Is it all just misunderstandings, agitation and campaigns? At their demonstration in Hamburg, the Islamists from “Muslim Interaktiv” used tactics similar to those of the AfD – but they wanted to use this to appeal to Muslims in Germany.

Dictatorship of opinion, censorship, culture of prohibition – slogans that the AfD usually likes to use to stir up public discourse are now being adopted by the Islamists around “Muslim Interactive”. At their demonstration in the St. Georg district of Hamburg on Saturday afternoon, they presented themselves as victims of “media agitation” and believed they were exposed to the hatred of supposed experts.

According to the police, this time around 2,300 men are responding to the call from the organization classified as extremist by the Hamburg Office for the Protection of the Constitution – significantly more than at the end of April. The fact that signs were held up back then with slogans like “Caliphate is the solution” was one of the big things that caused a stir – such slogans are banned this time.

Similar to how the AfD likes to put border crossings into perspective, speaker and “Muslim Interaktiv” head Raheem Boateng is now rowing back. Suddenly he claims that they weren’t calling for a caliphate in Germany, but rather in the Middle East. However, it remains unclear – probably consciously – what role Israel would have in such a structure. It also remains unclear why they are demanding this in Germany.

In exactly this way, Boateng also puts the accusation of anti-Semitism into perspective. “It has a right to exist,” he emphasizes, for “Jewish life” – and not the state of Israel. The Middle East needs to move much further away from “Zionism and Arab nationalism.” A caliphate would not prescribe any creeds; everyone would just have to know and respect the rights and duties. He does not discuss which Jews, women or other minorities these would be.

Significantly, women are hardly to be found in the elevator; they remain on the sidelines. Reporter Dunja Hayali appears demonstratively in the front row. But Germany’s ties to Israel are obviously a thorn in Boateng’s side. He repeatedly takes issue with the reasons of state that are “forced on the people and on us Muslims”. The recently flared-up debates about dominant culture and community of values ​​also fit into this narrative. “Muslims are supposed to be silent and invisible,” complains the speaker. And they should remain silent when their “siblings are massacred in Gaza.” The fact that the international community is clearly criticizing Israel’s actions and that the USA, as its closest ally, is said to have recently withheld deliveries of ammunition, has no place in this narrative.

Boateng prefers to conjure up the image of a majority society that hates Islam, just as the AfD likes to conjure up a “woke” or “left-green” dictate. Here it is a supposed assimilation policy. “The country has changed,” he then complains, pointing out that the Basic Law does not require a consensus of values. With a previous three-stage choreography by the participants, he finally creates a censorship like in Moscow and Beijing: To start, the organizers hand out signs that say “forbidden”, “censored” or “banned”.

Black flags are then waved and then only white, unlabeled posters are held up. Plus minutes of silence. “You can probably still say that” says hello. Why all this is necessary if no caliphate is to emerge in Germany or if there is no general anti-Semitism remains unclear. Then the requirements for the demonstration would actually have had no impact.

As it is, Boateng portrays the first demonstration as an “experiment” in which the Islamists “dared” to publicly express their opinions and show themselves to be Muslims. That was met with hatred. Finally, there is a call for resistance against supposed oppression. They would not submit to any “dictation of values” and would confidently formulate their interests. How this is supposed to work in accordance with the free and democratic basic order remains the unsolved mystery. The people who claim to be calling for a caliphate in the Middle East at the demonstration would probably be only too happy to stay in Germany and admire an unfree theocracy from the comfort of a distance.

How exactly they treat the freedoms they claim for themselves becomes apparent long before the demonstration begins. The stewards refused to allow the press representatives to enter the meeting area. Only after several interviews with the police do they reluctantly grant access. To be on the safe side, the organizers recommend that all participants not speak to the journalists on site.