Ceci n’est pas un Coran: The Qur’an as Sacrilegious Art or Arbitrary Simulacrum?
Résumés
Cet article examine le procès intenté en 2025 au Danemark contre Rasmus Paludan et son associé pour « traitement inapproprié » d’une traduction anglaise du Coran, en vertu de l’amendement au Code pénal de 2023. Ce traitement inapproprié a des conséquences sur la liberté religieuse, l’autorité de l’État et l’islam dans le contexte géopolitique du Danemark. S’appuyant sur la théorie dramaturgique et les documents du procès, l’article explore les significations controversées du Coran en tant que simulacre, en lien avec l’affirmation selon laquelle le texte en question n’était pas un « vrai » Coran. Ici, le rôle performatif de Paludan en tant que « filou-bouffon » brouille les frontières entre la politique, la religion et le spectacle et remet en question les définitions juridiques et sociétales du caractère sacré du Coran.
Plan
Haut de pageTexte intégral
Introduction
- 1 The verdict from the Court on Bornholm (Retten på Bornholm), judgement delivered on 16 May 2025, p (...)
1On 16 May 2025, the city court of Bornholm, Denmark, ruled that two defendants – Rasmus Paludan and Dennis Corell Iversen – had violated the Danish Criminal Code “by having, in concert and by mutual agreement, publicly and with the intention of distributing it to a wider circle, improperly treated an English-language version of the Qur’an that has considerable religious significance for a recognized religious community”.1
- 2 S. Schaumburg-Müller, “Ophævelse af blasfemibestemmelsen”, Religionsretlig lovgivning: Kirkeretsan (...)
- 3 For some background, see e.g., H. Í. Skorini & T. B. Dyrberg, “Framing Blasphemy as a crime: the c (...)
2While the two men have announced they will appeal the verdict, it is the temporary conclusion to more than two years of legislative and judicial effort to punish the improper treatment of the Qur’an. As international tension grew in 2023 and 2024, an amendment to the Danish Criminal Code criminalized the improper treatment of texts of significant religious importance, alongside insults to foreign states’ symbols, placing these offences under crimes against states’ independence and security to address foreign policy and security concerns rather than religious sentiments. However, as this was more an expression of a state of political crisis, many of the underlying tensions raised by the question of the Qur’an and the particular court case are unresolved. In many ways, the case is a spectacle of 21st century challenges related to Islam and ties together a complex of questions that go back to the Danish Cartoons Affair from 2005-06, the deregulation of the Danish Blasphemy Ban in 2017,2 and international political issues tied to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Swedish NATO membership and Danish sensitivities to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation demands.3
- 4 J. T. Paulsen, “Rasmus Paludan vil være ærkebiskop i sin egen Kirke - ‘Så det er lidt korstogsagti (...)
3On centre stage of the events and narratives that unfolded are one person, Rasmus Paludan, and one object, the Qur’an. Both are important in the interconnected national and geopolitical scenes, and both are not necessarily as they seem at first impression. Paludan is a right-wing activist and Islam critic, who has spent years antagonizing Muslims by burning and defiling the Qur’an, and as such has been named a hate-speech extremist by media and politicians. However, Paludan is also the leader of his political party, Stram Kurs (Hard Line), and the archbishop of his own Church of Saint James the Moor-slayer,4 as well as most recently the Grand Guardian of the Nordens Vogtere (Guardians of the North). It is in this manifestation of himself that Paludan enters the court of Bornholm in May 2025.
- 5 L. Corfitz Jensen, “Retoriker: Paludan er en hæmningsløs showman”, Kristeligt Dagblad, 9 May 2019: (...)
- 6 For a different understanding of Paludan and his succeeded in staging Qur’an defamations as a way (...)
4In addition to all his ambiguous and indeterminate appearances, he has another role to play. Dressed up, he performs the role of the court jester,5 who jokes and entertains, but who is also subversive, exposes hypocrisy and ridicules the powers that be. As the analysis below will show, Paludan even performs a role of the ambiguous and liminal trickster who disrupts and distorts conventions of meaning. With him, on stage, he always brings one particular object, the Qur’an, which seems to escape definition and lucid meaning even more than Paludan does. In this role of Trickster-Jester, Paludan takes advantage of the political crises and does not only challenge the “Qur’an law amendment of 2023”, but seeks to distort the meaning of the Qur’an by questioning it’s very reality.6
5This article unfolds in four sections. Firstly, it presents a conceptual framework drawing on Erving Goffman’s (1922-1982) dramaturgical framework for understanding social life, Victor Turner’s (1920-1983) idea of the ambiguous and indeterminate trickster, who in liminal crises, is able to transform the world around him, and Jean Baudrillard’s (1929-2007) ideas of production of simulacra that challenge a common sense notion of the real. Secondly, it will present to an international readership the background, context and details of the first judicial application of the so-called Danish Qur’an ban, although in this case, there was no burning, merely an “improper treatment” as per the wording of the 7 December 2023 amendment to the Criminal Code. Thirdly, using the concepts of the dramaturgical framework, liminal transformations of meaning and the becoming of the Qur’an as a simulacrum, the main analysis will consider the details of Rasmus Paludan’s performance both during the political debate in June 2024 and in court in May 2025. As such it is a deep dive into the court case and the arguments of their defence. Fourthly, through the analysis the article unfolds an interpretation and attempt at a deeper understanding of Paludan’s performative and symbolic challenges to representing the established signification and the legal and political status of the Qur’an.
6The material for this article is drawn from a number of sources. The drafting commentary of the amendment to the Criminal Code is central, but at the core is the verdict of 16 May 2025 from the Court in Bornholm (cited as “Retten på Bornholm” throughout). I supplement this with public reports from the trial, and with material shared by Paludan’s attorney.
1. The stages, the trickster and the simulacra
7Centred on the events, arguments and narratives at court on 9 May 2025, the trail of Paludan and his co-defendant on the treatment of the Qur’an quickly reveals a blurry show of theatrics with many roles, performances, audiences and even interwoven staging frameworks that promote ambiguous and indeterminate appearances and a continuous displacement of established significations.
