**EXPOSED! – The Islamic Threat To Britain!**

Islam Under Scrutiny, by Ex-Muslims The Talibanization of Britain

by Adrian Morgan

12 Sep, 2007

The Ideology of Deoband In the West, the Saudi ideology of Wahabbism is well known for its extremism and intolerance. Less well known is the ideology known as Deobandi. This ideology is equally insidious, equally extremist, for the Deobandi ideology is the ideology of the Taliban. Before taking power in Aghanistan, Mullah Omar and most of the leaders of the Afghan Taliban were educated at the Darul Uloom Haqqania madrassa in North-West Frontier Province , Pakistan . The Haqqania madrassa teaches the Deobandi form of Islam. Its head cleric, Sami ul Haq, is also a member of the MMA – the Islamist opposition in Pakistan ‘s parliament. He has said of his former students: “I was pleased they became the rulers of Afghanistan . They restored law and order there. They respected human rights. They respected women’s rights. They completely eliminated heroin and drug use.”

The Taliban’s assumption of power in Afghanistan was barbaric: on September 27, 1996, they dragged former president Mohammed Najibullah from his refuge at a U.N. compound, and then publicly castrated, shot and hanged him and his brother. Beneath the swinging bodies, the Taliban grinned and waved their weapons. The Taliban had been formed with the assistance of Pakistan ‘s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), a Pakistan government agency which has frequently been headed by radical Islamists. The ISI, which has also been involved with attempted coups in Pakistan , sponsored the Taliban up until 9/11. The Taliban banned art, music, cinema, and prohibited children from flying kites or keeping pigeons as pets. Women were not allowed to venture outside without a male relative to chaperone them, and they had to be wrapped from head to toe in the burka, with only a woven grille to allow them to see. These austere rulings were violently enforced by thugs from the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, who beat women in the streets with sticks, wire cables and hose-pipes.  There was nothing in the brutal and violent behavior of the Taliban towards their fellow “moderate” Muslims that contradicted the teachings of Deobandi ideology. The Taliban’s blowing up of the two giant Buddha statues at Bamiyan in March 2001 because they were “un-Islamic” followed their religious creed. Eight months later, they destroyed the city of Bamiyan rather than let it fall to Shia Muslims belonging to the Northern Alliance .

Though a popular inspiration for Pakistani extremists, the Deobandi ideology gains its name from a town in Uttar Pradesh state in northern India . It is here at Deoband that the second largest Sunni seminary in the world exists, called the Darul Uloom (House of Knowledge). It was officially founded on May 30, 1866, by two clerics, shortly after the British had destroyed the last vestiges of the Moghul Empire in 1857. Mohammad Qasim Nanautavi was the original leader of the seminary, assisted by Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi. Children as young as five enter the Darul Uloom and other Deobandi madrassas, and usually graduate when they are 25. 65,000 students had graduated from the Deoband Darul Uloom by 2001. Deobandis disapprove of Western “science” education, and frown on people who watch TV, unless they watch news channels.  Women are regarded as intellectually inferior to males. On the subject of educating women, the Deoband believe that formal education for a girl should end at the age of eight.

A Deobandi scholar, Abdul Basit Hamidi Qasmi, has argued that “worldly knowledge is not good for women and can be destructive for them.” It is not surprising that even after their official “downfall” in 2001, the Afghan Taliban have killed people for educating girls.  At the Haqqania madrassa near Peshawar in North-West Frontier Province, both the 2,800 students and their principal refer to the seminary as the ” University of Jihad .” The madrassa has been given donations by the Saudi kingdom, which is not surprising considering the similarities of Deobandi and Wahabbi ideologies. Mullah Omar did not complete his studies, but as one guide noted in 2001 that “we gave him an honorary degree anyway, because he left to do jihad and to create a pristine Islamic government.”  One of the principle doctrines of the Deobandi ideology is that it is a Muslim’s duty to wage war (Jihad) upon the enemies of Muslims, wherever they may be. National borders are inconsequential, and a student’s loyalty should be to Allah before the country in which he lives. Boys at Haqqania are taught to memorize the Koran in Arabic, prevented from talking or looking at each other. They have no idea what the Arabic words mean.  In parts of NWFP, the “Pakistan Taliban” wield power, and like their Afghan counterparts they are hostile to women who appear “Westernized.” On Friday last week, two women were found decapitated near the town of Bannu , close to the Afghan border.

They had been kidnapped the day before. A note left with the bodies claimed they were “prostitutes.”  Britain‘s Deobandi Mosques Last week, London ’s Times and the Daily Mail newspapers carried the alarming news that followers of the Deobandi doctrine have taken over almost half of Britain ‘s mosques. In Lancashire in the north of England , out of 75 mosques in Blackburn, Bolton, Preston, Oldham and Burnley , 59 of these are now run by Deobandi clerics. There are 26 Islamic seminaries in Britain – which produce 80% of homegrown clerics for mosques – and of these 17 are run by Deobandis. A police report claims that of the 1,350 mosques in Britain , more than 600 of these are now run by Deobandis. In London , about 170 mosques are said to be run by Deobandis

The man regarded as the most influential of Britain ‘s Deobandis is Riyadh ul Haq. He has written two books, “The Salah of a Believer in the Quran and Sunnah” and “The Causes of Disunity.” He was embroiled in a controversy last year, when he was due to talk to 1,000 young Muslims in Canada . Ul Haq was scheduled to address them at the Youth Tarbiyah conference, held in Toronto in early July. He had been invited by the Islamic Foundation of Toronto. He had also been booked to appear at the “Guidance” conference in Montreal in late June, and his itinerary had also included Hamilton , Ontario . His visit was cancelled when Monte Solberg, Canada ‘s immigration minister, decided that Ul Haq’s extreme opinions might incite terror and hatred.  The Canadian Jewish Congress mobilized an unusual coalition of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and gay rights campaigners to lead the protests against Ul Haq’s visit. He had visited Canada four times previously, including addressing 15,000 people at a “reviving the Islamic Spirit” conference, held at Toronto ‘s Rogers Center in 2005.

Tarek Fatah, communications director for the Canadian Muslim Congress, who also hosts a weekly TV Muslim TV show, said at the time: “He’s a nasty piece of work. All he will do [is] create doubt in the minds of young people [as to] whether Canada , as a society, is a viable place for Muslims to live in.” Ul Haq did address the Tarbiyah conference, but via a video link.  The campaign against Ul Haq’s visit to Canada had released extracts of his speeches, indicating a contempt for the West, for Jews, and women. In one speech, he had said: “Of the peoples of the Earth, the ones that hate Muslims the most, the ones who are bitterest of their enmity towards Muslims, the most unrelenting, unforgiving, are the Jews and the mushrikin (Hindus), idolaters in all their forms.”  Ul Haq – full name Abu Yusuf Riyadh Ul Haq – was born in Gujarat in 1971, and when he was aged three he had migrated with his family to Britain . He entered the Deobandi Darul Uloom Al-Arabbiyah Al-Islamiyyah at Bury, near Bolton in Lancashire, northern England , at the age of 13, and graduated in 1991. This seminary was founded in 1975 by Yusuf Motala, another extremist immigrant from Gujarat in India . Following his graduation, Ul Haq became the imam at Birmingham ‘s Central Mosque. He has since taught at the Madinatul Uloom Al-Islamiyyah in Kidderminster , which was also founded by Yusuf Motala.

In August 2004, Ul Haq was named in a feud which cost the lives of two people. On July 29, 2004, 35-year old Azmat Yaqub (pictured) was shot dead as he worked out at a gym. A fortnight before he was shot several times at the gymnasium in Sparkhill, Mr Yaqub had become a father. Earlier, on March 17, 2003, Mr Yaqub had been hit by gunshot in his shoulder, a victim of a drive-by shooting. Shaham Ali, a companion who had been with him, was shot in the head and died. In the March 2003 killing, six people were arrested, and two were charged with attempted murder. The murder charges were rejected by a court, but one of the two accused was sentenced to two years’ jail. 31-year-old Mohammed Sharafit Khan was found guilty of false imprisonment and assault. Two others were found guilty of false imprisonment.  Khan had invited the secretary of Birmingham Central Mosque, Mr. Shockat Lal, to his home. There, the victim was kept captive and repeatedly beaten over a period of one and a half hours. The secretary had had an affair with a woman, and she had fallen pregnant. What incited the anger of young Muslims from the mosque was the fact that the woman was Riyadh ul-Haq’s wife. As she was Ul Haq’s second wife, the marriage was not legal. Ul Haq had taken offense, and had sacked Shockat Lal. Others who supported the secretary were either expelled from the mosque or ostracized.

