Belgium has long attracted attention—and alarm—as Europe’s disproportionate contributor to jihadist extremism.
For a nation of just over 11 million, its footprint in global terror networks is striking: the 2016 Brussels bombings, foiled plots in Verviers, and a series of smaller but lethal attacks illustrate a persistent security challenge.
At the heart of Belgium’s radicalisation problem lies entrenched socio-economic disadvantage. Brussels, the administrative heart of the European Union, is home to neighbourhoods such as Molenbeek, notorious for high unemployment, low educational attainment, and limited opportunities for upward mobility.
“High unemployment, social exclusion, and identity crises create fertile conditions for extremism, but ideology transforms vulnerability into action.”
Young men—particularly of Moroccan or Turkish descent—often face a dual identity crisis. Socially alienated from broader Belgian society while simultaneously distanced from traditional community structures, they are vulnerable to narratives promising purpose, belonging, and empowerment.
Voluntary Segregation and Structural Vulnerability
Districts like Brussels’ Molenbeek are effectively enclaves, characterised by substandard housing, low-skilled employment, and limited civic engagement. Such isolation fosters collective frustration and nurtures grievances, which radical actors exploit.
Yet socio-economic hardship alone does not explain the phenomenon. Across Belgium—and indeed across Europe—other marginalised communities face similar conditions without succumbing to violent extremism.
Economically disadvantaged Black populations, for example, endure chronic unemployment and social exclusion but have not produced organised terrorism. This discrepancy confirms the decisive role of ideology, community structure, and identity narratives.
Foreign Influence and Conservative Interpretations of Islam
Conservative readings of Islam, imported or financed by foreign actors, have permeated Belgian Muslim communities, amplifying social alienation. The Great Mosque of Brussels, historically managed by Saudi Arabia, exemplifies the complex interplay between religious practice and external influence.
Networks such as Sharia4Belgium illustrate the consequences of this influence. Fouad Belkacem’s group explicitly sought to establish an Islamic state within Belgium and recruited fighters for ISIS, reflecting the intersection of local grievances with transnational jihadist ideology.
Prisons as Incubators of Extremism
Belgium’s penal system has emerged as a locus of radicalisation. The 2018 Liège attack, carried out by a prison inmate radicalised during incarceration, underscores the risks of ideological exposure within correctional facilities. Incarcerated individuals, already marginalised socially and economically, are often highly receptive to narratives that promise empowerment and purpose.
Addressing prison-based radicalisation requires law enforcement, surveillance, and rehabilitation initiatives—efforts that Belgium has implemented unevenly.
A particularly perplexing feature of Belgian radicalisation is the willingness of some extremists to reject the very society that sustains them materially. Many have benefited from Belgian education, welfare, and legal protections yet adopt ideologies that delegitimise these institutions.
“Radicalisation flourishes where deprivation intersects with ideological imperatives that frame host-nation values as morally or religiously deficient.”
Analysts speculate that this reflects a tension inherent in certain conservative interpretations of Islam: adherence to religious doctrine and community obligations can, in some readings, supersede loyalty to secular civic norms.
Observers note that some young men—particularly of Moroccan or Turkish descent—appear socially alienated not only by wider society but also through the very religious networks intended to support them. Certain Imams and mosques, critics argue, may consciously or unconsciously cultivate a sense of separateness, emphasising religious distinctiveness over civic integration and framing engagement with mainstream Belgian society as morally or spiritually subordinate to community or doctrinal obligations.
“Some young men appear socially alienated not only by wider society but also through the very religious networks intended to support them.”
This phenomenon, often mediated through sermons or study circles stressing obedience to religious authority, can heighten susceptibility to extremist narratives, particularly when coupled with socio-economic disadvantage. Radical recruiters exploit this dual alienation, offering a framework in which social estrangement is recast as religious virtue and militant action as a legitimate response.
It is important to emphasise that most mosques actively encourage civic participation, integration, and social cohesion. Yet in a minority of cases, the combination of local deprivation, foreign ideological influence, and selective religious messaging can create conditions in which deliberate or inadvertent alienation amplifies vulnerability to extremism.
Case Studies: Brussels, Verviers, and Liège
The 2016 Brussels bombings exemplify the culmination of these converging factors. The attackers were products of networks cultivated over years of local radicalisation, influenced by foreign ideology, and motivated by identity-driven grievances. Similarly, the 2015 Verviers plot revealed the presence of active jihadist cells operating within the country, highlighting that radicalisation is rarely spontaneous—it is an incremental process nurtured by social, economic, and ideological factors.
Molenbeek, often dubbed Europe’s “jihadi central,” illustrates the mechanisms of radicalisation at the community level. High unemployment, segregated schooling, substandard housing, and pervasive social exclusion create fertile soil for extremist narratives. Young men in such communities, facing limited prospects and social dislocation, find in radical ideology a sense of agency, belonging, and purpose.
Belgium has responded with a multi-pronged strategy combining law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and community engagement. Counter-radicalisation programmes seek to address both immediate threats and the long-term social conditions that enable extremism. Initiatives include efforts to improve access to education and employment, foster tolerance and civic engagement, and rehabilitate individuals returning from conflict zones.
Despite these measures, challenges remain. Integration policies struggle to penetrate insular communities where mistrust of state institutions is high. Foreign ideological influence continues to shape local religious practice. Recruitment networks are adaptive and resilient, requiring counter-radicalisation measures to evolve continually. The Belgian experience demonstrates that a purely enforcement-driven approach is insufficient; sustained engagement with socio-economic and ideological factors is essential.
Comparative Perspectives
Deprivation does not automatically translate into extremism. Communities that share many of the socio-economic challenges of Molenbeek—economically disadvantaged Black populations do not display similar patterns of organised radicalisation. Analysts attribute this divergence to differences in ideological frameworks, communal cohesion, and historical narratives.
“Similar deprivation in other communities does not produce equivalent extremism, illustrating the decisive role of belief systems, identity, and perceived moral obligation.”
Without a compelling ideological justification for rejecting host-nation values, socio-economic grievance remains contained within conventional social channels rather than manifesting in violence.
Ideological Tensions and Cultural Integration
Scholars speculate that the tension between certain conservative interpretations of Islam and Western liberal democracies is a key factor in radicalisation. In some cases, individuals may prioritise religious obligations and communal loyalty over civic integration, even when materially dependent on the host state. This helps explain why radicalised individuals can benefit from Belgian social services yet embrace ideologies that implicitly undermine the legitimacy of those very services.
Belgium’s radicalisation crisis is a product of intertwined social, economic, and ideological forces. High unemployment, social exclusion, and identity crises create fertile conditions for extremism, but ideology—especially conservative or fundamentalist interpretations of Islam—transforms vulnerability into action. Foreign influence, selective religious guidance, and community-level alienation further exacerbate the problem, while prisons serve as incubators of radical thought.
Addressing these challenges requires more than policing and intelligence work. Social policy, community engagement, and ideological counter-narratives are essential components of a holistic response. Belgium’s experience demonstrates that effective counter-radicalisation depends on addressing both material deprivation and ideological appeal.
Durable solutions lie not in repression alone but in cultivating opportunity, belonging, and civic resilience. Durable solutions also require will from the community in question to integrate and to accept the culture – and the laws – of the hosts, and there appears to be little, if any, will to do this.
Main Image: CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=759355
