- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
Salwan Momika, the Iraqi man who staged several Quran burnings in Sweden in 2023, was shot and killed in Sodertalje, near Stockholm.
His actions had sparked international outrage, riots, and diplomatic tensions. Swedish police confirmed a murder investigation is underway, and several arrests have been made.
Momika, who sought asylum in Sweden in 2018, faced charges of incitement to hatred, with a verdict scheduled for the day after his death.
His protests were permitted under free speech laws but led to legal action against him.
You must log in or register to comment.
He was being charged for doing this? I had completely missed that. Was Sweden always like this?
No, people haven’t been killed over a religious text for a very, very long time. Then we imported the religious issue.
Then we imported the religious issue.
Wouldn’t it make sense for Swedes to go after the people who try to kill someone for burning a book instead of making book burning illegal?
Are they really that weak and spineless?
Chill there baby.
There is a murder investigation. So yes they are. Unless you’re one of the troglodytes that wants to grab a pitchfork; i much prefer to let the police do their job.
Just because your American police is a joke, doesn’t mean ours is.
You can burn as many books as you want, thats not why salwan was under investigation.
Just because your American police is a joke, doesn’t mean ours is.
I have literally zero fear of burning any book in the US.
Unlike in france and sweden…
I’m also referring to the apparent laws Sweden has against book burning.
There are no such laws. you bought it, you burn it.
There are laws about religious, racial or ethnical discrimination though.
Then why are people saying what he was doing was illegal for ‘inciting hatred’?
Because you can try someone for a crime if the prosecutor finds a reason to do so.
I don’t pretend to know exactly what his indigtment was, but i recon i could ask for the papers since its public. What I do know is that he had to ask permission from the police to have his demonstrations and all except one was granted. The one that wasn’t allowed was because of the security issue due to muslim protestors. Don’t remember exactly how many allowed demonstrations there was. So i guess the answer is, people don’t know what they are talking about when they say what he was doing was “illegal”.
Seems like he got what he wanted.
Freedom from religious persecution?
He got the exact opposite of what he wanted you daft idiot
He died for destroying a book, for burning paper, no human was hurt and he died because some religious extremist can’t control themselves.
Great example of how religion needs to be properly regulated.
Liberals really hate Nazis.
Unless the Nazi is being Nazi against Muslims instead of Jews. Then they love free speech.
As the saying goes, the only good Nazi
Burning a religious book in protest =/= Nazi behaviour
So wanting freedom from religious persecution is the same as being a Nazi now?
Interesting, I did not know that
He was a asshole, but he sound have been free and safe to be an asshole.
Fuck religion
If this was a Swedish-born guy, I would jump on the bandwagon of calling him an asshole.
But this guy was an Iraqi. I cannot outright condemn someone who gets so tired of the shit of the majority of their own country that ends up overreacting the moment they find themselves somewhere where they can express themselves freely.
Like, turban knocking in a Western city is (rightly) a hate crime. Turban knocking in Tehran? That’s fucking righteous.
Middle eastern Christians, atheists, etc very often end up being “wrong” wherever they find themselves. Wrong in their home countries for being the kuffar Other, wrong in the West as “islamophobes” when they speak out about their othering.
I’m not for the death penalty or killing people generally (very rare exceptions, maybe).
That said, he did it to rile up millions of people with hate speech (for them it is I bet), so like don’t do that or you might face consequences.
Free speech isn’t about the right to hate speeching. What a douchebag.
Edit: idiot below trying to frame it I think you shouldn’t “blasphemy”. No lol go ahead and blasphemy all you want, that’s free speech IMO.
Blasting religion for its cruelty is always appreciated.
To bad he was a raging hypocrite who targeted Muslims due to himself being targeted as a Christian. Religion is gonna religion until they all stop believing the nonsense or everyone gets converted (alive or dead).
You say it better than me :-)
Being offended is not a justification for killing nor is it hate speech.
Where the hell do you see me saying killing is okay? I say literally the opposite.
Also, he did hate speech, he was on trial for it, read the article!
Are you one of the bigots trying to stir things up or what the hell is your agenda?
No agenda. Free speech absolutist. Criticism of a topic no matter how offensive must be allowed.
Ah, an idiot.
I gave my opinion. You discarded it without evidence or educated opinion. Name calling shows defeat.
Arguing with a fool proves there are two.
So no thank you.
Publicly burning symbols of a minority group or a world view is an incitement to violence against that group or people holding that world view.
It has nothing to do with constructive criticism. It is symbolizing a violent act, with the goal to incite more violence.
It is more offensive to kill someone rather than destroying a book. Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.
Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.
Which group? How do you define that group? Do you think groups of people should be collectively punished for the actions of individuals of that group?