In March 2003, Ul Haq was arrested from the home of his father, Mohammed Gora Pirbhai, who was an imam at a mosque in Leicester . Ul Haq was questioned about the drive-by murder, but received no charges. The two men who had died were friends of Shockat Lal.  Ul Haq’s arguments that women are inferior to men still appear on the website of Birmingham Central Mosque.. The Mosque website also has articles extolling the virtues of Deoband and also the extremist missionary group Tablighi Jamaat. The shoe bomber Richard Reid, the American Taliban John Walker Lindh, and members of the ISI have links with this group. Two of the 7/7 bombers attended a Tablighi Jamaat mosque in Dewsbury. Dr. Mohammed Naseem has been the chairman of the mosque for 32 years, and he claims to be a “moderate.” Naseem, who was Riyadh Ul Haq’s boss for a dozen years, is convinced he is being targeted for MI5 surveillance.  Three weeks after the 7/7 bombings, Naseem tried to claim that the four bombers were innocent, despite DNA evidence. Speaking of 7/7, he called Tony Blair a “liar” and an “unreliable witness.” He has publicly questioned the existence of al Qaeda. Naseem runs the Islamic Party of Britain and has said that homosexuals should be executed. Naseem is a major funder to the “Respect” party, whose only MP is George Galloway.

After the atrocities of 9/11, Naseem had said that “we are not convinced that those people who perpetrated these actions were actually Muslims.”  In January 2006, Britain ‘s most senior civil servant was forced to withdraw an invitation which had been extended to Riyadh Ul Haq. The government had invited him to speak at a function marking the end of Eid ul-Fitr (the end of Ramadan) later that year. The decision was made after people had complained. Riyadh Ul Haq is opposed to Muslims forming friendships with non-Muslims, whom he refers to dismissively as “kuffaar,” claiming that the kuffaar exert an “evil influence.” The Times quotes from one of his sermons: “We are in a very dangerous position here. We live amongst the kuffar, we work with them, we associate with them, we mix with them and we begin to pick up their habits.”  The Mail quotes him as saying: “The Koran teaches Muslims not to follow in the footsteps of the Jews and the Christians, yet of our own choice we decide to live, act, work, behave, enjoy and play just like the kuffar….Allah has warned us in the Koran, do not befriend the kuffaar.

The Jews and Christians will never be content with you until you follow their way.”  Ul Haq praises the Taliban, as they share the same ideology, and he is contemptuous of Christians, Jews and Hindus. He openly and frequently ridicules “moderate” Muslims as evidenced in a sermon against “Jewish Fundamentalism.” As they are classed as traitors by Ul Haq and his ilk, some moderate Muslims are understandably outraged by this aspect of Deobandi thinking.  Ul Haq also praises armed Jihad. He said in July 2001: “And no one dare utter the ‘J’ word. The ‘J’ word has become taboo. The ‘J’ word can never be mentioned and if someone mentions it, even Muslims look at one another. So much is happening and yet we are expected to remain silent.”  On November 11, 2003, Ul Haq’s “guru”, Yusuf Motala, was detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow airport for seven hours, when he was preparing to fly to Mecca and Medina . His supporters were outraged. One of these, a graduate of the Bury Darul Uloom, said: “More than 75% of the English speaking Imams in the U.K. are graduates from the Darul Ulooms. (An) attack on Shaykh Yusuf Motala is an attack on the entire Muslim community.”

