Columns

In 2012, the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo published editorial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. One showed Muhammad flashing a victory sign—with two extended fingers drawn to resemble the burning World Trade Towers. Another depicted Muhammad as a bomb-toting terrorist. Another showed Muhammad with vampire teeth, drinking wine and smoking a cigar. This caused a wave of protests.

In response, in January 2015, the offices of Charlie Hebdo were attacked by Islamic extremists and 12 members of its staff were killed along with the three attackers. Later, a kosher supermarket was attacked. The attacks set off a wave of violence across Europe. Seventeen in all were killed.

Unrepentant, the first cover of Charlie Hebdo after the attack shows the Prophet Muhammad holding a “Je Suis Charlie” sign with the caption, “All is forgiven.” The newspaper printed a record 3 million copies that week, with financial help from Google, Le Monde and other organizations. It usually prints around 60,000 copies. This edition was translated into six languages including English, Arabic and Turkish. The edition sold out in minutes. This edition triggered a mixed reaction but for the most part, Muslims heeded their leaders and remained calm. 

On September 2, 2020, Charles Hebdo republished these cartoons on the eve of the first trial against the thirteen men and women accused of providing the attackers with weapons and logistics, writing that it was “unacceptable to start the trial’’ without showing the “pieces of evidence” to readers and citizens. Adding not republishing the caricatures would have amounted to “political or journalistic cowardice. Do we want to live in a country that claims to be a great democracy, free and modern, which, at the same time, does not affirm its most profound convictions?’’ 

Should Charlie Hebdo have republished these cartoons knowing that it would likely cause violent demonstrations? Although freedom of expression is a right, it comes with a responsibility.  

Unfortunately, the concept of freedom of expression is not appreciated or understood in most of the Arab world. Blasphemy, for example, is prohibited in many Arab countries. For many followers of Islam, the depiction of Muhammad is a contentious issue. The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few supplemental teachings which explicitly prohibits Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures. And lampooning Muhammad is certain to raise the ire of most Muslims. 

When the Charlie Hebdo editorial staff first published these cartoons, they knew or should have known that these cartoons would likely lead to violence because in 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published these same editorial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. 

Muslim groups in Denmark complained that the cartoons insulted Muhammad and Islam and the issue eventually led to protests around the world, including violent demonstrations and riots in some Muslim countries 

Interestingly, in 2005, Jyllands-Posten refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ. A Danish illustrator had submitted a series of cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ. He received an email back from the paper’s editor which said: “I don’t think our readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.” The newspaper had no compunction in publishing cartoons lampooning Muhammad but not Jesus. Islamophobia?  

Jesus and Christianity have not been immune from ridicule by cartoonists. Publications have been met with outrage, economic pressure, loss of advertising and subscribers, and political pressure. Although I am not aware of anyone being killed or wounded in modern times for publishing such cartoons. For example, in its March edition, The Insurgent, an “alternative” student paper at the University of Oregon, printed 12 hand-drawn cartoons of Jesus as a response to a rival paper The Commentator for having published the controversial cartoons of Muhammad originally published in Jyllands-Posteni. One was a depiction of a naked Jesus on the cross with an erection; the other, titled “Resurrection,” showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man, both sporting erections. The Insurgent claimed it published the drawings to “provoke dialogue.” 

Some of the mandatory student fees at the University of Oregon are set aside for student publications including The Insurgent. In response to cries to cut off funds to The Insurgent, the University President Dave Frohnmayer refused explaining that the university, based on Supreme Court rulings, cannot “exercise control over content by using a threat of removal of fee support. Simply put, neither content nor viewpoint is a lawful basis for denying an allocation of incidental fees to a student group.” 

I am not playing a blame-the-victim game. No one should be killed or injured over cartoons no matter how offensive they are perceived to be. And free expression does not mean that religions shouldn’t be lampooned. 

I am in favor of freedom of expression, but at the same time, before the recent republication of these cartoons of Muhammad, the editors should have considered whether the cartoons are contributing to the political or social dialogue or just to inflame the public. Or more specifically, should the editors of Charlie Hebdo have considered the anti-Muslim sentiment in France and how radicals in the French Muslim community would react to the cartoons, especially after the riots following these cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten? There is no easy answer. 

Will there be violent demonstrations in response to the republication of the cartoons? Stay tuned.