Home TRENDING FIRST-EVER QUR’AN-BURNING CONVICTION IN SWEDEN, IN 2020

FIRST-EVER QUR’AN-BURNING CONVICTION IN SWEDEN, IN 2020

FIRST-EVER QUR'AN-BURNING CONVICTION IN SWEDEN, IN 2020

SHARE

STOCKHOLM: A Swedish court found a man guilty of desecrating the Holy Quran in 2020, the first time such a case had been handled in the country’s legal system.

Muslim communities across the world condemned the burning incidents in Sweden and Denmark as an attack on the Quran: PHOTO: AFP/FILE

The series of similar occurrences earlier this year that sparked international indignation and made Sweden a “prioritized target” led to the intelligence service of that country raising the terror alert level, which led to the conviction.

The Swedish government strongly disapproved of the vandalism, but it also defended the country’s robust free speech provisions.

According to the Linkoping district court in central Sweden, the 27-year-old man was found guilty of agitation against an ethnic group since his actions “targeted Muslims and not Islam as a religion” and could not be considered to have supported an objective and reasonable discourse.

Sweden’s police have approved a demonstration that will involve the mutilation of the Holy Quran; for more, see here.

The obscene video was filmed by the man in September of 2020, right outside the Linkoping church. The man uploaded the clip to both YouTube (formerly known as Twitter) and X (Twitter).

The video featured the song “Remove Kebab,” which is popular among alt-right groups and advocates for the extermination of all Muslims.

In 2019, an Australian white supremacist slaughtered 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The court found that the song was substantially linked with the crime.

The accused guy had claimed his behavior was justified as a critique of Islam.
However, the court did not buy that explanation.

The judge said in his ruling that the score “cannot be interpreted as anything other than a threat against Muslims with an allusion to their faith.”

It stated, “The defendant’s primary purpose could not have been other than to express threats and contempt, given the content and form of the film’s publication.”

SHARE