Tel-Chai Nation

Holy shlit. Dad claims his 13-year-old daughter was r*ped by Pakistani men and when he called the police they told him he needs to let it go, otherwise he will get arrested for being racist.pic.twitter.com/YZ2WLXIVpd

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 9, 2025

According to the interview here related to the Rotherham rape scandal, a father wasn't even allowed to defend his daughter from Muslim rapists who took her as a sex slave, and when authorities practically allow this, selectively or otherwise, what does that say about each and every official who takes part in a travesty this scale? Andrew McCarthy's addressed the issue too, explaining perfectly what's gone wrong, and how UK authorities clearly knew what was going on, and worst of all, facilitated it. And:

Back in that 2014 column, written when ISIS was conquering territory the size of Britain and reveling in the spoils, I quoted one of the jihadists who was gleefully anticipating “slave market day.” The Koran, he insisted, authorizes Muslims to sexually exploit “the (captives) whom their right hands possess.”

He was right. Jihadists usually are when they refer to scripture. You can argue that the Islam their well-schooled superiors drill into them is a literalist, selective mining of scripture — passages that more progressive, “moderate” interpretations of Islam contextualize, reinterpret, or regard as applicable only to a bygone time. Perhaps . . . but you can’t credibly argue that the jihadists are making it up. It’s in there.

I learned that the hard way in the early Nineties. I wanted to believe that our government was right that the notorious defendant I was prosecuting, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, was a raving maniac, but when I dove into his background — as prosecutors have to do because “He’s a raving maniac” is not a very persuasive courtroom argument — I learned that he was renowned in his milieu as a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from Al-Azhar University, which for a millennium has been the seat of Sunni Muslim scholarship. And when he purported to draw on scripture, the scripture bore him out. That’s why, even though he was physically unable to carry out actions useful to a jihad, he nevertheless exercised profound influence and commanded authority over jihadists.

Doctrine matters to our enemies. Which is why it should matter to us.

Our ISIS jihadist quoted above was referring to sura (or chapter) four, verses 23–24. You may recall that last week, when I discussed the post-Obama woke FBI’s willful blindness to fundamentalist Islam, I recommended The Holy Quran: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, a widely distributed version of Islam’s highest scriptural source produced by the Saudi regime (that font of Wahhabism deemed by Sunnis to be the custodian of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s most revered sites).

This translation informs us that, in sura 4:23, Allah outlines the various categories of women (mothers, daughters, sisters, etc.) with whom Muslim men are forbidden to have sexual relations. Sura 4:24 then states: “Also (prohibited are) women already married except those whom your right hands possess” (emphasis added). A footnote helpfully explains “Whom your right hands possess: i.e., captives” (italics in original). Sura 4:24 extends to all Muslim men a license granted to jihad warriors in sura 33:50:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers, and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee. [Emphasis added.]

For many years, I have alluded in these pages to Reliance of the Traveller, the classic sharia manual endorsed by Al-Azhar University scholars and the Muslim Brotherhood’s think tank (the International Institute of Islamic Thought). The manual combines the Koran with the Hadith (collections of the prophet Mohammed’s teachings and actions) and Sunnah (Islamic tradition, drawing on the model of the prophet’s life) to explicate Islamic law. (See this 2012 essay, for example, in which I catalogued a number of sharia tenets outlined in the manual.) According to Reliance, “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s marriage is immediately annulled.”

[...] Britain’s Labour government is adamantly opposed to an investigation of the “grooming gangs” because its officials — very much including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, formerly the director of public prosecutions — have known what is happening on a rampant scale. It was impossible not to know. It wasn’t a well-covered story, but it also wasn’t an uncovered story.

It’s also inconceivable that officials did not know why the rape jihad was happening. Sharia supremacist icons, such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, were braying that Islam would “conquer Europe, conquer America.” Sharia courts have been up and running in England for over 40 years — because the British government insisted that its liberal legal tradition could seamlessly meld with Islamic law, even as Muslims demanded to conduct their affairs under Islamic law in lieu of British law. This wasn’t pluralism; it was hostility. Instead of confronting the hostile ideology, Britain embraced it as culturally compatible — risibly branding jihadist terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity,” denying that there were any such things as no-go zones, and sweeping under the rug the rape jihad and the conquest strategy’s other doctrinally rooted acts of menacing.

Everything must be done to ensure the scandal won't be obscured, and Starmer has a lot of explaining to do as well. British officials might even want to let know what they think of the most horrific verses in the Koran that McCarthy highlighted as well.

Update: Hayden Daniel warns that a scandal like this could also happen in the USA, because of the leftist-influenced justice system.

Labels: communications, dhimmitude, islam, jihad, londonistan, misogyny, Moonbattery, political corruption, racism, sexual violence, terrorism