The Islamic state within a state—can it happen!

If one was to ask ‘what makes headlines for New Zealand?’ The obvious answer would be world class cricket team and the rugby players who mesmerize the crowds with their haka dance at the beginning of every match. But Te Amorangi Kireka-Whaanga has other ideas to boost the image of the egalitarian country well-known for its wealth of natural and scenic landscapes. The young man who heads the Aotearoa Maori Muslim Association mentioned in a recent Facebook post that he has changed the organisation’s name to the Islamic State of Aotearoa.

Considering the violent reputation of the Islamic State in Middle East, one would imagine refraining from being considered as an ideologue of what the state proposes as common sense. But Kireka-Whaanga remains sympathetic towards the ISIS which conducts massacres and beheading of hostages. ‘IF you practice your religion then of course you’ll be 100 per cent behind Islamic State,’ he said while also claiming that he was not a violent person. His bizarrely warped claims include maintaining a desire to be ‘a peace advocate trying to achieve my goal of winning a Nobel peace prize.’

Mr Kireka-Whaanga is one more ‘lone wolf’ eager to Islamicize the community and society because somehow the principal of Western society are falling short of providing justice and peace to the world. This perception eagerly grasps the young men and women who are led to believe by the jihad-seeking religious teachers and community leaders that assimilation and integration is threatening the cohesion of Islamic values. The propagation to adopt religious principles which are largely alien to European values is now giving rise to ideas of new nations with hopes to supersede Christian nations. Across Germany, France and England the population of conservative Muslims are encouraging ethnic/religious separatism which in other terms means benefiting from immigrating without having to assimilate into society. The rise of unemployment and violence cannot be overlooked. Some level of violence has the advantage of ensuring separation from the outside world and can be used as a bargaining tool with the authorities to get more de facto autonomy—meaning that Muslim enclaves are ruled only by Muslims according to Islamic law—as well as to obtain more funding. This kind of attitude  also serves  as a social control tool against liberal-minded Muslim individuals, for conservative Muslim leaders can easier exert pressure on liberal-minded Muslims—for instance to compel females to don the veil.

Most incentives seeking government control over Muslims through establishment of organizations fail because orthodox Muslims see autonomy of religion as in direct opposition of what Sharia law states. The separation between the state and the religion overwhelmingly accepted by the European countries has not been accepted by the supporters of the Sharia law, who argue that religion is intrinsically interwoven with the affairs of the state.

In UK the growing concern and dismay about the rise of Islam is now brushed aside as racism and the sense of victim hood decapitate the purpose to examine the underlying intrinsic issues. Nevertheless it will become necessary to enforce the law of the state in a wise and gentle way to avoid a state within a state scenario.