Debunked: Islamic State (ISIS) orders female circumcision (FGM, Female Genital Mutilation)

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Multiple news outlets are repeating this story, originally from Reuters

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28466434
External Quote:

A top UN official in Iraq has said the Sunni Islamist group Isis controlling the city of Mosul is seeking to impose female genital mutilation.

All females aged 11 and 46 in the northern city must undergo the procedure, according to an Isis edict, UN official Jacqueline Badcock said.

She said the unprecedented decree was of grave concern.

Some bloggers suggest that the edict, or fatwa, may be a fabrication aimed at discrediting Isis.
The story seems to be just based on this Tweet:


However, it seems to just be a repeat of an older story, from 2013 in Syria
http://justpaste.it/fatwa_debunked

With the "Fatwa" as published in Syria:
Screenshot_2014-07-24_09-25-32.jpg

External Quote:

The date was from last year, July 11, 2013 corresponding to 3rd Ramadan and purportedly published in Aleppo Province [of Syria] by the Islamic State under the orders of Abu Bakr Al Baghdad.
Multiple reporters on the ground also describe the story as fake:







So it appear like this is simply old anti-ISIS Syrian propaganda. ISIS themselves have denied it.

See also:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014...t-ordering-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq/
 
Last edited:
Media in the Netherlands and Belgium also report this story, and also only the claim of Jacqueline Badcock. [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So it appear like this is simply old anti-ISIS Syrian propaganda. ISIS themselves have denied it.
Does anyone know who in the UN or why the UN would issue such a claim? It seems like this originated in the UN by all accounts, so what is their reasoning for issuing such a statement which would clearly scare Iraqi women. It would however get the world more involved with what's going on in Northern Iraq with ISIS pushing forward. Could this have been their objective, and it seems that ISIS is targeting Christians and forcing them out of newly gained territories..
 
Does anyone know who in the UN or why the UN would issue such a claim? It seems like this originated in the UN by all accounts, so what is their reasoning for issuing such a statement which is would clearly scare Iraqi women. It would however get the world more involved with what's going on in Northern Iraq with ISIS pushing forward. Could this have been their objective, and it seems that ISIS is targeting Christians and forcing them out of new gained territories..

I think it's just a mistake on the part of the UN coordinator, Jacquelin Badcock:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...FT1I020140724?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
External Quote:

Such a "fatwa" issued by the Sunni Muslim fighters would potentially affect 4 million women and girls, U.N. resident and humanitarian coordinator in Iraq Jacqueline Badcock told reporters in Geneva by videolink from Arbil.

"We have current reports of imposition of a directive that all female girl children and women up to the age of 49 must be circumcised. This is something very new for Iraq, particularly in this area, and is of grave concern and does need to be addressed," Badcock said.
But the "reports" just seem to be the Tweet.

(Badcock is is PhD in Biochemistry, not a Medical Doctor)
 
I was reading up on FGM because I didn't really understand it well. The W.H.O. (World Health Organization) defines FGM into four types;
External Quote:
(1) Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris)

(2) Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).

(3) Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

(4) Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterising the genital area.
http://themalaysianinsider.com/features/article/fgm-its-happens-in-malaysia-too

In the article they go onto report the rise in FGM in Malaysia due to the influx of Muslims entering their country and there was a paper that also states that Malaysia has been included in the book “Cutting the Rose” (1994) and in “The Hosken Report” (1993) as one of the countries which practises FGM. The latter notes the dearth of local materials on the subject but provides a glimpse into the situation in Malaysia, based on anecdotal reports and a study by Roziah Omar, a medical anthropologist.
227982a8c39ef3ba3a195b363858db67.png


cb3788bc6fe55f552389b012b84aace7.png


External Quote:
“There were 630 females in the five villages. All 597 villagers who had FGM performed on them responded either for themselves or their children, giving a 100 per cent response rate. The age of the respondents ranged from one month of life to 91 years. Of the 597 responders, 35.7 per cent (213) were less than 18 years old, 14.4 per cent (86) were between the ages of 18 and 30 and 49.9 per cent (298) were above 31 years of age. About nine per cent (55) were illiterate, 39.5 per cent (236) had education up to primary school, 39.2 per cent (234) secondary school, about four per cent (26) tertiary school and almost eight per cent (46) were not in the school-going age. Most (275) were single, 44.1 per cent (263) married, almost nine per cent (52) widowed and about one per cent (7) divorced. Most (323) were working and were earning more than RM529 (US$151) per month. The age FGM was done ranged from one month to 78 months. Majority (529) had FGM when they were less than 12 months old, almost six per cent (35) between the ages 13 to 24 months and equal numbers when they were more than 24 months of age. The more recent FGM were commonly performed by doctors in clinics.”

