When the Boston marathon bombings happened, I noticed a significant change in the reaction of people on Egypt compared to 9/11. The change was positive, even if presumably unprincipled. There were barely any voices that gloated, and there was an overwhelming wish that the perpetrators were not Muslim. This was the first time I recognised a widespread realization in Egypt that terrorist attacks very effectively stain all Muslims and that denying that terrorists represent Islam isn't working. That change took over a decade to settle in. And a busy decade it was, what with the Iraq war and everything. But guess what, an even more radical change has happened in the few months since then, and its catalyst is the disastrous aftermath of the Arab Spring.
In response to Charlie Hebdo I expected a fringe that thought the attackers were justified because Charlie Hebdo was profane. And I found it. It's about the same size as it has always been, maybe slightly larger because this attack is directly related to religion. Interestingly this fringe also started to count some Christians among its rank after it turned out Charlie was also disrespectful to Jesus. This fringe is there, it will always be there. I saw fringes like it in the US, I saw fringes larger than it among Europeans. What matters is that this fringe doesn't act on its convictions, and that for the overwhelming majority they remain just convictions.
There is also another fringe, possibly of equal size, that condemns the attacks without qualification. The response from this group is virtually indistinguishable from the response of people in New York or Berlin. Many of them changed their avatars and profile pictures to Je suis Charlie. Most of them talk about how this is the fault of Muslim communities who should stand up to their responsibility. This fringe is relatively new, and it is growing. It also consists mostly of Muslims.
But neither fringe is really effective. In Egypt, the mainstream is normally both a clear majority, and very difficult to gauge. And the mainstream this time has a very complex, very unsympathetic, and very embittered response.
The mainstream has been molded mostly by the Aran Spring. Specifically by its Jihadi autumn. The rise of ISIL and the daily terrorist attacks by the MB and ABAM in Egypt, combined with a Western position seen as almost allied with the MB in Egypt, have led to very little sympathy. Egyptians watched all the westerners getting horrified by the death of 13 people, and compared it with the almost robotic calls for dialog with Islamists in Egypt. People comtrasted the amount of sympathy for the Frenchmen killed, and contrasted it with the blasé attitude towards Egyptian victims of terrorism. People couldn't understand why their massive demonstrations against terrorism were termed orchestrated and full of thugs while smaller French protests were hailed as historic.
People looked beyond the borders of Egypt. They saw a Syria devastated as much by Western backed Jihadists as by Bashar. They saw pictures of McCain wih Al-Nusra. They saw a bombing the very next day in an Alawite cafe in Lebanon. They saw an Iraq torn apart by an American invasion, an American backd government, and American backed "moderate opposition" from Syria who turned out to be not so moderate. And then they saw representatives from Israel, Turkey, and Qatar marching arm in arm with the French president.
But for many, the straw came from Nigeria. As the world didn't give a flying fuck over 2000 Nigerians killed by Boko Haram, but freaked out over a dozen French people.
The argument goes that Islamic extremism is a problem of Muslim countries that was exported to the West. Thus bombings in a Muslim country are an "insurgency" or an "uprising" that are th fault of the Muslim victims. Bombings in the west are terrorist acts which are also the fault of Muslim victims of terrorism in the Muslim world. But wait, the trio that carried out the Charlie attack were citizens of France, they weren't raised in Muslim countries, their ideology isn't the fault of a Muslim in Mauritania or Indonesia. Their ideology is a product of Islam in France. As a matter of fact, it's France that exports terrorism to the Muslim world. There are more Frenchmen in ISIL killing Muslims in Iraq and Syria than there are from most Arab countries.
The assumption that Muslims have to deal with terrorism or apologise for it because white people are dying is not only absurd, it's also infuriating. Because the fact is, terrorists kill a lot more Muslims than they kill westerners. Way way more. Muslims have to deal with terrorism not because the lineup of blondes on Fox are demanding it, but because it's killing them on a daily basis. And as Muslims are trying to deal with terrorism on a daily basis by physically fighting it, by ploughing through a semblance of normal life, or by stating opinions that could get them killed; it's honestly not very helpful for people whose daily life remains completely unchanged to demand that they also apologise.
A lot of Muslims in Egypt are also very adamant that they are not Charlie. They completely condemn the killing of the cartoonists or the killing of anyone for saying an opinion. But they also refuse to give in to the notion that insulting Muslims as a group and their religion is now a litmus test for freedom and courage. They understand you have a right to insult them, but they refuse to idolise or respect you for doing this.
The Muslim world has to think long and hard about what Islam means today and how Qutbist and Wahabi ideology have hatched so many extremist groups in their midst. There has to be introspection, and a long military and intellectual battle for the lives and souls of Muslims. But this is a fight that Muslims have to fight on their own for their own reasons. Muslims should not be forced to apologise for Europe's failure to integrate minorities or for its botched plan to repatriate terrorism in the Muslim world. They should not be denied the right to peacefully protest the distasteful denigration of what they hold dear or of themselves as a group. This is especially true now, that many Muslims are fighting a very real daily battle against terrorism.
In response to Charlie Hebdo I expected a fringe that thought the attackers were justified because Charlie Hebdo was profane. And I found it. It's about the same size as it has always been, maybe slightly larger because this attack is directly related to religion. Interestingly this fringe also started to count some Christians among its rank after it turned out Charlie was also disrespectful to Jesus. This fringe is there, it will always be there. I saw fringes like it in the US, I saw fringes larger than it among Europeans. What matters is that this fringe doesn't act on its convictions, and that for the overwhelming majority they remain just convictions.
There is also another fringe, possibly of equal size, that condemns the attacks without qualification. The response from this group is virtually indistinguishable from the response of people in New York or Berlin. Many of them changed their avatars and profile pictures to Je suis Charlie. Most of them talk about how this is the fault of Muslim communities who should stand up to their responsibility. This fringe is relatively new, and it is growing. It also consists mostly of Muslims.
But neither fringe is really effective. In Egypt, the mainstream is normally both a clear majority, and very difficult to gauge. And the mainstream this time has a very complex, very unsympathetic, and very embittered response.
The mainstream has been molded mostly by the Aran Spring. Specifically by its Jihadi autumn. The rise of ISIL and the daily terrorist attacks by the MB and ABAM in Egypt, combined with a Western position seen as almost allied with the MB in Egypt, have led to very little sympathy. Egyptians watched all the westerners getting horrified by the death of 13 people, and compared it with the almost robotic calls for dialog with Islamists in Egypt. People comtrasted the amount of sympathy for the Frenchmen killed, and contrasted it with the blasé attitude towards Egyptian victims of terrorism. People couldn't understand why their massive demonstrations against terrorism were termed orchestrated and full of thugs while smaller French protests were hailed as historic.
People looked beyond the borders of Egypt. They saw a Syria devastated as much by Western backed Jihadists as by Bashar. They saw pictures of McCain wih Al-Nusra. They saw a bombing the very next day in an Alawite cafe in Lebanon. They saw an Iraq torn apart by an American invasion, an American backd government, and American backed "moderate opposition" from Syria who turned out to be not so moderate. And then they saw representatives from Israel, Turkey, and Qatar marching arm in arm with the French president.
But for many, the straw came from Nigeria. As the world didn't give a flying fuck over 2000 Nigerians killed by Boko Haram, but freaked out over a dozen French people.
The argument goes that Islamic extremism is a problem of Muslim countries that was exported to the West. Thus bombings in a Muslim country are an "insurgency" or an "uprising" that are th fault of the Muslim victims. Bombings in the west are terrorist acts which are also the fault of Muslim victims of terrorism in the Muslim world. But wait, the trio that carried out the Charlie attack were citizens of France, they weren't raised in Muslim countries, their ideology isn't the fault of a Muslim in Mauritania or Indonesia. Their ideology is a product of Islam in France. As a matter of fact, it's France that exports terrorism to the Muslim world. There are more Frenchmen in ISIL killing Muslims in Iraq and Syria than there are from most Arab countries.
The assumption that Muslims have to deal with terrorism or apologise for it because white people are dying is not only absurd, it's also infuriating. Because the fact is, terrorists kill a lot more Muslims than they kill westerners. Way way more. Muslims have to deal with terrorism not because the lineup of blondes on Fox are demanding it, but because it's killing them on a daily basis. And as Muslims are trying to deal with terrorism on a daily basis by physically fighting it, by ploughing through a semblance of normal life, or by stating opinions that could get them killed; it's honestly not very helpful for people whose daily life remains completely unchanged to demand that they also apologise.
A lot of Muslims in Egypt are also very adamant that they are not Charlie. They completely condemn the killing of the cartoonists or the killing of anyone for saying an opinion. But they also refuse to give in to the notion that insulting Muslims as a group and their religion is now a litmus test for freedom and courage. They understand you have a right to insult them, but they refuse to idolise or respect you for doing this.
The Muslim world has to think long and hard about what Islam means today and how Qutbist and Wahabi ideology have hatched so many extremist groups in their midst. There has to be introspection, and a long military and intellectual battle for the lives and souls of Muslims. But this is a fight that Muslims have to fight on their own for their own reasons. Muslims should not be forced to apologise for Europe's failure to integrate minorities or for its botched plan to repatriate terrorism in the Muslim world. They should not be denied the right to peacefully protest the distasteful denigration of what they hold dear or of themselves as a group. This is especially true now, that many Muslims are fighting a very real daily battle against terrorism.
