Muslims react to Rotherham scandal

Muslims react to Rotherham scandal

Did fear of being labelled “racist” by the authorities allow at least 1,400 of Rotherham’s children to fall into the hands of vicious abusers?

That’s the question posed today by the BBC, who spoke to several Muslims after a report published this week revealed that the abuse had been carried out “mainly by men of Pakistani heritage”. Councillors and council staff in particular were criticised for “avoiding public discussion”; some through fear of being thought racist, and some through “wholesale denial” of the problem.

This has left the leader of a Muslim organisation in Rotherham furious. Said Muhbeen Hussain, above, founder of British Muslim Youth:

I’m truly disgusted to see such a report in my home town of Rotherham. The fact these guys were predominantly Pakistani heritage men should not be a reason for providing a cloak of invisibility.

(See BBC video here)

Professor Alexis Jay

Professor Alexis Jay

Professor Alexis Jay’s report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, said:

Several councillors interviewed believed that by opening up these issues they could be ‘giving oxygen’ to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion.

Hussain’s words were echoed by Shoki Adbo, a bank worker from the town, who said:

I’m a Muslim and if I saw a Muslim person doing something like that then they would not be a Muslim to me.

Prof Jay’s report said that while ethnicity did not impact on the way front-line staff dealt with cases, it did affect the wider picture, with some staff in children’s social care saying they were “advised by their managers to be cautious about referring to the ethnicity of the perpetrators” in reports.

In 2010, five Asian men from Rotherham were found guilty of sex offences against girls as young as 12, and in 2011 Ashtiaq Asghar was jailed for the murder of 17-year-old Laura Wilson, who had been a victim of sexual exploitation.

Prof Jay was keen to stress in her report that:

There is no simple link between race and child sexual exploitation, and across the UK the greatest numbers of perpetrators of CSE [child sexual exploitation] are white men.

But her inquiry followed three others in Rotherham dating back to 2002.

Prof Jay said the first of these reports was “effectively suppressed” because senior officers did not believe the data. The other two were ignored, she said.

In a 2003 report, Dr Angie Heal, a strategic drugs analyst, stated:

In Rotherham the local Asian community are reported to rarely speak about them [the perpetrators].

According to Prof Jay, three years later Dr Heal:

Described how the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it offered ‘career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved’.

Dr Heal also noted that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women.

The 2006 report stated:

It is believed by a number of workers that one of the difficulties that prevent this issue [CSE] being dealt with effectively is the ethnicity of the main perpetrators.

Hussain said:

There’s nowhere in the Pakistani culture or the religion of Islam that says child exploitation is allowed – it’s completely forbidden. But because it’s a taboo and it’s not talked about, I think with this report we need people to come out and we need the Pakistani Muslim community to talk about it.*

That taboo has not just prevented perpetrators being identified, but victims too.

Most of the victims in the cases examined were white British girls, but the report found the abuse of Asian girls was not necessarily reported.

Zlakha Ahmed, from the organisation Apna Haq which supports Asian women and children facing violence in the home, said there has been a long-standing problem of Asian girls suffering abuse.

The report’s not come as a shock to me in terms that we’ve known about these issues for a number of years now. They follow the exact same model as the report that’s been released; the difference is that the victims are Asian Muslim young girls and the perpetrators have been Muslim Pakistani men. It’s just a pattern of abuse that’s being repeated with another sets of vulnerable girls.

Prof Jay reported:

Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the police because it would affect their future marriage prospects.

After four reports into the Rotherham abuse scandal that spanned 16 years and revealed at least 1,400 victims, Prof Jay concluded:

The authorities involved have a great deal to answer for.

* Earlier this year Channel 4 aired a documentary – Pakistan’s Hidden Shame – which revealed that this Muslim country is:

Is in denial, turning a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of many thousands of poor and vulnerable children.

According to a Channel 4 press release:

It’s estimated that over 4 million children across Pakistan are forced to work from an early age due to poverty, of these up to 1.5 million live on the streets with no home to go to. This film focuses on the north-western city of Peshawar, where it is estimated 9 out of every 10 street children have been sexually abused.

A 2010 UNICEF report suggests that traditional Pakistani cultural values of purity and the protection of women have contributed to men preying on boys. This theory is backed up by some psychologists, who suggest that the attraction to young boys stems from the segregation of the sexes, where women are perceived as the inferior gender, rarely seen in public and with very few rights. A recent World Economic Forum report named Pakistan the second worst country in the world when it comes to equal opportunities for women.

Update: has addressed the issue in a chilling article entitled “Muslim Gang Rapists are Springing Up Everywhere. Why Can’t We Be Honest About It?”

Hat tip: Antony Niall  (Breitbart link)

36 responses to “Muslims react to Rotherham scandal”

  1. barriejohn says:

    Full marks to Muslims who are speaking out about this abuse, because until they did you’d have been hard pressed to even see the word “Muslim” in any of the reports about it!

  2. Broga says:

    @barriejohn: I agree with your comments. The Muslims must speak out.

  3. Broga says:

    I have noticed no comments from the priests and the religious Top Dogs. They are ready enough to weigh in about militant atheists, gay marriage, assisted dying but there is a silence about the paedophile abuse. Nothing from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the top RC Man, the Chief Rabbi.

    Unless, of course, I have missed it. But the Rochdale scandal and others cries out for comment and it raises a mass of moral issues. They should be jumping in their en masse and preaching at us.

  4. Paul Cook says:


    there is one simple reason why you will not hear anything from them, especially the rcc.
    People that live in glass houses don’t [shouldn’t] throw stones.

  5. Norman Paterson says:

    It’s a complex issue. One aspect is multiculturalism, which seemed like a good idea at the time, but I no longer support. It leads to tribalism, ghettoisation, and other unpleasant things. When it was black vs white, it was called “separate but equal,” and see where that got us.

    More examples are to be found all around the world, eg the reservations for American Indians, and even to some extent the Scottish separateness in the UK, the Australian Aborigines, the Tutsis and Hutus. I don’t think any of these examples are shining beacons of hope.

    So what is the alternative? Here is one way it could be handled. I use the American Indians as an example. After a time in the Indian Wars, it was obvious that the Indians could not win. At that point the USA should have said something like this to them: “You have a choice. Either we continue to be separate and fight, in which case you will be destroyed. Or we can join together. The terms of joining are that you will be given no favours: you will have the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen. We will have one culture: one melting pot. You are welcome to add your culture to the pot, and to add to the flavour. Our new, joint culture will change, and benefit, from your presence. But do not expect any special favours. We are all in this together.”

    I think the Romans handled their civilisation in this way, and it worked quite well for them. Could it work here?

  6. L.Long says:

    Well Norman other than individual rights which end at the other guys nose, that is…er…was essentially the idea of USA before it started to become the TSA.
    But what is the big deal here?? So what if the crooks were pink,red, or orange?? They did something, they have trial & found guilty, throw their asses in to jail.

  7. Norman Paterson says:


  8. Norman Paterson says:

    The big deal is how it took 1400 kids being abused before it came to light. There were people employed to prevent this kind of thing. If we don’t understand what went wrong we have no chance of putting it right for the future.

  9. Brummie says:

    @ N. Paterson.
    Where do freethinkers stand on the issue of Positive Discrimination for Minorities? I have mixed feelings on this, but I know that there will always be casualties when such is introduced.

  10. Paul Cook says:

    I heard this man speak first yesterday about the abuse. It was good he said pakistani men – men who were muslims, did this. He was quite angry at them and named them as they were Pakistani and muslims.

    It is a fact that most if not nearly all of the abusers were pakistani men living in Britain.Their religion is islam they are muslims. It has as a central tenet that non-believers are kaffirs and can be killed or used. It states this very very clearly. Only people of the ‘Book’ are the same as muslims. The abused were white English girls, considered by the authorities to be problematic and already sexually promiscuous!

    They are either British or they are not. This constant qualification is devious and unnecessary. A welcoming county makes you its citizen – you are British no qualification is needed – you are not a British Pakistani or a British mulsim, this is a meaningless qualification for you become the same as everyone else, British – and for what purpose is this addition if other than to be separate from the rest? I don’t say I am a british Atheist? or a British anti religious academic?

    However this morning on BBC news – ummmm…. well he said …. yes sort of the same thing , but qualified it and added that muslim women were raped and abused too.

    Oh! the chance there was…. is it lost?
    why did he feel the need to say this?
    Does it reduce the issue that pakistani men raped and abused white English girls some as young as 12?
    I wonder which part of the ‘community’ made him tone down what he courageously said the day before.

  11. Paul Cook says:

    but a troll appears on the whale story.

  12. Norman Paterson says:

    Brummie – I would not expect freethinkers to have any common ground except atheism, so everyone’s view on positive discrimination for minorities will be different.

    My view is that,if we adopt the melting pot model, then there are no minorities, and any favouritism for or against people based on their origins (“race”, sex, religion, etc) would be unacceptable. But hey – I am not a political scientist. I am pretty sure I have been far too simple minded in my ideas.

  13. Brummie says:

    @Paul Cook.
    What if many newcomers are simply economic migrants who have no respect whatsoever for the indigenous culture – even despise it, and use it as a tool to exploit. Do we still welcome them as fellow Brits?

  14. L.Long says:

    Norman—–TSA is the Theocratic States of America because so many states not only bend over so far that the religious can push their BS up everyone’s ass, but the laws are being written in such a way as to allow then religious to do so up everyone else’s ass as well.

  15. Norman Paterson says:

    Lazarus – Good luck to you then. It’s pretty religious in the UK but I think the direction of travel is away from it. Very slowly, but away.

  16. Paul Cook says:


    no never. That wasn’t my point. Any one who is welcomed – meaning a person who wishes to ‘enter society’ needs no other label, rather than an economic migrant.

    I sometimes feel that everyone wants to some extent to belong to some where. Those that need additional labels most likely, don’t belong where they are.

  17. RJW says:

    What is particularly appalling is the arrogant attitude of the ‘authorities’ when they suppressed the facts in order not to inflame the prejudices of the public. That didn’t work out so well did it?

  18. jay says:

    ” We will have one culture: one melting pot. You are welcome to add your culture to the pot, and to add to the flavour. Our new, joint culture will change, and benefit, from your presence. But do not expect any special favours. We are all in this together.”

    In the US, that’s far closer to the conservative line than the liberal one. Liberals would complain that you have no right to pressure people to ‘give up their culture’ or ‘assimilate’.

    In the US, there are millions of natives (“Indians’) who have blended into the culture. You would not guess their nationality unless they told you. They succeed economically and socially as well as any ethnic group. The ones that tried to stick to ‘the old ways’ often did not do so well

  19. Trevor Blake says:

    Just because Muhammad raped children and just because having sex with infants is acceptable in Islam doesn’t mean that Islam is anything but respectful to children and their development.

    Ayatollah Khomeini ‘s book ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’: ‘A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.’

    Do you disagree? RACIST! ISLAMOPHOBE! BIGOT! NAZI and/or JEW! OPPRESSOR! “Respect” Islam or get called these names.

    The opinions of rape apologists like UK Muslims or the Roman Catholic Church mean nothing to me. They may call me what they will. Believe me, I’m not holding back in my contempt for them.

  20. John Coffin says:

    “There’s nowhere in the Pakistani culture or the religion of Islam that says child exploitation is allowed – it’s completely forbidden.”

    Ummm. There may not be a precise match for Rotherham, but the prophet’s own behavior—NINE years old? and the ‘right of conquest’ language of the Koran are no disincentive to these pigs.

  21. Robster says:

    Wow, Trevor Blake’s comment above is an eye opener. A “spokesperson” quoted in the post said this…”Hussain said: There’s nowhere in the Pakistani culture or the religion of Islam that says child exploitation is allowed – it’s completely forbidden.” We all know that the prophet of that belief system had a bit of an unnatural penchant for the (very) young girls. It’s all in their book for all to see so there’s no question, no denying, no gilding the lily. Mad Mo was every bit as bad as the catholic collection of dodgy priests, except Mo married (it’s written that he did so it must be true…) a nine year old! Jeeesus.

  22. Dan says:

    There is an ethnicity/religion angle to this story, but it’s not the angle being touted by the media and by some commenters on this thread.

    Quite obviously most Pakistanis and most Muslims – regardless of what was acceptable at the time of the origins of Islam – do not think that child sexual exploitation is acceptable. However, it is also a taboo – it’s not talked about, the problem is regarded as “shameful”, and it is underreported. Pakistani women’s groups in Rotherham complained that their concerns were not properly listened to, and that when the council wanted to “engage” with the “Asian” community, it turned to male dominated religious/cultural structures, who were not best placed to understand the problems.

    So when child protection officials were told not to make a big deal of ethnicity in their reports, the end result was that it maintained the invisibility of the problem among the Pakistani-heritage community.

    Although it’s white girls who have been in the headlines, we know that most victims of abuse know their abusers. So if “Asian gangs” were involved, common sense tells you that you also need to look closer to home. But they didn’t, because of this conspiracy of silence which was an obstacle to putting the focus where it needed to be. Child sexual abuse was thought to not to happen in the Asian community, it was thought to be a “white problem”.

    The report does not provide evidence to support the racist narrative about these issues – i.e. that white girls were being targetted in some kind of anti-white campaign. It does observe that Asian girls were also abused – and that the extent of that is not known to the same degree as the abuse of white girls is.

    We need to be clear about this. Blindness to ethnicity did NOT mean that anyone thought “Asian men are off-limits” – the report is clear that there is no evidence that any individual case was affected by anyone thinking “Oh, we can’t do anything about this because the offenders are Muslim”.

    But that blindness did allow the denial of the problem to persist, and did mean that some actions were not taken – i.e. shining a light on the exploitation of Asian girls.

    But fear of racism or “Islamophobia” was not the reason for the problem not being seriously addressed.

    If you read the report, it is clear that those professionals (such as those involved in the excellent but controversial “Risky Business” project, who advocated on behalf of victims and tried to get the problem taken seriously) who did identify the problem as a big one were regarded as exaggerating – those in authority did not want to believe that there was such a bad issue. And secondly, the attitude towards the exploited white girls was that they were willing participants – girls who had “gone off the rails”, who were acting as prostitutes. And we know how sexists regard prostitutes and other “undeserving” victims of sexual violence.

    In other words, the attitude of many in the (mainly white) police was not so very different from the attitude of the sex abusing gangs.

    It is frustrating that the implications of that are not being discussed with the intensity that the (misidentified) racial and religious angles are being discussed. Because that’s not as comfortable for the media, is it? We hear similar attitudes whenever there is a wave of attacks on prostitutes or when young women who are sexual active are victims of attack.

    The point here is not that Muslims represent a inevitably abusive “cancer” within society, because they are all imitating the example of marrying 9-year-olds. That’s the xenophobic narrative, and it’s not true. The point is that we need to break down the barriers that prevent girls in Muslim communities from coming forward and getting help, which means talking to “leaders” other than men (who often don’t get it) and that we need to break down the attitudes that don’t see underage victims of abuse for what they are – attitudes prevalent throughout society.

    Rotherham, I should say, is my home town. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it does make me angry. Angry about what happened, but also angry that so much of the comment seems to have got the issues upside down.

  23. Matt Westwood says:

    Any gang culture where you have a bunch of (mainly young) men forming a clique usually ends up with the oppression and maltreatment of women. It’s what boys are like. When (if) they grow up and (by the due process of fitting into civilised society) they acquire morals, they learn that this stuff is unacceptable.

    The problem here is that there has been none of that acclimatisation to the generally moral, secular and humanist society which is the backbone of Britain, so to speak; no outside influences to tell them that exploitation of kaffir bints is wrong, and (because of this “gang” culture, where the Pakistani men all club together and back up each other’s moral codes) a continual reinforcement of this outrage.

    It just so happens that those social circumstances were there for this to take place — in this case it was a bunch of Pakistani men. In another it’s Kosovan. In another it’s Kurds. In another it’s Etonians. In another it’s Millwall Football Club supporters (to pick a few examples entirely at random which all have more or less an emotional connotation to those who read tabloids).

  24. Matt Westwood says:

    … and full marks to Dan’s post, which clarifies a lot of blether.

  25. Dan says:

    In Pakistan, it is worth noting, child marriage is illegal under a law dating back to 1929. However, stats I’ve just looked up estimate that 7 % of girls were married before the age of 15. A much larger number were married before 18 (20-30%). It happens in Sindh province more than elsewhere.

    So it’s a problem, in terms of abuse but also in terms of female education and economic power. And yes, those who practice it do sometimes justify themselves by reference to religious examples (other religions like Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism tended to mandate “adult” marriage, defined as after puberty). Perhaps more significant is the importance of “family honour” and chastity – girls are married young to prevent them becoming sexual active outside marriage, in a kind of twisted logic. These and other roots of the practice are not easy to uproot.

    But notice: most Pakistanis are not doing this. It’s a big problem, but it’s not a universal one. So we should not generalise about the problem in Pakistani-heritage communities in Rotherham. In particular there is no justification for any idea that child abuse is an inescapable “cultural” or religious practice that cannot be challenged.

  26. Paul Cook says:

    Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan, have many many clear examples where girls as young as 9 have been married to men who are much much older than them, some as old as 60. The so called governments of these countries have great difficulty educating these people on these religiously inspired but humanly debased ideals. These are religiously led marriages and it is a disgusting and serious problem.

  27. Norman Paterson says:

    jay – “In the US, there are millions of natives (“Indians’) who have blended into the culture.”

    Quite – and in general you don’t notice them as being much different to anyone else. They are making their contribution. The ones that do stand out are the drunks in Seattle, or the welfare junkies on reservations. The casinos and cultural entrepreneurs (eg Skywalk on Grand Canyon) are earning their own bread. Many people find their methods distasteful – but it’s legal, so they can go suck a lemon I guess.

  28. Norman Paterson says:

    “There’s nowhere in the Pakistani culture or the religion of Islam that says child exploitation is allowed – it’s completely forbidden.”

    When a Muslim says something like this I wonder what meaning he gives to words like “child” and “exploitation.” Like when they say it is forbidden to kill “innocent” people.

  29. Joe says:

    “Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan, have many many clear examples where girls as young as 9 have been married to men who are much much older than them, some as old as 60. ”

    So does the UK. But the national media ignore it. As does the laughably-named police “Force Marriage Unit”.

    Here’s what a “moderate” imam says about other imams in London marrying under-age girls to old men:

    Finsbury Park Mosque imam Ahmed Saad said he was glad the issue was being highlighted, and stressed that it was not an Islamic problem, but a cultural one.

    “It is the practice in their home countries and they don’t want to stop that here, so they will say it’s in the Koran, when it is not. According to Islam, it is entirely unacceptable. […] “I have heard of this happening in Islington by back-street imams. They are imams who have little knowledge of Islam – they are not educated, and they simply lead prayers, and yes they will do this and it is very quietly kept a secret with no one admitting to it. […] Imam Saad explained that Sharia law stated an individual can marry when they begin puberty, with the most important stipulation being that they are “rushd”, or mature enough to understand marriage.

    Muslims deceive us on this issue. The koran does not specify the age at which Mohammed (the “perfect example” of morality married Aisha). It is in the Hadiths where this is specified. And it is on the basis of those islamic texts that muslims in Yemen and London are marrying girls as young as 9.

  30. Jeffrey Jones says:

    Exactly, Joe. The marriage of Mo to Aisha when she was a 6 yr old child, and the consumation of the marriage when she was 9yrs old is in the hadiths. As Muslims regard Mo as “the perfect man” it is acceptable in Islam to marry children off to old men. This separation of culture and religion is just mealy-mouthed nonsense. Islam is not just a religion it is also a culture, as Muslims keep saying that Islam is a way of lfe not just a religion.
    The hadiths have the same authority as the Quran for Muslims. Just like the other Abrahamic religions, Muslims cherry-pick the bits they want to when it suits their purpose. Hence some Muslims will reject child marriage and others will accept it.
    Same with killing infidels, there’s plenty to justify it in Islam for those who take part in it. Islam was only a “religion of peace” in it’s early days when it was weak. Once it was strong it spread itself by the sword.

  31. Newspaniard says:

    As I read these comments, I became more disillusioned about their content. The further down the list, the more excuses for the perpetrators and the more pointing away from the subject in hand.
    It has been historically proven that the koran and the hadiths did not exist until at least 200 years after the mythical mohammed “died”, so sharia was a bunch of rules composed by a group of dirty old men.
    Today, sharia law is used by all muslims to justify any and all atrocities including the sexual exploitation of non-muslim children.
    If it is speculated that there were 1400 victims to the Rotherham conspiracy, why were only 5 gaoled? What happened to the many, possibly hundreds, of rapists walking free and not sought? In the Madelaine McCann case, literally hundreds of police are investigating the demise of a single girl, yet the Rotherham case with its 1400 victims appears to be closed.
    The common factor in all the Rotherham cases is islam. islam is a terrible blight on humanity followed by 1.2 billion muslims. When the report quoted above continually says “Asians”, it doesn’t mean Japanese, Chinese, Hindus and others who fall into that category, it means “MUSLIMS”, and I probably mean to include all those Europeans who have converted to that terrible death cult, for whatever motive, including the attraction of being able to have sex with minors.
    So all you muslim excusers who insist on pointing the other way, hang your heads in shame and go away and take your time to look at the real world.

  32. Looking from Canada says:

    England your goose is cooked. Your feckless leaders have abandoned the moral certainty which made England great. Intolerant Islam certain of its’ morality will overwhelm you.

  33. Solage 1386 says:

    Apparently there are many more cases of this type being investigated at present, and there will be hundreds of arrests of (mainly) Pakistani men in the next few months (180 in Manchester alone). The Left, who covered up the scandal for years for politically correct reasons, have no right to speak on behalf of the thousands of mainly white working class children who have suffered this appalling abuse. The Truth is now known to us all, and the Left can lie, mislead, manipulate, and attempt to explain it all away as much as they like. They have betrayed the indigenous working class, and can never be forgiven for doing so. When the FULL details finally emerge it will hopefully remove all credibility from the Left, especially amongst the Labour voting Northern working class. (Incidentally, the same pattern of abuse is emerging all over Western Europe. Sweden, for example, is now the rape capitol of Europe! I wonder why?) Vote UKIP! Take your country back.

  34. Lena says:

    British culture learns their lessons only when they are stressed by money issues. If all the girls, that have suffered from the rapes and if those cases have been covered up by the police and social workers, were to receive the life-long stipends, financed from both the local and federal budget (or police funds), then the public would be very much pressed to prevent such cases.
    If you were to consider that Asian males are much more endowed than white people and the girls were pretty young I do see that compensation for the lost health and nervousness is actually a must.

  35. Solage 1386 says:

    Many parents in Northern towns will be warning their children to steer clear of Pakistani men. How sad. How wise. How perfectly understandable. The abandoned working classes, left to rot in their council estates and rapidly turning into an underclass, are easy prey for the predators of the Religion of Peace. Let us therefore Celebrate Diversity, and the Vibrancy and Cultural Enrichment of our Northern communities!