Conditions for Violent Radicalization. A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Conditions for Salafist Radicalization in Germany

Studies investigating the causes of violent radicalization tend to have two biases: first, they are often based on mono-causal theoretical explanations. Second, they are mostly focusing on violent cases thus omitting the fact that many radicalization processes do not end in violence but rather (and sometimes socially and politically not less problematic) result in disintegration or question basic norms of liberal democracies. Hence, we observe a double bias in the literature: a narrow explanans: the monocausal conditions; and a narrow explanandum: the study of exclusively violent cases. Given the omissions in these studies, we aim at examining systematically the combinations of conditions that explain the legitimization or the call for violent acts. This is done through a comparison of radical Salafist groups in Germany – both non-violent and violent ones – using a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA) across 43 cases. QCA allows us to discover causal complexity across a medium-size sample of cases. The cases cover all Salafist hotspots in Germany identified by security agencies. We corroborated and adapted the sample by expert interviews with experts from other security agencies, civil society organizations in prevention practice, and academia. We included all radical groups that were of relevance in 2016 and 2017. Our study focuses on five explanatory clusters that we derive from a thorough survey of the literature as well as preliminary case studies: first, the ideological composition of the group; second, the (non-religious) degree of socialization within the group; third, the willingness to missionize along certain ideological lines (in the case of Salafism, problematic kinds of dawa activities), fourthly, the interaction of the group with the state and other intervening actors (co-radicalization); and, fifth, with other (for instance, right-wing) radical groups (cumulative radicalization). To categorize our observations with regard to the single conditions, we relied on the two data sources mentioned above (reports by security agencies, corroborating interviews) as well as on secondary sources such as media reports, other studies, and, in some cases, field research.