Koran-burning protester attacked; court spares attacker prison in Knightsbridge case

LONDON — A protester who burned a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge was attacked with a bread knife by a man who said he was defending his religion, according to court evidence and video footage. Moussa Kadri, 59, was given a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, after pleading guilty to assault and having a bladed article in a public place. The sentence has drawn sharp criticism from campaigners and commentators who say it signals a two-tier justice system in Britain.

Video of the February 13 incident shows Kadri leaving a residential building and slashing at Hamit Coskun, who was holding a flaming Koran during the protest. Coskun, who described himself as a Turkish-Kurdish activist, shouted phrases including 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as the book burned. Kadri later told police he was protecting his religion. In Southwark Crown Court, the judge described Kadri's actions as 'disgraceful' and said the use of a blade in response to the protest was 'a curse on our community.' Kadri pleaded guilty to assault and having a bladed article in a public place; the court imposed a 20-week sentence, suspended for 18 months, along with 150 hours of unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation. The incident was captured on video and widely circulated.

Coskun later told the Daily Mail from his Midlands home that the decision not to jail Kadri sends a message of double standards, saying the ruling amounts to a two-tier justice system in Britain. He argued Kadri’s mitigation—stating he was protecting his religion—was given greater weight than the provocation he faced and that authorities have shown leniency toward Islamists. Coskun stressed that he believes the attack demonstrates a broader erosion of free speech in the United Kingdom, arguing that criticizing Muslims has become politically risky and that the judiciary is failing to apply even-handed justice.

The case also touches on another facet of the incident: Coskun’s own conviction earlier this year. At Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence for burning the Koran, a decision that is now the subject of an appeal slated for next month. Kadri’s defense lawyer described his client’s reaction as a heat-of-the-moment response to what he perceived as an offensive act against a holy book. The prosecution contended that Kadri’s response was disproportionate and dangerous. The court, however, chose to balance community safety with the defendant’s circumstances, resulting in a suspended sentence rather than immediate imprisonment.

The dispute has drawn reactions from political and free-speech groups. Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said after Kadri’s sentencing that the decision effectively permits violence against individuals perceived to blaspheme, warning that it could embolden others who want to enforce religious norms through violence. Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society argued that free expression should not be met with violence, emphasizing that people must be free to critique ideas without fear. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said he had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to seek explanation for why tougher charges were not pursued against Kadri, sharing video footage of the attack to illustrate the case. Claire Coutinho, then-shadow energy secretary, remarked that slashing someone over religious remarks shows a troubling willingness to undermine free speech and the peaceful exchange of ideas.

Kadri, 59, of Kensington in west London, had pleaded guilty to assault and having a bladed article in a public place. The court heard that Coskun, who is of Kurdish and Armenian heritage, traveled to the Knightsbridge demonstration to protest the burning of the Koran. He argued that his criticism targeted Islam as a faith rather than its adherents, but District Judge John McGarva rejected that distinction, describing Coskun’s actions as highly provocative and noting that his conduct was motivated at least in part by hostility toward Muslims. Kadri testified that he returned to confront Coskun after the initial exchange and that his actions were intended to defend his religion. His defense counsel stressed that Kadri expressed regret and remorse for the incident, arguing that the punishment should reflect a momentary reaction rather than a deliberate plan to injure.

The broader debate prompted by the case centers on how far legally sanctioned punishment should extend in the face of perceived religious insult. Government officials have emphasized that the UK does not have a blasphemy law and has repeatedly defended freedom of expression as a core democratic value. Critics, however, argue that in some circumstances the criminal justice system appears to treat religious offense differently depending on the actor or the target, potentially shaping public perception and civil discourse.

The February 13 confrontation has become a focal point for discussions about protests, religion, and the law. As the appeal processes unfold—the Kadri case and Coskun’s own conviction—jurists and lawmakers will likely face renewed questions about balancing free expression with the protection of religious groups and individuals from harm. While the court found Kadri’s response unlawful, the suspended sentence stops short of incarceration, a decision that continues to spark debate among advocacy groups, commentators, and those following religious freedom and public-order issues across the country.