Response to interpellation 2025/26:396 on the concept of Islamophobia

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Richard Jomshof has asked me about the government's use of the term Islamophobia and whether I will take any general initiatives in light of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' communication on social media in connection with the so-called International Day to Combat Islamophobia on March 15.

I share the assessment that the term Islamophobia is problematic. The government's preferred term is anti-Muslim racism. However, the term Islamophobia is used in an international context, which is, as is known, the context in which the Ministry for Foreign Affairs operates.

The government's communication on social media on March 15 linked to the day declared by the UN as International Day to Combat Islamophobia, or in Swedish: internationella dagen för bekämpande av islamofobi. The UN's work against anti-Muslim racism – or, put differently, anti-Muslim hate – is led by the organization's Assistant Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos with the title United Nations Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia.

The government adopted an action plan against racism and hate crimes in December 2024. The action plan shall counter all forms of racism but also make visible and counter specific forms of racism, including anti-Muslim racism. It appears from the action plan that the term anti-Muslim racism replaces but also corresponds to the term Islamophobia, which was used in the previous national plan against racism and which also occurs in other contexts.

There are reasons for this transition. The concept of Islamophobia has, among other things, been criticized because the word phobia leads the mind toward the irrational fears of individual persons rather than toward discrimination, exclusion, and racism. The concept has also been questioned for giving the impression of dealing solely with the view of Islam as a religion and not with the view of Muslims. When the concept of anti-Muslim racism is used in this action plan, it does not refer to criticism of religion but to hostility directed at people because they are or are assumed to be Muslims.

I would like to conclude by underlining that the government's work against racism is carried out with united strength.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! In recent decades, we have been able to see how radical Muslims – Islamists, if you will – have been allowed to slowly but surely push forward their positions. A liberal immigration policy and Swedish tax funds have given them the opportunity to establish themselves even here in Sweden.

We can see how these Islamists, who often have links to Muslim dictatorships and terrorist organizations, work purposefully to attack our democratic institutions. They operate from mosques on Swedish soil which are sometimes used as foreign spy centers but also to promote various forms of extremism as well as spread hate-filled messages against non-Muslims in general and often against Jews in particular.

This Islamization is moving faster and faster and is eating deeper and deeper into Sweden's democratic body of society. We want to assert that precisely Islamization is the greatest threat that the democratic world has ever faced. There are some of us who have warned against this, including the undersigned – in fact, for very many years. Every time we have been accused of being racists, and very often we have also been accused of being Islamophobes.

Just the concept of Islamophobia is interesting because the word phobia is actually a form of psychiatric diagnosis. I personally find it difficult to see how it can benefit democratic debate that the person who uses their statutory freedom of speech to, for example, criticize Islam and its many variants is accused of being mentally ill. If I interpret the answer from the Minister, for which I would otherwise like to thank him, correctly, we seem to be in complete agreement on precisely that question.

Madam Speaker! By labeling people as Islamophobes, Islamists attempt to silence legitimate criticism of Islam, but also legitimate criticism of the ideology that governs dictatorships and semi-dictatorships all over the Muslim world. There are even examples of liberal Muslims who, for example, fight for women's rights or seek democratic reforms, having been accused of being exactly that—Islamophobes.

At the same time, we can see how politicians, journalists, and others have chosen to swallow what I call the Islamist bait, and the current Swedish government is unfortunately no exception. As recently as March 15, we could, as we know, see the Ministry for Foreign Affairs write on social media that they want to combat various forms of racism, including Islamophobia. I find that remarkable.

If one does not have the background that we have just received from the Minister, one could interpret this as the government actually sharing the terminology we see in many other countries across large parts of the world, where the person who criticizes Islam – even if it is done objectively – is thus accused of being Islamophobic and then additionally compared to some kind of racist. I think that is problematic.

It is not the first time this has happened, however. In the summer of 2023, for example, the then Foreign Minister Tobias Billström used the term in a letter to the Muslim cooperation organization OIC from the Swedish government. He wrote, among other things, that he – and I quote – condemns all Islamophobic acts. The letter was written in connection with the much-publicized Quran riots.

I can think that it is problematic when, in this case, a government representative uses this term in this way. He proceeds from the concept of Islamophobia when he writes to the OIC, the Islamic cooperation organization with 57 member countries, and furthermore asks for an apology. He is therefore asking for an apology for the fact that we have an extensive freedom of speech in Sweden. Whatever one may think about the Quran burnings, it is naturally problematic, because we have nothing to apologize for. We should be very proud of our extensive freedom of speech.

I mean that we should do everything we can not to fall for the Islamist trap and use the kind of terms that Islamists use against us and our democracy.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The concept of Islamophobia and how it is interpreted affects how we in Sweden relate to freedom of speech and criticism of ideas and religions.

There are those who argue that Islamophobia is solely about hatred, discrimination, and prejudice against Muslims as human beings. That type of hostility is, of course, completely unacceptable. No human being should be subjected to hatred or discrimination because of their religion.

At the same time, no human being can impose their religion on the rest of society. Opposing religious influence on social structures is not the same as harboring hatred toward people, and one is not a racist because one opposes the Islamization of Sweden. Nevertheless, there are many who argue that Swedish society is Islamophobic if it does not adapt to Islam. That interpretation is found among several Muslim organizations here in Sweden. The concept of Islamophobia has in many cases become an epithet used to brand those who oppose religious influence in the public sphere. If one does not want someone to wear the Muslim veil at a certain workplace, one is called an Islamophobe. If one does not want children to fast during school hours, one is called an Islamophobe. If one criticizes Islamist organizations, one is called an Islamophobe.

Almost two years ago, the journalist Sofie Löwenmark wrote the following in a column: "Is it possible to conduct critical research on Islam and Islamism, or to journalistically examine the subject, without being subjected to smear campaigns and being labeled as 'Islamophobic'? The answer is no."

I completely share that image. There are many who are repeatedly pointed out as Islamophobes, including researchers such as Magnus Ranstorp and Sameh Egyptson. It doesn't matter how much evidence they present; they are still called Islamophobes. This shows that we are dealing with a concept that is practically used to silence criticism.

One must also ask why the Ministry for Foreign Affairs chooses to use a term that is so vague and so often misused in the public debate. Why not speak plainly and use terms such as freedom of religion? It is a term that includes everyone, regardless of faith, and which rests on a clear democratic foundation. Freedom of religion means both the right to believe and the right to not be influenced by others' beliefs. It is a principle that is difficult to distort.

Madam Speaker! When a concept is used to silence criticism instead of addressing it, it has ceased to be a protection against discrimination and has become a tool for power. Sweden should not be a country where people fall silent for fear of being labeled as Islamophobes. In Sweden, people must be able to criticize Islam and Islamism even in the future. Criticism of Islam and Islamism should be a natural part of the public debate.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer. I also thank Richard Jomshof for the question, even though I consider it to be a different perspective.

I want to take this opportunity to elaborate on how I view freedom of religion and the basis of Islamophobia. These are issues that all too often are characterized by a lack of knowledge and prejudice rather than by objective understanding. In many cases, they are also influenced by populism and nationalism, where complex social issues are simplified to win political points and votes. At the same time, central values risk falling into the shadows – values such as community, inclusion, and the right for every human being to live in freedom and practice their faith without fear.

Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. It is enshrined both in international law and in our own constitution. Every human being has the right to believe, to practice their faith, and to openly live their identity, regardless of which religion or worldview it concerns.

Still, we see time and again how this right is violated, both globally and here in Sweden. When people are suspected, restricted, or discriminated against because of their religion, it is not just an individual problem. It is an attack on our common values, and in that case, we have a responsibility to react.

The UN, the EU, and Sweden have all introduced laws and measures to counter this. The UN has also established the international day against Islamophobia on March 15, the date that reminds us of the extremist terrorist attack against two mosques in New Zealand, where over 50 people were murdered in the name of hate. Despite this, the problem remains. Islamophobia is sometimes presented as a milder concept, but in reality, it often involves prejudice, suspicion, and in some cases, pure hatred towards Muslims. It can be subtle in the form of stereotypes or open and violent. Therefore, we must understand it as a spectrum, not as a single act.

Muslims are one of the largest religious minorities in Sweden. Most live their lives just like everyone else – working, studying, and building a future. Yet, many are subjected to hate and harassment. Attacks against mosques, such as the fire in Eskilstuna, are not just attacks on buildings – they are attacks on safety, community, and people's right to believe. Violations and threats, sometimes in the form of deliberate provocations, reinforce the feeling of vulnerability.

According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, hate crimes with Islamophobic motives are reported every year. It concerns violence, threats and harassment but also something larger: attacks on people's sense of safety and belonging. Regardless of the cause, the consequences are clear. Hate divides. It creates fear not only among those directly affected but also in society as a whole.

Standing up for freedom of religion is not about thinking alike. Whether one is a believer, an atheist, or secular, it is about something more fundamental: defending every person's right to exist, to believe or not to believe, and to live in peace.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! I have actually already answered Richard Jomshof regarding the preferred term – that we from the government's side prefer "anti-Muslim racism" over "Islamophobia". At the same time, "Islamophobia" is a direct translation from the name of the UN day that we previously spoke about.

