Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie, Mais Je Suis Ahmed

On January 7, 2015, two masked gunmen carrying Kalashnikov rifles stormed the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. The crack of gunshots and the zealous cry of the takbir filled the air, leaving twelve people dead and eleven injured in its wake. Among those dead were editor-in-chief Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, cartoonist Bernard “Tignous” Verlhac, and police officer Ahmed Merabet.

Immediately after the tragedy, people from all over the world took to the streets and to social media. Through the use of signs and hashtags, they had only one message to convey: “Nous sommes Charlie,” or “we are Charlie.” Standing behind the victims of the attack and the satirical hebdomadaire (weekly magazine), many lauded Charlie Hebdo as a bastion of free speech and expression in the face of religious extremism. At the same time, many from the Islamic world defended the actions of the gunmen and praised them for avenging the name of their Prophet. Among their supporters were several citizens of the Islamic State and Afghanistan, and the Turkish magazine Turkiye — the latter of which publishing an article titled “Attack on the magazine that insulted our Prophet.”

With such a polarized display of opinions on the situation, it’s not hard to see that many people view it as a black-and-white issue. Yet, as someone who is opposed to religious extremism and blatant anti-theism (in this particular case Islamophobia) alike, the issue is not so clear-cut for me. While violence carried out in the name of religion is absolutely and unequivocally wrong and unjustifiable, I do believe that the idea of Charlie Hebdo as a group of journalists merely exercising their right to free speech is a tad oversimplified. There is a difference between things that can be expressed, and things that should be expressed. Understandably, the two are often conflated and I believe that most people will, upon looking into the content of the publication, be more reluctant to be Charlies.

Without a doubt, any and all forms of religion can and should be criticized validly and objectively when necessary. With that being said, the publications of Charlie Hebdo seem to have little purpose besides rabble-rousing and belittlement. A few examples are listed below:

It is undeniable that Charlie Hebdo does have the right to release such publications — however, just because they can, doesn’t mean that they should. One can say that they are merely expressing the right to free speech and expression, which is not entirely untrue. However, that logic can be applied to many other infamous, verbally caustic groups — I’ll use the Westboro Baptist Church as an example. The controversial church, as well as Charlie Hebdo, is not responsible for anything worse than nonviolent provocation of the masses. However, if the Westboro Baptist Church’s headquarters in Topeka, Kansas were attacked tomorrow, I’d be skeptical to believe that marchers around the world would take to the streets and hold up signs saying “We are the Westboro Baptist Church!” One does not have to ally with Charlie Hebdo or condone its bigoted publications in order to be opposed to the recent violence against it.

With all of that being said, there is an equally important and somewhat contrasting message: religious extremism must be stopped. Ironically, these attacks carried out by the so-called “defenders of Islam” do much more to hurt and defame the name of Muhammad and the Islamic community as a whole rather than to help them. Once again, large numbers of innocent Muslims around the world are expected to apologize for violence that they didn’t carry out. Once again, the vast majority of Islam has to work to dissociate itself from the work of extremists. The attack itself, while violent, has also done nothing to discredit the publications of magazines such as Charlie Hebdo. Had the attack never been carried out, Charlie Hebdo would have largely remained unseen by the international community and would have been little more than a magazine trying too hard to stir the masses. Besides all of this, no drawing of any cartoon in a magazine, however asinine or vitriolic, should result in the death of any human being. With religiously motivated terror attacks on the rise, it is of paramount importance that everyone, including and especially the Islamic community, rallies against the evils of Islamic extremism.

There is one more thing that I’d like to add — amidst the deafening cries of “Je suis Charlie” , there is another phrase making its way around social media: “Je suis Ahmed.” Ahmed Merabet was a French National Police officer who had been murdered by the same men who attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices. Merabet was himself a Muslim and of Algerian descent, and the spirit of risking his life to defend a publication that only mocked and satirized his culture can best be captured by the words of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If the terrorists that attacked the publication must represent Islam and the Islamic community, then so must the Muslim officer who gave his life to defend the expression of ideals that he was likely opposed to.

For me, it essentially comes down to one thing: am I a Charlie? The answer to that question is “no,” I am not Charlie and I do not stand with Charlie Hebdo or any of its ludicrous publications. However, I do stand with the victims of this heinous tragedy; I do stand with the peaceful majority of the Islamic community; I do stand with the opposition to militant and violent Islamism; and I do stand with Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim who was as much a victim of the attack as any of the journalists that lost their lives in that office.

Je ne suis pas Charlie, mais je suis Ahmed.