Ruth Rendell Writes about FGM

Comment: It is the usual to blame this on African culture, and in truth probably the best understanding of this (from Dr. James DeMeo) is that it began in the Nile littoral as a part of the Arab slave-trading that was rampant in preclassical times. FGM, particularly infibulation, was to assure purity for breeding purposes. Then along came Islam. The Prophet is asked if it is permissible. He says yes, but "do not take too much." This is the origin of Islamic sanction of female circumcision, which is virtually unknown in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but rampant in Africa — particularly in Egypt, where 99% of women are circumcised — as well as Ethiopia, Somalia, and large parts of mostly Christian Kenya, as well as Mali to the west. But what most people don't realize is that in Shafi'i Sunni Islam, circumcision of women is mandatory. It is extraordinarily brave of Ruth Rendell to write a book about it. We haven't read it yet, so we don't know if she says anything about Islam. But in Turkey, where it's been rare in the past, it's now being spread by the Turkish Taleban (not related to the Pakistani version). And when lawmakers in Egypt tried to ban it several months ago, Islamic imams flatly told them it was against shari'a to leave a woman with a clitoris intact. People should probably just stop having the debate about whether it's culture or Islam, as Islam was laid atop the harrowing desert tribalist mores that were the talk of early 19th century English newspapers, where details of cruel amputations and debased violence against women captured the terrified attention of Londoners. In the years following the Prophet's death, one hadith after another pulled the carpet from under what few, fragile rights women had and made them, without question, the world's most beleaguered human beings. We hope everyone will buy this book.
— Eleanor Quincy for Gracen Intelligence