The graduate claimed that the Deobandi seminaries provided imams for the prison service and for hospitals, and that the Bury Darul Uloom is linked to the University of Preston .  Yusuf Motala was sent to Britain by a leading figure in Tablighi Jamaat, Muhammad Zakaria Kandhlawi (1898 – 1982). This man was a famous Deobandi scholar whose father had been renowned for his knowledge of the Hadiths (traditions of the prophet). Zakaria himself was a teacher of Hadiths. Zakaria urged Motala to go to Britain to “light the candle of Islam in a land of darkness..” Despite being widely praised as a scholar, there are critics of Zakaria who claim that he actually fabricated many stories which he passed off as “authentic” Hadiths. When Motala founded the Darul Uloom in Bury in 1975, he did so with funding from Saudi Arabia .  The Times’ reporting on the Deobandi movement in Britain is not before its time. Deobandi ideas have led to the Taliban, and if the governing Labour party is serious in its attempts to defuse radicalism, it should have acted far sooner to quell Deobandi activities. Other sermons from Riyadh ul-Haq, which the Times has reproduced, are: “The Globalized Suffering of the Muslims“, “On Our Responsibilities as Muslims” and “Imitating the Disbelievers“.

One of the world’s leading Deobandi scholars is Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who was born in 1943 in Deoband. He attended the Darul Uloom in Karachi , Pakistan , and for 20 years served as a judge in the Federal Shariat Court in Pakistan . He is an adviser in Islamic banking, and is vice-president of his alma mater, the Darul Uloom in Karachi . He teaches the Hadiths of Bukhari, Islamic law and economics. He has authored 43 books in Urdu, 6 in Arabic and 17 in English. Usmani is also the deputy chairman of the Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) Council at the 57-nation OIC. Despite all his scholarship and prestige within the Muslim world, Usmani argues that it is permitted for Muslims to wage violent Jihad, even in lands where Islam can be practiced freely.  Ghayasuddin Siddiqui belongs to Britain ‘s “Muslim Parliament.”

He said: “There is no doubt the Deobandi movement became more influential in Britain ‘s mosques in the Nineties and this went largely unchecked. The situation now is of great concern as almost all Islamic extremism originates from the Deobandi thinking.” Khaled Ahmed, an expert on Pakistani extremism, stated: “The U.K. has been ruined by the puritanism of the Deobandis. You’ve allowed the takeover of the mosques. You can’t run multiculturalism like that, because that’s a way of destroying yourself. In Britain , the Deobandi message has become even more extreme than it is in Pakistan . It’s mind-boggling.”  The arrival of Deobandi ideology into Britain ‘s Mosques began in the 1990s. It was around this time that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was co-founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood member Kemal el-Helbawy in 1996. In May 1997, the Labour Party came to power, and this party shows no signs of leaving the political stage. Under Labour, extremist groups and radical preachers have been allowed to proliferate.

The MCB, which has leading members who were influenced by Maududi (founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami), has condemned any attacks upon the Deobandi ideology. In 2003, Iqbal Sacranie condemned the seven hour detention of Yusuf Motala at Heathrow Airport . This individual, who famously said of Salman Rushdie’s death fatwa that “death is too good for him,” was knighted by Tony Blair in June 2005, a month before the 7/7 attacks. The MCB has acted as official adviser to the Labour party on Muslim issues.  It is no surprise that Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain has condemned the Times for exposing the extent of Deobandi influence in Britain . Bunglawala is an open anti-Semite, who has praised Osama bin Laden as a freedom fighter and has said that Omar Abdel Rahman was “courageous.” Writing in the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, he described the Times’ reporting as a “toxic mix of fact and fiction”. The Guardian also carried a second critical comment on the Times’ exposure by an individual called Ajmal Masroor.  Tony Blair supported the notion of taxpayers funding Muslim “faith schools,” even though surveys of the public have consistently found these to be unpopular.

In September 2005 leading Catholic and Anglican clergymen said that they would not want to see Christian children educated in Muslim “faith schools.” At that time there were only five state-funded Muslim schools in Britain . There are now seven, soon to be eight. When the Madani High School for girls opens in Leicester , even non-Muslim pupils will be forced to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. Under Gordon Brown, the Labour party now intends to create more Muslim state schools. Even though such moves are bound to increase segregation, the topsy-turvy logic of the leftist Labour party maintains that such institutions are needed, to encourage integration.  Britain is rapidly losing any notion of its own identity. In state school classes, children are indoctrinated with Islam, which shares equal time on the school curriculum with Christianity, even though 70% of people in Britain see themselves as Christian and less than 3% are Muslim.

