Muslim Rape in the UK - collected articles by PAM

Islam from Dar al-Harb
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Pakistan: the Mass Abuse of Women

‘The Prophet said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."’ - Sahih Bukhari 7:62:33 (a hadith – ‘the Prophet’s sayings’)

Contents:

i) Introduction: Women in Islam
ii) Proving Rape in Pakistan
iii) More Stats on Pakistani Women
iv) And Mohammed Said: Women, Stay at Home!

Introduction: Women in Islam

As is now well-known to many non-Muslims, women in Pakistan are often, or nearly always, actually charged for being raped. (I shall get onto this later.) This is a quite incredible phenomenon. However, it has its roots in Islamic history and, more importantly, in the Koran and the hadiths.

Why do Pakistani Muslim men so often assume the guilt of the woman when it comes to rape? Perhaps it is because Mohammed and his followers have always believed women to be ‘dirty whores at heart’. Take the words of Shaykh Nefzawi:

‘Do you know that women’s religion is in their vaginas? They are insatiable as far as their vulvas are concerned, and so long as their lust is satisfied they do not care whether it is a buffoon, a negro, a valet, or even a despised man. It is Satan who makes the juices flow from their vaginas.’ (1)

(Yes, it does sound like the words of a serial-killer psycho in some Hollywood horror film.)

It may seem unfair to single out a Muslim writer as an example of Islamic attitudes to women in general. So what about Mohammed himself in this respect? Take just one example, sura 4:3 in the Koran. This permits men to have an unlimited number of women.

Marriage itself in the Muslim world of Muhammad, and after, was seen very differently than it is in the West. Put it this way. The Arabic word for ‘marriage’ is nikah, which is also the word for coition. In contemporary French slang niquer means ‘to fuck’. So there isn’t much love in many Islamic marriages, it seems.

None of this is a surprise, however. Mohammed’s wife Aisha (whom he married when she was nine-years-old) once said to the Prophet:

‘Allah comes to your aid rather conveniently when it is a question of your desires.’

And of course the Prophet himself had nine wives. He was very much a Real Man, according to al-Ghazali. He said that the Prophet could ‘perform his conjugal duties to all his nine wives in one morning’ (2). Well, that was very considerate of him.

Muhammad also said:

‘Your women are as a field – go unto them as you will.’ (Koran, sura 2.223)

Proving Rape in Pakistan

‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.’- Koran

The problem for a Pakistani woman who has been raped is that she requires four Muslim adult males of ‘good repute’ to testify in order for her to prove that the rape has actually occurred. Now, because men are often unwilling to speak out against other males when it comes to rape (in Pakistan especially), and the added possibility that they may know or be friends with the rapist, this makes it almost impossible for the woman to find such male testifiers. This goes alongside the extreme unlikelihood that four men would have witnessed the rape in the first place.

So even if there were four sympathetic Muslim men to testify, they would hardly be likely to have witnessed the rape. (Though, of course, some rapes are indeed witnessed.) Not only that, but these non-existent male witnesses, if they had been there at the time of the rape, would still be required to prove to the Islamic authorities that actual penetration had occurred.

This clearly means that it is not a recognition of any other kinds of sexual assault or molestation. If a rape is hard to prove in Pakistan, then think about the possibilities of proving lesser forms of sexual assault (if they are indeed lesser forms).

Because the raped woman is highly unlikely to have four males who can testify for her that the rape has occurred, the result is that she herself may well be charged for ‘illicit sexual intercourse’. The rapist will then go free.

To top all of this. If the raped woman becomes pregnant, this is also taken as an ‘admission’, or a proof, that adultery or fornication has taken place with the woman’s actual consent. Thus she would be even more likely to be charged. Why pregnancy is a proof, or an admission, that actual rape has not occurred is hard to fathom. But one can guess that it will have something to do with diseased (male) Islamic logic.

It is hard to accept that all of this also applies to young girls. Take the case of one such Pakistani girl who was kidnapped and raped by a ‘family friend’. The father brought a case against the rapist. What happened? The girl was put in prison and charged with zina – ‘illegal sexual intercourse’. The father seems, at first, to have been relatively enlightened by Pakistani standards because he blamed the rapist, not his daughter… but not quite. We have also to think about ‘family honour’. Thus although the girl was freed (by bribery), her father and family still severely beat her. That is Islamic justice. That is also sharia law.

