Thursday, January 17, 2013

11-Year-Old British Gang-Rape Victim Branded with "M" (for "Mohammed")

Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, Mohammed Hussain, Zeeshan Ahmed, and Bilal Ahmed spent years victimizing young British girls. They were able to get away with their crimes largely because British police are so worried about being politically correct that they fear addressing the rampant sexual abuse of young British girls by Muslims.

Like it or not, beliefs have consequences. Islam teaches that non-Muslims are the "worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6) and that Allah has no love for unbelievers (Qur'an 3:32). Islam also advocates the sexual exploitation of female captives (Qur'an 4:24) and promotes sex with prepubescent girls (Qur'an 65:4). Put all of this together, and you can expect some victimization of young non-Muslims.

Yet anyone who so much as suggests that these beliefs might lead to problems is immediately labeled a racist, Islamophobic, hate-mongering bigot. In other words, we're being commanded to stick our heads in the sand like the cowardly British police officers who would rather let little girls be raped than risk causing offense.


UNITED KINGDOM--An 11-year-old girl was branded with an 'M' for Mohammed on her buttocks to show she 'belonged' to a member of a child sex ring, the Old Bailey heard today.

The child was repeatedly subjected to 'torture sex' sessions where she was bound and gagged before being raped by members of the gang, a jury was told.

The girl is the youngest victim of nine men who allegedly hung around outside schools and care homes to recruit vulnerable victims they could use and abuse.

The court heard how the girl had been ‘sold’ by an unidentified man to an alleged member of the sex ring, Mohammed Karrar, in mid-2004.

After what she describes as a ‘nicey-nicey honeymoon period’ in which she was lavished with gifts including perfume, she was then plied with hard drugs.

It is alleged that Karrar then pimped her out, raping her in her own living room and inviting others to do the same.

Jurors were told he thought he ‘could get away with doing anything’ because her parents were deaf and had learning difficulties.

Prosecutor Noel Lucas QC told the court: ‘He kept telling her he was going to get back the money he had paid for her.'

The court heard that Mohammed Karrar got the girl, who is now 19, pregnant just after her 12th birthday. He then took her to a backstreet clinic in Reading for an abortion.

‘It was not a proper clinic, but a room at the back of a house,’ Mr Lucas explained. ‘She saw instruments laid out.

'She was given a couple of pills and saw what looked like a large crochet hook, which was used to undertake the procedure.

‘Procuring a miscarriage by these means is not only entirely unlawful, it is also extremely dangerous and can lead to all sorts of medical complications, including death.’

Around the same time, Mohammed Karrar is also said to have branded an ‘M’ for 'Mo' on to her buttocks using one of her hairpins.

‘He told her he wanted people to know she belonged to him,’ said Mr Lucas.

On one occasion when she tried to fight him off, he knocked her out with a metal baseball bat.

The girl was later introduced to Mohammed’s brother Bassam, who allegedly gang raped her after forcing her to watch an episode of Eurotrash.

The pair went on to organise group sex sessions with other men. 'Clients' would be charged up to £500 for regular sex and £600 for bondage sessions, the court heard.

The abuse is said to have continued until August 2009, when the girl was aged 15.

She described her abusers as ‘sick sex monsters’ who were playing ‘mind games’ with her, the court heard. (Continue Reading.)

19 comments:

Richard said...

UK in reaping what you sow.

Good Job.

bob said...

These men need Christ rather than having their sinful natures...

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1John 1:8.

...cultivated and made worse by following Mohammad's example. Their lives would be completely changed for the better by studying and living by the plain meaning of God's word in the Bible...

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2Corinthians 5:17 ('born again')

...which was given so that even the uneducated can understand the history of the universe, the origin of sin and death, and the simple message/good news of salvation through Christ; that being, that we don't have to spend an eternity separated from our Creator while being eaten alive by our own compounding sins (which the Lord of hosts, the Son, warns us about in Isaiah, and which he repeated when he was manifested in the flesh [1Tim 3:16] as Jesus) and being tormented by a burning conscience and eternal regret…

"Where 'their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched [Isaiah 66:24].'" Mark 9:44

…and – particularly referring to those who wilfully distort his word to serve their institutions and the flesh (e.g. Islam) – at the same time being a good example of what NOT to do.

"And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against me. For their worm does not die..." Isaiah 66:24 (being forever trapped by one’s own sinful nature, which cannot but continually go on sinning and accruing more punishment, and hence, “...be punished with everlasting destruction…” 2Thessalonians 1:9)

'Transgressed against me' (the Word. John 1:1-14) primarily means the distortion of his word and which is the cause of his greatest anger.

“And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.” Mark 9:42

If his saving word is distorted, its effectiveness and ability to reach the lost, and to guide and help believers to grow is greatly diminished or made of no effect. This cannot but incur God’s wrath; a God who loved sinners/criminals enough to rescue them by dying on their behalf.

