Islam and female genital mutilation: Tradtional practice in 29 of 32 Islamic countries

I have commented on FGM many times in the past and this post from Jihad Watch has many references and facts about FGM. This is a barbaric and tragic practice. It is persecution of women and young girls, often times as young as six or seven years of age. The post is long so please be sure to read the entire article. David Littman should be nominated for the NPP for all the work he has done for humanity in general.

---

FGM: 'traditional practice' in 32 countries, of which 29 are OIC States -- 3 million girls mutilated worldwide each year, 95% of Egyptians


David G. Littman, NGO Representative at the UN in Geneva:
Association for World Education and World Union for Progressive Judaism

Oral statement (from UN webcast above) reproduced verbatim below

We decided to speak out again on a "traditional practice", whose religious links are vociferously denied, despite irrefutable UNICEF facts and figures. FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is spreading in Europe with some migrant populations that practise it traditionally. There are now over 1,500 cases in Geneva and nearly 10,000 in Switzerland, with hundreds of thousands in European Union countries. This won't cease until it is strongly penalized, backed by an unambiguous fatwa from the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar (Cairo) stating, unambiguously, that this 'cultural relativism' is forbidden by all legal traditions in Islam - unfortunately, this is unlikely. The subject is still considered taboo at the UN and an explicit mention of Sharia justification usually leads to an angry denial and rude denigrations, as we have learned from personal experience since 1993.

Written statement with background information on FGM reprinted at end

It is worthwhile comparing our recent statement on this and the minor Egyptian 'point of order' incident of 23 March (as recorded on the UN video above, reprinted below), which occurred on the same subject of Violence against Women as the 'Sharia Affair' of 16 June 2008. Then, the flamboyant, moustached Egyptian delegate Amr Roshdy Hassan succeeded in blocking the Council for 1¾ hours, resulting in a big scandal and wide media coverage by AFP, AP, Reuters, ATS (17-18 June 2008), with Romanian HRC President Doru Romulus Costea and former HCHR Louise Arbour, American Ambassador and Amnesty International, and our joint NGO statement being quoted at length. Our perseverance then and after appears to have been successful in this field. A follow-up You Tube video on the historic landmark 'Sharia Affair', with many captivating moments, is currently being prepared for Jihad Watch next week.

Shipwreck at the UN Human Rights Council: summary of 16 June 2010 event

At about 4:40pm on 16 June 2008, David G. Littman was given the floor by the HRC president to deliver a joint statement for the AWE and the International Humanist and Ethical Union, under agenda item 8: 'Integrating the Human Rights of Women throughout the United Nations system'. Within 22 seconds he was stopped on a 'point of order' by the delegate of Egypt. In all, there were 12 negative points of order - 7 by Egypt, 2 by Pakistan, 2 by Iran, one by Cuba; and three positive reactions: one each from Slovenia (for the EU), Canada and Germany; and 13 explanations by the president, who gave us the floor 4 times. The proceedings of the Council were suspended for over forty minutes, and again for a second recess after the Egyptian delegate and others intervened several times before declaring provocatively: "My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council". The German delegate asked the president and the Egyptian delegate whether this term was "appropriate with regard to the question of mentioning religion and its symbols." He received no answer. Pakistan's delegate Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, speaking for Pakistan and the OIC, declared that the statement by the NGO "will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council" - all OIC countries.

When Mr. Hassan threatened to call for a vote if the speaker was not ruled 'out of order', the president announced another brief break to analyse "what the speaker had read." After the 40 minute recess, there had been a capitulation to OIC demands and the president then announced that "this Council is not prepared to discuss matters religious matters in depth. Consequently we should not do it" - and that "declarations" must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion and any mention of Sharia.

Three months later (19 September 2008) we again spoke for AWE on Female Genital Mutilation; so-called "honour killings"; death by stoning; disfiguration of women by acid; marriage of female children, but avoided pronouncing the officially taboo words. A year later (19 September 2009), we used the terms 'edict' and 'ruling' - with 'fatwa' in brackets in our available statement - e.g: "An edict [fatwa] on the website of Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, President of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, is unlikely to change this ghastly toll; only an unambiguous ruling [fatwa] from Al Azhar might help do so."

