Habib Malik is correct in this. He is also correct that “Arab Christian support for outraged Muslims, while commendable on one level, stems from an inherited sense of dhimmitude, he said. Under centuries of Muslim rule, the Christian dhimmi accepted second-class status and paid a special tax in order to be a protected community.”
This “protected community” status essentially amounted to the purchase of a limited immunity from jihad violence. The “protection” is revoked if the dhimmi “mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet….or Islam” (Reliance of the Traveller O11.10 (5)). Historically, that led to dhimmi Christians proclaiming how wonderful life was in the Muslim area where they lived, even as they were being persecuted and bled dry economically, because to speak out against their mistreatment would make the situation even worse. Malik is entirely right that this deeply ingrained submission is playing out again today when Arab Christians call for blasphemy laws and the criminalization of criticism of Islam. They know they must side with Muslims for their own self-protection.
Consider, for example, Gregory III Laham, the disgraced former Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. During his patriarchate he became notorious for calling the Melkite Greek Catholic Church the “Church of Islam.” He also claimed that Islamic jihad attacks against Middle Eastern Christians were a “Zionist conspiracy against Islam,” and exclaimed that “no one defends Islam like Arab Christians.” He was, in short, a zealous company man — and look how his dhimmitude saved Syrian Christians from persecution!
“France’s Free Speech Makes Arab Christians Squirm,” by Jayson Casper, Christianity Today, November 10, 2020:
…CT spoke with eight Christian leaders in the Arab world about the controversy…
“The line should be drawn when freedom is used to undermine freedom,” said Habib Malik, son of Charles Malik, who was the Lebanese co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“I am fully and completely with Macron, to take the severest measures.”
Malik, a Roman Catholic, agreed that the cartoons are a “debased and vulgar use of art.” But he believes there should be no restrictions on freedom of expression, even as “Jesus and his mother are attacked a million times a day.”
It is “inconceivable” for a Christian to plot revenge, he said.
Europe has erred, Malik believes, in assuming Muslim immigrant communities driven by economic concern would also adopt Europe’s prevailing worldview. Unlike the primarily Christian Hispanic immigrants in the United States, too many of Europe’s Muslims “do not understand the meaning of freedom.”
Egypt’s Anglican Archbishop Mouneer Anis takes a different legal approach, backing al-Azhar in its call to sue. But he arrives at a similar religious conclusion.
“Freedom of expression should be guaranteed for everyone, as long as it is not used to offend,” he said. “Jesus is against hurting others.”
Europe should expect a violent reaction to the mocking of precious religious symbols, Anis said. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons promote hatred and provoke terrorism.
Anis has previously called for an international ban on the defamation of religions, including Christianity. If ever drafted by the United Nations, it would be “reasonable,” avoiding the problems with blasphemy laws in certain countries of the Muslim world.
But whenever it exists, the archbishop will not make use of it. Christians are accustomed to criticism, he said, and simply trust in what they believe.
“We differ in our faith,” said Anis, noting that Jesus was called “Beelzebub.” “We should not ask our Muslim friends to act like us.”
His Anglican colleague, Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo of Sudan, also supports a blasphemy law. But he esteems it in conjunction with the North African nation’s recent repeal of its law against apostasy.
“I should be able to change from Islam to Christianity if I want to, or from Christianity to Islam if I want to,” said Kondo.
“But I should not be insulted.”
Le Gall emphasized that in France, Kondo’s insistence is honored. While France’s blasphemy law was outlawed in 1881, insulting people for their religious convictions can result in a year in prison and a $50,000 fine.
But 1881 also marked the year France guaranteed freedom of the press. Charlie Hebdo ridiculed Islam as a religion. Le Gall does not expect any lawsuit will succeed.
Yet there should be an international ban to prevent it, said Botrus Mansour, chair of the Convention of Evangelical Churches in Israel.
“Freedom of expression is above all other rights, and has almost absolute value,” he said.
“But the value of life is even higher.”
The terrorism that emerges from Europe’s immigrant communities reflects what has long been experienced in the Middle East, said Mansour. When Westerners used their freedom to attack Islam in earlier eras, Muslims directed their outrage toward local Arab Christians.
“It is better to be wise and cautious than to be right,” Mansour said. “Practice self-restraint to live together with respect.”
Malik does not approve of the appeasement.
Arab Christian support for outraged Muslims, while commendable on one level, stems from an inherited sense of dhimmitude, he said. Under centuries of Muslim rule, the Christian dhimmi accepted second-class status and paid a special tax in order to be a protected community. (Some Christian sources in the region declined interviews, citing the issue’s “sensitivity.”)
But Anis rejected this accusation, appreciating the Muslim Council of Elders for condemning Paty’s murder. In calling for restraint, they pursue a non-violent legal response.
And Egypt’s Tayyeb did not endorse the boycott, he noted.
Martin Accad, chief academic officer at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Beirut, said it is “rubbish” when Christians standing with Muslims are accused of dhimmitude.
But he stands with Malik—and many Muslim friends—in calling current Muslim outrage “childish.”…