Tanveer Ahmed

This is addressed to you personally.

Call me "culturally insensitive" or a "misogynist" or whatever but if the "little nick" does no harm and saves the clitorises of Muslim girls from something worse then go for it.

Now, having saved the girl's clitoris can we do anything to save her mind?

I should imagine a "little nick" will do a lot less harm than exposure to the ravings of a psychopathic deity who says things like:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,"

(5:33)

Or whose (probably non-existent) prophet reportedly said:

"... You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him."

(Sahih Muslim 41 6981)

Here you can see Muslims discussing the hadith on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng4_VuxGVY4

Compared to the way other Muslims will fill her head with hatred and fear any damage caused by a "little nick" pales into insignificance.

So what can we do to protect the girl from Islam Tanveer?

What can we do to protect Muslim girls from the sort of abuse depicted in the linked video below?

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tlFL8r9n4Y

Note to all bien pensant:

By all means indulge in your usual reflex of mentioning bad things in other religions whenever Islam is attacked. I call it the Islam Defence Reflex (IDR) that appears to afflict some atheists.

I, however, would like to get an answer from Tanveer Ahmed about HIS religion.

Over to you Tanveer.

'The hijab's original purpose was to regulate male sexual desire'

Its a pity it wasn't in place to save young girls from Islams prophet.

Runner, it might have protected Hagar from the patriarch's advances, too ...... then again, maybe not :)

I have the greatest respect for the likes of Tanveer Ahmed, probably the ONLY Australian of non-western heritage I have ever read articles from that is actually normal, and looks at evidence without prejudice.

Usually when you see a non-western name writing you can be as sure as you are the sun is coming up tomorrow that they are going to be racist, hate Australia and be very very intolerant of beliefs different to their own.

And have the hide to pose as a liberal!

Anyone who does this in Australia, even asks for it, should instantly be sent home. And if born here, sent to their parents country of origin.

Tanveer Ahmed, I am not sure if you were saying you support the practice of 'ritual nicking' in order to help prevent the far more mutilating practice of removal of the clitoris and labia minora?

I would hate to see any form of such an abhorrent practice carried out here in Australia, or anywhere where else for that matter.

By allowing a 'nick' of a Muslim girl's clitoris for no reason other than to appease her old fashioned family culture, we are condoning the practices we should continue to ban.

Maybe, in order to stop the ancient, dangerous practice of circumcising boys as a matter of course, we should 'nick' one side of their foreskins?

Then for Mr.Ahmed to say <"Anecdotally, I have never heard of botched female genital mutilations appearing in emergency departments here."

Oh well, that's ok then is it? As long as the illegal operations of genital mutilation are being carried out 'successfully' here, then the problem can't be too bad?

I don't believe this hideous practice of female genital mutilation should be condoned in any way- no matter how cultural it is back in the old countries of these migrants.

It is illegal in Australia, and should remain so.

If you read a few British and European novels from the 18th and 19th centuries you will see that Western women were equally subject to bizarre and hateful practices imposed 'for their own good' by a Church and State establishment working in harmony. The difference is that we outgrew them. I have hopes that the Islamic world will too. But defending the hijab because it was useful once is like saying that Western women should go on wearing chastity belts because they came in handy during the Crusades.

An interesting article. Tanveer Ahmed is quite correct that the cultural roots of various controversial practices have little to do with religion, but that in itself is no justification for tolerating barbarities like female genital cutting in our society.

That is because Australian society quite rightly abhors the infliction of harm upon innocent children. I think that any kind of non-medical surgery on the genitals of children should remain illegal, and that the laws should be enforced. However, we have something of a double standard in Australia whereby little boys still routinely have their genitals surgically mutilated for cultural reasons, but nobody ever wants to talk about that.

As far as the hijab, niqab, burka etc are concerned, it's quite a different question. Nobody is harmed by a woman wearing any of those garments, so there is no valid case for banning them.

Whether due to "culture" or "religion" abhorrent practices like female genital mutilation have no place in Australia. Many have issues with multiculturalism because of exactly this type of practice. We don't care what the historical reasons are, they no longer apply here. European history is full of nasty cultural practices that have been dumped as we mature, we only ask that the process of improvement continues.
We don't mutilate our girls here! Simple. I'm afraid that if visitors and new-comers cannot respect a simple yet important part of this nation then they are probably not culturally compatible, or respectful enough of existing residents.
We are tolerant of dress, language, race, imaginary friends (Gods), and most everything else but we needn't, indeed mustn't, tolerate human torture from visitors. Sometimes we can safely assume that we have advanced beyond the countries that folks are fleeing. To set high standards in matters of child rearing "culture" is no more unjust than setting higher standards for things like medical practice, food handling, energy production, etc.

