Michael Copeland’s latest essay discusses the extent to which the British political establishment has been successfully deceived by the Islamic practice of taqiyya, or sacred lying.
Muslim Rapes: The Government Misinformed The House
by Michael Copeland
“There is NOTHING in the Koran…”
The UK Government has successfully misinformed the House of Lords. This happened in March 2018, but little has changed since.
The misinformation came in a statement by Lord Young, in his capacity as the Cabinet Office Spokesman for the Government in the Upper Chamber. It was his answer to an enquiry, and is set out below. First, though, the question: it concerned the many, many, rapes of non-Muslim girls by Muslim men.
My Lords, …If we accept the views of our lead police officer for child protection, of Rotherham’s MP and of the recent Jay and Quilliam reports, we are looking at millions of rapes of white and Sikh girls by Muslim men, only 222 of whom have been convicted since 2005.
Lord Pearson went on to mention — Gasp! — the Koran. Warning: Fragility Alert. This is Eggshell territory. The Westminster Bubble has an Eggshell Zone, in which certain subjects, like Emperor’s Clothes, are not meant to be touched upon. The Upper Chamber allowed itself an audible but polite and well-mannered frisson:
Will the Government ask our Muslim leaders whether the perpetrators can claim that their behaviour is sanctioned in the Koran…
— general murmurings of disapproval and reproach —
…and to issue a fatwa against it?
Shock! Lord Pearson had erred and strayed from the Commandment:
Thou Shalt Not Puncture The Bubble
Lords and Commons alike are nearly all signed up to the Bubble’s Articles of Faith, more properly called Articles of Wishful Thinking, namely the Religion-of-Peace and the Tiny-Minority-of-Extremists — you know, those who have warped, twisted, perverted, distorted, misunderstood, you name it, their Entirely Peaceful Ideology. The Koran is Peace, Nothing but Peace, and Do Not Disturb this Dictum. These Articles of Faith are untouchable, never mind that they do not correspond with reality. Merely adverting to them makes a person a troublemaker.
The peers, their noble feathers ruffled, sternly awaited the anticipated answer. Sure enough, Lord Young, reading from a prepared text, delivered the riposte:
There is NOTHING in the Koran that encourages the sort of activity the noble Lord has referred to.
— Satisfaction all round —
There. The authoritative pronouncement. Decorum restored, feathers re-smoothed. Unfortunately the statement, though doubtless given in good faith, is completely at variance with Koranic reality. This will be exposed below. The noble Lord then added, correctly in theory but not so easy to find in practice:
In any case, the Koran would be trumped by the law of the land.
Well, yes, but the operative part is “would be”. It would be if the law of the land were enforced, but time and time again blind eyes have been turned and the law has been left unenforced.
The Government Spokesman unwittingly dug himself deeper in his hole by delivering the Compulsory Creed, to be adhered to at all times and in all places, and against all evidence:
Islam, like all world religions, does not support, advocate or condone child sexual exploitation.
End of subject.
Well, No. Not so. How wrong can a spokesman be? This sweeping definitive denial is sweepingly, definitively, wrong. That means the Government is sweepingly, definitively, wrong. Notice that although in the question the Government was invited “to ask our Muslim leaders…”, Lord Young did not answer that. Instead he asserted on his own authority from his script that “There is NOTHING in the Koran…”. The noble Spokesman, alas, is not an Islamic scholar, yet he is confident enough to make such assertions. How has this come about?
Parliament has a facility available to legislators, as explained to the present author:
We have people we can go to.
Therein lies the explanation. The “people we can go to” will be Islamic spokesmen. At this point a little insight into Islamic doctrine is helpful. Gentle reader, please be accommodating.
It may come as a surprise to many, especially to legislators inside the Bubble, that Islam authorises its adherents to deceive non-Muslims in the cause of Islam. This is well-known in Islam by its Arabic name taqiyya. “Using deception to mask intended goals” is a stated aim in the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum”, discovered in a police raid. Those who have looked into Islam are familiar with it, but it is not, of course, a topic that is going to be explained to a Parliamentarian by any of the “go to” people. Quite to the contrary, it is likely to be employed. That is right: these advisors, like all Muslims, are authorised to deceive the kuffar (that includes us, by the way). The Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, has a section, r8, headed “Permissible Lying”. The “go to” people can be expected to employ lying.
