STOCKHOLM: In a significant development, a Swedish court has convicted a man of inciting religious hatred due to a 2020 incident involving the burning of a Qur’an. This marks the first time that Sweden’s judicial system has prosecuted such a charge related to the desecration of Islam’s holy book.
The conviction follows a series of Qur’an burnings earlier this year that ignited international outrage and led to Sweden being classified as a “prioritized target.” This prompted the country’s intelligence agency to raise its terrorism alert level.
While the Swedish government condemned the desecrations, it consistently upheld the nation’s robust freedom of expression laws.
The Linkoping district court, situated in central Sweden, found the 27-year-old man guilty of “agitation against an ethnic group.” The court’s ruling specified that his actions “targeted Muslims and not Islam as a religion” and “did not encourage an objective and responsible debate.”
In September 2020, the man had filmed a video outside the Linkoping cathedral, depicting the burning of a Qur’an and bacon on a barbecue. A derogatory statement about the Prophet Muhammad was inscribed on a sign beneath the barbecue.
The man posted the video on social media platforms, including Twitter (now known as X) and YouTube. He also placed the burned Qur’an and bacon outside the Linkoping mosque. The video featured the song “Remove Kebab,” which is popular among far-right groups and advocates for the religious cleansing of Muslims.
The court highlighted that the music used in the video was strongly associated with the 2019 attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, in which an Australian white supremacist killed 51 Muslims at two mosques.
The defendant had denied any wrongdoing, asserting that his actions constituted criticism of Islam as a religion. However, the court rejected this argument, stating, “The chosen music to a film with such content cannot be interpreted any other way than as a threat against Muslims with an allusion to their faith.”
The court’s statement further emphasized, “The film’s content and the form of its publication are such that it is clear that the defendant’s primary purpose could not have been other than to express threats and contempt.”
