Muslims In Calgary believes that female genital mutilation is Islamic, and just great, and that the “Jewish controlled media” is the only reason why anyone thinks otherwise. Will the Trudeau government bring Muslims In Calgary up on “hate speech” charges? Not on your life! Those are only for “Islamophobes”!
“Female Circumcision in Islam,” by Asiff Hussein, Muslims In Calgary, n.d. (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):
How Misogynists and Feminists are feeding upon each other to denigrate an Islamic practice that brings untold benefits to women
Female Circumcision is an Islamic tradition, and involve only the removal of the clitoral prepuce and no more.
All the early scholars of Islam were agreed that all that is needed to be removed in the circumcision of the female was the prepuce of the clitoris, the fold of skin covering the clitoris. This is the female equivalent of the foreskin in males which is taken off during circumcision.
The inspiration for writing on this touchy topic arose at a recent week-long workshop held by an international Muslim women’s rights organization in Kandy (in Sri Lanka) which I had the fortune of attending thanks to its local organizers.This group had a lot of nice things to say about women’s rights in Islam and I must say I agreed with much of it, like the rights of Muslim women to enter into marriage with their free consent and even contract marriages on their own accord or their rights to divorce or pre-nuptial agreements to safeguard their freedoms, all well and good, because Islam concedes all these rights to women, on which topics I too have written extensively.
But there was one topic I begged to differ when they brought up the matter, and that was female circumcision. They asked us to discuss a recent Fatwa issued by Malaysia’s National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs in 2009 (*) that declared that the practice was mandatory for Muslim women. They expected us to rip it to pieces, but I differed. Why, because I could not find anything objectionable in it. Reading it carefully, I noticed that those who had drafted it were not at all motivated by a negative attitude towards women’s rights. Rather it clearly stated that all forms of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) found by the WHO to be harmful to women such as clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation (a still more barbaric practice where the female’s external genitalia including the labia minora and clitoris are removed and stitched) were against the Shariah. But it made an exception, stating that all that was necessary in the case of women was to remove the skin covering the clitoris, which it declared to be obligatory, pointing out that a majority of the classical scholars of Islam including Imam Shafi and Imam Hanbali thought it to be so.
I plainly told the sister who was moderating the show, I could see nothing wrong with it, since all they said that was required was to remove the prepuce or the skin covering the clitoris, a relatively minor and harmless procedure very much like male circumcision which like it might confer some health benefits as well. That raised a few eyebrows, probably because none of them had heard such a novel idea before.
Female Circumcision in Islam involve the removing of part of the prepuce or the skin covering the clitoris, a relatively minor and harmless procedure and very much like male circumcision
Of course there’s really nothing so novel about it. Much has been written about it even by Western Doctors but these studies have been conveniently overlooked to conform to Islamophobic sentiments expressed by a largely Jewish controlled media. This media machine works in different ways. For one thing, it will say that Islam advocates genitally mutilating women to curb their sexuality, citing examples of barbaric forms of FGM practiced in sub-Saharan Africa, thereby associating Islam with a misogynistic attitude. But of late, we see another trend, one that seeks to disassociate female circumcision altogether from Islam without differentiating the proper Islamic form from the rest. Why, you may ask? It’s very simple really. There is a strong body of evidence emerging to support the view that the proper Islamic procedure involving the removal of the clitoral prepuce is beneficial to women and not detrimental to them.
Islam doesn’t advocates genitally mutilating women to curb their sexuality, in fact all forms of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) found by the WHO to be harmful to women such as clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation (a still more barbaric practice where the female’s external genitalia including the labia minora and clitoris are removed and stitched) were against the Shariah.
So there you are. It is in the interests of the Jews to criticize female circumcision while promoting male circumcision. Why, because male circumcision is a Jewish practice and female circumcision is not. The medical benefits of male circumcision was established as a fact when the Americans adopted it for hygienic reasons in the early part of the 20th century so that even to this day the majority of male infants born in the US are circumcised.