Take the next case of Safia Bibi, a sixteen-year-old domestic. She was raped by her landlord and his son. Like the earlier case, the father brought a case against the landlord and his son. Again like the earlier case, they were acquitted and Safia’s pregnancy was proof of fornication. She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, fifteen lashes and a fine of a thousand rupees.

If men can officially and literally get away with rape in Islamic Pakistan, what do you think the consequence of this is? Yes, you’ve got it. More rapes. Not only more rapes, but many more rapes. So many that Pakistan has one of the highest rates of rape in the world. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s annual report, one woman is raped every three hours in Pakistan. One in two of these rapes are against juveniles.

Now of course rape exists in every country. But not every country has a religion, Islam, and a system, sharia law, which basically makes it legal to rape women.

This Islamic hatred of women can be found elsewhere in the ‘criminal justice system’ in Pakistan. In the 1990s, according to Women’s Action Forum, 72% of all women in police custody in Pakistan are physically and sexually abused. Not only that, 75% of all these women are in prison under charges of zina – ‘illegal sexual intercourse’.

To conclude. Many Pakistani women are effectively found guilty of being raped. They then go to prison where they are often raped again. (Are they found guilty of being raped in prison as well?) (3)

After President Zia’s ‘Islamisation programme’ in the 1990s, the number of attacks on women increased (as happened in the case of the ‘Islamisation of Afghanistan’ by the Taliban). After the passage of the Sharia Bill in 1991, things got even worse.

All this shows a direct connection between sharia law, or Islam itself, and violence against women. As one woman put it:

‘The sharia bill is a means to control women and marginalise them instead of bringing in just order. It is a law that facilitates aggression against women but ignores the corruption in the country and it disregards violence against women.’ (4)

More Stats on Pakistani Women

In the 1990s Pakistan was one of only four countries where female life expectancy was lower than male life expectancy. It was 51 for females and 52 for males. Is this to do with Pakistan’s poverty? Not entirely. (Perhaps not at all.) In the same period the average life expectancy for all poor countries was 61 for women. That is ten more years than for Pakistani women.

On average, Pakistani women have 6.9 children. Pakistan is amongst the world’s bottom ten countries for female attendance at primary school (though higher than the Taliban’s Afghanistan). The literacy rate in rural areas is as low as 2%.

Has any of this got anything to do with Islam? Well, yes. It has a lot to do with Islam. (Though not everything to do with Islam.) For example, the Economist wrote this on March 5th, 1994:

‘Some of the blame for all this lies with the attempt of the late President Zia ul Haq to create an Islamic republic… Zia turned the clock back. A 1984 law of his, for instance, gives a woman’s legal evidence half the weight of a man’s.’

One may wonder, then, why the Muslim leader of Respect, Salma Yaqoob, says that ‘Islam gives women rights’. Not only that, ‘Islam gives women more rights than Christianity’. This must all depend on what rights Yaqoob is talking about, as well as on what she means by ‘rights’. For example, it is indeed true in Islam that the husband must financially ‘look after’ his wife. But doesn’t this just make wives subservient to - and dependent upon – their husbands?

In Pakistan it is uncommon for a family to mourn the birth of a female child. This may not seem surprising if we are aware of the situation for women in Pakistan. Who would like to give birth to a child who may in adulthood be convicted for being raped? Or who will probably die before she is 51? Or who may be banned from leaving the home? Or may be beaten up for wearing makeup or trousers?

It follows from all this that hundreds of baby girls are abandoned every year on the streets of Pakistan. It has even been estimated that in Karachi alone that more than five hundred children are abandoned each year, 99% of these children are, of course, female.

And Mohammed Said: Women, Stay at Home!

