Charlie Hebdo: Of Jihadists and Jane Austen

Published : 16 Jan 2015, 10:30 AM
Updated : 16 Jan 2015, 10:30 AM

In Chapter 11 of the English writer Jane Austen's much-loved novel Pride and Prejudice is the following exchange between the two central characters, Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett.

Darcy: "The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke."

Elizabeth: "Certainly, there are such people, but I hope I am not one of them. I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."

I was reminded of this passage when I was looking at some of the cartoons which were freely available on the web, first published by weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo. As most of the world knows, twelve people were shot dead on 7 January 2015 in and around the weekly's offices by jihadist brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi in avowed revenge for publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a manner calculated deeply to offend. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication, and satire may legitimately be used to ridicule what Jane Austen referred to as "follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies." However, as Jane Austen said in the passage quoted, there is a distinction between that ridicule and ridicule for the sake only of ridicule. Even if one looks only at those images from Charlie Hebdo not concerning Islam, it would seem plain that cartoonists in that magazine were engaged, not in legitimate satire alone, but also in ridicule for its own sake, since for them the "first object in life is a joke."

A cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad mourning that he is loved by fundamentalists, may be considered satire by non-Muslims. But what of a depiction of the Christian idea of God in a manner so obscene that no decent person would want even to think of it? What of the profane depiction of a Jew and a Nazi together outside the gates of the Dachau concentration camp? Among those living, is Roman Catholic Pope Francis neither "wise nor good" enough to escape being depicted in a manner I would never want to mention in a family-oriented forum?

It is not then Muslims alone whom Charlie Hebdo has been seeking to offend. It would not have been at all astonishing had fundamentalist Christians reacted with rage to a particular depiction by Charlie Hebdo of the birth of Jesus. It would not have been at all astonishing had even anti-Zionist Jews reacted with rage to references to the Second World War Holocaust. This was the "Shoah" in Hebrew, in an edition of the magazine called "Shoah Hebdo," which carried a bar code on its cover recalling the tattooing of numbers on inmates of the Nazi concentration camps.

The tag line "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") has in the course of a few days become one of the most widely used tag lines ever. It shows support to the magazine. But it is not a tag line to which I would subscribe, because it is apt to suggest support for what I regard as being simply vile. Yet, to those Muslims inclined to support or in any way justify the killings, I would say that it is wrong to not whole-heartedly condemn the Kouachi brothers and their murderous ilk.

Verse 176 of Surah 3 of the Quran, Surat al-Imran, directly addresses the Messenger of God who was the subject in his lifetime of often vile invective from his enemies:

"And let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you. Indeed, they never will harm Allah in anything. Allah intends that He will not set for them any portion in the hereafter. And for them is a great punishment. Indeed, never will those who have purchased disbelief with faith harm Allah in anything, and for them is a painful punishment."

The Quran here enjoins the Prophet to be patient in the face of those mocking him. It reminds him that God can not in the smallest way be harmed by the invective he hears, and that those traducing the Prophet will suffer in the hereafter. Then, in verse 186 of Surat al-Imran, the Quran addresses Muslims generally:

"You will certainly be tested in your wealth and yourselves. And you will certainly hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book from before you, and from those who associate others [with God]. And if you are patient and are regarding [of God], then indeed that is of the matters [worthy] of determination."

The Quran tells Muslims that they will find communicated that which will pain them, from those whose communities have been given the Bible and from those who associate other entities with God. But Muslims must respond in all cases with patience. If they do so, then God will favourably consider their fortitude.

Short of mentioning Charlie Hebdo by name, there is nothing more that Surat al-Imran could say to make it plain that the killings discussed are contrary to Islam. So, for anyone aspiring to be a good Muslim, it is meritorious to shrug off cartoons such as those carried by Charlie Hebdo in the knowledge that God can in no way be harmed, that the last Prophet is with God, and that the cartoonists merely harm themselves by distancing themselves from God. Beyond that, since this demonstrates greater fortitude, greater favour can be earned of God by praying that the cartoonists will learn the errors of their ways and that through repentance they will eventually be received by God. Beyond even that, because it demonstrates the greatest fortitude, the greatest favour can be earned of God by seeking without anger and with reason to explain to them the errors of the cartoonists' ways.

I said that I would not subscribe to the tag line "Je suis Charlie." But there is another tag line which has appeared in social media with which I willingly would associate: "Je suis Ahmed" ("I am Ahmed"). It is a tag line that indicates support not of any cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo but of values which require that such cartoons should elicit only peaceful responses.

As the two jihadist killers exited from their murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdo, a policeman came hurrying to the defence of those at the magazine. Ahmed Merebat was a Muslim, and surely appalled by some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo. But he was loyal to his duty, which was to defend the cartoonists from harm. The jihadists shot him dead, their twelfth and last murder victim. News reports convey that Merebat was a decent human being but perhaps one as a Muslim not deeply observant. But, be that as it may, he died trying to prevent the contravention by his supposed co-religionists of a fundamental tenet of Islam. If anyone in the events surrounding Charlie Hebdo died as a martyr for and conscious of the values of Islam, it was Ahmed Merebat.

As for the jihadists and their ilk, it is plain that their religion is not that of the Quran but of something else. Their deity is not the One who is repeatedly described in the Quran as the Sustaining, the Merciful. Their deity is a deity of hate. To them, indeed, may any Muslim address the words of Surah 109, Surat al-Kafirun:

"O unbelievers! I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

———————–

Anatul Fateh is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, and Head of Chambers of a law firm in Dhaka. He is based in London and was formerly a practising barrister in England.