A U.K. court has triggered alarm bells among secularists and free speech campaigners after it convicted an atheist who burned a Qur’an of violating laws against promoting public disorder while motivated by a “deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.”
For burning his own copy of the Quran, Hamit Coskun was attacked with a knife, spat on, repeatedly kicked, & threatened with murder.
— Damo (@concretemilk) June 2, 2025
Now he's been convicted of a crime and fined.
Islamic blasphemy codes are now enforced not only by vigilante thugs but also by the state. pic.twitter.com/gu5O5BUKlq
In his ruling, Judge John McGarva, who serves in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, noted that Hamit Coskun, whose mother’s family was killed in the Armenian genocide, “believes Islam is an ideology which encourages its followers to violence, paedophilia, and a disregard for the rights of non-believers.”
This judgment sets a dangerous precedent of protecting Islam from provocative critique.
The ruling is likely a victory for the Labour government and its Islamist supporters who are attempting to pass blasphemy legislation to limit criticism of Islam by imposing a wide-ranging definition of “Islamophobia.”
Coskun, a 50-year-old political refugee from Turkey, was assaulted by knife-wielding Moussa Kadri after he set fire to the Qur’an outside the Turkish Embassy in London on February 13. Kadri pleaded guilty to the attack but denied being in possession of a bladed article. The Crown Prosecution Service told FWI that Kadri’s next court appearance will take place on July 1, 2025 in Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
Coskun was also kicked by a delivery driver after he fell to the ground. Coskun, who was fined £240 with a statutory surcharge of £96, said in response to the verdict, “Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”
Causing Muslims to Suffer Distress is a Crime
McGarva acknowledged these attacks but effectively accused Coskun of provoking his attackers by engaging in “disorderly behavior within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” which is illegal under the U.K.’s Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986.
“A man took exception to him burning his holy book, and a passing delivery rider kicked him when he was on the floor,” McGarva stated. “There were likely to be Muslims in the location who would suffer harassment, alarm, or distress.”
The judge reported that Coskun shouted “Fuck Islam,” “Islam is the religion of terrorists,” and “The Qur’an is burning,” while holding aloft a copy of the burning Islamic scriptures. However, he acknowledged that Coskun “only used the ‘f’ word after he had been called a fucking idiot.”
Police Provide Evidence of Coskun’s Anti-Islam Sentiments
Police told the court they had found a t-shirt in Coskun’s rucksack which had the words “Islam is a terrorist ideology. The Quran should be banned.”
Coskun, who has a Kurdish father and an Armenian mother, told the police that he decided to burn the Qur’an “because he had studied it extensively and that it incited people to terrorism and encourages the beheading of non-believers.” (Both the Kurds and Armenians have been subjected to mass killings in the Middle East at the hands of Sunni and Shia Muslims.)
The defendant told the court that he wants to live in a secular society and is unhappy with Turkish President Erdogan’s regime because it is moving the country towards an Islamic state governed by Sharia law.
He also reiterated that his protest was against the Turkish government, he did not have a problem with individual Muslims, that his opposition was to Islam as an institution, and his protest was in solidarity with Salwan Momika — an Iraqi refugee who was assassinated in Sweden in January after burning Qur’ans in public demonstrations.
The judge acknowledged that the distinction Coskun “draws between Islam and its followers is important,” but ruled that “his interview with the police shows that it is hard to separate his views about the religion in general from his views about its followers.”
“He believes the Qur’an contains passages used by terrorists to justify jihad,” McGarva stated. “There is material which could lead the court to the view his conduct was motivated by hostility to Muslims, rather than Islam in general in his interview with the police.”
Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.
Coskun’s attorney, Katy Thorne, KC, argued that the case was an attempt to revive Britain’s blasphemy law, which was abolished in 2008, and expand it to cover Islam, but the judge maintained that Coskun was not charged with criticizing Islam.
McGarva agreed that Coskun was “in part” exercising his right to free speech, but his disorderly behavior crossed a line into criminality. “There was no need for him to use the ‘F’ word and direct it towards Islam,” the judge remarked.
“That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appears to have any justification for the nature of their response],” the judge added.
Anti-Blasphemy Law Campaigners Raise Red Flag
Free speech campaigners, however, warned that the court had brought in a blasphemy law by the back door.
Tim Dieppe, author of the book The Challenge of Islam: Understanding and Responding to Islam’s Increasing Influence in the UK, explained to Focus on Western Islamism (FWI) how “this judgement sets a dangerous precedent of protecting Islam from provocative critique” and “marks a step towards a de-facto Islamic blasphemy law.”
“Coskun has repeatedly explained that his protest was against Islam; that he doesn’t have a problem with Muslims,” Dieppe told FWI. “The judge did not accept this and ruled that he was motivated by hatred not just of Islam, but also of Muslims. The judge also ruled that his actions must have been disorderly because he was assaulted, even though the judge also noted that there was no justification for the assaults.”
Dieppe acknowledges that Coskun’s actions “were undoubtedly provocative” but warned that “being provocative is not a crime,” adding that, “As Coskun himself said, had he burned a Bible outside Westminster Abbey, it is doubtful he would have been prosecuted. Since no Christians would assault him, he could not be ruled to have been disorderly!”
Writing in in The Spectator, Pakistani journalist Kunwar Shahid wrote, “This is Britain’s first formal capitulation to Islamic blasphemy laws. Not only does it suggest that Islam deserves special protection against sacrilege, and shielding from the freedom to offend, but it also rewards the radical Muslims for exercising violence against expressions of irreverence.”
Not everyone objects to the ruling. Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Tell MAMA, an organization monitoring hatred against Muslims, told FWI that “this case does not fall under a blasphemy issue since it was a public order offence that also led to the targeting of Muslims by his public and directed actions.”
“No one wants to see a blasphemy law in the U.K. and I certainly would never want to see one,” Mughal said. “This judgement, though, is in line with the law and under the Public Order Act, and so this is a tricky case. Coskun may not have known what the law is, and if people want the law changed, Parliament needs to do that.”
“However, anyone rightly has the opportunity to hate, dislike, and question any religion by public placards that don’t caricature or target the people of that faith,” he added.
The Free Speech Union, which supported Coskun’s case along with the National Secular Society, said that the FSU would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
“Incredibly, part of the prosecution’s evidence that he’d caused someone harassment, alarm or distress was that a Muslim man who witnessed his protest attacked him with a knife,” a FSU spokesperson noted. Religious tolerance “doesn’t require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers.”
In March, the Wolverhampton Crown Court ruled in favor of Karandeep Mamman, a Christian street preacher who was prosecuted under the Public Order Act on charges of blaspheming against the Quran, Islam, and its founder, Mohammed, FWI reported.
Neither the beating he endured, nor the conviction, will likely silence Coskun. “As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam,” he said.
