The conviction of yet another Muslim rape gang recalls the dispiriting tale of Ella Hill: “As a survivor of the Rotherham grooming gang, I am scared by racism and hate crime in Brexit Britain.” Here, alas, we go again.
She’s “scared by racism” and “hate crime”? Does she mean “racism” toward Muslims, which does not exist except in the minds of apologists for Islam? Or does she mean the “racism” of her Muslim tormentors, who targeted her not for anything she thought or had done or wanted to do against them, but only because she was a white English girl?
I welcome the new definition of Islamophobia, but in order to prevent racist abuse we need to teach that religious hatred towards non-Muslims is just as unacceptable.
So apparently she believes that just as there can be “racist abuse” against Muslims, “we need to teach that religious hatred toward non-Muslims is just as unacceptable.” What’s wrong with this picture? It’s the false equivalence. Certainly there is religious hatred felt by Muslims for non-Muslims — at least she got that right. But she seems to think there is an equivalent hatred (she calls it “racist abuse”) among non-Muslims toward Muslims. There is no “racist abuse” against Muslims — who are of every race — in the U.K. There are expressions of alarm and dismay, over the aggressive behavior of many, not all, Muslims in the U.K. There are fears of Muslims, understandable not least because of the vast number of grooming gang victims — 1,400 in Rotherham alone — and said to possibly have included, throughout the U.K., as many as a million girls. There is justified horror at the contempt those grooming gangs expressed for non-Muslim girls, and especially for the vast majority, who were “white” and “English” girls. There is the anxiety that a burgeoning Muslim population is managing to change British society in ways little and big, everything from removing pork products from school canteens, to having times and places set aside for Muslim prayers in factories and schools, to offering women-only swimming times in municipal pools. There are the pressures, too, to change the school curricula, to give more weight to sanitized versions both of Islamic history and of Islam itself — and to ensure that all such courses are first vetted for content by Muslims themselves.
There is, of course, the continuing trauma of Muslim terrorism, and the high anxiety this creates. How should British Infidels react when they think of the attacks by Muslim terrorists in London (many times), Manchester, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris (many times), Toulouse, Nice, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Malmö, Turku, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Beslan? Wouldn’t it be absurd for people not to draw conclusions from all those attacks? But the word “Islamophobia” remains a permanent sword of Damocles, hanging over all of our necks, and the threat of being called “islamophobic” causes so many otherwise sensibly minded people to simply keep silent when the subjects of Islamic aggression and Muslim crimes are raised.
As a Rotherham grooming gang survivor I’ve watched the events of the past few weeks with interest and rising concern. The public’s response to the Brexit negotiations has focused on issues of immigration. At the same time, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims has announced a proposed definition of Islamophobia.
As a “grooming gang survivor,” the only thing this woman should be worried about is that the campaign to legitimize use of the word “Islamophobia,” in order to shut down islamocritics, is gathering steam — and even, alas, has support from victims like herself. She should welcome, not deplore, the fact that “the public’s response to the Brexit negotiations has focused on issues of immigration” — meaning, of course, Muslim immigration. Does she not see any reason at all to limit or end Muslim immigration to the U.K.? What about the nearly one million victims of Muslim grooming gangs? Surely that figure is enough to start closing down Muslim immigration?
Since the news of the Rotherham child abuse scandal broke in 2014, there has been a flood of reports from victims with similar experiences to me. [sic] The list of prosecutions of Muslim Pakistani men in towns including Huddersfield, Oxford and Telford keeps getting longer. I’ve watched with alarm the public response to these revelations, with a rising anti-Muslim and anti-immigration sentiment, and the appearance of some far-right extremists and self-styled neo-Nazis in the UK and Europe. Experiences like mine are being used to fuel this anger, and with the uncertainty posed by Brexit uncertainty and an increasing militancy on the far left of politics, emotions are running high on all sides….
