Qualities of A High Value (Muslim) Man

 

You have the potential for greatness: Ibn Ali Miller

I love this brother he is everything I want to be, what every Muslim man should be. Much love and respect to brother Steve Harvey too, big fan of his :)

Perplexed Muslim Misogynists Wonder Why Nobody Likes Them

 Major lolllzzz!!

Muslim man shocked at being called a misogynist after telling women that their purpose in life is to procreate.

“But all I did was tell the truth,” he said, clearly bewildered at the vehemence of the accusations made against him. “Everyone knows that women were just not created to handle the difficulties of the public sphere. Finance, medicine, expressing opinions – all of that is really dangerous for a woman’s fragile psyche. Their delicate constitutions are more suitable towards gentler activities, like childbirth. There are, like, studies about it. I don’t know why saying that makes people think I hate women! I love my mother, she cooks the best biryani.”

His mother, last seen wondering whether it was too late to give him up for adoption at the age of 25, could not be reached for comment.

Senior Muslim lady warns ‘good Muslim boys’ to choose potential wives carefully.

“These modern girls, just look at how they behave, no shame, no shame!” she tutted reprovingly. “Going to college and then they think they can talk about politics and economics yet they don’t even know how to cook a good curry. My son is God’s gift to women; how is he supposed to find a good doctor wife when all these girls are studying nonsense like journalism and then they refuse to give up four years of education to have his babies?”

Her son Anjem, found peddling weed on a street corner, strongly agrees with his mother’s analysis. “There’s a marriage crisis, innit,” he commented sagely, then grew angry & chased off our reporters when they wouldn’t buy a ten gram baggie of skunky marijuana from him.

Source

Saudi Arabia Is the Most Gender-Segregated Nation in the World

Saudi blogger Eman al-Nafjan, complaining about the devastating effects of the male guardianship system, poses the dilemma of a friend being abused by her father. "If I report the situation to the police and they take it seriously enough to go to my friend's house, her father—as her legal guardian—could simply dismiss them at the door. Even if my friend gathers the courage to go to the police station herself, she is more likely to be sent to prison than her father is. Her charge would be disobeying her father."

The real problem, explained Saudi journalist Ebtihal Mubarak, is the tremendous authority this system gives to the male figure. "It's not that Saudi men hate women, but having so much power can bring out the monster in men."

"Some women are lucky and their guardians allow them the freedom to travel, to get an education, to work, or to marry the person they choose, but many Saudi women are not that lucky," wrote blogger Suzie Khalil. "This guardianship system basically means that Saudi women are totally powerless over their own lives and destinies unless their male guardian allows them that power."

Why Can't Women Drive?

Saudi Arabia remains the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. There is no specific law prohibiting women from driving, but the Interior Ministry and the police enforce a ban. The only places where women can get away with driving are in rural areas, in gated communities, and inside the compounds of the oil company Aramco.

One reason used to justify the ban is personal safety, implying that women are safer with men behind the wheel. Others insist that the ban protects women from being attacked if they are out alone, and women do indeed worry that when they finally start driving, they might be attacked by fanatics who think women shouldn't drive. A rather humorous excuse to keep women from driving came from a sheikh who issued a fatwa in 2013 saying that women can't drive because driving would harm their ovaries and reproductive systems.

"I find these excuses insulting and condescending," says Suzie Khalil, an American married to a Saudi. "Saudi Arabia ranks among the world's worst countries for traffic fatalities. That's what happens when only men are allowed to drive. Despite the fact that I have driven safely in the United States since I was fifteen (that's almost forty years!), I am not allowed behind the wheel in Saudi Arabia simply because I don't have a penis."

Full Article

Why Some Muslim Men Love Khadija and Ayesha

 I loved this article from this tumblr :) This is an awesome brother mashAllah!

In the past couple of days, I’ve been witness to something that has angered me beyond measure. Some Muslim women started a hashtag on Twitter to talk about their issues. Why Twitter you ask? Well, because women’s issues are only marginally covered in the broader media unless it’s somehow connected to “saving” them or hijab or Femen. Under this hashtag - #IfKhadijaCanDoIt -, they were attempting to talk about the issues and problems facing them in current times.

