Book by murdered editor of Charlie Hebdo just out, defiant in right to criticize Islam

April 24, 2015 • 1:39 pm

Stéphane Charbonnier (“Charb”), the editor of Charlie Hebdo who was murdered by Muslim thugs, has a new book out, sadly still only in French, that was completed just two days before his death, and published April 9.  The New York Times has a brief description of the book, which gives the lie to two myths about the magazine:

1. It made fun of Islam but not of other faiths, and
2. It was “Islamophobic,” that is, it made fun of Muslims in general and thereby was a “hate magazine.”  In reality, the magazine was pro-immigrant and against those segments of French society that denigrated immigrants, including Muslims.

But there’s also another important part of the book:

3. It warns of the dangers of Western liberals capitulating to fears of Muslim rage

Here’s what the Times says about Chabonnier’s book, which I hope will soon be translated into other languages (Arabic would be nice!):

The book, “Open Letter to the Fraudsters of Islamophobia Who Play Into Racists’ Hands,” argues that all religions, including Islam, are fair game for ridicule in secular Republican France. The weekly newsmagazine L’Obs published excerpts from the book this week.

And indeed, Charlie Hebdo often mocked other faiths, particularly Catholicism. Although my French is probably good enough to read the excerpts linked above, I haven’t the time. Francophone readers may want to do so, and weigh in below.

. . . “By virtue of what twisted theory is humor less compatible with Islam than it is with any other religion?” he wrote. “Saying Islam is not compatible with humor is as absurd as claiming Islam is not compatible with democracy or secularism.”

. . . In keeping with the spirit of Charlie Hebdo, the book does not shy away from harsh jabs at religion. “The problem is neither the Quran nor the Bible, sleep-inducing, incoherent and badly written novels,” Mr. Charbonnier wrote. The problem, he said, is the faithful who read the holy books “like instructions for assembling Ikea shelves.”

Re point 2:

“If tomorrow all the Muslims of France convert to Catholicism or abandon all religion, that would change nothing to racist discourse: These foreigners or French citizens of foreign descent will still be singled out as responsible for all problems,” Mr. Charbonnier wrote. He added that “being afraid of Islam is most likely stupid, absurd and many other things, but it isn’t a crime.”

Re point 3:

Warming to his theme that the fight against Islamophobia had backfired, he argued that a misplaced fight against Islamophobia led by white elites had stifled free speech and paradoxically encouraged the mistreatment of Muslims by singling out their religious identity.

. . . In the 120-page book, which does not contain any new caricatures, Mr. Charbonnier criticized the media, politicians and some civil society groups for what he called “disgusting white, left-wing bourgeois paternalism.”

. . .He placed special blame on the media for creating a climate that allowed Charlie Hebdo to be targeted.

“It is because the media decided that republishing the Muhammad caricatures could only trigger the fury of Muslims that it triggered the anger of a few Muslim associations,” he wrote in reference to 2006, when the newspaper reprinted cartoons of Muhammad that had first been published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

I was upset, but not surprised, when a number of bloggers immediately accused Charlie Hebdo of “hate speech” after the terrorist attack, more or less blaming the magazine for its own fate.  But I was surprised when one of these clueless critics was Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonesbury. Apparently some people took a cursory look at a cartoon or two and jumped to the conclusion that Charlie Hebdo hated Muslims.

Well, like me, the magazine doesn’t care much for Islam, but doesn’t bear personal animus against Muslims themselves. And it wouldn’t have been hard to find that out. One could, I suppose, blame the time pressure involved in writing on websites, but it’s clear that much of the pushback against Charlie Hebdo came from the very kind of liberal, Islam-coddling guilt that Charbonnier criticized.

