In 2023, Salwan Momika conducted a series of Quran burnings in Sweden, sparking international condemnation and plunging the country into a diplomatic crisis. These actions significantly escalated tensions and led to an increased terror threat level. Salwan Najem assisted Momika during these demonstrations. In August, both individuals were charged with four counts of hate speech. The case took a dramatic turn when Momika was shot and killed in Södertälje, the day before the verdict was scheduled to be announced. Consequently, the charges against him were dropped.
This week, the Stockholm District Court delivered its verdict, sentencing Salwan Najem to a suspended sentence for hate speech. This judgment comes shortly after another high-profile case involving the far-right politician Rasmus Paludan, who was sentenced to four months in prison for hate speech and insult in November of the previous year. Paludan has appealed his sentence. The recent Quran burnings conducted by Momika and Najem were authorized by the police, leading to questions regarding the seemingly contradictory nature of the verdict. However, Judge Göran Lundahl clarified that the police permit is solely based on an assessment of potential public order disturbances and not on the legality of the act itself.
Judge Lundahl emphasized that the ruling against Najem does not imply a blanket ban on Quran burning in Sweden. He explained that the court’s decision rested on the specific context of the actions, noting that burning a Quran could be permissible if its purpose is not to express contempt towards Muslims. The judge highlighted that the Quran, despite its sacred status for many, does not enjoy special legal protection merely based on its religious significance. The court’s examination focused on the cumulative effect of the actions, including burning, kicking, and wrapping the Quran in pork, combined with the derogatory statements made about Islam and Muslims during the demonstrations.
The court concluded that Najem acted in concert with Momika to express contempt for Muslims. While the charges against Momika were dropped due to his death, his actions and words were still considered relevant to the case against Najem and are detailed in the court’s judgment. The court explicitly stated that Momika’s death did not influence the legal assessment, as the main hearing had concluded before the incident occurred. The prosecutor’s assertion that the men acted in agreement was a crucial element considered by the court, ultimately leading to Najem’s conviction. Because the case against Momika was dismissed, the judgment against him will never be formally presented.
Legal expert Ängla Pändel, specializing in freedom of expression law, concurs with the court’s interpretation, stating that the act of burning a Quran is not inherently criminal. She maintains that burning religious texts, in and of itself, does not constitute hate speech. The crucial factor, according to Pändel, is whether the actions, combined with any accompanying statements, cross the line from legitimate religious criticism to contempt for those who practice the religion. She argues that the court’s comprehensive assessment concluded that the actions and words of Momika and Najem demonstrated contempt for Muslims as a group, exceeding the boundaries of protected speech.
Pändel reinforces the principle that freedom of expression in Sweden allows for strong criticism, particularly of religion. However, this freedom has limitations. The Supreme Court has established that expressions of contempt towards a group are not protected under the umbrella of freedom of speech. While burning sacred texts alone may not constitute a crime, the context in which the act takes place, including accompanying pronouncements, is critical for legal evaluation. Pändel anticipates that if Najem appeals the verdict, the higher court will likely uphold the District Court’s decision, based on the established legal precedents and the specific facts of the case. The court’s focus remains on determining whether the actions, taken as a whole, constitute legitimate criticism or cross into prohibited hate speech.
