‘We never seem to learn that appeasement of religious extremists only makes them stronger.’ Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
I do not much like the destruction of books. As a form of protest, it conjures sinister images from the past, most notably the Pathé news reels of brownshirts and students gathered around a pyre in Berlin’s Opernplatz under the watchful eye of Joseph Goebbels. The Nazis had raided libraries, universities and other private collections to harvest works by political dissidents, sexologists, “degenerate” artists and any others deemed to be “un-German”. Books by Left-wing authors such as Karl Marx, Bertolt Brecht and Rosa Luxemburg were publicly incinerated, along with fictional works by the likes of Thomas Mann, Franz Kafka, Victor Hugo, Oscar Wilde and James Joyce. This was philistinism in its purest form.
The symbolism of a burning book is, therefore, the repudiation of the very notion of freedom. And yet this same freedom means that we must be able to burn books if we so desire. The Nazis, of course, were destroying the property of others, an authoritarian act designed to eliminate whole branches of thought. This is not to be conflated with an individual who chooses to vandalise his or her own property. The trans activists who burn J.K. Rowling’s books and post the footage online are making fools of themselves, but they are also exercising their right to do so in a free society.
This is a distinction worth bearing in mind when we consider the murder of anti-Islam campaigner Salwan Momika, an Iraqi man who had been awaiting a verdict in Sweden for the crime of “agitation against an ethnic or national group”. Momika had publicly burned a number of copies of the Quran during the summer of 2023. He was shot dead during or just before a live stream on TikTok at his home in Södertälje on Wednesday. The details are as of yet unclear, but there are suggestions that the assassination may have involved a foreign power.
Momika had been granted temporary residence in Sweden in 2018, although his frustration with his adopted country’s lacklustre commitment to freedom of speech led him to seek asylum in Norway in March 2024. After just a few weeks, the Norwegian authorities had him deported back to Sweden. According to Momika, the prosecutor in his trial had been seeking his extradition back to Iraq because of his criticisms of Islam. Back in August, he had posted the following on X: “Sweden and Norway have identified me as a threat to their security. Yes, I am a threat to the Islamization project of the West, which is being pursued by your Leftist communist government that is deceiving the citizens and making the country Islamic. So I have come to awaken the people and thwart the Islamization project of the West, and I will not be afraid of you.”
In cases of this kind, it has become depressingly inevitable that commentators will seek to blame the victim. After the publication of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in 1988, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling for the author’s murder. Instead of taking a united stance against a foreign regime threatening the life of a British citizen, pundits and politicians engaged in endless debates about whether Rushdie had brought this on himself. Crime novelist John Le Carré stated that “there is no law in life or nature that says great religions may be insulted with impunity”, and that “there is no absolute standard of free speech in any society”. It should go without saying that powerful theocrats do not require protection from the hurtful words of novelists.
Last month was the 10th anniversary of the massacre at the offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Initially, world leaders were united in their condemnation of terrorists who had butchered cartoonists for drawing satirical caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Thousands gathered at vigils and held placards bearing the words “Je Suis Charlie”. PEN America — an organisation devoted to the principle of free expression — created a “courage award” for Charlie Hebdo. That was until dozens of members of PEN, including writers such as Joyce Carol Oates and Junot Díaz, signed an open letter in protest. Charlie Hebdo, they claimed, had mocked a “section of the French population that is already marginalized, embattled and victimized”. This was, of course, to misidentify the target. The cartoonists weren’t “punching down” at the Muslim minority, but rather “punching up” at the authoritarianism of institutionalised religion.
We never seem to learn that appeasement of religious extremists only makes them stronger. Our collective failure to take a firm stance for artistic liberty in the Rushdie affair has made it more difficult to uphold the principle today. That Momika was on trial in the first place suggests that Sweden’s commitment to freedom of expression has been subordinated to the creed of multiculturalism. According to the BBC, following Momika’s campaigns in 2023 the Swedish government had “pledged to explore legal means of abolishing protests that involve burning texts in certain circumstances”. Yet Momika’s copies of the Quran were his own property, and he was free to dispose of them as he wished. We might take the view that his method of protest is insensitive or provocative, but in a free society such behaviour is a matter of individual conscience.
The victim-blamers have been predictably vocal. Within hours of the news of Momika’s murder, television personality Bushra Shaikh posted the following on X: “Some of you may disagree but the public desecration of any holy book should be viewed as a hate crime and the offender should face consequences”. She later clarified that by “face consequences” she was not supporting murder, but rather the principle that the “government decides on the punishment”. And yet Shaikh’s logic defeats itself. Her post has been widely interpreted as hate-filled and authoritarian. Does this mean that, if the government were to designate the public advocacy of blasphemy laws a “hate crime”, she would be content to be prosecuted?
Those who endorse authoritarianism, in other words, are laying a trap for themselves. If we look to the state to punish our detractors, where does that leave us when the values of those in power no longer align with our own? Momika has been blamed for the riots and the international diplomatic rows that ensued following his campaigns, but the peaceful protester is not responsible for those who break the law in response. Last summer, the Guardian published a piece that presented his Quran-burning as evidence of a “racism crisis”. One of the Swedish Muslim interviewees was quoted as saying: “I understand you are allowed to think and feel what you want, this is a free country, but there must be boundaries. It’s such a pity that it has happened so many times and Sweden doesn’t seem to learn from its mistakes.”
Those of us who still believe in liberal values will baulk at the suggestion — and the implied threat — in claiming that we are mistaken to support freedom of expression. Moreover, there is nothing racist about burning a copy of the Quran. Islam is a belief-system, not a race. The criminalisation of “Islamophobia” makes about as much sense as prosecuting citizens for “Marxistophobia” or “Freemarketcapitalismophobia”. Had Momika burned a copy of The Communist Manifesto, would there be calls to modify the law to see him incarcerated?
Increasingly, Western societies are pandering to religious zealots who are willing to resort to violence to achieve their aims. Members of the ruling class are undeniably afraid. During Prime Minister’s Questions in November 2024, the Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, asked Keir Starmer whether he would establish “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”. Starmer replied: “I agree that desecration is awful and should be condemned across the House. We are, as I said before, committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all its forms.” A better response would have been: “Blasphemy laws are incompatible with the values of a free country.”
It is undeniably the case that Islamic theocracies are intolerant to dissent, but we have only ourselves to blame if we capitulate to pressure from foreign powers to undermine our commitment to secularism. Pakistan’s prime minister Imran Khan, for instance, blamed the radicalisation of Islamic terrorists on the French president Emmanuel Macron’s tolerance for the right of citizens to blaspheme against Islam. In October 2020, he tweeted: “President Macron has chosen to deliberately provoke Muslims, incl his own citizens, through encouraging the display of blasphemous cartoons targeting Islam & our Prophet PBUH.” President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey even cited Momika’s Quran-burning in an attempt to scupper Sweden’s bid to join Nato in 2023.
But blasphemy only makes sense to the faithful. Stéphane Charbonnier (known as “Charb”), the cartoonist and editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo who was among the victims of the 2015 atrocity, addressed this point in an “open letter” completed just two days before his death. “God is only sacred to those who believe in him,” he wrote. “If you wish to insult or offend God, you have to be sure that he exists… In France, a religion is nothing more than a collection of texts, traditions, and customs that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize. Sticking a clown nose on Marx is no more offensive or scandalous than popping the same schnoz on Muhammad.”=
This is the spirit of secularism — the French tradition of laïcité — that other countries in the western world should emulate. The problem is not the complaints from those who seek the implementation of sharia in democratic nations, but those in power who fail to reject such demands unequivocally. The murder of Salwan Momika should be a wake-up call for the West. Continued appeasement will only guarantee further bloodshed. For all the short-term risks of defending free speech, our long-term security depends upon it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNormie, allied with basic competence, must surely be the way to go. De Santis seemed to have both until he went nutter on abortion.
America, like every where else, has strident nuttters occupying 10% of the vote, and 90% of the discourse, at each end of the spectrum. Trump is a nutter and Biden is controlled by nuttters.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult but at least you guys have people with ideas and energy unlike the focus group zombies here.
Maybe he could try completing a sentence without using the word “woke”?
yeh, who could possibly disagree with identity politics ideologues and blank slatists
yeh, who could possibly disagree with identity politics ideologues and blank slatists
The abortion thing really turned me off. Florida had a sensible 15-week threshold that 70% of people support. By reducing it to six weeks, he was pandering to the fringe. I would have more respect for him if I thought he truly believed abortion was an immoral act. But I don’t think this is true. He changed the law for purely political reasons, not because of any personal belief.
Maybe he could try completing a sentence without using the word “woke”?
The abortion thing really turned me off. Florida had a sensible 15-week threshold that 70% of people support. By reducing it to six weeks, he was pandering to the fringe. I would have more respect for him if I thought he truly believed abortion was an immoral act. But I don’t think this is true. He changed the law for purely political reasons, not because of any personal belief.
Normie, allied with basic competence, must surely be the way to go. De Santis seemed to have both until he went nutter on abortion.
America, like every where else, has strident nuttters occupying 10% of the vote, and 90% of the discourse, at each end of the spectrum. Trump is a nutter and Biden is controlled by nuttters.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult but at least you guys have people with ideas and energy unlike the focus group zombies here.
The problem with Ron DeSantis is he’s simply a product manufactured and propped up by the Never-Trumper Republican establishment class. This is how they think. They thought: “We can get those stupid American’s who voted for the orange menace to like this guy if we get him to start talking about things that fire them up like he does.”
So, they chose a few culture war issues, and he started hammering them. His positions got a mild response, but then it turns out that on issues of substance, like the Ukraine war (a sacred cow for the blue-blood Neo-Con Republican establishment) he’s a double-talker. In other words, he’s a phony. People can smell phony, and he smells like a rotten phony!
Trump, for all his faults…and he has a lot of them, genuinely believes the things he says, and the issues he takes on he believes in…and here is the thing, he will talk about things that the establishment doesn’t talk about. He’ll just bring them up, and say stuff that nobody in the media is talking about, and therefore they are telling us what the “significant-issue-of-the-day” is. He sort of marches to the beat of his own orange colored drum.
Really though, RFK Jr. is the real story. That man is a great man, a man of great substance, and I’m not even a Democrat. That man has some things to say, and if we are smart we will listen to him. He has, as they say “gravitas” like no one else running on either side. It’s like he was plucked out of another time, or another generation, and is here now in the political clown-world days to show us what a man of substance and character looks like, sounds like, and talks like. He has that sort of air of unstoppableness about him… I hope he doesn’t end up like his father and uncle.
The problem with Ron DeSantis is he’s simply a product manufactured and propped up by the Never-Trumper Republican establishment class. This is how they think. They thought: “We can get those stupid American’s who voted for the orange menace to like this guy if we get him to start talking about things that fire them up like he does.”
So, they chose a few culture war issues, and he started hammering them. His positions got a mild response, but then it turns out that on issues of substance, like the Ukraine war (a sacred cow for the blue-blood Neo-Con Republican establishment) he’s a double-talker. In other words, he’s a phony. People can smell phony, and he smells like a rotten phony!
Trump, for all his faults…and he has a lot of them, genuinely believes the things he says, and the issues he takes on he believes in…and here is the thing, he will talk about things that the establishment doesn’t talk about. He’ll just bring them up, and say stuff that nobody in the media is talking about, and therefore they are telling us what the “significant-issue-of-the-day” is. He sort of marches to the beat of his own orange colored drum.
Really though, RFK Jr. is the real story. That man is a great man, a man of great substance, and I’m not even a Democrat. That man has some things to say, and if we are smart we will listen to him. He has, as they say “gravitas” like no one else running on either side. It’s like he was plucked out of another time, or another generation, and is here now in the political clown-world days to show us what a man of substance and character looks like, sounds like, and talks like. He has that sort of air of unstoppableness about him… I hope he doesn’t end up like his father and uncle.
