Islam, Blasphemy, and the Murder of Salwan Momika

While the religion news cycle in the U.S. has been dominated lately with tensions between church and state (or at least a Trump administration), in Sweden religion news has centered on a different subject: the murder of Salwan Momika. 

Momika, an immigrant from Iraq, had gained notoriety in recent years for lighting copies of the Quran aflame during public demonstrations against Islam. Late last month he stepped onto his balcony and was shot to death. Authorities initially arrested a group of suspects, but later released them and have released virtually no new information since.

While the details of Momika’s murder are still unclear, the episode (and continuing legal case against one his compatriots for antagonism of religious communities) again puts a spotlight on how some adherents of Islam mete out what they believe is justice for blasphemy—even when the liberal democracies they now enjoy leave no room for such vigilantism. 

In this week’s Dispatch Faith essay, scholar Mustafa Akyol explains how separate strands of Islam have differed in interpreting the Quran’s passages on blasphemy and what it means for the western nations so many are immigrating to.

Mustafa Akyol: Islam, Blasphemy, and the Murder of Salwan Momika

On January 29, Salwan Momika, an Iraqi living in Sweden who had gained notoriety by publicly burning copies of the Quran, was shot dead in his apartment in Stockholm. The killing took place in front of an online audience; at the time, Momika was livestreaming on TikTok. He took a short break to smoke on his balcony before gunshots rang out. He never came back to his camera.  

Sweden’s prime minister said “a foreign power” may have been involved in the murder, and police quickly arrested five suspects. But they released those suspects days later, with no further information disclosed about them or other potential suspects. So, at this point, we still don’t know who killed Salwan Momika.

But it is entirely plausible he was killed by someone seeking to punish him for insults against Islam. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) issued a four-page statement celebrating the execution of “the impure atheist… who assaulted the book of Allah many times.” Even among some random Muslims with no terrorism ties, I have seen messages online welcoming the incident, saying Momika got what he deserved and that “this is a moment to rejoice.”  

So his murder may be yet another incident of violently punishing “blasphemy” against Islam—joining previous terrorist attacks in Europe to avenge publications of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, or even their mere displays in classrooms. Once again it thrusts Islamic verdicts on blasphemy and the compatibility of Islam and freedom of speech into the spotlight.

First, it should go without saying that for most believers of any religion, insults against their most sacred values come across as ugly and appalling. I am one such believer, and, as a Muslim, I see acts like burning copies of the Quran as obnoxious offenses unworthy of respect—let alone praise. 

Those who want to be critical of the Quran would be more respectable if they offered reasoned arguments in books, articles, lectures, or websites. Such polemics between religions, or between atheism and religion, happen all the time without violence, and are arguably better forms of challenging belief systems than burning their sacred books. They provoke less hostility, and have more potential to persuade.

But mockery and defamation, at least in the West, is also a way of “criticism.” And the question here for Muslims is not whether they will be happy to see mockery and defamation of their faith, but how they will respond to it. 

When we look for guidance in the Quran, the only undisputed source text of Islam, we come across an interesting verse that addresses this very question: “You are sure to hear much that is hurtful from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who are idolaters. If you are patient and mindful of God, that is the best course” (3:186).

The first Muslims led by Muhammad heard this verse in Medina, where they co-existed with some Jews (“those who were given the Scripture before you”) and idolaters, both of whom apparently said “hurtful” things—such as calling Muhammad “mad,” and calling the Quran a “sorcery,” as the Quran itself reports. (15:6 and 46:7) In return, the verse did not command Muslims to go and kill those blasphemers, or to even silence them by threats, but just be “patient and mindful of God.”

What did this “patience” mean? A notable answer was offered by the towering Islamic scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (who died in 1210 CE), in his monumental commentary on the Quran. He wrote that the verse called for a mild response to verbal offenses, for “it would better help the rivals of religion accept it.” He also supported this case with other Quranic verses of the same spirit. One of them commanded the prophet, “Tell the believers to forgive those who do not fear God’s days” (45:14). The other defined the believers as those who “When they pass near ill speech, they pass by with dignity” (25:70).

Another verse of the Quran also addresses the public (verbal) mockery of the Quran itself: “If you hear people denying and ridiculing God’s revelation, do not sit with them unless they start to talk of other things, or else you yourselves will become like them”  (4:140).

So, again, the verse does not command any violent or coercive reaction to blasphemy. It simply commanded walking away from it. 

Meanwhile, the same Quran threatens blasphemers—along with unbelievers, polytheists, or apostates—with divine wrath. “Those who insult God and His Messenger,” verse 33:57  declares, “will be cursed by God in this world and the next; He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” Notably, the punishing agent is God, not humans. As typical of the Quran, theological misdeeds are left to God, to be punished in the afterlife. Conversely,  worldly misdeeds against other people—such as aggression, persecution, theft, or murder—are to be punished by men, here and now.

That is why, if Islamic law were merely based on the Quran, today we would not be discussing Islamic punishments for blasphemy—or apostasy, the banning of which is also a serious threat to freedom. But Islamic law expanded in the post-Quranic period with inputs from other sources. The primary one was the Sunna, or “the example of the Prophet,” reported by later generations in a vast body of complex—and contested—literature. It is recorded in books of  hadith or “sayings,” as well as books of sira, or “biography,” of Muhammad. Here, there were stories about Muhammad ordering the execution of some satirical poets during his bitter wars of survival with polytheists. As I examined in my book Reopening Muslim Minds,one could argue that these “poets” were executed for not merely their words, but also active aggressions such as inciting a war against Muslims and physically attacking them. Moreover, there were also stories of the prophet magnanimously forgiving those who insulted him. But those  nuances were  lost to some medieval Muslim scholars who wrote on this issue, as they used the execution stories  to decree the death penalty for blasphemy. 

Another nuance we need to remember is that these medieval scholars lived in a world where hardly anyone raised concerns about free speech: The Byzantine and Sassanid empires that early Muslims came face to face with also had no tolerance for   blasphemy. The Justinian Code punished it with the death penalty, as well as the Sassanid laws which criminalized yazdān dušmenīh, or “enmity toward the gods.” 

Yet many centuries and historical lessons have passed since then. Today, the Sassanid Empire is long gone, and Christianity has largely abandoned its pre-modern marriage with coercive state power, and many Christians came to embrace freedom of expression and conscience. In Islam, however, the same shift toward freedom has not yet matured. That is why many conservative clerics in the Muslim world still consider blasphemy a grave crime that must be punished severely. That is also why there are seven countries in the world that decree the death penalty for blasphemy—and all of them call themselves “Islamic.”

Yet still there is an important distinction: While most Sunni or Shiite authorities in the world today would rule that blasphemy should be punished, they would also tell you that this can only be applied with a decent trial in a proper court. A “death sentence for blasphemy is allowed only in Islamic lands following due process,” as American imam Yasir Qadhi puts it.  This mainstream view does not  condone angry Muslims killing blasphemers with terrorist attacks, as has happened in France, or public lynchings, which frequently happen in Pakistan. Authorities within mainstream Islam, in other words, may be in favor of blasphemy laws, but that does not mean they support blasphemy terrorism or vigilantism. Hence those who resort to these terrible tactics are called “extremists,” and that is a fitting term: They represent the dark end of a wide spectrum of religious thought.

However, the bright end of that spectrum is also present, and it offers promises for the future. This is the view of Muslims who, despite being offended by insults against their values, believe that the right response involves no violence or coercion.

This view is rooted in the Quran and is religiously articulated by some pioneering figures, such as the Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. It is also increasingly accepted and exemplified by many liberal-minded Muslims, including those who are well integrated in Western societies, who realize that bans or threats against blasphemy only defame Islam, instead of gaining respect for it. Especially among American Muslims, as shown in an academic research by Angela Ewing, there are religious leaders who believe “education and dialogue are the best solutions to blasphemy,” as they are “happy with life in America and [have] little interest in influencing free speech policies.” 

In Sweden, too, where both Salwan Momika and another individual, the far-right Danish politician Rasmus Paludan, repeatedly burned copies of the Quran, there have been mature responses from Muslims. For example, a group of Turks in Stockholm that included diplomats and imams recited passages from the Quran on the exact spot where Momika burned it. They then preached a message of “respect,” and even laid flowers. Another group of Swedish Muslims, led by an entrepreneur from Libya, reached out to anti-Quran demonstrators by distributing chocolates. Back in 2020, when another Quran incident provoked violent riots by Muslims in Sweden, a prominent imam stood up against the rioters and accused them “of shaming their own religion.”

In other words, there is no irreconcilable conflict between Islam and free speech—though both the militant Islamists and the anti-Islamists would have you believe so. True, there is a tension, which leads to blasphemy laws and, at the extreme, blasphemy-related violence. But both Islam’s scriptural roots and the transforming attitudes of modern-day Muslims suggest that the tension can be overcome. 

Meanwhile, non-Muslims, especially those in the West, can help more Muslims realize that freedom of speech is a genuine value that we all need by simply not making exceptions to this freedom to protect our own sacred cows. Double standards such as France’s own limitations on freedom of speech and religion or the “Antisemitism Awareness Act” in the U.S. that will stifle free speech on college campuses give Islamists exactly what they need: examples to argue that freedom is glorified when it comes to insulting Islam but is easily dismissed when Muslims raise their own voices. 

What we need, everywhere, is a more principled defense and application of freedom, in all aspects, so everyone can realize its worth. Otherwise, those who cheer for freedom all too selectively, and those who don’t accept it in the first place, can drag us together to a less free world.

James Sutton: Who’s Afraid of Theology?

Jonathan Rauch’s new book Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Promises With Democracy is generating a lot of conversation (such as this one with Jonah Goldberg) in the early weeks of 2025. For the website today, James Sutton lodges his big criticism of the book: It doesn’t do enough to interrogate the relationship between some Protestants’  interpretations of the Bible and the nationalistic fervor on the political right:

But that admirable evenhandedness also contributes to the book’s major flaw: There is a lengthy discussion of how aspects of Christianity can help contribute to a liberal democratic society but very little about how other aspects might undermine it. Rauch writes that we “need to consider the role Christianity has played in its own demise,” but he shows little inclination to engage with the theological currents that have likely helped propel the increasing illiberalism of much of the Christian right. 

Rauch, for example, consistently cites Russell Moore, the editor of Christianity Today and former president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, as an exemplar of how conservative Protestants can remain confident in diverse democracy. Moore is a good choice here: He is certainly a brave and principled man, who has taken an enormous amount of abuse and personal attacks from within his denomination for opposing Trump. If there were more Christians like him, American democracy would be in a far healthier place. But Moore is also a man deeply shaped by the 20th century Protestant fundamentalist—I’m not using this term pejoratively here—movement: focused on the inerrancy of scripture, a strict division between the church and the rest of society, and a strong emphasis on the very literal hell facing nonbelievers. Like Rauch, as someone outside of the conservative Christian tribe, I’m loath to try to dictate their own theology to them.

But Cross Purposes consistently left me wondering if there’s something about evangelical theology that has left so many members of the movement with an ambivalent, at best, commitment to American democracy. Moore is certainly an example of how a theologically rock-ribbed evangelical—outside of conservative evangelicalism, no one’s idea of a theological centrist—can confidently engage in a liberal democracy. But Moore is a black sheep to many in his tribe, and citing his example sheds little light on the beliefs of his evangelical but more conservative compatriots.

Read the whole thing.

The Dispatch Faith Podcast

Last week President Donald Trump announced his longtime spiritual adviser Paula White-Cain would lead his administration’s Faith Office. White-Cain has been in Trump’s camp from just about the beginning of his ascendance to politics, but has courted controversy in her own right as a prosperity gospel preacher. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated his administration—with the help of the Faith Office—will seek to root out anti-Christian bias. Discussing this and more with me for this week’s Dispatch Faith podcast is Kate Shellnut, the editorial director for news at Christianity Today and a religion beat veteran. We also discussed whether pentecostal movements play an outsized role in the politics of the New Right and some of the religion stories worth watching in 2025. These weekly conversations with Dispatch Faith contributors are available on our members-only podcast feed, The Skiff.

Another Sunday Read

In India, perhaps the largest religious gathering in recorded history has been going on for the last few weeks—the Hindu Maha Kumbh festival. From Reuters’ Saurabh Sharma: “More than 500 million people have taken a ‘holy dip’ in sacred river waters in north India over the last four weeks as part of the Hindu Maha Kumbh festival, authorities said on Friday, greater than the population of most countries. Attendees at the six-week long event have ranged from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and federal ministers to industrialists such as Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani and artists including Chris Martin from British rock band Coldplay. It was marred, however, by a stampede on its most auspicious day that killed dozens as they gathered at the confluence of three holy rivers to take a dip – a practice believed to absolve sins and confer salvation from the cycle of birth and death. ‘This participation marks the largest congregation in human history for any religious, cultural, or social event,’ the government of Uttar Pradesh state, where the festival is being held, said in a statement. With 12 days still remaining, the total count of visitors to the festival is expected to ‘soar beyond’ 550 to 600 million, it said.”

A Good Word

Uh, does some of this, as reported by the Associated Press, sound familiar? “A humpback whale briefly swallowed a kayaker off Chilean Patagonia before quickly releasing him unharmed. The incident, caught on camera, quickly went viral. Last Saturday, Adrián Simancas was kayaking with his father, Dell, in Bahía El Águila near the San Isidro Lighthouse in the Strait of Magellan when a humpback whale surfaced, engulfing Adrián and his yellow kayak for a few seconds before letting him go. Dell, just meters (yards) away, captured the moment on video while encouraging his son to stay calm. ‘Stay calm, stay calm,’ he can be heard saying after his son was released from the whale’s mouth. ‘I thought I was dead,’ Adrián told The Associated Press. ‘I thought it had eaten me, that it had swallowed me.’” If you know the biblical story of the prophet Jonah—swallowed by a big fish before going to have a word with the people of Nineveh on God’s behalf—it does. I don’t take the same lessons from either whale episode as The Forward’s Mira Fox, but it’s hard to argue with the headline on her piece this week: “Man almost swallowed by a whale was a lot chiller about it that Jonah was.”