This morning's Sunday featured an interview with the former Chief Prosecutor for the north-west of England, Nazir Afzal, who worked to prosecute Muslim grooming gangs in Rochdale.
Here's an extract from that interview:
Edward Stourton: Some people would make a link between the religion of these men and what happened. Do you think there's anything there?
Nazir Afzal: No. I mean, I'm a Muslim myself and I'm forbidden to drink, I'm forbidden to take drugs, I'm forbidden to abuse anybody, I'm forbidden to have sexual contact outside of marriage - all those things. Yet these perpetrators were surrounded by all of those things, so how can anybody say that they were doing it because of their religion?
Thank you for picking up on this outrageous dissembling - the bias is so blatant - Stourton's question was so respectful and hesitant, he doesn't even dare use the word's Muslim or Islam in the context of "some people"'s criticism. "Do you think there's anything there?" Expecting the answer "No", obtaining it - relief all round; he accepts Afzal's side-stepping answer as if he knows nothing of Islam and the Koran (possibly the case but in this day and age I doubt it). Both men assume the listeners at home are still equally ignorant.
ReplyDeleteThe problem Stourton and Afzal agreed was "conservatism" but no worries - the young Muslims that Afzal met all wanted to "concentrate on their careers" (like the explosive doctors at Glasgow airport and the "straight A" jihadi brides that neither man mentioned).
Yep, thanks to the internet, we can read the Koran, Hadith, life of Mo and Sharia judgements in English.
ReplyDeleteWe know that Muslim men are NOT prevented from having sexual contact with non-Muslim women (who are not married to Muslim men).
It is of course true that alcohol for sure is not allowed - but these cases are not about alcohol use, are they?