8To help unravel all these, and to illuminate the particular of how stage performance in a tense and liminal situation may reveal conventions as simulations, this article employs some of the theoretical insights from Erving Goffman, Victor Turner and Jean Baudrillard.
1.1. Three interwoven stages
- 7 E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh Social S (...)
9Famously, Goffman has analysed and discussed what can be called the dramaturgical framework as a master metaphor.7 Drawing on the structure of theatre, Goffman argues that much of our social life resembles a performance, where individuals are like actors on a stage, managing the impressions they give to others. Goffman’s metaphor works well to unfold and understand the details of the events concerning both the improper treatment of the Qur’an on the 15 June 2024, but also in court in May 2025. At the outset, we can identify at least three intertwines stages, in a Goffmanian sense.
10Firstly, a geopolitical macro stage, where much of what Paludan does is closely watched. Paludan has been on this stage for quite some years. Secondly, there is a more “local” political and media stage, which takes physical shape on Bornholm, but also very much is an online stage. These two melt together on 15 June 2024. Thirdly, the legal stage of the court case is perhaps most iconic, as Paludan appears in his purple velvet robe, but also performs and acts in the most literal sense; during the presentation of the prosecution, Paludan feigns to be asleep.
11This further allows us to follow Goffman’s particular view of the stage performance and framing, which is where the impressions and representations of oneself are managed and presented as a character. Goffman points to how appearance is scripted by unwritten rules and expectations, deception and authenticity that guide behaviour and performances in the dramaturgical framework.
1.2. The Trickster as a liminal persona
- 8 V. Turner, From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of Play, New York, PAJ Publications, 1982
12In From Ritual to Theatre, Victor Turner conceptualizes social drama as a staged unravelling of moral and normative orders, where crises are represented as liminal phases of symbolic uncertainty.8 With a focus on the crises and liminality of dramaturgical framework of the triple stages, we gain a perspective on what Paludan is doing – especially to the Qur’an.
- 9 V. Turner, The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure, Chicago, Aldine Publishing, 1969, p. (...)
- 10 Ibid., p. 95
- 11 H. Bassil-Morozow, “Loki then and now: the trickster against civilization”, International Journal (...)
13In Turner’s concepts of the roles and functions, certain people play during liminality there are significant conceptual resources, which can help us investigate Paludan further. Liminal persons, writes Turner, have necessarily “ambiguous and indeterminate attributes”9 and “these persons elude or slip through the network of classifications that normally locate states and positions in cultural space”.10 The trickster represents an unpredictable element and changes the status of people, things and institutions around him.11 Turner argues that the figure of the trickster become vital agent of disruption and reflection, exposing the arbitrariness of cultural codes through inversion, parody, and symbolic provocation.
14With interwoven stages of geopolitical arena to public meetings and courtrooms, everyone keeps watching Rasmus Paludan. During the filmed and live-streamed debate session on Bornholm, the social expectation by onlookers is carefully managed in a kind of scripted performance that walks a razor’s edge as to what is legally allowed and what is not in terms of how to treat the Qur’an. When roles, costumes, and stages shift in Paludan’s ambiguous and disruptive performance, we see established meaning, significations and senses of what is real or not begin to shift.
1.3. Representations and simulacra
- 12 J. Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1994.
15As we closely watch the dramatic framework, the liminality of crises and the contested circumstances of the production of meaning associated with the Qur’an, we also begin to see different interpretations and representations of the Qur’an in play. To analyse the growing number of compounded representations and further understand the signification of the Qur’an, the radical philosophy of Jean Baudrillard is especially well suited.12
- 13 K. P. Mahan, It Was and It Isn’t: A Rhetorical Exploration of Simulacra in Emerging Church Vintage (...)
16One of the core notions of Baudrillard’s thinking is the ideas of production of simulacra. Simulation is the notion that signs and symbols are used to represent a real object or ideal become warped with use and end up being like the original without being like the original at all.13 Simulation occurs when the referent and representation become more alike and a new, different reality is established. Baudrillard helps us to see how the meaning we assign become more important and more real to us that whatever is signified. In Baudrillard’s language, the copies or simulations we make are representations of the originals, which we in turn like better because they are made to our reality rather than the original context. The simulacra we then act upon are products of us and our systems of thinking and preferences.
- 14 R. Butler, Jean Baudrillard. The Defence of the Real, London, SAGE Publ., 1999, p. 24-25.
17This may seem abstract, but Baudrillard helps us to address the notion of what is real. We may hold that “to realize” is to see what is real as we try to understand, interpret and grasp the world around us. But in doing so, “to realize” is to do something real as we represent and reproduce our notion of the world and of ourselves, and thus, to realize is to make in fact a simulation.14 The equivalences we create are convenient to us, and we prefer them as they fit us better.
- 15 Ibid., p. 17.
18There are two immediate consequences of this. The first is that we cannot empirically test the simulation because it is indistinguishable. The simulation is how reality appears real to us. We may in fact only become aware of the simulation when different representations clash, as we shall see with the Qur’an. The second is that the simulation becomes even more real – and even better fit to us – than the original and becomes even more real. Baudrillard calls this hyper-real. Thus, there are two notions of reality at play; the hyper-real that is a product of ourselves and our systems of representation where the real and the representation collapse into each other, and then there is the real that is the absolute limit to these systems and exist entirely outside it.15
- 16 J. Baudrillard, “The Precession of Simulacra”, in J. Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, Ann Ar (...)
19Baudrillard’s post-modern social and political critique is then to argue that we now live in an age of simulation, where new and further representations are compounded on previous representations. This is repeated in a further refinement of cultural and technological representation, bringing us to an age where the signs we use and apply no longer refer to reality but to other signs.16
20In this age of simulation, the Qur’an does not go unnoticed.
2. Setting the geopolitical stage – the legislative and political context of the Qur’an ban
21During the summer of 2023, much attention was given to burning the Qur’an as protected by freedom of expression. Against this trend, the Danish government proposed a new amendment to the Danish Criminal Code to criminalize the “improper treatment of a writing with considerable religious significance for a religious community.”
- 17 For an updated analysis and comparison across the Nordic countries, see G. Larsson, I. Frydenlund (...)
