CAIRO: France's satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo went through this week with its publication of a controversial issue featuring a picture of the Islamic Prophet Mohamed as a turbaned man with a red clown nose, poking fun at the revolutionaries of the Arab Spring and Arab women. The issue was published despite a late night attack on the office over the cartoon, when a single Molotov cocktail was thrown into the window of the magazine's office, destroying a large amount of materials. As editors at the magazine called upon their “freedom to poke fun,” anger has brewed throughout the Islamic world in response to the well-known rule that images depicting the Prophet are forbidden by Islam, for the fear that the could lead to idolatry. “If we can poke fun at everything in France, if we can talk about anything in France apart from Islam or the consequences of Islamism, that is annoying,” said the editor-in-chief of the magazine, Stephane Charbonnier, in an interview with the BBC, saying that Islam should not be excluded from freedom of the press. Though no one suffered injuries in the attack, there are concerns that the incident and the magazine's subsequent publication could trigger more violence and tensions. The use of violence to retaliate against the publication and those like it is reprehensible and base. The indefensible act should be fully investigated, and those found responsible for the firebombing should be brought to justice. However, if the magazine hoped to make a statement about the importance of freedom of expression, they fell short. Their move and humor does not reflect the free flow of ideas, but instead deconstructs and inhibits a dialogue between the West and the Arab world, fueling the fire of intolerance. The issue's abrasive humor in no way is representative of the merits of freedom or liberty, as those defending the publication have rallied around. It is well known that the pictoral depiction of the Prophet is an unpalatable offense for Muslims globally, and expresses resentment and Islamophobia in the West. It is an act that stymies the free flow of ideas, rather than garnering them. The same publication was taken to a Paris court in 2007 by Islamic organizations, who charged it with “ publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion” and publishing offensive pictures of the Prophet. The Paris court threw out a lawsuit brought by two Muslim organizations against Charlie Hebdo for reprinting cartoons of Prophet Mohamed that had appeared in a Danish newspaper, sparking angry protests by Muslims worldwide. Observers hope that with the genesis of democracy in the Arab world, these over-the-top violent reactions could instead be channeled through the systems of real justice and the tools of democratic expression, which the region has been largely deprived of for decades. However, it is only through dialogue and a positive example of the importance of the freedom of expression that the genesis of democracy in the Arab world may come into fruition. Islam, one of the most widespread religions in the world, is by no means vulnerable to the quips of satirical cartoons, especially as those in the Arab world are given the tools and example of democratic freedoms that they continue to call for. One can hope that instances of such reactionary violence will dwindle and give way to more positive and tolerant venues of dialogue from both the West and the Muslim world. BM
