It's not that easy to be Charlie

There’s only one guilty when we talk about Paris assault against Charlie Hebdo: the ones who shot the gun and their crazy ideology. When the murderer is a mad norweigan or an insane amaerican, nobody doubts that those people must go on court and face the consequences.

But when we talk about muslims, there are other requirements. The reason is not racism: for decades, groups based on radical religious readings kill people around the world. Therefore, attack on Charlie Hebdo could be linked to groups that have commited thousands of murderers. They maybe are not automatically isolated, or maybe not, so at this point we want to know every detail about his relationship with jihadism. But here begins the blur.

Islam considers blasphemy to draw the Prophet Muhammad. The Muhammad cartoons published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2006 caused violent protests worldwide. Eleven Muslim countries condemned. The magazine Charlie Hebdo republished the cartoons in 2006 and took over from the Danes..

From this point to January 7th, Charlie Hebdo had caused three other conflicts. In 2012, the director, Charb, said: "We are preparing now number 1,058 of Charlie Hebdo . There have been only three covers that have caused a scandal, all of them regarding to Islam".

In September 2012, when film was released in US that mocked Muhammad and they killed (apparently unrelated to the tape-) the US ambassador in Libya, Chris Stevens, a cover of Charlie Hebdo caused the closure of 20 embassies in the world. Then, the Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, asked: "Is it really sensible or intelligent to add fuel to the fire?".

The director, Charb, didn’t like this comment. Where is the limit? Clearly, there are two ways of seeing the world that collide: for Muslim religious precepts are important; for Westerners, relevance is on basic rights. All are against savage violence as the attack on Charlie Hebdo but, what if it's just a little violence? ¿Burning flags, stoning embassies? Is it a legitimate way of getting angry? There is already more ambiguity inside.

There were earlier this year a great debate in the BBC to understand the nuance. On one side is Maajid Nawaz, president of the Quilliam Foundation on ANTI; on the other one, we can find the Huffington Post journalist Mehdi Hassan and Imam Mo Ansar.

In January Nawaz tweeted a picture of Muhammad and Jesus. Since then he has received death threats: "My purpose was to create a space to be heard without constantly fearing accusations of blasphemy or death threats". Today Nawaz has used Twitter once again to reafirm his position: "RIP victims of jihadist terrorisma in Charlie Hebdo. That’s why I tweeted how important is that Muslims don’t be offended by the drawings".

RIP #CharlieHebdo jihadist terrorist victims.This is why I'd tweeted it was so important for Muslims to openly *not* be offended by cartoons

— Maajid Nawaz (@MaajidNawaz) January 7, 2015

In one discussion on the BBC, the opponents of Nawaz have to make balances to recognize that the drawings do not offend them, "but" it’s not totally true. That weakness to take offense has no direct relationship with the guys that shoot the guns, but , according Nawaz, that sentimental weakness when others shoot in the name of your religion is a luxury that Islam today can not afford. Jihadism is a greater enemy to Muslims than freedom.

But, at this point, it’s not easy enough yet. Muslims should clarify their point of view each other, but occidentals have also a debate to decide if freedom of speech has limits or not.

It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo

— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) January 7, 2015

The problem of journalist Sally Kohn is that she has not the right fo define what "insulting" is. This definition can only be set by a judge. Charlie Hebdo have dealed against Catholic risqué cartoons processes, but no against violence. Its aim is that Islam "can be trivialized like Catholicism". They have paid an expensive price for that right, a price that many of his compatriots and colleagues don’t think it worthwhile.

Dozens of media around the world have decided not to publish the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo to not offend anyone. It's hard to tell if this is about not offending, or about fear or caution, as the director of the British Jewish Chronicle, who prefers not to risk the lives of his team.

 

Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons. But here's my editor's dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them. But 1/2

— Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard) enero 7, 2015

what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point? 2/2

— Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard) enero 7, 2015

Pollard may be right, but Jyllands Posten published Muhammad cartoons published when one of its reporters knew that Danish cartoonists were so frightened by Muslim fundamentalists who did not dare to illustrate a new children's biography of Muhammad.

Should the occidentals give up offending or are the Muslims the ones who should accept that Muhammad is not as sacred as they have been thinking during all their life? Each question must be answered, but frontiers are blurred and achievements may regress suddenly. It’s easy to be brave on Twitter, but being editor of Charlie Hebdo was something else: "Not everyone is Charlie Hebdo" would be a more realistic hashtag.