Last Friday, Imams in various mosques
around the country delivered a political sermon (khutba) for a change - it was not about the awful situation in
Syria or Burma, but on the domestic issue of street groomers; the men in
question entice vulnerable young girls with gifts, drugs and alcohol for sexual
exploitation, and if necessary employ violence to keep them in chains. Imams do
not need to deliver sermons or pass a fatwa, it is common knowledge that
adultery, rape, prostitution, drugs, and alcohol are explicitly forbidden in
Islamic law, and the jurists are unanimous on this. The sermon sent out a
political message - it implied some level of collective guilt on the wider
Muslim community, as if they have to bear some responsibility for the actions
of the street groomers. One is naturally compelled to ask the simple question: what’s
the connection between the street groomers and the wider Muslim community? Is
it simply their Muslim names and heritage? Had the street groomers committed
armed robbery or murder, would a similar sermon be delivered?
What about the fact that the
street groomers are predominantly British; many were born and raised here
through the education system, so should the society not feel the collective guilt
too, and deliver a similar sermon? Of course, the media deploys the race card
in a subtle manner, the British tag is conveniently dropped and they are described
as Muslim or Pakistani street groomers. They are not as British as Tommy
Robinson, Nick Griffin, Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter, Mark Bridger, Myra
Hindley and Ian Brady! The adjective of
‘Muslim’ or ‘Pakistani’ implies the acts are somehow linked to their religious
or cultural roots, no relation to their British identity and the values of the
wider society that ‘ironically’ permits alcohol (drugs) and casual sex, as
opposed to the Islamic heritage of the street groomers.
This type of skewed media
coverage is politically motivated to tarnish the Muslims and Islam, which has
become a fad post 9/11. Hence, non-street-groomers like Jimmy Savile, Stuart
Hall, and Gary Glitter were given a very different type of media coverage; there
was no attempt to classify them as a group of white Christian men with a
problem that may have emanated from their British way of life, instead they
were just individuals committing crimes. I can imagine Nick Griffin, Melanie
Phillips and Douglas Murray standing up together and applauding the media.
It is highly unlikely that the street
groomers are sitting inside the mosques listening to sermons, given their lifestyle
of drugs, alcohol, adultery, and pimping out young girls. They are far more
likely to be found in pubs, bars and clubs which the intoxicated racist hooligans
of the far right EDL (English Defence League) types frequent. For sure, the
street groomers have far more in common with the EDL thugs than they have with
the average members of the Muslim community.
Forget the street groomers for a
moment, if you are going to blame an entire community; thus, indirectly point to
their religious and cultural values, then one should start by citing examples
from religious and political headquarters. It is difficult to find scandals
from Imams and religious leaders among Muslims; thus, in desperation the media
cites actions of illiterate street groomers. Just imagine the Islamophobic media response,
if they found sexual abuse of children committed by Imams on a similar scale to
what has been revealed inside the Catholic Church, in the heart of the Vatican.
I wonder what Robert Spencer has to say about this. Yet there is no hint of
suggestion that this was the result of Catholic values and teachings; no
priests delivered sermons around the country. The media duplicity is palpable. Similarly, can we generalise about white
European men in suits, and ask them to issue a disclaimer of innocence, based
on the examples of Silvio Berlusconi and Dominique Strauss-Kahn?
No matter how well intended the
unprecedented and coordinated sermon only endorsed the rightwing propaganda
that grooming was the product of the Muslim view, of the outside
world. The Muslim guilt gets reinforced by a phantom Imam from Oxford, Taj
Hargey, who is rolled out on our television screens and given ample spaces in
national newspapers to air his superficial and slanderous views. He has made absurd
claims that Imams or preachers teach that scantily dressed white girls are
Halal meat, permitted for our carnal consumption. Is he really suggesting that they
are teaching adultery is permitted (Halal)? Of course, there is no reference to
a particular mosque, a particular Imam and a date of the sermon to back up his
claim. And until he can substantiate his claims, Taj Hargey stands as a serial
liar. This fool should know that any scantily dressed woman would excite any
hot blooded young man; this is about biology not indoctrination.
What then was the thinking behind
the sermon? The issue is not about education, everyone knows sexual
exploitation of young girls is forbidden according to Islamic law, and
according to the secular laws of the country. It would be naive to think that
the sermons would reach the culprits and have an impact on their behaviour in a
positive way. The most likely reason was to curtail the anger of the majority white
community. But their anger exists because of the skewed portrayal of the issue
by the media.
Instead of focusing on the wider
issue of sexual exploitation, the media attention has been on street grooming,
because the Muslims may be over represented here. Street grooming is merely one
method of carrying out sexual exploitation, a wider view of the issue shows the
problem is not specific to any community, as was reiterated by the expert
appearing on BBC2 Newsnight, during the revelation of the Oxford street
groomers. Moreover, crimes against children, I mean really young children,
toddlers and babies, emanate largely from the majority white community as one
would expect, here the Muslims are underrepresented, but nobody is interested
in such dull information.
Many dissenting Imams refused to
deliver the sermon on this issue, because the act of grooming was not carried
out in the name of Islam, unlike the Woolwich murder, where the perpetrators
made explicit reference to Islamic teachings. It would have been far more
fruitful to deliver a coordinated sermon condemning that action, and isolate
the preachers of hate and disinformation, Anjem Choudary and Taj Hargey. Also
encourage the Mosques and the Muslim community to use the coming month of
Ramadan to reach out to the wider community to build bridges of peace, and burn
the bridges of hate.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
Published on 03/07/2013
London, UK
No comments:
Post a Comment