I never said Je suis Charlie

There was a time before last year’s gruesome attack when not many outside Paris had heard of a satirical publication called Charlie Hebdo. The terrorist shooting that left 11 people dead delivered a harsh blow to those of us who hold freedom of expression to be a birthright. The cold-blooded assassination of the Charlie Hebdo staff sent shockwaves throughout modern societies causing their leaders to flock to Paris and rally in solidarity with the French people in denouncing the attack on freedom of speech. It was also the reason the hashtag #JesuisCharlie trended worldwide with many Muslims using it to reiterate the fact that these monsters in no way represented the views of true Muslims.

The issue following the dark ordeal was published on schedule and in solidarity people, those who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo and those who do not agree with the publication’s opinions or find its “satire” funny, went out and bought the issue. The post-attack issue went on to sell one million copies.

Last week Charlie Hebdo was in the news again, not as a symbol of freedom of expression, but as an example of how racism can be deviously disguised as art. After the alleged harassment ordeal experienced by German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve at the hands of migrants Charlie Hebdo published a caricature which depicts the body of 3-year-old Syrian migrant Alan Kurdi, which washed up on Turkish shores after his boat capsized while seeking refuge, as growing up to become a monkey-faced rapist attacking German women. The photo of young Alan’s tiny body lying face down on the shore shook the world to the core, it was the physical embodiment of the absolute horror that human greed, ego and lust for power can create. Somehow, while the world tried to make sense of this child’s unfathomable fate Charlie Hebdo’s artists thought it would be “funny” to point at this lifeless tiny bundle of innocence and call him a rapist. Soon social media was abuzz with shocked reactions to this heartless and racist caricature which could not be seen as anything other than a hate-mongering piece of propaganda which has no place in the world we are living today.

I was not shocked at seeing such filth being churned out by Charlie Hebdo, as a matter of fact I was not expecting anything less. Like I said, most people had not heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attack and therefore had no way of knowing how unimaginably vile its work can be. The work being published by Charlie Hebdo is not unlike that of white-supremacist or religious extremists’ propaganda, subjugating any idea which it considers as ‘other’ and inciting segregation. Today, the United States government is considering removing racist terms from great works of literature and is being pressured to take down statues of prominent figures in American history for their involvement in the slave trade. For even though the US amendment lists freedom of speech it specifies that it is not, and can never be absolute.

We are living in a world which is being torn apart by intolerance and hate therefore the utmost care and sensitivity should be taken when approaching issues of great social or political impact. That is exactly why although horrified by the viciousness and unjustness of the attack on Charlie Hebdo and despite the intense fear I felt at the thought of losing journalistic freedoms I never once said je suis Charlie because let’s face it, neither you nor I are Charlie. We would never walk into a room and at the sight of a person who is different hurl profanities at them comparing them to animals. We would never be sat with people from different faiths and insult one’s religious views and idols. And you and I would never in a million years think of a child’s lifeless body as a funny joke to laugh about. 

I never said je suis Charlie because I am not Charlie and will never be. 

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 18 January, 2016  http://bit.ly/1PkNKQW

Arabic version of this article appeared in Al Khaleej newspaper http://bit.ly/1OzVajS

Mandela's Boat in Machiavelli's Ocean

The world suffers not wars, famine or injustice but the lack of courage and the sudden death of moral responsibility. We live in a self-involved world governed by greed and guarded by hypocrisy. A crumbling world destroyed by the very reason it was created. It is a world where mirages of courage are glimpsed every so often but alas they are nothing but the trick of a mind longing to quench its thirst. Yet among all the falsities at times we find truth. We hear it in one’s words and witness these words come to life through one’s actions. This is a rarity, an anomaly if you wish, which makes the Mother Teresas, the Gandhis, the Martin Luther Kings and the Mandelas of the world names we will not soon forget. 

The world has lost many of those lone warriors and as I write these words I fear for one of the remaining few as he battles for his life. Nelson Mandela is a man who at a time when the world forced him to remain silent shouted at the top of his lungs, a man who fought oppression and won, a man who for the sake of freedom lived most of his life a prisoner. At 95 years of age many argue that there is not much left he can offer, but it is not what he has yet to give that is at stake, it is what he stands for. 

Today’s world cannot stand to lose the likes of Mandela for without them the future seems even grimmer. A few remain who can inspire us with absolute determination and endless devotion to their beliefs, and even fewer remain who will not falter at the pangs of pain or succumb to the lure of money. For no matter where your faith lies today’s world will find it and either beat it out of you, or buy it from you, it is as easy as that. 

Mandela lived on his land but adhered to a foreign man’s law, he grew up witnessing the marginalisation of his people and the abduction of what was rightfully theirs. On Mandela’s land the white man differentiated, segregated and oppressed on the basis of colour alone. Mandela believed that no man should be silent in the face of injustice yet also understood the grave consequences of such a belief. Undeterred by doubt and propelled by the hope of freedom he took on a journey that no ordinary man can undertake, he walked through the thorny path of freedom and came out the other side bloodied, bruised but free. 

The blood will wash away, the bruises will eventually fade yet the only thing that shall remain is a legacy of a man who unburdened his people, helped them take back their dignity when little was left of it and set them free.

Mandela became South Africa’s first black president in 1999, seems unfathomable for an African nation to get its first black president only 14 years ago but such is injustice, the greater its irrationality the stronger it becomes.

In 2001 Mandela visited Dar Al Khaleej Printing & Publishing in Sharjah and there he recalled his first visit to the United Arab Emirates in 1995. He explained his reluctance to visit a region of which he heard had no freedom, yet after visiting the UAE he told the attendees: “I found the complete opposite, I found a country that treats its people with greater respect than many ‘democratic’ nations in the West.” He pointed out that the great number of women in the audience shows just how progressive the UAE truly is.  

