Islam was founded by the self-styled prophet Muhammad (570-632) and consists of political, religious and cultural doctrines. Islam only became successful when Muhammad fled Mecca for Medina in 622 and became a political leader and warrior, converting others by force. Islam means "submission" - not peace - and Muslim means "one who has submitted". Islam divides the world into two sectors: Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). The only countries considered to be at 'peace' are those where sharia Islamic law is fully enforced. Islam also divides the people of the world into two: Muslims who go to Paradise and the kuffar, or kafirs, the inferior unbelievers who go to Hell. Political Islam is the only doctrine that relates to the kuffar as a Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with them. Every part of kuffar culture is offensive to Allah. Following this doctrine, the kuffar are treated very badly by Islam; for example, threats, violence, torture, mutilation, beheading, theft, slavery, rape, false friendships, lies and deception can all be justified at times. A believer may use taqiyya or kitman respectively to say something isn't true as it relates to Muslim identity, or to lie by omission, such as selectively quoting the Quran. In time of war, a truce or hudna is only entered into for the tactical purpose of allowing weakened Muslim forces to gain strength.
Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing better or holier than jihad warfare to dominate unbelievers. (A less warlike interpretation of jihad as an 'inner struggle' often used by Muslim apologists contradicts the Quran and is not supported by classic Islamic scholars.) The call to jihad has three stages which depend on the status of Muslims in a society:
Stealth jihad: When Muslims are so outnumbered by non-Muslims that physical conflict would not succeed, they extol the virtues of peace and tolerance, yet still insist that unbelievers will be punished in the future. They claim victimhood and persecution, like Muhammad and his early followers did in Mecca.
Defensive jihad: When there is a sufficiently large and resourced Islamic community, Muslims are called to actively defend Islam whenever they perceive any threat to it, whether physical or intellectual, real or imagined.
Offensive jihad: When Muslims are in the majority and have political power, they are commanded to fight all unbelievers, not just those who pose a threat. For non-Muslims, only three outcomes are possible: conversion to Islam, subjugation, or death.
Migration for the cause of Allah, or hijra, emulating Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Medina, is a form of 'civilization jihad' and considered to be a highly worthy act. Its aim is to spread sharia so that Islamic law ultimately dominates all government and society.
Dhimmis are non-Muslim citizens under Islamic rule who are fined and penalized for staying kafirs. They are humiliated by paying the jizya tax and always being treated as intrinsically inferior to Muslims. Different ethics and sharia regulations apply to Muslims and the kuffar. Sharia is fundamentally incompatible with Western concepts of law, freedom of speech and non-discrimination, especially against unbelievers, women and homosexuals. Leaving the faith, or apostasy, is a capital offence. Islam does not recognize the validity of any other religions. As per sharia, that which is lawful and permissible to use or consume within Islam is termed halal; that which is forbidden is haram. Hungry Muslims can eat non-halal food (Quran 5:3), so insistence on halal food is an artifice.
There is a trilogy of sacred Islamic texts which defines the Islamic doctrines and the foundation of sharia:
The Quran tells what Muhammad said that the angel Gabriel said that Allah (god) said, and holds up Muhammad as a "beautiful" or "excellent" role model for all Muslims to follow.
The Sira is the biography of Muhammad, written around a century after his death.
The Hadiths are the traditions of Muhammad, written two centuries or more after his death.
Together the Sira and Hadiths constitute the Sunna, Muhammad's words and deeds. The Quran (14% of text, about Allah) and Sunna (86% of text, about Muhammad) define all the guidance for one to be a Muslim, applying to all aspects of their entire life. Muslims believe Allah is perfect and that his words in the Quran are exact and eternal. The Islamic trilogy devotes 52% of its content to kafirs and 31% to jihad, the struggle against unbelievers. The trilogy contains 9.3% anti-Jew text (compared with 7.0% in Hitler's Mein Kampf) and almost ten times more words devoted to political violence than the Bible's Old Testament. Where the Islamic trilogy has contradictory verses, the Quran specifies that the principle of abrogation (or naskh) applies: a later verse is better or stronger than an earlier verse. So, selective quoting of earlier (invariably, milder) verses is disingenuous.
The collective worldwide body of believers in Islam is called the umma. Following Muhammad's death in 632, violent disagreements within the umma over succession caused a bitter schism between Sunni and Shia factions which continues unabated to this day. Sunnis (which include the Salafis and Wahhabis) account for most Muslims, while Shias (or Shiites) make up the second largest sect of 10-20%. Small sects like the Ahmadis (comprising only 1% of Muslims in the UK and worldwide) are not even recognized as Muslims by most other Muslims, leading to animosity and violence against them.
Drawing parallels between the Muslim conquests and the Crusades is fatuous: the Crusades were not acts of unprovoked imperialism by Western Christianity against the Islamic world, but were a belated attempt to recapture Christian lands and routes conquered by Muslim aggression over preceding centuries. Furthermore, the Crusades were not called to convert Muslims or others to Christianity by force. The Islamic invasion of Western Europe started in 711, a full 384 years before the calling of the First Crusade in 1095. And as late as 1683, or 411 years after the end of the Ninth and final Crusade, Vienna was besieged by the Islamic armies of the Ottoman empire. Though brutal at times, the scale of the Crusade wars was small compared to the Muslim conquests. Large areas which were predominantly Christian before they were invaded by Islam include the countries we know today as: Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, and Tunisia. By the 10th Century, Muslims had annihilated 50% of all the Christians in the world of that time. Relentless Muslim conquests helped to turn Islamic slavery into the most monstrous and cruel the world has ever known, with an estimated 180 million victims.
Islam has never been subjected to successful reform or re-interpretation, unlike other religions, such as Christianity with its New Testament and Reformations. Literal interpretations of the Quran still reign supreme. Challenging Islamic doctrine or proposing innovative interpretations of the Islamic trilogy is regarded as theological sin or even apostasy.
According to the Quran (5:44-50), sharia is the perfect Islamic law and guidance of Allah which governs every aspect of the life of a Muslim. Sharia is founded on the trilogy of the Quran, Sira and Hadiths. Beyond Muslims, Islam insists that sharia must replace all man-made law throughout the entire world. Muslims are actually forbidden from obeying statutes that are not in line with sharia. And worryingly, research has found that sharia compliance correlates with violent attitudes among Muslims. The supreme status assigned to sharia by Islam puts it in profound conflict with the legal codes of modern Western societies. In 2003 and earlier in 2001, the European Court of Human Rights "found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy".