Islam is innocent from the barbaric forms of FGM practiced in sub-Saharan Africa
The practice was shown to confer significant health benefits as borne out by numerous studies that showed a reduction in urinary tract infections, penile cancer, HIV and other STDs as well as a reduction in Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infections in female partners of circumcised men which could lead to cervical cancer when passed on to women (In favour of circumcision. Brian Morris.1999). The US due to its strong Judeo-Christian background thus came to see male circumcision in a favorable light, but altogether neglected its female equivalent as they did not have such a tradition. Moreover it was an Islamic tradition, not a Judeo-Christian one. It was not until about the early part of the twentieth century that some daring US doctors, reasoned that since women too had a prepuce (the equivalent of the foreskin in males) some of the health benefits conferred on males through circumcision could be enjoyed by women. Moreover they discovered another interesting fact, that the procedure could in fact increase sexual gratification in women since it exposed the surface area of the clitoris to greater stimulation during the sex act as well as in oral sex. Shire Hite’s groundbreaking study on the importance of the clitoris in the arousal and satisfaction of the female led to further interest in this until then rather insignificant part of the female anatomy. To keep a long story short, it is in the interests of the Jews to hide the facts about the benefits of female circumcision, because if it is shown that it is indeed an Islamic practice, and that what Islam advocates is only the removal of the clitoral prepuce and no more, it will be another feather in the cap of Islam. Islamic tradition then becomes a double-edged sword, where both the male and female circumcision it upholds are shown to be beneficial, in contrast to the single-edged sword of the Judaic tradition. My aim in this essay is to prove exactly that!
It was not until about the early part of the twentieth century that some daring US doctors, reasoned that since women too had a prepuce (the equivalent of the foreskin in males) some of the health benefits conferred on males through circumcision could be enjoyed by women.
But before doing so let me disarm its detractors a bit to show that it is indeed an Islamic practice.
Islamic Basis for Female Circumcision
True there is nothing in the Qur’an about female circumcision (an argument often put forward by the detractors), but there’s no mention of male circumcision in it either. Rather the evidence for circumcision, both male and female, come from the ahadith (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him) like the following:
1)
Circumcision is my way for men and ennobling in women (Baihaqi).
This hadith suggests that both male and female circumcision was recognized by the Prophet. The term he used for both was khitan. In the original Arabic: Al-khitānu sunnatun li ar-rijāli makrumatun li an-nisā. This hadith does not necessarily affect the obligatory character of circumcision in the case of females for the simple reason that it would have been quite inappropriate to apply the term sunnat ‘(Prophet’s) way’ for the female operation. Similarly, the term makrumah or ennobling used in the case of women need not affect the obligatory character of the operation since it is merely indicative of the fact that women are ennobled by it
2)
Five are the acts of fitra: circumcision, removing the pubes, clipping the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim)
This statement is a very strong one, classing circumcision (khitān) as one of the acts characteristic of the fitra or God-given nature (or in other words, Divinely-inspired natural inclinations of humans) such as the shaving of pubic hair, removing the hair of the armpits and the paring of nails, which again shows its strongly emphasized if not obligatory character in the case of both males and females. Muslim scholars are of the view that acts constituting fitra which the Prophet expected Muslims to follow are to be included in the category of wājib or obligatory.
Circumcision, like the other fitra acts involving the removal of redundant outgrowths that contribute to uncleanliness, takes the human body to a more perfect state desired by God, which is why in the first place it is called an act that is in accord with the fitra. That it should apply equally to females as much as males goes without saying as both sexes have a prepuce, a fold of unclean skin covering the erectile tissue of their genitals.
Besides, it is a well established principle of Islam that males and females are to be treated equally in all respects where they are similar and there can be no doubt that in this respect they are indeed similar.
3)
When the (male) circumcised part meets the (female) circumcised part, bath becomes obligatory (Ahmad, Tirmidhi)
Here we have the Prophet declaring that ghusl (the bath following sexual intercourse without which no prayer is valid) becomes obligatory (wajib) when both the circumcised parts meet. The fact that the Prophet defined sexual intercourse as the meeting of the male and female circumcised parts when stressing on the need for the obligatory post-coital bath could be taken as pre-supposing or indicative of the obligatory nature of circumcision in the case of both males and females. There are two forms of this hadith, one in which the prophet used the term khitanain (the two circumcised parts) and the other khitānul khitān (the male and female circumcised parts), leaving us with no doubt as to what the Prophet meant by it.
