A group of 11 muslims plied girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs in the Rochdale area so they could use them for sex, a court has heard.
The five girls, who were aged between 13 and 15 when the alleged abuse began, were passed around by the muslims “who acted together to sexually exploit the girls”, a trial at Liverpool Crown Court was told.
All the girls were from broken homes and one was in care. The court heard that some of the girls were raped and physically assaulted and some were forced to have sex with “several muslims in a day, several times a week”.
The offences are said to have happened in and around Rochdale, Greater Manchester, in 2008 and 2009.
The court was told that some of the muslims/ paid the girls and took payments from other muslims to whom they supplied the girls for sex.
Kabeer Hassan, 24, Abdul Aziz, 41, Abdul Rauf, 43, Mohammed Sajid, 35, Adil Khan, 42, Abdul Qayyum, 43, Mohammed Amin, 44, Qamar Shahzad, 29, Liaquat Shah, 41, and Hamid Safi, 22, are on trial at Liverpool Crown Court charged with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16.
They have all pleaded not guilty along with a 59-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons. He also denies two counts of rape, aiding and abetting a rape, one count of sexual assault and an allegation of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation.
Hassan, of Lacrosse Avenue, Oldham, and Shahzad, of Tweedale Street, Rochdale, also deny rape. Aziz, of Armstrong Hurst Close, Rochdale, denies two counts of rape and one allegation of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Khan, of Oswald Street, and Rauf, of Darley Road, both in Rochdale, have also pleaded not guilty to trafficking for sexual exploitation. Sajid, of Jepheys Street, Rochdale, denies trafficking, two counts of rape and one allegation of sexual activity with a child. Amin, of Falinge Road, Rochdale, denies sexual assault. Shah and Safi, both of Kensington Street, Rochdale, each denied two counts of rape and Safi has also pleaded not guilty to trafficking. Aziz, Khan, Safi and the 59-year-old are remanded in custody. Qayyum, of Ramsay Street, Rochdale, and the rest of the defendants are on bail.
Rachel Smith, opening the case for the prosecution, said the girls were given alcohol, food and money in return for sex but that there were times when violence was used.
The court heard the muslims knew each other and that two of them worked in the takeaways Tasty Bites and the Balti House, both in Market Street in the Heywood area of Rochdale. Four of the other muslims worked as cab drivers at local taxi firms, one was a student and four were jobless. The muslims were known to the girls by nicknames such as “Master” and “Tiger”, the court was told. One 13-year-old victim fell pregnant to one of the muslims and had the child aborted and another teenager recalled being raped by two muslims while she was “so drunk she was vomiting over the side of the bed”.
Islam is the only major world religion where child marriage has the religious sanction of its prophet. Mohammed ‘married’ Aisha, his most notable wife, when she was six years old. The marriage was consummated when she was nine or ten at the latest. Like so many marriages, it was the product of an alliance between her father and Mohammed. Aisha’s merchant father was Mohammed’s first ally outside his family, and went on to be Mohammed’s successor. That alliance was sealed with the sexual abuse of his little girl.
Such arrangements are still common in the Muslim world today, where little girls are treated as gifts to seal an alliance.
As the mother of the Sunni Caliphate, Aisha is not just an incidental figure. Her marriage to Mohammed lies at the heart of Islam. The alliance between her father and her abuser made Islam viable by giving its prophet his first real power base. After Mohammed’s death, her father used that connection to the Chief Prophet of Islam, to gain the political upper hand over Mohammed’s son-in-law in the civil war that arose afterward. And it was her father who oversaw the codification of the Koran in its written form.
The spread of the Islamic faith and the codification of the Koran were made possibly only through the rape of a little girl. And there is no way around that. Which is why child abuse remains a permanent part of Islam. To disavow it, is to disavow Islam’s Prophet and his successor, whom Sunni Islam associates with the codification of their religion’s holiest book. Muslims cannot tolerate gently mocking cartoons of their prophet. They certainly are not about to put him aside so that no more 9 year old girls get raped.
And how could they? One of the most awful Hadiths depicts Aisha’s mother taking her from her swing set, wiping her face and then bringing her inside and putting her on Mohammed’s lap. While everyone else left, Mohammed “consummated” his marriage with her. Another describes her friends coming over to play with dolls… after her marriage. Still another mentions that she had originally played with his own children.
There is nothing terribly new here. Child abuse predates Islam. It is not uncommon in the West. But in Islam, it is an organic part of the religion itself. Even when Muslims attempt to inhibit it, they must resort to convoluted arguments that Mohammed was given special sanctions to do what he did, because he was on another level than ordinary men. And so they cannot condemn the act itself, only distinguish between Mohammed’s “high-minded” sort of child abuse and that of ordinary people.
