As a Muslim, I do not welcome the conviction of a man who set fire to a copy of the Quran. Hamit Coskun – a 50-year-old of Armenian and Kurdish descent who was born and raised in Turkey, and whose family have suffered persecution at the hands of Islamists – was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence.
He was fined £240 after he held the flaming book aloft outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge while shouting “Islam is religion of terrorism” and “F*** Islam”. His one-man protest wound up when he was himself assaulted by a passerby.
Although I find the burning of the Quran a thoroughly grotesque act – on a par, say, with derogatory cartoons of the prophet Muhammad – the reality is that England is a country where the medieval common-law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel have been scrapped. Following the verdict, Coskun asked: “Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the Bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said that the decision was wrong, as it put free speech under threat: “It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. I have no confidence in ‘two-tier Keir’ to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.”
The judge made clear that it was not the burning of the holy text of Islam that warranted prosecution, but other factors. The CPS had argued that Coskun’s actions had been “a real threat to public order”, while the defendant was said to have made Islamophobic comments during police interviews.
There is a growing Muslim population in Britain who hold their faith very dearly – myself included – but for others, they are anxious over the presence of Islam in modern Britain and the impact of orthodox religious doctrines on wider society.
The ruling to find Coskun guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence will reinforce the public perception that Islam is provided with preferential treatment under Britain’s model of multicultural governance – which, in turn, will only serve to harden anti-Muslim hostility and prejudices. Contrary to this ruling being in the interests of so-called “diversity management”, it runs the risk of further undermining social cohesion.
There is also the possibility that it will encourage an uptick in Quran burnings, which is an act that rarely takes place on British soil. In Scandinavia, the tension between freedom of speech and desecration of holy texts has recently been laid bare. In Sweden – a country that had some of the strongest protections for freedom of expression in the world and abolished its blasphemy laws back in the 1970s – people have been charged over the burning of the Quran. This included Salwan Momika, an anti-Islam Iraqi refugee who was shot dead in January – a killing that was welcomed by al-Qaeda.
Meanwhile, Denmark has passed a law to stop Quran burnings, banning the “inappropriate treatment” of religious texts, with offenders now potentially facing imprisonment. This was quite the U-turn after the parliament, only a few years earlier, repealed a 334-year-old blasphemy law.
In the UK, there is now growing pressure to reintroduce similar laws, with the Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, last year calling on Keir Starmer to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions. While the prime minister did not pledge support for Ali’s proposal, neither did he rule it out.
Blasphemy laws in England and Wales were abolished by a Labour government in 2008. But sometimes, it is the perception that a particular right is under threat that results in the greater exercising of it. This ruling is likely to heighten anti-religion rebelliousness, not reduce it, which is not an ideal outcome – most of all for religious social conservatives.
The reality is that England is a country with an established church, which provides its faith minorities with considerable religious freedoms. British Muslims benefit from a wide array of opportunities, rights and protections which are not enjoyed by their co-religionists in other European countries such as France, where the Fifth Republic’s militant secular universalism is undeniably oppressive towards its Muslim communities.
The supreme governor of the Church of England, King Charles III, is arguably the most pro-Islam figurehead in the Western world. His Majesty has previously championed Muslim contributions to the European Renaissance, extolled the virtues of Islamic finance, and championed Islam’s emphasis on environmental sustainability.
But none of this should be taken for granted – the pendulum should not swing so far that the freedom to dissent and rally against organised religion in our liberal democracy is undermined by the courts.
The very real fact is that religious freedom is protected by the right to blaspheme; far from being contradictory, they are mutually reinforcing. Adherents of Islam in England have the freedom to proselytise and work towards spreading their faith, known as da’wah. This can involve criticising other faiths and challenging their core tenets – such as the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation in Christianity, or idolatry in polytheistic religions such as Hinduism.
Devout members of non-Muslim faith groups may find this to be gravely insulting to their faiths – indeed, blasphemous. But that is part of the social contract: with religious freedom comes the responsibility of accepting that others will behave towards one’s religion in a way they may not like, to the point it may be considered grossly offensive.
It is time for religious social conservatives – especially in Muslim communities – to recognise that freedom of expression is a friend, not an enemy, of Islam in modern Britain. That would be a major breakthrough for community relations in our multi-faith society.
Dr Rakib Ehsan is a senior adviser at Policy Exchange and author of ‘Beyond Grievance’ (Forum Books, £12.99)
