Why I Am Not Charlie? I Am Ahmed!

[RiazHaq]

Haq's Musings: I Am Not Charlie; I Am Ahmed

Ahmed Merabet was a French Muslim police officer who died defending the people at Charlie Hebdo who mocked his prophet and his religion. He was a real hero. He stood for the rule-of-law and against vigilante justice imposed by the terrorists who attacked and killed a dozen people at Charlie Hebdo's office in Paris, France. So I honor him by saying "I am Ahmed" (Je Suis Ahmed).


French Police Officer Ahmed Merabet
As I condemn the terrorist attack and honor Ahmed's memory, I must also say why "I am not Charlie" (Je ne suis pas Charlie). Here are my reasons:

1. While I strongly condemn the terror attack and sympathize with the families of those killed at Charlie Hebdo's office, I do not lionize satirists who"punch down" rather than "punch up", to borrow from Daily Beast's Arthur Chu. The whole idea of satire is to challenge those in positions of power and authority rather than the underdogs like the poor French Muslims who make up 60 to 70 percent of the prison population despite being less than 10 percent of the population overall.

2. People who defend Charlie Hebdo as an "equal opportunity offender" are just plan wrong. There was at least one instance where Charlie apologized for a satirical piece and fired Sine (Maurice Sinet) the cartoonist for an "anti-Semitic" caricature of Ms. Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish wife of President Nicholas Sarkozy's son Jean Sarkozy.

3. France's commitment to civil liberties is selective. While it is strongly invoked as absolute when Charlie mocks Islam and its prophet, it does not extend to Muslim women's right to choose what they wear. The French law against “religious symbols in public spaces” is specifically enforced to target Muslim women who wear hijab.


Negative stereotyping of Prophet Mohammadhas been the preoccupation of generations of Western writers from the time of the Crusades to the present day. Among those who have engaged in highly offensive portrayal of Islam's prophet are Italian poet-philosopher Dante Aligheri (1265-1321), Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1325-1450) and European "Enlightenment" leader François-Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1778). More recently, there have been attempts by Salman Rushdie (Satanic Verses), Kurt Westergaard (Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons), Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Innocence of Muslims) and Charlie Hebdo to ridicule Muslims' most revered leader.

While I strongly condemn the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo and the loss of a dozen lives in Paris, let me remind everyone that Europe has a long history of mocking Islam and its prophet. It is well documented in"Muhammad in Europe" by Minou Reeves which covers everything from Dante's Inferno to Voltaire's Mahomet. What has changed now is that the emergence of the new Internet-based social media has made such anti-Muslim bigotry much more commerce-oriented and accessible to a global audience.

As we fight the menace of global terror perpetrated in the name of religion, we must also address the genuine issues of racism and rising anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe. This will require thought leaders on both sides to find common ground for a serious and sustained inter-faith and inter-racial dialog to end the threat of violence.

Here's a related video discussion:

Haq's Musings: I Am Not Charlie; I Am Ahmed

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Globalization of Hate Speech

The Prophet I Know

Misaq e Madina Inspired Quaid e Azam MA Jinnah

Growing Intolerance in Pakistan

Exposing Congressman King's Hypocrisy

FBI Entrapping Young Muslims

Fighting Agents of Intolerance in Pakistan

Muslim Scholars Must Fight Hate in Pakistan

South Asian Christians Celebrate Christmas in Fear

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's Vision

 

[ito]

There are 6 billion Charlies and 1 billion non Charlies. So who wins Mr @RiazHaq?

 

[gau8av]

Pretty sure Charlie Hebdo would have apologized if say, thousands/millions? would have peacefully marched in opposition to the cartoon.

Wasn't to be, caliph Al-Baghdadi's Lions of Ummah avenged the prophet, righteous holy retribution by the blade of the sword, innocent blood spilled..

the problem is not satire, free speech and western values, the problem is violent Islamic extremism.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

No use Mr Riaz these westerners will never accept us no matter what we do for them.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

There are 6 billion Charlies and 1 billion non Charlies. So who wins Mr @RiazHaq?

Nah, only Westerners are Charlie and they are a minority in the world. South Americans, Chinese, Africans.. none of them are Charlie. They have suffered too much at the hands of Charlie

 

[gslv mk3]

these westerners will never accept us no matter what we do for them.

Who is this 'us' and what have they done for westerners?

 

[Luffy 500]

the problem is violent Islamic extremism.

What is that?

 

[gslv mk3]

What is that?

CIA?Mossad conspiracy.

