Denmark rejects citizenship for Islamic leader Hafiz Idrees

Denmark’s parliament has rejected the citizenship application of Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, a prominent Islamic leader who heads the Danish branch of Minhaj-ul-Quran, after concluding he promotes anti-democratic and Islamist views. The decision, taken by the Folketing’s Naturalization Committee, came despite officials noting that Idrees met all formal naturalization criteria. The case has intensified debate over whether Denmark should screen applicants’ beliefs and public statements, marking a sharper turn toward ideological vetting in naturalization decisions.

Immigration Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek framed Danish citizenship as a “major declaration of confidence from Danish society,” saying people who hold anti-democratic views should not receive it. Idrees was singled out for promoting books tied to theocratic ideology, including content that endorses punishments like stoning and flogging for adultery. While Idrees has not been charged with any crime and reportedly passed the usual checks, the decision underscores a growing political consensus to deny citizenship to people lawmakers believe reject Denmark’s democratic norms.

Role of the Naturalization Committee

The Naturalization Committee holds a unique role in Denmark’s system: it can approve or deny citizenship even when applicants meet the legal requirements. Historically, that power has mostly been used to formalize approvals. In this case, the committee used it to block a candidate who cleared standard hurdles but failed what lawmakers describe as a test of democratic commitment.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the move stands out because it shifts focus from objective criteria toward subjective assessments of ideology and behavior.

Policy shifts and official rationale

• Decision-maker: The Folketing’s Naturalization Committee, which has final say even when applicants satisfy legal criteria.
• Government stance: Citizenship is a trust-based bond; people seen as promoting anti-democratic or Islamist ideology should be refused.
• Specific criticism: Authorities cited Idrees’ promotion of books that support theocratic punishments, including stoning and flogging.
• Context: Growing scrutiny of beliefs, including reviews of social media posts, has expanded since late 2024.

This shift has roots in years of political debate about integration and citizenship rules. Right-wing parties, including the Danish People’s Party, have pushed for stricter controls to prevent people they view as hostile to democratic values from gaining passports. While the Idrees decision aligns with that push, it also reflects a broader cross-party mood to tighten access for people deemed out of step with Danish norms, especially where religion and politics intersect.

Changes to screening and the controversy

Officials say the Idrees case aligns with a broader change underway. In late 2024, authorities began interviewing certain applicants about their social media activity. These interviews have sparked controversy and human rights questions, especially among civil society groups and lawyers who argue that belief-based screening risks unequal treatment of people from Muslim-majority countries.

An expert group is reviewing how far Denmark can go in screening for “anti-democratic” attitudes, and whether those tools are lawful and workable.

Important: The expert group’s findings will be central to whether belief-based screening expands, is limited, or is found to conflict with legal protections and human rights obligations.

Impact on applicants and communities

For prospective citizens, the practical takeaway is that meeting objective criteria may not be enough if public statements, online activity, or community leadership roles raise doubts with the Naturalization Committee.

Key questions applicants now face:
– How are “anti-democratic” views defined?
– What kinds of books, speeches, or online posts will be seen as crossing a line?
– Will older posts or statements count against applicants who say they’ve changed their views?

Consequences and concerns:
– Predictability for applicants diminishes when ideological assessment plays a role.
– Families can be left in limbo despite satisfying residence, exam, and documentation rules.
– Community groups worry broad screening will chill free speech and encourage self-censorship.
– Officials counter that Denmark has a right to insist on a clear commitment to democracy as citizenship confers full political participation and an unqualified right to remain.

Possible policy developments

The government is considering additional measures, including:
1. Conditional citizenship
2. Extra screening focused on public statements and social media
3. Expanded interviews about applicants’ past online activity

These ideas have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and rights groups, who warn they may:
– Risk discrimination
– Clash with international human rights conventions
– Be difficult to apply consistently and transparently

An expert group examining the legality and practicality of belief-based screening will likely influence any next steps.

Community context: Minhaj-ul-Quran and Idrees’ role

Minhaj-ul-Quran, the organization led by Idrees in Denmark, is a global religious movement with branches in several countries. In Copenhagen and other cities, its local chapters run prayer services and community events. Supporters view it as a mainstream faith group.

Critics in parliament say some promoted writings associated with the movement endorse theocratic ideas that clash with Denmark’s legal order. Idrees’ leadership role in Minhaj-ul-Quran was part of the scrutiny, as officials reviewed what materials he promoted and how they aligned with democratic norms.

Practical advice for applicants

If parliament moves ahead with new screening tools, applicants should prepare carefully:

• Keep records of public posts and consider providing context where needed.
• Be ready to explain past statements that could be read as supporting undemocratic ideas.
• Seek advice from community organizations and lawyers familiar with the Naturalization Committee process.

Legal and social implications

VisaVerge.com reports that the Idrees decision is unusual because it breaks from the traditional reliance on objective criteria. It signals to applicants—especially from Muslim-majority countries—that public views may now carry more weight than before, even when they pass exams and meet time-in-country rules.

Many Danish Muslims view the decision as evidence of a possible double standard, fearing a special burden placed on their communities. The case raises broader questions about line-drawing between protected expression and disqualifying endorsement of undemocratic practices.

Key dilemma: Denmark prides itself on free expression, yet citizenship decisions increasingly weigh speech. Lawmakers must determine how to assess ideology fairly, transparently, and consistently, without making religion a proxy for loyalty.

Where to find official guidance

For readers seeking background on nationality rules, Denmark’s Ministry of Immigration and Integration – Danish citizenship overview publishes guidance on citizenship policy, including how parliament handles naturalization. That overview is available here: Ministry of Immigration and Integration – Danish citizenship overview.

The page explains the parliamentary role and the legal framework within which the Naturalization Committee operates, although it does not detail individual cases.

Conclusion

The Idrees ruling signals that, in Denmark’s evolving naturalization policy, ideology has moved from the edges to the center. For now, the decision stands as a warning that the formal checklist is only part of the journey: the content one shares, the leaders one follows, and the books one promotes can determine outcomes—even when every other box is ticked.