While governments of numerous Muslim states, including Pakistan, sympathised with the French over the attack, there is a sense of the issue being pushed under the carpet. While the Peshawar attacks saw a stream of opinion pieces and television coverage, very few papers mentioned the incident in their editorials. There were also very few opinion pieces on this. The general drift of the argument presented in them was, which a lot of people believe in, that given what Charlie Hebdo had done, the violent reaction of the Algerian brothers was inevitable.
We are certainly looking at two opposing sensibilities — on the one hand is the European and particularly French attitude towards religion, and the other, the Muslim tradition of faith and ultimate respect for religious icons. The French attitude towards religion is a byproduct of their historical experience of it and the violence which came out of dependence on religion. While many like the British-Pakistani writer, Tariq Ali, see the Charlie Hebdo affair from the prism of racism in France and Europe, it is also a fact that there are those in Europe who are intrigued by political Islam and push the envelope of discussion. Notwithstanding the differing belief systems, it is necessary to understand that not every Muslim who objects to the idea of disrespecting the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is a fundamentalist. The world of the Muslims is far from where they have a ‘matter of fact’ attitude towards religion or religious icons. It is just very tragic that radicals take over the cause of making others appreciate our religious sensitivities and that too in a violent fashion.
But let’s consider two opposing examples from amongst the Muslims that came out of the Paris attacks. There are the two Kouachi brothers who killed 12 people. And then there were two Muslims both killed in the attack. Mustapha Ourrad, who was a copy editor at the magazine and was himself an Algerian by descent, and the Muslim policeman, Ahmed Merabet. We don’t know how these two men felt about the cartoon controversy, but they certainly, in their own way, fought for the right of the magazine to perform its task. In fact, Merabet’s case stands in stark comparison to Mumtaz Qadri’s, another policeman who killed Salmaan Taseer, the man he was deputed to guard, for a perceived act of blasphemy.
It is essential to engage the world in a peaceful dialogue about our religious sensitivities with the understanding that some might not appreciate it at all. In such a case, violence is not the only means of response. It should be noted that in Pakistan’s case, blasphemy at times has been used as a political issue. Thus, it is not surprising to see that the bulk of the cases registered under the blasphemy law made by Ziaul Haq in 1987, the majority are Muslims (out of 1,434 cases registered from 1987 to 2014, 719 are of Muslims). As a matter of fact, the bulk of the Muslims booked under this law are those who are generally considered to be more orthodox. In the past few years, we have seen people being accused under this law on the basis of spurious evidence. Not to forget cases in which people were tortured to death and then burnt without any assessment of their alleged crime or the evidence against them.
Former pop star Junaid Jamshed, who is associated with the Tableeghi Jamaat, has also been accused of committing blasphemy and was forced to take refuge in the UK to safeguard his life as a result. It would be quite interesting to see this case debated in a court of law. Perhaps, it may teach us a way to deal with an outside world that is likely to become increasingly provocative. Militancy draws extreme reactions and not sympathy, especially if there is an understanding that blasphemy was used perhaps, as an excuse to attack the West, which is a dominant pattern in al Qaeda-driven violence. The two Algerian boys were recruited by al Qaeda in Yemen to strike inside the heart of the perceived enemy as it did before. We know that if the intent was to stop the publication of sacrilegious cartoons, then al Qaeda has failed. The cartoons will increase, not stop.
Unfortunately, these attacks will result in strengthening of the political right across Europe and the Muslim population will be subjected to greater scrutiny, perhaps at times unfairly. The pressure on Muslims in Europe to prove themselves better citizens will increase mostly by demonstrating commitment to Western secularism that they are not prepared for. Indeed, this is a test for both free speech and multiculturalism in Europe. Increasing intelligence is one option but then we just saw people can slip through the intelligence radar. A sociopolitical solution and a dialogue are necessary both in the West and the Muslim world. It’s better to talk about this than go silent.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (43)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
You hold some interesting views about the West, including ness coverage. Obviously you must be getting your news from different media sources than me. In fact most of the world news ET (also look at the masthead) comes from the same selective "Western" sources. Are you going to say that Hitler was misunderstood? :-)
@Sexton Blake: Hitler was "not stupid" - that is not the first thing people think about when his name comes up. And "Mein Kampf" had standards? Verrry interestin' !
@wb: Dear wb, Interesting reply. I did not totally agree with all your points, but will not place you on my "Persona Non Grata list". I did read Mein Kampf many years ago, and now you have mentioned it will look around for a copy to refresh my memory, although I have been led to understand the revised version is not quite up to the original's standard. Many people are unaware that Hitler was not stupid, and under his stewardship Germany made a rapid economic recovery that was the envy of the western world in the 1930s. In the meantime I will look out for your ET missives.
I have attempted responding to Toticalling twice but ET didn't publish.
