Posted in beliefs, history, islam, lessons, pluralism, reflections, religion

Paris, I love you – Charlie Hebdo attack and the bottom line

I wanted to write whole argument on why people think that religion is dividing and actually how myopic is our understanding of violence and fanaticism. The reason for addressing these two issues were both the cartoon and the horrific massacre by the terrorists. However, I will skip it for another day as in crisis, we need more time to reflect and try to simplify the complex without corrupting the beauty of its complexity. It is the time for analysis, conclusions can wait.

The following is a perfect response by a friend and her wisdom:

How can a cartoon or a video destroy and mess with your faith and how can murder save and avenge it?

I would like to include other beliefs such as sexual diversity or human dignity or equality because apparently both the publication house (in terms of an institution) failed big time in salvaging their own ego and fanaticism through a display of hate speech in disguise of satire, and terrorists I believe they are godly as I highlighted previously in this post – It is NEVER okay. In short, cartoonist and staff members did not deserve it despite of whatever they expressed.

Paris is the worst place for this kind of subtle media fanaticism (with forced freedom) and apparent religious fanaticism. France is revered for love, democracy and human rights in historical and cultural narrative.

In connection to the particular cartoon, Muslim are fighting a tough battle internally and at global level (illustration) and this is the time for everyone to practice empathy and compassion – we do not need more oil in the fire. At the same time, LGBTQ community world over is trying every day to get their voice heard and fighting for identity in vulnerable situations and this is the time for everyone to practice empathy and compassion – they do not need more oil in the fire especially with backlash from religious fanatics.


 

 

Response after some initial responses from other channels: In discussions, I believe everyone should condemn the terrorist attack but then you are forced to advocate freedom of speech in its current defunct status. People all over the world, who are neither terrorists nor fanatics but moderate religious individuals are victimized through insult of such media content and the expectations of accepting it with a pinch of salt or displayed a populist standard of sense of humor. There is no empathy for receivers. Press had its voice but where is the voice of people who felt offended and never resorted to violence. Participation is never taken seriously, it is judged miserably. One ratified forced response is the only thing accepted – you can not lie on a continuum, you cannot question the sanctity of press. Where does free speech goes then?

The initial reflections above were not to equate in terms of moral equivalence of the both acts – their degree of fanaticism and approach of exercising is very different. For me, it is not fair that if I have to condemn one then I have to the take side of another. There are always more than two sides – the coin metaphor does not fit all.

In the start of this blog post, I clearly said it is not the right time but I guess we need to address the multi-dimensionality of the issue. Being an avid art practitioner and advocate, I am all for responsible use of freedom of speech and expression – it is not an alien concept and much possible, as exercising moderation in whatever you do is seen as a natural law. We all have desires but we find the appropriate place and approach to satiate them. We do not curb our expression but find the right spot. I am not pro-forced freedom rather it is important to foster positive interdependence (it is not simple as a clause on free speech in constitutions because blasphemy laws can be equally dangerous to freedom). Why – simply because most people will choose autonomy over freedom and autonomy can not be exercised in isolation – it needs positive interdependence. At the same time, I am completely against banning; I am pro-debate in public. I guess, as an institution, this publication has failed big time – nothing less than subtle fanaticism for me (even we remove the horrific massacre that followed). Moreover, there is no justification and tolerance for attacking or killing someone.

At this moment, my heart goes to the families of victims – May the souls of departed rest in eternal peace.

Advertisements

Author:

a coffee addict/ optimist sun flower/ can't-live-without-50mm photographer/ writing enthusiast/ [an almost inexistent] paper cookie smasher/ orange things collector/ wishes he had two antennas on the head; ps: philosophy-pistachio & educational technologist. to sound little proper: A self-taught, internationally published, photographer who loves to write/blog and read while breathing philosophy in between. Graduate of M.Ed. in Teacher Education with High Honors from Aga Khan University and currently works at the same university as Education Designer for Blended Learning. Candidate for Social Innovation in Digital Context (SIDC) at Lunds Universitet funded by Swedish Institute. Action Partner for Oxfam International Youth Partnership 2010-2013 led by Oxfam Australia. To cut the conversation short, an optimistic realist who believe in designing his life to fulfill dreams while sipping countless cups of coffee! I hope this makes some sense. http://www.raheellakhani.com

2 thoughts on “Paris, I love you – Charlie Hebdo attack and the bottom line

  1. There is only one God. In relation to that topic, I have a few ideas: 1) we shouldn’t make fun of our brothers’ way of worship (respect each other!), 2) all religions have certain commandments (such as do not kill) that we should obey, and 3) we should treat each other the way we would want to be treated. The world would be a better place if we could stick to the basics. I guess it all boils down to love God and treat each other with respect.

    Like

    1. Thanks for these words of wisdom. Even with atheism, this can be followed. 1)We should never make fun of others – human dignity. 2)We should look more deeply into cosmopolitan ethics which unite multiple ideologies towards humanity. 3)The same is a human instinct or desire 🙂

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s