‘The woman is 'awrah [an ‘external genital’] when she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her.’ – (Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali)

‘A woman is closest to God's face, if she is found in the core of her house. And the prayer of the woman in the house is better than her prayer in the mosque.’- (Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din, by Ghazali)

When Pakistani, Afghanistani and Saudi men, amongst many others, ban their wives and daughters from leaving the home, most of us in the West are disgusted by this. (A lot of Western feminists, however, are not disgusted by this. They are only disgusted if whites or Westerners do such things.) However, one wouldn’t automatically think that such an attitude towards Muslim women would result in infections to the bones because of a lack of sunlight. That is exactly what happened to two Pakistani sisters.

This was only discovered because the two girls were taken to hospital. (5) Perhaps they would have died due to a lack of sunlight if they hadn’t been taken to hospital. However, their father would have thought they he was just ‘doing his Islamic duty’.

We can add another Islamic perversion to this. The case of Muslim girls being banned from going outside as well as being ‘wedded to the Koran’! Some Pakistani girls are given the title ‘the Brides of the Koran’. These girls are forced by the fathers or families to literally marry the Koran. This happens when there aren’t enough male cousins - male relations - to marry. Thus the only thing left to marry is the Koran. Do not doubt the literalism of these marriages. They come complete with bridal dresses, guests, food and festivities.

More terror follows. These girls then spend their entire lives in total seclusion. They cannot see a single male in their entire lives. They are not even allowed televisions. There are only two things which these girls are allowed to do. 1) Study the Koran. 2) Do ‘craft work’.

It is easy to guess what one result of this child abuse, or child torture, is. Many of these girls become mentally ill or deranged. But it is a ‘religious tradition’. Therefore it's OK. It's OK to let thousands of young girls suffer in this way because we cannot say any bad things about any religion or other cultures (except our own). But many of these girls would probably want us to speak for them. As one girl said:

‘I wish I had been born when the Arabs buried their daughters alive. Even that would have been better than this torture.’

(Oh yes! The pre-Islamic burying of daughters, which the Prophet stopped and many Muslims are so keen to tell us about. The fact is that it hardly happened amongst the ‘pagan Arabs’. It has just been a good little propaganda story which Muslims use to defend and sell their faith and which naïve non-Muslims unquestioningly buy.)

References

(1) Shaykh Nefzawi, The Glory of the Perfumed Garden, London, 1978, pp. 203/4
(2) G.H. Bousquet, L’Ethique sexuelle de l’Islam, Paris, 1966, p. 118
(3) Kurt Schork, ‘Pakistan’s Women in Despair’, in Guardian Weekly, Sep. 23, 1990
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 19:12 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Sweden: The “Fake” Photo of the Muslim Gang Rape
First posted: 29 April 2013

Of late I’ve been told that I was using various “fake” images on my Facebook page. At first I thought people were just trying to be helpful. Then I realised that if someone didn’t like the image (or its message), for political and/or ideological reasons, then all he needs to say is that it’s a “fake” and therefore hope I take it down. Either that or he wants to sow suspicion in the minds of the readers.

Sure, many images are indeed fake. Nonetheless, since none of these people offered links or evidence that they were fake, then their own claims about fakery could be… well, fake.

This was true of one particular image of a Swedish victim of the Rape Jihad. One Leftist, a member Antifa (who has the image of Thatcher with an axe in her head on her Facebook page)

started off with this claim:

Sophie Morgan: “Yawn, another fake picture.”

Then she changed her tune:

Sophie Morgan: “The woman in the photo has asked that her image is not used for hate propaganda but you crack on!”

Finally, she asks me this bizarre and desperate question:

Sophie Morgan: “Can you tell me the name of the person who raped the woman in the picture?”

She’s still asking me to name the Muslim offender; forgetting that my post wasn’t on that particular image of a woman in the first place. She admitted at one point that it was a Muslim, but not a gang. She then went on to claim that I didn’t even know it was a Muslim in the first place. Apart from the fact that there are many links on this case (she and her friends have relied on a single Guardian article), the point is that she kept on changing her argument to fit her Leftist See-No-Muslim-Evil agenda. She was, in fact, “lying for justice”; which Leftists like her always do.

