Freedom of Speech should not be used to Insult Personalities that Others Consider Sacred

The terrorist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo on 7^th January 2015 — which had also published Muhammad cartoons in the past — triggered debate about satire, humour and free speech. We believe passionately in freedom of speech and expression. But free speech, as the US and UK newspapers who declined to republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed after the attack demonstrate, means the freedom to decide what to publish. It doesn’t mean publishing everything and anything. Of course there is no denying the fact that the recent attack in Paris is totally against the Islamic laws and nothing can justify the attack and I’m not trying to defend that. But the explicit nature of the drawings made it inevitable they would cause offence. Many Muslims regard any depiction of the Prophet as blasphemous and one can’t deny that. People have spoken out that publications like Charlie Hebo are an essential element of a free society. Even at their most provocative, they are what free speech and expression is all about. But I tend to disagree with it.

           
Charlie Hebdo has a long history of intentionally provocative and controversial cartoons. Offensive cartoons of Prophet Mohammed show that Charlie Hebdo is downright anti-religious and is an affront to the religious groups. This is where "freedom of speech" and satire cross the line of stupidity. I am no Muslim fan but for the life of me, I fail to see anything minute value in this senseless provocation.

I would like to support my stance with some of the controversial cartoons that has no value at all and absolutely unnecessary. The cover makes fun of the recent French movie hit, The Intouchables, and shows an orthodox Jew under the title Intouchables 2 pushing a wheelchair of a Muslim. The Muslim and the Jew are saying "we can't be mocked!" (See image).

But again why do they need to add Jews here? Is it because they pride themselves at being equal opportunity offenders?  What I don’t get is the need to throw in the Orthodox Jewish figure (a rabbi?). How did Jews get mixed up in this controversy? What is Charlie Hebdo trying to prove?

Inspired by Jean-Luc Godard's 1963 film "Contempt," above the caption "The film that will set the Muslim world on fire," Muhammad is shown naked lying on a bed, being filmed from behind, saying "My ass? And you love it, my ass?" echoing a line delivered by Brigitte Bardot (See image).

 Shockingly, the founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God is compared to a naked buttock . Another cartoon shows the founder of Islam crouched on all fours with a star covering his asshole with the inscription "A Star Is Born."

In October 2011, Charlie Hebdo published an issue "guest-edited" by Muhammad and rebranded Sharia Hebdo. The cover featured a cartoon (by the cartoonist Luz) of the prophet telling readers "100 lashes if you don't die laughing." (See image).

 Another cartoon showing a Muslim holding up the Quran the central religious text of Islam that represents the words of God revealed to Muhammad with bullets being fired through it, captioned "The Quran is crap – it doesn't stop bullets."

The Quran is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God and to see Charlie Hebdo depict a senseless cartoon like that, is a total disgrace.

The magazine targets not only the Muslims but also Christian icons. The cartoon depicts the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit getting it on (See Cartoon).  This cartoon was in support of the same-sex marriage. For Christians it is a statement of belief in the Holy Trinity; a statement of belief in and thanksgiving for Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross and God blessing us.

The cartoon shows the birth of Jesus captioned “The true story of the baby Jesus.” The issue was pitched as: “What your pastor never dared tell you is finally revealed in this new Gospel according to Riss [the cartoonist].  Because did you know that the Baby Jesus was a child of sin, scourge of dragons, sandpit faith-healer, child-killer, blinder of men, hyperactive child-king, tormentor of his teachers, and apprentice prophet?”

Another shows Jesus hanging on the cross and begging the leaders to led him down. Vatican: Another rigged election! “Let me down, I want to vote!”

The Charlie Hebdo magazine also mocked the second coming of Jesus Christ (see cartoon) captioned: “Jesus returns” with the Nazi leader Hitler at the back saying: “me too.”

The pro-Charlie Hebdo are of the view that they have right to blaspheme. However, this in a way implies that they are asking from Muslims to abandon their respect for the sacred. It’s more or less like "Learning to take a joke is part of living in Western society or like "nothing is sacred here -- get used to it."

But, well, no. Neither Muslims nor other believers will "get used to" the idea that nothing is sacred. A sense of the sacred is the very thing that makes them believers. And, as Nietzsche once put it well, the sacred is whatever it is in a culture at which one cannot laugh.

Muslims have every right to express their outrage that the cartoons about Prophet Muhammad is disrespectful to the Muslim community. But that's it. The violent attack on the magazine cannot be justified or tolerated. And its "right to blasphemy" cannot be countered by anything other than a peaceful stance for the sacred.