Just a moment...
apnews.com

Summary

Salwan Momika, the Iraqi man who staged several Quran burnings in Sweden in 2023, was shot and killed in Sodertalje, near Stockholm.

His actions had sparked international outrage, riots, and diplomatic tensions. Swedish police confirmed a murder investigation is underway, and several arrests have been made.

Momika, who sought asylum in Sweden in 2018, faced charges of incitement to hatred, with a verdict scheduled for the day after his death.

His protests were permitted under free speech laws but led to legal action against him.

  • Malek061@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    4 hours ago

    It is more offensive to kill someone rather than destroying a book. Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.

    • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
      43·
      4 hours ago

      Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.

      Which group? How do you define that group? Do you think groups of people should be collectively punished for the actions of individuals of that group?

      Also i fail to see why incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning becomes acceptable, because killing people is worse? Is every lesser crime acceptable? is every hate speech acceptable? Is everything acceptable that falls short of killing someone?

      I think it should be obvious that lesser crimes are still crimes and i think it should be obvious, that hate speech against minorities is particular problematic, as it leads to killing people of that minority, which as you point out is the most severe crime.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        1 hour ago

        incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning

        Yeah, no, you can’t just go claiming that’s what burning a book is about, especially a religious text

        I’ve burned multiple religious texts in protest, it’s never been about incitement to kill

      • Malek061@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        3 hours ago

        If a group of people collectively is outraged enough to kill over a certain value system, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized for that belief. In the united states we have radicals that will kill over abortion. They are mocked and ridiculed. If Muslims get offended, they should be mocked and ridiculed for being soft.

        Burning a book is not a “lesser crime.” It is speech. If you are offended, how about you put your big boy pants on and act like a man and get over it.

        Im against hate speech but it should not be criminalized. Violent speech can be. “This person should be killed” then a overt act made towards violence should be criminal.

        But if Muslims get so upset about a book buring and kill, then Muslims are in the wrong and need to realize this is the real world and people don’t bow down to babies that cry about offense.

        • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
          32·
          3 hours ago

          You do know that there is 2 billion Muslims in the world?

          So for the act of unknown assailants you think 2 billion people should be “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized”

          By your own example, because some women who got abortions have committed crimes in their life and many women rights advocates get offended by insults towards women seeking abortions, you would want to “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized” them all too.

          There is anti fascists who got so outraged by fascists that they have killed them too. So you must mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" anti-fascists too.

          By your own logic you just justify hating everyone in the world, because in every group of people you will find someone who you find reprehensible, which you then apply to the entire group.

          This has nothing to do with free speech. It seems to stem more from some personal things that have nothing to do with any particular group.

          • Malek061@lemmy.worldEnglish
            23·
            2 hours ago

            The fundamentals of Islam have caused the world a tremendous amount of pain and blood just like the fundamentals of Christianity.

            I’m sure you are unfamiliar wIth the ALCU but I will defend the right of nazis to March. I will not defend them when they enact policies like prison camps. That’s my position.

            Your position is that you are super sensitive and do not respect freedom of speech. Different opinions make countries stronger. And if you are going to be hyper sensitive, you better be able to fight. That said, Islamic countries haven’t won a war since the middle ages.

            Maybe by allowing diversity of opinions and not being so sensitive, you might win a war eventually.

            • shaserlark@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              21·
              2 hours ago

              Talks about freedom of speech and then wants to defend the rights of Nazis to march, yeah right. Free speech is a funny thing these days.