All of this should also be seen in light of the fact that the spiritual realm is the higher reality, since the physical realm is only temporary, as any cemetery can bear witness to.

As difficult as it may be to contemplate, one should consider an eternity trapped by an unchanging sinful nature that can only keep sinning more and therefore forever being without hope of escape; this being the consequence of cold-shouldering Christ’s patient offer of salvation (through Scripture [e.g. John 3:16] and conscience, which bear witness of our sins/crimes [dishonouring God, in whose image we are made]) which is the only means of escaping the just fate of all sinners/criminals

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

bob said...

Inherited Sin:

Man's inherited sinful nature, and its cure, can be understood in the light of:

And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his OWN LIKENESS, after HIS IMAGE... Genesis 5:3

Adam, the first of mankind, was by nature a sinner; so whoever he fathered would necessarily be a sinner also, i.e., in his image, and consequently on down the line to us. As all living things give birth to their own kind, so also sinner begets sinner.

But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousness’s are like filthy rags... Isaiah 64:6

But, on the other hand, if the second Adam, Christ, were to become our father (Isaiah 9:6) then we would necessarily be born (John 3:3, 1Peter 1:23, 1John 5:1) in HIS image.

...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2Corinthians 5:17

And since we have no righteousness of our own, Christ credits some of his own righteousness...

And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:6

...to us, after removing our sins

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel (the Son, Christ, the Lord of hosts).
Then he answered and spoke... saying, "Take away the filthy garments from him." and to him he said, "See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes." Zechariah 3:3, 4

"And their righteousness is from Me." says the Lord. Isaiah 54:17

The reason for this generosity towards us sinners/criminals is explained by John 3:16, and is also described in the following quote:

"Our heart is much too limited to be able to grasp the scope of this great blessing (Ephesians 3:19). For such is its magnitude that if anyone were able to comprehend it... if we had a full understanding of this love of God for men, a joy so great would come to us from this recognition that we would promptly die because of it."
From: What Luther Says, by Ewald M. Plass, page 821

Derrick Abdul-Hakim said...

David,

So you don’t like being called an “Islamophobe”, eh? This post has all the relevant characteristics of work written by those typically accused of Islamophobia – whatever that means: take a real threat to personal liberty – large city/suburban/rural rape/ sexual assault, etc. – and associate the threat with Muslim belief/behavior. Generate as much hysteria about the alleged connection between the two by posting as many news items as possible without detailing the connection. Then insinuate that those who question the connection don’t understand the “true” theological/legal roots of Islam and that they wrongfully throw around terms like “Islamophobe” and “bigot” haphazardly in desperation. You can see it in action nearly on a daily basis over at Pam Geller’s site and Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch.

You say: “Like it or not, beliefs have consequences.” An uncontroversial truth, I say. However, you know as well as I do that in order for beliefs to have intended action-based consequences the beliefs must be causally efficacious and stand in the appropriate causal relation to their effects. Even if the accused men believed non-Muslims on the whole are the “worst of creatures” (Q98:6), or that Allah has no love for non-Muslims (Q3:32), or that sexual intercourse with war captives and prepubescent girls are both morally permissible, the conjunction of those beliefs isn’t enough to provide a causal route sufficient to explain the phenomenon in question. I should also add we’re both assuming the accused men are devout enough to even think it worthy to take the Qur’an as a practical guide for living in the “West.”

Interestingly enough, a sufficient causal connection is precisely what’s missing from your post as well as the cited news item. To wit, we know next to nothing about the religious convictions, religious motives/intentions or biographical details of the accused men. All we know is what they’ve been up to since 2004 – hardly an explanatory tour de force. At best all you’ve done is show the potential correlation between the behavior of men with Muslim-sounding names and rampant youth rape/sexual assault in Britain. Great! Alhamdulilah! But correlations like that can be thought up and multiplied manifold without illustrating an explanatory story about the phenomenon of rape/sexual assault, why they happen where they do, or to whom they happen. The information detailed in the news article is generally no different from what one normally finds in a rape/sexual assault reported article.

It goes without saying that efficacious beliefs, motives/intentions, and biographical data are factors necessary to explain social phenomena like rape and sexual assault. Aside from biographical data, I would argue efficacious beliefs and motives/intentions are also relevant pieces of information necessary to appropriately apply those philosophically valuable normative/practical ethics-based concepts philosophy undergraduates are taught to understand and consistently apply inside and outside the classroom. I guess here at AnsweringMuslims explanatorily relevant factors can be dispensed with along as the goal of generating hysteria is achieved. If that is the case, I’ll take a different route than the one of my fellow co-religionists and won’t call you an “Islamophobe” or any like term. I’ll just question your philosophical competence and wonder in Socratic fashion whether what you purport to teach in your lecture hall is consistently applied outside of it.

