Oh, get over yourself. You sound really angry about this. It's just TV. Relax.

Mr. Eric Olsen.

I did not know there was a such a group as the "Islamists". Perhaps you were meaning to refer to Muslims or those that follow the faith and religion of Islam. If you are going to write an article on the basis of sterotyping members of a religion, at least get the name of the group right. Better luck next time.

I don't feel that it is necessary or prudent to involve and isolate a particular group of people in order to create a clever punch line for your critque, especially in a time when issues like these are so sensitive. The fact that you could not even correctly identify the group by its name does not help your cause either.

sorry about that, my browser screwed up.

Dear Eric,

First, it is quite possible that there could not be two ideologies further apart at this moment than the religion of Islam and the Fox television network. Second, your suggestion that " The Islamists," as opposed to, say, The Mormons, The Hindus, The Jews, The Chinese, The Sikhs, The Irish, The Blacks, or whoever "should like this" belies your cowardly selection of the only group you had the guts to portray negatively, though quite ignorantly, in your article. Third, are you suggesting that our enlightened and progressive American system of courtship where people have several relationships spawned by dating, leading to pre-maritial sexual relations, often leading to co-habitation, frequently leading to the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions, and occasionally leading to marriage, often leading to unhappy marriages, which leads to rampant marital infidelity, which is the leading cause of divorce, which, in turn, frequently leads to phenomena like "deadbeat dads" and other social woes is somehow a more civilized alternative to so-called arranged marriages? I'm not convinced that "our" way is any better. However, I agree with you that the show is a stupid idea.

It's a sad thing that such uninformed rot as this is published day after day in public forums such as newspapers and the internet, perpetuating religious, racial and cultural ignorance, intolerance and hatred. The only worthy point made in this article is that the tv show is a stupid idea.

Dear Eric
Unfortunately the title that you thought would make you "the worlds cleverest" did not have the reaction you hoped for.... Word to the wise,you don't have to be ignorant to be funny or to get your point across.

To be brief (not my habit):

The idea for the show is stupid. So has been the idea behind the wildly popular show "The Bachelor"
(which seems to be upending "The West Wing" in popularity for some reason). It's been DONE awready!

Regarding a seemingly unrelated matter, the adoption of the non sequitur "Islamists" by elitist right-wing xenophobes is a huge disappointment to those of us who embrace some form or sect of Islam, who are exceedingly hip, and/or just plain think Americans should be more hip and/or intelligent in public than to make up code words like "Islamists" in order to convey one's veiled contempt for some group of people or another. Wake up and smell the urine.

There are Islamists and there are Muslims. Let us make the distinction clear. A muslim is someone who follows the religion of Islam and is content with that.

Islamists are those who believe that the whole world should subscribe to Islam and would not be happy until a Islamic Caliphate living under the shaaria law is establish. In short, they are fascists and they are our enemies.

Dear Eric:

Your article is both ignorant and offensive to anyone who subcribes to a set of beliefs outside of what YOU consider to be "the norm".
Sorry to tell you that although your piece was one of opinion, it really wasn't necessary to add your two-bits as to what you think is a normal marriage. Marriage nowadays is a controversial term. We speak of marriage, and a variety of other issues arise...homosexual life partnerships, commonlaw marriages, arranged marriages--> what gives you the right to decide what is considered to be a normal marriage???????
I have taken personal offence to your article not only because I am a muslim (and not an Islamist as you ignorantly assumed) but also because I am a born citizen of a western country.
I have had the pleasure of growing up in a western society and mainatining my ethnic and religious roots. I have had the opportunity to see what both worlds offer and consider myself to be open-minded and liberal.
Please, take a moment to see why I could be so offended by an obvious disregard for people in both worlds:
To begin with, your blatant depiction of islam as a savage religion is neither insightful nor correct... "We could have a show involving polygamy, infanticide, female genital mutilation, and dysentery, which are also prevalent in other cultures: we could call it Anthropologist's Wet Dream." If you had cared to research your article correctly, you would have discovered that these are primal practises which DO NOT have their origins in Islam but rather in cultural practises guising themselves as Holy practises.
Secondly, the conept of arranged marriages is albeit primal, but considering the divorce rate in america...I'd say "those cultures" in "those countries" are doing a pretty damn good job of figuring out what marriage means. Furthermore, if you would like to consider arranged marriages in western countries, why don't you know that the practise of arranged marriages has modernized according to the times? The formality of the process is still the same, but the methods have changed. If you had cared to inquire into the process, you would have discovered that although the process is initiated by a match-maker, the partcipating individuals themselves make the final decision on whether to marry based on their relationhip and the extent to which they are compatible, attracted to each other and so forth. I really don't see a difference between a match-maker and getting set up by a friend or family member.
Thirdly I really do feel that it was your intention to write an opinion article on the show itself. However, your misguided effort has resulted in some obvious misrepresentation. As a writer, it is your job to research the topic you will be writing on. It is sad to think that in this day and age, there are still people who persecute and attack beliefs of others all because of a lack of knowledge. As one comment stated earlier, the Salem Witch Trials were a horrific example of the ignorance of westerners towards a minority of people who challenged "the norm". Isn't it ironic that we can do the same today and call it an opinion piece?
Please.
Next Time, do some responsible reporting.

The people who are so vehemently defending these shows are, in fact, the target audience. Adolescent - a cross-cultural, pan-racial, non-gender-specific term used to describe immature people that don't have a clue.

The only conclusion I can come to regarding the bulk of these comments is that a message board somewhere must have latched on to this story, and people already had their generic complaints written before they even came to this site, because most of them have nothing to do with what I wrote.

By the way, hurrm, I didn't mean to delete your main post, just the multiple versions. Please feel free to repost.

I will address some of the specific complaints in a separate comment.

Regarding specific complaints: I am well aware of the difference between "Islamist" and "Islam" - since this story has nothing to do with Islam, and nothing I said has any bearing on Islam, my choice of title was very purposeful.

Rainier's definition of "Islamist" is approximately mine, so please refer to it for the distinction. Since Islamists will not be content until the entire earth lives under their peculiar version of fundamentalist Islam, they were a good choice as representative of repressive, backward-looking, closed-mindedness - hence the title.

Regarding the article itself, it is commentary on a stupid, shallow, exploitative idea for a TV show - that's all. There is nothing whatsoever in it about Islam: "polygamy, infanticide, female genital mutilation, and dysentery" are asinine practices in various cultures and I was simply making a list of those of which I strongly disapprove.

Is arranged marriage as egregious as these? No, but it is an anti-individual, backward-looking, repressive, controlling practice that goes against everything that America is supposed to be about. People are resposible for the success of their own relationships, so it is immaterial how many of them fail or succeed for this argument. The point is that when pressure is exerted on individuals by family, friends, society to accept a relationship not of their own making, this most basic freedom is removed even if they have the right of final refusal. To make a mass entertainment out of this form of intimate coercion is despicable.

Just to make sure that my point is made: this article/commentary is not about Islam, has nothing to do with Islam, doesn't make reference to Isalm, and anyone who read it should know this.

This article is about a really stupid idea for a TV show, and about my opinion of arranged marriage, which I am completely against. Arranged marriage is anti-individual, anti-freedom and as a result to be decried. Arranged marriage is a crutch, it is insular, it deflects responsibility for one of life's most important decisions, and undermines both free society and the sanctity of marriage, which is based to two equal souls finding each other and freely choosing to spend their lives together.

Simply by mentioning Islam in your title you have included it in your article in the minds of most of your readers. Since Islam is currently under attack, as communism was in the '50's, many people are sensitive to it being mentioned. As to your column being on a message board, to my knowledge it is not. We are simply responding to what appears to be a slight against a very decent philosophy. As for arranged marriages, you have not bothered to look into the concept which, as pointed out previously, is no more anti-freedom than someone making a suggestion. The modern arranged marriage is only older, experienced loved ones making suggestions to young people wishing to make a life-long commitment based on their (the older ones') own experiences and wisdom. Whether the young people involved wish to act on their suggestions is entirely up to them. You still have two equal souls finding each other and freely choosing to spend their lives together. If anything, "arranged" (perhaps the word itself needs to be changed) marriages bring families and societies closer together in a sense of involvement.

Way to go Eric. Sometimes you just have to call 'em like you see 'em. By the way, to all of those people so vociferously extolling the virtues of the fundamentalist culture by comparing the divorce rates between the two might want to keep something in mind. In societies which practice female genital mutilation, require 3 male witnesses of good muslim character to testify to viewing a rape before an individual may be convicted, requires women to be draped from head to toe in shapeless attire, stones women for adultery, and which as I recall from a number of articles and interviews, thinks that the rape of a woman is a stain on the family honor (because presumably she didn't fight hard enough) requiring another male family member (usually her father or brother) to execute her to redeem their dignity, it is obscene to even suggest that the "low divorce rate" reflects anything other than the total and complete subjugation of one sex by the other. There may very well be more mainstream or moderate versions of islam, and these practices may be more geographic than idealogical in their nature, but that doesn't avoid the basic fact that these cultures and their abominations masquerading as "family values" are the reality for millions of people. Any comparison of our culture to theirs on the basis of the "divorce rate" is obscene.
Oh, and by the way, I think the show is a joke but ultimately we only have ourselves to blame since there must be enough of us out there watching this crap to make it worthwhile to keep putting it on.

With the name of Allah (G-d), Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Gather your friends, your popcorn, and wine and let this amuse you. Pleased be amused by this: The destruction of the twin towers of life. From the deep dark preception of horror and death, comes the arrangement of a marriage that's not physical, but spiritual and mental. Yes, knowledge matters. And, your site is under construction of destruction all the time. Satan said to God (G-d), Oh God(G-d) I don't make them come, all I do is call them with my flashy attractions." To set standards for people causing them not to be insightful in their relationship from self to God(G-d). Allah(G-d) is giving us the opportunity to look around us and read the signs of time. We are responsible for what we allow to come into our being. We are products of our environment. Fox is responsible for creating the atmosphere. The clever foxes are not so clever. Some people have the strenght to bring family traditions that are unacceptable to a squeaking hault. The sound of squealing tires can be made good. Stopping on a dime when you see destruction and flowing it very quickly in the opposite direction. Hum, Yale University, a law school? Just another Fox. Institutional education without the real God(G-d). America the good. America the bad. Choose you America the good. Don't be pursued by the bad. Evil spirit, mischief, horrible death sentence. All of this is designed to take us into a foreign and mental destruction. Change you, yourself. With your heart and good intentions. Who will.

Misleading statement about muslims. A better show, one that we could all get into, would be "helping Muslims achieve martyrdom" by napalm bombing various cities in Saudi Arabia. Based on a wheel of fortune format, spin the wheel, accumulate bombs, and winner gets to pick the city to toast with his winnings. Now that would be good fun, and solve a lot of present and future political problems.

All I can say is: I'd hate to see who my parents would have picked as my wife. As a Christian, I understand the concept of and arranged marriage. Would I be correct in stating that the Muslim faith also believes that God ordained marriage? If so, then our responsibility as His Creation is to pray for our prospective mates, and wait for Him to do the "arranging". After all if our faith is in God, then it stands to reason that He who created us does, in fact, know what's best for us. And in a time when the sanctity of marriage is being challenged, to suggest a TV show which reduces it to just another form of entertainment is not only stupid, it is sacreligious.

Eric,
It was a real joy reading your bilious screed, a beautiful example of the self-righteous and uninformed attitude that leaves much of the rest of the world disgusted with Americans.

Might I suggest that you need to live a little and see some other points of view. Try moving out of your parent's basement. After that, perhaps you could take a exotic vacation and see how people live in the next county.

Just a couple of suggestions,

Respectfully,
Jim

Hi Eric,

I just have a comment on to make on some of the responses to your article. First, I agree that you article title was a miss leading but upon reading the entire article I noticed your article was not about islamists or muslims at all.

Also, let me clear something up. Arranged marriages occur mostly in countries in the middle east in which islam the main religion. When a marriage is arranged, many times the woman has no say because in those countries women are not considered to be of any value. Also, if a woman refuses she could be killed or murdred and although the law in those contounries is against murder, it occurs routinely with no punishment because islam allows it. It is also interesting to know when a woman or male choose to convert to a christian religion in Eygpt (which is a muslim country), they are punished by death. All my comments are true and well documented in muslim countries but especially about the punishment for converting to christianity in Eygpt.

Also, I can understand why these so called muslims which made the comments to your article are so angry. They angry because they themselves are ignorant of the muslim religion (even if they are muslim) and about your comments.

bilious screed? Jim, respectfully, might I suggest that you take yourself a little less seriously.

Your article is so lame.

Stop attacking cultures of what you know nothing about. You don't even know anything about your American culture . There is no such thing as Islamists.

Americans practice polygamy. You call it cheating. Utah allows it.

Female genital mutilation: You mutilate other parts of your bodies for the sake of beauty: breast implants, tummy tuck ins, and so many horror stories there.

Honor killings: Domestic abuse and rape happens everyday in America, to all classes of women.

ARRANGED MARRIAGES: Catholics and Jewish people do it ALL the time.

Reading your article- I understood and agreed with your angry response to the mentioning of a NAME used to define your thought. There is a way to deter this- talk about practices, not names. You did so in regard to inhuman customs in many cultures, without mentioning the names of these cultures. That raised no bile! As you may have noticed- as long as there are no names mentioned, everyone assumes that you are talking about
someone else! "It couldn't happen to me" is like a second human skin, and applies to all.
However-I presume that you used the "Islamist" reference with the purpose of raising ire, and stimulating comments. Good job, it worked!

Alrighty then, this is quite a discussion. If my screed was bilious, it was bilious toward the idea of a television show based upon arranged marriage

Liz, if your idea of "arranged marriage" is so loosey-goosey as to need another title, then you aren't talking about arranged marriage, you are talking about something else. I have no problem with blind dates, dating sevices, singles organizations, etc. I have problem with institutionalized social structures that substitute for personal freedom, responsibility, choice, judgment.

The "divorce rate" argument, as Brette says, is dissembling at best as all it really says is some cultures are more accepting of divorce than others. As grim as divorce is - and I have gone through one, which nearly killed me - divorce is better than emotionally or physically violent, or loveless marriage. Where divorce is not allowed or is very difficult to obtain, there you have rampant infidelity, not the other way around.

Also, "Islam" isn't in the title, "Islamist" is.

The way to make this world a better place if you are Muslim isn't to overreact and get defensive in response to people like me who have nothing against you per se, it's to speak out against your own who advocate violence against Infidels, spew vile anti-Semitic canards, oppress women, and conflate church (or mosque) and state.

American leftists who defend this hellish nightmare, get a clue and develop some self-respect.

And Jim, I've been to 49 states, and 10 countries on 5 continents. What do you think I'm "respectfully" missing?

Regarding the word "Islamist," if you live in a cave perhaps you haven't encountered it. Look the the book titles above for enlightenment. The word has been around for some time and means something very specific as loosely defined by Rainier above.

You are all entitled to your opinions and welcome to speak, but please don't be so ignorant when calling someone "ignorant." Thanks.

Just one last follow-up, as I don't want to clog the blog with my ramblings.

First, I applaud Eric's observation that American leftists who defend the hellish nightmare that exists in certain foreign countries need to get a clue and develop some self-respect. While I would consider myself to be fairly liberable, I strongly believe that anyone who deludes themself into thinking that being appropriately understanding of other cultures necessitates acceptance of the types of atrocities that have been referred to in the posts is an idiot. Refusal to accept such vile practices is not ethnocentrism, it is a moral obligation of every decent and rational human being.

As to the further observations in some of the posts that our own cultures "problems"(body piercing, infidelity, rape & domestic violence, etc.) somehow either justify the atrocities occurring in other cultures, or at least should prohibit our commentary, well, all I can say is get a life. An individual's decision to modify their body in some way (be it a tummy tuck or otherwise)is not equivalent to holding a 12 year old girl down while you slice off her clitoris. Period. Nor is there much "honor" to be had in putting a bullet in your sister's head because she experienced the horror and humiliation of being raped.

The point of the article was that the concept of an arranged marriage (especially one done for no other reason than mediocre television fare) is stupid (as well as being in incredibly bad taste). This is not because we lack suitable appreciation of other cultures, it is because the concept violates one of the most precious principles of our own culture which is freedom of choice.

Am I being ethnocentric and callous towards those cultures that put less stock in personal freedom? Perhaps. I suppose I'll just have to live with that particular shame, and be thankfull every day of my life that I was fortunate enough to be born in a culture where I'm free to think what I want, do as I please, and marry someone because I love them.

Brette, that was sweet.

Now this is funny.

Wow and I thought the Democrats were a bunch of delusional crybabies.

People, read it again. If you don't get it the second or third time. Remove your head from your sphincter.

Eric is the last person to slam the Islamic faith, just the Islamofacists.

I'm surprised that there are Muslims who are not familiar with the term know "Islamist". Perhaps they are pretending...

Good fun article Eric... keep it up... and by the way I'm a brown person from Asia who probably will have to go through the arranged marriage route himself...

But I see your point and appreciate your tongue in cheek way of presenting it...

Don't get intimidated by the dolt Islamists (ha!).

I'm not sure how the leap of logic from Islamists to Fox came about. Fox, (no surprise here) has gotten the cultural context of arranged marriages twisted in a remarkably dense knot.

Arranged marriages in an Asian context (or at least in the South Asian context I am familiar with), is no more a calamitous arrangement than the dating hodge-podge that passes for matrimonial selection criteria in much of the Western world. There are significant numbers of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Jews and Catholics all over the world who practice arranged mariages as either a primary, or as an acceptable method from a pool of many choices.

There is a huge difference between a social contract between two families done in the privacy of their lives and community, and a made-for-tv special where complete strangers intrude into what should be an intensely private decision.

We can possibly argue about the limits of privacy, what is acceptable "freedom" to someone who lives in a society which practices arranged marriages. For many South Asians I know who are in arranged marriages are relatively well-adjusted, have kids, an affectionate household, are actually happy with their lives whether you choose to believe it or not, and they really, really do not understand what all the fuss is about.

Sorry Eric, I think you picked up a limp cudgel to beat "Islamists" over the head with. There is a very diverse spectrum of "arranged marriages", ranging from "arranged dating" among urban Indians, to "bonded child marriages" in the backwaters of Africa or Asia. From what i've read about the description of the show, it does not remotely qualify as being "normative" for the practice.

For you or anyone to use the FOX interpretation of "arranged marriages" to tar an entire practice is more than a little unfair.

brette:
now i think it's time for you to take a re-read of the posts...
"I strongly believe that anyone who deludes themself into thinking that being appropriately understanding of other cultures necessitates acceptance of the types of atrocities that have been referred to in the posts is an idiot. Refusal to accept such vile practices is not ethnocentrism, it is a moral obligation of every decent and rational human being".
who said anything about accepting atrocities? to reiterate, THESE ARE NOT PRACTICES NOR PRINCIPLES OF ISLAM. what we are commenting on is Eric's lack of this knowledge and his blatant disregard for people of this faith. Please, you must realize that what you publish has an effect on readers who have no knowledge of the religion. We (Muslims)do not justify these atrocities or condone them. The fact that you assume that these are accepted practises by muslims infuriates me. There are events in history which have distorted the image of some world religions and countries, but we don't automatically assume that this is the reality do we? (i.e. would it be fair for me to assume that all Germans are Nazi's?) There is a strong distinction between being muslim and insanely distorting the religion to suit your goals or needs (whatever they may be...i.e Osama Bin Laden)
Please people, my whole point was to go and get yourself educated before you speak about a topic. Some of the posts in here have been dramatic to say the least.
I think that eric in the very least should recognize that at a time when emotions are strong and tensions are high, the last thing he needs to be doing is making comparisons between the american way of life and the religions of the people who live in it.
PLUS: You all seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of Muslim westerners who partake in the same freedom and choices that you have, we just have a different way of going about it.
That does not make us bad people.
furthermore, Brette...get over yourself, Eric is talking about arranged marriages, there is no atrocity in that.

thanks surnan:

As eric previously stated:

Now that was Sweet!

To take Suman's comments a step further:

Fox's show is no more an "arranged marriage" than the earth is flat. No one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do. This is a ratings grabber for Fox and a publicity stunt for the contestants.

Eric, perhaps you should have headed it "The Islamists and Moonies Should Like This."

At least the Mohammedans arrange marriages one boy and one girl at a time and not en masse like the Moonies. That's the only positive thing I know about them.

"loosey goosey" Eric? Amusing, but the truth is that an Islamic "arranged marriage" is just as I described it when Islam is practiced as it was meant. Harry, may I correct your term of "Mohammedan" - it is "Muslim". Mohammedan implies that Mohammed is worshipped like Christ is worshipped by Christians and Mohammed is viewed as a prophet, not a relation of God and a Muslim only worships God. Granted, as noted before here, there are many atrocities committed in the world in the name of different religions but please let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see your point in differentiating between Islamists and Islam but it is a fine point not always realized by the general public and I wish you had not used the term at all in your article. I agree that the premise of a real life marriage in a game show is preposterous but before you make your point at the expense of another group of people, maybe you could think of something a little less volatile for your headline.

Amusing to see all the apologists and true believers rushing in to again draw the distinction between Islam and Islamofascists.

Don't really hear that much sounded forth from the imans and the leaders of the faith of the Muslim world.

Not by their words, but by their actions shall ye know them.

If the truth stings, than perhaps that is God's way of letting the faithful know they had best sweep the dung out of their faith in a manner that all can see.

Those who do not clean up after their dogs must face heavy fines in the civilized world.

How anyone can defend FGM is completely beyond me. Please read this description and see if you would like this done to yourself or your daughter.

http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?t=491

For males, circumcision is a messy but comparatively trivial operation, whereas for females, clitoridectomy is not only painful beyond belief, but is the equivalent of total castration. All of the women whom I know personally, who have undergone pharaonic circumcision and have been infibulated, say they have never recovered from it - physically or mentally - and of course, they are absolutely incapable of experiencing any sexual pleasure. On the contrary, sex is very painful for them.

No doubt, Eastern men have always nourished , and still nourish, a deep visceral fear and distrust of all infant females - some of the bright ones might grow into brainy women who would go after them with meat cleavers, join "Women's Lib", demand equal rights, etc. So, aeons ago, the ancestors of Semitic 'machos' reached the conclusion that the only way to beat the deadly females of their species was to circumcise them first, then lock them up in harems or zenanas.

Pharaonic circumcision and infibulation is regarded as the only one hundred percent effective way to safeguard a girl's virginity. Indeed, it is so effective that, for intercourse to take place after marriage, the husband or matron has to defibulate the bride with a knife to pry her open.

The ghastly screams and shrieks which have terrified so many foreign tourists at night in the vicinity of "Honeymoon" hotels in Port Sudan are emitted by brides being defibulated. A Sudanese journalist commented, "For us they seem perfectly normal, we all know that the first nights of marriage are agony."

But just what is pharaonic circumcision? I have seen it being done when I was staying as a guest in the home of wealthy Arab friends. A great feast had been prepared to which all female relatives and friends had been invited, and since I was regarded as a guest of honor, I not only had to attend, but was given a ringside seat. The miserable little victim - a beautiful child, incidentally - was grabbed by four women, who threw her upon a sort of pallet on the ground and pinioned her arms and legs. Then the gedda, or specialist, or matron, or whatever you want to call her, kneeled between the little girl's thighs and began the operation by slicing off the clitoris. All of the women present began making the most prodigious din (by ullulations), which they kept up during the whole operation in a futile effort to drown the howls and shrieks of agony of the patient. As soon as the clitoris had been excised, the matron scooped (roughly speaking) it out, then began to pull and tug to extract its roots. Blood gushed left, right and center. This was only an hors d'oeuvre - the next step consisted in shearing off the edges of the inner lips, then carving off the rim of the outer lips, from which the gedda removed a gory ribbon of flesh about 2 centimeters in width. Where the clitoris had once been was a gaping hole from which blood poured. I will spare you a few other details which I would rather not enlarge upon. Finally, the matron stitched up the raw and bleeding flesh, after which she carefully inserted a tiny hollow tube into the lower portion of the vagina, to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. This, so I was subsequently informed, was to remain in place until the scar had formed. The 'operation' had lasted all of twenty minutes. Finally, the patient was bound up with cords from the hips to the knees to prevent her from making any movements which might cause the stitches to burst. For fifteen days, all girls who have been infibulated have to remain motionless, supine, and trussed up like fowls.

According to Dr, El Sayed Mirghani El Sayed, the very first African doctor to write a thesis on female circumcision, in Africa alone "fifty million or more female children are circumcised every year". In Somalia, all girls between the ages of seven and ten are forced to submit to this barbarous operation, for religious and social reasons. Most Egyptian girls, including those who attend universities, have been infibulated.

Unfortunately, no one knows how many of the little victims who have been circumcised, die - either immediately due to shock, or a little later due to the infections resulting from this prehistoric butchery. Sometimes, the patients bleed to death; hemorrages which often last for forty-eight hours are frequent occurrences, but generally they succumb to tetanus or gangrene. Whenever a death resulting from circumcision occurs, as Dr. J.G. Taoko reported, it is bruited about that the 'evil eye' was to blame, or else it is rumored that the victim herself was to blame because she had had sexual relations before the ceremony and was 'punished' for her 'crime'.

It is hardly necessary to describe what happens to all women who have been infibulated when they are on the point of giving birth. The vagina, a mass of scar tissue, is far too narrow to permit the baby to emerge. So what happens? They simply slash her open. Then, of course, later she has to be infibulated all over again. Any husband can force his wife to undergo infibulation ad nauseum. One of my unfortunate friends has been infibulated five times.

Mahomet cannot be blamed for introducing either male or female circumcision, which had been practised thousands of years before his birth, but it is relevant to note that he never made the slightest effort to ban, suppress, or even discourage female circumcision. On the contrary!

According to the Omatiya version of the hadiths (sacred words of the Prophet), when Mahomet saw a woman in the Medina busily carving up the genitalia of a small girl, he said: "Do not cut too deeply." According to the second version (Razeen) he allegedly said "Do not cut too deeply. It clears the complexion of the woman and is more agreeable for her husband."

As grim as that was, I deeply appreciate the input from the renowned Snopesarian.

I have avoided investigating that topic much due to my squeamishness - thanks for the education.

Islamist:
Is·lam·ism   Pronunciation Key  (s-lämzm, z-, sl-, z-)
n.
1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

I know i'm alittle late on this, but i was reading this website and i want to say that i found some of the things said here to be extreemly offencive. i happen to live in Egypt, as a Christian and half the things stated above are so far from wrong it's not funny. Just a pointer, if you want to talk about other cultures, at least do your homework from a reliable source.