Besides these very obviously conclusive traditions, we have two more which are not well known, but have been recorded for us by the scholars:
4)
The hadith related by Abdullah Ibn Umar who states that the Prophet instructed some Ansar (Medinan) women visiting him to ‘be circumcised’ (Mukhtassar zawaid musnad al bazzar, Ibn Hajar).
5)
The hadith where the Prophet told Umm Atiyyah Al Ansariyyah, a lady who circumcised girls in Medina: “When you circumcise, cut plainly and do not cut severely, for it is beauty for the face and desirable for the husband” (Abu Dawud, Al Awsat of Tabarani and Tarikh Baghdad of Al Baghdadi).
But that’s not all. We have a few more traditions concerning the Prophet’s closest companions who believed it to be necessary for women:
1)
Umm Al Muhajir said: “I was captured with some girls from Byzantium. (Caliph) Uthman offered us Islam, but only myself and one other girl accepted Islam. Uthman said: ‘Go and circumcise them and purify them” (Adab al Mufrad of Bukhari)
2)
Umm Alqamah says that when the nieces of Ayisha’s brother were circumcised, ‘A’isha was asked: “Shall we call someone to amuse them?” “Yes” she replied (Adab Al Mufrad)
So here we have Uthman, one of the closest companions of the Prophet and the third Caliph of Islam ordering that some women who had converted to Islam be circumcised. The other tradition tells us that the Prophet’s wife Ayisha had her nieces circumcised, suggesting that she believed it to be obligatory or at any rate prescribed.
All the early scholars of Islam were unanimous in holding that both male and female circumcision are Islamic practices. They only differed as to whether it was obligatory or recommended. Imam Nawawī in his commentary on Muslim, Tahāra (ed.Cairo 1283) states that according to Imam Shāfi circumcision is obligatory (wājib) and is equally obligatory for males and females. The other schools of Sunni law differ as to the obligatory nature of circumcision. According to the Hanafis, circumcision, whether of males or females, is recommended, but not obligatory, though in the case of males it is thought of more as a sunnah mu’akkadah or ‘close to being mandatory’ while in the case of females it is regarded as ‘a noble thing (to do)’. The position of the Malikis is similar though some regard both male and female circumcision to be on the same level. Thus we have the 9th century Maliki scholar Ibn Al-Jallab declaring circumcision to be sunnah for both men and women (Al-Tafri). The Hanbalis like the Shāfis lay greater stress on circumcision, some as Imam Ahmed regarding it as being more strictly applicable to males while others such as Shaykh Mansur Ibn Yunis Al-Bahuti regarding the circumcision of both males and females as obligatory (Kashshaf Al-Qina An matn Al-Iqtina).
Those favoring a more revivalistic approach with greater stress on the Prophetic tradition than the opinions of individual schools of law have also placed great emphasis on circumcision. This includes the Hanafi scholar Shaykh Jaddul Haqq, the head of Al-Azhar and a leading authority of Sunni Islam who declared both male and female circumcision to be obligatory religious duties in Islam (Khitān Al-banāt in Fatawa Al-Islamiyya. 1983). By the way the fatwa issued by his successor at Al Azhar, Muhammad Tantawi declaring that female circumcision has nothing to do with Islam is based on very faulty grounds and was even rejected by Al Azhar’s other leading scholars. Besides Tantawi is not taken seriously by Islamic scholars. After all he was the guy who declared that women could discard their Islamic attire including headscarves and also spoke in favor of bank interest. Not a man you can go to learn your religion from!…
These early scholars of Islam did not offhandedly decide how it should be done. They based it on a saying of the Prophet (PBUH) where he is reported to have told Umm Atiyya Al Ansariya, a lady who circumcised females in Medina:
When you circumcise, cut plainly (in a shallow manner) and do not cut deeply, for it is beauty for the face and desirable for the husband”
إذا خفضت فأشمي ولا تنهكي ؛ فإنه أشرق للوجه ، وأحظى عند الزوج
(Sunan Abu Dāwud, Sunan Al Kubra of Baihaqi, Al Awsat of Tabarāni and Tārikh Baghdād of Al-Baghdādi)
