“We don’t know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it.”

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 8, 2009 07:14 AM

A Muslim mother in Iraq lures her seven-year-old into a female genital circumcision by lying to her about a “party.” A half-dozen other girls are also tricked. The Washington Post documented the torment.

Go here. But not if you have a queasy stomach or a weak heart.

The mother of 7-year-old Sheelan’s parting thought?

“We don’t know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it.”

An epigram that explains a lot of barbaric behavior these days. Years. Centuries.

Hat tip: Mookie

Posted in: Islam

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. An Open letter to Dr Ron Paul on losing his Kibbles & Bits « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
  2. Jules Crittenden » Gaza, Trash Heap of Moral Authority
  3. Left Of Center » Blog Archive » I Don’t Know Why, Either
  4. Another Thought, Another Outrageous Muslim tradition « Sharp Right Turn
  5. Islam - Religion of Peace and Female Circumcision « The Swamp Hermit’s Report
  6. JABbering Stooge :: 15 billionth verse, same as the first :: January :: 2009
  7. BelchSpeak » Post Topic » Islam Means Mysogyny: Uncovered Meat Raped. Family Uses Razor to Perform Abortion
  8. Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » The Cost Of Interfaith Tolerance

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #201
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm, MtsEdge said:

    Yup, like talking to a wall.

    Or perhaps a bridge? Out from which a troll came? :)

  2. #202
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, frostrt said:

    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm, MtsEdge said:
    Yup, like talking to a wall.
    Or perhaps a bridge? Out from which a troll came?

    —————————————

    Indeedy-do, mehtinks we’ve had a troll in our midst.

    Moral equivalency (where there really is none)? Check.

    Refusal to accept reason? Check.

    Disdain for anyone who disagrees? Check.

    Troll alert, indeed.

  3. #203
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, MtsEdge said:

    Moral equivalency (where there really is none)? Check.

    Refusal to accept reason? Check.

    Disdain for anyone who disagrees? Check.

    Troll alert, indeed.

    I try to apply the label judiciously, and it does seem to fit here.

  4. #204
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pm, frostrt said:

    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, MtsEdge said:
    Moral equivalency (where there really is none)? Check.

    Refusal to accept reason? Check.

    Disdain for anyone who disagrees? Check.

    Troll alert, indeed.
    I try to apply the label judiciously, and it does seem to fit here.

    ————————————–

    Give them a perfectly reasonable counter-argument, and you can almost see them put their fingers in their ears and go “lalalalalala” . . .

    It’s kinda fun, for awhile.

    :)

  5. #205
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm, MtsEdge said:

    It’s kinda fun, for awhile.

    As long as I can justify feeding the trolls as honing my own positions, I’m OK. If it starts to seem more like a treadmill, from which there is no escape, it’s time to jump off. :)

  6. #206
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm, frostrt said:

    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm, MtsEdge said:
    It’s kinda fun, for awhile.
    As long as I can justify feeding the trolls as honing my own positions, I’m OK. If it starts to seem more like a treadmill, from which there is no escape, it’s time to jump off.

    —————————————

    You got that right.

  7. #207
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, MtsEdge said:

    P.S. Thanks, Mookie, for sharing this topic w/Michelle. It is absolutely heartwrenching, and although I was aware of the practice before, it is helpful to remember that this is what the RELIGION OF PEACE does to little girls.

  8. #208
    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm, jdubya said:

    This is absolutely disgusting. This culture is as warpped as it is totally backwards.
    I have a really hard time understanding how this is the fastest growing religion or even how the Euro-cooks possibly allow this vermin to live or even have a say in their society.

    I smell another round of Crusades coming soon. Mark my word on it.

  9. #209
    On January 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm, granite said:

    On January 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, b-cat said:

    And he makes my point by leaving with a swipe at the Jews.

    I am sure he didn’t include me in the nice chatting with you group. Aw shucks.

    I also had gotten that impression some posts ago.

    The term Judeo-Christian is dead-on accurate.

    We are civilization, against barbarian savages, regardless of what the effete, elite, sophisticated, believe-in-nothing, moral relativist, existential, (somebody stop me)….nihilists/socialists say.

    I do not say this lightly or cavalierly, but after much thought and consideration over the past years:

    We, Jews and Christians, are all Jews.

