generalspeaking

Spiritually Conflicted

Something about collective indoctrination patterning. Something like once you teach young people some fundamental 'realities' they remain stuck in place. The values and traditions of a culture, of a religion, of an entire society. Inbred, taught from youth and practised in adulthood. And then those whose worldview has been strait-jacketed in this manner suddenly find themselves in an entirely other social-cultural environment. Where the norms they've always taken for granted are seen as humanitarily askew.

Most just shrug metaphorical shoulders and get on with their lives, not bothering to shed their now-inappropriate assumptions. Some try to get on with a new mode of life, one more open to suggestions that those assumptions may be inherently wrong and needful of alteration. Particularly in a society that hosts a whole slew of representative traditions, backgrounds, religions, where all are given equal recognition and freedoms of conscience.

A sensitive human being who rises to the challenge of enlightened change may be puzzled at first, then gradually accepting, dropping racial and religious biases along the way to acceptance of humanitarian equality. Or that person may be severely conflicted to the point where original bigoted reactions to other ethnic groups, ideologies or religions still come to the fore.

It might seem that Imam Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, so recently in the news as having fathered a fatwa against terrorism enacted in North America might be one of the latter. On the way to becoming one the former. Hard to tell, really, particularly from the vexing slander against Christians and Jews that left his lips and found their way onto his Internet site.

We can all of us aspire to be better people than we currently are. Many of us are confused, afflicted with insecurities of one kind or another. Mr. Soharwardy's instinct appears to be to strike out against what he perceives as insults to Islam. Where, in a free and democratic society people are free to state opinions that others may take umbrage with; we tolerate a certain level of criticism.

Imam Soharwardy saw fit to lodge a complaint against journalist Ezra Levant associated with his now-defunct journal having published an offending Danish cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad. Stating now that he believed he was defending free free speech and intimidation, later realizing that he was being accused of stifling free speech.

Curiously enough, stating that the reason he launched the suit to begin with was to protect Mr. Levant. "There were people furious in the Muslim community. And God forbid if some person had gotten angry and hurt him. In order to protect him I had to do this thing." Cripes, really? Why not preach in that pulpit how wrong it would be to commit violence in the name of the Prophet?

That odd conception of 'protection' cost Mr. Levant $100,000. "That's a great way to protect me", Mr. Levant said wryly. And he also pointed out that the imam "has trivialized the Holocaust and prophesied the extinction of the Christian faith". And Tarek Fatah has had his say also: "Why isn't he denouncing armed jihad no matter where it takes place?"

Yet it would appear that Imam Soharwardy has attempted in his own awkward fashion to mend fences. By attending Passover seders, having Jews among his acquaintances, and condemning domestic violence, and promoting peace. This might appear to be a well-meaning, but conflicted man whose mind was exposed at an early age to hideous beliefs he is experiencing difficulties in shedding.

"I have always condemned attacks on women, children of any faith, innocent people. I have always condemned suicide bombing and other attacks in the name of jihad or anything else. I unequivocally condemn those actions and see them as un-Islamic and criminal. But I don't want to condemn jihad because this word has been used in the Koran in every place. Jihad means struggle against evil."

Does it? How unequivocal are those condemnations then? Knowing how evil can be facilitated by those who equate it with politics, societies, ideologies and religions they have no use for, that 'struggle against evil' can take some fairly curious side-treks. Imam Soharwardy's statement, however, that "What Osama bin Laden and his friends are doing is not jihad, it's terrorism", is precisely what it is.

It is violent jihad.

Labels: Canada, Human Relations, Social-Cultural Deviations

posted by Pieface @ Sunday, January 24, 2010