The following tables are proof that even adult women undergo such a procedure and support the practice. Religion was the main reason cited for the women undergoing FGM. “Irrespective of age and the education level, majority responded that FGM did not reduce their sexual desires,” the women said
I was surprised to learn that many women in the studies supported FGM, and don't see it as mutilation. Instead it's like a right of passage, similarly to what boys go through.
 
I think it's just a mistake on the part of the UN coordinator, Jacquelin Badcock:

The BBC is acknowledging doubts on the claim now...:

External Quote:
Doubts are growing about the authenticity of an edict attributed to the Sunni Islamist group Isis controlling the Iraqi city of Mosul about female genital mutilation (FGM)....media analysts say the decree seen on social media may be a fake.
It has typos and language mistakes and is signed by "The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant", a name the group no longer uses, instead referring to itself as the Islamic State.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28466434
 
Just bein' funny here....on a serious discussion.

I think that female genital "circumcision" is FAR different that what many males (like myself) who have had our penis circumsised. (Or, is it "circumsized"?) Google spell-check is not sure.

AGAIN....circumcision on the male penis is VERY, VERY different from a female "circumcision" (as I understand the procedure).

A male penis in a Human has a "covering" (to use a term) that is a layer of skin, and this layer of skin protects the sensitive glans...or "head" of the penis. The glans is where much of the sexual arousal is felt, from penis to the brain.

Is this too basic?

As far as I understand, this MUTILATION of a woman's sexual organ is a CRIME because....it is the same as cutting off a man's penis....basically.

Am I correct? Am I wrong??

Please let me know.

(Adding....I have NO VESTED INTEREST in a woman's vagina....never have, never will....{except I guess, I was born....vaginal birth....but, can't remember that experience....I was VERY young ;)} so please forgive my ignorance......)
 
Somewhere in Kenya.


That video gives you an idea of what FGM is all about. quite scary and a tad insensitive making fun of this barbaric practice. The girls are helpless so UN caution is understandable
 
Just bein' funny here....on a serious discussion.

I think that female genital "circumcision" is FAR different that what many males (like myself) who have had our penis circumsised. (Or, is it "circumsized"?) Google spell-check is not sure.

AGAIN....circumcision on the male penis is VERY, VERY different from a female "circumcision" (as I understand the procedure).

A male penis in a Human has a "covering" (to use a term) that is a layer of skin, and this layer of skin protects the sensitive glans...or "head" of the penis. The glans is where much of the sexual arousal is felt, from penis to the brain.
Edit: I won't post pictures as evidence, don't worry people.
Is this too basic?

As far as I understand, this MUTILATION of a woman's sexual organ is a CRIME because....it is the same as cutting off a man's penis....basically.

Am I correct? Am I wrong??

Please let me know.

(Adding....I have NO VESTED INTEREST in a woman's vagina....never have, never will....{except I guess, I was born....vaginal birth....but, can't remember that experience....I was VERY young ;)} so please forgive my ignorance......)

Well I think a woman should never be circumcised, I think it's a crime too, can't think of a good reason to do it.
I guess it's only done to take away the pleasure. For a man only the procedure sucks after that it still works like it should, and it's also cleaner.
I had my penis circumcised too but not for religious reasons, I always say because my penis was too big for the skin. :)
 
Last edited:
Somewhere in Kenya.


That video gives you an idea of what FGM is all about. quite scary and a tad insensitive making fun of this barbaric practice. The girls are helpless so UN caution is understandable


Sorry for making jokes in this thread. I've never seen how it works, but that's disgusting.
 
Well I think a woman should never be circumcised, I think it's a crime too, can't think of a good reason to do it.
Did you read the article I posted above? For us westerners it seems outrageous and as if its a crime, and if a group of people were forcing women to have FGM, then it would be a crime, but many women in the muslim world "elect" to have the procedure done. It's not in the kuran, it's more traditional than religious in that regard. Look through post#5. I wasn't sure either @WeedWhacker, thats why I looked it up
cb3788bc6fe55f552389b012b84aace7.png

And surprisingly, 100% of the women who had the procedure done state that it enhanced their husbands pleasure. How, I have no idea how that could or would be possible, but I think it goes back to how women are treated in that part of the world. Perhaps women think it's better because Men want them to have that procedure. Men in that part of the world are insecure with women, and I think this type of procedure ensures them that their wife won't fool around behind their back perhaps.
 
