The deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo's
office in Paris by armed gunmen appeared to be a
brutal attack on freedom of expression. On the face of
it the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo's offices had done
nothing except exercise their right to free speech
guaranteed to them by French law and the UN Charter.
Therefore to attack them in such cold blood seemed
incomprehensible to the ordinary person. This attack
appeared almost to be an attack on the identity of
France, an affront to the values of the French
Republic. It drew international condemnation and
caused widespread dismay. The perpetuators of these
attacks were tracked down in a matter of days and shot
dead. Their motivations for the attack will never be
known. Perhaps it was best to view these attacks as
pure savagery rather than the work of some reasonable
or calculating mind. To the French in particular, and
the Europeans and other westerners in general, this
attack illustrated once again the barbaric and
unyielding nature of the Muslims and strengthened the
hands of the emerging neo-facists of today's Europe.
However if we dig deeper into this
incident we are confronted by some confounding truths.
It is reported that when the two brothers, suspected
in this attack, were cornered by the police they
initially took a hostage but then later released her
saying that they did not want to take innocent lives.
Furthermore according to media reports the two
brothers had also attempted to negotiate with the
police whom however rejected any talks of
negotiations. Why would these suspects, assuming they
carried out this attack, walk into an office kill its
staff indiscriminately but then later release a
hostage because she was 'innocent'? How could the same
persons who perpetuated this savagery then turn around
and seek a negotiated settlement with the police?
Surely these brothers, if we accept
that they carried out this attack, had a motive for
targeting Charlie Hebdo's staff but not risking the
life a hostage. Surely they must have believed that
they had a valid grievance to try and negotiate their
surrender and be given a chance to defend themselves
in the court of law. Every so often we hear of
deranged individuals targeting innocents in schools,
parks, cinemas and the like and then killing
themselves when confronted by the police. Yet these
two brothers did not seek the same destiny. Better
yet, why are the perpetuators of those attacks not
classified as belonging to a group or religion that
threatens the very existence of a nation yet these two
brothers are portrayed as Muslims threatening the
European way of life?
Before returning to these issues we
should first look at the central issue that fuelled
this attack. Although the two brothers were never
given a chance to explain their targeting of Charlie
Hebdo's office yet it was widely accepted that their
motivation for attacking this particular establishment
was due to its cartoonists ridiculing Prophet MuhammadPeace
be upon Him.
Europeans in general and Frenchmen in particular
deplored this attack on their freedom and there have
been widespread calls for Europeans to exercise their
right to freedom of expression by making drawings of
Prophet MuhammadPBUH.
It has been stated that Muslims hate us, they deplore
our freedoms and that they want to compel us into
submission through the use of terror. We should stand
shoulder to shoulder in defiance of this threat and
bravely defend our right to freedom of expression. It
is interesting to note that when a Muslim speaks out
against the abuses of western countries in Muslim
lands and asks Muslims to defend their lands then such
a person is accused of inciting violence and put
behind bars. Yet when a western draws pictures of
Prophet MuhammadPBUHridiculing
him and inciting the beliefs of 1.6 billion people
around the globe then he is hailed as a hero and a
model to be followed. Why is the right to speak out
against injustice challenged as incitement of violence
as an abuse of the right of freedom of expression, but
the right to abuse the religion of billions of people
around the globe upheld as a proper use of this very
same right?
In truth the demonizing of the Prophet
MuhammadPBUHis
not new to European history. European history is full
of visual or written accounts demonizing the figure of
Prophet MuhammadPBUH,
portraying him in all forms of dehumanizing figures.
With the rise of European imperialism however, such
blunt attacks were put aside by European scholars who
instead embraced the more subtle arts of persuasion
embodied in the works of Orientalists. The recent
resurgence of such grotesque attacks on Islam is both
regrettable yet at the same time explainable.
