We Must Distinguish Between Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Sentiment!

By Hasse-Nima Golkar

We Must Distinguish Between Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Sentiment!

According to reports on social media, on the night of Wednesday, January 29, 2025, Salwan Momika was shot and killed by one or more unidentified individuals while broadcasting a live TikTok session to over 160,000 followers. The incident occurred at a safe house approximately 30 kilometers south of Stockholm, provided to him under police supervision. Following the attack, five individuals were arrested by law enforcement and security forces. However, they were soon released, though they remain classified as “suspects.” This suggests that the assassination was likely a well-planned operation rather than a spontaneous act of violence.

The right-wing Swedish government has indicated that preliminary evidence suggests possible involvement by a foreign state. If this claim is substantiated, suspicion could fall on Iran’s Shiite-led government (or other actors). Looking at past incidents in Sweden, similar assassinations have reportedly been carried out by Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi—paramilitary groups operating under the direct command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which serves as the armed wing of the fascist Islamic regime ruling Iran.

What We Know About Salwan Momika

Salwan Momika was born in 1986 to an Assyrian-Christian family in the Mosul region of Iraq.

According to an investigation published by the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN.), in 2017, he played a leadership role in two small extremist Christian paramilitary groups that were part of a broader coalition against ISIS, backed by the government in Iran.

Momika was seen as a bold and unpredictable figure. Despite his support for Hezbollah, he also sought military assistance from the Israeli government, which raised suspicions that he might be an Israeli spy. However, he claimed to have always acted independently, driven by a deep hatred of Islam.

In 2019, Momika applied for political asylum in Sweden. In June 2023, he burned a Quran outside the Grand Mosque in southern Stockholm, an act for which he had obtained police permission. His actions sparked outrage, leading to an attack on the Swedish embassy in Baghdad by protesters.

Alongside his associate Salwan Najm, Momika repeatedly engaged in Quran burnings, drawing widespread condemnation and numerous death threats. A bounty was placed on his life by sources in Iraq, offering two million US dollars and a Quran made of two kilograms of gold to his assassin.

Both Momika and Najm were charged in the Stockholm County Criminal Court with “inciting violence against a group of people.” The court had initially planned to announce its verdict on January 30, 2025, but following Momika’s assassination, the decision was postponed to February 3, 2025.

Today, the verdict against the Quran burners was announced. Momika’s associate, Salwan Najem, has been sentenced to a conditional sentence and daily fines for incitement against an ethnic group. The court argues that even though the motive was to criticize Islam, the actions have clearly exceeded what constitutes a factual debate and criticism:
– There is significant room within the framework of freedom of expression to criticize a religion in a factual and well-founded debate. However, expressing opinions about a religion does not grant a free pass to do or say anything without the risk of offending the group that holds that belief, says the presiding judge in the case.

Momika, as a political refugee, exercised his democratic right to freedom of speech within Swedish society. However, his strong affiliations with far-right extremist, racist, and anti-immigrant movements—groups that have historically sought to suppress dissenting voices—complicate the narrative of him as a “champion of free speech.” Nevertheless, his murder, regardless of the perpetrator or motive, cannot be justified under any circumstances. The right to life is fundamental and inalienable.

The Limits of Free Expression

If the principle of relativity is valid (as it is), then no phenomenon in any society can be considered “absolute.” Therefore, “freedom of thought and expression” also cannot be absolute and without boundaries. Unchecked freedom of expression can infringe upon the rights of others who may not think like “me/us” or who do not wish to be forced into certain ideas. Causing harm to the mental and psychological well-being of others should not be deceptively packaged under the golden banner of freedom or imposed upon people.

Just as we expect to be free to express our views—whatever they may be—without causing harm to others, others must also have the same equal right.

Modern psychological and social studies confirm that hate speech, humiliation, defamation, and vengeful rhetoric—regardless of form or intent—can cause lasting mental and psychological harm, both at the individual and societal levels. In this sense, terrorism and murder are also psychological traumas, forming part of a broader crisis cycle that perpetuates violence.

Freedom of Speech vs. Social Responsibility

While freedom of speech, thought, and ethics are fundamental pillars of human rights, they, like other societal constructs, must be defined within the framework of social contracts and mutual agreements. For instance, should “child pornography” or the promotion of violence against religious individuals be allowed under the pretext of free speech? Would such “freedom” not make society more vulnerable to psychological harm, leading to crimes such as murder?

Punishing individuals for not believing in God or for opposing religion is a direct violation of human rights and human dignity. No one should be condemned, imprisoned, tortured, or executed for expressing their political, philosophical, religious, or anti-religious views.

Destroying privately owned “sacred religious books” (as opposed to publicly owned ones) may carry ethical and social implications and may be more complex in certain societies, but it should still be considered part of the right to free speech—provided it does not deepen societal divisions, incite hatred, or provoke cycles of violence. Under no circumstances should such actions be criminalized.

The way societies respond to different ideas has always been one of their greatest challenges. While changing extremist beliefs is difficult—especially when they are deeply rooted in ideology, fanaticism, or personal/group interests—experience has shown that the most effective countermeasures are rational discourse, social enlightenment, and logical debate (rather than emotional reactions). Education aimed at countering religious or ideological dogmatism is crucial.

History proves that violence and repression have never been successful in eliminating ideas. The only way to combat an ideology is to address its root causes—not merely its symptoms. The rise of extremist ideologies and radical behaviors is often linked to systemic injustices and oppressive societal structures.

The Politics of Quran Burning

The burning of the Quran has historical precedents. One of the most notable cases was when the third caliph of Islam, Uthman ibn Affan, ordered the burning of variant Quranic manuscripts to standardize its recitation.

In modern times, Quran burnings have primarily been carried out by far-right extremists, authoritarian figures, and vocal critics of Islam under the pretext of “defending freedom of speech.” The trend has gained prominence in Northern Europe, particularly through figures such as Rasmus Paludan in Denmark and Salwan Momika and Salwan Najm in Sweden.

While Quran burning serves as a symbolic act aimed at challenging the “halo of sanctity” surrounding religious authority, it also has the potential to fuel radicalization, provoke violence, and provide justification for repression by Islamist extremists.

Some proponents compare Quran burnings to the satirical cartoons published by the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. They argue that yielding to extremist demands would only embolden their violent suppression of dissent. However, there is a fundamental distinction: the cultural and political activities of Charlie Hebdo, as well as the literary works of Salman Rushdie, cannot be equated with Quran burning. From ethical, strategic, and public impact perspectives, intellectual and artistic methods tend to be more effective and less costly. Any strategy to counter extremism must be rational, strategic, and carefully considered—one that safeguards free speech while avoiding unnecessary provocation.

Freedom vs. Hate Speech

While freedom of thought and expression are vital human rights, every society imposes reasonable limits on them, such as restrictions against inciting violence or spreading hate speech. Depending on societal consensus, Quran burning may be recognized as a legitimate political and symbolic protest in some nations, whereas in others, it is classified as hate speech, incitement to violence, and a threat to peaceful coexistence.

History has shown that appeasing extremist groups only emboldens them to escalate their violence and tighten their grip on dissent. However, standing against them must always be done strategically, intelligently, and with careful precision.

The cycle of revenge-violence-revenge has persisted since the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens—modern, intelligent humans. However, societies must strive to break this cycle rather than allow it to dictate their future.