As you guessed it, some Muslim men attempted to hijack it and infuse it with their own reactionary ideas of how Muslim women should live their lives. Below is a Twitter tirade I had last night that was directed at these men. For the most part, it’s what I tweeted as is, but I have added some new words and edited the tweets because in the heat of my anger, I forgot to type right at times. Here goes:

Dear Certain Muslim Men:

I’m tired and fed up with the double standards you have when it comes to Muslim women.

Why do I sense that there are two Islams for some of us? Why do I feel like the Islam for men is different from the Islam for women? On the one hand, there’s the cosmopolitan, inclusive, open Islam for men. It’s political, spiritual, religious. On the other, we’ve constructed an Islam for women that is only concerned with how they should belong to us in some way - whether as mothers, sisters, daughters or wives.

When we talk about Muslim men’s rights, we talk about everything - employment, immigration, health, education, workplace discrimination, systematic racism, racial profiling, insecurity… you name it, we talk about it. The Islam for men is politically charged. We use it to tackle issues that we face daily in our lives as independent beings with inalienable rights.

However, the Islam we’ve constructed for women serves only one purpose: to train women to be “good” mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. We don’t look at women’s problems in the same way as we do our own. We treat them like they’re far less dire than the hurdles facing us. When women attempt to get us to take them seriously, we patronize them with words like, “This is not as important as X, Y and Z facing the community right now.” As if women don’t have to struggle with issues we do.

We pretend like education, health care, immigration, racism etc… don’t affect them. Like they are only men’s issues. Some of us push hard to stunt their inclusion in our political struggles. When we allow them to join, we tokenize their presence. We’re happy to have them in full hijab, or with purdahs at rallies to show off how accepting of women’s rights we are. We like to talk about it to media. We showcase women in our political struggle, but behind closed doors, we’re just as prejudiced against them as the system that oppresses them.

We ignore that not only do they have to face every single problem we do, but they have to struggle against systemic and systematic misogyny, too, - not to mention far higher levels of sexual violence and almost all the sexual harassment.

Obviously, the worst of us want women to be confined to our houses - their role only to support us physically, spiritually and sexually. However, even among the best of us Muslim men, some treat women only as good as they can serve us in some way. Even when it comes to our political struggle, we include women to raise awareness about issues that are hurting us men, but when it comes to their problems, some of us abandon them. We don’t stand behind their voices. The worst don’t even listen.

Domestic violence? Their problem. 
Lack of access to or cramped spaces and humiliation at mosques? Their problem. 
Sexual harassment? Their problem. 
Sexism at work? Their problem. 
Misrepresentation in the media? Their problem.

If it’s something that pertains to only Muslim women, we pretend like it doesn’t even exist. We’re ready to defend ourselves when some Islamophobic nutjob collectively accuses us of treating Muslim women harshly, but when it comes to Muslim women being treated harshly by others, we don’t even notice. When Muslim women fight with us for our rights, they’re welcome. When it’s their rights, they stand alone. It’s like some Muslim men - even educated, cosmopolitan, “enlightened” men - feel shamed by supporting Muslim women.

But this… this angers me the most. This phrase that gets thrown around by some men when they’re confronted with women who want their rights, “Islam already gives women all the rights she needs.” This. Is. Bull****.

Brothers, when we are beat up by cops in NY, do we say, “Islam already gives men all the rights we need.” ??? Brothers, when our mosques are bugged by the FBI, do we say, “Islam already gives men all the rights we need.” ??? What about when we’re not hired because we’re brown? “Islam already gives men all the rights we need,” ??? No?

Brothers: Why is it that when Muslim men face racism and discrimination, we don’t talk about the prophet’s companions Othman or Omar? Brothers: Why is it that when the police uses violence against us, we don’t talk about Abuzar or Talha? Brothers: Seriously, if Islam is for all time, then why are we not able to see our issues in the prism of 1,400 years ago?

Oh, but just you wait till women’s issues come up. We all suddenly become scholars of early Islamic history.

Brothers, the only thing some of us can tell women is: “Well, just look at Khadija and Ayesha. That should solve your problem.”

Tell me brothers: How can looking at Khadija help a Muslim woman who’s being denied access to education by the state? How does looking at Ayesha help a Muslim who is being sexually harassed on the way to work? How should a Muslim woman who’s being discriminated against at work follow Fatima to solve her problem? You can’t because you and I both know why we use Khadija and Ayesha and Fatima when it comes to women’s issues.

We tell Muslim their problems are solved by women from early Islamic history because they were all housewives.

That’s what some of us want Muslim women to be, brothers. We want them to only serve our needs. Their existence tied to us. We don’t actually want to support Muslim women in their struggle against issues facing them. We just want to one up them while acting smart about it. But to live a life like Khadija or Ayesha, you need to have a husband like Mohammed, which I don’t see any of us being like. Even if Muslim women choose to be housewives - and many do - they’ll still struggle against patriarchy - at home.

The truth is, when some men tell Muslim women they should follow Khadija or Ayesha, what we really mean is: “Follow men.” Guess what: If there was a school in Mecca in 7th century AD, I’m sure Khadija and Ayesha would’ve liked to go to study, too. Muslim women would’ve become nurses, doctors, and teachers, too, if those institutions existed. If all the Muslim women should do is what women in 7th century AD Mecca did, then why are men doing different things?

Why don’t we men take camels up and down the Mecca-Syria trail since that’s what the best Muslim men back then did? Name one male companion of the prophet who was a doctor or an engineer or a college professor. One. (The answer by the way is zero). Better yet, why aren’t we dreaming of becoming sheep herders when we grow up because that’s what the prophet grew up to do.

Why do some Muslim men want to be doctors, engineers and college professors unlike the prophet and his companions? Isn’t this bid’ah and fitnah? But when Muslim women want to teach, or treat patients or design cars some of us start shouting, “KHADIJA! AYESHA! BID’AH! FITNAH!” And best of all: “Islam already gives women all the rights she needs…”

You know what that translates to? “Make me food. Suck my d***. Raise my kids.”

The truth is, some of us use Khadija and Ayesha and Fatima’s names to enslave their daughters - nothing more, nothing less. Worse, we use Islam to justify our own inadequacies, our own prejudices and our own misogyny and contempt for women. No, Islam doesn’t give women all the rights they need because some of these rights didn’t even exist back then. There were no constitutions, no social contracts and no inalienable rights.

That’s why Islam isn’t the be all end all for us men and our problems and rights in contemporary society. That’s why our banners decrying racial profiling by New York Police Department don’t include the words, “Islam already gives us all the rights we need. Please continue to oppress us because we’re very happy.”

So what is the solution? How can we men help? Here’s a revolutionary idea: listen to Muslim women.

Muslim women know their problems and the solutions to them. They’re working on it. All they need from us is support. They’re fighting against the system denying them their rights and you know, their issues are too complex for a guy - like me and you - to understand on our own. We have to learn - from them. After they’ve made us understand, we have to ask them how we can support them. Not support them the way we would like to.

Most of all, we men shouldn’t try to come up with answers: Muslim women already have most of them and are working on the rest. Our job is when women come out to implement their solutions to stand behind them or beside them. Not in front of them. They’re already in the trenches for their rights and for solving their issues. They need amplification of their voices not obstruction. We can stand with them against the state, the religious establishment, even our own brothers - just like they stand with us when our rights are at stake. Or we can ignore them, but even ignoring them - at this critical juncture - is better than beating the Khadija and Ayesha drum.

Not only does it demean Khadija and Ayesha and show our contempt for women, it also gives the system extra ammunition to oppress women. After all, if Muslim men don’t want women to have their rights, why should the states care?

