Towards understanding Islamic child-rape gangs Part 2: Islamic attitudes and other factors

By Jon MC

Summary of part 1.
The first essay gave an overview of Islamic slavery in history. This history ranged spatially from England, through Africa, to India and beyond and in time from the advent of Islam up to the present  and showed how slavery was normative throughout Islamic history, regulated under Sharia and that the principle aim of Islamic slavery was the obtaining of female sex-slaves (including pre-pubescent girls). As such Islamic sex-slavery forms a powerful foundation in forming Islamic and Muslim attitudes to non-Muslim (Kafir) women and in legitimating their use as sex-slaves.

Introduction

This essay will outline some other factors of Islamic Theology, practice and attitudes that bear either directly or, sometimes, indirectly, but importantly, on the Islamic child-rape grooming gangs. Not all Muslims and probably only a minority will personally hold all these views, what follows is what Islam either teaches or what history, both ancient and modern, shows to have been general attitudes held towards non-Muslims.

The Islamic attitude to non-Muslims – Kafirs

Readers of the four-part series “What the Koran really says about non-Muslims” will recall that the Koran had literally not a single good word to say about non-Muslims.
The Koran describes non-Muslims as (for example, the full list is longer): abominable, arrogant, corrupters, close-minded, criminals, deaf, dumb and blind, evil, filthy, followers of Satan, greedy, ignorant, losers, perverse, perverts, rebels (against Allah), sinners, stupid and wrong-doers. They are also hated by Allah. Non-Muslims are also “like animals” and are “the Worst of (living) creatures” (Koran sura 98:v6) and the “lowest of the low” (Sura 95). In its strictest interpretation, these verses would mean that non-Muslims are less than bacteria in the eyes of Islam. This is an exegetic stretch on the basis that the author of the Koran knew nothing about bacteria (amongst much else), but some Islamic preachers do maintain such a view.

In that series it was also shown how the Koran “networks” all the hateful statements together so that, for example, whilst at first sight it might seem that “only” Polytheists are “filthy” (9:28), in the Islamic view all non-Muslims are deemed to be Polytheists in that they set up something instead of or alongside Allah. Thus, in practice, all the hateful statements made in the Koran about various types of non-Muslim (polytheists, idolators, etc.), or their characteristics (wrong-doing, corrupting), apply to all non-Muslims, all of whom are thus Kafirs, no matter what some Islamic apologists and others may disingenuously say. A Kafir is one who practices “Kufr” – the active rejection of Allah and in Islamic thinking this is not a mere refusal to believe, is an outright and active rejection of Allah/Mohammed/Islam and as such the Kafir is continuously guilty of the crimes and sins of rebellion and defiance. Hence the idea of an “innocent non-Muslim” or “innocent Kafir” is basically an oxymoron (there are exceptions for the very young and mentally incompetent) and thus all non-Muslims deserve to be punished for their ongoing sin-and-crime of continual defiant rebellion. In today’s world where the vast majority of people will have heard the “message” of Islam via TV and Radio, then almost all non-Muslims can be considered to be practising Kufr and hence are Kafirs. In the Ahadith there are many “sayings” that reinforce this overall narrative, so the concept that all non-Muslims are in principle Kafirs – people who actively reject and oppose Islam and are thus “people of defiance and rebellion” – is well established within Islamic thought and the minds of Muslims.

How Islam sees the world.

Islam basically divides the world into two:

• The “darul Islam” (The “territory of Islam”). Strictly, this would apply to those parts of the world where Islam is fully implemented; thus today, Afghanistan under the Taliban is probably the best example of what the darul Islam really looks like, but more generally would be what non-Muslims would term the “Muslim world”.
• The “darul Harb” (“the territory of war”) of which the non-Muslim residents are termed “Harbis” (those fighting against Islam). Consequently, the Mumin (the “true-believer” Muslim) must see himself as perpetually at war with Harbis, through Jihad, whether the “war” is hot or cold. The article “The Four Forms of Jihad” showed that only sword-Jihad is “hot” war (today it is mostly asymmetric terrorism of course – a “warm” war?) whereas hand and tongue/pen Jihad are “cold war” forms of Jihad. Thus three of the four forms of Jihad are directed against the Kafir/Harbi. (The fourth is against the Muslim’s own “inner demons”.) Further, the darul Harb is the territory on which Islamic forces should be waging Jihad (whether “hot” or “cold”) and into which raiding forces should be at least annually sent from the darul Islam (to kill Kafirs and capture “booty” – including sex-slaves) according to Sharia (See, for example “The reliance of the Traveller” on Razzia – raiding.)

In addition, some sources give other “dar”s (lit. houses/territories): “Darul Salaam” – house or territory of peace, wherein the rulers are Muslim and implement Sharia even if there is a majority Dhimmi population and “dar al-sulh” (lit. territory of treaty) denoting non-Islamic lands which are “at peace” or have an armistice with a Muslim government. In the former case, that of having a peace treaty per se, this usually means a “client” status for the non-Muslim Country with respect to the Islamic state and the regular payment of tribute (a type of Jizya – see below) to maintain the treaty. In the latter case, these armistices are “hudna”s – short term armistices to allow the Muslims to regroup and re-arm, thus being part of the dar al-Sulh is only temporary, once the Muslims feel able to re-start hostilities, a dar al-Sulh Country will suddenly find itself part of the darul Harb once more.

The key point here is that according to Islam the citizens of the non-Muslim world are deemed to be Harbis (the definition of which essentially means “those at war with Islam/Muslims”) and with whom the Mumin (the “true-believer” Muslim) must see himself as perpetually at war (hot, warm or cold).