Tony Blair and David Cameron were advised by Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan is a serial liar, a serial user of taqiyya, and well-practised. He has admitted to French authorities that he lied to them about some of the sex assaults with which he is charged. This is the man who, when speaking to a Muslim audience, said:
Tell the infidels in public, ‘we respect your laws and your constitutions’, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.
Ramadan insisted to an Anglican audience that the idea of Jihad as Holy War “is wrong”.
The Manual of Islamic Law, on the other hand, says:
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims… warfare to establish the religion.” (o9.0).
Ramadan urged the same audience:
We must protect freedom of conscience!
when he knows quite well that Islam forbids freedom of conscience. Converts from Islam, and, for that matter, atheists, have to be killed, and anyone can perform the killing. They are seen as traitors to the ideology. In Saudi Arabia converts and atheists are beheaded. That is Islam.
Having advisers like Ramadan explains David Cameron’s monumental error when, after the murder of Lee Rigby, he announced, in his most authoritative manner:
There is NOTHING in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.
Again, how wrong can you be? In fact, instruction after instruction, throughout Islam’s source texts, commands the killing of non-Muslims, such as Koran 47:4 “When you meet the unbelievers strike the neck,” and 2:191 “Kill them wherever you find them.” Lee Rigby’s killer had prepared a list of them. The Koran is not optional: it is part of Islamic law. Anyone who denies any verse is to be killed. Anyone can perform the killing vigilante-style: it is penalty-free “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual, o8.4).
Cameron’s creed — for that is what it amounts to — also informed Theresa May. Recycling it, she authoritatively told the House of Commons, after the Westminster Bridge attack:
It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith.
A “perversion”? Wrong again. Islam commands killing. It commands the striking of terror. The Koran urges, at 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies…” Who are the enemies? Answer: all non-Muslims, kafirs: “the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies”, says Koran 4.101. Killing them, and striking terror into them, are true Islamic actions. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, insisted:
Therefore killing you, fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, are all considered great legitimate duty in our religion.
Mrs. May asserted that the attack was not “Islamic” but “Islamist” terrorism. This is an invented distinction: the word “Islamist” is not found in the Manual of Islamic Law. It has been devised to be fed to the West in order to deflect attention away from Islam and its ruthless commands. Mrs. May re-iterated her assertion:
This act of terror was not an act of faith. It was a perversion; a warped ideology, which leads to an act of terrorism like that.
There is a curious phenomenon that seems to affect politicians. It is as if they think that provided they say something with a sufficient air of authority then the facts will change to fit.
Mrs. May, like “Imam Qamr’un of the Downing Street Islamic Centre”, is not an Islamic scholar, and it shows. If, as is likely, their information came from Tariq Ramadan, then it is understandable that they had been misinformed. In consequence it is hardly a surprise if they and their spokespeople in good faith misinform the public and Parliament.
Islam divides the world into two camps, Dar al Islam, the Realm of Islam, and the rest of the world, Dar al Harb, the Realm of War. Yes, really: war. Al Azhar in Cairo teaches that Islam is in “a permanent war institution” with all non-Muslim states and peoples (Nonie Darwish). “Britain has always been Dar al Harb”, insisted Anjem Choudary to a scowling Stephen Sackur on BBC Newsnight. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sunni Islam’s highest authority, Ali Gomaa, made the matter clear:
Muslims must kill kafirs wherever they are unless they convert.
Islam’s mission is to “Impose Sharia Law on All Mankind”. This is to be “by persuasion or by force”, as ancient scholar Ibn Khaldun wrote. Osama bin Laden asked and answered the question, though nobody listened:
Does Islam or does it not force people by the power of the sword to submit…? Yes!
Unfortunately for the Government Spokesman, the Koran does indeed contain texts which authorise “the sort of activity referred to”. Robert Spencer, author of many books on Islam, sets them out in articles on his Jihad Watch website.
Sexual assault occurs in all cultures, but only in Islam does it have divine sanction. The Koran teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). [See Koran at a Glance for those texts.] The Koran says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Koran’s phrase, “what your right hand possesses”, refers to slaves.
Head-coverings were instituted (at the suggestion of Mohammed’s companion, Umar) to enable the Muslim men to distinguish Muslim women from unbeliever women, available to “take”. The Koran says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful” (33:59). The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.
These are not obsolete dusty old scriptures. Islamic clerics and spokesmen make clear that these provisions are alive and in use. They promote them in the mosques.
- Any woman without a headscarf is asking to be raped Shahid Mehdi
- Sex slaves are not forbidden Mecca Mufti
- It is permissible to take concubines Islamqa.com
- It is allowed to take women as slaves Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram
- Their women are yours to take, legitimately. Allah made them yours.
