• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Religious freedom defense planned in landmark Detroit FGM case

May 23, 2017 2:07 pm By Christine Douglass-Williams

Defense lawyers plan to argue that religious freedom is at the core of the case in which two physicians and one of their wives are charged with subjecting young girls to genital cutting

Are these morally defunct defense lawyers also prepared to defend the “religious freedom” of a barbaric culture to justify the murder of gays, beating of wives, stoning of adulterers and the beheading of apostates, too?

Defense lawyers have argued that the defendants are good, hardworking people with deeply held religious convictions who were involved in only mild procedures that are part of their faith.

Shame on these “defense lawyers” who are defending the indefensible abuse of girls. There is nothing “mild” about this harmful practice of FGM. Some key facts were published by the World Heath Organization about the practice:

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.

Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

More than 200 million girls and women alive today have been cut in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where FGM is concentrated1.

FGM is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15.

FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

Stated in a previous Jihad Watch article:

Muhammad is said to have justified the cutting of women’s genitals: “A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 41.5251) The problem with this is that the distinction between cutting and cutting severely is subjective.

The defense is also making the case that those accused of FGM are “Muslims and they’re being under attack because of it.” As we have previously noted, lawyers are trying to make this a test case for the proposition that religious freedom frees one from the obligation to obey other laws. The consequences of that could be catastrophic.

In another egregious argument of harm reduction, Michigan State University law professor Frank Ravitch, argues that a “nick” “would also keep the practice from going underground, which could lead to more serious mutilation.” Highlighting the logistical folly of Ravitch’s argument — which amounts to supporting a “milder” abuse against women — a Breitbart report revealed “much more serious mutilation of Dr. Jumana Nagarwala’s alleged victims’ genitals than the doctor admitted.” This highlights the reality that there is no viable means to police the level of harm inflicted upon victims of FGM, particularly in a culture where women will be fearful of coming forward to attest to the extent of harm. Adding to the difficulty is that the practice of FGM has now become a sizeable Western problem that is now out of hand. A charity, Plan International UK, announced that in Britain alone, “a case of female genital mutilation (FGM) is either discovered or treated at a medical appointment in England every hour.”

Bringing FGM practitioners to full justice and strictly applying laws that safeguard human rights and equality for women are the only moral and ethical options, despite the silly academic meandering and apologetics around the subject of FGM, of which the usual fear of being branded racist or “Islamophobic” weighs prominently.

“Religious defense planned in landmark Detroit genital mutilation case”, by Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press, May 20, 2017:

On paper, the law seems clear: Cutting any part of a young girl’s genitalia is illegal — and no custom or ritual can be used to justify it.

The law has been on the books for 21 years, unchallenged.

But in a federal courtroom in Detroit, a landmark case involving the centuries-old taboo ritual is about to put that law to the test for the first time.

And perhaps more historic, a question will be raised in the American legal system that has never been raised before: Does the U.S. Constitution allow for genital cutting, even if it’s just a minor nick or scraping, in the name of religion?
Defense lawyers plan to argue that religious freedom is at the core of the case in which two physicians and one of their wives are charged with subjecting young girls to genital cutting. All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a small Indian-Muslim sect that has a mosque in Farmington Hills.

The defense maintains that the doctors weren’t engaged in any actual cutting — just a scraping of the genitalia — and that the three defendants are being persecuted for practicing their religion by a culture and society that doesn’t understand their beliefs and is misinterpreting what they did.
First Amendment scholars across the country — liberal and conservative alike — are closely following the case, noting that the fate of the accused will largely rest with scientific evidence.

The key question for jurors to answer will be: Were children harmed physically? If they were, experts say, the religious freedom defense doesn’t stand a chance.

But if the defense can show that it was just a nick and caused no harm, some experts believe, the defendants could be acquitted on religious grounds.

‘This is new territory’

The Detroit case involves the genital cuttings of two 7-year-old Minnesota girls whose mothers brought them to a Livonia clinic for the procedure in February.

