= new reply since forum marked as read
WHO estimates that between 100 and 140 million girls and women worldwide have been subjected to one of the first three types of female genital mutilation. Estimates based on the most recent prevalence data indicate that 91,5 million girls and women above 9 years old in Africa are currently living with the consequences of female genital mutilation. There are an estimated 3 million girls in Africa at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year.
Types I, II and III female genital mutilation have been documented in 28 countries in Africa and in a few countries in Asia and the Middle East (see Annex 3). Some forms of female genital mutilation have also been reported from other countries, including among certain ethnic groups in Central and South America. Growing migration has increased the number of girls and women living outside their country of origin who have undergone female genital mutilation (Yoder et al., 2004) or who may be at risk of being subjected to the practice.
The prevalence of female genital mutilation has been estimated from large-scale, national surveys asking women aged 15–49 years if they have themselves been cut. The prevalence varies considerably, both between and within regions and countries (see map), with ethnicity as the most decisive factor.
In seven countries the national prevalence is almost universal, (more than 85%); four countries have high prevalence (60–85%); medium prevalence (30–40%) is found in seven countries, and low prevalence, ranging from 0.6% to 28.2%, is found in the remaining nine countries. However, national averages hide the often marked variation in prevalence in different parts of most countries.
The type of procedure performed also varies, mainly with ethnicity. Current estimates indicate that around 90% of female genital mutilation cases include Types I or II and cases where girls’ genitals were "nicked" but no flesh removed (Type IV), and about 10% are Type III (Yoder and Khan, 2007).
The differences aren't enough to squabble about.
Muslims didn't come close to standing out as more brutal than other groups:
The 25 highest percentages of national populations killed during periods of mass brutality (20th Century):
If you look carefully at the chart with the intention of determining which race, religion or ideology has been the most brutal, you'll see a pattern emerge. It's quite a startling pattern, so I'd rather you find it by yourself. Go back and take a second look. I'll meet you at the next paragraph after I explain that, honestly, I did not manipulate the data. I simply took the most likely death toll (military and civilian) among the natives of each country (such as all the South Vietnamese -- ARVN soldiers, civilians and Viet Cong -- who were killed in the Vietnam War), and divided it by the population of that country (prewar). I didn't take, say, only the military dead, or only the victims of genocide. I didn't arbitrarily decide to split one horror into two in order to make each seem smaller (the only borderline case is that I calculated the Russians dead from WW2 and Stalin separately. A judgement call.), or eliminate countries of a certain size. No, I had no predetermined point to prove. I did the math and let the chips fall where they would. (Here are the raw numbers if you want to check behind me.)
That's why I was so startled to discover that there is absolutely no pattern to the chart. If I had simply picked 25 countries out of a hat, I could not have gotten a more diverse spread than we've got here. We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors -- white, black, yellow and brown -- widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies. We've got innocent victims invaded by big, bad neighbors, and we've got plenty of countries who brought it on themselves, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Go on -- take a third look. Find any type of country that is not represented among the agents of a major blooding, and probably the only reason for that is that there aren't that many countries in that category to begin with (There are no Hindu or Jewish countries on the chart, but then, there's only one of each on the whole planet, and they're both waiting in the wings among the next 25.).
In a way, it's rather disheartening to realize that we can't smugly blame the brutality of the century on the Communists, or the imperialists, or the Moslem fundamentalists, or the godless. Every major category of human has done it's share to boost the body count, so replacing, say, Moslem rulers with Christian rulers, or white rulers with black rulers, is not going to change it at all.
Without appealing to fear, how can you hope to get elected?
than in Baghdad?
Or to have premarital sex?
Or to date without fear of being lashed (physically)?
Or to have the right to move freely as a woman?
The OP presents one item as if it was all the bigger picture.
Islamic societies are free and fair to all? Women? Gays? Unbelievers? Jews?
And btw, assuming the crime rates are the same in muslim or non muslim countries, the consequences are different: chopped hands, anyone?
That's something.