    Besides the obvious, that Jesus was himself a Jew;

    The Ten Commandments are The Ten Commandments for Christians.
    No modification.
    No “yes, but….”
    They are The Ten Commandments.
    Period.

    Similarly, The Old Testament is The Old Testament for Christians.
    Yes, I’m aware that, of the many books, this or that Christian denomination, and Jews, may differ in where certain books are included, or may not include one out of many.
    But, let’s be honest, The Old Testament is The Old Testament for Christians.
    No “yes, but….”
    It is The Old Testament.
    Period.

    With respect for, but without consideration of, rituals, or practices, or dietary laws, or traditions, or observances, etc. that vary somewhat among Jews and Christian denominations….

    How are we instructed to relate to God, and to relate to and treat our fellow man?

    I refer to the bedrock principles; in other words, The Ten Commandments.

    Are we not instructed by God to relate to Him the same – Jew, Greek, man, woman, (apologies to St. Paul in Galatians, I believe), Christian (my addition)?

    Are we not instructed by God to relate to and treat our fellow man the same – Jew, Greek, man, woman, Christian (see above)?

    Unlike Muslims, who claim that Jews and Christians got it wrong and screwed it up, Christians accept The Ten Commandments and The Old Testament without question.
    Period.
    (I am not a Biblical scholar, but you get my point.)

    My understanding is that we are all Jews.
    Jews are Jews who believe the Messiah has not yet arrived.
    Christians are Jews who believe Jesus was/is the Messiah.

    The rest, for me, pales in importance to this; because my understanding is that God is concerned not by what we eat, nor by what we wear, nor by which day we go to a House of worship; rather, He is concerned by what is in our hearts, by what comes out of our mouth, by how we relate to Him, and by how we relate to and treat one other.

    Apologies for the length.

    But, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, we had better all hang together, or we will surely all be hanged separately.

  10. #210
    On January 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    I haven’t read all the comments so apologies if this is a repeat. But if Allah gave women a clitoris, it would stand to reason he wants them to have it.

    I think I first saw that statement expressed on thereligionofpeace.com.

    No need for me to see the slideshow. Some things are just wrong; one doesn’t need to see graphic evidence to know so.

    Western culture is superior to Islamic culture in every measure.

  11. #211
    On January 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm, frostrt said:

    My understanding is that we are all Jews.
    Jews are Jews who believe the Messiah has not yet arrived.
    Christians are Jews who believe Jesus was/is the Messiah.

    ————————————–

    Amen.

  12. #212
    On January 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm, MtsEdge said:

    No need for me to see the slideshow. Some things are just wrong; one doesn’t need to see graphic evidence to know so.

    mattymatt, my thoughts exactly. I couldn’t bring myself to see the horror and agony that little girl went through. To me, it would be like staring fixated at the mangled corpses from a train wreck.

    Wrong is wrong. God save our children.

  13. #213
    On January 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, frostrt said:

    mattymatt & MtsEdge:

    I didn’t watch, either. Couldn’t.

    It’s enough to know that this horror happens. And, of course, to speak – scream, if necessary – out against it.

  14. #215
    On January 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, Wellsy said:

    I wish I hadn’t watched that. If your heart isn’t wrenched by the smile on young Sheelan’s face in her joy at being at what she thinks is a party, then you’re a despicable human being. That mother isn’t a mother – no one lies to their kid to inflict pain on them without knowing why. It’s disgusting and barbaric, and it’s trying to worm its way into this country as well.

  15. #216
    On January 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm, John Deaux said:

    I couldn’t finish that slideshow. How exactly are we supposed to reason with people that do this to their own children?

    How could anybody take pictures of that?

    I suspect that one of our posters is correct that there will be no peace as long as Islam is a religion being practiced.

  16. #217
    On January 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm, MtsEdge said:

    How could anybody take pictures of that?

    Says a lot for the Washington Post, doesn’t it?

  17. #218
    On January 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm, John Deaux said:

    On January 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm, MtsEdge said:

    How could anybody take pictures of that?

    Says a lot for the Washington Post, doesn’t it?

    Nothing we didn’t already know.

  18. #220
    On January 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am, pubscout said:

    mattymatt10

    “I haven’t read all the comments so apologies if this is a repeat. But if Allah gave women a clitoris, it would stand to reason he wants them to have it.”

    But the same logic doesn’t apply to a male foreskin?

