GUEST POST: Muslim Immigration

Events since 911, and more recently the Brexit decision, and now the Chilcott report, have prompted me to think more deeply about an issue that has become of concern in many parts of the world—Muslim immigration.

There are obviously many reasons why people voted for Britain to either stay with or leave the EU. Personally I would have voted to leave, because I’m a proud citizen of what I think is one of the best little countries in the world to live in. I love this place. It’s got its faults. It’s got some big issues it ought to deal with & people don’t always find it easy to listen to each other talk honestly about them. But I’m a New Zealander. I’m proud to be. And, accepting that its current society & culture (whatever that is) have been predominantly forged by two major flows of immigrants—the first from Polynesia, and the second from Britain and other English-speaking countries, I kinda like it the way it is.

In Britain, people who expressed concern about Muslim immigration seemed to just be racists, judging by how mainstream & social media dealt with their views. I bet, seeing many people were making their obvious dislike, even hatred, of anyone with a different skin colour, foreign accent, or way of dressing or living, well-known. Politicians capitalised on it. As some do.

In my opinion, it is too simplistic to just dismiss British people’s concerns about Muslim immigration as ‘racist’. Muslims, truly believe that the Angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad over a number of years and gave him ongoing instructions, from Allah, about pretty well everything, including the moral superiority of their religion over all others, including Christianity and Judasim, which are to be tolerated where Muslims become dominant so long as they accept domination and do not cause trouble for those Muslims who want to live according to Sharia Law.

Sectarianism is rife within Islam (the main divide of Sunni and Shia is 80 to 20% respectively) and has seen them kill each other in large numbers over the centuries. Yes, Christians did that too. They were even doing it in Northern Ireland until relatively recently, and there have of late been one or two nasty incidents of the same thing, showing that it hasn’t gone away. As is often the case, it’s difficult to separate the religion aspect from the political. Catholics have been Irish, Protestants have been British. What they are both now remains to be seen.

But Christianity has undergone The Reformation, and educational reform which has included scientific and social awareness, as well as the growth of secular law around matters such as Human Rights. ‘Christendom’ on the whole has become more tolerant and true to the behaviours exhibited by Jesus Christ, and more secular. In some Muslim countries there is no tolerance for gays, ‘loose women’, atheists, agnostics, other sects of Islam, other religions. A few deranged or Muslim extremists have been abusing and even killing people because of who they are, what they believe, or for saying what they don’t believe.

Personally, I suspect few non-Muslim people who describe Islam as a peaceful religion have actually read the Quran, or any of the Hadith, or Figh (Islamic jurisprudence), or the various versions of Sharia Law, all of which to some degree or other determine what Muslims believe. The extremists are reading the same book as peaceful Muslims. The supposed ‘perfect book’ is repetitively turgid, filled with endless praises of the wonderfulness of Allah, and its verses can be interpreted differently to mean whatever is preached by those who use it to support their particular view of how the world should be run and what other people should believe.

The world is full of peaceful Muslims. I know that. They may have all, or some may have not, read the whole Quran. Certainly many extremists, including children, have been required to learn it by rote. And this book—or if they can’t read or are uneducated, their religious scholar or leader—in some cases seem to tell them that killing infidels & apostates (anybody who doesn’t accept their interpretation of the Quran) is not only right, it is meritorious, and that committing suicide to kill as many apostates & infidels as possible in the cause of spreading the faith of Allah the Merciful, the Beneficent, is especially praiseworthy and guarantees an immediate place in Paradise.

Peaceful Muslims are peaceful because they are peaceful people, not because the Quran is peaceful. But when non-Muslims attack or threaten or kill thousands of Muslims as “collateral damage”, the extremists’ cause is magnified. Anger, and Islam, in this case are a terrible thing. Muslims see themselves everywhere as the worldwide Ummah. They are not just individual groups of believers spread out through a number of separate nations. So when their countries, or their Ummah, are attacked, some are driven by rage, revenge, mental health problems, or it seems by just not fitting in well in their adopted society and being criticised or picked on, to kill the infidels wherever they are.

There’s no getting away from it. It’s been happening all over the world. And it seems that the larger the community of Muslims, the more likely it is to happen. It’s often not parents who carry out these random assassinations of innocent people. It’s their children. Those who are now being exposed to extremist ideas all over the telly & the internet. I’ve found myself thinking when I or my loved ones have gone into an enclosed shopping mall what an ideal target this would be for some religious fanatic, and how that would affect everybody.

That’s my take on this issue anyway, and my concern, and I think the concern of many in Britain & Europe and Africa, and Asia, and other parts of the world. I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts they wanted to share.

Gezza

Leave a comment

195 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  8th July 2016

    Some good points there Gezza, and certainly thought provoking.

    Thanks for that.

    Reply
  2. Iceberg

     /  8th July 2016

    It’s pretty simple really. Stop blowing people up by the thousands every month and you can be my neighbour.

    Reply
    • Klik Bate

       /  8th July 2016

      The final scores are in…..

      Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  8th July 2016

      You can talk it to death Gezza, but they have lost the “hearts and minds”. No amount of rationalising and force feeding us the “it’s just a radical few” makes any headway anymore, even if it’s true.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  8th July 2016

      without realising it,you have actually …nailed it!

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      It’s pretty simple really. Stop blowing people up by the thousands every month and you can be my neighbour.

      There’s not a lot to go on here. It’s ambiguous. Do you mean the West should stop blowing (or shootng) people up or the muslim extremists? I can’t help wondering how much one is fueling the other & what in God’s name will stop it.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  8th July 2016

        There is no moral equivalence here.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  8th July 2016

          I don’t understand Ice. I can’t read your mind.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  8th July 2016

            Liked your comment on Kelsey btw. Food for thought.

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  8th July 2016

              “They are certainly creating more jihadis in some places”

              Blame the West all you like, but these people want a totalitarian Islamic state worldwide, blaming western policy is just an excuse to justify their extremism. Otherwise how do you account for their abuse of women and other human rights abuses? Is that the fault of drones as well?

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              No. They do not all abuse or dominate women, and most Islamic women are happy with their place & value being prescribed under Islam. If I were a woman, I wouldn’t be. I abhor their human rights abuses. Representatives of Islamic states or communities around the world have signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which they prefer, and which, if I remember rightly, guarantees the same Human Rights as the UN declaration of Human Rights except where they conflict with Sharia Law. This is unacceptable to me.

              The drones, and decades of supporting dictators friendly to Western Big Oil, and invading their countries with insufficient forces to occupy them like they did Germany and Japan at the end of WW2, instead of letting them sort their shit out for themselves, exacerbates the problem, in my opinion. It might even have actually created it. I haven’t gone that far back. Afghanistan certainly featured in the rise of fundamentalist extremists, like Bin Laden, who was among the jihadis the US supported to fight the Russians when they invaded and installed their puppet regime.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              The above is Wikipedia on the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam”

          • Iceberg

             /  8th July 2016

            My first statement was crystal clear. Muslims are blowing people up.

