The Preachers Who Prepare the Ground for Violence — Responsibility Behind the Attacker

Before the person who carries out an attack appears, someone has often already explained why he is entitled to do it. This is the difficult side of confronting Islamist extremism. The instigator may never carry a weapon, approach the target or take part in the final preparations. He may nevertheless organise the environment in which violence acquires legitimacy. His absence from the crime scene does not remove the need to examine his actual responsibility.

The case of Anjem Choudary provides a judicially documented example. In July 2024, he was sentenced in Britain to life imprisonment for directing the proscribed organisation al-Muhajiroun, with a minimum term of 28 years before deduction of time spent on remand. The crucial point is the distinction made by the court: the danger stemmed from his organisational and rhetorical abilities, without his having to commit violence personally.

The platform as a recruitment tool

In the sentencing remarks, the judge described incitement disguised as theological teaching and attempts to draw in young people. He also recorded that the organisation operated under different names. These findings matter because they move the discussion from general indignation to an evidential basis. Calling someone a dangerous preacher is insufficient. We must establish what he said, how he organised his activities and what connection he had to encouraging or supporting criminal acts.

The analytical conclusion is that a change of name can be a means of maintaining a network’s continuity. Investigation must therefore examine individuals, communications and organisational links beyond the label attached to a group. The public image can change faster than the underlying apparatus. If the authorities focus only on the name, they risk monitoring an old label while the same activity has moved elsewhere and is already addressing a different audience.

A second characteristic case is Anwar al-Awlaki.  A 2017 announcement by the US Department of Justice records a guilty plea involving the provision of support to him as a leading figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The case included raising and delivering money through an intermediary. Here we see a pathway that goes beyond influence in principle: an appeal becomes mobilisation, travel and material assistance.

The two cases are not identical. They illustrate different aspects of the same need: to study the person who connects ideology to participation. Some organise groups. Others provide religious authority or turn sympathy into funding. Effective action requires this distinction. A single, vague profile of an extremist explains neither how a network functions nor where intervention would be most appropriate.

Manufacturing moral permission

In my assessment, the most dangerous mechanism is the gradual dismantling of personal judgment. The prospective recruit learns to treat disagreement as betrayal, doubt as weakness and obedience as proof of faith. As alternative voices are restricted, dependence on the guide grows. The problem is not strong religious conviction. It is the demand that conscience be surrendered to a mechanism that seeks to justify violence.

The process also requires a faceless enemy. When people are described only as members of a hated category, their names, families and individual responsibility disappear. This allows the dangerous shift from political confrontation to collective punishment. That is why combating antisemitism and every form of dehumanisation is a substantive part of prevention. Language that strips others of their humanity makes the next transgression easier.

Muslim authorities have already formulated a religious response to the extremist. The 2014 open letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi rejected, among other things, the killing of innocents, the mistreatment of Christians and the selective use of religious texts to issue rulings. This matters: the extremist is challenged within the very sphere in which he claims authority. The status of a self-appointed representative of the faith cannot be left unexamined.

However, a contest of arguments does not replace criminal investigation. A theological document cannot by itself dismantle an organisation that recruits for and finances violence. Equally, an arrest does not ensure that a narrative will lose its influence. Parallel interventions are needed, with distinct responsibilities. Religious bodies challenge the abuse of faith. The authorities investigate actions and networks. Education strengthens young people’s judgment and resistance to manipulation.

Investigate actions, protect freedoms

Freedom of speech requires precise boundaries and strong protection. A strict, conservative or uncomfortable religious opinion does not in itself constitute incitement to terrorism. The distinction must rest on content, context and proven conduct. Otherwise, the state risks punishing identities rather than unlawful acts. It then hands recruiters the image of widespread persecution, which they can exploit in their messaging.

For Greece, knowledge must be the priority. Who finances an activity? Who has an organisational role? Are there documented calls for violence? How are minors protected? These are questions for institutions, rather than pretexts for collective accusations. Transparency and lawful oversight can build trust when applied through consistent criteria. Inaction also leaves exposed Muslims who want to resist pressure from an extremist circle.

Journalistic coverage requires care too. A preacher seeking publicity should not receive an unrestricted recruitment platform free of charge. The public needs evidence, comparison and an explanation of the mechanism. Repeating a slogan without scrutiny can amplify its influence. Reporting must illuminate the activity, identify responsibility and keep those at risk in the foreground.

There is also a responsibility borne by the spaces where dialogue takes place. Inviting a speaker requires examination of his record and content, without arbitrary bans. Anyone who provides a platform decides which voice to amplify. That choice acquires particular weight when the audience includes young people seeking guidance who do not yet possess the tools to evaluate messages critically.

Responsibility behind the attacker is not a metaphor. It is a matter that can be investigated through concrete evidence. Democracy must protect the right to religious belief while defending citizens against those who exploit it for criminal purposes. Neither theological immunity nor careless accusations will suffice. Clear evidence, clear rules and continuity in their application are required. That is where the state’s ability to prevent violence is tested, instead of merely describing it once it has occurred.