Defense lawyers have argued that the defendants are good, hardworking people with deeply held religious convictions who were involved in only mild procedures that are part of their faith.

But the government says the harm was much more severe than the defense is claiming and that there are multiple other victims. According to court documents, the two Minnesota girls had scarring and abnormalities on their clitorises and labia minora.

“It is hard for me to imagine any court accepting the religious freedom defense given the harm that’s being dealt in this case,” said First Amendment expert Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars who called the religious claim in the Detroit case a “losing argument.”

“You don’t have the right to impose harm on others in practicing your religion,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine who in January was named the country’s most influential person in legal education by National Jurist magazine.

Chemerinsky, who has written a leading textbook on constitutional law, said there is “no absolute right” to religion in the U.S., noting many parents over the years have fought for the right to refuse their children medical care because of religious beliefs. But those parents, many of them Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists, have consistently lost those cases, he said.

Chemerinsky believes the Detroit defendants will lose, too.

“I can’t imagine any court that would say that the parents’ right to practice their religion gives them the right to inflict this harm on their daughters,” Chemerinsky said, adding what will ultimately decide this case is the science.

“It’s going to come down to medicine, and if (the procedure) really inflicts great, lifelong harms on those who are subjected to it — that’s what is going to decide this case,” he said.

First Amendment attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal defense group in California that defends religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties, agreed. He said while genital mutilation is a novel issue for the federal courts, the government’s interest in protecting the safety and well-being of children will likely outweigh religious freedom.

“As far as case law goes, this is new territory,” Dacus said. “But the courts have held in the past that religious freedom is not an absolute right. And it is subject to a state interest that is narrowly tailored.”

In this case, the government’s interest is in protecting children from what it has claimed is an illegal and harmful procedure.

“This issue involves the direct health, safety and welfare of minors, not just for the short term, but literally for the rest of their lives,” Dacus said. “And it impacts not only their body, but also potentially their future spousal relations.”

As for the defense claims that the procedure was more mild than what the government claims, Dacus noted: “There are experts who contend that even the most mild procedure is still harmful.”

He continued: “The science is definitely going to come into play there. I think the procedure itself is highly suspect for surviving scrutiny.”

‘A very minor nick’

Michigan State University law professor Frank Ravitch, who specializes in law and religion, said the only way the doctors could win based on freedom of religion is to show that there is a “more narrowly tailored way” to meet the government’s “extremely strong interest” in protecting the young women.

“It is theoretically possible that if the procedure really was just a nick that does not cause lasting damage and does not harm sexual health or sensitivity for the young women, allowing the nick, but nothing more, could be more narrowly tailored than an outright ban,” Ravitch said. “It would also keep the practice from going underground, which could lead to more serious mutilation.”

That philosophy — preventing more serious mutilation — was at the heart of a controversial stance taken years ago by the American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2010, the AAP came under fire for changing its policy on female genital cutting by recommending that doctors be allowed to ceremonially nick the clitoris of girls at the requests of parents. The goal was to prevent girls from being subjected to more harmful forms of genital mutilation either overseas or in secretive procedures in the U.S.

In the statement, the AAP’s Committee on Bioethics wrote: “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual (clitoral) nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.”

Within weeks of issuing the statement, after facing mounting pressure from advocacy groups, the AAP went back to its original position in banning all forms of genital cutting.

The ‘nick’ philosophy, however, was revisited last year by two American doctors, who in a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics suggested allowing parents to have their daughters’ genitals nicked to prevent sending the girls overseas for more harmful procedures.

The authors wrote: “We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable. … We by no means condone oppression. … However, in order to reduce the prevalence of the extensive forms of FGA, we propose a compromise solution that is ethical, culturally sensitive and practical.”

‘They didn’t commit the crime’

Mary Chartier, one of the defense lawyers in the Detroit case, has faith in the jury system. She believes that fair-minded jurors will be seated in this case — which she says has “inflamed passions” — and will conclude that the defendants didn’t do what the government says they did.