            You chose to ask the question about whether I meant the west was blowing people up. That implies you see moral equivalence between a suicide bomber in a restaurant and a drone srike on an Al Queda or Isis leader.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              No, I don’t see a moral equivalence. But from reports & articles I’ve read, and documentaries I’ve watched on Al Jazeera that we never see on NZ TV channels I know that a lot of innocent people are often killed as collateral damage. Apparently a lot of the surgical strikes are nowhere near as precise as we hear. And often reports they killed their targets are not followed up by reports they actually didn’t, and how many more times they’ve tried. I’ve seen heat-broken muslim parents lamenting they have tried & tried to persuade their angry young men & women not to, but they have lost them to the extremists. They are certainly creating more jihadis in some places.

            • Blazer

               /  8th July 2016

              what moral ratings are you giving the 2 scenarios ?

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Polish exit.

  3. Conspiratoor

     /  8th July 2016

    Very restrained G but I think I get the message. If I can drag myself away from etape six later I’d like to throw in some random thoughts in response. Cheers, c

    Reply
  4. Blazer

     /  8th July 2016

    Prof James Petras….’Over the past fifty plus years, over 125 mass shootings/massacres have occurred within the United States but not one perpetrator has been identified as a trained member of an international Islamist terrorist organization.’

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      Does that include suicide attacks? And why would you exclude those who are not trained members of IITO’s?

      Reply
      • Dougal

         /  8th July 2016

        Blazer and Uggers must have shared a few beers about 9/11…

        Reply
  5. Brown

     /  8th July 2016

    I thought the post waffled all over the place and while it says some sensible things it does not address the problem that Islam presents. Thoughtful concern about Islam in the west is not racist because Islam is not a race – the concerns more properly relate to culture, the politics and Sharia Law. Gezza has previously shown his ignorance of Christianity’s doctrines in a rant about how ridiculous or brutal Christianity’s Gospel is and in my view that makes him unqualified to present a lecture on Christianity and, further in my view, contrast it with Islam.

    You can’t address these complicated things in a couple of paragraphs and that makes this medium less effective than a video of a lecture or debate. In any case, people seem to like or dislike these things based on their existing views as opposed to being thoughtfully challenged by competing views. We often have to encounter things directly for the lessons to be learned.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      I didn’t think this was a rant. I had great difficulty in deciding whether or not to ask Pete to post it.

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  8th July 2016

        Good for you. It was a rant and that’s supported by your difficulty in deciding whether to post it.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  8th July 2016

          No, my difficulty in deciding whether to post it was I don’t know how well it is written and I worried about whether it, or I, would get attacked for it. Have you ever thought about writing one? You write well. Pete’s often asking for them.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  8th July 2016

            Christianity declares that God doesn’t change,which must mean that He wants everything in the Bible to be taken literally. Some of the Old Testament is very bloodthirsty,including God’s orders and some of Paul’s teachings (such as the place of women in the church) are blatantly sexist-they are blandly ignored-both dismissed as cultural mores and thus out of date in the c.21. Can it be that since people began writing religious texts, they have put their own words in God’s/Allah’s/Krishna’s/Buddha’s/Iunemit’s mouths ?

            My own recent experience has showed that many Christians seem very unlikely to live up to their supposed beliefs, a most disagreeable surprise. No doubt these people consider themselves to be devout Christians, but their actions don’t back this up. They aren’t violent as ISIS members are, but we all know that Christians can be. Anyone who saw the video that I saw of a revival in the US not that many years ago would be struck by the similarity between the fanaticism of the people involved-including the many children-and ISIS members. (and, of course, the obvious Western equivalent, the Germans and the Nuremberg rallies and what followed) I would think that the people in the video-which was made by themselves-would not have taken too much to turn into violent fanatics for whom anyone who wasn’t a follower was fair game.

            The kindest, most caring person after my husband died of cancer was…a Muslim.

            Reply
  6. Geoffrey Monks

     /  8th July 2016

    This post has taken a great deal of thought – and courage. I commend it’s author.

    Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  8th July 2016

      What courage does it take to write anonymously?

      Reply
      • Nelly Smickers

         /  8th July 2016

        Exactly…….at least everyone knows who Wayne is 😎

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  8th July 2016

        A little more, for me anyway, than it does to just comment anonymously on a subject that is contentious & could result in me being tracked down & abused.

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  8th July 2016

          All power to you for making the effort. Writing on a blog is most often a hiding to nothing. Bit unless you’ve got to the point where you can’t separate yourself from your pseudonym, then talk of courage is just silly.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  8th July 2016

            It wasn’t me who said I had courage. Does it matter? Was my attempt to say what worries me about muslim immigration & find out what other intelligent people here think not worth giving it a go? It’s something that’s going to happen & I’m honestly concerned about it. I’m obviously not alone, and it seems no one really wants to come out in the open and say why.

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  8th July 2016

              “A little more, for me anyway”

              Were you talking about icecream?

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              I was scared to post it Ice. Even anonymously.

          • Blazer

             /  8th July 2016

            ‘ Bit unless you’ve got to the point where you can’t separate yourself from your pseudonym, ‘…can’t you string a sensible sentence together these days Snocone?

            Reply
      • Blazer

         /  8th July 2016

        the same amount of courage that it takes to criticise …anonymously!

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  8th July 2016

          I wish, though, that you would use the upper-case for the first letter of Muslim. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims…all begin with capitals, and it’s a bit of a discourtesy not to use one for any of them.

          Reply
  7. Corky

     /  8th July 2016

    Good post, Gezza. This sentence stuck out: . “As is often the case, it’s difficult to separate the religion aspect from the political.” That is what confuses people who don’t look at the overview of a given situation and impute present troubles to one or the other.

    The moral point for me is do we sacrifice peaceful Muslims as collateral damage when we get to a point where even a soppy liberal perceives something will have to be done?

    Reply
    • Brown

       /  8th July 2016

      ”… do we sacrifice peaceful Muslims as collateral damage when we get to a point where even a soppy liberal perceives something will have to be done? ”

      To me the sensible response would seem to be that if you carefully select who you allow to reside in your country in the first place this issue need not arise because you will have little reason to interfere in someone else’s internal bickerings. The Saudis and Pakistani’s etc… can do what they want within their borders and as long as it stays there I’m less unhappy than if they export that misery.

      The peaceful Muslims need to explain how their belief system works in the face of teaching that is pretty rough, looks superficially like deluded ramblings and proposes a political world solution by conquest based on the teachings. It follows that when they say this latest slaughter is not Islam, how can that be justified in the face of the clearly expressed requirements of theology they hold to? If its not Allah’s unchanging word then it loses its divine authority and the rotten house of cards is in trouble. I suspect that part of the troubles we see reflect that its struggling to obtain and retain real converts so it keeps the numbers up at the point of a gun. The cultures it resides in make this control easier than in the west.

