Islamic State Watch New Zealand: 27.09.19: Islam is right about women

“Men are to rub dirt or water…” This is incorrect. The substance to be used for wudu (ritual purification), if water is not available, is not “dirt” but clean sand.

Of course, all the above instructions – and many more that are not listed – sound absurd, if not outrageous, to the modern mind. But they are exactly what one would expect to find in the scriptures of that period from that part of the world. Judaism is similar in having all sorts of pernickety rules and regulations. The genius of Paul, who is the real founder of Christianity, lay in his recognition that none of this would work in the western, Hellenistic world. Hence his insistence that salvation was to be achieved through faith, not through adherence to “the Law”. Yet even Paul could write: “…women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate as even the Law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home" (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35).

What we need today is an exegesis that recognizes the value of scripture while accepting that, on a superficial level, much of it is no longer applicable.

With reference to 


Facebook: 13.09.19: Honor killings

Honor killings are extra-judicial killings, and are therefore murder. They are not permitted in any society, Islamic or otherwise. As I have already pointed out, such killings have nothing to do with Islam, just as "bride burnings" have nothing to do with Hinduism. The victims are almost always women, who are killed (or mutilated) because they have failed to live up to the expectations of the family, clan, or tribe, by having a secret boyfriend, refusing to accept an arranged marriage, or failing to please a demanding mother-in-law.

Different interpretations of the Qur'an rarely lead to conflict. Not even the Sunni-Shia divide arose as a result of doctrinal disagreements. It was a political dispute over who should succeed the Prophet that led to the split. The Shias maintained the succession should stay in the family, which is why, to this day, they call themselves "Ahl al-Bayt" ("People of the House").

The Muslim belief is that all people are born Muslim, but sometimes adopt other beliefs because of their upbringing. That is why non-Muslims who embrace Islam often refer to themselves as "reverts", rather than as "converts". Muslims, with the exception of takfiris, are generally well-disposed towards non-Muslims, except when they perceive the latter to be hostile.

Collapse )

Email from Andrew Johnson: 05.04.19: Christchurch shootings

It seems to be that they are sort of filming some drills, maybe using a bit of archive footage, getting the profile of a “dodgy” character from a given community and then fabricating a scenario well enough that it will convince people that it’s a lone gunmen sympathetic to ISIS – or whatever nonsense they think will work. As the media don’t investigate anything any more and often aren’t allowed to because of “data protection” or “national security,” they can get away with all this.

I think the reason why it is done this way is simply to control the narrative completely. For example, so many people can film stuff  with smartphones now and upload it in seconds, they cannot risk a “totally real event” – where, say, a mind-controlled gunmen works alone. In a “real” event, they can’t control what people actually film – 9/11 was a good example of this – i.e. a lot of people filmed the real event and now they are in trouble because the real videos show what actually happened. However, if the only films that exist are of a “staged event,” then they have set up the stage in the first place, so they can control what is on there. The Boston Unbombing was a classic example of setting the stage and building a narrative around it.


Facebook: 05.04.19: Reaction to Christchurch shootings

I find the reaction to the Christchurch shootings - the middle part of the "problem-reaction-solution" theory - extremely disappointing. The thinking seems to be that, if we all resolutely reject racism, terrorism will be deprived of "oxygen"  — to use Ardern's term. But this is nonsense, if such terrorist attacks are, in reality, false-flag attacks perpetrated by the globalist elite, aka the New World Order.

Almost all such attacks are, indeed, the work of the globalist elite, in the opinion of most independent researchers. And at least one such researcher, Nafeez Ahmed, has pointed out that terrorism is actually an integral part of the "system". So, of course, the terrorist attacks will continue for as long as they continue to achieve the desired results - more surveillance, censorship, repression, and control, which allow the Empire to tighten its grip.


Facebook: 30.03.19: Christchurch shootings

 As in the case of 9/11 (and other terrorist attacks, false-flag or otherwise), the question to be asked now is: In what ways, and to what extent, will this be used by the "authorities" to roll back civil liberties? Already, anyone retaining a copy of Tarrant's manifesto - for any reason - is a criminal. How long, I wonder, will it be before Ardern, et al., go after my bookshelf? How about banning my anti-vaccination books, in the name of the "public good"? Or my books on Holocaust revisionism? Or my books on false-flag terrorism? When you go down this path, you soon find that there is no end to it. Welcome to the fascist state.

At the moment, everything is very lovey-dovey. But when the cops break down your door at 2am, they won't have smiles on their faces.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot: Didn't nice, peaceful Cat Stevens once call for the death of Salman Rushdie? Too bad some of us have memories. They obviously aren't putting enough fluoride into the water.