Moreover, she said, jurors will see that the procedure at issue is a religious one that is constitutionally protected.

“Will jurors have an initial bias on what happened here? They probably will. … But most jurors will really want to do what’s right,” Chartier said. “I think we can convince 12 people that they did not violate the law. … They just didn’t commit the crime.”

Chartier is representing Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, 53, of Farmington Hills who is accused of letting another doctor use his Livonia clinic to carry out genital cutting procedures. That physician is Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, 44, of Livonia, a former emergency room physician at Henry Ford Health System who was fired from her job following her April 10 arrest in the federal case.

The third defendant is Attar’s wife, Farida Attar, 50, who is accused of holding the hands of at least two victims during the cutting procedures to comfort them.

All three defendants are members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect, which is known for practicing female circumcision on girls for religious reasons. The defendants are accused of secretly subjecting girls to the procedure, and then trying to cover up the acts when they were discovered and encouraging others in their religious community not to cooperate with authorities — or to lie to them — if questioned about genital mutilation.

Chartier said while multiple constitutional arguments will be made — freedom of religion being just one of them — one of the most significant points the defense will make is “what the procedure actually is.”

“We know there is female genital mutilation. No one is saying it doesn’t exist. But what we’re saying is this procedure does not qualify as FGM,” Chartier said.

“And even if it did, it would be exempt because it would violate their First Amendment rights. They believe that if they do not engage in this then they are not actively practicing their religion.”

Chartier said the 1996 law that is being used to prosecute this case is “unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.” She believes parental rights are being violated, arguing parents have the right to raise their children as they deem fit.

She also believes the statute violates the constitution’s equal protection clause in that it treats men and women differently. Specifically, it prohibits female circumcision but allows male circumcision.

“Male circumcision is allowed, which is much more invasive than the very minor religious procedure (that defendants practice),” said Chartier, who believes the religious freedom argument will stick.

“Jurors will listen carefully and they will follow the law,” she said. “This country was founded on religious freedom. That’s what the core of this country is.”

Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, believes the male circumcision versus female cutting argument does not raise a valid equal protection argument. He offers several reasons.

Male circumcision has health benefits, such as helping prevent disease and cleanliness. By comparison, he said, “there is no good medical reason” for female genital cutting.

Male circumcision does not affect a man’s ability to enjoy sex as an adult. However female circumcision can curb a woman’s sexuality and can make sex painful and childbirth difficult.

Sedler said when it comes to the constitutional right to parent, a ban on male circumcision — which is practiced by Jews and Muslims — wouldn’t stick because the procedure has not been deemed harmful by the medical community and there are medical and aesthetic benefits to it.

Nagarwala’s lawyer, Shannon Smith, declined comment for this article. But in court, she has repeatedly argued that her client’s actions were “completely a religious practice.”

‘It’s blind faith’

According to health agencies and human rights organizations, the reasons for practicing female genital mutilation vary from one region to another, though many experts stress it’s more about tradition and rite of passage than religion.

A United Nations advocacy group for women’s health says: “FGM is a cultural rather than a religious practice. In fact, many religious leaders have denounced it.”

According to the World Health Organization, UNICEF and the UN Population Fund, which advocates for women’s reproductive health, here are among the top reasons cited for genital cutting:

Sociological and cultural reasons, where the procedure is seen as part of a girl’s initiation into womanhood and a key part of a community’s culture. FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.
Sexual control, with the goal being to curb a woman’s sexuality to avoid premarital sex or having affairs once she’s married.
Social norm. The pressure to conform and not be rejected by a community is a big motivator for genital mutilation.
Hygiene.In some communities, the female genitalia are considered dirty and ugly and are removed for hygiene or aesthetic reasons.
Religion. Although genital cutting is not endorsed by any religion, some believe the practice has religious support and is a religious requirement, as do the Dawoodi Bohra.
For Mariya Taher, who grew up in the Dawoodi Bohra community and underwent genital cutting when she was 7, the religious argument for the procedure has no basis. Neither does the “it’s just a nick” philosophy, she said.

