Burning a book is not an offence in Britain. Or is it? It depends which book. If you burn a copy of the Qur’an in public, then the police will arrest you, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will charge you, and a judge will convict you. The police, the CPS, and the judiciary seem intent on enforcing Islamic blasphemy.
An act of protest
Hamit Coskun, 50, is a Turkish atheist who came to the UK in 2023 to flee persecution in Turkey and to seek asylum. He is a father of three who has spent nearly 10 years in prison for being a member of a Kurdish political party, which the Turkish authorities consider a terrorist front. Coskun is understandably alarmed at the Islamification of Turkey and by some of the teaching found in the Qur’an.
On 13 February 2025, Coskun staged a protest outside the Turkish Consulate in London, where he burned a copy of the Qur’an. He held the burning book aloft and shouted, “Islam is the religion of terrorists” and “The Qur’an is burning”.
A man named Moussa Kadri came out of a building [and argued with] Coskun. This Kadri then threatened to kill Coskun, and went back inside to get a knife with which he returned to launch a savage attack on Coskun. Kadri subsequently pled guilty to assaulting Coskun. Coskun was also kicked by a passing delivery driver. When the police arrived, they found Coskun so injured that he was taken to the hospital.
CPS treats offending Islam as an offence
Coskun was subsequently arrested and charged with harassing the “religious institution of Islam.” However, in UK law, Islam is not a person, and there is therefore not an offence of harassing the “religious institution of Islam”. Only after a social media campaign arguing that this charge is effectively a blasphemy charge did the CPS amend the charge to “using disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
It is deeply concerning that the CPS thought fit to bring a charge of harassing the “religious institution of Islam” as if this is an offence. It appears that the CPS is already operating as if offending the religion of Islam is an offence. It only adds to this concern to learn that when journalist David Shipley submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the CPS asking how many times “the religious institution of Islam” appeared in recent indictments, the CPS responded that it would take too long to review them all so they would not comply with this request!
Victim blaming
In the judgment, district judge John McGarva argued that Coskun’s conduct was disorderly, and that this was “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 appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].” This is a somewhat absurd line of reasoning. It amounts to stating that if you are assaulted, then you must have committed a crime! By this logic, anyone who is assaulted must be guilty of public disorder! Because some people got angry with him, he must be guilty.
This is a form of victim blaming if ever there was one. The judge is effectively saying, ‘You asked for it.’ While at the same time saying that there is no justification for the assaults. Which is it? If there is no justification, then Coskun is not guilty? If someone assaults you, does that make you a criminal?
In the 13-page judgment, Mr McCarva describes Coskun’s actions as “provocative” no less than nine times. But being provocative is not an offence. Coskun was being provocative about Islam, and not towards any individual.
Anti-Islam or anti-Muslims?
Mr McCarva notes that Coskun repeatedly denied that he had any argument with individual Muslims. His argument is with Islam and the teaching of the Qur’an. Mr McCarva did not accept this distinction, however. Against the testimony of Coskun himself, McCarva ruled that Coskun was “motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.” This sets a dangerous precedent. This means that if you criticise Islam, you can be ruled as motivated by hatred of Muslims. If I, motivated by love of Muslims, tell Muslims that they are following a false religion and that Muhammad is not a prophet, a judge could rule that I was motivated by hatred of Muslims. This means sharing the gospel with Muslims could land you in court!
This whole case is reminiscent of Ian Sleeper, who was arrested and held in a police cell for 13 hours for displaying a sign which read: “Love Muslims, Hate Islam, Jesus is love and hope.” With the help of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre, Sleeper sued the police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The High Court, however, ruled that his arrest was lawful. The judgment rejected the Christian idea that you can ‘hate the sin but love the sinner.’ Sleeper made explicit that he ‘loves Muslims’, but ‘hates Islam’. This judge refused to see how the two can be separated.
Christian evangelist arrested for offending Islam
It is also reminiscent of Christian evangelist Hatun Tash, who has been wrongfully arrested on more than one occasion by police for her provocative preaching of the gospel. After receiving £10,000 compensation from the police a second time for wrongful arrest, Tash said: “We don’t live in Pakistan; we don’t live in Saudi Arabia. I am Christian and by default I believe that Muhammad is a false prophet. I should be allowed to say that in the UK without being stabbed or repeatedly arrested.”
The problem is that the police, the CPS, and the judiciary do not appear to think that you should be allowed to openly express criticism of Islam in the UK without being arrested, and even charged and convicted of an offence.
Would you be arrested for burning a Bible?
Responding to his conviction, Coskun commented: “Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”
The question of whether he would have been prosecuted for burning a Bible outside Westminster Abbey is pointed. Since I very much doubt that any Christian would threaten to kill him, let alone violently assault him, it appears that such an act would not be viewed as disorderly. As we have seen, Coskun’s conviction rested on the fact that he caused people to assault him. If no disorder resulted, then it was not disorderly, which appears to be the logic here.
But this is a two-tier approach to law enforcement. Because Christians will not assault someone who insults their religion, no one will be arrested for doing that. But because some Muslims will assault someone who insults their religion, this means you should be arrested and prosecuted if you do that.
In other words, because some Muslims are prone to violence if their religion is insulted, the police will enforce protection of their religion.
Offending Islam is an offence
And so, we are now living in a country where you can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for insulting Islam, whereas you would not be arrested, let alone prosecuted or convicted for insulting Christianity. Islam now has special protection in law, and this has arisen because some of its followers will act violently if their religion is insulted.
The police, the CPS, and the judiciary are now enforcing the law as if there is an offence of offending Islam. This is evident, not just in this case, but in Ian Sleeper’s case, and in the case of Hatun Tash, too.
Once it becomes illegal to insult Islam, we will find it very difficult to resist the increasing influence of Islam. Criticising Islam could get you arrested. This is now the state of play in the UK.
I very much hope Coskun’s appeal succeeds. The police, the CPS, and the judiciary should protect the right to criticise Islam, not enforce Islamic blasphemy.
