A Christian Iraqi refugee who became the centre of an international free speech controversy after publicly burning the Koran, has been shot dead in Sweden, gunned down while livestreaming on TikTok.
Salwan Momika, 38, was attacked in an apartment in Södertälje, near Stockholm, on Wednesday night. Footage circulating in Swedish media shows police ending a livestream believed to be from his phone. According to Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, the attacker gained access to the building via the roof before opening fire.
Momika became known for staging provocative protests in which he publicly burned copies of the Koran, an act that, while deeply offensive to many, is protected under Sweden’s free speech laws. His demonstrations triggered global diplomatic protests, violent unrest, and multiple death threats, raising questions about the growing risks faced by those who engage in controversial speech and expression on and around Islam and Islamic practices.
Momika was due in Stockholm District Court on Thursday to hear the verdict on charges of inciting ethnic hatred. Prosecutors accused him and fellow activist Salwan Najem of violating Sweden’s hate speech laws by desecrating the Koran and making derogatory remarks about Muslims. The court has now postponed its ruling to February 3, citing the need for more time following his death.
Najem responded to the news on social media with a stark warning: “I’m next.”
Swedish police have confirmed five arrests in connection with the shooting but have not stated whether the gunman is among those detained.
At a press conference in Stockholm, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson acknowledged the political sensitivity of the case, saying that security services were investigating possible foreign involvement. “There is obviously a risk that there is a connection to a foreign power,” he told reporters.
Momika’s protests first drew global attention in June 2023, when he set fire to a Koran outside Stockholm’s main mosque during the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha. The backlash from predominantly Muslim countries was immediate, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Morocco, Bahrain, and the UAE all condemning Sweden for allowing the demonstration to take place. In Iraq, protestors stormed the Swedish embassy in Baghdad, setting part of the compound on fire.
Troublingly, the United States – a country that enshrines free expression in its First Amendment – also issued a statement denouncing Momika’s actions as “disrespectful and hurtful”. While book-burning is a deliberately inflammatory form of protest, the decision by a Western government to publicly condemn the act, rather than simply reaffirm the right to free expression, raised concerns among civil liberties advocates.
Swedish authorities initially upheld Momika’s right to stage protests, granting police permits in accordance with constitutional protections for free speech. However, after widespread diplomatic pressure and public backlash, he was charged under Sweden’s hate speech laws and later faced deportation proceedings.
The Swedish Migration Agency sought to remove him on the grounds that he had provided false information in his asylum application. But officials ultimately ruled that he could not be returned to Iraq, as he was at risk of torture or extrajudicial killing – a prediction that, as events have now shown, was not unfounded.
Meanwhile, Sweden’s Security Service (Säpo) raised the national terror threat level to four out of five, warning that the country had become a “prioritised target” following the Koran burnings.
Momika’s killing is a sobering reminder of the escalating risks faced by individuals who engage in controversial speech about Islam, and an alarming moment for civil liberties in Europe.
The implications of this case extend beyond Sweden. If engaging in legally protected but provocative speech carries the risk of assassination, will others now think twice before criticising Islam in public?
Governments, wary of diplomatic fallout, have already begun tightening restrictions on speech that, while previously lawful, is now deemed contentious or ‘hateful’.
In December 2023, Denmark’s parliament enacted legislation criminalising the improper treatment of religious texts, including the Quran, Bible, and Torah. This law imposes penalties or fines or up to two years in prison for offences committed in both public and private settings, provided the act is recorded and distributed. At the time, the Danish government insisted that while there must be room for religious criticism, the law must prevent actions that could incite hatred or violence.
Similarly, in November 2024, a Swedish court sentenced far-right activist Rasmus Paludan to four months in prison for incitement against an ethnic group after he burned copies of the Quran and made derogatory statements about Muslims. Did international outrage from predominantly Muslim countries influence this domestic legal decision? The case certainly strained Sweden’s diplomatic relations with Muslim nations. Paludan’s actions, including burning the Quran outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm, provoked widespread condemnation and complicated Sweden’s NATO membership bid, with Turkey leveraging the controversy to justify delaying its approval.
Western societies have long rejected blasphemy laws, upholding the idea that the right to free expression includes the right to offend. Yet in practice, fear of violent reprisal appears to be setting new, unofficial limits on what can and cannot be said.
With the trial of Salwan Najem still pending, and Swedish security services investigating possible foreign involvement, the case is likely to remain in the spotlight. But beyond the immediate political and legal ramifications, it raises an uncomfortable question: is an informal blasphemy law now being enforced in Europe—not through legislation, but through the threat of violence?
