It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Muslim leader caught on camera advocating female circumcision

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein
 


i do not disagree but there should be a marriage and medical clause in that




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Oh, and before someone says that "men get circumcised”, therefore “what’s the problem” they should look at the difference and consequence.


At it's most simple, female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, involving the removal of the tip of the clitoris, which is the corresponding, and serves the same purpose, as does the foreskin on the male, however most are not simple circumcision procedures..

So, just in case anyone is in any doubt of the difference of that process and it's consequences...


Female circumcision is mainly carried out in western and southern Asia, the Middle East and large areas of Africa. It’s also known to take place among immigrant communities in the USA, Canada, France, Australia and Britain, where it’s illegal. In total it’s estimated that as many as two million girls a year are subjected to genital mutilation.

There are three main types of circumcision:

The removal of the tip of the clitoris

Total removal of the clitoris and surrounding labia

The removal of the clitoris and labia and the sewing up of the vagina, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual blood - a process known as infibulation


So drastic is the mutilation involved in the latter operation that young brides have to be cut open to allow penetration on their wedding night and are customarily sewn up afterwards.


www.bbc.co.uk...






edit on 15-5-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by paraphi
Oh, and before someone says that "men get circumcised”, therefore “what’s the problem” they should look at the difference and consequence.


At it's most simple, female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, involving the removal of the tip of the clitoris, which is the corresponding, and serves the same purpose, as does the foreskin on the male, however most are not simple circumcision procedures..


This is incorrect. The foreskin equivalent in women is the clitoral hood, not the actual clitoris.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
This is incorrect. The foreskin equivalent in women is the clitoral hood, not the actual clitoris.


We're actually both partially right. The clitoral hood is the loose skin at the back of the clitoris, it forms a roughly 'v' shape over the clitoral area, hence the term hood. It is, like the skin on the shaft of the penis, designed to accommodate the expansion of the erectile tissue, and to protect the more delicate organ beneath. If you draw back that hood, you will see, that like the penis, which after all the clitoris pretty much is, there are the glans covered with an attached sheath of skin. Again like the foreskin of the penis, this is a mucous membrane, that by passing back and forth over the glans produces sexual excitation. So, in order to prevent that excitation, the clitoris foreskin is removed, allowing for the desensitiation of the glans, much in the same way as a male circumcision does, however given the delicacy and scale of the organ in young girls, it is usual for both this foreskin and the glans to be snipped off. But either way the clitoris is not just the glans as you suggest, it is like the male sexual organ, a combination or rather interaction, of the foreskin and the glans that make up the clitoris as a whole.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


None of this changes the fact it is only the clitoral hood which is the equivalent of the male foreskin. Whether the effect is the same in men and women is irellevant, snipping off part of the clitoris itself is in no way equivalent to cutting off the male foreskin.

As you suggest though, it can be difficult in girls to get just the hood, and there are no health benefits associated with it. Male and female circumcision are not the same, at all, and there is no benefit to women as far as I know.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I see no benefits to the male procedure either, they are both mutilation in my opinion. The so-called benefits to males, in terms of hygience, can be achieved by simply washing properly. Same with the prophyllactic benefits, good hygiene, washing between sexual partners, should, in this day and age, given the availability of a clean water supply be sufficient. To me, unless there is a medical condition, such as in the case of some, where the foreskin does not retract properly causing pain and discomfort, there is no excuse for mutilating either the genitals of girls or boys, and I was in no way advocating either, just demonstrating the technicalities involved for the sake of understanding.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
What's a clitoris? Should I know about it?

All kidding aside, I am horrified that women are brow beaten into this procedure. Or just plain beat. Don't want your wife to cheat? Cut off her happy place. That's all it really is. A disgusting practice perpetuated by disgusting ideals that leave a woman scarred. Great. Perhaps we should just take all women, drug them so they can't move, and use them only to breed. Don't tell my girl about this, she'd steal my AR, parachute in and wipe the floor with this idiot. Domo's girl shoots better than Domo



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


There is no beating involved, the practice began in Africa, and it is usually conducted on girls around the age of four, though sometimes, much like religious circumcision in males, it occurs soon after birth, it depends very much on local tradition. And, as a female rite of passage, it is usually carried out by the women.

The reasoning behind these practices varies from culture to culture, and has only recently been translated into Muslim cultures, via the spread of Islam into the traditional cultural centres of genital mutilation in Africa. In Africa it has been standard practice for at least 2000 years...


FGM societies have many claims of why this procedure should be done and these are as follows:

In most FGM societies one important belief is that this procedure will reduce a women's desire for sex and in doing so will reduce the chance of sex outside the marriage. This is vital to this society as her honor for the family is depended on her not to be opened up prior to marriage.

