• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

It's their CULTURE, you INSENSITIVE creature!

Skeptic said:
Details here.

General Napier is rolling in his grave. He would undoubtedly build gallows to stamp this out, like he did with Sati. A couple of insensitive, cruel, inhumane, racist hangings and the problem would be solved.

And I must say we should do the same, perhaps with long jail times, instead, as a sop to modern times.

Instead the testicle-less Britons appoint a "FGM coordinator" bureaucrat to fight the problem.

Good luck!

Too bad for the hundreds or thousands of mutilated girls until the "coordinator" does something -- if ever.

That's just their tough luck, I guess, for living in such sensitive times.
Click to expand...
Golly, and you got all that from an article about how Britain had failed to halt FGM.

I wonder what you'd have deduced from an article about how Israel had failed to halt Palestinian terrorism.
 
Skeptic said:
Details here.

General Napier is rolling in his grave. He would undoubtedly build gallows to stamp this out, like he did with Sati. A couple of insensitive, cruel, inhumane, racist hangings and the problem would be solved.

And I must say we should do the same, perhaps with long jail times, instead, as a sop to modern times.

Instead the testicle-less Britons appoint a "FGM coordinator" bureaucrat to fight the problem.

Good luck!

Too bad for the hundreds or thousands of mutilated girls until the "coordinator" does something -- if ever.

That's just their tough luck, I guess, for living in such sensitive times.
Click to expand...

OP is utter nonsense.

/did I miss a clik
//absolutely
 
If Hindus in Britain today did practice Sati, then we would not get Napier's manly reply.

We would get "Sati coordinator" bureaucrat appointed... whose goal is to help explain and convince and wag a finger at people who do this sort of thing... eventually, it is hoped, sometimes, preventing it without injuring people's cultural sensitivities.

After all, such crude methods like Napier used would only (all together now) "alienate them and make them less likely to cooperate" about stopping Sati, or "drive the practice of Sati underground" where it would be "harder to detect"! If doctors had to report widows who show signs of extensive burns, that would just "force people never to come see a doctor!"

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda -- you can your own threadbare rationalizations for lack of courage and resolve yourself.

Oh, and those few thousands of luckless widows who would be burned alive in the meantime? The hell with them. Tough luck! Who forced them to get born into a culture with such stupid sensitivities, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Details here.

General Napier is rolling in his grave. He would undoubtedly build gallows to stamp this out, like he did with Sati. A couple of insensitive, cruel, inhumane, racist hangings and the problem would be solved.

And I must say we should do the same, perhaps with long jail times, instead, as a sop to modern times.

Instead the testicle-less Britons appoint a "FGM coordinator" bureaucrat to fight the problem.

Good luck!

Too bad for the hundreds or thousands of mutilated girls until the "coordinator" does something -- if ever.

That's just their tough luck, I guess, for living in such sensitive times.
Click to expand...

Says a victim of MGM.
 
May I suggest that cutting bits off children of either sex for whatever cultural reason, is assault and ought to be prosecuted accordingly?

While clitoridectomy unarguably has far worse consequences to the victim than male circumcision, the two seem equally barbaric, pointless and revolting to me.

Both should be grounds for prosecution as assault with a weapon, unless some very convincing medical reason exists.

I'm curious about what an itinerant clitoridectomist writes on his immigration card in the "purpose of visit" section in a case like this. Falsifying that entry is legal grounds for deportation.

Maybe putting "Rabbi" in the "occupation" box should be as well?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Rabbis don't perform circumcisions.
Click to expand...

He's right Soapysam, you're looking for mohel. I wonder if they start calling the preson who performs the procedure that...
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
While widely practiced in some Islamic countries its a cultural rather than religious practice.
Click to expand...
That is arguable. It depends mostly on the definition of "mutilation". While it is true that most modern Islamic scholars claim that FGM is not permissible according to Islam, if you replace "mutilation" with circumcision, you will have a whole different set of responses.