Fiqh is the human understanding of sharia as interpreted by Islamic jurists and implemented by the rulings (fatwa) on questions put to them. Here is the contemptuous and intolerant ruling on non-Islamic religions specified by one of the most widely-used and authoritative fiqh manuals:
Reliance of the Traveller w4.1(2): "Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras … but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam … it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as "Christianity" or "Judaism," are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him give him peace) to the entire world. This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars …"
The same manual also declares that knowledge of philosophy, the sciences, and "anything that is a means to create doubts" is unlawful. In Islam, Allah determines everything, for everybody, everywhere, for all time.
The differences arising between sharia and UK law are fundamental and irreconcilable, including for example:
Sharia sees crimes where other jurisdictions do not
Freedom of speech and blasphemy: A belief in the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of state retaliation or censorship is not held in Islam, where only Allah can define what expression is deemed acceptable. Blasphemy in Islam is any irreverent or disrespectful utterance or action concerning Allah, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam; criticism of the prophet is regarded as an especially serious crime. Although the Quran does not explicitly mention a worldly punishment for blasphemy, most sharia codes demand the death penalty.
Apostasy and proselytizing: Leaving the Islamic faith generally merits a death sentence under sharia. Although Muslims have a duty to proselytize Islam, non-Muslims who proselytize other faiths among Muslims may face execution. The only freedom of belief in Islam is the requirement to become a Muslim.
Adultery: what constitutes adultery in Islam differs from the modern understanding. For example, having sex with a slave or captive, even if she is married, is permissible, according to the Quran (4:23-24). The sharia punishment for adultery is traditionally stoning to death, mandated by hadiths and not the Quran itself (bizarrely, its 'verse of stoning' was mislaid under a pillow or bed and eaten by a sheep or goat.)
Drinking alcohol and games of chance: Quran 5:90 mandates that these must be avoided as they "are abominations devised by Satan". Flogging is generally the punishment for first offences, but there are more serious consequences for repeat offences.
Eating during Ramadan is punishable by imprisonment or flogging. Improper veiling is punishable with fines and imprisonment, and with threats, intimidation and honour killings even when it is not compulsory.
Sharia fails to see, and even encourages, crimes according to other jurisdictions
Discrimination: Sharia explicitly and comprehensively discriminates on the grounds of religious belief, political belief, gender, sexual orientation, and more. It is therefore at odds with the anti-discrimination laws and directives of the UK, European Union and the United Nations. See a comparison with English law for numerous examples of sharia's intrinsic incompatibility.
Domestic violence: As well as explicitly stating that men are superior and have authority over women, the Quran (4:34) and hence sharia legitimizes and positively encourages the beating of disobedient wives.
Underage marriage, sex and polygamy: Sharia has no minimum age of consent to marriage or sex for girls, and a girl may be married off to a man chosen by her family without her consent. Polygamy is expected with men marrying up to four free women with no limit on the number of concubines or sex slaves. The Quran (65:4) and Muhammad's example in the Sunna - marrying a wife aged six and consummating the marriage when she was nine - legalize sexual relations with girls before they reach sexual maturity.
Slavery: Accepted as a fact of life and nowhere condemned by the Quran and Sunna. Muhammad himself bought and sold slaves and indulged in sex with them (Quran 33:50). While slavery is rarer within Islamic states today, this is not due to any restraint exerted by sharia.
Sharia has fundamental inequality before the law at all levels
In sharia courts, all jurists, court officials and the judge must be Muslims; non-Muslims are not allowed to take part. No woman may become a judge.
The standard of proof in a sharia court is variable and inconsistent as compared to that in UK courts. In trials there are no lawyers, nor is there normally a jury. The judge is the inquisitor and arbiter.
Under strict sharia codes such as Saudi Arabia, there is effectively a presumption of guilt, not innocence.
Under some sharia codes, non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. Under others, their testimony will be valued at a certain percentage of the value of the testimony of a Muslim.
Sharia privileges Muslim men relative to non-Muslim men and Muslim women. All men are privileged relative to all women.
The testimony of a woman under sharia is worth only half that of a man (Quran 2:282), but in rape cases only a Muslim male witness’s evidence is admissible.
In cases of sexual misbehaviour, sharia requires four male witnesses who must have seen the act of fornication, adultery, or rape actually happen. This strange and grossly unreasonable stipulation arose from a convenient revelation (Quran 24:13) sent by Allah to Muhammad when his favourite wife Aisha was accused of infidelity and he wanted the case dismissed as lies. Successful prosecutions for rape are therefore practically impossible; often the rape victim herself becomes accused of fornication or adultery.
A woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce a wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children. A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (Quran 4:176).
Sharia imposes cruel and inhuman punishments which violate human rights
Crucifixion: The barbaric torture and execution of crucifixion is part of sharia as it is commanded as a punishment in the Quran (5:33), for waging war against Allah and spreading "disorder" in the land. However, it can be used as an exemplary punishment for other crimes which sharia considers as being of the utmost severity.
Amputation: Quran verses 5:33 and 5:38 plus several hadiths mandate amputation as a sharia punishment. For example, the removal of the hands to atone for thieving, or the removal of a hand and foot from opposite sides of the body as an alternative to crucifixion.
Stoning: Although not directly mandated in the Quran, stoning still forms part of sharia because Muhammad’s wife Aisha (supported by Caliph Umar) insisted that the Quran originally contained a verse commanding the stoning of adulterers.
Flogging: Mandated in the Quran (24:2), sharia allows flogging (a hundred lashes) as a punishment for both men and women guilty of adultery or fornication. The Quran specifies that this punishment should be administered without compassion.
Execution: Over 100 offences are punishable by death, including apostasy, adultery and homosexuality.
'Islamophobia' is a misleading word that conflates criticizing ideas (right) with demonizing people (wrong). Over there, they use blasphemy laws to shut us up. Over here, they smear us as bigots to shame us into silence. Ali A Rizvi
A phobia is an irrational fear, disproportional to the actual danger posed. However, it is entirely rational and reasonable to feel more than a little concern when fanatics torment and behead two British aid workers in the middle-east, promising to bring such savagery to the UK, or a gunman massacres 30 British holidaymakers on a beach in Tunisia, or closer to home, suicide bombers slaughter 52 commuters on London's public transport, or two murderers firstly drive over and then butcher a British soldier with knives and a cleaver in broad daylight in Woolwich. These are utterly horrific and cowardly crimes by any civilized measure. What links them is that they were all committed by Muslims for the cause of Allah, their god. From a typical Western viewpoint, we find such actions hard to reconcile with our own liberal ideas of what a personal religion entails, but these are the brutal facts about Islam's effect on some of its followers. Public anxiety about such crimes and reasoned criticism of the Muslim perpetrators and their ideology cannot sensibly be called 'islamophobia' because most people's concerns are proportional and based on proven danger to UK citizens.