There are a few parts of the National Curriculum which deal with Judaism, but Sikhism and Buddhism are totally ignored.  Last week, the Center for Social Cohesion reported that libraries in London were becoming “inundated” with extremist books. Tower Hamlets council libraries were found to have multiple copies of books by Abu Hamza al-Masri and Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, who were both jailed for “soliciting to murder.” Tower Hamlets libraries had 40 copies of books by Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, which supported armed Jihad. Out of 580 titles on Islam, 8% were by extremist authors. A spokesman for the council argued that as the material itself has not broken any laws, they refused to remove it from their library shelves. Works by the Marquis de Sade that extol torture are not illegal, but I know of no public libraries where these are loaned out.  The extremist literature was found at libraries in London , Blackburn and Birmingham .

Douglas Murray, one of the authors of the report, said: “This is akin to going to the history section of your local library and finding the shelves covering the Second World War only containing copies of Mein Kampf and books by Hitler’s inner circle and only one general history book to balance things out. This warped view of Islam being presented is a major threat to public safety. It’s shocking that the collections are so imbalanced.”  The imbalance has spread far beyond the libraries. The Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, supports Tablighi Jamaat’s intentions to build a “mega-mosque” in east London, adjoining the site of the 2012 London Olympics, even though a quarter of a million people have signed a protest petition on the government’s website. No one asked for multiculturalism when they voted for Labour. Most people were happy to see an end to racism and segregation. Multiculturalism, by its very nature, is a policy of segregation, where multiple ghettoes sit beside each other in urban communities, but not integrating. Labour has promoted this divisive policy, encouraging it by continually swamping Britain with new waves of uncontrolled immigration. Multiculturalism has never featured on any campaign manifestos.

It is the Labour party and its leftist cronies in the media who are the ones who are slowly turning parts of Britain into Talibanized ghettoes. All too eager to please the “sensitivities” of new arrivals on Britain ‘s shores with its policies of multiculturalism, the government has neglected the sensitivities of those already here. The Islamists only do as they please because Britain ‘s weak-kneed authority figures have allowed them to. The Islamists at least have an ideology, something that is apparently lacking in Britain ‘s government.

Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts Full Power to Rule on Civil Cases
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through county courts or the country’s High Court, a part of its Supreme Court system.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

Abul Taher

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are..”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain. In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes. In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours. It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal. Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.” Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons. The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts. In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations. Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks

Is sharia law in Britain “unavoidable”?

Women are likely to suffer more if Sharia Law, which does treat women equally to men, becomes an accepted legal avenue
The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy when suggesting recognition of Sharia Law seemed 'unavoidable' The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy when suggesting recognition of sharia seemed ‘unavoidable’

(Coward!!)

    Crime and education problems:

Female genital mutilation in Britain

J A Black, retired consultant paediatrician Victoria Mill House
Framlingham Woodbridge Suffolk IP13 9EG 
G D Debelle, consultant
community paediatrician Children's Services Unit South Birmingham Health
Authority Birmingham


Correspondence to: Dr Black.

Much has been written about female genital mutilation in Africa, but little attention has been paid to its existence in Britain. Though it has been illegal in this country since 1985, it is practised secretly or children are sent abroad to have the operation. From the social worker’s point of view it is technically a form of child abuse which poses special problems. Black and Debelle review the historical back ground of female genital mutilation and describe its medical complications. Gallard discusses the problem in France, and Walder considers why such mutilation still continues in Britain.

This article is concerned with female genital mutilation in Britain. The term is preferable to female circumcision, which is inaccurate and implies a minor operation equivalent to male circumcision. In many cultures the operation entails an extensive mutilation, with profound social, sexual, and medical consequences.

Historical background

It is uncertain when female genital mutilation was first practised, but it certainly preceded the founding of both Christianity and Islam. There is no basis for the belief that the procedure was advocated or approved by Mohammed nor is it in any way part of the Islamic faith. Though the operation is largely confined to Muslims, it is also performed in certain Christian communities in Africa.

