Je ne suis pas Charlie (I am not Charlie)
Much has been written about freedom of speech, which in the context of the killings perpetrated in Paris, is often used interchangeably with freedom of the press. As a practicing muslim who revers the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) as a prophet of God and the seal of the prophets (the last prophet) I found the attacks on the person of the prophet by Charlie Hebdo and the Danish news cartoons very difficult to bear. I found no reason for the disgrace heaped upon a man of God who lived 1400 years ago and whose religion preaches peace, charity and the submission to God.
If there were events or actions, considered to be pure evil, perpetrated by men in the name of religion claiming God as their benefactor, then surely, intelligent and educated people living and writing in civilised societies can see through the artifice that is this paper thin construct by distinguishing between man and religion. Or does one chose to believe it and propagate it, because it falls neatly into your preconceived views of the word. If on the other hand you genuinely believe that men of this type are an accurate representation of the religion they follow then it goes without saying that you have something more than a cursory understanding of the religion that you are condemning and the life of the man that you are lampooning.
If that understanding exists, you would know the position that the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) holds in the Islamic faith. You would understand that proclaiming the oneness of God is only half the proclamation of faith required of a muslim, with other part being belief in the status of the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) as a messenger of God. You would also know that even God blesses the Prophet many times in the Quran. You would also know how intimate the relationship is between the Prophet and the Islamic faith. As one poet puts it, the Prophet to Islam is as beauty is to a rose.
So what then, is the benefit of the denigration the Prophet of Islam. How is his actions of 1400 years ago a current affair that requires the response of humiliation and degradation. I cannot answer that question for you save to say that the argument that Charlie Hebdo is a notorious anti religious publication that attacks all religions not only Islam is equally weak. That is akin to a physician saying I donot only treat black patients recklessly in my diagnosis and treatment of them, I also treat white and asian patients equally badly. Since when did simple one dimensional sameness of action become a yardstick by which the integrity of action is measured.
So what then does a grieving muslim do when faced with such behaviour. The overwhelming majority of us spoke out against it, refined our thinking and arguments against such behaviour and wrote out against it, decided not to buy such publications, boycotted the advertisers appearing in such publications, instituted legal action against such publications and fretted in private. We did not take or support violent action in opposition to such publications because our Prophet when physically and verbally abused during his spreading of the word of God 1400 years ago bore those insults stoically. A living person can learn the error of their ways, change, ask for forgiveness. A dead person cannot grow, learn or see the error of their ways, so killing those unfortunate enough to confuse school yard humour with social commentary deprives us all of the opportunity to successfully argue our case. This is what the majority of Muslims believe. But believeing this does not make me a supporter of Charlie Hebdo. Quite the contrary. Their magazine makes me afraid of our understanding of freedom of speech and press and I quite easily state that I do not support Charlie Hebdo, I donot consider their cartoons to be in line with freedom of speech or press and believe that it is an affront to civilisation and not only Islamic civilisation.
What I do and quite clearly support is Charlie Hebdo’s right to make these mistakes, without their lives being threatened or taken. Killing in the name of God is the ultimate irony, as it is the last refuge of someone so weak in their faith that they believe it will collapse unless the opponent is destroyed, ultimately drawing attention to the weakness of the very faith they profess to have.
I will march for for a persons right to criticise, ridicule even in order to draw attention to a social injustice or right a wrong, but I will not march for Charlie Hebdo.
If there were events or actions, considered to be pure evil, perpetrated by men in the name of religion claiming God as their benefactor, then surely, intelligent and educated people living and writing in civilised societies can see through the artifice that is this paper thin construct by distinguishing between man and religion. Or does one chose to believe it and propagate it, because it falls neatly into your preconceived views of the word. If on the other hand you genuinely believe that men of this type are an accurate representation of the religion they follow then it goes without saying that you have something more than a cursory understanding of the religion that you are condemning and the life of the man that you are lampooning.
If that understanding exists, you would know the position that the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) holds in the Islamic faith. You would understand that proclaiming the oneness of God is only half the proclamation of faith required of a muslim, with other part being belief in the status of the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) as a messenger of God. You would also know that even God blesses the Prophet many times in the Quran. You would also know how intimate the relationship is between the Prophet and the Islamic faith. As one poet puts it, the Prophet to Islam is as beauty is to a rose.
So what then, is the benefit of the denigration the Prophet of Islam. How is his actions of 1400 years ago a current affair that requires the response of humiliation and degradation. I cannot answer that question for you save to say that the argument that Charlie Hebdo is a notorious anti religious publication that attacks all religions not only Islam is equally weak. That is akin to a physician saying I donot only treat black patients recklessly in my diagnosis and treatment of them, I also treat white and asian patients equally badly. Since when did simple one dimensional sameness of action become a yardstick by which the integrity of action is measured.
So what then does a grieving muslim do when faced with such behaviour. The overwhelming majority of us spoke out against it, refined our thinking and arguments against such behaviour and wrote out against it, decided not to buy such publications, boycotted the advertisers appearing in such publications, instituted legal action against such publications and fretted in private. We did not take or support violent action in opposition to such publications because our Prophet when physically and verbally abused during his spreading of the word of God 1400 years ago bore those insults stoically. A living person can learn the error of their ways, change, ask for forgiveness. A dead person cannot grow, learn or see the error of their ways, so killing those unfortunate enough to confuse school yard humour with social commentary deprives us all of the opportunity to successfully argue our case. This is what the majority of Muslims believe. But believeing this does not make me a supporter of Charlie Hebdo. Quite the contrary. Their magazine makes me afraid of our understanding of freedom of speech and press and I quite easily state that I do not support Charlie Hebdo, I donot consider their cartoons to be in line with freedom of speech or press and believe that it is an affront to civilisation and not only Islamic civilisation.
What I do and quite clearly support is Charlie Hebdo’s right to make these mistakes, without their lives being threatened or taken. Killing in the name of God is the ultimate irony, as it is the last refuge of someone so weak in their faith that they believe it will collapse unless the opponent is destroyed, ultimately drawing attention to the weakness of the very faith they profess to have.
I will march for for a persons right to criticise, ridicule even in order to draw attention to a social injustice or right a wrong, but I will not march for Charlie Hebdo.
Comments