Salafi-Jihadist mobilisation: a thematic analysis of narratives of citizenship revocation and statelessness

<p dir="ltr">The expansion of revocation of citizenship powers as a counter-terrorism (CT) strategy has led to significant scholarly debate on how to balance national security and citizenship rights. This debate has centred on how best to prevent domestic terrorism, the risk management of returning foreign fighters, issues of international law, and associated concerns that the revocation process may render people stateless. Whilst the arguments of governments and legal and human rights experts are readily available, there has been a paucity of research exploring these themes from the perspective of those they target: Salafi-Jihadist groups/individuals. This study aims to move the debate from speculative to one informed by evidence. It fills this gap by providing a nuanced understanding of how citizenship revocation and statelessness have been used in Salafi-Jihadist narratives to mobilise ideological and physical support. This is achieved through the presentation of a series of case studies that analyse the speeches and writings of key Salafi-Jihadist idealogues spanning the 1970s to the current day; Abdullah Azzam, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abu Bakr Naji, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. A thematic analysis using grounded theory principles was used to examine how narratives of revocation of citizenship and statelessness were used by these key influencers to mobilise ideological support. This novel exploration has been further refined by developing a thematic framework for each case study, and using social mobilisation theory (SMT) as a tool to better understand how these themes function to affect action.</p><p dir="ltr">This study empirically demonstrates that the themes of citizenship revocation and statelessness are present across all four case studies, and have contributed to ideological mobilisation in two key ways: 1. by helping to build a shared, transnational Muslim identity, and 2. by highlighting that Islam is supposedly under attack by non-believers. Importantly, a shift can be seen in the most contemporary case study associated with Islamic State (IS); the narrative of Baghdadi, where revocation of citizenship is highlighted as an unjustifiable attack on Muslim citizens falsely accused of terrorism. These findings represent an original contribution to scholarly debate because it is the first study to use an evidence based thematic analysis method, an approach anchored in established theory, to better understand how the themes of citizenship revocation and statelessness are being used by terrorists to recruit. This moves the debate from speculative to evidence informed, and highlights the need for further research into how terrorist narratives respond to government counter-terrorism policies. This study also adds to the scholarly knowledge of mobilising narratives of terrorist ideologues and demonstrates the utility of SMT as a tool to understand why their messaging works as an effective mobilising strategy.</p><p dir="ltr">These findings have significant implications for preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) policy and practice. Specifically, findings suggest that citizenship revocation should be considered in P/CVE service and program evaluations to better understand the impact on frontline engagement and social cohesion. CVE staff should be supported to better understand how citizenship revocation could emerge as part of risk assessment, intervention, and reintegration risk-needs. In terms of practice, the reintegration plans for religiously motivated violent extremist offenders may benefit from a specific focus on ways to explore features of their collective identity via pro-social community connections. In addition, developing a nuanced and evidence-based understanding of the relationship between these four key narratives and CT policy enhances the ability of scholars and practitioners to respond effectively via evidence informed counter-narratives.</p>