Female genital mutilation is practised in various forms in over 20 African countries and also in Oman, the Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates and by some Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia’ (ref 1) it is not practised in Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, or Saudi Arabia.

What is female genital mutilation?

There are three types of operation. In the least mutilating form, known misleadingly as the “Sunna” procedure (meaning “following the Prophet’s tradition”), the prepuce of the clitoris is removed; this is the only procedure which can be correctly called circumcision. In the most extensive form, called “infibulation” or in Sudan “the Pharaonic procedure,” the clitoris, the labia minora, and the medial part of the labia majora are excised and the sides of the vagina are then stitched together, leaving a small opening for urine and menstrual blood, patency being preserved by a sliver of wood. The term infibulation refers to the use of a clasp (infibula) to keep the cut edges of the vagina together. In the intermediate form of operation (“excision”) the clitoris is wholly or partly removed, together with part of the labia minora whose cut edges are sutured together to leave a small opening. In women who have had a procedure involving stitching together of the sides of the vagina, resuture is usually requested after delivery; this is not illegal (see below).

Complications are largely confined to the two more extensive operations. Early complications such as primary or secondary haemorrhage, sepsis, septicaemia, and tetanus are unlikely if the operation is performed by a skilled practitioner under good conditions. Long term complications include dyspareunia due to introital or vaginal stenosis, poor urinary stream, urinary tract infection, haematocolpos, vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistula (after a prolonged delivery), keloid formation, and implantation dermoids. Soleiman Fayyad gives a horrifying account of the death of a woman in Egypt after the operation was done by force.(ref 2) Couples may complain of infertility, though the real problem is the inability of the husband to achieve penetration (D Paintin, personal communication). In Africa, prolonged or obstructed labour may occur if there is inadequate obstetric care. Dirie and Lindmark in Somalia found that even in otherwise normal deliveries anterior and mediolateral episiotomies were required (ref 3) There are no figures for the incidence of emotional or psychological effects, but it is probable that this would be small in communities where social pressures are strongly in favour of the operation. Conversely, in such circumstances, the unoperated girl may be the object of disapproval and derision.

In Britain, with proper obstetric care there is rarely any difficulty in the second stage of labour, though an incision of the web of tissue across the vagina is often necessary (D Paintin, personal communication). In hospitals unused to looking after women with genital mutilation there may be hostility and incomprehension, particularly if the woman requests resuturing.

To appreciate why this operation is performed some understanding is required of the cultural background associated with female genital mutilation. In the least destructive operation, when only the prepuce of the clitoris is removed, the object is to reduce the woman’s sexual desire and hence to ensure her virginity until she is married. The more extensive operations, involving stitching of the vagina, have the same aim of ensuring chastity until marriage. The reduction in the size of the vaginal orifice is supposed to increase the husband’s enjoyment of the sexual act; there is no good evidence for this and initially penetration may be difficult and painful for both partners. From the family’s point of view the operation ensures a satisfactory bride price; an eligible man would not consider marrying a girl who had not had the operation. The procedure is arranged by the mother or grandmother and in Africa is usually performed by a traditional birth attendant, a midwife making a little extra money, or by a professional exciser. Female genital mutilation is supported and encouraged by men; indeed the operation can be regarded as an exercise in male supremacy and the oppression of women.

The situation in Britain

During the past three or four decades ethnic groups who practise female genital mutilation have immigrated to Britain, mainly as refugees. The main groups are from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Yemen. It has been estimated that in their own countries over 80 per cent of women have had the operation, (ref 4) which is invariably infibulation. There is evidence that the operation is being performed illegally in Britain (see below) by medically qualified or unqualified practitioners and that children are being sent abroad for a “holiday” to have it done. In Britain the procedure is usually performed between the ages of 7 and 9 years.

International statements

Female genital mutilation was made illegal in Britain by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Under this act it is an offence to “excise, infibulate, or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person” or “to aid, abet, or procure the performance by another person of any of these acts on that other person’s own body.” A person found guilty of an offence is liable to a fine or to imprisonment for up to five years, or to both, if convicted on indictment before a judge and jury in a crown court, or on summary conviction in a magistrate’s court to a fine or imprisonment for up to six months, or to both.