Finally, next time someone asks you why you’re speaking for women’s rights or joining their rallies, tell them because:

"If one of you sees something wrong, let him change it with his hand; if he cannot, then with his tongue; if he cannot, then with his heart and this is the weakest faith." - Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

Blackmailer jailed for using photos to get sex and money from woman

 Rot in jail!!

A blackmailer who repeatedly raped a woman and pocketed her life savings after threatening to publish lingerie photos of her has been jailed for 17 years.

In passing sentence on Daood Hussain at Birmingham Crown Court Judge Peter Carr, said “You treated her, on the evidence that I have heard, in a demeaning and degrading fashion and with complete contempt.

"The prosecution were right in their submission to the jury in that you were a man who wanted control and you were not going to take no for an answer from her.

"You also made a demand for £10,000 which she paid.

"Again you threatened that you would distribute the documents I have already referred to.”

And the judge said the effect of releasing the pictures would have had a “potentially devastating” effect on the victim and her family within their community.

Hussain, 28, of St Andrews Road, Bordesley Village, an unemployed electrical engineer, had denied but was found guilty of blackmail and 12 charges of rape by a jury following a trial.

The defendant was ordered to register as a sex offender for an indefinite period and was also banned from contacting the victim or her family on his release from jail.

In a police interview the woman said Hussain had demanded she meet him during the summer of 2012.

He showed her a leaflet he had made which included pictures of her in lingerie, along with her address and telephone number with a caption advertising her as a prostitute.

She then agreed to meet him ten times for sex sessions in the run up to Ramadan, in June and July 2012, sometimes in his car and other times at various hotels around Birmingham.

The woman eventually complained to the police.

Farah Ramzan, defending, said “He is the youngest of six siblings and comes from a very close knit family. Clearly this is going to have a devastating effect on the whole family.”

Source

By the Stars they are Guided - Maryam Amirebrahimi

"There is not one law in Saudi Arabia that regards violence toward women as an illegal activity": what's really behind Saudi's domestic abuse problem?

Saudi Arabia has introduced a campaign aimed at tackling domestic violence against women in the kingdom. The King Khalid Foundation funds the campaign, which is a royal, family-run organization with clear ties to the Saudi government.

The campaign ad portrays a face-covered woman with only her eyes showing, one of which is bruised. The translation of the Arabic message of the ad reads: “What is hidden underneath is much bigger.” However, the sentence should refer to what is hidden deep inside the laws of the kingdom and not under the facial covers.  

The campaign is disconnected from the main reason behind domestic violence. Domestic violence in Saudi Arabia, unlike in other parts of the world, goes far deeper than just a social issue, it is the problem with the law itself. In Saudi Arabia, men grow up knowing that abusing your wife, sister or mother is protected by law. In terms of religion, men in Saudi Arabia, and some other parts of the Muslim world, are being taught in school that hitting your wife is one solution to her disobedience. Clerics are also outspoken about such rulings on TV.

The famous Saudi preacher Mohamad Alarefe, said on LBC channel:

“Allah created women with these soft and fragile bodies because they use their emotions more than their bodies and that’s why you find men discipline their wives with beating while women discipline their husbands with crying.”

He continued, “the point of the husband hitting his wife is not to cause pain but to get obedience.”

Clerics emphasize the fact the women have to obey their fathers, brothers and husbands as part of their religious duty.

On another occasion, when asked about women leaving the house, Mohamad Alarefe said:

“There are two cases for women leaving the house, the first case is if the husband told his wife not to go somewhere, like the market because he ‘hates’ her doing that and she leaves to that place then leaving is forbidden and not allowed. The second case is if she leaves to a place that her husband does not hate and approves of and that it was difficult for her to take his permission because he is in prison, or a captive, etc. then leaving is permitted.”

In terms of law, there is not one law in Saudi Arabia that regards violence toward women as an illegal activity. As a matter of fact, women in Saudi Arabia are minors under law until their death, making it impossible for a woman to make any decision on her own without the permission of her guardian.

