Religious Police(Mutaween) in... Sweden?!

[Nemesis6]

On 13 December 2002 a non-alcoholic Somali party, organized by pro-integration Muslims, was being celebrated in Goteborg. A Miss Somalia contest was to be held.

Outside the establishment, radical Muslims were protesting because "the girls wear bikinis and the party is a sin".

Even though this was not the case: The girls were wearing the national Somali attire.

On the outside the protests continued. A young man headbutts a girl for wanting to join the party.

No more parties were celebrated for the next three years.

The Salafis (a minority of muslims) were behind these protests. Their way of thinking is simple: "If you want to be a true muslim, do not become a friend of non-Muslims".

"We must not mix with them. Why? Because then we would become like them", says Anas Khalifa. He's a 23-year-old popular preacher. He runs the homepage www.ansar.se.

He continues saying, "I don't care about integration as long as it doesn't affect my religion".

The investigator, Pernilla Ouis, converted to Islam 20 years ago. "The Salafis are against any form of integration." She doesn't agree with the ones who believe the Salafis aren't a problem because they are a minority. "They spend much time in the big mosques talking with regular muslims with the purpose to provoke "guilty conscience"" she says.

Shukri Sheek was one of the organizers of the Miss Somalia-party. She also got voted as one of the most popular somalian radio/tv-hosts. She is receiving aggressive e-mails. "I don't care about what they think. I know I am a Muslim. Sometimes I understand it's dangerous, though. Anything could happend..."


One of the clerics for the Salafis is Sheik Munajjid (in Saudi-Arabia). He advocates a "Total ban of music because it could lead to sinful actions".

On his website he publishes hateful messages towards non-Muslim Swedes:

1.- "There is no good infidel (kuffar). All infidels are of the same "junk and grain". The least we can do, is hate them correctly".
2.- "...non-believers can never be our friends".
3.- "We shall not adapt Islam to the surroundings, but the surroundings to Islam".
4.- "It is prohibited to compromise and be kind to them on the expense of your religion".

The Islamic Culture Association received 350.000 swedish krones ($46.500) of tax-money in 2003. As of 2004, they haven't received anything, due to suspicions of money fraud.

They didn't want to be interviewed.

Several people have confirmed that the Islamic Cultural Association get funds from the terror organization al-Haramein.

There is a fight going on between the liberal and the radical Islam in Malm?, just as in the rest of Sweden.



The Al-Salam school in Orebro was financed with Saudi-Arabian money. Swedish Elisabeth Soderling got the job as headmistress.

At the day of inauguration, she was denied entrance to the school because she was a woman. Neither would they let her read her mail. "And all kinds of music were prohibited", she says.

Masoud Kamali, the Government's Integration Comissioner, does not believe that liberal Muslims are being victimized by radical Muslims.

But the problem exists nonetheless.

A new party is being organized in Goteborg. Muslims who want to join, stay in the car. They are afraid because the Salafis are there to stop it. Finally the police shows up and forces the Salafis to leave. The Salafis don't quite seem to understand that they themselves are the problem. They are the Islamic Ordinance.

http://www.utrop.no/diskuter/view.html?action=view&catid=55&discid=35006&rootid=35006

This was an English translation of a Swedish article from 2006. Not my own translation, so there are some grammar errors in it. The original link and video is dead, but the article is preserved in the link above. Can't believe I missed this until now.

Anyway, it's kind of nice to know that we have self-appointed Mutaween(Islamic religious police) in Europe, too. In the supposed most liberal part, Scandinavia. But then again, it is kind of our own fault for being so boneheadedly self-satisfied. We have the same problems in Denmark, and we are just as ignorant about it. For example, we have Imams advocating rape of infidels, Islamic domination of the land, terrorist attacks on our country, etc, and the best part of it all is, these people are the leaders of the biggest Islamic faith community we have in Denmark.

And they are called "moderates" by our stupid, politically-correct press whom themselves brought us these very same reports of all these terrible things they say and advocate. What the Imams do is say one thing in public and another in private. So the media listens to them in public and hear all this wonderful interfaith stuff that they don't really mean, and then every once in a while, they slip up in public or in private when they don't know they're being recorded. And after all of this, it's both nice and sad to know that these guys are a minority, sad because it shows how weak we are if we feel that we need to kneel before these assholes, and because these people are actually representing a large part of Muslims in Denmark, the ones associating themselves with this so-called faith-community, anyway. Good because it makes it easier to single them out and deport them... Of course we would never do that, because we're culturally sensitive, and when they say that women deserve to be raped because they're not wearing the burqa, what they're obviously saying is not that they deserve to be raped -- even though that's what they literally say -- they're saying women need to dress modestly. And from that point on the apologies fly left and right. "That's what he said!", "Yeah but he really meant this!", "But he actually said that he wanted this to happen.", ".....Racist!"

Yeah, that was some rant. But you'll hear this from most people you ask around here. Unless of course you ask the deluded ones in lollipops-and-puppies land.

 

[Dan]

I couldn't read that. I tried but I failed. Could somebody translate it into English?

 

[jverne]

they deserve an one way ticket to where they came from and a huge penalty if they ever try to come back

 

[nurizeko]

Overall I am quite pride of European liberal values and culture, but FFS Europe, lets grow a pair and learn how to kick out those who have no desire to live as we expect them to.


At the end of the day if they don't want to integrate, oppose everything we stand for, and are generally not interested in living in the western European democracy they are leeching off of, then send them to somewhere thats more to their tastes.


You don't allow ungrateful even hateful guests to stay in your home, don't allow it in your country.


We should only be tolerant of those wishing to be tolerant of us, race and religious respect has to go both ways or its not doing any good.

They are a minority right anyway?, the majority of peaceable Muslims will be just as happy to see them gone.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

 

[The Monkey]

This is a problem, no doubt. It will be difficult (actually illegal), to deport these people once they're citizens. I believe imprisonment is the only option for these people. Maybe this wouldn't be such a huge problem if the other countries did their ****ing part. For example, Sweden takes in more Iraqi refugees that the rest of Europe combined (and we're not a big country), and a suburb to Stockholm alone takes in more Iraqis that the US and Canada combined.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The flaw in multiculturalism is that other cultures suck

 

[Iliketobenaked]

This is a problem, no doubt. It will be difficult (actually illegal), to deport these people once they're citizens. I believe imprisonment is the only option for these people. Maybe this wouldn't be such a huge problem if the other countries did their ****ing part. For example, Sweden takes in more Iraqi refugees that the rest of Europe combined (and we're not a big country), and a suburb to Stockholm alone takes in more Iraqis that the US and Canada combined.

the US still takes in most immigrants in the wolrd every year.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

We need to overhual the Humans Right Act, people who support terror etc should not have full human rights.

Not so long ago there was a story here that a Muslim convicted of terrorism can't be deported because of his Human Rights WTF, this guy wanted to kill countless number of people and yet we can't do anything about it because we have to respect his human rights. Yet a widower who's wife who came to work in the NHS got killed by an NHS mistake is being deported, weres the logic in that.

The fact is they have to much political protection here in europe, we need to get our priority's straight if they want to integrate and adapt then fine we can make compromises and work together.
But if they want to come here to use our right to free speech to spread the word of terrorism and that rape and violence against women is ok, and using Islam as a way to bypass our laws then they should be kicked out.
Right now we are paying for them to stay though taxes, most of these guys leech off our benefits they don't contribute they just want more because it there right and it's our fault for allowing it.

 

[99.vikram]

We need to overhual the Humans Right Act, people who support terror etc should not have full human rights.

Exactly what Bush always says. Wait...

Those who value security over freedom deserve neither.

Not so long ago there was a story here that a Muslim convicted of terrorism can't be deported because of his Human Rights WTF, this guy wanted to kill countless number of people and yet we can't do anything about it because we have to respect his human rights.

The man in question is accused of a crime, that too by another country. Would you want to deport anyone, even muslims, to an evil regime? No. The risk that the charge was bogus is too high.

Again, freedom over security.

 

[Eejit]

the US still takes in most immigrants in the wolrd every year.

Since ~1565.

 

[Iliketobenaked]

People that are actively working to take away liberty's and rights,Shouldn't be given those right.agreed.

 

[Eejit]

People that are actively working to take away liberty's and rights,Shouldn't be given those right.agreed.

This makes us better than them how?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Immigrants who break the law should be sent home.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Exactly what Bush always says. Wait...

Those who value security over freedom deserve neither.


The man in question is accused of a crime, that too by another country. Would you want to deport anyone, even muslims, to an evil regime? No. The risk that the charge was bogus is too high.

Again, freedom over security.

Yes i would deport them, national security over there rights. They pose a real rick to millions of people here so yes i would deport them why should we protect them. It's has nothing to do with freedom. If people wish to seek asylum here, i have no problem with that. But if they wish to harm the country they come to, then i do have a problem with that.
Abu Qatada is described as "Osama bin Ladens right-hand man" here in Europe and a British judge described him as a "truly dangerous individual".He came here illegally and went on the run from the the police after the Government introduce new anti-terror laws. Does this sound like a good innocent asylum seeker. Also Britain has agreements with Jordan that deportees will NOT face torture or ill-treatment on return.

 

[Solaris]

kill the brownies /satire

 

[nurizeko]

Put aside all the knee jerk hippy OTT liberal shit aside, if your coming to a country, then preaching and acting on, hate of said country, for mentioned country has and bloody well should send you packing. If you love extreme Islam so much then go live in an extreme Islamic state.


Were trying to kill extreme Islam by taking over Islamic countries and fostering pitiful excuses for democracy while seemingly oblivious to the fact that local and immigrant Muslims are actively preaching religious, racial and flat out hate of the rest of the country they reside in.


That is un-acceptable.


This isn't some western versus evil brownie Muslim shit, this is everyone, Muslims included verses foreign wankfaces that are clearly not welcome and should be shown the door.


As for home grown, well, we have prison.

Frankly I think exile/deportation should be a legal punishment within our law, that way if someone seems overly intent on wiping out our way of life, then they can be deported to a country that fits their world view closest, if they want them or not.

 

[Leto]

As much as I would support this, I can see it being blown out of proportions.
The fact that we would be violating Human Rights (even though I agree that some people don't deserve some of the rights) would create an uproar from Human Rights activists.
Another thing is, what about the racism that would be brought up by it?
We are talking about a extremist part of Islam. I know a few Muslims and they have their religious beliefs but they never impose.
Who is to say that people wouldn't stop trying to get rid of the rights of Muslims, even if they don't go against the country and don't have extreme views. After 9/11, remember the racism associated with that, how almost any person with dark pigmented skin was labelled a terrorist in many people's eyes?

I'm not trying to be a hippy liberal, but we would be no better than the extremist Muslims if we started getting out a group because they don't follow by our beliefs.

But then again, they overstayed their welcome when they mess around with other people, but that should be dealt with in the Criminal Code.

Harassment, non-peaceful protests, threats, you can be put in jail for these.

So I'll be on the fence for this one. Good and bad can come out of this.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't get this deportation stuff.

If immigrants have become citizens, and they break the law, they should be punished accordingly - like citizens.

 

[Nemesis6]

I don't get this deportation stuff.

If immigrants have become citizens, and they break the law, they should be punished accordingly - like citizens.

Instead of going into technicalities and all that, I'll say this: The law cannot and will not touch them. They are virtually immune. That's where deportation helps; Charge them with treason, and deport them. Only thing that needs to be proven is that the people came here with this bullshit in their head already. Come to a country to spread fascism = GTFO.

 

[nurizeko]

I don't get this deportation stuff.

If immigrants have become citizens, and they break the law, they should be punished accordingly - like citizens.

Aside from the fact many could be illegal or merely asylum seekers or whatever, whats the issue with making exile a legal judgment within the law?.



Pass a law that enables it as a legitimate punishment for certain crimes, and let judges/juries use it after someone has been convicted of a crime that merits it after the usual trial process.


I mean if treason is still punishable by death legally, at least in the UK, I don't see why varying criminal actions designed to attack the state and its predominant culture don't merit exile.


If you plot to blow up a train, you should at least expect expulsion, I mean in most countries, terrorism is punished with execution.

Thankfully Britain doesn't believe in capital punishment, but to deport asylum seekers with genuine cause to not go back to their homeland, while allowing these murderous hateful men and women to continue to get away with their actions with no response is disgusting.

If immigrants have become citizens, and they break the law, they should be punished accordingly - like citizens.

Now I think about it, um....don't most, if not all countries, reserve the right to kick out any person who was born outside of the country?.


You could have moved here at 20 and spent 20-30 years here, and a government still has the right to expel you.

 

[CptStern]

what country has the right to expel their own citizens? they're citizens. that doesnt make sense at all

I dont see why you would/could argue that immigrants who are citizens should have special laws ..that would be discrimination

 

[99.vikram]

Yes i would deport them, national security over there rights. They pose a real rick to millions of people here so yes i would deport them why should we protect them. It's has nothing to do with freedom.

*Facepalm*

I'm not talking about their freedom. I'm talking about yours.

The minute you let your government create such hazy draconian laws in the name of security, you can be sure that some day it will be used against you.

 

[nurizeko]

what country has the right to expel their own citizens? they're citizens. that doesnt make sense at all

I dont see why you would/could argue that immigrants who are citizens should have special laws ..that would be discrimination

And how many of these immigrants are citizens anyway?.

Not to mention many countries have different ideas of citizenship for native born and foreign incomers.

But your point is moot anyway because many of the inflammatory religious and racial hate spreading terrorist supporting types that need removing don't have full citizenship, and thats understandable, since to have actual full un-assailable citizenship you think every immigrant who comes to the west has, they need to bloody be minted or educated quite well, these strict citizenship rules are why most Mexicans chance it across desert and US border patrols to get into the USA.



And its not special laws. As I said, there can be a new law that brings in exile as a legal punishment for certain crimes, and as we know, crime knows no race.

You could be a whitey ginger, or a guy called CptStern who posts on HL2.net allot, but if you've broken a law that has exile as a possible punishment, you face the same risk.



I'm not advocating discriminatory laws, and if you bothered to read my last post again, you'd see I proposed a change in the law, a thing which effects every ****wit traitor equally.

Oh and every country has the right to expel anyone, realistically speaking they have the right to shoot you to. They can take your home, hell, in western liberal democracies alone, they can curb your freedom and lock you in a prison, for a variety of crimes, many European countries can lock you up for holocaust denial, a pretty petty law that punishes you for at best being a misguided moron, but being an idiot is hardly a crime in itself so yeah, if they can curtail one or several of your human rights under curtain circumstances, they can curtail them all, all it requires from you is to push the right (or wrong) buttons.




So in short the only people who could cry about an effective punishment within the law are those who are guilty of earning it.

 

[CptStern]

And how many of these immigrants are citizens anyway?.

what the hell is that supposed to mean? my parents are citizens but they're also immigrants ..they'll be immigrants till the day they die ..seriously that's a pretty silly question as immigration implies the people are emigrating to a country in to become citizens

Not to mention many countries have different ideas of citizenship for native born and foreign incomers.

I dont even know what that's supposed to mean ..a citizen does not have to be native born ..that's what immigration is for

But your point is moot anyway because many of the inflammatory religious and racial hate spreading terrorist supporting types that need removing don't have full citizenship, and thats understandable, since to have actual full un-assailable citizenship you think every immigrant who comes to the west has, they need to bloody be minted or educated quite well, these strict citizenship rules are why most Mexicans chance it across desert and US border patrols to get into the USA.

pardon?

And its not special laws. As I said, there can be a new law that brings in exile as a legal punishment for certain crimes, and as we know, crime knows no race.

You could be a whitey ginger, or a guy called CptStern who posts on HL2.net allot, but if you've broken a law that has exile as a possible punishment, you face the same risk.

that's absolutely ridiculous ..so I commit a crime that's punishable by exile ..where would they send me? I was born in canada ..what country would willing except someone who's broken the law to such an extent that they're not wanted in that country

I'm not advocating discriminatory laws, and if you bothered to read my last post again, you'd see I proposed a change in the law, a thing which effects every ****wit traitor equally.

what? how is that punishing everyone equally if it only targets recent citizens? you're not making sense

Oh and every country has the right to expel anyone,

no they do not, canada couldnt expel me if they tried ..where would they send me to? a deserted island? the forbidden zone? monster island?

realistically speaking they have the right to shoot you to. They can take your home, hell, in western liberal democracies alone, they can curb your freedom and lock you in a prison, for a variety of crimes, many European countries can lock you up for holocaust denial, a pretty petty law that punishes you for at best being a misguided moron, but being an idiot is hardly a crime in itself so yeah, if they can curtail one or several of your human rights under curtain circumstances, they can curtail them all, all it requires from you is to push the right (or wrong) buttons.


So in short the only people who could cry about an effective punishment within the law are those who are guilty of earning it.

you're rambling and not making much sense ..specifically how this all relates to what Sulkdodds said: that recent nationalised citizens should be treated equally in the eyes of the law because they're citizens ..you're going on an unrelated tangent or rant on terrorism

 

[AiM]

Instead of going into technicalities and all that, I'll say this: The law cannot and will not touch them. They are virtually immune. That's where deportation helps; Charge them with treason, and deport them. Only thing that needs to be proven is that the people came here with this bullshit in their head already. Come to a country to spread fascism = GTFO.

Huh? Where do you draw the line on this? What happened to freedom of expression? To charge someone with treason is a serious crime and to throw it around so loosely is ridiculous.

I'm not defending their actions (I think it's despicable myself), but what you're suggesting is the sort of knee-jerk reaction that infringes on rights and makes everyone's livelihood worse (e.g. Patriot Act).

 

[nurizeko]

what the hell is that supposed to mean? my parents are citizens but they're also immigrants ..they'll be immigrants till the day they die ..seriously that's a pretty silly question as immigration implies the people are emigrating to a country in to become citizens



I dont even know what that's supposed to mean ..a citizen does not have to be native born ..that's what immigration is for



pardon?







that's absolutely ridiculous ..so I commit a crime that's punishable by exile ..where would they send me? I was born in canada ..what country would willing except someone who's broken the law to such an extent that they're not wanted in that country





what? how is that punishing everyone equally if it only targets recent citizens? you're not making sense



no they do not, canada couldnt expel me if they tried ..where would they send me to? a deserted island? the forbidden zone? monster island?




you're rambling and not making much sense ..specifically how this all relates to what Sulkdodds said: that recent nationalised citizens should be treated equally in the eyes of the law because they're citizens ..you're going on an unrelated tangent or rant on terrorism

If all you can throw together is "what?" "huh?" "I'm confused duuh" then don't bother replying, its just pointless (more so then the apparent non-sense making of my last post).


Your parents are citizens because as I said, they went through proper channels to become full citizens, good for them, they have full rights, what I'm saying is many immigrants don't. Why you brought them up though I don't know, since they A) haven't committed a crime hence what is their citizenship got to due with a change in the law, and B) how does that relate to the fact I stated many folk who have come to western countries and are up to no good have passed the citizenship criteria to earn that equal citizenship rights?.

Sorry, in some countries, they have two tier citizenship. In Japan for example you can jump through hoops to get citizenship but it will never be equal to the rights and citizenship of native born, assuming you get citizenship at all. What you think citizenship should mean doesn't apply everywhere.

.what country would willing except someone who's broken the law to such an extent that they're not wanted in that country

They wouldn't, that situation is about having the gumbles to use already existing laws to kick out the foreign resident.

My point is the potential to make exile a legal punishment for those citizens deemed, after usual trial methods, extremely hostile to the state and a threat to the peace.

Exile has a long history in law and punishment. Where they send you is up to the law makers, could be they let you go where you want to go, could be they simply kick you out and leave you to make up your own mind, I dunno, its a hypothetical punishment anyway, and its meant to be punishing for a reason, namely the hypothetical convicted exilee would have to suffer the punishment of picking up his life and trying to establish it somewhere else. Severe, but its hardly execution, and it is meant to be a severe punishment anyway, the exile could be temporary or permanent based on the perceived severity of the crime at trial.


