“We have lost control of this group”

SonntagsBlick: Politicians of all stripes are shocked by the incidents in Berlin. And you? Were you surprised?

Hamed Abdul Samad: Why should one be surprised? A few years ago we had something similar in Cologne.

You mean New Year’s Eve 2015/16…

At that time, young migrants and refugees who had only been in Germany for a few months used excessive sexual violence, celebrating their masculinity, their perceived superiority by humiliating and sexually molesting women.

In Berlin it was not about sexual violence. Where is the commonality?

Even then, the state and the media failed. At first they didn’t want to talk about it, but when more and more victims reported and the numbers literally exploded, they had to. Six years have passed since then, almost a thousand victims have fallen, and I wonder: what about the perpetrators? How many were fined? Has anyone been deported? That’s what really pisses you off. Again, there is talk of deterrence and that something like this should not happen again. Nothing happened. The only measure taken after Cologne was to increase security at large gatherings. The real problem was not even touched upon.

What’s the real problem?

The problem is young men with a migration background who despise the German state, who accept no other authority than their own family, their own imam or their Arab clan. The events in Berlin are only the tip of the iceberg, there is a latent potential for anger that is not captured anywhere, least of all in the family – there, I argue, hatred of Germany, of this society, is even fueled. This low frustration tolerance is looking for an outlet. And she looks for the weaknesses of society and democracy. These men realized very quickly that the state was toothless, that they might be on guard for a day, but then they would be released. We lost control of a certain group.

You talk about hate. Where does he come from?

If I live in a society where I am not well integrated, where I don’t have a good job and no prospects, I get angry. This also applies to people entitled to social assistance: the receiving hand is often more rebellious and less satisfied than the giving hand. Those who receive develop a mentality of entitlement, but also a helplessness that leads to frustration. I would not rule out that many of these young men experience discrimination in everyday life, which is certainly a factor. The mixture of impotence and omnipotence fantasies creates the violence we saw in Berlin.

In other words, someone with a name like Mohammed or Abdullah is less likely to get a job than someone with a Western European name.

Then there is the story that these people belong about Europe. The problem with migrant children from the suburbs exists throughout Europe. Like in December in Paris, when the suburbs burned down after an attack on three Kurds, or in Brussels after the Moroccan World Cup victory against Belgium. In retrospect, there is always youth violence, but not a single politician uses the word migrant children. Neither does most media.

Why is that?

Because otherwise it would be racism. That’s the crucial mistake: how can you solve a problem if you don’t even want to mention it?

And what is your solution?

As mentioned, the first thing to do is identify the problem. Then you have to do something. But the state currently has no options for action because it has tied its own hands.

What do you mean?

Permanent residency permits and even German passports were issued very quickly without even ensuring that these people identified with their new homeland. There are integration offers, but no bids.

Aren’t you minimizing the problem too much? Many Germans were also arrested in Berlin.

I’m not saying there weren’t young Germans. Neukölln and Kreuzberg are very left-wing districts of Berlin. And we know how contempt for the police is widespread among left-wing extremists. I do not want to exclude that there were also right-wing extremists. But: when a group of young white Germans attacks a migrant, all the media discuss the origin of the perpetrators and the victims – rightly so, because then it is clearly right-wing extremism. But if it is the other way around, the origin of the perpetrators and the extent of the violence are obscured.

Franziska Giffey, the ruling mayor of Berlin, has announced a “summit against youth violence”.

The same thing happened after New Year’s Eve in Cologne. Then it was quiet again – because people fear the rise of the AfD. And with whom do you actually want to enter into a dialogue, as the saying goes? It is just as impossible to enter into a dialogue with violent youths as it is with neo-Nazis. You need deterrence, we need a democracy with teeth. If we have to protect ourselves from people who have taken refuge with us, it is a world upside down.

Don’t you underestimate the socio-economic level? Many politicians and experts point to the problem of parallel societies and argue for more equal opportunities.

What a surprise! People have been talking about the danger of ghettoization and Islamization for 40 years. But how do you solve a problem by silencing the critics? The same comparison always follows. The danger then suddenly lurks with people like Ahmad Mansour or Seyran Ates, who draw attention to such abuses. The violent youths then become victims who must be protected from Hamed Abdel-Samad.

You generalize.

Most of the Muslims and refugees in our country are peaceful and capable people. But there is a violent minority that threatens not only internal security, but also the coexistence of different cultures and ethnic groups. If we criticize this group, it is not a general suspicion against migrants, but necessary to solve the problem. Just as criticism of right-wing extremists is not a general suspicion of white Germans.

You mentioned Islam several times. What significance does religious culture have for incidents such as in Cologne or Berlin?

This week my new book: «Islam, A Critical History» will be published. It’s about how Islam is expanding in Europe, in different guises. We certainly have the peaceful, apolitical Muslims, we have young, liberal Muslims who are trying to develop an Islam for Europe. But there is also a conservative, reactionary political Islam that is increasingly gaining power in Europe. The danger is that European politics promotes this Islam the most.

Indeed? You have to explain that.

The state makes these organizations socially acceptable by establishing them as partners and making them even more powerful through funding. An example is the Turkish organization Ditib, which clearly pursues political goals in Germany. Such associations reach people in mosques run by other states and through satellite channels, in which the West is under constant attack as the enemy of Islam…

… which hinders integration even more?

The Middle Eastern and North African upbringing makes the Western way of life – non-marital sex, alcohol consumption, pork – seem immoral. The woman must stay at home or wear a veil when she is not at home, and the man must not have sex before marriage. If the man of this character can’t find a job because he doesn’t have the social skills or speaks bad German, he’s left with frustration, a lot of testosterone and anger. He has to get rid of that one way or another. The state has no prescription for this because it misdiagnoses the problem.