As for Gp65 and Milind, you people come here with an agenda and anyone can go through your posts of the last 2 years to uncover the pattern of your comments. While you and your ilk may think that you are logic personified, the truth is that you guys are bred on Wikipedia and random google searches, with not even an iota of academic knowledge about most of the things you comment on.
As for my comment, it was not ad hominem but sarcasm, which you guys just don't get. Or perhaps you get it only when it is employed in the most vile firm by the likes of Charlie Hebdo against Islam.
@wb: 'water bottle' the Swastika comes from the HINDU religion. It was adopted by Hitler. And you reading Mein Kampf clearly demonstrate your ilk. Virulent and malevolent. In the US '..free to do all this' would be the white supremacists. The KKK. And they do not like dark hindus. Free speech is guaranteed in the US under the First Amendment. But it is not abused.like it is in Bharat.
@Razi - Typical response... As it stands, you guys are low on logic & reason. On top of it, you indulge in arguments... When cornered, you attack the messenger rather than the arguments.. Grow up, build your logic, reason and then argue...
@Sexton Blake:
"Just keep in mind that a small Mediterranean country has managed to make it illegal in many many countries, including most of Europe, to have free speech and or dialogue. I do not agree with it, but why not for Islam?"
I'm guessing you're talking about Israel, even though it is rarely referred to as a Mediterranean country.
It hasn't done anything against free speech. Some European countries have taken upon itself to ban denying holocaust.
Contrary to that, you can come to India and deny holocaust, in fact, you can buy mein kamph (I'm reading one, right now) and in fact you can even use Swastika openly and praise or write about Hitler as much as you want.
In fact there is a shop that goes by the name Hitler.
Also you're free to do all those things in USA.
@Sexton Blake: There is a law in all European countries which forbids raciast and hate speeches. Equaly there are those who challenge the law and act illegaly and eventualy are brought to the court and reprimided and fined. In francea unique country where people the groups who have complained against Charlie have not had success, neither the Church nor the muslim communities. This is likely to vhange in the next I forecast. Mind you France is a unique country where citizens do not respect its laws.
Rex Minor
In Miss Ayeshas article there are too many misstatements; perhaps the author should once gain review her article and make necessary corrections. We are already having enormous problems which unlike encyclopedia has thousands of incorrect statements..
Rex Minor
@Gp65: If your knowledge is limited to wikipedia world, then why must you tackle subjects which one learns in universities? "The dignity of a human is not violable is Article one of the German constitution, and like the Vatican head of State said today that he will punch the person who insults his mother!! No one has the right to insult the religion, but this does not mean that violence should be used against such crackpots. People who cannot tolerate, must go to the legal authorities in the country where the cartonist reside. The French muslim communities have not had success and they should have addressed the European court.
Rex Minor
Pak parliament just passed a resolution condeming Charlie Hebdo. So there is that.
@wb: Just keep in mind that a small Mediterranean country has managed to make it illegal in many many countries, including most of Europe, to have free speech and or dialogue. I do not agree with it, but why not for Islam?
@observer: Reciprocity maybe an answer though have no idea how it can be implemented. One way would be for groups of like-minded countries form a Consortium of Infidel Nations (pronounced "SIN") to agree on reciprocity rules when dealing with matters of faith, freedom, and immigration with Ummah countries as a group (as the jihadis are most likely to come from those countries). For example, freedom to practice one's faith and immigration will be denied if it is not reciprocated.
@truthbetold: I agree. But why do the host countries allow such people (the ones who can't live by host country values and laws) into their countries in the first place? All the attacks on non-Muslims and non-Muslim nations by jihadi fanatics - whatever the motivation political or religious, as killing is killing - before and after 9/11 (and the evidence mounts b y the day) should have been wake-up calls. (The premise of the movie, "Minority Report" does not sound so outlandish - prevent crime before it occurs. The notions that drive jihadiism are within the religion - texts and interpretations, practice, and history - nations are unwilling to act because of political correctness and "It is against our values". Isn't preserving the security of their citizens and nation from enemies the most important value?
@lalai: The core issue is that you believe Charlie Hebdo and the Kouachi brothers are 2 extreme ends. They are not. One end is much further extreme than the other. Publishing insults is not the same as killing. Taking a life is not the same as verbal abuse. The punishment for defamation in most cultures is not the same as that for murder. The day you understand it is when you would understand why the rest of the world finds these responses intolerant.
The world media, particularly in the West, is very selective. The French killed thousands in Libya with little comment, since the Paris incident US drones and aircraft have killed many people, in Syria 17 people would be killed every hour. Many of the people killed are innocents just going about their own private business and not writing ridiculous nonsense designed to inflame tempers. Also, I do not recall seeing too many leaders marching arm in arm through Paris streets as French/UK/US jets pounded Libya into the stone-age in 2011.
@Razi: Excellent rebuttal. there is a whole plethora of them, supported by ET. Spreading their vitriol. You can wonder what kind of human beings can grind out fake statistics and perpetual, unending hate. They are from the hindutva school of thought. brainwashed by swamis. If it is a hindu writing evil, then it's freedom of speech, but if it's a rebuttal then it is censured, or becomes "below the belt". Double standards.
rest assured the pro hindu mods will not print this.
@Razi: This is below the belt comment. WE should respect other views, even when we disagree with them. You are showing your intolerant attitude. It is people like you who scare the world.
@Gp65
You have come back with your true colours once again. Did you take part in the 'scientific' convention on 'plastic surgery' in ancient India and other such balderdash? Or were you part of the brigade countering 'love jihad'. I am sure you were one of those working for 'ghar wapsi', right?
Your comments about Quranic ayats smack of ignorance and malevolence. But then what can one expect from the likes of you, blackjack, wb, 3rdrock and others who comment on these pages for one purpose only.
The cartoons were merely a convenient excuse. If Charlie Hebdo had never existed, these two psychopaths would have found another excuse to commit their acts of murder.
@truthbetold: Excellent comment. In fact in 1999, well before 9/11 happened, Pakistan introduced a proposal in the UN at the urging of OIC to criminalize defamation of religion. please note this is before 9/11 and before the Danish cartoons were published.
Of course the only religion that the priposal referred to was Islam. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DefamationofreligionandtheUnitedNations
After over a decade of debate, in August 2011 this proposal was finally defeated when it was concluded that right of a believer to practice his belief (whatever the nature of his belief including atheism). Not surprisingly, soon after a ridiculous movie which had less than a 1000 its on youtube and had not been shown in any cinemas anywhere was used to drum up anger in the Muslim majority countries to win on the streets what they could nkt through a debate. That process continues and the Charlie Hebdo affair is just the latest in the series of episodes.
@lalai: "Charlie Hebdo and the Kouachi brothers represent the two extreme ends of the whole spectrum. If killing of innocent people can not be justified, so is the case with the highly objectionable cartoons. We need to respect each other’s right and beliefs and find a compromise to move forward."
Why don't you set an example by not requiring all people desirous of Pakistani passports to not show disrespect for Ahmadi beliefs?
Then go a step further and ask how respectful are all the ayats about kafirs to those people's belefs who do not describe themselves as Muslims.
Show some respect for other people's beliefs before demanding respect for your own.
it is very important that the muslim world should use UN charter to amend the HUMAN charter and include in the freedom of expression Respect for Prophets.Atleast for Prophets with Books
Disrespecting the prophets by making cartoonic representation is highly condemnable
Author says: "bulk of the cases registered under the blasphemy law made by Ziaul Haq in 1987, the majority are Muslims (out of 1,434 cases registered from 1987 to 2014, 719 are of Muslims"
The fact is Pakistan has less than 3% non muslims, but they make up 50% of the blasphemy cases. i.e the minorities are 30 times more likely to be victims of your blashphemy law compared to majority community. Yes your minorities are the biggest victims.
What's the point in publishing those caricatures. It has and will keep creating rift between Islam and other religion. Although Islam has very clearly forbidden what happened in Paris, some people will keep reacting violently. The issue will flare up ever stronger. The best course is to stop publication of material that comes under profanity, sacrilege, blasphemy, etc. The rule is simple follow your religion but respect others'.
@IF anything annoys you, killing is not right. I read this para in the book: "Do not make friends with Jews and Christians. If you do, you are one of them." I am sure many do not like this but they do not start killing. I have a feeling Tribune is NOT going to print this.
@lalai: "If killing of innocent people can not be justified, so is the case with the highly objectionable cartoons." If someone found the cartoons as "highly objectionable", all he had to do was stop subscribing to that magazine/paper. To ask the paper to stop printing it becoz it hurt his sentiments is absurd.
It is essential to engage the world in a peaceful dialogue about our religious sensitivities with the understanding that some might not appreciate it at all. In such a case, violence is not the only means of response.
On the contrary it is essential to engage in Introspection about your 'Religious Sensitivities'. It is time to examine and discuss,
A. Why you demand 'Religious Freedom' and tolerance from the rest of the world while denying the same in your own lands?
B. Why do you deny Political Rights and Citizenship to others, including your minorities, while claiming the same for yourself?
C Why do you expect that others will accept your 'Right' to claim over loudspeakers the falsehood of their 'Religions' and at the same be sensitive to Your 'Religious Sensibilities'?
@lalai:
"We need to respect each other’s right and beliefs and find a compromise to move forward."
I would agree with you that one should respect your right to have a certain belief. However, you can't expect others to respect your belief itself. I hope you see the very important difference.
In this article, Ms. Siddiqa seems to make a deliberate attempt to "balance" out her message while being cautious. In the end, we don't see the usual frankness and bold non-conformist views that we have come to expect of Ms. Siddiqa's writings.
What was the point of mentioning the two muslims who got killed? That Muslims were also victims and so this minimizes the dastardly nature of the Islamic terror attack?
"The pressure on Muslims in Europe to prove themselves better citizens will increase mostly by demonstrating commitment to Western secularism that they are not prepared for"
If anyone has any problems with commitment to Western secularism, aren't they free to go where they will not have this problem? Why should the host countries be expected to accommodate people who don't share their value system and ethos?
A thought provoking article and a peaceful narrative by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa. She mentioned an appropriate fact "Blasphemy a political tool". If the state has law to deal with blasphemy and that is written in the constitution then state should capicitate the society about non violent agitation. Issues of blasphemy get worst when the protesters are backstopped by state actors.
Ms. Siddiqua is one of the authors I hold in high regard in all of sub-continent.
But, I disagree with her on this issue. I may be displeased with many things papers publish, but I never object or dispute their right to publish them (as long as it is not libel).
The day you do that you give license to all sorts of groups to take offence and hold out a veto on what is published.
The fundamental issues involved are: what are the Islamic values that have a historical context, and what are those which are absolute imperatives, that hold for all times? It is unacceptable that all be treated as absolute so that nay of them can be used with impunity at any time. So let us ask: (i) Jihad -- to kill infidels -- is that not of historical context, valid at an earlier time? (ii) Killing people for supposed blasphemy -- is that again not something that was acceptable in the remote past? (iii) Adherence to ones' religion --- with piety, humility and love for all -- is that not an absolute imperative?
Unless this issue is not debated and settled, the current state of turmoil will continue, will grow and alienation will be even more. It is high time that Muslims reinvent themselves and reclaim what it proclaims -- peace. It is a tall order, but not impossible.
More practically speaking, Many Muslim leaders demonize the west. Yet, religious and political leaders have taken refuge in Paris and London. Political masters who are deposed find it convenient to live in exile in the west. Pakistan's eastern neighbor has proved a more secure and peaceful home for Ahmadiyas, for example. So let there be an end to denigrating other cultures and societies.
Live and let live should be the principle for interaction between nations. Taking a life for any reason and whatever be the motivation, is reprehensible.
The author has clearly stated the current state of minds in Pakistan and elsewhere. But Pakistan is not ready to discuss this issue without emotions. First the media needs to gradually create an atmosphere with ALL politicians' support. A change is law is long overdue. Otherwise, many innocents will be dragged into prisons because of the blasphemy laws. Wake up Pakistan.
Charlie Hebdo and the Kouachi brothers represent the two extreme ends of the whole spectrum. If killing of innocent people can not be justified, so is the case with the highly objectionable cartoons. We need to respect each other's right and beliefs and find a compromise to move forward.
"It is essential to engage the world in a peaceful dialogue about our religious sensitivities with the understanding that some might not appreciate it at all. In such a case, violence is not the only means of response."
That is not the solution. That is like blaming the girl for her own rape. I hope the writer gets it, being one of the dozens of thinkers in a country of a quarter of a billion.
Contrary to making the progressive, free thinking world to bend over backwards to appease Muslim extremists, it is essential to teach logical argumentation and free thinking and freedom of expression and questioning to Muslims.
For example: Water inside coconut is not an evidence of god.
For example: Claiming that a certain someone is the greatest ever, is not evidence of his greatness.
For example: Claiming that this comment by water bottle is the perfect comment in the history of mankind...why, because the comment itself claims so...does not make it perfect.
For example: After imposing my ideology on you, I cannot claim that I've done you a favor.
Some of the basic common sense that the rest of humanity takes for granted is totally absent among 1.2 billion Muslims. Which also explains their abysmal productivity, progress and contribution to the world.
I have never been attacked by a grizzly bear ... a very small percentage of grizzly bears have killed humans. I am scared of grizzly bears. If I meet one while I'm trekking, I don't know what it's thinking - whether it will want to kill me or just smile and wave. Does that make me an animal hater?
we conveniently hid behind Imran Khan’s wedding and continue to do so.
Geez, I hope you are not implying Reham Khan was behind the attack!
Usually I agree with this author's views - but not in this case.
There is NO reason for a dialogue - it is simply a matter of accepting the fact that if as a Muslim, you migrate to the West - be prepared to accept their rules and laws. The onus is one you as the migrant to adjust; DO NOT expect them to change their ways for you. And if you are not willing to live with those rules and laws, move BACK to whatever Islamic paradise you originally came from.
And I speak as a first generation immigrant to the West!
The only Muslims who really condemned Paris killings are those living in western countries. But because they feel threatened with anti Muslim attacks and demonstrations. Privately many think differently. But there are many good souls