FGM: Oral statement of 23 March 2010 / Appendix: Shafi'i fiqh / AWE Written Statement

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION

United Nations Human Rights Council -13th session (1-26 March 2010)
Statement: David G. Littman (37TH meeting) - Tuesday. 12:30 - 23 March 2010
Item 8: Follow-up to & implementation of Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

[The words in square brackets were not pronounced within the 2 minute time limit]

Mr. President, under item 10 [a mistake - item 8], the Vienna Declaration, we wish to raise once again the question of a barbaric "traditional or customary practice", which is a shameful euphemism for a crime against female children. As is known from UNICEF, more than 3 million female children and girls in 32 countries - including more and more thousands in Europe from an immigration population - are still being brutally mutilated each year. Here in Geneva, it has reached 1500 and more than 10,000 in Switzerland alone, with tens of thousands in almost all the other Member States of the European Union.

Sir, of these 32 countries, 29 are Members of the OIC and in many of them it is the Shafi'i fiqh ruling on female excision that helps explain why the FGM figure in Egypt remains at over 95% [every year], despite the law of 1994 [1996]; and in [North] Sudan over 90%. We have here the Arabic and the English translation of that law [the speaker raises the page in his left hand - see this text below].

We feel it would be well to consult in document A/HRC/33/67, the report of Mona Zulficar* where she explains, under the heading:

Defense of the Ministry of Health decree of 1996 banning female genital mutilation:

[This was a challenge before the Administrative Courts brought by a group of fundamental doctors against the decree by the Ministry of Health banning female genital cutting, on grounds that such a decree was a violation of Sharia law. She joined the defense of this decree on behalf of three NGOs, including Women's Health Improvement Association which she currently chairs and succeeded to help obtain a court judgment upholding the decree in 1998]

That: Female genital cutting is now banned by law and the relevant decree became immune to any challenges - in 2007, in response to the death of a girl child [while undergoing circumcision, the Minister of Health issued a further decree prohibiting this practice in absolute terms...]

This is correct, sir, but we believe, and have said it now for at least 18 years, that until an Al-Azhar fatwa is passed by the Grand Sheikh, this terrible barbarism will continue because the law doesn't stop it.

Thank you Mr. Chairman [Gavel by vice-president, just as the speaker had stopped after 2 min. 12 sec.]

Vice-President: There's a point of order. Egypt, you have the floor.

Egypt (lady delegate): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not only is the issue that the speaker's talking about completely outside of the item of the debate - it's completely baseless... although... I don't feel that I'm in any position or requirement to answer what he's saying, but I think it's quite obvious to the Council what kind of measures are being taken in the [inaudible], so that I would please request him to please remain focused on the item under debate. Thank you.

Continue reading

Hat tip: Jihad Watch

The United Nations: Still working with OIC on banning Islamophobia

The United Nations continued to be the playground and allow the bully OIC to keep on trying to get any mention of Islam in a bad or negative light banned at the U.N. The OIC has the U.N. by the crotch. That is all there is to it. As the article mentions the OIC efforts may be losing traction. But, as Islam always keeps coming back like the really bad nightmare that it is.

---

Islamic Drive Against Religious ‘Defamation’ May Be Losing Steam

By Patrick Goodenough



CNS News Service The Islamic-led drive against the “defamation” of religion achieved its lowest-ever level of support in a United Nations vote Thursday, despite attempts to breathe new life into the flagging campaign by linking it to the recent Swiss vote banning the construction of minarets.

It a bid to make the resolution more palatable, drafters orally revised it, inserting a reference to “anti-Semitism and Christianophobia” alongside the now-familiar “Islamophobia,” but there was no sign the move had any effect.

For the eleventh time in the past 12 years, the U.N.’s Geneva-based human rights apparatus passed a non-binding resolution Thursday introduced by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on “combating defamation of religions.”

But the victory margin this year was slimmer than ever before, with 20 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council (HRC) voting for the measure, 17 opposing it and eight abstaining.

Voting alongside OIC members were China, Cuba, Russia, Nicaragua, Bolivia, the Philippines and South Africa.

