BY: Hanieh Tarkian
PEJOURNAL – France tries in every way to encourage the clash between peoples and religions, after having favored a globalized and mondialist society, in which no more space is left for religious and cultural identities, favored the culture of nihilism, encouraged an ultra-laicist vision of society, but on the other hand strengthened the alliance with countries that economically and ideologically finance terrorism in the Middle East, given asylum to individuals linked to terrorist groups and having instead opposed countries such as Syria and Iran that have fought against terrorism.
Unfortunately, we can see the proliferation of groups or individuals who react with violence to these provocations. It would then be important to try to favor a third way: the one that sees in blasphemy, against any religion, not a form of freedom of expression but a useless weapon to inflame spirits and create conflict, also diminishing the value of the sacred in the society and thus undermining its identity basis. A third way that also condemns violent reactions to these provocations and takes seriously the problem of religious extremism and groups of terrorists, so hypocritically supported by France.
It is not out of place to recall what Syrian President Bashar al Assad has repeatedly reiterated regarding the support of some Western governments for terrorism. In fact, when he was asked in particular if he would be willing to collaborate with other countries to fight against terrorism he replied:
“Countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Western countries that provide cover for terrorism like France, the United States or others, cannot fight terrorism. You cannot be with and against terrorism at the same time. But if these countries decide to change their policies and realize that terrorism is like a scorpion – if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you – well, if that happens, we would have no objection to cooperation with all these countries, provided that is a real and not a false coalition to fight terrorism”. How can France become the standard-bearer of the fight against Islamic extremism, if it itself supported it in the Middle East?
Defending the borders
The terrorist from Nice entered France via Lampedusa, this reminds us again how false and hypocritical the globalist narrative of welcoming everyone is and how important it is to protect the borders of one’s homeland. General Soleimani, a great strategist in the fight against terrorism, stated regarding the need to protect one’s borders:
“Today, not very far from our country, we are facing a serious religious crisis. […] If anyone acts in such a way as to make a nation indifferent to this danger, he will be responsible for the shedding of this nation’s blood tomorrow. This crisis is like a pestilence and a great calamity. If plague or cholera arose in a neighboring state and with it a great calamity threatened our country, what would we do for the immunity and safety of the people of our land? Wouldn’t we quarantine our borders? Wouldn’t we control who enters and leaves the borders of our land?
[…] Now a plague such as Isis is on our borders, it is easier for them to slaughter a human being than a sheep; not one or two, but hundreds of individuals at the cry of Allahu Akbar are slaughtered with a knife! Whoever does not make people aware of this danger, who does not undertake to resolve this calamity, will be responsible for the future tragedy. This corresponds to our national interests: fighting against Isis and the Takfiri groups means defending national interests“.
The double standard of freedom of expression
A third way (neither with globalism nor with terrorism) also raises a series of questions regarding the real presence of freedom of expression in the West, which anyone can notice simply by writing a post criticizing “untouchable” categories of society, as pointed out by Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, in his message addressed to young French people:
“Young French! Ask your President why he supports the insult to the Messenger of God in the name of freedom of expression. Does freedom of expression mean insult, especially aimed at luminous and sacred personalities? Isn’t this stupid act an insult to the reason of the people who elected him as president? The next question to ask is: why is it a crime to raise doubts about the Holocaust? Why can someone who writes about such doubts be imprisoned while it is permissible to insult the Prophet?”.
One really has to wonder: why for Charlie Hebdo it is legitimate to propose blasphemous cartoons for Muslims, as indeed it has already done in the past towards Christians – we also remember the cartoons published on the occasion of the Amatrice earthquake, in the name of freedom of expression – but if you criticize certain policies, practices and ideologies of society, are you labeled as anti-Semitic or homophobic? Is there then a double standard for freedom of expression and one also for the fight against terrorism?