In Britain there have been no prosecutions under the act, but convictions have been obtained in France. In 1993 a medical practitioner was brought before the General Medical Council charged with performing female circumcisions while knowing that the operation was illegal; he was struck off. Legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation has also been passed in Sweden and Belgium and in some states in America.

In 1959 the general assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states (article 24, paragraph 3) that “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures to abolish traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.” In 1982 the United Nations human rights sub commission of the World Health Organisation assured governments of its readiness, together with Unicef, to support national efforts against female genital mutilation.

The practice was again condemned by the WHO in 1986 (ref 5) and by the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and in the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The Foundation for Women’s Health, Research, and Development (FORWARD) has campaigned tirelessly in Britain and elsewhere for the abolition of female genital mutilation.. FORWARD receives some financial support from the Department of Health. The whole subject has been comprehensively reviewed by Dorkenoo and Elworthy.(ref 6) Recently the World Medical Association condemned female genital mutilation,’ and the problem has been discussed in this journal, though with little mention of the problem in Britain.(ref 7,8)

Child protection and female genital mutilation

In Britain female genital mutilation is regarded as a form of child abuse, though this term should not be used when discussing the procedure with families as it would be greatly resented. Female genital mutilation differs from other forms of child abuse in that it is done with the best intentions for the future welfare of the child, there is no possibility of its repetition during childhood, and it is approved by sections of the communities in which it is practised. As Korbin has put it, “The first level encompasses practices that are viewed as acceptable within the culture in which they occur, but as abusive or neglectful by outsiders.”(ref 9) Female genital mutilation in Britain presents a cross cultural problem.

Female genital mutilation may present in a variety of ways. Firstly, it may be known that a woman who has had the operation herself also approves of it for her daughters, who are therefore at risk. Secondly, a doctor, nurse, teacher, social worker, or other professional (or a neighbour or friend) may discover that a girl has had the operation; though there is little point in prosecuting the parents for something which has already occurred, younger girls in the family would be at risk. Thirdly, one of the categories of people mentioned above may suspect that a family is pre paring to have their child sent away to have the operation. It is not easy to make the right decision when it is suspected or known that a child is at risk; action should depend on the degree of urgency. As with other forms of child abuse, a child likely to suffer “significant harm” is subject to a joint police and social services investigation and case conference and her name should be put on the child protection register; this alerts social workers and others, allocates a key worker, and requires a review case conference. Anyone, not necessarily a health professional or social worker, can report their suspicions to the social services department.

Under the Children Act 1989 various procedures are available.(ref 10)As a preliminary measure a child assess ment order can be made if the parents do not agree to an informal assessment; the assessment order is made by the court, with specific conditions attached. An assessment order provides no protection for the child and lasts for seven days from the date specified in the order. If further action is thought necessary by the court a “prohibited steps order” can be taken out; this prohibits the parents or any other person from carrying out a specified action without the consent of the court; this order ceases when the girl reaches the age of 16 years.

Alternatively, a supervision order may be made; this lasts initially for one year, with a maximum of three years. In a more urgent situation an emergency protection order (replacing the place of safety order) may be taken out; this authorises removal, if necessary, of the child from the place where she normally lives. It lasts for eight days with a possible extension for a further seven days. Finally, a care order can be made; this would be used only in extreme cases. The Children Act now restricts the use of wardship where the act provides appropriate remedies.

In such sensitive cases any action aimed at interfering with the customs and traditions of a particular ethnic group may be regarded as racist. Equally, a failure by a social services department to pursue a proper course of action for fear of an accusation of racism or because of antagonism in the community is in a perverse way a form of racism in that it is a retreat based on racial considerations to the detriment of the welfare of the child.

