Italian Woman, Kidnapped by Muslim Terrorists, Converts to Islam and Returns to Rome

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Silvia Romano is a 24-year-old Italian woman who, while working at an orphanage on the southeast coast of Kenya, was captured by terrorists belonging to al-Shebaab and taken to Somalia, where she was held captive for 18 months. She was finally freed, upon payment of a ransom of $6 million, and returned to Italy. While in Somalia, she converted to Islam. At the Rome airport, she appeared in a hijab and a green robe, and declared that she now wanted to be known as “Aisha.” Not everyone was delighted.

Here is the Associated Press story (I have retained the tendentious headline):

Bigotry mars return of Italy hostage who converted to Isla

A right-wing lawmaker in Italy was reprimanded Wednesday after he called a young Italian woman who converted to Islam while being held hostage in Somalia a “neo-terrorist.”

First, you are hit with the headline: “Bigotry mars return…” That already tells the reader what to think: someone in this story is a “bigot.” The first sentence then affixes the epithet “right-wing” to Our Bigot even before giving his name – to turn you against him early on. That “right-wing” bigot is Alessandro Pagano, a devout Catholic member of the Italian Parliament from Sicily, and a member of the anti-immigrant Lega (League) Party. Apparently, Pagano had the wrong reaction to the arrival of Silvia Aisha Romano. He was not overcome with joy, as others claimed to be. When he saw the pictures of Silvia Romano being greeted at the airport in Rome, wearing a hijab and dressed in the green garb traditionally worn by Somali Muslim women (green having special status in Islam), and further heard that she had converted – “freely” she said – to Islam, and that from now on she wanted to be known as “Aisha,” he could not contain himself, and called her, in the heat of the moment, a “neo-terrorist.”

Was that an outrage that cried to high heaven, as a number of Italians suggested, including Prime Minister Conte? Calling her a “neo-terrorist” was not politic, it likely was unwise, but should it have created such a storm of indignation? Certainly, if Silvia Aisha Romano converted to Islam, after having read and re-read the Qur’an — her captors having supplied her with both an Arabic Qur’an and an Italian translation — she must have acquired a knowledge of the Qur’an’s contents. She could hardly have avoided reading at least some of the more than 100 Qur’anic verses that command Believers to engage in violent Jihad. She would have read the verses that call for Muslims to “strike terror in the hearts” of the Unbelievers (Qur’an 3.151, 8:12). She would also have read the verses that tell Muslims they are the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims “the worst of all created beings.” She claimed to have embraced this faith, and when she was safely back in Italy, when one might have hoped she would have thrown off any such pretense and confess that she “converted” only to please her captors, she doubled down on her new faith. She really meant it. And we are entitled to draw the conclusion that she understood, and accepted, the more than 100 Qur’an verses that command Muslims to wage violent Jihad, and engage in terrorism. It is neither absurd nor outrageous, given all this, to call her a “neo-terrorist.”

The story continues:

Silvia Romano, 24, stepped off an Italian government jet Sunday wearing the green hijab typical of Somali Muslim women. She reportedly told prosecutors in Rome she converted freely during her 18-month kidnapping ordeal, which included being held captive by Somalia’s al-Shabab militants.

What should have been a joyful time for Romano and her family has been marred by displays of bigotry and intolerance in Italy, a majority Catholic country where racist incidents have grown amid anti-migrant sentiment.

There have been no “racist” incidents involving Muslims and we all know why, so let’s say it again for the 32,698th time: Islam is not a race. No matter how often some insist that anti-Islam views constitute “racism,” this still does not make Islam a “race.”

As for “anti-migrant sentiment,” yes, there certainly is that, or more exactly,there is anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment, and for the most obvious of reasons: Muslim immigrants in Italy have not endeared themselves to a struggling Italian population. They do not exhibit the slightest gratitude toward those Italians who welcomed them into their midst. Instead. they view Italy as a cow to be milked; they have taken full advantage of every conceivable benefit the Italian state offers: free or greatly subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, unemployment benefits (even without any previous record of employment in Italy), even family allowances. All of this money spent on Muslim migrants is no longer available for social spending on the Italians themselves, especially the elderly. Young Muslim males have supplemented those extensive welfare benefits with street crime (muggings, purse snatchings), burglaries of houses and the drug trade. More than 60% of Italians say they are now afraid of being the victims of Muslim criminals. The situation is slightly better in the south, where Italian criminal gangs – the Mafia in Sicily, the Camorra in Naples, the ‘Ndrangheta in Calabria – exercise their own sort of extra-legal dominance, holding immigrant criminals in check.

What were the “displays” of “bigotry and intolerance” shown toward Silvia Aisha Romano?

Police were called to the Romano family home in Milan after a glass bottle was thrown against the residence.

That’s it. That’s the one physical “display of bigotry and intolerance”: a single bottle thrown against the Romano family home. Should that even be considered a “display of bigotry and intolerance”? Isn’t it, more exactly, a protest against someone who wholeheartedly embraced the “bigotry and intolerance” of Islam, expressed in the Qur’an, toward Infidels? Or could it be a protest against Silvia Romano for another reason. For by choosing to work in what was within the “kidnapping zone” of al-Shebaab fighters, where European tourists and aid workers had been kidnapped by al-Shebaab in the past, Romano was insufficiently solicitous of those who, were she to be kidnapped, might have to risk their lives to rescue her. In the end, no rescue mission was necessary, but a huge ransom was paid to obtain her freedom; to judge by similar cases, it may have been as high as $6 million. That money will be used by al-Shebaab to pay for other acts of terrorism against Somalis, Kenyans, and the odd European, like Silvia Aisha Romano herself. More people will die as a result of her folly. This hijabbed, green-robed “Aisha” (as she insists she must now be called) has identified with, and embraced, her captors. She has praised them for never tying her up, and for treating her well, even giving her books to read. Her case presents the Stockholm Syndrome on stilts. Why shouldn’t Italians be angered at her attitude? And now what is in store for her? She’s made herself into a walking advertisement for wonderful Islam. Will she continue to do so? Will she become a media personality on Al-Jazeera? No matter how grotesque, anything is possible.

Negative comments on social media have focused on Romano’s decision to convert to Islam, as well as her decision to volunteer in the remote part of Kenya where she was abducted in 2018.

When Silvia Romano left Italy to work in an orphanage on the southeast coast of Kenya, in Kilifili country, she gave no thought to the very high probability that she might be kidnapped by al-Shebaab fighters from Somalia, who would hold her for a ransom that would be used to further their terrorist enterprise. There was a precedent for her plight. Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist (and a Communist), was reporting from Iraq when she was seized in 2005 by terrorists belonging to the Organization of Islamic Jihad. A ransom of 5 million euros was reportedly paid for her release. The head of the Italian Secret Service (SISMI), Nicola Calipari, was shot and killed while accompanying Sgrena to safety. Many have criticized Sgrena for having ignored safety warnings and being in a particularly dangerous part of Iraq; some have blamed her for setting in motion the events that led to the death of Nicola Calipari; Sgrena angrily rejects any such charges. The same charge has been made against Romano: she was surely aware that Al-Shebaab had been known to kidnap people in Kenya, including those whose skills were needed by Al-Shebaab, such as medical personnel and mechanics, or were foreigners who could be held for ransom. Nonetheless, she went to work on the Kenyan coast.

The government has also been criticized for having apparently paid a ransom to her captors.

Alessandro Pagano, a lawmaker from the anti-migrant League Party, drew jeers and a reprimand from colleagues in the lower house of parliament after he mentioned Romano while complaining about the government’s refusal to reopen churches during the coronavirus lockdown.

Pagano alleged there is a “strong anti-religious bent” in Italy’s current coalition government, adding “and yet when a neo-terrorist comes back …” His remark was an apparent reference to the decision by the Italian Premier and Foreign Minister to greet Romano at Rome’s Ciampino airport upon her return.