So why is islamophobia the go-to word for Muslims and their apologists whenever the slightest criticism of Islam or its adherents is raised? In short, the term islamophobia™ was invented circa 1990 with the express aim of stigmatizing critics of Islam and silencing them. One person present at its birth now says:
"This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics."
It is scurrilous to turn criticism or mockery of Islam - a right of free speech - into a mental health pathology, labelling those who hold negative views of Islam as suffering from a phobia. Nevertheless, powerful Islamic lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Muslim Brotherhood have fought hard to convince the UN, EU, governments and various authorities to adopt the terminology and introduce legislation to criminalize as 'racist' those who are 'islamophobic'. The OIC's definition of islamophobia is dissonant with the West's concept of bigotry: it includes anything that portrays Islam or Muslims in a negative light, including hard evidence and undisputed, accurate factual reports, for example, of Islamic terrorism. Another definition of islamophobia drawn up by the Runnymede Trust is prevalent, with inconsistent and contradictory criteria so vague they can be easily applied to just about any criticism of Islam. It also ignores the actual content of Islam's sacred texts and the hard data on how much terrorism is uniquely Islamic. Islamophobia conflates the legitimate critique of Islam as a political and religious movement with the stigmatization of those people who adhere to it. Also, crying "islamophobia" provides a handy distraction from the anti-kafir (and especially anti-Jewish) hatred contained in the Quran and Sunna, and voiced blatantly by many imams and devout Muslims worldwide.
Despite the OIC's claim that "one of the biggest threats to global peace and security in our present time is the scourge of Islamophobia", the evidence tells a different story. Metropolitan Police data determines that the per capita incidence of anti-Semitic crime is currently 3⅓ times greater than that of "Islamophobic" crime. The true ratio may be over 4½, as a freedom-of-information request by Sikhs exposed that 28% of 'islamophobic crimes' were not even against Muslims at all. In Scotland, per capita offensive conduct against Judaism is 3⅔ times greater than that against Islam. Many so-called islamophobic incidents cited are merely reports of negative behaviour on the part of Muslims; this is construed as islamophobia. Unfortunately, the media often accepts statistics from Islamic bodies without checking the nature of the claims, giving an inflated impression of widespread and pervasive prejudice against Muslims. The UK islamophobia watchdog Tell MAMA, set up with considerable public money, did not have its funding renewed after it was found to have greatly exaggerated the number and severity of attacks and incidences of intimidation against Muslims. On the contrary, Muslims are over-represented, by around an order of magnitude, in the commission of anti-Jewish crimes in Western Europe. In France, attacks against Christianity constitute 90% of all 'religiously motivated attacks', while crimes against Muslims have actually decreased by about 25%.
In this excessively politically correct age, islamophobia has effectively become a worldwide 'thought crime', as bad as anything George Orwell envisaged in his nightmarish novel Nineteen Eighty-Four about the totalitarian state. However, our contemporary 'thought police' who sniff out ideologically unsound attitudes and beliefs about Islam come in many different forms. One is just as likely to be condemned for islamophobia by the UK's politicians, media and public authorities as by hard-line Islamic advocacy groups. Whether driven by fears of violent retaliation or of being (incorrectly) labelled "rascist", non-Muslim 'useful idiots' or 'dhimwits' have accorded Islam an illogical level of reverence and privilege which no other political movement or religion remotely enjoys. Examples of foolish acquiescence to Islam include:
Labour's former leader Ed Milliband vowed to ban islamophobia if he became Prime Minister, without even defining what it meant.
It is illegal to carry out halal slaughter and knowingly allow the meat to be consumed by non-Muslims. Despite this, halal meat is regularly being fed surreptitiously to many consumers, including restaurant diners, hospital patients and schoolchildren. Well-known brands such as Cadbury, Kellogg's, KFC Kingsmill, Kraft, Nestlé, Pizza Express, Subway, and Unilever all pander to obey sharia to a greater or lesser extent, often without advertising the fact. Halal ritual slaughter causes "intolerable cruelty" to animals and some part of certification fees funds jihad. The insistence of Muslim activists on eating halal food is a scam anyway: the Quran (5:3) permits hungry Muslims to eat non-halal food.
British police officers:
Gave the one-fingered salute of tawhid (much beloved by Islamic State jihadists), signifying the 'oneness' of Allah and the supremacy of Islam over all other religions.
Are being allowed to wear the hijab, or potentially, the niqab or burqa when on duty.
Informed observers have commented that such unthinking 'islamophilia' is a much greater threat to our civilized society and its freedoms of thought and expression than islamophobia. Even ex-Muslims have been more effective at calling the bluff of islamophobia.
While the term 'islamophobia' is highly dubious, the term kafirophobia - an irrational or disproportionate concern about the kuffar, or non-Muslims - is surely not and should be recognized more widely. The evidence for the validity of kafirophobia, kuffarphobia or infidelophobia as it is alternatively called, includes:
The sheer bigotry exhibited by the Quran itself feeds Muslim paranoia and irrational suspicion of non-Muslims. For example, in verses 4:144, 5:51 and especially:
Quran 3:118: "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. Others will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal. We have made plain to you Our revelations. Strive to understand them."
The fiqh rulings - current interpretations of sharia - on how Muslims should interact with kafirs are disdainful at best and cruel at worst. We now have the absurd situation of non-Muslim parents being censured for having concerns over their children being sent to mosques on school trips, while Muslims can evade reciprocity and blatantly denigrate with impunity the places of worship and festivals of other religions.
Extreme measures taken by Muslims to stop non-Muslims touching a book, the quran; and their gross and violent overreactions when said book is damaged or disposed of by non-Muslims. For example, Muslim MPs are permitted to swear their oath on the quran, protected by a slip-case so that the filthy kuffar never touch it. MPs doing so are complicit in asserting Islamic supremacy and propagating the denigration of non-Muslims. Could you imagine the outrage if an extreme right-wing MP demanded to swear on Hitler's Mein Kampf, protected against the touch of inferior non-Aryans?
