Huddersfield rape gang get a total of 220 years

[Jason]

We're always going to be dragged back to a discussion focused on blaming a religion for the action of people with appalling values - and pointing this out will get you labelled an apologist for Islam.

No doubt the men involved did have appalling values, nor are they typical muslims, but it still seems likely to me that their version of Islam helped them to rationalise their actions...

How?

I think when it comes to appalling stuff like this citing a religion as a cause is about as useful and illuminating as citing hair colour or salad dressing preferences. Don't get me wrong, I think Islam is a motherload of wrong, to paraphrase Sam Harris, but the men who did these terrible things did them in spite of their religion rather than because of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_P ... xual_abuse

[JimC]

I will beg to differ here. Without going over the top, Islam has been used by ISIS as a justification for raping and enslaving non-muslim women. Sure, you have to start with nasty men, but it is easy for them to make use of some writings and traditions from Islam to go down that path, so in that sense, their misogynistic religion is a contributing factor to their actions.

[Brian Peacock]

I will beg to differ here. Without going over the top, Islam has been used by ISIS as a justification for raping and enslaving non-muslim women. Sure, you have to start with nasty men, but it is easy for them to make use of some writings and traditions from Islam to go down that path, so in that sense, their misogynistic religion is a contributing factor to their actions.

I know that but I haven't seen anything to suggest that these men were in ISIS or that they undertook this action for religious reasons or relied on a religious justification or defence in court, and nobody is saying they should be cut some slack because of their religious preferences or that they're being treated unduly harshly on account of their religion (I say 'nobody', but I bet there's some crackpots out there!). Also, given that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain are not members of or facilitators for groups involved in the systematic abuse of vulnerable minors, I don't know how useful it is to keep citing a fragmented and nebulous religious tradition as a cause for this disgusting behaviour. To me, this case speaks more about class than religion - particular as reports and complaints from young girls and boys over a number of years were not taken seriously by the authorities because, unfortunately, they were seen as coming from 'white trash' or 'little sluts', and therefore unreliable complainants or witnesses, who were pointing the finger at 'respectable' family men and members of the community.

[JimC]

I'm not pushing the religious aspect as a main cause, but simply something that made the actions just a little easier.

[Hermit]

We're always going to be dragged back to a discussion focused on blaming a religion for the action of people with appalling values - and pointing this out will get you labelled an apologist for Islam.

No doubt the men involved did have appalling values, nor are they typical muslims, but it still seems likely to me that their version of Islam helped them to rationalise their actions...

Which raises a few questions: Why does Islam only help a few Muslims to rationalise their horrid actions rather than the vast majority or even all? In light of such selectivity, can we even talk of Islam as an agent (or cause, if you like) of such abhorrent behaviour?

The same can be asked about Christianity. Is the Bible responsible for the likes of Fred Phelps and his Southern Baptist followers? For those Christians who bash, sometimes kill, homosexuals? For the parents who let their children die rather than taking them to a doctor on the grounds that "God will provide"?

ETA: I wrote this before getting around to read the above posts.

[pErvinalia]

Leftist Muzzie-loving scumbags! Amiright, Cunt?

[Hermit]

I'm not pushing the religious aspect as a main cause, but simply something that made the actions just a little easier.

You mean, like first person shoot 'em up games made it easier for some people to become mass murderers and pornography made it easier for some to become rapists, hebephiles and paedophiles?

[Rum]

Self justification for bad behaviour and what would normally be transgressive seems to be the key. It can be political conviction, religious conviction, the dehumanisation of the victims (a big factor in the rape gang example I suspect), a sense of moral superiority or any number of factors which allow people to overcome their social instincts of restraint. Such has it ever been for us savages.

[JimC]

So, would anybody like to claim that Islam had absolutely zero connection with the actions of these men?

[Hermit]

So, would anybody like to claim that Islam had absolutely zero connection with the actions of these men?

