Tomas Lundberg’s trial is not just a legal battle; it’s a decisive stand against the creeping imposition of Sharia in Sweden, as this Christian politician fights to defend Western values and national sovereignty in the face of a government determined to silence dissent and enforce Islamic compliance.
Karlshamn, Sweden – Tomas Lundberg, a former Sweden Democrats (SD) politician and current member of Alternative for Sweden (AFS), is facing prosecution for what many see as a courageous stand against the spread of Islam and Sharia in Sweden. The charges stem from an incident at the Best Western Hotel in Karlshamn, where Lundberg questioned the presence of a sharia-adherent employee wearing a hijab. This trial, initially scheduled for August 20, 2024, but now delayed, has become a pivotal moment in Sweden’s ongoing struggle over national identity and its response to the growing influence of Islam.
The Incident: A Stand Against Sharia
On the morning of November 11, 2022, Lundberg visited the Best Western Hotel for a routine massage. Upon arrival, he noticed a Muslim woman in a hijab, a sharia-adherent head covering, at the reception desk. For many, the hijab is not merely a piece of cloth but a symbol of female oppression and Islamic law—a doctrine that stands in direct opposition to the principles upon which Western democratic governments are built. It represents a clash of ideologies that threatens the core of Western societies, challenging cultural values and the very governance and legal frameworks that uphold freedom and equality. Lundberg, a vocal critic of Islamic practices, questioned the appropriateness of the hotel employing staff who visibly display such dangerous symbols. He asked whether Christians were also welcome at the hotel, framing his inquiry as a legitimate concern about the rising influence of Islamic norms in Sweden.
Lundberg then engaged the woman in a discussion about Islam, specifically citing the “Sword Verse” from the Quran (Quran 9:5), which commands the killing or conversion of non-Muslims. When the woman denied the existence of such a command in the Quran, Lundberg stood firm, insisting that the verse supports his claim. His statements left the left-wing hotel staff “uncomfortable,” leading them to call the police. Furthermore, it appears from the preliminary investigation protocol that Lundberg stated, among other things, “I don’t want to see her here,” “I shouldn’t have to see Muslims,” “I shouldn’t have to see her,” and “it’s like a Jew who gets to see a Nazi.”
Police Involvement and Government Targeting
After Lundberg’s therapeutic massage at the hotel spa, three police officers arrived and detained him for questioning. Lundberg later recounted the police’s actions during the interrogation, describing how they confronted him outside the massage room, saying, “You know what it’s about,” to which Lundberg replied in confusion. He was taken into a cold room for interrogation, and when he attempted to put on a shirt he had with him, the police initially refused his request. When he reached for the shirt, they reacted as if he were reaching for a weapon, an action Lundberg described as “completely absurd.”
In the days following the incident, Lundberg sent a message via Facebook to the Best Western in Karlshamn, expressing his concerns about the incident. “How do I know if it is a Daesh Muslim (Islamic State ed. note) under the hijab or a secular Muslim with whom I have absolutely no problem?” Lundberg wrote, highlighting his fears about the potential threat posed by Islamic extremism in Sweden.
The police later charged Lundberg with harassment, a move that many see as part of a broader campaign by Sweden’s left-wing government to silence those who oppose their open borders agenda and the population replacement scheme they are accused of promoting. Prosecutor Mats Carlasjö emphasized that Lundberg’s comments were “intended” to offend the woman based on her religious beliefs, and the woman is seeking SEK 10,000 in damages.
This case exemplifies lawfare, a tactic increasingly deployed by Muslims to silence critics of Islam through legal means. This approach has had a chilling effect on free speech across Europe, where individuals like Lundberg face legal repercussions for merely questioning Islamic practices. By weaponizing the legal system, opponents of free speech aim to intimidate and suppress critical voices under the guise of protecting religious sensitivities. In Sweden, this aligns with the government’s broader efforts to enforce compliance with the state’s multicultural agenda. By targeting figures like Lundberg, the government seeks to create a climate of fear, deterring citizens from expressing concerns about Sweden’s future.
Lundberg’s Defense: A Fight for Sweden’s Survival
In response to the charges, Lundberg has been vocal on social media, framing his trial as a battle between the defenders of Swedish values and the forces of Islamofascism. On his Facebook page, Lundberg urged supporters to attend his trial, describing it as a stand against the encroachment of Islamic ideology in Sweden. He clarified that his question—“Are Christians also welcome here?”—was not meant to harass but to express his discomfort with the spread of Sharia in Sweden. He argued that his statements were intended to provoke thought, not to insult or threaten.
Lundberg has also pointed out that the presence of the hijab in public spaces represents a creeping acceptance of Sharia in Sweden. “The hijab signals Islam,” Lundberg stated, adding, “I felt uncomfortable and threatened when I saw the hijab, as I always do when I see it. It’s a symbol of an ideology that considers people like me, a Christian, as second-class citizens.” He continued to argue that his questioning of the hijab was a defense of Swedish values, not an attack on individuals: “It is natural to ask someone who displays such an ideology about their beliefs. It’s about defending Sweden’s secular, equal society against the encroachment of Sharia.”
Another Controversial Case: Tomas Lundberg in Ronneby
In a separate but equally controversial case, the former SD politician faced intense state scrutiny in 2017 for criticizing the hijabs and full-covering Muslim clothing worn by four sharia-adherent teachers at his daughter’s public school. Lundberg’s concerns about the implications of such attire in a Swedish school led to a police report being filed against him. During the investigation, authorities were quick to caution Lundberg against comparing Sharia clothing to the Islamic State (ISIS), a comparison that troubled the left-wing investigators.
Despite his attempt to express his views, Lundberg was confronted by a weaponized, biased legal system. Behind the prosecution was a known SD-hating far-left prosecutor, which raised significant concerns about the impartiality of the case. Ultimately, the Blekinge district court convicted Lundberg of a crime and ordered him to pay tens of thousands of kroner in damages to the hijab-wearing teachers and the state.
Adding insult to injury, one of the sharia-promoting Muslim teachers demanded that instead of just a fine, Lundberg, a proud Christian, should be compelled to attend a compulsory course in Islam due to his “ignorance.”
Support from AFS Leadership: A Stand Against Infiltration
Gustav Mattias Anton Kasselstrand, co-founder of Alternative for Sweden, has publicly supported Lundberg, calling the prosecution a scandal. Kasselstrand took to Facebook to defend Lundberg, arguing that his trial is an alarming indication of how far Sweden has gone in accommodating Islamic norms at the expense of free speech and national security. He highlighted that Lundberg had merely asked a critical question about Quran 9:5, a verse that justifies violence against non-Muslims, and pointed out the absurdity of prosecuting someone for raising legitimate concerns about Islam.
“This non-event did not end at the reception, and that something is very sick in Sweden,” Kasselstrand wrote. “The fact that the hotel, the police, the preliminary investigation manager, and prosecutors all chose to do their utmost to bring Lundberg to trial is a scandal. It gives us a frightening look into the future of an Islamized Sweden, where freedom of expression is under threat.”
Kasselstrand’s statement shows how Sweden’s left-wing government is actively working to suppress any opposition to its open borders policy. He warned that allowing Islamic norms to take root in Sweden threatens the country’s future as a free and democratic society. Kasselstrand’s support for Lundberg reflects the broader stance of Alternative for Sweden, which positions itself as a defender of Swedish culture and identity against what it sees as an invasion by foreign ideologies.
The Hijab: A Symbol of Oppression and Sharia
The hijab is not just a piece of clothing; it is a powerful symbol of the oppression faced by women under Sharia law. The Quran explicitly commands women to cover themselves to avoid provoking male temptation, and failure to do so can lead to severe consequences. Quran 24:31 instructs women to lower their gaze, be modest, and cover their adornments, while Quran 33:59 advises women to draw their veils close around them to avoid being molested.
This enforced modesty is not about religious devotion but about control. In many Islamic communities in the West, women are pressured to wear the hijab as a visible sign of their submission to Islamic law. Those who refuse often face severe repercussions, including violence and social ostracization. In Europe, there have been numerous cases of women being harassed, assaulted, or even killed for refusing to comply with Islamic dress codes.
For critics like Lundberg, the hijab represents a threat to Western values of gender equality and individual freedom. Its acceptance in public spaces is seen as a sign that Western societies are gradually succumbing to the demands of religious Muslims who seek to impose their values on everyone else. By prosecuting Lundberg, the Swedish government is seen as siding with those who wish to undermine Western freedoms in favor of Sharia law.
The Battle for Sweden’s Future
Lundberg’s trial is not just about one man’s right to question the presence of the hijab; it is about the broader struggle to protect Sweden from the growing influence of Islam. The case has drawn significant attention, with many seeing it as a pivotal moment in Sweden’s ongoing debate over immigration, integration, and national identity.
Sweden’s left-wing government has been accused of targeting individuals and parties that speak out against its policies, using the legal system to silence dissent. Lundberg’s supporters argue that this trial is part of a broader pattern of persecution aimed at anyone who dares to challenge the government’s agenda of open borders and multiculturalism.
As the trial approaches, Lundberg and his supporters remain steadfast in their convictions. They see this as a battle for Sweden’s soul, a fight to preserve the country’s values and protect its future from what they see as the insidious influence of Islam. The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications, not just for Lundberg but for the future of free speech and national sovereignty in Sweden.
News Link: https://rairfoundation.com/quran-says-she-must-kill-me-former-politician/