This hadith clearly indicates the procedure to be followed in the circumcision of girls. The words “Cut plainly and do not cut deeply” (ashimmi wa-la-tanhaki) is to be understood in the sense of removing the skin covering the clitoris, and not the clitoris. The expression “It is beauty (more properly brightness or radiance) for the face” (ashraq li-l-wajh) is said to be further proof of this as it is to be understood to mean a face suffused with pleasure, in other words, the joyous countenance of a woman, arising out of her being sexually satisfied by her husband. Another version of the hadith puts it more directly, for instead of ashraq li’l wajh (radiance for the face) it gives ahwa li’l mar’a (more pleasure to the woman). When the Prophet said that it was more desirable for the husband, what he obviously meant was that he would be pleased that his wife too had attained orgasm at about the same time as him – perhaps even had multiple orgasms – and that he would not need to exert himself further to ensure she is fully satisfied. The idea here is that it is only with the removal of the clitoral prepuce that real sexual satisfaction could be realized. It is contended that the procedure enhances sexual feeling in women during the sex act since a circumcised clitoris is much more likely to be stimulated as a result of direct oral, penile or tactile contact than the uncircumcised organ whose prepuce serves as an obstacle to direct stimulation. This necessarily leads to a satisfactory sex life among women, thus ensuring their chastity. The classical jurists were not such parochial men after all. They deduced from this one statement of the prophet what it really meant. Another reason they concluded thus was the fact that the prophet used the term khitan to denote both male and female circumcision. This would suggest that the procedure in the case of the female had to be similar to that in the male, mandating the removal only of the prepuce of the clitoris….
Westman says
One could conclude that Allah is not the best biological engineer since he apparently didn’t get it right and needed his slaves to cut off some parts. Perhaps he’ll get it right on some other world.
Susette says
Right, Westman. Muslims consider plucking their eyebrows a grave offense to allah, but not FGM???
Ned Kelly says
I suspect I was born with no covering over my clitoris, + it is so sensitive, I am unable to touch it, or let anyone else touch it, or I am sore for days, no matter how gentle. In New Zealand, most males havnt been circumcised for 40 years, as doctors showed no medical reasons for it. IMO men who havnt been done, are better in bed, + most males who are, seem to have premature ejaculation. according to talks with friends.
mike ryan says
Male circumcision is not the norm in Canada. It is common only in the USA because it was originally introduced by PROTESTANT doctors for hygienic reasons. Leave it to certain Muslims to take a Judeophobic angle on the issue!
Agha Ali Arkhan says
Odd. I was born in Canada. So was my older brother. He was cut, I was not. We are Protestant. So, go figure. Thanks for reminding me. Your comment is quite acceptable to me and welcome. Peace and love wherever one can get it.
J_not_a says
I live in Canada and it definitely was the norm as it was a no cost procedure until about the early ninties, then there was a $300 fee charged. Back the, when my last son was born in 1997, I would have had him circumcised, but only due to the cost, decided not to.
SuzQ says
Sorry Mike,
Not true. Funny when the blame and Jew blame goes out for circumcision, never heard a peep about anything but Jews doing it. Then here come the Protestants! No. I also heard that circumcision is down around the world, perhaps it was Howard Stern and his complaints that his penis was already too small! (He made a big, BIG deal about that for maybe a year or more!)
They’re now doing circumcisions again in (can’t remember the African country now), but they are trying to do it at age 12 – at least. They did this in 2003 in another African country to stop AIDS mainly, but it stopped so many other sexual transmitted diseases as well as we all know. Too bad that information wasn’t shared so children could get this done just after birth. Remember too the millions of dollars Obama gave to the African countries to set up bathing for the men’s …genitals? (wish there was a nicer way to say it), but , Yep more of the Obama legacy!
Lydia says
Trust me, that prepuce does not hinder any sensation either way.
This is just another form of oppression and building a case for it
with fake science and so on.
Keys says
Yes, a horrible oppression.
“The clitoral hood (prepuce) is also important not only in protection of the clitoral glans, but also in pleasure, as it is an erogenous tissue.” – from Wikipedia.
Seems to me the purpose of FGM is to deny females sexual pleasure for the purpose of control of the female by the muslim male.
My understanding is there are degrees of FGM, if the hood is removed there could still be pleasure for the female, but often direct stimulation of the glans is painful for females.
Some procedures remove the hood and the glans, and some also even remove labia.
In any case I can not see any benefit for the female, hygenic or otherwise.
Mockingjay says
You’re right Keys – to claim that there is some sort of “hygenic benefit” to cutting off the clitoral hood is absolute and complete nonsense, since it doesn’t “traps dirt” as a men’s foreskin might.
– As for the increased pleasure from removal of the hood – although that might, in some cases, be a theoretical possibility, I cannot imagine that, knowing what FGM usually constitutes, there would be a woman willing to let a muslim with a scalpel anywhere near her clitoris…!
Mockingjay says
– a mAn’s –
gravenimage says
Lydia and Keys, it is a lie that most FGM just involves the removal of the prepuce.
The most common form of FGM is Type I, which removes the entire clitoris. Most common after that are Type II and Type III, which also remove the clitoris. Removal of nothing but the clitoral hood is extremely rare.
Muslims lying? Who ever would have guessed?
Bev says
I read where someone described it as having “doll parts”.
Mockingjay says
Exactly Graven – nowhere in this lenghty piece does mr Hussein mention that “cutting out” of the “bazr” (clitoris) is clearly prescribed in one islamic text.
– He could of course argue that “bazr” really means the clitoral hood, but the fact that he doesn’t even mention this text at all probably indicates that EVERY arab speaking person would understand “Bazr” to mean the actual clitoris.
In short: yes, he uses a lot of words to lie.
mgoldberg says
but lying about the jews controlling the media, as the reason the questions come up, is of course the daily food for muslims. It is always some irrational hatred by others that prevents any and all of their actions and it is this irrational hatred that defines and defies the ‘whollyness’ of Islam and muslims.
pumbar says
I assume this is a web hijack and will be removed soon? Don’t click on any links.
gravenimage says
Muslims In Calgary: “Jewish controlled media” denies benefits of female genital mutilation
……………………….
What are the “benefits” of FGM? If women are less able to enjoy sex, they are easier to control by thuggish Muslim men.
pumbar says
The oft quoted passage from ‘Reliance of the traveller’ on circumcision is a devious mistranslation of the Arabic original;
Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female)
by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male,
but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
(this is called HufaaD).
The Arabic word bazr does not mean “prepuce of the clitoris”, it means the clitoris itself (cf. the entry in the Arabic-English Dictionary).The deceptive translation by Nuh Hah Mim Keller, made for Western consumption, obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik,that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This particular form of female circumcision is widely practised in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed
http://answering-islam.org/Sharia/fem_circumcision.html
gravenimage says
Exactly, Pumbar.
HugoHackenbush says
Nothing like unanesthetized genital torture to break the spirit and will of a young girl. Makes them MUCH easier to manage later on.
Guest says
Whoever came up with FGM in the first place should be burning in hell.
Euripides says
If religion is going to take upon itself the re-engineering of the human body as the almighty is clearly incompetent in his design skills why become besotted with just our sexual organs ? Let’s include earlobes, belly buttons and even noses. Perhaps there should be a major religious meeting where a whole new religiously perfect re-design of the body can be planned.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I should praise a deity who has clearly made such a botch job of the human body. I find it a little suspicious that religious leaders seem obsessed only in modifying what’s in my pants and ignore the rest of the human body’s design flaws.
If this procedure were so beneficial as regards the health of the lucky recipient one has to wonder why it isn’t performed on valued pets and valuable animals. Surely if the Almighty is guilty of a fundament design flaw then it affects not simply mankind, but every living thing. If there are health benefits shouldn’t valued animals also be treated.
HugoHackenbush says
You just don’t understand. The human body was perfect prior to the fall of Man via original sin and not only that lions etc. were vegetarians and there were no wasps like the spider wasp (Darwin noted one species that did this to small mammals in South America). So, you see, it’s really all our own fault. That being the case shouldn’t there be NO circumcision of anyone as to do so is to try to subvert God’s punishment of humanity via the corruption of the previously perfect body? And…. let’s get rid of obstetrical anesthesia since “..in pain will you bring forth your children” or word to that effect.