      However, now that the genie is out of the bottle I suspect that we are simply going to have to accept collateral damage.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  8th July 2016

        “To me the sensible response would seem to be that if you carefully select who you allow to reside in your country in the first place this issue need not arise.”

        “However, now that the genie is out of the bottle I suspect that we are simply going to have to accept collateral damage.”

        The Genie is out of the bottle. Like you say, It never had to come to this.

        Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  8th July 2016

        Brown, do you believe that every word in the Bible is to be literally believed and unquestioningly obeyed ?

        Reply
        • Brown

           /  8th July 2016

          Trick question. No. The trick is to get your head around what literal means. What it doesn’t mean is translating Aramaic into English and saying, “There we go, solved.” The Bible develops in a way that leads to the new testament – the old points to the new and in the new there is much freedom. If you ignore the norms of the day and the culture from which the writings spring you get hopelessly lost – and many do. Islam’s problem is that it’s Quran simply doesn’t allow that flexibility because its designed to support conversion and subjugation of populations at gun point by controlling armies rather than conversion and increased self control by individuals themselves at God’s prompting.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  8th July 2016

            How do you know there’s a God? What’s the actual evidence that convinces you there is, and what do you think he does?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Actually, this could get extended, or lead to misunderstandings and sharp words not intended. Would you ever consider doing a post on that? I’d like to read it.

            • Corky

               /  9th July 2016

              Apparently you can only experience God. There is no evidence for the existence of god.

  8. “‘Christendom’ on the whole has become more tolerant and true to the behaviours exhibited by Jesus Christ, and more secular.”

    Much of the absurdity of this statement can be attributed to the fact that Christianity is to a large degree the product of the adversaries of the historical Jesus.

    Reply
  9. Klik Bate

     /  8th July 2016

    A very well written and considered piece Gezza.

    And I can’t help but wonder how long before we start seeing things like this in our country? I fear it wont be far away……

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  8th July 2016

      And Wayne was wondering how long it might be before before we even see things like this as well… 😡

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  8th July 2016

        Its OK as long as there is no tongue.

        Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  8th July 2016

        Don’t have to look far to see westerners in bed with their dogs Nelly (and other proclivities). Dog, Camel?? pffft!!!

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  8th July 2016

        Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  8th July 2016

        Well, we all know what kind of mind Wayne has-if one can dignify it with that name. It’s quite possible that he is used by Nelly to express her own views but without her having to admit that they are hers. If he’s a real person, then I pity her if he really is like that.

        Trust him (?) to see a photo of someone cuddling an animal and think that it’s something dirty. Does he think that everyone who cuddles their dog is having sex with it ? It’s actually possible to have loving contact with an animal or person and for this not to mean something sick. I’d hate to show him a photo of an adult snuggling up to a small child. He makes something that isn’t sick and dirty seem as if it is. To the dirty-minded, all things are dirty.

        How do we know who wrote that poster ? Ever heard the expression ‘agent provocateur’ ?
        It is quite probable that this was written by a non-Muslim to discredit Muslims. This sort of thing is very old indeed.

        Reply
        • Nelly Smickers

           /  8th July 2016

          Gosh Kitzy, for someone who purports to have *every room of their house stacked with books*, I can only assume they must all be by the *Grimm* brothers XD

          If you’re not aware that the disgusting habit of ‘Camel Kissing’ is considered quite normal by most moozies, and was actually responsible for the spread of the MERS virus, then maybe you should check it out with your dentist ??

          http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/225663/saudis-protest-camel-kissing-ban-kissing-camels-daniel-greenfield

          Reply
        • Klik Bate

           /  9th July 2016

          For the first time ever, I think I agree with KittyC on this one!

          Don’t knock it till you try it………..

          Reply
        • Nelly Smickers

           /  9th July 2016

          And as much as we love our pooch Kitzy, there is *one main reason* why Wayne never engages in ‘loving contact’ with her…………each to their own of course 😛

          Reply
  10. Dougal

     /  8th July 2016

    Here is an example of what fundamentalists do in the face of non believers…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ken-ham-noah-flood_us_57203fe8e4b01a5ebde3fa04

    That’ll teach the unbelievers!

    Reply
  11. Zedd

     /  8th July 2016

    Interesting ‘guest post’ Gezza.. my 10c worth:

    1) Islam is a Religion not a RACE.. therefore being anti-Islamic cannot be, by definition ‘Racist’
    2) There are more Muslims in Malaysia & Indonesia than the middle East. so I understand
    3) i watched a commentary by an American-muslim (who ‘reverted’ from Christianity) who said that the Qur’an was given to Muhammad (PBUH) by the ArchAngel Gabriel to bring ‘believers’ back to the ‘straight path’ (The Bible has apparently been corrupted over time). He stated that many Muslims believe Judaism, Christianity & Islam are in fact the same Religion. The Qur’an is ‘the final testament’.
    4) There are EXTREMISTS in all Religions, races & political groups ! Not just Islam !!
    5) Allah apparently means ‘The One true God, worthy of Worship’; as is the God of the Jews & Christians ?
    6) Islam does not sanction murder, BUT does allow killing ‘in defence of the Religion’
    7) Jihad does NOT mean ‘Holy War’.. it means ‘Struggle’ & the greatest Jihad is ‘self control’
    8) If you look at the old pictures of Jesus & Mary.. Jesus had a beard & Mary wore a Hijab/veil (as do christian nuns). So maybe the Muslims are closer to ‘the original ideals of faith’ at least in appearance ?
    9) Islam venerates all the Old testament prophets & Jesus, John the Baptist etc. from the New testament. They refer to Jews & Christians as ‘The People of the book’ NOT as unbelievers. Unbelievers are apparently Atheists ! :/
    10) Salaam Alai qum : “Peace be with you ALL” 🙂

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      Cheers Zedd. Nothing I disagree with there. But the extremists kill Christians. And sometimes other followers of Islam. Because the Quran is a bit muddy & it’s verses can be used selectively. A few appear to conflict, or can be made to seem so.

      Also, different sects in Islam have slightly different interpretations of the Quran, and also follow guidance in Hadith—reports of his followers and later scholars on the reputed sayings, doings, & silent approvals (where he didn’t express an opinion on something done by a follower but didn’t criticise or forbid it) of Muhammad—Allah’s prophet, and the perfect exmeplar of how muslims should behave. Hadith are regarded as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ or inbetween, depending on who wrote or compiled them. A Hadith is why ISIS throws gays to death from buildings and stones them after doing so. Also, I think, why they burn some captured enemies.

