The murder of Charlie Kirk and the discourse in the Arab world

Poetic justice and irony

According to Mor Shapira, Kirk’s murder created a dissonance in the Arab world. On the one hand, Kirk was a religious and conservative man who supported family values and gun ownership, positions that could have found a receptive audience among traditional communities. On the other hand, he was perceived as anti-Islamic and, above all, was an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, especially after the events of October 7th. He fiercely defended Israel against accusations of genocide in Gaza, and this, according to Shapira, is the main reason for the hostility toward him.

In non-state-run Arab newspapers, such as Lebanon’s “Al-Akhbar” and the Al Jazeera network, the irony and what was perceived as poetic justice were emphasized. It was argued that Kirk, who supported the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which allows gun ownership, was himself murdered with a gun. Commentators even added that he, who supported the use of American weapons in Gaza, “drank from the same cup” and was murdered with an American weapon by an American assassin, not an external terrorist. Many Muslims in the United States reacted on social media with statements like “he got what he deserved.”

Conspiracy theories and sowing discord

Shapira notes that alongside the ethical discussion, conspiracy theories also emerged. Some claimed that the Israeli Mossad or even the Trump administration were behind the murder to gain political profit. She gives the example of two Islamist preachers in Britain, Sheikh Ibn Hazm Idrisi and Ali Dawah, who linked Israel to the murder, similar to the responsibility they attribute to it for the September 11 attacks, the Kennedy assassination, and more.

The Al Jazeera network, Shapira explains, is exploiting the event to sow discord. The network asks whether the murder, carried out by an American, heralds the beginning of a “fitna,” meaning a civil war, in the United States between the conservative right and the liberal left. This, she says, is a familiar tactic of the network, aimed at sowing division and presenting Western democracies as divided and disintegrating from within.

Democracy and free speech as weakness

The Arab coverage of the murder, and of protests and internal conflicts in Israel and the West in general, tends to portray democracy and freedom of speech as a sign of weakness and internal decay, not as a virtue. Shapira explains that while the institutional Arab media gloats over a divided Israel, there are also other, quieter voices that express envy of the ability of citizens in democratic countries to protest against the government. She mentions a hadith, a Muslim tradition, that instructs blind obedience to the ruler, even if he is abusive, as long as “fitna” is avoided, which is the greatest fear in Arab political culture.

Is it right to ask for mercy for an enemy of Islam?

Shapira describes a lively discussion that developed on social media among Muslims: whether it is appropriate to ask God for mercy on a person like Kirk, who was perceived as an enemy of Islam. On the one hand, some argued that Islam is a religion of mercy and tolerance, and even if Kirk’s views were outrageous, one should not rejoice in his death and should show compassion, especially toward his children. A similar debate arose after the death of the journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was a Christian, and the question was asked whether it is permissible for a Muslim to pray for the repose of her soul.

On the other hand, other voices rejected any empathy for Kirk. Shapira quotes a preacher from a mosque in Virginia, Ismail Selim, who claimed that the world is better off without Kirk, and that no mercy should be shown to a racist person. According to the preacher, the fact that Kirk was a family man is irrelevant, and his children will probably follow in his footsteps.

Debate culture in the West and the Muslim world

At the end of the conversation, Boris asks if a public figure like Charlie Kirk, who knows how to conduct sharp debates, could exist in Israel. In Shapira’s opinion, the culture of public debate is not well-developed in Israel, unlike in the United States and Britain. She notes that the only place where a similar kind of intellectual back-and-forth exists is in the study of a page of Gemara in yeshivas.

In this context, she talks about the intellectual tradition of “Ilm al-Kalam,” the science of discourse, in medieval Islam. This was an entire theological culture of philosophical arguments and discussions, whose purpose was not to reach an agreement, but to explore issues in depth, to appreciate the multiplicity of opinions, and to enjoy the intellectual exercise itself.