Prominent Muslim YouTuber Mohammed Hijab demands an apology from Norewigian MP Kjell Ingolf Ropstad who accused him of antisemitism, misogyny and homophobia.
In an article about Hijab’s recent visit to Oslo at the invitation of the Islam Net organisation, Ropstad said that Hijab had gone “a long way in legitimising violence and suicide actions,” and implied that he should be prevented from visiting Norway.
Here is Mohammed Hijab’s response to Kjell Ingolf Ropstad in full:
This is a response to the inaccurate and distorted fabrications of the Norwegian MP Kjell Ingolf Ropstad who indirectly asked the Justice Minister of Norway to impose a ban on myself from entering the country, and demand to know what she would do to “prevent radicalisation among young Muslims and prevent the influence of extremists” (referring to myself) visiting Islam Net in Norway.
I usually would not spend this much effort in a task like this but since it has legal implications I will afford myself the luxury on this occasion.
The shocking first part of his question stated that the speech on my channel entitled A message to the Jews “went a long way in legitimising violence and suicide actions against the Jews.” Suffice it for me to say that I deny these distortions categorically and would challenge anyone to provide a shred of evidence for such a heinous and repugnant claim.
This is a transcript of the section of my speech which deals with the Islamic theological position on suicide:
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
“the Quran is extending the olive branch to every Jew in the world, you can be part of this community. Yes, you can be, this is what Allah is telling us in the Quran, that there is something more. But then the question is: if your belief is one which encourages preservation of life at all costs and our religion is not like that because, yes preservation of life is important, but preservation of religion is more important and there is a concept of martyrdom, then I would consider that to be an advantage frankly. Because as Robert Greene said ‘the one who is willing to commit suicide has the initiative.’ I am not saying commit suicide or anything – ‘oh I got him here’ – I am just saying figuratively the one who is willing to take it further…”
One should find it flabbergasting, flummoxing and dumbfounding that the MP has stated that I went a “long way in legitimising violence and suicide actions against the Jews” with this speech (which is still online and has been viewed by almost one quarter of a million people) when the speech states the categorical opposite of the alleged.
This not only constitutes libel/defamation of character but compounded ignorance at the highest level; either that or a kind of religious partisanship potentially motivated by the MP’s own Christian religious beliefs which are on the public record. In any event, we expect a full apology and retraction from the MP for these comments.
Homophobia and misogyny
As for the comments on homophobia and misogyny, this is interpretative. My views relating to gender roles are normative and orthodox Islamic and if the MP wants to label me in this way due to such views, I await his courage to do the same thing of individual members of the Orthodox Jewish community who have traditional views on gender issues and homosexual sex incommensurate with many liberal and feminist interpretations.
It should be stated that my following across my platforms ranges from 20-40% female and that was about that number of females in the very lecture that I was giving in the Islam Net event (as is usually the case).
Having said this, it may be interesting to note that Mr. Ropstad himself was accused of homophobia in 2019 by the leader of the Labour Party’s women’s network, Anette Trettebergstuen, who is a lesbian herself. She said about Ropstad that “it is horrible that he is now going a long way to say outright that bullying and inflicting shame [on homosexuals] is okay.” Trettebergstuen made this statement because Ropstad would not condemn religious societies that believe homosexuality is a sin.
So if the mere accusation of misogyny and homophobia is sufficient for condemnation, then perhaps Mr. Ropstad should also be condemned by the Minister of Justice. In fact, as a member of Norwegian parliament perhaps a formal investigation should be conducted into him.
What we may be witnessing with Mr. Ropstad is classic psychoanalytic projection or psychological overcompensation. Perhaps Mr. Ropstad secretly admires my continued ability to state/believe that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin in Islam while keeping firmly within the confines of the law in all Western countries and is ashamed of his own lack of courage for changing his beliefs for his career.
Antisemitism
As for the allegations about antisemitism, then it is true that due to my Palestinian activism and my opposition to the policies of Israel, I have been labelled by Zionists and others positioned far-right on the political spectrum as antisemitic. This is despite my opposition to antisemitism wherein the latter is defined as a discrimination of Jewish people due to ethnicity as can be evidenced by various videos, I have done against antisemitism including a famous interview I had with the BBC.
At this point though, even intense Liberals like Jeremy Corbyn have been labelled by Zionists and others as antisemitic and so such labelling from such individuals (i.e. Zionist proponents of Israel) cannot and is not an academically neutral observation.
Moreover, Mr. Ropstad states that someone in a protest I attended stated that “they want Jewish blood.” Pro-Palestinian protests can amass hundreds of thousands of people in London, and if someone did say such a thing I find it shocking that Ropstad is therefore implicating me in such a statement. Such a move indicates that Ropstad, in addition to being potentially dysfluent in English (or at least has poor reading comprehension), does not know basic concepts of natural justice in Western law systems and therefore is unfit to be in parliament.
If one were to associate Ropstad with things that party members and co-religionists or pro-activists had said, he would clearly be out of a job. In fact, Ropstad has been criticised for supporting sexual reorientation based upon his congregation, Oslo Missionary Church Bethlehem, being affiliated with Mission Church Norway, which is again affiliated with the network Til Helhet. According to the Norwegian news outlet NRK Til Helhet presents itself as follows: “We at Til Helhet want to assist you who have an… unwanted sexual orientation or unwanted feelings (lesbian/homosexual/bisexual feelings/transsexuality), and who themselves want help in the process of finding a new path in this.”
But Ropstad did not consider such criticism to be valid when directed towards himself. He said: “I do not know what my congregation is connected to, and in any case I distance myself from work on sexual reorientation.” So why is it that Ropstad is operating with double standards? Why is he okay with guilting Muslims “by associations,” but doesn’t want that for himself?
I consider the antisemitism accusation as a convenient means of shutting down the discourse on arguably one of the most dreadful and heinous oppressive disasters to afflict any people (the Palestinian people) in the last century. It would be discomforting if the Justice Minister of Norway cannot see how this attempt by Ropstad to cause a distraction on the main events happening in the world is a red-herring.
Hindutva and Hindus
Finally, the MP falsely repeats that I stated that Hindus are “pathetic and weak.” Once again, I have never stated this. I challenge him or anyone else to provide one clip of me saying that Hindus are pathetic and weak. I mentioned that the Hindutva were pathetic and weak, and I stand by this. This can be shown clearly not only in my speech but the title of my video online which is entitled “Muslim responds to Fascist Hindutva thugs.”
I mentioned that if they believe in reincarnation that it would be humiliating for them (the Hindutva) to be reincarnated as pathetic and weak. Although this may sound like mockery of the Hindu faith to an uninformed reader with below average reading comprehension, this is not so as I have stated clearly in the theological possibility of an all powerful God to perform reincarnation if such a God so wills.
The Hindutva are a far-right Nazi inspired political group in India, so the fact that he conflates them and Hindus without evidence is further evidence to a potential malicious intent on behalf of the MP. My statement that it would be humiliating for the Hindutva to be reincarnated in this way if they believe in reincarnation can only be seen as a personal insult for the Hindutva. This is the equivalent of saying that “If ISIS believe in hell, then they may be entering it.” A person with average intelligence will be able to note that the “if-then” formulation clarifies mockery about the Hindutva and not to the entire Hindu population or indeed the Hindu faith.
Freedom of speech
Finally, I warn Norway that this move threatens not only freedom of expression and speech, but also secularism. If political action can be taken due to the grievances of one member of the public and proponent of one faith (Christianity) against another (a Muslim), it will set a precedent the like of which could call into question the very secular credentials of the Norwegian state. One religious advocate would have used his political leverage to inhibit speech of another religious group.
This also goes against the assumption of equality which undergirds the liberal democratic/pluralistic system. There is no doubt that if this decision is taken it will be scandalous and set a dangerous precedent the like of which is likely to taint the reputation of the Justice Minister not only with the Muslim community, but as a general matter of fact.
It could also be said to be unusually convenient timing that these complaints are being made now right after I protested for the Palestinian cause outside of the Norwegian Parliament joined by multiple Norwegian politicians that had come together to demand an immediate ceasefire. Many, I am sure will speculate that this is a feeble attempt at silencing critics and creating a gag culture of censoriousness.
