Theology or Criminology? Analysing the Mark Durie Perspective on Grooming Gangs

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam

20 December 2025

In the closing months of 2025, the fragile social cohesion of the United Kingdom has faced a renewed assault—not from a new wave of criminality, but from a resurgent wave of rhetorical weaponization surrounding the tragedy of child sexual exploitation (CSE). The phenomenon known colloquially as "grooming gangs"—networks of men involved in the systematic sexual abuse of vulnerable, predominantly white girls—has long been a festering wound in the British psyche. However, with the release of recent reports and articles by the Australian theologian and linguist Dr. Mark Durie, specifically "UK Grooming Gangs and Islam" (Anglican Ink, Nov 20, 2025) and "Mark Durie on the UK Grooming Gangs" (Christian Concern via Bill Muehlenberg, Nov 17, 2025), the discourse has shifted from criminological analysis to theological indictment.

Durie advances a sharp, provocative, and highly controversial thesis: that the over-representation of Muslim men (specifically of Pakistani heritage) in these specific crime clusters is not a result of socio-economics, state failure, or clannish criminality, but is rooted in the "civilizational and theological matrix" of Islam itself. Durie identifies "eight Islamic factors"—elements of classical jurisprudence and theology—which he claims act as the operating system for these crimes. He asserts, with purported empirical confidence, that "the religion of Islam has a stronger correlation than ethnicity with grooming gang criminality" (Durie, Christian Concern 1). Furthermore, in his broader scholarship, Durie maintains that there is no "kindred relationship" between the Quran and the Bible, arguing instead that the Quran "marches to the beat of its own theological drum" (Durie, The Quran and Its Biblical Reflexes, p.256).

While the horror of these crimes necessitates an unflinching pursuit of justice for victims, Durie’s framing represents a profound hermeneutical crisis. It relies on a methodology of essentialism, textual determinism, and collective guilt that threatens to tear the fabric of multi-faith society. Durie implores the West to have the "guts" to understand Islam as a hostile political system. This paper accepts the challenge to have "guts," but applies it differently: we must have the courage to dismantle the rhetorical architecture of his argument, exposing its sociological and theological flaws.

This paper aims to subject Durie’s thesis to rigorous critical scrutiny. By juxtaposing the historical misuse of Christian scripture with Durie's reading of Islamic scripture, and by recovering the shared ethical teleology of Jesus and Muhammad, we will clear the ground for a constructive alternative. That alternative is "Theistic Humanism"—a hermeneutic of common humanity. Grounded in the universal message of Jesus—which prioritizes reconciliation and self-critique—and the ethical dimensions of the Quran, this paper argues for an Abrahamic Civilizational Alliance. This alliance seeks to combat exploitation not by demonizing a faith community, but by affirming the Imago Dei (Image of God) in every person and holding individual perpetrators to account through the mechanisms of law and shared moral conscience.

The Rhetoric of Textual Determinism

At the heart of Durie’s argument lies a methodological presupposition that can be termed "textual determinism." This is the assumption that ancient religious texts and classical juristic constructs function as direct, unmediated drivers of modern human behaviour. In his analysis, Durie mines the corpus of classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) to find "root causes" for the actions of street criminals in Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford. He cites doctrines regarding Dhimmitude (the subjugated status of non-Muslims), the concept of "war booty," and specifically the category of Ma Malakat Aymanukum or "those whom your right hands possess" (referencing slavery and concubinage) to argue that these men are acting out a theological script.

Durie’s rhetoric operates on a computer-code model of human agency: he posits that Islamic scripture acts as software, and the believer is merely the hardware executing the program. If the text (the code) contains a permissive clause regarding slavery from the 7th century, the believer (the hardware) is prone to executing rape in the 21st century.

