious persecution that the US “will always stay at your side”.

Last July Donald Trump held a short meeting with people who survived religious persecution worldwide. Sitting on his chair at the Oval Office and surrounded by them, he talked with them in front of the cameras (watch White House video).

The victims were grateful for the opportunity to be listened, like Farid Ahmed, a victim of the Christchurch attacks against Muslims who became known after publicly forgiving the terrorist. But there were also awkward moments during the meeting with Trump, such as when a Rohingya refugee asked him for solutions to go back home after being forced to flee to Bangladesh together with another 740,000 Muslims since 2017. “Where is that exactly?”, Trump asked. “Burma”, an official had to clarify (meaning the state nowadays known as Myanmar). Or like when he asked Nobel Peace Prize Nadia Murad why she obtained the award. She is a Yazidi woman survivor of ISIS genocide against this religious community who brought up attention worldwide about these mass killings, mainly in Iraq.

The law known as “Muslim ban” or “Travel ban” finally included countries which are not Muslim majority nations: North Korea and Venezuela. But it kept Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Iran among those with restrictions, including no travel at all for Syrians and North Korea people. Iraq and Sudan, which where among the countries in the first executive order, where finally dropped.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

La entrada Trump in the UN: “Protecting religious freedom is one of my highest priorities” se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

Authorities have confirmed the suspect’s identity: it is Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old from Texas, who shortly before the terror attack published an anti-immigrant manifesto online. The text speaks of an alleged “Hispanic invasion of Texas” and details a plan to separate the United States into territories according to race, The New York Times reports.

Federal authorities have said they are considering to put the terror attack also under hate crime and gun charges, which could lead to a death penalty. El Paso District attorney, Jaime Esparza, announced he will be seeking the death penalty.

Donald Trump has described the attack as “an act of cowardice” and said that “there are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing innocent people.”

The firefighters of El Paso have indicated to those who are looking for relatives and loved ones, to go personally to the Family Reunification Center at 8101 Whitus Dr. “You must be physically present, NO data is given over the phone”, they have indicated in Twitter

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has described the massacre as “one of the deadliest days in the history of Texas.”

Dayton shooting

In less than 24 hours another shooting has taken place in the United States. The second was in Dayton (Ohio) and has left 9 dead victims and several injured. The reasons are still unknown.

Police shot the attacker, who has died. He was identified as Connor Betts, a 24-year-old neighbour of the outskirts of the city. His sister Megan (22) was under the victims who lost their lifes. He also killed eight other people, six of whom where black and two others, white. Police do not believe there was a racist motive behind this attack.

There have been three shootings in only a week in the US.

La entrada 20 people killed in a terror attack by a white supremacist in El Paso se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

“Thousands of civilians were killed or injured in the US-led Coalition’s offensive to rid Raqqa of ISIS, whose snipers and mines had turned the city into a death trap,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International (AI) adviser said in a statement. “Many of the air bombardments were inaccurate and tens of thousands of artillery strikes were indiscriminate, so it is no surprise they killed and injured many hundreds of civilians.” Rovera assures as well that, on the ground, she discovered that the coalition was providing “little or no protection to civilians trapped in the city.”

The United States, France and the United Kingdom supported the advance of Kurdish forces on the ground with an air offensive. The “unguided artillery” have a margin of error of more than 100 meters, which makes their use “indiscriminate” in an urban context with civilians present, according to Amnesty.

“Many of the aerial bombings were inaccurate, and tens of thousands of artillery attacks were indiscriminate”

– Donatella Rovera, AI

The Syrian city of Raqqa was governed for almost four years by the terrorists until in 2017 they were defeated by the military coalition led by the United States. “ISIS had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and tortured and killed whoever dared to oppose them,” Amnesty International recalls. The NGO has previously documented how terrorists used “civilians as human shields, mined exit routes, set up checkpoints to restrict movement and fired at those who tried to flee.”

In their attempt to free the citizens of Raqqa from Daesh and undermine their territorial power in what was considered their “capital”, “thousands” of American, British and French air strikes and dozens of US artillery attacks were carried out between June and October 2017. Amnesty International says its data show that hundreds of civilians died as a “direct result”of that military operation.

The human rights organization research teams spent about two months in Raqqa when the battle was still ongoing. It visited more than 200 strike locations and interviewed more than 400 witnesses and survivors.

In addition, more than 3,000 activists from 124 different countries analyzed more than two million frames of satellite images. Amnesty notes that the organization’s digital verification body, based in six universities around the world, analyzed and authenticated the video images taken during the battle.

In collaboration with Airwars organization, they analyzed open source data in real time and after the battle – including “thousands” of social media and other materials – to create a database of more than 1,600 civilians who, according to the investigation, died due to the coalition attacks. Both organizations have compiled the names of more than a thousand victims; Amnesty International has verified 641 of these directly on the ground, in Raqqa, and claims to have “convincing information from multiple sources about the rest”.