Why did the Italian Premier and Foreign Minister go to the airport to greet Romano? Was she a great hero? Had she done something marvelous and made the nation of Italy proud? Should the Italian state have signaled to the world that this woman, who converted to Islam, and cost the state a small fortune to obtain her release, was to be celebrated? Why? Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs, ought to have been at Ciampino Airport to greet her. That gave exactly the wrong message. There was no need for any high official to have shown up. At most, a low level member of the security services entrusted with the task of tracking Islamic terrorists might have been sent, to demonstrate that the government regarded “Aisha” Romano not with admiration, but with suspicion. There should have been no crowd of journalists, no television cameras whirring, no personal greeting from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister as Romano stepped down onto the tarmac. She should have been whisked away with her parents to her home, given time to rest up before, in the following days, being called in for extensive interrogation about her experience as a captive of Muslim terrorists.

When Silvia Romano was freed from her 18-month captivity in the hands of al-Shebaab, after the payment of a large ransom by the Italian government to her captors, she arrived in Rome to be welcomed as a returning hero. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister were both at the airport to greet her. There was one loud dissenting voice, from a member of Parliament, Alessandro Pagano, who derided Romano as a “neo-terrorist.” This horrified many of the Great and Good.

The acting president of the Chamber of Deputies, Mara Carfagna, quickly admonished Pagano, saying: “Using the term ‘neo-terrorist’ is thoroughly improper, especially in this chamber.”

Romano’s sympathy for her captors – members of the Muslim terrorist group al-Shebaab — was palpable in her remarks. They never tied her up. They treated her kindly. She had enough to eat. They gave her books to read, including the Qur’an in an Italian translation. She had nothing to say against them for having kidnapped and held her for 18 months. She offered only praise. This makes her at the very least a useful idiot for, and a sympathizer with, terrorists. Finally, she converted to the faith that justified her captors in kidnapping her, a faith that commands Muslims, it bears repetition, to “strike terror in the hearts” of Infidels (as in 3:151 and 8:12). Isn’t that justification enough to earn her the description of “neo-terrorist”?

Democratic Party lawmaker Emanuele Fiano went further, blasting Pagano for accusing a victim of a violent extremist group of committing the crime of terrorism.

“She was a prisoner of a band of terrorists! She was a prisoner of a band of terrorists!” Fiano shouted.

She was indeed “a prisoner of a band of terrorists,” but not only that. She came to share their views by converting to Islam, and had only praise, not blame, for them. She was no longer their victim, but had become their collaborator. She told her tale of being captured, and then walking nine hours a day, at one point even having to walk waist-deep in mud, all the way from Kenya into Somalia, describing it as a kind of excellent adventure.

Pagano defended himself, saying he quoted from a newspaper.

Italian Premier Giuseppe Conte was scathing about anyone trying to politically exploit the young woman’s experience.

“To whoever’s speculating about her, first become a 23-year-old, kidnapped in Kenya, forced to walk nine hours a day, in a forest, by those with Kalashnikovs,” Conte replied when a reporter asked him about the virulent campaign targeting Romano. ”If you live through this experience, come back” and then give an assessment.

Isn’t it Conte himself who, by showing up at the airport to welcome Romano back to Italy, the one who has been “trying to politically exploit” Romano’s release? Isn’t he, as the head of the Italian state, attempting to suggest that it was he, the Prime Minister, who deserves all the credit for Romano’s return to her family and her country?

Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq in 2005, said she also experienced a backlash after she was freed because an Italian agent was killed in a firefight during her rescue.

“Obviously all the polemics begin when it’s a women who is kidnapped,” she told Swiss radio RSI. “No one complains when ransom is paid for a man, or when a man goes to such places. But when it’s a woman, it’s that we went looking for it.”

Sgrena was working in extremely dangerous conditions in Iraq. She was an obvious target for Islamic jihad, but in putting herself in such danger, she thought only of what a boost to her career as a journalist it would be to come back with a story about terrorists. She didn’t think carefully either about the likelihood of capture, nor of what might happen to those sent to rescue her. She was ransomed, for $6 million, money which has only helped finance more terrorism by Islamic jihadis. As she was being escorted to freedom by a major general in Italy’s secret service, SISMI, Nicola Calipari, they were attacked; he shielded her with his own body; and was shot and killed. Sgrena has expressed no guilt over this; she does not think she did anything wrong in ignoring all the warnings of extreme danger that led, ultimately, to the murder of General Calipari. She was determined to make her name as a war correspondent, and reap the reputational and financial rewards that would follow.

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano denounced the “inhuman” attacks on Romano and demanded that her detractors think instead about how much suffering she endured.

The “inhuman” attacks that L’Osservatore Romano claims were launched against Romano in Italy consist of exactly two items: first, a small bottle thrown against the wall of her family’s house, and second, a single epithet – “neo-terrorista” – used by MP Alessandro Pagano in a fiery outburst against her. Both were to be deplored, but can they really be described as “inhuman”? Surely the Vatican newspaper ought to have said something about the “inhuman” attack Romano endured when kidnapped by Kalashnikov-toting terrorists in Kenya, forced to walk for nine hours at a time, sometimes in mud up to her waist, and then was imprisoned for 18 months. Isn’t that an even more “inhuman” attack on Romano than merely calling her a “neo-terrorist”? On this L’Osservatore Romano is silent.

“Silvia Romano’s freedom should have produced joy and nothing else,” the newspaper wrote on May 13. “Instead, it is incredible the sequence of reactions and filthy judgments that have rained down from every corner of the country that have dissected what happened to this child, starting from her original choice.”

Many Italians were displeased with the way the government was treating Aisha Romano as someone to admire, a veritable heroine. They don’t think she did anything heroic, nothing that should have caused the Prime Minister and the minister of foreign affairs to greet her at the airport. Nor do they agree with the Vatican paper’s attempt to excuse her behavior by describing her, a woman in her 20s, as “a child.” Those angered by Romano felt she had identified so completely with her captors as to provide excuses for their behavior: “They didn’t tie me up.” “They gave me books to read.” She seems to overlook the main point: she was held prisoner for 18 months. She had converted to Islam, the very faith that justified her captors’ behavior toward her. She had even changed her name to “Aisha.” Her embrace of Islam was total. Many Italians found her identification with her captors appalling, and expressed their displeasure on social media. Of course her behavior was a fit object of criticism. L’Osservatore Romano wanted her freedom to have “produced joy and nothing else.” Why? Isn’t her conversion worth discussing? Does the Vatican paper wish to celebrate her abandonment of the Christian faith and her embrace of Islam? Is that what the Vatican wishes to become — a cheerleader for those who leave Christianity for Islam?

The famous Italo-Egyptian convert to Christianity Magdi Allam, who grew up as a Muslim in Egypt, has written that he does not believe that Romano’s conversion, despite her assurances, was either “spontaneous” or “free”; he believes that living among dangerous Muslim terrorists for 18 months, men who sensed she might be spiritually malleable, took as one of their objectives — along with the receipt of ransom — convincing her to submit to Islam, it proved impossible for her to resist the intellectual and emotional pressures that she still refuses to recognize. Allam thinks that Romano will, now that she is safely back in Italy, reread and study the Qur’an, look into the most “authentic” Hadith, and will, as a consequence, come to recognize the extreme misogyny of the faith, as well as the murderous hatred toward Infidels, and rethink her conversion. She may also be surprised to learn, Allam points out, that the Muslim name she chose is that of little Aisha, whom Muhammad married when she was six, and with whom he consummated the marriage – that is, had sexual intercourse with her – when Aisha was nine and he was fifty-four. Allam thinks such information, withheld from her by her captives, will shock her into abandoning Islam.

That is Magdi Allam’s hope and his expectancy, and it should be ours as well.

First published in Jihad Watch here and here.