In a world devastated by wars and bled dry by greed people are lost in a sea of Machiavellian grey where only the end matters and nothing else. This dreary fact makes it all the more sad to see the Mandelas of the world perish with little hope of others of their kind surfacing from these murky grey waters. In his quest for his people’s freedom Mandela discovered his hunger for the freedom of all people, he believed that even his oppressor was not free for he too is shackled by the chains of prejudice and bigotry. He sought to free his people and in the process also unshackle his oppressor. The world only hopes that more people would seek justice knowing that it can never be achieved by allowing hate to cloud one’s vision. 

I leave you with Mandela’s words that have never left me: 

“I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else’s freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.”

We wish you well Madiba, may you continue to inspire and enlighten forever.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 21 July, 2013. 
An Arabic version of this article appeared in Al Khaleej newspaper on the same date http://bit.ly/158vLt3

A word written is a word feared

As a writer I dream of a world where words are not imprisoned, a world where all forms of literature are celebrated not mourned. Yet for every book festival held somewhere in the world there is a book burning being planned. Words when collected and arranged in a specific manner become a force to be reckoned with. This meticulous selection and arrangement transforms the word into a weapon capable of instilling fear in the bravest of us. For words are ideas, and an idea is a contagious infliction.

Throughout history numerous books have created massive conflicts between people and ripped holes into well-knit societies. The most infamous of all is Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which translated into English means My Struggle. Published in 1925, Mein Kampf is an autobiographical work of Hitler’s childhood life and political ideology, written while he served a four-year jail sentence in a Bavarian prison. It is a 700-page documentation of the psychological make-up of the world’s most abhorrent leader. This book was heavily circulated in Nazi Germany and was even given as a wedding gift, by the Nazi Party, to every newly married couple.

After the Second World War, and in an effort to cleanse itself of the acts of horror committed by Adolf Hitler, the publication of Mein Kampf was halted indefinitely in Germany. Austria went as far as adopting a ‘Prohibition Act,’ banning and criminalising the existence of the Nazi ideology in any form. The German state of Bavaria, which holds the copyright to this book, has fought against its publication, which has limited its distribution extensively in Europe. The idea behind the ban is that this book is capable of influencing people and once again igniting the Nazi racist ideology.

Based on the German copyright law Mein Kampf will enter public domain in 2016, 70 years after the author’s death. Currently the book can be found in different countries around the world and excerpts of it are available on the Internet. I remember buying my copy of Mein Kampf, which is published by Mariner Books in New York, ten years ago, curious to delve into the mindset behind such atrocities. I approached it just as one would the mass published autobiographies of serial killers the likes of Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy.

From the onset, Hitler’s preface clarifies his reader niche by writing:

“I do not address this work to strangers, but to those adherents of the movement who belong to it with their hearts, and whose intelligence is eager for a more penetrating enlightenment.”

Taking this into account, I assume Hitler would have no objection to the banning of his book and the restriction of its readership, for were it read openly the mystery around it would soon be dispelled.

History cannot be erased no matter how dark or sordid the events. It exists for us to learn from and arm ourselves with its trials and tribulations. It is understandable that the victims of Hitler’s heinous crimes would not want to relive them, but Mein Kampf is a historic document which when dissected with an impartial eye reveals the mindset behind the insanity.

The ban on this book was upheld in consideration of the emotional impact its widespread release would have on Jews around the world. There were outcries from Jewish communities calling the republication and distribution of this book ‘insensitive and crass.’

If being insensitive to a certain race or religion is enough to get a book banned in Europe then why was the ban on Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in India frowned upon by the world? Comparing only the works of literature and not the writers who penned them, both works are gravely offensive to a great portion of the world’s population.

Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses published in 1988 is a work of fiction inspired by the life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The lead character, Mahound or ‘The Messenger’, receives verses of the Holy Quran, which are later revealed to be given to him by Satan.

In Rushdie’s so-called dream vision narratives, which attempt to shake the faith upon which Islam is based, Muslims around the world were aggrieved. The implication that the Quran or verses of it were indeed the work of the devil was seen as not only offensive but hits at the foundation of what the Muslim nation holds sacred. The book went on to create a massive controversy, the book was banned in Muslim countries all over the world and Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death. The fatwa was later dropped but the ban on his book is still enforced to this day.

At the time only a handful of authors, one of whom was the late Roald Dahl, spoke out against Rushdie saying:

“Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and cannot plead otherwise. This kind of sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on the top of the bestseller list but in my mind it is a cheap way of doing it.”

Yet although The Satanic Verses is viewed by millions as being insensitive and insulting to the Muslim nation, people have failed to reach the universal agreement that Mein Kampf has achieved, with regard to its banning. To this day authors and readers alike are still split on the issue.

Last month Salman Rushdie was scheduled to appear at the Jaipur Literary Festival but then cancelled it due to the uproar this news induced in the people of India. Authors around the world condemned the people’s reaction, for the people of India are expected to accept the work on the basis of freedom of speech and understand that it is not meant to insult, but to entertain them.

Two books, both hold within them words, offensive, hurtful words, yet one is condemned, suppressed while the other is critically acclaimed and widely available.

As hard as one might fight to set the word free we should never underestimate the power it holds. Should this power fall into the wrong hands its tremors will be felt the world over and for years to come. If we wish the word to become an unstoppable force then we are left with only two choices: either to move out of its way or be crushed by it.

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 5th Feb., 2012.