“The coalition has to investigate what went wrong in Raqqa and learn the lesson so as to not inflict such tremendous suffering on civilians trapped in future military operations”

– Chris Woods, Airwars

The NGO regrets that the international coalition has only admitted to the deaths of 159 civilians for their attacks and claims that they do not investigate on the ground or talk to the victims.

“The Coalition needs to fully investigate what went wrong at Raqqa and learn from those lessons, to prevent inflicting such tremendous suffering on civilians caught in future military operations,” said Chris Woods, director of Airwars.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

La entrada Amnesty International claims the US led coalition killed 1,600 civilians in Raqqa during the battle against ISIS se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

She worked as a journalist in Egypt before and during the Revolution of 2011, when she got an arm and hand broken by the riot police, who also sexually assaulted her, she recalls. Her lawyer believes it was censorship-motivated. Today the author of Headscarves and Hymens lives and works in New York City and Cairo, being a contributor to media like The New York Times or The Guardian.

Eltahawy defines herself as a feminist of Muslim descent born in Egypt. She spoke to Salam Plan in Madrid’s Casa Árabe, during her Spanish tour this week to present her new book, The Seven Necessary Sins for Women and Girls (Beacon Press), which is coming out next Septembre. It is her manifesto against what she calls “universal patriarchy”.

What does Donald Trump mean to you?

Donald Trump for me is a fascist fuck. Donald Trump is a white supremacist, who has been clear all along about his misogyny, his racism, his islamophobia, his homophobia… he’s a whole host of discrimination and bigotry. He was elected by a mostly racist body of American voters and he represents today the growing rise of global authoritarianism that has -at his core- patriarchy, a patriarchy which uses all these forms of oppression.

So, Donald Trump for me is a very dangerous man, but he’s one of many. He’s probably the most powerful of the many, but you have his equivalent with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines, Orbán in Hungary and so on and so forth. And then you have Sisi in Egypt and Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, when we talk about authoritarianism.

“Donald Trump is a very dangerous man, but he’s one of many. You have his equivalent with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines, Orbán in Hungary, Sisi in Egypt, Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia…”

Do you think everyone who voted for Trump agrees with his rhetoric and all these ideas?

Well, 60 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. What is especially shocking to me is that the majority of white women voters voted for Donald Trump, knowing that he had been accused by at least twelve women of sexual assault, and knowing his rhetoric, that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic and all of it. So, if you voted for Donald Trump, you are a racist.

Many Americans get very upset when you say that and they say: “No, I’m not a racist” and they give you a whole bunch of excuses. But you understood very well that you voted for a racist, and if you voted for a racist, you are a racist.

What lessons could the other politicians draw from his success?

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party in the United States for too long has been moving towards the right, because they believe that the best way to win more votes is to bring people over from the Republican party. This is a disaster, it’s a mistake. Some politicians are learning sadly, and you see this in Europe too, that they should co-opt the rhetoric that has won the election for the Republican party.

But I’m seeing now more and more younger politicians and politicians of colour, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Olmar, Rashida Tlaib… especially the women of colour, who have been elected to the US Congress, I’m seeing that they represent a wonderful and refreshing and much needed antidote to the hate of the Republican Party and to the mistakes of the Democratic Party.

“The women of colour, who have been elected to the US Congress, represent a wonderful and refreshing and much needed antidote to the hate of the Republican Party and to the mistakes of the Democratic Party”

The Republican Party has been openly racist for decades. Donald Trump did not invent racism. He’s not the first American politician to run on these platforms. Donald Trump is the fruition of many years of white supremacy, islamophobia, capitalism… many, many other forms of bigotry and discrimination. He’s just especially avert about them.

At the same time, the Democratic Party has been dominated by white politicians and has not fought islamophobia in any effective way. In fact, when we talk specifically about islamophobia, I believe that one of the biggest mistakes of the Democratic Party is that the only time up until now, when they speak about Muslims, is when they talk about American Muslims in the military and in the police.

Also about Obama not being a Muslim.

Exactly, yes. The Democratic Party wants to play the good Muslim card, by saying ‘Muslims are us as well: they also fought for us in Afghanistan and Irak. This is not the kind of opposition to islamophobia that I support. I don’t want to be called a good Muslim or a bad Muslim, I want to be called an American citizen who has every right to be in this country, regardless of whether I’m in your military or not.

American politics has a massive problem with white supremacy, especially, and discrimination of all kinds. (…) Muslims in America were punished for 9/11, and we had no role in 9/11. But the Bush Administration launched two wars against Muslim majority countries and, inside the United States, launched the Patriot Act, which targeted specifically Muslims. And so you saw the rise of islamophobia.

“I don’t want to be called a good or a bad Muslim, I want to be called an American citizen who has every right to be in this country”

Where is the limit between freedom of expression or criticism and islamophobia?

I believe in the right to offend, but I believe in the right to protest offence. When we talk about the First Amendment in the United States, it protects you from the Government controlling your speech, but cooperations can and do. And the media does have its own kind of self-control in a way.

Speech has incited hate and violence in Boznia, Rwanda, in New Zealand… I’m against censorship, but I recognize the power of speech, and I think it’s imperative on us to protest hate speech with all the methods that we have at our disposal because people are being killed (…).

I was a journalist in the Middle East for ten years. I’m against censorship, because where I come from [Egypt], it is used to silence us, because once you give the state the power to censor, at first you think it is for a good reason, to protect us, but then the line gets bigger and bigger, and that is what happened in the United States with the Patriot Act.

>>>You may also read: Expert warns about more terror attacks against Muslims if politicians don’t tackle islamophobia<<<

The week after the New Zealand attacks, Islamophobia cases in the UK rose by almost 600%, according to the Tell Mama organization, which holds the records for it. How would you tackle hate speech? Media are always pointed at, but what about politicians and institutions?

I think politicians must stop using lazy stereotypes of people in a hateful rhetoric for votes. [They] must stop monopolizing any kind of fearmongering that they have used for a long time to portray people as ‘under attack’ or to say ‘these people are coming to take your jobs, to rape your women’.

I think that the media must start portraying a more complicated image of people who are not white. I think that the media is too lazy to portray people. They give you all these very, very reductive images of people. So, you’re not allowed to be a full human being.

Media news rooms are very white. The media must start hiring people of different backgrounds, because they will understand reporting on all of those communities in a much more complicated and rich way.

I think the aim of hate speech is to dehumanize, because if you dehumanize you make it easier to attack. And complication is the best way to humanize someone. Allow people to be complicated.

“The aim of hate speech is to dehumanize, because if you dehumanize you make it easier to attack. And complication is the best way to humanize someone. Allow people to be complicated”

What do you think about New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s reaction to the recent attacks?

I think she’s done some very good things and I think she’s done some very lazy stereotypical things. I think the fact that she refuses to say the name of the man who committed the massacre is very good. I think that the fact that she and the government worked very quickly to change the legislation on semi-automatic rifles and guns generally is very good and necessary, and a lesson to the United States.

I think the compassion that she showed to the Muslim community when she went [to support them]… she looked genuine. But I reject anyone who is not Muslim using the hijab as a form of solidarity, for many reasons. Number one: the hijab is not a gimmick or a toy that you put on one day and you take off the next day (..). It’s an empty gesture. It is much more meaningful to show solidarity by fighting white supremacy every day.

Number two: as a Muslim woman who fought for eight years to take off my hijab [in Egypt], and as a Muslim woman who is in a family where my mother wears hijab for piety, my sister wears it for identity -she wants to say ‘fuck you’ to the racists- and I reject hijab and all forms of modesty… So, when I see white non-Muslim women putting on the hijab, I see that they have chosen a sight that is not mine (…).  I would prefer instead of wearing a headscarf, when they’re out in public, that they support Muslim visible women. If you see a Muslim visible woman being attacked verbally or physically, intervene and help that woman.

“I’m a Muslim woman who is in a family where my mother wears hijab for piety, my sister wears it for identity -she wants to say ‘fuck you’ to the racists- and I reject hijab and all forms of modesty”

People are sometimes surprised or do not believe that Muslim women can be feminists.

I keep my feminism and Islam separate, because for me anything that hurts women and girls, I will fight, regardless of where it comes from. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, secular politics… I will fight patriarchy everywhere.

I believe the Abrahamic religions -Judaism, Christianity and Islam- are very patriarchal and we have to fight the patriarchy inside those religions. But I also believe there is patriarchy outside those religions.

I think that Islamic feminism in this sense is useful, and I am not an Islamic feminist. I have used their work to give to Muslim women a weapon who write to me and say ‘I want something that will help me fight x, y and z’. (…) If a woman says to me, “my religion is helping me to be more feminist”, I want to have all the weapons at her disposal to fight patriarchy, because I want to fight patriarchy wherever it exists.

You just said you are not an Islamic feminist. How would you define yourself?

I’m a feminist, I was born in Egypt and I’m of Muslim descent. This is how I usually present myself, and I think that makes it complicated enough and that’s all you need know [she giggles].

Feminist Mona Eltahawy thinks patriarchy needs to be tackled universally. © Salam Plan

Why do you say ‘Arab countries need a sexual revolution’ in your book Headscarves and Hymens?

When the revolutions began in Tunisia in 2010 and then spread to many other countries, including my country of birth, the revolutions were men and women together fighting the state. I wanted to ask in my book: when we go home, after we all have risked our lives together… Are the men that we stood shoulder to shoulder with against the state, are they revolutionaries at home, in the street? And we found in many cases the revolutionaries have a patriarch inside them.

Without the social revolution against the dictator in the public space and the sexual revolution against the dictator in the bedroom, the political revolution against the dictator in the palace will fail.

[In] Egypt right now, the political revolution is stuck, because it is one group of men fighting another group of men for a small piece of power: the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. I’m not interested in this, I’m interested in this revolution in the street and the revolution in the bedroom [which] -together- will make possible a much more comprehensive form of liberation on the state level as well.

What is the main lesson you have learned throughout your years of journalism and activism?

To stay angry and to recognize that the revolution lives inside you. So that way, wherever you go around the world, that internal revolution finds the various forms of oppression that patriarchy co-opts and utilizes. I often say that my goal is to destroy patriarchy all over the world (…). The tattoos which I have on my arm [, one of them says]: ‘we are the ones we have been waiting for’.

Don’t you get tired of staying angry?

[She giggles and then gets serious again]. No, not really, because it really does fuel me and I can use it everywhere I go. And for my next book I use anger as what I call one of the necessary sins. Because women are discouraged of being angry. It’s one attribution we’re not allowed to be by patriarchy.

What other six “necessary sins” do you talk about in your new book?

These are attributes that patriarchy does not want women and girls to want to do or to be: anger, attention seeking, profanity, ambition, power, violence and lust. Each of the chapters is about one of these sins and I write about why those sins are important in the fight against patriarchy.

I call this fight “feminism in 3D”: defying, disobeying and disrupting patriarchy. And it’s not about the Middle East or North Africa, it’s about the world. It’s about how patriarchy is universal. And I use stories and examples from feminism fights from around the world: Uganda, South Africa, South Korea, Argentina, India, Ireland… as a way of showing the feminist international revolution that targets patriarchy around the world. So, it’s like my feminist manifesto [she giggles].

I believe Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very patriarchal and we have to fight the patriarchy inside those religions. But I also believe there is patriarchy outside those religions. It’s universal

And how do you imagine Egypt and the US, the places you know better, in ten years’ time?

One of the things that gave me hope in the United States lately is what I was mentioning earlier about the election of these women of colour. I think they have come to American politics and really turned it upside down (…).

I believe the revolution, everywhere in the world, comes from the margins. It doesn’t come from the majority; the majority is too comfortable and wants to hold to the status quo.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Egypt now, including Saudi Arabia too, I really believe that feminism and talking and sexual ownership of our bodies -be it of feminist discourse or LGBTQ discourse-, so queer groups, who are increasingly visible -in Tunisia, in Lebanon they have been for a while now, and in Egypt we have something called the Alliance of Queer Egyptians now-…

So, in the Middle East and North Africa, [I imagine] an increasingly feminist-queer identified struggle; in the United States, an increasingly feminist of colour struggle will be the places of the margins that will influence society at large. They give me optimism, because I’m a tendentious optimist.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

La entrada Mona Eltahawy: “If you voted for Donald Trump, you are a racist” se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

Saddened by the terror attacks in New Zealand, he thinks they could have been prevented with security measures against far-right extremists and terrorists instead of focusing only -or mainly- on radicals favouring Daesh [ISIS in its Arabic transcription]. At the same time, he warns about hate speech contributing to an atmosphere that encourages more violence from all sides.

Salam Plan has talked to this researcher of the international SETA think tank during his visit to Madrid where he presented the results of the report at Casa Árabe (Arab House), an institution which is part of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Spain. He gives some hints to prevent Islamophobia from rising more and calls up on everybody to tackle the problem.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

How do you feel some days after the New Zealand attacks happened? Do you think the international community has reacted as expected, as it should have done?

I feel saddened by this very tragic event, of course because of the lives which have been lost, some of them children. But at the same time, I feel saddened that this could have been prevented, if the necessary precautions had been taken before.

Why do I say this? Because this has happened before, with Anders Breivik in Norway, and this should have been a wake-up call for everybody of how far the far-right terrorism advanced, not only in Europe, but internationally. We see the results of this in the United States, the attack against a synagogue carried out by a far-right terrorist. And there were other attacks also against Muslims in Canada[, UK]…

“The security apparatus in Europe has to take this issue seriously, tackle the far-right radicalisation. This way we will prevent not only future attacks by the far-right but also future attacks by Daesh, because they are feeding each other”

If the necessary precautions had been taken against the far-right rise and the far-right radicalization had been taken seriously, I think this could have been prevented. Because, consider: if you are a radical Muslim and you are searching on the internet or watching the videos of Daesh [Arabic name for ISIS], you will be in trouble quite easily: the intelligence services will detect you. But this is not the case with the far-right. They operate more freely, and I think that’s why these attacks are happening. That doesn’t mean that you can prevent everything, because there will be some lone wolves all the time.

I hope the future attacks will be prevented, because the atmosphere is quite ripe for these attacks. Unfortunately, this might happen anywhere in Europe nowadays. I think the security apparatus in Europe has to take this issue seriously, tackle the far-right radicalisation. This way we will prevent not only future attacks by the far-right but also future attacks by Daesh, because they are feeding each other. After this attack [in New Zealand], Daesh called for fresh attacks against the West or the Christians. This is a vicious circle and innocent people are getting killed.

>>> You may also read: Attacks against mosques are more usual than you might think: they are committed by anti-Muslim terrorists and also by groups like ISIS <<<

You talk about security measures, but what about the discourse to help prevent this? You just mentioned Daesh itself called for revenge, but Daesh itself attacks Muslims.

Yes, the majority of the victims of Daesh are Muslims. After these attacks [in New Zealand] there were some calls, especially in Turkey [, where I am based]: some people would say we should call this “Christian terrorism”.

I objected this, and many people objected this, because this doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity. You can justify violence with anything. There are some radical Buddhists, and some radical Orthodox… that doesn’t mean we blame all the Christians. That is why we need to be really careful about the rhetoric, because the rhetoric makes this kind of attacks possible.

People would think ‘Islamophobia is only hate speech, what’s the problem? I don’t like Muslims’. But it’s not just the rhetoric. Rhetoric, with time, turns into action and creates violence. The rhetoric has to change and there is a need for a political acknowledgement of the problem.

“The problems with Islamophobia and the far-right need to be acknowledged. Unfortunately, mainstream politicians are adopting the far-right ideas and their narratives”

First Islamophobia has to be acknowledged as a problem; many of the European countries are refusing the fact that there is a problem with Islamophobia. Even the European Union has now a coordinator on anti-Muslim hatred, but not anti-Muslim racism or Islamophobia.

Also, the problem with the far-right needs to be acknowledged. Unfortunately, mainstream politicians are adopting the far-right ideas and their narratives, and they are reluctant to challenge the far-right directly.

In your report you mention that Islamophobia does not only affect far-right politicians, but the whole range of them. How come?

Mainstream politicians are now under a lot of pressure in Europe. They cannot find a solution to the far-right; the only solution they see is what happened in Austria. The Christian democratic party ÖVP were a mainstream, reasonable party with a long tradition, but when the far-right started rising, they chose a young leader, [Sebastian] Kurz. He has muted his party more to the far-right. That was his solution to the problem, and he has become now a kind of the far-right leader. And that’s replicating itself in other European countries.

Now the three secret services in Austria are in the hands of the far-right [Government ally, Heinz- Christian] Strache.

For a certain amount of time the politicians were silent about the problem and at a certain point, they realized it’s unstoppable. (…) Islamophobia we find it also in the left party, in the Christian democrats… it has become a new form of racism that is acceptable to people.

“Islamophobia has become a new form of racism that is acceptable to people. We have far-right Islamophobia, but we also have Liberalist Islamophobia and Leftist Islamophobia”

May you give some examples?

Some people in the Green Party [in Germany] are calling for the headscarf ban. Or the former candidate of CDU, Friedrich Merz, said “We cannot allow Muslim children to get indoctrinated in Q’ran schools”.

Of course, we have far-right Islamophobia, but we also have Liberalist Islamophobia and Leftist Islamophobia.

Many feminists are in favour of banning the headscarf by saying ‘we are empowering the Muslim women’. Ok, there might be some Muslim women, youngsters, who may be forced by their families, but the overwhelming majority of them are choosing it by their own will. In France they are not allowed to study at the universities. Is this empowering women?

>>> You may read: Muslim European women claim their place in feminism<<<

In Spain now there is much of a debate going on whether the conservative Popular Party and liberal Ciudadanos should establish a cordon-sanitaire against far-right Vox in the next general election.

I think they should [establish a cordon sanitaire]. The cordon sanitaire [in Europe] was there, but it has disappeared. Look at the Austrian example. In the year 2000 [far-right leader] Jörg Haider became part of the [governing] coalition with his party. There was a big outcry in Europe, there was a diplomatic embargo against Austria.

” The ‘cordon sanitaire’ in Europe was there, but it has disappeared. Islamophobia is a threat to the democratic foundations of Europe”

Today, his party is again part of the coalition in a much stronger way. Nobody says a thing. The cordon sanitaire has disappeared. Why? Because of the Islamophobic narrative and discourse. If this is the problem of Muslims, I think everybody needs to rethink about it. If you let the far-right become normalized, it will just ruin the European Union. So, who is going to lose from this? Muslims? Not only. Islamophobia is a threat to the democratic foundations of Europe. We see the results. I hope New Zealand is a wake-up call for measures to be taken (…).

We need courageous leaders and civil society activists to tackle this problem. But many people think Islamophobia is a Muslims problem, it’s not our problem. Well, I don’t think so. If you allow this fire burn here, it will affect others (…).

Common people might have a prejudice against Islam and Muslims and common people in Turkey also have prejudices against Germans or Christians. This has to be tackled, of course, (but) that’s normal. The problem starts when this starts to become a policy and made into law, based on these notions of segregating people. We are talking more of a political problem.

>>> You may also read: Alicia and Aladdin, the beautiful love story of a Catholic and a Muslim<<<

In your report you call for Islamophobia to be approached in the laws, just like the UN and OSCE ask. But from what you are telling me, it doesn’t seem this could become real any time soon.

No, I don’t think so. There is a strong opposition. Islamophobes say Islamophobia is a combat term developed by Islamists to reject any kind of criticism against Islam. Of course, we can critize Muslims and Islam, but the important thing is how we do this.

Why do you think it is so important that Islamophobia is put on paper, what would it help?

It would mean that the problem is acknowledged, it would help to record Islamophobic hate crime into a separate category. We would have statistics of what is going on the streets in terms of hate speech and attacks against Muslims and then we can talk about the problem. But if you don’t acknowledge the problem politically, then you are not willing to tackle the problem (…) and no actions are taken against this.

