Charlie Hebdo - a modern malady

While the Islamic extremists are blatantly waging a war on liberal principles and demanding submission to their dogmatic interpretation of Islam, a malady has spread amongst those who should be defending and fighting back against this cancer that has been allowed to incubate within Western societies without confrontation. The efforts of the Islamists are helped by the cowardice of the spineless or ignorant liberals who are happier snapping at people who draw attention to this as ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ and congratulate themselves as ‘progressives’ and ‘advocates of multiculturalism’. And what a peaceful multicultural society - where if you dare accuse the religion of peace for being violent you’ll get a death threat, so you’d better watch yourselves. A unilateral peace offering where liberal rights of the majority are surrendered for the sake of not offending a tiny minority of extreme Muslims.

Politicians have shown a remarkable failure of looking at the problem in the eye as their first comments whenever a Islamist attack happens is to assure the world that this attack, by Islamists shouting ‘allahu akbar!’ and who post recruiting videos clearly stating that they are doing what they do because of their interpretations of Islam and their jihadist intentions to spread Islam throughout the world, has nothing to do with Islam. Obama in particular ridiculously said, regarding IS’s beheading of Peter Kassig, a 26 year old humanitarian worker, that this action represents ‘no faith, least of all the Muslim faith.’ The italics are mine. Does the president imply that the barbarous actions of IS has more to do with Buddhism or Quakerism? The interpretations by the Jihadists are, if you look, the most honest, simple and literal interpretations of their holy books. It takes mental acrobatics to metaphysic yourself out of edicts calling for the murder of homosexuals, apostates and unfaithful wives. Most moderate and modern Muslims, responsibly, thoughtfully and with theological and moral sophistication, do precisely this in their conduct of their daily life. However it cannot be denied that Islamists can always find verses to justify their actions and wave aside the more enlightened interpretation. However uncomfortable it is for Muslims and those who do not wish to offend anyone, myself included, ignoring the element of Islam is to fight against the ideology with a hand tied behind your back. Among the three monotheistic religions, the problems of competing interpretations have uniquely been a continuous struggle within Islam. Unlike the Jewish Sanhedrin or the Roman Catholic Pope (or the archbishop of Cantebury or the Coptic and other popes of the other catholic denominations), there is no central body of religious authority. This problem have come to a head by the escalating of violence as the result of Islamic regression towards extremism and violence fanned by imams calling for the return of the caliphate and the utility of Sharia law upon all citizens under the umbra of their influence without their consent and with the threat of and the flagrant use of barbaric violence. This is something the majority of peaceful and law abiding Muslims above all must take an unmitigated stand against.

German’s Chancellor Merkel, in her new year message, condemned people in Germany who joined the grass-roots PEGIDA protests against religious fanaticism and the extreme radical Islamists in particular Salafist Islamism as ‘having coldness in their hearts’, whereas it is plain that it is the Salafists who have attempted over 30 terrorist attacks in E.U. countries in the last dozen years who have hearts of ice. Too terrified to address the primary problem that’s causing PEGIDA to arise in the first place, she, like many politicians in the Western sphere, is happy to denounce, from the safe uplands of accepted moral righteousness and knowing no violent backlash will be forth coming, those who are seeing and responding to a problem, brushing them off as hateful or intolerant or racists. This attitude comes with the insulting assumption that everyone in the West are nascent racists and are forever on the verge of a Kristallnacht against Muslims. It also shows a woeful underestimation and total lack of understanding of the people they profess to represent, as attack after attack, provocation after provocation, no such events arose. Of course you always get some people with racist views who take this opportunity to vent their bigotry but the massive tsunami of unanimous condemnation from the politicians, media and social media come crushing down. Like the case of the crazy pastor in the US who threatened to burn some Korans or the alcohol and drug ridden fashion designer in Paris who spoke vile things against Jews. The gigantic media coverage on theses petty individuals and non-stories drew condemnation from all corners, as if those were the front lines of a battle against the major bigotry of our time. Whereas when Islamists who actually advocate and practise the treatment of women as second class citizens and who impose Islamic laws on a free secular society by threats and violence, no one dares to even address it for what it is.

What these pseudo-liberals do by taking the easy road tilting against windmills whilst ignoring the problem is masochistically creating an atmosphere where even to bring the subject up is to invite vile accusations of all kinds. They are implicit in tilling the soil where extremism can flourish. I’m sure many of them hold their views out of genuine goodness, kindness and solidarity for what they see as an attack on a minority who are largely law-abiding and integrated citizens. But they are very wrong in assuming that these acts of violence have nothing to do with Islam, that criticising Islamic ideology is racist as Islam is not a race, and that criticising Islam is bad because it offends Muslims, which brings us to the critical aspect of the freedom of speech.

After the attack, many commentators reveal themselves as members of the ‘But’ brigade. Almost inevitably they will start their say with a version of “I totally condemn violence and am in favour of freedom of speech, but…” In saying this they immediately show their lack of understanding of how the freedom must exist and indeed how vital it is as the main lifeblood of liberty and democracy. Rosa Luxemburg said that the freedom of speech means nothing unless it means the freedom for those who think differently. The freedom to dissent and to express contrarian opinions, especially towards authority, the majority or the powerful without the fear of repression and death is the beginning of human emancipation. It is the wellspring from which all other freedoms arise. This freedom, for which our generation is the first who did not have to fight for, has been slowly and painfully gained through opposition, bloodshed and bravery of many. Now many seem willing to let it erode before their eyes and indeed are helping to undermine and weaken this precious right.

In a free society, no one can claim exemption from criticism, especially when they demand this exclusive right by violence. That is truly offensive. Charlie Hebdo was one of the few publications brave enough to stand up for their radical tradition of iconoclastic pricking of bubble reputations and to fart in the face of the mighty and powerful and reveal them to be just like everyone else. They are the ones who are brave enough to shout that the emperor is without clothes. It is their duty and their job as well as their right as satirists to offend. Those who claim being offended as some sort of claim to legal protection or moral high ground again have missed the point completely. Can you possibly postulate a ‘respectable political cartoon’? Even if you do think that the cartoon are highly noxious and racist, which I challenge you to see and make up your own minds if you haven’t already, you must take up the edict of the great Frenchman Voltaire, who said “I disagree with your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to express them.” The recent call for UN blasphemy laws clearly mark the ridiculousness of the situation. Everyone is offended by something every day of their lives but it gives them no right to kill those who do things they consider offensive or call for the hate speech police. The much lamented Christopher Hitchens told the story of Dr Samuel Johnson, the compiler of the first dictionary, who was congratulated by various people including a group of respectable London ladies. The ladies congratulated him, especially in his having not included any vile or offensive words. Dr Johnson replied “Ladies, I’m glad to learn that you have the tenacity and knowledge in looking them up.” This story explains all you need to know about the censorious instinct and the trap you dig for yourself if you do implement laws to control ideas and thoughts. Who decides what’s ‘offensive’? How far do you have to go to self-censor just in case you might ‘offend’ someone? Especially if they are standing on a step-ladder peeking into your window determined to find something to be offended by? He further stated, summing up the key essence of the great texts that is all you have to read to understand the point - John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and John Milton's Areopagitica - that it is not just the right of the individual to speak to be heard, but the right of everyone else to be able to hear their arguments. Every time someone is silenced, whether through threats of violence or self censorship, the audience suffer for the lack of opportunity to be challenged by their ideas. If everyone in society agrees upon a point except one person, that person not only should not be made silent, but his or her right should be given extra protection. Even if he or she is gravely wrong, it gives everyone the chance to establish first principles by rehashing to themselves why he or she is wrong. It is likely that what they say has a grain of truth that may make you question what you know and how you know them. The demand for 'respect' also shows a weakness in the mentalities of the Islamists, who instinctively feel that their ideology is so brittle that they must holler and shout and threaten and kill those who dare challenge it, even if it is by something as small and innocuous as a cartoon.

Thankfully, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, the media, after some hand-wringing and hesitation, seemed to have grown some backbone and many news outlets have showed the cartoons and the subsequent Charlie Hebdo cover after the assassination. It is possible that in this case the media itself feels threatened and finally realised what they should have realised long time ago - that the only way to combat the threat of violence, ensure the safety of journalists and maintain the dignity of the great vocation that is journalism is to band together in the spirit of Spartacus and stand up to the threats of thugs and spread out the threat rather than leaving it up to individuals like Charlie Hebdo to brave the squalls. Many more moderate Muslims have also been speaking out which is terrifically heartening. This is vitally important because at the crux of the Islamist Jihadi movement is a war within Islam. Whilst Jihadists may be a small percentage, a small percentage of a billion Muslims is quite a lot. They are also the dog that wags the whole dog – in a study examining the believes of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries by looking at the way people voted, it was found that about 15% of voters supported extreme Islamist parties and up to 50-60% agreed with the implementation of certain Sharia laws such as physical punishments for adulterers and thieves. Whilst most Muslims will not even contemplate the use of violence, they may not be entirely against the idea of the secular society in the West becoming more Islamic. Hence even after an act as brutal as Charlie Hebdo there weren’t huge Muslim rallies condemning the extremists killing in the name of Islam but there were huge rallies decrying the ‘inflammatory’ publication of the new Charlie Hebdo cover – that of a crying Muhammad holding up a Je suis Charlie sign with a caption reading tout est pardonne - all is forgiven – a extremely gentle, touching and consolatory reply to a horrifically violent act conducted by men who killed while shouting the prophet's name. This shows where many Muslim's priorities unfortunately lie. In order for Islam to have a reform like the ones Judaism and Christianity have had, it is vital that moderate Muslims, secularist Muslims, liberal Muslims and atheists from Muslim backgrounds to show their solidarity for the values and freedoms that are the basis of their freedom to practice their faith without impeachment. The only society where freedom of religion exists is one where freedom of speech reign as the former is a subset of the latter. For those who say that freedom of speech must not impeach people’s freedom of religion are making a false dichotomy. Whereas a society where one religious idea is forcibly thrust down people’s throat lubricated with sniveling words like ‘respect’ and ‘multiculturalism’ is the beginning of a theocracy. 

The Islamic world used to be the leader in terms of science, literature, economy and wealth; something Muslims often point out in debates as a sign of the benefits of Islam. However, what made the Golden Age of Islam in the Middle Ages so fecund was precisely the opposite of what the Islamists are trying to impose - tolerance, openness to ideas and debates. For this reason, moderate Muslims should be offended. For the attack on liberty, Liberals should be offended. For the use of violence on innocents, all citizens of civilised society need be offended. However, we will not reply in kind, but we do need to stand up and say with a unified voice that up with this we will not put. Whether you are a Muslim, or an atheist liberal, whether left wing or right wing, one must realise that if anything is worth defending, it is the freedom of expression, whose worth should transcend all other differences of creeds.