It is time for some much needed nuance. In the wake of the
horrifying attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left twelve people dead,
I’ve seen a range of responses. Some were from Muslims who condemned the
attack, describing it as a total violation of Islamic values, and even creating
their own pieces in solidarity with the artists who were killed. Others have
been from Muslims that say the attack was deserved because the artists at Charlie
Hebdo were engaging in blasphemy. As a Unitarian Universalist Muslim and a
seminarian, I personally agree with the former category. Nobody should have
their life violently taken away. No one should be murdered for the expression of an
opinion. I mourn the deaths of the individuals who were killed, and believe
that the gunmen who were responsible committed an abhorrent act. However, these
contrasting responses are not the ones that I want to more deeply explore at
the moment.
In the past two days, there have also been multiple voices talking
about the principles of free speech or freedom of the press as they pertain to
the work of Charlie Hebdo’s artists. Some have praised the inflammatory content
of the satirical newspaper, describing it as necessary
and justified blasphemy. Others have encouraged people to not only continue
looking at these comics, but to also keep
sharing them, because no religion should be so uptight that it can’t take a
joke. Some have gone so far as to criticize the papers and individuals that are
refusing to reprint or editing images from Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, saying
that they are letting terrorists win. These voices claim that, yes, the artists
at Charlie Hebdo make blasphemous comics, but that the offense to religious
extremists is necessary to end exactly the same violence that would follow, to
address the same hypersensitivity of belief that prevents such free expression.
I agree that engaging in potentially life-threatening
blasphemy is something that can help in countering the oppressive religious
perspectives that make it life-threatening in the first place. And artists play
an important role. Look at the work of comic-activists like Negin Farsad and Dean Obeidallah, part of the “The Muslims are Coming” tour and film,
whose jokes could offend people of any religious ilk. Their comments have been labeled
as blasphemous and are definitely not welcome in certain Muslim circles, but
they make them anyway. They “blaspheme” to help people both within and outside
the Islamic traditions move away from oppressive interpretations of Islam that
call their actions blasphemy in the first place. Perhaps what helps give more
weight to their views is that Farsad and Obeidallah are Muslim. They are not
speaking as outsiders, but use humor and wit that addresses the faith community
to which they themselves belong. They not only have the ability to tolerate blasphemous
jokes – they and others who are Muslim are making them too.
But with Charlie Hebdo, the situation is different. It is
not a simple matter of religious blasphemy or making sure Muslims learn to “tolerate
a joke." The people claiming that the work by Charlie Hebdo’s artists is needed
are taking a dangerous position. Yes, its allegedly blasphemous content discredits
the minority of individuals who use their interpretation of Islam to commit
heinous acts. But focusing only on how its blasphemy promotes freedom of speech
minimizes an important reality: many of these cartoons are just flat out
racist. Their caricatured images of Arab-looking men, whether they are meant to
be images of the Prophet Muhammad or members of the Islamic State, echo images
that have been created for decades to mock and dehumanize Arabs and Muslims
alike. In John Espito and Ibrahim Kalin’s book Islamophobia: The Challenge of Religious Pluralism, scholars Peter
Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg analyze the history and content of cartoons
depicting Muslims. Their work shows that the caricatured images distributed in
the Western world are oversimplified and “too often slip into stereotypes of
Islam.” Physical attributes are generalized and exaggerated, such as clothing (a
kufiya/gutra) or facial features (large noses and extensive facial hair). They
are often depicted in the midst of sinister acts, or turned into excessively
effeminate caricatures to illustrate “political seductiveness.” In Charlie
Hebdo, these stereotyped traits are also used, and often combined with homophobic
imagery, moving their cartoons away from justifiably blasphemous, to dehumanizing
and further marginalizing already oppressed populations.