      There is also a great deal of Figh–Islamic Jurisprudence, by muslim scholars over the years, that informs muslim thinking. Islamic scholars and Imams (who I think might only exist in Shiia communities) are always issuing Fatwa. These are opinions on what muslims should do or other matters to do with Islam. Apparently they are not binding & muslims can choose whether they accept them. Salman Rushdie is still in hiding because of what he was told by many muslims who accepted an opinion in a fatwa that it was a religious duty that he should be killed for writing The Satanic Verses

      And there are several versions of Sharia Law. Penalties for offences range from relatively mild, like fines, to whipping, to amputations of limbs & execution. In several, the penalty for apostasy, or abandoning the faith, or criticising it, is execution. For some, criticising it, is attacking Islam & killing those critics is ‘defence of Islam’.

      Reply
    • Jeeves

       /  8th July 2016

      There is no god, there is no allah (GFYS).

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      I guess one of the things that’s worth doing is reading the Quran, Zedd. There are several English translations because of course it’s written in Arabic & translators differ. This is the one I’ve read. Let me know when you’re finished & we can maybe chat more about it?
      http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  8th July 2016

        “… Islam venerates all the Old testament prophets & Jesus, John the Baptist etc….”

        Its likely that was a cunning move to make Islam appealing to the locals around at the time of its initial launch (which was spectacularly unsuccessful because the locals were not stupid). Islam’s second shot at control was born in violence and here we are today.

        For Jesus to be significant requires his divinity to be accepted as otherwise His main claim amounts to nothing. Islam rejects that He’s divine and God’s son, that he died and rose again, redeems us and all that stuff. Allah is clearly not the Christian God and the old Testament books do not give any support to Islam being anything except a bastard son of iniquity. Even that tenuous connection is only a claim by Islam to make itself look spiritual – it has no real theological basis outside Islam. The Bible verses Islam draws upon for relevance are distinguishing between two types – God’s called people (of the spirit as opposed to the racial Jews) and the rest who are of the world. Being mentioned as the latter is not cause for celebration and a claim that God is your mate despite how powerful you may be in the political world.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  8th July 2016

          Just how stupid do you think that people are ? A religion based upon such obvious trickery as you attribute to it wouldn’t have lasted ???? years. Your interpretation is biassed and flawed. Jesus can be accepted as significant without the physical resurrection-there are Christians who don’t believe in it or the Virgin Birth.There are clergymen who don’t ! My late husband knew all about this sort of thing and could have quoted many examples.

          How do you explain the many contradictions in the Bible ? They can’t all be literally true. The Mary who poured the ointment on Jesus’s feet has been described as two different people. I mean, completely different, not the same person seen in different ways.

          ‘He that is without sin amongst you, let him cast the first stone.’ I see you ‘casting stones’-you may be sinless, of course, but I was under the impression that only Jesus was that. .

          Reply
          • Brown

             /  8th July 2016

            This looks childish KC. There’s more than one Mary in the Bible. Even then people had different surnames. If you are reading it like its a newspaper record of events I suggest you stop reading it because you are missing the point. There is hard stuff in the Bible but its darned old and what was obvious to someone 3500 years ago can become hard because we no longer see context. The overall message remains amazingly and progressively consistent when you study it.

            Reply
          • Brown

             /  8th July 2016

            Without the virgin birth, death, resurrection, ascension Christianity is a waste of time because Jesus is nothing more than guru. Clergy that deny these things cannot be Christian – religious maybe, but not Christian. Like Geering – believes in nothing that makes a difference.

            Reply
    • Zedd

       /  9th July 2016

      only 2 downticks I was expecting more 😀

      last time i wrote a blurb like that.. I was told to crawl back in my hole in the mosque (paraphrase)

      Reply
  12. Good commentary, Gezza, and pretty much along my line of thinking. The only thing I’d clarify is the point about “peaceful Muslims” particularly in Western countries. Several points about this category should be borne in mind. They represent a constituency which is very likely to vote for the candidate most sympathetic to Islamic values and interests, as can be seen in London recently. As Europe gets progressively more Islamic, this bloc increases in importance. Plentiful evidence shows that this group (often presented as ‘moderate Muslims’) forms a wellspring of locally-sourced terrorism and its support infrastructure. This group also forms the source of people prosecuted for rape crimes such as in Rotherham and Sheffield, and copious amounts of crime in Europe. The group associates itself with the ummah, the brotherhood of Muslims. Who do they support when Western nations need to defend themselves against Islamic aggression? As vicinal numbers increase, Islamic culture dominates the area making it untenable for outsiders, causing the rise of no-go zones and banlieues. Will ‘peaceful Muslims’ integrate? Trevor Phillips has his doubts, doesn’t he?

    True moderates are unable to gain traction because of death threats, and ‘moderate, reformed Islam’ is a contradiction in terms. It might be nice to think of ‘peaceful Muslims’ as people on Europeans’ side but they should not be fooled. It’s just a temporary ‘Meccan’ phase.

    Reply
    • Brown

       /  8th July 2016

      Kitslater nails the basics.

      Reply
    • The difference between Europe and England is that the English constitution is compatible with Islam. Pakistani culture (re Rotherham & Sheffield) not so much.

      Reply
      • “English constitution”? “… compatible with Islam”? What?

        It’s a lot easier to talk about English values despite the conniptions raised a few years back when the English didn’t realise they had any. I made a little list – ones emphatically NOT shared by Islam. It’s predominantly Christian and even as an atheist I respect them beyond question.

        Turn the other cheek. “Vengeance is mine,” sayeth the Lord. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love thy neighbour. When in Rome do as the Romans do. Don’t mutilate your children. Freedom of and from religion. Democracy. Rule of law. Individual liberty. Eschew violence. Mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. Freedom of dress, partner choice, speech and association. Women’s rights and treatment. Joy, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and making the world a better place.

        Feel free to add to them.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  8th July 2016

          Thank you kitslater. When politicians were asked what they meant by their statements that we should be ensuring immigrants must meet our values, a few of them, and I, were struggling a bit to define & list what they are. As you say, it would be nice to see any additions to that list of yours. For the moment I can’t think of any, but if I do, I will.

          How we get to ensure we select migrants who do is problematic. More difficult, I think, with our being a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and our BORA, than the pollies realise or are admitting.

          http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
          http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/gl/roi/Pages/TheBillofRightsAct.aspx

          In contrast to the preferred declaration signed by representatives of Islamic states and communities around the world who want one which is only applicable if it doesn’t contravene Islamic Law:

          http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html

          We also I believe run a non-discriminatory immigration policy which selects immigrants from anywhere who have the skills we need or family already in New Zealand who meet certain criteria & can sponsor them.

          Reply
        • “what?”

          The common law of England originated with the dooms (judgments) of King Alfred the Great, which began with s Saxon version of the 10 commandments and included some principles from Judaic law. Judaism and Islam are quite similar in their approach to ethics and justice.

