NZ Burqa Push

Islamic veil debate rages on

Most Kiwis seem to be better informed than their moonbattish PM  John Key,  as you can see in the comments, here.

A Muslim women’s group is expected to tell a public forum tonight that the burqa is not a requirement in Islam and it is “an affront to human dignity” for women to be forced to wear it.

Unfortunately, they are wrong:

Sura 33, Al-azab, 59:

O prophet! Tell your wives (sic) and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way) that will be better……

This month, a Saudi Arabian student was left crying on an Auckland street when a bus driver refused to let her board because she was wearing a Muslim veil, which she refused to remove.

This brought a call from Prime Minister John Key for New Zealanders to respect the beliefs of others, and for women not to be discriminated against because they wear the burqa.

Should the burqa be allowed in NZ society? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:

Related:

12 thoughts on “NZ Burqa Push”

  1. Soon after this saga started , a Malaysian businesman came to Auckland wanting to set up a branch of the Obedient Wives Club. He should be shown the door. These clubs promote polygamy. Polygamy is illegal in NZ. He also states that men and women are not equal. Men and women in NZ are equal under the law.
    No NZer would be able to start up their own club in Malaysia let alone express their views in the media. The Malaysian media is very hostile to foreigners.
    Deportation for Hamzah. Great name by the way.

  2. The full burqa is strictly a Saudi thing, since 1973 it has been their biggest export after oil. I was in Cairo, Khartoum, Aden, Karachi, Tehran and a hundred other places between 1960-75, I rarely saw one. Since every Muslim is longing for the days of the Caliphate, I suggest you have a look at some genuine Caliphate era photos of proper Islamic wear for ladies. The US library of congress in their on-line collection have the Abdul Hamid II (the last ottoman caliph) collection of photos from 1880-93. There are about 2,000 of them, luckily the school photos are at the front.

    1. Not just a Saudi thing. I saw plenty in Afghanistan in 1969, in Iran too, (not in Teheran, but in Mashad and in Ghom, and in Yemen.)

      But you are right: the Sowdis have the money and they call the shots.

  3. Yet more attacks on all Muslims because of the beliefs and actions of a few. You keep claiming not to be attacking Muslims but you seem to go after them more often than not.

    Attacking people ’cause of the way they dress is ultimately an attack on freedom of expression. If all citizens have that right then to withdraw it selectively, purely because of ignorant understandings of a person’s religion is to render them a second-class citizen.

    That the student in Auckland was refused service because of her Burqa simply shows the ignorance of the bus driver concerned. The student had broken no laws and he was only displaying his prejudices. The driver should have been disciplined for his insulting behaviour.

  4. Bearded Goat:

    Your concerns seem to be limited to the imagined “second-class status” of Mohammedans who offend by wearing face masks.

    You obviously have no concern for the daily attacks on non-Muslims, the mass-murders, the terror, rape, kidnappings and torturing of Christians, Hindus and other oppressed minorities in lands where the soldiers of allah have the upper hand. If your selective interest is to push sharia, why make a fuzz about it?

    Once again:

    I don’t buy the “not all Muslims this and not all Muslims that” narrative.

    If you can sort them out for us be my guest, otherwise let ‘Allah’ take care of it.

    I have no use for that unwieldy formula, “not all Muslims…”

    Everyone who goes to the trouble of uttering the painfully obvious and obligatory “not all Muslims” line gets persecuted and prosecuted anyway — in Mark Steyn’s case, for the very article in which he used the words, “not all Muslims;” in fact, the Muslims who took him to court specifically objected to Steyn’s “sarcastic tone” while employing it.

    You see, he was being insufficiently respectful when excusing them from their own crime-in-progress.

    As you can see from that last tortured sentence, writing about the battle against stealth jihad is difficult enough without handicapping ourselves, a la “Harrison Bergeron”, to appease unappeasable enemies.

    An army wouldn’t (well, until recently) let its enemy tell it what kind of ammo it could use. We shall not be bound by fantasy-based rules that have no place in reality.

    Why are we allowing our enemies to do so now, when the ammo is language?

    As one emailer wrote me yesterday, by trying to tell us how to speak, “The Left (in cahoots with our Mohammedan enemy) is putting down a slave rebellion by shaming the slaves.”

    Remember: back in the day, we didn’t declare war on “some Germans.”

    We call it “Islam” and refuse to employ the other twisted locution.

    As for “The driver should have been disciplined for his insulting behaviour”- I shall remind you that NZ is not (yet) under sharia and the driver should be commended for rejecting the ridiculous, misogynistic, offensive masquerade from the 7th century.

    The driver has every right to react with revulsion and disgust. How dare you force your perversion on us!

  5. Sheik, if we were discussing attacks on non-Muslims I would of course refer to them. However, we are not. We are discussing attacks on Muslims. We aren’t even discussing attacks on the Muslims who attack non-Muslims. Instead we are discussing unwarranted and unprovoked attacks on Muslims who are doing nothing except attempting to live their lives, legally and within the laws of the land and without harming anybody and going about their everyday business only to be subjected to a tirade of bigotry and criticism.

    As much as you wish to broaden the discussion I see little value in doing so.

    As for the bus driver, tell me if he had been a Muslim and he had subjected a non-Muslim to a tirade of abuse merely because of what they were wearing, what would you reaction have been? Please, be honest. You’d have been screaming again about how terrible Muslims are. He had no grounds to refuse service to that young Muslim student, other than he decided he didn’t like what she was wearing. He should be disciplined for doing so.

    Your point about trying to suggest that war should be declared on Islam is a non-sequiter. Islam is not a unified, monolithic religious movement directed centrally by a hierarchy of leaders as the German state was under the Nazis. Moreover, Muslims are disparate in their views and opinions over this whole matter, with few supporting the Islamist terrorists and many in fact being in more danger of dying at the hands of those Islamists than you are. So stop attempting to lump all Muslims together. It does nothing to further your arguments and only shows how bigoted your views are.

    1. Goat,

      “As much as you wish to broaden the discussion I see little value in doing so.”

      Likewise.

      Did not your profit Muhammad declare unending war on the world until the people say “there is no G-d but allah and Muhammad is his profit?”

      It is of no concern to me that “Islam is not a unified, monolithic religious movement”, Islam has sought our subjugation and made war against unbelievers throughout history. We have beaten them back from the Gates of Vienna, we have thrown them out of Europe and we will do so again.

      Who says a Mohammedan female has the right to scare a bus-driver with a face-mask? NZ is not Sowdi Barbaria!

      Your claim that ” few are supporting the Islamist terrorists” is absurd as it denies the doctrine driving the hijra, the jihad and the occupation of infidel lands. What is the purpose of living for a soldier of allah if not da’awa and jihad?

      Is not every Muslim commanded to be a soldier of allah?

      And stop, for heavens sake, stop your idiotic, monotonous accusations of ‘bigotry” which is the essence, the bedrock of your ‘faith’.

  6. BD gotta love democracy or in your case you probably would prefer sharia.

    Victim card player, fail again.

    For the record Muslim drivers have refused seeing eye dogs for the blind, last year i think a muslim woman in the UK, yelled, screamed at a blind man getting on the bus with a seeing eye dog. Muslim cab drivers refuse anyone with alcohol, etc, etc ,etc so kindly piss off you cretin bigot.

  7. BD
    The bus driver had every right to refuse service to the woman in question. Covering one’s face is not a NZ traditon. Polite people try to fit in when they go to another country. They do not try to impose their stone age habits on others. Covering ones face creates a security issue.
    There is likely to be more of this because NZers are very concerned about security leading up to the rugby world Cup.

  8. And the driver stopped to pray
    The passengers could not get away

    (In dying Britain)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7187511/Muslim-bus-driver-locks-passengers-aboard-as-he-stops-to-pray.html

    Muslim bus driver locks passengers aboard as he stops to pray
    08 Feb 2010

    A Muslim bus driver knelt in the aisle to pray for five minutes leaving bemused and anxious passengers trapped in ther seats.

    Passengers said they looked on in stunned silence, fearing the driver may be preparing for a terrorist attack on the bus. No one was able to get on or off the vehicle during the five-minute prayer session.

    * And they wonder why people are “islamophobic”, and why governments of decaying civilizations keep fawning and pandering to this crap.

  9. Ironside I would not prefer Sh’ria and I am at a loss as to why you would assume I would. Perhaps this is merely another case of, “if you’re not wit’ me yer agin me” thinking on your part?

    I am well aware that some Muslims have refused people on spurious grounds. I don’t support their actions any more than I support the actions of this bus driver. The young student was completely innocent of any wrong doing. She had not broken any laws.

    theresaj, tradition is merely a means to hide prejudice and intolerance. It was once traditional for Maoris to eat people, does that mean it should be tolerated?

    Sheik:
    >Goat,

    You know, I always love it when my opponents keep resorting to ad hominem debate. It indicates they are at a loss to actually rebutt what has been said.

    >> “As much as you wish to broaden the discussion I see little value in doing so.”

    > Likewise.

    So why keep attempting to do so?

    >Did not your profit Muhammad declare unending war on the world until the people say “there is no G-d but allah and Muhammad is his profit?”

    I have no “profit” nor even a Prophet, Sheik. I also suspect that Mohammed did not say that.

    >It is of no concern to me that “Islam is not a unified, monolithic religious movement”, Islam has sought our subjugation and made war against unbelievers throughout history. We have beaten them back from the Gates of Vienna, we have thrown them out of Europe and we will do so again.

    Islam has not sought anything of the kind. Some Muslims may have but a belief system such as the Islamic religion cannot seek anything. Its believers however may. However, not all have. Who were “beaten back from the Gates of Vienna” in 1529 were the Ottoman Empire, led by their Emperor.

    >Who says a Mohammedan female has the right to scare a bus-driver with a face-mask? NZ is not Sowdi Barbaria!

    Please show me what law this young woman had broken, Sheik? What offensive behaviour was she proven to have engaged in? We have evidence in that report the bus driver engaged in offensive and insulting behaviour yet you still seek to blame the victim. You wonder why I accuse you of holding bigoted views towards Muslims?

    >Your claim that ” few are supporting the Islamist terrorists” is absurd as it denies the doctrine driving the hijra, the jihad and the occupation of infidel lands. What is the purpose of living for a soldier of allah if not da’awa and jihad?

    If all Muslims or even a significant number supported the Terrorist you don’t think we would be seeing fewer Muslims being killed by the Terrorists and a significantly larger number of non-Muslims? Your thinking shows little logic, Sheik and a great deal of prejudice.

    >Is not every Muslim commanded to be a soldier of allah?

    Just as every Christian is commanded to be a “Soldier of Christ”, Sheik. Does that mean every Christian marches off on Crusades? Not all Muslims follow what is written in the Koran to the letter just as not every Christian follows what is written in The Bible to the letter. You however seem to assume the reverse for Muslims for some reason.

    >And stop, for heavens sake, stop your idiotic, monotonous accusations of ‘bigotry” which is the essence, the bedrock of your ‘faith’.

    Stop displaying it, Sheik. When was the last time you posted something which was positive about Muslims? When was the last time you posted something which was encouraging towards Muslims in their interpretation of their faith? I can’t find anything on your blog. Yet you want not have your views described as “bigotry”. I wonder why?

    kaw:
    >Sheik, I have had enough of the bearded goat. Can you post a location.

    My location? It is Perth, Western Australia. What is yours, Kaw? What is wrong, are you tiring of having your views questioned? Would you prefer I left you to your mutual appreciation society where you can each post more and more excessive bigotry?

Comments are closed.