What makes these cartoons even more dangerous is that their
satirical illustrations become the predominant images in the mind of a populous
with limited exposure to the people and traditions whom they caricature. The
rich diversity that is found within both Arab and Muslim populations (which are
not synonymous) is completely ignored, replaced in the Western mind by belittling
images that conform to, rather than challenge, overly-simplified norms. The
actual majority of these objectified groups are erased – they do not exist in
Charlie Hebdo’s world. Moreover, whatever valuable impact the cartoons’ blasphemous
content have on challenging oppressively-conservative interpretations of Islam,
it is obliterated by their reinforcement of any pre-existing Islamophobia,
xenophobia, and racist views towards Arabs. These days in particular, Europe
faces a disconcerting rise in public demonstrations against Islam and immigrant
populations, and the images in Charlie Hebdo only solidify the stereotypes that
fuel them. (See this post on “The
Hooded Utilitarian” for more examples of cartoons). As a popular media source,
Charlie Hebdo has the power to present a nuanced analysis of the Islamic
traditions, but instead caters to existing and harmful stereotypes.
This reinforcement of degrading stereotypes is compounded by
the fact that the creators of these illustrations are mostly white, European
men. Their illustrations come from a place of racial and cultural privilege,
and totally disregard the continued effects of colonialism, white supremacy,
and Christian hegemony in our world. The cartoons of Charlie Hebdo ignore the oppression
that Muslims have encountered in Europe since the Middle Ages, when European
Christians saw Muslims as underdeveloped apostates, yet still appropriated
elements of Islamic scholarship and culture. They conveniently overlook the
white European imperialism that colonized early Arab civilizations, and which
continue to exert control over “Middle Eastern” and Muslim nations through
military operations and political destabilization. Perhaps most difficult to
realize is that this continued impact of colonization has actually contributed to
the development of religious extremism – the same extremism that carries out attacks
like those in Paris.
Let me be clear. I do not in any way blame the victims of this
violent attack. They did not deserve to die in such a brutal way. I vehemently
condemn the actions of the gunmen in the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices. Their
violence has done a great disservice to the majority of Muslims who would never
approve of their decision to commit murder to silence an opinion. It is
horrifying that artists were murdered for expressing their views on dangerous
interpretations of Islam, no matter how controversial their approaches might
have been. The actions of the gunmen go against the calls for reason and the appreciation
of difference in Islam, and these artists paid the ultimate price as a result.
As more information comes out about the victims of this attack, it is clear
that the shooters were not really acting on behalf of any faith. Several of the
individuals killed were not even part of the Charlie Hebdo staff – one of them
was Ahmed
Merabet, a 42-year-old Muslim police officer. Not even the people
negatively impacted by these cartoons were safe from the attackers’ violent
extremism. The gunmen were not defending anything – they were attacking
everyone.
I genuinely mourn the taking of these artists’ lives. They
were more than just cartoonists, they were human beings with stories and lives
more detailed and complex than we will ever know. But the violent nature of these
individuals’ deaths does not mean I must celebrate their harmful actions along
with their laudable ones. Freedom of speech and a free press are indeed important
elements of a progressive society, but they come with the caveat of responsibility.
The cartoons of Charlie Hebdo are not sacred ground for ensuring the freedom of
expression. They are a reminder of how easy it is to forget that free
expression does not occur in a power vacuum. They are a reminder that having a
platform to say something inflammatory requires the serious and critical consideration
of what that platform is built upon. Having the power to offend or criticize different
people and traditions necessitates the constant evaluation of the structures
within which we all live.
What those rushing to defend the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo fail
to recognize is that freedom of speech is not the freedom to perpetuate marginalization.
They deny the oppressive realities that give this paper the power it has. Those
who are blending pain over these artists’ horrific deaths with the importance
of freedom of speech ignore the reality that several of the paper’s images perpetuate
stereotypes that dehumanize already marginalized populations. Those supporting
Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are forgetting that they are produced within a white
Eurocentric context that promotes racism and Islamophobia, while totally ignoring
the centuries-long oppression of Arab and/or Muslim peoples. It is possible and
necessary to come together to support the right to free press and free
expression in the wake of this attack. But it is also possible and necessary
for us to acknowledge that not every action and image produced by those killed falls
within those categories. We can mourn this tragic loss of life, but we must
also do so responsibly.