This approach constitutes a fundamental category error in the study of human behaviour and criminology. It ignores the vast, complex, and intervening variables that actually drive criminal activity: psychological pathology, socioeconomic deprivation, the breakdown of social services, the availability of drugs, peer dynamics, and individual moral corruption. To reduce the complex etiology of sexual exploitation to "Islamic doctrine" is to engage in a reductionism that no social scientist would accept for any other crime. When a Christian commits embezzlement, we do not scour the Levitical codes or the history of the Crusades to explain their theft; we look at their greed, their opportunity, and their moral failure. Durie denies Muslims this nuance, collapsing the distance between the criminal and the text.

To understand the flaw in Durie’s hermeneutics, one only applies his methodology to the history of Christianity. If we were to use Durie’s "textual determinism," we would be forced to conclude that Christianity is inherently a religion of slavery, colonialism, and oppression.

Christian doctrine consistently emphasizes love as foundational. Jesus taught, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart... and Love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:37–39). Yet, despite this mandate, history is replete with instances where Christian scripture was weaponized to justify the horrific. During the era of chattel slavery, enslavers cited Ephesians 6:5— “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear”—to defend the practice. Colonial powers invoked a "divine mission" to subjugate indigenous populations, misapplying Old Testament narratives of the conquest of Canaan to modern imperialism.

It is here that the historical asymmetry in Durie’s rhetoric becomes especially apparent. If one is to insist on a deterministic reading of Islamic texts, intellectual honesty demands applying the same lens to Christian history—yet such an endeavour would produce conclusions that even Durie would reject. For it was within Christendom, not the Muslim world, that the most virulent and sustained forms of anti-Semitism emerged: from medieval blood libels to ghettoization, from state-sanctioned expulsions in England (1290) and Spain (1492) to the theological demonization that laid cultural foundations for modern European racial anti-Semitism. By contrast, historical Jewish communities under Muslim rule—whether in Umayyad Spain, the Abbasid caliphate, or the Ottoman Empire—generally enjoyed far greater social integration, legal protection, and cultural flourishing. This comparative record is well-documented and stands as a historical counterweight to Durie’s attempt to locate religious hostility toward the “Other” uniquely in Islam. Furthermore, Christendom invoked the Bible to justify slavery, concubinage, the execution of heretics, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and the systematic ethnic cleansing of Indigenous peoples across the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. These atrocities were not random; they were often clothed in explicitly theological language and rationalized through biblical paradigms. If Durie’s logic were consistently applied, these episodes would necessarily reveal Christianity’s “true” moral DNA—an inference that scholars universally reject as methodologically incoherent and historically simplistic.

If we apply Durie’s logic, the existence of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade proves that the Bible is a "manual for slavery." However, we know this is false. We understand that these historical atrocities were the result of human sin, economic greed, and the misuse of scripture, not the inherent teleology of the Gospel. We recognize that while the ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible regulated servitude (e.g., ʿebed in Exodus 21), the overarching spirit of the text moved toward liberation (Galatians 3:28).

Durie fails to extend this same hermeneutical charity to Islam. He draws a straight line between Quranic references to captive women in 7th-century tribal warfare (4:24) and modern grooming, ignoring the fact that Islamic civilization—like Christian civilization—has moved through history. Islamic jurisprudence regarding slavery was context-bound and has been universally abolished by consensus (ijma). To argue that a drug dealer in a British town is cognitively operating within the framework of medieval slave law, while absolving the Christian enslaver of operating within the framework of Biblical law, is an act of intellectual dishonesty. It is a dual standard that treats Christian crimes as aberrations and Muslim crimes as essence.

From a moral-philosophical standpoint, the most damaging aspect of textual determinism is that it undermines the concept of agency. If, as Durie implies, these perpetrators are simply "following the logic of Islam," then their individual accountability is blurred. They become pawns of theology rather than conscious agents of evil.

A robust theistic ethic—whether Christian or Muslim—must insist on the reality of sin and moral choice. The men who committed these horrific acts did not do so because they were "too Muslim"; they did so because they were criminals who rejected the fundamental ethical precepts of their own faith regarding modesty, justice, and the sanctity of the human person. By attributing their crimes to their religion, Durie paradoxically alleviates them of total personal responsibility, shifting the indictment to the Prophet and the Text. A just hermeneutic must restore agency: these men are not theologians practicing jihad; they are predators practicing evil.

The Sociology of Scapegoating

Durie’s confident assertion that "Islam has a stronger correlation than ethnicity with grooming gang criminality" relies on a shaky empirical foundation. As critical social scientists have pointed out, the very term "grooming gang" lacks a stable, objective legal or criminological definition; it is largely a media construct.

According to research by the Institute of Race Relations, authors Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail argue that the "Muslim grooming gangs" narrative has been a racialized construct from its inception (Cockbain, p.3). The label aggregates a diverse range of sexual offenses under a single, sensationalized banner when the perpetrators are Muslim, but uses different terminology when perpetrators are white.

Durie’s thesis requires robust data showing that Muslims commit these crimes because they are Muslim. However, no such national dataset exists. A major Home Office audit in 2025 revealed that in two-thirds of child sexual abuse cases, the ethnicity (let alone the religion) of the perpetrator was not even recorded (The Guardian, p.1). Without reliable denominators, calculating a "correlation" based on religious ideology is statistically impossible. Durie relies on "conviction clusters" to generalize about a national population, a methodology that fails the basic tests of sociological rigor.

Methodologically, Durie’s argument is a textbook example of the "ecological fallacy"—deducing the nature of individuals from the perceived characteristics of the group. Because a specific group of men in Rochdale were Muslim, Durie infers that "Muslim-ness" is the causal factor.

This fallacy extends to his treatment of cultural practices like forced marriage. Durie frequently argues that forced marriage is "Islamic," thereby suggesting a cultural continuum of coercion against women that culminates in grooming. However, this claim has no Quranic validity. The Quran explicitly protects the agency of women in marriage, stating, "O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion" (4:19). Furthermore, verses regarding the mutuality of marriage (2:187, 9:71) stand in direct opposition to coercion.

Forced marriage is a cultural pathology found in specific regions (such as parts of South Asia), practiced by Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians in those regions, as well as Muslims. By theologicalizing a cultural problem, Durie engages in a "Hermeneutic of Hostility" that blinds us to the actual sociological drivers of abuse—patriarchy, clannishness (biraderi), and poverty—which are the true enemies of women’s safety.

The Theological Counter-Narrative: One God, One Humanity

Durie’s narrative is not just sociologically flawed; it is theologically isolationist. He posits a "clash of civilizations" rooted in the idea that the Islamic God and the Christian God are fundamentally rival entities with no "kindred relationship." However, this view is increasingly marginal, contradicted by the highest authorities in the Christian tradition and the text of the Quran itself.

Contrary to Durie’s assertion of total theological estrangement, the Catholic Church since Vatican II has taught that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Lumen Gentium §16 declares: “Muslims, who profess to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

This position was reinforced by Pope Saint John Paul II in Casablanca (1985), where he stated, "We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God," and most recently by Pope Francis in the 2019 Declaration on Human Fraternity, signed with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. These declarations are not mere diplomatic pleasantries; they are theological recognitions of a shared monotheistic root.

The bridge between the two faiths is the concept of Mercy. The Quran introduces God first and foremost as Al-Rahman Al-Rahim (The Compassionate, The Merciful). Every chapter (save one) begins with this invocation. In his papal bull Misericordiae Vultus, Pope Francis noted, "No one can place a limit on divine mercy because its doors are always open," explicitly linking Christian mercy to the Islamic attribute of God. If the God of Islam is defined by Mercy, then the crimes of grooming gangs—which are acts of supreme cruelty—are not acts of fidelity to God, but acts of apostasy against His nature.

Durie’s claim that the Quran "marches to its own drum" ignores the profound reverence the text holds for Jesus (Isa). Within Islam, Jesus is affirmed not as a rival to Muhammad, but as a "Word from God" and "the Messiah" (3:45), endowed with the Holy Spirit and miraculous power (5:110).