Some view the clitoris and the labia as male parts on a female body, thus removal of these parts enhances the femininity of the girl.

It is also believed that unless a female has undergone this procedure she is unclean and will not be allowed to handle food or water.

Some groups believe that if the clitoris touches a man's penis the man will die. As well as the belief that if a baby's head touches the clitoris that the baby will die or the breast milk will be poisonous.

The belief that an unmutilated female can not conceive, therefore the female should be militated in order to become fertile.

Bad genital odors can only be eliminated by removing the clitoris and labia minora.

Prevents vaginal cancer.

An unmodified clitoris can lead to masturbation or lesbianism.

Prevents nervousness from developing in girls and women.

Prevents the face from turning yellow.

Makes a women's face more beautiful.

Older men may not be able to match their wives sex drive.

Intact clitoris will generate sexual arousal and in women if repressed can cause nervousness.


wolvesdreams.tripod.com...

The justification of it's adoption by Islam are based on two excerpts from the Sunnah...


A discussion was recorded between Mohammed and Um Habibah (or Um'Alyyah), a women performed infibulation on slaves. She said that she would continue the procedure "unless it is forbidden and you order me to stop doing it". He replied (according to one translation) "Yes it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not over do it, because it brings more radiance to the face and it is more pleasant for the husband."


Mohammed is recorded as speaking of the Sunna circumcision to Ansar's wives saying: "Cutting slightly with out exaggeration, because it is more pleasant for your husbands."


wolvesdreams.tripod.com...

It is merely convenient to the more fundamental aspects of the female role in Islam, however, the main problem of FGM remains an African, not a Muslim one.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I was trying to say that women who wish to avoid the procedure are either whipped into submission, or too young to fight it. I don't care where the practice originated, or why certain groups adopted it. The whole thing is wrong. From your first ex-text the goal seems to be keeping women from having sexual enjoyment, thus keeping them from cheating on the husband.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


It is far more than about decreasing sexual enjoyment, women are often left in horrible lifetime pain because of this procedure, and there is a massive campaign by Amnesty International to re-educate those who practice it, as I stated, mainly women preforming the procedure on other women. I am simply attempting to highlight the facts, rather than just play to the lowest common denominator by making jokes about something that I don't find funny. The Muslim adpotion of this procedure is merely a drop in the ocean. Millions upon millions of women in Africa have been suffering through this mutilation for centuries. You don't care about the details, but I do and hopefully those with a little more common sense than you, will too, and support Amnesty International in their efforts and prevent the practice from spreading any further than it already has.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 




the goal seems to be keeping women from having sexual enjoyment, thus keeping them from cheating on the husband.


Exactly...it is used as a control mechanism and as a power thing....pretty similar to sex crimes.
In fact it should be treat as a sex crime and those found guilty should be sentenced to the same sort of punishment.....but then again in some areas where this is practiced the victim of a sex crime is often the one who is punished.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I see no benefits to the male procedure either


Then you clearly have not looked at the research available. There are benefits beyond those that hygiene can provide, such as reduced HIV infection risks.


Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection



several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change

www.cdc.gov...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by Domo1
 

You don't care about the details, but I do and hopefully those with a little more common sense than you, will too


Pretty harsh considering what he said is spot on. It does not matter why it started or where, it needs to stop. The details are important for those doing the stopping, but have no bearing on whether it should stop. Maybe you need more common sense, or listen better.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I see no benefits to the male procedure either


Then you clearly have not looked at the research available. There are benefits beyond those that hygiene can provide, such as reduced HIV infection risks.


Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection



Both PID and HPV are hygiene related, they are bacterially transmitted infections. If men would rather be circumcised than wash between sexual partners, that is their choice. And obviously, in areas where clean water is limited there are benefits to circumcision, in all other cases, there are none. Similarly, it has been found that lemon juice kills the HIV virus and can be effectively utilised, post coitus as a preventative. Of course, the Bill Gates foundation is backing circumcision as the easiest route to prevention, so that is getting all the money and attention.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Pretty harsh considering what he said is spot on. It does not matter why it started or where, it needs to stop. The details are important for those doing the stopping, but have no bearing on whether it should stop. Maybe you need more common sense, or listen better.


Please point out where he said anything of any validity. A woman's vagina and genital area has far more purpose to her general health than simply sex. As these procedures are generally conducted by women against other women, it is ridiculous to merely see it as a 'sex crime' as another poster put it. This is not about sex, it is about archaic belief systems, and the need for re-education to combat those beliefs. Men may immediately think of FGM as simply diminishing a woman's ability to enjoy sex, but most women have a much better understanding of the potential damage that such procedures can on all aspects of their lives. Most women, for example, will spend more time menstruating over the course of their lifetimes, than they will having sex. Most women will spend significantly more time urinating too. FGM has a bearing on both those processes, above and beyond the effect that it has on their sex life, and it is women that need to be educated on the benefits of not going through the procedure. Many women suffer a lifetime of infections, and therefore discomfort, they are at a greater risk of contracting HIV, because the self-cleaning function of the vagina is arrested by, particularly, infibulation.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
What is the deal with these Religious idiots and their removal and OBSESSION of human reproductive organs??

The idiots under the Islamic delusion are obsessed with removing parts from females, and the idiots under the Judaism delusion are always obsessed with removing parts from little boys. Then the idiots under the Christian delusion are obsessed with influencing everyone to almost never even think of using their reproductive parts at all despite it being a total BLESSING of an activity to enjoy as a human being.

What the HELL is WRONG WITH YOU RELIGIOUS PEOPLE????


What I find rather amusing is that their almighty god's creation is so imperfect they have to fix it for him


Igorant, brainwashed #tards all of them



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 




As these procedures are generally conducted by women against other women, it is ridiculous to merely see it as a 'sex crime' as another poster put it.


At the behest and insistance of men with the primary aim of reducing a womans ability to enjoy sex and so the thinking goes reducing her desire to have sex with other men other than her husband.

Of course there are other serious health and lifestyle implications for the woman who has been brutalised but that still does not detract from the original reasoning.



FGM has a bearing on both those processes, above and beyond the effect that it has on their sex life, and it is women that need to be educated on the benefits of not going through the procedure. Many women suffer a lifetime of infections, and therefore discomfort, they are at a greater risk of contracting HIV, because the self-cleaning function of the vagina is arrested by, particularly, infibulation.


I agree whole heartedly with you there, unfortunately they tend to live in societies that are so male dominated that women tend to have little say in such matters.

Whilst I think it's truly barbaric and should be discouraged through educational programmes etc but taking a wider viewpoint who are we to impose our morals and standards on other's?

reply to post by Taz2122
 




What I find rather amusing is that their almighty god's creation is so imperfect they have to fix it for him


Classic!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


This is one of the most evil things the human race has thought up, and here is this guy who dares to call himself a spiritual authority going all-in on destroying women's passion and sex life? It's guys like him who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, or at least run out of town, or feathered, one of the three.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


This practice ranges from a nick on the hood of the clitoris to make it bleed (a token), to a full removal of inner and our labia and stitching it together. The removal of the clitoris is called a Clitoridectomy.

www.who.int...


Key facts

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, infertility as well as complications in childbirth increased risk of newborn deaths.
About 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
FGM is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15.
In Africa an estimated 92 million girls 10 years old and above have undergone FGM.
FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.



I won't embed - these are documentaries and are somewhat disturbing.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



Now I would like people to notice that the WHO has added in a plastic surgery type to their list of fgm. This is a surgery to narrow the opening of the vaginal canal or to recreate a hymen. This surgery is usually elective and is engaged in primarily by adult women. Adding it into this list of FGM is pure politics in most cases. There are places where this is done to preserve "marriageability" of a girl who has engaged in intercourse (willing or unwilling) and the nature of the cultural blackmail that makes this option appealing is less FGM and more cultural abuse.

It is wretched. In the First World, I want any family caught doing this (and are immigrants) to be charged with assault (even if it happened in another country) and I want their citizenship stripped.

Stripping citizenships of immigrants who do this to their children (or perform this) should be enough to scare a good number of the people wanting to engage in this. Better, their children retain their citizenship and they get deported and stripped of their's AFTER they do time for assault.

Mostly you see women in Africa campaigning against this. Of course, they are mainly campaigning against...OTHER WOMEN. The women are the one's who continue to perpetuate this practice, thinking that they are doing to the right thing. This is what men want, and therefore we'll do it to our daughters. These women continuing this practice find solace in men like this Imam. This is why I would love to see some men of some caliber come out and be loud about their support for the women campaigning against this nonsense.

In Islam particularly you will find that most people campaigning any changes are women. You'll also notice that the men do not support them in any way, and are frankly anywhere from overtly to covertly threatening about it.

Some will trivialize this by comparing it to male circumcision. While I am not a proponent of male infant circumcision, the procedures are not analogous. The female procedure would be equivalent to cutting off the meatus of the penis (the head), to cutting off the entire penis and leaving a hole where you could collect sperm from. Not the same.


edit on 22-5-2012 by SibylofErythrae because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Biliverdin
 

Whilst I think it's truly barbaric and should be discouraged through educational programmes etc but taking a wider viewpoint who are we to impose our morals and standards on other's?


Which moral is "cut off the vagina of children" exactly?

I think I missed that one somewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join