Several of the debaters have raised the issue of freedom of speech. It can be difficult to draw sharp boundaries between what constitutes hostility towards a religion and what constitutes hostility towards the people associated with that religion. In Sweden, it is not a criminal offense to make derogatory remarks about a religion. Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution and should be so. On the other hand, it can be a criminal offense to make threatening or offensive remarks about a group of people with reference to, for example, their religious confession, and where the line is drawn between criticism of religion and expressions that cross the line into hate speech against a group of people is, of course, ultimately decided by the court, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.

I want to emphasize that when the government, in its work against racism and hate crimes in Sweden, uses the term anti-Muslim racism instead of speaking about Islamophobia, the purpose is to direct the gaze toward the person or persons who may be subjects of racism, hate crimes, or discrimination rather than toward the religion as such. In Sweden, freedom of religion applies, which means both the freedom to practice one's religion and freedom from all religion.

I believe, however, that it is dangerous for social cohesion if we group people together to an excessive extent based on different objective prerequisites. It can be assumed that up to 10 percent, perhaps even more than that, of our country's population today has a Muslim religious or cultural background or a connection to Muslim traditions. From the action plan against racism and hate crimes that the government decided in 2024, it appears that Muslims today are often regarded as a homogeneous group, regardless of their individual views on culture and religion, and in different ways are subjected to racism, discrimination, and hate crimes.

From Brås recurring statistics regarding reports of hate crimes and a specific report on hate crimes against Muslims, it appears that Muslims in Sweden are subjected to various types of hate crimes. Therefore, it is important to take targeted measures against this form of racism, in exactly the same way as the government takes specific measures against, for example, antisemitism.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Muslim cooperation body OIC has so far released 14 reports on Islamophobia.

The OIC consists of 57 Muslim member countries, which to varying degrees shamelessly persecute and oppress dissenters and minorities. These are countries where human rights are conspicuous by their absence. Despite this, in the recurring report, they have the nerve to voice criticism and direct accusations of Islamophobia against the democratic Western world. They also demand that freedom of speech should be restricted here, while simultaneously arguing that it should become an international crime to blaspheme and criticize Islam.

There is no restraint in the accusations or the hypocrisy. No self-criticism exists, and one does not care at all about all the hatred that permeates Islam and its scriptures, as well as all the problems this has come to lead to in the Muslim world. Nor does the OIC care that the criticism of Islam is in fact mostly fully legitimate and can be substantiated with concrete examples and clear sources.

At the same time, the OIC turns a blind eye to the antisemitism and the anti-Western sentiment spread from state levels across large parts of the Muslim world in countries where Christians and other minorities are subjected to various forms of persecution and oppression. Everything is, according to the OIC, the fault of the democratic Western world – absolutely everything.

It is obvious that the OIC uses the term Islamophobia as a weapon against dissenters in an attempt to severely restrict freedom of speech. The OIC is also very careful to point out that even Muslims who criticize Islam are Islamophobes – and it is therefore that term that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs officially uses.

Madam Speaker! OIC is of course not alone in producing similar reports. I also want to mention the European Islamophobia Report, which has been released annually since 2015. One could summarize it as a kind of annual report on alleged Islamophobia in Europe, where various European countries are discussed. Behind this report, we find individuals with connections to both the Islamist regime in Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In the 2023 report, we find under the heading Central Figures in the Islamophobia Network, in addition to the undersigned, also the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson. We also find the political scientist and terrorism researcher Magnus Ranstorp and the researcher Sameh Egyptson, both of whom are accused of supporting Islamophobic narratives. Ranstorp is also accused of spreading conspiracy theories.

In another part of the text, newspapers such as Bulletin and Dagen are criticized for their use of language and concepts, whereupon they receive their fair share of accusations regarding Islamophobia – that is, the same term that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs officially uses. Similar to the OIC, it is argued in the European Islamophobia Report that even Muslims can be Islamophobes.

Madam Speaker! When one reads these reports – I believe I have read them all – one understands what forces are driving the UN and the democratic Western world forward, and we shall, of course, not bow down to these forces and their language. For me, it is self-evident, regardless of what the UN may say.

I have a question for the Minister: If the government considers the concept of Islamophobia to be problematic – which the Minister has clarified, which I think is very good – what has been done, for example, to urge the UN to abandon the concept? It would be interesting to know.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! When criticism of Islam as a religion or criticism of political movements and ideologies linked to Islam begins to be described as Islamophobia, the line between hatred towards people and criticism of ideas becomes blurred. It is a dangerous development.

Firstly, it is only a small proportion of Muslims in Sweden who regularly participate in religious activities, and an even smaller proportion who are involved in Islamist organizations. Therefore, it is problematic to equate criticism of Islam and Islamism with hatred towards Muslims. Such an equation risks giving both organized Islam and Islamist movements a legitimacy that they currently lack. It is precisely this that the concept of Islamophobia often leads to in practice, namely that criticism of Islam and Islamism is conflated with hostility towards Muslims.

We must be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We shall protect people from hate and discrimination, but we shall also defend the right to criticize religions, ideologies, and political systems, and we shall stand up for freedom of speech. I am quite sure that we can do these things simultaneously. Sweden has succeeded in doing so for a long time.

When the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has previously used the term Islamophobia, it has given the term Islamophobia a legitimacy that it does not actually have. I hope it is clearly evident that Islamophobia is a term that functions as a tool for Islamists.

I am pleased that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken to heart the criticism expressed regarding the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' use of this term and that a different term – anti-Muslim racism – will now be used, which at least makes a greater distinction between criticism of Islamism and Islam and discrimination against and hatred toward Muslims.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The Ministry for Foreign Affairs observes ongoing anniversaries, religious holidays, and established UN days every year. The International Day to Combat Islamophobia on March 15 is one of the UN's official days and therefore is included in this context. One may have views on the name and think that work should be done in the UN to change it.

The Government's view is that it is easiest for us to do it if we first gather the EU behind a changed terminology, and therefore we are pushing for that the term Islamophobia be replaced by what is referred to in English as anti-Muslim racism or anti-Muslim hatred. The next meeting to discuss this is on May 18 and 19 in Brussels.

Observing different types of holidays and anniversaries is part of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' relationship-building work. By highlighting both secular and religious holidays in other traditions, UD demonstrates presence, respect, and understanding in the countries where our foreign authorities operate, while the communication also reaches and includes target groups in Sweden, such as diaspora groups, and the foreign embassies in Stockholm.

My responsibility concerns Sweden's relations with other countries and Sweden's membership in international organizations such as the EU and the UN. Today, a majority of the international organizations of which Sweden is a member – the UN, OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the EU – have both strategies and special envoys to drive the work against discrimination on ethnic and religious grounds forward.

To safeguard and promote human freedoms and rights, including freedom of religion and belief, as well as freedom from discrimination, is a fundamental priority for the government both in our own country and in our work internationally.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! One of the countries that has been accused of Islamophobia by the Muslim cooperation organization OIC is France and its president Emmanuel Macron. This is a consequence of France officially and very clearly choosing to fight for the French Republic's secular values and against the growing Islamism in the country. In March 2021, the French government announced that it had also decided to reject the term Islamophobia.

France's decision has, however, met with some criticism. The decision, for example, caused Turkey's president Erdoğan to see red and demand a mental health check of Macron. The OIC, with its 57 member countries, in turn has chosen to accuse the French government of being responsible for what they call the strongly increased Islamophobia in the country. At the same time, France has been placed on the OIC's top list of what they call the hottest spots for Islamophobia.

One can think what one wants about France and Macron, but when they so clearly choose to criticize and attack Islamism while simultaneously openly and clearly choosing to reject the term Islamophobia, they are doing completely right. In this regard, I would like to know if the Swedish government can imagine doing the same in Sweden. I mean to openly, clearly and officially communicate that one intends to take up the fight against Islamism and at the same time openly, clearly and officially – and not just in some action plan – communicate that one no longer intends to use the term Islamophobia.

In conclusion, I just want to mention that Christians are the world's most persecuted group. There is no day against christophobia, for example in the UN, which one might think is quite remarkable. It would be interesting to know, for example, if the government can imagine taking the initiative to highlight the hatred against Christians in the same way as one has chosen to highlight Islamophobia.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! I can state that anti-Muslim racism is one of several phenomena that we must counter together. It applies at home, it applies in Europe, and it naturally also applies internationally.

Now that we have come to speak about this issue in the chamber of the Riksdag, it may be worth reminding of the background to why the UN has decided that specifically March 15 shall be the annual date to mark hatred and hate crimes against Muslims. It was on that day, just over seven years ago, that the terrorist attack against a mosque occurred in Christchurch in New Zealand. A white supremacist murdered 50 people and injured 51 in connection with the Muslim Friday prayer. It is everyone's responsibility to avoid something similar being repeated in Europe or in any other part of the world.

I can conclude, in the margins, that Richard Jomshof during the last parliamentary year, with occasional exceptions which I believe concerned animal police and China's occupation of Tibet, has only stood in the speaker's chair when it has in one way or another concerned religion or religious symbols.

For me as Minister for Foreign Affairs, there is no more important task than to safeguard Sweden's peace, freedom, and security. We stand firm in our values and continue to prioritize Ukraine. I hope that this is what I, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be able to devote my time and effort to here in the chamber going forward.

Against the background of the debate we have had, I think it would be strange if one introduced the concept of christophobia within the UN.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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