Radicalisation and the Limits of Tolerance: A Danish Case-Study

Abstract

Since 2004/05, radicalisation has emerged as the major framework for addressing the presence of extremist views and actions among Muslims in the West. In 2009 the Danish government drafted an action plan to prevent radicalisation. Departing from an empirical study of a neo-orthodox Muslim milieu in Denmark, this article places the definition of radicalisation provided by the Danish action plan in the context of the target group's own ideas on Islam, jihad, democracy and terrorism, and argues that the definition not only conflates circumstantial differences highlighted by interviewees, but also neglects to distinguish properly between individual sympathies and group affiliation, attitudes and actions. The definition is further criticised for problematising opinions and/or attitudes that are illiberal or un-democratic, but which hitherto have been considered to be within the limits of tolerance. This is obviously questionable from a liberal-democratic perspective but, more importantly, this may prove to be counter-productive in terms of security, as it can push certain Muslim positions even further to the margins of society. The article argues that the conflation of central distinctions in the official discourse of radicalisation has narrowed the limits of tolerance, and that this move reflects a general development towards ‘perfectionist liberalism’ in Western societies post-9/11.