What does burning the Quran mean?

Recently, the two manifestations that occurred in Sweden got me thinking about two backbones of human societies: freedom of speech and religion. Even though the latest one was about a month ago, while reading the Treatise on Tolerance, written by Voltaire, these events always popped up in my mind.

But first, let me help you recall the events. The first manifestation took place at the end of January in front of the Turkish embassy. The protester was Rasmus Paludan, a Danish politician, who decided to burn the Quran. This act was extremely provocative towards the Muslim world, which was offended not only by the act itself, but also by the fact that the Swedish government approved this manifestation, also providing Paludan with the protection of Swedish police. The second manifestation was even more provocative; this time the protester was Salwan Momika, an Iraqi man who lives in Sweden and decided to kick, fill with bacon, and burn the Quran in front of the Medborgarplatsen mosque. Also this time Swedish authorities granted their protection, but this time the reaction from the Muslim world was stronger: the Swedish ambassador in Iraq was sent away, and people protested in front of the Swedish embassy, trying to enter and burn the building.

These events show how different one political environment is from the other, but most importantly, they open up the discussion about the thin and fragile balance between freedom of speech and religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, the manifestations were allowed and protected by the Swedish government because they were considered by the judges who approved them, as occasions to express one’s ideas, even if in a very provocative way. And that’s where our disquisition should start.

Protest vs manifestation

First of all, it’s fundamental to understand the distinction between a protest (which is different from a strike) and a manifestation. Although they share the same goal of expressing discontent or advocating for a particular cause, they differ in the approaches and implications. In a protest, people or groups aggressively contest a problem or government action in a more assertive and frequently hostile manner. To demand change, protesters may take part in demonstrations, marches, or acts of civil disobedience. On the other hand, a manifestation is more peaceful and focused on expressing support or discontent for a cause. Manifestations often involve displays of symbols in order to provoke or unify, and while protests have a direct “enemy”, manifestations can also be a display or a rejection of values, and so forth.

Thus, the first point to analyse is: were these protests or manifestations?

Unfortunately, the world is not divided in black and white but in grey scales. As a matter of fact, both events are provocative and assertive, as a protest should be, but they mainly involve symbols and generally reject Muslim values. That’s why the way we define and call these happenings already says a lot more about us than what it says about the events themselves, because calling them a protest puts us more in the position of the offended one who saw these acts as provocative, while calling them manifestations seems more neutral but underestimates the offensive aspects of them.

Freedom of speech vs Hate speech

Secondly, we have to discern between freedom of speech and hate speech. Here the burden is even more thin, and this case is a striking example of it.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that stands at the basis of any democracy because it allows individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of censorship or retaliation from the government or other authorities. It enhances open dialogues, the exchange of ideas, and enables the individual to truly express their feelings about certain situations, values, ideals, and so on. On the other side, hate speech is defined as statements that call for harm to people or groups because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or other traits. The expression of hate speech usually occurs with statements that aim for a particular stereotype, with the offence to fundamental values of the group targeted, and so on. Usually people use it when their target is someone they are afraid of; that’s why the main aim of hate speech is to be provocative, to make people angry about something. Thus, it is the opposite of freedom of speech; hate speech obstructs dialogue between different ways of perceiving the world; it impedes people from expressing themselves truly, it doesn’t enhance any kind of in-depth understanding of others; it just promotes stereotypes, enhances the irrational and sentimental part of the individual (obviously not the good one but the one related to fear, anger, and hate).

Having clear in mind this distinction we can now analyse the Swedish situation. The two manifestations were protected because they were considered moments of expressions; thus Paludan and Momika were protected because they are considered to have the right to express freely how they felt about certain aspects of the Muslim religion. Moreover, the Swedish government provided his protection not only in order to avoid social disorders but also because Sweden is a secular state. However, the situation generated kind of puts the manifestations in a no man’s land in which freedom of speech is taken to its extreme consequences with a background of hate speech (especially if you consider that the Quran is the basis of Muslim religion).

Religious freedom

Now, we have to deal with the elephant in the room: religion. I don’t want to dive into an in-depth analysis of what religion means for human beings, societies, and so on. However, we have to bear in mind the fact that religion has been crucial to humans’ evolution and is an essential part of life in society. As a matter of fact, religion enhances the cohesion of individuals in the same group, and it helps the spread of certain values that, after all, tend to be similar (such as tolerance, mutual understanding, and so forth).

The true problem comes when a state enters the question. As a matter of fact, the Turkish and Iraqi states immediately reacted to these happenings by condemning them and moving their ambassadors. Those states, together with all the others in the Muslim community, such as Morocco, etc, started withdrawing their ambassadors and breaking up their relationships with Sweden. That’s what highlights the different ways of perceiving the state between secular and non-secular states. The former shows great progress, is very pragmatic, and it is very likely that it would have granted the same freedom of speech and expression even if the roles were reversed. The latter has religion as a central value, even within his laws, thus promoting a particular kind of vision of the state that gives more value to specific symbols and their roles in human society.

But at this point, which one is the right one?

Taking everything into account, these events must not pass unnoticed in the flow of everyday news because they force us to think and truly analyse the question about the limits between freedom of speech and religious freedom, and most importantly, they reveal how differently a state can perceive itself, making us reflect on whether one is better than the other. We can really understand a lot about ourselves if we reflect on how we feel about it. However, another question has been going around in my head while I’ve been thinking about it: if instead of the Quran, the burning book was the Bible?