by Tim Heydon.
As the Oxford Asian grooming ring face jail, the police were at pains to tell us that abuse of young girls is a feature of all ethnic groups.
So it is, but what is revealed by the grooming rings in Rochdale Oxford and elsewhere is the remarkably high incidence of such criminal activity in what remains a relatively small though rapidly growing section of the population.
We are also told by the police that the Oxford gang did not select these young girls on the basis of their race. We are seriously asked to think that it never crossed the minds of these mostly Asian men that the girls whose innocence they were plundering were white. Believe that and you will believe anything.
According to the police, the determining factor in the Oxford ring’s selection of their victims was their ‘availability’, which is indeed an important factor. This availability of the white girls is largely a result of the general collapse in morality, including sexual morality and the assault on the traditional family engineered by leftism /liberalism in post 1960’s Britain. Most, if not all, the Oxford girls
came from broken homes and many of them were in the ‘care’ (sic) of the Social Services. (We are seeing another aspect of the sexual liberalismof ‘Swinging Britain’ in the arrest of aged celebrities following the Jimmy Savile affair).
But to suggest that ‘availability’ was the sole reason for the Asian predation of young white girls is to dismiss the men involved as mere ordinary criminals and to miss the most important point about them which is of course the point of this suggestion. The key characteristic of the Oxford Gang is not that that they are Asian or North African and anti-white, but that they were muslim. After all, Sikhs and Hindus are Asian, but do not indulge in Rochdale and Oxford-style grooming, at least as far as we know.
What is it about Islam that it seems to produce such behaviour in our society that no other ‘community’ does? Fundamentally, it is the attitude to women encouraged by Islam. In that religion, women are very much inferior to men. The white girls are triply inferiors:
1) They are non-believers and so worthy of the harshest treatment. The Qur’an, the literal word of God, never let it be forgotten states:
(Surah 48:29) ‘Muhammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another’.
(Surah 9:123) ‘Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.’
(Surah 9:73) ‘Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.’
2) They are female. Islam did something to improve the lot of women in the beginning, giving them new rights such as those of inheritance and divorce. Nevertheless, unlike Christianity, Islam has no inner inherent motivation to move on and progress from what was enlightenedin the 7th Century. Like much else about it, it is ossified in pre-Medieval practices.
The Qur’an establishes the divinely-ordained place of women as inferiors who are there to please and serve men. Modern muslims who are influenced by Western norms always find that more liberal interpretations of Islamic teaching are confronted by the plain meaningof their sacred text.
Thus: (Sura 4:34) ’Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them.’
Husbands are advised: (Sura 2:223) ‘Women are your fields: go, then into your fields whence you please.’
Disobedient Women may be beaten: (Sura 4:34) ‘Good women are obedient: They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.’
Since (according to the Qur’an) God sanctions wife –beating, the ideaof marriage in Islam is entirely different from that in Christianity.
There, mutual love becomes ‘an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man’ as one Christian catechism has it. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997 no 1604). Further, if wives can be beaten, the attitude must be fed that women in general may be, and so they are. The beating of sisters and other women in a household is a marked characteristic of Muslim societies. (See ‘The Hiddden Face of Eve’ by Nawal el Saadawi).
The inferiority of women is expressed in many other ways. For example, a muslim man may have four wives and he need not show just cause for divorce. A muslim woman must obtain her husband’s permission to venture outside the home. The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man (Sura 2:282). According to the traditions (Sahih Bukhari, vol 7, bk 67 no 5193), Mohammed thought that ‘this is the deficiency of her intelligence’. He added, ‘isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?… This is the deficiency of her religion’. Mohammed also thought that it was women who would mostly populate hell.
Robert Spencer (Islam Unveiled 2002, pps 88, 89) relates that ’Numerous reports from the Middle East suggest that the Western Understanding of Rape barely exists it the muslim world. Or more precisely they know what it is but under Islamic rules of evidence, it almost never happens. The testimony of the victim herself is inadmissible. Reliance of the Traveller dictates that ‘if testimony concerns fornication or sodomy, then it requires four male witnesses.’ This ruling is in force wherever Shari’a law applies today. ‘Time’ Magazine (25th Nov 2001) said ‘For a woman to prove rape in Pakistan….four adult males of impeccable character must witness the (sexual penetration) in accordance with Shari’a’. It is not difficult to see that men brought up in the knowledge of Shari’a as expressed in the Pakistani legal system may be surprised by the view of rape taken by British law.
In the light of the injunctions of their sacred text and the traditions of Islam, it is hardly surprising that Muslim men can treat women with disdain. Women are derided as inferior beings who suffer from severe mental and moral deficiencies. They must be viewed with suspicion as harbouring all sorts of physical and spiritual impurities – when a moslem man has sex he is supposed to call on Allah at the critical point to prevent himself ‘merging’ with the female.
3) The Oxford girls’ mere ‘availability’ marked them out as without worth in the context of an Islamic culture which regards an intact hymen as by far the most important part of an unmarried woman. This view of them would be held by the very men who degraded them.
It is fair to say that the status of a woman in an Islamic society like Pakistan is only marginally better than that of a domestic slave in Roman times – women in Islam must be the property of some man. This being the case and seeing that this religion countenances violence towards women; sees them as being merely for the sexual use of men and for procreation rather than for mutual love; is suspicious of their sexuality as dangerous and potentially socially disruptive; views the person of women as the repositories of spiritual danger and possibly dirt and teaches that the superiority of men is given divine sanction and further, thinks that non-believers are worthy of death and deserve second-class status as a minimum, the emergence of muslim grooming rings aimed at white non-believing girls becomes more understandable.
Of course, not all muslim men behave like the grooming gangs. Nevertheless, the injunctions of Islam and the entrenched attitudes of
Islamic societies must surely have deep-seated effects on the general approach to relations between the sexes and to the unbelievers muslims live amongst.