She has “watched with alarm” the public response to reports about the Muslim Pakistani grooming gangs, which has been a “rising anti-Muslim sentiment.” Why “with alarm”? Isn’t it a sign of collective mental health, when the public is outraged by the grooming gangs? Would she prefer no reaction at all? Or that we all pretend that these grooming gangs do not consist entirely of Muslims? Does Ella Hill want sympathy for the poor Pakistani groomers, who could do no other than engage in mass rape of young English girls, because their “culture” made them do it? The estimate that up to one million girls have been the victims of these Muslim Pakistani grooming gangs in the U.K. filled English people with fury, as it should have. Or should they simply have shrugged off such behavior, or at least not made a fuss about it, lest “Islamophobia” be encouraged, and we can’t have that, in Diverse New Britain, now can we?
As tensions boil in the run-up to a parliamentary decision on Brexit, the APPG on British Muslims’s report, titled ‘Islamophobia Defined’, states clearly: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
She, this victim of grooming gang savages, “welcomes this definition of Islamophobia.” But the definition is idiotic. “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” Confusion worse confounded: first we are told that “Islamophobia” is “rooted in racism,” and then, two words later, what was “rooted in racism” now becomes “a type of racism.” And whom does this “racism” target? Not Qur’anic passages, nor people, but “expressions of Muslimness.” Does this mean all expressions of Muslimness, or only those that violently target non-Muslims? Are Muslims disliked for such anodyne expressions of “Muslimness” as passing on the pork at a buffet, or for performing their pre-prayer ablutions, or for praying five times a day, or for growing a beard, or for going to the mosque to hear Friday Prayers? Of course not.
Muslims are disliked, and criticized, however, for such very different “expressions of Muslimness” as the more than 35,800 terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims since 9/11/2001. They are disliked, and criticized, for following the Qur’anic commandments to wage Jihad and to “strike terror” into the hearts of the Unbelievers (e.g., 2:191-193, 4:89, 8:12, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4). Muslims are disliked for their 1,400-year record of conducting Jihad against many different peoples in many different lands, and after subjugating Unbelievers, giving them the choice of death, conversion to Islam, or enduring the permanent status of dhimmi. They are disliked, and criticized, for the misogyny of their faith, which allows husbands to beat their wives when they are disobedient, permits polygyny, provides a husband with the ability to divorce by merely uttering the triple-talaq, considers the testimony of a woman to be worth half that of a man, and provides daughters with half the inheritance left to sons. Muslims are criticized for defending Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old, which has led many Muslims, emulating Muhammad, to marry very young girls. Muslims are criticized, too, for regarding Muhammad as the “Perfect Man” and “Model of Conduct’” even though he took part in the killing of 600-900 helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, ordered the torture and then the killing of Kinana of Khaybar, and was well-pleased to learn that his followers had assassinated Asia bin Marwan, Abu ‘Afak,and Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, all of whom had mocked him.
Islamocritics believe they have a perfect right to criticize Muslims for taking as their guide and final authority Muhammad, who explained that a woman’s testimony was worth half that of a man because of “the deficiency of her intelligence.” They criticize those who emulate Muhammad’s statements in the Hadith that “war is deceit” and who are inspired by his claim that “I have been victorious through terror.” Is any of this criticism “Islamophobia” — that is, is it “irrational fear and hatred of Islam,” or does it make perfect sense?
As a grooming gang survivor who has seen a lot of the backlash towards Muslims, I welcome this definition of Islamophobia. Although I prefer the term “anti-Muslim hate”, the word Islamophobia exists and so it needs a working definition. Of course Islam is not a race, but it’s understandable that victims of Islamophobic attacks feel exactly like victims of racism; their core identity has been attacked. Having been a victim of profoundly racist abuse myself, I understand how they feel.