Here he is with some of his covers:

17CHARB-master675
(Photo and caption from NYT): téphane Charbonnier, editor of Charlie Hebdo, in 2012. A book he finished two days before his death has been published. Credit Francois Guillot/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

26 thoughts on “Book by murdered editor of Charlie Hebdo just out, defiant in right to criticize Islam”

  2. At least get the book over here in English. There are a few of us who would like to have it. Charb as they called him is a hero to some. Kind of another Lafayette, I would say.

  5. but WHEN and WHERE can I purchase this book? I can’t find any info on when it is available, and where. I’d love to have it in français but english would be fine too.

    I was wonderfully shocked and excited to find the post-attack Hebdo for sale at Barnes and Noble. It was as exciting to see such open corporate support for free speech as it was disgusting to read about Trudeau’s cowardly pandering.

    1. It’s nice to stumble upon evidence that there is life in genuine liberalism. If I found a copy for sale I’d certainly buy it, although my A-level French is pretty rusty.

      It did irritate me to see the left instantly infer racist intent from a magazine they had evidently never read, and most had never even heard of, despite the notorious impenetrable subtleties of humour in a foreign language.

      1. Me too, I can’t find it on Amazon, though others by ‘Charb’ are.

        (My French is similarly tentative, my only other French book is l’Origine des Especes which I stumbled on when looking for non-fiction, I found it quite easy to follow which I suspect is deceptive since long/technical words are more like their English equivalents than short ones).

        1. You’ve read Darwin in French? I haven’t even read the original in English to my eternal shame.

          1. I’ve never read the original in English either, though I’d been meaning to for years. So it was just a happy coincidence when this one showed up.

            I must also admit I’m only half-way through it, my slightly erratic French studies got diverted into other channels. This post is probably the motivation I need to pick it up again.

          2. I know that feeling…the number of half-finished/half-read/half-listened to games, books, albums that litter the house is embarrassing. So many media vying for my attention I’ve become lazy and capricious. It really does take something out of the ordinary to hold my attention these days, which I suppose you could argue is good, but it does make me feel incredibly self-indulgent and gluttonous.

      2. We are talking about people who flat out ignore carefully stated provisos and caveats in plain English by the likes of Sam Harris in their zeal to denounce him. The nuances of foreign language and custom stand no chance of penetrating their consciousnesses, or should that be defenses.

  11. Bringing back all the sad cartoons in the wake of the massacre of the pen as a weapon…

    May it continue to be one.

    1. And all those cartoonists at the time that wanted to say more in their cartoons but couldn’t, for obvious reasons, quite bring themselves to do so. There were a lot of pens left in their scabbards too. I was particularly pissed off by Private Eye’s reaction.

  12. Persons who take offense when their religion is lampooned or criticized do so, I think, because they identify with it. This is different from, say, a person who accepts evolution, or relativity, or the birth and death of stars. If someone disparages those things, I don’t take it personally. But religion is different. Is it different from belief in astrology? Yes, I think. I don’t know of anyone who has been killed because they didn’t believe or disbelieve astrology, even though there’s no more support for astrology than there is for religion. I don’t know why religion is such a life and death issue for believers.

    1. ” I don’t know of anyone who has been killed because they didn’t believe or disbelieve astrology”
      I can imagine there were circumstances in the middle ages perhaps when this might have happened. If a noble was influenced by his astrologer in a particular way, the astrologer could cause the elimination of scientists in competition with his views.

  13. I think krzystof1 was talking about modern times.

    But even in olden days, I doubt anyone was killed because of their doubt in astrology (though advisers, both astrologers and others, may have been killed because of ‘office politics’). But I don’t think there was the conflict you imply between astrology and science, as recently as Galileo’s day astrology was considered a field of science, much as say climate science or economics is today. I think I’ve read that Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler for example were inspired to undertake their pioneering astronomical work partly in order to improve astrological predictions.

    (Disclaimer: Astrology is obviously nonsense today. I don’t think it was so obvious then).

    1. Aagh! That was in response to Rickflick, of course. One of these days science may advance far enough for us to control the formatting in WordPress….

Comments are closed.