Did you read the article I posted above? For us westerners it seems outrageous and as if its a crime, and if a group of people were forcing women to have FGM, then it would be a crime, but many women in the muslim world "elect" to have the procedure done. It's not in the kuran, it's more traditional than religious in that regard. Look through post#5. I wasn't sure either @WeedWhacker, thats why I looked it up
cb3788bc6fe55f552389b012b84aace7.png

And surprisingly, 100% of the women who had the procedure done state that it enhanced their husbands pleasure. How, I have no idea how that could or would be possible, but I think it goes back to how women are treated in that part of the world. Perhaps women think it's better because Men want them to have that procedure. Men in that part of the world are insecure with women, and I think this type of procedure ensures them that their wife won't fool around behind their back perhaps.

I did see that, but I see no good reasons in that list. You say women elect to have the procedure done.
But I heard a lot about it from Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
She says women (girls) choose to have the procedure done because otherwise they will be called an infidel or the filthy one, the kid nobody wants to play with. I think that's mental abuse and shouldn't be seen as normal.

 
But it still happens, it being abhorrent doesn't stop it being rationalised by some.

90% agree it reduces their sex drive, but it enhances the husbands pleasure?
So apparently sexual response in woman is seen as turn off or threat to male sexuality; that is so sad.

Amazing when you consider that some classic works of erotica came from the arabic/islamic world - The Perfumed Garden and One Thousand and One Nights.

It seems it may have it's modern (African) roots in the slave trade, but the western world also practiced it briefly.
External Quote:

Mackie writes that FGM in Africa became linked to the slave trade. The Egyptians took captives in the south to be used as slaves, and slaves from Sudan were exported through the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. The English explorer William Browne (1768–1813) reported in 1799 that infibulation was carried out on slaves in Egypt to prevent pregnancy, although the Swedish ethnographer, Carl Gösta Widstrand, argued that the slave traders simply paid a higher price for women who were infibulated anyway. The Portuguese missionary João dos Santos (d. 1622) wrote of a group in Mogadishu who had a "custome to sew up their Females, especially their slaves being young to make them unable for conception, which makes these slaves sell dearer, both for their chastitie, and for better confidence which their Masters put in them."[117] Thus, Mackie argues, patterns of slavery across Africa account for the patterns of FGM found there, and "[a] practice associated with shameful female slavery came to stand for honor."[118]

Europe and the United States


Isaac Baker Brown "set to work to remove the clitoris whenever he had the opportunity of doing so."[119]
Gynaecologists in 19th-century Europe and the United States would also remove the clitoris for various reasons, including to treat masturbation, believing that the latter caused physical and mental disorders.[120] The first reported clitoridectomy in the West was carried out in 1822 by Karl Ferdinand von Graefe (1787–1840), a surgeon in Berlin, on a teenage girl regarded as an "imbecile" who was masturbating.[121]

Isaac Baker Brown (1812–1873), an English gynaecologist, president of the Medical Society of London, and co-founder of St. Mary's Hospital in London, believed that the "unnatural irritation" of the clitoris caused epilepsy, hysteria and mania, and "set to work to remove [it] whenever he had the opportunity of doing so," according to his obituary in the Medical Times and Gazette.[119] He did this several times between 1859 and 1866, sometimes with removal of the inner labia too.[122] When he published his views in On the Curability of Certain Forms of Insanity, Epilepsy, Catalepsy, and Hysteria in Females (1866), doctors in London accused him of quackery, mutilation and operating without consent, and he died in poverty after being expelled from the Obstetrical Society the following year.[123]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
 
Such practices can't survive 2 generations if they were optional.
Men shun 'uncut' women
Marriage is worshiped so the 'uncut' women almost always end up single; the are ostracized. Point is women in such societies are under IMMENSE pressure to go through it.

It is hard to see how removing nerve endings can add more to their sex lives. That's a myth used to perpetuate the vice.The scars at times can cause child-birth difficulties such as fistula

And sometimes you have excessive bleeding and deaths not to mention transmission of infections

All this may explain UN's concern but I feel they should have done more to check the sensational claims before speaking. This gives the bad guys and their sympathizes unnecessary propaganda fodder not to mention tainting UN's perceptions in the region
 
I did see that, but I see no good reasons in that list. You say women elect to have the procedure done.
But I heard a lot about it from Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
She says women (girls) choose to have the procedure done because otherwise they will be called an infidel or the filthy one, the kid nobody wants to play with. I think that's mental abuse and shouldn't be seen as normal.


I don't like it or agree with it, I was just trying to give another perspective from the women that actually have the procedure.
 
The text you quoted says
“Irrespective of age and the education level, majority responded that FGM did not reduce their sexual desires,” the women said
but the graphic says 90% said it reduces their sex drive.
 
FGM is a major issue in the UK and EU and the UK has had a specific law addressing FGM for over a decade. Anyone that works with kids in areas with high ethnic populations will have at least basic awareness training. Although I never directly dealt with children I received training to identify possible abuse that may be mentioned by clients. A figure of 23,000 is quoted for children at risk in the UK. This is a useful link
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/reso...thnic/female-genital-mutilation_wda96841.html

Thankfully prosecutions are now coming through the system but like with ritual abuse getting into closed communities makes it hard to find perpetrators.

A link to a recent prosecution
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26681364
 
I don't like it or agree with it, I was just trying to give another perspective from the women that actually have the procedure.

I didn't think that you agree with it or like it. But FGM is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15.
And i doubt that those girls think about pleasing a future husband at that age. I even doubt that they have a choice.
 
I didn't think that you agree with it or like it. But FGM is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15.
And i doubt that those girls think about pleasing a future husband at that age. I even doubt that they have a choice.
Agreed. We found artwork in a tomb of Egypt which depicts the oldest evidence for circumcision dating to around 2400BC. Most people think Semites started circumcision, but to the contrary they think it was actually the Egyptians. In the Genesis however, Abraham was told to circumcise himself, his household and his slaves as an everlasting covenant in their flesh. The origins of circumcision for both man and women date back quite aways, and when westerners learned of this tradition those who were circumcised were outcast and often were embarrassed to shed their clothes in front of people, like the Jewish people with the Germans during the Holocaust.

So all I'm saying is, sure we look down upon it, and think its disgusting and it ruins women, but to other cultures they don't see it the same way. Now everyone, or most people in the developed world get circumcized a day after they are born because we know it has medicinal benefits. It's accepted in most of the world these days. So who knows, maybe FGM will become more accepted down the road even though there aren't any clear medicinal reasons for the procedure. I'm just trying to keep an open mind about this, but forcing women to get the procedure is unlawful and should be stopped when possible.
 
The text you quoted says
“Irrespective of age and the education level, majority responded that FGM did not reduce their sexual desires,” the women said
but the graphic says 90% said it reduces their sex drive.
Sex drive and sexual desire are 2 different things, I think. Maybe @deirdre can help us out here, but when it comes to desire, to me that means wanting to be with someone without getting all (you know what), but sex drive relates to being "turned on". I think
 
Now everyone, or most people in the developed world get circumcized a day after they are born because we know it has medicinal benefits.
Highly debatable on the 'medicinal' (sic?) benefits (and certainly no benefits over uncircumcised men willing to practice basic hygiene), but you mean most *males*.
I'm not aware it's a common western medical practice for female newborns?

Interesting though how there has been a common view expressed by (american) women that an uncircumcised penis is gross.
(or at least that has been the perception in the past, judging by the amount of times the question has appeared on yahoo answers)
 
Highly debatable on the 'medicinal' (sic?) benefits (and certainly no benefits over uncircumcised men willing to practice basic hygiene), but you mean most *males*.
I'm not aware it's a common western medical practice for female newborns?

Interesting though how there has been a common view expressed by women that an uncircumcised penis is gross.
Yes, males. Thanks Pete. I rushed it and on my iPhone nonetheless.
 
Interesting though how there has been a common view expressed by women that an uncircumcised penis is gross.
Totally agree with you on this, and I wonder how that's changed over the years. When did circumcision become the norm and accepted preference for women's view of the male "penis" (I'm 38 and I still feel uncomfortable typing or saying that word, is that crazy).
 
So we are to believe what ISIS and Thinkprogress says ?
External Quote:

The FGM story broke against a background of wider concern about the situation in Mosul, whose Christian community has been forced to fleeunder threat of forced conversion or execution by jihadists who have turned churches into mosques and confiscated property.