“They keep throwing that argument — that ‘we are not mutilating,’ ” said Taher, noting one of the barriers to ending genital cutting is convincing people in her community that religion doesn’t require it.

“The religious administration of this community is in India. They have been emphasizing that this is (required) … they’re trying to claim that there is a religious connection to it,” said Taher, noting many Bohras are afraid to question the directive.

“It’s blind faith,” she said. “There are a large number of people who are afraid of being excluded. They might not want (cutting) to happen, but others have pressured them. And there’s a lot of fear of social ostracism.”

But resistance is growing.

Taher, 34, who is now a social activist in Cambridge, Mass., working to end genital mutilation worldwide, is among several Bohra women who have publicly denounced the practice. She views all forms of genital cutting — even the so-called ritual nick — as oppressive and a form of child abuse that has negative physical, emotional and sexual consequences.

Many Bohra communities across the U.S., including the Detroit chapter, also have urged their members not to practice it because it’s illegal in the U.S. and their religion requires them to follow the laws of of the land.

“I hope this is an opportunity for more awareness and education on this issue,” said Taher, who sees progress, but believes the problem is still more widespread than the numbers show.

‘The doctor made her cry’

Prosecutors have argued that the federal genital mutilation law is clear: It prohibits “knowingly circumcis(ing), excis(ing) or infibulat(ing) the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of any other person who has not attained the age of 18 years.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward has argued repeatedly in court that the defendants knew what they were doing was illegal, but did it anyway. She has called their crimes “heinous” and argues the harm was severe.

According to court documents, in interviews with authorities, the two Minnesota victims described the genital cutting procedures as painful.

One girl said that she got a shot, screamed, and “could barely walk after the procedure, and that she felt pain all the way down to her ankle.” The other said she was “laid on an examining table with her knees near her chest and legs spread apart,” that she was “pinched” in the genital area, that it “hurted a lot” and that there was “pain and burning.”

Both girls were told to keep the procedures a secret, court records show. One said “the doctor made her (friend) cry.”

“According to some members of the community who have spoken out against the practice, the purpose of this cutting is to suppress female sexuality in an attempt to reduce sexual pleasure and promiscuity,” a Homeland Security Investigations special agent wrote in an April 20 court filing.

Especially egregious, authorities have argued, is that this procedure was carried out by a doctor who took an oath to do no harm….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, female genital mutilation Tagged With: Dr. Fakhruddin S. Attar, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, religious freedom


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. john spielman says

    May 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    so if a particular religion’s theology; is to CUT off the head of any one who criticizes their founder, THAT MEANS WE SHOULD LET THEM DO IT UNDER UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

    • Jaladhi says

      May 23, 2017 at 6:30 pm

      I wouldn’t be surprised if liberal judges agree with it! Disgusting if it happens!

      • Greyhound Fancier says

        May 23, 2017 at 10:07 pm

        I guess that “multiculturalism” trumps women’s rights.

    • mortimer says

      May 23, 2017 at 10:21 pm

      If I am an Aztec by religion, will I be able to plead that my gods Acolnahuacatl (the god with war), Huitzilopochtli (the god of night) and Tezcatlipoca (the god of night) require HUMAN SACRIFICES?

      Even in today’s MAD LEGAL environment, no judge will support Aztec human sacrifice.

      • maghan says

        May 24, 2017 at 2:30 am

        Correct, but the sly goal here would be to use male circumcision performed on a religious basis as an implicit “stare decisis” precedent for FGM.

  2. Adrian says

    May 23, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    In H.G.Wells’ “War of the Worlds”, the powerful alien invaders were defeated by an unanticipated lowly virus…

    In today’s SJW globalist knee-jerk world, it is this uncritical self-hate and nonjudgemental “tolerance” that is proving to be the undoing of Western Civilization…

    Why should such barbaric alien practices like FGM be even debated?

