Update: Since I wrote this post, Saira has given up on Islam. More at the end.
This is the story about how Saira Khan went from a liberal Muslim screaming “Racist!” and “Islamophobe!” at non-Muslims criticising Islam, to going on the defence against “people of my community” (Muslims).
When it dawns on the enlightened Saira Khan that the truth must come out, she really goes for it, and reveals some tragic long held secrets of abuse. She surprises herself at the behaviour of Pakistani men (not all, we must inevitably add), and rallies around our shared values for peace and freedom.
I’ve become an admirer of Saira, because it takes some doing for a Muslim women to speak the way she does on Loose Women (UK daytime TV show). I’m sure she’s been influenced and helped by being part of that show, and the result is that she is providing a significant contribution, for the benefit of young girls and women suffering abuse.
This important of voice of hers cannot be under-estimated.
I don’t agree with Saira on all points. It’s nothing to do with religion? Yes it is…
Saira On Islamic Terrorism
We start with Saira’s input on an episode on Islamic terrorism.
Let’s dig into this a little …
“Whether you are white or you are Muslim …”
There are no white Muslims? There are no non-white non-Muslims opposed to Islam?
ISLAM. IS. NOT. A. RACE.
Islam is a political judicial ideology, as well as a religion – it says so itself. Read the texts.
It’s not only legitimate to oppose Islam, as it is Communism, Fascism, Christianity, or any ideology, … more than that, for any liberal, it’s a duty: read the texts of Islam, especially the Quran, which is presented as the ‘inerrant’ word of Allah. What honest liberal would not oppose such an ideology?
Religions are let off the hook far too easily.
“We have to feel what we can say without being deemed a racist.”
Let that sink in. I ask you to do this, not to pick on Saira, but to point out that to declare criticism of Islam to be racism is a very common defensive stance we see regularly.
“Every time there is an issue about Muslims, I’M brought out to talk about it.”
Saira! You go on Loose Women and CHOOSE to talk about it. And, now that you are being more open about it, I’m very glad that you do.
“I want Jane to come out, I want you to come out. Because we are united by our values, not by religion. If we live in this country we have to put our hands up and say we are British, and we are all aligned by the same things.”
Who would Saira not want to talk about it? White working class men? Tommy Robinson? I don’t know if she has limits on who can talks about it.
Nevertheless, it’s warming to hear Saira say this.
(But, note later, that she also effectively says she IS the sort of person that CAN talk about some issues, because she is ‘part of the community’. Mixed messages like this are common.)
Saira moves on to integration, and how Britain is a well integrated society, an yet so many Muslim children don’t feel integrated …
“But we are not integrated. If you go to a school … and your best mate goes on six weeks school holiday and doesn’t come back and nobody asks you, why didn’t your friend come back, you’d feel angry. Who do you talk to? You can’t talk to your family, you can’t even talk to your school.”
“In 2012 I visited 75 primary schools, and I have to say, some of those schools would have been quite happy as if they were in Afghanistan. How can you have that in Britain? How can you have schools, with white teachers, and fully Muslim kids, and the parents are dictating the agenda?”
These are strong words. So, don’t be surprised if Saira gets some flack for this.
“And those teachers say to me, we don’t have the powers, we don’t have the resources. We are too scared to say something in case we are deemed racist.”
And, that applies to authorities outside the ‘communities’ that Saira refers to, such as schools, social services, police, politicians, there has been this reluctance. And that’s because of the recent history of conflating Islam, culture and ethnicity to the point where it is all too easily labelled as a racist Islamophobe.
Jane asks about Jihadi John …
“He came over here from Kuwait. As far as I know he went to a multicultural westernised school. He got our free education, free healthcare. We were nothing but kind to him and his family. Where did that hatred for Britain and all that we represent, come from?”
Saira …
“It comes from home. It comes from ordinary Muslim families that don’t speak up, who actually hear what’s being said, and don’t make a big deal about it. And that’s why I say today, it is not good enough for the majority of peaceful Muslims living in this country not to come out and speak up and say, not in our name. And these people are using Islam, and Muslims, and it’s branded all over the place. I’m a Muslim. Not in my name.”
A great sentiment, Saira. Thank you. I agree. It’s not in your name. But … it’s NOT nothing to do with Islam.
This is quite the opposite of what we have been told for years, not only by peaceful Muslims, but by Islamic apologist non-Muslims. Here’s why:
By adopting the narrative of “Nothing to do with Islam”, how can you then come out and say, “Not in our name?”
- Islamic terrorism clearly does have something to do with Islam.
- And it’s not in ‘your’ name that they do it, but in the name of Islam.
- And, Islam isn’t just ‘your’ Islam – remember how diverse Islam is? That diversity includes Muslims that read the “literal word of Allah, valid for all time” as if it’s literal and valid for our times. Shocker.
This is where it becomes a bit tricky for a critic of Islam.