This means that even if a woman is “radical” enough to disobey her guardian or reject his abuse or decisions, she has got nowhere to go. She cannot file a complaint or leave the country or do practically anything without her guardian’s permission, which in most cases, ironically, is the abuser himself.

Therefore there is no reason for a man to restrain himself from abusing women in his family. He knows that he has the power to abuse her, hit her, stop her from working and stop her from getting educated while having the law and religion right there behind him.

The ad in the new campaign is meant to define domestic violence in Saudi Arabia as being a social issue and divert attention from the government’s lack of laws that protect women. This campaign takes the responsibility away from the government and puts it in the hands of individuals themselves; women have to step up and talk about abuse and go to shelters, and men have to restrain themselves from abusing women.

This campaign tries to limit the cause to only being the women’s lack of knowledge of laws and regulations. It advocates the notion that the solution can only come by the participation of the women themselves. A comment by princess Ameerah al-Taweel’s, the vice chairwoman of the Board of the Alwaleed Bin Talal foundation, follows on a similar path:

"The main issue when it comes to abused women in Saudi is lack of knowledge. Some women who accept being abused don't know their rights in Islam, and a lot of women who are suffering from abuse, don't know their rights in our legal system. That they can report their case and they will be protected by the government.”

This notion presents the government as the “good guy” because supposedly they are promoting such campaigns and willing to help the women who suffer from abuse: a government that has “a legal system” that protects women from abuse and domestic violence.  The fact is under the legal system in Saudi, men can get away with their abuse, as the punishment for domestic violence is very minimal. Human Rights Watch World Report 2013 reported:

“In May, Jeddah’s Summary Court convicted a man for physically abusing his wife to the point of hospitalization, but sentenced him to learning by heart five parts of the Quran and 100 sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.”

The legal system in Saudi Arabia does not have the sufficient tools and laws that would deter men from domestic violence. In case of drugs and murder, the punishment is death penalty, which makes people think twice before committing such crimes because of the consequences.  Yet, when it comes to domestic violence the punishment is learning parts of the Quran and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. 

Such campaigns are ahead of their time because first concrete laws must be put in place. Then and only then can we start equating domestic violence to other social issues, such as drug use or child abuse or animal rights, that take place in the society despite the presence of related laws and regulations. How can we educate people about the harms of a social issue when the government itself is not considering these harms?

Women should refuse to be victimized into believing that such actions are part of their religion and instead ask for real changes in the law itself as opposed to superficially trying to solve such essential issues. They should hold their government accountable for this abuse. The solution to such problems can only be achieved with the kind of spirit and power that the Arab Spring had; by demanding change, protesting oppression and getting hurt for the sake of the cause.

 source

This is how racism takes root

By now surely everyone knows the case of the eight men convicted of picking vulnerable underage girls off the streets, then plying them with drink and drugs before having sex with them. A shocking story. But maybe you haven't heard. Because these sex assaults did not take place in Rochdale, where a similar story led the news for days in May, but in Derby earlier this month. Fifteen girls aged 13 to 15, many of them in care, were preyed on by the men. And though they were not working as a gang, their methods were similar – often targeting children in care and luring them with, among other things, cuddly toys. But this time, of the eight predators, seven were white, not Asian. And the story made barely a ripple in the national media.

Of the daily papers, only the Guardian and the Times reported it. There was no commentary anywhere on how these crimes shine a light on British culture, or how middle-aged white men have to confront the deep flaws in their religious and ethnic identity. Yet that's exactly what played out following the conviction in May of the "Asian sex gang" in Rochdale, which made the front page of every national newspaper. Though analysis of the case focused on how big a factor was race, religion and culture, the unreported story is of how politicians and the media have created a new racial scapegoat. In fact, if anyone wants to study how racism begins, and creeps into the consciousness of an entire nation, they need look no further.

