The tragedy at Charlie Hebdo has resonated in horror and devastation for anyone involved in journalism. Most of us fear vicious verbal reprimands or being charged with libel at the worst for our controversial work. Shots that rang out Jan. 7 in Paris reminded us we cannot rule out more horrifying consequences to the exercise of free speech.
It is important to clarify our position that Muslims in our community and around the world should not be obligated to dissociate themselves from the Kouachi brothers’ actions no more than they should the actions of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS or the like. The vast majorities of Muslims abhor violence and should not have to apologize for the actions of groups they have nothing to do with.
Westerners also must avoid being quick to accept our own societal norms and standards as correct, and fall into the trap of “othering” cultures. “Othering” allows for oppression and racism and justifies wars in the Middle East, as we see their countries as backwards and incapable of the subjective concept of progress without the enlightened guidance of the West. It is important to remember that western society is littered with hypocrisy stemming from racism, oppression of marginalized people and the consequences of colonialism. To understand a situation objectively, westerners must look at themselves from the outside in.
That being said, it is crucial that media of art and journalism not be censored to avoid offending people. A most prevalent threat to democracy and free speech is in danger of succumbing to fear and terror. To give in to the threat of violence would subject free speech to a constant bombardment of attacks from any group taking issue with being offended by media.
Following the computer hacking scandal presumably carried out by North Korean, entities in response to the film “The Interview,” President Obama said, “If somebody is able to intimidate us out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing once they see a documentary that they don’t like or news reports that they don’t like.”
It can be dangerous to negotiate with terrorists’ demands even when human life is at stake, precisely because it gives incentive to terrorists to continue threatening human life. As long as enemies know we can be intimidated by violence, they will continue to be encouraged to use it as an effective strategy. The president hit the nail on the head. If extremists will see their massacre of journalists over a cartoon as a potent tool of getting their way, it will continue and degenerate into an endless cycle of violence.
Some detractors of Charlie Hedbo’s actions have argued the magazine should have known their depictions of the Prophet Muhammad would provoke Muslims into reacting in one way or another; that choosing to offend meant they were asking for it. This argument is about as befitting as saying a woman in Laramie who wears sexually enticing clothing or gets excessively intoxicated is as to blame for rape as her attacker. People wearing clothing considered distasteful by some or drawing of offensive cartoons are not violent acts. Disruptive-yes. Appropriate-maybe not. However, the perpetrator is ultimately to blame for a greater societal ill. Giving a terrorist a veto because they are excitable is a grave error in judgment.
In France, Muslims are a minority-a marginalized minority even. Shayhk Dr. Yasir Qadhi, Sunni cleric and dean of academic affairs at the al-Maghrib Institute, said in an interview on WBUR’s On Point that focusing on the issue of blasphemy distracts from what he says in the real issue: all extremists in Islam are acting in political grievance. “Were it not for political grievances, insulting the Prophet would not lead to terrorism.” Shayhk Dr. Qadhi makes a compelling argument to quiet secularists who would say all the journalists did was draw a cartoon; no one died because of it. The extremists, some would say, are responding to violence perpetuated by western entities in their countries and the cartoons were not products of innocent journalists, but products of a racist society trying to eliminate Muslim interests throughout the world. Holocaust denial, he points out, is illegal in France. The west, he says, often negates relativism when failing to realize prevailing cultural views are being imposed on unwilling segments of society.
There is no doubt these facts are true. A cultural war between the Muslim East and West has been fought for 1,400 years, and has not dissipated to a comfortable level for either side. As with most conflicts, however, a single entity is not to blame and the problem is reciprocal. The West must reevaluate its positions towards Muslims. The West should ask how to work together rather than how to exploit and marginalize Muslims, in the Middle East and throughout the world. Muslims, we contend, must determine within themselves whether continued extremism and violence propels them towards greater autonomy and success or towards a never-ending abyss of conflict. Muslim extremists must decide if their religion is a journey of finding inner peace or slaughtering their enemies to impose a worldwide caliphate.
There are no heroes in this scenario. The labeling of those we see as “others” as “evil” only supports the Bush-era notion of “us against them,” which was a blunder of epic proportions. A productive discourse can only result from a scaffold of relativism where no one is righteous and no one inherently nefarious. We are all human beings that desire security and prosperity and our entanglements only hamper positive momentum.