- 18 In the wake of these limitations on Paludan’s freedom of expression in Copenhagen, law professor J (...)
22The national background17 to the current Qur’an burning dates back to the demonstrations led by Rasmus Paludan, as leader of the political party Hard Line in the run-up to the 2019 general election. During these demonstrations, the burning of the Qur’an first occurred, leading to massive disturbances in the Copenhagen area of Nørrebro, including stone-throwing at police and the burning of cars and containers. Following the unrest, Paludan was repeatedly banned from demonstrating in certain areas. These bans were primarily justified by the argument that the demonstrations, given the threat level, could endanger public order and Paludan’s safety.18
23The international and political context is important, too. The proposal to limit improper treatment, including burning, of the Qur’an, comes at a time of significant geopolitical tension and international political crises. For example, Turkish president Erdogan had questioned Sweden’s membership of NATO, and Denmark was donating fighter jets to Ukraine and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was even in play a hopeful contender to the position as General Secretary of NATO. It is in light of this tension that the Danish government came under international pressure from a number of Middle Eastern countries and Islam organizations. Adding further tension, no one had forgotten about the Muhammed Cartoon’s Crises of 2005 and 2006, and this still informs the Danish government’s manoeuvres, as well as the international perception of Denmark.
24Against this backdrop, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) resolved on 31 July 2023 that it
- 19 Resolution on the Repeated Crimes of Desecration and Burning of Copies of al-Mus’haf ash-Sharif in (...)
“Condemns the repeated crimes of desecration of copies of al-Mus’haf ash-Sharif, which aroused the wrath of about two billion Muslims all over the world, which represents a dangerous embodiment of the culture of hatred and racism, and a manifestation of Islamophobia, and demands the immediate cessation, and criminalization of such extremist provocative acts, and to underline the need to respect religious texts and symbols and promoting a culture of peace and acceptance of the other.”19
2.1. Banning the improper treatment of significant religious texts
25In the final version of the amendment to the Danish Criminal Code, the new wording is added as subsection 2 of Article 110 e:
- 20 The particular amendment is cited like this: “Lovforslag nr. L 65”, Forslag til Lov om ændring af (...)
“Anyone who publicly insults a foreign nation, a foreign state, its flag or other recognized national emblem, or the flag of the United Nations or the Council of Europe, shall be punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years.
Subsection 2. The same penalty shall apply to anyone who publicly, or with intent to disseminate to a wider audience, commits improper treatment of a writing that holds considerable religious significance for a recognized religious community, or of an object that appears as such a writing.”20
- 21 “Eksperter vurderer koran-lovforslaget: ‘På ét punkt kunne man godt være skarpere’”, altinget.dk, (...)
The amendment is added as a new subsection of the Criminal Code that is concerned with international relations and security, rather than out of concern for religious emotions or sentiments, as such. In the view of the government, the amendment mainly deals with foreign policy and security considerations, and therefore it is placed in the chapter of the Criminal Code on crimes against states’ independence and security. The Danish government argues for a pragmatic needle point operation, but it is not seen this way, by political opposition, observers, critics, and free speech advocates, and so on.21
26The government ministry’s drafting commentary to the amendment, which in Danish legal practice is a guiding and interpretive document to assist police, prosecutors and judges, hold important information on how to understand the new amendment.
- 22 “Lovforslag nr. L 65”, p. 5, col. 1.
- 23 Ibid., p. 4, col. 2.
- 24 Ibid., p. 5, col. 1.
27Texts and writing explicitly mentioned in the drafting commentary include the Qur’an, Bible, Torah and so forth, but not symbols, dress or cartoons. “The proposed provision will apply to texts of significant religious importance. This refers to physical texts that, within the relevant faith tradition, are considered especially central to the foundation of belief and/or doctrine.”22 To prevent circumvention by mistreating objects that appear to be religious texts, though they are not, the prohibition covers such items as well. In the commentary, the Ministry of Justice finds that the potential harm – especially regarding foreign policy and security – can be as great as if the actual religious text were mistreated.23 They go on to point out, that “Whether a given text can be considered of considerable religious significance to a recognized religious community will depend on a specific legal assessment based on the circumstances, with input from experts in the study of religion.”24
28By “improper treatment”, the government in the drafting notes understands actions whereby the texts covered by the provision are destroyed in a derogatory manner or are otherwise treated degradingly. This will include any inappropriate treatment, including burning, soiling and handling where, e.g., the text is stepped on or kicked, or that the text is destroyed by being torn, cut into or similarly. It will also include cases where the text is stabbed with a knife.
29Artistic representations will fall outside the scope of the provision if the otherwise improper treatment is only a minor part of the artwork. However, if the improper treatment is the sole or central element, it will be covered by the ban. If the artistic framing appears to be primarily intended to justify otherwise improper treatment, this framing will not exempt it from being punishable. In assessing whether the treatment of a religious text in an artistic context is covered by the ban, several factors may be considered. These include whether the act takes place in a recognized artistic venue, whether those involved are generally engaged in artistic expression, and whether the work is presented in a way and setting typically associated with art, including to an audience seeking out such works – possibly with paid admission. As is shown below, Paludan and his co-defendant also pursue this approach as an argument of defence, framing their event “performance art” and “an art installation.”
- 25 Helge Årsheim has argued, drawing on earlier analysis from 2017, that some of the language comes c (...)
30The provisions of the amendment are applied within the limits of freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and cannot be used in ways that would violate this right. This applies to all actions covered by the amendment, including those in artistic contexts. However, as the Ministry explicitly notes in the commentary, the European Court of Human Rights generally accepts states’ prerogative to punish expressions deemed blasphemous or unnecessarily offensive to others’ religious beliefs. Under the amendment, it is also a requirement that improper treatment occurs publicly or is intended for wider dissemination. The amendment is not presented as a blasphemy law and does not propose to be concerned with religious affect, or violations against God, or similar.25
- 26 N. V. Vinding, “Sharia and the Scandinavian Welfare States”, Scandinavian Journal of Islamic Studi (...)