Europeans frustrated with the lack of progress by
Orientalist writers (as witnessed in the revival of
Islamism) simply reverted back to their basic
instincts and possibly a more gratifying method of
insulting Muslims. To them these blunt attacks on
Muslims and especially the Prophet MuhammadPBUHserve
a double purpose. Firstly it gratifies their need to
insult Islam more openly and passionately. Also if
their abuses inspire a backlash from Muslim
individuals then they can simply use it to justify
their continued abuse of the Islamic faith. In that
sense Charlie Hebdo was not the only source in
inspiring hatred towards Muslims all over the world.
It was merely one in a long line of sources dedicated
to feeding the new-found genocidal tendencies of
Europe and America.
The loss of even one life is both
regrettable and deplorable. Never should we
encourage the
taking of innocent lives. It is also
worth pointing out that Muslims have no natural hatred
or enmity towards Frenchman, Europeans, or Americans.
We do not envy them their take on life, or their
beliefs in the values of the European Enlightenment
and the entailing freedoms and individual rights. Our
feelings can be described more as indifference rather
than anything else. We may even congratulate them in
pursuing a political philosophy which holds meaning to
them. If Voltaire, Rosseau and Montesqiue inspire them
in their political life then we say:bon
chance.
Yet where we do draw a red-line is when they use these
freedoms to hurl insults at the beliefs of billions of
people around the globe. When they use these rights to
incite hatred and violence towards Muslims all over
the globe. They believe it their God-given right to
force Muslims, not only those residing in Europe and
America but also these living in their very own lands
to submit to the ideas of the French forefathers. To
relinquish their own history, values and beliefs in
exchange for the writings of the Enlightenment.
The deaths of Charlie Hebdo's staff
drew million-man marches in the capitals of Europe. I
ask both the laymen and the leaders present in these
marches, where were you when France invaded Mali
simply because they did not agree with the political
beliefs of the Tuareg? Where are your marches when
French bullets and planes kill thousands of civilians,
including women and children, in Afghanistan, Mali,
Syria, Iraq and dozens of other countries? Francois
Hollande kills thousands of innocent civilians in
Mali, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria simply because their
political inspirations are different to his. He stands
shoulder to shoulder, like a brother in arms, with
Benjamin Netenyahu because four jews were killed in
these attacks. Yet he forgets that Netanyahu only two
months ago killed more than two thousand innocent
civilians in the Gaza strip including several
journalists covering the indiscriminate genocidal war.
France provides intelligence and logistical support to
American-led operations in dozens of countries around
the Muslim world. All of this is being done why?
Because the Muslim fail to be inspired by Voltaire?
Because they see Rosseau as nothing more than a
romantic Frenchman? Because we dare think that our
political destiny is different to yours? That we
should be inspired by our own history and thinkers
rather than yours? Everyday Muslims are being
slaughtered on an industrial scale. You brush it under
the carpet as if they were fleas. Yet when your own
actions propel a backlash by some individuals whose
sanity might be a matter of law, you feel offended in
true Gallic spirit. You shout out that your continent
is under attack, that Muslims are overrunning your
countries, that they want to eliminate you and your
way of life. You call for arms amid calls ofViva
le Republique.
No doubt the attack on Charlie Hebdo's
office will not be brushed off as another of the
dozens of incidents we saw in European and American
cities by frustrated individuals (think of the dozens
of attacks in American schools last year). Rather it
will be painted as an attack on Fortress Europe. It
will inspire more bouts of abuses against Muslims and
Islam. More pictures insulting Islam will be published
(as Charlie has already done). More neo-nazi marches
will be held across Europe, more restrictions on
practicing Muslims will be legalized throughout
European capitals, more bombings and murders of
Muslims around the globe will be justified. Europe
will be aflame with cries of war. But the Europe of
today is not the same as the Europe of a 100 years
ago. It can no longer simply ignore the beliefs and
aspirations of other nations around the world. If it
wants to extinguish the flames of hope inspired in
billions of humans around the world then it should
contemplate the possibility that her flames of war
might very well end up engulfing Fortress Europe along
with it.