Imagine you were living in a town of 20,000 people – the size of, say, Penzance in Cornwall – and one day it was discovered that one of its residents had been involved in a sex crime. Would it be reasonable to say that the whole town had a cultural problem, that it needed to address the scourge – that anyone not doing so was part of a "conspiracy of silence"? But the intense interest in the Rochdale story arose from a January 2011 Times "scoop" that was based on the conviction of at most 50 British Pakistanis out of a total UK population of 1.2 million, just one in 24,000: one person per Penzance.

Make no mistake, the Rochdale crimes were vile, and those convicted deserve every year of their sentences. But where, amid all the commentary, was the evidence that this is a racial issue; that there's something inherently perverted about Muslim or Asian culture?

Even the Child Protection and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), which has also studied potential offenders who have not been convicted, has only identified 41 Asian gangs (of 230 in total) and 240 Asian individuals – and they are spread across the country. But, despite this, a new stereotype has taken hold: that a significant proportion of Asian men are groomers (and the rest of their communities know of it and keep silent).

But if it really is an "Asian" thing, how come Indians don't do it? If it's a "Pakistani" thing, how come an Afghan was convicted in the Rochdale case? And if it's a "Muslim" thing, how come it doesn't seem to involve anyone of African or Middle Eastern origin? The standard response to anyone who questions this is: face the facts, all those convicted in Rochdale were Muslim. Well, if one case is enough to make such a generalisation, how about if all the members of a gang of armed robbers were white; or cybercriminals; or child traffickers? (All three of these have happened.) Would we be so keen to "face the facts" and make it a problem the whole white community has to deal with? Would we have articles examining what it is about Britishness or Christianity or Europeanness, that makes people so capable of such things?

In fact, Penzance had not just one paedophile, but a gang of four. They abused 28 girls, some as young as five, and were finally convicted two years ago. All were white. And last month, at a home affairs select committee, deputy children's commissioner Sue Berelowitz quoted a police officer who had told her that "there isn't a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited".

Whatever the case, we know that abuse of white girls is not a cultural or religious issue because there is no longstanding history of it taking place in Asia or the Muslim world.

How did middle-aged Asian men from tight-knit communities even come into contact with white teenage girls in Rochdale? The main cultural relevance in this story is that vulnerable, often disturbed, young girls, regularly out late at night, often end up in late-closing restaurants and minicab offices, staffed almost exclusively by men. After a while, relationships build up, with the men offering free lifts and/or food. For those with a predatory instinct, sexual exploitation is an easy next step. This is an issue of what men can do when away from their own families and in a position of power over badly damaged young people.

It's a story repeated across Britain, by white and other ethnic groups: where the opportunity arises, some men will take advantage. The precise method, and whether it's an individual or group crime, depends on the particular setting – be they priests, youth workers or networks on the web.

Despite all we know about racism, genocide and ethnic cleansing, the Rochdale case showed how shockingly easy it is to demonise a community. Before long, the wider public will believe the problem is endemic within that race/religion, and that anyone within that group who rebuts the claims is denying this basic truth. Normally, one would expect a counter-argument to force its way into the discussion. But in this case the crimes were so horrific that right-thinking people were naturally wary of being seen to condone them. In fact, the reason I am writing this is that I am neither Asian nor Muslim nor Pakistani, so I cannot be accused of being in denial or trying to hide a painful truth. But I am black, and I know how racism works; and, more than that, I have a background in maths and science, so I know you can't extrapolate a tiny, flawed set of data and use it to make a sweeping generalisation.

I am also certain that, if the tables were turned and the victims were Asian or Muslim, we would have been subjected to equally skewed "expert" commentary asking: what is wrong with how Muslims raise girls? Why are so many of them on the streets at night? Shouldn't the community face up to its shocking moral breakdown?

While our media continue to exclude minority voices in general, such lazy racial generalisations are likely to continue. Even the story of a single Asian man acting alone in a sex case made the headlines. As in Derby this month, countless similar cases involving white men go unreported.

We have been here before, of course: in the 1950s, West Indian men were labelled pimps, luring innocent young white girls into prostitution. By the 1970s and 80s they were vilified as muggers and looters. And two years ago, Channel 4 ran stories, again based on a tiny set of data, claiming there was an endemic culture of gang rape in black communities. The victims weren't white, though, so media interest soon faded. It seems that these stories need to strike terror in the heart of white people for them to really take off.

