We cannot be guilty of oversimplification

I believe in unconditional freedom of speech and I condemn the attack on the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that occurred in Paris. However, I am disturbed nonetheless by the oversimplification of Islam and portrayal of terrorism that I have noticed on both social media platforms and the news.

#JeSuisCharlie has become a trope to defend freedom of speech. However, this trope seems to confuse supporting Charlie Hebdo’s freedom of speech and supporting the views presented by the satirical magazine. “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” a quote attributed to Voltaire, was well said. We need to differentiate between agreeing with Charlie Hebdo and supporting its right to say whatever it pleases. As David Brooks points out in his New York Times column, most of us are not Charlie Hebdo in the sense that “most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.”

One thing that people seem to often neglect in this discussion is that Charlie Hebdo was offensive. There’s no denying it. Perhaps the public has had limited exposure to the actual content of Charlie Hebdo, since major publications such as the Times and NPR decided against publishing the original content. However, a quick Google image search reveals crude — and not particularly funny — cartoons depicting a naked Prophet Muhammad discussing his buttocks. I — and I suspect many of us — am not a fan of such offensive jokes. We should embrace Charlie Hebdo’s position in society, as opposed to claiming that we ourselves are Charlie Hebdo.

More disturbingly, columnists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have been guilty of oversimplifying Islam and mistaking it as inherently violent. Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in her Wall Street Journal column that, “This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe. There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran.” Too often, people are guilty of mistaking that the view of the extremists is representative of the entire religious group’s views. Such a generalization is always wrong. I could say the same things about Christianity — or any other religion — that Ali does. A Christian fanatic was behind the massacre in Norway, and evangelism is certainly an important tenet of Christianity. Even with my limited biblical knowledge, I can point to gruesome moments in the Scripture. Genesis depicts Christians tricking pagans into mass circumcision and then murdering them as revenge for violating Dinah. As Nicholas Kristof points out in his column, we cannot view Islam as one homogenous entity when it has the rich history and diversity it does.

As we look beyond the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and contemplate how to make sense of Islam, we must avoid making calls guided by an oversimplification. Something I noticed in the comments section of Brooks’s column was the repeated argument that women should not wear burqas because they are anti-feminist, offensive and indicative of their desire against assimilating into Europe and America. This would be true if all Muslim women were forced to wear burqas. However, many women voluntarily choose to cover themselves because of their religious convictions. They are exercising their feminist rights, just as a woman participating in the Slut Walk is. Feminism is about the right of a woman to make whatever choices she pleases. It is not about how much skin she shows. Further, saying that these women are against assimilation because they wear a burqa is akin to saying that people can only be part of a society if they look and act like the majority; this, of course, is not tolerance. It is perhaps natural to be angry at Islam after the tragedy in Paris, but it is neither mature nor justified. When we make calls about the future of Islam, we must remember that we cannot be guilty of oversimplification.

We, as Americans, did not claim that Christianity needs to change after the massacrein Norway because we are able to differentiate between extremists and mainstream Christianity. We, as Americans, for the most part do not say that circumcision of infants by Jewish people is child abuse because we understand that it is part of Jewish tenet. Such is the attitude we need to take when we view the Islamic world and try to make sense of what happened in Paris.

I am saddened by the tragedy in Paris. I am afraid that our oversimplifications and lack of understanding will lead to more violence and enmity tomorrow.

Erica Choi is a freshman from Bronxville, NY. She can be reached at gc6@princeton.edu.