Let’s have a sneaky peek at the names of the “Asian” men – some of whom are actually African – convicted of “appalling acts of depravity on children” in Oxford: the rogues gallery contains: Akhtar Dogar; Anjum Dogar; Kamar Jamil; Assad Hussain; Mohammed Karrar; Bassam Karrar and Zeeshan Ahmed.
Now what do you think these men have in common? Could they all be Manchester United fans? Are they all taxi drivers perchance? The Telegraph’s headline writer seems to think it is shared Asian origin which connects these villains, but I don’t see any Suzukis, Smirnovs, Nguyens or Kims in that list!
Look again: That’s right, they’re all Muslims (whisper it now).
If you happen to be the kind of person who reads the Grauniad without laughing and thinks that the BBC is an unbiased broadcaster then there’s probably a big neon sign flashing “ISLAMOPHOBE”, “PREJUDICE” and “RACIST” before your eyes. Relax, it’s just your imagination, and hopefully one day the advance of Western science will provide a cure. But before I continue let me correct your mistake: My extremely strong dislike of Islam cannot possibly be based on “prejudice”, it is a post facto assessment of the religion based on what its adherents, its scriptures and its long history of violence, colonization and repression tell us about it. Also a phobia is, by definition, irrational, yet having seen the smorgasbord of earthly delights which Islam has to offer and thought, “No ta!”, my view of the “religion of peace” is a completely rational one. And as for those who cannot comprehend the difference between a racial group and a religion, I feel sorry for you; I can’t imagine what it must be like to be that stupid.
If you believe that Mohammed is God’s messenger, as every practising Muslim must, then you are explicitly condoning, nay, advocating for the rape of children. For doctrinaire Muslims Mohammed was “the best of all men” and he provides an example to be emulated in every aspect of ones conduct, yet it remains uncontroversial in Islam that Mohammed married a six year old – although he waited until she was nine to
consummate the relationship rape her. This is why it is not uncommon for children to be forced into “marriages” with middle-aged men in places like Yemen and Afghanistan today. Furthermore Islam’s strict honour code does not apply outside the cult: Muslim girls are to be covered up and their modesty preserved; English girls are meat!
So when we see gangs of Muslim men systematically raping non-Muslim girls we should not feign shock or surprise. Yet we do much more than that: the papers rush to quote Imams and “community leaders” as if Muslims, or anyone from an “ethnic” background , is incapable of representing themselves as an individual. The Telegraph’s dismal reportage of this case quotes Mohhamed Shafiq, the director of the Ramadhan Foundation, for this purpose:
“I think Imams are going to be a key player, we have to use our faith as Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs to actually tell how horrific these crimes are and how forbidden they are in our faith.”
Now I’m sure that Mr Shafiq is acting in good faith, even if he is incapable of forming coherent sentences in English, but if you’d care to take another look at the convicts pictured above you’ll notice they are all still Muslims, not a turban in sight! So instead of pretending that what Muslims need is just a bit more Islam (or any other “faith”) let’s confront reality and admit that it would behove us all to admit of a lot less.
When a doctor gets his bonce blown off in the USA for performing abortions we don’t refer to the culprit simply as an “American”, we wring our hands and fret about the malign influence of Christian fundamentalism on his fragile little mind. So let’s stop patronising brown people, and openly insulting Orientals, by pretending that the Muslim rape gangs operating in this country are “Asian” and subject the religion that motivates them to the criticism it deserves.