    • mortimer says

      May 23, 2017 at 10:23 pm

      Agree. The law schools are filling the heads of students with rubbish. Much of Islamic law contradicts the UDHR.

  3. Neil Ross says

    May 23, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    I’m all for religious freedom, but if my neighbour chooses to worship a God that commands him to rape, mutilate and murder children, I want him jailed.

    • gravenimage says

      May 23, 2017 at 2:50 pm

      Hear, hear, Neil!

    • Jeanette says

      May 23, 2017 at 7:28 pm

      We need to get that on billboards across America’s highways!

  4. gravenimage says

    May 23, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Religious freedom defense planned in landmark Detroit FGM case
    …………………..

    Just shocking–that they would even mount such a defense is very grim.

    What else constitutes “religious freedom” in Islam? Why, “marrying” little girls, stoning rape victims to death, and slaughtering apostates and unbelievers.

    Is the next legal defense for violent Jihad going to take this tack?

    • mortimer says

      May 23, 2017 at 10:25 pm

      The next will be Koran 4.23-24 which involves the enslavement and subsequent rape of MARRIED CAPTIVES which is decreed by Allah. Don’t you think Allah’s law is ‘GREATER’ than human laws? Allah Akbar. (sarc/off)

  5. jewdog says

    May 23, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    That’s excellent that the legality of FGM will be discussed. That should set a precedent for some other controversial religiously sanctioned practices, such as sacrificing virgins, sexual slavery, serving camel piss at health spas, cannibalism, stoning adulterers, killing gays, marital rape, gang raping infidels, killing heretics, beheading witches and killing blasphemers and apostates.

    • SV says

      May 23, 2017 at 3:53 pm

      You forgot the practice of male genital cutting.

      • Jeanette says

        May 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm

        The fact that you would compare the two is an indication that you don’t really know the extent of FGM.

        See from 29:00 to 35:00 i the video posted below, but be warned: Photos and drawings included, and this is not for the faint of heart!

        http://bing.com/videos/search?q=ann+barnhardt+video+islam+sexual&view=detail&mid=78659C23DF2A43376AC778659C23DF2A43376AC7&FORM=VIRE

        • SV says

          May 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm

          The first commentor stated: “That should set a precedent for some other controversial religiously sanctioned practices…”

          This includes male genital cutting performed on infants. I do know what FGM is, which also means I know it includes a wide variety of practices from the ritual nick to infibulation. I also know that complete splitting of the penis is practiced in certain cultures. Does MGM now “win” the who has it worse contest?

          Infants and children should be able to enjoy bodily autonomy regardless of sex. Highlighting this hypocrisy is key to ending routine genital cuttings for cosmetic/religious purposes.

        • gravenimage says

          May 23, 2017 at 9:54 pm

          More witless tu Quoque…

  6. SV says

    May 23, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    The lawyers already see it has worked for Jews and circumcision. Everyone should be not be surprised at this. For every challenge to male genital cutting, look at the response of Jewish groups and expect the Muslim’s lawyers to follow the same plan step by step. This happened in New York (no ban on oral contact of the infant penis despite herpes deaths), California (blocking of referendum on MGM via religion), and Germany (successful prosecution, but ban halted via high court exception for religion).

    I’m sure there will be some oversensitive people claiming anti-antisemitism (it has worked with this topic before), but lets be very clear on how society has allowed MGM to continue under this same defense. This includes Muslim societies where they also cut the penis of their boys (ex “touching of the two cut parts”). And yet somehow we only have outrage for the girls. Scandalous.

    Jews and Muslims are in common ground here, and frankly it’s up to the Jewish faith to step up as the Muslims will not. Jews must recognize the human rights of not just their own Jewish children but the children of any faith. Creating religious exceptions gives cover for the non-religious cultural practice that has ravaged the bodies of children in the West, especially in the US.

    • gravenimage says

      May 23, 2017 at 4:01 pm

      Pretending that male circumcision is like cutting out a girl’s clitoris is absurd. If it were the same, boys would have their penises cut off.

