In the first week of 2015, the world was struck by the tragic events at the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in France. The attack, perpetrated by three Islamic fundamentalists, left several cartoonists dead, as well as other Parisians, and sparked a global debate over the extent of free speech and the influence of radical Islamism. The former topic has been thoroughly considered by the media and individuals. The latter, however, is much more interesting.

Many Muslims have protested the fact that they are asked to apologize for the actions of a tiny minority. Obviously, moderate Muslims should not be blamed or held accountable for the attacks. But the issue hints at an ongoing struggle, not between Islam and everyone else, but instead within Islam itself. Islamic terrorists are just the most extreme expressions of a deep rift within Islam, defined along the lines of religious interpretation and a cultural divide.

There are two distinct categories of Muslims in the world, the moderates and the radicals. Radical Muslims adhere relatively closely to traditional Islamic doctrine; they tend to reside in predominantly Muslim countries. Moderate Muslims tend to live in Western or Westernized countries. The boundaries between the groups are not rigidly defined, and the geographic areas just described are far from homogenous. The French terrorists behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks are anything but moderate.

Related Stories

Anti-racism does not conflict with the freedom of speech

As stated earlier, Islamic terrorists only the most extreme expressions of the old-school of Islam (in contrast, the most extreme of the new-school would be unlikely to make global headlines). Saudi Arabia publicly condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and Egyptian citizens held a candlelight vigil for the victims of the attacks. At the same time, Saudi Arabia recently sentenced a blogger to a total of 1000 lashes (in addition to 10 years’ jail time) for criticizing a Saudi clergyman, and of the 74% of Egyptians who support sharia law, 86% believe that the penalty for leaving Islam should be death. The Turkish president publicly stated that women are not equal to men using the Qur’an as justification. American Muslims tend to be more moderate; 63% of United States Muslims believe there to be no tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society. There is no question that the two schools of Islam are currently in conflict; the Iranian government recently shut down an Iranian newspaper that showed solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.

There are a few explanations for the existence of such a divide. A popular account is the fact that Muslim countries have been the victims of persistent destructive colonialism, predisposing them to radical fundamentalist governments. Whether one school is “correct” is irrelevant. It appears that the new-school is gaining influence; a majority (53%) of Muslims in the Middle East agree that a woman should have the right to choose if she wears a veil. Still, the divide isn’t likely to be resolved very soon.

None of these factors do anything to diminish the depravity of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It does, however, put the discussions in context. The question of radical Islam is not as simple as an “us versus them” conundrum. Only by recognizing the complexities within the global Muslim community can a productive discussion ensue.