Multiculturalism

The clitoris is a complex structure, containing external and internal components. It consists of the glans (including the frenulum clitoridis, which is a frenulum on the under-surface of the glans and is created by the two medial parts of the labia minora), the clitoral body (which is composed of two erectile bodies known as the corpora cavernosa), two clitoral crura, the clitoral hood (formed by the labia minora) and the vestibular or clitoral bulbs.[20]

The two corpora cavernosa are expandable erectile tissues which fill with blood during clitoral erection. These formations are made of a sponge-like tissue containing irregular blood-filled spaces lined by endothelium and separated by connective tissue septa. United together along their medial surfaces by an incomplete fibrous pectiniform septum; each corpus is connected to the rami of the pubis and ischium by a clitoral crus.[1]The female anatomy has two vestibular bulbs beneath the skin of the labia minora (at the entrance to the vagina), which expand at the same time as the glans clitoridis to cap the ends of the corpora cavernosa. This is homologous with the corpus spongiosum of the male anatomy.

. Health effects depend on the procedure, but can include recurrent infections, chronic pain, cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding.[9] There are no known health benefits.[10]

Immediate complications include fatal bleeding, anaemia, acute urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, septicemia, tetanus, and transmission of hepatitis or HIV if instruments are non-sterile or reused.[9] Because fatalities are rarely reported — few records are kept and complications may not be recognized — it is not known how many girls and women die.[61] Short-term complications include necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), delay in wound healing due to infection, endometritis and hepatitis.[62]Late complications vary depending on the type of FGM performed. Jasmine Abdulcadir, a Swiss gynaecologist who offers specialist services to women with FGM, writes that a common complication with infibulation is painful periods, because the menstrual flow has been obstructed. Blood can collect and stagnate in the vagina and uterus. There may be difficult and painful urination; urine may collect underneath the scar and cause small stones to form. In an infibulated virgin the opening is 2—3 mm; in women who are sexually active or have given birth by vaginal delivery, the hole is larger but the urethra opening may still be obstructed by scar tissue.[9] There may be damage to the urethra and bladder, leading to infections and incontinence, pain during sexual intercourse and infertility.[62] Other complications include epidermoid cysts that may become infected, and neuroma formation (growth of nerve tissue) involving nerves that supplied the clitoris.[63]Women with FGM are more likely to report reduced sexual feelings.[64] Psychological complications include depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.[31] Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when the women move outside their traditional circles and learn that their condition is not the norm.[9]

Until the 1980s FGM was widely known as female circumcision, which implied an equivalence in severity with male circumcision.[16] In 1929 the Kenya Missionary Council began referring to it as the sexual mutilation of women, following the lead of Marion Scott Stevenson, a Church of Scotland missionary.[17] References to it as mutilation increased throughout the 1970s.[18]

Did you bother to read the article I linked to.

But jihadists are not insane, and their violence cannot be dismissed so simply. They are proud Muslims, adherents of a 14-centuries-old faith that conquered its way to one of history’s largest empires, the warriors before whom a now dominant, arrogant West once trembled. Their faith preaches that Allah wills the whole world to be united under the rule of Islam and its illiberal, totalitarian law code. Those who resist and refuse to convert are defying Allah; they are the enemies of Islam, the denizens of the House of War who endanger the spiritual wellbeing of the faithful in the House of Islam. As such, the infidels are the legitimate objects of Muslim violence, conquest, enslavement, and dominance, an aggression recorded on every page of history. If you want contemporary evidence for the reality of jihad, look around the world today, where Muslim violence is endemic, and accompanied by theological arguments drawn straight from Islamic scripture, theology, and jurisprudence.So contra Klein, the Paris jihadists didn’t do something that almost no human beings anywhere ever do. As we speak, plenty of Muslim human beings every day in Nigeria, Libya, Syria, northern Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, to name a few venues of jihadist violence, are doing horrible things like murder, torture, beheadings, rape, sex-slavery, crucifixion, and all the other atrocities that are also copiously documented in the history of Islamic conquest and occupation. As a brave Egyptian critic of Islam, Ahmed Harqan, asked recently, What has ISIS done that Muhammad did not do? Thus it’s no coincidence that of the 7 global conflicts costing at least 1000 lives a year, 6 involve Muslims.Yet progressive orthodoxy dismisses this evidence as Islamophobic bigotry. Unable to deny the reality of theologically inspired Muslim violence daily filling the international news, they resort to blaming Western historical crimes, or scapegoating Israel. Another tack is to invoke the tu quoque fallacy, charging that Hebraism and Christianity are just as violent as Islam.This argument took off after 9/11 and has persisted among the jihad deniers. Historian of religion Philip Jenkins claimed, The Islamic scriptures [about war] in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible. Rabid anti-Zionist and apologist for terrorists Richard Falk played the moral equivalence card: The Great Terror War has so far been conducted as a collision of absolutes, a meeting ground of opposed fundamentalists. Atheist gadfly Richard Dawkins complained about fundamentalist Christians who fuel their tanks at the same holy gas station as Muslim terrorists. Similarly, a few years ago, Salon ran a headline asking, What’s the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick. This specious moral equivalence descended into the absurd after the attacks in Paris, when a guest on MSNBC equated Islamic extremism, which murders thousands a week, with preacher Jerry Falwell’s 1988 unsuccessful libel suit against Hustler magazine.But even right-thinking people slip into this species of apologetics. A writer at Pajamas Media, in an otherwise perceptive analysis, wrote this as well: Unfortunately, this civilizational friction between the west and Islam has ebbed and flowed across the centuries. It is nothing new. Islam threatened the gates of Vienna and the Crusades reached the Holy Land. This smacks of the cycle of violence trope usually used against Israel. What it ignores is the fact that someone started the violence by serially invading and conquering the lands of others, and enslaving and oppressing their people. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was the last in a long history of Islamic military aggression against Europe and the centuries-long occupation of Western lands; the Crusades were an attempt to liberate from oppressive occupiers a land that had been Christian for centuries before being invaded by the armies of Islam.Most important, however, is the simple fact that the violence in the Old Testament is, as Raymond Ibrahim points out, descriptive, not prescriptive. It reflects the brutal reality of its times, not a theology binding the faithful for all times. As for the New Testament, the only violent verses apologists can dredge up, as a New York Times article did last week, come from the apocalyptic predictions of Revelations, or these words of Christ from Matthew: I come not to bring peace, but a sword. Grade-school catechumens know that this is a metaphor, not a call to jihad, like the Koranic verses instructing Muslims to slay the idolaters wherever you find them, or to fight those who do not believe in Allah, or to kill them wherever you find them.