Response to interpellation 2023/24:1 on meetings with representatives for Islam with links to Islamists
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that dialogue with religious communities is important to increase understanding, exchange experiences, and explain the government's position 1 2. KD argues that meetings are not intended to legitimize specific actors but are a tool for consensus 1 and that the dialogue with Islamic Shia communities has enabled cooperation for Swedish interests 2. KD emphasizes that the government is vigilant against threats to the country's security 3 and that a broad dialogue is necessary to promote fundamental principles 3. SD argues that meetings with organizations with Islamist links are inappropriate because Islamism is a women-hostile ideology. SD demands greater awareness and background checks 4 and believes that the Minister for Social Affairs should use their good judgment to avoid choosing communities with values incompatible with Swedish values 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Nima Gholam Ali Pour has asked me whether I intend to invite representatives for Islam to talks with the government in the future even if they have links to Islamists and thereby risk contributing to legitimizing these groups. Nima Gholam Ali Pour has also asked me whether I intend to invite representatives for Islam to talks with the government in the future even if these representatives have links to regimes that violate human rights.
Let me initially emphasize that the government strongly distances itself from and actively works to curb all forms of extremism, regardless of whether it is politically or religiously motivated.
As a minister responsible for the state's support to religious communities, I continuously meet representatives for the religious communities in Sweden. This includes representatives for many different communities and religious orientations. For the government, it is important to have an ongoing and good dialogue with organizations in civil society. This applies to the highest degree also to religious communities. We need an ongoing exchange of experience in issues that are important and current for the government to discuss with the representatives, and vice versa. It does not mean that there is always consensus regarding the issues we discuss, but the goal is to be able to increase understanding through open and constructive dialogues and in this way contribute to change.
Due to the recent Quran burnings, the need for dialogue has been particularly great. It is important and valuable for the government to take part in the religious communities' view of the development of events and how it affects the communities and their members. Equally important is to explain how the government views the development and the measures that the government is putting forward.
Both I and other ministers have on several occasions during the recent period had meetings with representatives for religious communities. The deteriorating security situation makes it necessary to utilize all forces that can counteract this development. I want to simultaneously emphasize that the dialogues with representatives for Sweden's religious communities have not been carried out for the purpose of legitimizing specific actors.
In a previous response to Nima Gholam Ali Pour, I have emphasized that I have strong confidence in the law enforcement authorities' diligent work regarding organizations that promote violent extremism or terrorism or otherwise undermine democracy. Should it be the case that a religious community or a congregation has links to extremism in such a way that they constitute a security problem, the law enforcement authorities will inform the government and other relevant authorities about this.
Let me conclude by emphasizing that dialogue is a powerful tool, especially in a restless time. By continuing to meet, we create opportunities for consensus while remaining vigilant regarding any threats to both our country's security and the fundamental values upon which our society rests.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! I have asked questions about the Minister for Social Affairs' meetings with representatives for Islamic communities who have certain connections that, in my opinion, make the meeting with such representatives inappropriate.
It concerns, among other things, a meeting where a representative for Stockholm Mosque participated. Stockholm Mosque is run by the Islamic Association. There are several experts who argue that the Islamic Association has at least ideological connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement. It is a problem that a minister in Sweden's government has meetings with organizations that have an Islamist ideology.
There are several reasons why this is a problem. First and foremost, Islamism is an ideology that restricts freedom. Freedom has been restricted in all countries where Islamists have taken power. Islamism is a woman-hostile ideology where the woman is seen as a person who has fewer rights than the man. To legitimize such an ideology from the government's side is a problem.
Another reason why such a meeting is a problem is that there is no evidence that Sweden's Muslims are to a greater extent formal members of Islamist organizations or sympathize with the Muslim Brotherhood. Certainly, there are value conflicts between many Muslims and the rest of the population – several reports show this. But there are no reports showing that Sweden's Muslims would to a greater extent be engaged in the so-called Muslim civil society or the Islamic Union.
Madam Speaker! This in turn means that the Minister cannot quite justify his meeting with representatives from the Stockholm Mosque by saying that it is about a dialogue with Muslims or Islamic countries to mitigate the Quran crisis. Certain Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, have even designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. These countries are dictatorships, and a terrorist designation in these countries does not mean the same thing as a terrorist designation within the EU.
However, it is clear that it is not about a dialogue with Muslims when several heavy-weight Islamic countries view the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, but a dialogue with the Stockholm Mosque is a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood – an Islamist movement that should not be granted any form of legitimacy by Sweden's government.
It is important to emphasize that the questions and the interpellation are not an attack on freedom of religion or the government's approach to mitigating the Quran crisis, but rather the questions concern whom one meets, whom one legitimizes, and what consequences this has for society.
We live in a country where, due to politicians' naivety, we had an Islamist in the government during the 2010s who compared jihadists with Swedish volunteers in the Finnish Winter War. I absolutely think the question of Islamists being legitimized by the government is important. It is a problem that politics for a long time has engaged in dialogue with Islamists despite experts and researchers having warned that this has negative consequences for society.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! The Government is vigilant regarding all conceivable threats to Sweden. They can come from different groupings, and they can involve different types of threats, such as influence campaigns, security threats, and terror threats. We have also taken a long series of initiatives in the area where we have tasked many authorities to cooperate better to see, detect, and counter radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. These issues are not something the Government takes lightly.
We think that dialogue is important. The opposite, not having dialogue, is a bad thing in a society – not meeting, not talking to each other and not having conversations about important issues and capturing what, among other things, many Muslims encounter in their everyday lives. The Quran burnings have also triggered other hate and threats against ordinary Muslims in Sweden.
There is a specific background to why we invited representatives from the Stockholm Mosque. Namely, a Quran burning took place in close proximity to the mosque during a Muslim holiday. This was something that made people afraid and was a great concern for many children and others who were on their way to the mosque and encountered this. I do not think it is strange that one then meets with representatives and has a discussion and dialogue about this, where one also explains the government's position: We do not stand behind Quran burnings, but we stand behind Swedish freedom of speech. One has the opportunity to both offend and attack religion and religious dogmas. It is very important.
Having a dialogue about these matters and sorting through this is therefore very important. We meet very many representatives; in August, I believe we met representatives for 17 different communities. I think the dialogue also showed that it is very important for many representatives. Many active Muslims and others are being pressured from different sides in connection with the Quran burnings, from authoritarian regimes and extremist forces and other things.
For the government, it is important to have a dialogue and listen, but also to explain the government's policy and position in this situation. I find it difficult to see that it would be harmful or serious. We do not do it for the purpose of legitimizing any specific communities. It is not the case that any representative represents, for example, all Muslims. It is important to conduct this dialogue broadly, and therefore we invite many different organizations.
In a time when so many want to divide us, it is important that we have the strength to maintain a dialogue also in issues where we have different views. But if there are organizations that constitute a security threat to Sweden, the government will, of course – as I said in my answer to the question – be informed of this.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! What I am requesting in this debate with the Minister is a greater awareness from the government's side of whom one meets and whom one then legitimizes through such meetings. The government legitimizes certain groups by meeting them.
We have a loud minority of Sweden's Muslims who represent Islamist movements with a clear political agenda. It is important that the government does not contribute to giving these Islamist groups more space and portraying them as Islam's representatives, or the Muslims' representatives, in Sweden.
Previous governments have made the mistake of giving these Islamist groups a large space. It is actually mistakes that have been regretted, because in the end, when the media begins to dig up what values these Islamist groups actually represent, those are not values one wants to be associated with. The scandals surrounding the Islamic Association have been many. They have many times invited speakers to Sweden who have spread hatred against certain groups, especially against women, Jews, and LGBTQ persons.
When I say awareness, I mean that one should do a simple background check of what these organizations have done in recent years and what values they represent. If we take, for example, the Minister for Social Affairs' meeting with the Islamic Shia Associations, I have previously explained from this rostrum to the Minister for Social Affairs that there is no doubt that the Islamic Shia Associations and the Imam Ali Islamic Center have close links to the regime in Iran.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Social Affairs does not need to rely solely on my word - there are several experts who say the same thing. Nor is it something that the Islamic Shia Communities in any way try to hide. It is not illegal to have the sympathies and connections with the regime in Iran that the Islamic Shia Communities in Sweden have, but it is inappropriate for the Minister for Social Affairs to invite this Islamic community to a meeting and give them a legitimacy that they actually lack. They lack this legitimacy because the regime in Iran conducts proxy wars in many Islamic countries, such as Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. We have Muslims in Sweden whose relatives are victims of the mullahs' proxy wars in the Middle East. It is mostly regime supporters who join the Islamic Shia Communities in Sweden. It is not an organization that represents Muslims in Sweden; it is more of a political organization than a religious organization.
The assessment of which religious organizations should be granted a certain legitimacy by the government through the government having meetings with them shall not be made by any authority; instead, the Council of State and its staff must use their good judgment moving forward to exclude Islamist organizations or organizations that have links to rogue states.
I see no reason why the Swedish government should meet with Islamist organizations with questionable backgrounds and links to rogue states. I do not understand how that can be justified at all, especially not when they do not represent any significant part of Sweden's Muslims.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have already in several remarks explained why dialogue is important and why we sometimes need to have it, also when we disagree, with representatives from organizations that are active in Sweden and which actually have many members. They can paint a picture of what members and people in Sweden encounter in their everyday lives.
At the same time, we are always vigilant and take various types of initiatives to curb violence-promoting extremism, terrorism, and other activities that seek to undermine democratic values. We have taken several such initiatives and plan to return to the Riksdag with proposals for a new regulatory framework for, for example, grant-giving.
Let me say something about the Islamic Shia Communities in Sweden, as the interpellor raises it. They have participated in several of the meetings. Partly as a result of those dialogues, we in Agenda heard the chairman account for how he could have been of assistance to the Swedish embassy, not in Iran but in Iraq, and contribute to promoting Swedish interests internationally through his contacts and by explaining Swedish legislation in different ways.
Was it bad? Should he not have assisted with this? I believe that a consequence of us having a dialogue is that many want to be involved and contribute in different ways to mitigate an extremely concerning security situation around our country.
A concrete question is: Was it a mistake by the Swedish mission to accept that aid?
The second point is that I interpret the interpellor as meaning that it is the specific communities that he does not want anyone to have a dialogue with. Which communities does the interpellor consider that the government and others should have a dialogue with?
If we agree that dialogue is important, we also need to conduct dialogue with representatives of Muslim religious communities in Sweden. It would be good and important to know who we should conduct dialogue with, if we agree that dialogue is something good and positive where we can exchange experiences but also explain and defend fundamental Swedish legislation and Swedish values and safeguard freedom of religion and freedom of association. It is important so that people with different faiths can live side by side in Sweden.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! It is absolutely important that one engages in dialogue with all religious communities in Sweden. But it is not up to me to judge which communities the Minister for Social Affairs should conduct talks with. The Minister for Social Affairs may use his good judgment and choose the communities that he wishes to conduct talks with. It is, however, important that one does not choose communities that have values that are absolutely not compatible with the values that many here in Sweden subscribe to, whether one is an immigrant or ethnically Swedish.
When it comes to Islamic Shia communities in Sweden, the Revolutionary Guard in Iran could also have been helpful in an area such as the Middle East. Just because one is helpful and at a certain time can benefit Swedish interests does not mean that one has values that the Minister for Social Affairs should legitimize. I hope the Minister for Social Affairs understands that.
The reason I submitted this interpellation is that many questions arise when representatives of Sweden's government meet Islamic communities that stand for rather oppressive values, even if they may have been helpful. There is no doubt that the two organizations I have mentioned have a problematic background and connections to Islamism. The question is whether the minister's meeting with these organizations was a mistake or if it is something that will be repeated.
We agree that dialogue is good. However, the question is which organizations one meets and what one is actually legitimizing. It becomes quite strange that a community that has links to the regime in Iran is repeatedly to be included in meetings with Sweden's government.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Nima Gholam Ali Pour for an interesting debate and for the exchange of views.
I want to emphasize once again that the government is vigilant regarding any threats to both our country's security and the fundamental values upon which our society rests. Organizations that would threaten these have no place at the meeting table or in Sweden.
The government's starting point is simultaneously that religious communities overall are vote-bearers in our democracy. They contribute social and humanitarian efforts to members but also make contributions to society at large in important issues.
There must, of course, be a well-functioning dialogue between the public sector and religious communities, so that we have knowledge of each other's realities and what members and citizens encounter. It is extremely important for the government, even when we do not agree on everything. In those cases, we have an exchange on this. Then we explain and defend, for example, Swedish freedom of speech and why the government acts in a certain way.
I mean that it is important to conduct that dialogue broadly and with many different religious communities in Sweden, not to legitimize any specific ones but to get a broad picture and have a broad dialogue.
It is the government's duty to promote the fundamental principles that our society rests on, including those linked to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and human rights. By engaging in dialogue with different communities, we have the opportunity to influence and encourage respect for those principles, which all different religions benefit from. It is about the possibility of having a faith and living side by side with others. It is particularly important in a time when many want to take those rights away from us.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.