Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Sanna Ukkola's writing about the Prime Minister's meeting with Imam Sharmarke Said Aw-Mussen. According to Mäkäräinen, Ukkola regarded the meeting as ordinary work and believed that the imam, who was born in Turku, was being asked impossible questions regarding Sharia. Mäkäräinen argued that asking the imam was not a misunderstanding: in his view, the imam left open whether Sharia would be applied in Finland in family or criminal law matters. Mäkäräinen wrote that, according to him, freedom of religion did not justify the establishment of a parallel legal system alongside Finnish laws. He claimed that in Muslim-majority countries, freedom of religion, women's equality, and individual rights were not realized in liberal democracies due to Islamic doctrine and Sharia. He cited Lebanon as an example, where he believed the growth of the Muslim population and political organization undermined previous balance and led to civil war. In France, Sweden, Belgium, and Britain, he mentioned the visibility of parallel societies, honor-based violence, segregation of areas and schools, and pressure to accept practices related to Sharia. In Finland in the 2000s, Mäkäräinen claimed that groups with a Muslim background who had immigrated were connected to the overrepresentation of sexual offenses, unemployment, use of social security, and demands for their own rules. He believed that distinguishing criticism of Islam from calls for deportation did not make questions about Sharia suspect. According to Mäkäräinen, the primacy of the Finnish Constitution and criminal law should be clear in all matters, and Finland did not need to repeat the experiences of countries where the application of Sharia had been tried. https://t.co/bGpZ7VaTux #uskonnonvapaus #integratio #muslimit (translated)
