Bridge Initiative

The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University

magnifying glass icon Search
Bridge Initiative

Factsheet: Björn Höcke

IMPACT: Björn Uwe Höcke is a German politician. He is a member of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and leads its chapter in the state of Thuringia. In 2024, this chapter won the state election, the first time a far-right party won in an election since the Nazi era. Höcke has echoed Nazi language, described the Holocaust Museum as a “monument of shame,” has a record of making anti-Islam statements, and argued that Muslims are not welcome in Germany.

Björn Höcke is a former PE and history teacher from North Rhine-Westphalia. He was once briefly a member of the Young Union (Junge Union), a youth organization of the Christian Democratic Union (Christlich Demokratische Union, CDU). Later, he co-founded the Thuringia chapter of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, and he was elected to the state parliament in 2014.

In a 2017 speech given in Dresden, Germany, Höcke criticized the Berlin Holocaust Memorial, describing it as a“monument of shame”. Kai Arzheimer, a political scientist at Mainz University, accused Höcke of  “whitewashing” Nazi crimes stating, “Björn Höcke … is really a quite old-fashioned, right-wing extremist… He’s not just a radical. He’s not just opposed to immigration. He is really one who favors rewriting German history.” Following his controversial statements in 2017, the AfD’s Federal Executive Committee started expulsion proceedings against Höcke, which was rejected by the AfD Thuringia’s Court of Arbitration. For some time, Höcke was seen as “a burden” for the party. The AfD’s Chancellor candidate and co-chair Alice Weidel, who initially wanted him out, later reconciled and praised him following his electoral success in the state of Thuringia, where the AfD became strongest in September 2024 under his leadership, receiving 32.8 percent of the total votes.

In 2016, Andreas Kemper, a German sociologist claimed to have identified more than a dozen instances where Höcke echoed Nazi language, including calling for Germany to stop atoning for Nazi crimes and make a “180-degree turn” in how it remembers its past. In May 2021, a Green politician brought a criminal complaint against Höcke for using the slogan “Everything for Germany” used by the Nazi SA paramilitary unit. Höcke has used the phrase on several occasions, even defending his usage stating, “In a campaign speech, expressing love for my country and urging compatriots to give everything for Germany in its current volatile position is not a Nazi slogan”. In May of 2024, Höcke was fined the equivalent of $13,000 for using a Nazi slogan.

In a January 2016 piece for The Irish Times, journalist Darek Scally described Höcke as having a “unique political sound and style of provocation.” Scally noted that Höcke’s “public speeches are so full of volk und vaterland language that German television ran a quiz – generating further free publicity – asking viewers which quotes were his and which originated with Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.” Scally quoted Hocke’s anti-immigrant views, including Höcke stating that, “‘Germany is not up for negotiation’, and the argument that Germany can only survive by welcoming immigrants who share its values, not a religion like Islam with an ‘archaic attitude to women’”.

In May of 2016, Höcke described a mosque project in Erfurt as a “long-term land grabbing project” and proclaimed to introduce a “set of measures” to thwart the endeavor. The official opposition to the mosque project kicked off with a concert in May 2016, under the motto “Our Land, Our Culture, Our Decision,” and the event featured a welcome speech by representatives of the anti-Islam PEGIDA movement. During the rally, Höcke chanted to the crowd: “AfD! No to the mosque!” to which the crowd responded:  “Opposition! Opposition!” Later, the media reported that “the mosque was pelted with pork and had metre-high crosses erected on it.” Local Muslim representatives received death threats on social media and threatening phone calls.

During a speech he gave in May 2016, Höcke said: “Either Islam de-escalates in Europe, or it is banished from Europe”, and  “No to tolerance that leads to self-abandonment.”

In an October 2016 interview with CBN News, Höcke was asked, “I assume that you think a big problem with the migrants coming into Germany is that they are Muslim?”, to which he responded, “Yes it’s a big problem. We are still a nation with a Christian imprint. Even though we have many atheists in Germany and in Europe, our values are from a Christian foundation. Islam is a religion that never reformed. It stayed in the Middle Ages. And I, living in Europe, don’t want to adjust myself to Islamic values from the Middle Ages. I’m of the solid conviction that we can’t take in millions of Muslims and integrate them into Germany and Europe.”

A May 2016 piece in Wirtschafts Woche stated that “Höcke has provided no discernible indication that he fully supports religious freedom. On the contrary, he has openly questioned this fundamental right on several occasions.” In a March 2016 interview, Höcke was asked whether Islam can be protected under religious freedom, to which he replied, “No. Religious freedom is not a super-fundamental right.”

In May 2016, Höcke described Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, who has a documented history of making anti-Muslim comments, as an “admirable fighter for free speech.”

In March 2017, Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said, “Björn Höcke should never have been interviewed. What he said in his speech in Dresden and his interview with the ‘Wall Street Journal‘ was absolutely shocking and repulsive. He sounded like an apologist for Hitler. It is clear to me that AfD party panders to the extreme-right. They are playing with fire.”

In 2017, an Intercept piece noted that the Gatestone Institute, an online platform that publishes a steady stream of content aimed at stoking fears of a Muslim takeover of Europe and America, with many articles warning that increasing Muslim migration to Europe will lead to the “Islamization” of the continent, has published several articles elevating Höcke. The piece also stated that Gatestone articles are “regularly reprinted by far-right German blogs and web forums that are popular among AfD’s grassroots base.”

In November 2017, Björn Höcke spoke at an event organized by the far-right think tank Institute for State Politics (Institut für Staatspolitik) on the topic “Storm on Europe,” arguing that there were “different reproductive strategies of Africans and Europeans” that clash with each other.

During a party rally in January 2018, Björn Höcke said: “Once we come into power, we will enforce what is necessary for us to live our lives freely. We will issue the directive that after crossing the Bosporus, the three great M’s: Mohammed, Muezzin and minaret are over, dear friends!” He further said that Islam was naturally home in “the Orient” and “Sub-Saharan Africa” (Schwarzafrika, literally ‘Black Africa’).

In a 2018 publication, Höcke wrote that in the future, Germany must expect that “we will unfortunately lose a few sections of the population” that “are too weak or unwilling to resist the advancing Africanisation, Orientalisation and Islamisation”, and stated that the party fully and openly embraces the idea of ​​“remigration”.

In 2019, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency placed the AFD’s Thuringia wing – also referred to as Der Flügel (the camp) – under surveillance based on a 436-page report, which referred to Höcke more than 600 times and to Islam more than 486 times.

Höcke is widely considered in the media as “the party’s most significant figure in its eastern heartland.” In February 2020, he “helped trigger a national crisis in February 2020 by helping a liberal candidate become state premier in Thuringia. Not since World War Two had the far right played kingmaker in German politics.”

In February 2020, Höcke participated in PEGIDA’s 200th demonstration in the city of Dresden.

In 2024, the French Le Monde described him as “one of the most radical voices in the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party.”

Factsheet: Policy Exchange

IMPACT: Policy Exchange is a highly influential British right-wing conservative think-tank, which identifies itself as an educational charity with a mission to “develop and promote new policy ideas which deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy.” It has a history of making anti-Muslim claims, including spreading harmful narratives linking Islam to terrorism, advocating against the adoption of a legal definition of Islamophobia by the government, perpetuating Islamophobic stereotypes, and making sweeping, inflammatory generalizations about Muslims and their beliefs.

Policy Exchange was founded in 2002 by Conservative Members of Parliament Francis Maude and Archie Norman, along with Nick Boles, who later became a Conservative MP. In 2002, Boles became the organization’s first Director. The current Director of Policy Exchange is Dean Aaron Godson, who is also a member of the UK House of Lords, with Julia Mizen serving as Managing Director.

Policy Exchange has been integral to shaping British narratives about Islam and extremism in Britain since 2005. According to a December 2024 piece in Hyphen, the organization has long taken a hardline stance on issues such as security and crime, but it began linking its ideas to Islam after the London terror attacks in 2005. Previously, it had suggested that the sources of terrorism were varied and rooted in political or economic grievances, but since 2005, it began linking terrorism to immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. Following 2005, according to scholar and author Arun Kundnani, Policy Exchange’s philosophy was that British Muslims failed to integrate into British society, creating a social and cultural separation that leads to extremism. The narrative became that social integration was tied to national security, resulting in the securitization of socio-cultural issues. 

In their 2007 report, “Living Apart Together,” Policy Exchange claimed that efforts to combat discrimination were doing more harm than good. The report asked “why some British-born Muslims have become attracted to Islamic fundamentalism and the different social and cultural factors that give credence to such ideas.” The report also noted a shift towards the “Islamicisation” of identity in Europe, citing examples of young Muslims embracing their religious identity and practicing their faith: “increased wearing of headscarves amongst Muslim women; greater cultural identification with transnational Muslim identity – the ummah; growing membership of Islamist political groups and youth associations…and greater demands by Muslim groups for sharia-compliant education, and financial and legal frameworks. Many more young Muslims are…going on pilgramage to Mecca, which is considered to be a duty for all Muslims before they die.” The report describes these instances of Islamic faith practices and identity, defined as an “aggressive, anti-Western strain of Islamism,” as a security and cultural problem. The report’s conclusion calls for “intellectual debate and persuasion” against the “cultural trends” identified to reduce the threat of terrorism. Essentially, the report argues that greater observation of Islamic religious practices is an indicator of extremism and terrorism: an argument that is rooted in Islamophobia. 

Additionally, in 2015, Policy Exchange published a report, “The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting mosques in the UK,” which claimed to have uncovered the sale of extremist literature at British mosques. However, BBC2’s Newsnight found evidence of fabricated data after investigating receipts used in the report. Despite the evidence, Godson stood by the report and its findings “100%.” 

This targeting of Islamic practices and cultural values in the fight against terror became a long-lasting approach of Policy Exchange. In his 2022 book, The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, Peter Oborne, former chief political commentator of The Daily Telegraph, wrote that in its 2009 report, “Policy Exchange was urging that Muslims should be obliged to sign up to a set of beliefs that fell within a state prescribed remit. In order to become British, Muslims were being asked to deny, or at least modify, their own identity and heritage.” Oborne explained that the shift away from targeting “violent extremism” to just “extremism” and “non-violent radicals” pressured British Muslims to assimilate and abandon their cultural and religious identities.

In a 2023 report, “The Symbolic Power of the Veil,” Policy Exchange provided policy recommendations regarding the hijab. The report advocates for legislation that permits British schools to ban full-face veils such as the niqab. Additionally, it argues that the “government should refrain from publicly endorsing or promoting any specific religious attire, including events such as World Hijab Day.” World Hijab Day aims to dismantle bigotry, discrimination and prejudice against Muslim women through education, awareness and empowerment. Policy Exchange writes that the “government should resist any call to ‘promote’ the hijab ‘as a symbol of education, freedom and integration to counter stereotypes of backwardness, oppression, isolation and extremism.’” 

