Summary

A Stockholm court convicted Salwan Najem of incitement against an ethnic group for his role in Qur’an burnings in 2023, sentencing him to a fine and suspended sentence.

His co-defendant, Salwan Momika, was shot dead last week, sparking concerns of foreign involvement.

The protests strained Sweden’s relations with Muslim countries and fueled debate over free speech limits.

The government had considered banning Qur’an burnings but is no longer planning immediate action. Sweden joined NATO in March 2024, partly fearing diplomatic fallout over the burnings could affect its bid.

  • @seven_phone
    link
    English
    31 month ago

    This is a difficult thing because in theory burning books is not illegal, a person is allowed to buy a book and burn it. So making it illegal to burn this specific book sends signals of Islamification of the law but context is important here. This book means very much to Muslims, not just in the obvious religious way but personally, individuals will remember their grandfather teaching it to them when they were a child. This makes burning it very emotional, it is like someone burning a photograph of your mother outside your house just after she died. It is true that burning pictures is not illegal but the context here is emotive to the point of incitement. It is not Islamification to view this book as a special case, it is about honouring beliefs you do not share and respecting other people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 month ago

      individuals will remember their grandfather teaching it to them when they were a child. This makes burning it very emotional, it is like someone burning a photograph of your mother outside your house just after she died.

      But you’re not burning somone’s personal book or photo. It’s your own copy. If you have an emotional investment in a copy of a book I bought, you need mental help.

      • @seven_phone
        link
        English
        11 month ago

        It is not about ownership of copies it is about respect for significance. If I print a photograph of a member of your family I will own that print, can I then deface it in front of you and will you remain passive and unaffected.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 month ago

            Who’s talking about murdering people? We’re talking about what is considered hate speech.

        • Canadian_Cabinet
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 month ago

          Yeah but he didn’t burn a picture of anyone’s family. He burned a fiction book written over a thousand years ago

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 month ago

          But it’s not a picture of your mother (also qUaRaN forbids depictions of people) it’s a book of random bullshit made by a warlord thousand years ago. And noone defaced nothing in front of anyone their point was that muslims allowed to ignore laws and try to use some savage “laws” to punish people that disagree with them.