Of the four primary Sunni jurisprudential denominations, all of them permit FGC[ircumcision]. In fact, the Shafi'i school declares it obligatory on all Muslim females.

Female circumcision is it itself obligatory in the Shafi`i school, and Shaykh Nuh Keller’s translation in the Reliance of the Traveler is accurate and defines the meaning well.

It does not call for the removal of the clitoris (badhr), but rather a slight trimming of it (khafad) to increase sexual pleasure. If the removal of the clitoris was intended, the word badhr would have been used alone. See the following link:

Female circumcision​
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?ID=4932

So the question remains, is FGC also harmful for females, or does it not have the same effects.


As for Shi'ite scholars, again the traditional position has always been the permissibility, perhaps even recommendation, of FGC. If any one can read Arabic, you should go through the following chapters from a prominent Shi'ite hadith collection titled Wa-sa'il ush-Shi'a, by Shaykh Hurr al-Amili. I'm translating the titles so you have an idea of what is being reported in these hadith.

Chapter 18 - Chapter on there being no harm in circumcising girls, and its etiquette


Chapter 58 - Chapter on the recommendation of circumcising the girl, and its etiquette

The good news is that most modern scholars openly oppose this practice, but as far as I can tell, that is more due to political correctness rather than adherence to Islamic principles. Political correctness, it appears, is not always a bad thing.
 
jiggeryqua said:
Genital mutilation is not a gender issue.
Click to expand...

No-one said it was. The OP seems not to want to talk about genital mutilation for males though? I would like to see it stopped for all children. Why confine this to the UK approach to FGM?
 
Skeptic said:
If Hindus in Britain today did practice Sati, then we would not get Napier's manly reply.

We would get "Sati coordinator" bureaucrat appointed... whose goal is to help explain and convince and wag a finger at people who do this sort of thing... eventually, it is hoped, sometimes, preventing it without injuring people's cultural sensitivities.

After all, such crude methods like Napier used would only (all together now) "alienate them and make them less likely to cooperate" about stopping Sati, or "drive the practice of Sati underground" where it would be "harder to detect"! If doctors had to report widows who show signs of extensive burns, that would just "force people never to come see a doctor!"

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda -- you can your own threadbare rationalizations for lack of courage and resolve yourself.

Oh, and those few thousands of luckless widows who would be burned alive in the meantime? The hell with them. Tough luck! Who forced them to get born into a culture with such stupid sensitivities, anyway?
Click to expand...

You really should stop with the blatant dishonesty.
 
SezMe said:
Because, as several have noted, Skeptics thread title is not in any way supported by the link in the OP.
Click to expand...
Well I thought both the OP and the link were related to FGM. Yes there are valid arguments about how well related they are, but to just say "nonsense" adds nothing. I wonder if it were not Skeptic but Joe Anonymous who started this thread that there would be the same dismissive response by some.
 
It's not that the OP and FGM are unrelated it's that FGM is permitted because of political correctness. The link in the OP does not support that position.
 
Some kind person should provide a glossary here. What is sati and I'm assuming FGM and MGM refer to GM which is "genital mutilation". What exactly is the definition of circumcision, I'm assuming "cutting something fleshy away from some genital." Is circumcision in all cases or most GM? what are the exceptions and why?

If you could keep it simple and safe for work, I'd be thankful, having not devoted much thought to this previously.
 
Ove said:
There is a great fear of doing anything amongs politicians and even social workers and i don't get it. Make yearly medical examinations mandatory (might catch malaria, tubercolosis and other things too) and then make it clear to the parents that if their daughter is mutilated she will be taken from them ON THE SPOT and if they ever have a girl again she will be taken from them shortly after birth.
This is one of the ugliest mideval practices still going on today and it MUST be stopped. There is no place for political correctness in thei case.
Click to expand...

Indubitably. But you really suggest passing a law mandating that every female child be subjected to an intimate sexual examination annually from infancy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom