What began as a fiery protest outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge turned into a shocking incident that has since raised big questions about free speech, religion, and justice in Britain.
Activist Hamit Coskun, 51, set fire to a copy of the Koran during his demonstration back in February, shouting inflammatory remarks against Islam.
His actions drew anger from passersby, but the confrontation that followed was far more violent than anyone expected.
A Knife Attack on the Streets of London
During the protest, Moussa Kadri, 59, emerged from a nearby building.
Enraged by the burning, he confronted Coskun, threatening him by saying: “I’m going to kill you.”
Moments later, he returned armed with a bread knife and slashed at Coskun, narrowly missing his throat.
The attack was caught on camera, leaving little doubt about what had happened.
Kadri later told police he acted to protect his religion.
A Suspended Sentence That Sparked Outrage
Despite the shocking footage and the seriousness of the attack, Kadri avoided jail.
Judge Adam Hiddleston handed him a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, alongside 150 hours of unpaid work and a short rehabilitation program.
For Coskun, the decision felt like an insult. Speaking from his Midlands home, he called it “a disgrace to the rule of law” and accused the UK of operating a “two-tier justice system”.
He argued that the verdict was nothing less than a morale boost for Islamists.
Coskun Speaks Out Against “Double Standards”
Coskun insists that if the attacker had not been Muslim, the punishment would have been much harsher.
He claims the ruling shows how freedom of expression in Britain is under threat, arguing:
“Criticising Muslims has been made a crime. Freedom of expression is being eliminated.
Islamophobia is being used as a weapon to silence and intimidate people.”
He went further, saying the decision has been met with “astonishment in international circles” and that giving legal privileges to any religious group risks opening the door to deeper social tensions.
Free Speech Campaigners Join the Debate
The decision has not only angered Coskun. Groups including the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society have also spoken out.
Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned the ruling effectively encourages extremists:
“The court is saying if you attack a blasphemer with a knife, you won’t spend a day in jail.”
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, stressed: “Criticism or destruction of religious texts, however offensive to some, is a legitimate form of protest.”
Political Pressure Mounts
Politicians have also weighed in. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions demanding answers on why tougher charges were not pursued.
Sharing video of the incident, he stated: “This Islamist has dodged prison despite attacking a man with a knife for burning a Quran.
Watch the video and tell me he shouldn’t be locked up.”
Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho echoed the frustration, contrasting Kadri’s suspended sentence with the harsher penalties often handed down for offensive online posts.
A Heated Debate Over Free Expression
The controversy comes amid a wider conversation about whether Britain is, in effect, bringing back blasphemy laws under another name.
Coskun himself has already faced legal consequences—he was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence for his actions during the protest.
He is appealing that conviction next month, arguing that his criticisms were of Islam as a belief system, not its followers.
But the court previously ruled his actions were “highly provocative” and motivated by hatred.
What the Case Means for the UK
The clash between Coskun and Kadri has gone far beyond the two men involved.
To some, it’s a clear example of how Britain is struggling to balance freedom of expression with respect for religion.
To others, it’s proof that existing laws are too easily influenced by political and religious sensitivities.
For now, one man continues to feel justice was denied, while campaigners warn the ruling could embolden those willing to use violence in the name of faith.
What began as a fiery protest outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge turned into a shocking incident that has since raised big questions about free speech, religion, and justice in Britain.
Activist Hamit Coskun, 51, set fire to a copy of the Koran during his demonstration back in February, shouting inflammatory remarks against Islam.
His actions drew anger from passersby, but the confrontation that followed was far more violent than anyone expected.
A Knife Attack on the Streets of London
During the protest, Moussa Kadri, 59, emerged from a nearby building.
Enraged by the burning, he confronted Coskun, threatening him by saying: “I’m going to kill you.”
Moments later, he returned armed with a bread knife and slashed at Coskun, narrowly missing his throat.
The attack was caught on camera, leaving little doubt about what had happened. Kadri later told police he acted to protect his religion.
A Suspended Sentence That Sparked Outrage
Despite the shocking footage and the seriousness of the attack, Kadri avoided jail.
Judge Adam Hiddleston handed him a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, alongside 150 hours of unpaid work and a short rehabilitation program.
For Coskun, the decision felt like an insult. Speaking from his Midlands home, he called it “a disgrace to the rule of law” and accused the UK of operating a “two-tier justice system”.
He argued that the verdict was nothing less than a morale boost for Islamists.
Coskun Speaks Out Against “Double Standards”
Coskun insists that if the attacker had not been Muslim, the punishment would have been much harsher.
He claims the ruling shows how freedom of expression in Britain is under threat, arguing:
“Criticising Muslims has been made a crime. Freedom of expression is being eliminated.
Islamophobia is being used as a weapon to silence and intimidate people.”
He went further, saying the decision has been met with “astonishment in international circles” and that giving legal privileges to any religious group risks opening the door to deeper social tensions.
Free Speech Campaigners Join the Debate
The decision has not only angered Coskun. Groups including the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society have also spoken out.
Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned the ruling effectively encourages extremists:
“The court is saying if you attack a blasphemer with a knife, you won’t spend a day in jail.”
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, stressed: “Criticism or destruction of religious texts, however offensive to some, is a legitimate form of protest.”
Political Pressure Mounts
Politicians have also weighed in. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions demanding answers on why tougher charges were not pursued.
Sharing video of the incident, he stated: “This Islamist has dodged prison despite attacking a man with a knife for burning a Quran.
Watch the video and tell me he shouldn’t be locked up.”
Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho echoed the frustration, contrasting Kadri’s suspended sentence with the harsher penalties often handed down for offensive online posts.
A Heated Debate Over Free Expression
The controversy comes amid a wider conversation about whether Britain is, in effect, bringing back blasphemy laws under another name.
Coskun himself has already faced legal consequences—he was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence for his actions during the protest.
He is appealing that conviction next month, arguing that his criticisms were of Islam as a belief system, not its followers.
But the court previously ruled his actions were “highly provocative” and motivated by hatred.
What the Case Means for the UK
The clash between Coskun and Kadri has gone far beyond the two men involved.
To some, it’s a clear example of how Britain is struggling to balance freedom of expression with respect for religion.
To others, it’s proof that existing laws are too easily influenced by political and religious sensitivities.
For now, one man continues to feel justice was denied, while campaigners warn the ruling could embolden those willing to use violence in the name of faith.