      • Just A Concerned Citizen says

        May 23, 2017 at 4:52 pm

        But the clitoris was not cut off in this case. There are several varieties of female cutting, some comparable and some are less severe/invasive than the typical male cutting, whether we can own up to this unpleasant fact or not. The insistence that there must be some arbitrary “harm olympics” of who suffers more is utterly counterproductive.

        I would defy you to find any society where girls are cut that do not also put their sons under the knife, as well. So unfortunately, so long as we tolerate/promote male genital alteration, there will always be those who will justify cutting girls. It’s high time we in the so-called free world made a stand for the basic human rights and bodily integrity of all.

        • gravenimage says

          May 23, 2017 at 10:03 pm

          Just A Concerned Citizen wrote:

          But the clitoris was not cut off in this case.
          …………………

          This is *exactly* what the Dawoodi Bohra practice.

          Since its avowed purpose is to “prevent promiscuity”, this is obvious.

          Al Jazeera itself admits that that is what this is:

          “Fighting female genital mutilation among India’s Bohra”

          http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/02/fighting-female-genital-mutilation-india-bohra-160225093408129.html

      • SV says

        May 23, 2017 at 9:04 pm

        Both boys and girls should be able to enjoy the right to bodily integrity. Neither MGM or FGM are medically justified as routine practices. Neither should be allowed without an immediate medical need, just as with the removal of any other body part.

        Second, how much of the penis has to be removed for it to be unethical? How much of the vagina/etc has to be removed for it to be unethical? Are your standards in line with each other or do you have one standard for baby boys and another for baby girls?

      • maghan says

        May 24, 2017 at 3:17 am

        Wrong analogy. A female who has undergone FGM can still bear children. In Somalia the average is 6. Researchers on the female sexual physiology speak of the so-called “G-Spot” as an internal source of coital release. In the case of males, removal of the penis would mean that procreation by means of male insemination would be impossible.

        But both procedures according to their medical reports are problematic.

        http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

        http://www.viafin-atlas.com/botched-circumcisions.html

    • Nigel GFF says

      May 23, 2017 at 7:57 pm

      Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, I smell the whiff of Islam here. Not a scientific article, but worth a look.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/10998633/Dont-compare-male-circumcision-with-FGM.html

      • SV says

        May 23, 2017 at 8:56 pm

        Then you have a poor sense of smell, because I clearly described the practice of MGM as occurring in Muslim societies as well. Furthermore, Jewish groups also advocate for “brit shalom” rather than ritual cutting of the child, which I support completely. However, as I said previously, these are not the groups that have the ear of policy makers.

        Second, your source is directly from a “circumcision apologist” to use a clearly loaded term. The author is Co-Chair of Milah UK:

        “Milah UK is the campaign group set up by the organisations of the Jewish community in the UK to promote and protect the right of the Jewish community to carry out religious circumcisions in accordance with our religious beliefs.”

        The fact that this person is advocating for genital cutting of another person as a religious rite proves my point. Jewish groups, who may or may not represent the majority of Jews, are quite happy to cite religious freedom when cutting the genitals of a boy, but cry murder when it happens to a girl. Do you find it curious they do not mention MGM of Muslim boys?

        I am well aware of both MGM and FGM. Neither is medically justified as a routine practice. Neither is justified in comparison to the human rights of children to bodily autonomy. Both should end in a civilized society that loves and defends the rights of children.

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      May 23, 2017 at 10:11 pm

      Gentiles also circumcise their infant boys in many cases.

      If a circumcision resulted in as much harm to ability to urinate and function normally (as does FGM), the doctor who did the circumcision would be hung by his toes (after losing everything he or she had at court).

      • SV says

        May 24, 2017 at 1:48 am

        Yes, I stated that the non-religious cut their children. This is why I exhorted Jewish people to end religious justifications to stop the only challenge to genital cutting that is remotely justifiable. If Jews end it, it cannot be used as an excuse for anyone.