“Of course, we can critize Muslims and Islam. Common people might have a prejudice against Islam and in Turkey also against Christians. This has to be tackled, but the problem starts when this becomes a policy and turns into law”

According to a European survey promoted by the European Union and mentioned in your report, 12% of Muslims have reported discrimination to the authorities. Do you think that number is according to reality?

I think that’s only the tip of the iceberg. In Germany, we have 900 cases reported to the police. Many Muslims are not really reporting these cases to the police in Europe. First, many are not aware of the reporting mechanisms. Second, they might be socially isolated or very close to the people who are attacking them: the employer, teacher… Also, they are not really trusting the authorities due to fear that they will not be taken seriously, which happens.

In that survey it also came out 76% of Muslims feel attached to the country they live in. Well, I guess it’s because in many cases -may be most of them- it is because it is their own country, isn’t it? And there is always this idea of talking about Muslims as strangers or foreigners.

This is the main notion you hear: Muslims are living in ghettos, they’re not integrated, they’re not part of the society… well, look at the numbers. We are talking about 3^rd and 4^th generations living in Europe, they’re already European Muslims.

Which country would you say is the more Islamophobic European country?

It is really difficult to assess, we need to establish criteria. We’re just at the beginning of the process of uncovering the problem. I can tell the situation in France is quite bad for Muslims, in terms of political representation, which is quite low compared with the population. They’re not represented.

The rhetoric in Hungary and the Czech Republic is really radical against Muslims and there are almost no Muslims there, it’s like 0.001% of the population. But if you look at the rhetoric of the leaders of those countries it is as if next day the Muslims will take over Hungary or the Czech Republic.

You are presenting the third annual report on European Islamophobia and in June you will present the next one. Have you noticed a rise in these years?

What we’re seeing is that there are more violent attacks against Muslims. There is a case in Czech Republic, where a far-right person has tried to fake a terror attack against Czechs, he cut down trees on train lines twice and then he wrote fake letters in Arabic in order to fake a Daesh attack. He was arrested but was given a really minor sentence in the Court, because he had to take medicines for his high blood-pressure problem and that might affect his ability to think. That does also show the legal aspect of this issue.

“There are worrying signs that the far-right is increasing its activity to carry out attacks. The far-right is organized, there are training camps in Russia and Ukraine. There might be more terror attacks against Muslims in Europe”

There are worrying signs that the far-right is increasing its activity to carry out attacks. And that’s why I say, and I warn that there might be more (terror) attacks against Muslims in Europe and precautions must be taken.

So Muslims cannot feel safe in Europe?

The don’t already after what happened in New Zealand. It might happen everywhere.

It already happened in Europe as well but in a lower scale when it comes to the number of victims. In the UK there were two terror attacks against mosques…

Atmosphere is ripe, the infrastructure is there, far-right is organized, there are training camps in Russia and Ukraine… It’s just a matter of time.

That’s scary.

It is scary, yes.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

La entrada Expert warns about more terror attacks against Muslims in Europe if politicians don’t tackle Islamophobia se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

Muslims in the United Kingdom have suffered two attacks on mosques in London in recent years. In both cases they were abuses or attempts of abuse at the exit of the sentence. The 48-year-old British terrorist Darren Osborne was sentenced to life imprisonment for his attack on June 19, 2017 outside the Finsbury Park mosque in London. He killed one person and left another 12 injured. He has to serve at least 43 years in jail.

Martin Stokes, 25, also tried to run over citizens with his car when they were outside another London mosque in Cricklewood on September 19 last year. He left three people injured. Barely a week ago, on March 6, he was sentenced to 5 years. Stokes admitted dangerous driving, the BBC reported. He had parked with some friends in a private area and they were bothering him, so they were asked to leave. He responded by ramming the car to the people who were there while he uttered Islamophobic and racist insults against them, witnesses said.

In Quebec (Canada), Alexander Bissonnette was also just recently sentenced for his attack on a mosque, where he shot six people dead in January 2017. The 29-year-old has been sentenced to 40 years without parole.

“The attack in New Zealand is the best example that all extremist ideologies are more similar than you might think,” said OIET director Carlos Igualada, through on his Twitter feed. At the same time, he pointed out that the terrorist groups like Daesh or Al Qaeda will soon use the attacks of this Friday in Christchurch in their own benefit and as an excuse to make propaganda in favor hitting back. They will not remind their followers that they usually kill Muslim people.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism to understand each other’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

La entrada Attacks against mosques are more usual than you might think: they are committed by anti-Muslim terrorists and also by groups like ISIS se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

La entrada Two terror attacks against mosques in New Zealand leave 49 dead se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

Donald Trump as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions prefer to speak about “political violence” or “despicable acts” instead of “terrorism”, when referring to the bomb mailings presumably sent by Sayoc. New York governor Andrew Cuomo did talk about “terrorism” from the beginning. Sessions left the door open to broaden up the five current charges against Sayoc as the investigations unfold. For now, they include illegal mailing of explosives and threats against former presidents.

Regarding the shooting of Robert Bowers in the Tree of Life sinagogue in Pittsburgh which resulted in 11 deaths, the public safety director of the city Wendell Hissrich confirmed in a press conference the massacre “falls under hate crime” (which in Pittsburgh can lead to a death penalty, The New York Times said). The Antidefamation League (ADL) itself -an organization founded to fight antisemitism which now fighst as well against other sorts of hatred- called on authorities “to investigate (the attack) as a hate crime”.

>>> You may also read: Fox News says George Soros is “subject of many unfounded conspiracy theories” from the right<<<

So, what is the right way to call these attacks? One of the major researchers on terrorism in the US and a leading expert worldwide is Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University and director of the Center for Security Studies. He said to Salam Plan: “Hate crimes and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. They are the same and it baffles me why such distinctions are made. Certainly, the mail bombs and Pittsburgh shooting, according to my definition, are acts of terrorism.”*

“The mail bombs and Pittsburgh shooting are acts of terrorism”

— Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown professor

Let’s see how he comes to that conclusion, which is not only his at all. Experts from around the world have been trying to get a straight answer to the meaning of “terrorism” for decades and there is still no final consensus. But they agree on basic common characteristics and an essential aspect that differentiates the terrorist attack from what is not.

Hoffman recognizes there are many different visions. In his book Inside Terrorism (Ed. Columbia University Press), he devotes up to the first 44 pages to, literally, “defining terrorism”, the very title of the first chapter. A historical review of the phenomenon, which emerged with the anarchist movement at the end of the 19th century, demonstrates the changing meaning of the word and the way it is carried out. But at the same time it confers clarity on characteristics which have remained over time.

Political or ideological motivation is essential

Hoffman concludes that for an act to be described as a terrorist attack nowadays, the following aspects must converge:

• “ineluctably” political in aims and motivations, it is “propaganda by deed”;
• violent or with threat of violence;
• planned to achieve “far-reaching” psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
• carried out by an organization “with an identifiable chain of command or a conspiratorial cell structure” or by individuals or a small group of them inspired by a terrorist group;
• perpetrated by a “subnational” group or a non-state entity.

Hoffman also cites a detailed study carried out in the 1980s by Alex P. Schmid in which that researcher compared more than 100 definitions of “terrorism” in an attempt to come up with the final definition. He did not succeed, but he did draw up a list of the concepts that appeared most often as part of those definitions. The three most mentioned and coinciding were in the following order:

• violence or force (83.5%)
• political (65%)
• fear or emphasis on terror (51%).

Other concepts, such as “threat” or “psychological effects” only appeared in less than half of those definitions, although these two were those which followed in frequency to the ones previously mentioned.

So the concept “political violence” used by Trump and Sessions to refer to the frustrated attacks of Sayoc would directly fit into the common charasteristics of what terrorism is, according to more than 100 definitions. Also the explosive devices were not a hoax, as the FBI director Chris Wray confirmed.

The three most mentioned concepts in more than 100 definitions of “terrorism” are: “violence”, “political” and “fear”. So the concept “political violence” used by Trump and Sessions to refer to the mail bombs of Sayoc would directly fit into it.

Lieutenant-Colonel Manuel González Fernández, analyst professor of geopolitics and the so-called “jihadist” terrorism at the Spanish Gutiérrez Mellado Institute, argues that a terrorist is someone who carries out “acts of indiscriminate violence to modify or change political wills, organizations or societies.” In his opinion it is a concept that is based more on the aims than the actions themselves: “If by attacking a mosque you get people to fear going to the mosque or you provoke the need of a stronger police deployment, you are a terrorist,” he explains in his classes.

González Fernández offers another note that helps understand how terrorists act: “We see a squared chessboard with limitations, while they see a clear board. They can appear on any square of the board.” Thus, he agrees with Hoffman, who also points out the absence of the rules of war in his book, because a conventional war must be produced respecting aspects such as: not killing civilians, respecting countries and neutral actors, not taking enemy hostages, giving a correct treatment to war prisoners… Rules which, by the way, are similarly defined in the Q’ran.

>>> You may also read: The true meaning of ‘jihad’ and how ISIS fails to accomplish it<<<

Georgetown professor Hoffman admits that also in the conventional wars these rules are sometimes breached, but he indicates that those cases qualify as a “war crime”. In the case of terrorists, they violate these basic rules systematically.

“We see a squared chessboard with limitations, while terrorists see a clear board. They can appear on any square of the board”

— Manuel González Fernández, Gutiérrez Mellado Institute

Rafael Calduch is professor of International Public Law and International Relations at the Complutense University of Madrid. International terrorism is among his main research approaches. He defines terrorism through six conditions:

“1. Political relationship strategy based on

2. the use of violence and threats of violence by

3. an organized group, in order to induce a

4. feeling of terror or extreme insecurity in a

5. non-belligerent human collectivity and

6. thus, facilitate the achievement of their demands”.

