In our time any reaction to horrific events has the potential to be not only broadcast but also amplified by both the traditional and social media. Even decades ago the media served in this capacity. Rev. King’s march to Selma for justice and Mandela’s efforts for reconciliation were organized media events to awaken the conscience of a broader audience and to win their support. It should not go unnoticed that radical jihadists have the same motivation. The difference, of course, is the message they want delivered and the greater ubiquity of the medium. No ideological movement—not even for Justice and reconciliation—can be won at the point of a sword, as King and Mandela knew well. And though contemporary media can raise the dead with its volume and eschatological premonitions, its effect can become quite intemperate. You cannot shout “fire” in a crowded marketplace without some people being trampled at the exits.

Many feel that the terrorist attacks in France were not just vengeful and monstrous, but deliberately aimed at one of the sacred institutions of Western democracies, namely, freedom of expression. The demonstrations in France and around the world have been large as a result, while also being peaceful and focused. How then could the West’s response become intemperate? My concern comes from the very nature of freedom of expression. That freedom comes with an obligation to tolerate those with whom we strongly disagree. But tolerance presumes so much more: the effort to understand the basis for disagreement so that it can be either reconciled or a path to coexistence can be found. Yes, we even need to understand the assassins and murderers who want martyrdom at our hands. We may willingly grant them that wish, but we cannot lose sight of the millions who sympathize or whose support they hope to win. The widow of the chief cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo recently said that her husband knew of the danger he faced and was willing to die for freedom. I can imagine that the widow of one of the terrorist—who apparently has sought refuge in Syria—probably shares similar feelings about her husband.

If radical jihadists are fighting for their definition of freedom, we first need to understand that definition. It appears that they offer two definitions: amongst themselves they appear to seek defeat of the West and to gain absolute power over all aspects of governance via Sharia law and a self-serving interpretation of Islam; amongst the audience they hope to influence they offer freedom from perceived Western oppression and the inspiration of martyrdom and extraneous quotes from religious texts. The first definition is the logic of thugs and monomaniacs. The West should have no difficulty relating to this logic, for it is just one more incarnation of fascism. Moreover, Europe especially has a long history of wars and oppression carried out in the name of religion. The wisdom gained from this history formed the basis for America’s separation of church and state as enshrined in our Constitution. It also is rooted in French secularism, which Charlie Hebdo so clearly exemplifies. But Moslems as well have long struggled over the same issue: how to attain both personal and religious freedom without resort to extremism and brutality. Radical jihadists’ idea of freedom is equally irreconcilable to our perception in the West as to Islam’s. I suspect the West can add no more weight to the argument against indiscriminate violence and despotism than what already exists within Islam. Practically every major Moslem cleric in Europe has condemned the perpetrators of the Paris massacres and denounced what was done in the name of their religion. I have seen very little reporting on this fact, even though the strongest ally the West has against jihadists is the Moslem community.

The West can counter the second jihadists’ definition of freedom by eliminating the linkage they advance between their actions and the plight of Moslems around the world. The jihadists are not Islamic liberators, but oppressors of Moslems. Having stated that fact does not completely excuse the West from its historical role in dealing with Moslem populations. It may be difficult for Europe to erase their colonial past. And our history with Moslems includes support for oppressive Middle Eastern regimes and engagement in or support for wars against Moslem populations. Recently, however, I have noticed an uneven attempt by our President to relate to the “Arab Spring.” What is needed now is a much broader effort by the Western democracies to constructive engagement. Some part of this effort involves foreign policy, for example, to foster less corrupt governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, to reach some kind of rapprochement with Iran, to encourage a less oppressive regime in Egypt, and to advance more aggressively a two state solution to the Palestinian stalemate. Another part of this effort should involve more immediate assistance to Moslem populations, along the lines of our intervention in removing chemical weapons from Syria, in assisting with the eradication of Ebola in West Africa, or in funding the rebuilding of Palestinian infrastructure destroyed in the recent war. I know our State Department, along with UN sponsored NGOs, have many programs geared to help the health and education of Moslem populations, especially those trapped in refugee camps and Palestinian ghettoes. The problem with all these efforts is the ongoing struggle within Moslem communities to form some kind of political identity that would differentiate them from tyrannical governments AND radical jihadist that seek advantage from their plight. What appears as a likely scenario is a multi-generational struggle to free Moslems from these shackles and opportunists. The West, while it strives to protect its people from the attacks of jihadists, desperately needs to assist Moslems in their development of a more benevolent political identity wherever possible.

There are at least two reasons why freedom of expression is held as inviolable in the West: it is a bulwark against tyranny and the guarantor that all perspectives, religious and otherwise, can coexist in a truly free society. Personally, I believe this kind of imbroglio of wit and passion can only exists peacefully where it leads to dialogue, the precursor to realpolitik and constructive relations. The West should be able to relate to the plight of Moslems around the world by simply recalling its own struggles with tyranny, religious wars, and extremist ideologies. An intemperate response to terrorist violence in France could further damage relations with Moslems and make any kind of dialogue impossible. For example, belittling the Prophet Mohammed would be offensive, whereas satirizing his misrepresentation by jihadists would be revealing. Because we live in a free society, we tolerate opinions that may offend, but that toleration must extend to Moslem condemnation of offensive speech. At best, we can appreciate the difficulty some Moslems will have with our tolerance of blasphemy, for it disregards their sensitivities and disrespects them personally. Every person’s beliefs deserve respect. We learn this truth through dialogue where an understanding of differences can be aired and accepted as part of our common human condition. Without dialogue no rapprochement is even possible. An intemperate response to the Paris massacres could preclude that dialogue and sideline the one ideological force that can destroy jihadism at its source: Islam.

We will continue to fight jihadists on the battlefields of their choosing, but we can defeat them only if we join with Moslems to disavow the jihadists’ moral underpinnings. I cannot deny their belief in a self-justifying ideology, but I refuse to accept it as religion. There is no such thing as a “religious” terrorist, just a wolf in sheep’s clothing or, as Charlie Hebdo would draw it, an assassin disguised as Mohammed.