egafd.com

Have you got Nick Griffin to stick his tweeting device up his arse yet? Preferably an Ipad sideways.

Meanwhile, why are you so terrified of answering the questions I put to you elsewhere?

[quote]n your original post to me you stated:

1.And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves (it's impossible to rape a non-muslim or Muslim wife in Islam and rape isn't even mentioned).

I have explained that your huge step in going from this to the Rochdale case,is not the view of the Muslim Council representing Muslims in the UK. This argument is very debatable and I have given you the links to prove this.[/quote]

I did not say it wasn't debatable. In fact, I also showed it was debatable in admitting the defendants didn't seem religious. My main argument with you was you dismissing any notion of a religious element in this as 'crass'. We moved the discussion along in defending both our views but that was the original point I picked you up on.

[quote]The argument was not used by the defendants families and friends either before, during or after the court case. The argument was not used by any Muslim body either, before, during or after the court case. You, yourself, have pointed out that as far as you suspect, the defendants weren't religious anyway. [/quote]

Of course not. I addressed this further up the thread. Basically, their lawyers knew this was 1) pointless, and 2) wouldn't be good PR for Islam.

[quote]"And you never answered my question: What do you think the judge meant when he said religion played it's part?"

No idea because there was no other indication that I have read which explained why this phrase was used. I realise many including yourself have seized on this for a variety of purposes. My guess and it is only a guess is that in some ways Muslim communities are more coherent than the neighbourhoods where nobody knows their neighbour. And that as a generalisation, of which I am sure there are many, many exceptions you do not tend to see young, out of control, Asian girls hanging around taxi ranks, kebab shops late at night etc. The reason being is that just as many Muslim families tend to look after their old at home rather than putting them in a care home, so they tend, a huge generalisation again, to keep a tighter control of their daughters in particular.[/quote]

It seems you'd rather generalise about Asian/white communities and how they bring up their children than even for one moment envisage any problem with a certain religion. For your part you accept your're generalising, but the observation remains.

Again, without wanting to sound like I'm arguing with myself, I agree with your generalisations. They're pretty accurate and there's logic in assuming that because white parents are more liberal and trusting of female daughters than Asian parents are then there's more scope for white teenage girls to become vulnerable to predators of all types. It's debatable and probably unprovable.....just like religion playing it's part. I wouldn't call your hypothesis 'crass', though. I get the feeling you've dismissed the religious element purely as a defensive measure to protect Muslims from having their religion used to beat them with by closeted racists who are probably too scared to be forthright in their racism. Islam is the perfect excuse for them. I get it. I have also said I think your heart was in the right place and would like to reiterate that view now. I think it is. But I also think you're wrong. We both accept the judge's view that religion played it's part, and while I've hypothesised about why the judge came to that conclusion, you've just said 'I've no idea why he said it.'. Maybe because it doesn't solidify your particular view. I don't think it can be dismissed that easily.

[quote]Therefore I believe there was a religious element in the sense that the Asians thought they had a far, far, better chance of getting away with it by sticking to the girls that hung around the takeaways, which were generally white, out of control, young girls living in care homes after being thrown out by family.[/quote]

Exactly. They thought that they could get away with it because a) these girls are not part of our community and vulnerable. and b) They're not Muslims and so the Muslim community won't be as outraged.

We're talking of 9 men and 47+ girls. You don't keep that quite in a Muslim neighbourhood and you wouldn't pacify any other Muslim in that community if a single victim had been Muslim. Their lives wouldn't have been worth living, imho. I'm arguing that this all stems from certain passages in the Quran. It's not that hard to believe that a religious book over 1000 years hasn't had an affect on how Muslims think.

[quote]As I pointed out to Davey before his post was deleted by admin. What is the key word in the following phrases:

Asian, Muslim paedophile.

White, Christian paedophile.

Slightly suntanned, of indeterminate religion, Eastern European paedophile.

Its the word paedophile. And what denotes them is a desire to exploit and control vulnerable, underage girls for their own perverted gain.[/quote]

I'm sorry but I haven't seen Davey's post. Given his history of posts regarding anyone with brown skin I would have to question his motives in just about anything he says on people who aren't white. And I'd like to make clear, since you've brought it up, that I was in no way saying Muslim men become paedophiles because of their religion. It's more about who paedophiles (who happen to be Muslim) are more likely to target based on community reaction/consequences and -if they are religious- not breaking any strict religious code.

We'll have to agree to disagree (I hate this expression!) We agree these grooming gangs aren't racist and we agree cultural views on bringing up kids played a big part. We just disagree on the religious element. I just didn't like your usage of 'crass' because it implied you cared more about Muslim sensitivities than the truth. I think both are important, but the truth should always come first.

I agree there is a problem with white parents allowing underage girls to be out late at night pissed up. But Female Pakistanis shouldn't bracket all white girls as being like that. Which they do by saying "Don't act like a white girl"

It suggests that they believe any underage white girl out late is different from Asian girls and deserving what they get.

Okay. She is clearly over-generalising. Happens all the time. You just have to read this thread and others on here to see that.

It doesn't necessarily mean that she actually believes every single white girl acts in a particular way. It's a kind of shorthand. Like Germans calling Greeks lazy. Doesnt mean that they think all Greeks are lazy. Its just a generalisation they are dragging out.