British Muslim leader caught on camera advocating female circumcision

Originally posted by Domo1
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.

This is part of the excuses for it.

www.amazon.com...

books.google.ca...

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


I think I made it perfectly clear that I think it's an absolute barbaric act and should be discouraged and made illegal everywhere.

My point was that the African man who wants his wife to be brutalised in such a way will not understand the level and degree of opposition to this practice and will view it as yet another case of 'westerners' or 'white men' etc imposing their morals and values upon other people and against their wishes.
Which to a certain extent is true.
And it is something 'the west' often get's criticised for, and sometimes justifiably so.

So who decides when it is morally acceptable to intervene in other cultures and stop practices that we dislike?

That in no way alters my outright disgust and opposition to FGM.

reply to post by Freeborn


I'm unmoved by the charge of "westernization" in cases like this. I deeply do not care that some idiots think that education and not cutting off vaginas is "westernization." Frankly, I might consider this a compliment in these cases. Idiots who brutalize children, blow up schools, and use a knife to cut open a big enough hole to screw on their wedding night are not high on my list of people that I care about their opinion.

Originally posted by paraphi
I think in the UK it is an offense to take British nationals abroad to be a victim of genital mutilation. It's a disgrace and just another way for women in Islam to be repressed and kept under the thumb. I would like to see some of these men offering themselves up to have their dicks mutilated.

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

Mohammed Abdul, the Imam of a Bristol mosque needs to have a visit from the police, but they are probably afraid of the consequences of being “culturally insensitive”.

Regards

Most men don't get circumcised. But Little Baby Boys get 2/3 rd's of their nerve endings finest ripped off by cult fetishists. The nurse said it was cool, everyone does it. Mom and Dad didn't seem to have any input, couldn't be bothered to consider it at all. Do you hear me? MOST MEN DON'T GET CUT.

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


I think you choose to miss the 'philisophical' point.

I agree with you entirely, this practice is wrong on every level.

But that still does not alter the validity of the question 'who chooses when it is morally acceptable to intervene in other cultures'? and in doing so alter traditional practices, (some of which are completely abhorent to us), and possibly effect the very fabric and make up of that culture.

I'm not making any excuse for the practice or advocating it in any shape or form, but that is a relevant question.

If you can't see that then with all due respect perhaps this site isn't really for you?

It wouldn't surprise me if this guy also endorses throwing acid into the faces of women who do things against their 'religion'.
As someone else mentioned, nowhere does it mention burka wearing in the Koran and I'm guessing it's the same for female circumcision.
Men like these are dangerous and should be thrown in prison - his words could be the cause of a lifetime of suffering to hundreds if not thousands of young girls.

reply to post by Freeborn


The philosophical point of the relative cultural morality of inflicting a lifetime of pain to engender better control of all members of a society I am sure is very important to someone. Not me. But someone.

But I am sure you are correct. Hobble half the population, and make them a form of property with few legal or cultural rights outside of the context of being owned, and give them a permanent disability surely impacts the entire society. Men are given "property" rights to females, but also hobbled themselves by being made "guardians" of a population of people who've been hobbled, sexually, socially, re-productively and health-wise.

Men and women, because it impacts the men deeply too in that they NEVER see a woman who enjoys sex unless it is in porn.

Every sexual encounter they ever have, the biological feedback loop they get in the process is something between lack of enjoyment to abject horror and pain. Or all anal, all the time. You gotta think that this would have some pretty devastating effects on the psychology of the males in the population.

So yes it has cultural impact.

In order for teens/men to enjoy sex, they must learn to NEVER give a crap what anyone else thinks about that enjoyment. Every male in the society. Roll that idea around in your head for a while.

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


What part of I agree with you don't you understand?

And surely you realise that I asked a general question about when is it ok to intercede in other cultures and who makes that decision, it's not specifically about FGM.

I really don't get why you are taking the moral high ground and seem so indignant over a relevant and pertinent question?

I'm neither indignant, nor avoiding your question. I have answered it. Completely. But I can do so more succinctly.

Brutality and psychological trauma as a basis of culture has no merit. Brutality and psychological trauma as a societal basis doesn't require protection - it requires management to ease it out of existence without provoking unnecessary amounts of violence while eradicating it.

There are plenty of great things about these cultures. Stories, dance, music, family traditions, feasts, and whatnot.

Complete sexual brutality isn't one of them.

Originally posted by davidmann
Most men don't get circumcised.

Semantics, men, boys males. Actual male circumcision is quite common in some countries and cultures. I think it is pretty well a global feature in Muslim countries, for example.

Back to the points above about enforcing a “western” worldview by criticising practices which we say are medieval, cruel or just plain wrong. It is the coverall knee-jerk accusation to cite “colonialism”, “westernisation” etc and is often made worse by politically correct do-gooders who don’t want to offend and therefore turn a blind eye.

I would like to see aid to some of these countries dependent on enforcing social change. These counties cannot be allowed to profit from the benefits of westernisation – health, education, aid and all that, while keeping one foot in the past “because that’s what we’ve done for centuries”, and which usually involves repression women.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


One interesting feature of some of the countries receiving aid from the West (Europe in particular) is that it is working in improving life, health, education and access.

Piggybacking this phenomena is Islam. Islam is enjoying an increase in conversions in areas doing well under Western monetary infusion. For example in Zambia.

Just pointing it out. Apparently Europe is paying to improve Africa so that Islam can take the credit for it. Because telling people that they are being given Aid from the West would be propaganda.

Another couple of points (apologies if they have already been made above):

I have to question the beliefs of the people that both support and carry out any kind of mutilation.
They are basically stating that the God or religion they follow created us imperfectly and that they have the authority to correct these 'mistakes'.
I'm not religious, but I believe (hope) a creative, loving, divine force had a hand in our creation which gave us body parts for a reason and did not intend for us to barbarically remove them.


There is another issue relating to the cost to the NHS of treating these girls after being mutilated.
Some of them will be close to death from infection, others will need corrective surgery if they heal badly and others who get pregnant and give birth naturally could need surgery.

reply to post by queenofhearts


Increase in death in childbirth for both women and infants is a known side effect of the complete removal and sewing up of the left over labia. Which is pretty impressive, because humans are already have the highest mortality rate for pregnant females and infants among mammals due to "the obstetrical dilemma." The only mammal that comes close is giraffes, and that's because their long necked babies drop 6 feet to the ground upon birth.

Making it worse is pretty impressive.

whqlibdoc.who.int...

some figures about the costs per woman in 6 African countries.

Here you can find some exploration of the reasoning for the benefits of the "investment" in FGM on the marriage market in these cultures in an anthropological format. Including an exploration of the use of it to ease the monitoring needed by males for female sexual behavior.

Essentially there a regressive encouragement to continue and increase FGM through commodification of female marriageability. It is easier to get rid of your expensive females to a male by making them easier to control and increasing their "worth" as a wife through FGM.

It's all about mans religion.

You got Sun/ Son/ star( Sun) of David/ Jewish/ Abrahamic RELIGION doing it to boys.
So the sun worship religions sacrifice their male childrens flesh to their God.

You got Moon/ Muslim / Cresent moon symbol religion doing it to girls.
So the moon worshipers religion sacrifice their female childrens flesh to their God.

The Muslim people might be horrified at the thought of doing it to boys and then the Jewish/christians are horrified at the thought of doing it to girls. Either way there is no good reason, medical or other to do it to girls or boys.

We do so many things because our parents tell us " It's what we are SUPPOSE to do"

Interesting idea, but male circumcision is practiced in Islam as well.

It is called Khitan. en.wikipedia.org...(circumcision)

You'll find here that Mohammed is claimed to have been born without a foreskin. This same claim has been made of Abraham. The practice among followers was to make themselves like their Man of God.

This phenomena is usually associated with the person having a very minor hypospadias .

reply to post by Biliverdin


HPV is hygeine related?

What is genital HPV infection?
Genital human papillomavirus (also called HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI).

www.cdc.gov...

Just because poor hygeine with those uncircumsized increases the risk does not mean there is no risk with good hygeine.

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


Just wanted to say I appreciate someone bringing in some actual wisdom to the debate, I agree with almost everything you have said.

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


I have heard it as well, although biblically false.

Gen 17:24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised,

www.blueletterbible.org...

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

HPV is hygeine related?

What is genital HPV infection?
Genital human papillomavirus (also called HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI).

www.cdc.gov...

Just because poor hygeine with those uncircumsized increases the risk does not mean there is no risk with good hygeine.

*Sigh* Yes, I know it is sexually transmitted, but it is still a bacterial infection, a that bacteria is passed through sexual transmission. The two are not mutually exclusive as you seem inclined to believe, or perhaps you just like to argue the toss.

The best defence against any bacterial infection, is good hygiene. Once contracted, good hygiene is also the best preventative against it causing cancer, in both females and males, and given good hygiene the body usually rids itself of the infection.

Originally posted by Freeborn
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.

Ironically, some of the programmes in Africa are finding that the best means of preventing FGM is by involving the men in the re-education programmes. In traditionally sexually segregated communities men often have very little say, or rather interest, in what goes on between the women, or activities that are considered the feminine domain, and by informing men of the effect that this has on their daughter's health, the men are taking a more active role in preventing FGM. This has been particularly successful in Ethiopia. In many respects, by educating men on the fact that FGM can affect a woman's fertility, is argument enough with some men that it is not beneficial, after all, in such societies, marriage is pointless if it doesn't bear off-spring. Therefore, by selection, or showing preference in marriage to none-circumcised women, a slow, but definate change can be affected. However, given the numbers of girls that are currently at risk of this procedure, it is a change that cannot come soon enough.

Originally posted by Freeborn
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.

Certainly to an extent, but it is less dominant than fundamentalist Islam and the women are complicit in FGM, and are not forced or instructed by men to carry out the procedure, it is part of the female domain. Most FGM occurs because of the longevity of the tradition, that is why it has been so hard to make any headway into stopping it. Each community that practices it, will have their own rationale for doing so, understanding that, and addressing or rather destroying that rationale, is the best hope in the long term for preventing FGM.

Originally posted by Freeborn
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?

Given that it is a crime committed against children without consent, under duress, and that some of the states that practice it, such as Ethiopia for one, have signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is a standard that they have agreed upon, and therefore are obligated to uphold. No imposition necessary, the choice has already been made by them. But above and beyond that, I think that there is greater moral obligation of everyone, regardless of class, colour or creed, to protect children, and I would happily impose that on anyone. To me it is what being a human should be about, to prevent cruelty, no matter to whom, or where it occurs. If at 18, women choose to make the choice to undergo the procedure, that is up to them, same with men, until that time, they deserve our protection, including from their own parents.