Macron’s Defense Of Charlie Hebdo Endorses Modern Western Crusade Against Islam

On 4th September, 2020 French President Emmanuel Macron made a public statement that he is not in a position to be judgmental on the declaration by Charlie Hebdo to showcase a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. However, he did not fail to say this that: “At the start of the trial of the attacks of January 2015, I say that to be French is to defend the right to laugh, jest, mock and caricature, of which Voltaire maintained that it is the source of all other rights”. Macron lauded the moralities of democracy and freedom of speech as he said: “It’s never the place of a president of the Republic to pass judgment on the editorial choice of a journalist or newsroom, never. We have freedom of the press.” “There is in France a freedom to blaspheme which is attached to the freedom of conscience. I am here to protect all these freedoms. In France, one can criticize a president, governors, blaspheme,” he said. What Macron explicitly said here is that the right to mock and caricature, even religion, is an essential component of being French, regardless of its implications in the society where majority are the people of faith. So the question is what ideology does Macron represents? In plain and simple terms, it is the ideology of Secular Humanism. Since the so called Age of Enlightenment, it is taking as a form of religion with its gradual waves and now it has come to a point where it does not give a hoot to the One God of Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them. In order to understand the nature of the subject matter, we have to understand what the merits of the freedom of speech are and how this freedom if not controlled can lead to mutual clashes.

What is the law of freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s ideology and political views without fear of political or legal retaliation. The basic principle of liberty of expression is to prevent coercion, meaning it is not a legal permit to slander, libel, and defame. The universal law of “Right” is that with every right comes an obligation or a responsibility as everything is connected in its entirety in this universe. As the Declaration on Religious Liberty explicitly states: “In availing of any freedom people must respect the moral principle of personal and social responsibility: in exercising their rights individuals and social groups are bound by the moral law to have regard for the rights of others, their own duties to others and the common good of all. Everybody must be treated with justice and humanity”. Today in this modern nation state system, every nation that defends freedom of expression places legal limits upon it based on the principle ideology of respective states. States that permit pornography outlaw child pornography. However, in any case pornography and its impacts on human conscious still remains the same. Similarly, states that permit freedom of expression prohibit vicious propaganda and incitement to violence.

There is a coded difference between assault and aggravated assault. The law differentiates between first and second degree murder. Charlie Hebdo is not innocent. The paper intentionally offended the sensibilities of Christian and Muslim world. However, it is interesting to note that the paper never provoked Jews. This blasphemous publication is no stranger to any previous controversies. Previously Charlie Hebdo, known as Hara-Kiri, was banned briefly in 1961 and again, in 1966, for a span of six months. After mocking the death of Charles de Gaulle in 1970, the paper was banned definitely forcing the editors to regroup and rename it Charlie Hebdo. The paper ceased publication between 1981 only to reappear with a vengeance in 1991. Although it claims to uphold freedom of expression, Charlie Hebdo fired Mona Chollet in 2000 after she objected to an article by Philippe Val that described Palestinians as “uncivilized.” In 2008, the paper terminated veteran political cartoonist Maurice Sinet, known as Siné, for suggesting that Jean Sarkozy planned to convert to Judaism. The paper only believes in freedom of expression when it suits secularist, atheist interests. In France, for example, is it against the law to stir up hatred against a nation, a race or a religion if it encourages discrimination, hostility or violence toward a specific group. The French State shows zero tolerance toward anyone who denies the Jewish or Armenian Holocaust. It acts swiftly and decidedly against anything it perceives as an expression of anti-Semitism.

“France has freedom of expression”, says Macron after Charlie Hebdo republishes the Prophet’s cartoons

Then it comes to Muslim world, however, the hypocrisy of the France is hideous. France is prepared to ban Hari-Kiri for mocking Charles de Gaulle; however, they support the publication when it humiliates the Prophet Muhammad and provoke Muslims for obvious resentment. They charge French authors and comedians with hate speech when they criticize Zionists and Israel; however, hate-mongers who defame Islam are given limitless freedom. Despite repeated legal actions against Charlie Hebdo, the paper deliberately chose to continue its campaign of anti-Quran propaganda, intentionally targeting what Muslims hold most sacred. The paper alleged that it was not mocking the Prophet; rather, it was making fun of Muslims. The overwhelming majority of Muslims would not object to poking fun at pseudo-Muslim psychopaths and terrorists. They do it all the time on radio, on television, and in printed media. Charlie Hebdo did not decide to portray Osama ben Laden or Khalid Shaykh Mohammed in provocative poses. On the contrary, they targeted the Prophet Muhammad, the beloved leader of 1.5 billion Muslims. In so doing, they took aim at an entire community.

France, like most of the secular Western world, has clearly positioned itself as dar al-kufr or the Abode of Disbelief and kuffar al-harbi, infidels at war with Islam. For several centuries, however, the French actually belonged to dar al-‘ahd, the Abode of the Covenant and, rather than kuffar al-harbi, they were categorized as ahl al-kitab and ahl al-dhimmah, the People of the Book, and the People of Protection. Such co-existence between Christians and Muslims was made possible by the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad which represents the foundation of rights in Islam. The principles proclaimed in the Covenants protected all citizens, regardless of their religion. They differ from the modern conception of “human rights” and “secularism” in the sense that the sovereignty of God reigns supreme. This Covenant-based system provided the same social benefits of secularism by means of a religiously-rooted divinely-decreed system. The Covenants of the Prophet raises human rights to the level of Divine Rights. It is God who is giving these rights; not Man. It was his system that allowed the French Christian Kingdom and Ottoman Caliphate to come into a strategic alliance in 16th century when French and Muslims were friends. But since the rise of freemasonry in the West, the Age of Enlightenment, the separation of Church and State, downfall of Christian Kingdom in the West, the supreme authority of God and his laws have been targeted by the so called enlightened men. One of whom was Voltaire, a man who played foremost role in the downfall of Christianity in France, a man about him Macron recently quoted while in defense of Charlie Hebdo. And this is why the author has always claimed that Secular Humanism is a systematic way of Satan to deviate the people of faith from the path of light.

In conclusion, it is evident that killing someone for slander, defamation, and libel is not a just and an equitable act. It is clear that Charlie Hebdo is one of the weapons for the information warfare by anti-Christian and anti-Muslim elements. The propaganda tools today for subversion are more lethal and far more dangerous than a standing army. The so called Islamist terrorists are not fighting for Islam. They are a proxy army, a fifth column, at the service of the secular New World Order. Secularist fundamentalists use religious extremists to destroy religion and discredit the Islamic option. Takfiri terrorists are used as a pretext for military intervention, war, and occupation. The end-game is not regime change, democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression. The strategic objective is the acquisition and control of natural resources. As once Dalil Boubakeur, the Paris Imam, put it plainly: “Takfiri/Wahhabi terrorists cannot possibly be talking about the historical Muhammad for the only “Prophet” they follow is Satan”. In the present legal system under Secular Humanism in France, people may have the right to target the Virgin Mary, Jesus, and Muhammad; however, this does not imply that they have the moral right to do so. In such as legal system, one also has the right to sleep with drug-using transsexual prostitutes with sexually transmitted diseases; but this does not mean that it is the ethical or morally acceptable thing to do. Law establishes the merits of allowable behavior in any society. In simple words, they set the standard. Morals and values, however, show us how we should strive to behave in the evolution of civilization. The cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo may have been legal in such a man-made law; however, this does not change the fact that they were blasphemous, immoral, and unethical.

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
One Comment
  1. Agreed, freedom of expression should be exercised with social responsibity.

Leave a Reply