          “Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason… The law, which is perfection of reason.” ~ Coke

          Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.
          The Quran, Surah 8:22

          Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  8th July 2016

          Freedom of dress in the Bible ? The woman who putteth on men’s clothing is an abomination before the Lord.Don’t tell me that jeans aren’t men’s clothing. Look at Paul’s edicts about what women should and should not wear. And how they should not speak in church. No women clergy in Paul’s church. No women with short hair or wearing jewellery to church.

          He says that it is better not to marry, although it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

          Bastards can’t be leaders of a church, even down to the 10th generation-that knocks out Samuel Tamaki. The Tamakis quote the Old Testament, but they don’t quote that, for some reason.

          Disobedient sons should be killed, says one of the Tamakis’ favourite OT books.

          Respect for other religions ? I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but (by/through ?) me.

          Reply
          • Bible? I talk of of the modern outcome of England’s Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman heritage and you talk of the Bible? Why?

            Reply
  13. Alan Wilkinson

     /  8th July 2016

    AFAIKS, the guts of it is that if Muslims don’t realise they are coming here because of the mess their traditional culture and religion has made of where they come from, and if they don’t come with the intention of joining the modern liberal world and leaving the primitive one with its intolerance, brutal and corrupt laws and customs behind, then they need to be kept out.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  8th July 2016

      the wastelands some are fleeing are hardly self inflicted …Al.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  8th July 2016

        That’s true, but it still doesn’t deal with the problem I’m posting about.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th July 2016

        @Blazer, really? Name one.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  8th July 2016

          Iraq.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  8th July 2016

            Muslim schisms at the heart of it. Muslim on Muslim destruction destroyed the country.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  8th July 2016

              so the civilians of Iraq asked to be invaded,very good Al.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Only after Western countries deposed a dictator who had been keeping a lid on it Alan. And I don’t think those countries who were at the head of the charge had entirely altruistic motives. The leaders were very connected to many of the corporations & companies who roared in to profit from it. And they had no fucking idea how to do it properly because they thought installing a tame regime after knocking off the old one could easily done with technically superior equipment and masses of firepower but bugger all troops. A mistake Mr Godwin made in June 1941.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Only after attacking Iran themselves, Blazer, as well as supressing Shia and Kurds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

            • ““Vengeance is mine,” sayeth the Lord.”

              In Pauline doctrine this idea is used to argue not to exact retribution:

              Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
              Romans 12:19

              This is taken out of context. The original text is from Deuteronomy 32, and it about sacrifices made to “devils”.

        • MaureenW

           /  8th July 2016

          I wasn’t aware of too many problems in Libya or Syria before western leaders decided to remove their leaders. Seems to me that the West have created absolute chaos in these countries.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  8th July 2016

            Bang on Maureen.

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  8th July 2016

              OK, I’ll go one step further .. It’s about control of assets and globalisation – nothing to do with muslims or better lives for the people. Let’s get that straight. Go and have a look at a world map, look at where the West (Nato) has gone, where they’ve placed their bases, and then try and tell me this is about anything else other than wide-spread theft of resources.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              On a roll Maureen.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Corky & I were discussing this on Open Forum.
              https://yournz.org/2016/07/08/open-forum-friday-86/#comment-115201

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              @MaureenW: “wide-spread theft of resources” – precisely your Lefty manifesto. In contrast, exactly what resources has Nato stolen in any of these countries?

            • MaureenW

               /  8th July 2016

              @Alan W
              Christ Alan, where did you get the idea I have a “lefty manifesto”? Can you please list exactly which “lefty manifestos” you believe I’m enamoured of?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              I have no idea which Lefty manifesto you are enamoured of. However, any and all of them involve wide-spread theft of resources.

              Now will you answer my question?

            • MaureenW

               /  8th July 2016

              @Alan W
              You hit it on the head with your first four words. “I have no idea ….”
              I’ll answer your question, the theft takes place through proxies. Go and see which countries have control of the major reserves of assets that have not typically been derived from their own countries.
              Here’s a starter for you ..
              http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Has-Worlds-Largest-Oil-Reserves.html

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              I’ve no idea why you think that link is relevant, Maureen, but it isn’t. I await the answer to my question.

            • MaureenW

               /  8th July 2016

              I wonder if you say “I have no idea” three times, you’ll get lucky. I’ll take you at your word, you don’t need to keep repeating yourself.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Ok, so you have no evidence Nato has been thieving resources anywhere, Maureen. We’ll just leave it there then so you don’t have to try to be witty.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  8th July 2016

            That just demonstrates the problem. Without ruthless military dictators, Muslims commence killing each other.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  8th July 2016

              and with ruthless military dictators…Al?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              @Blazer, see above re the Iraq-Iran war. They still kill each other.

            • MaureenW

               /  8th July 2016

              @ Alan W
              And, how is that a bad thing? If people want to kill each other, they should.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Oh indeed, Maureen. They just shouldn’t come here to continue doing it.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              @ Alan, given my post above about the difficulties of selecting them out, how do you think it could or should be done?
              https://yournz.org/2016/07/08/guest-post-muslim-immigration/#comment-115283

            • Blazer

               /  8th July 2016

              you’re in quicksand here Al,are you drinking with Icebergers tonight?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Yes, that’s the tough question, particularly now there are ISIS infiltrators seeking targets. I would think successful applicants should have the onus of demonstrating their commitment to the beliefs I outlined at the start of this thread.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              I was addressing Gezza, not Blazer, with the above.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              @ Alan. How?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              I don’t think you can prescribe that, merely give suggestive examples. Someone who has stood up for liberal values, or been persecuted for them and demonstrated that by deeds.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              @ Alan. Immigration policy sets criteria that must be demonstrated as met by evidence.

              Skills—qualifications+evidence of recognition by any relevant authority here e.g. Medical Council, or Professional Body, or, I think NZQA.

              Identity/relationships of dependants—birth certificate(s), passports.

              Health—NZIS Medical Certificates I think.

              Marriage/Partnership—marriage certificate/evidence of long term relationship (documents showing living together for required period, not sure how long, eg joint names in bank accounts, letters addressed to couple. This is what my neighbours are going through. Interviews if NZIS has doubts about genuineness.

              Good character—clean record proven by police certificates from home country, & any others lived in.

              I’m not sure how they would go about establishing someone meets our “values”, or if they could even interview only a select group. I’d be doubtful about whether they could contract that job out.

              So, in practical terms, I think the idea i?s great but see problems with it ever being done. If Immigrants from certain areas are treated differently it could have Human Rights, Trade & Diplomatic consequences that government will want to avoid?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Perhaps swear a more detailed version of the oath of allegiance, Gezza, explicitly putting specified critical liberal values above any religious beliefs?

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              That’s an interesting idea Alan. I like that. Especially if it were made a criterion that must be met, and was also / or a signed, binding, statutory declaration—any serious breaches of which could result in removal? Good one mate.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              It doesn’t address the problem being experienced overseas, and possibly nearly demonstrated here by those two convicted in Auckland recently, of whether the children of signatories might at some point become jihadis, or carry out Islamic terrorist attacks here.

