Tehmina Kazi of British Muslims for Secular Democracy looks at nine mistaken assumptions doing the rounds about the murders that took place at the offices of Charlie Hebdo yesterday.
Tehmina Kazi of British Muslims for Secular Democracy looks at nine mistaken assumptions doing the rounds about the murders that took place at the offices of Charlie Hebdo yesterday
False Assumption One
‘Charlie Hebdo magazine was needlessly provocative’
Manufacturers of outrage and assorted agitators do not need any kind of ‘provocation’ for their actions. When Jyllands-Posten published the Danish cartoons in September 2005, protests in Muslim-majority countries did not start until four months later.
Mona Eltahawy’s interview with Jytte Klausen, the Danish-born author of the Yale Press’s forthcoming book, Cartoons That Shook the World, recognised that lag. According to Yale Press’s Web site, she argues that Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not spontaneous but, rather, that it was orchestrated “first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt”, and later by “extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria”.
Further, Quilliam Foundation director and Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate Maajid Nawaz re-tweeted a ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoon on 12 January 2014. Most of the people who called for his de-selection – and helped to whip up the resultant furore – conveniently ignored his earlier mention of the cartoons on the BBC’s Big Questions programme. The broadcast itself attracted barely a whisper on social media.
False Assumption Two
‘The Left should defend all expressions of Islam at all costs’
Professor Karima Bennoune said it best in her article, ‘Why Bill Maher and Ben Affleck are both wrong‘:
“We do not need either stereotypical generalizations or minimising responses to fundamentalism, however well-intentioned.
“What we need is a principled, anti-racist critique of Muslim fundamentalism that pulls no punches, but that also distinguishes between Islam (the diverse religious tradition) and Islamism (an extreme right-wing political ideology). We need support, understanding and to have our existence recognised.”
False Assumption Three
‘The French hate Muslims, don’t they?’
From the Pew Global Attitudes survey 2014, which interviewed 7,022 citizens in seven European countries, 72 per cent of French citizens polled said they had a favourable opinion of Muslims in their country. This was higher than Italy, Greece, Poland, Spain, Germany, and even the UK.
False Assumption Four
‘Not in Our Name campaigns are helpful’
As well-intentioned as these undoubtedly are, the ‘Not in my name’ campaigns spearheaded by Muslims send out a problematic subliminal message to non-Muslims: that Muslims are unwilling to sort out the problems in their own back yard.
No-one is expecting us to eradicate all gender segregation in public events overnight, or to change the minds of all homophobic preachers in a few months, or to re-introduce music lessons in all Muslim-majority schools that have cancelled them. No-one is saying that we have to devote several years of our lives and careers doing this (as I have).
However, we are expected to make some effort to condemn obscurantism from all quarters, or as much as we are able to within our own circles of influence. Given that the Qu’ran takes such a strong line on humans challenging injustice wherever we find it, this shouldn’t be too difficult.
False Assumption Five
‘Religious minorities have less to gain from democratic freedoms than the majority’
The same legislation that promotes freedom of expression also protects freedom of religion – and from religion. Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion (unless state interference with these is shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim).
In a non-legal context, the culture of rights and freedoms we have in the UK leads to strong civil society projects that monitor anti-Muslim attacks, such as Tell MAMA.
False Assumption Six
‘Condemnation is sufficient’
Sombre press releases and widely-shared Facebook updates are better than nothing, but many of their authors have inadvertently contributed to the problem in the past.
How?
By endorsing blasphemy laws, treating the words of Zakir Naik and Junaid Jamshed as gospel, or turning a blind eye when feminist or progressive Muslim activists (like Sara Khan of Inspire) are viciously attacked for their work on Twitter.
False Assumption Seven
‘It is always someone else’s fault’
Then there are those who won’t even condemn acts of violence and terrorism, but automatically paint the attacks as false-flag operations, with a cast of extras to rival ‘Titanic’. In my experience, attempting to reason with these people is a waste of time and energy. Better to leave them to their echo chambers.
False Assumption Eight
‘Beliefs deserve more protection than people’
Under the Equality Act 2010, beliefs are only protected insofar as they apply to the rights of individuals. For instance, it is unlawful for someone to discriminate against you because of your religion or belief (or because you have no religion or belief):
- in any aspect of employment
- when providing goods, facilities and services
- when providing education
- in using or disposing of premises, or
- when exercising public functions.
False Assumption Nine
‘The way forward is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror’
Laissez-faire approaches like these have led us to the predicament we are in. These acts are neither passing nor accidental; they are part of one long atrocity continuum, compounded by mainstream society’s cowardice and unwillingness to champion unpopular causes.
Instead, campaigning groups that happily take on the far-right should challenge the Muslim right-wing with equal ferocity, rather than giving their behaviour a free pass.
Tehmina Kazi has been director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy since May 2009, and has worked on a number of human rights and citizenship projects
88 Responses to “Charlie Hebdo: Dismantling nine mistaken assumptions about the Paris atrocities”
Just Visiting
> all religion is BS
That’s your worldview, and fine: but if you want to meaningfully take part in a debate that is not about ‘all religion’ but about Islam and Charles hebdo: then you need to put aside that worldview and be willing to be specific about Islam and this specific situation.
> both sets of followers have shown a propensity for violence pretty much from day one.
That is just your worldview preventing you from looking calmly at the evidence.
Because from ‘day one’ – the first few centuries of Islam was spread by violence aka military battles.
Whereas christianity, not so much.
Simon Tucker
Then you need to expand your reading to better histories. Violence both to and by Christians has attended the religion from the start. With regard to Charlie Hebdo, there are many points of discussion. The problem with one based on religion is that one is immediately looking at it from an irrational perspective: and that gives the killers a (distorted) rationale for justification.
I don’t look at Charlie Hebdo from the perspective of the evil of Islamism but from the perspective that, for as long as people are brainwashed into accepting any religion, then they will have a basis for justifying their extremism. Simple as. if you cannot accept that premise then that is your problem. I will not reply again unless you show you have the intelligence to understand the valid point I am making.
Just Visiting
Woah, you’ve just changed tack substantially.
From:
> Islam has always historically been violent, as has Christianity
to:
> Violence both to and by Christians …
Does this mean you withdraw your first statement?
Bonkim
All religions are superstitions. Why pick only on Islam?
Guest
Keep trying to mirror yourself onto others, as you try and kill millions of refugees.
Nope, defending millions of civilians is “useless trolling”, right. No surprise you lash out at the left in the process – how many British must die, eh?