 

[halupridol]

CIA?Mossad conspiracy.

shut up,,,!
gib respect or be killed,,,choice is urs

 

[Capt_ghalib]

For a second i thought header reads "I am Ahmedi". But That would have been like 'out of pan into fire'. :p
Kill infidels thats hows Islam is interpreted and explained by mullahs to its followers. Key word here is "kill". Any religion which openly encourages its followers to kill other innocent people just because their beliefs doesn't suit your has no place in modern society. Such ideology could have only achieved success in the barbaric medieval periods and its time to reap what was sowed.

 

[Shot-Caller]

There are 6 billion Charlies and 1 billion non Charlies. So who wins Mr @RiazHaq?

According to who?

 

[ito]

According to who?

According to us Charlies.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

funny thing is even if its matter of muslims or Pakistani some hindu do have to put their nose in. There are 33% of indian muslims who we hardly see commenting on religion .. people who doesnt know anything about islam commenting.

 

[Bang Galore]

Charlie Hebdo shootout: Assuaging bigots is not the answer

Yesterday’s terror attack at the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris that killed 12 people, mostly cartoonists and journalists, felt extremely personal. People were killed because they caused offense. The job of the media is to cause offense. If we aren’t offending someone, somewhere on some issue – we possibly aren’t doing our job.


Is the price of offending nutcases, death? How far do you hold your silence? Who all are you supposed to be scared of? Can you really blaspheme against a religion you don’t follow? If you don’t believe in God, or you don’t believe in the story of the origin of the universe in terms of religious reference points, if you don’t believe in a ‘One God’ theory and are joyfully polytheistic, if you like beef, if you laugh at idols, if you question the Virgin Birth, if you don’t believe that Prophet Mohammed is the last prophet— are you committing blasphemy or going against religious beliefs? What if they are not your religious beliefs? Are you supposed to follow the religious dogma of religions you don’t follow? And why?

There is this extreme religious fundamentalist arrogance that looks at the world and expects it to be reordered as per the dictates of someone’s interpretation of a ‘holy book’. And the reason the term holy book is in quotes is that there is no one holy book for all the people, and there never will. Every time, we give in to any section of population whose sentiments are ‘hurt’ by some depiction or the other, we are not just giving up on the essence of religion, but the essence of a Secular Democratic Republic. The job of the State is not to assuage offended egos, and self appointed guardians of morality, religion and God, but to protect the rights of the individual whose right to express and expression is threatened.

The ruling against the representation of the Prophet was to prevent idolatry (which is considered to be taboo in Islam). However, when people, who are neither followers of Islam nor of any religion, are killed by terrorists for physically depicting the Prophet, this is the most primitive form of idolatry behaviour possible. A human sacrifice to an angry God. No God, no religion asked for this. Self appointed guardians of religion, who are possibly borderline psychopaths, are setting the agenda and expect the rest of the universe to follow out of fear.

Expecting people who do not follow a faith to follow the taboos of a faith is not just nonsensical, it also interferes with other people’s freedom to religion of their choice. I have been hearing voices on social media, op-ed pieces in respected newspapers on how restraint is needed in expression. This piece from the Financial Times especially hit hard--

Financial Times later changed this to a version that did not include the word stupid. Actually, Charlie Hebdo is not being stupid. They are exercising their freedoms.

There was an inexplicable quote by a woman I really admired as a school girl, Kiran Bedi -

"France Terror-Shoot-Out sends a message: why deliberately provoke or poke? Be respectful and civil. Don't hurt people's sensitivities!"

Why provoke is a good question but maybe a better question is why do some people get provoked while most of the world doesn’t. And, why are we supposed to give up our freedoms for these whiny, attention grabbing types? And how long do we live in fear, and for what all?

We live in a world where anything can cause offense. The fact that you eat meat can cause offense to a vegetarian; the fact that you as a woman demand control on your body may cause offense to an orthodox religious type; the fact that you interpret the scriptures can cause offense to those who believe in a comic book version of the religion. There is no end to those who get offended and throw a hissy fit that says ‘pay attention to me and my views, I am important’.

Every time we give in to buy peace, we forget one thing – peace cannot be purchased. And peace purchased to assuage the anger of a psychopath carrying a gun, is temporary fragile peace. You will do something else tomorrow to offend him and cause him to raise the gun again. This is not about religion. This is about domination of all spaces in society and making them comply with a twisted vision of reality.

It needs to stop now. Peshawar and Paris are the clarion calls to stop appeasing bigots of all shades. And, finally I will end with a quote attributed to Charab – the cartoonist who was murdered yesterday by terrorists-

"I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I prefer to die standing than living on my knees."

Charlie Hebdo shootout: Assuaging bigots is not the answer | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

 

[karakoram]

Europe is secular. We dont respect ypir prophet, we dont want your prophet and nobody can give us orders about what we make fun about and what not. So,e primitives wont dictate a lifestyle on us. Its that easy.

Then increase your defence budget :-D :-D