CJ Morgan, I am annoyed that you are equating male circumcision as practiced in Australin hospitals to female clitoral nicking or female 'circumcision'. A more apt male eqivalent to female 'circumcision' would be to cut the penis off, or perhaps cut the head. Sound good to you?
Currently about 5% of Western Australian male children are circumcised, in a procedure that is not supported or even suggested within the public hospital system,according to my GP.
Also, as a side issue, female 'circumcision' offers the woman no marginal protection against life threatening stds such as genital warts or aids in the context of heterosexual vaginal intercourse.

Hi floatinglili - sorry to annoy you, but my comparison is between the clitoral 'nick' that Tanveer Ahmed discusses and the removal of the foreskin that is commonly practised and tolerated in Australia. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but arguably the removal of the foreskin results in greater disfigurement than the clitoral 'nick'.

<< Currently about 5% of Western Australian male children are circumcised, in a procedure that is not supported or even suggested within the public hospital system,according to my GP. >>

Clearly, the reason the procedure persists is for cultural rather than medical reasons. Both practices should be outlawed, if we are to be consistent.

CJ Morgan & Floatinglili

I agree with both of you.

But (there had to be a 'but')

The significant difference between a clitoris and penis is that the clitoris serves only one function - orgasm. Therefore, a more apt comparison would be as Float suggests, removal of the entire head of the penis. There is no reason to remove a foreskin unless for medical conditions, however its removal is no impediment to orgasm.

The 'ritual' nicks for either boys or girls is more about religious sexual hang-ups than anything else and could very well cause self esteem issues about one's genitals.

"Mummy why do I have scar here?"

"Because it is a clitoris"

"Why?"

"Because a clitoris is just for sex and should be scarred."

I have no issue with either men or women wearing the hijab.

I wonder how long the scar tissue would hurt in the 'ritual nicking'? A lifetime? Just a few years?
Not to go into detail here, but many women find scars resulting during childbirth are painful for many years, if not permanently. This long term pain is, of course, underplayed by medical personnel who are interested in the short-term issue of removing a healthy baby!
Yet the long term affects on a woman's self esteem and sexual enjoyment can be really marked.

Tanvir Ahmed.
Take a bow.
I didnt believe I'd hear a Muslim openly criticise the African cultural obscenities which you indicated you also dete4sted.
Can I ask you, Tanvir, to assure me that Asian Muslim women are not being brutalised in similar fashion. I hear that Malaysian women also are subjected to this carnage,especially where the ultra-conservative radicals are in a majority. I suspect that the custom is also practised in parts of Aceh.

Tanvir. You have taken a lot of flack. Please for the sake of a sensible dialogue do not pay attention to the most virulent abuse. We both know from where it's coming. If progress of adaptation and assimilation is ever to suceed then it needs the leadership of fearless and level-headed men like you.
Dont stop now.Pathetic abuse and mindless vitriol reveal absence of reason and humanity. Your critics display plenty of them.
Thank you.

By the way,friend. Far from curbing the appetite of males' sexual appetite the hijab and to a lesser extent even the burqa actually excite males. I have to admit to being one of them. Some women wear their hijabs with such taste and flaunt their sexuality. ASll I can say is "WOW!!"
But what about the male Muslim looking upon the bodies of half nude and nude western-oriented women of muslim and non-Muslim persuasion. I know a lot of Muslim women who sandme crazy by their sexuality. And I am not Muslim but what does it do to the male muslims.

socratease

I agree floatinglili, circumcision of boys is not in the same league as female circumcision.
However, it remains legal in Australia, much to my disgust.

CJ says <" Clearly, the reason the procedure persists is for cultural rather than medical reasons. Both practices should be outlawed, if we are to be consistent."

In actual fact, it is not only the Jewish boys, or boys with medical conditions that are subjected to circumcision, but those boys whose parents believe it 'looks better', or it should be done for 'sanitary reasons', or merely because 'daddy has it done".

Luckily, most good Doctors will absolutely refuse to attend to this procedure unless it is medically warranted.

We don't live in a third world country here, where personal hygiene is so bad that we need to circumcise our baby boys.

In any case, if the male circumcision is medically required, this usually becomes apparent later in their babyhood, and they can then have an anaesthetic for the procedure.

The other poor baby boys who have the misfortune to have parents who want them circumcised for their own selfish reasons, must suffer the procedure on about day 5 of their life.

These baby boys are held down, screaming, with legs apart, while a Doctor cuts off the foreskin, with no pain relief.

Anyone who says they don't feel pain at that age has never had to hold a baby down for that procedure!

Ban male as well as female circumcision in Australia, and let us drag ourselves out of the ancient past.

Jon J....spot on.

And CJ Morgan, honestly, you can't be for real. Trying to equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation?

That is akin to an apologist for slavery. Nothing less. Its terrible and I feel you must not think much of Muslim women to think the way you do.

Its shameful. I hope you clarify this - because while I disagree with you generally, to apologise for the utter barbarity that is FGM (which is NOT a Muslim practice but cultural - although given how anti-women Muslims are in general its not hard to see that it is common in the Islamic world) takes it to a different level.

As with others on the far left, I don't believe you would be so apologetic if it were Fred Nile who liked the idea and did it to his kids.

You have a chronic case of white guilt. It's a disease suffered mostly by wealthy whites with issues over past injustices.

But bizarrely, while those like you claim to be against discrimination, I have never seen such vitriol dished out like those suffering white guilt dish out to the poor white classes who live in the areas most asylum seekers settle.

They do not speak eloquently so are just called rednecks by the elitist barristers like Julian Burnside.

It is naive to believe that a 'ritual nick' is going to satisfy the expectations of all groups engaging in female circumcision; certainly not those who practice pharaonic circumcision.

As for male circumcision. Doctors from children's hospitals will tell you that they see horrific damage to young boys up to the age of 9 years, where diy circumcision without anaesthetic has taken place. Apparently "too much enthusiasm" leading to "too much tissue being removed" results in horrific mutilation to these "beautiful children'.

Recently, a young Muslim woman immolated herself. She had been a child bride overseas, brought to Australia with her husband and had been brutally treated by both him and his family. The federal officer who told me this remarked that "sadly, this is not an isolated incident.' It is equally naive to state that these women have places where they can get help. The help may be there, but these women have no chance of accessing it.

The whole issue of burkas, female and male diy circumcision, child brides and forced marriages should be openly addressed by Islamic leaders. Undoubtedly, there are many Muslims who abhore such practices, but their silence and lack of condemnation does nothing to assuage the concern of the wider community that some of these practices are endemic within Islamic society.

Other religions are fearless in condemning practices of fundamentalists within their own faiths. Why are Muslims so coy? Is it because if one does speak out, one attracts a fatwa. Like Western society, Islamic society must have its own "Enlightenment" before it can truly take its place in the modern 21st century world.

Maybe sexual mutilation atrocities committed against boys are not always reported in the western media.

250 boys in South Africa dead from circumcision since 1995
http://www.cirp.org/news/mailandguardian12-08-03/

"[c]hildhood genital mutilations are anachronistic blood rituals inflicted on the helpless bodies of non-consenting children of both sexes.

The reasons given for female circumcision in Africa and for routine male circumcision in the U.S. are essentially the same. Both falsely touch the positive health benefits of the procedures.

Both promise cleanliness and the absence of 'bad' genital odours, as well as greater attractiveness and acceptability of the sex organs. The affected individuals in both cultures have come to view these procedures as something that was done for them and not to them."

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/

C J Morgan, "However, we have something of a double standard in Australia whereby little boys still routinely have their genitals surgically mutilated for cultural reasons, but nobody ever wants to talk about that."

Yes, that is right and it was right for you to draw the apparent distinction. It is just as discriminatory and an invasion of a male child's body and rights to be cut as it is for cosmetic surgery to be undertaken on a girl's genitals.

As others have pointed out previously, the ritual tattooing or other scarification of children's bodies (mainly males) is also abhorrent.

If nothing else will convince those who think cutting of boys is not really a problem, they should consider that the sexual and other scarring and other misuse and abuse of one sex will certainly be visited upon the other sex. Anyhow, how convincing is it to argue that it is OK for the boy but not for his sister?