What about ‘lone wolves’ or ‘lone actors’?

For Calduch, the so-called “lone wolves” commit acts of terror, but they are “fanatics who act at their own risk” and do not consider them terrorists, because he attributes to the latter a strategy, with “planning, tactics and logistics”.

The differentiation between “wolf” (non-terrorist act) and “lone actor” (in a terrorist context) extends among researchers: Hoffman’s definition of terrorism includes precisely the lone actors and avoids the concept of “wolf”.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

Lieutenant González Fernández reminds that Osama bin Laden already incited to the solitary action in 1993. This military professor also redefines the attackers usually called “lone wolves” in the media to “coyotes”. From his point of view, a “coyote” is an actor who is part of an operative cell, because they do not self-finance, they do not use means autonomously, they do not radicalize themselves, but rather with books and the internet.

The researchers on global terrorism of the Elcano Royal Institute, Fernando Reinares and Carola García-Calvo, also prefer to talk about lone actors for similar reasons.

What stays clear after comparing the analyses of all these terrorism experts is that for a violent attack to be described as a “terrorist attack” there must be a political or ideological motivation behind it.

Neo- nazi and ISIS terrorists

So not any massive attack against civilians by a group or a person can be described as a terrorist act, even if Daesh (ISIS name in Arabic) assures that it was carried out in its name. This was the case in Las Vegas attack on October 1st 2017, where the FBI dismissed the vindication of this terrorist organization. Although it is known that its author, Stephen Paddock, planned the attack, the absence of his motivations prevents his classification as a terrorist.

As for the investigation on the van strike in Toronto carried out by Alek Minassian on April 23rd 2018, authorities spoke about it as an “incident” at that time. The suspect killed ten people and injured another 13 in what appeared to be a “deliberate” act, according to Toronto Police, but no political or ideological motivations seemed to be behind this tragedy. Therefore, he was charged with counts of murder and attempted murder, not terrorism.

Terrorist attacks were committed by Anders Breivik in Norway -who with neo-Nazi ideology killed 77 people (mostly young people of the Norwegian Socialist Party) in July 2011- or Ali David Sonboly in Munich in 2016, also with neo-Nazi ideology. Those were terrorist attacks just as the ones perpetrated by followers of ISIS terrorist group.

“All the attacks that have taken place lately (in the West) have had two types of reaction: if the author was from a European (non-Muslim) family, a reason for mental illness has been sought, or a rare situation… But name a Muslim as a possible author of an attack, then there is no need to explain more,” professor Emeritus of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Barcelona, ​​Dolors Bramon, complains.

This happened in the case of Breivik (the court which tried him, assessed the possibility of a mental illnessand but ended up dismissing it and he has to serve a prison sentence) and in Sonboly (killed in the attack). For Bramon, this is a sign of the Islamophobia implicit in the West societies which appears after each new attack and she asks to avoid it.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

* This article was first published in Decembre 2017. It has been updated on Octobre 29th of 2018.

La entrada Why some attacks are considered terrorist acts and others not se publicó primero en Salam Plan.

At least ten people died this Saturday after a man entered the Tree of Life Sinagogue in Pittsburg and opened fire. “All Jews must die”, he shouted, according to witnesses, Reuters reports. There are also several people injured, two of them in critical condition. People had gone to the temple to celebrate sabbath, the sacred day for Jewish people.

The suspect has been identified as Robert Bowers (46). He is in custody and has been taken to hospital. He had posted a message on Gab, a similar platform to Twitter according to Reuters, where he attacked the charity work of a Jewish NGO devoted to refugees called Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. He critiziced its work as he considered it “likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

“We believe this is the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States”

— ADL

ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, tweeted the Antidefamation League believes the shooting in Pittsburgh this Saturday is “the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States.” In a press statement, the organization called on authorities “to investigate this as a hate crime.”

¿A hate crime or something else?

Pittsburgh public safety director Wendell Hissrich confirmed in a press conference the massacre “falls under hate crime”.

One of the major experts on terrorism analysis in the US and worldwide, Bruce Hoffman, said to Salam Plan: “Hate crimes and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. They are the same and it baffles me why such distinctions are made. Certainly, the mail bombs and Pittsburgh shooting today, according to my definition, are acts of terrorism.”

“The mail bombs and Pittsburgh shooting are acts of terrorism and hate crimes”

— Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown professor

The meaning of “terrorism” is a matter which many experts have been trying to clarify for decades. Hoffman, who is a Georgetown professor and director of the Center for Security Studies at that university, wrote a book called “Inside Terrorism” (Columbia University Press). In it, he describes a variety of studies on the issue and comes to the conclusion that any violent attack with ideological o political motivation is an act of terrorism. Salam Plan explains it HERE.

This attack occurs at a time when ADL has reported a “historic increase” in both anti-Semitic incidents and anti-Semitic online harassment.

>>> Follow Salam Plan- ‘journalism against hate’ on Twitter and Facebook<<<

La entrada The massacre in Pittsburgh is the deadliest attack against Jewish citizens in the United States se publicó primero en Salam Plan.