Also i fail to see why incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning becomes acceptable, because killing people is worse? Is every lesser crime acceptable? is every hate speech acceptable? Is everything acceptable that falls short of killing someone?
I think it should be obvious that lesser crimes are still crimes and i think it should be obvious, that hate speech against minorities is particular problematic, as it leads to killing people of that minority, which as you point out is the most severe crime.
incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning
Yeah, no, you can’t just go claiming that’s what burning a book is about, especially a religious text
I’ve burned multiple religious texts in protest, it’s never been about incitement to kill
If a group of people collectively is outraged enough to kill over a certain value system, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized for that belief. In the united states we have radicals that will kill over abortion. They are mocked and ridiculed. If Muslims get offended, they should be mocked and ridiculed for being soft.
Burning a book is not a “lesser crime.” It is speech. If you are offended, how about you put your big boy pants on and act like a man and get over it.
Im against hate speech but it should not be criminalized. Violent speech can be. “This person should be killed” then a overt act made towards violence should be criminal.
But if Muslims get so upset about a book buring and kill, then Muslims are in the wrong and need to realize this is the real world and people don’t bow down to babies that cry about offense.
You do know that there is 2 billion Muslims in the world?
So for the act of unknown assailants you think 2 billion people should be “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized”
By your own example, because some women who got abortions have committed crimes in their life and many women rights advocates get offended by insults towards women seeking abortions, you would want to “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized” them all too.
There is anti fascists who got so outraged by fascists that they have killed them too. So you must mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" anti-fascists too.
By your own logic you just justify hating everyone in the world, because in every group of people you will find someone who you find reprehensible, which you then apply to the entire group.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It seems to stem more from some personal things that have nothing to do with any particular group.
I don’t think we should consider blasphemy as hate speech. Or do you want to be required to follow the rules of all religions because they are all offended by it?
It wasn’t the blasphemy that was hate speech, it was the whole rhing riling them up ffs.
Fuck it, now I kind of want to burn a Quran or Bible for funsies.
Isn’t that basically like burning newspaper? Both would work I guess
why not both?
Toss in a torah to complete the Abrahamic trifecta and top it with dianetics because fuck scientology in particular.
the man wanted to incite hatred, show him middlefinger by doing the opposite
The fuck? He should be allowed to burn whatever book he wants in protest, regardless of who it pisses off.
If anything, the only concern the state should have over this is for the environment.
How do we know he wanted that?
I see the post that says he was being charged with inciting hatred, but also says his act was protected under free speech.
I think it’s dumb to be burning books as the only people who are going to be pissed are the fundamentalists and they’re always pissed off anyway, but I respect his right to free expression.
I think it’s smart to be burning books as an act of protest.
People need to be able to exercise their rights, or else their rights will be taken away.
so, momika has been in sweden a few years. he converted to christianity in his home country, started shouting loudly about freedom of speech there, got told to stop, then filed for asylum in sweden. once here he kept doing the same thing, which of course jeopardises his asylum claim. only he wasn’t first. rasmus paludan has been burning qurans here for a while, always doing it in neighbourhoods with a majority muslim population. as a demonstration of the problem with religion, it’s effective. once. but both of them did it for years, and the things they have been saying during their book burning made it clear that it was not actually about freedom of speech, but about hatred of muslims. not islam, muslims. and they were both in court for the crime of hets mot folkgrupp (“incitement of hatred against a population group”). they clearly overstepped the law of the country they were in.
Run on and on and on.
what do you mean?
They’re just being an ass about your writing.
i thought it would be about run-on sentences, but i can’t find one. there should probably be a line break though.
What other possible reason would someone have to burn a book that is to some more important than their life. Either people dont care about it or become enraged. And just because you have right to do something doesnt mean you should. His actions have caused a lot of harm, also most likely his own death too.
For argument’s sake, lets assume he had some positive reason for his actions. Has there been a single positive thing that has come from this? If you want to do good you need to think the consequences through and if you dont then you shouldnt do anything at all.
This is such a bullshit take with some not so subtle apoligism and blame shifting.
If burning a book causes a lot of harm in any way besides burn damage, the burner is hardly to blame but something else is fundamentally wrong, and he tried to make that very obvious to everyone with his own life at risk.
Its not about the PHYSICAL book. Go ask any muslim if there is ANY situation where they would find it acceptable to burn their holy book in such way that guy did. And if he did it to “make it obvious there is something fundamendally wrong” why didnt he then MAKE IT OBVIOUS WHAT IS WRONG? Lets say that was his goal, then he failed so spectacularly words fail me.
I truly dont know what else to say about this if you still dont see what I mean.
And its not nice trying to frame what I said as apoligism or blame shifting. But if you TRULY think so then maybe you should back your arguments with facts instead of throwing words and hoping they stick. I know I can make mistakes and how else can I learn from them than if other people correct me. But i’m pretty sure i’m not wrong about this, but its not good to be blinded by your own surety.
You know that the Nazis in Germany burned a lot of books?
Your general statement would absolve them from their actions and intentions and instead shifts the blame onto the people who got persecuted by having their books burnt. Which later escalated to more than “just” burning books.
You cannot reduce it to the action itself and ignore all the context around it, especially not the intentions of the perpetrators.
And “other people shouldn’t get offended if i insult and attack them constantly” is hardly acceptable in any other social context. E.g. i hope you would oppose insulting LGBTQ, Women, Ethnic minorities, disabled people…
And it should be obvious from these examples, that “it is just a joke” or “it is just an insult and i should be allowed to insult, because muuh free speech” is not a sincere argument, by the people spreading the hate. And their intention is never to keep the hate at verbal abuse, but to escalate it to physical violence.
He did it to incite hate. No sane person care about the paper.
I guess if you burn the american flag in Texas, screaming and complaining loudly about"freedom of speech", people will get annoyed, but 20 years ago it was illegal to do so.
So how long have you sided with the Nazis and fundamentalist Christians?
Because now you’re excusing their book burning.
What a take.
You see the difference of an individual burning a book that he owns and leaving your books alone and the state burning all the books and forbidding you from accessing them… right?
…what does the state have to do with it? Fundamentalist Christians in the US burned books without state power. Nazis regularly encourage book burning and they haven’t had state power in a few decades.
This Nazi, for instance, did not have state power behind him. Just a group of sycophants encouraging his antics.
If you’re on the side of a book burning Nazi nut job, you’re the bad guy.
momika did it specifically to spark outrage among immigrants. don’t do that.
Congrats, you just let the terrorists win.
Now people aren’t allowed to do things that upset them 🤷
he wasn’t allowed to before either. we have laws against that.
Nah fuck that, If muslims cant handle it they should look the other way like they do when women are stoned to death for showing their hair.
Thanks for generalizing 1.5bn people, Ben Affleck
Oh, so not a small minority. Good to have that cleared up. Show me a liberal, free muslim country, then i can show you all of them that are not.
I don’t understand the point of your comment.
No, i guess that would be too much to ask.
Care to elaborate? You’re just kind of asking a loaded question, but you don’t make any actual argument.
That’s because you don’t want to understand it.
Willful ignorance is a powerful force.
Care to elaborate? They’re just kind of asking a loaded question, but don’t make any actual argument.
Idk man, you’d have a point if Iran didn’t systematically execute teenage girls for not wearing a headdress…
Wasn’t that Sam Harris who was being islamophobic and Affleck was defending them?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zsecVLjabzY
Just a stupid joke and I mixed up Ben Affleck with Ethan Hawke
Thanks, while we’re at it let’s burn some books by Jewish authors too.
See what I did there? Burning books is never a good look on you.
There’s burning all the copies of a book from the local library so no one has a chance to read them, and there’s burning one copy of a book which as an estimated 100 million copies printed per year as a protest.
To some the Quran is as hateful as Mein Kampf, and you know what people say about tolerance of intolerance. You may not agree, and you may think books should never be burned. I am on the fence on that. But I do know people who burn books shouldn’t be assassinated. And people shouldn’t live in fear of reprisals for speaking out against any religion and its teachings.
Yeah I have read both the Quran and some exempts from Mein Kampf. Cannot recommend the latter.
My favorite part from Mein Kampf was the one about the fox, the goose and the tiger who are all assumed to be hostile towards each other. Because of this „Arians“ shouldn’t mingle with Jews. If you’re troubled with following the soundness of the argument that’s because there is none.
Let’s ignore for a second that it’s just outright offensive to compare the books of any world religion to Mein Kampf. Even if you don’t believe in the whole God thing, then the Quran would still be a brilliant collection of verses spoken by some illiterate orphan without any education somewhere in the Arabian desert. And I can tell you that because I‘m a native speaker and even the hardcore atheist Arabs agree with me on that.
I think no one should be assassinated and capital punishment shouldn’t exist. And believe me when I tell you that I want freedom of speech. But there’s freedom of speech and hate speech. I don’t want freedom of hate speech and I don’t care who it is targeting.
I still don’t think anyone deserves capital punishment for anything, but to use this to generalize against all Muslims and our religious books is rightfully being called out as what it is, Islamophobia. Say the exact same things you said just about burning the Torah and we wouldn’t even have to argue about that being antisemitic.
To some the Quran is as hateful as _Mein Kampf
I am atheist/agnostic but it is downright offensive to compare any major religious work from a major world religion (let’s arbitrarily define that as more than 1 billion followers I don’t intend this as a category of judgement just size) to that shitbook from a genocidal maniac.
The Bible, the Quran, Hindu texts like the Vegas or Upanishads… to say I know more than a passing knowledge about these works would be a lie but I know enough to understand there is real good in those books mixed up with problematic aspects, subject to a constant conversation and study by practicioners that attempts to reconcile and interpret the best parts of those things into a way forward.
Even if you are a staunch atheist there is real meat on the bone in the religious texts I listed above to read critically and consider.
Mein Kampf is just hateful trash, it isn’t worth reading, just go read The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann (Woods translation) or listen to the superb audio book, it came out of Germany at basically the same moment and it is vastly superior in every respect as a work of intellectual and political introspection and it is actually fun.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Mountain
https://campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/the-magic-mountain/
I haven’t read the Quran or Mein Kampf, but even the old testament is plenty hateful.
Your kid makes fun of some bald dude? Death penalty, mauled by bear.
Add to that (I’ve heard second hand, correct me if I’m wrong) that there is some pedofilia/child marriage in the Quran, so I see how someone could have strong feelings about it.
The amount of people liking a book shouldn’t be an argument to judge its hatrfulness.
I am an atheist/agnostic, I won’t be caught dead saying these books aren’t deeply problematic, that wasn’t my point, my point is that despite all that there is also some good to these books and exploration however fraught of morals and philosophy.
Mein Kampf is just pathetic, lame trash and as I said before it is an insult to those religious works to compare them with a document solely designed to rationalize genocide and hate.
not sure what you think the bible is
Basically fanfic commissioned by King James VI/I
Your point being?
THEY CAN’T KILL US ALL
THEY CAN’T KILL US ALL
You’d be surprised how efficient and streamlined capital punishment is in the middle east. So they probably can. (Unless you’re talking about outside the ME, then i doubt it)
Obviously I am not talking about the ME.
Then sorry. I thought so due to him being Iraqi, concern of him being deported and executed, and his reason for burning the Qur’ans originally.
raised anger and criticism in several Muslim nations
I don’t think there are many non-Muslims who were onboard with this stupid shit either, to be fair. Besides the spittle-flecked gammon who were already bigots to begin with, of course.
The only Quran burning I’d support would be if Elon Musk did it as part of his whole white identitarian shtick. I’d send ISIS the airfare myself.
I have mixed thoughts on it really, like you should be allowed to do it but its just pointless and stupid so why the fuck would you?
To me, it’s more about the goal he was trying to achieve. He clearly did it to taunt and insult. In that context, I can see how this should be a punishable offense (not death though).
It would be a similar thing if you had learned that the prime minister of Sweden likes to create art at home. Then buying one of his art pieces and burn it in front of his house. Sure, burning art is not a punishable offense, but the goal of intimidating someone with such a symbol could/should be.
Its doing so outside of their house that could be intimidation at that point though. So if you burnt the art in your own home surely it would be fine? Essentially the burning isn’t the problem.
A more reasonable response is Muslims call the guy a cunt and move on.
I agree on the “reasonable response” aspect.
I think for the first question it should revolve around “public” or “private”. if you do something at home and record it to share the video on the internet, it is still public, with the goal to be public.
So in regards to incitement or hate speech it is also different if your racist uncle spurts his ideas at the family reunion, or if he broadcasts them on twitter.
I wasn’t so much thinking of public/private, but doing it outside someones house has a bit of an “I know where you live” vibe to it.
Are you saying his killing was justified?
No? He’s saying it triggers plenty of Islamophobia. If you actually follow the logic, it sounds more like he’s adding more arguments against this kind of killing.
Yeah tbh as a Muslim it’s pretty tiring and offensive to read all of that shit when most of us are just busy living our lives like everyone else. And we’re here on the supposedly progressive and liberal Lemmy…
It’s also super tiring to read all the ahmadullilah comments under the TRT post on YouTube about this. Kind of offensive too, you know.
I’m with you 100% combatting islamophobia everywhere, but I don’t see much in terms of combatting …islamic-supremacy(?), see I don’t even know what to call it. We don’t even name it. It’s not “Islamism” because that means anything and nothing, it’s not “Islamic extremism” because that’s like the maniacs. What do we call the low key thing? The one that feeds into the culture war on the muslim side?
Idk man YouTube, TikTok, Meta, doesn’t matter all social media platforms are anyway just feeding on rage bait and I’m pretty sure they have significantly radicalized millions if not hundreds of millions at this point.
To them it doesn’t matter if you’re cheering for ISIS or Hitler or Israel, they just care about more engagement so that some product teams can show some engagement & add KPIs going up during performance review season.
Idk I think some kind of supremacy is accurate here indeed? Some seek white supremacy, other ethnic supremacy, religious supremacy, it’s all the same poison to me.
Well said. ✌️
Wait, are you suggesting that its a bad idea to generalize what a billion plus people living in vastly different places and situations believe? /s
