It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Flighty
I think this story is totally abhorent and I am not saying that this man and his wife shouldnt be punished but I would think as well as passing laws to combat the practice
female circumsion is unnecessary. It serves no real purpose, not even for hygiene
Originally posted by Nygdan
Male circumcision serves no purpose either. The penis produces a waxy secretion called smegma, which can accumulate, along with just regular stuff, within the foreskin, but its not really considered a problem today. A few thousand years ago, when people didn't bath every day, it could become a problem, but today it serves no purpose. Some studies even suggest that a circumcised penis is less sensitive than an uncircumcised one. In general, the body isn't made to have parts of it cut off willy nill.
Pardon the pun.
It is a comment on their religion and on them, that they allow this. Where's their version of Martin Luther to nail a schism to the door of the Mosque and end this horror?
Where does it say that the guy that did this is even a muslim?
This is not a religious practice, its a cultural practice. You can have every imam and mosque demand that it be stopped, and its still going to occur, because the christians from over there are going to be doing it.
I agree, its a disgusting practice, the guy belongs in prison
BUT, at the same time, I don't think that its necessarily done to control women, I don't see how it fucntions all that well as an aspect of control...the aboriginies in australia that practice sub-incision, we wouldn't say that the men are trying to 'control' the younger men, and how woul sub-incision induce control anyway? So I don't see a reason to treat this differently than sub-incision, at least in terms of the motivation.
Originally posted by laiguana
I hope this doesn't offend anyone by me asking, but was this guy a muslim?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Im not attracted to cold fishies which is basiclly what you would have without a clitoris
Well, you have a woman who is unresponsive to sex because her sex nerves have been ripped out and her genital mutilated.
Originally posted by chissler
It was a case study I read last year for a university course I was taking. It talked about how it was an insult to the male if the woman was not completely
closed. The women rarely objected to the ritual, as it was a form of sanctity, an honor to themselves.
Originally posted by laprecana
But what i want to mention here is that everybody is crucifying this guy and none is questioning the mom whom i believe is equally as guilty as him.How on earth can a mom not know for a year and half that her two year old daughter has been circumcised!
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Sure there may be other cultures who also do it. Do I need to explain to you the difference between an organized global religion and a tribe of a few thousand people who might have some silly custom?
You are trying to argue that the Christians in Addis Ababa are just as likely to do this because they live in Africa? Is it that Africans are just savages?
Please Nygdan, expert of all things including genitals, tell me where it has been recorded and dictated for hundreds of years and taught to billions of people that it is okay to mutilate one's daughter in this way?
You say that Christians also do this and it may be so that Christians in muslim countries do this,
To say that it is just a cultral practice, is stupid.
other than Mohammed, I think you'll be hard pressed to find ANY prophet of god who gives instructions on how to cut the clitoris of a small girl.
I believe the instructions for female circumcision in the Quran are to not remove too much. They are instructed to remove only the hood of the clitoris.
You brought up the topic of sub-incision, something I was not familiar with which of course forced me into the horrible position of having to go read and learn stuff
it seems not only is this completely voluntary (in some cultures) it is said to actually increase sexual pleasure of the male and width of the penis.
But it doesn't in fact take away the pleasure of sex for the male
...but the difference between sub-incision and clitoral castration seems subtle yet signifigant.
in male dominated societies like the cultures of north-east africa a sexually empowered woman is a threat to the male ego.
Wouldn't you look on it as more of a chore or duty of procreation?
Thats what it is in these cultures, not a pleasureable act that a person might be in the mood for and jump into or go looking for, but a mode of reproduction.
Originally posted by Nygdan
To continuously argue against strawman arguments that you've made up is stupid.
Where does mohammed say to do this?
Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:
A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. 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 Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.
No mention of female circumcision is to be found in the Qur'an either directly or indirectly. There is no known Hadeeth which requires female circumcision. Some argued, however, that one Hadeeth, while not requiring female circumcision, appears to accept it: "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)." 
There are two observations on this Hadeeth:
a) A distinction is made between male circumcision which is described in a stronger religious term (Sunnah)  or commendable while another weaker description is given to female circumcision (Makromah) which implies no religious obligation.
b) This Hadeeth is of weak authenticity (dha'eef) according to Hadeeth scholars. 
There is, however, a more authentic Hadeeth in which Prophet Muhammad (P) is reported to have passed by a woman performing circumcision on a young girl. He instructed the woman by saying: "Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favorable with the husband."
The remaining question then relates to the first procedure. Some (e.g. the late Rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad Al-Haque) argued that since the Prophet (P) did not ban female circumcision, it falls within the category of the permissble.