        As for harm, every modern case of MGM *does harm ability to function*. The foreskin is not vestigial. It contains thousands upon thousands of nerve endings, protects the glans, and aids in lubrication. The only exceptions are from immediate, medical need. Routine infant cutting is not an effective preventative “treatment.” There are less invasive treatments for everything, including phimosis and we even have the HPV vaccine to help protect against cancer. The greatest increase in HIV cases in modern society is unprotected gay sex and drug use, so cutting wouldn’t help with that either even if it was true it prevented STDs. Which it doesn’t.

        In addition, (skin adhesions, painful sex, painful erection, “hidden penis”, blood loss, etc aside) there are boys who have lost their penis or died from circumcision. Where are the prosecutions? What about the infamous story of David Reimer? He, and his twin, were referred for circumcision for a case of phimosis. David’s penis was burned off and psychologist named Dr. Money convinced the parents to raise him as a girl. Ultimately, the stress of such an upbringing caused David to kill himself as an adult. The urologist wasn’t prosecuted. Dr. Money wasn’t prosecuted. The parents weren’t prosecuted.

        In fact, there are no statutes banning MGM, but almost half of all states ban FGM. There are millions of cut boys and men in the US, and no outcry. Yet when just two doctors are reported for FGM a bill is passed to *increase* the punishment to 15 years within a month. You are mistaken to think any doctor cutting baby boys would be “hung by his toes”.

      • maghan says

        May 24, 2017 at 3:31 am

        Consider the following: FGM is a useless practice based on primitive religious reasoning. It is fully endorsed by Islam–as is male circumcision.

        https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation

        https://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html

        http://www.viafin-atlas.com/botched-circumcisions.html

    • Jakob says

      May 24, 2017 at 5:51 pm

      I am glad I am corcumcised. NO RAVAGING HAPPENED. My Johnson is at all times cleaner than any part of your body, and I have no problem with healthy bodily functions. Get a real education, and clean the left wing slime and sewage from bjakobetween your ears–there may yet be the remains in your head of what used to be a brain.

  7. Donald R Laster Jr says

    May 23, 2017 at 5:11 pm

    Foreign law is not allowed in the US under Article 6 of the US Constitution and since Islam is a theocracy and not a religion Amendment 1 does not even come close to applying. And this procedure is called out in Shar’iah law apparently, which is Islam’s Civil law and is foreign law.

    The prosecution should point out that Islam is not a religion but a theocracy which is a government with laws supposedly given by a god or gods. And then address the Article 6 issues and the fact they are violating the US Constitution, and actual laws that govern the country.

  8. somehistory says

    May 23, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    Life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness, comes before *religious practice.*

    Life is sacred. If these monsters gain ground here to *practice their religion* as they choose, they will challenge every other law against what they do.

    Just as the case of the man who raped his wife and claimed it was his right according to islum (spelling like I see it).
    This is a form of sexual abuse. It has nothing good for the child or the girl, but for those who are raised to value sex abuse of children, it holds a lot of disgusting lust.

    No *religious practice* is valid if it hurts another, if there is no value, if it overrides the rights that each individual has.

    The argument of a *nick* so it doesn’t go underground…who is going to monitor the *nicking* to make sure it doesn’t hurt or harm? Furthermore, suppose a gunman says he only “nicked” the victim with his bullet, but did not seriously injure or kill him/her. Would that argument stand up in Court? Would the gunman go free?

    The cutting…and any cutting will alter and mutilate…is illegal. These scum should not get away with this abuse of little girls.

  9. abad says

    May 23, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    Hey if these Muslim doctors want to conduct FGM on their patients I suggest they leave the United States of America for good and always, and move to Syria.

    In no way do I condone FGM but I do NOT want it done on MY turf!

  10. Krystal says

    May 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm

    Warren Jeffs tried that tired old line. He’s currently spending life plus twenty years in jail.

  11. Arthur says

    May 23, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    >>We know there is female genital mutilation. No one is saying it doesn’t exist. But what we’re saying is this procedure does not qualify as FGM,” Chartier said.

    >>“And even if it did, it would be exempt because it would violate their First Amendment rights. They believe that if they do not engage in this then they are not actively practicing their religion.”

    Oh, wait a minute!! They don’t even buy their own defense!!

    Instead, it’s “First Amendment” rights to cut up other people.

    What’s next?

    “Judge, I had to behead my neighbor because he was Hindu and my Islamic religion commands me to kill all polytheists. I was just practicing my religion and that is protected under the First Amendment which guarantees, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ If it is my religion to kill people, clearly that is a protected right I have. If your religion does not call command you to kill other people, you do not have the right to kill anyone.”

    Evidently the little girl has no rights at all, in keeping with standard Islam no doubt.

    • gravenimage says

      May 23, 2017 at 10:09 pm

      Yup.

    • Donald R Laster Jr says

      May 24, 2017 at 5:19 pm

      And Amendment 1 does not apply, They are trying to impose Shar’iah law which is Civil law.

  12. Gen Jones says

    May 23, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    The term “just a scraping of the genitalia” should make normal people squirm. The justification of “deeply held religious convictions” is loony. It matters not how deeply held they are if they are unethical.

  13. Matthieu Baudin says

    May 23, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    They will be arguing I expect that only non Muslim women have a right to life and limb.

  14. Deshawn says

    May 23, 2017 at 10:46 pm

    Religious freedom is a catholic concept. Jesus rose from the dead after establishing a church on the rock of peter. The Catholic Church, through the diving authority of the Holy See, has a right to teach the world about Jesus and his bride, the Catholic Church and to spread the message of salvation. Governments have a right, societies have a right, to be catholic. That’s religious freedom. You do not have freedom to believe in a lie like Islam, or any heresies that stem from the demonic rebel Luther.

  15. mortimer says

    May 24, 2017 at 12:01 am

    One of the best ways to defeat Islam is in court where Islam institutionalized misogyny can be exposed and condemned.

  16. Gen Jones says

    May 24, 2017 at 9:08 am

    Side note: something about that woman’s picture makes me nauseated every time I see it. The false piety of that meek smile combined with the Baby Huey bonnet, granny glasses, and Dr’s white coat. There’s nothing about her that suggests a competent medical professional. She’s going to play up this mild personae in court, a person of “deeply held religious beliefs”, but she’s a stupid, self hating tool of a barbarian misogynistic cult.

  17. Ninsuna says

    May 24, 2017 at 9:57 am

    It is outrageous and disgusting that there’s any question or argument at all about the legality and societal permissability of this repulsive, abusive practice, anywhere in the world. But to see it actually debated and defended here in the U.S., the supposed beacon of freedom and human rights, is as horrifying as the act itself.

    It gets harder every day to hold to hope. We must keep praying. Divine intervention may be the only weapon that can stop the creeping evil.

  18. utis says

    May 24, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    O.K. Let them wear their hijabs and bacteria-breeding beards, and let them carve up their baby girls to please their god. As an atheist, just thinking about the crap they probably believe, I demand the right to cringe whenever I see a hijab or beardy-weirdy, . And the right to hate a god who demands such cruelty to children.

  19. Asiff Hussein says

    May 26, 2017 at 1:44 am

    How can you declare a religious duty illegal? This goes against the very constitution of the United States of America. Islamic female circumcision is not FGM. These are two different things with different effects. Female circumcision involves removing the skin (prepuce) covering the clitoris, which enhances, not curbs women’s sexuality. This procedure allows the clitoris to be exposed for greater stimulation since it does away with the prepuce which serves as an obstacle to sexual satisfaction. The clitoral prepuce also harbours germs such as the cancer-causing HPV. Thus female circumcision as required by Islam prevents urinary tract Infections and transmission of cancer-causing HPV to husbands through oral sex. Even Western women are going for it under the name hoodectomy. See: http://asiffhussein.com/2015/04/02/female-circumcision-the-hidden-truth/

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.