Grooming gangs being labelled as "Muslim grooming gangs"

[Olga009933]

Why is religious heritage of child sex offenders only mentioned in headlines when the offenders are of south Asian and predominantly Muslim heritage.
Why not just label them as "grooming gangs" or "Asian grooming gangs" (if wanting to be be specific).
Just thinking and wondering about the thousands of white British and presumably non-Muslim sex offenders who make the news. How many of them are labelled "Christian sex attacker" or "Jewish pervert" etc? Why is the religious heritage of a sex offender only mentioned why the offenders are of Muslim background?
If mentioning religion for one particular demographic then surely its only fair to mention the religious heritage of them all?

Not all of the girls were white though.

probably not have as sick as women and girls who get raped by the Muslim grooming gangs. Probably not half as sick to death as women and girls excluded from education, from financial freedom through employment. Probably not half as sick as the girls with their freedoms curtailed.

I have no issue if women want to dress modestly, as long as they have the freedom to also walk round in a mini skirt, crop top and heals. Because that is freedom in the West. As long as women are not dictated to by men what they can wear. If women want to put themselves in that position then that’s up to them, but don’t expect everyone to agree that a religion, one that sees misogyny embedded in every aspect. Don’t expect women to put up with men who think they have a right to tell women how to dress, even if some women go a long with it for whatever reason.

I have no idea why women join up with dangerous cults (well actually I do - look at the women who do generally convert) , ones that don’t see women as equals. If you like that sort of situation, knock yourself out with it, but don’t expect me to agree with the statement in the Quran that men are my superiors in a hierarchy ordained by God as set out by a dude most likely affected by mould spores in a damp cave.. Why the fuck would I subject myself to that kind of dangerous bullshit?

Because women were captured and could be made slaves. Men had the right to non consensual sex with their slaves - it says this in the Quran passage I quoted.

People always try and twist out of uncomfortable truths in their holy books. They all have them because they’re written by men in a certain time and place and are usually highly problematic when society moves on.

How many were Muslim?

I spent 5 years in a town with an extremely heavy Muslim community. I was followed in the streets on numerous occasions, I was hollered at out of car windows, I was even spat on by a young school boy because I dared to walk in front of him.
These were all Pakistani men, every time.
It was like living in another country and it certainly opened my eyes as a 19 year old.

Do any of you actually know any Pakistanis?

All the Pakistanis I know are law-abiding and decent.

You're just part of a pile-on.

All the Pakistanis (and indeed, all the Muslims) I know are excellent people.

But equally, all the priests I know are very good people, as are (as far as I'm aware) all the teachers I've encountered. I don't have any male friends who I believe to be abusive.

But that doesn't mean those problems aren't real either.

But neither publicschools norstste schools teach boiys that they are superior and that everybody of another faith is sinful and will go to hell.

Yes lots. Every single Pakistani man I’ve met has considered himself superior to women. Where I previously lived many did consider themselves overall superior to non- Muslims. Many would be openly derogatory towards women. This is what it is like generally living in an area where there is a high density of Pakistani Muslim men. Many consider themselves above the law, hence they wheel in “community leaders” to sort out issues as the police just aren’t listened to. IME second/third generation are often worse than their parents/grandparents- so this is a question that also needs addressing - why is that?

Of course I don't think that, it's obvious.
The crusades were motivated specifically by religion.

Nothing in Islam says it's ok to engage in casual sex (which I imagine these men would describe their acts as, not grooming and coercion as it actually was) or indeed any physical contact with the opposite sex at all outside of marriage; or consuming or supplying alcohol and drugs. These men didn't offend because they're Muslim- they offended for the same reasons that groomers generally offend for, including the 85% of all grooming gangs in Britain which are white men.

That some/many members of some gangs are Muslim is a fact I don't dispute; that they offended because they're Muslim is illogical and without basis.

I can't see hhow this thread went on a lateral move onto Muslim women and off the grooming issue. on the actual issue, I want to mention 2 things which were hardly mentioned by the press:

After conviction, several perpetrators' families still insisted they had done nothing wrong and blamed the girls. Their view is obviously twisted since child brides of 10 are OK in lots of Muslim cultures.

The other thing is that the term 'pimping' has never been used which is beyond me. If you sell a girl for sex which they did, whatever the circumstances, that's pimping.

Rubbish, where did you read that?

Yes lots, through my time of living in an area in the West Midlands for 5 years.
I even had some I would consider friends.
But the vast majority of young men who openly sexually harassed and intimidated me were Pakistani Muslims.

Exactly this !!

Slavery was a huge issue across the world many years ago. It still is now.

The verses regarding slavery cannot be applied anymore. The verses did not say that the sex was non consensual. You cannot gauge that from what you read. That is the danger of taking a verse out of context and googling it.

The Quran was not written by men at a certain time and place. Neither was the Bible or the Torah. The Bible and Torah as they are now have been corrupted by men. If you look at old versions of the Bible and the Torah over hundreds of years they are all different.

I don't disagree with you. But that's not the only reason, although it all centres around male ego, entitlement & personal ambition. Disgusting state of affairs. I never thought I'd see misogyny making such a massive comeback in my lifetime but here it is - rebranded, repackaged & called religion.

Another possible factor in the motives behind the mass rape of mainly white girls is that for years people have been pushing the theme that the UK is a colonial racist power that was founded and mainly built on slavery. That people of colour are victims. That the UK was uniquely bad and needs punishing. And so perhaps the rapists though that the little British girls are fair game for revenge.

Many of the young men coming on the small boats probably don't have much love for this country either, bearing in mind we invaded a few and they or their relatives will have fought against us. Perhaps they too feel that we need punishing.

Do you know how many times I asked for a students’ mum to pop in to school for various reasons (dad was at work), only to be told “she’s not allowed out of the house without my dad”?

If this were a non-religious white family, we would have reported to social services but they were Muslim so it was acceptable treatment of a grown woman.

Could you name me a country that has never used slavery or exploited the poor?

No I can't. There aren't any.

You agree that the Crusades were motivated by religion. Does that mean you, personally, think the Bible justifies them (i.e. that true Christianity should include crusades)? I think those are two separate questions.

The issue here is that there are many interpretations of religions. The Quran's writings on sex with slaves are somewhat contradictory, but can certainly be used to justify sexual slavery if you are motivated to do so. And indeed, there are examples of sexual slavery in the world today that is explicitly justified on religious Islamic grounds. Boko Haram and Isis for example.

I think you can argue, quite persuasively, that the Quran doesn't in fact justify rape gangs. But I don't think you can say that because of that the men's religious beliefs were not relevant.

These were not men who were piously trying to do their religious duty. But, from the reporting I've read, including court reporting, it seems that their view of non-Muslim women as inferior was in fact in many cases part of that horrible mix. And there is plenty of support in the Quran, sadly, for treating non-Muslims harshly (and, certainly, plenty of support for more enlightened views too).

My PP is worded hopefully in a fairly neutral way in order to not goad anyone. But I think the rapists will potentially have seen British people as scum that need punishing or that they can use as they want in revenge. And this sense of victimhood (people of colour are victims/white people are bad) continues to be pushed.

You can’t explain their evil by saying it was our fault in the first place and claim it to be neutral.

including the 85% of all grooming gangs in Britain which are white men.

Where a "grooming gang" constitutes two or more men. Obfuscatory whataboutery to avoid the issue.

Huh, I had no idea that was how they were defining a gang. Makes more sense now.