You can hardly use unifying calls to Islam, as many Muslims do, and then deny that unity. We hear about the Caliphate, the Ummah, Brothers and Sisters, ‘Nation of Islam’, ‘Muslim lands’ – there is no doubt that if one claims to follow Allah, Mohammed, and the Quran, and declare you are a Muslim (the shahadah), then you are a Muslim (except Ahmadis, apparently).
Despite that, Muslims around the world are endlessly declaring other Muslims to be non-Muslims, not proper Muslims, not Islamic enough, not authentic, …
If any particular Muslim thinks they are an authentic Muslim, then without some ‘Pope’ to determine otherwise, who are they to then to say which Muslim is not a Muslim?
But, Muslims denounce other Muslims regularly. And “Nothing to do with Islam” has been a huge confidence trick in this process: Assert that those specific Muslim perpetrators are non-Muslims – QED: nothing to do with Islam.
And what’s more, the fools on the left are all too eager to join in with this duplicity.
Saira …
“I want to see a million people marching in this country, led by Muslims, led by moderate Muslims, to say, this is not in our name. Because I think indigenous people of this country, now, deserve people, somebody looking like me, saying, we are with you.”
Wow! But she has a point.
However, here’s a contradictory point. You’ll note that indigenous peoples around the world are a common cause for supportive activism, among the left – with the exception of white people.
Of course, the term ‘indigenous’ doesn’t carry the same meaning in a genuinely mixed race multicultural society like ours, and quite rightly. We have many generations of British born people, of various ethnicities, and many children or other descendants of mixed raced relationships. A person with any off-white skin colour could be as ‘indigenous’ as any particular ‘white passing’ person. At least in part, my heritage on both sides is Irish from about three or four generations. There will be descendants of other ethnicities with a longer heritage than mine.
But, I hope you see the problem. When Saira thinks there’s a point in mentioning ‘indigenous peoples’ she might feel as though she’s referring to white people, as a majority, but already Saira has declared, and goes on to declare, the issue is about cultural values. It’s not about race – or at least it wouldn’t be, if only the left and much of the press weren’t so keen to make it about race. There’s a lot of race baiting going on, and far less actual racism.
Race baiting … such as that engaged in by Saira a few years ago, while screaming at Tommy Robinson on TV … for saying pretty much what Saira says in these programmes … for marching in the street … It doesn’t add up, does it.
Saira …
“Just to let you know, when I say things, I get abused, I’m called a coconut*, .., I’m called a racist.”
(*coconut: brown on the outside, white on the inside)
It’s tragic how many non-white racists are prepared to call other people racist, including other non-white people like Saira, if they step out of line and deviate from the approved narrative.
“I’m attacked by white British liberals, as well as members of my own community. I don’t care.”
White British liberals, progressives, telling non-white people how they should hate white people … How colonialist to deny non-white people their own agency to make their own mind up. Nuff said.
The discussion moves on to parental responsibility, and being aware of the radicalisation of children,
“You can’t watch them all the time, but you do have a sense of who their friends are, what they are doing, and how they’re acting.”
Fair point.
But I do have some concern for some Muslim mothers. Some of the more pious and misogynistic parts of the Muslim community actually give young sons greater authority over the female family members, both sisters and mothers.
In some places, like Saudi, there are widowed women who are under control of their young sons, their ‘guardians’, that prevent the women going out alone. They may even require the son’s permission to take up employment. This Islamic male domination reaches out to other Muslim communities too.
With regard to the Pakistani Muslim community, when Pakistani model Qandeel Baloch was killed by her brother, many British Muslim young men were on social media declaring they’d have done the same had their sister dishonoured the family.
This is how messy it is, and though I agree with Saira that parents should take more note, there are cultural and religious influences that prevent that happening.
Saira is also asked whether parents should ‘shop’ (expose, report to authorities) radicalised children.
“I’ve shopped my own cousin who came to this country on a sponsorship form and disappeared within fifteen days. It was all pre-planned, I had not idea about it. Am I not going to shop him in just because he’s my cousin? No. I’m going to shop him in because he went against my British values of honesty, decency and respect.”
Honest? Decency? Respect? Respect for the law? Well, yes, I agree.
This is worth noting, because there are so many people on the left that actually condone illegal immigration. It doesn’t matter that honest legal immigrants are prevented from coming here, or that illegal immigration cannot vet those arriving for their intentions.
Even ex-Muslim and fanatic for ‘open doors’, Maryam Namazie doesn’t want to avoid proper vetting:
But, back to Saira for a final remark in the video above ..
“I say to people in my own community, if you don’t like it here, go and live somewhere else. I want you to own it. I want you to stop cowering behind “Oh, I’m too scared to be racist.” If you want to have a conversation, and you want to put people on the spot, then you own it and you say it, you are not a racist.”
That’s quite a statement. Well done Saira.