The “word Islamophobia exists and so it needs a working definition”? Sure. Let’s do it right here and now. Why does that word exist? The word “Islamophobia” was invented for one reason: to silence critics of Islam, to shut down critical discussions of the faith and of Muslims themselves. It is meant to suggest that all criticism of Islam is based not on evidence, but rather, is prompted only by an “irrational fear.” Look around the world. Look at the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Boko Haram, Al-Shebaab, Al-Nusra, Hamas, Hezbollah, and so many other Muslim terror groups. Is it irrational to fear them? And does the study of Islamic history soothe us, showing a generally peaceful picture, or does that study add to our alarm? Those who have examined the contents of the Qur’an and Hadith, and the behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims over the past 1,400 years, and the attitudes, and behavior, of Muslims today, must be heard, and not be dismissed or shouted down as “Islamophobes.” What “irrational fear” of Islam have Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali ever displayed? Their dislike of Islam is a reasonable response to the texts and teachings that explain Muslim hatred of Infidels; and reasonable too, is their referring to the long history of Islamic conquest, and the continuing relevance of that history today. There are irrational non-Muslims; they are not the ones who fear Islam, but those who refuse to consider the mountain of textual and historical evidence that makes any sane person alarmed at the spread of Islam.
No, it is not “racism” whenever one’s “core identity” is under attack. The feminist whose “core identity’” is that of being a woman, and who is criticized for something having to do with gender (e.g., her insistence that women earn 40% of what men earn, a palpable untruth), is not the victim of “racism.” The homosexual whose “core identity” is his homosexuality, and who is criticized for claiming, say, that “homosexuals in the U.S. are treated as badly as in Iran,” is not the victim of “racism.” And above all, the word “racism” cannot be applied to those who are disliked for the ideology they embrace. It is not “racism” to fear and hate — hardly irrationally — Nazis. It is not “racism” but common sense, and a healthy sense of self-preservation, to fear and hate those whose aggressive ideology commands them to conduct jihad, by whatever means prove effective, in order that Islam will everywhere dominate, and Muslims rule, everywhere.
Gang grooming isn’t like any other type of sexual abuse, because there is a large element of racist and religious abuse involved too. Thankfully the APPG report acknowledges that it is absolutely not Islamophobic to condemn atrocities like the ones I, and other survivors, experienced – one of extremist-related sexual violence carried out in the name of religion.
But this does raise one question for me: in this environment, what do we call other types of religious and racial hatred not covered by these definitions? As grooming victims, my friends and I were called vile racist names such as “white trash” and “kaffir girl” as we were raped. Our Sikh and Hindu friends who were also targeted by Muslim Pakistani gangs were disparagingly called “kaffir slags” too. Muslim rape victims[i.e., Muslims who were insufficiently Muslim and thus fair game, seen as non-Muslims, for the grooming gangs] were called “coconuts” for acting “white” (which means brown on the outside, white on the inside – a term that is racist to both brown and white people at the same time).
Yes, those are examples both of “religious and racial hatred” by Muslims. “White trash” and “Kaffir girl” are labels affixed to these girls not for anything they have done, but simply because they are white, English, and above all, because they are non-Muslims.
There are also examples of racist attacks on Muslims carried out by other Muslims, such as the murder of 71-year-old Jalal Uddin in Rochdale in 2016, reportedly killed by Isis supporters who claimed he wasn’t Muslim enough. And former Muslims are attacked daily for having left the faith.
Yes, these “Muslim” victims are killed because they are judged to be “not Muslim enough,” meaning they are judged not to be Muslims at all.
People like these need to be able to report the hate crimes they suffer because of their perceived lack of Muslimness. Accurate information is important in developing government policy to tackle all kinds of hate crimes. In order to prevent racist and religious abuse, we need to teach that hatred towards non-Muslims is just as unacceptable as hatred towards Muslims. A healthy society needs to counteract fear, prejudice or hostility towards people who are perceived to lack sufficient Muslimness – especially when perceived to be a threat towards an ideology, way of life or a proscribed moralistic view.
Perhaps a working definition of Muslim hatred of “the Other” could read something like this: “Non-Muslim hate is rooted in racism, and is a fear, hatred, or hostility towards non-Muslims or those with a perceived lack of Muslimness.” As with the definition of Islamophobia, aligning non-Muslim hate with racism is likely to be helpful because people intuitively understand racism, and the majority deem it to be unacceptable in today’s Britain. And although we don’t necessarily self-identify as “non-Muslims,” victims recognise that is how we are viewed by perpetrators of such hate crimes.
Hatred of non-Muslims by Muslims is rooted not in racism, but in Islam itself. Ella Hill, muddle-minded, still refuses to recognize this. She does recognize that the word “racism” proves effective in whipping up support — “aligning non-Muslim hate with racism is likely to be helpful” — which is why she thinks it should be used to describe both Muslim hatred of non-Muslims and, of course, the “Islamophobia” she clings to. Both, in her book, are examples of “racism.”
In my experience, many Muslims I have spoken to agree that hatred towards non-Muslims, especially prejudice towards white girls, is a real phenomenon in their communities. So as with Islamophobia, I suggest that it is finally time that both these problems are fairly reflected in government policy and legislation. Perhaps when these changes are made education about racism will improve, hate incidents like the ones against my friends and myself will cease, and there won’t be any more dangerous street riots on the issue. What the country needs is a mutual understanding of everyone’s different Brexit views at peaceful protests on Sunday.
The horrific hatred felt by many Muslims for non-Muslims, and “especially prejudice towards white girls,” which explains the grooming gangs, is not the mirror image of “Islamophobia.” These are not equivalent, any more than the hatred of Nazis for Jews has its equivalent in the hatred of Jews for Nazis. Muslims hate non-Muslims not for what they do, but because of their identity as non-Muslims. Some non-Muslims have grown to dislike certain Muslims for what they do — beginning, but not ending, with their many acts of terrorism. Let’s repeat this: Islamophobia does not describe a real phenomenon. We do not find, in the Western world, examples of the “irrational fear” of Islam. We find the opposite: there is a quite “irrational” insistence that we have nothing to fear from Islam — see Angela Merkel, see Pope Francis — when every day brings fresh news of terror attacks, of non-negotiable demands, of street riots, of beatings of Jews and Christians, by Muslims somewhere in Europe.
The author — she uses the pseudonym Ella Hill, which is itself a tacit admission of her fear that Muslims might try to kill her — looks forward to the future when teaching about “racism” (against white English girls) will “improve” matters, and “hate incidents like the ones” she and other girls endured, will cease. She thinks that the grooming gangs will stop if only they are given lessons in cultural sensitivity and kindness. But nothing will persuade the Muslim grooming gangs to stop; no “education” about this “racism” will have the slightest effect on Muslims. No appeal to morality, as understood in the Western world, will change their minds. The grooming gang members know, from their Qur’an, that they have a right to treat Infidel girls with contempt, Those girls, after all, are Infidels and therefore “the most vile of creatures.” The girls were not only shamelessly uncovered — not even a hijab — but wearing the kind of clothes that to a Muslim male signifies a come-hither worthless Western tramp, just asking for it, and the Muslim gangs were there to give it to them.
Muslim views on these “grooming” activities cannot change, but how Muslims behave in the West is a different matter. Relentlessly harsh punishments by Western governments will change not attitudes, but Muslim behavior, which is all one can hope for. The guilty groomers are being given 5-to-12 year sentences, but they may get considerable time off for good behavior. The one groomer in the Oxfordshire gang who was given “life” will in fact be eligible for parole after 12 years. These sentences will not do. What is needed are much longer sentences, including many more life sentences, and with no possibility of parole. Once word gets out about such long terms being imposed, grooming gang activity should greatly diminish. British leniency in sentencing has been tried and found wanting. It’s now time to try the other.
This victim has been twice victimized. First, by those who seized her, raped her, passed her around like candy, to be enjoyed sexually and then passed on again. Second, by her own incapacity to think straight about what she endured, and about Islam (which she cannot allow herself to denounce), possibly as the result of trauma, brought on by the horror of what she went through. She assumes that the “racism” of the “Islamophobes” is a given, and she only wants to make sure that what she and her fellow victims endured at the hands of Muslims is also recognized as “racism.”
But “Islamophobia” is not a legitimate word; it was manufactured in order to be used to silence islamocritics by accusing them of an “irrational fear” of Islam, when those critics repeatedly present the texts and teachings of Islam, about waging Jihad and conducting terrorism, that would cause any rational non-Muslim to be full of anxiety. They offer for inspection, too, the ever-expanding list of Muslim terrorist groups, and lists of attacks (as stated before, there have been more than 35,800 such terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11/2001) which, they have no trouble showing, are prompted by those texts. No matter how evidence-based their view of Islam, and no matter how illogical the defenders of Islam who refuse to consider that evidence may be, Islamocritics continue to be tarred as “Islamophobes.”
