Out of Sight, Not out of Mind

A recent press release has faded too quickly from the national consciousness. Like fireworks, some news stories burst into public view then fade immediately upon the explosion of another event. In contrast to the awesome beauty of fireworks displays, this announcement deserves a glaring spotlight to expose one of the most awfully ugly aspects of Islam. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

The American Academy of Pediatrics decided to change its previous opposition to any medically unnecessary procedure performed on the genitals of a girl. Its members indicated that the federal law barring such procedures should be modified to allow some form of restricted cutting of female genitals. Their argument supposes that families will take their girls outside of the United States in order to lacerate them if not allowed to undergo genital mutilation in the USA. Does the AAP consider the words of Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) in the Hadith of Umm ‘Atiyyah condoning cutting female genitalia as superseding proven gynecological evidence of the harm of female genital mutilation? Such compromise at the expense of girls’ physical and mental health reeks of acquiescence to Sharia-creep.

The line of reasoning of the proposed change in policy stands out as tragically laughable. A counter analogy that I would offer is the advice to leave the doors and windows open in one’s house for the benefit of burglars. Following the rationale of the AAP, burglars are just going to break into houses anyway. Why not make it easier for them? With this type of submission to their demands, the results would end less destructively. Sure, the appliances, jewelry and other valuables will be stolen but at least the burglars will not be prosecuted and homeowner will not incur the cost of replacing damaged doors or windows.

Any form of female genital mutilation is a totally unnecessary procedure. It not only robs the victims of sexual pleasure it also interfere with proper functioning of female excretory system. This criminal act involves intentionally damaging or amputating a healthy organ and surrounding vital tissue. One has to wonder if Islamists would endorse castration for a lustful man who refuses to control his sexual impulses. Given that Islam’s inventor felt no need to rein in his libido, why would those following his ideology have such concerns?

This inhumane butchery follows in the vein of misogyny rampant throughout Islam. The Mohamadan mentality rooted in Sharia holds a woman responsible for all perceived problems related to sexuality. If she is raped, she must prove herself innocent with the testimony of four male witnesses. The burden falls on women to wear suffocating and dehumanizing outfits in order to hide themselves from the gazes of men. Instead of teaching boys to respect women as equal members of humanity, Islamists consider women as inherently inferior. Boys are indoctrinated into viewing females as either subordinate family members or as inferior objects created for their sexual gratification. Of course, all of this negativity directed toward the feminine half of humanity originated in the mind of and out of the libido of Islam’s fabricator (May he burn in Hell forever).

This tradition of savagery occurs solely for the benefit of Mohamadans who believe that its victims will not commit fornication or adultery. Apparently these Neanderthals never considered other, non-sadistic alternatives. A few come to my mind. First of all, the marriage of pre-pubescent or teenage girls to men twice their age or older would certainly motivate a girl to rebel by seeking affection of someone else. If women are allowed to choose their own husbands, they are much less likely to try to seek extramarital relationships with men. Women’s fidelity is easier to secure if their husband respond in kind. Why should a woman feel compelled to remain monogamously loyal to her husband while he is allowed to engage in de facto debauchery under the guise of polygyny and unrestricted sexual activity with his female slaves or servants called "concubines"?

As long as men view the Koran and Islamic texts as the guide to proper treatment of women, atrocities like FGM will continue. If Mohamadan men want to dabble in some radical measures to maintain the loyalty of their wives, perhaps they might consider thinking of a wife as equal partner in a relationship, not merely as an inherently inferior outlet for their sexual urges. If Mohamadan men want to engage in some further extremism, they could include some flowers and breaks from domestic drudgery from time to time. I am sure that women would appreciate that "outside of the Koran" type of thinking.

Islamists and their useful idiots relish attempts of conflation of female genital mutilation and circumcision. No scientist would make an analogy between circumcision and FGM unless he is hopelessly blinded by devotion to every word in Islamic texts. Circumcision involves the cutting of a section of superficial skin. This procedure does not obstruct normal functioning of the incised area. For the women and uncircumcised men in my readership, I relate circumcision to the removal of an earlobe. Obviously, the ear’s appearance would be altered. Nevertheless, the functioning of the ear would not be damaged or destroyed. Normal hearing would continue despite such a superfluous procedure. The hygienic benefits resulting from circumcision have been discussed for decades and will probably be up for debate in the foreseeable future. However, clitorectomies or any cutting of female genitals provides no benefit to the victim, only pain and degradation.

A clear-thinking person must certainly wonder about the silence of feminists on this issue. The mere discussion of anything short of totally unrestricted abortion at any point of a pregnancy fully funded by taxpayers elicits shrieks of ”misogyny” from the National Organization for Women and its cohorts. Where are demonstrations in the streets demanding harsher penalties for those mutilating the genitals of girls? Why are no feminists protesting outside the offices of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and those of other Islamists clamoring for those groups to condemn publicly all forms of female genital mutilation? Does the feminists’ fear of jihadist reprisal override their often bellowed concern for women’s health and choice? Apparently, feminist allegiance to political correctness precludes any criticism that Mohamadans would label as "Islamophobic".

The AAP’s acquiescence to Islamic barbarity must never be tolerated. Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, rightfully illuminated the situation. She stated, “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.” It behooves us to take heed of her words to spare any more girls this cruel indignity and severely punish those who inflict such torture.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MAY 2010