rape gangs

You think you’ve heard the worst of it and Muslims show you once again that you have underestimated their righteous depravity.


Robert Spencer comments:

take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).

They’re just meat to them. Slaves. The less resistant, the less able to resist, the better.

“Croydon teenagers ‘raped vulnerable girls including trusting 17-year-old with Down’s syndrome,’” by Gareth Davies, Croydon Advertiser, March 23, 2015 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

THREE teenagers accused of raping two “vulnerable” girls with learning difficulties “took advantage” of them to “satisfy their own sexual urges”, a court has heard.

Nasir Huq, 18, is accused of raping a 17-year-old with Down’s syndrome who jurors were told was a “very trusting” girl who did not have the “capacity” to consent to sex.

Ameen Noori and his cousin Ahmad Faiq, both 18, are accused of raping another girl with acute special educational needs.

The three boys deny sexually assaulting the two girls at a flat in Croydon in April 2013.

Jonathan Polnay, prosecuting, told a jury at Croydon Crown Court today (Monday) the defendants “outrageously took advantage of vulnerable girls with learning difficulties to satisfy their own sexual urges”.

Both girls are in mainstream schooling but attend a supported learning unit at a college in west London, the court heard.

The first girl, who was 16 at the time of the alleged incidents, has learning difficulties caused by global developmental delay, a condition which means she has lower intellectual functioning and struggles to communicate.

Mr Polnay said she had been assessed by forensic psychologist Jennifer Cutler who found she had an IQ of 75.

The second alleged victim, who has Down’s syndrome, was 17 in April 2013. Dr Cutler found she had an IQ of 57 and demonstrated “significant confusion” about sexual matters, the court heard.

“The prosecution’s case in relation to [this girl] is her disabilities are such that she is simply not able to consent to sex,” said Mr Polnay.

“Because she has Down’s syndrome she is not able to process what is appropriate in terms of sex or its implications, for example pregnancy or diseases.”

The first incidents, relating to four of the six charges on the indictment, allegedly occurred on the evening of April 5.

Mr Polnay told the court the two girls left college with a friend and got the bus from Hounslow to Hatton Cross where they met Faiq, who the third girl knew, and Noori.

From Hatton Cross they took a bus to Croydon and went to a shopping centre. While in McDonald’s Faiq told the first girl that Noori, his cousin, liked her.

“She told him she wasn’t interested and that she didn’t like him in that way,” said Mr Polnay.

Later that afternoon they went back to a flat in Croydon town centre where Huq lived, though he was not at home. When they got there, Faiq and the third girl went into a bedroom together.

Jurors were told the first girl went into another room with Noori, who pulled her on top of him so she could not get up. The girl shouted for her friend but when she entered the room Noori told her to go away.

He then pulled down the girl’s trousers and tried to rape her, the court heard.

“The Crown’s case, which I hope is clear, is that she did not consent to sex,” said Mr Polnay.

“Given the circumstances – she was struggling, trying to get away – there is no way he could believe she consented. He did not care.”…

Courtesy of Pamela Geller.