This is baloney on stale bread from a RINO.
This is baloney on stale bread from a RINO.
Don’t try to overcomplicate it – he’s losing because he is a horrible politician with grotesque policies.
Could you give some examples? I googled him, but almost every headline is about how unlikeable he is – very little on his actual policies.
Why don’t you start with his attempts to bully private companies and his subsequent humiliation.
I need to read more on this, but from what I can tell he seems to be trying to de-fang companies that are adopting Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) initiatives. From what I’ve gathered so far about ESG policies is that they are highly controversial and undemocratic. In effect, they circumnavigate democratic processes in order to place state decision-making power into the hands of unelected officials and experts. Disney, Bud-Light, and many others seem to have gone down this route which is why many of them are losing money. In short they are massively neglecting their duties to their shareholders (e.g. making profit) in order to promote agendas that are controversial to a large majority of the electorate.
What business of it of his what policies private companies choose to adopt? What has that got to do with democracy? You do know that Disney profits rose by almost 30% in 2022? ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority of far right wing extremists.
You seem incredibly poorly informed on this subject, much like DeSantis. I suggest you try to expand your sources of information beyond the conservative echo chamber.
“ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority…. “ You’ve given yourself away as one of the 10% of nutters.
No doubt you are also active on Twitter and the others. Probably all from a bedroom in your mum’s house.
I predict you will be active on here for a week or two then, like all the others incapable of a coherent argument, will go in search of somebody else to screech at.
Au contraire, cherie!
The “nutters”, as you so charmingly refer to them – you really should try to come up with your own material BTW – are the lunatic fringe who seem to feel that corporations should not be allowed to try to make the world a slightly better place for us all to inhabit.
I note that you did not try to refute the other points that I make. Good choice on your part!
I ditched Twitter the moment that Elon Musk took over – good decision on my part!
I’ll tell mom you said hey!
Au contraire, cherie!
The “nutters”, as you so charmingly refer to them – you really should try to come up with your own material BTW – are the lunatic fringe who seem to feel that corporations should not be allowed to try to make the world a slightly better place for us all to inhabit.
I note that you did not try to refute the other points that I make. Good choice on your part!
I ditched Twitter the moment that Elon Musk took over – good decision on my part!
I’ll tell mom you said hey!
You make a lot of assumptions here. Private companies are not islands unto themselves. They have vast sums of money and political influence at their disposal. I am deeply uncomfortable with company policies that run counter to democratic processes or enforce a moral framework that employees and customers may disagree with.
Disney profits and stock are actually down, not up. While there are many factors that contribute to this, one major reason is that most parents are uncomfortable with the company’s political and sexual messaging toward younger viewers. Yet, Disney continue to churn out movies and cartoons that net them very little profit (“Elemental”, “Lightyear”, and “Strange World” to name a few). The only people it seems keen on pleasing is a small group of very vocal activists who are more concerned about an agenda being passed through than it is about entertaining the majority of its customer-base. That’s rather strange, don’t you think?
ESG policies are deeply controversial, not just to ‘right-wing extremists’ (a term too easily applied to those who question current political orthodoxy), but to anyone who cares about democracy.
This newspaper article does a pretty good job of explaining it better than I can:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/biden-insists-on-anti-worker-anti-democracy-esg-principles#:~:text=ESG%20represents%20a%20genuine%20threat,voters%20repeatedly%20and%20steadfastly%20reject.
I do try to live outside my ‘echo-chamber’ as you describe it. I understand that on the surface ESG goals sound noble and virtuous particularly if they support long-held and cherished views. But we do need to question where our views come from, how our opinions are formed, and be aware that human nature is deeply flawed. If people are suspicious of big companies accruing yet more political power, does that really make them ‘right-wing extremists”?
