The anatomy of fundamentalist terrorism

Largely, I am not the kind of person that sheds tears easily. Therefore, I cannot remember the last time I cried – really cried. But on the morning of penultimate Thursday, something quite unexpected happened to me.

I was watching CNN Newsroom when it was reported that some Islamic fundamentalist terrorists had attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine located in Paris, capital of France.

The enxt day, Friday, there was another report that security forces had killed Chérif Kouachi (34) and his younger brother, Said Kouachi (32), the two prime suspects in the terrorist attack. In another development, a gunman identified as Amedy Coulibaly went to a kosher grocery store and murdered four people. Eventually, he too was shot dead by the French police.

While the newscaster was describing what happened at the magazine, with pictures of some of the dead journalists vividly displayed on the screen, tears started dropping from my eyes. Surprised, I wiped them off. It was obvious that the tragedy had somehow resonated with me, although I have never been to Paris and, of course, knew none of the deceased.

My spontaneous reaction to the Paris shootings reinforced the idea, corroborated by the theory of evolution that, fundamentally, humans belong to a single species and that discrimination based on religion, race, colour, gender, nationality and other irrational claims of exclusivity are unworthy of civilised and enlightened human beings.

I am totally convinced that the common humanity in all of us transcends our differences, such that it is simply ridiculous for a group of people to arrogate to themselves the exclusive privilege of divine choice, or declare their religion, culture, race and so on as “the chosen one.”

We salute the defiant courage of French people. Before the tragedy, about sixty thousand copies of Charlie Hebdo were printed for each edition. Now, surviving employees of the magazine have decided to print three million copies.

Indeed, the first batch, which has a cartoon depicting a weeping Prophet Muhammad and the inscription “All is forgiven,” has sold out, and thousands of people, most of whom were not interested in the magazine hitherto, are still waiting to buy copies for themselves whenever it becomes available.

This is commendable; it demonstrates that the French, particularly staff of the magazine, are not prepared to back down or give in because of terrorism. Remember, in France freedom of expression and secularism are long-standing traditions initiated and justified by the philosophes of the eighteenth century, notably Voltaire, and consolidated by existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Pau Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Albert Camus.

Hence, it is very important that a strong message be sent to the intellectually and emotionally desiccated fanatics that freedom of expression will always triumph over senseless killings and lunacy, that people are willing to defend the right to free speech at all cost.

Nearer home, Nigerians, particularly journalists, should learn from what happened in France. Freedom of expression is a very important value that must be fought for and protected at all times no matter the risk involved. Civilisation can be sustained only in the atmosphere of freedom of thought and expression.

But why did Muslim fanatics attack Charlie Hebdo? The answer is simple: the magazine published a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad. According to Muslims, any visual depiction of their holy prophet is an abomination, a deadly sin punishable by death.

This attitude synchronises with a certain text in the hadith, the body of tradition about Muhammad, a supplementary to the Holy Koran. The text stipulates that anyone who insults a prophet of Allah should be killed. Therefore, the Kouachi brothers believed completely that they were acting appropriately based on an injunction of the hadith by avenging the holy prophet of Islam. They were offended by the audacity of “infidels.”

Brainwashed by evil-minded preachers, it never occurred to them for one second that the prophet they claimed to be avenging, in several verses of the Holy Koran, demanded that the faithful should be tolerant, compassionate, merciful, and peace-loving. In other words, although there are texts in Islamic scriptures that tend to support intolerance towards unbelievers, there are many more which enjoin Muslims to live in peace and harmony with non-Muslims.

It must be remarked that this ambivalence is not unique to Islam. Scriptures of the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity, also contain passages which justify intolerance, discrimination and severe punishment for unbelievers, on one hand, and passages that enjoin peace, mercy, forgiveness and tolerance, on the other.

It follows that Islamic scriptures can be used to promote civilised humane relations among diverse peoples of the world; unfortunately, they can also serve as an instrument for destroying the benefits of civilisation.

In trying to understand the provenance and aetiology of fundamentalist violence, there is a deliberate attempt in certain quarters to exonerate religion.

For instance, when Islamic religious fanatics attack journalists doing their work, or destroy media houses that publish critical or satiric articles, pictures and cartoons of their holy prophet, Muslims facetiously dissociate Islam from the ensuing violence, killings and destruction by always claiming that Islam has absolutely nothing to with such actions.

But given what we said about the ambivalence of religion a moment ago, there is an element of hypocrisy and insincerity in such disavowals. If anybody doubts this, then why do terrorists and fanatics utter religious invocations before, during and shortly after carrying out their inhuman attacks? Where did they derive the extremely dangerous superstitious belief that being martyred for God or for his holy prophet gives one a first class ticket to paradise?

We must be bold enough to acknowledge that certain propositions in religious scriptures can motivate or trigger unnecessary aggression by adherents of a particular religion against people who espouse different faiths and atheists, particularly if the latter are considered enemies of the purported true, God-ordained religion.

Meanwhile, considering that an overwhelming percentage of terrorist attacks in recent years were carried out by Islamic fanatics, many people naively conclude that Christianity is non-violent and, therefore, that it is superior to Islam at least in that respect. Now, only those completely ignorant of the history of Christianity can entertain such fallacy.

Christianity, right from its earliest beginnings right up to the present day, tolerated, encouraged and even committed the most inhuman atrocities in the name of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in the name of the Holy Bible.

Moreover, Christians have perpetrated, and still perpetrate, the most shocking brutalities repeatedly with a clear conscience and detailed theological alibi. One only have to think of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and – need any one be reminded? – the undeniable fact that many prominent Christians supported slavery.