Lubna Mohamed Miludi, considered the last Spanish widow of the so-called Islamic State, has returned to Spain with her minor son after years in Syria. Both lived in the Roj camp in north-eastern Syria, where they had been taken after the death of her husband, a French IS fighter.
Redaction Spanien Press
Immediately after her arrival, she was brought before the Audiencia Nacional, which ordered her provisional release on bail while investigations into her alleged membership of a terrorist organisation continue. According to investigators, Lubna returned to Ceuta ‘with the same convictions’ with which she left in 2014 to join the caliphate.
Her return has reignited a debate that has divided Europe for years: should states repatriate women and children who have joined IS, or is it safer to leave them in the Kurdish-controlled camps?
Spain is bringing them back – other European countries are not
While the Spanish government is gradually bringing Spanish women and their children back from Syria – including Lubna and, previously, women such as Yolanda Martínez Cobos and Luna Fernández Grande – other countries are taking a much tougher line.
United Kingdom: The Begum case as a symbol of zero tolerance
The best-known case is that of Shamima Begum, who fled to Syria in 2015 at the age of 15. London revoked her citizenship and continues to refuse her return, a decision that has been upheld in court on several occasions. The government justifies this on the grounds of national security.
Netherlands: No legal obligation to repatriate
In 2020, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the state is not obliged to repatriate Dutch women from the camps in Syria. Although some children have been brought back, The Hague remains strict when it comes to the mothers – many of whom have arrest warrants out against them.
Belgium and other EU countries: Only limited repatriations
Belgium has repatriated some minors and a small number of mothers, but is generally reluctant to do so. France, Germany and Austria are also extremely selective and attach strict security conditions to any return. Many governments fear political costs and the difficulty of conducting court proceedings with reliable evidence from war zones.
Security versus human rights: Europe’s unresolved conflict
The Lubna case comes at a time of growing international pressure: thousands of children of European origin continue to live in extreme conditions in the Al-Hol and Roj camps, at risk from violence, disease and radicalisation.
The states that refuse repatriation argue primarily that:
-
There is a threat to internal security: some women are still considered radicalised or could spread propaganda.
-
Legal limitations: Many governments emphasise that their citizens are outside their territory and therefore have no enforceable right to be repatriated.
-
Political risks: Repatriating IS members is unpopular with the public.
Spain is taking a different approach: repatriation, arrest, trial and, if possible, reintegration programmes.
A difficult new beginning for Ceuta
Lubna’s return also puts the spotlight on Ceuta. The city, which has seen repeated cases of radicalisation in recent years, now faces the challenge of taking in a woman who, according to investigators, shows no clear signs of renouncing extremism.
Her son, who was born in the Syrian war zone, has to find his way in a completely new environment – far away from the camps where he spent the first years of his life.
Europe without a common response
The case shows once again how differently Europe is dealing with the consequences of the IS war. There is no common approach, and each country decides according to its own political and legal situation.
Spain is bringing its citizens back and putting them on trial.
Other countries consistently refuse to repatriate them.
Meanwhile, hundreds of women and children in Syria continue to wait for a decision – caught between security concerns and humanitarian obligations, to which Europe has yet to find a unified response.
