Knives, Blasphemy and Blurred Lines: Suspended Sentence for Koran-Burning Protest Attack Draws Free-Speech Questions

A man who attacked a protester during a February demonstration outside the Turkish consulate in west London was spared prison time, receiving a 20-week sentence suspended for 18 months. Moussa Kadri, 59, of Kensington, admitted assault and having a bladed article in a public place, after slashing at Hamit Coskun, who was burning a Koran during the protest. Kadri was also ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation. The incident occurred as Coskun, 51, travelled from the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at about 2 p.m. outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge, prosecutors said. Kadri had initially approached Coskun and asked why he was burning it, with Coskun responding and Kadri then leaving, only to return with a knife and strike Coskun, according to prosecutors and court evidence.

Footage shown in court depicted Coskun using the burning Koran to deflect Kadri, while Kadri repeatedly slashed at him in front of onlookers. After the initial strike, Kadri chased Coskun, who stumbled and fell to the ground. Kadri spat at and kicked him as the defendant declared, “Burning the Koran? It’s my religion, you don’t burn the Koran.” Kadri later told police that he was protecting his religion. The judge described Kadri’s loss of temper as “disgraceful” and warned that “the use of blades is a curse on our community.”

The sentencing has become a focal point for debate over free expression and religious sensitivities. Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, condemned the ruling, saying, “This sends a green light to any Muslim who wants to enforce an Islamic blasphemy by taking the law into their own hands. The court is effectively saying that if you attack a blasphemer with a knife, you will be convicted of harassment, alarm or distress and you won’t have to spend a day behind bars.” Campaigners argued the decision risks emboldening individuals who consider violence a legitimate response to perceived offense.

National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans emphasized that free expression should not be met with violence, insisting that people must be allowed to challenge ideas and beliefs without fear of attack in a democratic society. The case also drew attention to broader questions about blasphemy laws in England; the government has stated there are no blasphemy laws and has no plans to introduce them.

In court, Kadri’s defense argued that his response was a heat-of-the-moment reaction to what he perceived as an offensive act against a holy text. Greg Unwin, Kadri’s solicitor, said that Kadri had demonstrated regret and remorse, and that his actions reflected a response to an unusual situation rather than a premeditated act of violence. By contrast, Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June of a religiously aggravated public order offense, with prosecutors arguing that his actions were motivated at least in part by hostility toward Muslims. District Judge John McGarva stated he could not accept Coskun’s claim that his comments were aimed at Islam generally rather than its followers, describing Coskun’s behavior as highly provocative.

The case prompted discussion among lawmakers and campaign groups about whether current laws adequately balance freedom of expression with protections against religious hatred. While some argued that the sentence signals a lenient approach to violence, others contended that the outcome underscores the challenges of prosecuting offenses linked to belief and blasphemy in a modern liberal democracy. As authorities highlighted, there are no existing blasphemy laws in England, and there are no plans to introduce any, a point reiterated during and after the proceedings. The court interaction between a protest that included a burning religious text and a violent response has thus become a reference point in ongoing debates about the limits of protest, the protection of religious beliefs, and the appropriate response to perceived religious offense.