MUSLIM FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: NOW WIDELY AVAILABLE IN THE GOOD OLD USA!

A RELIGION WHICH MUTILATES LITTLE GIRLS

My first encounter with FGM (female genital mutilation) occurred in 1980, when I asked an Egyptian man working in my office in Saudi Arabia what his plans for the weekend were.  The Egyptian, whose name was Abdul-Gawad, replied that he was taking his ten-year-old daughter to "...have her clitoris fixed so that she would be a good bride."  "Abdul-Gawad," I responded, "Surely you can't do that to your little girl!"  "Oh, Mr. John," he answered, "this is a very important thing for us in Islam."

Each year, probably more than 3,000,000 girls throughout the Middle East and Africa will be in danger of having  FGM performed on them, usually taking the form of a clitoridectomy.  An even more radical form of FGM, which is practiced mainly in Africa, is infibulation, in which all external genitalia are removed and the two sides of the vulva are stitched together.

Despite the insistence of Muslim apologists that the practices are more tribal than religious, the fact remains that FGM is concentrated in 28 Muslim countries.  Even in Iraqi Kurdistan, studies have shown that 65% of Kurdish girls will undergo some painful and demeaning form of FGM.

It is sad to say that in my own country of the United States and despite  federal and state laws that forbid it, FGM is affecting the lives of young girls.  As long ago as 1997, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 168,000 girls and women residing in this country already had or were in danger of being subjected to FGM.  More recent estimates, taking into consideration the growth of Muslim population, have it that more than 300,000 girls in the U.S. each year may potentially fall victim to FGM.  In an effort to circumvent legalities, no small number of Muslims residing in this country take their daughters outside our boundaries for what is euphemistically called "vacation cutting."

In April of 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics raised a firestorm of criticism, when it revised its policy on FGM.  The new policy was based on an assumption that American laws forbidding FGM had resulted in more and more vacation cutting done outside the country.  Suggesting that approving a "ceremonial nick" might help limit  drastic cutting on foreign soil, the AAP, roiling from critics who vociferously stated that even a nick would give credence to barbarism, quickly abandoned its unwise new policy statement.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

For those seeking a more in-depth and personal interpretation of FGM, Infidel, a work by  Dutch politician and writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be enlightening.  Ms. Ali, who was born into Islam in Somalia, eventually immigrated to the Netherlands, where she received her education, obtained Dutch citizenship and in 2002 renounced Islam.  Along the way, she was elected to the Dutch parliament and was cited in 2005 by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

In controversial public statements, Hirsi Ali has stated that Prophet Mohamed, by today's standards, would be considered a pedophile and that Islam was taking the form of 21st century fascism.   Her view on excision, as expressed in her book, was a strong condemnation:  "Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure.  The excision of women is cruel on many levels.  It is physically cruel and painful; it sets up girls for a lifetime of suffering.  And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

It was Hirsi Ali who collaborated with Theo Van Gough in producing the film Submission, which exposed the abuse of women in the Muslim world.  After Van Gough's murder by one Mohamed Bouyeri and because of a death-threat to Hirsi Ali found on Van Gough's body, she was forced to go into hiding.  By 2005, she reentered public life, continuing to speak out for Western values, while questioning the wisdom of allowing more Muslim immigration into Dutch society.

Might we learn something from Ayaan Hirsi Ali?  Is it really prudent and sensible to admit all comers into our country, especially those who bring cultures, practices and traditions inimical to our own?  Do we wish to give leave to enter to those who will only bring problems into our society?  Surely, those of us who are sane must answer these questions with a resounding "NO!"