Response to interpellation 2025/26:430 on mosques spreading hate and threats
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns mosques that spread hate and threats. M argues that freedom of speech does not give the right to insult or threaten 1 and that state subsidies should not be distributed to communities that undermine democracy 2. M emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between ordinary Islam and political Islam 2 as well as that the individual's right to practice their faith must be protected 3. M wants to be tough on extremism and foreign funding 3. SD considers that mosques are used to promote extremism and hatred against women 4 and that the state should deny certain religious communities the right to operate in Sweden 4. SD argues that Islam has no place in Sweden 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Richard Jomshof has asked the Minister for Social Affairs if he intends to take any general initiatives on the grounds that mosques spread hate and threats.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
To begin with, Swedish freedom of expression entails a far-reaching right for individuals to express thoughts and opinions, including those that may be provocative or offensive to others. On the other hand, it does not mean a freedom to say or express anything. For example, it is not permitted to defame someone or to utter anything that involves threats or hate speech against a population group. As a society, we must not tolerate hate, threats, or incitement to violence, whether in religious contexts or in other environments.
On 1 July 2024, several legislative amendments entered into force that clarify and expand the provision on hate speech against a group in the Penal Code. Among other things, the protection is expanded in such a way that individuals can be granted the status of victim and thereby also have the right to damages. It is also clarified that it is illegal to deny the Holocaust and certain other international crimes. These changes have already been made in ordinary law. Corresponding changes are proposed to enter into force in the Freedom of the Press Act on 1 January next year.
It is crucial to have a broader effort against these problems, and that is also being done by the government. During the mandate period, the government has tightened the democratic conditions for state grants to religious communities and other organizations in civil society. State grants shall therefore not be able to be paid out to religious communities that exercise violence, coercion, or threats, or in other ways violate a person's fundamental freedoms and rights. This also applies to leading representatives. Activities that discriminate against individuals or groups, or in other ways violate the principle of all people's equal value, defend such actions, or oppose the democratic system of government shall be denied state support.
The government has also appointed an inquiry tasked with considering and proposing rules that prohibit or otherwise counter foreign financing of religious communities and other activities in Sweden with links to Islamism, other extremism, and other anti-democratic interests. That inquiry is to present its proposals this summer.
In addition to this, the government has decided on a large number of measures to counter antisemitism and other forms of racism and hate crimes within the framework of the action plan against racism and hate crimes and the strategy to strengthen Jewish life and counter antisemitism. Currently, measures are being implemented, among others, to ensure that more of the hate crimes committed are reported, investigated, and prosecuted. As part of that work, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council has been given a government mandate to study the justice system's handling of antisemitic hate crimes.
In addition to this, the government has taken a number of measures to counter violent extremism. We have developed a new, unified strategy against violent extremism and terrorism. Since March last year, there has also been a special function within the Center against violent extremism at the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, Brå, which aims to prevent public funds from going to activities with links to violent extremism or other anti-democratic environments.
When it comes to concrete security threats, the Swedish Security Service and the Police Authority have a close cooperation and also a close exchange of information. The Swedish Security Service assesses threats and shares situational pictures, and the police take measures based on this to strengthen society's protection against serious crime and ensure that citizens can be safe.
Overall, extensive work is being carried out in various ways to counteract hate and threats, all with the aim of ensuring the safety of citizens and safeguarding our free and open society.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
A year ago, I had an interpellation debate with Gunnar Strömmer regarding the Islamist project Vi mår bra. Their goal, if anyone has forgotten it, is that there should be at least one mosque in every Swedish city. Behind the project stand individuals linked to Salafism, which is one of the most extreme interpretations within Sunni Islam. The question I asked then was whether the government intended to take any concrete measures to prevent the continued construction of new mosques permeated by those kinds of values. These are, therefore, mosques that have connections to Muslim dictatorships and sometimes also terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, I did not receive much of an answer.
The reason for this interpellation is that Expressen on April 2 was able to reveal that an imam in one of Kristianstad's two Sunni Muslim mosques has on several occasions spread hate and threats against non-Muslims in general and Jews in particular. The imam in question has also advocated for revenge against the Jewish people and said that they deserve blood, death, and displacement. In addition to this, he has emphasized the importance of future generations learning to harm Jews and that Muslims must teach their children to take revenge.
I want to remind that just a few months ago, we could read another revelation about the second Sunni Muslim mosque in Kristianstad. At that time, it was an imam who, among other things, had preached that according to Islam, a man has the right to beat his wife.
It is clear that this is remarkable. For those who are familiar with the issue, it is clear, I want to assert, that those kinds of vile opinions and statements are the rule rather than the exception when it comes to imams operating in mosques on Swedish soil. Let me give a few more examples. In one mosque, it is taught that women do not have the right to refuse a man sex. In another, that women should not report their husbands to the police – not if, but when they are assaulted. In a third, one hails al-Qaeda. In a fourth, one hails the Islamic State. In a fifth, it is claimed that the terrorist attack against the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is a lie. In a sixth, one recruits jihadists to the holy war, and so on.
We know that mosques in Sweden today are used to promote extremism and spread antisemitism and misogyny, but also to honor terrorist groups. We know that many of them function as spy centers. We know that they function as hideouts for Islamists and terrorists. It is therefore about mosques with links to a long line of Muslim dictatorships, but also about mosques with links to, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim terrorist organizations.
Mr. Speaker! In the answer to my interpellation, for which I would like to thank him once again, the Minister for Justice states that state grants shall not be payable to religious communities that exercise violence, coercion, or threats or in other ways violate a person's fundamental freedoms and rights. I think: Is that all? Would it not be better if we completely deny them the right to operate in Sweden? And can we not also be honest and admit that it is largely exclusively about Muslim religious communities?
Regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it is my firm opinion that it is primarily for the Swedish people and our Swedish citizens. We have no obligation whatsoever to let citizens of other countries, extremists, and Islamists come to Sweden to exploit our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion with the goal of actually also taking it away from us.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! As the interpellator mentions, such statements from the mosques are more the rule than the exception. In public life, such messages have been emanating from the mosques for now over ten years. It has been ongoing for a longer period, but it is during the last ten years that the media have seriously reported on what messages the mosques actually convey.
It is also only during the last ten years that the media have seriously reported on the connections that the mosques in Sweden have with dictators and Islamist organizations. The interpellor refers to the mosque in Kristianstad where the imam, according to Expressen, said that Muslims have a duty to hate. The same imam has preached hate and antisemitism.
What should also be raised in this context is that the mosque in Kristianstad is a member of the organization Förenade Islamiska Föreningar i Sverige, which receives grants from the state. For the year 2026, Förenade Islamiska Föreningar has received 5.3 million kronor from Myndigheten för ungdoms- och civilsamhällesfrågor.
One or another, and perhaps the Minister, may say: "Wait now, what if it is only one mosque! What if all the other mosques in Förenade Islamiska Föreningar i Sverige actually behave themselves!" But the largest organization within Förenade Islamiska Föreningar is Islamiska Förbundet i Sverige. The mosques that are affiliated with Islamiska Förbundet i Sverige are also affiliated with Förenade Islamiska Föreningar i Sverige. There is official documentation as well as several researchers who point out that Islamiska Förbundet i Sverige is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is information that is available to everyone.
The question that arises is why the state creates opportunities for organizations that have links to Islamists. That a mosque, which is part of this Islamist infrastructure in Sweden, makes antisemitic statements is no surprise. Islamism is an ideology that is antisemitic, but why do we have authorities that feel they have a need to finance Islamist organizations? When one allocates 5.3 million kronor to Förenade Islamiska Föreningar i Sverige, one gives money to an organization that in turn distributes these funds to mosques that have the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The worst thing is that this is not a secret. There is plenty of evidence regarding which organizations have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. There is evidence regarding which mosques are funded by Islamist organizations from Turkey or Qatar. None of this is secret.
We have authorities who pretend that all of this is not happening. When the authorities then allocate even more money to these Islamist organizations, they strengthen the Islamists' conditions to be able to spread their ideology in Sweden. I believe that many citizens ask themselves why – why does the state want to use tax money to strengthen the Islamists' mosques in Sweden?
While countries such as Germany and France have legislation that allows the authorities to demolish the Islamists' mosques or at least ensure that they cease their activities, Sweden continues to strengthen the Islamists here. What is the reason for this?
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer!
I also want to extend a big thank you to my fellow Member of Parliament Richard Jomshof for raising the important issue of mosques that spread hate, threats and antisemitism and that preach violence against women in Sweden.
I think the Minister for Justice's answer was quite good. I am quite satisfied with it.
(Minister of Justice GUNNAR STRÖMMER (M): That was a good answer.)
The Minister of Justice will judge how much weight I place on freedom of speech and openness in society for the free word. We recently had an interpellation debate here in the chamber about just that. As the Minister of Justice presents in the answer, we shall not tolerate hate, threats, threats of violence, or antisemitism in our society.
Regarding the measures that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has developed up to this very response and during the mandate period, I think we have done a good job. We have, for example, ensured that state grants cannot be paid out to religious communities that spread threats, hate, threats of violence, and antisemitism.
An investigation has also been commissioned with the mandate to look at how one can ban foreign funding of religious communities. This is very good and a step in the right direction. I hope that we can one day ban it, because the organizations that finance mosques and Islamism in Sweden have no good intentions for our democracy and our society.
I also truly welcome other efforts.
My colleague Nima pointed out that these organizations are funded and exist here in Sweden to islamize our society. It is absolutely unfortunate that such mosques and organizations are sometimes funded by state grants, and I am of the firm opinion that we must take tough measures in the legislation against those who spread hate, threats, and antisemitism.
In the news, we have, among other things, been able to hear about an imam in Kristianstad who incited hatred against non-Muslims. There are also imams who have preached about how men should beat their wives. In Malmö, an imam was convicted for inciting hatred against Jews and calling them monkeys and descendants of pigs. I think we should take tough action against these mosques even in the legislation. The state has a responsibility to ensure that such mosques can no longer operate.
My short question to the Minister of Justice is: When can we look forward to the first mosque in Sweden being closed for the simple reason that one has spread gross hatred, threats, threats of violence, and antisemitism? When will we see that one even demolishes a mosque?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank everyone who has raised the questions that we are to discuss today.
To begin with, I want to emphasize that there is now a well-established insight that certain mosques in Sweden function as arenas for radicalization, foreign espionage, and foreign influence. This is the background to a long series of the measures that we are undertaking.
If a crime is committed, it must be prosecuted. If one says things that stand in conflict with Swedish legislation, one shall be punished for it. If we stay on southern latitudes, for example, just the other day a judgment came from Helsingborg District Court where, for the first time – at least in recent times – a person who expressed very hateful remarks against Jews was convicted of hate speech, including the new penal provision on Holocaust denial.
If one commits a crime when exercising their freedom of speech, they should naturally be prosecuted for it. It does not matter what role one has or whether one acts in a religious context or not, whether one has a leading role in a congregation or not, even though we have a broad freedom of speech. If a crime was committed, it shall be prosecuted.
State subsidies shall therefore not be distributed to organizations that engage in undermining Swedish democracy. We shall also not continue with an arrangement where foreign actors and interests can finance religious communities in a subversive manner. That is why we have initiated an inquiry in order to be able to ban foreign donations of this kind.
The Security Service and the police monitor different environments that cultivate extremism and anti-democratic opinions. Without going into more detail – it is inherent in the nature of the matter that these are operations that we do not always speak openly about – our authorities undertake a long series of measures against those types of environments. There are many well-known examples of cases where we have decided to deport imams who have been found guilty of preparing terrorist crimes in Sweden and so on.
The Swedish rule of law and the Swedish justice system shall, of course, act very forcefully against such extremism. That much we agree on.
For my part, I believe it is very important to distinguish between ordinary Islam and political Islam. We can have a long discussion about the Swedish protection of freedom and rights, but there is no doubt that there are Swedish citizens who are Christians, Catholics, Jews, or Muslims, or who do not believe in any god at all. The protection of freedom and rights must protect each one of them.
It is, however, not the same as accepting environments that promote extremism, anti-democratic subversive activity, and violence-promoting messages. Sweden has been far too lax in that regard, and I perceive that several others participating in the discussion mean the same thing. We are in the process of straightening this out.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Mr. Speaker! If the government is serious about the fact that we shall not tolerate hate, threats or incitement to violence from religious communities, I question whether one can allow mosques on Swedish soil at all – and I mean at all. Let me clarify what I mean.
Islam's holy book is, as we know, the Quran. In it, we can read the following example.
In sura 8:12, that is chapter 8 verse 12, can we read that the Muslims shall instill fear in the hearts of non-Muslims and let swords swing over their heads and hands.
I sura 9:123 talas det om att muslimerna ska föra krig mot icke-muslimerna och visa dem obeveklig stränghet.
In sura 9:29 it is stated that the Muslims shall wage war against the non-Muslims until they acknowledge themselves defeated.
In sura 47:4 it stands that the Muslims shall let the swords fall over the non-Muslims' heads until they have been forced to their knees.
In sura 9:5, also called the sword verse, the following is to be read: ”When the sacred months have passed, you shall kill the idol worshippers” – that is to say us – ”wherever you encounter them; take them captive and surround them and lie in ambush for them.”
In sura 2:216 we can also read that it is a duty for the Muslim community, i.e., all Muslims, to participate in the holy war against non-Muslims, i.e., us.
The Quran is also very clear that the Jews, besides being compared to monkeys and pigs, are the most fierce enemies of the Muslims and that a Muslim cannot be friends with either Jews or Christians.
Mr. Speaker! These are only a few examples of what I consider to be the madness that actually characterizes large parts of the Quran – all Muslims' holy book and guide. What is written in the Quran is Islam, neither more nor less. It is not Islamism or some strange extreme interpretations; it is ordinary Islam, and it applies to all Muslims.
I want to assert that the Quran is in fact unique among the religions' holy scriptures in that it calls its followers to holy war, i.e., jihad, against the infidels – against non-Muslims, the part of the world that is not Muslim. We are talking about a long series of verses where the followers are ordered to wage war – to pursue, oppress, fight, and kill non-Muslims, i.e., us.
Therefore, it is not surprising – and this is my point – that we are forced time and again to read those kinds of revelations about one mosque after another, for this is Islam. I am not saying that all Muslims think so, but it is in their holy book; it is Islam.
For me it is very simple, Minister of Justice: That kind of religion has no business in Sweden at all. We have no obligation to let that kind of values establish themselves in Sweden. This is a consequence of a largely uncontrolled mass immigration to Sweden. That is why we have had that kind of movement in Sweden, which is financed by Muslim dictatorships, rogue states and Islamists, with the goal of taking democracy away from us.
I would even go as far as to say that imams and other Muslim representatives who refuse to distance themselves from these parts of the Quran have no business being in Sweden. That is my firm opinion.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister said something that I agree with: State subsidies should not be paid out to organizations that undermine Swedish democracy. But why do state agencies pay out funds to organizations that have links to the Muslim Brotherhood? Why is this happening? Does the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology not undermine Swedish democracy? It does. Something is happening here that politicians should do something about. These funds are being paid out, and the politicians are far too passive in this matter.
At the same time, I also agree with the Minister that not all Muslims are extremists. There are approximately one million people in Sweden who have a Muslim cultural or national background. Of course, they are not all extremists – we would have noticed that. But at the same time, the state is pumping funds into organizations and mosques that have the purpose of radicalizing these Muslims and turning them against Swedish society and its values.
The authorities are aware that certain organizations have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. There is evidence for this; there are research reports and government reports. Yet, these Islamist organizations are still allowed to receive state funds.
So, there is a problem here that must be addressed. I understand that we have a regulatory framework, but the authorities do not seem to be following this framework. I looked into an organization that has clear links to the Muslim Brotherhood but still receives several million in state funds from the Agency for Youth and Civil Society. How can this happen? I believe the government should have an answer to that.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer, for the answers to the questions!
I do not intend to address what my parliamentary colleague Richard Jomshof mentioned regarding Islam and Islamism. But it absolutely raises thoughts for me when the Minister for Justice says that Islam and political Islam are two different things, because they are not.
I, who was born and raised in a Muslim country and raised as a Muslim, have read the Quran and attended mosque in Iran. What the imam in the mosque in Kristianstad says, for example, that one should beat one's wife according to certain instructions, comes straight from the text of the Quran and jurisprudence. I do not intend to go into this further, but we need to reflect on why these hateful, threatening, violent, antisemitic messages come precisely from the mosques.
It is not enough to stop paying out state grants to extremist organizations, such as mosques that spread hate and threats. I think we should ensure that no mosque is built in Sweden. There are many municipalities that provide grants. The City of Stockholm, for example, earmarked 13 million in 2022 to build a completely new mosque in Stockholm, with clear links to extremist organizations, including foreign links.
The state has done very much well. I thank the Minister for Justice for the fantastic job he has done. But what can the state do so that the municipalities also become more aware and prevent these contributions to mosques that spread hate and threats?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me start at this end: There are some things that we can agree on.
The first is the realization that there are mosques in Sweden that are used as arenas or platforms for radicalization, foreign influence, or espionage. This is a reality. It is well-documented and in itself nothing that is disputed.
The second thing, which is also very easy to agree on, is that Sweden has behaved very naively and passively in relation to that insight, even when things have already occurred. That is why we are now doing so very much to address the violence-seeking and the extreme, the broader political claims and foreign donations that are intended to create influence for forces outside the country's borders.
That is how our action catalog should be understood: the clarity regarding that crimes shall be punished and that state subsidies shall not be paid out. To the extent that this occurs, it shall be changed. It is very clear that the intention is crystal clear: No subsidies shall be paid out to activities that promote such as I just spoke about. It is therefore that we now with new legislative proposals hopefully stifle the occurrence of foreign donations to this type of religious environments. It is therefore that we also ensure that our authorities are very alert in relation to individuals who carry the foreign influence, the terror threat, or the extremism in Sweden.
However, it is something I cannot reconcile when this SD trio stands here and speaks. We have spoken quite many times with Richard Jomshof about this, and we always start with what I consider to be very legitimate: the fight against extremism. But it only takes one or two exchanges of remarks before the broader claim comes. I am not saying that this is a debate that cannot be conducted in our democratic conversation, but that is another matter, in my opinion.
I still want to link that question with something that was said by one of the party brothers here, who stated that we have a million people in this country who are culturally or religiously in a Muslim context and who obviously are not all extremists. Quite a few of them are even Swedish citizens, if we are to approach this constitutionally and not personally, with the exact same freedom and rights protection as each one of us who is having this discussion.
I would like to say that it is a rather un-Swedish position to deny them their rights. If we look at the development of religious freedom in this country, we see that a core of it, of course, has been to be able to practice one's religion oneself and with one's loved ones, and in interaction with others.
The positions – on one hand the insight that a million are not extremists, and on the other hand Richard Jomshofs claim that we should not allow a single mosque in Sweden – do not hang together for me. You are losing me along the way.
I completely agree that Sweden must deal with the radicals in a completely different way than before. I completely agree that very many common sense points in this area have been dismissed or cast as suspicion of racism or intolerance. I completely agree that the toolbox we took over was all too poorly equipped to handle this. But I also truly stand up for the fact that we are now making that shift.
Other countries are being referred to here. Denmark and France are mentioned – the Netherlands have not been mentioned, but there are other countries we can learn from. But few are saying that we should smoke out all Muslims or not let people meet and practice their religion together.
For me, this is a completely crucial matter, and I also believe that it is crucial over time, so that we get these issues right, i.e., so that we both smoke out extremism and safeguard Sweden as a free and open society.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Mr. Speaker! My point is not that all Muslims are extremists, but that Islam is extremism. If one has a holy book that calls upon the Muslim collective to do horrific things, that is where the problem lies. One must dare to address this.
If an imam says something that we react strongly to, it is because it is in their holy book. It is exactly that simple.
It is clear that we have done much good together. I want to emphasize that our coalition partners will continue to do much that is good until the election in September, for example this with the foreign financing and also that we actually succeed in stopping a number of transactions to that kind of activity, which is very good.
But we must also enter this with open, honest eyes. This extremism must be fought. By that, I mean that we, for example, must be able to close all mosques that have that kind of connection, which unfortunately most seem to have. We must dare to deport imams and other Islamists who preach and advocate a message whose goal is to overthrow what we have built up here over generations.
One can, for example, do as has been done in France and require a declaration of loyalty from the imams, where it is required that those who are to conduct such activities also sign on to the republic's values. If they do not follow this, they are deported.
There is, therefore, much we can do. I do not accuse the Minister for Justice of being naive. But there is a naivety in general when one paints with a broad brush in the debate in Sweden and wants to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. I mean that it is the same thing.
That there are Muslims who do not believe in everything that is written in the Quran is positive. We should favor and provide space for those forces. But at the same time, we must dare to be honest and ask ourselves the question: How can this happen time and again in mosques all over Sweden?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I have by no means any problem at all with having a debate about the major world religions, about Islam and about what is written in the Quran. We do not need to be afraid of such a discussion.
But the difficult part is what actually are the practical conclusions of the analysis. For me, the practical conclusion is not primarily an analysis of texts in the Quran. One can analyze one holy scripture or another and find things that are also unpleasant, without relativizing. It is not primarily a study of the holy scriptures that has led me to my conclusion.
If a religious context – primarily concerning mosques – is used as a platform for radicalization and the cultivation of extremism and as a gateway for foreign influence or espionage, the democratic state of law Sweden must be uncompromising in relation to that.
We can also discuss what is Islam and what is political Islam. My point is that the protection of individual freedoms and rights is precisely individual. For me, it is a very important matter that peaceful people should be able to practice their faith in Sweden as well, and that perspective must also embrace those who believe in a different god than I do myself.
Therefore, I must say that I do not quite know where the interpellant's text analysis actually leads. We can look at our relations with other countries. It is no coincidence that we can cooperate with several countries that have a more moderate view on Islam in various respects, as opposed to others that are more extremist. Would that nuance not play any role in our international relations?
We shall be rock-hard against extremism and take a hard line against the foreign financing, which is intended to promote espionage, foreign influence, and an improper undermining of Swedish democracy. But we shall also safeguard what is a fundamental chord in the Swedish democratic rule of law, namely everyone's and each person's opportunity to practice their religion individually and together with others.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.