The recent Charlie Hebdo attack is a blaring example of this global mind-set. A French satirical magazine, famous for courting controversy through satirical attacks on religious leaders, was attacked by assailants, killing 14 people. While I deeply condemn this barbarity, let’s take a quick walk down memory lane. This is the same magazine which published sacrilegious cartoons of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) due to which their office was fire-bombed in November 2011. This is the same magazine which published controversial cartoons as violent protests were taking place in several countries over a movie insulting the Prophet (PBUH) in September 2012. And now, after the gruesome attack, this is the same magazine whose latest cover has another offensive cartoon. This is not free speech, but outright provocation. To further prove their defiance, or “bravery” as they would like to call it, their circulation figure has reached 700,000 copies instead of the regular 60,000 copies.
As a Muslim, I am deeply appalled by the magazine’s disregard and disrespect for my religion. But as a journalist, working for a newspaper in Karachi which has been attacked by militants thrice in two years, while a part of me would commend their continuing freedom of expression and limitless power of the pen, a bigger part of me would also question their offensive defiance, as we, journalists in Pakistan, have realised the cost that one ends up paying for a few words inked on paper.
In the aftermath of the attack on the magazine, rationality went out the window and people started attacking Muslims present in the country. More than 50 anti-Muslim attacks have taken place across France, including shootings, attacks on mosques and restaurants with Muslim affiliations — all in less than a week since the attack.
If media mogul Rupert Murdoch, and the likes can hold Ahmed and all Muslims responsible for the terror attacks around the world, then can John, Murdoch and all Christians be blamed for the clandestine (not) Christian extremism? How does it feel to be tarred by the same brush?
Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2015.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
@observer:
"Well, the difference is that John doesn’t shout “Jesus is great”...."
I didn't read anywhere that the 2 Sikh bodyguards shouted "Wah-e-Guru" when they shot Indra Gandhi, but you Hindus still blamed the whole Sikh community for the crime of the two, burned their homes and businesses, gang raped their women, and slaughtered their men, women, and children in thousands.
@Pity: The main thing that we ponder is where are the so called "moderates" in the muslim community who are supposed to be 99%,when no one is hounding these terrorists!!Why we dont hear any muslim group hounding terrorists,just destroying their households,cut the monetary support without which no terror can exist!!Why Pak state is not ruthlessly killing these terror outfits like mad dogs.wherever and whenever they see them?why differentiate between "bad" and "good" terror?Unless the muslim community hounds"visibly" these terrorists as though they are "wild animals",rest of the world will unfortunately associate muslim community with terror rather than individuals!!!!
@Truth be told:
"none of the other examples you site .... were done in the name of religion."
Why differentiate between different kinds of fanaticism, bigotry, and extremism? Why only religious extremism is bad, and the other kinds, e.g. racial, lingual, regional etc., not bad, or not so bad? Though appreciate your openness, "I agree with you all the examples are a blot on the history of human civilization".
@Silentprotest - "I am sure u will punch a man right in hus face if he calls ur mom or dad wid obnoxious words or if dat man keeps poking u."
I may or may not... But I will definitely not chant Allah-hu-Akbar, while punching the man in his face, if I choose to do that.
@Bewildered
Before the 'Inquisitions' there was Moor (read Muslim) invasion of Spain and a greater part of Europe. And other than the 'Inquisition' and the 'Crusade' none of the other examples you site like Vietnam war, annihilation of the Red Indians etc. were done in the name of religion. That's the difference many like to gloss over. However just to keep the record straight I agree with you all the examples are a blot on the history of human civilization, reason.
@Akshay: Absurd. Exteremly absurd.
@observer: U seriously lack the site of bigger picture n more facts n figures. I am sure u will punch a man right in hus face if he calls ur mom or dad wid obnoxious words or if dat man keeps poking u. Think abt it, who is the provoker here n who is da defender.
Everyone has a right to be offended/insulted. Nobody has a right to take a life because of that. Simple. Just as one doesn't have to listen to insults being heaped on themselves or their near & dear ones, no need to see these offensive cartoons or videos.
@observer: You took the first thought that came to my mind.
Seems like anybody can type up any drivel and ET will publish it. Way to go ET!
I strongly condemn the attacks on Muslims or their place of worship/meeting. However, can you identify to what group John belongs? No. When the Norwegian killer Breivik killed 78 people, no one was afraid of blond haired blue eyed men. But since 9/11 many terrorist attacks have been committed worldwide by members of an idenfiable community, claiming to act on behalf of their religion. That community is a minority in the west and it wants us to know who they are with their clothing, with their beards, with their food etc. How do I know which bearded Muslim I can trust as even the wife of one of the Paris murderers did not even know that her husband was radicalized? So don't be surprised, the brain often works by association. The next attack by one or more Salafists and the like will only make matters worse. I lived for four years behind blast walls in Islamabad and surely not because of John but because of Ahmed. The west is fed-up with these guys, we have a different culture and do not want to live in the dark ages behind blast walls and shut-up. Start to educate your community with love and compassion.
aaah yes. the intellectual & sentimental tightrope that some "journalists" have to walk these days...
Thanks Zoya for expressing the grief of Muslims.
@Pity: A drawing is not an abuse. As followers, you may have some restrictions. Those restrictions don't apply to others. You have the right to protest but that does not mean you murder people. Stop defending barbarians !
Please stop playing the victim all the time. Right from Timur onward it has been the same story.
Zoya Sahiba. Thankyou for such a balanced, meaningful and a realistic write up. This is the only way that all what is taken for granted e.g. definition of freedom of expression' will be dealt with the way you or others may think. Do some research about expression about Holocaust and one wonders where does freedom expression go !! And interestingly there are laws passed by many European countries about Holocaust expression. So why cannot such approach be taken about Religious beliefs.
A very confused writeup. What you want to say is that you are deeply hurt by Charlie Hebdo's acts and condemn it. You almost justify the fire bombing of their office completely ignoring the fact that the magazine has been equally critical of other religions. The other religions sued them in a court of law - two muslims chose to kill the editors while proclaiming that their god is great.
The only good thing to come out of all this is Al Azhar asking muslims to ignore the cartoons. That is good advice and that is what you want in Pakistan - why should you continue to cower under threats. That is the ideal to work towards - to get the extremists beyond riled up so that they learn to ignore and live and let live.
Christian extremism? some recent examples please zoya?
"If John kills a man, John gets blamed. But when Ahmed kills a man, Ahmed’s faith gets blamed. Think about the validity of that statement and the strong grounds it stands on today. Today as we stand, all Muslims are blanketed as extremists and promoters of violence."
Well, the difference is that John doesn't shout "Jesus is great" and that he is doing the killing for Jesus. Ahmed, on the the other hand, shouts "allahuakbar" and claims he is following his god's orders.
If a person continues to hurl abuses at someone's mother and father, should he be allowed to do so just because he has freedom of speech? The West needs to understand the difference between freedom of expression and provocation.