31From a law and religion perspective, this amendment reflects a broader, recent trend, where the state increasingly assumes the authority to define and regulate the practical boundaries of religion.26 In this case, the amendment introduces the concept of “writing that holds considerable religious significance” and places the burden on the justice system and courts to determine what falls within this category. This is a core part of Paludan’s and his co-defendant’s challenge in court.
32The amendment passed into law on 7 December 2023 with 94 votes in favour and 77 against.
2.2. Responses to the amendment
- 27 “Paludan reagerer: ‘Det giver mig mere blod på tanden’”, Ekstra Bladet, 17 May 2025: ekstrabladet. (...)
33Already after the amendment was presented, Rasmus Paludan aired his ideas to work around the ban. He proposed, among other things, to let gay men kiss the Qur’an as part of a marriage ritual that can take place in front of an embassy. Since he has founded his own religion, he believes that he can make it a religious obligation to “soak the Qur’an in pig’s blood in various places in public”. Denying him that would be a violation of religious freedom, he believes. In addition, Paludan, who is himself a trained lawyer, estimates that he can separate the Qur’an page by page at home, put it in a transparent box and then go to an embassy and set fire to the pages.27
- 28 M. L. B. Nielsen, “Kalifatet har fået vetoret i Danmark”, Weekendavisen, no. 34, 2023, s. 6: www.w (...)
34Much of the criticism of the “Qur’an law” amendment comes from right-wing opinion makers and debaters, who seem to share degrees of alarmism and use dysphemisms in characterizing the amendment. With reference to the demands by the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and Turkey’s Erdogan, associate professor of legal philosophy at the University of Copenhagen, Jakob Holtermann call the amendment a “Veto of the Caliphate”, “This is the situation that can be called the veto of the caliphate. Because if we have shown once that we are inclined to bend when geopolitical circumstances allow the OIC to orchestrate security policy pressure, there is no reason to assume that they will not do so again in order to realize their long-term goals: a global blasphemy ban.”28
- 29 B. Laemle, “Charlie Hebdo denounces proposed Danish blasphemy law”, Le Monde, 5 Sept. 2023: www.le (...)
35The weekly Charlie Hebdo also responded to the amendment. In addition to running a satire on the ridiculousness of the Qur’an, Charlie Hebdo has in collaboration with several Scandinavian newspapers and media decided to launch an appeal to alert citizens attached to democratic values and freedom of expression to the dangers of such a law.29
- 30 Dansk Muslimsk Union, “Mindehøjtidelighed for ofrene i Tyrkiet og Syrien”, Dansk Muslimsk Union, 2 (...)
36Amongst the reactions to the amendment is the response from the Danish Muslim umbrella organization called Dansk Muslimsk Union (Danish Muslim Union). They fully supported the amendment, but wanted to add public education on freedom of expression and a number of additional suggestions to improve the culture rather than further limit freedom of expression.30
3. “Shall we burn the Qur’an?”
- 31 Retten på Bornholm, p. 1.
- 32 Ibid., p. 11.
- 33 Ibid., p. 1.
37On 15 June 2024, on Bornholm, during the annual political summer meetings called Folkemødet (The People’s Meeting), Rasmus Paludan and his associate of the political party Stram Kurs, held a political debate session with the title, “Shall we burn the Qur’an”.31 While filming and live-streaming the 47-minute debate session, the two men had brought a physical book with them, which was named “The Holy Qur’an”.32 According to the indictment of the prosecution from 24 January 2025, the two defendants were charged with a violation of Section 110e, subsection 2, of the Danish Penal Code, as they had “engaged in indecent treatment of a text of significant religious importance to a recognized religious community – or an object appearing to be such a text”.33
38According to the indictment charge, Paludan had through both actions and statements, repeatedly supported and encouraged the other defendant to tear pages from a Qur’an and to defile the text by allowing it to fall into a puddle of water. Paludan commented on these actions in real time to the assembled audience. As a result, the Qur’an was damaged. It became wet, two pages were missing, and the book’s cover was partially torn. The entire episode was filmed and live-streamed via the public Facebook page of the political party. The public prosecutor argued for a fine of 10.000 DKK, equivalent of about 1.350 EUR, each.
3.1. Enter the Trickster-Jester
- 34 “Live-blog: Dom over Paludan og Correll Iversen må vente,” TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 12: www. (...)
- 35 See the photo of Paludan and the uniform on the newswebsite: “Dom falder om en uge: - Jeg har ikke (...)
- 36 M. Juul & T. Gripping, “Efter kun et døgn: Nu er Paludans forening fjernet”, Radio4, 29 Apr. 2025: (...)
- 37 Nordens Vogtere, “Hvad gør vi?”, Vogtere.dk: www.vogtere.dk/hvad-goer-vi/ [accessed 2 June 2025].
- 38 Nordens Vogtere, “Om – Nordens Vogtere”, Vogtere.dk: www.vogtere.dk/about/ [accessed 2 June 2025].
39On the first day of the trial, 9 May 2025, Rasmus Paludan showed up in what journalists have described as an “extravagant costume with a cape and feathered hat”,34 made of dark blue and purple velveteen fabric with a plush, white feather in the hat.35 Rasmus Paludan explained to reporters that he wore the garments, because he is the “grand guardian” in the fraternal order of the Guardians of the North, and as such, he is wearing the proper uniform. While the Guardians of the North are not a publicly known group, Paludan promoted it on social media on 28 April 2025 as a “fraternal order for Nordic men”, that aims to “improve the members” willingness and ability to defend themselves’ against an enemy that is not further defined.36 According to public corporation records, the association is registered with Rasmus Paludan as its main representative. There is not much information on the website, and is meagrely illustrated with AI images of young men posing in a stern and dismissive demeanour, as to stop or reject someone. The main content on the site describes who they are, what they do and how to join. The association speaks of itself as a secret order,37 and “a fraternal order for young men who wish to develop physically, mentally and morally through training, discipline and voluntary education”, that “combines ancient Nordic virtues with modern skills in survival, safety and character building”.38 While no mention is made of who they defend the North against, they reject anyone who is not Nordic and only men may join. Under the leadership of an unspecified “Council of Guardians”, they promote a violent defence of Nordic values. Standing in front of the court in Bornholm, in his grand guardian uniform, Paludan is the only publicly known member of the Guardians of the North.