Rob said...

Derick Abdul Hakim, the fact that the man put an abbreviation for Mohammed on her buttocks reveals a great deal about what his religious views are. If you think that there is a missing causal connection, then you don't have your logical bifocals on. You totally disregard the fact that the victim was eleven. Hmmm, sounds like a prophet I know who married a girl even younger.

Rob said...

Girl is eleven when branded with abbreviation for "Mohammed ". Prophet married six year old. Consummated at eleven. I can see why abandoning logic at this point would service your purpose. Sounds like causal connection to me.

Arrow said...

Abdul-Hakim,

take a real threat to personal liberty – large city/suburban/rural rape/ sexual assault, etc. – and associate the threat with Muslim belief/behavior

Try to associate a criminal offence with other beliefs. You will find that it is way easier to do so with Islam. Why?

… insinuate that those who question the connection don’t understand the “true” theological/legal roots of Islam

The problem is that you do not provide any evidence to refute the alleged connection. Go ahead and prove that Islam clearly and explicitly condones raping infidel women. David has provided ample evidence to the contrary. Merely stating that you “question the connection” is not enough.

Even if the accused men believed non-Muslims on the whole are the “worst of creatures” (Q98:6), or that Allah has no love for non-Muslims (Q3:32), or that sexual intercourse with war captives and prepubescent girls are both morally permissible, the conjunction of those beliefs isn’t enough to provide a causal route sufficient to explain the phenomenon in question.

You might as well say: “even if Hitler believed that the Jews were parasites and that they were the cause behind all of Germany’s problems, the conjunction of his beliefs isn’t enough to provide a causal route sufficient to explain the holocaust”

Do you agree?

I say, even if those men had other reasons, the fact that Islam condones their actions is reason enough to brand Islam as a motivating factor.

Arrow said...

Correction:

... prove that Islam clearly and explicitly condemns...

Reconnaissance. said...

Derick,

You can be happy too. All you need to do is leave Islam.

Deleting said...

Derrick I don't know what I find more annoying, that you try to formula an argument against David's so called 'Isamophobia' or that you used effacious' twice in the same paragraph.
But I digress. You're whole beef is this: David this article doesn't say these men were practicing muslims and you're just trying to create hysteria and stoke islamophobia posting that here.

But I find it interesting you used so many big pretty words to say in four paragraphs what I summed up in one.
Usually people do this for two reasons:
1. They want to show off.
2. They hope the reader will lose complete interest in reading the article and thus not really engage it.

Well, as much as I just LOVE chewing on tin-foil, I read it.

Here's a tidbit for you, two of these men were named 'Mohammad' and they repeatedly raped a child and branded her with an 'M' FOR MOHAMMAD.
Christians typically don't name their kids Mohammad, neither do Jews or Agnostics or Atheist for that matter (unless they were muslim when they had those child and left Islam after they were born.). Pray tell, what religion do you think they belonged too?
Hare Krishna? Buddhism? Do they wear black caps because the court room illustration shows a young man in a black cap and two have short but noticeable beards oh but I guess they weren't observing muslims, were they?
If they weren't then, they are now.
cont....

Deleting said...

me to Derrick cont....
In your attempt to chastise David your tried to build some credibility for yourself by citing the Koran.
You missed some verses:
23:1-6—The Believers must (Eventually) win through—Those who humble themselves In their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds Of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined To them in the marriage bond, Or (the captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (in their case) they are Free from blame.
There are more of these, so why not include them in your post?
Oh, because they undermine your argument. Silly me.
But here's what this boils down too; David didn't have to post anything to evoke 'islamophobia'... 20,261 acts of islamic violence since 9/11 have done that. Roughly that 1,841 in a year.
There are only 365 days in a year Derrick. That's 5.04 a day or more if you're going by the islamic calender.
Where are the statistics showing muslims murdered by ravenous crowds wanting to kill them because they're muslim?
There AREN'T ANY!
No, David hasn't stirred Islamophobia. Muslims stirred islamophobia. I didn't want to grab a gun and go hunt down some muslims when I read this article, I wanted to close my laptop down and run to the toilet because I was so disgusted with this piggish behavior.
It's not 'islamophobes' like David, or Pam Gellar or Robert Spencer who encourage violence. It's the blind like you calling people names, shouting them down and telling people 'Islam is peaceful' to lull those who are stupid enough to believe you into complacency and making them sitting ducks waiting for the next round of attacks.
Allah Akbar no longer means 'God is Great'. It means Run!

goethechosemercy said...

Islam is profane.
Mohammed is a false prophet.

Reconnaissance. said...

Deleting,

You're exactly right. Derick's comment is an attempt to deceive us. The trick is to use flowery language so people can think that you know what you're talking about.

