Oxford Institute for British Islam leader says imams are still actively promoting Muslim rape gangs

While Hargey’s revelations are important, this article is also a prime example of why shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain has been brought to this sorry state.

In the first place, why wouldn’t the imams promote this activity? It’s in the Qur’an. The Qur’an teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.

Meanwhile, this article shows that even those who are standing as fearless truth-tellers amid a sea of lies and an authoritarian clampdown don’t dare to tell the whole truth about this matter. Hargey says: “The theology from the Mosque and the elders is to perpetuate this idea of ‘them and us’. The criminality is fuelled by the ideology of the Islamic fundamentalism which has no basis in the Qu’ran [sic].” The Qur’an is actually shot through with the idea of “them and us.” How would Hargey explain this passage, which is just one of a great many I could quote in this connection? “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are ruthless against the unbelievers and merciful among themselves.” (48:29) If that’s not “them and us,” what is? And what about the claim that Muslims are the “best of peoples” (3:110), while the unbelievers are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6)? That’s not “them and us”?

Hargey also claims that “Islamic fundamentalism” has “no basis in the Qur’an.” This is a completely incoherent claim. “Fundamentalism” is a Protestant Christian idea that actually corresponds to nothing in Islam. It refers to taking the text seriously and literally, and the vast majority of Muslims worldwide do that. Even if one takes the term simply to refer to those of any faith who interpret their sacred texts literally, that would mean that Hargey is claiming that there is no basis in the Qur’an for taking the Qur’an literally. Actually a literal reading is the paramount understanding of the Qur’an throughout Islamic history. And even if it weren’t, the idea that taking the text seriously has no basis in the text just makes no sense.

Hargey also says: “These fundamentalist Muslims believe If the Prophet Muhammad can sleep with a nine-year-old, what’s wrong with me sleeping with a 12-year-old?’, even though the story is not true.” This also is flatly false. From the standpoint of Islamic theology, the story is very much true, as it is recorded in the hadith collections Islamic scholars consider most reliable, Bukhari and Muslim.

Islamic tradition records that Muhammad consummated his marriage with (i.e., raped) Aisha when she was nine, and the resultant fact that child marriage and the sexualization of children are taken for granted in wide swaths of the Islamic world.

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).

Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old. Nowadays in the West there are elaborate efforts to deny all this. An Islamic scholar/apologist named Joshua Little has constructed an elaborate argument from close study of the chains of transmitters (isnads) of various traditions about Aisha, claiming that those traditions, despite appearing in Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection Muslims consider most reliable, are actually inauthentic. Little’s argument, however, is absurd and self-contradictory. He acknowledges that the hadiths are late and unreliable from a historical standpoint, and even admits that the chains of transmitters, like the stories themselves, were freely forged. Then he bases his whole argument for the traditions being inauthentic even on Islamic grounds on the basis of the isnads that he just admitted could be forged. He claims to be able to determine the age of various traditions by how they were forged, but here is argument is so conjectural and subjective as to be essentially worthless.

Little is also a standard-issue lemming academic. He denounces people he calls “Islamophobes” for making much of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. He ignores the primary reason why anyone cares about this: not because, as he claims, “Islamophobes” contend that Muhammad’s example forces Muslims to condone child marriage, but because all too many Islamic authorities do condone child marriage. In April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Turkey’s directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) said in January 2018 that under Islamic law, girls as young as nine can marry.

“Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this” — Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria

“There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.” — Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, Iraqi expert on Islamic law

There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” — Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council

“Islam does not forbid marriage of young children.” — Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology

How would Taj Hargey explain all that? No one dares ask him. And why is GB News featuring these half-truths and outright falsehoods? They don’t know any better, as no one in Britain is telling the truth about Islamic teaching.

So the courageous truth-tellers in the UK are still comforting each other and attempting to fool the wide world with distortions. Britain has no chance.

“Imams ‘PROMOTE grooming rings’, says Muslim leader 11 years after first raising concerns about white girls being seen as ‘easy meat,'” by Ben Chapman, GB News, January 8, 2025:

Imams are still actively promoting grooming rings, Dr Taj Hargey from the Oxford Institute for British Islam has said on GB News.

The group’s founder made a series of staggering claims 11 years after he first raised concerns about race and religion being inextricably linked to grooming rings in Britain.

Speaking to Martin Daubney in an interview you can watch above, Hargey said his warnings are yet to be heeded amid renewed calls for a national inquiry into grooming gangs.

After a spate of grooming rings in Oxford where Muslim men targeted under-age white girls, Hargey told the Daily Mail in 2013 that the activities of the sex ring were “bound up with religion and race” because all the men – though of different nationalities – were Muslim.

He said they “deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases”.

Speaking 11 years on, Hargey was asked by Daubney if imams are actively encouraging the attitude, to which he claimed “absolutely”.

“There’s a perpetuation of ‘them and us’”, he told GB News.

“The theology from the Mosque and the elders is to perpetuate this idea of ‘them and us’.

“The criminality is fuelled by the ideology of the Islamic fundamentalism which has no basis in the Qu’ran [sic].

“These fundamentalist Muslims believe If the Prophet Muhammad can sleep with a nine-year-old, what’s wrong with me sleeping with a 12-year-old?’, even though the story is not true.

“The idea is, when you can delegitimise these youngsters as being less than human and being less than equal and for you to do whatever you please, that is the basis for these men to act like that.

“There is this ideology, this interpretation of Islam which makes this possible.

“Why is virtually every single person in these grooming gangs Muslim? It seems like 95 per cent of them are. We need to look at the interconnection between Islam, promoted by the clergy and the establishment in the UK, because Islam is not promoting this reprehensible behaviour.”…