Because they are fighting for goodness and justice, then why should a few lies matter in the long term? Why should many lies matter? But she’s not fighting for justice and goodness; she’s fighting for the Islamisation of Sweden and of Europe generally. More specifically, her see-no-Muslim-evil policy will result in the Rape Jihad in Sweden getting worse. That doesn’t matter either to her because Muslims are oppressed brown people and they must be supported no matter what.

The Left treats Muslims as children who are without consciences (as they used to do with the working class). Therefore they must be patronised or condescended to by Leftists like Sophie Morgan. What a racist!
Apart from this being only an accompanying image anyway, I won’t take it down. In fact I’m using it again. I’m using it again because these Leftists, who SEE NO MUSLIM EVIL, asked me to take it down. In addition, the woman in the photo is highly unlikely to see this image on my page – unless her Leftist false friends, in their fake moral outrage, tell her about it.

*) The possibly “fake” image (left) of the ex-President of Iran, Muhammad Khatami (president between 1997 and 2005) enjoying some Islamic torture in Iran. In what way, exactly, is it fake? There are many possibilities; but the accusers didn’t actually say. Are they claiming that Khatami’s image was transposed onto the image or that the whole event is fake – that is, that torture doesn’t happen in Iran? Or do they admit that torture happens but that this is still a fake image? If torture like this does happen in Iran, and it does according to many sources and investigations, then why are these Leftists making such a fuss about a fake image which may not even be fake anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some extracts for the conversations which ensued:

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: Esther ANGEL, “Muslims are more likely to be investigated” – perhaps that because they are more likely to rape or even because they have raped. The same brainless argument was used about terror-suspects. Of course Muslims were more likely to be investigated because, in the last 12 years, apart from Breivik, every terrorist outrage and plot has been carried out by Muslims. So you’ve got the chicken and egg the wrong way around.

Your point is a case of typical Leftist dogmatism. Any investigation, any stat, any fact, which points the finger at Muslims MUST BE RACIST. It’s a simple as that… to you and to other Leftists. You mention racism yourself, as people like you always do. But it is you who are truly racist. You treat Muslims as children without free will. As people incapable of doing wrong and people without a conscience. Victims of this and that and the other but never responsible for anything. As people to PATRONISE AND FEEL SORRY FOR; just as your lot used to do with the working class. Pure racism.

You mentioned the 12 Iraqis convicted of rape. Everyone knows that Iraqis are a tiny part of the Muslim community in Sweden, as everywhere else. They are overwhelmingly Somali and north African.

Your source is the Guardian. What would you say if my source of contradictory stats, and stats can always be contradicted, was the Daily Mail or even the Telegraph?

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: Esther Angel, that detailed comment, and your devout trust in the words of a single sociologist (the “left-wing science”), hardly works against anything in my post nor the facts about Muslim rape in Sweden. How does your central point that rape stats are counted in different ways in different countries change anything?... You have focussed on a minor detail, ignored the detail of my original post, to argue… what, exactly?

It seems that Sweden’s strong policy on recording rape statistics and details has backfired, both for the Swedish enablers of Islam and for you, Esther Angel. That is, it was a good thing until the finger was pointed at Muslims for being by far the biggest offenders. Then, all of a sudden, the stats are questioned.

Leftists will defend Muslims NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. They will deny reality, lie (e.g. about “fake” images), change the argument, distortion – “lying for justice”. All to stop the finger being pointed at Muslims. Pointing the finger at Muslims is, of course, racist. So lies and distortion are necessary.

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: Readers may be interested to know that the people who have questioned my use of the image above, but ignored my actual post, got their information from a single Guardian article. And from the Guardian, the details have no doubt filtered down to Facebook leftists and suchlike. For every Guardian article on this, there are literally tens of articles which will tell you that Sweden is facing a Rape Jihad, as we are also in the UK - and that's to exclude the grooming, etc.

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: Esther, You explicitly said your problem with me using that image was moral and not political. Yet here you are proving otherwise. Clearly your mock outrage was deceit and political; as your new comments show. Someone who was just concerned with the morality of image-use would not be on pages like this or the one you originally posted on. So please stop lying.

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: "Hate propaganda"? Is that hateful as in the massive amounts of collective Muslim rape from Malmo to Burnley? Is it hateful to highlight this problem? Or is it "racist" and "far right" to point out the fact that Muslims think they can rape KUFFAR women - especially if they are unveiled?... Sophie, you are a racist. Like all Leftist racists, you are racist because you have double standards for the violence and rape carried out by people with brown skin.

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: Sophie, but you said it was FAKE. Now you are contradicting yourself. I've been told the name of the woman and she was a victim of a Muslim gang. Yes, she doesn't want it used. But you said it was fake at first. Make up your mind... If she was the victim of a "far right" gang you'd use this image every day. How's Gary by the way?

English Defence League Extra (EDL) [page & blog]: People keep on telling me about fake pictures. No doubt there are many fake pictures on Facebook, etc. However, if there is no evidence or a link provided by the person who makes that claim, it could simply be the case that the person just doesn't like the message being expressed by the image. It doesn't take anything or any thought to claim that an image is false. Especially if someone has a political problem with the image... Nonetheless, this sort of thing IS happening on a massive scale in Sweden... or is that fake too?
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 19:00 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Proving Rape in Pakistan
‘I wish I had been born when the Arabs buried their daughters alive. Even that would have been better than this torture.’

‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.’- Koran

The problem for a Pakistani woman who has been raped is that she requires four Muslim adult males of ‘good repute’ to testify in order for her to prove that the rape has actually occurred.

Now; because men are often unwilling to speak out against other males when it comes to rape (in Pakistan especially), and the added possibility that they may know or be friends with the rapist, this makes it almost impossible for the woman to find such male testifiers. This goes alongside the unlikelihood that four men would have witnessed the rape in the first place.

So even if there were four sympathetic Muslim men to testify, they would hardly be likely to have witnessed the rape. (Though, of course, some rapes are indeed witnessed.) Not only that. These non-existent male witnesses, if they had been there at the time of the rape, would still be required to prove to the Islamic authorities that actual penetration had occurred.

Because the raped woman is highly unlikely to have four males who can testify for her that the rape has occurred, the result is that she herself may well be charged for ‘illicit sexual intercourse’. The rapist will then go free.

To top all of this. If the raped woman becomes pregnant, this is also taken as an ‘admission’, or a proof, that adultery or fornication has taken place with the woman’s actual consent. Thus she would be even more likely to be charged. Why pregnancy is a proof, or an admission, that actual rape has not occurred is hard to fathom. But one can guess that it will have something to do with Islamic theology.

If men can officially and literally get away with rape in Islamic Pakistan, what do you think the consequence of this is? Yes, you’ve got it. More rapes. Not only more rapes; but many more rapes. So many that Pakistan has one of the highest rates of rape in the world. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s annual report, one woman is raped every three hours in Pakistan. One in two of these rapes are against juveniles.

Now of course rape exists in every country. But not every country has a religion, Islam, and a system, sharia law, which basically makes it legal to rape women.

To conclude. Many Pakistani women are effectively found guilty of being raped. They then go to prison where they are often raped again. (Are they found guilty of being raped in prison as well?)

After President Zia’s ‘Islamisation programme’ in the 1990s, the number of attacks on women increased (as happened in the case of the ‘Islamisation of Afghanistan’ by the Taliban). After the passage of the Sharia Bill in 1991, things got even worse.

All this shows a direct connection between sharia law, or Islam itself, and violence against women. As one woman put it:

‘The sharia bill is a means to control women and marginalise them instead of bringing in just order. It is a law that facilitates aggression against women but ignores the corruption in the country and it disregards violence against women.’
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 18:53 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Muslim gang's courtroom ploy
First posted: 25 November 2010

BEFORE...

AFTER...

Islam teaches men to hate women. It also teaches Muslim men to hate the kuffar. Thus, it teaches Muslim men to hate kuffar women to an even greater degree.

Of course there is grooming, abuse and rape in other cultures. But not every religion teaches its adherents that non-believing women can be treated as 'booty'! Read the Koran. Study Islam. Then you will realise why there is a massive problem with Muslim men grooming, raping and abusing non-Muslim women.

Islam and the Koran should be treated as 'hate literature' - which is what it truly is. Make that real connection between Islamic misogyny and what's going on in the cities and towns of the UK. This case in Derby is just one more example of the Jihad against Kuffar Women.
For example, in north European countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway, there is a massive problem with the Muslim rape and abuse of kuffar women. But the respective police forces are forbidden, because of Leftist policy and political correctness, from many any connections between Islam, or Muslims, and these problems. They are taught to ignore the obvious connection between Islam/Muslim men and the systematic abuse of non-Muslim women.

If the police don't sort out this huge problem, I know 50,000 people who will sort it out! Get your shit together, police. Stamp on political correctness and deal with the problem. Are you listening?..
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 18:45 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Muslims Beware: Sikh Girls are Not Booty
First posted: 11 January 2011

- From a Sikh brother

No offence meant to any of you, but in regards to this grooming stuff by mussie scum of English /white girls. In the 1980s and early 90s, Mussie scum targeted Sikh girls. But because the police and authorities didn't do jack shit, the Sikh community took it in to their own hands and a number of networks/gangs were formed. The Mussie scum knew that if they messed with one Sikh girl, they would have hundreds of Sikh lads on their back to look after their 'sisters'. And that’s why the Mussies turned to white girls as it was easier and they knew there would be no comebacks.

Like the Sikh gangs of the 1980s, it's now the turn of the white English to awake and get the message out that if one 'sister' is dishonoured by these filth, then 100s of her brothers with get involved.
But now the hardest part for some of you (please, no offence meant), you have only got the right to 'protect' the honour of your sister if you first give a girl/lady respect - and that involves not beating her or treating her like a piece of 'meat', as well as respecting her for being herself. And also by respecting your younger sisters or girls you know. They won't feel the need to run off with the first Muslim Pakistani who shows them a bit of attention .

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but I have seen the grooming stuff for years and this is one area of experience I have and now its common knowledge.

Let’s rise to the challenge.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 18:42 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Telford's Leftists: Ban all protests against Muslim paedophiles
First posted: 28 July 2011
Just in case people believe that the great and the good of the socialist Left, and their Islamist chums, only want to ban the EDL protest in the Tower Hamlets, think again. They also want to ban the upcoming demo in Telford too. And you couldn’t get two more different places and situations than this. Tower Hamlets is an Islamist stronghold in the heart of the English capital, London. Telford is a largish town that has had to deal with a Muslim grooming-and-abuse gangthat preyed on young non-Muslim girls (one of whom was only 13 years of age). But I forget, they wanted to ban the Bradford demo too. Oh yes, and the Birmingham demos. In fact, the anti-democratic Left, even without the help of their Islamist chums, have wanted to ban every EDL demo in the last two years. In fact, these distrusters of the British people want to ban the EDL itself - outright. Ahhh. Democracy, eh? Don’t you just love it?

So why is it the case that the Left wants to ban the demo in Telford? Do they think that the sexual grooming and abuse of young girls is not a good enough reason for British people to register their disgust? Or is it simply politically incorrect to highlight the vile crimes of a gang of Muslim men - not ‘Asian’ men?

You see if these people classify the Muslim perverts as ‘Asian’ rather than ‘Muslim’, then they can racialise the EDL demo. That is, they can pretend to themselves, and to others, that the EDL is really just protesting against people because they've got brown skin; they aren’t really protesting against the systematic sexual abuse of kuffar women by Muslim men. In other words, middle-class Leftists and union activists are allowed be disgusted about such things (even when carried out by ‘Asians’), but the EDL are just too common and uncouth to really be disgusted about these things. The Leftists believe, or pretend to believe, that the EDL is simply using the Telford Muslim Abuse Case as an excuse to express pre-existing racism, which is exactly what they said about the Blackpool demo and the Charlene Downes case.

Brett Davis, president of Shropshire and Telford Trades Union Council, has said that ‘people of Telford are not racist’ and that they ‘don’t want violence’. That’s OK. The EDL is not a racist organisation and neither is it intent on violence. In fact they will be protesting against the racism of these Muslim gangs which systematically seek out white non-Muslim girls to exploit and abuse. Incidentally, in terms of violence, part of what the EDL is highlighting and protesting against is the widespread violence of the many Muslim gangs in England who loiter around the many Muslim ghettos in the UK looking for kuffar who may have strayed into Dar al-Islam.

Finally, Councillor Mike Ion has more or less admitted that the chance - or threat - of violence isn’t really a question of the EDL at all. It is the presence of Trotskyist groups

like the the SWP/UAF at EDL demos that is at the root of the problem. More exactly, Mike Ion said that he has ‘real concerns’. Not real concerns about the behaviour of the EDL as such. But concerns about ‘groups opposed to the EDL will also take to the streets’ and thus contribute, or even solely cause, any ‘disorder’ there may be. In other words, as everybody with even half a brain already knows, most of the violence which has occurred at EDL demos has been the responsibility of these far-left groups which are trying to ‘radicalise’ or ‘revolutionise’ young people through violence and direct action; which is a classic and well-tested Trotskyist technique.

As they say, petrol on its own is fairly safe. However, if you get too close to petrol with a flame, then the whole damn place might just explode.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 18:37 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Islamic sex-abuse & sex-abuse by men who happen to be Muslims
First posted: 16 February 2013

Very many Muslim men seem to have a penchant for using the language of sexual degradation & humiliation. Not just the working class ones (as above). The educated ones also think in similar ways but don't use the same crude language. E.g., the BBC's very own "Mo" Ansar seems to have an unhealthy obsession with "Western tarts" and white women who wear short skirts. (Think also here of the recent case of "Muslim Patrol" in London.)

Recently I noted that a certain case about a Muslim rapist and sex-abuser was given prominence on various Facebook pages.

It was the case of a Muslim rapist in Keighley (West Yorkshire) who also tried to abduct a ten-year-old girl as she played with friends. The rapist was jailed for eight years. The Judge in the case, David Hatton QC, told Khalid Mahmood, the rapist, that he took advantage of a vulnerable woman when he plied her with alcohol and raped her in Cliffe Castle Park in Keighley in March 2011.

But then I realised that there was nothing particularly – or clearly - Islamic or "Muslim" about this case. Indeed white sex-abusers and suchlike aren’t often included on these same Facebook pages. (Though sometimes white criminals are covered.)

Then there was the case of a black criminal. He too was featured. He wasn't an illegal immigrant or indeed an immigrant of any kind. He was a black Brit. So why was he featured when not every case of a white criminal is featured on the same pages?

In fact the admin said: “Another example of glorious multiculturalism” – even though he wasn’t an immigrant and might even have been a black person who was brought up in completely “white” environment (like the musicians Tricky and Ms Dynamite). In other words, he was featured not because he was a criminal – but because he was a black criminal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I lived in the Keighley of the earlier Muslim rapist for eight years. I have some interesting stories about Muslims-as-groups indulging in sex-abuse and violence. (Thank God Kris Hopkins, MP for Keighley and Ilkley, has had the nerve to speak out about these scum.)

However, some sex crimes just happen to be committed by Muslims; just as they can be committed by non-Muslims. So why feature Muslims at all? Despite saying that, there are reasons why we should focus on the religion of Muslim offenders.

In the case of Muslims it is often the case of massive and frequent Muslim-community-abuse (as well as Muslim-community-grooming) done by many Muslim men who are related to each other, who live next-door to each other, visit the same mosques, etc. This is a cultural, social and ultimately religious (Islamic) phenomenon.

That is, not only do Muslim women have an inferior status in Muslim communities and indeed in Islamic theology. If you square that with Islam’s hatred of the kuffar; and square that again with the added intensity of the hatred of women/girl kuffar, then you have a strong and convincing explanation as to why there is so much Muslim-community-abuse and Muslim-community-grooming.

But, again, I still don't like blacks and Asians being featured just because they're black or Asian. 
As I said, though, Muslim-community-abuse is massively different and it is also very new. In these group- or community-crimes, we can easily see that it is Islam – or Islam’s misogyny squared with its hatred of “unbelievers” (especially women) – which accounts for much of what happens in these cases