I never said recently arrived, current laws cover that, that is a case of governments not using those powers available to them for whatever reasons, please, just try and read what I say instead of scrolling over posts and only seeing "**** all immigrants".

Canada could expel you, just because you don't wanna believe it doesn't make it any less valid. Canada's current government respects the rule of law and current law provides you with protection against expulsion, hence just like every other current Canadian you are protected to an extent, but that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is for the government to want you gone and not care about the courts and you could be gone, just like me, no matter how long our families have lived in our respective countries.

The point I was making there is that its not impossible for you to be expelled from a country, even your own, your arguing that its highly unlikely, two different points, but perhaps my bad for not being more specific.


You've basically stumbled at thinking I was talking about what Sulk was talking about. I have never once mentioned deporting recently nationalized citizens, I've been talking about a hypothetical punishment for certain crimes deemed a threat to society, a punishment which has a long history and is arguably effective.


I apologize if you, due to my poor composition, or your in-attentive reading, have misread what I have been saying.


Try not to post with omnislashing to, cheers.

 

[CptStern]

I'm confused because you're not making sense, should I have not said anything at all?

again, no, canada has no ability to expel me from the country ..this is absolutely ridiculous thinking so unless you have some proof to back up your statement we'll just take that as a "no"

saying "well they could kidnap you and throw you in a plane and parachute you into the artic" may be plausible but it doesnt mean it'll happen because that would be OUTSIDE THE LAW ...no government entity could ever exile me ..really that's self evident if you have even the slightest idea abut how immigration works ..there's not a single country that would accept me after being left to rot by the canadian government

japan has differing rights for citizens and native citizens? please provide a source

Your parents are citizens because as I said, they went through proper channels to become full citizens,

full stop: yes but this is what we were talking about ..Sulkdoods clearly said that citizens should be punished according to the laws the govern citizens ..you side tracked into illegals and terrorists ..completely unrelated to what sulkdodds was saying

good for them, they have full rights, what I'm saying is many immigrants don't.

dont what? they dont have full rights because they're not citizens? well obviously!!!

you're not making sense

Why you brought them up though I don't know, since they A) haven't committed a crime hence what is their citizenship got to due with a change in the law, and

I brought them up because you didnt seem to understand what the term means at the time


and you're not making sense:

A) haven't committed a crime hence what is their citizenship got to due with a change in the law

what?

B) how does that relate to the fact I stated many folk who have come to western countries and are up to no good have passed the citizenship criteria to earn that equal citizenship rights?.

I fail to see your point here ..criminal minded people who gain citizenship may do bad things?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, I'm not getting how the issue is more complicated than:
- immigrants can become citizens
- all citizens have rights and obligations
- immigrants who are citizens get treated accordingly

If they are "up to no good", then they should be punished according to the normal law. And if they cannot be punished according to the normal law, and they are full citizens, then how precisely are they up to no good? You can't, and shouldn't, punish them.

I think exile is a shaky option because it's a punishment that engenders a clear bias. When you're talking about clearing people out of the country, it's surely going to applied to perceived immigrants and foreigners a lot more often than it is going to be applied to perceived native citizens. It is a punishment option that contains a measure of discrimination simply because it's apt to be used in that way.

And is Nemesis saying "the law is insufficient, punish these people outside the law"? that's absurd.

 

[Nemesis6]

And is Nemesis saying "the law is insufficient, punish these people outside the law"? that's absurd.

I knew it would come off like this... No, what I mean is: We need an easier, more reliable way to be able to deal with these people. We're afraid of jailing them or punishing them because the Imams often use the "interfaith" disguise. Makes them immune. I don't worry that much about the common brainwashed Muslims, it's the Imams who are keeping this problem going. We can't blame people for being brainwashed by extremists we didn't take care of. That's not fair.

So the Imams need to be legally touchable, that's the idea. Imams, and the people they draw into the country. What I mean by the last one is groups like Hizb Ut Tahrir who have their roots abroad, and who come here only to incite. We need to prevent these people from entering the country in the first place, to avoid these organisations getting a foothold. Banning the groups won't help, but keeping the extremists they import out probably will.