No, not really. I am just sceptical about its agency. Look at it this way: Christians have not become a lot more humane over the centuries because the Bible has changed. Agency needs to be found elsewhere. I suggest you look at education and material comfort (or the lack thereof).

[Rum]

So, would anybody like to claim that Islam had absolutely zero connection with the actions of these men?

Given this appeared after my last post I’m assuming you think that is what I was attempting to do.

Not so. I’m just trying to avoid as well as highlight the hijacking of such issues by racists, the far right and the like who woukd turn it into a divisive issue which turns fellow citizens on each other. The issue of race and religion was not, from what I have read, an issue of any kind in the trial. Quite right too.

If men justify bad behaviour because they think their religion thinks it is ok that is another matter and one that civil society needs to address.

[Alan B]

I think this is a cultural problem aided and abetted by ignorance of what their Holy Book says about female dress codes.
The Koran states that a woman (of pubescent age?) shall dress modestly by 'covering her bosoms' and 'lengthening her dress' (it doesn't say by how much). In some cultures, such as those of the above convicted, if a woman dresses or is perceived to behave contrary to those diktats, then she is considered to be a 'loose woman' and 'fair game' for sexual exploitation. Add to that the male sexual repression imposed by their culture...

See Queen Rania of Jordan for more info.

It is clear from the above verses that the DRESS CODE for the Muslim women according to the Quran is righteousness and modesty. God knows that this modesty will be understood differently in different communities and that is why He left it open to us to decide for ourselves. Decide, after righteousness what is modesty. Modesty for a woman who lives in New York may not be accepted by a woman who lives in Cairo Egypt. Modesty of a woman who lives in Cairo, Egypt may not be accepted by a woman who lives in Saudi Arabia.
Modesty of a woman who lives in Jidda in Saudi Arabia may not be accepted by a woman who lives in a desert oasis in the same country. This difference in the way we perceive modesty is well known to God, He created us, and He put NO hardship on us in this great religion. He left it to us to decide what modesty would be. For any person, knowledgeable or not to draw a line and make conclusion for God about the definition of modesty is to admit that he/she knows better than God.
God left it open for us and no-one has the authority to restrict it, it has to stay open.
The word "zeenatahunna" in this verse refers to the woman's body parts (beauty) that can be exaggerated by the movement of the body while walking and not to the artificial ornaments and decorations as some people interpret it or translate it. At the end of the verse, God told the women not to strike with their feet to show their "zeenatahunna." Striking the feet while walking can emphasize , exaggerate or shake certain parts of the body that do not need to be emphasized. It is important to remember that striking the feet while walking does not have this effect on the head, hair or face, they are not part of what God calls in this verse the hidden zeena.
Accepting orders from anybody but God, means idol-worship. That is how serious the matter of Hijab/khimar is. Women who wear Hijab because of tradition or because they like it for personal reasons commit no sin, as long as they know that it is not part of this perfect religion. Those who are wearing it because they think God ordered it are committing Idol-worship, as God did not order it, the scholars did. These women have found for themselves another god than the One who revealed the Quran, complete, perfect and FULLY detailed to tell them they have to cover their heads to be Muslims

My Bold & underline.
It would appear that bouncing up and down to exaggerate one's, er, titular advantage was quite common until this God bloke came along.

[Scot Dutchy]

You forget one thing. The difference between islam women and everyone else. You are comparing chalk and cheese.
These non muslim girls are not worth anything in islam. The dress code applies to muslim women.
Just read the koran. For these muslim men these girls were no better than slaves. The koran says enough how you can treat them.

[Brian Peacock]

So, would anybody like to claim that Islam had absolutely zero connection with the actions of these men?

I wouldn't. No more than I would claim things like politics, upbringing, social pressure, class or race had absolutely zero connection with the action of these men. If it turns out that their religious preferences and/or an interpretation of their faith acted as a motive force to this action then I might change my mind - but even then I'd find it difficult to lay the blame at the door of Islam per se let alone at the door of 'every single Muslim in Britain' as the raggedy-right have asserted.

[Scot Dutchy]

Read the koran Brian.