The story of the day is without doubt the murder of cartoonists and policemen at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. James Joyner remarks on it:
If witness accounts are correct, this almost certainly qualifies as a terrorist attack. It’s politically motivated and organized, rather than the spontaneous act of a mob or the actions of a lone psychopath.
We can only infer the motivations of the murderers. In today’s environment in which everyone carries a video camera there is, of course, some video coverage of the events. I will spare you the videos. One of them shows one of the gunmen murdering a wounded policeman who was writhing on the ground in pain in cold blood. The policeman posed no threat to them. He was killed out of sheer blood lust.
Eyewitness accounts leave little doubt that the gunmen were Muslims.
Al Jazeera provides some balancing reaction:
The attack, as yet unclaimed, comes amid what a number of commentators have identified as rising xenophobia in Europe, with thousands of protesters in several German cities rallying earlier this week against Muslim immigration. France’s five-million-strong Muslim population is Europe’s largest.
“I am extremely angry. These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom. This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this,†said Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy mosque in Paris’s Seine-Saint-Denis northern suburb.
For more coverage see memeorandum here and here.
This incident has taken place in the context of a Europe in which anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim populist parties are rising in influence across the Continent. In Sweden the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrat Party has seen a rapid rise to prominence. It’s at bay now but I suspect not for long. The anti-immigrant group PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident) has been conducting substantial demonstrations in Dresden. Anti-immigration parties are on the rise in the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Greece, just to name a few countries.
I do not believe that the editors of the New York Times appreciate the difference between the United States and the ethnically-defined states of Europe:
In part because of its Nazi past, Germany has long been liberal in offering asylum. In the past year, it took in about 200,000 asylum seekers, most of them from Iraq and Syria — the largest intake of any other country in Europe and four times the German total in 2012. Fortunately, the rise of an anti-immigrant movement has not dissuaded the government from its policy. On the contrary, after a similar Pegida-organized march in Dresden in December, Chancellor Merkel used her New Year’s address to strongly urge Germans to keep their distance from such rallies.
Admirable as they are, such exhortations will not stop Pegida or other anti-immigrant movements across Europe. Germany and every other European government must find ways to integrate immigrants into their societies and to speak out clearly and firmly against the rise of racism and xenophobia. But there is a limit to what any one government can do to control the flow of people fleeing poverty, war and repression.
Given the open or porous borders across the continent, immigration and asylum demand pan-European action. Shiploads of desperate refugees braving the Mediterranean cannot be the sole responsibility of coastal nations like Italy, nor is it fair for some states to accept thousands of asylum-seekers while others shut their borders. At the least, the European Union should sharply increase the funds it earmarks for handling immigration. Beyond that, it has become essential for the union to shape a common policy on asylum. An equitably shared burden should be easier for politicians to defend, and united action on multinational problems is what the European Union is all about.
The U. S. has historically defined itself as a “nation of immigrants”. European countries have not. Whether they will be able to make a transition in how they define their own identities will be a challenge moving forward.
Refusal to accept local standards and resorting to extreme violence as in this heinous incident will certainly not help the immigrants’ case.
The majority of immigration in France comes from two former colonies, Algeria and Morocco. The far-right can dream that the identity of France has nothing to do with its history of empire, but the people coming who speak the language are proof against that dream. And what local standards are being refused?
The continuing fundamental problem is that Islam is unique in commanding its adherents personally to forbid wrongdoing, up to and including the use of violence, as well as in certain cases confront unjust rulers. While there are some similar duties imposed by Rabbinic Judaism and Medieval Catholicism (see Aquinas on “Fraternal Correction”), at the personal level they amount to verbal rebukes.
There is a careful distinction being made here; most, if not all, religious subscribe to principles of justice which either the ruler or a clerical class administers. The monotheistic religions appear to be unique in concerning themselves with affirmative duties to at least rebuke or protest the misdeeds of others; Islam takes matters a step forward and commands adherents to use violent means at times and disregard lawful authority.
The significance is that the Imam can protest that this is not Islam, but the Muslim interacts with the duties of his faith individually, not through the guidance of hierarchy. There is a fairly sophisticated scholarship on what it means to Forbid Wrong in Islam, and the Imam could very likely demonstrate that this mass murder is now within the established rules. But these rules ultimately recognize that the individual has to decide, and thus institutional change is almost impossible.
MM: France seems to have extraordinary confidence in its language as a cultural unifier. I recall a story once in which Japan officials asked for advise on administering imperial domains from both British and French ambassadors. The French insisted that the key thing was to require the subjects to speak your language, and everything else will flow from there. The English argued that its best to maintain and work through the existing institutions, including their own language. I think the Japanese took the French advise, but I don’t know if it ultimately made any difference, though the British approach was no doubt easier.
Modern France has a long-standing tradition of free speech and in particular anti-religious satire. I do not see how they can reconcile their view of French culture with the greatly increased diversity they have been accepting for the last couple of decades. How the French handle the problem that the small number of violent radical Muslims present is up to to them.
This is a result of the complete lack of a magisterium in Islam. That has the dual effect of increasing tremendously the diversity of belief within Islam and rendering Muslims subject to general criticism for the actions of some Muslims.
If this keeps up the Europeans may start to remember that they’re better at war than anyone else. Wouldn’t want to live in MENA in that event.
The comments at OTB remind me of a story a friend told me recently about the local high school scholastic bowl competition between the top Catholic high school and the top public high school. When the first category was announced to be religion, the public school kids audibly groaned, while the parochial kids smiled. Religion isn’t taught in American public schools(*), so there is a big hole in people’s understanding of the past and the roots of social change and conflict. Was John Brown a religious terrorist, and can you answer that question with any objectivity? Is it possible that different religions have different strengths and weaknesses?
(*) Joe Katzman told me that religion is taught in Canadian public schools, so I assume this is an American limitation.
As I think I’ve mentioned before my high school curriculum included what was in essence a college-level theology curriculum. Those of us in the honors program were told that if we attended college at St. Louis University in two years (a year of theo classes plus a thesis plus some other graduation prerequisites) we could graduate with masters degrees in theology. As I’ve said before I think that most Americans’ views of religion, ethics, and morality are at about a nine year old’s level. Whatever they learned at their mother’s knee plus what they picked up on TV plus, maybe, a couple of weeks of Sunday school.
The UK, too, teaches religion in the public schools. From what I’ve been given to understand it’s a pretty lightweight program.
I found that the comment thread at OTB on this subject became very distressing very quickly, transmogrifying into an anti-Christian thread which under the circumstances seems like a stretch to me.
Why are you surprised that Muslims killing people for criticizing Islam is emboldening the anti-religious to attack Christianity instead? Seems perfectly reasonable.
Call Mohammed a child raping psychokiller and some towel heads might show up at your place of work and murder you. Fling pooh on a picture of the Virgin Mary or dunk a crucifix in pee and you’ll get money from the government, while Christians ineffectively call for defunding the NEA. Seems like a no-brainer.
Plus they can’t POSSIBLY admit that maybe the problem is with more darkly pigmented Third World types instead of the awful straight stale pale males. It would shatter their entire world view.
And they REALLY REALLY REALLY can’t allow for anyone to question the idea that flooding the First World with (frequently inbred) barbarians could be anything other than a win.
(The inbreeding is more a problem that Europe will have rather than the US. Thank God for small blessings, even if you’re an atheist like me.)
OTB’s comment section was a hoot! Nothing like comparing mass murder to drawing naughty cartoons! Lolz
If this keeps up the Europeans may start to remember that they’re better at war than anyone else. Wouldn’t want to live in MENA in that event.
Yes, that will be the biggest mistake Europe makes. This attack wasn’t made to teach the French a lesson but to goad them into cracking down on French Muslims, estranging those Muslims from society and making them easier for terrorist groups to recruit.
I don’t know what the purpose of the attack was but the general trend in Europe has been anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant. I don’t see how this attack will improve things.
I don’t know what the purpose of the attack was
Seriously?
I understand the concern that is being expressed in many quarters, that if we respond in a way that acknowledges the political statement then it can legitimize that statement and further polarize the factions (driving more people to extremist forms of Islam.)
But this is bordering on farce when we dare not speak the name of what we are dealing with. Why can’t we just say that there are multiple reasons for the attacks and that our response should reflect on both the stated reason of attacking against free speech that’s perceived to be blasphemous, as well as the unstated goal of propaganda for recruitment to the Islamist cause?
I think it was a direct response to what they saw as blasphemy. I was responding to Ben’s comment above. I don’t know if they had other strategic objectives and I don’t think anyone else does, either.
Are you suggesting that all Muslims are crypto-terrorists, just waiting for the fuse that will set them off to be lit? I think that’s going too far. As I see it there is a problem in separating the violent radicals from the rest. I think that requires the active cooperation of other Muslims and for various reasons they are disinclined to do that, mostly probably because like the rest of us they just want to be left alone. How France manages that problem is up to the French.
Here in the states until very recently most of our Arab population has been Christian. A very large percentage still are. That’s quite different from the French situation. If we continue to admit large numbers of immigrants from MENA we’ll probably face similar issues in due course. However, Europe really is the preferred destination for most immigrants from the region and I’m not sure what the ultimate response of the Europeans will be.
Thanks for clarifying. My beef this morning is with those who express concern that our acknowledgement of the obvious rationale for the attack can feed into this other goal of recruitment for the Islamists.
We saw much of the same debate after 9/11- the hand wringing about “giving the terrorists what they want.” In my view this kind of speculation is a game of “heads I win, tails you lose” (with us on the losing end.) It isn’t helpful to choose our response according to their goals- we have to define our own and act accordingly.
The Muslims are already estranged from French & European societies, as Islam is a savage, illiberal, openly murderous religion from a more primative time – and wholly unevolved. By Western standards, the religion is simply evil.
Too bad our elites have lost the ability to actually state what is readily apparent. But then, their goals are to destroy the enlightenment project and ensconce themselves as a new aristocracy lording it up over the unwashed masses. So this is just more grist for the mill for them, as we’ve seen from all the top media outlets tying themselves in knots to say the real problem is that white people are intolerant of sawing off heads & female genital mutilation & all the rest.
That doesn’t comport with my own experience. I have found that there is a benignity about the truly pious of every religion I have ever encountered, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu. Very, very few are truly pious. Like art or pornography, you know it when you see it.
I think that it is true that many Muslims come from violent, intolerant societies, conflate Islam with their traditional, frequently pre- or even un-Islamic, practices, and like all other immigrants bring their social, political, and religious beliefs with them to the their new homes. I’m reminded of a quote I heard, something a German said to the effect (about the Turks) that they thought they were importing workers and learned they were importing people.
I also think that it is pretty obvious that Islam has a hard time surviving modernity, probably for some of the reasons I’ve touched on above. I believe that’s the source of the problem within Islam.
Whether we are dealing with the extreme elements of Islam, the openness of our borders in which illegals simply disappear into the vapors of a community, the supposed ‘settled science’ of the unsettled science of AGW, whatever this country glosses over and seemingly accepts, it also encourages, and more of the same will follow.
I also think that it is pretty obvious that Islam has a hard time surviving modernity, probably for some of the reasons I’ve touched on above.
You may have that backward: Modernity may have a hard time surviving Islam.
Ice, “Islam” is going to do what exactly to modernity?
There are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world – clearly if they were all violent savages then we’d be in real trouble. Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims are like everyone else – just trying to get by – and have little interest in murderous rampages or sacrificing themselves for Islamic honor.