UK District Judge John McGarva found Hamit Coskun “guilty of religiously aggravated public order offence, was ‘motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.’” Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, had shouted, as he burned the Qur’an, that “Islam is a religion of terrorism.” Armenian Christians and Kurdish Muslims have been the victims of violent jihad and Sharia-sanctioned persecution. So have other religious minorities; Sharia is intolerant and hateful toward kaffirs.
Coskun’s declaration demonstrates that his motive in burning the Qur’an was entirely different from “hatred of Muslims.” He was expressing his view of Islamic doctrine. One can hate a religious doctrine without hating the people who hold it. Nonetheless, Judge McGarva decided to boost Islamic blasphemy laws in the UK.
The higher court has overturned McGarva’s decision, instead delivering an unexpected free speech victory.
More on this story. “UK Islamic blasphemy laws defeated in free speech victory,” by Robert Johnson, Valley Vanguard, October 14, 2025:
Britain’s debate over the limits of free expression has taken another turn after a higher court quashed a conviction in a case that tested the line between offensive speech and criminality. The ruling in the case of Hamit Coskun, who set fire to a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish embassy in London earlier this year, has been read by civil liberties advocates as a significant reinforcement of the right to offend.
The episode began with a public act of provocation that quickly turned violent: Coskun burned the religious text while shouting denunciations of Islam, and was then physically attacked by a passerby. A lower court later convicted him of a racially motivated public-order offense. That conviction has now been overturned by Southwark Crown Court, a decision that raises fresh questions about how police, prosecutors and judges should handle acts intended to shock.
How the events unfolded and the original conviction
In February, outside the Turkish embassy in west London, a man publicly burned a Koran and shouted inflammatory slogans about Islam. The incident prompted a violent response from a member of the public who stabbed and kicked the protester and spat on him.
- The initial court found Coskun guilty under public-order legislation, treating his actions as racially aggravated conduct.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Hopefully a start
Walter Sieruk says
It’s very easy to understand the frustration of Hamit Coskun of the many problems caused by Islam in the United Kingdom. For example the murderous jihad bombing in Manchester as well as the deadly jihadists attacks in London and other cities in the UK. There is also the Muslim gang violence along with rapes and even “sex grooming “affronts against young British girls by lawless ruffian Muslim migrants.
Nevertheless, burning the Qur ‘an is still a not a good way to handle the problem of Islam . By contrast ,an intelligent way to handle that religious book of Islam and all the deadly violence that it inspires to to study and examine that specific religious book of Islam and then expose the errors and contradictions that it contains.
This has actually already been done, For example, on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu’ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Quran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Quran.
Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Quran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” In addition , in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.”
In conclusion, the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
Even though the above essay was posted before, it should now be added that the last statement of the above that “the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.” To put this in a Biblical way. As in from the Bible, it may be truly explained that the Qu ‘ran is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 14:12.. [N.I.V.]
DokDream says
Very so. And I am amused by the part of the Koran that proclaims the sun to revokve around the earth. It was a popular belief in Mo’s time, but if it was the true word of an all-knowing deity, then wouldn’t he/she/it have known better? And there are other, similar and stupid examples like the nonsense of trees to call out Jews hiding behind it.
gravenimage says
Walter–with respect–the idea that no further criticism of Islam is needed is, I believe, mistaken.
David Everitt says
As I am led to believe from reports, it wasn´t a member of the public armed with a knife that tried to stop the burning, no surprise there a public member carrying, but it was a member of the Turkish Embassy that came out and attacked Mr Coskum with the knife, strange that person wasn´t charged, but most probably claimed diplomatic immunity.
As for myself, I know Quran burning is very commanding of a crowd, but it leaves a carbon footprint, much better to re-pulp the hideous publication, I’m sure all the lefty greens would agree.
gravenimage says
David, the attacker was Moussa Kadri, a 59-year-old Muslim from Kensington.
Darkglass says
Fighting fire with fire
Blueskies says
The way I see it, is that once again Islam has won. The koran burner was not only beaten, stabbed, and spit on by a muslim perpetrator who appears to have gotten off scot free, but the burner also experienced such a lengthy rigorous legal process that even though he won in the end you can be sure that he will never burn another Koran. Further, the public is also deterred due to these reasons. I see this as a victory for Islamic blasphemy law. Britain is finished and Farage is a liar who will further the demise of britain
gravenimage says
That you can *stab* a victim in the name of Islam in the UK and be given a suspended sentence is madness.
James Lincoln says
Finally, some good news – I guess that the flickering candle is not totally out in the UK.
Proud infidel says
The case against him should never have been charged or prosecuted in the first place.
DokDream says
I would like to point out something that I think the British people may have forgotten: In the early 20th century, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a biochemist at Manchester University, worked with a microbe that could produce acetone from sugar. Along came WWI and England was unable to produce munitions to fight the Germans because pre-war, Germany had supplied England’s acetone needs. Dr. Weizmann contacted the Admiralty, said he could make acetone, and he did. After the war, the Brits went to Dr. Weizmann and said, “You have saved our nations. What can we, a grateful people do for you?” Dr. Weizmann, an Ardant Zionist, replied, “Give a homeland to my people.” That led to the Balfour Declaration and eventually the establishment of Israel. And Dr. Weizmann was the first President. Like it or not, England and Israel are like cojoined children. They may squabble with each other, but their fatres are interlinked. As for the islamics in their midst, that is like an adopted stepchild needing support but resenting the fact that they need it and turning on the other family members at every opportunity.
Winston 101 says
Dok Dream
Thank you for this information about Dr. Weizmann .
It’s one of those things I knew at one time but had forgotten.
OLD GUY says
A court victory, no they tried the wrong man. Coskun simply burned his private property. The real criminal is the man who beat him for doing so. That was the hate crime not the burning of a book.
gravenimage says
He was not just beaten. but *stabbed*.
Sharon says
Your view aligns with a niche interpretation in some Christian eschatological circles, often called the “Islamic Antichrist” theory. This posits that Muhammad (or Islam more broadly) fulfills biblical prophecies as a false prophet, with Allah as a “false god,” the Dome of the Rock/Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount as the “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15; Daniel 9:27), and Islam as the Antichrist system (e.g., 1 John 2:22 for denying Jesus’ divinity, or Revelation 13 for a “beast” empire). Proponents often cite the Dome’s Quranic inscriptions denying Jesus’ sonship (e.g., Quran 4:171) as blasphemous “standing in the holy place.”b3b361c2d649821795 This isn’t a majority view among biblical scholars—most see the abomination as historical (e.g., Antiochus IV or Rome’s AD 70 destruction)9ae1b3ae6162 or future (in a rebuilt temple)—but it has gained traction in online discussions and certain books since the 2000s.d04b5e14a3ff
Notable Proponents and Sources
Here are key figures, authors, and examples who promote or discuss this idea (often linking Muhammad to the “false prophet” of Revelation 16:13 or the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, with Islam as an end-times deception):
Joel Richardson: A prominent advocate through books like The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth About the Real Nature of the Beast (2009, updated editions). He argues the biblical Antichrist matches Islam’s Mahdi (a messianic figure), Muhammad as a prototype false prophet, and Middle Eastern empires as the “beast.” He draws parallels between Islamic eschatology (e.g., the Dajjal as a false messiah) and Christian prophecies, claiming the Dome of the Rock is the abomination causing spiritual desolation.4c3f33e63ce58049da28c00bdba487 His work is popular in evangelical circles and has video courses/seminars.761985
Walid Shoebat: A former Muslim turned Christian speaker/author (books like God’s War on Terror). He claims Muhammad embodies the false prophet, Islam the Antichrist kingdom, and the Dome/Al-Aqsa as the abomination (citing its location on the Temple Mount and anti-Trinitarian inscriptions). He links “666” to Arabic symbols and sees Islamic nations surrounding Israel as prophetic fulfillment.a2e64d37b3edeedbf9
gravenimage says
UK: Qur’an burner’s court victory is a defeat for those who want to criminalize opposition to jihad and Sharia
……………………………………………..
A bit f good news–but he never should have been prosecuted to begin with.
Winston 101 says
At least it went in the right direction. I’m shocked it did.
Happy to see the Higher Court still has the ability to
practice actual law.
It is a pitiful win against a tsunami of jihad – but at least a win.
Mr. Coskun is not serving a prison sentence on top of being
spit on, beaten and stabbed and then watching his assailant
walk free.
Most importantly, if another case comes before the court there is an
important precedent.