Thank you for your response to my previous comment. I’ll end this one with a quote from HL Mencken:
Densantis doesn’t have authority to govern ESG. He can forbid state officials from investing public money to promote environmental, social and governance goals, and prohibit ESG bond sales. This is perfectly reasonable as a governor. He can’t forbid private companies from investing or subscribing to ESG. What am I missing here?
“ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority…. “ You’ve given yourself away as one of the 10% of nutters.
No doubt you are also active on Twitter and the others. Probably all from a bedroom in your mum’s house.
I predict you will be active on here for a week or two then, like all the others incapable of a coherent argument, will go in search of somebody else to screech at.
You make a lot of assumptions here. Private companies are not islands unto themselves. They have vast sums of money and political influence at their disposal. I am deeply uncomfortable with company policies that run counter to democratic processes or enforce a moral framework that employees and customers may disagree with.
Disney profits and stock are actually down, not up. While there are many factors that contribute to this, one major reason is that most parents are uncomfortable with the company’s political and sexual messaging toward younger viewers. Yet, Disney continue to churn out movies and cartoons that net them very little profit (“Elemental”, “Lightyear”, and “Strange World” to name a few). The only people it seems keen on pleasing is a small group of very vocal activists who are more concerned about an agenda being passed through than it is about entertaining the majority of its customer-base. That’s rather strange, don’t you think?
ESG policies are deeply controversial, not just to ‘right-wing extremists’ (a term too easily applied to those who question current political orthodoxy), but to anyone who cares about democracy.
This newspaper article does a pretty good job of explaining it better than I can:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/biden-insists-on-anti-worker-anti-democracy-esg-principles#:~:text=ESG%20represents%20a%20genuine%20threat,voters%20repeatedly%20and%20steadfastly%20reject.
I do try to live outside my ‘echo-chamber’ as you describe it. I understand that on the surface ESG goals sound noble and virtuous particularly if they support long-held and cherished views. But we do need to question where our views come from, how our opinions are formed, and be aware that human nature is deeply flawed. If people are suspicious of big companies accruing yet more political power, does that really make them ‘right-wing extremists”?
Thank you for your response to my previous comment. I’ll end this one with a quote from HL Mencken:
Densantis doesn’t have authority to govern ESG. He can forbid state officials from investing public money to promote environmental, social and governance goals, and prohibit ESG bond sales. This is perfectly reasonable as a governor. He can’t forbid private companies from investing or subscribing to ESG. What am I missing here?
What business of it of his what policies private companies choose to adopt? What has that got to do with democracy? You do know that Disney profits rose by almost 30% in 2022? ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority of far right wing extremists.
You seem incredibly poorly informed on this subject, much like DeSantis. I suggest you try to expand your sources of information beyond the conservative echo chamber.
No self-professed socialist would nakedly defend massive corporations like Disney. What sort of bizarre troll campaign is this?
I need to read more on this, but from what I can tell he seems to be trying to de-fang companies that are adopting Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) initiatives. From what I’ve gathered so far about ESG policies is that they are highly controversial and undemocratic. In effect, they circumnavigate democratic processes in order to place state decision-making power into the hands of unelected officials and experts. Disney, Bud-Light, and many others seem to have gone down this route which is why many of them are losing money. In short they are massively neglecting their duties to their shareholders (e.g. making profit) in order to promote agendas that are controversial to a large majority of the electorate.
No self-professed socialist would nakedly defend massive corporations like Disney. What sort of bizarre troll campaign is this?
“Unlikeable” is a typical journalistic phrase by someone who can’t be bothered to do the work.
Why don’t you start with his attempts to bully private companies and his subsequent humiliation.
“Unlikeable” is a typical journalistic phrase by someone who can’t be bothered to do the work.
Please confine your comments to the Guardian.
Could you give some examples? I googled him, but almost every headline is about how unlikeable he is – very little on his actual policies.
Please confine your comments to the Guardian.
Don’t try to overcomplicate it – he’s losing because he is a horrible politician with grotesque policies.