In Britain there have been 17 recent prosecutions of gangs of Muslim rapists and child molesters involved in the “on-street grooming” for sex of victims as young as 11 in several towns and cities in northern England.  In the most recent case, members of a gang of Muslims from Derby were convicted of rape, false imprisonment, sexual assault, sexual molestation of children, and perverting the course of justice.  The judge told ringleader Abid Mohammed Saddique, “Your crimes can only be described as evil,” and described him as “evil, manipulative and controlling” and, “in the truest sense, a sexual predator.”  Fifty of the 56 men convicted in the various cases were Muslims.  The religious link is clear, but no one is willing to say so.

Instead, such criminals tend to be described by the government and in the British media as “Asians.”  In bureaucratic, politically correct, British English, Asian means Caucasians with brown faces from the Indian subcontinent, who have come, or whose ancestors came from, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka.  This pseudo­racial term is used both to avoid saying that the malefactors are Muslims and also dishonestly to imply that their evil acts are a mere byproduct of discrimination by the indigenous majority against those of a different hue.  But a large proportion of Britain’s Asians are Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Parsee, and Indian Christian, and none of these have formed gangs that commit horrendous sexual assaults.  Indeed, the latter are altogether more law abiding and better citizens than the original Anglo-Celtic population.  Muslims convicted of serious crimes (not including terrorism) are heavily overrepresented in Britain’s prison population, whereas very few Sikhs and Hindus are to be found there.  It is not about brownitude; it is about Islam.

The nearest anyone has come to admitting this is when a senior British politician, Jack Straw, a member of Parliament representing a constituency with a large Muslim minority, said on television that there is in Britain “a specific problem which involves Pakistani-heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls,” viewing them as “easy meat” for sexual abuse.  The politically correct were horrified and denounced him, but even Straw did not dare to use the forbidden M-word.  Given that Pakistan is an explicitly Muslim state, specifically created by bigoted Muslims unwilling to live in a secular India because it had a non-Muslim majority, what meaning other than Muslim can “Pakistani-heritage” have?  Why hide behind a euphemism?

Scandinavia and the Netherlands have numerous Muslim rapists who are by origin or ancestry Turks, Kurds, or Moroccans, none of whom are “Pakistani-heritage.”  In Australia there have been “racially motivated” gang rapes by Muslim Lebanese.  No Christian Lebanese have been involved.  One Muslim religious leader, Sheik Faiz Mohamad, even exonerated the rapists and claimed that the unveiled Australian victims were the ones at fault.  He commented, “a victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world.  Why?  No one to blame but herself.  She displayed her beauty to the entire world . . . She degraded herself by being an object of sexual desire.”  These rapes are linked to religion, not ethnicity.  But few will say so.

The unwillingness to speak out on this matter has led to yet more sex crimes, because it is seen as “insensitive” and discriminatory to single out Muslims for criticism, surveillance, or investigation.  The reluctance of the press to report and the police to pursue has until now given the Muslims something close to immunity.  Nine Muslims in Rochdale have recently been arrested on suspicion of sexual acts with children, causing or inciting child prostitution, and paying for the sexual services of a child, and charges of rape may follow.  The existence of such activities had been known since 2008, and the victims included young girls from a children’s home who were drugged and used as sexual toys by Muslim taxi drivers.  An earlier police investigation collapsed, and no charges were brought against the Muslims because the local police were “crippled by fears of racial insensitivity.”  Helpless young girls without families were abused by Muslim men for a further two years because the police were too terrified of Britain’s p.c. elite to intervene vigorously.  What manner of a people are the British authorities who prefer to do nothing when children are defiled, rather than risk being accused of Islamophobia?

We may contrast what is happening with the unrestrained opprobrium directed against the entire Church when Catholic priests were accused of sexually abusing altar boys.  Leftist critics did not hesitate to link the crimes to the Church herself, and such crimes were blamed on the requirement of priestly celibacy, a celibacy not expected of Protestant ministers or Greek Orthodox priests, or of rabbis, for whom marriage is almost obligatory.  No one raised the obvious objection that a priest desperately tempted to evade his vows of celibacy would probably choose a mature female parishioner or even his housekeeper (there are many Italian and German jokes about housekeepers), not a young boy.  The abuse of boys has nothing to do with the rules of the Church but with the deviant proclivities of particular individuals, proclivities strictly forbidden by the Church.  Nonetheless, the Church was pilloried and unfairly treated as if she were nothing more than a huge conspiracy to hush these matters up to protect her reputation.  But no one has commented on the failure of the members of the tight-knit Muslim communities of Northern England to report to the police the dreadful crimes against young girls, which they knew full well were happening.  No one has pointed out that their primitive solidarity in silence is utterly immoral, for it indicates a lack of any sense of moral responsibility or human sympathy for non-Muslims who are the victims of Muslim aggression.  Most individual Muslims in Britain disapprove of these crimes, but they said nothing before, and have said very little since, the convictions.  Imagine how vociferous they would have been if the crimes had been the other way round.

What underlies these patterns of rape and child molestation is the degraded position of women under Islam.  This is the key to understanding the recent sex crimes; they are but one aspect of a much wider Islamic culture of forced marriages, domestic violence, and honor killings.  For many British Muslims, women are mere family property and are denied any real autonomy.  Yet Britain’s progressive elite refuse to acknowledge that the proportion of Muslim men involved in sexual assaults and domestic violence is far greater than that of men of other religions (or of none).  In either case, only a minority of men are involved, but the size of the minority is bigger for the Muslims.  It is proportion and probability that matter, such that something about the religion renders this particular masculine culture so different from men of other religions.

Ah, but that’s not the “real” Islam, the Muslims will cry.  But who is to decide what is real?  Various verses of the Koran and Hadith (traditions) deal with the right of the faithful to take sexual possession of the womenfolk of those defeated in war, whether the women desire this or not.  Can there be a continuity here with the mass rapes perpetrated by Turkish soldiers against Greek women, including nuns, in Cyprus in 1974, or (much earlier) their rape of Christian Armenian women?  What are we to say of the mass rape of Italian women by the Moroccan Muslim mercenaries who made up much of the French army that took part in the Allied advance through Italy in 1943-45?  There is a memorial in Italy to the victims, who are known as marocchinate (those who were “Moroccaned”).  In every case it was not just rape as sex but rape as triumph over, and deliberate defilement of, both the women and the men who were unable to protect them.  Muslim armies do not have a monopoly on such acts, but it would be difficult to dispute that they are far more likely to commit them than the armies of the West.

In fairness, the victims do not necessarily have to be non-Muslims.  During the war of 1971, when the Indian army liberated Bangladesh from Pakistan, the soldiers of the Pakistani army, who were mainly Punjabis, extensively raped the Bengali women and jeered that the appearance of their children would always remind them of this degradation.  (The Arabs did the same in the Sudan.)  The men of Pakistan are taller, lighter skinned, and of a bigger build than the Bengali men, and they knew that the children of these rapes would be so, too.  You would think that the British Bangladeshis would have applauded Jack Straw’s condemnation of the criminals of “Pakistani heritage” who did to the young girls of Northern England what their fellow Pakistanis had done to the women of Bengal.  But, as usual, “solidarity with our Muslim brothers” prevailed.

As in the case of the altar boys, some British commentators have blamed the Muslim rape in northern England on sexual frustration, a product of the lack of mutual understanding to be found in marriages arranged to suit the convenience of groups of kinsfolk, rather than the personal preferences of the young couple.  Why the emotional fulfillment supposedly missing from these marriages should be sought in coercive encounters with underage girls is not explained.  Arranged marriages are common in many groups in Britain, from Hindus to ultra-orthodox Jews, but none of these other groups are noted for a history of sexual assault.  If all that the young male Muslims seek is casual sexual encounters, why do they not avail themselves of the widely available and inexpensive prostitutes, both local and illegally imported, to be found in Britain’s northern towns?  But no, the Muslim rapes in Britain, as in Bangladesh and Australia, are most likely not a simple product of desire but of the will to power, of a wish to degrade the womenfolk of the “other” as an expression of contempt for not just the victims but the men who proved unable to protect them.  It may even be an expression of religious hatred.

This is not something with which the politically correct are able to cope.