The burning of the Qur’an by individuals such as Hamit Coskun is not merely a personal act of dissent—it is a calculated provocation that taps into a broader climate of hostility towards Islam. Such acts are emblematic of rising far-right extremism, where desecrating Islamic symbols serves as a powerful visual cue intended to enrage Muslim communities and provoke backlash. This cycle of provocation and response is often exploited to fuel anti-Muslim narratives, portraying Muslims as intolerant or violent when they react to such deeply offensive acts.
In Islamic faith, the Qur’an is regarded as the literal and sacred word of God and must be treated with the utmost reverence. Deliberately burning or desecrating the Qur’an is viewed not just as disrespect but as a major act of blasphemy or heresy, potentially expelling a Muslim from the fold of Islam. Among Muslims globally, such acts—especially by outsiders—are deeply offensive, provoking profound emotional and spiritual distress, and are seen as deliberate attacks on the core of their faith.
The Telegraph observes:
Hamit Coskun is quite possibly Britain’s most endangered man. Certainly, he appears to have a death wish. In February, he took a coach to London, walked up to the Turkish consulate, pulled from his bag a Koran, and set fire to it with a lighter.
A video of the incident went viral after Mr Coskun, aged 50, was violently attacked for what he insisted was a meaningful protest and what many other people would view as an anti-Islamic stunt.
Mr Coskun remains unrepentant. He will plead not guilty and intends to go on a tour of the UK burning Korans in other cities, whether he wins or loses his case.
These incidents also serve to challenge and manipulate legal definitions of freedom of speech. Perpetrators frequently hide behind the guise of civil liberties to justify hate-fueled actions, forcing courts and societies to wrestle with the delicate balance between protecting expression and preventing hate speech. In countries like the UK and across Europe, Qur’an burnings are being used as legal and political test cases to expand the boundaries of what constitutes permissible dissent—often at the cost of Muslim dignity and social harmony.
Moreover, these actions reveal the persistence and normalization of Islamophobia in Western societies. Symbolic violence—such as desecrating the Qur’an—serves as a dehumanizing message: it aims to vilify Islam as inherently dangerous, inferior, or incompatible with “Western values.” This, in turn, reinforces harmful stereotypes and fuels discriminatory policies, hate crimes, and societal exclusion of Muslim communities.
Such incidents must not be viewed in isolation. They are often part of wider networks of hate, amplified by media coverage and online platforms, where hate speech can metastasize unchecked. Without firm legal, social, and political pushback, acts like Qur’an burning risk becoming normalized forms of anti-Muslim agitation.
The burning of the Qur’an is sometimes defended under freedom of expression, particularly in Western democracies where freedom of speech includes the right to express offensive or controversial views—even those that insult religion. Proponents argue that such acts can be forms of political protest, especially against perceived religious influence or extremism.
However, courts often assess context, intent, and impact. If the act incites hatred, violence, or public disorder, it may no longer be protected speech under international human rights law (e.g., ICCPR Article 20).
How to Stop This Agitation?
Several international laws and human rights frameworks can be invoked to check intentional acts like Qur’an burning, especially when such acts incite hatred, violence, or discrimination. These include:
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- Article 19 protects freedom of expression.
- Article 20(2) prohibits “[a]ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
This allows states to criminalize hate speech without violating free expression.
2. UN Human Rights Committee (General Comment No. 34)
Clarifies that freedom of expression does not protect hate speech or incitement to violence, especially against religious communities.
3. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
- Article 4 requires states to criminalize the dissemination of ideas based on racial or religious superiority or hatred.
4. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
- Article 10 protects freedom of expression but allows restrictions “for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,” including protection from religious hatred.
- The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has upheld penalties against hate speech that insults religion or provokes public disorder.
5. Rabat Plan of Action (2012)
A UN framework providing clear thresholds for criminalizing hate speech while preserving free speech. It offers six criteria: context, speaker status, intent, content, extent, and likelihood of harm.
These frameworks support national legislation in democratic societies to respond to Qur’an burnings when they cross from free expression into incitement or religious hatred. However, enforcement depends on political will and judicial interpretation.
Word Count: 807 words
