French demonstrate in support of national unity and free speech, Paris, January 11, 2015. Nesrine Cheikh Ali/Demotix/Corbis
The Charlie Hebdo Dilemma and Islamic Institutions
Tarek Osman
January 14, 2015
Most large Islamic institutions have condemned the massacre that took
place last week at the Paris-based satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. But none have embraced the “Je Suis Charlie”
campaign. Islamic institutions, with religious pedigrees hinge on decades, and
often centuries, of teaching Islamic jurisprudence, find it extremely difficult
to identify themselves with views that they consider blasphemous. In the
vagueness of their response, Islamic leaders are missing an opportunity to lead
the global conversation.
Their theological position is delicate. On one hand, almost all major
Islamic institutions reject the undertaking of acts of violence in the name of
Islam. On the other hand, they cannot condone the notion of freedom of
expression in absolute terms. According to the vast majority of Islamic
understandings, at least since the twelfth century when Sunni Islamism closed
the gate of creative theological interpretations, Islam
does put restrictions on speech. It is inconceivable that any leading Islamic
scholar today would identify himself (and it’s never herself) with writers or
artists who would be considered disrespectful of the companions of the Prophet
Mohammed or Islam’s early years, let alone of the Prophet himself or any sacred
notion in the religion.
Blasphemy is an offense that continues to irk clerics. Leading Islamic
scholars, of the gravitas of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, as well as scores in
the Sunni world, had no qualms about condemning a writer, such as Salman
Rushdie, to death because of a similar act—intentionally insulting the Prophet
Mohammed. A decade later, an Egyptian court ordered the separation
of an Egyptian university professor from his wife after a committee of
religious scholars had found his writings blasphemous. And only last week, a
Saudi court ordered the flogging of a blogger because of writings it had deemed
insulting to religion.
Wide sections in Islamic, and especially Arab, societies support such
measures. Almost all constitutions of Arab states sanctify certain Islamic
notions, and almost all Arab penal codes include the crime of “insulting
monotheistic religions.” It’s also worth remembering that, following the
publication in Denmark of cartoons that ridiculed the Prophet Mohammed, the
real condemnation that emerged in the Islamic world did not come from
governments, but from scores of artists and writers who came out with productions
that censured the blasphemy that the Dane artists had committed. One of the
Arab world’s most famous singers released a song, with notable threatening
undertone, called “Except the Prophet.”
Today, major centers of Islamic learning come across equivocal: they
denounce the killing of the journalists in the name of avenging the insult to
the Prophet Mohammed. Their statements of condolences and support overflow with
feelings of dismay at such attacks. They express anger at misguided individuals
that do not represent Islam But they skirt from offering unequivocal support of
freedom of expression.
This equivocation leaves others to speak
in the name of Islam. French President François Hollande stated
that the attack has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. That was
reminiscent of many statements from President George W. Bush and Prime Minister
Tony Blair, in the early and mid-2000s, in which they differentiated between “terrorists”
and “true Islam.” These statements, however, are quickly dismissed as either
mere political correctness or tactical rhetoric. There are also a multitude of
commentators, from the New York Times’
Nicholas Kristof, to CNN's Fareed Zakaria—not to mention Bill Maher and Ben
Affleck. These voices approach Islam from the lens of culture, international
relations, or within the wider context of the Islamic world. Their views
resonate among their fans and in popular culture. But they echo hollow, for
they lack the depth that only an Islamic institution with a long history and
revered credibility has. And crucially, these commentators mainly speak to the
West, rather than to the Islamic world.
Many look at Islamic communities in the West, expecting them to voice
strong support of freedom of expression. But the majority of the leaders of
these communities, at least the ones who speak to international media, offer
the same ambiguity we hear from religious institutions. They tread carefully
between expressing their dismay at the “crimes” undertaken by these “terrorists”;
they invoke “Islam’s compassion” while stopping short of solidly backing
freedom of expression.
Some manipulate the scope of the issue. They argue that Muslims in the
West are minorities, and often marginalized ones, that have been subjected to
racism and discrimination. And so, it is the law of these countries that should
protect them and their religion. Others delve into debates on what constitutes
freedom of expression and the limits after which expression encroaches on
others’ freedom not to be insulted. There are those who speak of social and
economic conditions across the Islamic, and especially Arab, world as the
underlying reason behind the violence that repeatedly flares up. Discussions
linger and get off-topic. As the momentum of the question wanes, both the
participants and the observers lose interest.
This equivocation is disastrous. The over 1.5 billion Muslims deserve
an honest and intelligent discussions by serious scholars of their religion’s limits
(if any) of freedom of expression. More importantly, scholars should discuss
how their faith serves as a frame of reference (and for many, the frame of reference) in a world in
which values, norms, and ways of connections are changing in transformative
ways. The question has been raised, repeatedly and often achingly, on social
media and in numerous makeshift cultural salons run by young Muslims across the
world. This generation grew up in a world that is vastly different from that
any previous Islamic generation has experienced. The technologies they use and
consume allow—some would say compel—them to argue, debate, and dissect all
issues in their lives. They know no boundaries and taboos.
There will not be a single, decisive, final answer to the question of
how an Islamic frame of reference fits in today’s world. Still, the question should
be aired, and be enriched by the knowledge and credibility that only serious
institutions can endow. Silence and equivocation muddies the world’s views on
Islam.
Islam deserves to have an open and serious discussion on such issues.
It is saddening that the religion that had inspired a civilization that,
centuries ago, demonstrated exemplary intellectual courage, honesty, and
openness, has, in the eyes of billions across the world, become a perpetual
suspect of inciting violence.
Tarek Osman is the author of the international
bestseller Egypt on the Brink.