Social services departments should take the lead in developing awareness of female genital mutilation and how to approach it. The departments should have a policy for the education, by meetings and circulation of advisory literature, of its own staff, health professionals, and teachers.” In areas with a sizeable number of families belonging to an ethic group which practises female genital mutilation a joint consultative body should be set up, to include community leaders in addition to the relevant professionals. Hedley and Dorkenoo have suggested that specially trained advisers should be available to give support and advice to social workers and others in contact with families in whom female genital mutilation is an important issue. These advisers would normally be health visitors, midwives, or social workers.

Whenever possible there should be close liaison with local community groups, which should be supported in campaigns against female genital mutilation; such groups may be able to supply someone of the appropriate ethnic group (or in the case of the Somalis, tribe) to talk to parents. The cooperation of local press and radio stations should be sought, and help should be requested from local newspapers and news sheets in the relevant languages.

As with other conditions largely confined to certain ethnic groups (for example, sickle cell disease and thalassaemia), services are likely to be well developed in areas with a large population of groups who practise female genital mutilation, whereas in areas with a small population of these groups services may be inadequate or non-existent. Such areas should seek advice and skill from better organised areas. Female genital mutilation tends to be considered mainly from the woman’s point of view and has become identified as a feminist issue. This seems a mistaken policy as female genital mutilation would die out if men ceased to insist on it. It is therefore important that men should be included and involved in educational programmes.

Conclusion

Assuming that the size of the population in Britain of ethnic groups practising or favouring female genital mutilation remains more or less unchanged, it seems probable that, as adaptation and acculturation occur, the practice will die out within a few generations. This is not, however, an argument for complacency or inaction. Meanwhile, there is much to be done.

From our own inquiries there seems to be a conspiracy of silence in medical circles; there is also widespread ignorance. None of a number of well known obstetric and paediatric textbooks mentions female genital mutilation. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has no information or instructional material.

It is time that this problem was more widely and openly discussed.

FORWARD is based at Africa Centre 38 King Street, London WC2E 8JT.

1 Sami IR. Female circumcision with special reference to the Sudan. Ann Trop Paediatr 1986;6:99-115. 2 Fayyad S. Voices. London: Marion Boyars Publishers, 1993: 102-7. 3 Dirie MA, Landmark G. A hospital study of the complications of female circumcision. Trop Doct 1991;21:146-8. 4 Hedley R, Dorkenoo E.. Chiild protectionn and genital mutilation. London:FORWARD, 1992. 5 World Health Organisation. A traditonal practice that threatens health – female circumcision. WHO Chronicle1986,40 31-6 6 Dorkenoo E, Elworthy S. Female genital mutilation:proposals for change. London: Minority Rights Group, 1992. 7 Richards T. Female genital mutilation condemmed by WMA. BMJ 1993;307:957. 8 Ladjali M, Rattray TW, Walder RJW. Female genital mutilation. BMJ 1993;307:460. 9 Korbin JE. Cross-cultural perspectives and research directions for the 21st century. Child Abuse Negl 1991;15 (suppl 1):67-77. 10 Department of Health. The Children Act 1989: an introductory guide for the NHS. London: HMSO, 1991. 11 Webb E, Hardey 8. Female genital mutilation: a dilemma in child protection. Arch Dis Child 1994;70:441-4.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “**EXPOSED! – The Islamic Threat To Britain!**”

  1. hassan Says:

    what a one sided and stupid article – im a devout practicing Muslim and this view portrayed by this guy is wholly out of proportion. I think hes after some influence in governement! or even a peerage! hahahah

    • deltaflt1189 Says:

      Thank you, for your commentary on my blog. One-sided, huh? – You are such a lying-snake-in-the-grass, it ain’t even funny! Lol As far as I can tell, there’s much too much evidence that what I have posted about Islamism, IS COMPLETELY accurate. I’m not saying that EVERY Muslim is a terrorist, OK? I am saying however, that it IS by it’s very nature, a wicked, & cruel doctrine. Ask all those hundreds of thousands of women who’ve been severely abused by Islam. I’m sure that they’ll gladly agree. — By the way … what the heck is a “peerage”?

      – Andrew Friedman

  2. payday loans online Says:

    I found deltaflt1189.wordpress.com very informative. The article is professionally written and I feel like the author knows the subject very well. deltaflt1189.wordpress.com keep it that way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: