In recent times, Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS have openly asserted the right to revive Islamic slavery. A significant contemporary legal debate among Muslim scholars concerns the proper classification of Western countries that now host large Muslim immigrant populations. In classical Islamic jurisprudence, any non-Muslim nation was presumptively categorised as dār al-ḥarb (“the house of war”), from which Muslims had the “right and duty” to take slaves.
In modern times, certain Muslim men, lacking deep scholarly knowledge, often rationalise their grooming gang offences in Western nations by mentally recasting their victims in the role of legitimate slave property under an Islamic framework.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs. This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians, a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February. On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.
Beginning on page 116, the report describes the ‘Influence of Islam’ on rape gang members. We have republished a part of the section below, excluding details of the sources used. You can read the full report HERE.
The Influence of Islam
Jihad and Sex Slavery
Islamic sharia contains detailed regulations governing armed conflict, including provisions related to the institution of slavery. In Islamic law, slavery arises as a consequence of warfare against non-Muslims (infidels). Non-Muslim captives taken in such conflicts are regarded as lawfully enslaved simply by virtue of their capture. These captives may then be allocated to Muslim combatants as part of the war booty (spoils). They can subsequently be sold, ransomed, or retained in slavery. Historical records show that during the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime, Muslim forces enslaved women captured from enemy groups in more than a dozen military engagements.
Under sharia, sexual relations between a male owner and his female captive slave do not constitute zinā. This is explicitly authorised in multiple Quranic passages (e.g., Sura 4:24, 23:6, 70:30) and supported by numerous hadith precedents. Moreover, Muhammad taught that a married non-Muslim woman captured in war is automatically divorced from her previous husband by the act of capture itself. As a result, sexual intercourse between her Muslim captor-owner and the (formerly) married captive does not amount to adultery.
At first glance, it may appear incongruous to connect the classical Islamic institution of slavery with the sexual abuse of white girls in contemporary Britain. Yet the historical record reveals a long-standing pattern of Islamic enslavement and sexual exploitation of white women. Historians estimate that between the 16th and 19th centuries, approximately one million Europeans were seized for profit as part of the Barbary slave trade. In March 1786, when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams inquired of Tripoli’s ambassador to France why the Barbary states waged war on nations that had not attacked them, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman reportedly answered:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share.”
In recent times, Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS have openly asserted the right to revive Islamic slavery. A significant contemporary legal debate among Muslim scholars concerns the proper classification of Western countries that now host large Muslim immigrant populations. In classical Islamic jurisprudence, any non-Muslim nation was presumptively categorised as dār al-ḥarb (“the house of war”), from which Muslims had the “right and duty” to take slaves, as articulated by the Tripoli ambassador. Medieval sharia treated dār al-ḥarb as the default status for infidel territories. A doctrine attributed to Muhammad further obliges Muslims residing in dār al-ḥarb to perform hijra (migration) to a territory governed by Islam, particularly if they cannot freely practise their faith. This duty to migrate continues to be emphasised by many Salafi groups.
In modern times, however, various adaptations have emerged to accommodate changed realities. Some authorities now classify Western nations as dār al-da‘wa (“house of propagation”), where Muslims enjoy freedom to invite others to Islam; in such circumstances, the obligation to wage jihad is thought to have been suspended. Other scholars maintain that an implicit “covenant of security” exists for Muslim migrants in the West: they are permitted to live and operate freely in exchange for refraining from jihad against the host society.
It is worth emphasising that the alternative classifications of Western countries, such as dār al-da‘wa or a tacit covenant of security, serve only to postpone, rather than eliminate, the traditional obligation to engage in jihad. For at least some Muslims with radical inclinations, the issue is not whether jihad will eventually be required, but merely when the appropriate moment arrives.
Certain Muslim men, lacking deep scholarly knowledge, often rationalise their grooming gang offences by mentally recasting their victims in the role of legitimate slave property under an Islamic framework. In Rotherham, for instance, one perpetrator named Muhammad branded his victim with the letter ‘M’ as a mark of ownership. Survivors have described being compelled to perform domestic tasks such as cooking and cleaning for their captors, while enduring repeated sexual violation, mirroring the treatment of household slaves. Journalist Andrew Norfolk captured this mindset when he observed:
“Some of these [Muslim] kids have got an idea, probably because it’s quite convenient for them, that Britain’s been designated a land of war, so certain things have become permissible in terms of “the enemy”; I think some of these guys think it’s okay to do stuff to white girls that they wouldn’t dream of doing to Muslim girls.”
Featured image taken from ‘The West, the Muslim World, and Slavery’, Andrew Holt, 4 February 2016
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, Latest News, UK News