“It’s important to make clear that what has happened is both unwanted and unacceptable. It’s unacceptable because Sweden is an open society, an open society that has indicated that it wants people to have different backgrounds, different faiths or no faith at all and that they can live side by side in our open society. Our democracy works well. Persons who feel frustration and anger can vent this in a way that does not lead to violence. We care for this society and this is a society worth defending” ( Sunday 12/12/2010 , Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden)
In reaction to the despicable cartoons:
“Sweden is a country where people of different faiths can live together side by side. The foundation of this, our social model, is mutual respect and understanding, but also a desire for joint repudiation of offensive acts as well as acts of violence or aggression. Our social model is also based on the premise that politicians must not pass judgement on freedom of the press and expression, which are inalienable components of our country and our democracy.
The will to provoke must not overpower the will to engage in dialogue. Should it do so, it would jeopardise the potential for understanding and meetings between different cultures and religions. Let me be the first to express regret that people have now been upset or offended. Personally, I would never consciously act in a way that is perceived as provoking or offending other religions.” ( Prime Minister Reinfeldt, in 2007)
In light of the US’s latest policy review statements on Afghanistan I’m still mulling over the issue of that over-bruised, bomb-battered and shell-shocked country, Afghanistan. Nine years now. For nine years now, the people of Afghanistan have known no peace.
This interesting discussion – ideas not bombs (“Terrorism is a battle of minds not of bombs”) has almost disappeared from the radar and I would like to resuscitate it and bring it back to focus, here.
By no means less interesting is the Sweden Democrats call for “Islamic Extremism” to be debated in the Swedish Parliament. There ought to be no harm in debating such an issue. It’s part of democracy and goes with freedom of speech at the highest level, among our elected representatives in the Swedish Parliament.
At another level, Sweden’s local Islamic religious leaders are also expected to take part in the general debate, and have now promised to do so, starting on a large scale, with the Friday Khutbah ( Sermon) this Friday
What they say must be consistent with at least the Quran and not just their own wishful or wayward thinking.
Islamically speaking, all the Muslims of the world constitute one Brotherhood called the Ummah , the nation of Islam. All Muslims are brothers ( Al-Hujurat, 49:10 )
Since the dissolution of the Caliphate this sense of unity may have diminished along with the “And hold on to the rope of Allah, all together“consciousness as the Ummah (after the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks) has now resulted in the Ummah being fragmented into so many countries, monarchies, Republics and Sheikdoms.
It’s been divide and rule, and when one Muslim country is attacked or is under siege, mostly those Muslims ( especially in the wild west, shrug their shoulders and think that it’s not their affair.
Strictly speaking, from an Islamic point of view, the world is divided into Dar al Harb and dar al-Islam.
Sweden is still a part dar al-harb
Should Sweden be a province of a future Eurabia then Sweden would have become an intrinsic part of dar al-Islam with Mecca as the qibla.
According to a statement attributed to a Swedish Muslim Imam : “Sweden is our country, that which delights Sweden, delights us. That which hurts Sweden, hurts us.”
Although this is sincerely spoken and although the Muslim is supposed to obey the laws of the land/ country in which he lives ( when those laws do not contradict the Islamic laws of Allah) those sentiments expressed in that statement cannot be logically consistent with Islam, all the way.
A real Muslim would say “ That which Allah requires of us delights us.”.
The Swedish state is not a substitute for Allah.
Just as Israel is not a substitute for the Almighty.
Any such act of substitution is tantamount to idolatry.
Since the suicide bomber mentions these two causes ( the dog artist Lars Vilks & Afghanistan) the Swedish Imams must also have some ideas and may even be in essential agreement with Sweden’s commitment to Afghanistan – and whilst they are busy apologising and holding forth on Islamic righteousness and their abiding loyalty to the Swedish state, they could take up the terrorism dialectic tell us about their attitude to Swedish troops in Afghanistan and their attitude to Lars Vilks ’s deliberate mischief.
Klarspråk / Straight talk is demanded here and now, otherwise we get into the absurd situation in which Sweden – or whatever other country the Diaspora Muslim is domiciled, ( UK, the Netherlands, USA, etc.) sends troops to combat Muslims in whatever Muslim country the Diaspora Muslim comes from – Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan ( Heaven forbid, Saudi Arabia, Iran ) and the lame duck uncle tom Muslim is left following some lame duck Muslim leaders who sing “ “Sweden is our country, that which delights Sweden, delights us. That which hurts Sweden, hurts us.” – when the corollary of that could well be this: “ The Ummah – the International Muslim Brotherhood is our Brotherhood – and that which hurts the Muslim nation hurts us the Muslims, wherever we may be. Living.”
Sir Winston Churchill was not talking about Muslims when he said the following in 1940 but should it ever come to a war between the West and Muslims in the global war against terror it could be something like this about a fifth Column in our midst – hence the necessity of the Swedish Imams speaking out very CLEARLY, so that Muslims are not interned in some unforeseeable future:
“We have found it necessary to take measures of increasing stringency, not only against enemy aliens and suspicious characters of other nationalities, but also against British subjects who may become a danger or a nuisance should the war be transported to the United Kingdom. I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are the passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry for them, but we cannot, at the present time and under the present stress, draw all the distinctions which we should like to do. If parachute landings were attempted and fierce fighting attendant upon them followed, these unfortunate people would be far better out of the way, for their own sakes as well as for ours. There is, however, another class, for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us the powers to put down Fifth Column activities with a strong hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correction of the House, without the slightest hesitation until we are satisfied, and more than satisfied, that this malignancy in our midst has been effectively stamped out.”