Qur’an burnings
Public Qur’an burnings as anti-Islam protest
Publicly burning the Qur’an is treated by many states and the OIC as an act of religious hatred to be prosecuted, and by others as offensive-but-lawful expression — with the burnings repeatedly triggering deadly riots and diplomatic crises.
What happened
US pastor Terry Jones burned a Qur’an in 2011 (triggering deadly riots in Afghanistan). In 2022–23 far-right activist Rasmus Paludan toured Swedish towns burning Qur’ans, and in June 2023 Salwan Momika burned pages outside Stockholm’s main mosque during Eid — all under police permits. The burnings set off riots, embassy attacks, and a diplomatic crisis that stalled Sweden’s NATO bid.
Sweden’s foreign ministry called the acts “Islamophobic” while defending the legal right to protest.
Under each definition
Burning a text can be read as attacking a belief, but doing it outside a mosque on a holy day is widely argued to target Muslims as a community.
Staging desecration at worshippers during Eid reads as targeting expressions of Muslimness, not abstract critique.
“Premeditated acts of desecration of the holy Qur’an” are the paradigm case under this frame.
Burning one’s own property is expressive conduct many hold lawful; but where it functions as harassment of worshippers, even free-speech defenders divide.
Who called it Islamophobic
The OIC, Turkey, and Muslim states framed the burnings as “incitement to religious hatred” targeting Muslims.
The defense
Free-speech advocates and Swedish police noted the acts stayed within the law; the US condemned the burnings but opposed a UN resolution against them as conflicting with free expression.
Outcome
On 12 July 2023 the UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution against “religious hatred” (28–12), opposed by the US and EU. Paludan was later convicted of incitement; Momika was shot dead in Sweden in early 2025.
In their words
We must send constant reminders to the international community regarding the urgent application of international law, which clearly prohibits any advocacy of religious hatred.
The time has come to hold Islam accountable.
The verdicts above are how each framework would most likely treat this case — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The frameworks diverge most on speech and ideas: the OIC “defamation of religion” lens and the secular/free-speech position often reach opposite conclusions on the same act. See the Definition tab for each framework’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.