              But our not getting involved with Westerncountries who are attacking their homelands, or assisting in destabilising them, however ‘noble’ the intentions might be presented as, might?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Yes, immigrant Muslim children may still be radicalised via the internet in spite of their parents. Only a joint effort by parents and community can tackle that I guess. I don’t think there are any simplistic solutions to it.

          • MaureenW

             /  8th July 2016

            @ AlanW
            Sorry, didn’t you get the fax that outlines what resources have been taken? I thought it was common knowledge and everyone was notified. You need to look at the countries that had the reserves and where they are today, and then look at the countries that didn’t have them, and see where they are. I don’t believe they send an APB.

            Talking about outright lying, it was good to see the Chilcott enquiry semi saying what we already knew about the reasons for going into Iraq.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Obfuscation. Yes, Blair and Bush lied and we knew that. Still not relevant.

            • MaureenW

               /  8th July 2016

              But it is relevant, and these are not the only lies, nor are they the only liars. The recent plundering of middle east countries recommenced with their lies. Or, were you thinking, it was a just-that-one-time-only lie??

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              More tosh, Maureen. Mythical plunder. Continuous middle east conflict.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Did you ever watch that ‘Lines In The Sand’ documentary I’ve mentioned a couple of times here, Alan?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Don’t think so, Gezza. The point?

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Very interesting. Looks at how Britain & France carved up the Middle East after WW1 when the Ottoman/Turkish allies of Germany were defeated. It’s an objective doco, not a polemic. Syria’s often interfered with Lebanon, for example. It’s because, if I’m remembering right, it’s part of Syria. France wanted a Middle East riviera I think.

              It’s why the Kurds don’t have their own state. It’s why the borders of some of these countries are artificial so you get some problematic combinations. It’s well worth a look, It might be linked somewhere on the Al Jazeera website: http://www.aljazeera.com/

              You get some insight into why the place is like it is today and what has helped make it like it is.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th July 2016

              Yes, I read about the Sykes Picot deal. Again, I see it as just another page in the book of endless middle eastern conflicts.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Reading about it is not the same as watching this documentary. The documentary covers a lot more I’ll bet than what you’ve read about it.
              If you ever do actually take the time and trouble to watch it, I’d like to discuss the above further with you. I watched it with an interested & open mind, and it was well put together and eminently watchable.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Jeez, there’s a ton of docos on that site I never even knew were there:
              Found it:
              http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2016/05/sykes-picot-lines-sand-160518114434646.html

  14. “Turn the other cheek”

    Matthew 5:39 contradicts the spirit of the Golden Rule, as well as James 4:7 and the doctrine of retributive justice that is endorsed earlier in the chapter in verse 18. Comparision with the Talmud Jmannuel strongly suggests the text has been redacted, since the TJ generally doesn’t suffer from the same criticisms as the gospel of Matthew.

    Mt 5:39 “But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

    TJ 5:40 “But I say to you, exercise justice according to the natural laws of Creation, so that you find the verdict in logic.”

    And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
    The Quran, Surah 5:45

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      Anybody can quote bits of religious books & associated writings in support of some claim or other—I’ve done it. It’s their totality, or the pieces that people decide to put together as their set of beliefs that usually makes up what believers think about.

      Sadiq Khan was interviewed on Al Jazeera after the brexit referendum decision. He mainly spoke about wanting to keep The City thriving and open for business. He seemed mainly interested in The City making money, or at least not losing money. Towards the end, in response I think to a question about the concerns some people had about accepting Muslim migrants, he said he was a peaceful, believing Muslim. He then said he could speak for himself on that, but not for his parents, or for any other Muslims.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  8th July 2016

        Well, to clarify my last sentence above, he said he could speak for himself for his beliefs from Islam, but not for his mum & dad, or others.

        Reply
      • “Anybody can quote bits of religious books & associated writings in support of some claim or other”

        It’s another matter to use those quotes to argue a point effectively. The point is that kitslater is ignorant of Islam and it’s similarities to the other Abrahamic religions which provide the ethical basis of the English common law.

        For example his assertion that the prohibition against bearing false isn’t part of Islam:

        … shun the abomination of idols, and shun the word that is false…
        The Quran, Surah 22:30

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  8th July 2016

          True but there are these acceptable forms of dissembling to consider (I am aware that it is an anti-Islam site, so may not be considered to be a balanced one):
          http://www.islam-watch.org/home/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html

          Reply
          • The site is talking about Sharia Law, which isn’t the same thing as Islam. Sharia law draws from traditions are are sometimes not supported by or in conflict with the Quran. In the Quran taqiyya relates only to self preservation, it cannot be used to justify bearing false witness against others.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Why do so many Muslims want to live under Sharia Law?

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              And how do individual Muslims define what is “self-preservation”, and in what circumstances might they decide self-preservation = ensured by everyone believing in Islam? I’m asking, not attacking here, Uggers.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  8th July 2016

              Why do so many Muslims NOT want to live under Sharia law ?

              Seeing them as a mass and not individuals is just silly. All Christians aren’t fanatical bigots, nor are they Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Protestant. All Irish RCs aren’t IRA members, nor all Irish Protestants like Ian Paisley.

              The ‘an eye for an eye. a tooth for a tooth’ is actually strict, impartial justice. If a wrong has been done, one can only claim the exact amount in return. No more. I see nothing wrong with that. Gezza comes and steals one of my first editions, he has to replace it with an exactly similar one, I can’t demand a 1st ed. of Anne of Green Gables in exchange for my much less valuable Anne’s House of Dreams.

              The Bible instructs that rapists have to marry the rape victim. Nice for some poor girl.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              I would never steal one of your 1st editions, you know that! I wouldn’t take anything from you without asking. (runs away crying)

            • “Why do so many Muslims want to live under Sharia Law?”

              It’s a form a tribalism, a response to a hostile social environment.

              “how do individual Muslims define what is “self-preservation””

              By any apparent threat, I’d expect.

              “and in what circumstances might they decide self-preservation”

              When falsely renouncing their belief or when forming alliances with disbelievers.

              Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief – save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith – but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.
              Surah 16:106

              Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.
              Surah 3:28

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              Exactly. I’m an agnostic. One thing I am certain of is that the Muslim Allah is not the creator of the universe, and that he did not send the angel Gabriel to tell Muhummad how he and other people should live their lives. And some of those who believe he did, would kill me for publicly saying that.

        • “Islam and it’s similarities to the other Abrahamic religions which provide the ethical basis of the English common law.” [Sic]

          This is a contrivance. Islam derives from many pre-existing religions and its essentialist doctrines are immutable, meaning its inability to cope with modernism is the cause of its incessant strife. Christianity owes virtually nothing to it. Its ability to evolve is responsible for European civilisation being the greatest that ever existed.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  8th July 2016

            European civilisation ? What about Indian and Chinese, which were going long before Europe had anything like a civilisation ?

