First time visitor? Learn more.

Rosengård ‘growing more radical’

by Kafir ( 14 Comments › )
Filed under Islamic Supremacism at January 28th, 2009 - 8:32 am

Rosengård, “Rose Garden” in Malmö, Sweden

From The Local

A majority of Rosengård’s inhabitants believe the troubled Malmö suburb has undergone a radicalization over the past five years, a new study shows.

Experts believe the city council needs to be allocated greater financial resources if it is to get to grips with the rise of political and religious extremism.

Researchers Magnus Ranstorp and Josefine Dos Santos from the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College were tasked by the government with examining the effects of preventive measures taken in Sweden against violent extremism and radicalization.

As part of their studies, the researchers conducted extensive interviews with school personnel and police officers active in the Rosengård district.

The vast majority of respondents were of the view that the predominantly immigrant suburb had become considerably more radical over the last five years.

Ranstorp and Dos Santos describe how “ultra-radical” Islamists attached to basement mosques “preach isolation and act as thought controllers while also maintaining a strong culture of threats, in which women in particular are subjected to physical and psychological harassment.”

“Newcomer families who were never particularly traditional or religious say they lived more freely in their home countries than they do in Rosengård,” the researchers write.

Tags: , , ,


Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

14 Responses to “Rosengård ‘growing more radical’”
( jump to bottom )

  1. nathan hogroast
    1 | January 28, 2009 8:43 am

    oh man, tell us something we dont know. it takes a team of experts to state the obvious.
    what to do, pour money at the problem, instead of bulldozing the whole shitty place into the ground, along with every so called radical.
    for radical read devout muslim.

  2. 2 | January 28, 2009 8:51 am

    Nathan, yeah more financial resources will solve the problem. Of course! And these “radical muslims” are just poor sweetie pies.


  3. 3 | January 28, 2009 9:33 am

    Gotta love how ignorants try to segregate Muslims into “ultra radicals, radicals, fundamentalists, moderates”…when in all reality it is are they obeying the Qu’ran or not. Every single time I see a in depth story about so called radicals, they are just one who take the Qu’ran serious enough to obey it. Seems to me that is the classic definition of a true to life Muslim.

  4. 4 | January 28, 2009 10:03 am

    Or they are taking up a radical more fundamentalist reading of the Qur’an. That’s what wahhabism is after all, just a school of thought differing from the practice and traditions of other Sunni Muslims. Indonesia was really quite different religiously before a “scholar” returned from Arabia teaching wahhabism to the people there, which in turn turned things rather against the Dutch there.

    Not that the situation isn’t bad in Sweden, not saying it isn’t. Just playing devil’s advocate as usual.

  5. 5 | January 28, 2009 10:37 am

    I’m not arguing that theirs isn’t a more “fundamental” interpretation, but when you have whole islamic governments that spew the same crap (sunni, shia- it doesn’t seem to matter), you can hardly call it a tiny minority of extremist that are “radical” as the left is determined to do.

  6. 6 | January 28, 2009 11:02 am

    Governments are a whole different problem. N. Korea among other nations manages to “spew” quite well without Islam. Even the Gates of Vienna folks are rather more worried lately about Russia it seems from the last month of posting (not to mention China). And that’s GATES OF VIENNA I’m talking, one of the most hate-spewing sites out there IMHO.

  7. 7 | January 28, 2009 11:31 am

    I suppose the issue of interpretation may invoke slightly modified doctrines, but there is no mistaking observing the actions of Muslims. There is no good manifestations of Jihad I have seen, where it actually deters them from violent responses to non submissive resistors to Islam. I never try to project my opinions of Quranic doctrine on the Islamic world, I let them interpret their own mess that is revealed in their actions…and the overwhelming Islamic response to Nations, Cultures, other Religions etc… that resist them is seething hatred & violence from of those who act on Jihad references in the Qu’ran.

    Hence the Jihadist is the obedient Muslim.

  8. 8 | January 28, 2009 11:31 am

    Well shit Lex, things are crazy all over. I thought the discussion here was about Islam. And “radical islamists”.

  9. 9 | January 28, 2009 11:34 am

    You know, tomatoes are red. I guess that means we shouldn’t discuss radical muslims.

    (hey, that makes about as much sense as your comment did, Lex)

  10. 10 | January 28, 2009 11:37 am

    You brought up governments, not me. Besides, evolution is discussed here frequently enough for me to think that the discussion here isn’t limited to Islam alone.

    Ah well, back to my music program. Good day.

  11. 11 | January 28, 2009 11:44 am

    I didn’t say anything here was limited to anything alone, but it was just a tip- as a rebuttal- what Russia is doing, what GOV is doing or what the cookie monster is doing doesn’t have anything to do with whether islamists are radicalized or getting it right.

  12. 12 | January 28, 2009 11:46 am

    I mean, if you are going to refute something I would think it needed to be topical.

    For example, rebutting “islam sux” with “flowers are pretty” doesn’t make sense. But hey, whatever.

  13. Anastasia
    13 | January 28, 2009 1:23 pm

    Lex—— I think your first comment here is to the point, which is that Wahhabi Islam and other Salafist doctrines are the real problem. The spread of Salafism (usually by petro-dollars) is then combined with anti-Western resentment, anti-European racism, rabid ethnic nationalism (particularly among Arabs), anti-capitalism, and good old-fashioned anti-semitism—-a complex and ugly mix in which National Socialism, neo-Marxism, and religious fanaticism converge. Islamofascism is as good a word as any for this obnoxious potion.

    The difficulty is that there is no inconsistency between this Islamofascism and the Koran & Hadith in the sense, for example, that there is a glaring inconsistency between Black Liberation Theology and the Bible. We are talking about extremism here, not heresy. Salafism has had its ups and downs in terms of dominance, but it has always been regarded as orthodox. “Moderate” Muslims therefore have a very hard time arguing against it within their own faith communities, and with non-Muslims they are often reduced to denying, condoning ,or even defending it.

    And since you bring up Islam in Indonesia, you know that the traditional syncretic Islam of Java, with its Hindu and Buddhist influences, has more often than not been regarded as impure and heretical by mainstream Muslim scholars. Ditto for Sufism. What can we do, then, when the best of Islam is probably heretical and the worst is undeniably orthodox?

    I don’t know the answer. I agree with you (I think!) that the solution is NOT to dismiss 1+ billion people as raving lunatics and monsters. OTOH, I cannot pretend that there is no problem with Islam in and of itself. There is one now and there always has been.

  14. 14 | January 29, 2009 6:16 am

    Anastasia, thank you for understanding what I was saying. I do think that many recent theological ideas supposedly based on The Bible are as errant as the Salafis and that these views are rather insidiously creeping through American society. Yes, no terrorism perhaps, but then Robert Spencer’s latest book is called “Stealth Jihad” with a subtitle something like “How radical Islam is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs”. Actually, I think that is the full title. I find these ideas subversive and not in line with The Bible at all (pre-trib as one example, many Evangelical exegetical ideas as well--I’m just waiting for Tex to show up now), another “stealth invasion” of ideas. Just within my own faith. Many Sunnis view the Salafis similarly just as the Salafi school of thought find them heretical (like the Sufis and elements of Indonesian worship you mentioned).

    I just think the answer is within the Umma itself if it can be turned from the radicals and will cast them out. This may be a fad that needs to pass. Scary while looking at it in its prime but possibly a passing phase. Bat Ye’or said that we must work WITH Muslims and not against them in her Atlas Shrugs interview. I heartily agree.

Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David