Opposition was led by the United States and European members. Joining them in voting “no” this time were six countries which last year abstained, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, South Korea, Uruguay and Zambia. Zambia is believed to be the first African country ever to vote against the resolution. Continue reading

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

More persecution of free speech in Europe: Meet Elisabeth in Austria. Islam is determined to kill any and all criticism. MUST READ

Please let me introduce you to Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the Austrian anti-jihad activist who is being prosecuted, persecuted for having the bravery to speak out against Islam and shariah law. I will be copying the entire post from Gates of Vienna, with links to other articles about her and the trial. She may be on her own as far as cost of her legal defense. I am in the process of finding out more on her situation. This is our future with Islam! Is this what you want to happen here? It can and it will with Islamonazi sympathizers like Obama and his administration of dhimmi cowards and anti-semites. Please feel free to copy and post this on your site. This from last December, 2009. This is a long post but well worth your time

There is no peace within Islam, and with Islam there can never be peace.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Whose Law?
Baron Bodissey

Gate of Vienna


Most readers are familiar with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the Austrian anti-jihad activist who is facing a “hate speech” charge for one of her recent presentations on Islam.

The evening after her “Islamophobic” speech was publicized in the Austrian press — on November 26th, 2009 — Elisabeth gave the third in a series of lectures on Islam. Considering that her previous presentation was the one that brought down the “hate speech” charge on her head, Elisabeth’s lecture that night drew a lot of attention.

The video below shows the first part of her lecture about sharia law, which was the final seminar on the topic presented in Vienna. Listen to what she says and see if there’s anything that’s untrue, or inflammatory, or that passes the bounds of reasonable opinion. Like Geert Wilders, she is being targeted for speaking up about matters that the political elite prefer to keep under the rug.


The full transcript of this portion of Elisabeth’s lecture is below the jump.
- - - - - - - - -
Full Transcript:

I want to thank you and also thank you for your support
I will need any kind of support and can tell you that I will not give up
I will not back down because this is a matter of principle: the truth
Because if we can’t tell the truth any more we can close down everything. Science and schools.
This is what we are talking about. Not about me — Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — it’s about our future
And it’s about our children. It’s not about me. It just hit me — it’s not the first time and it will not be the last time
I am attracting such things. But somebody has to do this. And it will be me who is doing this.
The irony of the story is, that today we will talk about freedom of opinion
This was not planned. I mean we always planned to talk about freedom of opinion
But we didn’t plan that the whole story gets such an explosiveness.
They would like to head me off and force me to make statements.
Statements which are then misinterpreted. And this is no freedom of opinion any more.
And as we said last time that there is no freedom of opinion any more — we have the best example for this now.
It’s nice that ESW thinks she has to save the world, but there are other people who are concerned
Never mind! It’s just not comfortable if you are a matter of public interest of NEWS
I just wanted to tell you that I don’t know how long I can keep up
I just ask for your understanding. If I keep up — okay, if not, please understand it.
Okay, today we will talk about how Islam is influencing our lives
Person in the audience asks for documents
Person in the audience asks if they will be informed about the developments in the case via the homepage of ESW
ESW answers: no, you will not read anything on my homepage
ESW: we did not make any decision yet
ESW: I will not make any statements in public and I ask you not to talk in public either
Person in the audience says something which is not understandable
A statement to the article in NEWS: 95% of the article are correct
Some things are wrong, respectively wrongly quoted and misinterpreted but 95% are correct.
Even though I wanted to counter, I could not, because it’s the truth what they wrote
And it will be the truth in front of the court
We will talk about the fact that Islam is a religion and a state
You know this already. But media don’t and they don’t want to know it. But we will know it.
No relevant statements
Before we start I want to mention one fundamental point: I am a critic of Islam
You know this. If you want to hear positive things about Islam, you are wrong here.
Then you have to go to the Islamic community, where you will hear the other side.
I never said — and I will never say — that the Muslims are evil.
I always said, that I feel for the Muslims. And you will agree with that.
I feel sorry for them, because they suffer from this slavery
There were never overall denunciations. We are talking about Islam!
Not about Muslims. I want to clarify this.
I call upon my right for freedom of opinion with this lecture.
This is my right. And I call upon it.
And I ask all of you for objective statements.
No polemics, no agitation. Just objective statements and questions.
There are always people who kick over the traces
But we don’t want to make the Islam-Lobby a case for attacking us.
The Islam-Lobby, these are the do-gooders. We are not their idiots.
Another point: It’s interesting that in our male-dominated justice it’s always the women who are accused
Accused because of agitation. We should think about this.
A patriarchy in justice
I am a mother and I am a feminist. And I will not let this happen.
That women are pilloried again. Think of Oriana Fallaci. Think of Susanne Winter.
Think of Brigitte Bardot who was convicted so often. I am just the next in line.
It’s always the women.
Why is it always women. Why is it women who go out and not men.
And as a feminist I feel attacked.
I fight for women and I fight for my daughter. For that she can grow up in freedom and dignity.
This is important for me. I don’t want my words to be perverted.
So if we have a discussion, then please in an objective way.
Thank you.
Applause
Any questions?
We will discuss this quietly. And we will have the breaks in here.
We will talk about Sharia today.
It’s Sharia, which is a problem for us. We will go in more detail.
There is Sharia in finance resp. monetary system.
We will talk about the organisation of Islamic states.
We will talk about the term “Islamophobia” and how they use it, to prohibit criticism on Islam.
We will talk about human rights in Islam. A point which affects me at the moment.
We will talk about women’s rights and — if we have time — about female circumcision.
We could miss this out and you read about it.
Honour killings, which of course have a relation to human and women rights in Islam.
We will talk about western politics of respectfulness
How the west practices appeasement towards Islam
And how this is done
If we have time, we will talk about mosques
That mosques are not only a place of prayers but have many functions
Only at the end we will talk about prayers
We will talk about tabooization and how it is done
Some of these taboos we have seen already
Let’s see how far we come
Which consequences does Sharia have for Europe?
What happens if Sharia is implemented? In fact, it is implemented already.
This is a subtle implementation, but it’s creeping quickly
Subtle and quick — this seems to be an antagonism
The Sharia — the Islamic law — is responsible for serious violation of human rights
These violations of human rights in Islamic countries concern Muslims and Non-Muslims.
The discrimination and sexual degradation of women
A woman is only half the worth of a man. Her words, her evidence, her position in society.
Sharia means censorship and prohibition of criticism.
We have seen this already. What happened today is — Sharia.
They wanted to muzzle us
Compared to our standards, sharia means inhuman punitive measures
I talk about the so-called “hudd”-punishments. Cropping off hands, stoning.
All the cruelties, which — as they say — have nothing to do with Islam.
Refusal of individual rights of freedom
You know by now that one loses any right of freedom when one converts to Islam.
Dictating what to do and prohibition
Your might remember the book of Qaradawi
which was used in high schools in Islamic religious education
Where you are in detail told what you are allowed to do and what you must not do
You are patronized — in a way in which I don’t even patronize my child-daughter
And they are patronizing adults — concerning clothing and food
Remember: “May men pick brows? May men wear gold jewellery?”
All this is regularized in Sharia.
There is no Islam without Sharia.
You cannot separate one from the other
There is no separation!
An Islamic society with the sharia is an ideal.
This should be the target state in Islam, designed by Mohammed
Which means, Saudi-Arabia is the ideal society, the ideal Islamic society
Don’t forget — it’s a governmental construction
Remember the first page. Islam is a religion and a state.
As soon as we acknowledge Islam, we have a state within the state
The Islamic law is beyond any discussion
As according to the Islamic point of view, divine law stands above state law.
And because there is no discussion, we are facing all the problems
That’s it
There are very small ranges of interpretation
But you may remember the closure of the Ijtihad in the 11th century.
This terminated any possibility of interpretation
As long as this door is closed (gate of ijthihad)
There will be now change, no maceration, no advancement of Islam
Okay, no discussion and — of course — no denial.
An Islamic state cannot say: we leave sharia
Polygamy. It is allowed for men in sharia
You know that men can marry 4 women at the same time
The Koran says this is possible if all are treated in the same way
This is also pedals the man. It makes life difficult for men.
First of all polygamy stokes resentments among the women
Very often it causes jealousy, hate and disaffirmation between them
And it is also a stress-situation for the men, not only physically
It is an emotional stress. They have to consider, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
“do I really treat my wives in an equal way?”
Monogamy is only regulated by law in Turkey and Indonesia.
Whereas in Indonesia it is softened already because of sharia
Modest corporal punishment is allowed
And again it might be a problem for the man, that his religion
Allows him to beat his wife whom he loves — or not. This is emotional stress.
In sharia it’s not the courts which decide on compensation-money
The families have the right to claim it
Or they can claim the death of the delinquent or certain vendetta. There is no jurisdiction in this case
Burglary is punished with a “hudd”-punishment — amputation
Scholars say that this is a determent. But I doubt this.
Man in the audience: “What about the Sharia-courts in Great Britain?”
They deal with family, marriage and inheritance law
I have not heard about any other judgements. Not yet.
Here we have some examples how sharia is realized. We will not discuss this now.
I give you the points and you connect them
If you say, yes, this is sharia and it’s awkward, then it’s time to stand up and say: not with us!
If you say, no this is nonsense, it’s just far-fetched cases, then it’s also okay for me.
But these cases did really happen
Sharia constitutes the different clothing-directives
There is a head-scarf surah, although it’s controversial
They dispute, if this surah really has to be interpreted in this way
But as it is practised today, I assume that it is valid
There are more and more head-scarves, which means it is understood in this way
I look at the facts and do a reality-check. And they are becoming more and more.
What theologians say is in this case not relevant
Sharia contains different rights for men and women
Women are not treated equally by this religious law. This is a fact.
One can refer to their books, although they’d like to explain differently. It is a fact.
According to the Koran resp. Mohammed’s intention, women are subordinate in all domains
She doesn’t even have the right to her children
According to our law — yes. According to Koran respectively sharia — no.
And from which legal position will the judges act?
Above all, when we will have the first muslim public prosecutors and judges. Which law are they to execute?
Evidence of women, you know that, only counts half the evidence of men.
Women only have restrained right to give evidence.




Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009 Dec 5 Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
11 Heckling the Counterjihad

Gates of Vienna

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/12/whose-law.html


Vlad Tepes

Now it is a Kangaroo court in Holland. The Geert Wilders trial that is not a trial. It is a show to have all of Europe bow down to Islam and shariah law.

The trial that is not a trial. This is just a show to show all of Europe that freedom of speech will officially be dead, and Geert Wilders convicted. Islam will be vindicated and empowered all through Europe and beyond to other continents. One real danger no one has mentioned is the increased use of International judicial decisions and rulings under the administration of the mullah Obamaham. As Obama has always wanted to use and have the United States be part of and use more of the International courts. As America's first Muslim-born president(again under Islamic law) do not thin k for one second that his administration will not use a Wilder's conviction and a favorable ruling for Islam in this country. CAIR, MSA, MPAC are all watching how this trial will end. A Muslim president, Islamosympathizers in the swamp are just a bad combination.


_________________________________________________________________________

Brussels Journal

Diana West

How Do You Say “Kangaroo Court” in Dutch?

One reading doesn't convey the chilling import of these words.

As Stephen Coughlin has pointed out to me, "we," in the definition at the OIC website, are, of course, "the collective voice of the Islamic world" – the "ummah" as represented by the heads of state and foreign ministers of the 57 Islamic nations of the OIC. In other words, as Coughlin puts it, "real state actors" using "real state power" to further real state objectives.


The objective of the ummah? Always and eternally, the greater and wider and deeper imposition of Islamic law. The ummah indeed sent its message to the West regarding "red lines that should not be crossed" – namely, the Danish cartoons and Wilders' film "Fitna." Official protests, statements, riots, boycotts, murders, death threats, assassination attempts -- a clear Islamic message, all right. And:

As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues.

Yes, and to the craven point where "the official West and its public opinion" are paralyzed and silenced by these same "sensitivities."

They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Behold (courtesy Tundra Tabloids) the very image of Dutch "justice." After yesterday's "judicial" proceedings in Amsterdam, Holland itself is forever besmirched, its "judges" having made it clear that no semblance of fairness will enter into their proceeeding against Geert Wilders. As noted below, the "judges" slashed the roster of witnesses the Wilders defense team planned to call to the stand from eighteen to three.

When the OIC speaks about "freedom of expression," it means freedom of expression as governed by the laws of Islam – sharia. When the OIC says we in the West have "started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility," it means we in the West have started to regard expression from the perspective of sharia – from the perspective of the totalitarian Islamic system.

Trying Geert Wilders, a once-valiant Holland is leading the way, forsaking the freedoms of the West for the objectives of the ummah. Continue reading


http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4301