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  8th July 2016

              Gezza….come back, dear, and have a nice bar of chocolate ! I didn’t mean it.

            • Gezza

               /  8th July 2016

              O…k….is … it a Crunchie Bar, by any chance?

            • Great. Not greatest.

          • “its essentialist doctrines are immutable”

            Wrong. Reason implies adaptation to changing circumstance:

            We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?
            The Quran, Surah 2:106

            Reply
            • Wrong?
              “This ummah [nation] of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in paradise and seventy-two will be in hell.” When asked which sect was the true one, the prophet replied, “al-jama‘a,” that is, the group which most literally follows the example or “sunna” of Muhammad, a thing not so simple to do.” Al-Bukhaari nos.71, 3641 no.1920

              “Islam is not constrained by time or space, for it is eternal… what Muhammad permitted is permissible until the Day of Resurrection; what he forbade is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. It is not permissible that his ordinances be superseded, or that his teachings fall into disuse, or that the punishments [he set] be abandoned, or that the taxes he levied be discontinued, or that the defence of Muslims and their lands cease.” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

            • “Wrong?”

              Yes. The Quran is the authoritative source of Islamic doctrine, not the Hadith or Khomeini.

            • Gezza

               /  9th July 2016

              How is this relevant to the post?

            • Gezza

               /  9th July 2016

              Sorry, should’ve said—not a criticism, just a question Uggers.

            • Gezza on relevance – this comes down to Muslim immigration and perhaps the prime reason why it’s Not a Good Thing.

              Ugly Truth on the authoritative source – Islamic jurisprudence as expressed through sharia law is an accumulation of laws and procedures based on the Koran and on knowledge of Muhammad’s ways, as interpreted by classical schools of legal thought. Because it’s an imperialist ideology, early on it gave no credit to its religious (Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian) and legal (Persian and Roman) origins and instead ascribed it to its prophet which in turn is the mouthpiece of Allah. This sacralises traditions which weren’t originally sacral. Much of it comes from juridical opinions of early Muslim scholars with no reference to Muhammad’s life. More on Beyond Belief, BBC Radio 4, 29 June 2015.

              “Not the Hadith” is incorrect. A large part of Islamic doctrine is tied up in the debate about what qualifies as ‘authentic,’ ‘sound’ or ‘weak’ in the vast tome of hadiths. Those regarded as authentic by the various schools, including Wahhabi, form part of the schools’ traditions and teachings
              “Not … Khomeini” is incorrect. This exemplifies the difficulty Islam has in pointing to any authoritative source other than its sacred texts. His Wikipedia entry grants him religious authority beyond question, at least as far as Shias go.

              My reference to “its essentialist doctrines are immutable” holds true – Islam’s sacred texts can be interpreted but not changed. Reason gets short shrift in Sunni thought (insidad bab al-ihtihad), less so by Shias.

            • “How is this relevant to the post?”

              Because of the value system of Islam as a religion is compatible with the other Abrahamic religions of the common law, but the political aspect – will to power – is not. The essential point is that reason conflicts with the imperialism of naked political will regardless of the religious context.

              If social values are based on political power then Muslims immigration will eventually lead to chaos, but if they are based on reason then it’s possible to find a remedy.

            • Gezza

               /  9th July 2016

              @ Ugly Truth. Nice. What are your thoughts on the possible remedy(ies)?

            • Gezza

               /  9th July 2016

              And if you’ve got quite a few, or want to think about them first, how about considering doing a guest post and sending it to PG?

            • Ugly Truth – “Because of the value system of Islam as a religion is compatible with the other Abrahamic religions of the common law, but the political aspect – will to power – is not. The essential point is that reason conflicts with the imperialism of naked political will regardless of the religious context.”

              How can Islam’s value system, rooted in 7th century rules and exegesis, be compatible with common law and its ability to evolve with societies’ moral changes?

              Islam’s will to power is its essence. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

            • “What are your thoughts on the possible remedy(ies)?”

              I’ll try to collect them into something coherent that can be made into a guest post.

            • @kitslater, re the Hadith

              The contemporary Hadith are what remains of a much larger volume of writings, most of which were discarded as being unreliable. This process hasn’t been ideal, and contractions remain eg the “pedo prophet” Hadith contradicts the earliest biography of Muhammad. The Quran itself warns agains the Hadith and and the “traditions of the fathers”.

              @kitslater, re Islamic values

              The commonality between the values of Islam and Judaism can be illustrated by the Quran’s endorsement of the Torah, by the similarities regarding acceptable and unacceptable conduct described by the two texts, and by the similar descriptions of the deity of Abraham.

      • So Mr Khan wants the City to thrive but says he is a believing Muslim? Ahhhh given the injunction on Muslims charging interest, how do those two sentiments manage to co-exist in his mind??? The City is BUILT on charging interest…… Methinks Mr Knan is not quite who he says he is….

        Reply
  15. Kitty Catkin

     /  8th July 2016

    Goodnight. you lot. If I don’t go now, I’ll be here all night-as some of you will probably be. This discussion is probably going to go on forever ! We’ll all be in rest homes, still at this post.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      But the thing is, for me anyway, it has been well worth doing it.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  8th July 2016

        Our bleached skeletons will be found with the bony fingers on this page 😀

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  8th July 2016

          I think that is what Gezza was afraid of, Kitty.

          Reply
  16. artcroft

     /  8th July 2016

    A very good post Gezza. I have benefited greatly from immigration into NZ (I married an immigrant). Yet muslim immigration brings special challenges. Wherever it appears Islam seems determined to dominate and will not suffer rivals. I’m not interested in submitting to Allah, so the idea of large numbers of muslims arriving in the country doesn’t warm my heart.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  8th July 2016

      I married an immigrant and am the child of immigrants.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th July 2016

      Thank you Art. You write well. How about one?

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  9th July 2016

      Good for you, Arty. The only offering you will be giving Allah is lead.

      Reply
    • @ Artcroft – “Islam seems determined to dominate and will not suffer rivals. I’m not interested in submitting to Allah, so the idea of large numbers of muslims arriving in the country doesn’t warm my heart.”

      I find it comforting that here in Aotearoa-New Zealand at least, there is little or no evidence of Muslims “being determined to dominate” and “not suffer rivals” or arrive in large numbers.

      Or have I missed something … ? Extrapolation from other nations’ experiences maybe? The contagion of fear … There’s gotta be a ‘baddie’ …. Cowboys and Indians …

      Perhaps if we weren’t at war with them in their own countries or part of a Western Alliance which supports such war and centuries of exploitation of others’ resources, we might be even safer?

      This is not to say I want large numbers of Muslim immigrants, mainly because I don’t think it is culturally appropriate at this juncture, or economically and politically appropriate for that matter, and may never be; and only socially appropriate when it becomes spiritually so.

