Islamic Female Genital Mutilation and Islam-Denial — on The Glazov Gang

[Subscribe to The Glazov Gang and LIKE it on Facebook.]

Islamic Supremacist Reza Aslan recently engaged in yet another form of Islam-Denial, stating on CNN that female genital mutilation (FGM) is not a Muslim problem. In response to this outrageous falsehood, which denies all empirical reality and evidence, and which has received almost zero scrutiny in our media and higher literary culture, Frontpage is running The Glazov Gang’s two feature interviews that crystallized the Islamic crime of FGM and its Islamic theological foundations.

The first interview is with Dr. Mark Durie, a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He discusses how the world blinds itself to the Islamic theological foundation of a vicious Islamic crime [starts at the 11:00 minute mark].

The second interview is with Mark Christian, a doctor from Egypt who gives a first-hand and harrowing account of his effort to heal Muslim girls who were victimized by FGM. As a former Muslim Imam, he also discusses the Islamic texts that inspire and sanction FGM.

See both episodes below:

Mark Durie:

Mark Christian:

To watch previous Glazov Gang episodes, Click Here.

LIKE Jamie Glazov’s Fan Page on Facebook.

2 thoughts on “Islamic Female Genital Mutilation and Islam-Denial — on The Glazov Gang”

  1. Вера в то, что члены группы имеют право на существование, а остальные – не имеют.

    Даже не нуждается в особом комментировании. Особенно явно проявилось 2 мая в Одессе. Затем в пренебрежительном отношении к гибнущим мирным жителям Донбасса. «Не разделяют нашу веру в европейский рай? Тогда пусть сдохнут» – множество подобных по смыслу, а зачастую и по форме утверждений можно найти в любой социальной сети, на любом форуме, а зачастую и в украинских СМИ. Самые эклектичные варианты – типа утверждений, что нужно уничтожить 145 миллионов русских.

    С двумя пунктами из восьми не срастается, но шести вполне достаточно, чтобы уверенно отнести «укропов» к сектантам деструктивного тоталитарного культа.

  2. Such an important topic and on your show you air so many things which are not aired in many other places. I was taken by your comment about how telling the first response of many of what you called leftists is not by the compassionate response of ‘how terrible for this woman’, but by immediately leaping to the defensive’not all muslims do that’. I would like to say a few things. Firstly, that it is often true that looking at somebody’s immediate response can tell you a lot. But, please note that just as not all Muslims treat women badly, not all leftists have such views, and, look at many more conservative politicians – from how you talk, somebody from another planet would conclude that David Cameron is leftwing. Yet he as you know is a great Muslim appeaser, who will probably go down in history as the 21st century’s Neville Chamberlain. As you will realise, politicians of all sides both left and right are having the same kind of response. The discussion about the befriending response to danger is I think very psychologically astute, and perhaps explains a lot. Secondly, many western feminists have spoken out about FGM but much of this criticism of the practice has been in more recent years shut down by criticism that this is another example of ‘white western people’ telling others what to do – that it fails to understand local cultures, is imperlialist, fails to let feminists of color speak for themselves, etc. So, western feminists either start to truly believe that they must not criticise FGM, or still believe this, but self-censor – often the latter, I suspect. I think in many cases the FIRST response really is ‘oh how awful FGM is for those women and girls who undergo it’ but this is silenced by the second, learned response of ‘I had better not say anything, or else I will lose my place at the table of discussion’. There then really is the danger that you’ll lose your credentials as somebody who ‘really’ cares about the situation of women, because you’ll be made out to be an imperialist not listening to the voices of women of color. One other underlying background reason for this is itself the very common way in which arguments proceed, NOT on the basis of their own merits, but on assessing the credentials of the speaker – in other words, ad hominem arguments. If you spoil your public identity as a speaker in various ways – e.g. simply being accused by someone, anyone, of being a western imperialist or white and privileged etc can often be enough – then you are ipso facto silenced; what you say is not taken on its own merits, but on the basis of who you are. What is going on here amongst other things is an assault of the very basis of rational debate, where a person can be distinguished from their beliefs, and where beliefs are held on the basis of evidence and assessed as such. This is very common in a lot of public debates and nowhere more so in debates about islam, which often seem to proceed by nothing other than attacking the speaker. This also acts to shut down debate and thinking because of the enormous difficulty in actually trying to comprehend how anybody can defend the practice – then, being told you are wrong to criticize it leaves you feeling so perplexed you end up doubting yourself and what the **ll is going on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *