What do you think happened next?
The video, posted Sunday, bears this legend: “Chaos erupts in Sweden. A man gets fed up with Muslims praying in public and throws pig’s blood on a Quran in the middle of a square. The Muslims jump on him violently to beat him. Curious ‘religion of peace.’”
One of the many interesting aspects of this brief fourteen-second video is that numerous police officers are present, and at least one of them actually comes to the aid of the victim, pulling one of the Muslim attackers off him before the video ends. Another is that one of the first people to confront this man after he pours pig’s blood on the Qur’an is a hijab-wearing woman, her face contorted in pure hatred.
We often nowadays see Islamic apologists and their leftist allies likening hijab-wearing women to nuns, and claiming that those who object to the one but not to the other are simply “bigoted” “Islamophobes,” but it is quite rare to see a nun who still wears her habit, with her features distorted in rage, rushing to physically attack someone for criticizing her faith.
Nevertheless, many people in the West will see this and side with the Muslims. They saw their holy book desecrated; how did the Swede expect them to react? And besides, treating books in this way is redolent of Nazi book-burnings, and manifests “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.”
That’s one point of view. But it fails to take into account several key bits of information. The pig’s blood on the Qur’an is indeed offensive. So is the blood of all those who have been killed or wounded because of the teachings contained within that book. Moreover, if this guy had poured blood on a Bible, the establishment media would be hailing him as an edgy warrior for freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Only when these performances take place in regard to Islam do they become “hate.” And the Muslims’ violent reaction demonstrates that they do not have any respect for the freedom of expression at all, at least when it comes to criticism of their own beliefs. How long will Sweden survive as a free society with such people living there?
The same question could be asked of many other continental European countries, as well as of Britain. Back in June 2025, a man named Hamit Coskun was found guilty of a “religiously aggravated public order offence.” His specific crime, however, was that he publicly burned a copy of the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book. His conviction was ultimately overturned, and in March 2026, a Crown Prosecution Service appeal of the overturning was denied; nevertheless, the fact that the British government hounded Coskun over this for so long set a disquieting precedent for the future.
It is not a crime to burn the Qur’an or any book in Britain. Coskun wasn’t convicted of burning the book as such, but of disturbing the public order by doing so. That meant that he posed a problem for British law not insofar as he burned a book, which was permitted, but because in doing so he supposedly opened the door to public disturbances, which was not permitted. In other words, Hamit Coskun was convicted of a crime because Muslims might have rioted or committed jihad terror attacks over his actions.
The Crown Prosecution Service was, in short, pandering to the nation’s restive Muslim community by prosecuting Coskun, and appealing the overturning of his conviction. In trying to keep the nation’s Muslims happy, however, it was essentially adopting Sharia blasphemy laws. Coskun himself explained: “This is no longer just about me. It is about whether the West still believes that no religion is beyond criticism, especially when it shapes public life and political power.”
Yes. In persecuting Coskun, the U.K. enshrined the heckler’s veto as part of British law. If he had burned a Bible, no one would have cared, and there would have been no possible disturbance to the “public order.” But now, every time anyone expresses a critical word regarding Islam, he or she can be hauled off to jail.
The threat of jihad violence is now guiding the course of British law and infringing upon the freedom of speech. The British government has now compounded the prospect of some Muslims reacting violently to the burning of the Qur’an by making it clear that whether they do or not, the culprit will have to face the wrath of the British state.
Can what was known not too long ago as “the free world” survive this?
Leave a Reply