But Aisha is only the most notable example of the exploitation of women and little girls that was a major factor in the rise of Islam.
Islam was not only born out of the rape of Aisha, but out of the rape and slavery of countless women captured by Mohammed’s forces. The rape and abuse of those women was a recruitment tool for Islam. While Muslims who fight to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims are promised 72 virginal demon women in paradise, for many of the practically minded that was not enough incentive. They wanted their reward now. Mohammed’s forces looted the property of those they conquered and subjugated. But also kidnapped and sexually abused their wives and daughters.
When some of his men objected to raping married women in the presence of their husbands, Mohammed received one of his ever convenient revelations from Allah, which dissolved the marriages of captured women making it completely legal under Islamic law and morality for them to be raped. This is not just some ancient practice, it is used as sanction today to justify the rape of married women in the parts of the world both under and not under Islamic law.
The Burqa arose because of the need to distinguish between women who were married to Muslims and could not be touched, and all other women. By covering their bodies and faces, Muslim women showed that they were off limits. Other women on the other hand remained subject to assault. Rather than practice morality, Mohammed’s men made a point of marking their ‘property’ with a brand. The Burqa was that brand. It still works that way today. When Australia’s Grand Mufti justified the gang rape of Australian girls, he did it by comparing them to uncovered meat who were to blame for what happened to them. Women who adopt the Burqa and submit to Islam are moral. Those who do not are whores.
To Mohammed and his bandit raiders, women were another form of loot. Islam expanded by force and to recruit men to fight, they had to be offered some incentives. The chance to seize women, without having to pay a dowry or negotiate tribal alliances, or even marry them at all, provided them with a real incentive. Being able to grant divine sanction to any act, no matter how depraved, let Mohammed and his men do whatever they wanted.
Islam’s Prophet had been forced to marry an older woman for financial reasons, but after her death spoke constantly of finding a “young girl to play with”. From kidnapping and raping women to marrying his son’s wife to molesting a little girl who still played with dolls– Islam allowed Mohammed to indulge his worst impulses. Mohammed reached such a level of arrogance that when he wanted to set aside one of his wives’ marital rights, he received yet another convenient ‘revelation’ from Allah. At which point the Koran records Aisha as saying, “O Allah’s Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.” Here the true nakedness of Islam is revealed. Mohammed’s Allah was nothing more than his pimp.
Islamists depict their religion as a defense against decadence, but their own prophet wallowed in decadence. Islam was a means of getting what he wanted, from women to wealth. While the prophets of other religions had tried to appeal to men’s higher impulses, Mohammed understood all along that he had to go lower than that. His religion legalized theft and rape. Demeaned women and destroyed entire cultures, all so that he and his men could profit from their misery. That understanding gave Mohammed the leverage he needed to destroy a region where religions and cultures had formerly co-existed, and turn it into the base of global terror.
Had Mohammed been a decent man, there never would have been an Islam. Had he been wealthy and powerful enough to engage all his appetites to their fullest, there would also have been no Islam. Islam exists only because Mohammed wanted more than he had. And didn’t want to work for it. The campaign of mass murder and ethnic cleansing created a religion of terror, but it was done in the service of greed. Like so many tyrants, from Hitler to Kim Jong Il, Mohammed had a vastly inflated ego completely out of proportion to his actual abilities. And like them, he knew that cunning and ruthlessness would take him further, than righteousness and hard work ever would. He saw his opponents as weak because they were unwilling to do what he did. And that made them easy prey. Mohammed and his men did not win because they were stronger. Certainly not because they were more righteous. They won because they were willing to do anything to win. And those they fought weren’t.
Unlike most dictators though, Mohammed’s legacy did not die with him. It was encoded in the Koran, carried forward by warlords and caliphs, by numberless tyrants who kill and enslave in the name of the Koran. His contempt for women and girls is also a part of that legacy.
When discussing the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010, Senator Durbin rose to give two examples, one from Afghanistan and one from Yemen. Again the word Islam was never mentioned, but it doesn’t have to be. H.R. 2103, S. 987 is an unstated and unconscious challenge to the Islamic way of doing things. It will likely be useless, and may also funnel money to “faith-based organizations” that will probably be Islamic, but it is another reminder of the vast gap between the civilized world and Islam.
Yemen, which Durbin mentioned, ranks as the country in the world with the worst gender gap. Norway on the other hand ranks as the country with the least gender gap. As Islamic immigrants have flooded Norway, the vast majority of rapists in Oslo are Muslim. And the majority of rape victims are Norwegian. Wherever it goes, Islam carries with it the toxic baggage of Mohammed. And inevitably rape and child abuse follow. There is no way around that. Islam was born out of child abuse and rape. It cannot exist without it.