 

The doctrine of Al wala’ wal bara’

This doctrine is the consequence of Islam’s attitudes to non-Muslims and the world. On the basis of the above it is reasonable to conclude that the basic Islamic attitude to non-Muslims is one of unrelenting hostility. This hostility is expressed in the Islamic doctrine of “Al-wara’ wal-bara’”, which may be translated either as “loyalty and disavowal”, or more realistically interpreted as “love and hate for the sake of Allah”. The first translation is linguistically accurate, but as Islamic sources say: “‘Al-Wala’ refers to loyalty to that which Allah loves. This means to have love and loyalty for the Muslims, for Islam, for the Shariah etc. The second part is “Al-Bara”, which refers to hating and disavowing everything that Allah hates.” Thus the second translation/interpretation is more realistic in terms of meaning.

At the heart of this doctrine is the idea that Muslims should love what ‘Allah’ loves and hate what he hates. Koran 40:10 states of non-Muslims that “Surely Allah’s hatred is greater than your hatred one of another…”, thus the god of Islam hates non-Muslims (in the words of Wafa Sultan Allah is “a god who hates”) whereas, as stated, Allah loves Muslims and thus, according to this doctrine,  Muslims should hate non-Muslims.

 

The Islamic attitude to Muslims.

Sura (chapter) 2:v25 of the Koran tells Muslims that “they will have gardens [in paradise] through which rivers flow” (also 7:42 and many other references to Muslims being rewarded in this way), so Allah must regard Muslims highly (as an aside, the Arab love of water-gardens is probably at least a partial pre-figuring of this);

2:213 says “… Allah has guided those who believe [Muslims]…to a straight road”; Muslims are “on the right path” and upright.

2:195 Allah loves the “good-doers” (who are elsewhere defined as Muslims);

2:257 “Allah is the Patron of those who believe. He brings them out of darkness into Light” whereas “those who disbelieve” will be led “out of Light into darkness”; echoed in 3:68, 47:10.

3:57 “And as for those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah) and do righteous good deeds, Allah will pay them their reward in full. And Allah does not like the Zalimoon (wrong-doers).” Again Muslims are typified as “good-doers” and non-Muslims as wrong-doers.

3:110 “You [Muslims] are the best [or:supreme] community which has been produced for mankind”;

3:138 “…you [Muslims] are superior, if you are believers”;

3:179 again contrasts the goodness of Muslims with the corruption of non-Muslims.

4:146 “…Allah will grant to the believers a great reward.” Muslims are “Allah’s favourites”.

5:55 promises victory in war over non-Muslims to those who believe;

19: 96 “…those who believe … unto them the All-merciful shall assign love”, (Contrast how Allah hates non-Muslims more than they can hate each other).

29:9 “those who believe … [are] among the righteous”,

40:58 Not equal are … those who believe … and the wrong-doer (i.e. non-Muslims), a similar sentiment is found in 45:21;

47:1-3 and 84:24-25 again contrast Allah’s merciful and beneficent treatment of Muslims with his merciless treatment of non-Muslims;

48:20-21 promises Muslims “spoils” they have not yet taken (i.e. the whole world belongs by right to Muslims);

98:7 states that “those who believe [Muslims] … are the best creatures”.

These are but a small selection of how the Koran speaks of Muslims. Sometimes the Koran is less direct, it contrasts believers (good) and non-believers (bad) – see for example 4:173, warns Muslims not to have non-Believers as friends (5:51), etc. Thus in various ways, sometimes subtle, it also reinforces the narrative of the goodness of Muslims and the “evilness” of Kafirs (who, by definition, are defiant rebels against Allah and thus “bad” people to start with).

In general terms it tells Muslims they are loved by Allah, will be granted mercy (remember that Jihadists are guaranteed forgiveness from any and all sins, 8:29), be prosperous in this life,  rewarded with spoils in this world  (including sex-slaves) and in the  next, paradise (including nubile virgins as sex-slaves), are superior to non-Muslims, are enlightened, are “good-doers”and all-round good people. The Ahadith reinforce this entirely positive view of the “Mumin” – the ‘true-believer’ Muslim.

 

Islamic misogyny

Another fairly well known point is Islamic misogyny. For example: the Koran and hence Sharia give Mussalmen the right to beat their wives (4:34); Sharia gives a Muslima half the inheritance rights of a Mussalman (Sura 4, various verses); the testimony of a Muslima has half the legal value of that of a Mussalman; Mussalmen may marry “out” to non-Muslims (but it is presumed that any offspring will be raised Muslim), but Muslimas may not (this is pure tribalism, to keep one’s own tribe’s – here the ‘tribe’ of Islam – women to yourself, whilst taking other tribe’s – here the ‘tribe’ of non-Muslims – women for yourself).

Muslimas are required to provide “sex-on-demand” for their husbands (see K2:223 also recall that in the Nikah – Islamic ‘marriage’  – the man essentially buys the use of the woman’s vagina) and thus there can be no marital rape in Sharia. Consequently, given the even lower status of female sex-slaves, under Sharia there is no concept of their rape either, again they must provide  “sex-on-demand”. One Sahih (“true”) Ahadith even says that if the man asks for it the woman must provide sex “even on the back of a camel” ²².

Also under Sharia, a woman must bring four independent (Male) witnesses to prove rape against her attacker¹. Obviously this is an almost impossible demand to meet and so Sharia convictions of men for rape are a practically unheard of outcome. Note also that a women who does bring a rape charge and fails to prove it will be either stoned to death for adultery or flogged (if unmarried) under the punishments for “Zina” (illegal sexual intercourse). This makes the risks of bringing such cases huge and consequently most rapes within Muslim communities go completely unreported. Taken together and when the doctrine of “Sitr” (see below) is added,  this means that rape is effectively decriminalised in Sharia.

