Charlie Hebdo is not a Religious Warfare
Since Wednesday, 7th January, 2015, there has been a lot of noise that accompanied the tragic deaths of Stéphane Charbonnier, Jean Cabut, Philippe Honoré, Bernard Verlhac, Georges Wolinski, Bernard Maris, Elsa Cayat, Mustapha Ourrad, Michel Renaud, Frédéric Boisseau, Franck Brinsolaro and Ahmed Merabet. There were noises of support, opposition, reason and bigotry from various sections of the population through media representing the ideological left, right and center. Although the initial frenzy might have died down, the disease that caused this tragedy has still not been identified.
However, how are we supposed to identify it with all the noise that we have had to sift through? The answers have come in various forms. Some believe that the attacks were an act of terrorism. Others believe that they were ideological while the rest are convinced that they resulted from the inability of Muslims to understand political humour. None of these opinions are wrong but none have identified the real source. The reason for that is that each of these are symptoms to a larger disease and not the cause. When all this static is filtered through thoughtful ears, we will see clearly that the root cause of the attacks is a class warfare.
This issue is a fight between the rich country and the poor country. Wealthy former colonial master France and poor Niger. The powerful Europe and the powerless Other.
Before we delve further into this, let me state unequivocally that the murders are wrong. I would also like to state that what they did is not, was not and will never be a jihad. And to quote Syeikh Yasir Qadhi, dean of academic affairs of the Al-Maghrib Institute, “under no circumstances does Islam allow vigilante justice, for to open this door leads to chaos, confusion and bloodshed”. Furthermore, I would like to state that the Charlie Hebdo editors have the right to create and publish whatever they want because it is their right under French law. However, as a Muslim, I will state my calm and thoughtful objection to such publications -- not because I am against freedom of speech but because such content demeans the poor and powerless. And finally, let me reiterate firmly that this issue is not about right and wrong, but about the fight between the rich and the poor.
As much as we would like to think of Charlie Hebdo as an “anti-establishment” publication, it is of the rather rich and powerful class. I do concede that they might have been in financial trouble before this incident, but let us face it. If the publication goes out of business, the editors and workers will have no trouble finding employment elsewhere. Therefore, it is safe to say that Charlie Hebdo is owned by the rich, powerful and vociferous.
On the other hand, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi are from the poor and underclass ghettos of France. It is also important to add that they are orphans and 2nd generation North African immigrant children. There have been cases where a few North African immigrants have climbed out of that slum. For example, over the years, some personalities like footballer Zinedine Zidane, have done so through sports. Still, for every Zidane, 10 others will be mired in crime and poverty. And one of the reasons for that is the lack of education.
With a lack of education, the poor are vulnerable to miseducation. Without diffusing their vital role in the crime, I must emphasise that Said and Cherif Kouachi are the victims of that miseducation. It was a miseducation by their so-called religious and secular teachers. It is a misguidance of their family members and it is a poor series of advice from their peers.
I have had a fairly strict religious education. However, there was not one stage in my life where my religious teachers ordered, lectured, said, advised, suggested or hinted that I should avenge for Allah or the Prophet. This is not to say that there was no international incident that could have been used to inflame such misrepresented passion. To name a few, in my early life, there was the perpetual Israeli-Palestine conflict and the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Despite such painful reminders, I am not about to swayed by such a perspective.
Then again, I am from Singapore, a rich affluent country. I came from a middle class family with loving parents, siblings and friends. I have had a good education since I was born. This is not to say that I was not offended by Charlie Hebdo. Of course I am offended.
However it is non-issue to me. To me, it is not about blasphemy, but about disrespect and lack of understanding. The reason for that is because I also have many other pressing concerns such as my job and family. It would not be too much of a stretch to conclude that millions of others believe as I do because of their similar affluent backgrounds. Unfortunately, Saïd and Chérif did not have those luxuries that were presented and afforded to me. For that very reason alone, I understand why and how they took the crooked path.
Those who linger on these crooked paths are the ones who are ripe for the picking. It is this demographic that fits the profile of the Al-Qaeda/ISIS recruit. If anyone is still not aware of it, it is a similar recruitment strategy to that employed by the American military - targeting the underprivileged to become foot soldiers. Targeting their indecision to sway their decision. Giving them a path where they had none.
There are plenty of poor Muslim majority nations all over the world, from Sierra Leone to Indonesia, that are ripe for exploitation. There are poor Muslim under class all over Europe. In fact, there are a lot of poor, uneducated and unsatisfied underclass in the rich Muslim nations. As long as they remain so, someone or something is going to take advantage of them.
Like I have mentioned before, this is a fight between the powerful and the powerless.
Cherif and Said felt powerless by the constant taunts of Charlie Hebdo and their unforgiving environment. Those constant taunts on top of the misinformation influenced them to come to the decision that it was right for them to take matters into their own hands. This is also what many Niger Muslims felt. They felt that their former colonial masters thought it was wise to make fun of the very figure that had kept them going in the absence of employment, wealth and overall hope. Would anyone continue to be calm and thoughtful after such provocation?
Let me emphasise the message again. This is a class war and not an ideological one.
In the past few years, there has been a rise in campaigning against bullying in Europe and North America. Is it any surprise that this problem is becoming more of an issue when the adults are setting a bad example? Isn’t this issue akin to bullying? Isn’t the duty of the powerful to protect the poor?
So before we, the powerful, patronise the weak through our pen waving, let us stop and think about the short and long term effects of our actions. The act of bullying coming from all sides should not be allowed to continue or tolerated.