Possibly “Ella Hill” will finally understand that those members of a grooming gang who attacked her were prompted by attitudes encouraged in the Qur’an and Hadith, and that to find such behavior intolerable, and deserving of severe punishment, is not a manifestation of “Islamophobia,” but rather, of common sense. For many, such a realization can’t come soon enough.
mortimer says
British victims of rape and violence have been raised in an official narrative which claims Islam is benign. These girls have been so severely deluded that even serial rape cannot motivate them to dissent. They will never achieve catharsis if they do not analyze and condemn the evil thoughts of the perpetrators. Those evil thoughts come from Sharia law. The victims of Islamic torture and discrimination should be the greatest opponents of Islam.
British girls who were victims of Islamic rape gangs are probably, for the most part, unsophisticated in religious ideology. Unless those girls make a great effort on their own or unless someone teaches them, they will likely not learn about the Islamic SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATIONS of Islam’s rape culture and slave culture. Raping slaves is actually a ‘DECREE FROM ALLAH’, thus it is practically obligatory. Muslims males learn that Mohammed kept sex slaves. His favorite sex slave was a Coptic woman named Maria. All Muslim males know they should imitate Mohammed.
LB says
“These girls have been so severely deluded that even serial rape cannot motivate them to dissent.”
Exactly right. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome… If Western women who WERE victims of repeated gang rape by muslims think this way, it’s no surprise that the majority of women who haven’t been raped think that way as well. To them it’s Left = good, Right = evil, there’s NO in between! Turns out that brainwashing since the earliest childhood is almost impossible to dispel, eh?
mortimer says
How does the criticism of a political ideology become ‘racist’? We analyze and criticize many political ideologies: Nazism, capitalism, Marxism, Maoism, Peronism. Who says we should not criticize Political Islam?
How does a political ideology (like political Islam) turn into a ‘race’? An ideology like political Islam is mental product and concept (as is trigonometry). Can trigonometry become a ‘race’ too? No it cannot.
Assuredly, Islam is a concept and is not a ‘race’. Moreover, people of all races have joined Islam, so it is not ‘racist’ to analyze and condemn the things in Islam that are cruel, opportunistic and amoral.
Angemon says
Indeed.
Sharia Watch UK says
Council of Europe report on sharia:
“non-Muslims do not have the same rights as Muslims in civil and criminal [sharia] law”
That is functionally no different to the Nuremberg laws the Nazis used against the Jewish people. This young lady has been brainwashed by political correctness.
http://www.assembly.coe.int/Committee/JUR/ajdoc282016.pdf
Heidi says
It is called the Stockholm syndrome. She needs to see a psychiatrist as soon as possible https://www.livescience.com/65817-stockholm-syndrome.html
Ole Pederson says
These faces look very much like the faces of other passengers every time I go to work by train.
Michael Copeland says
“Muslims hate non-Muslims not for what they do, but because of their identity as non-Muslims”.
That is what they are INSTRUCTED in the mosques. They are being very obedient.
Thank you, HF, for another careful analysis and explanation.
Michael Copeland says
–
These are “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind”.
You can tell from the picture.
gravenimage says
A Rotherham Survivor’s Muddled Mind
………………
Sadly, we have seen this before from the victims of Islam–that their main concern is that no one thinks ill of the very Muslims who victimized them.
Nirmal Katiyar says
As an Indian I am still wondering why british youth not thrashing these bas***ds. I appeal to patriotic britishers to rise up and give solid thrashing in court in front of entire media. In India pseudoscalar refer solid thrashing as LYNCHING. Believe me these people of peaceful religion understand meaning of mob lynching . In India we give followers of peaceful religion ocassional dose of mob lynching to send message across the illiterate jihadis
andrew mckendrick says
1400 victims in a small town like Rotherham ,what the hell is going on in London , Manchester ,Birmingham and other towns and cities with larger Muslim populations?
gravenimage says
Yes–there have been many of these terrible rape cases elsewhere, as well.