You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Allow me to begin with a flat-out declaration: I am not Charlie. In other words, I do not feel solidarity with the editors, publishers, journalists, and graphic designers of the French publication, Charlie Hebdo, which depicted Islam's prophet, Mohammad (AD 570-AD 632), in degrading postures and vulgar situations. I find this particular manifestation of Freedom of Speech to be irresponsible, indecent, and unacceptable. This is not on religious grounds. My disagreement has different roots, of which the following three are the strongest:
The racist angle: The Charlie Hebdo staff is largely White, and it is mocking the prophet of Muslims, who, in France, are predominantly African-born, non-White, individuals.
The post-colonial angle: French Muslims are mostly from the African nations (e.g. Algeria, Morocco) that France had colonized. They are in France because France was in their countries. These Midnight's Children (Rushdie, 1981) are a minority and are being mocked by the dominant majority. The nefarious devaluation of the colonized groups thus continues.
The unfairness angle: France is among the 14 European countries where Holocaust denial is punishable by law. How is it possible to justify protecting the feelings of one religious group and not of another?
Based upon these three angles, I find it hard to defend or even be sympathetic with Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of speech is not a “free-for-all” logorrhoea that can exist outside of ethical constraints. To be sure, this is not a position shared by others, as the books reviewed here and the opinions of their reviewers will readily demonstrate. Read. Think. And decide for yourself.
Salman Akhtar
Jefferson Medical College
Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA