RSS
The Preventable Death of Salwan Momika — and How It Exposed the Weaknesses of Sweden’s Immigration System
Salwan Momika. Photo: Screenshot
The Jan. 29 murder of Iraqi refugee and activist Salwan Momika — killed in his Stockholm apartment while live-streaming on TikTok — has sparked crucial questions about Swedish immigration policy. Momika, who had gained global notoriety for publicly burning the Quran, became a flashpoint in Sweden’s ongoing struggle to balance free speech, religious sensitivity, and immigration security.
While Momika’s death was widely reported, few media outlets have gone on to ask about the ways his death, or the tumult brought about by his actions in life, could have been avoided by the Swedish immigration system. At a time when European nations are reeling from poorly managed immigration policy — which has led to migrant violence and social disorder, with widely different solutions proposed — Momika’s story provides a microcosm for some of the issues these countries face.
Momika was a controversial figure in life and death, championed by some as a hero of free speech and a prophet foreseeing the threat of radical Islam in Europe. To others, he was a hideous blasphemer, a radical hatemonger on a mission to incite against his countrymen and their coreligionists, or just a fraudster looking for attention.
Born in 1986 to a Catholic Assyrian family in northern Iraq, Momika’s path to Sweden was marked by conflict. During the heyday of Islamic State (ISIS), he commanded a Christian brigade within the Iran-affiliated Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). A dispute with fellow Assyrian PMF commander Rayan al-Kildani prompted his flight in 2018 to Sweden, where he secured refugee status by 2021. This background would later raise questions about the thoroughness of Sweden’s asylum vetting process.
Sweden’s handling of Momika’s case exposed critical weaknesses in its immigration system. While Swedish law prohibits entry to those who have committed “serious crimes” or pose security threats, significant oversights occurred.
First, despite Momika’s involvement with the Iran-linked Imam Ali Brigades, his military background received insufficient scrutiny. Second, his false statements on his asylum application regarding persecution and prior activities weren’t discovered until after his controversial actions began. These systemic failures became more apparent as Momika’s public provocations escalated.
In Sweden, Momika was sentenced to community service after threatening to kill a man while holding a knife. Two years later, in 2023, he began publicly burning the Quran, attracting crowds. His actions triggered diplomatic crises, forcing the Swedish ambassador out of Baghdad at the hands of an angry Iraqi crowd, as the burning also drew furious demonstrations in other Muslim countries. But Sweden chose not to take any decisive action against him under its highly permissive free speech laws.
After Momika’s anti-Islam activities intensified, the Swedish government considered deporting him, noting he had lied on his application about his former activities with the Imam Ali Brigades. Due to lack of sufficient security and background checks, Sweden demonstrated an abject failure of immigration policy by allowing a former pro-Iran brigade commander to seek asylum, without further questions asked.
Sweden only provided a verdict on Momika’s anti-Islam demonstrations once he had died. On Feb. 2, following Momika’s murder, his co-activist, 50-year-old Iraqi-Swede Salwan Najem, was fined 4,000 crowns for the pair’s activities, classified as hate speech by the court, which concluded that Momika and Najem had exceeded the line of protected speech by a wide margin and had engaged in incitement against an ethnic group.
While Momika’s murder is still being investigated, with five suspects released from custody two days after his death, it is in line with other crimes committed by Muslim vigilantes against perceived opponents of the faith. It’s possible that Momika’s murderer was another Middle Eastern refugee in asylum who had taken advantage of Sweden’s lax vetting and arrived under similarly questionable circumstances. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson even said that a “foreign power” may have been behind the activist’s death.
Sweden’s lax security regarding Momika’s entry and residence in Sweden raise important questions. For example, to what extent have affiliates of Iran managed to gain asylum in Sweden and other Nordic countries? While Momika was clearly not acting on behalf of the Iranian government, it appears possible that Iranian agents could take advantage of similarly lax immigration policies to further Iran’s agenda in Europe.
In short, there are serious weaknesses in the Swedish immigration system, where accurate background checks need to be enacted to keep out hostile agents seeking to further a nefarious agenda.
Likewise, Momika’s attacker, while not yet identified (and who may never be identified), was likely an Islamist vigilante looking to punish him for his public blasphemy against Islam, in line with the opinions of multiple high-profile Islamic scholars and in keeping with the opinions on the street in much of the Muslim world. Multiple sources on Iraqi social media named Omar al-Aani from Fallujah as a suspect in the murder who was temporarily detained, although authorities in Sweden have not disclosed the names of those who were questioned.
Iraqis angry at Momika’s behavior for religious reasons also had extra motivation to target him. Indeed, the city of Kufa in Iraq offered a bounty of $2 million and a 2kg gold Quran to anyone who killed Momika. His extradition had also been demanded by the government in Baghdad.
Following Momika’s death, Muslims of many different backgrounds — including some of his fellow Iraqis, a member of the Indian National Congress, and others — celebrated and gloated about what happened.
If the killer turns out to have been another migrant, it will highlight the potential danger of migrants to each other. Throughout Europe, much anger has been voiced around crimes by immigrants against native locals, but little attention has been given to the potential for exporting sectarian conflicts from the Middle East and elsewhere to Western soil, among citizens of the same home country living abroad. For example, should Momika’s murderer turn out to be a Sunni Iraqi, it would represent a frightening extension of Iraqi sectarian violence into the borders of a country thousands of miles away.
On top of all this, consider the Swedish Prime Minister’s suggestion that a foreign country may have been involved in the killing of Momika. Was there no prior intelligence to suggest the magnitude of danger he was in, even as he warned both the public and the authorities of the threats against him? Was the Swedish government afraid of being seen as sheltering him? If so, who were they afraid of?
The Swedish government’s indecision between security and tolerance, combined with its “please-everybody-and-nobody mentality,” were directly responsible for Momika’s death. Had they refused him asylum or expelled him quickly on account of his past in Iraq or the diplomatic liability and civil unrest he generated, they would have demonstrated a cohesive policy. On the other hand, had they doubled down on the importance of free speech and recognized the imminent threats to Momika’s life, they also would have demonstrated a cohesive policy — and possibly saved his life. The Momika case illustrates the urgent need for reform in Swedish (and broader European) immigration policy. Three specific areas require immediate attention:
- More rigorous background verification systems for asylum seekers
- Clear protocols for handling cases involving potential security risks
- Consistent policy application balancing free speech protection with public safety
Sweden’s experience offers crucial lessons for other European nations grappling with similar challenges. The goal must be to develop immigration policies that maintain humanitarian commitments while ensuring public safety and social cohesion. Otherwise, Momika will certainly not be the last to be denied justice in the midst of Europe’s immigration crisis.
The post The Preventable Death of Salwan Momika — and How It Exposed the Weaknesses of Sweden’s Immigration System first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK, France, Germany Urge Gaza Ceasefire, Ask Israel to Restore Humanitarian Access
People walk among destroyed buildings in Gaza, as viewed from the Israel-Gaza border, March 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen/File Photo
The governments of Germany, France and Britain called for an immediate return to a ceasefire in Gaza in a joint statement on Friday that also called on Israel to restore humanitarian access.
“We call on Israel to restore humanitarian access, including water and electricity, and ensure access to medical care and temporary medical evacuations in accordance with international humanitarian law,” the foreign ministers of the three countries, known as the E3, said in a statement.
The ministers said they were “appalled by the civilian casualties,” and also called on Palestinian Hamas terrorists to release Israeli hostages.
They said the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians could not be resolved through military means, and that a long-lasting ceasefire was the only credible pathway to peace.
The ministers added that they were “deeply shocked” by the incident that affected the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) building in Gaza, and called for an investigation into the incident.
The post UK, France, Germany Urge Gaza Ceasefire, Ask Israel to Restore Humanitarian Access first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israeli Military Says It Intercepted Missile Fired from Yemen; Houthis Claim Responsibility
FILE PHOTO: Houthi military helicopter flies over the Galaxy Leader cargo ship in the Red Sea in this photo released November 20, 2023. Photo: Houthi Military Media/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
The Israeli military said it intercepted a missile fired from Yemen on Friday, one day after shooting down two projectiles launched by Houthi terrorists.
Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that it fired a ballistic missile toward Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv, the group’s military spokesperson, Yahya Saree, said in a televised statement in the early hours of Saturday.
Saree said the attack against Israel was the group’s third in 48 hours.
He issued a warning to airlines that the Israeli airport was “no longer safe for air travel and would continue to be so until the Israeli aggression against Gaza ends and the blockade is lifted.”
However, the airport’s website seemed to be operating normally and showed a list of scheduled flights.
The group’s military spokesman has also said without providing evidence that the Houthis had launched attacks against the US aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.
The group recently vowed to escalate attacks, including those targeting Israel, in response to US strikes earlier this month, which amount to the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since President Donald Trump took office in January. The US attacks have killed at least 50 people.
The Houthis’ fresh attacks come under a pledge to expand their range of targets in Israel in retaliation for renewed Israeli strikes in Gaza that have killed hundreds after weeks of relative calm.
The Houthis have carried out over 100 attacks on shipping since Israel’s war with Hamas began in late 2023, saying they were acting in solidarity with Gaza’s Palestinians.
The attacks have disrupted global commerce and prompted the US military to launch a costly campaign to intercept missiles.
