Closing an eye or denying the evils of radicalism is a risk no democratic nation can afford to take, says Syerleena Abdul Rashid.

As the world experiences the worrying expansion of global radicalism, reports of violence and killings committed in the name of religion evoke all sorts of emotions it propels humanity into extreme ends: you either strongly disagree or strongly agree with the atrocities committed in the name of God, religion and faith.

Many of us are still trying to make sense of the recent attacks in Paris, the battles fought by Isis and the massacres carried out by Boko Haram. These aggressions arent just about a series of offensive cartoons or the overzealousness in installing an Islamic caliphate or even the evil of Western education, but it is a declaration of war against freedom of expression and human rights.

Most of all, it signals the breakdown of logic the raison dtre of religious wisdom and prudence; it indicates an abrupt shift to feverish radicalism.

Every heinous attack committed by religious extremists leaves many of us wondering: what is it about religion that makes one more inclined to embrace violence and lose ones sense of humour or common sense? Where do you draw the line between jest and insolence?

When the freedom to freely express oneself becomes incompatible with another religion, humanity is faced with the classic dilemma: do we adhere to religious constitutions or internationally protected rights? Although the idea of freedom (in this case, freedom of expression) is not without its fair share of controversy, it is not an absolute right but a privilege for some nations. On the other hand, freedom sometimes lacks precise guidelines needed to identify the uncertainties as ton whether it can absolutely safeguard ones faith from insult and mockery.

Although most of us were not entirely shocked that such heinous crimes were committed (Charlie Hebdo, a weekly French satirical publication, was notorious for publishing materials that were tasteless, offensive and insensitive to religious communities. The publication had been attacked in the past and various staff received death threats), what transpired on the morning of 7 January 2015 introduced us to another layer of evil sleeper cells that violate freedom, democracy and most of all, common sense.

But what transpired in Paris wasnt just about satire; it was about radicalism asserting its dominance over democracy and overshadowing the positive teachings of religion. This has been the dominating message extremists and religious fanatics convey worldwide.

Yes, satire can be dangerous and offensive because there are people who will not understand such jokes. It takes a certain level of political sophistication to appreciate an otherwise very serious message through humour. There is a saying that when rationality in politics begins to break down, the shift towards satire becomes eminent because at the end of the day, that is the only thing that makes any sense.

When the lives of civilians are threatened because certain factions are unable to resolve conflict through discussions or open debates, our lives become a commodity that is not without an expiry date. Democracy often becomes collateral damage in this tug-of-war between logic and religious fanaticism. This is when opinions, beliefs and feelings can get you killed.

See the original post:

So whats your freedom worth?