Susette says
I’m surprised earlobe mutilation isn’t mandated for muslim women…since, obstensibly, they must cover them with their hijabs. Female earlobes must be too darn sexy for muslim males and their out-of-control libidos.
HugoHackenbush says
I recommend prophylactic appendectomies for everyone.
R Russell says
Why? The appendix is an important part of our immune system. If people eat properly the way they should, the appendix will give no problems.
Why not request a prophylactic diet as describes in Genesis 1? It would allow the body to keep part of its God given immune system and allow the body to be healthy because the diet is healthy.
Matthieu Baudin says
Come on Russell, I almost died of acute peritonitis on a long haul flight, it can flare without warning and you had better be on your toes when it happens. Healthy diet or slack diet the appendix is dispensable and doesn’t compare in any way with FGM.
HugoHackenbush says
Joking aside: If there ever is a flight to Mars then consideration of prophylactic appendectomies for the crew would be reasonable. There is evolving data regarding using antibiotics instead of surgery but this is unclear at this point.
HugoHackenbush says
Sorry, my mistake, I really meant to say “tonsils”. Both statements are hyperbole.
Anti-jihad says
Question: How can you tell when a Muslim is lying?
Answer: His lips are moving.
David says
Islam turns people into idiots!
moeped says
Another benefit is said to be the fact that fgm makes the women even less attractive to infidels.
ElderlyZionist says
And yet so many Muslim men are eager to get their hands on filthy, uncircumcised, desireable kuffar women…whom they despise and abuse.
“They think it’s dirty, and they do it every chance they get.” – Midnight Express
Laura says
I think you will find that they go for the anus, rather than the vagina, which they find ‘unclean.’
WPM says
I think the Imams and doctors pushing for doing these FGM should look at the medical benefits of male castration for themselves. Human males who are castrated never get prostate cancer. They live longer then males that are not castrated . It ends the sex life stopping any castrated male from getting or spreading many STDs. Keeps many inbred Imams from producing more violent low IQ off spring from there first cousin child brides. Look at the benefit for the Islamic woman less fear of rape, less child molestation. Without the constant Islamic male hunt for Po-Tang! they could put more effort into studying, learning and working to be useful members of the community at large. I say castrate every Islamic male over the age of 35 would bring about a good useful heathy way of taming the uncontrolled feeling of mating with all life forms on Gods green earth.
WPM says
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander , I really do not believe or advocate castration of anyone I just want to make a statement of the silliness of the Islamic FGM debate . How can they use this to control there own woman ,their fear of their own wives ,daughters , sisters and mothers is a sad look of the smallest Islam makes of their fragile male souls.
Matthieu Baudin says
Let’s just cut the crap and unite to scrap all forms of genital chopping for all girls in all of the world today. There are no public health benefits from any forms of genital cutting for women and the practice when carried out on girls is clearly forced and not in any way consensual, so it amounts to a form of extreme violent rape. Traditional Islam needs to let go of the enormous amount of baggage collected over one and a half millennium; it needs to jettison the unnecessarily cruel practices from human history that it has helped to keep in place. Though there are certain areas on the globe where only the clitoral hood is removed, in most regions female genital cutting equates to castration – the excision of a girls phallus (the equivalent of the penis) and in many lands the labia are also carved away. I’m sure the young Trudeau is aware of what comprises a physically complete woman, a woman with all her genitalia in place, a woman able to experience the world unfettered by the shackles of backwards traditions. Why is it that he can accept and champion a woman’s right to control of her own body when she is a non Muslim Canadian but at the same time deny it to thousands of girls raised within Muslim households? Will someone please present the question to him?
