Instead of saying ‘Je suis Charlie’, I should say ‘Je suis Muslim’, which is after all what I am. However, that maybe pushing the notion of parochialism too far, for I’d like to think we are part of an international society and a community based on tolerance and understanding and involved in a culture of dialogue underpinned by our different races, ethnicities and religions. These ideas, however, appear to be being torn apart, thrown out of the window and replaced by disturbing concepts of one-sidedness, hatred and even bigotry. The last issue of Charlie Hebdo, whose editors insisted on republishing scathing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and at a stroke of a pen snubbed 1.6 billion Muslims, continues to push the envelope and take the debate to its outer limits of extremist thought. Arabs and Muslims need to reiterate their condemnation of the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo journalists at their offices earlier this month and must make it clear that Islam and Islamic people do not condone such extreme methods of violence. They must condemn it wholeheartedly.
However, the provoking of Muslim sensibilities in this way is surely not the right path to end what is seen as a road that is becoming more divergent by the day with deep divisions and schisms. Above all, people are trying to push their own views at the expense of others, involving issues of what is and what is not freedom of speech, how it should be interpreted, what is acceptable and how far “controversial” ideas can be put forward regardless of the other.
Co-existence and development
Within the context of the high passions and dismay at the dead journalists, cartoonists and staffers, said to be 12 in number,and at the cartoons that were published, one must sympathise with the families of the victims and perhaps the views put forward by none other than French President Francois Hollande that “countries do not understand France’s attachment to freedom of speech”. However, if such acts of this kind are to be avoided in Europe, including in France, which is in a curious situation of hosting millions and millions of Muslims who have been living there for decades, it is imperative to come up with, at the very least, a social contract that promotes co-existence, integration and development.
Blatantly, and without mincing words, magazines like Charlie Hebdo would need to ‘tone down’ their cartoons and caricatures and take into account the feelings, passions, grievances and cultural differences of the minorities who live there.
It does no any good for Charlie Hebdo to just move full steam and continue in its character assassination and tarnishing of religious leaders like Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and other prophets like Jesus who are revered by Christians and Moses and Abraham for the Jews. Muslims, it should be pointed out, have equal reverence for Jesus, Moses and Abraham as they do for Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Painting them in a negative light is just as blasphemous as it is for any other prophets embedded in the history of civilization. In this respect, I am not ashamed to say that Muslims have clear red-lines which they are not prepared to break, step over or simply ignore.
In this respect, I am not ashamed to say that Muslims have clear red lines. which they are not prepared to break, step over or simply ignore. Unfortunately Charlie Hebdo has sought to cross all of these lines time and again, unwilling to recognise them and preferring to go with its editors, giving the impression that freedom of expression is the sky’s the limit and there are no holds bar. But it is the sky’s the limit when they want to and if they can get away with it. In 2009 the magazine become unstuck and this resulted in the firing of one of their caricature journalists for his work, which was accused of “inciting racial hatred” after he wrote about the engagement of the 22-year-old son of then president Nicholas Sarkozy to a Jewish heiress, including rumours that he was planning to convert to Judaism. It was argued he was dismissed because of great pressure from what was argued as a Jewish lobby, not to mention the higher government authorities.
However, Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly magazine that many would say engages not in satire but in outright insults and racism as it caricatures personalities with big noses, long ears denoting particular ethnic groups, has no qualms when it comes to the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Unlike Sarkozy or his son, the Prophet (PBUH) sadly can’t speak out. This is not the first time there has been an attack on his person by the magazine as it did that in 2011, putting him on the cover page, and as a result, the magazine premises were fire-bombed
After the last incident and the consequence in violence on the streets of Paris, many voices including those very near the magazine, spoke out against Chief Editor Stephane Charbonnier. Henri Roussel, one of the Hebdo founders, spoke out against the late editor, saying it was his “insistence on satirising Islam that led to his and his colleagues’ deaths”. as quoted in the French Nouvel Obs magazine.
Can this comment be interpreted as seeking to steer away from further collision courses? There are some who criticise Roussel for saying what he said. But it can be argued that overall French public opinion is now seeking a more-or-less middle course. According to polls published in France four out of 10 people want the press not to publish further cartoons that would upset the Muslim community there. Put another way, 42 per cent surveyed said although they support freedom of expression they called for negative caricatures to be stopped. However, it must be said 57 per cent still believed such cartoons should continue to be published.
But, things may still change further because of the deep international reactions in the different Islamic countries, which are openly adopting anti-French stances because of the cartoons. Countries from as far away as Niger to Iran, Chechnya, Pakistan and south-east Asia have been vociferous in their denunciations, which could pressure France to seek a new chapter in its relations with these countries and start questioning the plausibility of sticking to a “total freedom of speech or nothing” stance.
Marwan Asmar is a commentator based in Amman. He has long worked in journalism and has a PhD in Political Science from Leeds University in the United Kingdom.
