Australia’s ‘ISIS brides’ have returned. Governments can do better at handling this situation

In 2014, the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group declared a caliphate, a form of Islamic government headed by a caliph, considered to be a successor to the prophet Muhammad. This correlated with a global campaign of terror and 53,000 foreigners from 80 countries travelling to support IS (sometimes also referred to as ISIS).

Domestically, there was also a surge in jihadist activity, with nine terrorist attacks and an estimated 207 Australians emigrating to Syria and Iraq to support IS.

Although only about 17% of emigres were women, their actions at the time were typically assumed to have been motivated by ignorance, coercion or innocently following their husbands’ orders. Many of them ended up in Syria’s internally displaced person’s (IDP) camps.

Now, some of these so-called “ISIS brides” have made their way back to Australia.

On September 26, two women and four children arrived in Victoria after smuggling themselves out of one of Syria’s IDP camps. The group was detained in Lebanon before passing security checks and being issued Australian passports.

The Albanese government has said it did not formally assist in repatriating this cohort. Controversy, government scrutiny and a Senate Estimates hearing have ensued. In the process, it has reignited political debate over the nature of the women’s return, the security threat posed by “jihadi brides”, and how they will be reintegrated back into Australian society.

This precarity could have been avoided. As I and others have consistently argued, it is the legal, humanitarian, national and international security obligation of Western states to repatriate, rehabilitate, and prosecute or reintegrate their citizens.

Without formal repatriation, we risk the unregulated movement of IS emigres, and exacerbate the inhumane conditions of the IDP camps. We also fail to bring those who have committed crimes to justice.

How did we get here?

Despite the current furore, these are not the first IS-linked Australian women and children to return from overseas.

In March 2019, when IS lost the Syrian town of Baghouz, its last pocket of territory, thousands of individuals were detained in northeast Syria. While men and boys were transferred to detention camps, women and children were placed into the al-Hol and al-Roj IDP camps.

These camps currently over hold 40,000 inhabitants, 8,500 of whom are from countries other than Syria and Iraq. This means IS supporters and their victims (such as the Iraqi Yazidis) are confined to the same quarters.

Food and medical supplies are scarce, violence is commonplace, and IS ideology persists.

Like other Western nations, Australia has been hesitant to repatriate. There are various reasons for this, including security concerns around the threat these women pose, anxieties within communities facing the prospect of living together, and of course, the practical logistical hurdles of actually bringing them back and gathering the intelligence needed to determine their motivations and actions.

This is despite nongovernmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Save the Children maintaining that these detainees are being held arbitrarily, unlawfully and indefinitely.

According to Home Affairs, approximately 60 Australian men, women and children remain offshore, with roughly 30 women and children still in IDP camps.

In 2019, the Morrison government repatriated eight Australian children from Syria, including five children and grandchildren of the infamous Australian couple Khaled Sharrouf and Tara Nettleton.

In 2022, the Albanese government repatriated four women and 13 children. Subsequently in 2024, one of the repatriated, Mariam Raad, was sentenced for willingly entering an area controlled by a terrorist organisation (Syria).

These regulated and transparent repatriations received considerably less scrutiny relative to the current situation, which has been shrouded in uncertainty and secrecy.

Women in Islamic State

There’s been much speculation about why Western women emigrated to join the Islamic State. Some claim they were victims, trafficked, tricked or coerced into joining the group. Others claim they willingly travelled, but “only” as a mother or wife.

A look at IS’s official English-language propaganda offers insight into the gendered appeals used to mobilise Western women. My analysisindicates IS needs women to advance their strategic objectives. This means the security threat once or currently posed by women should not be dismissed by benevolent sexism.

IS appealed to Western women in its propaganda through five female representations of how “good” women should and should not behave. Of the five, “supporters”,“mothers/sisters/wives” and “fighters” represent standards to be emulated.

“Supporters” are Western women who must perform hijrah (emigration). “Mothers/sisters/wives” play on a militarised motherhood that presents childrearing as a mechanism to support IS. And when necessary, “fighters” must join men on the front lines.

Taken together, these representations project an alternative gender order that advances IS’ objectives. As those objectives on the ground change, so, too, does the nature of these appeals. When IS was relatively strong, governing territory and populations, it emphasised women’s roles as “supporters” and “mothers/sisters/wives”. When it reverted back to an insurgency as its territorial Caliphate crumbled, women were portrayed fighting alongside men.

Not to say that all Australian women connected to IS engaged in crimes. Some may have been victims themselves and will require rehabilitation after years in appalling conditions. Nevertheless, benevolent sexism should not form the basis of policy responses to a complex security, legal and humanitarian matter.

Simply labelling women “ISIS brides” misrepresents the full spectrum of violent and non-violent roles Western women activelyfilled to support the organisation.

Even if women were “only” mothers and wives, if they chose to travel in support of IS (which is a crime under Australian law), then being a “mother” and “wife” is exactly what IS asked them to do.

Does the public have cause for concern?

State and federal government departments have effectively managed previous repatriations. They will again have similar measures in place.

Indeed, in the recent Senate Estimates hearing, Home Affairs confirmed they knew of the women’s plans since June, and the Australian Federal Police ensure the appropriate criminal and counter-terrorism investigations are underway.

Nevertheless, scrutiny of the fact that the six Australians were able to smuggle themselves out of Syria is warranted. To avoid situations like this, the Australian and other Western governments should formally and transparently repatriate their remaining women and children as a matter of urgency.

Kiriloi M. Ingram is affiliated with The University of Queensland and the Australian Institute of International Affairs