Disrespecting or mocking Allah, Muhammad, or the quran is fobidden in Islam, regardless of the right of kafirs to free expression in their own country, and the absence of any right of Muslims not to be offended. Under sharia, the preposterous punishment for such 'sins' is execution. Some of the most prominent cases of grossly disproportionate retaliations by Muslims against non-Muslims are:
The 200 or so people killed worldwide in protest against the cartoons of Muhammad published by Jyllands-Posten, the largest Danish newspaper, in 2005.
Over 50 deaths caused in 2012 by Muslim reaction to the Innocence of Muslims movie trailer released by a Coptic Christian.
The attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, leaving 12 dead, after various cartoons of Muhammad had been published.
Numerous other fatwas with extreme or illogical overreactions to non-Muslims.
To conclude: Concealed within a Trojan horse of religious tolerance and respect, 'islamophobia' is a contrivance to disarm the West and establish the blasphemy provisions of sharia which forbid any criticism of Islam whatsoever. While bigotry against Muslims certainly exists, its prevalence is greatly overstated, especially compared with prejudice against Jews which is actually built-in to the doctrine of Islam. Kafirophobia is, in reality, a much more valid and prevalent problem from which the 'islamophobia' ruse deflects attention.
Striking terror into the kuffar citizenry is only a strategy; the motivation which drives it comes from the doctrine of jihad within Islam itself. The link between Islam and violence is proven beyond doubt. But dissimulating apologists like these:
Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor: "The individual who committed this unspeakable act of evil was a terrorist, not a Muslim."
Sadiq Kahn, London Mayor, said that terrorist attacks are "part and parcel" of living in a big, global city.
Nicola Sturgeon, SNP leader: "As human beings, we cannot comprehend the twisted motivations that lead people to carry out such atrocities."
Emmanuel Macron, French President, described terrorism as a "fact of daily life in the coming years".
deny the Islamic roots and shamefully try to normalize the expectation of apparently mysterious terrorist attacks. Why will the authorities not condemn jihad for what it is and take every effective measure to protect us? Does the leftists' Holy Trinity of multiculturalism, tolerance, and offence avoidance have too great a hold? Have we been so bullied by shrieking and demanding Islamists that our cowed politicians will do anything to evade the inevitable backlash from hardliners in Muslim ghettos? Have we prostituted our own values and culture so much in the rush to grab massive Sharia-compliant Islamic investment everywhere that we can't afford to make a stand?
Many people glibly assume that, regardless of soaring Muslim numbers and a correspondingly greater jihadi threat, our police and intelligence services will continue to cope and "do enough" to maintain our relatively peaceful way of life. That this is a dangerous fallacy is easily established by considering the figures involved in the UK:
The UK now has more jihadis than any other country in Europe (compare France's 19,000 and Spain's 5,000 or so). The security services are hopelessly inundated with potential surveillance targets; just keeping track of jihadis who pose a definite threat would require 60,000 operatives. A staggering 460,000 - 500,000 operatives would be needed to fully monitor all the jihadis who are potential terrorist attackers. Even these are probably conservative estimates. In reality, only a very small fraction can be adequately monitored with current resources, and more and more, like the Manchester suicide bomber, will slip through the net.
If most terrorism was really caused, not by Islam, but by random acts of evil across society then we should also expect to have 342,000 - 372,000 non-Muslim potential terrorists in the UK (scaling up from the 23,000 - 25,000 jihadis found in the 6.3% of the population which is Muslim). Comparing the numbers of terror attacks by Muslims and non-Muslims shows a highly significant discrepancy, strongly indicating that Islam is linked to terror. The Metropolitan Police have identified the dangers of weak borders and how 'segregated, isolated communities, unregulated [Islamic] education and home schooling' are a breeding ground for home-grown jihadis.
The only sensible and safe way forward is for the government to reduce the number of jihadi suspects in this country. Here are the steps which must be taken urgently to greatly ease the challenge facing our security services, and hence, to protect us better from jihad:
Our borders have to be properly guarded and those entering the country must be strictly vetted. If 'extreme or ideological vetting' is required, then so be it. We can immediately impose the controls we need on non-EU migration, and, with Brexit approaching, we should flex our muscles to only allow in confirmed bona fide EU migrants too.
All non-British citizens who are involved in any form of Islamic extremism must be deported. That will include not only those who finance, support, prepare or carry out acts of terror, but also those who proselytize, preach or threaten our democractic freedoms and rule of law with the imposition of Sharia. Dual citizens will be stripped of their British citizenship and also deported.
Those who voluntarily leave the UK to join or train with groups abroad conducting violent jihad, such as the Islamic State, al-Qaeda or the Taliban, must not be allowed to return. With frontline experience and exposure to hyper-extremists and their methods, they are highly dangerous.
Internment should be introduced for British citizens who cannot be prosecuted, deported or barred, yet are shown convincingly by intelligence to be involved in terrorism.
Of course, these hard-nosed measures will evoke virtue-signalling howls of condemnation from those determined to hold the human rights of jihadis above those of the innocent British men, women and children the terrorists may slaughter or maim in the name of Allah. But we have to have the confidence and determination to reset our moral compass towards the protection of our own people and the re-establishment of a civilized, peaceful society.
From at least the mid-1980s onwards, organized 'grooming gangs' of predominately Muslim men in Britain (and the Netherlands) have systematically lured non-Muslim underage girls into lives of sexual slavery and prostitution. This danger lurks in places such as outside school gates, takeaway restaurants, shopping centres, bus stations and taxi ranks. Typically, an alluring Muslim youth flatters a schoolgirl with compliments, plies her with money and gifts, and positions himself as her 'boyfriend'. Her naive emotional attachment is then abused as he introduces her to drugs and alcohol, and persuades or coerces her into also having sex with his friends or relatives. From there a downward spiral of rape and prostitution is established, with the gang controlling the girl through various forms of physical and mental abuse, threats, intimidation, and brutality. If the victim is not already estranged, the gang will deliberately drive a wedge between the girl and her parents or carers by, for example, exploiting teenage rebellion and bandying around accusations of 'racism' against them. The girl's family and friends are often directly threatened with violent reprisals if they try to intervene or report the abuse.
The industrial scale of the Muslim grooming gangs' criminality and the significance of the disparity in ethnicity between the perpetrators and their victims are now proven beyond reasonable doubt. We are witnessing probably the biggest child-protection scandal in Britain in a century, covered-up by authorities, media and professionals obsessed with political correctness, multiculturalism and kowtowing to Islam. It is very likely that the grooming gangs have made hundreds of millions of pounds in profits through pimping. Despite convictions, there is evidence that their crimes are continuing on a large scale all over the country. We summarize below the main points about the grooming gang phenomenon, mostly extracted from Peter McLoughlin's book Easy Meat, which is thoroughly recommended. (This is the only comprehensive investigation available, and you may access his convictions data online.)
Perpetrators are Muslim, not 'Asian': Muslims are approximately 6.3% of the UK population, but they are at least 87% of those convicted for grooming gang crimes. It is deeply offensive to Sikhs (especially as their girls were the first victims), Hindus, Buddhists, etc that the generic term 'Asian' is constantly being used to conceal appalling Muslim criminal behaviour. A Muslim is around 100 times more likely than a non-Muslim to commit a grooming gang crime in the UK. Most offenders are Pakistani, but Muslims from various other countries, for example, Iraqi Kurds, Somalis and Kosovans, have also been perpetrators. For a glimpse into the terrifying mentality of a grooming gang leader, read how he ranted during his trial.
The kafir victims: The essential characteristic of a victim is that she is a non-Muslim or 'kafir', to use the derogatory term used by Muslims themselves. Young Sikh girls were apparently the earliest targets of the grooming gangs, and the Sikh community took various steps to warn its youngsters and provide the police with evidence of Muslim involvement. Frustrated at the lack of police action, there were violent confrontations between Sikhs and Muslims in Wolverhampton as far back as 1988. Since then, the vast majority of victims have been white girls. Extrapolating the conviction data for grooming offences provides an estimate of at least 100,000 and more likely 600,000 victims across the nation1. The MP for Rotherham called the situation a "national disaster" and suggested that as many as one million girls could have been abused. 14% or so of victims were 'in care' at the time.
Where and when: Summarizing the grooming gang convictions by location currently shows a total of 313 convictions spread over 40 English towns and cities, with Rochdale easily heading the list. Although Rotherham comes third down, it was singled out as a convenient scapegoat by the authorities, hoping that the official Jay and Casey inquiries into Rotherham would provide damage limitation. But there is nothing to argue that what happened in Rotherham was especially localised or atypical of other Muslim communities in England. It is interesting that the per capita grooming conviction rate is much lower in the areas of highest Muslim population density and influence. Are prosecutions being suppressed there? Grooming gangs are obviously also operating in Scotland, especially Glasgow, but details and data are lacking, though articles from 2017, 2015, 2014 and 2013 indicate a very similar problem to England's.
Between the mid-1980s and 2009 Muslim grooming gangs were operating with near impunity, though some courageous lone voices raised concerns. But after a Panorama documentary in 2008 and public campaigning by the English Defence League (EDL) from 2009 onwards, prosecutions and convictions started to rise. Panic started to grip national governmental agencies in 2011-2012, and in 2013 Parliament finally accepted the evidence for 'localised grooming' by gangs of predominately Muslim men.
Who failed in their duty?: The stenches of political correctness, devotion to multiculturism and appeasement of Islam hang heavily in the air when trying to understand how those in a position of responsibility fail to protect children from grooming gangs. In particular, the fear of being called 'racist' seems enough to induce willful blindness or paralysis in many professionals and officials, especially when perpetrators and victims are predominately Muslim and non-Muslim respectively. The closing of ranks has meant that only a handful of individuals and organisations have been censured and very few jobs lost over the scandal. Those who failed in their duty include:
Muslim communities, their leaders and imams
Evidence suggests they were long aware of grooming and complicit in hushing up the scandal. As late as 2010, the Muslim Council of Britain still claimed that grooming gangs were a "racist myth". Once the scandal was exposed, only a fraction of mosques read a special sermon denouncing this crime. No matter the excuse, so-called 'moderate' Muslims failed to stop these crimes within their own communities.
Councils and social workers
There was denial and persistent inaction by staff, blinkered by political correctness and determined to conceal the connection between between grooming gangs and Muslim men. Vulnerable victims in their care were mercilessly targeted by the gangs. With respect to the grooming scandal in Rotherham alone, a total of 27 senior council managers and councillors investigators wished to interview either failed to respond or declined requests. Six further senior figures, including 3 former chief executives, also declined to be interviewed but agreed to respond to written questions. After 6 'independent' inquiries, it was concluded that: no individual senior managers and social workers could be brought to account.
Schools, teachers and teaching unions
Schools and teachers were often aware of dodgy Muslim men lingering outside schools and saw signs of child sexual exploitation, yet they did not raise sufficient concerns with social services, the police or parents. Left-wing teachers' unions failed to publicize the dangers of grooming gangs at a national level.
Police, specialist crime agencies and criminal justice system
They insufficiently understood how victims were affected, many traumatized, by prolonged grooming abuse. Concerns and evidence presented by families and friends of victims were too readily dismissed and witnesses were not adequately protected. Police pressurized the media not to broadcast documentaries, being more concerned to avoid provoking Muslim riots than to protect children. Most shocking, it is likely that some officers were themselves involved in the abuse of children. The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) launched a warning film My Dangerous Loverboy in 2010 but this was certainly not shown widely. Judges have given lighter sentences to devout Muslim rapists, excusing the men's behaviour if they have had a strict Islamic upbringing.
Goverment, governmental agencies and politicians
They chose to prioritize other issues (for example, online grooming) involving children and, trying to avoid political controversy, dragged their feet in admitting that Muslim men were abusing non-Muslim girls. A report by the Children's Commissioner in 2012 obfuscated matters and a parliamentary inquiry report in 2013 seemed to try and rewrite the history of failure to tackle grooming gangs. Some local politicians did voice condemnation of the gangs, but many others remained silent or were even complicit in the cover-up.
Children's charities and academics
Barnardo's started a project in 1995 with £⅔ million of public funding to help schoolgirls lured into prostitution. Despite their long experience, Barnardo's was remarkably coy, even evasive, about publicizing the facts associated with grooming gangs, choosing generic models of abuse instead of identifying the ethnicity of the perpetrators. (Coincidentally, Javed Khan, Barnardo's Chief Executive is a Muslim himself.) Regarding this, other children's charities were also remiss. So-called academic 'experts' eschewed offender profiling and shied away from investigating what it is about Islamic doctrine and Muslim culture that could drive grooming gang activity.
What motivates the grooming gangs?: Blaming generic criminality or 'Asian culture' will not wash. To ignore the specificity of the groomers' and victims' ethnicities and wrongly besmirch non-Muslim Asians would be highly irresponsible. Islam orthodoxy itself must be put under the spotlight. What Islamic beliefs and values (unchanged since the 7th century) may have shaped the lens through which the perpetrators view women generally, and in particular, kafir girls below the age of consent? We suggest:
Islamic doctrine is supremacist and consistently views non-Muslims with contempt, for example, being "the worst of creatures" and destined to "dwell forever in hell" (Quran 98:6). Islam holds women to be inferior to men in various ways and divinely ordains domestic violence. Quran 2:223 likens women to fields, to be ploughed and sown "when or how ye will".
The Quran lays down strictures on how Muslim females should dress and behave. Those who obey the Islamic rules are virtuous; other non-Muslim (kafir) females are deemed immodest or lewd. For example, Quran 33:59 actually instructs Muslim men to make their women and girls cover up to avoid molestation.
The Quran unambiguously legalizes marriage and hence sex with little girls who have not yet reached sexual maturity. Quran 65:4 even spells out the rules for divorcing a girl who has not yet begun to menstruate.
Islam accepts the morality and legality of slavery, as taken for granted in the Quran. It not only permits Muslim men to rape their slaves (Quran 4:24), but forgives them if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute (Quran 24:33).
Why do Muslim women - Muslimas - wear hijabs, niqabs, burqas, and so on? As a (mostly revolting) fashion statement of their choice? As an expression of religious piety? As an indication of modesty? Well, Islam clearly spells out why they must wear these garments:
Quran 33:59: "Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized and not be molested. Allah is ever forgiving and merciful."
Daniel Greenfield neatly summarized the meaning thus: "It's not about modesty. It's not about religion. It's about putting a 'Do Not Rape' sign on Muslim women. And putting a 'Free to Molest' sign on non-Muslim women." Women who don't comply with this Quaranic instruction are not 'decent' and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men, emulating how Muhammad and his marauding gang treated non-Muslim slave girls. The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants across Europe in recent years is a direct result of this warped mentality. In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator. The fact of an assault proves the guilt of the woman or girl who was assaulted. Alluding to gang rapes by Muslim men, Australia's Grand Mufti opined: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."
Muslimas are bullied into covering up by threats from Muslim men of violent beating, disfigurement by acid thrown in the face, other forms of maiming, or even death. Regardless of whether some of the menfolk in their own family take a more enlightened view, there are plenty of other strident Muslims around who will ensure that Islamic orthodoxy usually prevails. A 2003 French survey found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamists. The intimidation is ubiquitous and leaves Muslim women who try to rebel being labelled as 'whores' and treated as outcasts. As well as obvious discomfort and restricted vision, the habitual wearing of Muslima garb has been proven to lead to serious health problems such as chronic vitamin D deficiency.
Of course, it is not cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic doctrine and bigotry which are woven into it. A Muslima who wears Islamic garb is holding up a sign which points at non-Muslim women, saying "harass them, not me" to Muslim men. It is effectively passive-aggressive complicity in the manifestation of Islamic supremacism over non-Muslims and in a blatant refusal to integrate with the host society. An advanced, educated and just civilization cannot permit a form of women's clothing to become a licence for Muslim men to molest non-Muslim women who don't comply with Sharia law. Prohibiting the wearing of Muslima garb in public would uphold the following rights:
the right of women to choose their own dress
the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority
the right of all citizens to look one another in the face
Can you imagine the liberal and media furore if a white supremacist group - say, the Klu Klux Klan - behaved in an analogous manner, insisting that its women covered up by wearing white Klan cloaks and hoods, so that Klan men would avoid raping them and molest non-white women instead?
Many people are confused about what to call the extremist group which has proclaimed itself to be an Islamic state and worldwide caliphate - IS (Islamic State), ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), or Daesh? We are now urged to use Daesh by the UK government, Presidents Obama and Hollande, and other pro-Muslim politicians such as the SNP's Alex Salmond. Arabs do use the word Daesh because it is merely the exact Arabic equivalent to the English acronym ISIS, or more accurately, ISIL. It does not mean anything else in Arabic and, as with all acronyms, its pronunciation is arbitrary. So why use this Arabic acronym which just means the same as ISIS and ISIL, and which we can't pronounce unambiguously? We contend that it is a dangerous distraction from the primary issue of Islamic terrorism, for the following reasons:
Proponents of the term Daesh claim it insults Islamic State because Daesh sounds like the Arabic word "dais", meaning something that crushes or tramples. However, this assertion is very flimsy because Daesh can legitimately be pronounced in several different ways.
Even if Daesh can sound like an insult in Arabic, is it not much more important to communicate clearly with the UK public using meaningful terminology in English rather than indulging in a futile foreign gesture which falls on the deaf ears of fanatics?
As Daesh does not contain the word 'Islam', it appeals to supine politicians who hide behind the mantra that the "Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam". Thus they can avoid an outcry from irascible Muslims with a victimhood complex. But viewing Daesh in isolation is extremely foolhardy as there is obviously a global jihadist insurgency which existed before, and far beyond, the Islamic State. For example, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram have wreaked Islamic terror elsewhere for many years.
There is an amusing, but valid, analogy between the Daesh situation and the evil Voldemort character in J K Rowling’s Harry Potter books. There, people are so terrified of Voldemort's dastardly power that they cannot bring themselves to call him by name, instead referring to him as 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named'. Senior figures and the authorities - especially the Ministry of Magic - vehemently deny his return or even his very existence. Of course, this only heightens the public's dread and mass hysteria ensues, bolstering the myth of Voldemort’s invincibility.
Ponder how ridiculous it would have been for the British to refer to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Irish Gaelic, as Óglaigh na hÉireann.
The following videos provide graphic evidence of the difficulty of reconciling the Western and Islamic cultures. They are only illustrative examples from the mass of evidence which is available but have been chosen because their veracity has been established or their provenance is reliable. Those who wish to explore the culture clash in more detail are encouraged to read the seminal book Why the West is Best by Ibn Warraq, a Muslim apostate’s defense of liberal democracy.
The Three Stages of Jihad: A superb and accurate description of the stealth, defensive and offensive stages of Islamic jihad. An essential key to understanding Islamic behaviour worldwide.
With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations is a skillfully produced, hard-hitting video with extensive real footage about the European migrant crisis and the naive attitute of many Europeans towards Islam and hijra.
The birthrate of Muslims is so relatively high that the indigenous peoples of Europe will become minorities in their own countries within a few decades. This disturbing video details the demographic conquest of Europe and North America by Islamic immigration.
Undercover Mosque and Undercover Mosque: The Return are classic documentary programmes aired in 2007 and 2008 as part of the Channel 4 television series Dispatches. Undercover filming at Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham and London Central Mosque is of particular interest. The preaching of prejudice, bigotry, intolerance and hatred towards non-Muslims is evident throughout, backed by references to the Quran. Extremist expectations of replacing multi-faith democracy and our laws with an Islamic theocracy and sharia are also to be heard. [The Islamic State has since proclaimed its worldwide caliphate, in June 2014.]
In the UK, fanatical Muslims assert blatantly in public the supposed supremacy of Islam, chanting "sharia for UK", "allahu akbar" and insisting "we are not going to integrate".
From a conference held in May 2013 in Norway, Fahad Qureshi checks with his audience what is normal for a Muslim to believe in. The interpretation of the video is absolutely straightforward.
The hate speech of the quran and hadiths, encouraging murder and terrorism, is dramatically highlighted by simply substituting words referring to non-Muslims with the word 'Muslims'.
A compilation of clips of anti-kafir hatred and intolerance from round the world. Much of the bile comes from Islamic "leaders", clearly showing how Islam cannot coexist with basic Western values such as liberty, democracy, free speech, equal rights, and critical thinking. The involvement of children in such extremism is particularly distasteful.
For around 25 years, (mainly Pakistani) Muslim gangs in the UK have groomed and raped at least scores of thousands of, even up to a million, underage non-Muslim girls. This overview reveals the staggering scale of these crimes and the cover-up by the authorities.
Circumcision - female genital mutilation (FGM) - is forced on a young girl with the full encouragement of her family. Warning: this video is particularly distressing.
An imam of Brest, France, preaches in September 2015 to a group of primary-age children that "music is the Devil's language". He says that people who listen to music "will be swallowed up by the Earth" and "Allah will transform them into apes and pigs". In a country of vast musical heritage, this man indoctrinates impressionable children that music and musical instruments are haram, that is, forbidden by Allah.
A very young Arab boy is shown going through initiation rites, slaughtering his toy lamb with a knife while his mother spills make-believe blood and other mothers chant 'Allahu Akbar' as they take photographs.
A Palestinian-Jordanian preschool girl called Rahf holds a large knife and declares: "I want to stab a Jew". Her father, a teacher in a Jordanian refugee camp, provides encouragement. Further, there is a picture of a little boy - presumably his son - holding a large knife and smiling at the camera.
A Palestinian mother whose child has been treated for his heart complaint in an Israeli hospital, and who has experienced non-discriminatory kindness from Jews, says "life isn't precious" smilingly and that she would be happy for her son to become a suicide-bombing shahid.
On March 19 2015, a peddler at a shrine in central Kabul, Afghanistan, falsely accused a 27-year-old Muslim woman, Farkhunda Malikzada, of burning a Quran. As a result of this, a frenzied crowd of (non-IS) Muslims brutally attacked her as several police officers watched. After punching, kicking and beating her with wooden planks, the lynch mob threw her from a roof, ran over her with a car and crushed her with a block of concrete. They then set her body alight on the bank of the Kabul River. Her family now live in isolation and fear. Warning: this video is particularly distressing.
A huge mob of Turkish rioters loot and destroy a Kurdish-owned bookstore. With footage from both inside and outside the building, the video was shot on 8 September 2015 in the central Turkish province of Kirsehir.
Apostates from Islam
Saudi-born woman Rana Ahmad relates why she renounced her stifling and ignorant Sunni Muslim upbringing, fleeing Saudi Arabia for fear of execution as she became an atheist. Her enthusiasm for discovering free will and modern knowledge is impressive.
Islamophobia versus Freedomophobia: An ex-Muslim calmly and logically explains how "Islam silences us in the East by threatening some of us, arresting some, persecuting others, and killing apostates, but in the West Islam is trying to silence us using this weird term: Islamophobia".
London-born of Pakistani descent, Anjem Choudary has many links to Islamic extremists and utterly despises and abuses the country which nurtured him. Over two decades he persistently taunted the British public and authorities with his hard-line Islamic activism, using his legal training to sail as close to the wind of terrorism as possible without immediate arrest. However, he was finally convicted of inciting support for the Islamic State and he has been exposed as a hypocrite by former student friends who knew him as a "loser" - a drunken, womanising buffoon.
Mehdi Hasan, political journalist, broadcaster and author, has often appeared on BBC's Question Time programme, striving to appear as the voice of intelligent, moderate Islam. However, when addressing Muslim audiences, his hypocrisy and bigotry become evident.
A snarling and threatening speech made in London in support of Palestinians by the former Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Dr Shahrar Ali. Contrasts with his apparently ever-so-reasonable advocacy of Green issues. Ali was the first black and minority ethnic deputy of a parliamentary party in the history of the UK. His 2004 PhD thesis was entitled: Making as if to stand behind one's words: a theory of intentional deception and lying.
Horrific abuse of cattle exported from Australia to Gaza. This barbarism is done in the name of Islam for the Eid al-Adha 'festival of sacrifice'. Warning: this video is particularly distressing.
Some evidence of concern about Islam, to help inform discussion:
At least 40% of the Islamic world's population cannot read or write, compared to the global illiteracy rate of 14%. Women constitute two-thirds of illiterate adult Muslims.
All Muslims have to recite the Quran in Arabic as it is only Allah’s word when it is transmitted in Arabic. But of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims only around 420 million at most - just over 26% - are Arabic speakers. The proportion able to read and understand the Quran for themselves is reduced further by the poor literacy rates in Muslim countries and the additional difficulty of reading the Quran's classical Arabic as opposed to modern Arabic. Estimating that modern Arabic speakers can read only 40% of the Quran, this leads us to reckon that roughly 90% of the recitation of the Quran is done simply from rote memory, without a proper understanding of the meaning of the words being pronounced. This gives the mullahs and imams who interpret the Quran immense power over Muslims.
Sharia law commands all Muslims to pray five times daily, and the obligatory Fatiha - the Quran's 'Opening' - is uttered up to 17 times a day, in Arabic. The last two verses call on Allah to show Muslims "the straight path" of Islam, and "Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray". Traditional Islamic understanding is that these paths refer to the Jews and Christians respectively. So, each day, there are up to 27 billion utterances worldwide that Jews deserve the wrath of Allah.
Muslims are breeding at a much higher rate than the populations of developed countries. In 1970, the population of the developed world was double that of the Islamic world, representing 30% and 15% of the global population respectively. By 2015, the developed world's share had slumped to 17% and the Islamic world's share had jumped ahead, to 23%. Of all population growth in Europe since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration. Even without further immigration, it is calculated that by 2057, France, Austria, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Holland will all have Muslim majorities. Projections of Muslim population growth suggest that there will be somewhere between 11.6 and 25.2 million Muslims in the UK by 2051. Already 15% of London's population is Muslim, and London has a Muslim mayor with numerous connections to Islamic extremists.
Unfortunately, consanguinity data has scientifically proven that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred. Marriage between first cousins is allowed by the Quran (4:23) and by the example of Muhammad's marriage to his cousin Zaynab. Islamic authoritarianism and strong family allegiances are also factors in inbreeding. The impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society are severe. An estimated 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, and British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population. Hence Muslims are responsible for approximately 40% of the cases of genetic disorder found in the UK. Scaling up from an old cost estimate, to take account for inflation and the increased Muslim population, indicates that Muslim inbreeding is costing the NHS and social services roughly £1⅛ billion a year.
Regarding science and innovation, the Islamic world has nearly 25% of the world's population, but musters only 2.4% of its research expenditure, 1.6% of its patents and 6% of its scientific publications.
Less than 10% of Islamic states are considered free by Western standards of political rights and civil liberties. Intolerance and discrimination towards women, homosexuals and other minorities is endemic throughout almost the entire bloc. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is "the collective voice of the Muslim world", comprising 56 Islamic member states plus the Palestinian Authority; it has permanent delegations to the UN and the EU. However the OIC defines human rights entirely by Islamic sharia law, rejects all other religions, and has already made much headway with its plan to introduce sharia worldwide by suppressing criticism of Islam via the 'islamophobia' contrivance. The OIC is thus effectively a global proto-caliphate for the umma.
Israel is the only free democracy in the Middle East. Yet, since the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was launched in 2006 it has condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined, with most of the world's worst violators given a free pass, if not a seat on the council itself. It is no coincidence that the Islamic states of the OIC form the largest voting bloc at the UN and they provide 32% of the members of the UNHRC. Also, Saudi Arabia - which beheads more people than the Islamic State - chairs a key UNHRC panel that selects top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide.
It is a myth that only the tiny minority of violent Muslim extremists have radical views. Numerous opinion polls conducted in the UK and worldwide show that radical opinions - like the 30-40% support for supplanting the UK's laws with sharia - are widespread and held by significant proportions of the whole Muslim population. Note that research finds that only 10% of a group need be zealots to win over the entire group with their views.
Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon within Western European Muslim communities. 75% think there is only one interpretation of the Quran possible to which every Muslim should adhere and 65% say that their religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. (The corresponding figures for Christians are 17% and 12%.)
Of the 45 most dangerous terrorist groups in the world, 80% are Islamic. Over 90% of terrorist attacks worldwide are perpetrated by terrorists who take their guidance from Islam.
To gain some perspective on the scale of the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists:
Each day Islamic jihadists kill more people than the Ku Klux Klan lynched over the last 70 years.
The political act of jihad - the genocide of non-Muslims by Muslims - has been responsible for between 270 and 669 million deaths in total worldwide, according to rough estimates.
Muslims commit 91% of so-called 'honour' killings worldwide.
The greatest child protection scandal of our time: Since the mid-1980s, 100,000 plus underage non-Muslim girls have been lured and raped by Muslim grooming gangs in dozens of towns and cities across England. See full article above.
Sharia law specifies that female circumcision - female genital mutilation (FGM) - is "obligatory", regardless of some apologists who try to downplay its significance to Muslim women. The horrific procedure is especially prevalent in Egypt where 96% of ever-married women have endured it. Around 170,000 women living in England and Wales have undergone FGM and 63,000 girls are at risk of it, with only a tiny number protected. Hospitals across the UK deal with at least 15 new cases of FGM every day. Overall a case of FGM is either discovered or treated in England every hour. Although illegal in Britain since 1985, there has not been a single conviction for FGM. Just who is being protected? Astonishingly, West Midlands Police took the view that: "Educating and safeguarding vulnerable girls is the focus. Prosecuting/jailing parents [who allow FGM] unlikely to benefit child."
Islam has exploited slavery on a far greater scale, for longer (even in pockets today), and with greater cruelty, than any other group in history. Slavery is a given within Islamic ideology, being unrestrained by sharia and nowhere condemned by the Quran and Sunna. Muhammad himself traded and kept slaves, having sex with some (Quran 33:50). Figures to compare:
Muslim slave trade
Atlantic slave trade
11 million (95% to South and Central America)
Dying on way to market
2/3 were women
2/3 were men
Mostly for sex and military
Almost all for agriculture
Castration of males
Occasionally as punishment
Children of slaves
Mostly killed at birth
Millions of descendants to this day
Muslims also enslaved 1¼ million Europeans between 1500 and 1800, raiding as far as Britain, Ireland and Iceland. Even after Britain and Europe outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and 1815 respectively, Muslims took a further 2 million African slaves.
There is no archaeological evidence that a city called Mecca existed in the area where Muhammad is supposed to have lived. Traces of Mecca are only found more than a century after the supposed time of the prophet. Also, the earliest excavated mosques are not oriented towards Mecca, but to somewhere south of Palestine. The Quran first commanded Muslims to pray towards Jerusalem, but when Muhammad started to despise the Jews, he changed the direction to Mecca (Quran 2:142).
Muslims believe that the Quran comprises Allah's perfect and eternal words, transmitted to Muhammad via an angel. However, the Quran is riddled with errors, contradictions, obscurities, anachronisms and absurdities, occurring in diverse areas such as linguistics, history, cosmology, geology, biology and zoology. Its scientific flaws are especially evident, for example: claiming that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe; ignoring the female contribution to the development of the human embryo and stating that sperm comes from between the rib and the backbone; and not understanding that mountains are signs of geological instability. The Quran contains a significant number of verses plagiarized from Christian, Jewish and other sources, often inaccurately or wrongly interpreted. There are also several "just-in-time revelations" from Allah which all too conveniently absolved Muhammad of misconduct or hypocrisy. Far from being an immaculate divine revelation, the evidence strongly indicates that the Quran is a deeply flawed man-made document. The foundation of Islam is false and substantially second-hand.
Rotherham’s population is 1/250th of the UK population and yielded 1,400 known victims of grooming. Scaling up to the whole of the UK, and factoring in Rotherham’s Muslim population relative to the whole UK (3.7% and 6.3% respectively), leads us to estimate that the total number of victims nationwide is: 250 × 1400 × 6.3 ÷ 3.7 = 600,000.↩