      “What we need is a great big melting pot” will only work when people are capable of living in the pot together in relative harmony and using suitable, agreed conflict resolution processes …

      Freer global immigration – currently a problem because of Muslims – seems to me to have gone hand-in-hand with two other phenomenon, modern Western expansionist imperialism, including numerous wars, and (so-called) ‘global free trade’. I consider them twins of some sort. I’m a relative, qualified, conditional “protectionist” on the latter and “isolationist” on the former.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  9th July 2016

        I’m not as interested in how you classify yourself (although there’s nothing wrong with that) as in how you think we could ever achieve a great big melting pot, in practical steps, with a religion that at its very essence seems to define itself, via the Quran, as superior to any other belief system:
        https://yournz.org/2016/07/08/guest-post-muslim-immigration/#comment-115489

        Also, whether you think we might be at heightened risk of an attack by an Islamic extremist, now we’re involved in the war in Iraq?

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  9th July 2016

        good post Pz.I am interested in how you classify yourself.A fortress NZ mentality has alot going for it re foreign policy and immigration.The forces of globalisation care not about borders,culture or ethnicity.These parasites live a life of virtual gated community and controlled social intercourse and have sanctuary all around the globe.NZ is increasingly attractive to them.

        Reply
        • @ Gezza – We probably are at some heightened risk of Islamic extremist attack. We may also be at heightened risk of some sociopathic attack using Islam as an excuse?

          @ Blazer – I didn’t mean “fortress NZ” at all and find it quite hard to classify myself. Progressive social democrat? Words, words, words, with all their loadings.

          My “relative, qualified and conditional” is all about a post-neoliberal level of “protectionism” or more correctly ‘trade protection’ that supports sustainable employment, production (including manufacturing), economic activity, development and standard-of-living, primarily for the well-being of New Zealanders, although with a global outlook. Think global, act local. Act for the benefit of all our own people.

          This in turn must be appropriate to the global security situation, which, along with a less aligned foreign policy, will dictate our level of “isolation” or more correctly our ‘defence position’ or ‘engagement status’?

          Both national positions – which if applied to an individual would equate to ‘personal boundaries’ – will go hand-in-hand with a re-committment to founding bicultural and egalitarian principles, reducing inequality and becoming once again the world leader in multiculturalism and social policy.

          I suspect there are both parasites and wealthier ‘aware’ people seeking sanctuary here in NZ? A hedge against when the shit really hits the fan …?

          Hope that makes things a little clearer from my POV?
          Ψ

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  9th July 2016

            It’s interesting you said that e hoa. I actually took the time to write out a:
            – WHO AM I? Top 10, in Priority Order – list, some time ago.

            I can’t remember what prompted it. I was going to post it to see if anyone else would do likewise, so I maybe understand their POV better. As you’ve probably noticed on quite a few things Ive accepted I pretty uninformed so I like it when others with knowledge or preference take the trouble to explain theirs. My vote’s for sale to the best ideas when it comes to politics and argument.

            I didn’t post it because I thought, nah, I’ll just get bitten, and it was a silly idea.

            Reply
          • Immigration policy will naturally be part of the nation’s cultural boundaries, as trade protection is to economic boundaries.

            We must remember that in the process of establishing our current cultural boundaries, such as they are, Pakeha have done more damage to ‘Maori’ or more correctly hapu iwi cultural boundaries than Islam is ever likely to do.

            Reply
      • Try and paint a picture of Mohammed and display it publicly. But remember first that even through you are, I assume a non-muslim, Mohammed injunction against this still applies to you. And the penalty is not a quiet reprimand but your beheading.
        So go ahead live your life as you choose but just be very aware.

        Reply
          • Gezza

             /  10th July 2016

            So why did those Islamic terrorist kill those cartoonists?

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  10th July 2016

              I thought they were …Mossad Agents…stirring it up!

            • Gezza

               /  10th July 2016

              What convinces you of that? Everything I heard & saw suggested they were angry young Islamic fundamentalists.

            • Blazer

               /  10th July 2016

              So is this settled fact now?

            • Gezza

               /  10th July 2016

              Not with me now. I believe so, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise.I want fucking good argument & evidence though.

            • Blazer

               /  10th July 2016

              So present your evidence that Islamic fundamentalists were responsible!

            • Gezza

               /  10th July 2016

              I can’t. There’s tons and tons and tons of it. It was all over the mainstream media – tv, newspapers online articles. Can you maybe google up some you don’t believe and tell me why?

            • Gezza

               /  10th July 2016

              Actually … no … don’t. I think this is a separate issue perhaps from the one raised in the post. Do you want to pick this up in Open Forum or take some time, gather some evidence, write up a few thoughts on it, and maybe do a post & send it to PG?

            • Blazer

               /  10th July 2016

              The videos and commentaries I have seen show efficient,trained assassins ,very precise and very effective.You can find it if you want.Also try cartoonist assassinated in 1987 ,pro Palestinian chap.

            • Gezza

               /  10th July 2016

              Fair enough Blazer. Let’s pick it up in Open Forum? Happy to check out any links and comments you’ve got about their credibility.

  17. Blazer

     /  10th July 2016

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  10th July 2016

      1. You think we should take Nordic/Anglo-Saxon migrants?
      2. You think we should repel invaders?
      3. You think Nordic people should be overlords to calm the tides of war?
      4. Because peace and trust can then win the day, despite all their losing?

      Those, yelled out, are all the messages that were in that song, which I love, when I listened and read them.

      What did you want me to get as your messages?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  10th July 2016

        try not to overthink things.Immigrants can be viewed as invaders.Throughout history conquest,pillage and plunder has occurred.P.S we have heaps of Anglo Saxon immigrants here.My posts are never made solely for your benefit,people can make of them what they wish.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  10th July 2016

          “My posts are never made solely for your benefit,people can make of them what they wish.”

          I know. Neither are mine, and so they can. Thank you for those points to consider, Blazer. Maori & pakeha both immigrated to this country and went through a long period of killing each other, with Maori, who are separate tribes best considered in my view like the Sioux and say Apache nations, and with Pakeha & Maori killing each other in trying to steal land and control, and on the Maoir part, trying to prevent that, or get it back.

          I think we’ve come out of that horrible situation together quite well on the whole by now & I don’t want things upset by an influx of people whose culture includes religious zealots who might want to do the same thing. That’s why I think it’s important to talk about this.

          Reply
  18. Just posting to advise anyone interested that I’ve been reading over & found the discussion yesterday on the thread highly relevant to my Guest Post, so I’ve pasted this link to it in here.

    I’ll keep an eye out for any more similar posts & maybe add them to this GP as well.

    It’s an important topic – well, I think so anywa,y & so do others by the look of it. The more insights or opinions I can read on this subject, the better informed I think I’ll be about how people feel. Cheers

    https://yournz.org/2016/07/14/i-am-a-muslim-so-that-makes-me/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s