While the Quran re-narrates Jesus within strict monotheism (rejecting the Trinity), it does not reject his ethical mission. The Quran describes the followers of Jesus as having hearts filled with "compassion and mercy" (57:27). This reverence suggests that Jesus and Muhammad are participants in a single "divine pedagogy" unfolding across time.

Just as modern Christian scholars like Hans Kung, Montgomery Watt, and Kenneth Cragg have come to recognize Muhammad as a profound reformer who revitalized monotheism and instituted social justice—paralleling the Muslim respect for figures like the Buddha or Confucius—Muslims view Jesus as a towering ethical teacher. The differences in Christology should not blind us to the convergence of Teleology: both faiths aim at the moral transformation of the human being.

A Hermeneutic of Common Humanity

In opposition to Durie’s "hermeneutic of hostility," which reads the other as an existential threat, this paper proposes a "Theistic Humanism." This is an ethical framework grounded in the shared values of the Abrahamic traditions. It posits that the sanctity of the human person is the highest religious truth, and that any theology which justifies exploitation is a betrayal of God.

The foundation of an Abrahamic alliance against exploitation is the convergence of anthropology and ethics.

•          Christian Ethics: Jesus’s proclamation of justice is central. "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) and the call to liberate the oppressed (Luke 4:18) form the bedrock of Christian humanism.

•          Islamic Ethics: The Quran advances an analogous framework. It commands believers to "stand firmly for justice, even if it be against yourselves" (4:135) and to repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Both traditions critique arrogance, greed, and hypocrisy. Both elevate humility and moral responsibility. A "Theistic Humanism" synthesizes the Biblical mandate to "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" (Micah 6:8) with the Quranic command to "enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong" (3:110). From this perspective, the sexual exploitation of girls is a profound blasphemy —a violation of the Imago Dei and the Quranic "honour" (karamah) bestowed upon all children of Adam (17:70).

To build a civilizational alliance, we must look to the ethical methodology of Jesus. A central feature of Jesus’ ministry was his rejection of "externalizing evil." The religious authorities of his day often located sin in the "other." Jesus reversed this, locating sin in the human heart and calling for internal purification: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3).

Applying this Jesuine ethic to the grooming gang crisis does not mean ignoring the crimes of Muslims. It means refusing to use those crimes to construct a totalizing narrative of "Islamic evil" while ignoring the beam in the societal eye—systemic misogyny, the sexualisation of children in the media, and the failures of the state care system. An Abrahamic alliance calls for a justice that is restorative and precise, punishing the guilty without collectively punishing the innocent.

Durie challenges the West to force Islam to adopt a "brotherhood of humanity." This demand reveals his ignorance of the text he critiques. Islam does not need to adopt this concept; it is foundational to the faith. The Quran explicitly states: "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may know one another (ta'aruf)" (49:13). The purpose of difference is mutual knowledge, not domination.

Durie creates a phantom problem to offer a draconian solution. The resources for a "brotherhood of humanity" are already present in the Quran, just as the resources for abolition were present in the Bible even while Christians held slaves. The task of the alliance is to empower those readings, not to claim they do not exist.

Principles for an Abrahamic Alliance

Millions of Muslims live peacefully in the West, contributing to society in fields like medicine, education, and business, embodying the long-standing Islamic commitment to justice, human dignity, and peaceful coexistence (Q.4:135; 60:8). Islam encourages peaceful coexistence: “To you be your religion, and to me be mine” (Q.109:6) and “If they incline towards peace, then you incline towards peace” (Q.8:61) articulate a normative ethic of pluralism grounded in the Quran’s moral grammar. War in Islam is defensive, not aggressive: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, God does not like transgressors” (Q.2:190) establishes that armed struggle is a contingent response to manifest aggression, not an inherent civilizational posture. Justice must be upheld, even against enemies: “Do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, for that is closer to righteousness” (Q.5:8) foregrounds an ethic of impartiality that prohibits demonization and collective blame. No compulsion in religion: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) offers an explicit and unambiguous affirmation of juridical and spiritual freedom. This verse proves that Islam does not force itself upon others, in a Quranically legitimised way.

Historically, Muslims protected Jews and Christians under Islamic rule (e.g., the Ottoman Empire, Al-Andalus, and the Constitution of Medina). These precedents reveal that Muslim political formations could—and often did—sustain pluralistic social orders built on negotiated covenants, mutual protections, and shared public goods. Prophet Muhammad formed good alliances with non-Muslims in Medina, proving that Islam is not hostile to other civilizations; rather, it envisions partnership across communities in pursuit of justice, public welfare, and peace.

It is within this ethos of justice and dignity that an Abrahamic Alliance must now be articulated. Building on the critique above, this paper proposes the following principles for an inclusive Civilizational Alliance aimed at combating exploitation and promoting social cohesion.

We must issue a joint Christian–Muslim declaration that affirms the sanctity of every human body and the divinely ordained honour of all children of Adam (Q.17:70). We must reject any theological reading—from any scripture—that commodifies women or justifies non-consensual sexual acts, for the exploitation of vulnerable women and the coercion of chastity is explicitly forbidden (Q.24:33), and believers are prohibited from inheriting women against their will (Q.4:19). The Imago Dei and the Karamah (Dignity) of Adam must be our shared banner, recognizing that to violate the sanctity of one individual is equivalent to slaying all mankind (Q.5:32). This is not merely a theological correspondence but a civilizational imperative: both traditions root human worth in divine intentionality, making any form of exploitation a desecration of sacred trust.

We must agree to analyse crimes through the lens of individual moral agency and structural failure, not essentialist identity politics, adhering to the Quranic principle that no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another (Q.6:164; 35:18; 53:38). We will punish the sinner, not the sect, and ensure that hatred of a people does not lead us to depart from justice (Q.5:8). We will acknowledge that just as the Bible was misused to justify slavery without being inherently evil, the Quran can be misused by criminals who follow ambiguous allegories for fitnah (sedition) (Q.3:7) and twist their tongues with the Book (Q.3:78). Such hermeneutical abuses indict the interpreter, not the text. Scripture in both traditions becomes dangerous only in the hands of those who instrumentalize it for domination rather than liberation.

The alliance should not just be theological but practical, fulfilling the mandate to cooperate in righteousness and piety, but not in sin and aggression (Q.5:2). Churches and mosques should form joint “Safe Haven” networks, embodying the defence of cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques where God’s name is much mentioned (Q.22:40). We should see Anglican priests and imams standing together outside courtrooms, condemning the perpetrators and supporting the victims (Q.4:75), disrupting the “Islam vs. the West” narrative that Durie and the grooming gangs both rely on by establishing a common word between us (Q.3:64). Such solidarity would reclaim the moral terrain from both Islamophobic polemicists and predatory criminals, demonstrating that religious traditions are most themselves when defending the vulnerable.

We must also recognize that the grooming-gang crisis is not exclusively a moral or theological crisis but a structural one rooted in poverty, class stratification, and regional neglect. We must heed the Qur’anic warning against wealth circulating only among the rich (Q.59:7). The alliance must advocate for better funding for social services and improved education for at-risk youth, upholding the duty to the weak and the orphans (Q.4:127; 93:9–10). We must push for economic regeneration in the post-industrial towns where these gangs thrive, choosing the “Steep Path” of freeing the captive and feeding the orphaned and needy in times of hardship (Q.90:11–16), rather than neglecting the small kindnesses that form the fabric of a compassionate society (Q.107:1–7). An Abrahamic Alliance thus becomes not merely an ideological project but a moral and socio-economic intervention, addressing the conditions that allow exploitation to flourish.

From the Pen as Sword to the Ploughshare of Peace

The works of Mark Durie in late 2025 presents a formidable challenge. They articulate a fear that is palpable in society—the fear that our neighbour is our enemy, and that our values are under siege. However, Durie’s response to this fear—to construct an intellectual fortress built on textual determinism and civilizational hostility—is a dead end. It creates a hermeneutic of despair that ignores the fundamental restriction against aggressive judgment found in the Gospel: "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1). To fixate on the darkness in the "other" while ignoring the beam in our own eye (Matthew 7:3) is to invite a cycle of polarization and violence, forgetting the warning that "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

 

This paper has argued for a different path. By deconstructing Durie’s rhetoric, we have exposed its fragility. We have seen that "doctrine is not destiny," and that the text does not program the human; indeed, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6). We have established that the historical misuse of the Bible for oppression mirrors the misuse of the Quran today, and that neither invalidates the core message of the faith. Therefore, we must lay down the stones of accusation, heeding the call to let only he who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).

At this juncture, the ethical demand of Jesus in Luke 6:41–42 becomes even more urgent: the injunction to remove the log from one’s own eye before addressing the speck in another’s. This teaching, often domesticated into interpersonal morality, must be reclaimed for its profound geopolitical significance. In the contemporary climate—where segments of Christian and Jewish Zionist networks orchestrate a globalized campaign of suspicion, demonization, and civilizational vilification against Islam—Jesus’ warning becomes a theological and ethical mirror. It exposes the asymmetry between the proclaimed values of compassion, justice, and universal dignity and the actual rhetoric of hostility disseminated under the guise of defending “civilization.” The hermeneutics of self-examination that Jesus commands stands in sharp contrast to the hermeneutics of projection embedded in these campaigns. To indict Islam as inherently violent while disregarding one’s own complicity in structural violence, colonial legacies, military interventions, or supremacist ideologies is precisely the kind of moral inconsistency Jesus warns against. His teaching confronts the selective moral vision that judges Islam by its worst actors while judging the West, Christianity, or Israel by their best ideals. Thus, Luke 6:41–42 functions as a critical antidote to the epistemic arrogance and civilizational conceit that fuel contemporary anti-Islamic discourses.

In place of Durie’s conflict, we propose a Theistic Humanism. We call for an Abrahamic Alliance grounded in the ethics of the Quran and the radical message of Jesus—a message that commands us not merely to tolerate, but to actively "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). This is a call to protect the vulnerable and seek a justice that reconciles rather than divides, embodying the "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18). The combined legacy of these traditions urges believers to transcend prejudices and work toward a world animated by mercy, realizing that "blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9).

The choice before the United Kingdom is clear. We can follow the path of essentialism, turning our streets into battlegrounds of identity. Or, we can follow the path of theistic humanism, recognizing the Imago Dei in every face and understanding that "whatever you did for one of the least of these... you did for me" (Matthew 25:40). Let us choose the latter. Let us turn the sword of suspicion into the ploughshare of peace, and walk together in the light of universal love.

Bibliography

Cockbain, Ella, and Waqas Tufail. "Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ narrative." Race & Class, vol. 61, no. 3, 2020, pp. 3–32. London: Sage.

Durie, Mark. "U.K. Grooming Gangs and Islam." Christian Concern, 13 Nov. 2025.

Durie, Mark. "Grooming gangs ‘more associated with Islam than ethnicity’." Christian Concern, 12 Nov. 2025.

Durie, Mark. The Quran and Its Biblical Reflexes: Investigations into the Genesis of a Religion. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018.

Durie, Mark. "UK Grooming Gangs and Islam". Anglican Ink, 20 Nov. 2025.

Institute of Race Relations. "The racialisation of child sexual exploitation." London: IRR News, 2025.

Muehlenberg, Bill. "Mark Durie on the UK Grooming Gangs." Melbourne: CultureWatch, 17 Nov. 2025.

Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND). Unmasking the Myth: The Fallacy of the ‘Muslim/Asian Grooming Gangs’ Narrative. London: MEND, 2025. https://www.mend.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/the-fallacy-of-muslim-asian-grooming-gangs-narrative.pdf

Pope Francis. Misericord

iae Vultus: Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015.

Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1964. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The Guardian. "Home Office audit reveals missing ethnicity data in CSE cases." London: The Guardian, 2025.

(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship)

URL: https://newageislam.com/debating-islam/theology-criminology-mark-durie-/d/138086

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism