Latest news with #SalwanMomika
Local France
a day ago
- General
- Local France
Koran burned after theft from mosque in France
On the night of Sunday to Monday, "an individual with an uncovered face entered the prayer room, grabbed a copy of the Koran, set it on fire then dropped it outside the building before fleeing", the council of mosques in the Rhône region said. The police source said an investigation had begun into the incident. The attack comes after a man who had posted racist videos shot dead his Tunisian neighbour and badly wounded a Turkish man in the southern town of Puget-sur-Argens on Saturday. The suspected killer, a Frenchman born in 1971, fled the scene in a car but was arrested not far away after his partner alerted police. Advertisement According to Le Parisien newspaper, the suspect said he "swore allegiance to the French flag" and called on the French to "shoot" people of foreign origin in one of his videos posted on social media. Anti-terrorism prosecutors have taken over the investigation into the case, the first such racist attack linked to the far right to be dealt with as "terrorism" since their office was set up in 2019. In a separate incident in April, a man stabbed a Malian man to death in a mosque in April, a case being handled by regional prosecutors. France is home to the largest Muslim community in the European Union, as well as the largest Jewish population outside Israel and the United States. A Turkish-born man who burned a Koran in London was on Monday found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. Sweden has seen a series of burnings of the Islamic holy book, most notably by Iraqi Christian Salwan Momika. He was shot dead in January.
Arab News
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Swedish intelligence lowers terror threat level
STOCKHOLM: Sweden's intelligence service said Friday it was lowering its terror alert level from 'high threat' to 'elevated threat,' saying the risk of an attack had subsided. The Swedish Security Service (Sapo) raised the level in August 2023 to 'high threat' — the fourth level on a scale of five — after angry reactions to a series of protests involving desecrations of the Qur'an made the country a 'prioritized target.' 'Propaganda against Sweden has subsided and Sweden is not specifically mentioned as a target,' Fredrik Hallstrom, head of operations at the Swedish Security Service, told a press conference. 'We do not see the same intense flow of attack threats directed at Sweden,' he added. Sapo said it now considered the terror alert level to be at 'elevated threat' — the third level on its five-point scale. Hallstrom cautioned that with 'an elevated threat, there is room for a terrorist attack to occur.' A series of Qur'an burnings across the country — most notably by Iraqi Christian Salwan Momika — in the summer of 2023 sparked outrage in the Muslim world. It strained relations between Sweden and several Middle Eastern countries, and Iraqi protesters stormed the Swedish embassy in Baghdad twice in July 2023, starting fires within the compound on the second occasion. Momika ended up facing charges of inciting ethnic hatred, but in January of this year he was fatally shot in an apartment just hours before the court was due to deliver its ruling. His co-protester Salwan Najem, also of Iraqi origin, was ultimately found guilty of inciting ethnic hatred during four Qur'an burnings in 2023. Despite the lowered threat level, Charlotte von Essen, head of Sapo, stressed that 'Sweden is in a serious security situation.' 'The worst in many years,' von Essen told reporters. The Sapo chief pointed to the fact that the war in Ukraine was still ongoing. 'Foreign powers — and Russia in particular — are carrying out extensive security-threatening activities in and against Sweden,' she said.
Telegraph
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Charges against man who burnt Koran ‘incorrectly worded'
Prosecutors have rewritten charges against a man for burning a copy of the Koran after being accused of resurrecting the offence of blasphemy 'by the backdoor'. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has amended the charge against Hamit Coskun, 50, who set fire to a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London so that he is no longer accused of harassing the 'religious institution of Islam'. MPs and lawyers had claimed the phrase was tantamount to reintroducing a blasphemy offence and 'plainly defective' as the 'religious institution of Islam' was not a person under the Public Order Act through which Mr Coskun was being charged. Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008 and there is a growing campaign within Parliament to block any attempt to reintroduce it despite calls from some campaigners. Now, the CPS has admitted the original wording of the charge was 'incorrectly applied' and it has substituted a new charge to 'more accurately reflect the alleged offence'. But it maintained that it believed Mr Coskun had committed a criminal offence because his actions caused distress, harassment and alarm, which is a crime, and was motivated by hostility towards members of a religious group. Mr Coskun has said his action was a protest against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey, and an act of solidarity with Salwan Momika – an Iraqi refugee who was assassinated in Sweden in January after burning Korans in repeated public protests. The updated charge alleges he used disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress' by burning a copy of the Koran. It further alleged he held it aloft while he shouted, 'F--- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning', and 'at the time of doing so, and in doing so, he was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary who wrote to the inspectorate for the CPS to express his concerns, welcomed the decision to drop reference to the 'religious institution of Islam'. 'This was an invention that had no basis in law. It should not have required our campaign to force the CPS to change course,' he said. 'The updated charging decision by the CPS is still extremely concerning. Most people would condemn desecrating a religious text, but we live in a free country where people should be free to criticise and mock religion. We must resist any attempts to introduce blasphemy laws by the back door.' The National Secular Society has written to the CPS urging it to drop the prosecution of Coskun. It said the burning of the Koran was clearly an act of political protest – a type of expression protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Stephen Evans, the chief executive of the National Secular Society, which is providing legal support to the defendant, said the prosecution amounted to a 'dangerous reintroduction of blasphemy laws through the backdoor'. 'We've raised concerns with the CPS, the Home Secretary, and the Attorney General, urging an urgent reevaluation of these flawed and ludicrous charges,' he added. 'The burning of a Koran, however offensive to some, was in this instance a legitimate form of political protest, protected under human rights law. Proceeding with charge would not only undermine free speech but also set a perilous precedent, effectively reintroducing blasphemy laws that were abolished in 2008.' Last year, the Government explicitly ruled out reintroducing blasphemy laws, after Labour MP Tahir Ali asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer to 'commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and prophets of the Abrahamic religions'. In February, the Government also committed to protecting the right to free expression as part of efforts to challenge anti-Muslim bigotry, stating that 'no blasphemy laws will be introduced by this government'
Arab News
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Five suspects dismissed over Qur'an burner's murder in Sweden
STOCKHOLM: Five men arrested in Sweden over the killing of Salwan Momika, who repeatedly burned copies of the Qur'an in 2023, have been dismissed as suspects, a prosecutor said on Friday. Momika, a 38-year-old Iraqi Christian whose actions sparked outrage in several Muslim countries, was shot on January 29 in an apartment in Sodertalje, south of Stockholm. He died soon after in hospital. Momika was killed just hours before a Stockholm court was due to rule whether he and co-defendant Salwan Najem were guilty of inciting ethnic hatred. According to daily Aftonbladet, police had placed Momika in a secret location ahead of the verdict for his protection and he was streaming an address live on TikTok when intruders burst in. Five men were arrested just hours after the shooting but were all released two days later. They were formally dismissed as suspects on Friday. 'We have a fairly good idea of how events unfolded but no-one is currently in custody or a formal suspect,' prosecutor Rasmus Oman said. 'We are working broadly and I can't go into which leads we are following,' he added. After Momika's murder, the Stockholm court postponed its ruling for several days. It ultimately convicted 50-year-old Najem, also of Iraqi origin, of inciting ethnic hatred during four Qur'an burnings in 2023. No ruling was pronounced for Momika. Relations between Sweden and several Middle Eastern countries were strained by the pair's actions. Iraqi protesters stormed the Swedish embassy in Baghdad twice in July 2023, starting fires within the compound on the second occasion. In August 2023, Sweden's intelligence service Sapo raised its threat level to four on a scale of one to five, saying the Qur'an burnings had made the country a 'prioritized target.' Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch called Momika's murder 'a threat to our free democracy,' while Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said there was 'a risk that there is also a link to a foreign power.'
Yahoo
16-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Islam, Blasphemy, and the Murder of Salwan Momika
From the Dispatch Faith on The Dispatch While the religion news cycle in the U.S. has been dominated lately with tensions between church and state (or at least a Trump administration), in Sweden religion news has centered on a different subject: the murder of Salwan Momika. Momika, an immigrant from Iraq, had gained notoriety in recent years for lighting copies of the Quran aflame during public demonstrations against Islam. Late last month he stepped onto his balcony and was shot to death. Authorities initially arrested a group of suspects, but later released them and have released virtually no new information since. While the details of Momika's murder are still unclear, the episode (and continuing legal case against one his compatriots for antagonism of religious communities) again puts a spotlight on how some adherents of Islam mete out what they believe is justice for blasphemy—even when the liberal democracies they now enjoy leave no room for such vigilantism. In this week's Dispatch Faith essay, scholar Mustafa Akyol explains how separate strands of Islam have differed in interpreting the Quran's passages on blasphemy and what it means for the western nations so many are immigrating to. On January 29, Salwan Momika, an Iraqi living in Sweden who had gained notoriety by publicly burning copies of the Quran, was shot dead in his apartment in Stockholm. The killing took place in front of an online audience; at the time, Momika was livestreaming on TikTok. He took a short break to smoke on his balcony before gunshots rang out. He never came back to his camera. Sweden's prime minister said 'a foreign power' may have been involved in the murder, and police quickly arrested five suspects. But they released those suspects days later, with no further information disclosed about them or other potential suspects. So, at this point, we still don't know who killed Salwan Momika. But it is entirely plausible he was killed by someone seeking to punish him for insults against Islam. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) issued a four-page statement celebrating the execution of 'the impure atheist… who assaulted the book of Allah many times.' Even among some random Muslims with no terrorism ties, I have seen messages online welcoming the incident, saying Momika got what he deserved and that 'this is a moment to rejoice.' So his murder may be yet another incident of violently punishing 'blasphemy' against Islam—joining previous terrorist attacks in Europe to avenge publications of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, or even their mere displays in classrooms. Once again it thrusts Islamic verdicts on blasphemy and the compatibility of Islam and freedom of speech into the spotlight. First, it should go without saying that for most believers of any religion, insults against their most sacred values come across as ugly and appalling. I am one such believer, and, as a Muslim, I see acts like burning copies of the Quran as obnoxious offenses unworthy of respect—let alone praise. Those who want to be critical of the Quran would be more respectable if they offered reasoned arguments in books, articles, lectures, or websites. Such polemics between religions, or between atheism and religion, happen all the time without violence, and are arguably better forms of challenging belief systems than burning their sacred books. They provoke less hostility, and have more potential to persuade. But mockery and defamation, at least in the West, is also a way of 'criticism.' And the question here for Muslims is not whether they will be happy to see mockery and defamation of their faith, but how they will respond to it. When we look for guidance in the Quran, the only undisputed source text of Islam, we come across an interesting verse that addresses this very question: 'You are sure to hear much that is hurtful from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who are idolaters. If you are patient and mindful of God, that is the best course' (3:186). The first Muslims led by Muhammad heard this verse in Medina, where they co-existed with some Jews ('those who were given the Scripture before you') and idolaters, both of whom apparently said 'hurtful' things—such as calling Muhammad 'mad,' and calling the Quran a 'sorcery,' as the Quran itself reports. (15:6 and 46:7) In return, the verse did not command Muslims to go and kill those blasphemers, or to even silence them by threats, but just be 'patient and mindful of God.' What did this 'patience' mean? A notable answer was offered by the towering Islamic scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (who died in 1210 CE), in his monumental commentary on the Quran. He wrote that the verse called for a mild response to verbal offenses, for 'it would better help the rivals of religion accept it.' He also supported this case with other Quranic verses of the same spirit. One of them commanded the prophet, 'Tell the believers to forgive those who do not fear God's days' (45:14). The other defined the believers as those who 'When they pass near ill speech, they pass by with dignity' (25:70). Another verse of the Quran also addresses the public (verbal) mockery of the Quran itself: 'If you hear people denying and ridiculing God's revelation, do not sit with them unless they start to talk of other things, or else you yourselves will become like them' (4:140). So, again, the verse does not command any violent or coercive reaction to blasphemy. It simply commanded walking away from it. Meanwhile, the same Quran threatens blasphemers—along with unbelievers, polytheists, or apostates—with divine wrath. 'Those who insult God and His Messenger,' verse 33:57 declares, 'will be cursed by God in this world and the next; He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.' Notably, the punishing agent is God, not humans. As typical of the Quran, theological misdeeds are left to God, to be punished in the afterlife. Conversely, worldly misdeeds against other people—such as aggression, persecution, theft, or murder—are to be punished by men, here and now. That is why, if Islamic law were merely based on the Quran, today we would not be discussing Islamic punishments for blasphemy—or apostasy, the banning of which is also a serious threat to freedom. But Islamic law expanded in the post-Quranic period with inputs from other sources. The primary one was the Sunna, or 'the example of the Prophet,' reported by later generations in a vast body of complex—and contested—literature. It is recorded in books of hadith or 'sayings,' as well as books of sira, or 'biography,' of Muhammad. Here, there were stories about Muhammad ordering the execution of some satirical poets during his bitter wars of survival with polytheists. As I examined in my book Reopening Muslim Minds,one could argue that these 'poets' were executed for not merely their words, but also active aggressions such as inciting a war against Muslims and physically attacking them. Moreover, there were also stories of the prophet magnanimously forgiving those who insulted him. But those nuances were lost to some medieval Muslim scholars who wrote on this issue, as they used the execution stories to decree the death penalty for blasphemy. Another nuance we need to remember is that these medieval scholars lived in a world where hardly anyone raised concerns about free speech: The Byzantine and Sassanid empires that early Muslims came face to face with also had no tolerance for blasphemy. The Justinian Code punished it with the death penalty, as well as the Sassanid laws which criminalized yazdān dušmenīh, or 'enmity toward the gods.' Yet many centuries and historical lessons have passed since then. Today, the Sassanid Empire is long gone, and Christianity has largely abandoned its pre-modern marriage with coercive state power, and many Christians came to embrace freedom of expression and conscience. In Islam, however, the same shift toward freedom has not yet matured. That is why many conservative clerics in the Muslim world still consider blasphemy a grave crime that must be punished severely. That is also why there are seven countries in the world that decree the death penalty for blasphemy—and all of them call themselves 'Islamic.' Yet still there is an important distinction: While most Sunni or Shiite authorities in the world today would rule that blasphemy should be punished, they would also tell you that this can only be applied with a decent trial in a proper court. A 'death sentence for blasphemy is allowed only in Islamic lands following due process,' as American imam Yasir Qadhi puts it. This mainstream view does not condone angry Muslims killing blasphemers with terrorist attacks, as has happened in France, or public lynchings, which frequently happen in Pakistan. Authorities within mainstream Islam, in other words, may be in favor of blasphemy laws, but that does not mean they support blasphemy terrorism or vigilantism. Hence those who resort to these terrible tactics are called 'extremists,' and that is a fitting term: They represent the dark end of a wide spectrum of religious thought. However, the bright end of that spectrum is also present, and it offers promises for the future. This is the view of Muslims who, despite being offended by insults against their values, believe that the right response involves no violence or coercion. This view is rooted in the Quran and is religiously articulated by some pioneering figures, such as the Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. It is also increasingly accepted and exemplified by many liberal-minded Muslims, including those who are well integrated in Western societies, who realize that bans or threats against blasphemy only defame Islam, instead of gaining respect for it. Especially among American Muslims, as shown in an academic research by Angela Ewing, there are religious leaders who believe 'education and dialogue are the best solutions to blasphemy,' as they are 'happy with life in America and [have] little interest in influencing free speech policies.' In Sweden, too, where both Salwan Momika and another individual, the far-right Danish politician Rasmus Paludan, repeatedly burned copies of the Quran, there have been mature responses from Muslims. For example, a group of Turks in Stockholm that included diplomats and imams recited passages from the Quran on the exact spot where Momika burned it. They then preached a message of 'respect,' and even laid flowers. Another group of Swedish Muslims, led by an entrepreneur from Libya, reached out to anti-Quran demonstrators by distributing chocolates. Back in 2020, when another Quran incident provoked violent riots by Muslims in Sweden, a prominent imam stood up against the rioters and accused them 'of shaming their own religion.' In other words, there is no irreconcilable conflict between Islam and free speech—though both the militant Islamists and the anti-Islamists would have you believe so. True, there is a tension, which leads to blasphemy laws and, at the extreme, blasphemy-related violence. But both Islam's scriptural roots and the transforming attitudes of modern-day Muslims suggest that the tension can be overcome. Meanwhile, non-Muslims, especially those in the West, can help more Muslims realize that freedom of speech is a genuine value that we all need by simply not making exceptions to this freedom to protect our own sacred cows. Double standards such as France's own limitations on freedom of speech and religion or the 'Antisemitism Awareness Act' in the U.S. that will stifle free speech on college campuses give Islamists exactly what they need: examples to argue that freedom is glorified when it comes to insulting Islam but is easily dismissed when Muslims raise their own voices. What we need, everywhere, is a more principled defense and application of freedom, in all aspects, so everyone can realize its worth. Otherwise, those who cheer for freedom all too selectively, and those who don't accept it in the first place, can drag us together to a less free world. Jonathan Rauch's new book Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Promises With Democracy is generating a lot of conversation (such as this one with Jonah Goldberg) in the early weeks of 2025. For the website today, James Sutton lodges his big criticism of the book: It doesn't do enough to interrogate the relationship between some Protestants' interpretations of the Bible and the nationalistic fervor on the political right: But that admirable evenhandedness also contributes to the book's major flaw: There is a lengthy discussion of how aspects of Christianity can help contribute to a liberal democratic society but very little about how other aspects might undermine it. Rauch writes that we 'need to consider the role Christianity has played in its own demise,' but he shows little inclination to engage with the theological currents that have likely helped propel the increasing illiberalism of much of the Christian right. Rauch, for example, consistently cites Russell Moore, the editor of Christianity Today and former president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, as an exemplar of how conservative Protestants can remain confident in diverse democracy. Moore is a good choice here: He is certainly a brave and principled man, who has taken an enormous amount of abuse and personal attacks from within his denomination for opposing Trump. If there were more Christians like him, American democracy would be in a far healthier place. But Moore is also a man deeply shaped by the 20th century Protestant fundamentalist—I'm not using this term pejoratively here—movement: focused on the inerrancy of scripture, a strict division between the church and the rest of society, and a strong emphasis on the very literal hell facing nonbelievers. Like Rauch, as someone outside of the conservative Christian tribe, I'm loath to try to dictate their own theology to them. But Cross Purposes consistently left me wondering if there's something about evangelical theology that has left so many members of the movement with an ambivalent, at best, commitment to American democracy. Moore is certainly an example of how a theologically rock-ribbed evangelical—outside of conservative evangelicalism, no one's idea of a theological centrist—can confidently engage in a liberal democracy. But Moore is a black sheep to many in his tribe, and citing his example sheds little light on the beliefs of his evangelical but more conservative compatriots. Read the whole thing. Last week President Donald Trump announced his longtime spiritual adviser Paula White-Cain would lead his administration's Faith Office. White-Cain has been in Trump's camp from just about the beginning of his ascendance to politics, but has courted controversy in her own right as a prosperity gospel preacher. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated his administration—with the help of the Faith Office—will seek to root out anti-Christian bias. Discussing this and more with me for this week's Dispatch Faith podcast is Kate Shellnut, the editorial director for news at Christianity Today and a religion beat veteran. We also discussed whether pentecostal movements play an outsized role in the politics of the New Right and some of the religion stories worth watching in 2025. These weekly conversations with Dispatch Faith contributors are available on our members-only podcast feed, The Skiff. In India, perhaps the largest religious gathering in recorded history has been going on for the last few weeks—the Hindu Maha Kumbh festival. From Reuters' Saurabh Sharma: 'More than 500 million people have taken a 'holy dip' in sacred river waters in north India over the last four weeks as part of the Hindu Maha Kumbh festival, authorities said on Friday, greater than the population of most countries. Attendees at the six-week long event have ranged from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and federal ministers to industrialists such as Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani and artists including Chris Martin from British rock band Coldplay. It was marred, however, by a stampede on its most auspicious day that killed dozens as they gathered at the confluence of three holy rivers to take a dip – a practice believed to absolve sins and confer salvation from the cycle of birth and death. 'This participation marks the largest congregation in human history for any religious, cultural, or social event,' the government of Uttar Pradesh state, where the festival is being held, said in a statement. With 12 days still remaining, the total count of visitors to the festival is expected to 'soar beyond' 550 to 600 million, it said.' Uh, does some of this, as reported by the Associated Press, sound familiar? 'A humpback whale briefly swallowed a kayaker off Chilean Patagonia before quickly releasing him unharmed. The incident, caught on camera, quickly went viral. Last Saturday, Adrián Simancas was kayaking with his father, Dell, in Bahía El Águila near the San Isidro Lighthouse in the Strait of Magellan when a humpback whale surfaced, engulfing Adrián and his yellow kayak for a few seconds before letting him go. Dell, just meters (yards) away, captured the moment on video while encouraging his son to stay calm. 'Stay calm, stay calm,' he can be heard saying after his son was released from the whale's mouth. 'I thought I was dead,' Adrián told The Associated Press. 'I thought it had eaten me, that it had swallowed me.'' If you know the biblical story of the prophet Jonah—swallowed by a big fish before going to have a word with the people of Nineveh on God's behalf—it does. I don't take the same lessons from either whale episode as The Forward's Mira Fox, but it's hard to argue with the headline on her piece this week: 'Man almost swallowed by a whale was a lot chiller about it that Jonah was.'