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has lambasted Isis for its "criminality and terrorism". Last weekend Isis gave the city's Christians a stark choice: convert to Islam, pay a religious tax, or face death.
What are the odds they do that to their women ? Id say abput 99% http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-deny-ordering-fgm-girls-mosul
 
Wow we went from female mutilation to male circumcision ? :eek: Talk about Off Topic ?
 
So we are to believe what ISIS and Thinkprogress says ?
External Quote:

The FGM story broke against a background of wider concern about the situation in Mosul, whose Christian community has been forced to fleeunder threat of forced conversion or execution by jihadists who have turned churches into mosques and confiscated property.

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has lambasted Isis for its "criminality and terrorism". Last weekend Isis gave the city's Christians a stark choice: convert to Islam, pay a religious tax, or face death.
What are the odds they do that to their women ? Id say abput 99% http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-deny-ordering-fgm-girls-mosul
I brought this up earlier, and I think this is probably why the FGM story circulated. They are trying to get the world's attention right now, however possible. It's disgusting what they are doing to Christians, and I don't know why that isn't a HUGE story in the media.
 
Wow we went from female mutilation to male circumcision ? :eek: Talk about Off Topic ?
We were discussing the history of FGM, which involves circumcision for females... Trying to reference how male circumcision was considered digusting and outlandish back in the day but how it's accepted now.
 
Trying to reference how male circumcision was considered digusting and outlandish back in the day but how it's accepted now
With the exception of the US, male circumcision is not the norm in the west:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision#Between_20_and_80.25_2
b3360677a478206dc1ca60810bf0e054.png

I don't see male circumcision as having grown in acceptance. The opposite in fact seems to be the case over here as the risks outweigh the rewards:
External Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Modern_times After the end of World War II, Britain moved to a nationalized health care system, and so looked to ensure that each medical procedure covered by the new system was cost-effective. Douglas Gairdner's 1949 article "The Fate of the Foreskin" argued persuasively that the evidence available at that time showed that the risks outweighed the known benefits. The procedure was not covered by the national health care system, and circumcision rates dropped in Britain and in the rest of Europe.
It seems the same is true further afield:
External Quote:
In the 1970s, national medical associations in Australia and Canada issued recommendations against routine infant circumcision, leading to drops in the rates of both of those countries.
That said, male circumcision is a poor analog for FGM, which is more akin to having ones member severed in two. Hopefully all are dying practices.
 
What part of

is unclear to you?

But posting an unrelated article about Christian persecution isn't?
Its ISIS ( on Topic ) proving they believe in strict Islamic Law and are quite capable of doing exactly what is supposedly debunked ? Who interviewed ISIS in the Media and the Females of Iraq ?
 
With the exception of the US, male circumcision is not the norm in the west:
Wow, I never would've expected that to be honest with you and perhaps my view is misguided because I live in the US. Honestly, I can't believe the US is just 20-80%, I would've thought it was much higher like close to 90% or 95% with the way paternity wards are run in the US.

I can't believe England and Europe are so low. Nice job Johnny.
 
It seems Ms. Badcock is working with the Christian minority as well, and due to the fact that only 20 families remain in Mosul she felt compelled to tweet that FATWA about FGM to get the west involved and the media. And to her credit, it's worked

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28466434
External Quote:
Ms Badcock said only 20 families from the ancient Christian minority now remain in Mosul, which Isis has taken as the capital of its Islamic state.
 
Wow, I never would've expected that to be honest with you and perhaps my view is misguided because I live in the US. Honestly, I can't believe the US is just 20-80%, I would've thought it was much higher like close to 90% or 95% with the way paternity wards are run in the US.

I can't believe England and Europe are so low. Nice job Johnny.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...u-dot-s-dot-drops-as-societal-attitudes-waver
External Quote:
From 1979 to 2010, the rate of newborn circumcision declined to 58 percent from 65 percent, according to a report today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was the highest in 1981, with 65 percent of male infants circumcised, and lowest in 2007, at 55 percent, the CDC said.
Estimates vary, and it varies with region

http://forward.com/articles/161642/circumcision-rates-vary-widely-in-us/?p=all
69a35e1ef19d41407233e58c1a4d380e.jpg
 
I can't believe the US is just 20-80%, I would've thought it was much higher like close to 90% or 95%
It used to be around that high but enthusiasm has waned over time
External Quote:
91% of boys born in the 1970s, and 83% of boys born in the 1980s were circumcised.
 
Back
Top