Abuse in Pakistani Muslim Families
Bear with me on this aside, you’ll get the point. …
Some time ago, atheist Richard Dawkins collected and published on his site some of the many examples of abuse and death threats he receives through various channels, from lovely religious people that didn’t appreciate his atheism. He made light of it. The messages were hilariously stupid.
But Mayor of London, sad Sadiq Khan didn’t quite take the same tack. He made a racist meal of it, and wallowed in his Muslim victimhood as he read out the abuse he received. … Except …
One of the examples he read out was a mere question, from the daughter of Muslim father and non-Muslim white mother. It was from none other than Shazia Hobbes, author of The Gori’s Daughter.
This was the ‘hate speech’ that Sadiq Khan read out:
“If you use a knife to mutilate your daughter’s vagina will the full force of the law be brought down on you? Asking for a Muslim. Thanks.”
Given that at the time this was written there were thousands of recorded incidents of FGM, and zero prosecutions, it seems like a reasonable question, especially from a daughter of a Muslim. For more context, here’s Shazia’s letter in response.
This is the context of ‘hate speech’ and the fear of being called a racist, that Saira has been talking about above, with the other context of Islamic terrorism, when Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, can use a message from someone aware of the problem of FGM as part of his own race baiting agenda.
And so, it was with some surprise, and great admiration, that I heard Saira broaching this subject, again on Loose Women. …
Saira begins by telling this story …
In June 2002, Mukhtār Mā’ī was the survivor of a gang rape as a form of honour revenge, on the orders of a tribal council of the local Mastoi Baloch clan that was richer and more powerful than her Tatla clan. See here.
Saira …
“She [Mukhtār Mā’ī ] then went on to set up a charity in Pakistan to help women like that. … She was put on a fashion show in Pakistan, which shows that progress is being made, slowly. The designer said that she wanted her to be a symbol of hope and for women’s rights.”
Picking up Saira’s earlier point, “I’m attacked by white British liberals“, we find this sort of attack on one’s intentions happens so often if non-Muslims try to support Muslim women at all.
Yes, as a Humanist I oppose all religions, and yes, I find Islam to be particularly bad. But that doesn’t negate my support for women, even Muslim women, especially Muslim women, that are oppressed by cultural norms that are perpetuated in the name of Islam.
Now, specific cultures may result in different specific brutal and misogynistic practices, but you will still find that much of the justification comes from the religious modesty and honour system. I’d like to see anyone justify these acts of abuse using the Humanist Manifesto. Old religious texts perpetuate old misogynistic values into the present.
And it’s here I’m guessing we’d still see Saira reacting negatively to comments on Islam, despite her earlier statement, “Because we are united by our values, not by religion.” Yes, we should be, and religion should not be let off the hook so easily.
But, to continue, at 2:10, we come to Saira’s brave revelation …
“… at thirteen years old, sitting in my bedroom, a male member of my family – he’s died now – came in, and did things …”
Please, listen to Saira’s story directly, in her own words. She struggles to hold it together, but does manage to do so.
I’ll pick out points salient to the wider message. …
“It is wrong. It is not culturally acceptable. It is not religiously acceptable.”
Correct. It is not acceptable. But note that Saira points out that it is unacceptable both culturally, and religiously.
For those that want to protect the religion and say, “It’s not the religion, it’s the culture,” well, it is both, and is unacceptable as both.
The culture in Pakistan is a mixture of older traditional culture and religion. The religion and the culture ARE used to justify these behaviours, because in both, women are second class citizens.
How on earth can a religion be excused, when it endorses: taking a woman’s testimony to be worth half that of a man; beating of wives; … Of course such a religion will perpetuate the misogyny and ‘toxic masculinity’ that was present when it arose – in Islam’s case, 1400 year old misogyny.
“Culturally we can’t talk about it [abuse], because we [women] are seen as the ones that inspired it, there’s no help.”
Quite. And this aspect of the culture is right there in the religious texts, and encouraged by the modesty rules that see women as the provokers of men’s uncontrollable lust.
It is not JUST the culture. Because this attitude remains prevalent across many cultures that are intertwined with Islam. And with other religions (e.g. conservative Christianity in the USA).
On the Fusion of Culture AND Religion
Let’s hear more from Saira, on another Loose Women episode, about a visit to Pakistan, because that will reveal more about the cultural, AND the religious acceptance of the abuse of women.
“I was sent to Pakistan by the BBC to do a documentary … There was one day where the prophet Mohammed’s birthday was to be celebrated. I had an all-male British team with me. We went to this square, and there were just thousands of men, and there wasn’t a woman in sight. And my director was quite nervous, and I said, look, we need to get into the heart of this, we need to find out what the atmosphere’s like.”
“And my Pakistani fixer was, like, there’s no way you can do that. And I just looked at him, why not, I want to do it. A was wearing traditional chemise, I had my head covered, because it was a spiritual day, they were celebrating the prophet’s birthday, and I thought, what’s going to happen to me. And I didn’t want to believe ….”
“And I didn’t want to believe ….” – and that, I’m afraid, is what drives a lot of opposition to the criticism of Islam. It’s what drives many interactions with Muslims.
They will close their eyes and flat out tell you it’s night, when they’d see it’s clearly day, if only they’d open their eyes and look.
“I’m attacked by white British liberals” – Well, yes. because they too don’t want to believe there’s a problem with Islam.
“… with everything my parents told me about men from those cultures, I thought, no, it’s not true, I’m going to prove to them them that it’s not true..”
Denialism is a powerful psychological force, and it controls many a religious mind. Saira eventually had the courage to face the reality of the moment.
“They’re going to respect me as a woman. … I went down, into the crowd, and only on the sidelines, and within moments I’d been bustled into the middle of a group of men … it was horrific.”
“… my boobs were touched, my bottom was touched, my legs were touched .. I was just shaking ‘Get me out, get me out, get me out.’ “
“… My fixer came in, and grabbed me.”
“… I dread to think what would have happened. I believe I would have been raped.”
“… I was so angry. … No one would have helped me [had the British camera crew not been there]”
That’s an astonishingly brutal awakening. Bear in mind that Saira isn’t some wet lefty that has a couple of Muslim acquaintances that wear the hijab and claims, “But my Muslim friends are lovely,” as if to explain why these stories couldn’t possibly be true.
Saira is, as she says, part of the Pakistani Muslim community. And her parents warned her. And she knows of the honour culture, the treatment of women …
Denialism is sustained only by cognitive dissonance. You WANT to believe, and when faced with stories, the stories must be racist lies … or so the conversations often go.
There’s more …
“We have to accept, that when we are bringing in migrants, asylum seekers, people from different cultures, they have a very different upbringings. Their societies, their political systems, …”
Islam is the bedrock of the social and political features of these cultures, and often contributes to the judicial system too, and the misogyny in Islam informs it, as does the behaviour of many of the men. Young boys are taught to both respect women, but also devalue them, to the point where if a woman is a victim, it must be her fault for bringing it upon herself, for shaming her family, … for shaming Islam.
“… what they think is normal in their country is not normal in our country …”
Sadly, many of those ‘liberals’ that attack you, Saira, are post-modern relativists, who ask “Who we are to judge their culture, their religion” – these liberals inherit the colonialist racism of low expectations. Many Muslims pick up on this and ask, who are YOU to tell me about MY religion.
And, also sadly, many think that imported behaviour should also be normal behaviour in this country, and some act as if it is, … and perhaps to those Muslims in a closed community it seems as if it is normal behaviour.
“… and we have to do that to protect ourselves, and to also protect them …”
You can see why racist Muslims talk of Saira in terms of ‘coconut’ … I’m surprised she hasn’t been called a white supremacist, for daring to suggest these behaviours aren’t up to the standards of our British values.
But, of course, Saira is dead right. Spot on.
Our standards of equality, across race, religion, gender, are significantly better than any that privileges one race, one religion, one gender over another other.
We may not succeed in achieving this equality (and no thanks in small part to religions that perpetuate the inequality – looking at you CofE, not just Islam), but in law, and mostly in practice, we are all equal.
It’s quite common to see these faults as the domain of the white racist misogynist male xenophobic bigot – aka Nazi – but that is engaging in precisely the false accusative rhetoric that Saira has been opposing in these programmes.
Religions get off far too lightly. Some of the highest privileges we have go to religion. The Church of England is the state church, and we have unelected bishops … and child abuse. The Roman Catholic Church is even further behind … and has more child abuse. And Islam is virtually untouchable, despite Islamic terrorism … and child abuse by grooming gangs now appearing in our newspapers regularly … and honour killings.
As Andrew Norfolk said, after publishing his Times report on grooming gangs, his political correctness and fear of being thought of, of thinking himself, as a racist, made him sit on the story, while who knows how much child abuse continued.
Ruth Langsford chips in …
“We all have this fear of being labelled a racist, or you can’t talk about somebody’s religion … this is not a religious thing, this is a cultural thing …”
What???
Have you ANY idea what that sounds like? Let me spell it out. It sounds like this:
“You can’t talk about somebody’s religion, so let’s not talk about religion, even though I just did, because I don’t want to blame religion, so let’s blame their culture …”
Let that sink in for a while. You’d rather throw rich and potentially adaptable cultures under the bus, rather than even contemplate that it’s related to persistent impact the religion has on those cultures?
And this, remember, is in a context where Saira is talking about sexual abuse occurring right in the middle of a festival dedicated to the celebration of prophet Mohammed’s birthday, where there was absolutely ZERO conflict in the minds of those that abused Saira?
The abuse by Muslim men, in the middle of a religious celebration, men who see no conflict with their religious devotion … and abusing a woman, right there and then? Nothing to do with Islam??? What???
Jane Moore has a stab at excusing religion … but then, after Saira’s, interruption goes on to say …
“Explain to me, surely there is not a culture, your experiences aside, where a couple of these assaults we’re talking about do extend to rape, I mean, obviously, white men commit rape as well, but surely there is no culture in the world where it is acceptable to rape a woman who is a stranger to you.”
Wow! That mind bending denialism needs some unpacking.
- They have just decided that it’s the culture, not the religion.
- Now Jane wants to make sure there is no culture in which it is acceptable to rape a women who is a stranger to you.
The point here, regarding culture, AND religion, is that some cultures, or even sub-cultures, DO condone rape, of any women, because they see women as a lower value than men. AND, that perspective is all over the Islamic texts, because those texts were created in the Arabic tribal warring misogynistic slavery endorsing culture of the time.
Jane is confusing two points that Saira has already managed to be pretty clear about, … but I’ll help out with the third one:
- It’s not acceptable TO US that ANY culture should condone this.
- But it IS accepted in some cultures.
- And it IS accepted in some religions.
And very clearly so, if THEY find it acceptable to molest Saira in the middle of a religious festival dedicated to the birthday of the prophet Mohammed. It really is accepted in the religion.
You can keep on playing around with words all you like, but it’s right there in front of you.
Saira responds …
“You’re right , it is unacceptable, but rape, in many cultures, goes unreported, because men can get away with it, because it’s not seen as a serious crime.”
Jane, how is that not clear enough to you. SOME cultures DO see rape as acceptable behaviour by men towards women?
So, again, I have to disagree with Saira, and the panel. It very clearly IS acceptable in the Islamic texts. As is slavery, as is sex slavery. The Quran has passages that excuse various behaviours, regarding one’s wives, and ‘those that your right hand possesses’, which is usually referring to slaves, and female slaves. Mohammed married one of his female slaves, to which the excuse it usually, “Oh, she became a Muslim first.”
Saira …
“I was taught that as a woman, if I ever got raped, or if anything happened to me, it was going to be my fault. What were you doing in that situation? Why were you on your own? What were you wearing. I was brought up with that mentality.”
And the Quran has plenty to say about modesty and women covering themselves, and about the intellectual deficiency of women. It’s always the fault of the women. Never the men, who apparently can’t help themselves if you tempt them.
Blame culture?
No. Cultures adapt. Cultures don’t both persist ancient codes of conduct, and resist modern improvements, without some strong underlying encoded system that traverses generations, even skips generations and re-emerges. Religion fits the bill.
We have seen 1970s westernised Afghanistan, and Iran, with women in the mini skirts that were fashionable at the time. Cultures adapt to the times. In both cases it was the oppressive religion that re-asserted itself so that women became oppressed again.
Blame religion? A BIG YES. It’s no coincidence that the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah in Iran swept away the modern cultural adaptation to more liberal values, and dragged both those countries back 1400 years.
Come on, Saira, you can’t keep excusing the religion.
Jane again …
“Is the issue here then, mass uncontrolled immigration, where everyone arrives at once and there’s no expectation of integration? Because surely, you growing up in Britain, you must know lots of law abiding men from your culture who would never behave like that.”
Saira …
“Yeah, we’re not talking about Britain, because they’ve been brought up in Britain, with Western values, with British values, who know that you cannot do that, that women have equal rights, … [End of clip]”
Let’s examine this claim. Is it true that Pakistani heritage men, born in Britain, and raised in a British culture, … know they cannot behave in these horendous ways towards women?
What about those British Pakistani heritage men, and British white men, and others, that get religion, convert to Islam, become more religious … and then go off to join ISIS? NOT ALL, of course … but those radicalised by ISIS messages are not receiving instruction in Christianity or Hinduism.
And yet we are often told how most sexual abuse in Britain is committed by white men, and that terrorism is a far right problem.
There are some confused messages that emerge when you’re focus is to explain something and yet not blame a religion that perpetuates that toxicity in its texts. You are bound to tangle yourself in knots.
I’m sure there are many decent people in Pakistan and in other cultures that know that the cultures they’re in, on the whole, don’t treat women well … and, yes, Britain has been more like that too, in the past.
As I said, cultures can adapt. Britain’s culture has, and continues to do so.
But hold on there Saira, some of those British Pakistani men do do it in Britain. That was the point of your brave exposition on your misfortune.
Let’s look at this next clip to clear this up …
Christine Lampard …
“They’ve also told us of a noticeable rise in calls [about abuse] from Asian women”
Another aside …
You have to be careful when the media use the term ‘Asian’ regarding abuse and grooming gangs. It is used so often to mask a more specific identification, such as in the case of Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, or grooming gangs generally. This is a really weird and dishonest narrative.
First, after years of insisting that if anyone starts to espouse a critical view with the word “Muslims, …” they are immediately tarred as racist Islamophobes by the left, because, well, “Not all Muslims”…
But, when the left are talking about Pakistani Muslims, they prefer to use ‘Asians’. Surely “Not all Asians” should apply here. Are these liberals really Asianphobic racists?