WPM says
Trudeau I think is a pure political animal who only cares about the growing Islamic block of votes to keep him in office. He does not think or care what happens to women outside of his family and well protected friends. The only way to stop this is to expose it to the truth of what it is. That is why Trudeau fears people who speak the truth and show the ugliness that is Islam . He is depended on the progressive nonislamics who are ignorant of true nature of Islam who make up the major voting block that put him in office.
patriotliz says
Me thinks that the dirty old Muslim men of the 7th century had just a little “TOO MUCH” knowledge of intimate female anatomy that they felt this uncontrolled sadistic urge to mutilate it for even more male control over women.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153
ratio superior says
So the mummy and daddy of the arab mohammed 570-632 were NOT circumcised !! lol .
ratio superior says
The point is that islam and sharia are in fact the result of animal instinct , while the western world is dominated by the brain . That is a big difference . In Islam women have a treatment by the males that has some similarities in nature . A male can have four wives and a harem , a male is continuously occupied with protecting his females against other males . You can do that by hiding them in their houses , they only leave the house accompanied by a relative , then you hide them again by clothing . You make them a-sexual so they find no pleasure in sex (removing the clitoris) anymore. When a muslim male all so buys female slaves , then he appoints an eunuch in his household to have control , so again he prevents sexual intercourse with his herd of women by other males .
It is exactly the same as a stallion and his herd or some sort of walrus and his herd or a chimpansee and his girls , they are all 24-7 occupied with control of their possessions or in their case with 4 or 10 or 20 or what ever number of vaginas .
There are many other examples i can give about why islam is in fact the materialisation of the animal instinct of homo sapiens .
Marrying off girls as soon as they have their menses , we all so see in nature that as soon as an animal is fertile it will have or seek intercourse . It is perfectly normal in islam to have sex with young females of 9, 10 or 11 and up when they have had their menses . It is an exact replica of animals in nature .
Liila says
This angers the heck out of me. Not only do they slice away the clitoris, labia minora and majora, they sew shut the gaping wound to almost close the vagina itself… creating a lifetime of pain, difficulty with intercourse (rape), infertility. Not to mention the disgusting idea of what happens during menstruation. And all for the sake of ‘protecting virtue’ and chastity. Cut their dicks off. It’s the only fair thing to do. And may God save the US from complete moslem takeover as is happening in so much of Europe today. The thought of some insane imbeciles doing that to my granddaughters makes me sick.
Tom says
It seems obvious that the practice of FGM is simply to alleviate the inate lack of self confidence that permeates the average muslim male.
He obviously feels so insecure in his own ability to be able to keep family females under control by example of his high moral and ethical behaviour that he has to revert to painful physical mutilation and the threat of death should they stray from a path that he alone controls.
Is it that muslim men are so weak that they are afraid their female family members will have wanton sexual relations with just about anyone? Surely this insecure mindset indicates a deep seated mental instability. Or could it be that they know just how perverted their society is due to Islam?
Mark A says
FGM is a barbaric practice that has no place in western countries.
Male and female circumcision are two totally different things. Male circumcision was/is routinely done in western countries for hygienic reasons and does not involve any side effects.
That cannot be said for FGM.
UNCLE VLADDI says
CANADA ALLOWS AND SANCTIONS (AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS) FGM!
http://unclevladdi.blogspot.ca/2015/07/fgm-culturally-sensitive-canadian.html
Matthieu Baudin says
“… I plainly told the sister who was moderating the show, I could see nothing wrong with it, since all they said that was required was to remove the prepuce or the skin covering the clitoris, a relatively minor and harmless procedure very much like male circumcision which like it might confer some health benefits as well…”
What a slimy little opinion piece, crafted to shift attention away from Traditional Islam’s complicity in keeping alive one of the most heinous barbaric practices of the ancient world. A healthy woman needs all her folds, all her skin, all her labia, all her phallus, everything, to prepare her for sexual maturity and childbirth. The author is intentionally stalling for time on this first priority human rights matter. What audacity to try to hang an agreeable face on what is a form of violent sexual assault against minors. Canada has allowed the importation of this gross tradition into its society and its local apologists for Islamic cruelty and backwardness are fighting to continue behaving in the old ways. Someone please ask Mr Trudeau why he allows only non Muslim girls to retain all their genitals thereby maintaining control of their own bodies, and why he is not allowing the same basic human rights to all girls raised in Islamic households.
Terry says
Will this next on Trudeau’s list of sharia approvals?