The Houthis are part of what has been dubbed the “Axis of Resistance” – an anti-Israel and anti-Western alliance of regional militias including Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and armed groups in Iraq, all backed by Iran.
The post Israeli Military Says It Intercepted Missile Fired from Yemen; Houthis Claim Responsibility first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Agrees to Some Trump Demands in Attempt to Restore Funding
A pro-Palestine protester holds a sign that reads: “Faculty for justice in Palestine” during a protest urging Columbia University to cut ties with Israel. November 15, 2023 in New York City. Photo: Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Columbia University agreed to some changes demanded by US President Donald Trump’s administration before it can negotiate to regain federal funding that was pulled this month over allegations the school tolerated antisemitism on campus.
The Ivy League university in New York City acquiesced to several demands in a 4,000-word message from its interim president released on Friday. It laid out plans to reform its disciplinary process, hire security officers with arrest powers and appoint a new official with a broad remit to review departments that offer courses on the Middle East.
Columbia’s dramatic concessions to the government’s extraordinary demands, which stem from protests that convulsed the Manhattan campus over the Israel-Gaza war, immediately prompted criticism. The outcome could have broad ramifications as the Trump administration has warned at least 60 other universities of similar action.
What Columbia would do with its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department was among the biggest questions facing the university as it confronted the cancellation, called unconstitutional by legal and civil groups, of hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants and contracts. The Trump administration had told the school to place the department under academic receivership for at least five years, taking control away from its faculty.
Academic receivership is a rare step taken by a university’s administrators to fix a dysfunctional department by appointing a professor or administrator outside the department to take over.
Columbia did not refer to receivership in Friday’s message. The university said it would appoint a new senior administrator to review leadership and to ensure programs are balanced at MESAAS, the Middle East Institute, the Center for Palestine Studies, the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments with Middle East programs, along with Columbia’s satellite hubs in Tel Aviv and Amman.
‘TERRIBLE PRECEDENT’
Professor Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian of education at the University of Pennsylvania and a “proud” graduate of Columbia, called it a sad day for the university.
“Historically, there is no precedent for this,” Zimmerman said. “The government is using the money as a cudgel to micromanage a university.”
Todd Wolfson, a Rutgers University professor and president of the American Association of University Professors, called the Trump administration’s demands “arguably the greatest incursion into academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy that we’ve seen since the McCarthy era.”
“It sets a terrible precedent,” Wolfson said. “I know every academic faculty member in this country is angry about Columbia University’s inability to stand up to a bully.”
In a campus-wide email, Katrina Armstrong, Columbia’s interim president, wrote that the her priorities were “to advance our mission, ensure uninterrupted academic activities, and make every student, faculty, and staff member safe and welcome on our campus.”
Mohammad Hemeida, an undergraduate who chairs Columbia’s Student Governing Board, said the school should have sought more student and faculty input.
“It’s incredibly disappointing Columbia gave in to government pressure instead of standing firm on the commitments to students and to academic freedom, which they emphasized to us in almost daily emails,” he said.
The White House did not respond to Columbia’s memo on Friday. The Trump administration said its demands, laid out in a letter to Armstrong eight days ago, were a precondition before Columbia could enter “formal negotiations” with the government to have federal funding.
ARREST POWERS
Columbia’s response is being watched by other universities that the administration has targeted as it advances its policy objectives in areas ranging from campus protests to transgender sports and diversity initiatives.
Private companies, law firms and other organizations have also faced threatened cuts in government funding and business unless they agree to adhere more closely to Trump’s priorities. Powerful Wall Street law firm Paul Weiss came under heavy criticism on Friday over a deal it struck with the White House to escape an executive order imperiling its business.
Columbia has come under particular scrutiny for the anti-Israel student protest movement that roiled its campus last year, when its lawns filled with tent encampments and noisy rallies against the US government’s support of the Jewish state.
To some of the Trump administration’s demands, such as having “time, place and manner” rules around protests, the school suggested they had already been met.
Columbia said it had already sought to hire peace officers with arrest powers before the Trump administration’s demand last week, saying 36 new officers had nearly completed the lengthy training and certification process under New York law.
The university said no one was allowed to wear face masks on campus if they were doing so intending to break rules or laws. The ban does not apply to face masks worn for medical or religious purposes, and the university did not say it was adopting the Trump administration’s demand that Columbia ID be worn visibly on clothing.
The sudden shutdown of millions of dollars in federal funding to Columbia this month was already disrupting medical and scientific research at the school, researchers said.
Canceled projects included the development of an AI-based tool that helps nurses detect the deterioration of a patient’s health in hospital and research on uterine fibroids, non-cancerous tumors that can cause pain and affect women’s fertility.
The post Columbia University Agrees to Some Trump Demands in Attempt to Restore Funding first appeared on Algemeiner.com.