* He wrote numerous editorials that he wants to see Canada ruled by sharia but now denies it
* He compares Israel’s attempts to defend itself from a a billion genocidal Muhammedans to killing millions of Jews in gas chambers
* While Christians from around the world were emptying their wallets to help the victims of the tsunami, he sent out a release accusing Christians of kidnapping Muslim orphans in Indonesia. Again, he denied his own written words.
* Soharwardy wanted to be the hero and martyr in his campaign against Levant but Levant came out fighting and now it backfired on him
* Soharwardy is exposed as the subject of a human rights complaint by women claiming sex discrimination at his mosque
Imam undercuts himself by twisting his own words
| Licia Corbella |
| For The Calgary Herald |
Earlier this week, Calgary Imam Syed Soharwardy spent nearly two hours with the Herald’s editorial board before announcing he would withdraw his two-year-long Alberta human rights complaint against Ezra Levant, the publisher of the defunct Western Standard magazine.
Soharwardy lodged the complaint after Levant published Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that were central to murderous protests around the world by Muslims, including renewed violence in Denmark on Friday.
Soharwardy is trying to take back his complaint, but it’s already too late. Levant’s resolve is too strong and freedom of expression too fundamental a right to be so easily shrugged off after the microscope of world attention ended up being turned on Soharwardy.
The founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC) asked for a meeting with the Herald’s editorial board via an e-mail, arguing that Levant was “attempting to paint me as a hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, Wahabi radical who wants to see Canada governed under sharia law. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
While preparing for the meeting, a quick search on Canwest’s library system showed a Jan. 17, 2004, column written by the cleric.
In it, he wrote: “Sharia cannot be customized for specific countries. These universal, divine laws are for all people of all countries for all times.”
In the same column he also boasts: “I am one of the founding members of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. The mandate of the institute is to resolve disputes within existing Canadian laws by using the principles of conflict resolution from Islamic Law, or sharia.”
His column is clear. He wanted to bring sharia to Canada and even helped found the organization that spearheaded the drive to do so.
But in our meeting, Soharwardy denied his own column. “I never asked to bring sharia in Canada,” he now insists.
* Just your typical, lying neighborhood imam, read it all
* Thanx to Mullah
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
What he badly needs is a Keysar Trad clone to explain how he was taken out of context
and victimised by a hateful Islamophobic press. (Ie journalists who can connect the dots)
I was wrong about Soharwardy needing a Trad to explain for him … the slippery little
sucker is too good for Trad, as shown in this “interview” …
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/15questions.htm
Nasty piece of work.
And while that Keysar Trad clone is up there explaining how he was taken out of context maybe he can also explain this:
Woman who accuses Imam Sowarhardy of Human Rights Violations (Oh irony!) is attacked and threatened in her home by weapon wielding men and burka clad woman. The Imam’s mosque is mentioned in their threats. Coincidence? I think not.
Mullah Lodabullah – that’s a helluva good nic!
Human rights complainant attacked in her home:
http://tinyurl.com/3be9e8
Ezra Levant discusses “that little fascist” on the CBC National News this past week.
http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/cbcs-the-national.html
Poor guy-he just can’t keep his BS straight. See what happens when you follow the Koranic injunction to lie and lie some more-eventually it catches up to ypu.
Let’s not forget two of the ‘big lies’ underlying the entire Motoons controversy (including the official excuses given by so many journalists and news outlets for not printing them):
1. The almost universally parroted claim that (not counting Laban’s three additional images) ‘there are twelve drawings of Muhammad’.
2. The drawings could be accurately described without actually having to print them (from Sounder’s CBCS link above):
“At the CBC, we decided not to show the original cartoons in our extensive coverage of the controversy. We felt that we could easily describe the drawings in simple and clear English without actually showing them. This was intended, without embarrassment, as an act of respect not only for Islam but for all religions.
“Could easily describe the drawings?” But they didn’t describe them, did they — not in this story or any others that I have seen on the CBC.”
Here are the ‘twelve drawings of Muhammad’:
http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2006_02/ind_005226.html
Working down from the top, which of these drawings would one acurately describe as a depiction of Muhammad, and what was the artist’s intent?
1. The real problem. A fearful artist draws Muhammad.
2. A truly benign depiction.
3. THE PICTURE
4. Is that supposed to be Muhammad and the boys or present day Muslim nutjobs?
5. Maybe that’s Muhammad. Maybe not.
6. Probably Muhammad.
7. Muhammad. And a message.
8. A protest against an anti-immigrant member of the Danish parliament. Which one is Mo?
9. Stick figures: Muhammad, daft and dumb. Keeping women under thumb! No Mo there!
10. Imagery.
11. Aladdin. The orange in his turban says ‘PR Stunt’. See the picture of Muhammad?
12. A boy named Mohammad. Note the caption.
The truth. Many of the drawings do NOT depict Muhammad at all, and to believe they could be ‘easlily described’, in lieu of printing them, is utter nonsense!