Ruth Rendell speaks out against female genital mutilation

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 07/07/2008

The novelist is campaigning to stop up to 20,000 girls in Britain being mutilated each year, reports Victoria Lambert When Chief Inspector Wexford, one of Britain's most beloved fictional policemen, is called to investigate his latest case - a body discovered in a trench - he finds his attention diverted by a crime yet to be committed, but one that he knows he is powerless to prevent. It creates a terrible dilemma for the old-fashioned, peaceable, claret-drinking detective. On the case: Ruth Rendell addresses the issue of female circumcision in her latest novel Wexford learns that a five-year-old girl is due to be brutally mutilated and left permanently disfigured - and that the suspects are the child's parents. It is as horrifying to him as the murder he has to solve. No one understands that conundrum better than Ruth Rendell, the author who created Wexford, and who has placed her hero in this torturous position in Not in the Flesh, due to be published in paperback later this month. For once, this haunting scenario has not been taken from her own imagination but from a real-life situation that happens thousands of times a year in Britain. ''Female genital mutilation (FGM) - or female circumcision - is a dreadful, iniquitous, illegal business - and it is happening here," says Rendell, 78. "As soon as I heard of it, I thought, this must be stopped, but I didn't realise then quite how difficult that would be." FGM has been practised for centuries, principally in the Horn of Africa; the UN estimates 6,000 young girls are subjected to it every day, in 28 countries. Those under the age of 15 are ''cut", their genitalia maimed or even removed, and the wound sewn up. The practice is believed to encourage chastity and prevent sexual pleasure, and many parents still believe it is the only way their daughters will be able to find good husbands. After marriage, the damaged area may be cut open by the husband just enough to allow intercourse but, when a baby is due to be born, it will have to be opened fully. Women who have been circumcised are at greater risk of cysts, fistulas - holes in the bladder, urinary tract and bowel caused during labour that can lead to incontinence - and even death in childbirth. "The 'circumcision' is done mostly by elderly women who have no medical qualifications," says Rendell, who sits in the House of Lords as Baroness Rendell of Babergh. "They perform this operation on girls aged around seven or eight, without anaesthetic, getting other women to hold them down. A knife is used, or a sharp stone; the business is awful." With emigration from Africa, the practice has been taken abroad and is now carried out in America, Australia, most of Europe and, of course, Britain. But just who does it, when and even how are difficult questions to answer as the practice is shrouded in secrecy - as Inspector Wexford himself finds out. In real life, too, there have been few prepared to speak out against it. One is Somalian supermodel Waris Dirie, who has admitted that she was cut; she has since been appointed a UN Special Ambassador. But the practice continues in many ordinary families behind closed doors. This secrecy has been the major stumbling block in Rendell's campaign to end FGM in the UK. A recent study produced by the Department of Midwifery, City University, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in October 2007 estimated that more than 20,000 girls are at risk in Britain every year - and although doctors and midwives know it goes on, they are powerless to prevent it happening. "We believe things have improved since 1985, when the Female Circumcision Act was passed which made it a criminal offence in this country," says Rendell, who is patron of the FGM National Clinical Group, based at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital (part of the University College London Hospital NHS Trust). "But over time, that has been thought inadequate. So we secured the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, which makes it a criminal offence to take a child out of the country to have it done abroad. The penalty is a maximum 14 years' imprisonment." But there have been no prosecutions - even though health professionals and the police are aware the practice continues. "What campaigners need is a girl who turns up at a doctor's surgery with a fresh wound. If she has only just arrived from Somalia, nothing can be done. But if she has been living here for two years, and she tells them that, and the doctors can tell [the cut] was done in that time, then there would be grounds for a prosecution. Until then, we are tied - yet we know it goes on in pretty much all the major cities in the UK." It is not just the secrecy that perpetuates the practice; it is also a desire for conformity, explains Rendell. "Girls in the community here will ask each other, 'Have you been cut?'?" She also points out that the language barrier can be part of the problem: "A lot of the older women and the mothers don't speak English, so they simply don't understand how FGM is viewed in this country - they won't know it is against the law. One thing we have done is to encourage older women who do speak English to do missionary work among their community, instructing women in what the penalties are and why it is illegal." When Rendell was writing Not in the Flesh, she strived to get into the mind of a young female officer who has to confront the family involved: "She's very PC - and torn in this situation. She is always being nice and fair?minded towards immigrants and yet, as a woman, is horrified by this particular act." Tradition is one of the most difficult aspects to counter: "FGM is an inexcusable, monstrous thing - but, of course, it is cultural, and I suppose the family think it is their duty." Rendell thinks it would help if more immigrant families learnt English. "I feel strongly that people should - not as a condition of coming here, but as a requirement after they are here." She also advocates classes in British citizenship, to teach immigrants the law, what you may do, and what you may not. "This is complex; one wants to respect traditions and customs, but how can you if they are grossly damaging and cruel to women? Women's rights are more important than their ethnic rights. I don't think people should bring such a dreadful custom here and expect it to be respected. What we should respect are the people themselves, their feelings, their emotions." When Inspector Wexford reviews his feelings about the case, he realises he was naïve to think he could bring a prosecution and so protect young girls against this kind of mutilation. He resolves to examine the legislation more closely to see if it contains provision for ''intent". His creator, however, doesn't see this as the answer. "A lot of people - and I used to be among them - think all we need is one prosecution," says Rendell. "But do we really even want one? We want prevention; we want to stop it happening ever." authority

UK Judge Throws Muslim Women under the Bus

It is becoming clearer all the time that the "plan" in Western countries is to appease violent Muslim radicals with what they most want (other than world domination): the control of every aspect of a woman's life, particularly access to sex anytime they want it and the ability to beat her to a bloody pulp if she doesn't comply. Anyone who doubts this has NOT read Sayyed Qutb, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood after a trip to a church social in the United States where he witnessed a couple dancing. There was no more salacious or misogynist piece of writing in the 20th century; somehow it is more pornographic than the worst that comes out of the sleaze parlors of the West.

This UK judge is playing the game that will cost every woman on this planet her freedom eventually: let them have shari'a, the MOST SERIOUS AND DESIRED PIECE OF WHICH IS THE CONTROL IT GIVES ME OVER WOMEN. That's why the Canadian women appealed to McGuinty to block shari'a "mediation" in Canada — they knew they would be socially punished or subjected to "honor" crimes from beatings to murder if the Canadian government, the last line of their defense, suddenly stamped shari'a with the government's imprimatur.

This goes doubly for England, whose men show no resemblance to the men of World War II who held back the entire Nazi machine alone until everybody could get it together.

We hope this judge is made aware of every drop of blood this costs Muslim women, because he is about to take equal protection under the law away from Muslim women, who will be socially and culturally FORCED, by violence and threats of violence, into shari'a, when so many of them are trying desperately to escape families in which the control mechanisms of shari'a, for all intents and purposes, were brought with male immigrants who took the freedoms England gave them, but made sure they had a way to keep the women from getting them. That this judge could do this KNOWING that all over England Muslim women are struggling with domestic abuse, denied education, and even FGM, is a travesty the order of which England has not seen in a thousand years.

Ainen Gracen, Morgaan Sinclair, Robert Gracen, Alastair Fellows, Eleanor Quincy for Gracen Intelligence

UK Judge Sparks Fresh Debate Over Shari'a

Patrick Goodenough

International Editor

(CNSNews.com) - Britain's top judge has set off a storm after saying that aspects of Islamic law (shari'a) could be employed to deal with family and marital disputes among British Muslims.

"There is no reason why principles of shari'a law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution," Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said in a speech in a London mosque last week.

Phillips made it clear that both parties to a dispute should agree to the rules and that English law should continue to take precedence.

Any punishments or rulings would have to comply with the law of the land. There was no question, he said, that punishments imposed in some Islamic countries under shari'a, such as stoning or amputation of limbs, would be "applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction."

The judge said there was a lot of misunderstanding about Islamic law.

"The view of many of shari'a law is colored by violent extremists who invoke it, perversely, to justify terrorist atrocities such as suicide bombing, which I understand to be in conflict with Islamic principles," he said.

Phillips is the most senior judge in England and Wales, and he has been named the inaugural president of the new United Kingdom Supreme Court when it begins operating late next year.

His comments reignited a controversy over comments made by England's top church leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, early this year. Williams, the titular head of the world's Anglican (Episcopalian) churches, sparked calls to resign when he said there was a case to be made for finding "a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law."

In his speech, Phillips defended Williams' comments, saying it was not "very radical to advocate embracing shari'a in the context of family disputes, for example."

He noted that the English system "already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion."

Last year, a body called the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal was established to provide a viable alternative for Muslims seeking to resolve family, marriage, inheritance and commercial disputes in line with Islamic law.

Operating with the English legal framework, the tribunal seeks to make determinations that are both in accordance with one of the recognized schools of Islamic law and also "can be enforced through existing means of enforcement open to normal litigants."

Proponents of allowing aspects of shari'a law to operate in a Western but multicultural society argue that to deny Muslims that right is to deny them "equality."

Critics counter that in a culture which, for example, holds different views about the place of women, allowing religious officials to preside over family and marriage disputes could lead to rulings that are in conflict with Western norms and treat women as second-class citizens.

Lawyers, rights groups, politicians and editorialists responded to Phillips' comments, with many voicing concern about the potential implications for community cohesion and inter-communal relations.

In the Muslim community itself, reaction was mixed.

The Muslim Council of Britain, the country's leading umbrella body for Muslim organizations, said it welcomed Phillips' "call for Muslims to be allowed to apply elements of Islamic law to the governance of personal relationships where this does not conflict with the laws of the land."

The council's secretary-general, Dr. Abdul Bari, appealed for a thoughtful debate on the issue, devoid of what the organization called "hysterical overreaction and misrepresentation."

But British Muslims for Secular Democracy, a group launched earlier this year as a platform for diverse, alternative Muslim views, said a move in the direction suggested by Phillips "would be detrimental to Muslims and to society as a whole."

The organization pointed out that there are major differences over interpreting and implementing shari'a among various Islamic schools of thought, and said British Muslims also hold diverse views based on factors including their geographic and ethnic backgrounds

Unlike western legal systems, the group said, some Islamic legal experts promote shari'a rules that contravene civil liberties and differ in matters such as freedom of expression, the rights of women in divorce cases, inheritance and testimony in court.

"Incorporation of aspects of shari'a law within the English legal system will further segregate Muslim communities from the mainstream," said BMSD Vice-Chairman Dr. Shaaz Mahboob.

"We think that British law should be based on British values and determined by the British Parliament," said the official spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

authority