The rector of the great mosque of Paris: "May Charlie Hebdo continue to write, to draw, to use his art and above all to live"

Hafiz Chems-eddine is the Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris.

I am Algerian.

By birth, descent and heart.

I am from the southern shore of the Mediterranean, brought up in values ​​of respect for otherness, generosity, openness to others.

I am French.

Adoption, adhesion and adherence, because in love with the Republic, attached to its principles, respectful of its history, with a peaceful memory in the face of its dark pages and an attraction for the spirit of the Enlightenment which was the prelude of the Revolution and secularism.

I am a Muslim by conviction, by heritage and by commitment.

My parents, themselves believers and practitioners, did not teach me only tolerance, but acceptance of others, of difference, the sacredness of physical integrity and respect for the human species.

The Algerian Islam that rocked me had taught me to accept criticism and to respect contrary expression and convictions.

I am a lawyer by training, culture and profession.

A profession that I chose for the love of law and justice.

And, since January 11, 2020, I have the immense honor of representing and directing a venerable institution: the Great Mosque of Paris.

There is no question for me of interfering in the debate taking place before the Assize Court.

I trust the judicial institution so that it clearly defines the responsibilities of those who are on the dock.

What precedes constitutes certain layers of my identity as a man and a citizen.

They add up, complement each other, coexist peacefully and harmoniously.

The Muslim that I am lives freely in his heart, in his intimacy with the binational citizen bathed in the cultures of two countries - France and Algeria - which have an extraordinary common history that is at the same time beautiful, violent and complex.

Since taking office, I have not wanted to chatter.

Occupy the media space and skim the radio and television sets.

I preferred to engage in concrete actions on the ground to try to make a contribution first to Islam and the Muslims of France and then to fulfill this wish that I want to realize: to peacefully coexist between Islam and Republic.

If I am speaking today, it is because there is a reason that seems essential to me: the opening of the trial of the attacks of January 7, 8 and 9, 2015, that of the alleged accomplices of the criminals who targeted, in turn, the editorial staff of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, police officers and our Jewish compatriots.

Above all, I want to bow to the memory of all the victims of these heinous crimes and condemn this violence, the authors of this barbarity and all their operational, ideological, political and media accomplices.

And I do it with strength, sincerity and conviction: terrorists can claim to be from Islam - I have no way of excommunicating them - because fed by their crass ignorance, they can claim to act in the name of my religion, because fed by hateful theorists, they proclaim themselves

, in no case the Muslim religion, in its foundations, in its texts, except in the narrow minds of those who make literalism prevail, never, say- I, Islam could not condone crimes.

There is no question for me of interfering in the debate taking place before the Assize Court.

I trust the judicial institution so that it clearly defines the responsibilities of those who are on the dock and I also trust my colleagues, to bring out the truth, all the truths.

Almost 15 years ago, lawyer for the Great Mosque of Paris, I initiated proceedings, alongside my friends Francis Szpiner and Christophe Bigot, against Charlie Hebdo in front of the 17th correctional chamber of Paris.

Almost 15 years ago, lawyer for the Great Mosque of Paris, I initiated proceedings, alongside my friends Francis Szpiner and Christophe Bigot, against Charlie Hebdo in front of the 17th correctional chamber of Paris.

Many have criticized us for it.

Skin reactions did not allow their authors to understand our approach.

I want to explain this today, because the Great Mosque of Paris, which has always defended republican principles, was at no time nourished by a desire to prohibit irreverence, to condemn blasphemy or to censor cartoonists.

Together with several political leaders of the time, we decided, with my predecessor, Dr Dalil Boubakeur, to initiate this legal procedure.

To understand the underlying reasons that motivated our approach, we must remember the context.

In several Muslim countries, crowds, most often manipulated by ideologues, dictatorial regimes or fanatic groups, provoked violent demonstrations and clashes.

In France, already, a climate of community tension, exacerbated by several toxic forces, was fueled by this controversy and risked fracturing society.

We even witnessed the organization of a demonstration initiated in Paris by several extremist groups.

To read also:

I'm not going to discard: yes these cartoons had deeply hurt me as they had hurt the majority of my co-religionists.

I am talking about this peaceful and peaceful majority, totally integrated into the Republic, respectful of its laws and its values.

I am not talking here about the excited and extremist minorities who wanted to exploit this affair.

It is important to understand that the Prophet Muhammad is the most important being and symbol in the Muslim religion.

That being said, in other circumstances, in another national and international context, we would probably never have sued Charlie Hebdo, because, as a lawyer and as a citizen, knowing the history and the foundations of Republic, I respect the work of the media which must remain free and I knew that no court would condemn the satirical newspaper, including in its excesses.

Our action aimed, above all, to cut the grass from under the feet of extremist circles and to channel the debate towards the courtrooms so that it did not take place in the streets.

Implicitly, it introduced the idea that we were all justiciable citizens, able to sue and liable to be sued, because the courts are the places, par excellence, where conflicts and disputes are settled.

Our action was that of French citizens who wanted to use a constitutional right.

It was a way for us to prove our integration when extremist circles wanted to use violence and bring discord in the public space, not without manipulating and instrumentalizing the youth and the most fragile and malleable minds.

Moreover, while assigning Charlie Hebdo, we had maintained a bridge and a constructive dialogue with the management of the weekly, several of its journalists and some of the newspaper's friends.

All Muslims must understand the cultural traditions of satire and democratic space that allows all expressions even those that seem excessive.

This is also the reason why the Great Mosque of Paris had decided not to appeal the judgment which gave us great satisfaction while rejecting our demands.

The court recognized us the right to sue and understood the fact that these drawings could shock us while recalling the indisputable character of the freedom of expression.

All Muslims - and those who seek to infantilize them - need to understand the cultural traditions of satire and democratic space that allows all expressions even those that seem excessive.

In our country, only the law sets the limits.

Those who suggest that all Muslims would be unfit for these democratic values, not only are sorely mistaken, but furthermore, they show incredible contempt for those they claim to defend as if they were citizens. second-class, unable to defend themselves on their own.

During all the major events where the Republic was in danger, the Muslims of France, very largely, mobilized for their country, as citizens driven by our common values.

To read also:

May Charlie Hebdo continue to write, draw, use his art and above all live.

May the drama that struck this publication, the police officers and our Jewish compatriots serve as a lesson to the national community, but also to those who claim to be Islam, to those who call themselves "friends of Muslims" and who do not condemn clearly these terrorist crimes: how the murder of cartoonists has advanced the cause of Muslims?

And how can destruction and barbarism serve the image of Islam?