Our Swedish correspondent CB has translated an article by the Svenska Dagbladet editorialist Gudmundson. First, the translator’s introduction:
In this article, on his own blog, Per Gudmundson (one of the editorialists from Svenska Dagbladet, the major Swedish conservative newspaper) gives us a glimpse into the twisted world of Shi’a Islamists in Sweden. He’s probably right in his assessment that the actual number of Shi’a Islamists is far lower than their own inflated count. Still, as the words of Ehsan Majnun show, they can one day become quite dangerous, when the numbers of Muslims increase.
And, as Muslims all over the world demonstrate day after day, most Muslims stay mum in front of their co-religionists’ violence and brutal jihad against minorities, women, and non-Muslims, and will not be of any help to us if a serious change of heart does not occur.
Gudmundson is most likely attempting irony at the end, and partly it’s validated as a means to show the barbarism of Ehsan’s reasoning. But, problematically, it clouds the more sinister underpinning: that Ehsan acts according to the sunna of Islam. He knows he has to censure Vilks; the Koran and sunna demand it; but to punish Vilks in a fitting manner (death for blasphemy) will at the moment negatively impact the Muslims.
But if the Muslims get the upper hand in Sweden, will his approach be the same or different?
There is no reason to believe that Islamists in Sweden, who laud the fascist regime in Iran and support terror organizations, would act any differently towards Swedes and other non-Muslims than how the people they praise would treat us. Every Swede should remember that when the public media give soft-spoken people like Mohammed Omar a platform. The true face of his Islam is on the streets of Islamabad, in the sands of Darfur and among the members of Hamas who kill their opponents in Gaza.
Concerning Muslim violence in coming days in Sweden: today I was traveling between Tensta and Rinkeby by bus and there were a couple of Muslim youths talking quite loudly about what will happen to homosexuals and apostates in the future Sweden. They exclaimed that they would either be hanged or thrown off a high building or a cliff, and they seemed to prefer hanging… Apostates they just wanted to kill in a gruesome way.
One could probably say that part of the loud boasting about a future Muslim paradise in Sweden was just that, loud boasting. But one could wonder about what is being taught in those kids’ homes and in mosques, and what internet sites are they visiting, and who are their role models…?
I’ve been working and active in many of Stockholm’s immigrant areas over the years, but this was the first time I heard something like this so openly in a public space. So, as Gudmundson says in his article, even the “intellectual” works of Islamists have a tendency to give birth to ideas like this.
And now for CB’s translation of Gudmundson:
Young Shi’a anti-democrats step forward
Sunday, August 16th, 2009
Protests against the so-called election in Iran have resulted in an interesting consequence in Sweden. Young Shi’a Muslims who are loyal to the Islamic republic’s leadership have become visible.
A small cluster of websites, with such names as RadikalMuslim.se, NoorIslam.net or “Ehsans blogg — sinnlig, andlig och digital revolution” [i.e. Ehsan’s blog — sensuous, spiritual and digital revolution], defends the Islamic dictatorship more or less openly. What’s going on is perhaps best expressed by the name of the news site e-jihad.
Or, in e-jihad’s own words:
We live in a time where there’s an intensive war going on, not through bombs and missiles but through information and propaganda. In this battle the elite are those who have media in their hand and they have the power to influence the masses in a certain direction. It was with this in the back of our minds that e-jihad.se was started.
As far as can be seen, the young bloggers don’t advocate terrorism or martyrdom operations — rather the other way around. But the consequences of the anti-democratic view — that the rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran is legitimate — has consequences in that direction.
An interview on e-jihad illustrates the dilemma. Mohammad al-Tijani al-Samawi is a scholarly Shi’a imam, loyal to the theocratic dictatorship, who recently visited Sweden to propagate his ideological poison. He says to e-jihad that terror movements Hamas and Hizbullah, who are Iran’s extended arms, are blessings:
– – – – – – – – –
Much has happened since the victory of the Islamic revolution. Imam Khomeini awakened the Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’a. He awakened the Muslims and taught them how they should rise in a struggle to deliver their message. Thanks to this, and all praise is to God, a resistance has been established today that didn’t exist before imam Khomeini’s time. Thus is Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah a blessing from imam Khomeini; Hizbullah is a blessing from imam Khomeini. This is reality; had it not been for the Islamic Revolution, Hizbullah would not exist today. Nor would Lebanon have been liberated.
The same goes for Hamas, who in turn are a blessing from Hizbullah. As you see, both of these groups are blessings from the Islamic Revolution. The Revolution awakened the masses.
Iranians in exile are notoriously divided, and there is hardly any reason to believe that these Islamist anti-democrats enjoy any major support among their compatriots in the Swedish exile. The closely related association DVV (the awaited’s friends — who obviously await the Twelfth Imam’s return) have a Facebook group. There are 96 members found today, among many abroad. The most renowned in the group is the Islamist Mohammed Omar. The administrators, who also are found behind the above-mentioned blogs, are Hossein Fartousi and Ehsan Majnun.
By the way, the latter have coincidentally met the artist Lars Vilks [the Modoggie guy].
The alternatives I had in mind were: To kill him, to maul him, not to do anything at all or to approach and talk to him. I excluded the first two alternatives, since I reasoned that if I were to do something like that, the pressure and persecution of Muslims would escalate considerably and I would be responsible for that. Besides, the West has mostly seen violence, threats and aggressiveness from Muslims and I didn’t want to strengthen that image.
Not to do anything was also out of the question, since it’s my obligation as a Muslim to stand up for truth and justice.
So, the only option left was to approach him and talk.
The reasoning about whether it is profitable or not for the Muslim group to kill Vilks doesn’t score any democratic points, even if it is gratifying that they chose communication over violence. As long as it’s profitable.