James Kirchik, a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies says that there are unwritten common rules in the West concerning freedom of expression.

Sign of a shallow mind
He states that there exists an unspoken rule in the Republic of Letters – the land where anyone who writes for a living, reside: No one should be physically harmed, let alone threatened, for something that they publish.

According to him, the ‘hominem attacks’ are more than welcomed but the minute someone raises a fist, he’s lost the argument.

“Indeed, it’s a sign of a shallow mind and an insecure personality (see Norman Mailer) when a writer, flummoxed by the prowess of his intellectual adversary, resorts to throwing a scotch glass across the room. I hope that if my worst enemy, someone who wrote things that I absolutely despise, were ever confronted with violence by a fanatic of any sort, (even someone ostensibly “on my side”), I would defend him to the hilt.”

Kirchik adds, that writers in the West are united in a fundamental belief: that freedom of expression is irrevocable and fundamental to a free society.

“We see this grand tradition of literary solidarity in organizations like PEN International, advocates for writers in authoritarian regimes whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by the mere exercise of activities which we in the West take for granted.”

Fear is hardly a reason to avoid controversy
Sara Yasin, right, an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship and a regular contributor to Muslimah Media Watch says that Muslim defensiveness over taboo images is special pleading designed to shut down criticism.

She underlines that there is a global debate on whether or not images of Muhammad should be published. The fear of the offended Muslim, burning flags and brandishing petrol bombs became a reason for many publishers and writers to avoid controversy.

„A great example of this is the 2008 publication of the Jewel of Medina, a fictionalised account of the life of Aisha, one of prophet Muhammad’s wives. Initially, the novel by Sherry Jones was set to be published by Random House, but the major publishing house decided to pull out, in fear of controversy. Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship, wrote that the decision showed “how far we have lost our way in this debate over free expression and Islam,” and I would have to agree. Fear is hardly a reason to avoid publishing a book in a free society.

In self-fulfilling prophecy, the home of the London-based publisher who decided to publish the novel was firebombed, and as a result the crazy Muslim took centre stage once again, overshadowing some of the conversations surrounding the book, such as charges that the book was riddled with historical inaccuracies, or I don’t know — whether or not the book was actually good.

Begging the world to play nice is not really a solution as much as it is a defence mechanism. Let’s face it: what many Muslims are really asking for is the right to be offended, which is an entirely different conversation.“

Civil war in the Muslim world came to our cities
Kirchik presents even more examples of fanatical reactions to published books and articles. He says that the civil war in the Muslim world on some topics like jihad or Shari‘a has come to our streets and cities.

„Over the past decade, that civil war has intensified on the streets of Western cities; Amsterdam, (where the artist Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight for a film which criticized misogynistic Koran verses), Nyhamnsläge, (the Swedish village where the home of cartoonist Lars Vilks, who drew images of Mohammed, has been repeatedly attacked), Aarhus (the Danish town where fellow prophet-image-maker Kurt Westergaard had to hide in a “panic room” after an axe-wielding Muslim broke into his home).“

Yasin notes that no one group should set the rules for criticism as conflating taboo with hatred sets a dangerous precedent, and silence in the name of avoiding offence is not a step in the right direction.

“Censorship only serves as an indicator of a bigger problem: a fear of the savage and angry Muslim, which does not serve to challenge stereotypes or animosity towards Muslims. While the right to debate and the right to be offended are both valid, this does not mean that we should shy away from criticism, no matter what form that may take,” she adds.

Reflection of France’s relationship to Islam and religion
Myram Francois-Cerrah, below, a writer, journalist and academic, stresses the social background of this sad incident. She says that the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo offices is a sad reflection of France’s uneasy relationship to Islam and religion more generally.

“Sadly, there are some who do not believe that Charlie Hebdo should have the right to publish a satirical issue, in which it presents Prophet Mohamed as the inspiration of the Arab revolutions and subsequent rise of islamist parties in the region (regardless of the accuracy of this link!). They are no doubt in a minority, just as those who committed this crime will no doubt be revealed to be a fringe group or renegade individuals.”

Despite the fact that many Muslims were offended by the decision to run an issue entitled “Charia Hebdo”, she defends the magazine which, according to her, is renowned for being a highly satirical outlet which pushes the limits of public discourse on any given issue through its provocative illustrations and irreverent style.

“It has in its time, been accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and now Islamophobic to boot and would no doubt parade these accusations as badges of honour.”

However Francois-Cerrah pays attention to a more complex environment in France and intense polemics over the place of Islam within country. She marks the higher unemployment amongst French Muslim, the vivid opinion that the government does not respect them, etc.

“In France, with or without the caricatures, Islam is a sore topic with many recent polemics related to Islamic practises, whether the face veil debate, street prayers or the building of new mosques. […]

New France’s challenge
The attack on the press outlet, Charlie Hebdo is symptomatic of the broader unease French society is facing in light of a growing visible Muslim minority. While successive generations of “French” origin are getting more secular in their outlook, with around 60 per cent of youths saying in 2008 that they had no religious belief, the pattern among the children of immigrants from north Africa, Sahel and Turkey is the opposite, as religion gains in importance, particularly among the young.”

Francois-Cerrah also cited Mohammed Moussaoui, a president of the French Muslim Council, who has both condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the printing of the irreverent images.

“Describing the decision to print images known to be offensive to Muslims as “hurtful” and questioning the association of the caricatures of Prophet Mohamed with events in Tunisia or Libya, he defended the right of those who opposed the decision to protest as well as the freedom of the press to print the said images and explained that in a plural society, people’s relationship to the sacred will necessarily vary.”