Why the cartoons of 'Charlie Hebdo' drew rage from the Muslim community

When American satirical news website The Onion posted a cartoon of Jesus, Moses, Buddha and Ganesha engaged in sexual act several years ago, they titled it “No One Was Murdered Because Of This Image.”

And to this day, that appears to be true.

So why is it that a group of terrorists in Paris, France walked into the offices of Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7 and killed 12 people, allegedly in reaction to cartoons the satirical paper published of the Prophet Muhammad?

"The images that were portrayed in this particular magazine, they were very offensive,” notes Amira Elghawaby, human rights coordinator for the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

“Some Muslims would find that hurtful because they do really look up to the Prophet Muhammad. He is a very central figure in Islamic tradition. He is considered to be someone we look up to, someone we emulate. A role model.”

It goes without saying that the National Council of Canadian Muslims abhors all forms of violence. But Elghawaby agreed to speak with Yahoo Canada News on the matter in an effort to help readers understand why there is such tensions over the issue of the portrayal of Muhammad in cartoons.

Following the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices and amid a debate that unanimously backed the right to freedom of speech, tiers seemed to emerge on the subject of the controversial images published by the satirical magazine.

While some media outlets republished the pictures in all their glory, others blurred and censored the images.

Newspapers that decided to blur the controversial images included The Telegraph, the New York Daily News and the New York Times.

The Times told BuzzFeed that the newspaper does “not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities.”

Politico reported that CNN made a similar decision, telling staff that while they couldn’t show the cartoons on the air, they could verbally describe them. “This is key to understanding the nature of the attack on the magazine and the tension between free expression and respect for religion,” the message notes.

In the meantime, 11 French-language Quebec newspapers republished a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, along with the statement that reads, “Attacking someone simply for their ideas and opinions is an unacceptable impediment to democracy.”

CBC News, however, did not publish the cartoons. According to David Studer, CBC’s director of Journalistic Standards and Practices, the network did so “out of respect for the beliefs and sensibilities of the mass of Muslim believers about images of the Prophet.”

Islam’s position against images of Muhammad comes from a desire to avoid idol worship.

Elghawaby notes that she is not a scholar, but from a Muslim layperson’s perspective it is a tradition intended to keep Muhammad from being worshiped like a deity.

"The Prophet Muhammad himself … said ‘don’t make images of me,’" she said. "It is actually an Islamic tradition that we don’t do images of any of the prophets, it is just completely frowned upon."

"I think it is important to understand that they were cartoons but they were creating that climate and there was that (anti-immigration) feeling," she added. "Unfortunately our history is full of different minority communities going through vilification in their societies."

It is this point that can be lost in the ongoing conversation. It is a matter of not just creating images of Muhammad, but doing them in a manner pointedly offensive to an already-marginalized group.

Such an affront could be seen as an intentional affront to France’s Muslim minority population — a population of some four million people that already struggles for acceptance. Much like Jewish caricatures in Nazi-era Germany or treatment that other immigrant populations faced while trying to find their footing in young North America, it could be viewed as a form of marginalization.

But without a doubt, the actions of the gunmen are inexcusable.

"There is no justification,” Elghawaby said. “If people had a problem with the images, they could write their own magazine, they can write letters to the editor. They can offer alternatives. There is no justification, this is just to understand this was happening in a climate where Muslims have already been feeling … anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe overall."

The issue, from the Western perspective, was perhaps summarized best by Charlie Hebdo journalist Laurent Leger who, in 2012 during a point of heightened tension and the year following the firebombing of the magazine offices, defended their cartoons.

"The aim is to laugh," Leger told BFM-TV in 2012, according to CNN. “We want to laugh at the extremists — every extremist. They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept.”

"In France, we always have the right to write and draw. And if some people are not happy with this, they can sue us and we can defend ourselves. That’s democracy … You don’t throw bombs, you discuss, you debate. But you don’t act violently. We have to stand and resist pressure from extremism."

Western Muslim leaders certainly agree with that sentiment. The Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR), America’s largest Muslim civil liberties group, released a statement condemning the Paris attack and reiterating their “repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures.”

In 2006, amid violent outrage at a Danish drawing of Muhammad wearing a bomb on his head, CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper published an essay describing the Prophet’s stance on retribution.

"Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so," he wrote.

"As Muslims, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, ‘What would the Prophet Muhammad do?’"

"There is no justification for the taking of innocent life," Elghawaby told Yahoo Canada News. “Freedom of expression is important and no one can justify this kind of violence. That’s what Muslims are saying.”