  19. #221
    On January 9th, 2009 at 9:39 am, Karmi said:

    But the same logic doesn’t apply to a male foreskin?

    No. It would be like cutting the penis HEAD off…

  20. #222
    On January 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am, frostrt said:

    On January 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am, pubscout said:
    mattymatt10

    “I haven’t read all the comments so apologies if this is a repeat. But if Allah gave women a clitoris, it would stand to reason he wants them to have it.”

    But the same logic doesn’t apply to a male foreskin?

    —————————————

    As Karmi just pointed out, try to think of FGM as the equivalent of castration for a male. Then you might understand the difference we’ve been trying to explain.

  21. #223
    On January 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm, pubscout said:

    Oh. You mean like the forced castration of choirboys by the Church through the Middle Ages to preserve their angelic voices?

    My response was to the essence of matty’s post which was that God put it there; therefore He intended them to have it.

    Dude. Mutilation of the genitalia is mutilation of the genitalia. If you’re going to condemn it, be consistent.

    Seems to me our disagreement lies in the fact that you only see FGM as mutilation where I see both as such.

  22. #224
    On January 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pm, frostrt said:

    Pubscout:

    So, if it is determined that someone’s appendix needs to be removed for the sake of their health (or even life), it should not be because “God put it there”?

    I know, we could argue back and forth about whether or not circumsision has any real health or well-being benefits for males, although there have been some pretty persuasive arguments that it does.

    There is no room for argument, however, that girls who undergo FGM (for the 10th time) have problems related to sex, childbirth, menstruation, and even going to the bathroom for the rest of their lives.

  23. #225
    On January 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm, frostrt said:

    And, yes, of course it was wrong to castrate young boys to keep their voices from changing as they got older. That, you see, was the equivalent for boys of FGM.

    Circumsision, we’re arguing, is not.

  24. #226
    On January 9th, 2009 at 10:57 pm, RetFireman said:

    Female Genital Mutilation is the term used for removal of all or just part of the external parts of the female genitalia. There are three varieties to this procedure.

    1. Sunna Circumcision – consists of the removal of the prepuce(retractable fold of skin, or hood) and /or the tip of the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means “tradition”.
    2. Clitoridectomy – consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (prepuce and glands) and the removal of the adjacent labia.
    3. Infibulation(pharonic circumcision)– consists of performing a clitoridectomy (removal of all or part of the labia minora, the labia majora). This is then stitched up allowing a small hole to remain open to allow for urine and menstrual blood to flow through

    Now, this may be difficult for the old pubscout to understand, but when a male undergoes a circumcison, there is no other part of the penis removed EXCEPT for a small portion of the foreskin. This removal of this piece of skin DOES NOT in any way deter from the feel or function of the penis. It does not keep the man from pleasure, does not keep him from urinating etc.

    As I have just posted the official definition of what Female Genital Mutilation is, if you cannot see the VAST difference in the two, or why the practice of FGM is barbaric and in no way necessary, then you are indeed as stupid and agenda driven as all the previous posters have stated.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Courting Disaster hits #9 on NYTimes best-seller list

February 4, 2010 09:50 AM by Michelle Malkin

53 Comments | 0 Trackbacks

Lady Qaeda found guilty, blames Israel

February 3, 2010 07:12 PM by Michelle Malkin

47 Comments | 4 Trackbacks

Video: The confession of KSM

February 3, 2010 11:55 AM by Michelle Malkin

18 Comments | 5 Trackbacks

“From A to Z.”

Tonight on C-SPAN: Exposing the Fort Hood cover-up

February 2, 2010 05:07 PM by Michelle Malkin

25 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

Cirque du Jihad: Coming to a federal court near you?

January 29, 2010 03:08 AM by Michelle Malkin

77 Comments | 16 Trackbacks

Retreat: White House plays jihadi musical chairs

January 28, 2010 09:37 PM by Michelle Malkin

62 Comments | 9 Trackbacks

Britain’s new anti-terrorism plan: Bribes for Bombers!

January 28, 2010 12:21 PM by Michelle Malkin

42 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Mo’ money.

A terror trial debacle happening right now

January 26, 2010 09:56 AM by Michelle Malkin

49 Comments | 12 Trackbacks

The Siddiqui circus.


Categories: Islam



Mudville Gazette

» New Standards in Journalism
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook