This Wednesday in a brazen broad daylight attack two masked gunmen
brandishing Klashnikov assault rifles forced their way into the Paris
offices of the satirical publication, Charlie Hebdo and proceeded to
execute 10 of it’s staff who were at the time convened in a meeting.
During the course of the attack they also killed two policeman – one of
whom was executed as he lay already injured on the floor. The operation
was clearly pre-planned and the ruthless efficiency with which it was
carried out suggests the perpetrators had received a level of military
training (these were clearly more than your average ‘Call of Duty’
aficionados).
Charlie Hebdo was no stranger to controversy, rather it deliberately
courted it at every available turn. As an iconoclastic publication it
regarded religion as very much within its purview. Christianity was
often the target of its particular brand of degenerate, vulgar satire
but it seems what brought about this act of bloody vengeance upon it was
its repeated insults – and yes that is precisely what they were –
towards Islam. The publication of assorted invidious images of the
Prophet (saw) as well as profane remarks about the Qur’an are what
sealed the fate of Stephane Charbonnier and his staff – judging by the
comments of the two attackers.
I don’t have too much to say about this incident but I will say that I
find it more than a little hypocritical that the same people and
publications that so vehemently champion “free speech” when it offends
Muslim sensibilities are often the very same that demand more be done to
close down “hate speech” (i.e. what they deem offensive) when it
offends theirs. So for example, when a Muslim decided to burn a poppy on
the streets of London – an act which physically harmed nobody – they
demanded the individual responsible be prosecuted (he was) and remained
noticeably silent about the death threats directed towards him as a
result of his exercising his right to free speech and expression.
Similarly when a group of Muslims held a peaceful – if vocal – protest
against British military returnees from Afghanistan it seems that
suddenly the “right to offend” was no longer sacrosanct. Again no
mention was made of the disgraceful behaviour of the baying mob intent
on physically assaulting the aforesaid peaceful protestors who were,
after all, merely exercising their “sacrosanct right to offend”.
Let us see how many people are now prosecuted for “soliciting murder” apropos of the #KillallMuslims hashtag currently trending on Twitter. Previously when one Muslim proclaimed his hope to see foreign troops – viewed by vast numbers of the local population as occupiers – in Iraq killed he was prosecuted for precisely that. Let us see if a desire to murder innocent civilians is treated in the same light. I won’t be holding my breath.
As regards the special “national day of mourning” held in France to
commemorate the 12 dead Charlie Hebdo employees I find myself asking why
there has never been a similar outpouring of national grief to
acknowledge the barbaric murder by the French police of 40 (official
estimates) – 200 French Algerians in the same city back in 1961. It took
some 37 years before the French government even acknowledged a massacre
had taken place. Of course it will never be described as an act of
terror – after all Europeans simply don’t do that, do they? You can read
the salient details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961
The hypocrisy surrounding this latest incident is sadly nothing new.
After the 2006 Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy it subsequently
emerged that the same paper had previously rejected a submission of
satirical cartoons depicting Jesus (as). The editor’s reasoning: “I
don’t think the readers of Jyllands-Posten would be pleased
with the drawings. I think they would cause an outrage. That’s why I
won’t use them.” So to those who drone on about Muslims being accorded
special treatment: I completely agree with you. We do.
As a Muslim I don’t believe in vacuous notions of “free speech”.
Speech is, and always has been, restricted by law. The question is
merely of where to draw the line. I will never recognise the “right” of
anyone to insult, mock or belittle any of the Prophets of Allah (swt). I
acknowledge, as a matter of fact, that such a right exists under the
legal codes of Western nations such as France and Britain regardless of
whether I believe it should or not. While I personally restrict myself
to cursing reprobates such as Charbonnier and his staff, clearly others
are not inclined to such restraint but I shall refrain herein from
passing comment on their actions.
I shan’t be mourning any of the dead “journalists” and their crass
attempts at satire won’t be missed by me. In this I’m sure I’m far from
alone. One of the dead, cartoonists Georges Wolinski, once reportedly
said, “paradise is full of idiots who believe it exists”. Well Georges,
hell is full idiots who believe it didn’t – as you are about to
discover. Did you find that offensive? I certainly hope so. Georges
would undoubtedly have approved and perhaps it’s the most fitting
epitaph for someone who revelled in his merciless mockery of others. Au
revoir, Charlie Hebdo!
May the peace and blessings of Allah (swt) be upon sayyidina Muhammad.
No comments:
Post a Comment