None of Egypt’s newspapers have (should have, we say, of course) published any of Charlie Hebdo magazine’s satirical cartoons about Islam, despite their intensive coverage about terrorists storming the magazine’s offices and killing its most prominent cartoonists and editors. Moreover, the words ‘terrorism’ or ‘massacre’ to describe what happened in Paris have been kept to a minimum, using the terms ‘attack’ and ‘break-in’ instead.
None of Egypt’s newspapers have (should have, we say, of course) published any of Charlie Hebdo magazine’s satirical cartoons about Islam, despite their intensive coverage about terrorists storming the magazine’s offices and killing its most prominent cartoonists and editors. Moreover, the words ‘terrorism’ or ‘massacre’ to describe what happened in Paris have been kept to a minimum, using the terms ‘attack’ and ‘break-in’ instead.
In fact, some newspapers, first published a cartoon tweeted by the journal on Twitter only a few hours before the massacre depicting ISIS caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, while congratulating the world on Charismas. Some newspapers and local websites re-published that cartoon believing that the ‘picture triggered the attack’ although it is difficult to imagine that an operation of that caliber was planned and implemented within a few hours between the time of the magazine’s tweet and the raid carried out by masked men, later identified as Brothers Kouachi. The brothers were said to be members of ‘Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’ (AQAP) headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s successor, which came to the surface after being long dwarfed by its rival ISIS, better known as ‘Daesh.’
Reluctance to publish Charlie’s cartoons cannot be judged as a criterion about Egyptian newspapers’ handling of the crisis. In fact the world’s largest newspapers refrained from publishing the satirical cartoon as well. This time around, the cartoons did not have the same state of support experienced by the so-called ‘Danish cartoon crisis’ years ago when a number of European newspapers, especially the Scandinavian states, showed solidarity by publishing the same pictures as a gesture of support to ‘freedom of expression.’
This time, in spite of the tremendous solidarity symbolically reflected in the million-person ‘Paris march’, it appeared that the horrendous massacre that sparked off enormous solidarity had itself led to greater apprehensions about the serious and insane menace. Only a few newspapers published the cartoon including the German ‘Hamburger Morgen Post.’ Soon after publishing the cartoon, the newspaper office was attacked with a homemade incendiary explosive charges, which fortunately did not result in injuries. What was published in the world’s newspapers was not the satirical cartoons, but a broad debate about freedom of expression or more specifically the ‘limits’ of freedom of expression.
However, the international debate about freedom of expression had not been reflected in the Egyptian press given that the highly exaggerated Charlie Hebdo drawings, which are often accused of verging on racism, seemed to be going beyond the ceiling of freedom of expression in the Egyptian press, so much so that discussing the drawings was possible. The discussions, if any, were centered on whether the case merited confrontation or avoidance altogether.
Even if the press and the newspapers were a commodity or a service that cater to their readership’s trends, it was very clear from the readers’ comments on the newspapers’ websites that the scale of support for ‘responding’ to Charlie Hebdo magazine, even in such a bloody incident, was much greater than the refusal to react. Even the voices against the terrorist attack, which were tinged with the concept of ‘unrestrained freedom of expression’ appeared to be shy compared to the voices that refused the attacks because they would cause harm to the Muslims living in the West. The more common comment was: “If your freedom has no restraints, then your hearts must be good enough to accommodate the freedom of our action.”
Thousands of readers circulated this expression, perhaps without knowing that these same words were coined by the ‘Qaeda’ founder Osama bin Laden. ISIS was quick to quote bin Laden’s words in what it described as the ‘blessed Paris expedition.’
One may easily predict in this case that the initial coverage of Egypt’s newspapers about Charlie Hebdo attack has focused more on that magazine as a ‘Journal accused of being abusive to the Prophet’ that it has on the horror, seriousness and the symbolic storming itself.
Al-Ahram, the largest and oldest Egyptian newspaper, published on its front page, ‘Charlie Hebdo … Satirical press dared to discuss religion and abuse the Prophet leading to death and burning.’
Al-Watan newspaper published a profile of the chief editor of the French magazine Stefan Harponyi entitled: ‘A Boasting Offender of Islam.’
Meanwhile, Al-Masryoun website, which has an Islamic orientation, published a report shortly after the attack entitled: ‘Charlie Hebdo: Free Criticism or Fatal Provocation?’
The press did not adopt an offensive or justifying approach, but it was not supportive either, except for certain limited steps, the most notable of which were adopted by Al-Masri Al-Youm newspaper that published several cartoons in clear solidarity with their ‘colleagues’ at Charlie Hebdo under the title ‘Al-Masri Al-Youm cartoonists write and draw in support of Charlie Hebdo.’
A week later, in its next edition, the French magazine published a new cartoon of Prophet Mohammed on the cover posing a new problem to the Egyptian newspapers. Once again, they refrained from re-publishing the non-provocative cover which portrayed the Prophet weeping in support of Charlie journalists. The new cover returned the crisis to its genuine source namely the publication of drawings relating to the prophets even if they were not sarcastic or satirical in nature.
A fatwa by Al-Azhar, dating back to the first half of the twentieth century, prohibited the personification of prophets in movies. The fatwa also prevented such representation in newspapers or any other media tool. Although the law does not prohibit such personification, it can punish offenders and other offences that are repugnant to religious people based on articles that prohibit defamation of religions. A few days after the attack, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi instructed his Prime Minister Ibrahim Mahlab to prevent the circulation of publications that are offensive to religions or erotic material.
This trio: the power of the law, readers’ mood reflected in the comments and security concerns about reactions of radicals have been decisive in Egyptian newspapers dealing with the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Consequently, the majority of these newspapers have found themselves, with rare exceptions, torn between ‘justification’ and ‘alleviation’ of events or adoption of a dry normative approach of such events. Journalists’ convictions, which are naturally interconnected with the views of their community, are not addressed and that is another kettle of fish.
