Published 8 September 2024 at 14.45
Domestic. Studieförbundet Ibn Rushd has finally got rid of its grants, after a decision by the Swedish Education Council which caused several other authorities to make similar decisions. Now the debater Johan Westerholm has published a survey of how the association used money from several different authorities to maximize its financial support, including through corona grants and controversial real estate deals.
Share the article
TwittraShare
One of the most controversial deals occurred in 2015, when Ibn Rushd acquired a property using tax funds. The property, which was supposed to be used for public education, was later partially transferred to the Islamic Federation of Sweden (IFiS), which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
This deal, which was financed entirely with public funds, attracted strong criticism and questioning the association's finances and how they handle grants.
Dr. Sameh Egyptson, researcher and expert on political Islam, has pointed out in his doctoral thesis the connections between IFiS and the Muslim Brotherhood, which has further diluted the criticism. The deal with the property is seen as an example of how public funds have been used to benefit an ideological movement rather than promoting public education.
Maximizing grants during the pandemic
Ibn Rushd has during several years have managed to increase their incomes by applying for grants from several different authorities, including the Norwegian Agency for Growth.
During the pandemic, the student association received multi-millions in support, despite the fact that their usual grants from the Norwegian Education Council did not decrease. It later turned out that parts of the support had been paid incorrectly, which led to Ibn Rushd becoming liable for repayment of parts of the grant.
The fact that people with connections to the student union today work at the Agency for Growth has also led to questions about possible conflicts of interest, and whether this has facilitated grant payments.
Westerholm believes that Ibn Rushd has used the system to maximize his contributions and thus increase his business, without always meeting the requirements for what these funds should be used for.
The Board of Education's decision to withdraw the contributions
On September 4, 2023, the Board of Education made the decision to withdraw the state grants to Ibn Rushd.
According to the Folkbildningsrådet, the association under current circumstances lacks the capacity to conduct public education in accordance with the state's requirements. The decision was based on previous audits that showed under-reporting of funds, and on a December 2022 audit that revealed further irregularities. For example, the union was forced to repay 146,900 kroner in state grants after this review.
The decision from the Board of Education has met with strong protests and the union's head Anna Waara believes that the decision makes it impossible for Ibn Rushd to run his business.
Despite this, several municipalities and regions, including Region Skåne, have decided to stop their financial support to the association. However, this has only happened with reference to opinion demands and that the association allegedly has links to «homophobic, misogynistic and anti-democratic content.»
Tightened regulations and the future of Ibn Rushd
I in connection with the increased opinion demands on public education associations, the Norwegian Education Council has introduced stricter regulations for grant management.
Study associations must now clearly report on their activities and how they meet the five quality areas required to qualify for state support.
p>
This new system aims to prevent tax funds from being used for politically incorrect activities, and it puts pressure on all student associations, including Ibn Rushd, to show that they are in favor of democracy, feminism and homosexuality, among other things.
Ibn Rushd still has the opportunity to return and qualify for future grants if they can demonstrate that they meet the new requirements.
However, the question is whether the association can regain the trust they lost with decision-making bodies, or if their past dealings will continue to haunt them.