When an attack targets civilians, the first response must be condemnation: clear, public and without calculation based on the victims’ identity. Muslim religious and community leaders have particular reason to speak when the attacker invokes their faith. The extremist claims to represent them. Public rejection of that claim is an act of responsibility and a means of protecting the community. It must, however, translate into an everyday position rather than be exhausted in a single statement.
This demand does not create collective guilt. A Muslim citizen is not responsible for someone else’s crime simply because they share a religious reference. The responsibility of institutional representatives arises from their role, their platform and their ability to challenge the recruiter. The same standard applies to any religious or political leadership that sees its own symbol used to justify violence. A public position requires consistency and concrete substance.
Condemnations exist — They must gain depth
It is inaccurate to claim that the Muslim world has not condemned extremism. The Amman Message and its three fundamental principles are examples of efforts to clarify religious authority and restrict the arbitrary declaration of other Muslims as unbelievers. Their importance lies in challenging the power claimed by the self-appointed guide. Not just anyone can present himself as the unquestionable judge of everyone else’s faith.
The open letter to Baghdadi, which rejected the killing of innocents and the persecution of religious communities, was equally important. This document answers an easy generalisation: there is organised Muslim opposition to Islamic State’s murderous theology. The next question concerns effectiveness. How do these positions reach young people? How are they taught? Who intervenes when a local guide attempts to overturn them or impose fear?
In my view, condemnation acquires weight when it is applied where influence is generated: in places of worship, families, associations, education and online. A young person who hears that murder is a sacred duty needs an understandable and credible answer. He also needs someone he can turn to without facing intimidation. An institutional document has value, but an everyday relationship is what can break isolation.
The victim is not subject to a political test
Consistency is tested when victims belong to a country or community with which there is political conflict. The murder of an Israeli civilian does not become less criminal because of the Israeli government’s policies. Equally, a Palestinian civilian’s life is worth no less because of Hamas’s actions. This principle allows no offsetting of one wrong against another. It separates political judgment from the protection of human beings and denies the extremist the opportunity to portray victims as guilty because of their identity.
The same applies to antisemitism. Criticism of Israel can be severe, specific and supported by evidence. Targeting Jews as a collective enemy destroys that framework. Community leaders must explain the difference and uphold it publicly. When collective blame is permitted, political discussion becomes a tool of dehumanisation. Prevention must intervene before this language becomes socially accepted behaviour or a justification for an attack.
The attack on the flydubai flight provides an immediate test. The official update carried by WAM on 3 October includes the United Arab Emirates authorities’ characterisation of the act as terrorist. This is a concrete public position taken by a Muslim country. It must be acknowledged, instead of being erased because it does not fit a general accusation of silence. The credibility of an analysis depends on that precision too.
Of course, we do not have a complete map of all reactions that would allow us to accuse every Muslim body of silence. Such a judgment would require systematic research. We can, however, state the objective clearly: public solidarity with victims, rejection of ideological justification and cooperation on prevention. The strength of this position lies in the rule it proposes and its application. It does not need to manufacture an unverified picture of universal silence to be demanding.
From statements to protection
In practice, communities need procedures to protect young people and provide safe access to help. A family that recognises dangerous manipulation must be able to speak to suitable professionals. Religious representatives need to understand how recruitment works. Collective bodies must be transparent about their financing and have clear criteria for the speakers they invite. This is institutional protection that safeguards religious and social life itself.
The state has corresponding obligations. Cooperation cannot be demanded in a climate of universal suspicion. It requires trust, lawful investigation and protection for those who report threats. The UNDP research on recruitment in Africa highlights the role of local communities in disengagement from extremism. Greece’s circumstances require their own assessments, but the general lesson remains useful: social bonds can form part of the defence.
For Greece, participation must mean shared rights and shared obligations. Muslim citizens and lawful residents do not need to prove that they belong to the human community. They need a real opportunity to participate in protecting it. Isolation benefits anyone seeking to present himself as their exclusive representative. The state must engage with multiple voices and avoid elevating one person into the sole intermediary for an entire religious group.
Nor should condemnation be treated as a ritual declaration of loyalty repeatedly demanded from ordinary citizens. That exhausts the discussion and diminishes the problem. The burden lies with organised bodies and people who exercise influence. Their interventions must be assessed for consistency, their ability to reach young people and their capacity to protect dissenters. In this way, social participation gains substance and becomes practical resistance to manipulation, with responsibility corresponding to each representative’s institutional role.
Finally, public condemnation must have continuity. It must be repeated when an extremist glorifies an attack, threatens a dissenter or attempts to recruit a minor. Responsibility does not begin only after blood has been shed. It begins when preaching strips another person’s life of its worth. That is where religious and community leaders must raise their voices: clearly, consistently and through action, so that no murderer can claim, unchallenged, the right to speak in their name.