- 39 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 11.
- 40 Ibid., p. 10.
40In the session of the court, Paludan’s performance continues. From the beginning of the case procedures, Paludan is asked by the court to formally confirm his identity, and rather than doing so, he merely replies; “You know, who I am.”39 True to form for the Trickster-Jester character, he eludes (self-)definition and leaves everyone to their assumptions, while slowly building further uncertainty of who or what, Paludan really is, besides the Trickster-Jester. Further adding to the theatrics – and perhaps regarding Paludan as particularly querulous – the judge allowed Paludan to keep wearing his feathered hat in court.40 This deviates from the usual procedures regarding headwear.
- 41 “Sideshow”, Oxford English Dictionary: www.oed.com/dictionary/sideshow_n [accessed 2 June 2025].
41The theatrics and Paludan’s acting in court peaks during the closing arguments of the prosecution. As the prosecutor states his case, Paludan sits with his eyes closed for a longer period of time and nodding his head, making it appear as if he is sleeping. Even, when he is not centre stage, Paludan appears to be acting. In this case, putting on a side-show in the courthouse, which, according to the genre definitions of “side-show”, is specifically designed to “distract attention from something more important”.41
- 42 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 7.
42When questioned, Paludan’s response again focuses on his person, and about the character he perceives to play. The occasion for the debate and the question before the court is the Qur’an law as such, and Paludan obviously sees the law as “very wrong” and find it “extremely” relevant to have debates about. However, he presents his own character, the whole affair as being equated with the occasion for the law. He is quoted as saying, “I have – without asking for it – almost become a symbol of the law.”42 Considering the ambiguous plasticity and continuous changing interpretations and representations of Paludan’s character, his own equivalence of himself with the (occasion of the) Qur’an ban, seems to both centre himself at the heart of the affair and simultaneously be the peak of the distorted displacement of who or what he is.
- 43 “Denmark fines two for desecrating Quran”, The Local, 17 May 2025: www.thelocal.dk/20250517/denmar (...)
43Summing up, in the sense that Paludan is appearing in costume in court and appearing in the role and capacity of a secretive and undefined “grand guardian” and continuously putting on performances, he as Trickster-Jester is placed squarely in the three concentric theatrical frames. Firstly, he is appearing in a legal forum, making a mockery of the court, the prosecution and in many ways of the political establishment. Secondly, he is acting in front of an immediate audience of journalists and communicating to them and through them. His appearance, self-representation and acting communicate to both the undisclosed audience of political followers, sympathizers and potential recruits to his new project of “Guardians of the North”. Thirdly, also through the medium of journalists, he is communicating to the national, international and geopolitical audience that undoubtedly follows the developments closely.43 As Trickster-Jester, Paludan appears to take the occasion to step into a particular, but ambiguous, character as evident in the many little tricks and disruptions that he continues to play. He draws on the secretive and deliberately obfuscation. He is both known and unknown, identified and not identified, the grand guardian of the secret fraternity and well as the symbol of the Qur’an law itself. His behaviour opens for many diverse interpretations by many different audiences. This it would seem, is by design, and holds great power to disrupt and distort the legally embedded meaning of the Qur’an as a text of “considerable religious significance”.
3.2. The framing within the framing: video evidence
- 44 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 9.
44The main piece of evidence at court is the 47-minute video of the live-streaming from the Folkemøde on 15 June 2024 that was made during the debate aptly titled and openly asking, “Shall we burn the Qur’an?”. A puzzling fact about the video of the live-streaming is that Paludan almost immediately answers the question, this mooting the element of debate in the debate. His answer is affirmative and he says, “Yes, of course we shall burn the Qur’an […] We shall burn the Qur’an very much [sic]”.44 Adding further puzzlement to the situation at the Folkemøde is the fact that they never end up burning the book in question. He does, however, continue to discuss in great detail, but only theoretically, how to actually burn a Qur’an.
- 45 Ibid.
45Further, the video shows that Danish police is called out as potential enforcers of the ban against a burning of the Qur’an. In the video, Paludan seems to anticipate one of the major concerns of the case, which is also the main strategy of the defence, namely, that the translated Qur’an isn’t really the Qur’an, but an insignificant interpretation. An important aspect of the amendment is that the book or text in question should be of “significant religious meaning”, but what does this mean, when actually applied? And will the police be able to know? “What if the police doesn’t know anything about Islam and the Qur’an?” Paludan asks rather rhetorically in the video from the debate, answering himself immediately: “The answer is, of course, that the police knows as little about the Qur’an and Islam as about anything else in the world; absolutely nothing.”45
- 46 Notes from 24-minute conversation with the defence attorney, Jens Hedegaard Sørensen, on 20 May 20 (...)
- 47 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 9. Note the plural as if there are more Qur’ans in th (...)
46In such a provocative remark, we see the confluence of the themes of the case and the contours of the core issues with the new amendment and Paludan’s performance. As a Trickster-Jester, Paludan ridicules the authorities and call them out by speaking the uncomfortable “truths” that the law itself leaves it to the assessment of the justice system to figure out what constitutes a text of significant religious meaning – a Qur’an, in this case. They have, nevertheless, very little qualifications to do so. Per the drafting commentary of the amendment, the police and court are left to rely on the perceptions of audiences, draw their own conclusions or solicit the counsel of experts, which the court actually rejects after a request from the defence attorney.46 Indeed, Paludan starts to ask the same epistemological questions that also preoccupy Islamic Studies researchers, asking what is a Qur’an and how do we know? And, true to form, Paludan answers these questions, but not as a researcher or analyst, but taking the role of a non-Muslim Islamic authority, effectively applying Islamic doctrinal arguments to his non-Muslim polemic position. “In the religion of Islam, it is solely Qur’ans in Arabic that constitutes real Qur’ans. Translations are thus not considered real Qur’ans but are merely supplementary material.”47
47The video is a framed performance of a political debate that is embedded into the legal frame of the court trial. A frame within a frame. As the video is shown in the court trial, in addition to the immediate staging at the Folkemøde, as well as online, it acquires an added layer of meaning as if it was intended to be presented at an expected trial. Everything in the video frame seems orchestrated and performed to be consumed at the trial and to anticipate the arguments and strategies of the defence.
48From the video material, it is evident that the true trial of the court case is a test of the Qur’an law, even as the court tries Paludan, too. The core questions of the trial are not what he did or did not do, but rather, according to Paludan, the exact questions he was raising with the debate already on 15 June 2024: What is a Qur’an, how do we know, and is the political and legal system really able to tell the difference between a real Qur’an and a fake?
3.3. The strategies of the defence
49The arguments that Paludan had presented already at the Folkemøde also constitute the basis of the strategy of the defence attorney. As is evident in the arguments and rulings of the court from 16 May 2025, the defence attorney unfolded at least four lines of argument for why the two defendants should be acquitted.
50The first and most consistent argument is that the book in question is not really a Qur’an, but merely an interpretation, and therefore, what they did was legal. We return to this below, when we examine if it was a real Qur’an.
- 48 Ibid., p. 8, p. 3.
- 49 The co-defendant did the deed, while Paludan encouraged it. See, Retten på Bornholm, p. 12.
51The second argument is what happened was not improper treatment. The presumed Qur’an was not jumped on or stepped on, and what happened was not planned, but rather accidental and out of frustration.48 Against this, and recounting the drafting comments, the court found that they had indeed, “damaged in a degrading or mocking manner, or otherwise physically treated in a mocking or degrading way” as they “tore pages out of the Qur’an and let them fall into a puddle of water; this is therefore covered by the provisions.”49
- 50 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 8, p. 2.
- 51 Retten på Bornholm, p. 12-13.
52The third argument is that the debate was performance art as an artistic happening designed to provoke and to entice a participatory audience to answer the open question of should they burn the Qur’an. They were inspired by the Italian artist Marco Evaristti, who once exhibited a series of blenders, each containing a live goldfish. Visitors could choose to turn on a blender, thereby killing the fish. Therefore, during the debate, “Should we burn the Qur’an?”, he brought a disposable grill and lighter fluid, allowing the audience to decide whether to ignite the grill on which the book was placed.50 Again, following the drafting comments, the court held that the event was political and part of a political debate, and thus, “that, based on its nature and content, the presentation cannot be regarded as an artistic expression as a whole. To the extent that limited parts of the presentation may be seen as having an artistic element, such framing is found to have been established solely for the purpose of carrying out an otherwise improper act. The fact that the defendants repeatedly stated during the presentation that it was an artistic expression is not considered relevant to this assessment.”51
- 52 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 13.
- 53 Retten på Bornholm, p. 13.
53Finally, the argument is that this was a political debate on the limits of the Qur’an law amendment and should therefore be protected by freedom of expression, as per Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.52 The court, however, did not agree, and just stated that practice of the ECtHR is that “expressions that can be characterized as blasphemous or unnecessarily offensive to the religious beliefs of others may be subject to criminal penalties” and that it did not carry weight that Paludan was the head of a political party at a political event.53
4. Was it a real Qur’an?
- 54 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 10.
54As mentioned, the core argument of the defence is that the book in question was not a Qur’an, and as clear from the video evidence this was the premised already at the original event at Folkemøde in 2024. The two defendants refuse to recognize the book, whose pages were torn out and later thrown into a puddle, as a Qur’an. Their reasoning is that it was an English translation of the Qur’an. “We do not agree that it is a Qur’an”, explains the attorney.54
- 55 “Quran Translations”, Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations [accessed 2 June 2025].
- 56 J. Forman, Muslimernes religion – tro, praksis og sharia, Århus, Systime, 2006.
- 57 A. Tønnsen, Islam – Koran, Hadith, Sharia, Odense, Forlaget Mellemgaard, 2015.
- 58 D. Kitir, Klassisk og moderne islam, 2. udgave, Århus, Systime, 2020.
55To support this argument, the defence attorney has gathered a collection of material on the meaning and significance of translations of the Qur’an, which was presented in court as “Appendix 6”. The attorney has graciously shared the material with me and as such is part of the empirical material for this section. The material is 36 pages in total, and consists of a screen shot of a ChatGPT 4o prompt and answer (page 1), a Wikipedia article on translations of the Qur’an55 (pages 2-19), pages from a textbook on the Religion of Muslims56 from 2006 (pages 20-24), pages from a book on Islam from 2015 – Qur’an, Hadith, Sharia57 by a Danish convert (pages 25-34) and finally a one page exert from a more recent textbook from 2020 on “Classic and Modern Islam”58 (pages 35-36).
- 59 Material collection of the defence, appendix 6.
56The material was gathered to demonstrate the commonly accepted Islamic theological position that a translation is not a real Qur’an. All the textbooks repeat this position with variations. What is particularly interesting, however, is that the defence attorney had asked ChatGPT 4o, “Is the Qur’an the word of god in all languages?” The reply is that ChatGPT 4o replied that many Muslims would hold that “the Qur’an exists only in Arabic” and that in other languages “versions are considered ‘interpretations’ or ‘translations of the meaning.’”59 The attorney is in effect asking an artificial intelligence about whether something is real, which adds a further level of artificial representation of the Qur’an on top of the argument itself, and adds further distance to the notion that the Qur’an is real.
- 60 Retten på Bornholm, p. 13.
57The court outright rejects this argument. The court refused a plea by the attorney to call in experts and will not consider the question of what makes a real Qur’an. The court merely addresses the premise, saying that “it cannot be interpreted as a requirement that the specific text subjected to improper treatment must be regarded as sacred within the relevant religious tradition”.60 It merely needs to be of significance as per the drafting comments. This deflection of the probing into the nature of the Qur’an adds yet another layer of impenetrable representation that further alienates the notion of a real Qur’an, leaving the question entirely open.
Conclusion: The ultimate defamation of the Qur’an
58Paludan’s provocations are not simply desecrations but are symbolically violent reconfigurations that culminate in the Qur’an’s transformation into a hyperreal object, which is stripped of any theological referent and made into a legal-political prop.
59When Rasmus Paludan performs his Jester-Trickster function by presenting and representing the Qur’an on national and geopolitical stages, he challenges and destabilizes the established signification and symbolic order of the Qur’an. In Turner’s sense, he is a liminal performer using his own ambiguous and indeterminate roles to transform meanings around him. His acts are not just desecrations. They are performances of provocation, positioned as defences of free speech, artistic expression, and legal procedural questioning of truth and knowability. They unfold within media-saturated spectacles that displace conventional theological and legal discourse. For example, when he contests the law’s ability to define what a Qur’an is, Paludan pushes legal logic to its limits revealing the fragility of the symbolic order.
60Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra becomes crucial here. Paludan’s actions do not simply reject the Qur’an’s sanctity or challenge its legal and cultural protections. Rather, he enacts a symbolic and representational violence that distorts and ultimately questions the reality of the Qur’an. His repeated mistreatment does not add a qualified meaning to the Qur’an but rather dissolves it in the noise of performative excess. The Qur’an, under this symbolic regime, becomes a simulation detached from its understanding in theology or tradition.
61Paludan’s gesture begins by acknowledging a common sense truth, that the Qur’an is a revered object in both Islamic tradition and protected in Danish legal discourse. But as he reinterprets it as mere interpretation and deferred meaning, he denies its real presence and recasts it as an object of contempt that is unworthy of reverence or protection. His court performances and media appearances add layers and layers of representation that bury the sacred referent. With these accumulations a sense of reality withdraws, and his Jester-Trickster act becomes symbolic violence onto the Qur’an, whereby it is transformed. It is no longer the religious text known to billions, but a simulacrum that bears no necessary relation to the original.
62By the end, the Qur’an is emptied of religious meaning and filled instead with political utility. In Goffman’s dramaturgical terms, the courtroom, the Folkemøde, video, and media all become stages to enact this transformation. The court, too, is not concerned with the Qur’an as a religious text, but singularly whether it is an object to which the law applies.
63In this context, the Qur’an becomes a sign detached from its referent and is now merely a prop in a symbolic legal and political performance. Through repetition and spectacle, the Qur’an has become not-a-Qur’an and thus something else entirely. In its final transformation it is a hyperreal Qur’an, whose symbolic presence persists even as its theological content dissolves and becomes more real than real within legal and political discourse. The ultimate defamation, then, is not the physical desecration of a book, but the seizure of symbolic power to redefine what the Qur’an is and is not. Paludan’s Baudrillardian manoeuvre is not just a rejection of inviolability, but a disappearance of the object. The culmination of Paludan’s performance as Jester-Trickster is the symbolic destruction of the Qur’an in legal and public discourse.
Notes
1 The verdict from the Court on Bornholm (Retten på Bornholm), judgement delivered on 16 May 2025, p. 11.
2 S. Schaumburg-Müller, “Ophævelse af blasfemibestemmelsen”, Religionsretlig lovgivning: Kirkeretsantologi 2019, Eksistensen Akademisk, 2019, p. 217-232.
3 For some background, see e.g., H. Í. Skorini & T. B. Dyrberg, “Framing Blasphemy as a crime: the curious similarities between the secular left and the organization of Islamic cooperation”, Journal of Political Ideologies, 29(3), 2024, p. 550–570: doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2022.2040878 [accessed 2 June 2025].
4 J. T. Paulsen, “Rasmus Paludan vil være ærkebiskop i sin egen Kirke - ‘Så det er lidt korstogsagtigt’”, Berlingske, 23 Oct. 2020: www.berlingske.dk/kultur/rasmus-paludan-vil-vaere-aerkebiskop-i-sin-egen-kirke-saa-det-er-lidt [accessed 2 June 2025].
5 L. Corfitz Jensen, “Retoriker: Paludan er en hæmningsløs showman”, Kristeligt Dagblad, 9 May 2019: hwww.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/danmark/retoriker-paludan-er-en-haemningsloes-showman [accessed 2 June 2025].
6 For a different understanding of Paludan and his succeeded in staging Qur’an defamations as a way to re-symbolize the Qur’an as Global Injustice Symbol, see L. Kuhle, “Ignited by the Qur’an: Paludan’s Attempt to Produce Global Injustice Symbols at the Freedom of Expression/Blasphemy Nexus”, Temenos. Nordic Journal for the Study of Religion, Vol. 60, no. 1, 2024, p. 27–56: doi.org/10.33356/temenos.136706 [accessed 2 June 2025].
7 E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre, 1956.
8 V. Turner, From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of Play, New York, PAJ Publications, 1982.
9 V. Turner, The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure, Chicago, Aldine Publishing, 1969, p. 95.
10 Ibid., p. 95
11 H. Bassil-Morozow, “Loki then and now: the trickster against civilization”, International Journal of Jungian Studies, Vol. 9, no. 2, 2017, p. 86.
12 J. Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1994.
13 K. P. Mahan, It Was and It Isn’t: A Rhetorical Exploration of Simulacra in Emerging Church Vintage Worship, Liberty University, 2008.
14 R. Butler, Jean Baudrillard. The Defence of the Real, London, SAGE Publ., 1999, p. 24-25.
15 Ibid., p. 17.
16 J. Baudrillard, “The Precession of Simulacra”, in J. Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1994, p. 1-4.
17 For an updated analysis and comparison across the Nordic countries, see G. Larsson, I. Frydenlund & T. Brekke, “A Burning Affair: Special Issue on the Burning of the Qur’an”, Temenos. Nordic Journal for the Study of Religion, 60(1), 2024, p. 5-26: doi.org/10.33356/temenos.137982 [accessed 2 June 2025].
18 In the wake of these limitations on Paludan’s freedom of expression in Copenhagen, law professor Jørn Vestergaard argued that the state is justified in limiting individuals when they “abuse” freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. B. Fruelund, “Advokat: Ytringsfrihed beskytter ikke koranafbrænding”, Ritzaus Bureau, 15 Apr. 2019. Also, “Paludans hate speech er strafbar”, 1 May 2019, Refugees.dk.
19 Resolution on the Repeated Crimes of Desecration and Burning of Copies of al-Mus’haf ash-Sharif in the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Denmark, Approved by the 18th Extraordinary Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, 31 July 2023.
20 The particular amendment is cited like this: “Lovforslag nr. L 65”, Forslag til Lov om ændring af straffeloven (Forbud mod utilbørlig behandling af skrifter med væsentlig religiøs betydning for et anerkendt trossamfund), Folketingstidende, tillæg A, Folketinget 2023-2024: www.ft.dk/ripdf/samling/20231/lovforslag/l65/20231_l65_som_fremsat.pdf [accessed 2 June 2025].
21 “Eksperter vurderer koran-lovforslaget: ‘På ét punkt kunne man godt være skarpere’”, altinget.dk, 28 August 2023: www.altinget.dk/artikel/en-genindfoersel-af-omstridt-paragraf-faa-eksperternes-vurdering-af-regeringens-koran-lovforslag [accessed 2 June 2025].
22 “Lovforslag nr. L 65”, p. 5, col. 1.
23 Ibid., p. 4, col. 2.
24 Ibid., p. 5, col. 1.
25 Helge Årsheim has argued, drawing on earlier analysis from 2017, that some of the language comes close to the now defunct blasphemy laws in both Denmark and Norway. H. Årsheim, “Giving Up the Ghost: On the Decline and Fall of Norwegian Anti-Blasphemy Legislation”, in J. Temperman, A. Koltay (eds), Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression. Comparative, Theoretical and Historical Reflections after the Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 553-575.
26 N. V. Vinding, “Sharia and the Scandinavian Welfare States”, Scandinavian Journal of Islamic Studies, 16(2), 2022, p. 8-20.
27 “Paludan reagerer: ‘Det giver mig mere blod på tanden’”, Ekstra Bladet, 17 May 2025: ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/paludan-reagerer-det-giver-mig-mere-blod-paa-tanden/9921355 [accessed 2 June 2025].
28 M. L. B. Nielsen, “Kalifatet har fået vetoret i Danmark”, Weekendavisen, no. 34, 2023, s. 6: www.weekendavisen.dk/2023-34/samfund/kalifatet-har-faaet-vetoret-i-danmark [accessed 2 June 2025].
29 B. Laemle, “Charlie Hebdo denounces proposed Danish blasphemy law”, Le Monde, 5 Sept. 2023: www.lemonde.fr/en/religions/article/2023/09/05/charlie-hebdo-denounces-proposed-danish-blasphemy-law_6124007_63.html [accessed 2 June 2025].
30 Dansk Muslimsk Union, “Mindehøjtidelighed for ofrene i Tyrkiet og Syrien”, Dansk Muslimsk Union, 20 Sept. 2023.
31 Retten på Bornholm, p. 1.
32 Ibid., p. 11.
33 Ibid., p. 1.
34 “Live-blog: Dom over Paludan og Correll Iversen må vente,” TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 12: www.tv2bornholm.dk/artikel/dom-over-paludan-og-correll-iversen-maa-vente [accessed 2 June 2025].
35 See the photo of Paludan and the uniform on the newswebsite: “Dom falder om en uge: - Jeg har ikke gjort noget ulovligt”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025: www.tv2bornholm.dk/artikel/dom-falder-om-en-uge-jeg-har-ikke-gjort-noget-ulovligt [accessed 2 June 2025].
36 M. Juul & T. Gripping, “Efter kun et døgn: Nu er Paludans forening fjernet”, Radio4, 29 Apr. 2025: radio4.dk/nyheder/efter-kun-et-doegn-nu-er-paludans-forening-fjernet-hQu17bK7wzgKIdbxscRK [accessed 2 June 2025].
37 Nordens Vogtere, “Hvad gør vi?”, Vogtere.dk: www.vogtere.dk/hvad-goer-vi/ [accessed 2 June 2025].
38 Nordens Vogtere, “Om – Nordens Vogtere”, Vogtere.dk: www.vogtere.dk/about/ [accessed 2 June 2025].
39 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 11.
40 Ibid., p. 10.
41 “Sideshow”, Oxford English Dictionary: www.oed.com/dictionary/sideshow_n [accessed 2 June 2025].
42 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 7.
43 “Denmark fines two for desecrating Quran”, The Local, 17 May 2025: www.thelocal.dk/20250517/denmark-fines-two-for-desecrating-koran [accessed 2 June 2025].
44 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 9.
45 Ibid.
46 Notes from 24-minute conversation with the defence attorney, Jens Hedegaard Sørensen, on 20 May 2025.
47 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 9. Note the plural as if there are more Qur’ans in the “religion of Islam”.
48 Ibid., p. 8, p. 3.
49 The co-defendant did the deed, while Paludan encouraged it. See, Retten på Bornholm, p. 12.
50 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 8, p. 2.
51 Retten på Bornholm, p. 12-13.
52 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 13.
53 Retten på Bornholm, p. 13.
54 “Live-blog…”, TV2 / Bornholm, 9 May 2025, p. 10.
55 “Quran Translations”, Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations [accessed 2 June 2025].
56 J. Forman, Muslimernes religion – tro, praksis og sharia, Århus, Systime, 2006.
57 A. Tønnsen, Islam – Koran, Hadith, Sharia, Odense, Forlaget Mellemgaard, 2015.
58 D. Kitir, Klassisk og moderne islam, 2. udgave, Århus, Systime, 2020.
59 Material collection of the defence, appendix 6.
60 Retten på Bornholm, p. 13.
Haut de pagePour citer cet article
Référence papier
Niels Valdemar Vinding, « Ceci n’est pas un Coran: The Qur’an as Sacrilegious Art or Arbitrary Simulacrum? », Revue du droit des religions, 20 | 2025, 67-87.
Référence électronique
Niels Valdemar Vinding, « Ceci n’est pas un Coran: The Qur’an as Sacrilegious Art or Arbitrary Simulacrum? », Revue du droit des religions [En ligne], 20 | 2025, mis en ligne le 14 novembre 2025, consulté le 07 décembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rdr/2760 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/154xp
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.
Haut de page




