Thoughts on Charlie

 Like most of the rest of the world I was horrified and terribly saddened by the events in Paris.  It is difficult to comprehend the motivations behind such heinous acts, but sadly the propensity in the human race for violence is a long established fact.

The first question is whether Charlie Hebdo can in any way be held responsible for its fate because of its highly irreverent and often mocking cartoons.  I categorically reject this idea and I cast my lot with those who declare ‘Je suis Charlie’.  One of the pillars and best accomplishments of modern civilization is freedom of expression.  There are, of course, certain limits such as child pornography or incitement to violence, but the great majority of censorship is a slippery slope to the type of society that we spent centuries evolving away from.  One may be disgusted, incensed or insulted by the written, spoken or visual, and it is only human to react in outrage or pain or anger, but there is no circumstance that justifies violence as a response.

The second question that will resound in the coming weeks and months will be whether a free, open and diverse society can maintain its principles in the wake of such threats.  Can those who are susceptible to the appeal of jihadist violence be identified and deterred without compromising the rights of innocent people?  Of course there is no such thing as absolute freedom, and the requirements for providing security will ultimately prevail over the protection of some rights, though certainly not without a tinge of sadness for what has been sacrificed.

There will be many who will condemn Islam itself for the acts of some of its followers, pointing to various sections in the Koran or to polls or to the Fatwahs issued by certain Imams over recent years.  I do not agree with this overall condemnation.  Any student of history or religion can point out a multitude of violent and brutal acts committed by Christians and Jews over the centuries or in the biblical past.  The Old Testament (or Torah) is full of violence, wars and even genocide.  Much like the Koran, it dictates brutal punishments for a broad spectrum of religious and sexual crimes.  For example, false prophecy, blasphemy and breaking the Sabbath were all punishable by death under the laws of the Torah.  In Christianity, those who were perceived to be blasphemous or heretics were burned at the cross or worse.  Be assured that Charlie Hebdo would not have survived its first printing in the Europe of medieval times or the Reformation.  The Crusades and the killing fields of the Thirty Years War are an example of how easily religion can be transformed into an excuse to kill and pillage.

What is different between Judeo-Christian religion and Islam is that for the most part, liberalizing influences have caused Judaism and Christianity, much older religions than Islam, to reject their violent orthodoxies.  That is not to say that Jews and Christians have lost their penchant for violence, but merely that it is no longer justified in religious terms, other than in the ‘just war’ theory.

Will liberalizing influences have a similar effect on Islam in the long run?  No one can predict the future, but certainly a good argument can be made that eventually Islam will also abandon its more radical laws and re-interpret the Koran and the life of Mohammed.  Indeed, there is an excellent book that does just that and gives a very illuminating view of the impact of Mohammed and Islam on the world – No God But God by Reza Aslan.  The general condemnation of the Paris acts by a great preponderance of Muslim leaders is also a good sign that for many Muslims there is a desire to move forward to a more accepting and peaceful coexistence with the liberalized west.

But unfortunately there are many complex underlying problems that may perhaps curtail the liberalization of Islam.  The sense of Islam being persecuted and the travails of the Middle East and Israel/Palestine create an environment that tends to radicalize rather than liberalize.  A group that feels it is being maligned and oppressed often finds unity in dogma, patriotism and fundamentalism rather than in openness and thoughtful dialogue.  Young men and women who are seeking identity and romantic ideals have always been susceptible to the cynical manipulation of radical leaders.

In this sense it is important for the international community to energetically address the alienation of Muslim youth in western countries as well as the continuing strife and chaos in the Middle East.

In the short term must have hope on two levels:  One, that our combined efforts in international intelligence and cooperation will deter future attacks of this nature.  And two, that the Muslim world will unite in its efforts to divert its youth from hatred and violence.