Comments are closed.
Ah, Paris, the proverbial city of ‘love’ has been transformed into a garrison following the Charlie Hebdo killings believed to be carried out by gunmen affiliated with AQAP. Even before the Kouachi brothers were identified as the prime suspects of the shooting, the mainstream media and the social media was abuzz with demands that ‘Muslims’ collectively should condemn and apologize for the attack. Social media went one-step further, with people tweeting using the hashtag ‘killallmuslims’ calling for a genocide of all Muslims regardless of their stance vis-à-vis the Charlie Hebdo attack. Many ‘Muslims’ are condemning the attack, calling the attack as being against the spirit of Islam and being nothing but vigilantism. On religious grounds we unequivocally refuse to condemn the attack or feel sorry for it, neither would we tender an apology for it. The consensus of the classical Islamic scholars is enough for us to feel that way and no freshly minted fatawa can for a change in our view about it, because Islam isn’t a social science where new research would replace the old, outdated research. Regardless of what the new ‘scholars’ on the block want the world to believe the fact of the matter is that from the companions of the Prophet PBUH to Imam Abu Hanifa to Ibn Taymiyah the consensus is that anyone who violates the sanctity of the Prophet PBUH by mocking or slander his or her punishment is the death penalty. Period Charlie Hebdo played with fire even after they were warned of the dire consequences of doing so, instead of backing off; the magazine not only intensified its attacks on the sanctity of the Prophet PBUH in the name of free speech but also celebrated the Rabaa massacre of Egypt. In fact, it appears that Charlie Hebdo played the ‘free speech’ card only to mock Islam and hurt the sentiments of Muslims, the double standard is clear given how the magazine fired one of its cartoonists on ‘allegations’ of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the editor is believed to have proclaimed that ‘he does not fear Shariah; he is protected by the French law’ in that case it is the French Law that failed to protect him and his colleagues. Neither would we condemn the attack because it was an attack on the ‘sacred notion’ of ‘Free speech’; it was not free speech. It was an attack on a goo of xenophobia, racism and Islamophobia. Any such vitriol just because it is widely read and circulated does not make it free speech; it represents the institutionalisation of such vitriol that targets a select community or ethnic group. Free speech comes with a responsibility, being civilized ideally means being respectful towards one another, but such is not the case here, the commanders of free speech are of the opinion that they and their opinions must be respected, and the same does not apply to them. Democracy as a system has failed to safeguard this respect for the Muslim community; their right to free speech is gagged after being labelled as hate-speech. Free speech seems to have become synonymous with anti-Islam vitriol; in fact, any free speech that does not mock or target Islam and instead targets the policies of the West is deemed pejorative, hateful or even terrorism. The commanders of free speech in instances such as this, this and this maintain a criminal silence and make themselves unavailable for comment. But come something like Charlie Hebdo, they all rally together to protect the ‘notion’ of free speech, some even go overboard and propose that the blasphemous material be promoted to protect free speech and honour the memory of the slain cartoonists. When the West institutionalises and patronizes a policy that mocks the most sacred figures and elements of the Islamic faith, it has nobody to blame but itself for the blowback. It has no right to corner Muslims and coerce an apology out of them; it may succeed in doing so temporarily but in the longer run, the West if it wants to prevent another Charlie Hebdo from happening it must abandon the ship of double standards for the common good of all. We would not encourage that to expose the farce of ‘solidarity’ to the Charlie Hebdo attack and the hypocrisy of free speech champions, we must respond by blaspheming the tenets of their faith or values as suggested by Glenn Greenwald, this is not in our creed. I simply refuse to apologize or condemn the Charlie Hebdo attack. Nous ne sommes pas apologistes. Views are authors own. TPP doesn’t necessarily agree with the views of the author. (The disclaimer was added later)
Comments are closed.
WE are living in a world that is governed by rules and regulations for everything, created not by anyone else but by US only. The walls of these rules and regulations are so high that one wonders what to speak, think even sometimes what to feel. Everything seems possessed and in chaos. Amidst all this pandem
© TPP 2017
Designed & Developed By Evaluate Bytes