- Why don’t you enslave their women? Sheikh Saad al-Buraik
- The …spoils …includes men, women, children, wealth Sheikh Huwayni
- And take their wives as war booty demonstrator at Danish Embassy: YouTube
- Enslavement is the penalty for disbelief Ashiq Ilahi
- Enslaving the families of the …infidels and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia, or Islamic law. Islamic State, in CBN report
From an August 2015 New York Times report:
In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her—it condoned and encouraged it.
He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her. When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion… ‘ I kept telling him it hurts — please stop.’
Other girls testified to the same treatment, mixing sex and acts of devotion: ‘Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray. He kept telling me this is ibadah, a term from Islamic scripture meaning “worship.” He said that raping me is his prayer to God. It’s allowed. It’s halal.’
The “taking”, by entrapment, of kafir girls (who count as women in Islam) is a “licit” — lawful — act for Muslims. Britain is Dar al Harb, the Realm of War. The duty of the Muslim in Dar al Harb is to do jihad — warfare against the unbeliever. The “taking” of the enemy’s girls, their rape and their humiliation, are age-old strategies of war: they are also approved tasks to please Allah. Using the girls against their will (that is, as slaves) to be money-spinners for renting out to the customer network is the jihadi’s right. Sheikh Saleh al Fawzan, Saudi scholar, makes this quite clear:
Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.
Thus, in complete contrast to the confident denial by the Government Spokesman, namely, “There is NOTHING in the Koran…” a replacement statement may be made:
There is PLENTY in the Koran to encourage the sort of activity the noble Lord has referred to.
Not only that, but PLENTY of Islamic clerics preach and encourage that activity. Islamic State jihadis, as shown above, put the teaching they receive into practice.
Lord King’s definitive statement about Islam, above, is:
Islam, like all world religions, does not support, advocate or condone child sexual exploitation.
Immediately there is an objection: Islam is most definitely and unarguably not like all world religions, and would never claim to be. To begin with, it is an “all-encompassing” political “system” of laws and punishments, with a small component of prayers that enables it to claim religion status. According to its own teachings it has rendered all other religions, and political systems, obsolete: it supersedes and replaces them. Christianity and Judaism are “remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions” (Manual of Islamic Law, w4). Islam is the only system permitted: “If anyone desire a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him”, decrees Koran 3:85.
As for sexual activity with children, this is emphatically NOT forbidden by Islam. There is no age of consent in Islam.
it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl,
confirmed the website www.Islamonline in December 2010.
Islam does not forbid marriage of young children
rules Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology. When there was a move in Pakistan to raise the age of marriage from nine years to sixteen the cleric Fazlul Haque Amini threatened that 100,000 jihadis were willing to die to keep it at the Islamic level. The Saudi scholar, Sheikh Saleh bin Fawzan, was firm in his ruling that
There is no minimum age for marriage.
Ayatollah Khomeini married a ten-year-old wife. As part of establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran as truly Islamic he instituted that girls could be married at the age of nine lunar years, namely eight years and nine months (Iran Civil Code art. 1041).
It can be seen without difficulty that Islam does indeed support, advocate, and condone sexual activity with children in marriage. In its view this is not “exploitation”: it is normal. For the record, Islam also permits “temporary marriage”, lasting for as little as an hour, for a fee. Undercover reporting has recorded clerics assuring the customer that a child wife could be obtained if desired. In the West that is considered exploitation, but not so by Islam. Thus Lord King’s definitive statement above is definitively wrong.
Remember Lord Pearson’s enquiry:
Will the Government ask our Muslim leaders whether the perpetrators can claim that their behaviour is sanctioned in the Koran, and to issue a fatwa against it?
The hard reality is that this behaviour is, indeed, sanctioned by the Koran. As a result, no Muslim leader will ever issue a fatwa against it. Instead they will continue to preach and promote it.
Self-evident from all the above is that Islam, that “all-encompassing… perfect system” of laws and rules with its prayer component, is unmistakably very different from Western laws and culture, is opposed to them, and contains many instructions for hostility, rape, and killing.
Perhaps, just perhaps, in the Boris Johnson administration, no longer influenced by Tariq Ramadan, Government policy could begin to embrace Islamic reality. The Bubble of Wishful Thinking does, indeed, need to be punctured, and legislators in both Houses have an important climb ahead. The Learning Curve awaits.
For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.