generalspeaking

Human Rights Entitlements

Islam presents as a study in the painfully tangled emotions of human nature, the evidence of which can be seen in the worship of a faith whom its adherents proudly claim it to be one of peace and brotherhood, exhorting its followers to spiritual jihad, within a tradition of violent jihad. The contradictions of the struggle inherent within the human mind to become a more deserving follower of Islam, and the predilection of many within the faith to prefer the violent element of jihad is a fairly accurate picture of the human dimension of a struggle within humankind's notoriously unstable emotions.

Fanaticism is expressed by hatred of diversions from the ideological underpinnings that give a faith its value in the opinion of those who feel that faith must be expressed by a desire to surrender one's humanity so completely to the demands of an all-powerful deity that they see no problem in draining themselves of compassion for others in the greater urgency of giving themselves entirely to its mission. Martyrdom, both personal and that imposed by force upon others for the greater glory of the Creator is the ultimate goal.

These are those within the religious universe who insist they serve God in measures that give honour and dignity to the faith, while they busy themselves with bloody slaughter; their version of missionary zeal. In violent jihad there is no concern for the consideration of others; their anonymity as human beings renders them susceptible to being seen as deserving targets for death, their cold corpses to be piled on an alter of sacrifice for a god who urges conversion of the unfaithful.

The cold dispassionate view of the committed jihadist that those who do not sufficiently worship Allah in complete surrender to Islam are deserving of death does not give them pause to rationalize why it is that they believe their complaints that while incarcerated in Western jails for crimes against humanity, their version of Islam is not sufficiently respected to allow them to collective worship five times daily. They feel it is their human right to expect that accommodation be made for their daily worship, even while they feel that those who oppose them have no human rights whatever.

And the irksome thing is that their demands are seen by those whom, when they are free of constraints of prison, they target with vehement brutality, as perfectly legitimate. In the United States, as occurs throughout Europe where liberal, democratic societies have discovered that they must protect themselves against the viciousness of religious adherents who see them ripe for slaughter, the tendency is to respect the demands of Muslims incarcerated for terrorism, claiming their right to worship as a group, five times every day.

The American Civil Liberties Union will see to it that incarcerants who are infuriated that insufficient respect and honour is given to their religion and their right, as they see it, to worship ceremonially in reflection of their religion's cultural demands, will have their demand satisfied. The Bureau of Federal Prisons has been instructed unequivocally that there are laws in America that uphold the religious rights of prisoners.

If a prison authority decides in their wisdom that no greater a number than ten prisoners can be trusted to gather to worship together in the interests of safety and security, and grants them three times a day opportunities, they are reminded that a 1993 law bans government from curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest. Prison officials may feel that permitting group prayers five times each day might pose a security risk, but in the face of judicial rulings they are overruled.

Inmates may indeed use religion as a cover for gang activities, but that seems irrelevant to those who prefer to believe otherwise.  Muslim inmates have won the right to hold daily group prayers in a high-security unit. Inmates of all religions housed in the Terre Haute federal prison's Communications Management Unit have received the assurance through a lawsuit they brought and had eard by U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, that they are entitled to pray in groups multiple times daily.

"A central tenet of the Islamic faith is the obligation for adult Muslims to engage in five daily prayers, or Salat. By prohibiting Mr. Lindh (American-Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh) and the other Muslim prisoners who hold similar beliefs in the CMU from praying in each other's presence, the Warden has denied Mr. Lindh and these other prisoners the religious exercise of daily group prayer", ruled Judge Magnus-Stinson.

Labels: Communications, Human Rights, Islamism, Justice, Religion, Terrorism, United States

posted by Pieface @ Saturday, March 23, 2013