By Tim Haydon.
Female Genital Mutilation in Britain
It comes to something when we in Britain now discover that we have a problem of ‘FGM’, as it is familiarly called: Female Genital Mutilation. According to an article by Ruth Rendell in the Mail on Sunday 19th January 2014, 66.000 women in our country may have been mutilated in this way. Another estimate is that 6000 women are ‘at risk’. How these figures are arrived at is something of mystery. Probably they are based on guesswork, relying on known representatives in a given area extrapolated to the country at large. But from past experience of such matters, they may be wildly understated.
FGM is associated with Islam
Rendell correctly states that FGM is a very old custom which long predates both Christianity and Islam. She is wrong though when she says that it has nothing to do with religion. FGM is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities, mostly but not exclusively in Africa. While not being exclusive to Islam, it has long been associated with it because hadiths, or sayings attributed to Mohammed, appear to approve of the practice. One such is a saying that stipulates that FGM should involve ‘cutting, but only lightly’.
The authenticity of some of these sayings is disputed in Islam. Nevertheless, they continue to be quoted by the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt and by Salafis , or fundamentalists , in support of FGM. They think that while it is not mandatory, it is nevertheless mukarama (preferable, pleasing in the eyes of God).
What FGM means and the gruesome reality
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali ‘refugee’ who became a Dutch MP, gives a grisly description of the worst kind of FGM in her autobiographical memoir ‘Infidel’. In her case the inner labia and clitoris were cut off with a pair of scissors and the outer labia were sewn up. When this is done, a thick band of scar tissue forms a ’chastity belt’ with only a small hole left through which to urinate. This is to keep the girl ‘pure’. ( Hirsi Ali, incidentally, is a classic case of a bogus refugee. She was stripped of her rights in the Netherlands, where she had become an MP, when the fact surfaced that she had lied about her circumstances when claiming refugee status.)
The Qur’an and FGM
FGM continues to have strong support in certain Islamic countries essentially because it is very congenial to the overall view of women as distinctly inferior beings in Islamic societies. This view derives from ancient tribal practices structured around the perceived needs and natural superiority of men.
Islamic clothing – designed to protect men from the evil of women
Just as women are butchered to preserve their purity and thus their marriageability as virgins for the benefit of men (An intact hymen is the most important part of a girl so far as her family honour is concerned), so Moslem women wear head gear, veils and all-enveloping clothing because of the presumed effect of the female form on men. Hirsi Ali relates,
‘ I found it remarkable how many esteemed Muslim thinkers had philosophised at such length about precisely how much female skin could be bared without causing chaos to break out across the landscape. Of course, almost all these thinkers agreed that once a girl reaches puberty, every part of her body except her face and hands must be covered when in the company of any men who are not her immediate family and at all times outside the house’ Then there was the danger that the eyes or the lips, especially young , full firm ones, ‘could bring a man into a sexual state that could cause his downfall….’
When Hirsi Ali stood up in a gathering of women and asked, ‘What about the men? Shouldn’t they cover? Don’t women have desires for male bodies? Couldn’t they be tempted by the sight of men’s skins?’ ‘It seemed logical to me’, she writes, ‘but the whole room fell about laughing. There was no way I could go on with my objection’.
Given that these barbaric attitudes to women are in the DNA of Islam and powerful male vested interests support them (Theodore Dalrymple tells of meeting otherwise thoroughly Westernised moslem youths who were fully approving of them) it will be an extraordinarily difficult task to change Islamic attitudes.
Celebrate diversity? Not this thanks !
‘But it’s their culture and we must therefore respect it as equally valid as our own’. Or something like that. So say our self-hating leftists and liberals who want us to ‘celebrate’ their introduction of this system into our once united and happy country. Believe that and you will believe anything.
The Hidden Face of Eve, Nawal el Sadaawi
How Civilisations Die, David P Goldman
Islam Unveiled, Robert Spencer
Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali
What the Koran Really Says, Ibn Warraq
3
I generally agree with the article, but don’t you think that picture is a bit graphic for this website, children can access this.
It’s a horrific business and children on the web have easy access to far, far worse with no educative purpose.
(Party Member) More horror from the Third World being introduced into our country. Although the ‘authorities’ here are genuinely trying to stop it they keep the problem here hidden as much as they are able.
Well they’ve certainly not been trying too hard during the last decades. They did nothing. I don’t think there has been a single prosecution.
I was given to understand that the wearing of veils, burkhas etc was brought in because the various ‘tribes’ used to attack each other and carry off the nubile young women, ignoring the elderly less fertile ones; therefore covering as much as possible of their bodies made it almost immposible to distinguish age, beauty or desirability. Therefore increasing the positive protection for coveted women of the tribe. It had nothing to do with Mohammed or Islam as such – however kept alive now by Islam purely to subject women as objects and possessions.
Wasn’t quite so shocking till I spotted the razor blade, then my legs turned to jelly.
Child abuse on another level!
There are other aspects to a common Islamic attitude to women which could have been mentioned – multiple wives and the Qur’an – sanctioned beating of them, for example.
So deep rooted and far-reaching is this attitude to women and the male fear of their sexuality as destructive and dirty that the structure of Islamic societies can be described as an attack on and defence against it.
This mindset is bound up with shame for their own lust for the women in a self-feeding process.
This is sickening child abuse – equally sickening is how the authorities turn a blind eye to it. Clearly “lessons haven’t been learned”.
Male circumcision for anything other than medical necessity is barbaric as well, but has been going on for generations in this country. But I think we all know what kind of storm this would unleash, if we were to tackle that one!
The barbaric practice of mutilation is not limited to females. The mutilation of the male in circumcision is just as unnatural and completely unnecessary. It does not do quite as much damage as female genital mutilation, but both are forms of abuse that are normally carried out on an infant who cannot defend him/herself. FGM is illegal in Britain, and rightly so. It is time that we made the penalty for those who carry out such atrocities far far greater. I suggest life imprisonment. I would also totally outlaw circumcision with exactly the same penalty.
I agree with much of your argument, but with reference to your final sentence, I think we all know how the presence of two very vocal religious minorities within the UK would shut the whole debate down very quickly indeed, kicking up a storm with the usual accusations etc etc.
UKIP Indifferent About Female Genital Mutilation
http://andrewbrons.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=895:ukip-indifferent-about-female-genital-mutilation
11th February 2014: This is sometimes described euphemistically as female circumcision. However, it involves the removal of the clitoris from baby girls often without anaesthetic or appropriate sterilisation of equipment. It is so that the adult woman will derive no pleasure from sex and will be less likely to be unfaithful to her husband.
It is a cruel and barbaric practice that is condemned by all civilised people. It is practised in the United Kingdom by some ethnic minorities. UKIP is anxious not to appear ‘extreme’ or ‘intolerant’, so it tolerates barbaric practices in the name of tolerance!
On 6th February, there were three votes condemning female genital mutilation. There were only three UKIP MEPs present: Clark, Agnew and Helmer. Farage and the others were absent from the voting. All three either registered an abstention or did not vote on any of these votes.
I think that we should oppose genital mutilation of all children, regardless of sex. There are far more male children in Britain who are victims of genital mutilation. There was a nurse in Manchester a few months ago who killed a baby boy by performing a circumcision. Anyone with a bit of sense knows that the foreskin is a crucial part of the body and we shouldn’t be risking the lives of innocent baby boys for the sake of religious rites.
What about MGM? Just as cruel.