Well, Derick Abdul it ain't gonna work pal.


Nice try though.



Derrick Abdul-Hakim said...

Arrow,

Allow me to try to explain what I mean. There’s a trivial and non-trivial way for beliefs to be consequential. In a trivial sense, we all have beliefs we act on. I step on the gas with the belief in mind that the traffic light is green; I carry an umbrella to work with the belief in mind that it will eventually rain later in the day; I speak to my wife in English with the belief in mind she understands English. With religious beliefs the picture is pretty much the same. I pray to Allah with the belief in mind that He exists; my wife reads the Qur’an with the belief in mind that it’s the word of Allah. That much is true but equally uninteresting. The interesting, non-trivial bit is trying to illuminate how beliefs figure in the explanation of (voluntary) action.

In a non-trivial sense, beliefs have consequences but either as causes or as part of reasons. In the first sense, beliefs with pro-attitudes provide causal reasons for actions. As I said in the previous post, for beliefs to be causally explanatory they must stand in the appropriate relation to their effects. But I don’t think they can in a sufficient way to explain *actions*. The alternative, the view I hold, is that beliefs aren’t causes at all but figure into explanations of action as reasons. The distinction is important because reasons are normative whereas causes are not. When I ask my mother, for example: “Why did you do x?” I am essentially asking for justification for x, not a cause. Additionally, for any explanation one tries to identify the sufficient conditions that are explanatorily relevant to the event or action. For example, one tries to explain a house fire by locating the presence of a spark or fire. Or one tries to explain the death of sardines on the beach by locating the presence of, perhaps, poisonous algae in nearby water. So, whatever the belief, the belief must be a relevant explanation of the target action. Understood this way, one cannot explain an action by merely citing the presence of a belief, religious or otherwise. One must first show the belief to be part of the rationalization of the action in question. Take the case under discussion. Assuming the accused men are in fact Muslim, their religious beliefs might be relevant but in a very uninteresting way. But to know whether they’re relevant or irrelevant requires knowing a thing or two about their immediate and broader motives and intentions, two pieces of significant information totally ignored by you and others claiming to add insight to this discussion.

I’ll wait until all the relevant facts are available before I draw wide ranging conclusions about who they are, what they are, and whether their actions are specimens of a larger story.


Deleting,

Read above. The rest your rant is as off-base as it is confused.

Deleting said...

Derrick said, "....Or one tries to explain the death of sardines on the beach by locating the presence of, perhaps, poisonous algae in nearby water. "

And yet I'm the one off-based and confused.

No, I tapped you on your overtly flowery language to bolster yourself as well as dissuade anyone from engaging your polemic on David.

You did it again with Arrow.

No one thinks your brilliant Derrick. You're just wordy and clueless as to the fact that a point needs to be articulated plainly.

All you did was the Muslim two-step shuffle....again.

goethechosemercy said...

The brand is a mark of punishment and enslavement.
We remember this from our history with Islam.
We do not forget that the Ummah has been at war with us for almost 1,500 years!
So long as there is slavery and the demand for submission to the demon, the West will fight.

Arrow said...

I step on the gas with the belief in mind that the traffic light is green... I speak to my wife in English with the belief in mind she understands English.

Those are not beliefs. You are acting on knowledge (unless if you are a brain in a vat).

for beliefs to be causally explanatory they must stand in the appropriate relation to their effects

Can you provide an example in which a belief is approriately related to an effect and could therefore be considered "casually explanatory"?

I don’t think they can in a sufficient way to explain *actions*

Why not?

beliefs aren’t causes at all but figure into explanations of action as reasons.

What then could be the causes? You mean Islam has nothing to do anything whatsoever? We should ignore all the violent passages in the Muslim sources?

When I ask my mother, for example: “Why did you do x?” I am essentially asking for justification for x, not a cause.

Likewise, if we ask a Muslims terrorist "why did you do x?", his justification (if you wish to call it that) is Islam. The fact that Islam furnishes a criminal with a "justification" is reason enough for us to brand it as a terrorist ideology.

for any explanation one tries to identify the sufficient conditions that are explanatorily relevant to the event or action... the belief must be a relevant explanation of the target action

Again, how do when know whether the belief in question is relevant to the action or not? What's your criteria? What would convince you that Islam is the primary motivator behind so many autrocities?

one cannot explain an action by merely citing the presence of a belief, religious or otherwise

No one has ever suggested that.

Reconnaissance. said...

Derick,

Islam is built on denying reality. Aren't you embarrassed?

Simon Ranson said...

"Islamophobia" eh? I'd be scared if gangs of Muslims went round raping my children.

I don't think it's negative to be "Islamophobia" as they are all "Secularphobic" -- i.e. they are against freedom of speech, religion, politics and honest individual values.