Response to interpellation 2024/25:691 on the construction of new mosques

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Richard Jomshof has asked the Minister for Social Affairs if he intends to take any general measures to prevent the continued construction of mosques on Swedish soil with direct links to Muslim dictatorships and Islamist forces, and if so, which ones. The interpellation has been submitted to me.

Recently, the head of the Swedish Security Service decided to lower the terror threat level from a high threat to an elevated threat – from a four to a three on a five-point scale. But even though the terror threat level has been lowered, we continue to be in a serious security situation.

We are dealing with three parallel threats to the internal security of our country: organized crime, state actors acting in hostile ways against Sweden in various ways, and violent extremism and terrorism. In recent years, we have also seen how these threats are increasingly intertwined. To meet these threats, the government continues its work to make our society more resilient. This involves several different things, including tightened legislation and new and more effective tools to prevent and combat serious crime.

An important part of this work concerns accessing the financial structures that contribute to undermining, challenging, or attacking the democratic system of government in order to instead create parallel social structures or increase the recruitment and radicalization capacity within extremist environments.

The government has therefore recently commissioned a special investigator to consider and propose rules that prohibit or otherwise counter foreign funding of religious communities and other activities in Sweden with links to Islamism, extremism, and other anti-democratic interests. The purpose of this is to prevent extremist and other anti-democratic environments in Sweden from being strengthened through such financial support from other states, foreign organizations, or financiers.

The assignment shall be reported by May next year at the latest, and I look forward to then taking part in the investigation's conclusions and proposals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! As a result of a forced mass immigration, Sweden is today demonstrably struggling with very difficult problems in the form of segregation, insecurity, gang violence, and organized crime. We see similar decay in many Western European countries. Europe, including Sweden, has also been hit by a long series of Muslim terrorist attacks where radical Muslims have run people over with cars and trucks, blown people up with homemade bombs, and murdered people with firearms, axes, and knives.

At the same time, a threat is growing in silence. It is an Islamization that is moving faster and faster and is eating itself ever deeper into the democratic body of society. I want to liken it to a parasite that takes its nourishment from everything that our democratic society naively offers. It is a parasite that is already causing great damage and which, in the long run, threatens to destroy us from within. Every time these forces are allowed to advance their positions – unfortunately often with the good memory of the other parties – the damage to the democratic body of society increases.

The project Vi mår bra is an example. Their goal is that there should be at least one mosque in every Swedish city. Behind the project stand individuals with connections to terrorist organizations but also to Salafism, i.e., the most literalist variant of interpretations within Sunni Islam. Right now, collections are underway for 16 new mosques. A large number are already fully funded and completed.

We have previously been able to see how a long line of mosques in Sweden have been used to promote extremism, spread antisemitism and misogyny, celebrate terrorist groups, and even function as foreign spy centers. They attack our democracy and our institutions – our Sweden. It is therefore mosques that function as hideouts for Islamists and terrorists and which have connections to a long line of countries. It concerns dictatorships and semi-dictatorships such as Turkey, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan and so on. There are also mosques with connections to Saudi Arabia and Qatar – countries that recognize the already mentioned salafism. There are also mosques with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and so on.

This is not about any peaceful mission. It is about spreading a fundamentally hateful message. It is about increasing segregation and division and gaining power and influence. The goal is to take our democracy away from us. This is the purpose of these groups' – the Islamists' – activities.

The Minister of Justice answers that a special investigator has been tasked to consider reviewing the regulatory frameworks, not least when it concerns the financing of religious communities, for example with links to Islamism. That is very good. The purpose is to prevent other states, foreign organizations or financiers from strengthening their activities here in Sweden. It is good that we have finally landed on such a decision. But on one hand, I regret the sluggishness, and on the other hand, I wonder why it is said "consider." How can it even be a subject for discussion? The Islamization and infiltration of our Swedish society and our Swedish authorities has been ongoing for a long time. It is ongoing now. I want to assert that it is urgent. We are starting to run out of time.

Madam Speaker! I do not think I received a proper answer to my question regarding whether the Minister intends to take any general measures to prevent the continued construction of new mosques on Swedish soil with links to Muslim dictatorships and other Islamist forces. There are demonstrably many such. I would very much like to receive an answer to that question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Richard Jomshof, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!

If I may start with the terror threat, it is a reality that when the threat level was raised in August last year, it was against the background of very strong pressure from violent Islamist extremist groups, not least outside the country's borders. It was then that Sweden moved from being one among other Western countries, i.e., a legitimate target, as it is called in these assessments, to being a prioritized target, i.e., a designated target. We are aware of the background. There were Quran burnings, disinformation about Swedish social services, riots abroad and attacks on Swedish embassies. This mobilized an extremist, violent opinion against Sweden. That was behind the increase then.