Well, I’d certainly say using ‘Asian’ is more racist than being specific. If “Muslims …” unfairly implicates all Muslims, then surely “Asians …” implicates all Asians, and is racist towards even more people.
I think these confused people are struggling for an angle: if you implicate an ever wider range of people, then you are not being a specific racist. Maybe that’s better, I don’t know entirely how this progressive mind-set works, but it seems to be something like that.
In truth, this is a total fraud, because this never happens to other ‘Asians’ – Chinese, or Koreans – they would be identified by their original ethnicity, if they were involved in any crimes.
We know this use of ‘Asian’ is only used to protect Islam, and to avoid criticising Muslims.
You will spot this ploy most when referring to grooming gangs, because though most* are Pakistani Muslim, some are Muslims from other cultures, including African. (* other countries have similar problems, but where Muslims mostly come from other places – Germany has many Turkish Muslims, France has many North African Muslims).
Back to Christine’s main point …
“They’ve also told us of a noticeable rise in calls from Asian women who suffered abuse in childhood, and the main perpetrator is usually someone from their own family …”
I remind you again of Shazia Hobbes’ story. It just sounds shocking, but this is not even surprising to you, Saira, from the stories you’ve heard …
“We had the fight for the girls in Rochdale, and I think we now need to put a real fight up for the girls that can’t be seen or heard, because they don’t have representation in society.”
That’s another devastating statement. Let that one sink in too. Nobody in their community will represent them? Are social services able to operate in these communities? What are the police doing?
I’m afraid that what we’ve learned from Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford, Oxford and other places, is that if the police won’t act for child victims from outside the community, they sure as hell won’t act for children inside those communities – and one suspects, given some of Saira’s comments above, about schools she visited, the police wouldn’t find much cooperation from within those communities if they tried.
“Look, I can talk about it because I come from culture, I come from a community, and I’m talking about the Pakistani community.”
Bear in mind that Pakistan is substantially occupied by Muslims, and that most British Pakistanis are Muslims. Pakistan was, after all, created as a nation for Muslims. It is a Muslim nation. What does that tell you about the ‘community’? It’s not merely a Pakistani community. It’s a Pakistani Muslim community. Currently, I know of no Pakistani Humanists that would or could use Humanists texts to excuse their abuse of women.
The problem is that some of these closed communities will not allow outsiders, non-Muslims, to investigate. This is the non-integrative isolated community that reeks of bad Multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism will fail, if we are not more discriminating about which cultural/religious practices we will tolerate – some, as Saira has said, are not acceptable. And though we call out problems like FGM, there have been no successful prosecutions. It’s very politically incorrect to investigate the inner workings women’s lives in such a communities, and your average non-Muslim police man or woman isn’t up to it, and I doubt many Muslim police office would dare expose problems in their communities.
Note that my objection to Islam does not mean banning or not tolerating Islam. Part of our ‘British values’ that Saira subscribes to is freedom of belief. You can believe what you want.
But if you turn your beliefs to actions, and those actions contravene basic human decency, and/or the law, then those beliefs need dealing with and must not be left to fester, the way the Muslim grooming gang problem has, and, according to this episode of Loose Women, the way abuse has within those communities.
Saira …
“I have to say that this isn’t based on religion, this is culture, and the culture I was brought up in is, keep your mouth shut, and make sure you do not bring dishonour on our family, you must not bring shame.”
Except it is religion. Various religions. Bringing shame through the behaviour of children, especially girls, is pretty standard across many religions, including Christian conservatism of the USA, and has been in Roman Catholicism, such that it resulted in the secracy Magdalene laundries of Ireland.
So, again, we have Saira desperately trying to avoid blaming Islam. Why is that?
Because that would bring down even more wrath upon her head, if she dared blame the religion of Islam. It’s that simple.
Saira’s perspective might be induced by her own indoctrination, so that she really believes that what is blindingly obvious, is not so.
Or, …
It might be self preservation. Because to blame Islam would be blasphemous. A very dangerous game, in Islam.
“… you must not bring shame. And what that means, as a young girl, .. or a young boy, growing up, you’re too scared to talk. If terrible things happen to you, you are too scared to talk.”
“There is no representation, because it’s such a tight knit community. There are other things that go on in the culture that basically mean you’re isolated.”
“I have sat amongst a group of people, and I have heard stories of a young girls being raped in the family, of a young girl being abused, or a young boy being abused.”
“And I’m sat there thinking, why doesn’t anybody do something, please.”
Again, let these devastating statements sink in.
And when asked, why don’t the victims speak out, …
“Because, there is no one to talk to. Most of the elected community members are men …”
Religious men. Muslim men. Do they elect atheists, or Christians? Are Pakistani Christians allowed to exist in the ‘community’? [The answer is no … look up the Bradford convert to Christianity, Nisar Hussain.]
No, I’m sorry, Saira, but your fantasy has to be shattered. These leaders are religious men. “Good Muslims”.
“.. and they know that you can’t just go and snitch on your family …”
Bear in mind how Saira had no trouble with HER British values, with regard to snitching on her cousin’s ‘bunking off’. But this is child abuse we’re talking about. Or not talking about, depending on your ‘culture’. So, you’d think that a British Pakistani community that isn’t suffering the misogynistic throwbacks of Pakistan would be more forthcoming in solving this problem. Apparently not. More like Pakistan than is good for us … or rather than is good for the children.
When asked whether a young girl could speak to her mother …
“You are so brainwashed into what shame means and what dishonour means.”
“In these communities, rape in a marriage is not recognised …”
Again, I refer you to Shazia Hobbes who has been resoundingly castigated, as an Islamophobe, for saying these very same things. Do read her book.
“Culturally, you can marry somebody that’s thirteen years old. You can do it back in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, you can do it in India.”
Except, of course, it is endorsed by the example of the prophet Mohammed, and his marriage to his six year old wife, and in some places they take that specific age even more seriously. And, even if the state doesn’t allow it, oddly enough the religious leaders do it.
See here: Marriageable Age. Note that most state determined ages are 15 – 21, but some allow younger than the self-consent age, with parental/judicial approval. Given that many marriages are forced anyway, parental approval will often apply. It’s self-determination that suffers.
Note also, from that linked page, the table lower down on religion, and the various sects of Islam. Hanafi and Jafari Islam: age 9 for girls. These are the sects of Islam of Pakistan and Iran, where child marriages occur.
Still nothing to do with Islam, Saira?
“When that’s acceptable, you think that’s normal.”
“They are taboo subjects anyway, but in this culture they are even more taboo.”
“Once you bring shame to your family, that’s it.”
“The consequences are, you could be killed, you could be ostracised.”
Killed??? In the UK, you might be killed, for honour. We know of several cases that have made the news.
I wonder how the rest of the Loose Women panel are taking this. They are the ‘liberals’ that would shoot down as a racist any non-Muslim that said the things Saira has said (despite Saira’s insistence they should not be called racist) .
But, this is general knowledge.
NOT ALL MUSLIMS – Yes, we know. But too many Muslims.
“Literally, the whole family splits up. When I came on here to talk about me, it was a family member. It took me years to come out and say it. I think I just did it spontaneously on Loose Women. The repercussions on my family have been horrendous. They didn’t believe me. They had a go at my mum. …”
But wait … this is important …
“It went all the way back to Pakistan and the family there.”
This is what a lot of liberal lefties don’t get.
They see our lovely British Muslims like Saira, or their hijabi friend at school, and they are totally clueless about the extent to which these ‘unacceptable’ cultural practices are so easily imported to the UK, whether it’s this topic now, of abuse, or the earlier one, of Islamic terrorism. They have no idea what their nice Muslim friends are NOT telling them.
The left just don’t get it. Labour just don’t get it. Jermey Corbyn just doesn’t get it. That’s why he’d rather nudge Sarah Champion, MP, off the front bench, for daring to say, “Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs“, … and then leave the gangs to continue grooming.
The Conservative government hasn’t been much better. But, just this week, we had …
Another very important point coming up, from Saira …
“They did a study at Hull university, and the research in 2015 found out that official police data suggests that incidences of sexual violence among South Asian women are low, however, this new research suggests it is happening, but not reported.”
As you would expect from a close knit community.
“I want to say that, if there is anybody, in the South Asian community, or any community for that matter, please note that there are help lines, and you can talk in confidence. Even if you don’t want to take it any further, or get something off your chest, please do so. I’ll tell you something, that happened to me at thirteen, and that affected the rest of my life.”
Now, here comes Jane Moore, working her way up to the patently obvious, …
“They are saying that the increase [in reporting] from the Asian community has increased since the broadcast of the Three Girls**, because that was largely, but not all Asian men.”
(** Rochdale’s infamous an dramatised case of the prosecution of a Muslim grooming gang abusing young white girls)
I think what Jane should have said was, they were largely but not all Pakistani Muslim men, because some were Muslim men from other Muslim backgrounds. I’m not aware any were non-Muslim. To be specific:
“Nine men were convicted, of whom eight were of British Pakistani origin and one was an Afghan asylum-seeker. – from Rochdale child sex abuse ring.”
They were all Muslim.
And here comes the obvious …
“The majority of perpetrators of organised abuse are white. And the second largest group are Asian. Now that may be because a lot of it goes unreported. We should also point out that it happens in white families.”
The conflation of issues here is astounding.
- It’s not white v Asian that’s significant. The significant figures are Pakistani Muslim v everyone else.
- Of the ‘family’ child abuse, those numbers differ so much you’d expect an absolute figure to be greatest among the numerically largest group you’re identifying, whether that’s white, non-white (including black, for example), specifically Asian (including Sikhs and Hindus, for example), even more specifically Pakistani Muslim, or Muslim. This matters.
- Muslims are only a small percentage of the UK population, and Pakistani Muslims even smaller.
- Again, you’d expect a largest absolute figure in other groups.
- You’d expect a similar rate (%) among all groups. But, with lower reporting in Pakistani Muslim communities, the reported numbers should be lower.
- Jane is also conflating in-family abuse, with the grooming gang abuse.
- This particular type of abuse, grooming gangs, it is public, under the noses of the community, local police and social workers. Even families of the abusers know about it … and even tolerate it … family members have shouted support for the abusers in court … victims report that even sisters of abusers know.
From a story based on information from Haras Rafiq, from Quilliam …
“A think tank has claimed that 84 per cent of people convicted of child grooming-gang offences since 2005 were Asian.”
“Type 1 offenders work in groups such as grooming gangs to target victims based on vulnerability, while Type 2 offenders form paedophile rings to carry out abuse because of a specific sexual interest in children.”
However you massage the figure, Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs far outway any other categorisation of perpetrators, as a proportion of the population. This is what police, politicians, press and gullible celebs really don’t want to talk about.
Jane …
“The whole thing that props this up is the conspiracy of silence …”
And you, Jane, and you Saira, continue to be silent on the religion. But, on the specific problem of abuse, no matter what the cause, I’ll leave the final word with Saira …
“The only thing that I would say, is that whereas those girls [Three Girls case] did go to the sexual health worker to get condoms, and the social worker was involved, there was a pattern, so it could be traced. In an Asian household, these girls aren’t seen.”
“They can never be detected, unless somebody from the community or a member of the family puts their hands up bravely and says we’ve got a problem here.”
Best of luck with that.
A Problem for Islam
Muslims generally don’t want Islam to be criticised at all. This is all to do with the depth of conviction they are indoctrinated into.
Many will even throw other aspects of their own identity and the identities of others under the bus, in order to save face for Islam, to save the honour of Islam. Characters like Miqdaad Versi, of the Muslim Council of Britain, seem to devote much effort to writing to editors of newspapers to point out how racist and Islamophobic they are for any headline or piece that tarnishes the name of Islam.
The BBC have been so cajoled into submission that all ‘Asians’ are now smeared, by a refusal to make a more specific identification of the culprits in some case or other. They refuse to identify culprits as Pakistani Muslim, when in so many cases they clearly are, and instead identify them as Asian, as if spreading the blame around a bit is somehow less racist.
The police are pathetic. They will tell you as soon as they can that a culprit of a crime was white, or even black … but are reluctant to release the identity of a Muslim criminal until they have to.
We’ve seen this instinctive protection of Islam many times following Islamic terror attacks. This is how it often goes:
- Islamic terrorist commits some heinous act, and declares it to be in the name of Islam.
- The press report it as an Islamic terror attack (if ever more reluctant to do so).
- Islamic organisations cry out, “Nothing to do with Islam! … Islamophobia!” Because the good name of Islam is the most important thing in such a situation, not the victims, not the cause.
- Eventually the same Islamic organisations get around to expressing sorrow for the loss of life … but they don’t really see why they should need to, since it’s nothing to do with Islam or the many peaceful Muslims who wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing.
- Watch how quickly these organisations take the opportunity to point out the white far right when a far more rare non-Islamic terror attack occurs.
Basically, Muslims have talked themselves into a corner, in order to defend Islam.
They could have been straight from the beginning:
- Yes, there are some uncomfortable aspects of the religion which are too easy to take literally.
- Yes, the Quran is inerrant and that makes it difficult to move on and away from the value systems that were prevalent at the time the religion emerged.
- Yes, we need a reformed Islam … WHAO! NO!!!!
Of course, reform is basically what the Ahmadi Muslims did with Islam. They invented another prophet. They even went to the trouble of getting round the thorny issue of Mohammed being the supposed last prophet, by declaring that Mohammed was indeed the last prophet of revelation. Their later prophet came along to help interpret Islam so that it was truly a religion of peace.
And look how they are persecuted for it. In Pakistan they are unable to call themselves Muslims. Their mosques are attacked.
The problem with all Islam, even the Ahmadi version, is that it’s a massive fudge.
And as much as I admire Saira Khan’s efforts to deal with some of these problems, I can see the conflicted position she is in.
Islam has influenced cultures for so long that those cultures are Islamic ones – the people of those cultures say so themselves … ‘Muslim lands’. Pakistan was created as an Islamic nation. And yet, there are other aspects of those varied ‘Islamic’ cultures that remain unique and visible. And it is this variety that the apologists for Islam latch on to. They will throw many of these diverse cultures under the bus, in order to save the honour of the one common culture: Islam.
I say all this is a problem for Islam. But of course it’s actually a problem for Muslims. And more recently has become a problem for non-Muslims.
Saira Gives up on Islam
See the follow up to this post, The Further Enlightenment of Saira Khan, which looks first at the Mirror report on Saira no longer being a practicing Muslim, and then links to the BBC report of death threats against her.
Ramblings 