In response to this report, Zara Mohammed, the then-Muslim Council of Britain’s Secretary-General, said Policy Exchange was steering the country “down a slippery slope reminiscent of France’s controversial approach to policing what Muslim women wear.” Mohammed also critiqued the fact that the calls to action in the report were written by a man, MP Khalid Mahmood, noting that he made “sweeping generalisations about Muslim women’s clothing, an area in which he lacks expertise, inadvertently perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes that we should actively challenge.”

Policy Exchange has been a staunch supporter and key influencer of the UK’s Prevent program, which critics have noted effectively renders all Muslims potential criminals. A December 2024 piece in Hyphen notes that shortly after David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010, a revised version of Prevent reflected much of Policy Exchange’s talking points, demonstrating the think tank’s close relationship and influence with elected officials. The new policy expanded to include non-violent extremism, defined vaguely as views against “British values.” This revision increased surveillance of Muslim individuals and further institutionalized Islamophobia. Policy Exchange’s April 2022 report “Deligitimising Counter-Terrorism” accuses critics of the Prevent policy of “enabling terrorism.” The report argues that those campaigning against Prevent criticize all counter-terrorism policy, calling on the need for the development of tools to help the government “properly push back against campaigners.” It is important to note that rights organizations and a UN expert have called for Prevent to be abandoned.

In November 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims released a report that provided a definition on Islamophobia following two years of consultation. They presented the following definition: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” Following the release of the report, Muslim organizations called on party leaders to adopt the proposed working definition of Islamophobia in an effort to combat anti-Muslim discrimination. Policy Exchange criticized the proposed definition as an infringement on free speech and argued that the word “Islamophobia” itself discouraged debate within Muslim communities.

Policy Exchange also voiced its opposition to the development of an official Islamophobia definition following the revival of the Rotherham grooming scandal, first uncovered in 2012. The scandal involved the failure of law enforcement and social services regarding Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), as a 2014 government inquiry revealed the systemic sexual abuse and exploitation of over 1,000 children mostly by men of Pakistani heritage. In 2016, a government inspector concluded that “Rotherham council’s failure to tackle child sexual exploitation has fuelled far-right sentiment and led to an increase in Islamophobia in the town.” Policy Exchange argued that the term “Islamophobia” had been “directly used to attack those who sought to expose the Rotherham grooming scandal.” Policy Exchange argued that the term does not seek to stop anti-Muslim hatred, but to create special protections for one’s faith.


In the years following the Rotherham grooming scandal, several right-wing organizations, along with media outlets, have used the issue to advance anti-Muslim stereotypes, insinuating that the issue of CSE is uniquely present amongst Pakistani-Muslim communities. However, in 2020, a Home Office report concluded that “there is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation.” Additionally, Home Office researchers found that “group-based offenders are most commonly White”. In 2023, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and experts on grooming gangs “warned ministers against framing the issue as one based on ethnicity, warning that this could hamper efforts to tackle a crime.” In a January 2025 piece, Professor Tahir Abbas noted that “While the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children is undeniably abhorrent, the narrative surrounding it has often been clouded by sensationalism, racial stereotyping, and political agendas.”

In addition to its research and political ideology, several of Policy Exchange’s employees have expressed anti-Muslim beliefs and are connected to other anti-Muslim organizations.

Founder Nick Boles served as Minister of State for Skills from 2014 to 2016. During his term, he stated Britain must stop “tiptoeing around” extremism and recognize it flourishes within “certain communities.” While claiming it would be “upsetting” for certain people to be considered more likely to be engaged in extremism due to their race or religion, he also propagated the idea that extremists originate from specific communities. “But it is nevertheless the case that we have a very small but potentially very dangerous number of people who do fall into those dangerous ideas and practices,” he said. “Most of them come from particular religious and ethnic groups and we do have to tackle that as a Government.”

In a 2010 debate in the Commons Chamber on UK policy on the Middle East, Boles emphasized his support for Israel and scapegoated neighboring Arab Muslim countries for Israeli occupation and violence. “So let us be clear: for all its errors and excesses, which I and the whole House see, Israel is an oasis in a desert—an oasis of freedom, democracy and human rights in the Middle East,” he said. “We therefore have to ask ourselves, why does Israel do those things that shock, pain and worry us all? Why does it feel driven to inflict on the people of Gaza what we all recognise, whether in law or not, as seemingly like collective punishment?” Boles continued, “The answer is very simple: it is not just faced but encircled by an enemy that wishes to destroy it.”

Current Policy Exchange Director Aaron Godson expressed his views on Islam’s presence in Britain in a 2022 debate in the House of Lords after the Trojan Horse Affair. The Trojan Horse Affair refers to the developments in Britain after a mysterious letter was left on a city councillor’s desk in Birmingham outlining a plan by Islamic extremists to infiltrate the local schools. The letter was later proven to be a hoax, but it still triggered a nationwide panic. After the New York Times published a podcast investigating the affair and its falsehood, British politicians doubled down on their Islamophobia. Godson asked the government, “what steps they are taking to prevent extremism and intolerance from gaining a foothold in schools in England.”

In a 2022 report, Policy Exchange released a report, titled “Delegitimising Counter-Terrorism,” in which the organization condemned civil society organizations such as MEND, Cage, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, accusing them of having extremist ties and undermining social cohesion. In a 2022 Bridge article, Mobashra Tazamal writes that “Policy Exchange’s anti-Muslim agenda is clear and visible: it exclusively vilifies Muslim organizations, labeling them as “Islamist” and “extremist,” sending a clear signal to the public that they are somehow tied to terrorism. These unsubstantiated accusations are dangerous smears that inevitably sow fear within the Muslim community. Policy Exchange’s report seeks to blacklist individuals and groups who aim to hold the government accountable when it comes to policies that stigmatize millions of British Muslims.”

Trevor Phillips is a current Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, and was previously suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 after making Islamophobic comments. In the suspension letter, the Labour Party cited his comments about UK Muslims being “a nation within a nation,” among other remarks. Phillips was readmitted to the party without apology or acknowledgement—a move many British Muslims saw as dismissive of them. Phillips has also argued that it is correct and fair to judge Muslims collectively, saying “the truth is, if you do belong to a group, whether it is a church, or a football club, you identify with a particular set of values, and you stand for it. And frankly you are judged by that.”

Phillips is also a co-author of Policy Exchange’s 2019 report, “On Islamophobia.” The report responds to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ advocacy for the British government to adopt a formal definition of Islamophobia. Phillips and co-authors advise against such a measure, advising policymakers that adopting a legal definition of Islamophobia “would be a mistake.”

Phillips’ ideologies have also created distrust in his ability to serve in politics. In 2020, Phillips was appointed to an inquiry into why Black, Asian, and minority ethnic people (BAME) were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. According to the Guardian, his appointment undermined the inquiry’s credibility among the very populations it was meant to serve. In an open letter signed by 100 Black women, Phillips is described as “discarding the very real issues and consequences of structural racism.” The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) also criticized his appointment. Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a campaigner against Islamophobia in the Conservative party and its former Chairman, and Simon Woolley, the founder and director of Operation Black Vote, wrote in the Guardian that Phillips’ biggest challenge in the inquiry would be credibility. 

Another employee who has made anti-Muslim remarks is Paul Stott, the current Head of Security and Extremism at Policy Exchange. He is a frequent writer and commentator on terrorism, “Islamism”, and the political fringe. In April 2022, Miqdaad Versi, the media spokesperson for the MCB, accused Stott of engaging in “racist rhetoric.”In line with Policy Exchange’s organizational stance, Scott is a vocal critic of advocacy efforts for a legal definition of Islamophobia in the UK. In a 2024 piece for Reaction titled “Labour must define ‘Islamophobia’ very carefully,” Scott wrote that such a definition would “risk undermining” individual freedoms by shielding interpretations of Islam from criticism. In 2022, Scott co-authored Policy Exchange’s report, “The Trojan Horse Affair: a Documentary Record.” Responding to the scandal, Scott and co-author provide a list of policy recommendations in the report. They call for the government to consider investigating the impact of fears of being labeled “Islamophobic” or “racist” on reporting by teachers of incidents of extremism. They also recommend that the government considers reviewing school guidance relating to religious and cultural accommodations, arguing that it should clearly articulate what religious and cultural influences are “appropriate” and which are “inappropriate” at school. A December 2022 piece in The New Arab, teacher and author Nadeine Asbali concluded that Policy Exchange’s report on The Trojan Horse Affair was “overflowing with anti-Muslim sentiment disguised as objective fact. From the Muslim Council of Britain being dismissed as an “Islamist” outlet to the assertion that sex-based segregation and the call to prayer being played in schools is evidence of an Islamist takeover.”

Policy Exchange also has discreet connections to other anti-Muslim organizations like the Henry Jackson Foundation (HJF) and the Centre for Social Cohesion (which merged into HJF in 2011). The groups promote similar discriminatory rhetoric about Muslims, Islam, and extremism and share employees. Former HJF Associate Director, Douglas Murray, is known for his advocacy against Muslim immigration to Europe and has condemned the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. Former Co-Head of Security and Extremism at Policy Exchange, Hannah Stuart, was a previous Senior Research Fellow at HJF. Stuart is now Director of the Counter Extremism Group.

In 2016, Transparify, an organization providing ratings of the financial transparency of major think tanks, ranked Policy Exchange as one of the most opaque think tanks in the United Kingdom. The Transparify report listed Policy Exchange among three other think tanks that refuse to reveal the identities of even their donors. Transparify was unable to uncover who funds their advocacy and research. The report listed these think tanks as the few left in the UK still considering it “acceptable to take money from hidden hands behind closed doors.”

In 2022, Layla Aitlhadj, a director at Prevent Watch, and John Holmwood, emeritus professor in sociology at the University of Nottingham, authored a complaint to the UK Charities Commission calling on the government to review Policy Exchange’s charity status for “promoting vilification and even hatred” towards Muslims. “As a charity, Policy Exchange must remain non-partisan and be detached from government. Yet it would appear Policy Exchange is neither, acting primarily as a vehicle for political propaganda and anti-Muslim narratives,” said Aitlhadj.

The Bridge Initiative: Achievements

The Bridge Initiative was established in 2015 to provide accessible and scholarly information on Islamophobia. Please see below for a brief overview of our list of achievements.

Bridge Research Output:

In the last five years (2020-2024), The Bridge Initiative has produced over 235 pieces of research (factsheets, articles, reports).

Our research has been featured in prominent media outlets, including the New Yorker, New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, The Forward, The Intercept, TIME, and more.

Bridge researchers have been quoted and/or have published commentary in leading media outlets, including Religion News Service, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Haaretz, NBC News, Salon, Politico, The Independent, The Hindu, The Toronto Star, and more.

Communications:

Bridge maintains an extensive social media presence that serves as a platform for disseminating our analysis and amplifying broader content addressing Islamophobia.

Facebook: 1.1 million followers

Twitter: 29,500 followers

Instagram: 5,478

TikTok: 1,003 followers and 3,234 likes

Every year, we have hundreds of thousands of users who visit our website, and we average around 10,000 visitors per month. Our material has been accessed in over 100 countries.

Bridge Podcast:

We previously had a podcast, “Voices on Islamophobia”, which we re-launched with a new name, “Unpacking Islamophobia”, in 2022. In total, we have produced 28 episodes featuring prominent voices on issues related to Islamophobia from around the globe. Some of our guests have included Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MI), American Journalist Peter Beinart, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, British journalist Peter Oborne, Pulitzer-Prize award-winning American reporter Spencer Ackerman, and Canada’s first-ever Special Representative on Combating Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby.

Events:

We have held or co-sponsored at least 20 events that have addressed a variety of issues when it comes to Islamophobia. These events have discussed the genocide of Rohingya Muslims, the rise of Hindu nationalism and its consequences in the UK, the targeting of Islamophobia studies in Academia, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the role of Christians in addressing Islamophobia, and the Muslim Ban.

Reports:

Since 2015, Bridge has published 11 in-depth reports. These reports have covered a wide range of topics, including American Catholic public opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, Islamophobia in the 2016 US presidential elections, the Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, India’s repression targeting its Muslim population, and Hindu nationalism in Britain.

Bridge analysis on other hate-based ideologies:

In addition to Islamophobia, Bridge has also addressed other types of bigotry. When it comes to antisemitism, Bridge has published at least 38 pieces of research that address and/or highlight this issue.
 

Partnerships/Collaborations:

We have worked with independent researchers as well as students and scholars from the following international universities to produce timely research:

Western Sydney University (Australia)

Universidad de Granada (Spain)

Universidad Pontificia Comillas (Spain)

Wilfrid Laurier University (Canada)

Bridging Worlds: Reflections on Teaching, Dialogue, and the University’s Role

As a historian of the Middle East and a historian of religions, my scholarship and teaching for over two decades have focused on the history of interfaith and interreligious relations, pluralism, and identity. Over this time, I have followed with concern the often polarized debates and disconcerting political developments affecting our universities. In reflecting on these trends, I have become increasingly attentive to how questions of belonging, exclusion, and community shape campus life and academic culture. These are not just abstract issues—they are lived realities that echo broader patterns in society, where lines are drawn and redrawn between “us” and “them,” often with profound consequences.

To understand these forces, I have found the framework of “othering” and “belonging,” as articulated by john a. powell and Stephen Menendian, particularly illuminating. As they write, “We reject this type of belonging, and identify the fundamental challenge of how to forge ‘belonging without othering’ instead: how to reject the idea of a categorical other, or ‘them,’ and build a bigger and more expansive ‘we’”. They remind us that “belonging is a fundamental human need, and that need plays a central role in shaping human societies. When manipulated, the need to belong is actually the source of much othering. One of the powers of othering is that it can forge a sense of social solidarity and belonging. This is community building through exclusion, or belonging based on othering”. The real work, they argue, is to “build a society and develop a set of narratives and scripts to support and reinforce identities, policies, and practices of belonging. We need new stories and better storytellers. We need stories that leave no one out or behind, and that help re-weave the social fabric while rejecting mythologies of the past” .

This lens is essential for understanding the stakes of pluralism and inclusion in higher education today. If universities are to be places of genuine belonging, where all students, faculty, and staff are accorded dignity and the opportunity to flourish, we must move beyond frameworks that simply tolerate difference or invite outsiders in as guests. Instead, we must strive to build a more expansive “we”—one that resists the temptation to define itself through exclusion, and instead seeks to create community through shared purpose, narrative, and care.

As I reflect on the challenges facing universities and pluralistic societies today, it is clear that the work of building belonging cannot be separated from a direct confrontation with the most persistent and pernicious forms of othering. Islamophobia and antisemitism, in particular, are not only historical legacies but living realities that continue to shape the experiences of students, faculty, and communities both on and off campus. These forms of prejudice are not isolated or exceptional; rather, they serve as barometers of social cohesion and the health of our democratic institutions. Both Islamophobia and antisemitism are multidimensional, manifesting as religious, ethnic, and cultural exclusion, and often intersecting with other forms of marginalization such as racism, xenophobia, and nationalism. Their resurgence in recent years—whether through hate crimes, discriminatory policies, or the normalization of bigoted rhetoric—signals deeper fractures within our societies. On university campuses, these dynamics can surface as exclusionary speech, threats to safety, or the silencing of certain voices in academic and public discourse.

Addressing Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other forms of othering on campus cannot be left solely to outside authorities or external mandates. It is the responsibility of students, faculty, and administrators to confront these challenges together, through open dialogue, inclusive curricula, and a campus culture that affirms the dignity and safety of all. Universities are uniquely positioned to model the very practices of belonging, mutual respect, and critical engagement that are so often missing in the wider society. Protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy is not about resisting change, but about ensuring that the campus community itself leads the way in building a more just and inclusive environment—one that is resilient precisely because it is self-governing and rooted in shared values.

While scholars such as powell and Menendian have rightly identified Islamophobia and antisemitism as “leading indicators” of broader social fragmentation and othering , the imperative for universities and civic leaders is to move beyond diagnosis to action. The success of pluralism and the promise of higher education depend on our willingness to confront these forms of exclusion head-on, to create spaces for honest dialogue, and to model the kind of society in which diversity is not merely tolerated, but embraced as a source of collective strength.

Early Academic Formation: Learning to Feel Languages

My academic journey began at the University of California, Berkeley, where I graduated in 1992 with a double major in Middle Eastern Studies and Near Eastern Studies. I began studying political science and history, but soon found myself equally drawn to the languages and cultures of the Middle East, focusing on both Arabic and Hebrew. That’s when I decided to abandon political science and the “Arab-Israeli conflict.” My Hebrew teachers were Israeli, and my Arabic instructors came from diverse backgrounds—including Palestinians. This diversity of perspectives was not just academic; it was deeply personal and transformative.

In those classrooms, we did more than conjugate verbs or memorize vocabulary. We learned to feel the languages, to appreciate their rhythms, idioms, and the cultural worlds they opened up. Our Israeli, Palestinian, and other instructors brought their lived experiences into the classroom, focusing on the everyday realities and the reciprocal exchanges that define genuine pluralism. We practiced speaking in Hebrew and Arabic not just as an intellectual exercise, but to step into another’s shoes, to feel the weight of words and the possibilities of understanding.

A Fulbright in Israel/Palestine: A Different Era

In 1992, I was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to Israel/Palestine. There, I enrolled alongside Israeli master’s students, immersing myself in the study of Hebrew and Arabic, as well as medieval and modern texts and literature. This was a pivotal moment: the end of the first intifada, a time when, despite tensions, there was a widespread sense—shared by both Palestinians and Israelis—that a better future, grounded in dialogue and cooperation, was possible. The peace process was gaining momentum, and academic and cultural exchanges were often viewed as hopeful steps toward mutual understanding and reconciliation. The atmosphere, while marked by uncertainty, was shaped by possibility and a willingness to engage across lines of difference—an openness that is more fraught and contested today. Studying and engaging with both Israeli and Palestinian peers and professors during this period gave me a unique perspective on the complexities of the region and the importance of language as a bridge for understanding.

Politics were never centered, and as a student, politics held little value for me. At the time, there was never the level of hate speech that has, sadly, become more common on some campuses in the United States today, fueled in part by the ongoing human catastrophe in the Holy Land and by a lack of security and support for students of all backgrounds—Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Christian, and others. Ensuring that all students feel safe and supported is essential for the university to fulfill its mission as a space for open, respectful dialogue and learning.

Teaching Across Borders: Cambridge, Munich, Doha

My commitment to fostering civil disagreement and mutual understanding has only deepened through my international teaching experiences.

From 2010 to 2013, I was a fellow at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, and served as Academic Director at the Woolf Institute. In Cambridge, I focused deeply on interfaith relations and the study of encounters between religious traditions. At the Woolf Institute, I led and participated in initiatives designed to advance understanding between Jews and Muslims and Muslims and Christians. Our approach combined rigorous academic research with learning about the practice of interfaith, equipping students and community leaders with the tools to engage meaningfully across lines of difference. The Woolf Institute’s unique position at the intersection of scholarship and public engagement enabled the Institute to not only foster tolerance, but genuine curiosity and empathy—qualities essential for navigating today’s complex and often polarized world. My time in Cambridge reaffirmed the transformative potential of academic institutions as places where interfaith understanding is not just studied, but lived, and where future leaders are prepared to build bridges in their own communities.

From 2013 to 2014, I served as the Allianz Visiting Professor at Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU), Munich, engaging with students from across Europe and the Middle East. The German academic context, with its emphasis on historical consciousness and critical debate, challenged me to rethink my own pedagogical approaches. I saw firsthand how Germany’s history informs its commitment to dialogue and its sensitivity to issues of identity and memory.

In 2023, I taught at Georgetown University’s branch campus in Doha, Qatar, where I offered an interdisciplinary proseminar and a course on religious experience to first-year undergraduates from a remarkable array of cultural and religious backgrounds—including Qataris, Americans, Canadians, Palestinians, Hindus, Sunni and Shi‘i Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Confucianists, Buddhists, and more. I also taught a history of religions course and a course on religious pluralism in both Middle Eastern and global contexts. The diversity in my classroom was not just demographic; it was intellectual and spiritual. Group assignments and class discussions became opportunities for students to share their distinct perspectives and to learn from one another, fostering a more informed and empathetic discourse. Students gained a greater appreciation for each other’s cultures, both Qatari and non-Qatari, and I too was enriched by their insights. I look forward to offering these courses again in the future.

The Value of International Students

As a historian of the Middle East and a historian of religions, I have long studied the movement of people, ideas, and traditions across borders. Today, I am struck by a new and consequential migration: the shifting flows of international students and scholars. International students have always been essential to the vibrancy and excellence of our campuses. In the 2023–2024 academic year alone, over 1.1 million international students contributed nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 378,000 jobs. But their impact goes far beyond economics. From the experience I earlier described, international students bring diverse perspectives that enrich classroom discussions, foster cross-cultural understanding, and drive scientific research and innovation. They introduce new cultural traditions to their peers, challenge assumptions, and help create an inclusive, dynamic learning environment.

We are now witnessing a marked migration of students and scholars away from the United States. As visa hurdles, political uncertainty, and questions about campus climate persist in the U.S. as a result of the Trump administration’s assault on Universities, many talented students are increasingly choosing to pursue their studies and careers in Europe and the Gulf countries—regions that are investing heavily in higher education and actively welcoming global talent. Although the United Kingdom’s visa restrictions remain a significant barrier for many students and academics, its world-class universities and research infrastructure continue to attract many, especially as part of a broader European landscape that is becoming more appealing. This trend signals the beginning of an academic brain drain, with American universities at risk of losing the very individuals whose presence has long sustained their intellectual vitality and global leadership. If these patterns continue, the global map of academic excellence and influence will be redrawn, with Europe, the United Kingdom, and the Gulf poised to benefit most from this new migration of minds.

The Importance of University Autonomy

Universities must remain places where all students are welcomed and nurtured so that they may succeed in life and become the next generation of leaders, informed by a solid education in the humanities, social sciences, and beyond. Institutional autonomy is vital for supporting academic freedom, which is the necessary corollary of a thriving higher education sector. Without autonomy, universities cannot be self-governing, and the danger is that external interference will ultimately limit academic freedom and the ability to pursue knowledge without fear or favor. The American tradition of higher education has long recognized that universities flourish when they are centers of free inquiry and discussion, protected from undue political or special interest pressures. This vision remains as urgent today as ever.

As the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges affirms, “Since Colonial times, America’s higher education system has stood upon the principle and inherent value of college and university autonomy, consistent with national interests but free from direct government control. It is this shared commitment to autonomy that has in many ways defined our nation’s higher education system: Institutions set their own respective missions, shape their academic programs that advance the mission, and continuously evolve new and innovative models of education that meet the expectations of a changing student body and a demanding public”.

Unfortunately, increasing external pressures and political interventions from the Trump administration threaten this autonomy. It is incumbent upon all who value higher education to defend the right of universities to set their own academic agendas and to create environments where students from every background can thrive.

The Jesuit Ethos: Cura Personalis in Practice

A large part of the success I have witnessed at Georgetown is due to the Jesuit Catholic ethos of the university—one that affirms the shared values between Christianity and other religious traditions. The Jesuit value of cura personalis, or care for the whole person, is foundational. It shapes not only religious life but also the secular academic environment, encouraging us to see and respect the full humanity of every individual.

This ethos is rooted in a tradition that values the dignity of each person, a commitment to justice and compassion, and the pursuit of knowledge in service of the common good—principles that resonate across many faiths. The Jesuit approach to education emphasizes the development of the whole person—mind, body, and spirit—while fostering a spirit of reflection, dialogue, and service. These values encourage us to look beyond labels and to recognize the dignity and humanity of every individual, and to engage with others in a spirit of humility, curiosity, and respect.

This environment at Georgetown fosters a sense of being seen, heard, and respected, regardless of background. It encourages all of us to approach learning and community with openness and empathy, and to recognize that, across religious and cultural traditions, we are called to seek understanding, act with integrity, and serve others.

Conclusion: Renewing Our Commitment

As universities continue to transform—welcoming international students, adapting to new global realities, and navigating persistent social and political pressures—we are called to reaffirm the values that make higher education indispensable to a just and flourishing society. The university is not merely a site of knowledge transmission, but a living laboratory for pluralism, dialogue, and the continual reimagining of community. My own journey, shaped by decades of teaching and scholarship across continents, has shown me that the daily work of bridging differences, cultivating empathy, and fostering genuine belonging is both our greatest promise and our most urgent responsibility.

This work is neither simple nor linear. It requires us to move beyond frameworks that merely tolerate or superficially include, and instead to build a more expansive “we”—one that resists the temptation to define itself by exclusion and instead seeks to create community through shared purpose, narrative, and care. In a world marked by migration, shifting centers of academic excellence, and the persistent threat of othering, our institutions must remain vigilant in defending academic freedom and autonomy, while also being intentional about nurturing environments in which all can contribute and thrive.

But the stakes go beyond the university itself. If higher education is to fulfill its public mission, the government must reaffirm its commitment—not only as an engine of economic growth, but as a vital institution that shapes informed, ethical, and engaged citizens. Contrary to some perceptions, support for higher education is not a partisan issue: nearly 70% of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of four-year colleges and universities, and 71% believe the federal government should continue to play a role in higher education by requiring transparency and accountability. This broad public backing underscores the urgency of renewed investment and the protection of university autonomy. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned, “Our universities… must be centers of free inquiry and free discussion, unhampered by the pressures of special interest or political power”. Protecting this autonomy is essential for universities to serve the common good.

When universities succeed in this mission, they become engines of hope, justice, and belonging—not only for their own communities, but for society at large. They prepare graduates not just to excel in their fields, but to engage the world with humility, curiosity, and a commitment to the common good. The challenge before us is to ensure that our universities remain places where bridging is practiced daily, where pluralism is lived rather than merely proclaimed, and where belonging is possible for all.

If we can tell new stories—stories that leave no one out or behind, that reweave the social fabric, and that honor both our differences and our shared fate—then higher education will not only endure, but lead the way toward a more inclusive and resilient future. The enduring promise of the university is to be a place where we do not simply tolerate or include, but to invoke powell and Menendian, where we bridge: where we co-create a future in which all can belong.

Factsheet: Alice Weidel

RELEVANZ: Alice Weidel ist die Co-Vorsitzende der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), einer rechtsextremen politischen Partei in Deutschland und der ersten nationalistischen Rechtspartei, die seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in den deutschen Bundestag eingezogen ist. Unter Weidels Führung wurde die Partei nach den nationalen Wahlen im Februar 2025 zur zweitstärksten Kraft. Weidel hat eine lange Geschichte anti-muslimischer Aussagen und der Unterstützung diskriminierender Politiken gegenüber Muslimen. Sie behauptet, dass der Islam mit dem deutschen Grundgesetz und europäischen Werten unvereinbar sei und ist mit mehreren anti-muslimischen Akteuren verbunden.

Alice Weidel ist eine deutsche Politikerin mit einem Abschluss in Wirtschaft und Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Sie arbeitete von 2005 bis 2006 für Goldman Sachs Asset Management und war in den späten 2000er Jahren bei der Bank of China tätig. Ihre Promotion absolvierte sie mit finanzieller Unterstützung der Konrad Adenauer-Stiftung, einer politischen Stiftung, die der CDU nahe steht. Ein Artikel der Indian Express vom Februar 2025 stellte fest, dass Weidel LGBT+-Rechte als Argument benutzt, um muslimische Einwanderer aus dem Land zu vertreiben, da diese angeblich LGBT+-feindlich seien. In einem Interview von 2017 sagte sie: “Es ist unerträglich, dass es No-Go-Areas für Homosexuelle gibt. Es ist inakzeptabel, dass gesetzestreue Bürger in Deutschland aufgrund ihrer sexuellen Orientierung Angst haben müssen”, und argumentierte weiter: “Die einzige große Gefahr, die uns wirklich bedroht … ist die Islamisierung.” Im Januar 2025 schrieb The Telegraph, dass Weidels eigener Großvater, Hans Weidel, im vergangenen Jahr als hochrangiger NS-Richter entlarvt wurde, der persönlich von Hitler ernannt wurde, um Regimegegner zu verfolgen. Weidel bestreitet jedoch, davon gewusst zu haben. Im Mai 2016 sagte Weidel ein Treffen mit Vertretern des Zentralrats der Muslime (ZMD), einer muslimischen Dachorganisation in Deutschland, ab, nachdem eine Einladung von den damaligen Parteivorsitzenden der AfD angenommen worden war. Für Weidel war es inakzeptabel, dass Ayman Mazyek, den sie als „selbsterklärten Vertreter der Muslime“ bezeichnete, die AfD mit der NSDAP verglichen hatte. 

Im Oktober 2016 veröffentlichte Weidel eine Pressemitteilung gegen den „Tag der offenen Moschee“ in Berlin. Sie argumentierte, dass daran Moscheen teilnehmen würden, die unter dem Einfluss von Salafisten und der Muslimbruderschaft stehen. Sie sagte: “Es ist schon verwunderlich, dass wir es zulassen, dass vor unseren Augen Extremisten der islamischen Szene ungestört gegen die westliche Gesellschaft und unseren Staat Hetze und Hasspropaganda betreiben können, ohne dass ihnen Einhalt geboten wird. Noch unsäglicher ist es aber, dass eben diese radikalislamischen Moscheen im Rahmen eines Tages der offenen Moschee am Tag der deutschen Einheit ganz offen und ungeniert für sich werben dürfen”. Nach Frauke Petry wurde Alice Weidel 2017 Co-Vorsitzende der Bundestagsfraktion der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Seit Juni 2022 ist sie Co-Vorsitzende der AfD.

Im Mai 2017 sprach sich Weidel für ein Kopftuchverbot aus. In einem Interview mit dem deutschen Tagesspiegel im Mai 2017 sagte sie: „Kopftücher gehören aus dem öffentlichen Raum und von der Straße verbannt. Das sollte auf jeden Fall gesetzlich festgelegt werden. Ich bin für ein völliges Verbot von Niqab und Burka – überall. Das Tragen sollte unter eine empfindliche Geldstrafe gestellt werden. Das meine ich ganz ernst. Männer und Frauen sind im Islam nicht gleichberechtigt und das Kopftuch ist ein absolut sexistisches Symbol dafür. Und ich habe auch keine Lust, ständig darüber zu diskutieren. Denn das Kopftuch gehört nicht zu Deutschland… Der Gesetzgeber muss sich ganz grundsätzlich fragen, was hier eigentlich Leitkultur sein soll. Mit dem Kopftuch wird die Apartheid von Männern und Frauen zur Schau gestellt.“ Sie bekräftigte ihre Aussage in einem Tweet im Mai 2017 auf Twitter.

Vor der Bundestagswahlkampagne 2017 berichtete die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur Deutsche Welle, dass „rechtspopulistische Hardliner auf eine Strategie alarmistischer Islamfeindlichkeit umgeschwenkt sind, um mehr Wähler an die Urnen zu locken.“ Der Artikel führte Weidel und ihre Rhetorik als Beispiel an und stellte fest, dass sie über Gewaltkriminalität unter muslimischen Migranten spricht, behauptet, dies habe zu rechtsfreien „No-Go-Areas“ geführt, die eine „Erosion von Recht und Ordnung“ in ganz Deutschland verursachten, und eine Reihe drakonischer Strafmaßnahmen forderte. Diese Ideen wurden auch im Wahlkampf 2024 erneut verbreitet. Im Juli 2024 veröffentlichte InfoMigrants einen Faktencheck, in dem es hieß, Weidels Aussagen seien „auch im Einklang mit der von der Partei propagierten Verschwörungstheorie, dass weiße Europäer durch Migranten ersetzt würden, insbesondere durch Muslime.“ Diese Verschwörungstheorie ist als der „Große Austausch“ bekannt und hat in den letzten Jahren an Popularität gewonnen.

Nachdem sie im Oktober 2017 in den Bundestag gewählt worden war, argumentierte Alice Weidel, dass Muslime nur dann ein grundlegendes Recht auf die Ausübung ihrer Religion haben könnten, wenn sie zuvor die Scharia ablehnten. Das islamische Recht sei „nicht mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar“, sagte sie im ZDF und fügte hinzu, dass „islamische Verbände vom Staat dazu verpflichtet werden sollten, zum Beispiel einen Eid auf unser Grundgesetz zu schwören.“ Im November 2017 äußerte sich Weidel zu den Aussagen ihres Parteikollegen über den Islam und sagte: „Ist der Islam eine Religion, die die Trennung von Staat und Religion akzeptiert und mit unserer Verfassung zu vereinbaren ist? Herr Glaser verneint das. Ich verneine das auch.“ In einem Interview mit Die Welt im November 2017 erklärte sie weiter: „Glaser stellt infrage, dass der Islam bloß eine Religion sei. Der Islam, so urteilt Glaser, ist ein politisches System, das weder mit unserer Verfassung noch mit der europäischen Säkularisierung vereinbar ist. Damit hat Glaser völlig recht. Deshalb müssen wir hinterfragen, was hier mitten in Deutschland unter dem Deckmantel der Religionsfreiheit abläuft. Außerdem hat Glaser immer betont, dass wir für die Religionsfreiheit sind. Jedes Individuum soll diese Freiheit in Deutschland ausleben dürfen.“

Nach Silvester im Januar 2018 wurden Beatrix von Storch, die damalige stellvertretende Vorsitzende der AfD, und Alice Weidel von den Strafverfolgungsbehörden untersucht, nachdem sie anti-muslimische Botschaften online veröffentlicht hatten. Beatrix von Storch warf der Kölner Polizei vor, „barbarische, gruppenvergewaltigende muslimische Männerhorden“ zu beschwichtigen, nachdem diese eine Neujahrsbotschaft auf Arabisch getwittert hatte. Weidel schrieb auf Facebook, dass die Behörden sich „importierten, marodierenden, grapschenden, missbrauchenden, messerstechenden Migranten-Mobs“ unterwerfen würden. Ein Artikel der Times of Israel aus dem Januar 2018 berichtete über den Vorfall und schrieb: „Mitglieder der rechtsextremen Partei verbreiten Propaganda aus der NS-Zeit, wettern gegen ‘gruppenvergewaltigende’ Muslime und ‘marodierende, grapschende Migranten-Mobs’ nach Monaten der Ruhe nach den Wahlen.“

Nach der Veröffentlichung eines Buches des renommierten Verlags Ravensburger, in dem der Gebetsruf für Muslime dargestellt wird, betrieb Weidel im Februar 2018 auf Twitter Angstmacherei und fragte: „Ist diese interaktive Lektüre für Kinder ab 4 Jahren geeignet? Oder erobert der Islam nun unsere Kinderzimmer?“

Im März 2018 traf sich Steve Bannon, ehemaliger Chefstratege während der ersten Amtszeit von US-Präsident Donald Trump, mit Alice Weidel in Zürich, Schweiz. Sie diskutierten politische Strategien und alternative Medienkanäle. Die AfD lud Bannon zudem im Mai 2019 ein, auf der Veranstaltung „Konferenz für freie Medien“ in Berlin für rechte Journalisten und Blogger zu sprechen.

Im März 2018 schrieb Weidel auf Twitter: „Nicht wir müssen lernen mit dem Islam umzugehen, nicht wir müssen den Islam  auf den Boden des Grundgesetzes hieven, sondern der Islam hat sich uns  vollumfänglich anzupassen. Und das ist mit der vollen Härte des Gesetzes  durchzusetzen!“

Am 16. Mai 2018 sagte Weidel während einer Haushaltsdebatte im Deutschen Bundestag, dass muslimische Einwanderer „nicht unseren Wohlstand sichern“ würden. Sie bezeichnete Flüchtlinge und Asylsuchende zudem als „alimentierte Messer-Männer“ und „Kopftuchmädchen“, wofür sie vom damaligen Bundestagspräsidenten Wolfgang Schäuble öffentlich gerügt wurde. Auf ihre Worte angesprochen, rechtfertigte Weidel sich in einem Interview mit der Schweizer Neuen Zürcher Zeitung: „Polarisierung ist ein Stilmittel, um Debatten anzustoßen,“ und erklärte der Zeitung, dass der Begriff „Kopftuchmädchen“ darauf aufmerksam mache, dass Deutschland ein Problem mit dem konservativen Islam habe, der mit dem Grundgesetz unvereinbar sei. Der CDU-Abgeordnete Markus Grübel machte Weidel für die Folgen ihrer Äußerungen verantwortlich und erklärte, sie „bereitet … den Nährboden für feindselige Handlungen gegenüber Muslimen“.

Im Dezember 2018 meinte Weidel: „Der Islam ist nicht konform mit dem Grundgesetz – eine Islamsteuer kann es deshalb auch nicht geben“.

Im April 2019 berichtete die Anadolu-Agentur, dass Weidel „auf Twitter spekuliert habe, dass das Feuer in Notre-Dame ein Angriff auf Christen gewesen sein könnte, obwohl die französischen Behörden Brandstiftung oder einen terrorbezogenen Hintergrund ausschlossen. Weidel behauptete, dass allein im Februar 47 Angriffe in Frankreich verzeichnet wurden, die sich gegen Christen und ihre Kirchen richteten.“

Im Mai 2019 nannte Weidel die sozialdemokratische Bundesjustizministerin Katarina Barley eine „Lobbyistin für radikale Islamisten“, da sie sich gegen ein Gesetz des Innenministeriums wandte, das die Einbürgerung von Männern, die in Polygamie leben, verbieten sollte. Weidel sagte während einer parlamentarischen Debatte: „Ausgerechnet die Verfassungsministerin rollt Muslimen mit mehreren Ehefrauen den roten Teppich zur Staatsbürgerschaft aus, obwohl Polygamie im Strafgesetzbuch eindeutig verboten ist. Das ist ein handfester Skandal und ein weiterer Beleg, wie weit die SPD auf ihrem Weg in die politische Bedeutungslosigkeit sich von der Lebenswirklichkeit rechtstreuer Bürger bereits entfernt hat. Katarina Barley ist Wiederholungstäterin. Schon gegen den Vorschlag, Islam-Terroristen, die sich dem IS angeschlossen haben, die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft wieder zu entziehen, hat sie sich mit Händen und Füßen gewehrt. Mit dem Versuch, die oftmals im Verborgenen unter Ausnutzung des deutschen Sozialstaats praktizierte muslimische Vielehe durch die Hintertür zu legalisieren und mit dem Ritterschlag der Einbürgerungswürdigkeit zu versehen, betätigt sie sich de facto als Lobbyistin radikaler Islam-Fundamentalisten. Barley missbraucht ihr Amt, um Kräfte zu unterstützen, die auf die Aushöhlung unserer Rechtsordnung und die Islamisierung unserer Gesellschaft zielen. Damit versagt sie nicht nur als Justizministerin, die in besonderem Maße dem Schutz der Verfassungsordnung verpflichtet ist, sie missachtet auch elementare Frauenrechte und fällt insbesondere jenen muslimischen Frauen in den Rücken, die sich aus der Unterdrückung durch archaische und barbarische islamische Bräuche und Vorschriften befreien wollen. Offensichtlich sucht Frau Barley die künftige Wählerschaft der SPD in den islamischen Parallel- und Gegengesellschaften und nicht mehr in den Reihen gesetzestreuer Arbeiter und Steuerzahler, die ihr bereits in Scharen den Rücken kehren. Wer der SPD bei der Europawahl seine Stimme gibt, muss wissen, dass er als Spitzenkandidatin eine Islam-Lobbyistin ins Europaparlament schickt, mit der die schleichende Islamisierung der Lebensverhältnisse weiter vorangetrieben wird“.

Nach einem tödlichen Angriff im Dezember 2024, verübt von dem anti-islamischen Online-Aktivisten Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen, der auch Sympathien für die AfD zeigte, äußerte sich die AfD nicht zu seinen pro-AfD-Beiträgen. Stattdessen verurteilte Weidel diejenigen, die „Verachtung für unsere Gesellschaft haben, unsere Werte und Kultur ablehnen, unser Heimatland hassen, das ihnen Schutz bietet“ und behauptete fälschlicherweise, dass der AfD-unterstützende Ex-Muslim der Angreifer ein „islamischer Extremist“ sei. Die Partei hielt auch eine Kundgebung in Magdeburg ab, dem Ort des Angriffs, und nutzte diese für ihre anti-immigrationspolitische Haltung. Weidel sprach auf der Kundgebung ihrer Partei und forderte einen Wandel „damit wir endlich wieder in Sicherheit leben können,“ wobei die Menge mit Rufen wie „Abschieben!“ reagierte. In einem Beitrag auf X (ehemals Twitter) sagte Weidel, dass die Diskussion der Regierung über neue Sicherheitsgesetze nach dem Angriff „nicht davon ablenken darf, dass Magdeburg ohne unkontrollierte Einwanderung nicht möglich gewesen wäre. Der Staat muss seine Bürger durch eine restriktive Migrationspolitik und konsequente Abschiebungen schützen!“

Im Februar 2025 schrieb Weidel auf X (ehemals Twitter) über pro-palästinensische Proteste im Land. Sie behauptete: „Es ist der importierte muslimische Antisemitismus, der sich hier auf den deutschen Straßen im Feinlauf bahnt. Es ist der Hass gegen das Andersartige“.

Im Dezember 2024 schrieb Elon Musk vor den bevorstehenden Bundestagswahlen in Deutschland: „Nur die AfD kann Deutschland retten.“ Diese Unterstützung erfolgte im Vorfeld der kommenden deutschen Wahlen und wurde von einem Livestream mit der AfD-Vorsitzenden Alice Weidel auf X begleitet. Dort behauptete sie, dass „Juden in Deutschland muslimischen Verbrechen ausgesetzt sind.“

Im Jahr 2024 wurde Weidel die erste Kanzlerkandidatin der AfD für die Bundestagswahl 2025. Die AfD verdoppelte ihr bisheriges Ergebnis und belegte mit 20,8 Prozent den zweiten Platz, was 152 Abgeordnete, darunter 90 neue Gesichter, repräsentierte. Sie wurde von verschiedenen Führern rechtsextremer politischer Parteien beglückwünscht, darunter der österreichische Vorsitzende Herbert Kickl, der spanische Vorsitzende von VOX, Santi Abascal, der niederländische Vorsitzende Geert Wilders, der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán und DOGE’s Elon Musk.

Laut Salih Yilmaz, dem ehemaligen Vorsitzenden der nichtstaatlichen europäischen türkischen Organisation Union of International Democrats (UID), „ist die Rhetorik der AfD hauptsächlich Feindseligkeit gegenüber dem muslimischen Segment, den Türken.“

Silencing Dissent: The Islamophobia Industry’s Assault on Academic Freedom

In 2025, The Bridge Initiative marks ten years since its launch. Founded by world-renowned Islamic studies scholar Dr. John L. Esposito, the project, housed under the Al-Waleed Center for Muslim Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University, was created in response to the urgent need for a reliable source on Islamophobia. As the issue grew in the United States, Bridge was established with a clear mission: to study, analyze, and provide the public with resources on Islamophobia—how it manifests and the often-devastating consequences it brings to individuals and society.

While anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. has existed for centuries, the post-9/11 era saw a dramatic rise in discrimination, harassment, and the criminalization of Muslims. Government discourse on terrorism fueled a deeply harmful narrative, portraying Islam as inherently linked to violence. In the decade following 9/11, the U.S. launched a global “War on Terror,” leading to the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq and contributing to the destabilization of the Middle East. At home, this period witnessed growing hostility towards Muslims, as their loyalties were questioned and their communities increasingly viewed with suspicion.

In the post-9/11 climate, the spread of hysteria and fear surrounding Islam and Muslims was not accidental—it was driven by a coordinated network of voices, organizations, donor funds, media outlets, and even political parties. The Bridge Initiative’s work has exposed this cadre of voices, dubbed the “Islamophobia industry,”—a loosely connected web of individuals and groups that manufacture, amplify, and circulate anti-Muslim stereotypes and misinformation. Bridge’s research deep-dives into their efforts to demonize a community and spread disinformation about a faith, often with the support of the political and media class.  Many figures within this network have built lucrative careers by peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Islam and Muslims—propaganda that has led to dangerous and even deadly consequences for Muslim communities worldwide. Given Bridge’s research, we have consistently found ourselves harassed, intimidated, and smeared by this industry.

These anti-Muslim voices gained mainstream influence with the election of Donald Trump in 2016 when Islamophobia became a central theme in American political discourse. The urgent need for a dedicated project to analyze, document, and educate the public about Islamophobia—how it operates and the harm it causes—became clearer than ever.

Fast-forward to 2025, under a second Trump administration these same anti-Muslim figures—who have spent years attacking and smearing The Bridge Initiative and ACMCU, falsely labeling us as terrorist-affiliated—have once again found themselves in positions of influence. This time, their Islamophobic, agenda-driven “investigative reporting” has led to the illegal and unjust arrest and detainment of ACMCU’s post-doctoral scholar, Dr. Badar Khan Suri. His crime? For expressing his constitutionally-protected views and being married to a Palestinian woman.

Following the announcement of Khan Suri’s illegal arrest and detention, the Middle East Forum (MEF), an anti-Muslim think tank founded by Daniel Pipes, openly boasted about its role in the McCarthyist campaign. One of its research associates, Anna Stanley, had written an “investigative piece” supposedly “uncovering” Khan Suri and his wife’s alleged dangerous activities. What the piece shows is that simply being Palestinian and Muslim is evidence enough to render someone guilty of a crime. This is Islamophobia 101.

The campaign against Khan Suri, his wife, Mapheze Saleh, ACMCU, and The Bridge Initiative highlights the growing collaboration between established Islamophobic, pro-Israel organizations and the U.S. government. It also underscores how these organizations have fueled Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism to advocate for unconditional and uncritical support of the Israeli government’s policies and actions against Palestinians.

The central tenet of these organizations and voices is the persistent effort to associate Islam and Muslims with terrorism—an approach that seems to be the foundation of Stanley’s work. Her employment history and published writings consistently reinforce the Islamophobic and racist logic of Western “counterterror” discourse, which portrays Islam and Muslims as uniquely prone to violence and extremism. Notably, Stanley appears to reside in Israel while working for the U.S.-based Middle East Forum (MEF), as indicated by a writer biography on Fathom Journal. FJ is a quarterly online scholarly journal headed by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), which is described by a 2009 Guardian piece as “one of the most persistent and slickest media operations in the battle for influence over opinion formers.” The pro-Israeli lobbying organization “received nearly £1.4m in two years from a billionaire donor whose father made a fortune manufacturing arms in Israel.”

Stanley’s article attempts to associate Khan Suri and Saleh with terrorism by arguing that because Saleh’s father, Ahmed Yousef, once served as an advisor to Ismail Haniyeh, the former leader of the Hamas government in Gaza (2006-2017), this automatically implicates Yousef—and by extension, everyone connected to him—as part of Hamas. This kind of reasoning is deeply flawed and dangerous, as it relies on guilt by association. Stanley’s argument mirrors the Islamophobic narratives used by the U.S. government in the post-9/11 era through the “material support” clause in counterterrorism legislation, which led to the targeting and imprisonment of Muslim Americans.

It is worth noting that Yousef left the Gaza government over a decade ago and established an independent think tank, the House of Wisdom, in 2011 “to encourage peace and conflict resolution in Gaza.” He has also been critical of the October 7th Hamas-led attacks, and in a March 2025 interview with the New York Times, he stated, “Oct. 7, in my opinion, was a terrible error.” Yousef has written for the New York Times and The Guardian. Anyone interested in his views should read his essays and judge for themselves. However, none of this matters to MEF or Stanley—because for them, the “Hamas” label is a political weapon used to silence critics, instill fear in vulnerable communities, and reinforce a pro-Israel, pro-genocide narrative in public discourse.

Pipes and his MEF are not new to advancing Islamophobia while silencing voices critical of Israeli state policies. A 2011 report by the Center for American Progress described Pipes as an “academic turned anti-Muslim propagandist.” Under MEF, he set up various projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, and the Legal Project- all of which aim to advance Islamophobia, create “watchlists” targeting academics and groups critical of Israeli state policies resulting in doxing and harassment of said targets, and also provide legal support to anti-Muslim voices (MEF has provided legal services to several anti-Muslim activists including Geert Wilders and Tommy Robinson). The 2011 Center for American Progress report listed MEF as one of “five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discourse today.”

MEF’s Campus Watch program was ahead of its time back in 2002, when it carried out a blacklisting project after it “posted ‘dossiers’ on eight scholars who … criticize US foreign policy and the Israeli occupation.” While the “dossiers” were eventually dropped from the page, the project has continued to keep a list of “Professors to Avoid” and a list of the professors who stood against the dossiers in 2002 under the title “Solidarity with Apologists. Given the Trump administration’s announcement to publicly go after the Middle East Studies departments across American universities, it is not far-fetched to believe that MEF will be providing the government with an outline of who and what department to go after. For years now, the think tank has led campaigns to restrict academic freedoms. In a September 2020 email sent to MEF’s listserv, Gregg Roman, the then-director (now executive director) of MEF, stated the organization had “spurred federal investigations of Middle East Studies programs, working with the White House, Department of Education, and Congress to hold to account: (i) the Duke/University of North Carolina consortium for Middle East Studies; (ii) Georgetown University; (iii) the University of Arizona; (iv) the University of California at Berkeley; and (v) Yale University.” Currently, MEF is hinting at an upcoming report on Georgetown, specifically ACMCU, and as Stanley professed in a podcast episode, the ultimate goal is to shut down these academic centers and deport academics who are critical of governmental policy.

The organizations behind the smear campaign against Badar Khan Suri, Mapheze Saleh, ACMCU, and The Bridge Initiative are deeply interconnected, with key individuals serving on multiple boards. Joshua Katzen, vice chairman of the MEF, is also the co-founder of the Jewish News Service (JNS), a right-wing, pro-Israel media outlet. Notably, Stanley’s original hit piece on Khan Suri was published on JNS. Katzen and his wife, Amelia, also sit on the board of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), which in February 2025 published a video on X, portraying itself as an investigative exposé on Khan Suri and Saleh. The video promoted an anti-Palestinian narrative, falsely depicting both as terrorist sympathizers—targeting Saleh for her Palestinian heritage and Khan Suri for his criticism of Israeli policies.

Another individual on MEF’s Executive Committee is David Steinmann, who has been the Advisory Executive for the William Rosenwald Family Organization. The Rosenwald Foundation has funded millions to the Islamophobia network, including millions to the Middle East Forum. Steinmann is also a member of the Board of the Center for Security Policy, an anti-Muslim think tank, and Vice Chairman of CAMERA.

The CAMERA video quickly gained traction online, amplified by a network of X accounts, including the Embassy of Israel to the US. These accounts actively promoted the video while tagging ICE, Secretary Rubio, the Attorney General, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pressuring government officials to take action against Khan Suri and Saleh. Ultimately, this coordinated effort succeeded—reports confirm that Secretary Rubio personally approved Khan Suri’s deportation order.

The illegal and unjust arrest and detainment of Khan Suri, the vilification of Saleh, and the institutional attacks against ACMCU and The Bridge Initiative are the work of a group of interconnected organizations and individuals, bound by their pro-Israel and anti-Muslim agendas. The smear campaign was strategically coordinated by MEF, JNS, CAMERA, and others, who then used their political influence and connections to the administration to target Khan Suri and ACMCU. Their overlapping roles across multiple institutions facilitated the seamless dissemination of propaganda, ultimately leading to real-world consequences, including government action against a scholar, his wife, and an academic center with over three decades of producing rigorous scholarship and fostering interfaith dialogue.

For decades, ACMCU has been a target of the Islamophobia industry. As a program dedicated to providing factual information on Islamophobia, The Bridge Initiative is also no stranger to harassment, smears, and targeted attacks. While extreme Islamophobic accusations are not new to us, the current efforts of these voices to align with a hostile U.S. administration represent an alarming escalation. This administration has openly targeted Muslims and pro-Palestinian advocates while seeking to impose authoritarian restrictions on U.S. universities.

The Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian smear campaign against Khan Suri and his wife is part of a broader, orchestrated effort by well-connected groups to the current administration to silence, intimidate, and harass pro-Palestinian voices and anyone critical of Israeli state policies. The government’s witch hunt against academics, scholars, and students critical of U.S. policies—particularly its unconditional support for Israel and its role in the genocide against Palestinians—has ushered in a troubling new era. Our constitutionally protected rights to freedom of thought and expression, long celebrated as fundamental American values, are now under direct assault.

Factsheet: Marlène Schiappa

IMPACT: Marlène Schiappa is a French author and former politician who has served in multiple ministries of the French government (2017-2023). She has supported laws and programs that use the idea of “separatism” to target Muslims and immigrants and repress people who speak out against Islamophobia.

Originally, Schiappa worked in freelance advertising. In 2008, she started a blog called Maman Travaille, about life as a working mother. In 2014, she was elected to the municipal council of Le Mans, having been on the winning list of candidates. This list was led by Jean-Claude Boulard of the Socialist Party (Le Parti Socialiste, PS), but it included members of other parties, as well as those with no previous party affiliation, like Schiappa.

For the next few years, Schiappa continued to engage in local politics, forming the Movement of French Elected Representatives for Equality (Mouvement des élus français pour l’égalité, MEFE) in 2014 and running in the 2015 departmental elections with the Socialist Party. She supported Emmanuel Macron’s campaign in 2017, and served in multiple national ministries throughout his presidency. She was State Secretary for Gender Equality from 2017 to 2020, Deputy Minister in charge of Citizenship from 2020-2022, and State Secretary for the Social and Solidarity Economy and Community Life in 2023.

In response to Samuel Paty’s murder in 2020, Schiappa created the Marianne Funds in April 2021, a government fund with the professed goal of financing “people and associations who will speak out to promote the values of the republic and to fight against separatist narratives, especially on social media and online platforms.” According to an investigation by the French Mediapart in January 2023, funds were partly used to “harass government critics” like Rokhaya Diallo, a French civil rights advocate, online. Some organizations that benefited from the funds were discovered to have personal relationships with Schiappa. In November 2023, Diallo commented on this in a Washington Post article, saying that these organizations hadn’t been required to “demonstrate their previous work on radicalization, or, for some of them, to demonstrate any work at all.” Schiappa was sacked in 2023 due to her involvement in this scandal.

When, in 2021, the European Commissioner for Equality met with a representative of FEMYSO  (the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations), Schiappa said she was “shocked,” claiming  Femyso had made  “aggressive remarks about France and French culture.” She leveraged anti-Muslim tropes when calling FEMYSO an “Islamist association” that was “infiltrating” EU institutions.” FEMYSO’s website contradicts Schiappa’s accusation, stating their mission involves “developing and empowering [European Muslim youth], and working to build a diverse, cohesive and vibrant Europe.” Additionally, a January 2022 piece by Shada Islam for The Guardian supported the Commissioner, saying that she “rightly defended” the meeting in which they discussed “challenges facing young European Muslims as ‘a result of stereotyping, discrimination and outright hatred.’” This stereotyping has been perpetrated by Schiappa herself: in 2018, a student wearing a headscarf spoke on TV on behalf of protests about university options after highschool. Schiappa criticized the headscarf, calling it  “a form of promoting political Islam.”

In October 2021, she was invited to the Vienna Forum on Countering Segregation and Extremism in the Context of Integration, created by Susanne Raab, Austrian Minister of Women and Integration. According to the forum, their main goal is to share best practices in combating political Islam. According to the European Network Against Racism, an anti-racist NGO, the forum was “built on essentialization of active Muslim communities and aimed at increasing the surveillance and repression of Muslims in Europe.” Schiappa later tweeted her agreement with some things said at the forum, such as that “the common threat, atmospheric Jihadism” unites both Austria and France.

In a 2022 CAGE report, Schiappa was mentioned (on page 36) in regards to the Republican Counter Discourse Unit of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Prevention of Crime and Radicalization (CIPDR), saying that the goal of this unit is to counter “cyber-Islamism.” The report explained further that the unit is supposed to “monitor ‘Islamist’ discourses on social networks, identify ‘Islamist preachers’ on social networks, [and] promote content praising Republican values and/or deconstructing ‘Islamist discourses.’”

In February 2021, Schiappa supported a proposed investigation of chlorine allergy certificates that exempted students from swimming classes. Though official statements only refer to suspicions of “religious” parents trying to keep their kids out of swimming lessons, a 2021 Al Jazeera piece by Peter Yeung noted that rights groups described the investigation as an “Islamophobic” gesture. A statement released by the Ministry of the Interior tied the investigation to the fight against separatism, saying, “School should not be a breeding ground for ‘religious separatism.’” Schiappa agreed, tweeting that schools “must fight against separatist ideologies which primarily target little girls”.

In a 2020 interview with Leaders League (an international rating agency), Schiappa was asked to define separatism. She claimed that separatism exists “any time a group considers its rules superior to the laws of the state.” Though the examples she gave all had to do with women and men not mixing for religious reasons, she assures the interviewer that her anti-separatism bill would strengthen not only “our ability to fight radical Islamism but also sectarian aberrations, such [as] La Famille [a group of 8 Christian families that marry only among each other.]”

An October 2020 article for openDemocracy observed that Schiappa’s fight against separatism tends to end when the separatists are not Muslim. Writer Fabrice Roger notes that in recent history there has been “armed resistance against mainland France, including the killings of politicians and claims of independence” in Corsica. Yet, when asked by a reporter in 2020 whether her definition of separatism referred to Corsicans or Islamists, Schiappa responded that the reporter should leave the good people of Corsica alone.

In a 2020 interview with 20 Minutes, Schiappa also asserted that things associated with “political Islam, Islamism, and separatism” cannot be compared with “the deacon who considers that the bishopric must be reserved to men. I do not agree with him, but he does not endanger the Republic.”

Schiappa often links French republican values to the fight against separatism.  In a 2021 interview with Arab News, she said that integration is “what a republic should be.” In her examination alongside the Ministry of Interior in July 2020, she highlighted the necessity of “defend[ing] our freedoms, particularly against separatism, which aims to establish its own rules in opposition to the Republic.” She vowed to promote “the values of the Republic,” specifying some values like national cohesion, integration of foreigners, defense of secularism, and prevention of delinquency and radicalization.

France chaired the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from May to November 2019. Leading up to this, Schiappa said that they were going to encourage other countries to sign the Istanbul Convention – a pledge to combat violence against women and domestic violence.

As examples, she gave laws passed in France in the interest of this.

In 2020 Schiappa spoke proudly of a law she had recently enacted allowing for the “expulsion of foreigners guilty of sexual and sexist violence.” A column in Le Journal du Dimanche called this law a “double penalty for foreigners” and condemned Schiappa for using feminism as a tool to advance nationalism and xenophobia. Indeed, in a 2020 Ballast article, Kaouter Harchi accused Schiappa of femonationalism, the “rhetorical phenomenon where feminism and racism meet, acknowledge each other, and become embodied in government policies, educational programs, prevention campaigns, and integration repertoires.”

Today, Schiappa continues her political career on a lesser scale as a regional councilor of Ile-de-France. She is employed at Tilder, a communications consulting firm, and she is president of Actives, a non-governmental organization she created in 2024 that seeks to increase the percent of CAC 40 company heads who are women. She has also continued to give credence to Islamophobic ideas: in February 2025, she reposted a tweet that calls out a comedian for (among other things) “posting salafist content,” and looking like an “illiterate 7th-century bedouin.”

Abraham’s Bridge: A Documentary Review of Interfaith Connection in America’s Heartland

In a world marked by conflict, division, and religious tension, “Abraham’s Bridge” offers a compelling narrative of collaboration across faith traditions. This short documentary, running just under 40 minutes, produced and directed by Elinor J. Pierce, Research Director of the Harvard Pluralism Project (pluralism.org), chronicles the remarkable Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska – an ambitious project to build a mosque, synagogue, church, and interfaith center side-by-side, connected by a circular wooden bridge. The film provides a concise yet powerful exploration of interfaith dialogue and community building in America’s heartland.

For those familiar with the pluralism case study model developed by the Pluralism Project at Harvard University, “Abraham’s Bridge” brings that model to life in vivid detail. The Pluralism Project, founded by Professor Diana Eck, has been a leading force in documenting and interpreting America’s new religious diversity since 1991. Eck, a renowned professor of comparative religion and Indian studies, has dedicated her career to exploring the intersection of diverse faiths in the U.S. and promoting interfaith understanding. The film offers a compelling visual representation of the case study approach to understanding religious diversity and interfaith relations. Pierce translates the nuanced exploration of real-world interfaith challenges and collaborations typically found in written case studies into a visually rich documentary format. This approach allows viewers to witness the complexities of interfaith dialogue and community-building in action.

Historical Context and Vision

“Abraham’s Bridge” follows the evolution of the Tri-Faith Initiative from its conceptual beginnings in 2005 to its physical manifestation. The documentary highlights the significance of choosing Abraham as the symbolic cornerstone for this interfaith endeavor, as he represents a shared holy person across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Abraham is revered as a pivotal figure who broke with pagan deities to embrace monotheism. In Judaism, he is considered the first Jew and the father of the Jewish people. In Christianity, Abraham is seen as a spiritual paragon whose faith and trust in God are pivotal, symbolizing the connection between the Old and New Testaments. For Muslims, Abraham (Ibrahim) is a prophet known for his unwavering faith and obedience to God’s will. This shared heritage makes Abraham an ideal figure to symbolize unity and cooperation among the three Abrahamic faiths.

Abraham’s Bridge presents the vision of the Tri-Faith campus as a pragmatic response to religious polarization. Through interviews with key stakeholders and footage of the developing campus, viewers witness how abstract concepts of coexistence translate into architectural design, community planning, and daily interactions. As Rabbi Azriel notes, “We had 36 different locations before we got here,” highlighting the perseverance that brought the vision to fruition. The circular wooden bridge connecting the houses of worship becomes both a physical reality and a powerful metaphor for the project’s aspirations.

Protagonists: Voices of Interfaith Leadership Past and Present

The heart of “Abraham’s Bridge” lies in its interviews with key leaders past and present from the three Abrahamic faiths who have driven this initiative forward:

Rabbi Aryeh Azriel, formerly the senior rabbi at Temple Israel in Omaha. The film showcases his early vision, shaped by the recognition that “those wars created a lot of graveyards in the Middle East,” stating “the issue of the relationship with the Muslim community was extremely important for me.”

Rabbi Ben Sharff contributes his insights on the importance of interfaith dialogue in fostering community and shared responsibility. As one of the new clergy replacing the founding generation of leaders, he see this as a “a golden opportunity to reimagine” the Tri-Faith Initiative.

Karim Khayati, representing the American Muslim Institute, helped shape the vision that the initiative “needed to be present on the physical ground.”

Rev. Dr. Jenny Shultz-Thomas, Senior Minister at Countryside Community Church, brings her background in interfaith projects and social justice to her work on the Tri-Faith Board of Directors. As the pastor of Countryside, she describes what she and her fellow Christians have been doing: “showing up as committed faithful listener, best partner in the journey as not observer. But the abiding friend who walks beside you.” She seeks a “deeper understanding of what these relationships mean.”

In addition to these leaders, interviews with other members from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities provide diverse perspectives on transformation through interfaith engagement.

Impact: Building Resilience Against Division

“Abraham’s Bridge” arrives at a particularly relevant moment in American religious and civic life. At a time when domestic and international political events threaten to exacerbate divisions between communities of faith, this documentary offers an alternative model rooted in mutual respect and shared humanity.

One striking feature is the commons area with communal gardens that symbolize organic growth in mutual friendships. As members nurture plants together, they deepen their bonds with one another. Just as diverse plants thrive together in a well-tended garden, diverse faith communities flourish when rooted in mutual respect. As Taylor Keen, a seed keeper, notes, it is important “to have people who understand planting.” The garden serves both practical and symbolic purposes – producing more than 5,000 pounds of food for local pantries while creating space for interfaith cooperation away from theological differences. As one participant observes, “values bring people together, theology pushes people apart.”

The film’s visual storytelling plays a crucial role in conveying this message. From archival footage to contemporary scenes on campus today, “Abraham’s Bridge” captures both physical progress toward unity (symbolized by its iconic bridge) alongside emotional growth through shared experiences. This visual approach allows viewers to appreciate how the initiative has evolved over time and how initial ideas have been refined through practical experience. The documentary blends historical context with present-day implementation, creating a coherent narrative arc.

The protagonists emphasize that demonization—whether through stereotypes or political narratives—must be actively countered through relationship-building efforts like those fostered by initiatives such as Tri-Faith. By focusing on empathy-driven solutions rather than fear-based reactions, the film demonstrates how interfaith dialogue can build resilience against forces seeking to divide communities.

The Tri-Faith Initiative offers not only a blueprint for coexistence but also hope that even in times of heightened tension, bridges can be built—not just physically but emotionally and spiritually.

Challenges: Fault Lines Amid Conflict

The ongoing war and violence in Israel/Palestine test the limits of friendship within this community, exposing fault lines within Jewish and Muslim communities. Members grapple with pain tied to their heritage. As Karim Khayati states poignantly, many congregants “have family, they have the immediate family who died as a consequence of this war.” These tensions are further exacerbated by the alarming rise of both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the United States. As Wendy Goldberg, Executive Director of the Tri-Faith Initiative, notes:

“In the weeks following October 7th have been devastating. We feel helpless. We feel alone. We feel scared. So I remember at one of our early meetings, we made an intentional decision to set politics aside so that we could grow trust and relationships. And one of the things we intentionally set aside for a day when we were ready was Israel and Palestine. Tonight we had a silent, candlelit vigil for peace in the Holy Land. We need to help people to build the skills and the resilience to live through it, to grapple with it, and ultimately to hold more than one truth at the same time. The solutions are all heart centered, and unfortunately, they feel out of grasp right now.”

The film portrays how the community navigates these challenges, recognizing, as one member states, the difficulties that arise in the face of “Unbelievable violence, especially in Gaza.” (Karim Khayati) To address the inevitable challenges of disagreements, the community seeks “to dig in on the areas that we disagree.”(Rev. Shultz-Thomas)

In this context, community members emphasize finding empathy and leveraging existing relationships to see the humanity in others. “It’s about empathy, building empathy and leveraging existing relationships to see the humanity.” This approach acknowledges that while some may “go to our own corners” during times of crisis, the physical proximity of the Tri-Faith campus compels continued engagement: “but we are here, let’s pick up the phone. Let’s have lunch together.”

The film shows that “the silence, the showing up without too many words” can sometimes be more powerful than verbal dialogue when tensions are highest. Simply being present in each other’s spaces – “somebody from AMI showing up on a Sunday morning sitting in a pew on my right and just kind of being present” – demonstrates a commitment to relationship that transcends political disagreement.

Interfaith Cooperation Amidst Naysayers

The documentary acknowledges the pushback such an initiative faces, hinting at the existence of those who view interfaith initiatives with scepticism, fearing that participants are being asked to “erase” their faith. It serves as a counter-narrative to those who believe that interfaith dialogue requires relinquishing one’s own religious identity or that its goal is to somehow contaminate one religion or another.

As Rabbi Azriel emphasizes, it is not about minimizing difference, but about recognizing our shared humanity, a means to “stop using the word, hope” and “to effectuate and change and create the hope ourselves.” The film acknowledges that “there are people who don’t see the benefit of dialogue,” yet maintains that continued engagement is essential despite disagreement.

The film also touches on the initiative’s future, as all the founding clergy have now “retired or moved on,” creating what Rabbi Sharff calls “a golden opportunity to reimagine it.” This leadership transition creates space for fresh approaches to interfaith dialogue, including the creation of “sacred space for us to be able to disagree.”

Conclusion

“Abraham’s Bridge” succeeds as both documentation of unique interfaith collaboration and meditation on coexistence possibilities amidst global crises—offering hope rooted not just theoretically but practically: through relationships built step-by-step locally even amid global turmoil. The documentary’s greatest strength lies in its balanced approach—celebrating achievements while acknowledging ongoing challenges. In today’s climate of polarization, this message resonates with particular urgency.

The Tri-Faith Initiative epitomizes the best of interfaith cooperation, serving as a beacon of pluralism that showcases how diverse faith communities can thrive together. By fostering an environment of mutual respect, trust, and understanding, this initiative demonstrates that even in the face of adversity, communities can come together to build bridges of empathy and cooperation. As an exemplar of effective interfaith dialogue, the Tri-Faith Initiative inspires not only local communities but also global audiences, offering a compelling model for promoting peace and harmony across religious divides. It is in interfaith cooperation that humanity finds pathways to bridge divides, confront prejudice, and build a more just and peaceful world.

“Abraham’s Bridge” offers an inspiring yet grounded introduction to these complex topics and is highly recommended as a valuable addition to classrooms, religious leadership programs, and community engagement initiatives. It reminds us that persistent engagement across differences is not only possible but necessary for fostering peace in divided times. Moreover, as an educational tool, it brings the case study method to life for students, religious leaders, and anyone interested in the dynamics of religious pluralism in America.

Statement of International Muslim Organizations and Human Rights Civil Society Organizations on the 2025 United Nation’s International Day to Combat Islamophobia

Statement of International Muslim Organizations and Human Rights Civil Society  Organizations on the 2025 United Nation’s International Day to Combat Islamophobia 

In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful 

All praise and thanks belong to God, the Lord of the Worlds, 

May peace and prayers be upon Prophet Muhammad 

Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people and injured another 40 as he attacked two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand on March 15, 2019. He streamed this horror live on Facebook. In  2025, the undersigned Muslim organizations and human rights civil society organizations  commemorate the UN’s International Day to Combat Islamophobia by highlighting the increasingly troubling role of social media platforms in perpetuating Islamophobic hate across the world.  

According to the United Nations, “Islamophobia is a fear, prejudice, and hatred of Muslims that  leads to provocation, hostility, and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment, abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world.  Motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into  structural and cultural racism, it targets the symbols and markers of being a Muslim.” 

The massive profits social media platforms provide to corporations have generally rendered corporate leaders passive regarding the role of their platforms in operationalizing Islamophobia. We address our call to action to those leaders, employees, and influencers who see humanity as something greater than coin. 

Even when reported, the removal of Islamophobic content appears to be deprioritized. Research produced in Australia in 2022 concluded that there were “3,759,180 Islamophobic posts made  on Twitter between 28 August 2019 and 27 August 2021″ and that “only a mere 14.83% of anti Muslim tweets end up being removed.” The authors of the 2023 European Islamophobia report noted that the Estonian Human Rights Centre, which “monitors the occurrence of hate speech  on social media and checks whether social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and X) remove hate speech when it is reported through the appropriate channels,” found that between March and April 2023, “anti-Muslim hate speech amounted to 15% of all the  reported posts” and “ranged between 4% and 6% of the reported posts” in the following  reporting periods. 

The consequences of platforming hate are murder, violence, and profit. The Center for the  Study of Organized Hate’s (CSOH) “Streaming Violence: How Instagram Fuels Cow Vigilantism  in India” details how that platform is used to promote communal violence against Muslims, particularly by Hindutva nationalists. The U.S.-based Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) noted, “Close to a third of the more than 1,000 Instagram accounts researchers tracked over six months posted videos of brutal physical assaults.” According to reporting, these accounts are  permitted to fundraise from their posts. In a similar vein of fundraising from hate, The Intercept reported in 2023 that, “A series of advertisements dehumanizing and calling for violence against Palestinians, intended to test Facebook’s content moderation standards, were all approved by  the social network.” Also in 2023, Canada’s Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights concluded that “the rise of hate-based discrimination in Canada has been facilitated by both  mainstream and extremist social media platforms, through which thousands of extremist  channels, pages and groups have been formed.” The report added, “The Canadian Human Rights Commission noted that the man who killed six people in the 2017 Québec City mosque  shooting, ‘was inspired and emboldened by hateful rhetoric he found online. What he saw and read gave him the validation and encouragement he needed to pull the trigger.’” In the UK, the spread of misinformation on social media platforms following the Southport stabbings in 2024  fueled widespread anti-Muslim riots and hate crimes, highlighting how unchecked online hate can rapidly escalate into real-world violence and harm. 

Given these painful facts and the hate that benefits from them, we, the undersigned Muslim organizations, call on the leaders, employees, and influencers within the social media industry  to implement the following concrete actions: (1) develop transparent reporting systems with  clear timelines for content review and removal, (2) prohibit monetization of content that  promotes anti-Muslim bigotry or violence, (3) create robust appeals processes for both removed  and retained content, (4) publish regular transparency reports specifically tracking Islamophobic  content and enforcement actions, and (5) engage in meaningful consultation with Muslim  communities and organizations to improve detection of coded language and evolving forms of  hate speech.  

It is not enough to merely react to hate once it has already spread. We urge all stakeholders to implement these changes immediately to create a safer digital environment for Muslims around  the world.

 

Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) (Australia) 

The Bridge Initiative (United States) 

Canadians United Against Hate/Canadiens Unis Contre la Haine (Canada)

Center for Education and Research “Nahla” (Bosnia and Herzegovina) 

Collective for Countering Islamophobia in Europe (CCIE) (Europe) 

Comité Justice & Libertés Pour Tous (France) 

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (United States) 

Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (Europe) 

International Islamophobia Studies Research Association (Worldwide) 

Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Islamic Council of Victoria (Australia) 

Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand (New Zealand) 

Islamophobia Studies Center (United States) 

The March 15th -Combating Islamophobia (United States)  

Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) (United Kingdom) 

Muslim Rights Watch Netherlands (Netherlands, Europa) 

Statement Commemorating the International Day to Combat Islamophobia

Islamophobia is a global crisis with profound and far-reaching consequences for Muslim communities and society at large.

The latest figures from multiple countries underscore the severity of this escalating threat. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the leading Muslim civil rights organization in the U.S., nearly 9,000 complaints of anti-Muslim bias were recorded in 2024—the highest number since CAIR began collecting data in 1996. In the United Kingdom, Tell MAMA, an organization that monitors anti-Muslim hate, documented over 6,000 cases, marking a staggering 43% increase from 2023. This represents the highest number of anti-Muslim incidents ever recorded by the organization, prompting its Director to declare this the “most dangerous” time to be a Muslim in the UK. Meanwhile, in Australia, the Islamophobia Register reported that incidents of Islamophobic abuse have doubled over the past two years, with women and girls disproportionately targeted in both online and physical attacks.

The past year has witnessed a terrifying surge in Islamophobic violence, epitomized by Israel’s relentless assault on Gaza, now extending into the occupied West Bank. Leading human rights organizations have identified Israel’s bombardment and military campaign as genocide—one that has been legitimized through Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian stereotypes. This violence has led to the mass killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian children and has fueled a rise in bullying, harassment, and physical attacks against Muslim children worldwide. 

These attacks are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of an unchecked epidemic exacerbated by governmental inaction and, in many cases, complicity. As the far-right gains traction globally, the normalization of anti-Muslim rhetoric has fueled a dangerous climate of dehumanization, targeting over a billion people worldwide. Mainstream media networks have further amplified this crisis, perpetuating Islamophobic tropes and conspiracy theories that have seeped into public discourse and policymaking. The result is a world where Muslims—and those perceived to be Muslim—are increasingly forced to live in fear.

On this day, The Bridge Initiative issues a stark warning: Islamophobia is a scourge on society, and it must be confronted with urgency. We call upon governments, civil society organizations, and individuals to take decisive action to combat this growing crisis. A just and pluralistic world—one where human rights and dignity are upheld for all—depends on it.