Rochdale grooming trial: Nine found guilty of child sex charges

No, it doesnt work like that. In this country you critisize who you want, critisism isnt racism.

Just because you have white in you doesnt mean that at all. I'd say you are 3/4 asian so are pretty much asian. You are more asian than white, so no you arnt white and according to you dont have the right to critisize white people.

As I said, you generalized white people by saying they are all racist and think they are better than everyone else, yet you were complaining people were doing that to pakistanis, when no one has.

Another victory for Labour's Multi-Culturism policy!

On a serious note, absolutely disgusting; these people need to be shot.

Yes you can. You're white so you can criticise your own race. I'm 1/4 white so I have the licence to criticise white people as well as Pakistanis, get over it. If you were mixed race you could do the same thing.

I am not racist for criticising the white race because racism is when you despise a race and since I have white in me I obviously don't. BTW you've been generalising Pakistanis this whole thread so isn't that racist?

**** that ....... i don't have to be of a particular race/nationality to criticise someone . . . . you act like a ****, you're a ****!

You have to wonder how the good citizens of the Rochdale area will manage now that most of their taxi drivers have been locked up. Perhaps public transport will receive a localised boost.

You have to wonder how the good citizens of the Rochdale area will manage now that most of their taxi drivers have been locked up. Perhaps public transport will receive a localised boost.

You have to wonder how the good citizens of the Rochdale area will manage now that most of their taxi drivers have been locked up. Perhaps public transport will receive a localised boost.

If we had this discussion about Ayesha, a century ago it would be non-relevant and not many people would have a problem with it. Islam does not arbitrarily set an age limit because it can ignore the fact that there are girls who may not be physically ready even at eighteen. (Rare, but not impossible). This doesn’t mean Islam allows you to consummate a marriage with a child. What would you say about someone who married or had sexual intercourse with an eighteen year old girl who had not yet reached maturity/puberty? Just because Ayesha married at an age, that is considered today, quite young, doesn’t indicate how civilised someone is. By that token, you imply Tunisia is ‘more civilised’ than the U.K. by setting its age of consent higher at 20 or that our past generations and ancestries are supposedly filled with paedophiles! Try to be more objective. We as a society now have been taught to look at things from a specific number, we judge it all on a number even we ironically also judge it by the opposite; judging the maturity and physical development of an individual. This is mainly because of the crisis of child molestation and abuse in recent times which is nothing to do with Mohammed.

The moral standard is not marry at nine years old. Classical scholars have identified, two objectives- physical maturity and mental maturity- both of which Ayesha fulfilled, had you closely examined the hadith appropriately. Don’t start pulling various hadiths out of the blue either because no real individual who wants to study Islam goes to look at an entire corpus of material from anti-Islam websites, where narratives are made by decisively putting together Islamic literature into self-styled evil genres supposedly advocated by the religion.

Of course, Mohammed is said to be a role model for the world to follow. However, as Muslims we realise, this ultimately played in a personal part of his life than a directive to be followed to the letter. Had we truly shared your line of thinking of nine being the moral standard, where do we stop? It would suggest the impossible, that a Muslim man should equally strive to marry every wife Mohammed had at the same age, location, religion, similar time interval, and depending on their status, whether they were widowed or remained unmarried. Obviously, this wasn’t the message Mohammed or any scholars have made at all. Looking at his companions during his time and their relationships, this backs up that this wasn’t the message either.

The actual message that was conveyed through the marriage of Ayesha was the delay of three years ensuring she was ready for marriage and most importantly, the motives that led to this in the first place- securing Mohammed’s friendship to Ayesha’s father, Abu Bakr who later became the first Caliph of Islam. At present, there is a balancing of attitudes in that there is an acceptance of the Prophet's marriage being a norm, but norms have changed and thus we are not obliged to follow the same traditions of cultures as they progress.

Most, if not all sane Muslims and Non-Muslims know the absolute basic values we stand on alcohol, drugs and committing sex outside marriage- they’re prohibited. Marriage is a solemn covenant in Islam (Qur’an: Surah An- Nisa [4:21]) and does not allow anyone to take advantage of anyone and we crucify, behead and hang rapists and paedophiles. You don’t require books to study grooming gangs. The older you become, it’s expected there’s more resistance to sexual advances, hence why they preyed on younger and vulnerable girls particularly from care homes coupled with racist sentiment to justify their attitude towards rape. A practising Muslim wouldn’t be hanging around with them. At night, they’d be praying the night prayer, Isha worrying whether they wake up before sunset to pray Fajr and not trafficking and raping girls. It’s unthinkable and explicitly haram. We are not allowed to even handshake with unrelated women for goodness sake in accordance to Islamic principles.

You're right, Allah does say not very nice things about disbeliever and some verses do say not very nice things towards believers too (Allah descending war against them if they follow unbelief). What's important here is this doesn't necessitate or instigate a campaign for war against Non-Muslims. [See Qur’an Al Mumtahinah 60:8]. It's simply a case for Muslims to remind Non-Muslims towards Islam's way of life and in addition, it also clearly stated, for a Muslim not to interfere any further if they choose to decline. That is all. If you interpret the Qur'an the way the Qur'an itself intended, there is no contradiction. Yes, Muslims essentially believe they are living a morally superior life than everyone else and to transform that into an idea that you are better than that person would be contradictory to one of the key aspirations of religion; to inspire others. You can’t do that by rape.

Can you also explain why the vast majority of black males go after white girls?
Why there are many African dictators married to white women?
Why there are many Arab leaders married to white women?

Got to any porn site and the vast majority of women are white.

20 years ago it was black males, now its pakistani and more specifically muslim.

One quran verse confirms the islamic practice of having sex with young children, including ones that are not old enough to have periods.

Islams teachings encouraging paedophilia

A COMPLETE GUIDE TO PAEDOPHILIA IN ISLAM http://schnellmann.org/A_Complete_Guide_to_Pedophile_in_Islam.pdf

But then there are muhamads other sexual perversions of course.

Yeh, nice strawman. Thailand is a non white majority country dimwit

Dont like facts all of a sudden?

This is going around in circles. There is no inconsistency in Islamic belief here. Muslims believe that God does condemn sex with people who are not physically developed enough, and they do not believe that Mohammad had sex with someone physically undeveloped.

With respect to what we have said about the legal validity of such a marriage, that refers [only] to the validity of the contract itself. As for the effects [i.e. execution] of the marriage—such as privacy, intimacy, and sexual relations—that is another matter entirely. Such things are permitted only if the girl is able to handle such a relationship without any harm whatsoever coming to her. Otherwise, it is prohibited. This is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There shall be no harm nor the causing of the harm.” It can also be seen in the very conduct of the Prophet (peace be upon him). He did not consummate his marriage with Aisha for a number of years on account of her young age. [Abdul Aziz ibn Ahmad ad-Durayhim]

You can link to as many websites and pdf supposed refutations as you like, the context and background examined correctly by classical scholars in Islam do not change. Linking to pdf files, despite it failing to open, is not actually conducive to discussion, if any. I can play the same game too, look here: A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HOW PAEDOPHILIA IS NOT IN ISLAM: http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/attachments/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/41d1228382076-book-refuting-islamaphobes-claim-prophet-muhammad-pedophile-the_islamaphobes_glass_house.pdf

Well , i could point you to the direction of Thailand, cambodia,vietnam and the numerous white british men ( a tiny minority over there) arressted for child sex crimes
then offer names such as Malcolm Henry Payne Robert Alexander Horsman, Norman Wallis, David Taylor, Paul Cornelius Jones, Alan Charles Mawson, Roderick William Robinson, Sean McMahon, obviously Paul Francis Gad ('Gary Giltter')

Its a massive probelm it seems for East asian countries, if you ask them a lot bigger issue of british paedephilles of white europeann ethnicity than anything else, certainly a bigger problem than we have with pakistanis here.
All these names were found in barely 2 minutes looking on google

Where the hell did I mention Thailand?

I know its a non white country, are you blind?

How is it a strawman? You are talking about tourism there, there isnt millions of brits moving to thailand to have sex with young girls, they go there on holiday. If anything it was you introducing a strawman you hypocrite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9263050/Claiming-Rochdale-grooming-not-about-race-is-fatuous-Trevor-Phillips.html

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has said that discounting race as a factor in the Rochdale grooming case is 'fatuous':

Yeh, nice strawman. Thailand is a non white majority country dimwit

Dont like facts all of a sudden?

Your also missing the point that these british 'paedophiles' dont go there for children, they go there for the cheap prostitution. It happens some of the girls are underage.

Also, as marcusfox said no white people complain about this being discussed nor do they deny its a problem or say 'well, black people do this...', or 'your a racist whiteaphobe', 'your generalising all white people by mentioning this!', to try and stifle any debate, like so many of those of your creed do. Why is it that muslims etc take the discussion of sex beasts in their community so personally, yet white people are better able of accepting that there are people of their race/nationality that are perverted and that there is a specific problem?

Anyhow, I originally asked if sex offenders would be majority white in africa or china, seeing as though you said that a white person is more likely to be a sex offender. Instead of admitting you were wrong in saying this, as of course in white majority countries most sex offenders will be white (and that doesnt mean that white people are more likely to be a sex offender), you introduce a red herring of the highest order and start going on about sex tourism in Thailand.

Admit it, you were strawmanning and you were wrong.

I remember I presented to you a very good strategy to protect white females (and also other types of females) from any kind of assault/abuse a while ago but you just laughed at my idea.

Also, I do not understand why the UK authorities have not:

a) made any attempts to legalize prostitution and designate brothel areas so that pimping is removed (since the government can recruit prostitutes directly through an appropriate vetting scheme ensuring none are underage/infected).

b) made any attempt to distribute libido-suppressing medication through the NHS to anyone who desires it to reduce their sex drive and thus their potential propensity to commit sexually deviant acts.

Going to a prostitute doesnt mean you will commit sexually deviant acts, if anything it would prevent them.

I wasnt the only one who laughed at your mood killing idea It just wasnt practical given sex isnt usually a transaction and is a naturally occuring thing that involves passion and attraction and not signing contracts. I did say that your idea was logical though.

Why on earth would the NHS give out medication to stop men visiting prostitutes when they dont even do it for paedophiles and rapists? How would the NHS be ware of who is going to go to a foreign country to pay for sex or who was about to commit sexual deviancy?