Islamic society is also highly stratified with the Mussalman at the top and the Muslima as a second class citizen. Female non-Muslim slaves have the lowest “rank” of all.

In January  2025  Malala Yousafzai asked Muslim leaders not to recognise the (very Islamic) Taliban government of Afghanistan because, she said, “They don’t think women are human”. Given that Malala was referring to Muslim women, what does that say about attitudes to non-Muslim (Kafir) women?²

The point here is that given the low regard in which Islam holds even Muslim women then non-Muslim women are held in no regard at all  (both these facts will be exemplified in the next essay).

 

Jihadi doctrine in the Islamic canon.

That Islamic Jihadi doctrine is mostly concerned with Sword-Jihad (“hot” war against non-Muslims) was dealt with in the article on the Four forms of Jihad and its sister piece Greater and Lesser Jihad. A few points from those articles are relevant here.

Throughout Islamic history sword-Jihad was used in both outright conquest and in “Razzia” (raids). The latter are perhaps less well understood, but their purpose, a raid on a neighbouring non-Muslim state, was to kill non-Muslims and capture “ghanima” or war-booty which, inevitably, included the females who fell into their hands. In fact the gaining of female sex-slaves through raiding was a major incentive and reward for such activities.

In the Koran and Ahadith sword-jihad is described as the “highest” and “most holy” thing a Mussalman can do and thus a great act of worship and piety. The rewards of sword-Jihad are also holy in the sense that they are sanctioned by Allah, which brings the discussion back to sex-slavery and the “pious rape” of such slaves. In addition the Jihadist is promised absolution from all his sins, which include what today would be called war-crimes and crimes against humanity, so in this view in committing these ‘fabricated’ crimes the Jihadist is doing nothing wrong.

The Ahadith specifically give permission for Jihadists to rape married female captives in the presence of their men-folk (if still living). This raping of  the “other tribe’s” females (Kafir women) by the Muslims will be degrading for the Kafir women and humiliating for the men, thereby proving  the Muslim’s (and Islam’s) ‘superiority’. There are many reports of Muslim rapists (particular those of ISIS raping Yazidis) who chanted “Allahu akbar” whilst doing so.  Allahu akbar means (literally) “the god is greater” and in these circumstances may be taken to mean “my god is greater than yours and he approves of me raping you”. A similar case was reported by one victim of the Rochdale child-rape grooming gang where the rapist used to chant the Koran whilst raping her.

However, for the purposes of these essays a lesser known element of Jihadi doctrine is also relevant.

Koran 9:14-15 states: “Fight against them [Kafirs] so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people, and remove the anger of their (believers) hearts...”

Here we see the two important things:

1. When Muslims are fighting Kafir (non-Muslims) it is Allah who is ‘really’ punishing the Kafirs (for their their acts of Kufr, disbelief, which are seen as acts of defiance and rebellionagainst Allah).
2. Disgracing and killing Kafirs is a way for Muslims to remove their anger at (hatred of etc.) Kafirs. This assuagement of anger includes the act of raping kafir women.

This forms an important justification for offensive sword-Jihad, which in history has been Jihad’s predominant form, (and its modern form, Islamic terror) in that when non-Muslims (Kafir) are being attacked by Muslims, the Muslims are simply visiting the ‘Just Punishment of Allah’ on the Kafir for their acts of Kufr (disbelief) which are seen as acts of rebellion against Allah and hence the Jihadists are also simply “punishing the defiantly rebellious” and so the Muslims are always ‘justified’ in their violence against non-Muslims because non-Muslims deserve to be so punished. Further, since it is according to  Allah’s Will that the violence is visited on the Kafir, Muslims are exonerated from responsibility for their actions, in fact they will simply view even the most heinous acts as lawful, even ‘holy’ because they are encompassed as part of the most holy of all undertakings, sword-Jihad, and are simply enacting Allah’s will.

 

Harbis, Kafirs, Dhimmis and Dhimmitude

Earlier in this essay the meaning of Kafir was partly elucidated. A Kafir is someone who has actively rejected Islam and is thus in open defiance and rebellion against Allah (Mohammed and the Muslims).

Islamic Jihadi doctrine states that such non-Muslims living outside the darul Islam, the territory of Islam, here meaning (strictly) areas not under Sharia law, are Harbis which means that those Kafirs are deemed to be “at war” (hot or cold) with Muslims (the converse has certainly been true throughout history since the advent of Islam). Thus non-Muslims living in (for example) America, Europe and the UK are, in this understanding, Harbis.

However, when Islam captures an area then despite typically massive slaughter of the indigenes, there will be a population of Kafir/Harbis existing within what is now darul Islam. In history such Kafirs were initially Christian or, sometimes, Jewish (i.e. “People of the Book”) and they were offered four choices which may be summarised as: “Become Muslim, become Dhimmi, become destitute refugees or become dead.” For those that were not “People of the Book”, such as the Hindus and Buddhists of the Indian subcontinent, the second option of Dhimmitude was not properly available, however given the size of the Indian populations concerned the Muslim invaders simply could not kill them all, despite serious efforts so to do, and so Dhimmitude was extended as a pragmatic measure.

Thus, to deal with populations of Kafirs who didn’t convert and weren’t driven out, Islam instituted Dhimmitude. A Dhimmi is a Kafir who has accepted Islamic domination and whose continued existence is dependant on their abiding by their Dhimmah, or “contract of toleration (or: contract of protection)” and, crucially, payment of Jizya.

The archetypal Dhimmah is “The Pact of Umar”, which in fact exists in several forms^3,4, but it outlines the typical conditions under which Kafirs were permitted to remain in the land and retain their lives. That these conditions were discriminatory and onerous should come as no surprise. The final term in the various forms of the Pact (exact wording varies) is particularly chilling: “These are the conditions that we [the Christians] set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of toleration] is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’

In 2014 ‘Caliph’ Al-Baghdadi of ISIS made a very similar Pact with the Christians of Raqqa, the final term of which stated: “But if they [Christians of Raqqa] disagree with anything in this pact, then they have no dhimmah, and the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham will deal with them as it deals with the people of war and stubborn enmity.”

There are a few points to unpick here.

1. From the historical pact and that of ISIS, it should be understood that these final clauses amount to a hostage clause in that if any Dhimmi breaks their pact, the whole population are to be treated as “people of defiance and rebellion” – i.e. as Harbis, who can then be murdered, raped, enslaved and despoiled. That said, and whilst in history there are examples of exactly this happening (the 1066 AD slaughter of the Jews of Grenada⁵ is one such), it is also true that breaches by an individual Dhimmi were frequently dealt with on an individual (or family) basis with the “revenge killing” thus limited and in some cases the Dhimmi could avoid losing their life if they converted to Islam. An almost invariably deadly breech of the Pact is for a Dhimmi to “blaspheme” Islam (Allah, his prophet, his book or his religion – as one Sharia manual puts it).
2. The original pact contains the phrase “which we set against ourselves”. This clearly shows that the Pact discriminated against the (now) Dhimmis and the fact that this wording was accepted by the Muslims is their acknowledgement of the truth of the discrimination as well. Given that the pact entered Sharia, this also shows the “natural” superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims.
3. The original pact also contains the phrase “and followers of our religion”. This can be interpreted to mean “all co-religionists anywhere in the world”  and there are cases where a breach of the pact by one group of Dhimmis, or even  an individual Dhimmi, in one Country ‘provoked’ the murder of Dhimmis in an entirely separate Country. A well known example of “trans-national Dhimmitude” resulted from the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons” in Denmark (2005) which resulted in attacks against Christian populations in parts of the Muslim world, some such attacks resulting in murder and property destruction as Muslim mobs took “revenge” on the local population of (notional) Dhimmis for an ‘offence’ occurring half a world away.

The Dhimmah or “contract of toleration” has to be bought by the payment of Jizya – a head tax on the Dhimmis – that allowed them, quite literally, to keep their heads on their shoulders. There was no fixed rate for this tax and it was frequently ruinous and used to drive Dhimmis into abject poverty and when Dhimmis could not pay the tax that too meant they were in breach of their Dhimmah and the Dhimmis could be killed⁶.

That said there are Koranic verses and “sayings” in the Ahadith that state that Dhimmis should be “well treated” – i.e. that the Muslims should uphold their part of the Dhimmah and this made its way into Sharia. But it should be recalled from the first essay that there is no concept of “universal human rights”, whatever minimal ‘rights’ a Dhimmi had were only maintained by strict compliance with the Dhimmah and payment of Jizya.  In practice, a Dhimmah was and is easily circumvented by Muslims claiming a breach of the Dhimmah, which returns the Dhimmis to their (natural) Harbi status and makes them liable to murder, rape, despoilation etc.

As of  2025 there are no countries that actually have such pacts in state law and therefore Muslim apologists will say that “the Pact has fallen into disuse”. Legally, this is true; but throughout those parts of the Muslim World where there still remain significant non-Muslim populations, the violence of Muslims in response to actions that are breaches of the terms of the Pact shows that implicit or de facto pacts remain in place and compliance with such is usually enforced by the Muslim mob.

The classic example of this attitude is when an (often fabricated) “blasphemy” is claimed which results in the killing of members of  a non-Muslim minority. This shows that an implicit pact is still in place and “revenge” for a breach is enacted by the Muslim mob. In addition there is usually no effective legal redress for the victims of the Muslim mob despite national state-laws, showing that the state is often complicit (if only through inaction) in the violent enforcement of the implicit pact. In some cases the non-Muslims’ situation is worse, with some states (e.g. Egypt) having “arms-length” organisations or groups that promote “reconciliation” actions which result in additional despoilation of the non-Muslims⁷, thus although not truly having legal force in terms of state-law, the Pact still forms the basis for how Muslims generally see non-Muslims living in their midst.

As stated above, the phrase “and followers of our religion”  can be interpreted to mean “all co-religionists anywhere in the world”.

Consider the case of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, where members of a majority non-Muslim population, who had never been subject to an historical Dhimmah, were massacred for “blasphemy against Mohammed”. Were they killed for being Harbis (people deemed at war with Islam) or for being Dhimmis in breach of their implicit contract? The perpetrators stated they were taking “revenge” for their “blasphemy” – just as the Pact allows.

Recall the case of the French school teacher Samuel Paty who was murdered by a Muslim⁸ for ‘blasphemy’, not in some Islamic hell-hole, but also in France.

UK Readers will also recall the case of the Wakefield “Koran Boy” who accidentally dropped a copy of the Koran he owned in school. The ‘outrage’ was whipped up by the Muslim community and the result was “mediation” between his family and the ‘outraged’ local Muslim community at a local mosque, also attended by the Police,  at which the mother begged the Muslims, from which community death-threats had been issued, not to “harm” her son (or her) and the Muslim community was given assurances that he would “show respect” from henceforth with the Police nodding along in apparent agreement with both the potentially lethal ‘outrage’ of the Muslims and with her begging. To be fair, it should be said that despite the death threats, the local Muslims have been gracious enough not to kill them{8}.

There is also the case of the Batley Teacher (UK)⁸ who is still in hiding from the Muslim mob three years after ‘outrage’ caused by him showing a picture of Mohammed in a class on … religious tolerance and free speech.

More recently a man in Pudsey, Yorkshire (UK) had his home and vehicle attacked by a Muslim gang because he had “insulted” Islam – again a breech of the conditions of the Pact of Umar.

Salwan Momika, an Iraqi Christian burnt Korans in 2023. His actions ‘provoked’ the (inevitable) world-wide Muslim “outrage”. Riots ensued that (largely) targeted non-Muslim property and businesses. The Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organisation Lashkar-e-Jhangvi called for a genocide against Pakistani Christians to avenge the Koran burning in a statement on 1 July 2023. The Muslim mobs and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were treating their local de facto Dhimmi population as “people of defiance and rebellion” in response to a breech of the Pact by a Dhimmi living half a world away in Sweden (note that as an Iraqi Christian, Momika would also be considered to be under a de facto Dhimmah). Thus here we see the phrase “and followers of our religion”  interpreted to mean “all co-religionists anywhere in the world”. Momika, who had received death-threats following his Koran burnings was murdered in January 2025 in Sweden, according to some sources by Islamists²¹.

These examples all come from Europe in the 21^st century. Again these events are typical of responses to breeches of the Pact (except for the fact that, unlike Samual Paty and Salwan Momika, those in the UK are still alive, “merely” in hiding), but they point to the fact that many Muslims in the UK, France and Sweden really do think that all non-Muslims are Dhimmis – unless they break their implicit pact in which case they become Harbis who can be killed, raped and despoiled. The same probably applies generally around the world as well.

British Islamist Anjem Choudhary is (in)famous for speaking about state benefits as “jihad seekers allowance” (a pun on “job seekers allowance”) and also saying “But the normal situation is for you [Muslims] to take money from the kuffar [non-believers]. So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.” ⁹. The point here is that Choudhary is claiming that state benefits are a form of Jizya and thus, since Jizya is collected from Dhimmis, he must also consider non-Muslim Britons to be Dhimmis, a view that is, I suspect, quite widely held within UK Muslim communities.

In the case of much of the Indian sub-continent, Israel and parts of the West, another argument, separate to that given above, comes into play relating to Dhimmitude. An important tenet of Islamic theology is that once a piece of land comes under Islamic control it is Islamic land in perpetuity¹⁰. This argument can be applied to any land that was once controlled by Islam but now is not; for example Israel,  much of India, the Iberian peninsula and large swathes of Eastern Europe. This doctrine is at the root of the calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. According to this doctrine that state is “unlawful”, the people “occupying” it are in rebellion against the rule of Islam, usurpers of the “lawful” Muslim population, etc. The same applies to all other areas of land that were once controlled by Muslims. Further, such lands in which non-Muslim populations resided during the period of Islamic control would generally have had Dhimmahs applied and these Dhimmahs could not have been legally repealed under Sharia. Thus today, in such lands the people residing are, by this definition, people of defiance and rebellion (to quote the Pact of Umar) and, consequently, the “capture” and rape of their females is allowed. The point here is that in those parts of the world that were once Islamic the case can be made, under Sharia, for it being lawful for Mussalmen to rape Kafir females.

 

Islamic attitudes to Muslims and non-Muslims contrasted.

The foregoing allows the construction of a set of comparisons between how Islam views Muslims and Kafirs. This is based on both statements within the Koran (and Ahadith) and also Muslim attitudes found throughout history. The list given here is not claimed to be comprehensive, nor should it be assumed that all Muslims will think in these terms.

In many ways what is found is a set of polar opposites (for all that the praise of Muslims is far less strident and overt than the condemnation of non-Muslims in Koran and Ahadith).

For example:

• Muslims are superior and the best (or supreme) community (ever) raised up, non-Muslims are the lowest of the low (as the Rochdale child-rape grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed said: “We are the supreme race”).
• Muslims are noble, non-Muslim are vile and unclean.
• Muslims are good-doers, non-Muslims are wrong-doers and evil-doers.
• Muslims are righteous, non-Muslims are sinners and corrupt(ers).
• Muslims are enlightened, non-Muslims are benighted.
• Muslims are knowledgeable, non-Muslims are ignorant (in a state of  Jahilliyah).
• Muslims are upright, non-Muslims are criminal sinners.
• Muslims are moral, non-Muslims are immoral (as defined by adherence to sharia amongst other things).
• Muslims are loved by Allah, non-Muslims are hated.
• Muslims are the party (followers) of Allah (Ar. Hesbollah),  non-Muslims are the party or followers of Satan.
• Muslims are liberators (when Muslims attack non-Muslim lands they are ‘liberating’ it from the curse of Jahilliyah), non-Muslims are oppressors ( of Muslims given a chance).
• Muslims are the “natural” rulers, all non-Muslims the “natural” dhimmis or slaves.
• Muslims are heaven-bound, non-Muslims are hell-bound (where Allah will torture them for all eternity).
• Muslims are successful, non-Muslims are losers (the fact that many Muslim Countries are poor and backward is taken as proof that non-Muslims have “defrauded” Muslims of their Allah-given dues and spoils).

 

How then, should a “Mumin” – a “true-believer” Muslim –  regard non-Muslims?

The evidence gathered above suggests that it is with a mixture of visceral hatred, on the basis of al-wara wal-bara and the non-Muslims’ loathsome characteristics; fear, non-Muslims are characterised as evil, being followers of Satan who always seek to corrupt Muslims and, because of the way Muslims almost invariably persecute non-Muslim minorities within the Muslim world, a second source would be fear of attack by a non-Muslim majority (i.e. the much touted, “Islamophobic backlash” which has never truly materialised); anger, because non-Muslims are defiant rebels against Allah and the Muslims – the act of kufr “disbelief” – against Allah/Mohammed and against Muslim rule; consequently likely linked to a desire to harm or punish non-Muslims for their rebellious defiance; and also hostility/aggression, also due to the obligation to wage jihad (which, you should remember is the most Holy undertaking that a Mussalman can do and Jihadist actions, including the rape of captives are deemed pious acts of Worship); resentment, in that, at least in more wordly terms, Muslims are no longer “ruling the world”; disgust, due to (religious) uncleanliness (many Muslims will not drink from a cup used by a Kaffir or even shake their hands).

Linked to all of that will be the clear sense that non-Muslims and particularly females, are a lower form of barely human life. To be fair, the basic humanity of non-Muslims is acknowledged, but as a very debased form.

The conclusion from this is that a “Mumin” (true-believer Muslim) will regard a non-Muslim female in a completely de-humanised way, even if (ironically) she is still seen as carnally desirable.

 

The Doctrine of Sitr

In simple terms, the doctrine of Sitr (“veiling”) says that the sins (and crimes) of a Muslim (man) should be covered  up. The primary reason for doing this is to prevent the shaming of the individual, but secondarily to prevent “shame” falling on the Muslim community, particularly if the community concerned is resident within a broader non-Muslim one.

What is concerning is that Sitr is invoked in cases of both immorality and illegality up to and including child sex abuse ¹¹ and that even within the Muslim community. Given that non-Muslims are, to put it gently, less regarded that Muslims, it should be clear that the cover-up of crimes against non-Muslims will be even more automatic.

A full reading of of the doctrine will show that there are exceptions to the position of cover-up (and denial) for certain crimes, as defined by Sharia and committed within the Muslim community.

Further, since the doctrine of Sitr is a religious doctrine, informing on a criminal Muslim to, in particular, non-Muslim authorities would be seen as a sacrilegious act.

 

The doctrine of  ‘Awrah.

The “intimate parts” of the human body must, according to Islam, be covered by clothing. The ‘awrah of a woman (which is what is relevant here) is generally taken as the entire body except the face and hands, although the Salafists and some others would say that the hands and face have to be covered as well, hence the sorts of coverings where the woman is gloved and has a mesh veil over her eyes.

This doctrine changes women into little more than perambulatory vaginas. The other consequence is that women who are not so covered must be whores, sluts etc. who are “asking for it”.

In 2006 Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali said that women who were not so covered were like “uncovered meat”. He said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street…and the cats come and eat it..whose fault is it – the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” Which means that if an “uncovered” woman is raped then it is entirely her fault for not dressing according to Islamic norms. Similar attitudes have been expressed by others (including child-rape grooming gang members), thus the general attitude is quite widespread.

 

Sharia Law versus State Law and the doctrine of Taysir.

There are many examples of Muslim preachers stating the primacy of Muslim law, “Allah’s laws” over man-made (state) law. However, for Muslim communities resident in “lands of Jahilliyah” (lit. lands of ignorance, generally non-Muslim states, but also non-Sharia compliant Muslim ones) there has to be some sort of “compromise” between Sharia law and state law.

The Doctrine of Taysir (lit. “ease”) allows Muslims to set aside portions, or even entire tranches of Sharia law if the enactment thereof would bring “difficulty” on the Muslim community. For example, religiously minded Muslims in the west do not yet enact the punishments of stoning adulteresses to death or cutting the hands off thieves because doing so would bring them into sharp conflict with secular state law and the repercussions both on the individual (in terms of conviction by, in the Islamic view, an inherently ‘unjust’ “Kafir court”) and (potentially) the community (reputation wise) would be severe.

In general then, Muslims are expected, some would say religiously required, to obey the laws of the land in which they reside.

But note that those parts of Sharia that are in abeyance are not rejected or repealed, they are only set aside. Thus as the situation changes for a Muslim community at a given time and place Taysir also requires that those parts of Sharia set aside are enacted when the situation permits.

In the UK that portions of Sharia initially set aside under Taysir have been enacted can be seen in, for example, the increasing use and enforcement of the Hijab and veil (especially on children who cannot make an informed decision about the matter), or the increasing number of “Sharia Courts” (officially termed Muslim Arbitration Tribunals) that are used to settle civil law issues of inheritance and divorce even though Sharia prescriptions differ from UK common law and though these ‘Courts’ are officially subordinated to UK law.

The report “Easy Meat”¹²demonstrates that several UK Muslim organisations have stated that Muslims should obey the law of the land unless it contradicts Sharia, in which case Sharia takes precedence¹³.

Consequently, religiously-minded Muslims will take the attitude that they will implement as much of Sharia as possible at least within their own communities. Putting that simply, they will see how much they can “get away with” when Sharia conflicts with state law before the repercussions become too severe. Thus there are cases when the rulings of these ‘Sharia Courts’ breach UK civil law¹⁴ and in some instances these ‘Courts’ have ruled on criminal matters within the Muslim community (such as theft or fraud) which, legally under their ‘charter’, they are expressly forbidden to do.

 

The role of Dawah.

This may be defined as “a call to believe in Allah and follow His Islamic law”¹⁵.  However, Dawah needs to be understood in terms of Jihad, to be more precise in terms of pen/tongue Jihad (Islamic advocacy in simple terms) and hand-Jihad (e.g. protests and demonstrations against “un-Islamic” things, demonstrations of ‘Islam in action’ and also explaining the “error of their ways” to “lax” Muslims).

Thus Dawah applies to both Muslims (to draw them back to, or deepen them in, orthodox Islam and admonishment of the lax for not being “Muslim enough”) and to non-Muslims (either to convert them or at least make them more inclined towards normalising Islam through either fear or favour). Coupled with both of these, however, is a third facet, that of altering any society (Islamic, Muslim majority or otherwise) by getting it to accept (more) Islamic, i.e. Sharia, norms. Let’s call this “societal-Dawah”, although this would actually involve both pen/tongue-Jihad and some hand-Jihad as described above and in the article “The four forms of Jihad”.

Ed Husain wrote “Among the Mosques a journey across Muslim Britain” (Bloomsbury, 2021) in which he visited many mosques across the length and breadth of the Country. What he found was disturbing. Roughly half of the mosques were Deobandi (an orthodox sect within Sunni Islam that gave birth to the Afghan Taliban) and many others were controlled by Tablighi Jamaat which spouses a return to ‘true’ Islam as observed by the Prophet Mohammed – i.e. they are Salafists (Salafi Islam is closely linked to Jihadist doctrine) – who are seeking to build the conditions under which a Caliphate can emerge in the UK. Many of these Mosques preached ‘extremist’ (i.e. orthodox) ideas, such as the (very mainstream) idea within Islam that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, that Muslims should separate themselves from the “Kuffar” (i.e.  not participate in wider society), all women are inferior to men and had such ‘extremist’ materials, including Jihadist materials within the Mosque book shops (I have also personally observed such books in Mosque bookshops). Some Mosques in the UK have been found to support Jihadism (which, remember, legalises sex-slavery) and to lionise Jihadists. Thus the teaching within such mosques, whilst worrying enough in its own right in terms of its impact on society generally will also tend support at least some of the Islamic ideas that underpin the  child-rape grooming gangs members’ attitudes (for example: superiority of  Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, Jihad and sex-slavery).

in the UK and Europe a visible example of the  “societal-Dawah” defined above would be the “normalisation” of hijab and Jilbab for young Muslim girls, who would have no choice on the matter  (as an aside, such dress would also mark them “off-limits” for the child-rape grooming gang¹⁶), which also means that, unlike other pupils, they are excepted from wearing school uniform and so this manifests Islamic supremacism and exceptionalism. Another, perhaps less overtly visible, examples would include employers being expected to provide prayer breaks and dedicated washing facilities for Muslims. More common in Europe is the mass prayer on the street. This is usually against state-law, in the sense that the blocking of the highway is illegal, yet seldom if ever are such mass-prayers disrupted by the Police, instead this demonstration of Muslim power over the state is accepted.

On a slightly lighter note the “Muslim patrols” in London, which aimed to enforce “Sharia Law” in parts of London did not work out so well for the Muslims¹⁷, but the attitude of “Islam rules here” is clearly implied by such actions, even if short-lived (this also reflects the attitude discussed earlier about Islamic land, that once Muslims occupy a land it is perpetually part of the “darul Islam” and – ideally – ruled under Sharia).

More political examples are also found, such as the creation of “alcohol free” zones  “for the good of society” and the Police arresting people under “hate crime” laws, for burning Korans – a de facto blasphemy law.¹⁸

Successful actions such as these also reinforce the Muslim senses of superiority, supremacism and their “manifest destiny” to rule and subjugate non-Muslims.

 

Muslim “victimhood” and “persecution”.

A common theme amongst Muslims is their victimhood¹⁹ and persecution. The root of this theme can be explained as follows. In a nutshell, Islam considers any state that is not fully Sharia compliant to be an “oppressor” and “persecutor” of its Muslim population. Thus orthodox Muslims (“Islamists”) will claim that Muslims are the most oppressed and persecuted people ever because, in the modern world, there are no “truly Islamic” states (bar, perhaps, Afghanistan under the rule of the  Taliban)²⁰.

Throughout Muslim history the narrative of  “oppression/persecution” has been used to legitimate sword-Jihad against even the most tolerant of non-Muslim societies and Countries which had Muslim enclaves.

In this area the free world is the worst offender. It “oppresses” Muslims because its laws are not Sharia compliant, its peoples do not “obey the laws of Allah” (its women dress ‘immodestly’, its people drink alcohol, eat Pork, etc.), Muslims are (generally) not the most affluent, etc.; all of which  are intolerably ‘oppressive’.  It “persecutes” Muslims because the free world doesn’t (fully) enforce Islamic blasphemy laws, allows (a little) criticism of Islam and scurrilous attitudes to ‘The Prophet PBUH’, etc. No wonder Iran terms America “The Great Satan” given America’s more robust attitude to free speech (amongst other things).

This narrative when taken to heart can only promote feelings of hostility and anger towards the surrounding non-Muslim population, which, of course, is precisely what the orthodox Muslims intend because this helps promote Jihadism and it also promotes a desire to strike out at the non-Muslim population to get “revenge” for the ‘oppression’ and ‘persecution’ of the Muslims.

Islamic doctrine requires Muslim communities to see themselves as distinct and separate from “Kafir society” and the “victimhood/persecution” narrative along with the “Kafirs are trying to corrupt us and take us away from Islam” narrative,  bolsters this attitude, leading to (some) Muslim communities separating themselves at least mentally, and sometimes physically by self-ghettoisation, from the wider community. Such a ghetto mentality also makes it yet easier to ignore what happens to those from without the community.

In addition this narrative is used to silence criticism and promote Islamic “brotherhood”, as was and is done particularly effectively in Tower Hamlets  where Lutfur Rahman smeared any who disagreed with him as “racist” and “Islamophobic” whilst simultaneously promoting inward-looking Islamic tribalism within the Bangladeshi community.

 

Conclusion

Islam regards non-Muslims (Kafirs) as being the sum of all vices and scarcely human whereas Muslims are the holders of all the virtues. Consequently, “true-believer” Muslims have very negative attitudes towards non-Muslims, which may well include; aggression, anger, despite, hatred, hostility, revulsion (amongst others) and a desire |(whether or not they may have the ability so to do) to punish nearby Kafirs for their “defiance and rebellion” against Islam and resentment of their worldly success. There may also be fear of corruption by non-Muslims. Attitudes towards non-Muslim  females will be even worse, given the inherent Islamic misogyny and the general attitude towards non-Muslim (in particular white) women as sexually depraved that pervades much of Islamic history.

The gaining of sex-slaves is a major inducement, purpose and reward for Sword-Jihad in raids and wars of conquest.

Non-Muslims  are also considered either to be Harbis (Persons deemed to be at war with Islam) or else Dhimmis – subjugated persons tolerated by Muslims so long as they scrupulously abide by their Dhimmah and pay Jizya. Failure to pay Jizya, or a breach of the Dhimmah (whether real or fabricated) returns a Dhimmi to the status of Harbi which means that they, and their community, can be despoiled, raped or killed.

Even the most serious crimes (including child-rape) by Muslims should be covered up according to the doctrine of Sitr to prevent shaming either the individual or the Muslim community.

The doctrine of ‘Awrah “proves” that non-Muslim women are moral degenerates who are “asking for rape” by not concealing their bodies and so, in conjunction with other factors discussed above,  their rape is not a crime or sin.

Muslim communities living outside the Muslim world where Sharia and state law frequently conflict should enact as much of Sharia as can be managed (at least within their own communities) setting aside the portions that would bring about serious repercussions, but reinstating Sharia as conditions permit.

Successes in the “Islamisation” of a non-Muslim Country reinforce Muslim beliefs in their superior nature and manifest destiny as rulers and subjugators.

Perversely, and despite their self-prophesed “manifest destiny” to be the “natural” rulers of the world, many Muslims also adopt a victimhood/persecution narrative in which they are oppressed through living in a society that does not comply with Sharia law (even when so living is their choice) and some self-ghettoise to maintain their separateness and to stop them being corrupted by a Kafir society.

 

 

Sources, notes and references:

1. https://islamweb.net/en/fatwa/323002/failing-to-produce-four-witnesses-in-accusation-of-rape last checked 21/01/2025
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzailast checked 21/01/2025 and https://rmx.news/article/muslims-feel-superior-target-women-of-other-religions-says-head-of-association-of-arab-women/  last checked 23/01/2025
3. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-pact-of-umar-regulating-the-status-of-non-muslims-under-muslim-rulelast checked 21/01/2025
4. http://oerstorage.minotstateu.edu/files/original/d76c583aa7a91ab178dfaa7b732cffbb745129pdflast checked 21/01/2025
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacrelast checked 11/01/2025
6. https://myislam.dk/articles/en/ibrahim%20islamic-jizya-fact-and-fiction.phplast checked 23/01/2025 and https://morningstarnews.org/2025/01/islamists-collude-with-pakistani-officials-in-false-blasphemy-cases/  last checked 23/01/2025
7. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5947e4266a49635915ac0a31/t/59ee80eed7bdce4245e96c7c/1508802798737/IB_Reconciliation.pdf(though this does not exemplify the more gratuitous examples of imbalance in outcome). last checked 21/01/2025
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Patyand https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821157/14-year-old-autistic-boys-naive-prank-scuffed-copy-Koran.html and https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/year-prophet-muhammad-batley-school-23493076 and https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/hate-and-the-islamic-onslaught-on last checked 21/01/2025 and https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/gangs-attacked-mans-home-over-insulting-tiktok-video-4954729
9. https://www.meforum.org/islamist-watch/claim-jihad-seeker-allowancelast checked 21/01/2025
10. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20203/slamists-claiming-andlast checked 21/01/2025
11. For example: https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/202255/and https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/179537/ and https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/184937/  last checked 21/01/2025
12. https://dn720306.ca.archive.org/0/items/easy-meat/Easy%20Meat.pdflast checked 20/01/2025
13. https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32500/obeying-the-law-of-the-land-in-the-west-2/Last checked 20/01/2025
14. https://onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdfand https://www.gbnews.com/news/sharia-courts-muslim-women-failed-domestic-violence last checked 21/01/2025
15. https://quranteacheracademy.com/blog/islamic-dawah/
16. One reason adduced by Muslim writers for the rule to “veil” Muslim women was to prevent them being assaulted whilst going to relieve themselves at night in Medina. What is not said, but clear from the time-frame, is that their assaulters would have been Mussalmen. So it seems that from the earliest days of Islam, Mussalmen have always considered women not covered up head-to-toe as “fair game” for sexual assault and rape. And nothing has changed since.
17. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519519/Muslim-Patrol-jailed-harassing-couple-holding-hands-men-drinking-bid-enforce-Sharia-law-East-London.html
18. https://www.memri.org/tv/british-mb-linked-scholar-anas-altikriti-dawah-alcohol-free-zonesand https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/03/its-official-islamic-blasphemy-laws-have-come-to-britain/  and https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/burning-a-quran-shouldnt-be-a-crime/
19. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/62137/pdf/last checked 24/01/2025
20. According to Islam only the first four Caliphs of Islam were “rightly guided”. Does this imply that every single Muslim / Islamic Country and Empire since is actually a failure in terms of  being “truly Islamic”?
21. https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/01/30/its-time-we-all-stood-up-for-the-right-to-ridicule-islam/,  https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-salwan-momika-was-killed/  and https://www.memri.org/jttm/al-qaeda-arabian-peninsula-aqap-celebrates-killing-sweden-based-quran-burner-salwan-momika
22. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2015/04/27/women-must-give-husbands-sex-even-on-camels-islamic-scholar-says/885759 To be fair there is some dispute as to whether this command is to be taken literally (as the source does) or whether it is meant figuratively as in “whilst travelling”.