Later in the autumn, the threat materialized in a horrific way when some Swedish football supporters in Brussels became the targets of extremists' bullets. It is important to speak plainly about what the background was and what forces were in motion and to direct our full force against it. At the same time, we must, of course, constantly have the broad perspective when we talk about the level of the terror threat.

The fight against violent extremism naturally encompasses several parts. We know that different poles can trigger each other, for example, the more extremist right-wing environment and the autonomous left, which has been somewhat lower in recent years but is constantly present as a latent threat. But there is no doubt that what created the increase in the terror threat level was an increased threat from the Islamist extremist environment.

One can approach the question we are now discussing in roughly the same way. The funding measure applies to more than just Islamism. In Sweden, we have, for example, seen the Russian Orthodox Church with links to the Russian state. This has become relevant in several local planning and building cases. It is about that type of connection and how they should be handled. Therefore, it is naturally justified to take a broader approach.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the problem picture that Richard Jomshof highlights regarding connections between foreign actors, extremist environments, and state actors in relation to Islamism, violent Islamism, and expansive ambitions also in our country, is to a large extent justified. It is clear that it is largely this problem background that motivates this move.

I think it is a quite concrete answer that one wants to go after the financing. It is, after all, with the money that the influence and control also come from abroad. Regarding the choice of words in the directives about considering something, it is clear that there is a direction of will in the investigation. For my part, without anticipating the investigator's conclusions, I believe it is very important to get this type of regulatory framework in place with effective and concrete tools for our open, free society to counter this type of financing. It is clear that it is with that intention that the investigation has been commissioned. There is also an empirical basis and an expert debate surrounding the issues in Sweden that leads us in that direction. That is how the appointment of the investigation should be perceived.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is not just about the terror threats. It is, I want to assert, primarily about the creeping Islamization. There are, of course, many actors around the world who want to harm the democratic world, including Sweden. We see many pieces of evidence of this. But the Islamists are obviously the most dangerous, precisely because they are very strong in a numerical way even within our borders. It is a direct consequence of a more or less uncontrolled mass migration from that part of the world. We are talking about groups that are very large and that are growing ever stronger.

I think this is a bit problematic. It is clear that we must review the financing. We are in complete agreement on that issue. But there are both existing and planned mosques that have proven to have these connections. Therefore, we must act now. In my interpellation, I mentioned the group Vi mår bra as an example. That project is behind, among other things, a mosque in Helsingborg that is being built right now. They are Salafists. They are almost the worst kind of Islamists. And in Skärholmen, a group with connections to the Islamist Millî Görüş is to build Scandinavia's largest mosque.

These are groups that aim to take our democracy away from us. It is happening right now. Therefore, we cannot wait.

I think the whole thing is a bit tedious, because regardless of which mosque project with such connections we are talking about, it is only the Sweden Democrats who have been against them this far. All other parties, including the government parties and unfortunately even the Moderates, have been for them. Every single time, and regardless of whether it can be proven that there are connections to such organizations and countries, one is still for them. I think that is very problematic.

This goes beyond the question of Islamism. It is important to emphasize that. It is fundamentally about Islam, about Muhammad, and about the Quran. That is what Islam is. Muhammad was a warlord who waged war and led military campaigns. He ordered massacres and political assassinations. He engaged in the slave trade. They attacked caravans and spread misery and death around them. This is the foundation for Islam. And the Quran is the foundation for Islam.

I have read the Quran myself and am now reading it for the second time. In it, we find at least 400 direct threats expressing that Muslims shall persecute and oppress non-Muslims, that is to say, people such as the undersigned, the Speaker, and the Minister. It is of course problematic when we allow such values to take root in our country. It is clear that it risks creating enormous problems. The longer the Islamization is allowed to continue, the more difficult it becomes to seriously do something about it, especially if the potential measures lie far in the future.

It is no coincidence that there is no fully functioning democracy in the Muslim world. It is fundamentally a totalitarian religion and ideology, which they now want to force upon us through mosques and various Muslim cultural centers, or whatever they want to call them, with links to those types of countries.

I really am trying to understand. I am glad that the issue is being reviewed now, but why should we let these people gain a foothold in Sweden? Why should they be given influence here? Why should they be given access to our democracy when they obviously have as their goal to take it away from us? I think that is an important question, and it is important to discuss. I would also like to get an answer to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin at this end: Sweden is and shall continue to be a free and open society. Sweden has a very strong constitutional protection of freedom and rights with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. When we speak of there being a threat to democracy and a constitutional threat against Sweden, it is these freedoms and rights we want to defend. They naturally constitute values for our entire society but are also to a very high degree real for each and every individual.

That is what justifies the allocation of resources for more effective tools for our law enforcement activities and the investigative measures we are now taking regarding foreign funding. We want to fundamentally defend our free and open society.

In my later post, Richard Jomshof widens the discussion somewhat from what the question originally intended, namely the violent extremism, Islamism and how we should combat it, to a broader discussion about Islam and Islam's position in our society.

For my part, I am of the opinion that people with good values who peacefully wish to practice their religion, either alone or together with others, are what our constitutional protection of freedom and rights is intended to protect. This applies regardless of whether one is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever one may be.

What we cannot accept, however, are movements, regardless of whether they are religiously motivated or ideologically-politically motivated, which in one way or another conduct an activity in civil society – a mosque or a non-profit organization – which in various respects is dedicated to undermining the free society and wants to promote and cultivate a violence-oriented extremism. It is against that problem that we direct the power of society.

It is not that we do nothing while we talk about the problems. Our crime fighting and our security service are naturally not inactive, but on the contrary, they are very active in these issues, which is well known when it has concerned, for example, extremist imams. Some cases are also known to the outside world, even though there have also been questions regarding enforcement. Fundamentally, it is an expression that there is a systemic force against environments that promote radical extreme values and ideas with goals that are not compatible with our free and open society. It is in that light that our investigative initiative should be seen.

A critical issue for achieving that expansion also in our society is, after all, the funding that comes from abroad. Regardless of whether the funding comes from state actors or other groupings and goes to various communities in Sweden that are dedicated to promoting a radicalization, it is precisely such things that we want to address and that we want to choke. Individuals who make themselves responsible for such things should not be in Sweden, and money of that kind should not reach a Swedish civil society with such a purpose.

That is why I am very pleased that we have been able to take this investigative approach. And even though there are investigative formulations of a classic type that deal with considering things, it is an expression of a very clear political will. We must achieve a completely different systemic force against these forces. In that case, a key measure is to choke off the funding.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely agree. It is clear that we must look at the financing. We have raised the issue – I don't know for how many years we have pushed it. It is pleasing that we have finally landed on what will become an inquiry. I hope that it will be as good as it can possibly be. It will become an effective weapon against these forces.

But once again: These constructions are ongoing now. If, for example, mosques are being built with obvious links to Salafism, one of the worst forms of Islam, one can say no to these constructions. If there are mosques with links to Turkish Islamists, one can say no to them as well. One does not need to approve them.

Of course, we should be proud of our democracy and our freedom of speech and religion. But I contend that it is primarily for us and for our citizens. It should not be for forces in other countries who come here with the goal of using it to take it away from us. It is something else entirely. We must dare to defend our democracy against the forces that want to take it away from us and do so powerfully.

You only have to do a search on the internet and type words like "mosque" and similar to find mosques where horrific messages are spread. They are antisemitic messages, anti-democratic messages, messages advocating violence, and women-hostile thoughts, ideas, and messages. There are calls to kill Jews or to punish and kill homosexuals. This occurs in a long line of mosques, even in those that one perhaps primarily does not associate with those types of countries.

This is a broader problem, and I contend that it is a general problem. It is a rule rather than an exception, and therefore it requires more than just reviewing the funding. It is a tool. But time is running out, and I regret that we cannot agree on this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I think we agree on quite a lot. But it is quite true that Richard Jomshof goes off on a number of points where I am not quite on the same page.

Let us begin by defining "us". We can, of course, continue with that for a while. But let us in any case state that the protection of freedom and rights in our constitutions covers Swedish citizens, and among Swedish citizens there are both Christians as well as Jews and Muslims. The protection of freedom and rights must, of course, cover all of us. I think that is a fundamental cornerstone.

Furthermore, we had a dynamic discussion about Quran burnings one and a half years ago. Richard Jomshof then took a fundamentally respectable position regarding how that type of issue should be handled and showed that there is a large space in our democracy to express strong criticism against a religion that one, for various reasons, does not sympathize with at all.

That is how we have historically handled such conflicts in our society and also should do in the future. We have, for example, had cases in the Swedish Supreme Court concerning Pentecostal pastors' condemnations of homosexuality. These are not at all values or positions that I personally share.

The combination of freedom of religion and freedom of expression has nevertheless led our legal system to protect this sphere, where you are also allowed to say things that the surrounding society often does not agree with at all on good grounds. This must, however, be handled in other ways, and most of it can be handled through precisely a critical public debate and other expressions of opinion.

There is, however, a clear line, and it is drawn at violence-promoting extremist contexts that promote a radicalization aimed at undermining precisely those civil rights and the open, free society I am speaking about.

It is true that this is largely present in the Islamist environment. That is why our law enforcement targets it. It is also why we take political initiatives, for example against financing, which we know is a central issue in order to stop foreign influence and foreign impact in this area. Here we agree.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)