News:
Response to the killings of 10 people on the 7th January, 2015, at the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, by two Muslims of French nationality, has sent shock waves around the world in support of the right of magazines like Charlie Hebdo to insult Islam and Muslims under the banner of ‘freedom of speech’. On 11th January, the largest ever demonstration of solidarity took place in Paris under the slogan of ‘Je suis Charlie’, and world leaders flocked to show their support.
Since the stated motif of the killers was revenge against the magazine’s consistent portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims in insulting cartoons, Islam has been criticized for its supposed intolerance, and Muslims have become, more than ever before, the figures of hate in France.
By contrast, the victims of this massacre have achieved saint-like veneration, and the magazine for which they worked has been elevated from the gutter to a standard-bearer for the secular ideals of the French Republic in support of open debate and free expression.
Comment:
French militant secularism has drawn and crossed an artificial, and entirely avoidable, line in the sand for Muslims, and the price has been heavy. Those who were killed at Charlie Hebdo were not so much victims of terror, as victims of the arrogance that dictates to others what they should accept of insults. The freedom of expression for which the magazine Charlie Hebdo was targeted is in truth highly selective, far from equal and certainly does not extend to criticism of the creed, holy symbols or practice of secularism itself.
It has become an article of faith by many writers, cartoonists and politicians in the West that their way of life depends upon being able to insult Islam and Muslims with impunity. This has been evidenced by the reactionary publishing in recent years of offending items whenever tensions have flared. The BBC for example has now shown, for the first time, cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in the aftermath of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo and is said to be reviewing its former self-imposed restraint in such matters. It is as though the cartoonists have used their pens to push western democracy down the barrel of democracy’s own gun with no escape plan. If that is not rigid fundamentalism then what is?
This inability of secular leaders to backtrack on the issue is not a sign of ideological integrity. Rather, it is a sign of absurdity, because the reality of what has been printed is not speech. It is a matter of insults and offending the feelings, and while there are correct and incorrect ways for Muslims to deal with this, none have been so liberally exposed to insult in the media as Muslims have been. Who then should back down on this issue – the offenders or the offended?
Where those offended have been other than Muslims, then it has generally been the offenders that have been expected to back away and this is a palpable unfairness when Muslims are otherwise the ones expected to swallow up their pride and dignity. Examples of double standards are not hard to find. The 1990 Gaysot Act makes Holocaust denial a criminal offense in France, as it is in some other European countries, although denial of the alleged genocide against the Armenians failed to be upheld as a criminal offence in France despite the efforts in 2012 of President Nicholas Sarkozy to enshrine this into French law. In 2009, however, the octogenarian Maurice Sinet was taken to court for joking about Jean Sarkozy that: “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad”. Jean Sarkozy is the President’s son and the joke was that his future success would come from his marrying a wealthy Jewish heiress. This was deemed to be offensive, and he was fired from his job for refusing to apologize. Who was his employer? None other than the freedom loving, Islam bashing Charlie Hebdo!
Returning to the subject of genocide, it should never be forgotten that freedom of expression was never allowed in France when it came to genocide in Algeria. The French secular government banned many literary works at the time that criticized terrorizing and torturing Algerian Muslims on a massive scale during their war of independence. Amongst the banned works were: Jean-Luc Godard’s film, ‘La Petit Soldat’ – 1960, Franz Fanon’s book,’ Les Damnés de la Terre’ -1961 and Gillo Pontecorvo’s film, ‘The Battle’ – 1966. The issue of literary freedom, which is so black and white when Islam and Muslims are being ridiculed, can become many shades of grey for secularists in other contexts.
Shifting to a different type of expression, which can also arouse great passions, will further exemplify the flexibility that secular states are able to apply to the issue of freedom of expression when Islam is not being targeted for insult. Since 2003 it has been a crime in France, to cause an ‘outrage’ against the French national anthem or the French flag in a publicly organized event, such as a football match. Such a thing might cause so much offense that violence could result! Secularism protects football fans from being upset by disrespect of their national songs and symbols, but the followers of Islam are belittled for loving their prophet and for being upset by insults hurled against him. In 2010 a new version of the law made it an offence to desecrate the French flag, and to publish pictures of such an act, even if it was committed in a private place. The first person to be convicted of this new crime had to pay a fine of €750. He was one of France’s 5 million Muslims. In Denmark it is permissible to burn the Danish flag, but the burning of foreign flags was considered by the Danish parliament to be a matter of foreign policy and hence the burning of foreign flags was prohibited without compromising the principle of freedom of expression.
It is clear that once the Muslim world has united its affairs behind the firm leadership of a righteous Caliph, then such a leadership would easily guide confused secular lawmakers out of their own rabbit holes on the issue of insulting the Prophet without the necessity for bloodshed. In the absence of this Islamic leadership, militant secularism will continue to defend everyone’s right to insult Islam, and lead the offensive against Muslims. No final word could express France’s secular militancy more clearly than the reminder that French law even targeted the Muslim woman’s symbols of modesty and piety since it banned the hijab in schools in 2004, and the veil from all public areas in 2011. May Allah protect us from their schemes, corruption and lies.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ بِطَانَةً مِّن دُونِكُمْ لاَ يَأْلُونَكُمْ خَبَالاً وَدُّواْ مَا عَنِتُّمْ قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاء مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ قَدْ بَيَّنَّا لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
“You who have iman! do not take any outside yourselves as intimates. They will do anything to harm you. They love what causes you distress. Hatred has appeared out of their mouths, but what their breasts hide is far worse. We have made the Signs clear to you if you use your intellect.”
(Ali-Imran: 118)
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Dr. Abdullah Robin