Was this in Hadith?

“Justice is balance.” began Ra’s al Ghul, standing above the nearly crushed-to-death Bruce Wayne. “You burned my house and left me for dead. Consider us even.” Though we all thirst for the justice Ra’s and the League of Shadows promises, the more clever among us understand the deeply reactionary politics that underlie them. You can label him a fascist, or enlightened despot, take your pick. I actually agree with most of his tenants, just not his methodology and political epistemology. Despite my minute disagreement(s), I subscribe to his definition of justice. If you agree with the sentiment of balance equated with justice, then perhaps you will understand my confusion in when it comes to Kurt Westergaard.

Kurt Westergaard is the infamous Danish cartoonist who not only drew criticism for his illustration of the Prophet Mohammad, but assassination attempts. It is well known that nearly every right-wing party or organization in Europe has lauded and laughed at the cartoon depicting Mohammed with a lit bomb in his turban. Perhaps this is to the artist’s dismay. It can also be assumed that racist organizations have supported the cartoon and its re-prints. There is no question that the Western media has played this up as “irrational Islam” against “modest, objective free speech.” No mainstream media outlet has broken off from this sentiment, not even the liberal ones-which should be to no surprise of any cynic, critic, or left-opponent of the “War on Terror.”

On the other side of this, liberal, and radical critics have not viewed this as a simple matter of free speech versus rabid, radical Islamism. They see it as another way the uncritical media has supplanted right-wing and even racist rhetoric attacking Islam. When you see dubious anchors on CNN and FOX criticizing the reaction of Danish Imams, and Iranians Clerics you can only shake your head at the bigoted comments. When you see the same credulous news people talk about the virtues of liberty of freedom of speech, you can only cringe at their insincerity, because we are all aware of how much they have had a hand in suppressing/skewing information. The left could never side with such charlatans. However the basis of the left’s criticism is not so much empirical as it is ideological-an assurance and buffer against potentially pro-war commentary.

Any leftist, progressive or authentic humanitarian should disagree with the simple-minded, Anglo-centric analysis made by numerous pundits. But I argue that what has been put in its place is equally as useless, and in fact supplants something just as ill tempered. So says the Socialist worker in an article titled “Why Muslims are right to be Angry”:

THE PUBLICATION of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was a calculated racist provocation in a country where Muslim immigrants are increasingly under attack. The outrage expressed in demonstrations across the Muslim world is entirely justified.

Let us examine what is justified in this statement. Yes it is true that Muslims have been increasingly attacked culturally and socially all over the world over the years. There is no question regarding that. However was this really a calculated propaganda spree? I tend this disagree. And though you may ask yourself, “Why does it matter whether it was calculated or incidental racism?” I’ll explain later why. The Socialist Worker article goes on with a sweeping account of all the ills suffered by the global Muslim community, which there are many far too gruesome for me to even pretend that I can imagine. It discusses the rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Western Europe, and the empty apologies of Danish politicians and publishers, as well as the racist laws being put in place by equally racist groups such as the People’s Party of Denmark.

It’s been two years since the series of pictures were published in the blank Jyllands-Posten and still over two years later there are political aftershocks. Let us look at the current situation. Kurt Westergaard is being summoned by the Jordanian government to be tried for “blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed” and “sowing religious and sectarian discord.” Since when does the Jordanian dictatorship have jurisdiction over Denmark’s media and distribution? Since when does the Hashemite Jordanian monarchy give a damn about its impoverished people and their beliefs? More importantly why does a cartoonist have to explain his actions to another country? I can understand a civil explanation being asked of, but not one that has the weight of court systems, and the repercussions of jail time. Westergaard has done some incidental explaining though. When an obviously racist, culturalist, propaganda movie called Fitna came into production Westergaard reacted swiftly,

I complained publicly that he had abused my cartoon in his film. So we agreed that he pay me a kind of compensation, and he has removed the cartoon from the movie. I have no problems with him, but I don’t share his view.

When talking about sowing the seeds of discord maybe certain individuals should explain the burning of Dutch flags in Jordan. Did Westergaard burn Jordanian flags, did he criticize the faith of Jordanians? His illustration criticized those nihilistic individuals who have usurped Islam and its messages for the use of political terrorism.

Which he explained, was his original intentions. He has stated numerous times that he respects Islam. Kurt Westergaard most likely does not agree with me and my views regarding Hezbollah being a legitimate liberation army, or perhaps even worse he does not have empathy for the Palestinian struggle(s) and Hamas. But the actions taken against him are inexcusable and worst of all are politically fueling/inviting more Western oppression. (And yes I know economics are the driving forces of U.S.-Middle East military strategies but these actions fuel the rhetoric that legitimizes it.)

"We are so unhappy about the cartoon being reprinted," said Imam Mostafa Chendid, head of the Islamic Faith Community. "[But] no blood was ever shed in Denmark because of this, and no blood will be shed. We are trying to calm people down, but let's see what happens. Let's open a dialogue." The Islamic Faith Community had led the protests in Copenhagen in 2006

What Imam Mostafa Chendid is suggesting is the only rational reaction to Westergaard’s action. Why isn’t the majority of the left advocating a dialogue between the angry clerics and the perpetrators of blasphemies? I do not know the answer.

In February of this year Westergaard age 73 and his wife became homeless. This was due to the fact that the security forces watching over him considered him too much of a "risk." They were considered a security “risk.” If an Islamist leader or Muslim cleric advocates violence in self-defense against imperialism, or racist apartheids than we should enthusiastically support them. But when the charlatans (many if not all of the Ayatollahs in Iran are) are advocating the death of a cartoonist I think that’s when you need to stop listening. I think there should be a much more critical look at the overall Islamist scene when talking about the “Muslim” reaction to cultural phenomena. Many Islamist movements are totally reactionary, and the worst are completely counter-revolutionary i.e. Wahabbis, Taliban, al Queda, al Sadr. Organic struggle must be viewed as distinct from this other rubbish, and justified actions must be distinguished from unjustified reactions. Just because Muslims and Arabs have millions of political reasons to be infuriated does not justify what has happened or can happen to a petty cartoonist.

There is unbalance here due not to concrete realities but to idealized situations. There have been too many over-politicized and inflated reactions to a politically moderate cartoon. Westergaard seems sincere when he explains his intentions of depicting Islam as being usurped by a minority while the majority suffers. His life is being threatened on a near daily basis yet he refuses to apologize, why? I can only conclude that he believes in what he is saying. The left should not applaud all actions taken up by all Islamist movements, and should not always support all the actions of all Islamist groups. But it seems that I’m being a nit-picking critic, and I should be less sectarian. But can we not ask the same of our comrades in the Middle East? Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah the leader of Hezbollah urged his community and other countries to protest but immediately withdrew his enthusiasm when things became violent. He quickly called them off when the situation turned ugly with burning of the Dutch embassy. Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of the Shia in Lebanon followed suit with a fatwa banning attacks against private property and Western embassies. Even Nasrallah knows it’s a little too early to suppress counter-revolutionaries; we’re not quite at that stage yet.

(POST DISCALIMER: I do not claim to be an Islamist Movement scholar, nor do I pretend to fully understand all Islamist politics and history. I have a fractured understanding of the Middle East at best, my only excuse is that for the past 60 years the Middle East has become the most complicated political environment in modern history, and I am trying my best. Therefore I welcome anyone to enlighten me on the subject at any level. However I am firm in my stance in regards to Westergaard and his “detractors.”)