What is also at play here is the inability of people, when learning about a different culture or race, to distinguish between the aberrations of a tiny minority within that group, and the normal behaviour of a significant section. Some examples are small in number but can be the tip of a much wider problem: eg, knife crime, which is literally the sharp end of a host of problems affecting black communities ranging from family breakdown, to poverty, to low school achievement and social exclusion.

But in Asia, Pakistan or Islam there is no culture of grooming or sex abuse – any more than there is anywhere else in the world – so the tiny number of cases have no cultural significance. Which means those who believe it, or perpetuate it, are succumbing to racism, much as they may protest. Exactly the same mistake was made after 9/11, when the actions of a tiny number of fanatics were used to cast aspersions against a 1.5 billion-strong community worldwide. Motives were questioned: are you with us or the terrorists? How fundamental are your beliefs? Can we trust you?

Imagine if, after Anders Breivik's carnage in Norway last year, which he claimed to be in defence of the Christian world, British people were repeatedly asked whether they supported him? Lumped together in the same white religious group as the killer and constantly told they must renounce him, or explain why we should believe that their type of Christianity – even if they were non-believers – is different from his. "It's nothing to do with me", most people would say. But somehow that answer was never good enough when given by Muslims over al-Qaida. And this hectoring was self-defeating because it caused only greater alienaton and resentment towards the west and, in particular, its foreign policies.

Ultimately, the urge to vilify groups of whom we know little may be very human, and helps us bond with those we feel are "like us". But if we are going to deal with the world as it is, and not as a cosy fantasyland where our group is racially and culturally supreme, we have to recognise when sweeping statements are false.

And if we truly care about the sexual exploitation of girls, we need to know that we must look at all communities, across the whole country, and not just at those that play to a smug sense of superiority about ourselves. Source

Oxford sex abuse victim: 'At first they treat you like a princess'

One of the victims who gave evidence in court against the Oxford child sexual exploitation ring has told the Guardian how she was groomed, raped and trafficked while in the care of Oxfordshire county council.

Girl C's abuse began just after her 13th birthday. By the age of 14, the gang had got her addicted to hard drugs and was regularly trafficking the teenager across the country to be raped by strangers.

By 16, Girl C was pregnant by one of her abusers. She finally managed to escape only after her son was born, when the gang threatened to murder the baby if she did not start recruiting younger girls into the same cycle of abuse.

Speaking exclusively to the Guardian, Girl C revealed that her adoptive mother spent two years begging the council for help with her daughter, first contacting the council when Girl C was 12 years old and starting to stay out all night, returning home drunk and dishevelled.

"Mum wrote to all the key people in social services, called her own case conferences, invited agencies and got them sitting around the table, but they just passed the parcel between them – and all the while, I was getting increasingly under the power and influence of the gang," said Girl C.

"My adoptive mum started asking Oxfordshire social services for help with me in 2004 and they refused and resisted giving even the most basic support for two years."

By the time the council agreed to put the girl in a temporary care home, she said: "It was too late: the grooming process had run its course. I was completely under their [the gang's] control."

Shortly after she was trafficked from Oxford to London for the first time, she said, she tried to talk to staff at the care home but was told the conversation was "inappropriate".

"A week after I moved into the care home, I tried to tell two members of staff all the things that had been happening to me but they told me it was inappropriate to have the conversation at that time," she said. "They promised we would discuss it later but that never happened.

"If they had listened to me, they would have known exactly what was going on and it would not have happened again. But they turned me away. I wouldn't trust them after that."

Five men – Bassam and Mohammed Karrar, Akhtar and Anjum Dogar, and Assad Hussain – were convicted on Tuesday on charges including rape, conspiracy to rape, trafficking for sexual exploitation and facilitating child prostitution against Girl C.

Two other defendants were found guilty of charges involving other victims. Two other men were cleared.

Girl C is reluctant to draw wider conclusions from the fact that all her abusers were Muslim and their victims white.

"Not all the men are Asian: at least two are Egyptian," she said. "They are, though, all Muslim – but not all Muslim men behave like that."

There did, however, appear to be a subset of Muslim men in Oxford who targeted white girls.

Girl C said that when the men asked her to recruit younger girls, they specified that they wanted only white girls. "But not all the punters were Asian or North African," she added. "Although they were all foreign."

Girl C eventually moved "halfway across the country" in a final, desperate attempt to escape her abusers. Now living with her adoptive mother and young child, she has described how the gang went to considerable effort to slowly draw her in over many months.

"The grooming was so clever. It takes about one year and then it's too late: you're completely under their control," she remembered.

"It was such a smooth, planned, deliberate process.

"At first, they treat you like a princess. They make you feel wanted, cared for and ask you about your life and your family. They buy you gifts and make you the centre of their attention.

"That goes on for about six months, by which time you've told them so much that they know exactly what to say to get under your skin. Slowly they turn you against your family.

"I was so wrapped up in them that I believed what they told me without questioning it. I thought they were so wise; that they knew everything. I thought they were the only people I could trust.

"When you're dependent on them emotionally, they tie you even closer with drugs and alcohol. They got me addicted to crack cocaine first, then started giving me heroin. They once gave me a massive overdose and I nearly died.

"I was resuscitated by an ambulance man who realised what had happened to me even though I had no idea: I didn't even know what drug it was that I'd been given. I was like a zombie.

"The next stage of the grooming process happens once you're completely dependent on them," she said. "At this point, they begin flicking between attentive and being suddenly rude and aggressive. But even before they begin explicitly threatening you, you instinctively know something really bad will happen to you if you don't do what they want."

The sexual abuse was the second stage of the grooming process, she said. "It took six months for sex with one person to start. The man who targeted me said he loved me.

"But soon the switch flicked and he started saying things like: 'You have to [sleep with other men] for me because of all the things I have bought for you and done for you.' By that point the threats and the violence become explicit.

"You know that refusing would be really dangerous but by that point it doesn't occur to you to refuse: you're too much of a zombie. You're completely at their mercy."

When Girl C became pregnant at 16, she tried to escape but the threats became worse. "They said that I had to work for them in another way, by recruiting younger girls to do the jobs I was saying I wouldn't do any more. I couldn't do that but because I refused, I had to carry on working for them, doing what I'd been doing before."

After she had given birth to her baby, Girl C tried once again to escape. "I was desperate to get away but I was too terrified: they threatened to chop my son's head off and put it in a suitcase, and then kill me and my mum.

"I knew they would do it, too. They're not human," she said. "I have no doubt they would have killed me and done it painfully and slowly.

"Eventually, I got to the point where I didn't dare to leave the house," she said. "Then one day, I just snapped and realised the only ways to get out of this were to commit suicide, be murdered or move with my family halfway across the country. Within a few months, we were gone."

Girl C agreed to give evidence against the gang in court. In January, she travelled to London and spent eight days in the witness box at the Old Bailey.

It was, she said, such a traumatic experience that, despite Tuesday's sentences, she would not go through it again and would advise other victims of sexual abuse not to do so either.

"The defence lawyer set out to destroy and humiliate me in court," she said. "The judge had to adjourn the hearing five times to make him stop various lines of questioning because they were so aggressive and awful.

"I understand they have to question me but that defence lawyer tried to destroy me. I almost gave up a number of times and walked away.

"In the end, I stuck it out but I was traumatised by the experience. I'm on antidepressants now as a result," she said.

Girl C said she knew other girls in Oxfordshire who were being "groomed and abused by other gangs in exactly the same way that I was".

"I know some of these girls personally," she said. "I know for a fact that they've been let down and failed by social services in the early stages of their grooming process, just as I was failed, and as a result, they won't tell anyone what's happening – and the abuse just continues." Source