Crown Prince reassured the Kingdom’s proactive efforts towards the stability and balance of the oil industry.

He also said that Saudi Arabia is committed to the OPEC+ agreement.

The two countries reviewed the bilateral ties and talked about innovative steps to enhance them in different areas.

Mohammed Bin Salman and Macron reviewed the latest Russian-Ukrainian crisis, and discussed about what measures can be taken in this regard to promote international peace and security.

The principle of laïcité, as expressed by Charlie Hebdo’s editor, is not compatible with a human rights approach that respects individual freedoms, including freedom of religion…

Once again, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo republish controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The aim to mark the start of a trial of suspected accomplices of the terrorist gunman who attacked Charlie Hebdo offices in January 2015 but turns out its sparking anger across the Islamic world. 

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical weekly magazine that is published in France, which is self-defining as a “secular, political and jubilant” periodical that “draws, writes, interviews, ponders and laughs at everything on this earth, which is ridiculous, giggles at all that is absurd or preposterous in life”. The cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were first published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005. These were reprinted by Charlie Hebdo in 2006. 

Widely reported across global media, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons have been variously interpreted as contentious provocations toward Islam which disregard iconographic norms and thereby ride roughshod over Muslim cultural sensitivities, and/or for depicting Islam in crude, stereotypical, and offensive style. In contrast, other commentators have applauded the magazine, by viewing these cartoons as the expression of universal civic rights of free speech, secularism, and equality.

Laïcité is France’s principle of secularism which means the State and religious organizations are separate. In France, freedom of expression is considered a universal right, while in some countries, even in Israel does not allow offending religious sentiments. The law prohibits illustrating Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed in a way that would hurt the feelings of believers. To the French, this also seems strange because laws limiting freedom of speech were taken off the books at the end of the 18th century.

President Emmanuel Macron said, “There is in France a freedom to blaspheme which is attached to the freedom of conscience. I am here to protect all these freedoms. In France, one can criticize a president and governors”.

The response to the Charlie Hebdo attack has raised the need to better define and articulate what we mean by freedom of expression. Several fundamental misconceptions and blind spots in the discussion on freedom of speech and its limitations have been exposed and require clarification or refutation.

The idea of extending anti-vilification laws to cover religious groups runs into conflict with an extremist view of laïcité. This view sees the principle of laïcité not as a separation between religion and state, but as state-endorsed secularism. Previously, Gérard Biard as Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief, said in 2012 that Charlie Hebdo was an atheist paper, a secularist paper”. He argues that people should recognize that laïcité is perhaps the prime moral value of our Republic and without it, Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité isn’t possible.

French sociologist and political scientist, Vincent Geisser, explained that Charlie Hebdo is only looking to impose its secular purity by treating everyone else as fanatics”. Charlie Hebdo’s satirizing of Islam in the name of their view of laïcité is, thus, a part of a very real attack not only on religion as an institution but also on people’s right to religious freedom. 

Geisser’s argument can understand that laïcité stands in direct contradiction to the idea of freedom of religion expressed in The United Nations which is recognized under the importance of freedom of religion or belief in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration), Article 18 which states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his [her] choice”.

Qur’an strictly prohibits images of Prophet Mohammed. However, Mohammed is a venerated figure among Muslims, who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him as an attack on their Muslim identity. Hence, the principle of laïcité, as expressed by Charlie Hebdo’s editor, is not compatible with a human rights approach that respects individual freedoms, including freedom of religion. The incompatibility should be more obvious; the fact that it is not pointing to a shortcoming in approach to anti-vilification principles.

The purpose of laws against vilification is to protect the human dignity of individuals. On this basis, criticism of a religious belief must be permitted, but interference with an individual’s right to hold a belief, or to practice their religion, can be prohibited. The distinction can be seen by considering its application to cartoons of Mohammed in more detail.

In general, Freedom of speech is presented as the most significant Western value and the heart of democracy. To sum up, it is a reminder that secular Europeans have their own identity politics, and that these play out in controversies over cartoons, as well. However, insulting Muslims, offending their religious feelings, and vilifying Islam are not just words; it might trigger emotions of extreme dislike, which eventually leads to another conflict. The key is to respect others to get respected. Treat people with respect if you want to be respected.

Try Ananto Wicaksono is a student with two master’s degrees programs in Business Law and Public Policy from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and School of Government and Public Policy (SGPP) – Indonesia respectively. He also Alumni of Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (INDEF) School of Political Economy (ISPE) Batch 2020. His interest in International Political Economy, International Economic Law and Human Rights.

In a blog post Mahathir, 95, a respected leader in the Muslim world, said he believed in freedom of expression but that it should not be used to insult others.

“Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. But by and large the Muslims have not applied the ‘eye for an eye’ law. Muslims don’t. The French shouldn’t,” Mahathir said in a blog post, which he also posted on Twitter.

“Since you have blamed all Muslims and the Muslims’ religion for what was done by one angry person, the Muslims have a right to punish the French,” he said.

Twitter said the message violated its rules and it had removed the tweet.

Several Muslim-majority countries have denounced remarks by French officials, including President Emmanuel Macron, defending the use of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a French school classroom. The caricatures are seen as blasphemous by Muslims.

The dispute flared after a French teacher who showed his pupils satirical cartoons of the Prophet during a civics lesson was later beheaded in the street by an attacker of Chechen origin.

French officials said the killing was an attack on the core French value of freedom of expression and defended the right to publish the cartoons. Macron has also said he would redouble efforts to stop conservative Islamic beliefs subverting French values.

Saudi Press Agency (SPA) quoted Kingdom’s Foreign Ministry as stating, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejects any attempts to link Islam with terrorism and condemns the offensive cartoons of the Prophet of Guidance and the Messenger of Peace Mohammed bin Abdullah, may God bless him and grant him peace, or any of the messengers, peace be upon them”.

“Saudi Arabia condemns all terrorist attacks and rejects all practices and actions that lead to hatred and violence”, the source said.

Kingdom’s stance has come out amidst the growing anger worldwide over French President Emmanuel Macron’s controversial statements about Prophet Mohammed’s caricatures.

A French teacher was beheaded last week by an Islamist after he had shown the cartoons of the Prophet during a class on free speech.

Meanwhile, Saudi social media users on Sunday have called for a boycott of French products. They argue that free speech does not mean to hurt the sentiments of people and incite hatred. They term such free-speech as hate-speech when it does not care the sensitivity of millions of people.

However, the foreign ministry source has not called to boycott the products.

On October 3, President Emmanuel Macron vowed to implement tougher laws to tackle what he called “Islamist separatism” and defend secular values. He further said that Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world.

An interviewer of MBC television show asked MWL chief about his views about Macron’s comments.

Dr. Al-Issa said, “These are people who are falsely considered Muslims. These have harmed Islam’s reputation with their radicalism and extremism – and sometimes, their violence, including their terrorism”.

“These do not represent Islam at all, and if we defend them – whether directly or indirectly, (that would mean) we are exactly like them”, he added.

When asked about Macron’s comments about Islamist separatism, Dr. Al-Issa said extremists and terrorists were the first to isolate themselves from Islamic society.

He emphasized that Muslims living in non-Muslim nations should respect the constitutions, laws and cultures of the respective countries. He said that this concept was clearly stated in 2019 Makkah Declaration, which was signed by thousands of clerics, preachers and Islamic scholars from all the world.

The declaration called for anti-extremism, religious and cultural diversity, and legislation against hate and violence.

Islamic scholars have lately expressed great concerns about Islamist ideology or political Islam which has evolved in the name of Islamic faith, and has been attracting Muslims with delusional promises. Their actions have caused Muslims more harm than benefit, and their existence will keep endangering Muslim lives and existence.

Crooks and Liars

“Our leaders are crooks and liars. I don’t believe any investigation they will do. They destroyed the country and they’re still lying to the people. Who are they kidding?” said Jean Abi Hanna, 80, a retired port worker whose home was damaged and daughter and granddaughter injured in the blast.

Veteran politician Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon’s Druze community, called for an international investigation, saying he had “no trust” in the government to find out the truth.

An official source familiar with preliminary investigations blamed “inaction and negligence” for the blast.

A Lebanese security source said the initial blaze that sparked the explosion was caused by welding work.

People who felt the explosive force said they had witnessed nothing comparable in years of conflict and upheaval in Beirut, which was devastated by the 1975-1990 civil war and since then has experienced big bomb attacks, unrest and a war with Israel.

“All hell broke loose,” said Ibrahim Zoobi, who works near the port. “I saw people thrown five or six metres.”

Seismic tremors from the blast were recorded in Eilat on Israel’s Red Sea coast, about 580 km (360 miles) away.

Operations have been paralysed at Beirut port, Lebanon’s main route for imports needed to feed a nation of more than 6 million people, forcing ships to divert to smaller ports.