Opening Remarks at the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS)
Post by André Gagné (01-24-2015)
On January 20, 2015, I was invited by Kyle Matthews of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS) for a discussion on the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks, freedom of expression and religious violence. I read the following text as my opening statement:
The cowardly and brutal murder of 12 people in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015 should set the record straight: religious ideologies can incite individuals to commit violent acts. Let’s stop ignoring the elephant in the room in the name of political correctness! It’s time to admit that many aspects of such worldviews are a hindrance to human progress and harmony, as well as incompatible with our modern ways of life in the 21st century.
When the perpetrators of this despicable deed cried out “Allahu akbar, the Prophet is avenged,” it became clear that this was done in retaliation to satirical comments and caricatures of the prophet Mohammad; actions which were deemed insulting toward Islam. But as we know, Charlie Hebdo had not only been critical of Islam, it also decried the abuses of other religious traditions such as Catholicism and Judaism, and spoken out against right-wing politicians and many other aspects of French culture.
But why haven’t there been any murderous acts committed by other religious groups or targeted individuals?
Maybe it’s because Islam is still at a place where it is unable to cope with criticism. Are we not witnessing this throughout several countries where large numbers of Muslims burn and stampede on the French flag in protest against last Wednesday’s issue of the Charlie Hebdo? When one thinks that these horrific murders were in retaliation to “caricatures” of Mohammad, it is sad to see that there is actually little justification for such crimes in the Qur’an, apart from the command against idolatry. There is more evidence, even though ambiguous, in the hadiths, a series of secondary texts containing teachings of Mohammad, and in later Islamic art where Mohammad is represented with a veil over his face. Were radicals aware of these ambiguous interpretations and the existence of images of Mohammad in Islamic material culture; interpretations for which people are fighting to the point of death, as we are currently seeing in the Middle-East? Most probably not! When it comes to religious ideologies, people like to pick and choose from their holy books what fits their own needs and justifies their ways of living. For example, people who say that the Bible or the Qur’an do not contain violent commands or narratives, have not carefully read them or are simply deluding themselves. It is therefore not surprising for someone to say that their religion is “peaceful” and label all who act violently as not representing the “true” essence of their tradition. Either way, holy books do contain both the good and the bad. It is then incorrect to say that all of this is not representative of “true” Islam. There is no such thing as a “true” or “false” Islam. Scholarship has abandoned the categories of orthodoxy and heresy; what we see are simply the various manifestations or facets of a religion. Therefore, as there are peaceful verses in the Qur’an, there are also texts which order the killing of those who wage war against Allah and his prophet. It is surprising, then, that some read the Charlie Hebdo caricatures as an attack toward Islam; this is exactly what led radical extremists to take matters into their own hands to defend the honour of the prophet. Again, we need to remember that Muslims fighting each other in the Middle East all claim to represent and act according to the “true” Islam, even though they belong to competing factions of the tradition! It is strange how we are quick to say that the perpetrators of the Paris attacks do not represent “true” Islam, but rarely say the same thing when the attacks are far from home.
Speaking on the issue of attacks at home, last week, the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, started to announce new security measures in the wake of the attacks. President Obama, who has been severely criticized for not attending the Paris march on January 11 – while ironically, representatives from several countries which usually act against the freedom of expression were paving the streets of Paris alongside President Holland – has nonetheless summoned an international meeting in Washington in February, to discuss ways to counter the rising threat of global terrorism. Here in Canada, Premier Stephen Harper has tackled head-on what he sees as a war on terrorism, and is clearly gaining momentum in the opinion polls, as people are clearly concerned for their security. In Québec, Prime Minister Couillard stated that his government will form a committee to fight against radicalization, but only in a few weeks. Couillard believes that actions leading to radicalization are not in any way linked to Islam.
With all these proposed actions, especially those which focus on intensifying security measures, will governments be able to prevent attacks on their territories? Is it truly realistic to believe that everyone will be protected at all times? Of course not! These measures will certainly help, but will they be sufficient to reverse the mechanisms leading to radicalization and dissuade people from committing terror attacks?
Another noteworthy approach to this crisis would be to wage war against the ideology that feeds such violent actions. This is why I believe education is the first step to de-radicalization in this war against terrorism. Education is clearly an enemy of radicalization; just remember the Peshawar attack last December.
How does one go about educating people? The first step is to target potential radicals, by informing them of the costs of radicalization. For example, many people are unaware that ISIS recently executed 200 fighters who had joined their ranks, but wanted to return home after being disillusioned with the whole enterprise. People become radicalized because they experience some sense of personal or collective injustice, while others are simply seeking meaning in their lives. This is can often be the result of various social and economic ills, where people will seek answers to the hopelessness they experience. This is exactly when someone feels most vulnerable to radical religious ideologies which can lead to a destructive path.
As a secular society, we have to provide hope and denounce radicalization; the way to go about this is through a counter-ideology, one that helps and equips people to create their own meaningful life and sense of worth, in line with humanistic and liberal values. Fighting terrorism is not only done through better security measures, but through better ideas than those which seek to extinguish freedom and life.
But modern secular societies also have a responsibility to adopt and uphold a critical perspective toward all oppressive religious ideologies and political systems. Humanistic values should be at the core of pluralistic societies, and ideas that promote violence should be denounced and resisted. This is why Islam, or any other religious tradition that stifles human dignity, should be critiqued. Strangely enough, people have little problem with critically assessing the value of political decisions, scientific discoveries, artistic expression, or any other aspect of culture. But religion – and these days, the Islamic tradition – seems to be off limits. Muslims can surely disagree with the assessment people make of their tradition; but the best way to state their case is with ink and paper. This is what freedom of speech is all about. However, people who choose otherwise may perhaps be confirming their lack of valid arguments in the face of reasonable objections. They simply shut out competing worldviews and suppress freedom of thought and expression by violently silencing those who oppose their ideology.
With all this being said, religion cannot be blamed for every violent action in the world; there are other factors at work. But secular societies clearly need to position themselves regarding sacred texts and the religions that uphold them.
My aim here is not to criticize people, but rather to expose ideas that are dangerous to our society. Ultimately, we should be guided by humanistic values and resist all forms of violence.